It has been remarked that Napoleon stood in a perplexing situation in this conflict between the King and his son.  This is not correct.  King Charles, though he afterwards said that his abdication had been forced from him by violence and threats, had nevertheless tendered it.  By this act Ferdinand was King, but Charles declared it was done against his will, and he retracted.  The Emperor’s recognition was wanting, and he, could give or withhold it as he pleased.

In this state of things Napoleon arrived at Bayonne.  Thither Ferdinand was also invited to go, under pretence of arranging with the Emperor the differences between his father and himself.  It was some time before he could form his determination, but at length his ill-advised friends prevailed on him to set off, and he was caught in the snare.  What happened to him, as well as to his father, who repaired to Bayonne with his inseparable friend the Prince of the Peace is well known.  Napoleon, who had undertaken to be arbiter between the father and son, thought the best way of settling the difference was to give the disputed throne to his brother Joseph, thus verifying the fable of the “Two Lawyers and the Oyster.”  The insurrection in Madrid on the 2d of May accelerated the fate of Ferdinand, who was accused of being the author of it; at least this suspicion fell on his friends and adherents.

Charles iv., it was said, would not return to Spain, and solicited an asylum in France.  He signed a renunciation of his rights to the crown of Spain, which renunciation was also signed by the Infantas.

Napoleon now issued a decree, appointing “his dearly beloved brother Joseph Napoleon, King of Naples and Sicily, to the crowns of Spain and the Indies.”  By a subsequent decree, 15th of July, he appointed “his dearly-beloved cousin, Joachim Murat, Grand Duke of Berg, to the throne of Naples and Sicily, which remained vacant by the accession of Joseph Napoleon to the kingdoms of Spain and the Indies.”  Both these documents are signed Napoleon, and countersigned by the Minister Secretary of State, Maret.

The Prince Royal of Sweden, who was at Hamburg at this time, and the Ministers of all the European power, loudly condemned the conduct of Napoleon with respect to Spain.  I cannot say whether or not M. de Talleyrand advised the Emperor not to attempt the overthrow of a branch of the house of Bourbon; his good sense and elevated views might certainly have suggested that advice.  But the general opinion was that, had he retained the portfolio of foreign affairs, the Spanish revolution would have terminated with more decorum and good faith than was exhibited in the tragi-comedy acted at Madrid and Bayonne.