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.

Borrow was not the man to accept defeat, and he wrote to Mr Brandram with great cheerfulness:

“This, however, gives me little uneasiness, for, with the blessing of God, I shall be able to repair all, always provided I am allowed to follow my own plans, and to avail myself of the advantages which have lately been opened—especially to cultivate the kind feeling lately manifested towards me by the principal Spanish clergy.” [255c]

Later he wrote:

“Another bitter cup has been filled for my swallowing. The Bible Society and myself have been accused of blasphemy, sedition, etc. A collection of tracts has been seized in Murcia, in which the Catholic religion and its dogmas are handled with the most abusive severity; [256a] these books have been sworn to as having been left by the Committee of the Bible Society whilst in that town, and Count Ofalia has been called upon to sign an order for my arrest and banishment from Spain. Sir George, however, advises me to remain quiet and not to be alarmed, as he will answer for my innocence.” [256b]

Borrow strove to galvanise the General Committee into action. The Spanish newspapers were inflamed against the Society as a sectarian, not a Christian institution. “Zeal is a precious thing,” he told Mr Brandram, “when accompanied with one grain of common sense.” The theme of his letters was the removal of Graydon. “Do not be cast down,” he writes; “all will go well if the stumbling block [Graydon] be removed.”

Borrow’s state of mind may well be imagined, and if by his impulsive letters he unwittingly harmed his own cause at Earl Street, he did so as a man whose liberty, perhaps his life even, was being jeopardised, although not deliberately, by another whom the reforming spirit seemed likely to carry to any excess. It must be admitted that for the time being Borrow had forgotten the idiom of Earl Street.

The president (a bishop) of the body of ecclesiastics that was engaged in examining the Society’s Spanish Bible, communicated with Borrow, through Mr Charles Wood, the suggestion that “the Committee of the Bible Society should in the present exigency draw up an exposition of their views respecting Spain, stating what they are prepared to do and what they are not prepared to do; above all, whether in seeking to circulate the Gospel in this Country they harbour any projects hostile to the Government or the established religion; moreover, whether the late distribution of tracts was done by their connivance or authority, and whether they are disposed to sanction in future the publication in Spain of such a class of writings.” [257a]

Borrow was of the opinion that this should be done, although he would not take upon himself to advise the Committee upon such a point, he merely remarked that “the Prelate in question is a most learned and respectable man, and one of the warmest of our friends.” [257b] The Society very naturally declined to commit itself to any such undertaking. It would not have been quite logical or conceivable that a Protestant body should give a guarantee that it harboured no projects hostile to Rome.

Undeterred by the official edict against the circulation in Spain of the Scriptures, Borrow wrote to Mr Brandram (14th June):

“I should wish to make another Biblical tour this summer, until the storm be blown over. Should I undertake such an expedition, I should avoid the towns and devote myself entirely to the peasantry. I have sometimes thought of visiting the villages of the Alpujarra Mountains in Andalusia, where the people live quite secluded from the world; what do you think of my project?”

All this time Borrow had heard nothing from Earl Street as to the effect being produced there by his letters. On 15th or 16th June he received a long letter from Mr Brandram enclosing the Resolutions of the General Committee with regard to the crisis. They proved conclusively that the officials failed entirely to appreciate the state of affairs in Spain, and the critical situation of their paid and accredited agent, George Borrow. Their pride had probably been wounded by Borrow’s impetuous requests, that might easily have appeared to them in the light of commands. It may have struck some that the Spanish affairs of the Society were being administered from Madrid, and that they themselves were being told, not what it was expedient to do, but what they must do. Another factor in the situation was the Committee’s friendliness for their impulsive, unsalaried servant Lieut. Graydon, who was certainly a picturesque, almost melodramatic figure. In any case the letter from Mr Brandram that accompanied the Resolutions was couched in a strain of fair play to Graydon that became a thinly disguised partizanship. At the meeting of the Committee held on 28th May the following Resolutions had been adopted:—

First.—“That Mr Borrow be requested to inform Sir George Villiers that this Committee have written to Mr Graydon through their Secretary, desiring him to leave Spain on account of his personal safety.”

Second.—“That Mr Borrow be informed that in the absence of specific documents, this Committee cannot offer any opinion on the proceedings of Mr Graydon, and that therefore he be desired to obtain, either in original or copy, the objectionable papers alleged to have been issued by Mr Graydon and to transmit them hither.”

