The Life of George Borrow

by Herbert George Jenkins

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]