Borrow was in reality endeavouring to convey to his “little congregation,” as he called them, some idea of abstract morality. He was bold enough “to speak against their inveterate practices, thieving and lying, telling fortunes,” etc., and at first experienced much opposition. About the result, he seems to have cherished no illusions; still, he wrote a hymn in their dialect which he taught his guests to sing.
For some time past it had been obvious to Borrow that he was becoming more than ever unpopular with certain interested factions in Madrid, who looked upon his missionary labours with angry disapproval. The opening of his Despacho had caused a great sensation. “The Priests and Bigots are teeming with malice and fury,” he had written to Mr Brandram, [219a] “which hitherto they have thought proper to exhibit only in words, as they know that all I do here is favoured by Mr Villiers [219b] (sic) . . . There is no attempt, however atrocious, which may not be expected from such people, and were it right and seemly for me, the most insignificant of worms, to make such a comparison, I would say that, like Paul at Ephesus, I am fighting with wild beasts.” He was attacked in print and endeavours were made to incite the people against him as a sorcerer and companion of gypsies and witches. When he decided upon the campaign of the posters it would appear, at first glance, that in the claims of the merchant Borrow had entirely forgotten the obligations of the diplomatist. On the other hand, he may have foreseen that the priestly party would soon force the Government to action, and was desirous of selling all the books he could before this happened. His own words seem to indicate that this was the case.
“People who know me not,” he wrote to Mr Brandram, “nor are acquainted with my situation, may be disposed to call me rash; but I am far from being so, as I never adopt a venturous course when any other is open to me; but I am not a person to be terrified by any danger when I see that braving it is the only way to achieve an object.” [220]
Whatever may have been Borrow’s motives, the crisis arrived on 12th January, when he received a peremptory order from the Civil Governor of Madrid (who had previously sent for and received two copies, to submit for examination to the Ecclesiastical Authorities) to sell no more of the New Testament in Spanish without notes. At that period the average sale was about twenty copies a day. “The priests have at length ‘swooped upon me,’” Borrow wrote to Mr Brandram, three days later. The order did not, however, take him unawares.
Borrow saw that little assistance was to be expected from Sir George Villiers, who, for obvious reasons, was not popular with the Ofalia ministry, and, accepting the British Minister’s advice, he promptly complied with the edict. He recognised that for the time being his enemies were paramount. He accuses the priests of employing the ruffian who, one night in a dark street, warned him to discontinue selling his “Jewish books,” or he would “have a knife ‘nailed in his heart’” to which he replied by telling the fellow to go home, say his prayers and inform his employers that he, Borrow, pitied them. It was a few days after this episode that Borrow received the formal notice of prohibition.
Consoling himself with the fact that he was not ordered to close his Despacho, and refusing the advice that was tendered to him to erase from its windows the yellow-lettered sign, he determined to continue his campaign with the Bibles that were on their way to him, and the Gitano and Basque versions of St Luke as soon as they were ready. The prohibition referred only to the Spanish New Testament without notes, and in this Borrow took comfort. He had every reason to feel gratified; for, since opening the Despacho, he had sold nearly three hundred copies of the New Testament.
At Earl Street it was undoubtedly felt that Borrow had to some extent precipitated the present crisis. On 8th February Mr Brandram wrote that, whilst there was no wish on the part of the Committee to censure him, they were not altogether surprised at what had occurred; for, when they first heard about them, “some did think that your tri-coloured placards and placard-bearer were somewhat calculated to provoke what has occurred.” In reply Borrow confessed that the view of the “some” gave him “a pang, more especially as I knew from undoubted sources that nothing which I had done, said, or written, was the original cause of the arbitrary step which had been adopted in respect to me.” [221a]
The printing of the Gitano and Basque editions of St Luke (500 copies [221b] of each) was completed in March, and they were published respectively in March and April. The Gitano version attracted much attention. Some months later Borrow wrote:—
“No work printed in Spain ever caused so great and so general a sensation, not so much amongst the Gypsies, that peculiar people for whom it was intended, as amongst the Spaniards themselves, who, though they look upon the Roma with some degree of contempt as a low and thievish race of outcasts, nevertheless take a strange interest in all that concerns them, it having been from time immemorial their practice, more especially of the dissolute young nobility, to cultivate the acquaintance of the Gitanos, as they are popularly called, probably attracted by the wild wit of the latter and the lascivious dances of the females. The apparation, therefore, of the Gospel of St Luke at Madrid in the peculiar jargon of these people, was hailed as a strange novelty and almost as a wonder, and I believe was particularly instrumental in bruiting the name of the Bible Society far and wide through Spain, and in creating a feeling far from inimical towards it and its proceedings.” [222a]
The little volume appears to have sold freely among the gypsies. “Many of the men,” Borrow says, [222b] “understood it, and prized it highly, induced of course more by the language than the doctrine; the women were particularly anxious to obtain copies, though unable to read; but each wished to have one in her pocket, especially when engaged in thieving expeditions, for they all looked upon it in the light of a charm.”
All endeavours to get the prohibition against the sale of the New Testament removed proved unavailing. Borrow’s great strength lay in the support he received from the British Minister, and, in all probability, this prevented his expulsion from Spain, which alone would have satisfied his enemies. At the request of Sir George Villiers, he drew up an account of the Bible Society and an exposition of its views, telling Count Ofalia, among other things, that “the mightiest of earthly monarchs, the late Alexander of Russia, was so convinced of the single-mindedness and integrity of the British and Foreign Bible Society, that he promoted their efforts within his own dominions to the utmost of his ability.” He pointed to the condition of Spain, which was “overspread with the thickest gloom of heathenish ignorance, beneath which the fiends and demons of the abyss seem to be holding their ghastly revels.” He described it as “a country in which all sense of right and wrong is forgotten . . . where the name of Jesus is scarcely ever mentioned but in blasphemy, and His precepts [are] almost utterly unknown . . . [where] the few who are enlightened are too much occupied in the pursuit of lucre, ambition, or ungodly revenge to entertain a desire or thought of bettering the moral state of their countrymen.” This report, in which Borrow confesses that he “made no attempts to flatter and cajole,” must have caused the British Minister some diplomatic embarrassment when he read it; but it seems to have been presented, although, as is scarcely surprising, it appears to have been ineffectual in causing to be removed the ban against which it was written as a protest.
The Prime Minister was in a peculiarly unpleasant position. On the one hand there was the British Minister using all his influence to get the prohibition rescinded; on the other hand were six bishops, including the primate, then resident in Madrid, and the greater part of the clergy. Count Ofalia applied for a copy of the Gipsy St Luke, and, seeing in this an opening for a personal appeal, Borrow determined to present the volume, specially and handsomely bound, in person, probably the last thing that Count Ofalia expected or desired. The interview produced nothing beyond the conviction in Borrow’s mind that Spain was ruled by a man who possessed the soul of a mouse. Borrow had been received “with great affability,” thanked for his present, urged to be patient and peaceable, assured of the enmity of the clergy, and promised that an endeavour should be made to devise some plan that would be satisfactory to him. The two then “parted in kindness,” and as he walked away from the palace, Borrow wondered “by what strange chance this poor man had become Prime Minister of a country like Spain.”
