the French king temporized, dreading either to resist or to submit to the ascendency of Russia, and dissatisfied with the course his negotiators had taken at the Congress, especially his minister of foreign affairs, on whom the responsibility lay.  Montmorency accordingly resigned, and Chateaubriand took his place; in consequence of which a coolness sprung up between the two friends, who at the Congress had equally advocated the same policy.

The discussions which ensued in the chambers whether or not France should embark in a war with Spain,—­in other words, whether she should interfere with the domestic affairs of a foreign and independent nation,—­were the occasion of the first serious split among the statesmen of France at this time.  There was a party for war and a party against it; at the head of the latter were men who afterward became distinguished.  There were bitter denunciations of the ministers; but the war party headed by Chateaubriand prevailed, and the French ambassador was recalled from Madrid, although war was not yet formally declared.  In the Chamber of Peers Talleyrand used his influence against the invasion of Spain, foretelling the evils which would ultimately result, even as he had cautioned Napoleon against the same thing.  He told the chamber that although the proposed invasion would be probably successful, it would be a great mistake.

M. Mole, afterward so eminent as an orator, took the side of Talleyrand.  “Where are we going?” said he.  “We are going to Madrid.  Alas, we have been there already!  Will a revolution cease when the independence of the people who are suffering from it is threatened?  Have we not the example of the French Revolution, which was invincible when its cause became identical with that of our independence?” “This man,” exclaimed the king, “confirms me in the system of M. de Villele,—­to temporize, and avoid the war if it be possible.”

Chateaubriand replied in an elaborate speech in favor of the war.  From his standpoint, his speech was masterly and unanswerable.  It was a grand consecutive argument, solid logic without sentimentalism.  While he admitted that, according to the principles laid down by the great writers on international war, intervention could not generally be defended, he yet maintained that there were exceptions to the rule, and this was one of them; that the national safety was jeopardized by the Spanish revolution; that England herself had intervened in the French Revolution; that all the interests of France were compromised by the successes of the Spanish revolutionists; that a moral contagion was spreading even among the troops themselves; in fact, that there was no security for the throne, or for the cause of religion and of public order, unless the armies of France should restore Ferdinand, then a virtual prisoner in his own palace, to the government he had inherited.