Third.—“That Mr Borrow be requested not to repeat the Advertisement contained in the CorrÉo Nacional of the 17th inst., and that he be cautioned how he commits the Society by advertisements of a similar character. And further, that he be desired to state to Sir George Villiers that the advertisement in question was inserted by him on the spur of the moment, and without any opportunity of obtaining instructions from this Committee.”

In justice to the Committee, it must be said that they did not appreciate the delicacy of the situation, being only Christians and not diplomatists. Perhaps they were unaware that the whole of Spain was under martial law, or if they were, the true significance of the fact failed to strike them. Mr Brandram’s letter accompanying these Resolutions is little more than an amplification of the Committee’s decision:

“I have, I assure you,” he writes, “endeavoured to place myself in your situation and enter into your feelings strongly excited by the irreparable mischief which you suppose Mr G. to have done to our cause so dear to you. Under the influence of these feelings you have written with, what appears to us, unmitigated severity of his conduct. But now, let me entreat you to enter into our feelings a little, and to consider what we owe to Mr Graydon. If we have at times thought him imprudent, we have seen enough in him to make us both admire and love him. He has ever approved himself as an upright, faithful, conscientious, indefatigable agent; one who has shrunk from no trials and no dangers; one who has gone through in our service many and extraordinary hardships. What have we against him at present? He has issued certain documents of a very offensive character, as is alleged. We have not seen them, neither does it appear that you have, but that you speak from the recollections of Mr Sothern.” [259]

The letter goes on to say that if it can be shown that Lieut. Graydon is acting in the same manner as he did in Valencia, for which he was admonished,

“he will assuredly be recalled on this ground. You wonder perhaps that we for a moment doubt the fact of his reiterated imprudence; but audi alteram partem must be our rule—and besides, on reviewing the Valencia proceedings, we draw a wide distinction. Had he been as free, as you suppose him to be, of the trammels of office in our service, many would say and think that he was prefectly at liberty to act and speak as he did of the Authorities, if he chose to take the consequences. Really in such a country it is no marvel if his Spirit has been stirred within him! Will you allow me to remind you of the strong things in your own letter to the Valencia ecclesiastic, the well pointed and oft repeated VÆ!”

Mr Brandram points out that strong language is frequently the sword of the Reformer, and that there are times when it has the highest sanction; but

“the judgment of all [the members of the Committee] will be that an Agent of the Bible Society is a Reformer, not by his preaching or denouncing, but by the distribution of the Bible. If Mr G’s. conduct is no worse than it was in Valencia,” the letter continues, rather inconsistently, in the light of the assurance in the early part that recall would be the punishment for another such lapse into indiscretion, “you must not expect anything beyond a qualified disavowal of it, and that simply as unbecoming an Agent of such a Society as ours.

“After what I have written, you will hardly feel surprised that our Committee could not quite approve of your Advertisement. We have ever regarded Mr Graydon as much our Agent as yourself. In three of our printed reports in succession we make no difference in speaking of you both. We are anxious to do nothing to weaken your hands at so important a crisis, and we conceive that the terms we have employed in our Resolution are the mildest we could have used. Do not insert the Advertisement a second time. Let it pass; let it be forgotten. If necessary we shall give the public intimation that Mr G. was, but is not our agent any longer. Remember, we entreat you, the very delicate position that such a manifesto places us in, as well as the effect which it may have on Mr Graydon’s personal safety. We give you full credit for believing it was your duty, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, to take so decided and bold a step, and that you thought yourself fully justified by the distinction of salaried and unsalaried Agent, in speaking of yourself as the alone accredited Agent of the Society. Possibly when you reflect a little upon the matter you may view it in another light. There are besides some sentiments in the Advertisement which we cannot perhaps fully accord with . . . If to our poor friend there has befallen the saddest of all calamities to which you allude, should we not speak of him with all tenderness. If he be insane I believe much of it is to be attributed to that entire devotion with which he has devoted himself to our work.”