In reporting progress to the Bible Society on 17th March Borrow, after assuring Mr Brandram that he had “brought every engine into play which it was in my power to command,” asked for instructions. “Shall I wait a little time longer in Madrid,” he enquired; “or shall I proceed at once on a journey to Andalusia and other places? I am in strength, health and spirits, thanks be to the Lord! and am at all times ready to devote myself, body and mind, to His cause.” [224a] The decision of the Committee was that he should remain at Madrid.
During the time that Borrow had been preparing his Depôt in Madrid, Lieutenant Graydon had been feverishly active in the South. On 19th April Borrow wrote to Mr Brandram:—
“Sir George Villiers has vowed to protect me and has stated so publicly . . . He has gone so far as to state to Ofalia and [Don Ramon de] Gamboa [the Civil Governor], that provided I be allowed to pursue my plans without interruption, he will be my bail (fiador) and answerable for everything I do, as he does me the honor to say that he knows me, and can confide in my discretion.”
In the same letter he begs the Society to be cautious and offer no encouragement to any disposed “‘to run the muck’ (sic) (it is Sir George’s expression) against the religious and political institutions of Spain”; but “the delicacy of the situation does not appear to have been thoroughly understood at the time even by the Committee at home.” [224b] They saw the astonishing success of Graydon in distributing the Scripture, and became infused with his enthusiasm, oblivious to the fact that the greater the enthusiasm the greater the possibilities of indiscretion. On the other hand Graydon himself saw only the glory of the Gospel. If he were indiscreet, it was because he was blinded by the success that attended his efforts, and he failed to see the clouds that were gathering. [225] Borrow saw the danger of Graydon’s reckless evangelism, and although he himself had few good words for the pope and priestcraft, he recognised that a discreet veiling of his opinions was best calculated to further the ends he had in view.
About this period Borrow became greatly incensed at the action of the Rev. W. H. Rule of Gibraltar in consigning to his care an ex-priest, Don Pascual Mann, who, it was alleged, had been persuaded to secede from Rome “by certain promises and hopes held out” to him. He had accordingly left his benefice and gone to Gibraltar to receive instruction at the hands of Mr Rule. On his return to Valencia his salary was naturally sequestrated, and he was reduced to want. When he arrived at Madrid it was with a letter (12th April) from Mr Rule to Borrow, in which it was stated that Mann was sent that he might “endeavour to circulate the Holy Scriptures, Religious Tracts and books, and if possible prepare the minds of some with a view to the future establishment of a Mission in Madrid.”
Borrow had commiserated with the unfortunate Mann, even to the extent of sending him 500 reals out of his own pocket; but on hearing that he was on his way to Madrid to engage in missionary work, he immediately wrote a letter of protest to Mr Brandram. He was angry at Mr Rule’s conduct in saddling him with Mann, and that without any preliminary correspondence. He had entertained Mr Rule when in Madrid, had conversed with him about the unfortunate ex-priest; but there had never been any mention of his being sent to Madrid. Mr Rule, on the other hand, thought it had been arranged that Mann should be sent to Borrow. The whole affair appears to have arisen out of a misunderstanding. There was considerable danger to Borrow in Mann’s presence in the capital; but it was not the thought of the danger that incensed him so much as what he conceived to be Mr Rule’s unwarrantable conduct, and his own deeply-rooted objection to working with anyone else. Mr Brandram repudiated the suggestion that assistance had been promised Mann from London (although he authorised Borrow to give him ten pounds in his, Brandram’s, name), and gave as an excuse for what Borrow described as the desertion of the ex-priest by those who were responsible for his conversion, that “the man had returned of his own accord to Rome,” Graydon vouching for the accuracy of the statement.
On the other hand, Mann stated that he was persuaded to secede by promises made by Graydon and Rule, and induced to sign a document purporting to be a separation from the Roman Church. He further stated that he was abandoned because he refused to preach publicly against the Chapter of Valencia, which in all probability would have resulted in his imprisonment. Whatever the truth, there appears to have been some embarrassment among those responsible for bringing in the lost sheep as to what should be done with him. “I hope that Mann’s history will be a warning to many of our friends,” Borrow wrote to Mr Rule and quoted the passage in his letter to Mr Brandram, [226] “and tend to a certain extent to sober down the desire for doing what is called at home smart things, many of which terminate in a manner very different from the original expectations of the parties concerned.” Mr Brandram thought that Borrow was a little hard upon Graydon, and that he had not received “with the due grano salis the statements of the unfortunate M.” He intimated, nevertheless, that the Committee had no opening for Mann’s services.
That Borrow was justified in his anger is shown by the fact that, as he had foreseen, he reaped all the odium of Mann’s conversion. The Bishop of Cordoba in Council branded him as “a dangerous, pestilent person, who under the pretence of selling the Scriptures went about making converts, and moreover employed subordinates for the purpose of deluding weak and silly people into separation from the Mother Church.” [227a]
Although Borrow was angry about the Mann episode, he did not allow his personal feelings to prevent him from ministering to the needs of the poor ex-priest “as far as prudence will allow,” when he fell ill. He even went the length of writing to Mr Rule, being wishful “not to offend him.” None the less he felt that he had not been well treated. To Mr Brandram he wrote reminding him “that all the difficulty and danger connected with what has been accomplished in Spain have fallen to my share, I having been labouring on the flinty rock and sierra, and not in smiling meadows refreshed by sea breezes.” [227b]
On 14th July 1838 Borrow made the last reference to the ex-priest in a letter to Mr Brandram: “The unfortunate M. is dying of a galloping consumption, brought on by distress of mind. All the medicine in the world would not accomplish his cure.” [227c]
The watchful eye of the law was still on Borrow, and fearful lest his stock of Bibles, of which 500 had arrived from Barcelona, and the Gypsy and Basque editions of St Luke should be seized, he hired a room where he stored the bulk of the books. He now advertised the two editions of St Luke, with the result that on 16th April a party of Alguazils entered the shop and took possession of twenty-five copies of the Romany Gospel of St Luke.
On the publication of the Gypsy St Luke, a fresh campaign had been opened against Borrow, and accusations of sorcery were made and fears expressed as to the results of the publication of the book. Application was made by the priestly party to the Civil Governor, with the result that all the copies at the Despacho of the Basque and Gitano versions of St Luke had been seized. Borrow states that the Alguazils “divided the copies of the gypsy volume among themselves, selling subsequently the greater number at a large price, the book being in the greatest demand.” [228a] Thus the very officials responsible for the seizure and suppression of the Bible Society’s books in Spain became “unintentionally agents of an heretical society.” [228b]
Disappointed at the smallness of the spoil, the authorities strove by artifice to discover if Borrow still had copies of the books in his possession. To this end they sent to the Despacho spies, who offered high prices for copies of the Gitano St Luke, in which their interest seemed specially to centre, to the exclusion of the Basque version. To these enquiries the same answer was returned, that at present no further books would be sold at the Despacho.
As evidence of the high opinion formed of the Romany version of St Luke, the following story told by Borrow is amusing:—
“Shortly before my departure a royal edict was published, authorising all public libraries to provide themselves with copies of the said works [the Basque and Gypsy St Lukes] on account of their philological merit; whereupon on application being made to the Office [of the Civil Governor, where the books were supposed to be stored], it was discovered that the copies of the Gospel in Basque were safe and forthcoming, whilst every one of the sequestered copies of the Gitano Gospel had been plundered by hands unknown [to the authorities]. The consequence was that I was myself applied to by the agents of the public libraries of Valencia and other places, who paid me the price of the copies which they received, assuring me at the same time that they were authorised to purchase them at whatever price which might be demanded.” [229a]
Borrow’s enemies acknowledged that the Gitano St Luke was a philological curiosity; but that it was impossible to allow it to pass into circulation without notes. How great a philological curiosity it actually was, is shown by the fact that the ecclesiastical authorities were unable to find anywhere a person, in whom they had confidence, capable of pronouncing upon it, consequently they could only condemn it on two counts of omission; firstly the notes, secondly the imprint of the printer from the title-page.
The Basque version was by no means so popular; for one thing, “It can scarcely be said to have been published,” Borrow wrote, “it having been prohibited, and copies of it seized on the second day of its appearance.” [229b] Several orders were received from San Sebastian and other towns where Basque predominates, which could not be supplied on account of the prohibition.
The official remonstrance from Sir George Villiers to Count Ofalia in respect of the seizure of the Gypsy and Basque Gospels is of great interest as showing, not only the British Minister’s attitude towards Borrow, but how, and with what wrath, Borrow “desisted from his meritorious task.” The communication runs:—
Madrid, 24th April 1838.
Sir,
It is my duty to request the attention of Your Excellency to an act of injustice committed against a British subject by the Civil Authorities of Madrid.
It appears that on the 16th inst., two officers of Police were sent by the Civil Governor to a Shop, No. 25 Calle del Principe occupied by Mr Borrow, where they seized and carried away 25 Copies of the Gospel of St Luke in the Gitano language, being the entire number exposed there for sale.
Mr Borrow is an agent of the British Bible Society, who has for some time past been in Spain, and in the year 1836 obtained permission from the Government of Her Catholic Majesty to print, at the expense of the Society, Padre Scio’s translation of the New Testament. He subsequently sold the work at a moderate price and had no reason to believe that in so doing he infringed any law of Spain or exposed himself to the animadversion of the Authorities, otherwise, from my knowledge of Mr Borrow’s character, I feel justified in assuring Your Excellency that he would at once, although with regret, have desisted from his meritorious task of propagating the Gospel. Some months ago, however, the late Civil Governor of Madrid, after having sent for and examined a copy of the work, thought proper to direct that its further sale should be suspended, which order was instantly complied with.
Mr Borrow is a man of great learning and research and master of many languages, and having translated the Gospel of St Luke into the Gitano, he presented a copy of it to Don Ramon Gamboa, the late Civil Governor, and announced his intention to advertise it for sale, to which no objection was made.
Since that time neither Mr Borrow nor the persons employed by him received any communication from the present Civil Governor forbidding the sale of this work until it was seized in the manner I have above described to Your Excellency.
I feel convinced that the mere statement of these facts without any commentary on my part will be sufficient to induce your Excellency to take steps for the indemnification of Mr Borrow, who is not only a very respectable British subject but the Agent of one of the most truly benevolent and philanthropic Societies in the world.
I have, etc., etc., etc.
George Villiers.
His Excellency Count Ofalia.
On the morning of 30th April, whilst at breakfast, Borrow, according to his own account, received a visit from a man who announced that he was “A Police Agent.” He came from the Civil Governor, who was perfectly aware that he, Borrow, was continuing in secret to dispose of the “evil books” that he had been forbidden to sell. The man began poking round among the books and papers that were lying about, with the result that Borrow led his visitor by the arm down the three flights of stairs into the street, “looking him steadfastly in the face the whole time,” and subsequently sending down by his landlady the official’s sombrero, which, in the unexpectedness of his departure, he had left behind him.
The official report of Pedro Martin de Eugenio, the police agent in question, runs as follows:—
Madrid, 30th April 1838.
Official Report of the Police Agent of the Language held by Mr Borrow.
Public Security.—In virtue of an order from His Excellency the Civil Governor, [231] I went to seize the Copies Entitled the Gospel of St Luke, in the Shop Princes Street No. 25, belonging to Mr George Borrow, but not finding him there; I went to his lodgings, which are in St James Street, No. 16, on the third floor and presenting the said order to Him He read it, and with an angry look threw it on the ground saying, that He had nothing to do with the Civil Governor, that He was authorised by His Ambassador to sell the Work in question, and that an English Stable Boy, is more than any Spanish Civil Governor, and that I had forcibly entered his house, to which I replied that I only went there to communicate the order to Him, as proprietor as he was of the said Shop, and to seize the Copies in it in virtue of that Order, and He answered I might do as I liked, that He should go to the House of His Ambassador, and that I should be responsible for the consequences; to which I replied that He had personally insulted the Civil Governor and all Spain, to which He answered in the same terms, holding the same language as above stated.
All of which I communicate to you for the objects required.
The Police Agent
Pedro Martin de Eugenio. [232a]
Borrow felt that the fellow had been sent to entrap him into some utterance that should justify his arrest. In any case a warrant was issued that same morning. The news caused Borrow no alarm; for one thing he was indifferent to danger, for another he was desirous of studying the robber language of Spain, and had already, according to his own statement, [232b] made an unsuccessful effort to obtain admission to the city prison.
The official account of the interview between Borrow and the “Police Agent” is given in the following letter from the Civil Governor to Sir George Villiers:—
To the British Minister,—
Madrid, 30th April 1838.