No complaint can be urged against the Committee for refusing to condemn one of their agents unheard, and without documentary evidence; but it was strange that they should pass resolutions that contained no word of sympathy with Borrow for his sufferings in a typhus-infested prison. It is even more strange that the covering letter should refer to Graydon’s sufferings and hardships and the danger to his person, without apparently realising that Borrow had actually suffered what the Committee feared that Graydon might suffer. There is no doubt that Borrow’s impulsive letters had greatly offended everybody at Earl Street, where Lieut. Graydon appears to have been extremely popular; and the few words of sympathy with Borrow that might have saved much acrimonious correspondence were neither resolved nor written.

The other side of the picture is shown in a vigorous passage from Borrow’s Report, which was afterwards withdrawn:

“A helpless widow [the mother of Don Pascual Mann] was insulted, her liberty of conscience invaded, and her only son incited to rebellion against her. A lunatic [Lieut. Graydon] was employed as the repartidor, or distributor, of the Blessed Bible, who, having his head crammed with what he understood not, ran through the streets of Valencia crying aloud that Christ was nigh at hand and would appear in a short time, whilst advertisements to much the same effect were busily circulated, in which the name, the noble name, of the Bible Society was prostituted; whilst the Bible, exposed for sale in the apartment of a public house, served for little more than a decoy to the idle and curious, who were there treated with incoherent railings against the Church of Rome and Babylon in a dialect which it was well for the deliverer that only a few of the audience understood. But I fly from these details, and will now repeat the consequences of the above proceedings to myself; for I, I, and only I, as every respectable person in Madrid can vouch, have paid the penalty for them all, though as innocent as the babe who has not yet seen the light.”

If the General Committee at a period of anxiety and annoyance failed to pay tribute to Borrow’s many qualities, the official historian of the Society makes good the omission when he describes him as “A strange, impulsive, more or less inflammable creature as he must have occasionally seemed to the Secretaries and Editorial Superintendent, he had proved himself a man of exceptional ability, energy, tact, prudence—above all, a man whose heart was in his work.” [262]

Borrow’s acknowledgment of the Resolutions was dated 16th June. It ran:—

“I have received your communication of the 30th ult. containing the resolutions of the Committee, to which I shall of course attend.

“Of your letter in general, permit me to state that I reverence the spirit in which it is written, and am perfectly disposed to admit the correctness of the views which it exhibits; but it appears to me that in one or two instances I have been misunderstood in the letters which I have addressed [to you] on the subject of Graydon.

“I bear this unfortunate gentleman no ill will, God forbid, and it will give me pain if he were reprimanded publicly or privately; moreover, I can see no utility likely to accrue from such a proceeding. All that I have stated hitherto is the damage which he has done in Spain to the cause and myself, by the—what shall I call it?—imprudence of his conduct; and the idea which I have endeavoured to inculcate is the absolute necessity of his leaving Spain instantly.

“Take now in good part what I am about to say, and O! do not misunderstand me! I owe a great deal to the Bible Society, and the Bible Society owes nothing to me. I am well aware and am always disposed to admit that it can find thousands more zealous, more active, and in every respect more adapted to transact its affairs and watch over its interests; yet, with this consciousness of my own inutility, I must be permitted to state that, linked to a man like Graydon, I can no longer consent to be, and that if the Society expect such a thing, I must take the liberty of retiring, perhaps to the wilds of Tartary or the Zingani camps of Siberia.

“My name at present is become public property, no very enviable distinction in these unhappy times, and neither wished nor sought by myself. I have of late been subjected to circumstances which have rendered me obnoxious to the hatred of those who never forgive, the Bloody Church of Rome, which I have [no] doubt will sooner or later find means to accomplish my ruin; for no one is better aware than myself of its fearful resources, whether in England or Spain, in Italy or in any other part. I should not be now in this situation had I been permitted to act alone. How much more would have been accomplished, it does not become me to guess.

“I had as many or more difficulties to surmount in Russia than I originally had here, yet all that the Society expected or desired was effected, without stir or noise, and that in the teeth of an imperial Ukase which forbade the work which I was employed to superintend.