Sir,
The Vicar of the Diocese having, on the 16th and 26th Instant, officially represented to me, that neither the publication nor the sale of the Gospel of St Luke translated into the romain, or Gitano Dialect ought to be permitted, until such time as the translation had been examined and approved by the competent Ecclesiastical Authority, in conformity with the Canonical and Civil regulations existing on the matter, I gave an order to a dependent of this civil administration, to present himself in the house of Mr George Borrow, a British Subject, charged by the London Bible Society with the publication of this work, and to seize all the Copies of it. In execution of this order my Warrant was yesterday morning [233] presented to the said Mr George Borrow; who, so far from obeying it, broke out in insults most offensive to my authority, threw the order on the ground with angry gestures, and grossly abused the bearer of it, and said that he had nothing to do with the Civil Governor. The detailed report in writing which has been made to me of this disageeeable occurrence could not but deeply affect me, being a question of a British Subject, to whom the Government of Her Catholic Majesty has always afforded the same protection as to its own. As Executor of the Law it is my duty to cause its decrees to be inviolably observed; and you will well understand, that both the Canonical as the Civil Laws now existing, in this kingdom, relative to writings and works published upon Dogmas, Morals, and holy and religious matters, are the same without distinction for the Subjects of all Countries residing in Spain. No one can be permitted to violate them with impunity, without detriment to the Laws themselves, to the Royal Authority and to the Evangelical Moral which is highly interested in preventing the propagation of doctrines which may be erroneous, and that the purity of the sublime maxims of our divine Faith should remain intact.
In conformity with these undeniable principles, which are in the Laws of all civilised nations, you must acknowledge that the offensive conduct of Mr George Borrow, and his disobedience to a legitimate Authority sufficiently authorised the proceeding to his arrest . . .
I have, etc., etc.
Deigo de Entrena.
The “Police Agent” seems to have boasted that within twenty-four hours Borrow would be in prison; Borrow, on the other hand, determined to prove the “Police Agent” wrong. He therefore spent the rest of the day and the following night at a café. [234a] In the evening he received a visit from Maria Diaz, [234b] his landlady and also his strong adherent and friend, whom he had informed of his whereabouts. From her he learned that his lodgings had been searched and that the alguazils, who bore a warrant for his arrest, were much disappointed at not finding him.
The next morning, 1st May, at the request of Sir George Villiers, Borrow called at the Embassy and narrated every circumstance of the affair, with the result that he was offered the hospitality of the Embassy, which he declined. Whilst in conversation with Mr Sothern, Sir George Villiers’ private secretary, Borrow’s Basque servant Francisco rushed in with the news that the alguazils were again at his rooms searching among his papers, whereat Borrow at once left the Embassy, determined to return to his lodgings. Immediately afterwards he was arrested, [234c] within sight of the doors of the Embassy, and conducted to the office of the Civil Governor. Francisco in the meantime, acting on his master’s instructions, conveyed to him in Basque that the alguazils might not understand, proceeded immediately to the British Embassy and informed Sir George Villiers of what had just taken place, with such eloquence and feeling that Mr Sothern afterwards remarked to Borrow, “That Basque of yours is a noble fellow,” and asked to be given the refusal of his services should Borrow ever decide to part with him. With his dependents Borrow was always extremely popular, even in Spain, where, according to Mr Sothern, a man’s servant seemed to be his worst enemy.
Borrow submitted quietly to his arrest and was first taken to the office of the Civil Governor (Gefatura Politica), and subsequently to the Carcel de la Corte, by two Salvaguardias, “like a common malefactor.” Here he was assigned a chamber that was “large and lofty, but totally destitute of every species of furniture with the exception of a huge wooden pitcher, intended to hold my daily allowance of water.” [235] For this special accommodation Borrow was to pay, otherwise he would have been herded with the common criminals, who existed in a state of foulness and misery. Acting on the advice of the Alcayde, Borrow despatched a note to Maria Diaz, with the result that when Mr Sothern arrived, he found the prisoner not only surrounded by his friends and furniture, but enjoying a comfortable meal, whereat he laughed heartily.
Borrow learned that, immediately on hearing what had taken place, Sir George Villiers had despatched Mr Sothern to interview Señor Entrena, the Civil Governor, who rudely referred him to his secretary, and refused to hold any communication with the British Legation save in writing. Nothing further could be done that night, and on hearing that Borrow was determined to remain in durance, even if offered his liberty, now that he had been illegally placed there, Mr Sothern commended his resolution. The Government had put itself grievously in the wrong, and Sir George, who had already sent a note to Count Ofalia demanding redress, seemed desirous of making it as difficult for them as possible, now that they had perpetrated this wanton outrage on a British subject. He determined to make it a national affair.
It is by no means certain that Borrow was anxious to leave the Carcel de la Corte, even with the apologies of Spain in his pocket. The prison afforded him unique opportunities for the study of criminal vagabonds. An entirely new phase of life presented itself to him, and, but for this arrest and his subsequent decision to involve the authorities in difficulties, The Bible in Spain would have lacked some of its most picturesque pages. It would have been strange if he had not encountered some old friend or acquaintance in the prison of the Spanish capital. At the Carcel de la Corte he found the notorious and immense Gitana, Aurora, who had fallen into the hands of the Busné for defrauding a rather foolish widow.
“A great many people came to see me,” Borrow wrote to his mother, “amongst others, General Quiroga, the Military Governor, who assured me that all he possessed was at my service. The Gypsies likewise came, but were refused admittance.” His dinner was taken to him from an inn, and Sir George Villiers sent his butler each day to make enquiries. There was, however, one very unpleasant feature of his prison life, the verminous condition of the whole building. In spite of having fresh linen taken to him each day, he suffered very much from what the polished Spaniard prefers to call miseria.
Sir George Villiers took active and immediate steps, not only to secure Borrow’s release, but to obtain an unqualified apology. Referring to the letter he had received from the Civil Governor (30th April), he expressed himself as convinced that “a gentleman of Borrow’s character and education was incapable of the conduct alleged,” and had accordingly requested Mr Sothern to enquire into the matter and then to call upon the Civil Governor to explain in what manner he had been misinformed. As the Civil Governor refused to receive Mr Sothern, Sir George adds that he need trouble him no further, as the affair had been placed before Her Catholic Majesty’s Government; but during his five years of office at the Court of Madrid, he proceeded, “no circumstance has occurred likely to be more prejudicial to the relations between the two Countries than the insult and imprisonment to which a respectable Englishman has now been subjected upon the unsupported evidence of a Police Officer,” acting under the orders of the Civil Governor.
On 3rd May Sir George Villiers wrote again to Count Ofalia, reminding him that he had not received the letter from him that he had expected. In the course of a lengthy recapitulation of the occurrences of the past ten days, Sir George reminded Count Ofalia that, as a result of their interview on 30th April about the ill-usage of Borrow, the Count had written on 1st May to him a private letter stating that measures had been taken to release Borrow on parole, he to appear when necessary, and that if Sir George would abstain from making a written remonstrance, Count Ofalia would see that both he and Borrow received the ample satisfaction to which they were entitled. Borrow had been taken by two Guards “like a Malefactor, to the Common Prison, where he would have been confined with Criminals of every description if he had not had money to pay for a Cell to Himself.” The British Minister complained that every step that he had taken for Borrow’s protection was followed by fresh insult, and he further intimated that Borrow refused to leave the prison until his character had been publicly cleared.
The Spanish Government now found itself in a quandary. The British Minister was pressing for satisfaction, and he was too powerful and too important to the needs of Spain to be offended. The prisoner himself refused to be liberated, because he had been illegally arrested, inasmuch as he, a foreigner, had been committed to prison without first being conducted before the Captain-General of Madrid, as the law provided. Furthermore, Borrow advised the authorities that if they chose to eject him from the prison he would resist with all his bodily strength. In this determination he was confirmed by the British Minister.
A Cabinet Council was held, at which Señor Entrena was present. The Premier explained the serious situation in which the ministry found itself, owing to the attitude assumed by the British Minister, and he remarked that the Civil Governor must respect the privileges of foreigners. Señor Entrena suggested that he should be relieved of his duties; but the majority of the Cabinet seems to have been favourable to him. The Affaire Borrow is said to have come up for debate even during a secret session of the Chamber.
When Count Ofalia had called at the British Embassy (4th May) he was informed by Sir George Villiers that the affair had passed beyond the radius of a subordinate authority of the Government, and that he “considered that great want of respect had been shown to me, as Her Majesty’s Minister, and that an unjustifiable outrage had been committed upon a British Subject,” [238a] and that the least reparation that he was disposed to accept was a written declaration that an injustice had been done, and the dismissal of the Police Officer. [238b]
The value of a British subject’s freedom was brought home to the Spanish Government with astonishing swiftness and decision. The Civil Governor wrote to Sir George Villiers (3rd May), apparently at the instance of the distraught premier, discoursing sagely upon the Civil and Canon Laws of Spain, and adding that the 25 copies of the Gitano St Luke were seized, “not as being confiscated, but as a deposit to be restored in due time.” He concluded by hoping that he had convinced the British Minister of his good faith.
In his reply, Sir George considered that the Civil Governor had been led to view the matter in a light that would not “bear the test of impartial examination.” The result of this interchange of letters was twofold. Sir George dropped the correspondence with “that Functionary [who] displays so complete a disregard for fact,” [239a] and as Count Ofalia evaded the real question at issue, holding out “slender hopes of the matter ending in the reparation which I considered to be peremptorily called for,” [239b] he advised Borrow to claim protection from the Captain-General, the only authority competent to exercise any jurisdiction over him. The Captain-General Quiroga, jealous of his authority, entered warmly into the dispute and ordered the Civil Governor to hand over the case to him. There was now a danger of the Affaire Borrow being made a party question, in which case it would have been extremely difficult to settle.
The intervention of the Captain-General rendered all the more obvious the illegality of the Civil Governor’s action, and increased the embarrassment of Count Ofalia, who called on Sir George to ask him to have Borrow’s memorial to the Captain-General withdrawn. He refused, and said the only way now to finish the affair was that “His Excellency should in an official Note declare to me that Mr Borrow left the prison, where he had been improperly placed, with unstained honour,—that the Police Agent, upon whose testimony he had been arrested, should be dismissed,—that all expenses imposed upon Mr Borrow by his detention should be repaid him by the Government,—that Mr Borrow’s not having availed himself of the ‘Fuero Militar’ should not be converted into a precedent, or in any way be considered to prejudice that important right, and that Count Ofalia should add with reference to maintaining the friendly relations between Great Britain and Spain, that he hoped I would accept this satisfaction as sufficient.” [240a]
Borrow states that Sir George Villiers went to the length of informing Count Ofalia that unless full satisfaction were accorded Borrow, he would demand his passports and instruct the commanders of the British war vessels to desist from furnishing further assistance to Spain. [240b] There is, however, no record of this in the official papers sent by Sir George to the Foreign Office. What actually occurred was that, on 8th May, the British Minister, determined to brook no further delay, wrote a grave official remonstrance, in which he stated that, “if the desire had existed to bring it to a close,” the case of Borrow could have been settled. “Having up to the present moment,” he proceeds, “trusted that in Your Excellency’s hands, this affair would be treated with all that consideration required by its nature and the consequences that may follow upon it . . . I have forborne from denouncing the whole extent of the illegality which has marked the proceedings of the case” (viz., the Civil Governor’s having usurped the right of the Captain-General of the Province in causing Borrow’s arrest). In conclusion, Sir George states that he considers the
“case of most pressing importance, for it may compromise the relations now existing between Great Britain and Spain. It is one that requires a complete satisfaction, for the honor of England and the future position of Englishmen in the Country are concerned; and the satisfaction, in order to be complete, required to be promptly given.”
“This disagreeable business,” Sir George writes in another of his despatches, “is rendered yet more so by the impossibility of defending with success all Mr Borrow’s proceedings . . . His imprudent zeal likewise in announcing publicly that the Bible Society had a depôt of Bibles in Madrid, and that he was the Agent for their sale, irritated the Ecclesiastical Authorities, whose attention has of late been called to the proceedings of a Mr Graydon,—another agent of the Bible Society, who has created great excitement at Malaga (and I believe in other places) by publishing in the Newspapers that the Catholic Religion was not the religion of God, and that he had been sent from England to convert Spaniards to Protestantism. I have upon more than one occasion cautioned Mr Graydon, but in vain, to be more prudent. The Methodist Society of England is likewise endeavouring to establish a School at Cadiz, and by that means to make conversions.
“Under all these circumstances it is not perhaps surprising that the Archbishop of Toledo and the Heads of the Church should be alarmed that an attempt at Protestant Propagandism is about to be made, or that the Government should wish to avert the evils of religious schism in addition to all those which already weigh upon the Country; and to these different causes it must, in some degree, be attributed that Mr Borrow has been an object of suspicion and treated with such extreme rigor. Still, however, they do not justify the course pursued by the Civil Governor towards him, or by the Government towards myself, and I trust Your Lordship will consider that in the steps I have taken upon the matter, I have done no more than what the National honor, and the security of Englishmen in this Country, rendered obligatory upon me.” [241a]
Whilst Borrow was in the Carcel de la Corte, a grave complication had arisen in connection with the misguided Lieutenant Graydon. Borrow gives a strikingly dramatic account [241b] of Count Ofalia’s call at the British Embassy. He is represented as arriving with a copy of one of Graydon’s bills, which he threw down upon a table calling upon Sir George Villiers to read it and, as a gentleman and the representative of a great and enlightened nation, tell him if he could any longer defend Borrow and say that he had been ill or unfairly treated. According to the Foreign Office documents, Count Ofalia wrote to Sir George Villiers on 5th May, enclosing a copy of an advertisement inserted by Lieutenant Graydon in the Boletin Oficial de Malaga, which, translated, runs as follows:—
“The Individual in question most earnestly calls the greatest attention of each member of the great Spanish Family to this divine Book, in order that through it he may learn the chief cause, if not the sole one, of all his terrible afflictions and of his only remedy, as it is so clearly manifested in the Holy Scripture . . . A detestable system of superstition and fanaticism, only greedy for money, and not so either of the temporal or eternal felicity of man, has prevailed in Spain (as also in other Nations) during several Centuries, by the absolute exclusion of the true knowledge of the Great God and last Judge of Mankind: and thus it has been plunged into the most frightful calamities. There was a time in which precisely the same was read in the then very little Kingdom of England, but at length Her Sons recognising their imperative Duty towards God and their Neighbour, as also their unquestionable rights, and that since the world exists it has never been possible to gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles, they destroyed the system and at the price of their blood chose the Bible. Oh that the unprejudiced and enlightened inhabitants not only of Malaga and of so many other Cities, but of all Spain, would follow so good an example.” [242a]
The result of Graydon’s advertisement was that “the people flocked in crowds to purchase it [the Bible], so much so that 200 copies, all that were in Mr Graydon’s possession at the time, were sold in the course of the day. The Bishop sent the Fiscal to stop the sale of the work, but before the necessary measures were taken they were all disposed of.” [242b] In consequence Graydon “was detained and under my [the Consul’s] responsibility allowed to remain at large.” [243a] A jury of nine all pronounced the article to contain “matter subject to legal process” [243b] but a second jury of twelve at the subsequent public trial “unanimously absolved” Graydon.
Sir George Villiers acknowledged the letter from Count Ofalia (9th May) saying that he had written to Graydon warning him to be more cautious in future. He stated that from personal knowledge he could vouch for the purity of Lieutenant Graydon’s intentions; but he regretted that he should have announced his object in so imprudent a manner as to give offence to the ministers of the Catholic religion of Spain. In a despatch to Lord Palmerston he states that he has not thought it in the interests of the Bible Society to defend this conduct of Graydon, “whose zeal appears so little tempered by discretion,” [243c] as he had written to Count Ofalia. “Had I done so,” he proceeds, “and thereby tended to confirm some of the idle reports that are current, that England had a national object to serve in the propagation of Protestantism in Spain, it is not improbable that a legislative Enactment might have been introduced by some Member of the Cortes, which would be offensive to England, and render it yet more difficult than it is the task the Bible Society seems desirous to undertake in this Country.” [243d] Sir George concludes by saying that he gave to “these Agents the best advice and assistance in my power, but if by their acts they infringe the laws of the Country,” it will be impossible to defend them.
Sir George thought so seriously of the Affaire Borrow, as endangering the future liberty of Englishmen in Spain, that he went so far as to send a message to the Queen Regent, “by a means which I always have at my disposal,” [244a] in which he told her that he thought the affair “might end in a manner most injurious to the continuance of friendly relations between the two Countries.” [244b] He received a gracious assurance that he should have satisfaction. Later there reached him
“a second message from the Queen Regent expressing Her Majesty’s hope that Count Ofalia’s Note [of 11th May] would be satisfactory to me, and stating that Her Ministers had so fully proved their incompetency by giving any just cause of complaint to the Minister of Her only real Friend and Ally, The Queen of England, that she should have dismissed them, were it not that the state of affairs in the Northern Provinces at this moment might be prejudiced by a change of Government, which Her Majesty said she knew no one more than myself would regret, but at the same time if I was not satisfied I had only to state what I required and it should be immediately complied with. My answer was confined to a grateful acknowledgement of Her Majesty’s condescension and kindness. Count Ofalia has informed me that as President of the Council He had enjoined all his Colleagues never to take any step directly or indirectly concerning an Englishman without a previous communication with Him as to its propriety, and I therefore venture to hope that the case of Mr Borrow will not be unattended with ultimate advantage to British subjects in Spain.” [244c]
The “Note” referred to by the Queen Regent in her message was Count Ofalia’s acquiescence in Sir George Villiers’ demands, with the exception of the dismissal of the Police Officer. His communication runs:—
“11th May 1838.
“Sir,—The affair of Mr Borrow is already decided by the Judge of First Instance and his decision has been approved by the Superior or Territorial Court of the Province. As I stated to you in my note of the fourth last, the foundation of the arrest of Mr Borrow, who was detained (and not committed), was an official communication from the Agent of Police, Don Pedro Martin de Eugenio, in which he averred that on intimating to Mr Borrow the written order of the Civil Governor relative to the seizure of a book which he had published and exposed for sale without complying with the forms prescribed by the Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws of Spain, he (Mr Borrow) had thrown on the floor the order of the Superior Authority of the Province and used offensive expressions with regard to the said Authority.
“The judicial proceedings have had for their object the ascertainment of the fact. Mr Borrow has denied the truth of the statement and the Agent of Police, who it appears entered the lodgings of Mr Borrow without being accompanied by any one, has been unable to confirm by evidence what he alleged in his official report, or to produce the testimony of any one in support of it.
“This being the case the judge has declared and the Territorial Court approved the superceding of the cause, putting Mr Borrow immediately at complete liberty, with the express declaration that the arrest he has suffered in no wise affects his honor and good fame, and that the ‘celador of Public Security,’ Don Pedro Martin de Eugenio, be admonished for the future to proceed in the discharge of his duty with proper respect and circumspection according to the condition and character of the persons whom he has to address.
“In accordance with the judicial decision and anxious to give satisfaction to Mr Borrow, correcting at the same time the fault of the Agent of Police in having presented himself without being accompanied by any person in order to effect the seizure in the lodging of Mr Borrow, Her Majesty has thought proper to command that the aforesaid Don Pedro Martin de Eugenio be suspended from his office for the space of Four Months, an order which I shall communicate to the Minister of the Interior, and that Mr Borrow be indemnified for the expenses which may have been incurred by his lodging in the apartment of the Alcaide (chief gaoler or Governor) for the days of his detention, although even before the expiration of 24 hours after his arrest he was permitted to return to his house under his word of honor during the judicial proceedings, as I stated to you in my note already cited. I flatter myself that in this determination you as well as your Government will see a fresh proof of the desire which animates that of H.M. the Queen Regent to maintain and draw closer the relation of friendship and alliance existing between the two countries. And with respect to the claim advanced by Mr Borrow, and of which you also make mention in Your Note of the 8th inst., I ought to declare to you that when the Judge of First Instance received official information of the said claim the business was already concluded in his tribunal, and consequently there was nothing to be done. Without, for this reason, there being understood any innovation with respect to the matter of privilege (fuero) according as it is now established.” [246a]
Borrow was liberated with unsullied honour on 12th May, after twelve days’ imprisonment. He refused the compensation that Sir George Villiers had made a condition, and later wrote to the Bible Society asking that there might be deducted from the amount due to him the expenses of the twelve days. He states also that he refused to acquiesce in the dismissal of the Agent of Police, by which he doubtless means his suspension, giving as a reason that there might be a wife and family likely to suffer. In any case the man was only carrying out his instructions. Borrow’s reason for refusing the payment of his expenses was that he was unwilling to afford them, the Spanish Government, an opportunity of saying that after they had imprisoned an Englishman unjustly, and without cause, he condescended to receive money at their hands. [246b]
The greatest loss to Borrow, consequent upon his imprisonment, no government could make good. His faithful Basque, Francisco, had contracted typhus, or gaol fever, that was raging at the time, and died within a few days of his master’s release. “A more affectionate creature never breathed,” Borrow wrote to Mr Brandram. The poor fellow, who, “to the strength of a giant joined the disposition of a lamb . . . was beloved even in the patio of the prison, where he used to pitch the bar and wrestle with the murderers and felons, always coming off victor.” [247a] The next day Antonio presented himself at Borrow’s lodging, and without invitation or comment assumed the duties he had relinquished in order that he might enjoy the excitements of change. “Who should serve you now but myself?” he asked when questioned as to the meaning of his presence, “N’est pas que le sieur François est mort!” [247b]
John Hasfeldt’s comment on his friend’s imprisonment was characteristic. In September 1838 he wrote:—
“The very last I heard of you is that you have had the great good fortune to be stopping in the carcel de corte at Madrid, which pleasing intelligence I found in the Preussiche Staats-Zeitung this last spring. If you were fatter no doubt the monks would have got up an Auto de Fé on your behalf, and you might easily have become a nineteenth-century martyr. Then your strange life would have been hawked about the streets of London for one penny, though you never obtained a fat living to eat and drink and take your ease after all the hardships you have endured.”
Borrow was now to enter upon that lengthy dispute with the Bible Society that almost brought about an open breach, and eventually proved the indirect cause that led to the severance of their relations. Graydon’s mistake lay in not contenting himself with printing and distributing the Scriptures, of which he succeeded in getting rid of an enormous quantity. He had advertised his association with the Bible Society and proclaimed Borrow as a colleague, and the authorities at Madrid were not greatly to blame for being unable to distinguish between the two men. Whereas Graydon and Rule, who was also extremely obnoxious to the Spanish Clergy, were safe at Gibraltar or generally within easy reach of it, Borrow was in the very midst of the enemy. He was not unnaturally furiously angry at the situation that he conceived to have been brought about by these evangelists in the south. He referred to Graydon as the Evil Genius of the Society’s Cause in Spain.
It may be felt that Borrow was a prejudiced witness, he had every reason for being so; but a despatch from Sir George Villiers to the Consul at Malaga shows clearly how the British Minister viewed Lieutenant Graydon’s indiscretion:
“You will communicate Count Ofalia’s note to Mr Graydon,” he writes, “and tell him from me that, feeling as I do a lively interest in the success of his mission, I cannot but regret that he should have published his opinions upon the Catholic religion and clergy in a form which should render inevitable the interference of ecclesiastical authority. I have no doubt that Mr Graydon, in the pursuit of the meritorious task he has undertaken, is ready to endure persecution, but he should bear in mind that it will not lead him to success in this country, where prejudices are so inveterate, and at this moment, when party spirit disfigures even the best intentions. Unless Mr Graydon proceeds with the utmost circumspection it will be impossible for me, with the prospect of good result, to defend his conduct with the Government, for no foreigner has a right, however laudable may be his object, to seek the attainment of that object by infringing the laws of the country in which he resides.” [249]
In writing to Mr Brandram, Borrow pointed out that although he had travelled extensively in Spain and had established many depôts for the sale of the Scriptures, not one word of complaint had been transmitted to the Government. He had been imprisoned; but he had the authority of Count Ofalia for saying that it was not on account of his own, but rather of the action of others. Furthermore the Premier had advised him to endeavour to make friends among the clergy, and for the present at least make no further effort to promote the actual sale of the New Testament in Madrid.
On the day following his release from prison (13th May) Borrow, after being sent for by the British Minister, wrote to Mr Brandram as follows:—
“Sir George has commanded me . . . to write to the following effect:—Mr Graydon must leave Spain, or the Bible Society must publicly disavow that his proceedings receive their encouragement, unless they wish to see the Sacred book, which it is their object to distribute, brought into universal odium and contempt. He has lately been to Malaga, and has there played precisely the same part which he acted last year at Valencia, with the addition that in printed writings he has insulted the Spanish Government in the most inexcusable manner. A formal complaint of his conduct has been sent up from Malaga, and a copy of one of his writings. Sir George blushed when he saw it, and informed Count Ofalia that any steps which might be taken towards punishing the author would receive no impediment from him. I shall not make any observation on this matter farther than stating that I have never had any other opinion of Mr Graydon than that he is insane—insane as the person who for the sake of warming his own hands would set a street on fire. Sir George said to-day that he (Graydon) was the cause of my harmless shop being closed at Madrid and also of my imprisonment. The Society will of course communicate with Sir George on the subject, I wash my hands of it.”
On 23rd May Borrow wrote again to Mr Brandram:
“In the name of the Most Highest take steps for preventing that miserable creature Graydon from ruining us all.” Borrow’s use of the term “insane” with regard to Graydon was fully justified. The Rev. W. H. Rule wrote to him on 14th May:
“Our worthy brother Graydon is, I suppose, in Granada. I overtook him in Cartagena, endured the process of osculation, saw him without rhime or reason wrangle with and publicly insult our Consul there. Had his company in the steamer to Almeria, much to my discomfort. Never was a man fuller of love and impudence, compounded in the most provoking manner. In Malaga, just as we were to part, he broke out into a strain highly disagreeable, and I therefore thought it a convenient occasion to tell him that I should have no more to do with him. I left him dancing and raving like an energumen.”
This letter Borrow indiscreetly sent to Mr Brandram, much to Mr Rule’s regret, who wrote to Mr Brandram, saying that whilst he had nothing to retract, he would not have written for the eyes of the Bible Society’s Committee what he had written to Borrow. To Mr Rule Lieut. Graydon was “a good man, or at least a well-meaning [one], who has not the balance of judgment and temper necessary for the situation he occupies.” He was given to “the promulgation of Millenianism,” and to calling the Bible “the true book of the Constitution.”
Mann had confirmed all the rumours current about Graydon. In order to remove from his shoulders “the burden of obloquy,” Borrow’s first act on leaving prison was to publish in the Correo Nacional an advertisement disclaiming, in the name of the Bible Society, any writings which may have been circulated tending to lower the authorities, civil and ecclesiastical, in the eyes of the people. He denied that it was the Society’s intention or wish to make proselytes from the Roman Catholic form of worship, and that it was at all times prepared to extend the hand of brotherhood to the Spanish clergy. This notice was signed “George Borrow, Sole authorised Agent of the British and Foreign Bible Society in Spain.”
El Gazeta Oficial in commenting on the situation, saw in the anti-Catholic tracts circulated by Graydon “part of the monstrous plan, whose existence can no longer be called in question, concocted by the enemies of all public order, for the purpose of inaugurating on our unhappy soil a social revolution, just as the political one is drawing to a close.” The Government was urged to allow no longer these attacks upon the religion of the country. Rather illogically the article concludes by paying a tribute to the Bible Society, “considered not under the religious but the social aspect.” After praising its prudence for “accommodating itself to the civil and ecclesiastical laws of each country, and by adopting the editions there current,” it concludes with the sophisticated argument that, “if the great object be the propagation of evangelic maxims, the notes are no obstacle, and by preserving them we fulfil our religious principle of not permitting to private reason the interpretation of the Sacred Word.”
The General Committee expressed themselves, somewhat enigmatically, it must be confessed, as in no way surprised at this article, being from past experience learned enough in the ways of Rome to anticipate her.
“That advertisement,” Borrow wrote six months later in his Report that was subsequently withdrawn, “gave infinite satisfaction to the liberal clergy. I was complimented for it by the Primate of Spain, who said I had redeemed my credit and that of the Society, and it is with some feeling of pride that I state that it choked and prevented the publication of a series of terrible essays against the Bible Society, which were intended for the Official Gazette, and which were written by the Licentiate Albert Lister, the editor of that journal, the friend of Blanco White, and the most talented man in Spain. These essays still exist in the editorial drawer, and were communicated to me by the head manager of the royal printing office, my respected friend and countryman Mr Charles Wood, whose evidence in this matter and in many others I can command at pleasure. In lieu of which essays came out a mild and conciliatory article by the same writer, which, taking into consideration the country in which it was written, and its peculiar circumstances, was an encouragement to the Bible Society to proceed, although with secrecy and caution; yet this article, sadly misunderstood in England, gave rise to communications from home highly mortifying to myself and ruinous to the Bible cause.”
Borrow had written from prison to Mr Brandram [252] telling him that it had “pleased God to confer upon me the highest of mortal honors, the privilege of bearing chains for His sake.” After describing how it had always been his practice, before taking any step, to consult with Sir George Villiers and receive his approval, and that the present situation had not been brought about by any rashness on his, Borrow’s, part, he proceeds to convey the following curious piece of information that must have caused some surprise at Earl Street:—
“I will now state a fact, which speaks volumes as to the state of affairs at Madrid. My arch-enemy, the Archbishop of Toledo, the primate of Spain, wishes to give me the kiss of brotherly Peace. He has caused a message to be conveyed to me in my dungeon, assuring me that he has had no share in causing my imprisonment, which he says was the work of the Civil Governor, who was incited to the step by the Jesuits. He adds that he is determined to seek out my persecutors amongst the clergy, and to have them punished, and that when I leave prison he shall be happy to co-operate with me in the dissemination of the Gospel!! I cannot write much now, for I am not well, having been bled and blistered. I must, however, devote a few lines to another subject, but not one of rejoicing or Christian exultation. Mann arrived just after my arrest, and visited me in prison, and there favoured me with a scene of despair, abject despair, which nearly turned my brain. I despised the creature, God forgive me, but I pitied him; for he was without money and expected every moment to be seized like myself and incarcerated, and he is by no means anxious to be invested with the honors of martyrdom.”
That the Primate of Spain should have sent to Borrow such a message is surprising; but what is still more so is that six days later Borrow wrote telling Mr Brandram that he had asked a bishop to arrange an interview between him and the Archbishop of Toledo, and Sir George Villiers, who was present, begged the same privilege. [253] On 23rd May Borrow wrote again to Mr Brandram: “I have just had an interview with the Archbishop. It was satisfactory to a degree I had not dared to hope for.” In his next letter (25th May) he writes:
“I have had, as you are aware, an interview with the Archbishop of Toledo. I have not time to state particulars, but he said amongst other things, ‘Be prudent, the Government are disposed to arrange matters amicably, and I am disposed to co-operate with them.’ At parting he shook me most kindly by the hand saying that he liked me. Sir George intends to visit him in a few days. He is an old, venerable-looking man, between seventy and eighty. When I saw him he was dressed with the utmost simplicity, with the exception of a most splendid amethyst ring, the lustre of which was truly dazzling.”
There is only one conclusion to be drawn from this archiepiscopal condescension, if the interview were not indeed sought by Borrow, that it was a political move to pacify the wounded feelings of an outraged Englishman at a time when the goodwill of England was as necessary to the kingdom of Spain as the sun itself.
The upshot of the Malaga Incident was that “the Spanish Government resolved to put an end to Bible transactions in Spain, and forthwith gave orders for the seizure of all the Bibles and Testaments in the country, wherever they might be deposited or exposed for sale. They notified Sir George Villiers of the decision, expressly stating that the resolution was taken in consequence of the ‘Ocurrido en Malaga.’” [254a] The letter in which Sir George Villiers was informed of the Government’s decision runs as follows:—
Madrid, 19th May 1838.
Sir,
I have the honor to inform You that in consequence of what has taken place at Malaga and other places, respecting the publication and sale of the Bible translated by Padre Scio, which are not complete (since they do not contain all the Books which the Catholic Church recognises as Canonical) nor even being complete could they be printed unless furnished with the Notes of the said Padre Scio, according to the existing regulations; Her Majesty has thought proper to prevent this publication and sale, but without insulting or molesting those British Subjects who for some time past have been introducing them into the Kingdom and selling them at the lowest prices, thinking they were conferring a benefit when in reality they were doing an injury.
I have also to state to You that in order to carry this Royal determination into effect, orders have been issued to prohibit its being printed in Spain, in the vulgar tongue, unless it should be the entire Bible as recognised by the Catholic Church with corresponding Notes, preventing its admittance at the Frontiers, as is the case with books printed in Spanish abroad; that the Bibles exposed for public sale be seized and given to their owners in a packet marked and sealed, upon the condition of its being sent out of the country through the Custom Houses on the Frontier or at the Ports.
I avail myself, etc., etc.
The Count of Ofalia. [255a]
Borrow and Graydon were advised of this inhibition, and both ordered their establishments for the sale of books to be closed, thus showing that they were “Gentlemen who are animated with due respect for the Laws of Spain.” [255b] At Valladolid, Santiago, Orviedo, Pontevedra, Seville, Salamanca, and Malaga the decree was at once enforced. On learning that the books at his depôts had all been seized, Borrow became apprehensive for the safety of his Madrid stock of New Testaments, some three thousand in number. He accordingly had them removed, under cover of darkness, to the houses of his friends.