“Concerning my late affair, I must here state that I was sent to prison on a charge which was subsequently acknowledged not only to be false but ridiculous; I was accused of uttering words disrespectful towards the GefÉ Politico of Madrid; my accuser was an officer of the police, who entered my apartment one morning before I was dressed, and commenced searching my papers and flinging my books into disorder. Happily, however, the people of the house, who were listening at the door, heard all that passed, and declared on oath that so far from mentioning the GefÉ Politico, I merely told the officer that he, the officer, was an insolent fellow, and that I would cause him to be punished. He subsequently confessed that he was an instrument of the Vicar General, and that he merely came to my apartment in order to obtain a pretence for making a complaint. He has been dismissed from his situation and the Queen [Regent] has expressed her sorrow at my imprisonment. If there be any doubt entertained on the matter, pray let Sir George Villiers be written to!

“I should be happy to hear what success attends our efforts in China. I hope a prudent conduct has been adopted; for think not that a strange and loud language will find favour in the eyes of the Chinese; and above all, I hope that we have not got into war with the Augustines and their followers, who, if properly managed, may be of incalculable service in propagating the Scriptures . . . P.S.—The Documents, or some of them, shall be sent as soon as possible.”

Nine days later (25th June) Borrow wrote:

“I now await your orders. I wish to know whether I am at liberty to pursue the course which may seem to me best under existing circumstances, and which at present appears to be to mount my horses, which are neighing in the stable, and once more betake myself to the plains and mountains of dusty Spain, and to dispose of my Testaments to the muleteers and peasants. By doing so I shall employ myself usefully, and at the same time avoid giving offence. Better days will soon arrive, which will enable me to return to Madrid and reopen my shop, till then, however, I should wish to pursue my labours in comparative obscurity.”

Replying to Borrow’s letter of 16th June, Mr Brandram wrote (29th June): “I trust we shall not easily forget your services in St Petersburg, but suffer me to remind you that when you came to the point of distribution your success ended.” [265a] This altogether unworthy remark was neither creditable to the writer nor to the distinguished Society on whose behalf he wrote. Borrow had done all that a man was capable of to distribute the books. His reply was dignified and effective.

“It was unkind and unjust to taunt me with having been unsuccessful in distributing the Scriptures. Allow me to state that no other person under the same circumstances would have distributed the tenth part; yet had I been utterly unsuccessful, it would have been wrong to check me with being so, after all I have undergone, and with how little of that are you acquainted.” [265b]

In response, Mr Brandram wrote (28th July):

“You have considered that I have taunted you with want of success in St Petersburg. I thought that the way in which I introduced that subject would have prevented any such unpleasant and fanciful impression.”

That was all! It became evident to all at Earl Street that a conference between Borrow, the Officials and the General Committee was imperative if the air were to be cleared of the rancour that seemed to increase with each interchange of letters. [265c] Unless something were done, a breach seemed inevitable, a thing the Society did not appear to desire. When Borrow first became aware that he was wanted at Earl Street for the purpose of a personal conference, he in all probability conceived it to be tantamount to a recall, and he was averse from leaving the field to the enemy.

“In the name of the Highest,” he wrote, [266] “I entreat you all to banish such a preposterous idea; a journey home (provided you intend that I should return to Spain) could lead to no result but expense and the loss of precious time. I have nothing to explain to you which you are not already perfectly well acquainted with by my late letters. I was fully aware at the time I was writing them that I should afford you little satisfaction, for the plain unvarnished truth is seldom agreeable; but I now repeat, and these are perhaps among the last words which I shall ever be permitted to pen, that I cannot approve, and I am sure no Christian can, of the system which has lately been pursued in the large sea-port cities of Spain, and which the Bible Society has been supposed to sanction, notwithstanding the most unreflecting person could easily foresee that such a line of conduct could produce nothing in the end but obloquy and misfortune.”

Borrow saw that his departure from Spain would be construed by his enemies as flight, and that their joy would be great in consequence.

The Spanish authorities were determined if possible to rid the country of missionaries. The Gazeta Oficial of Madrid drew attention to the fact that in Valencia there had been distributed thousands of pamphlets “against the religion we profess.” Sir George Villiers enquired into the matter and found that there was no evidence that the pamphlets had been written, printed, or published in England; and when writing to Count Ofalia on the subject he informed him that the Bible Society distributed, not tracts or controversial writings, but the Scriptures.

The next move on the part of the authorities was to produce sworn testimony from three people (all living in the same house, by the way) that they had purchased copies of “the New Testament and other Biblical translations at the Despacho on 5th May.” Borrow was in prison at the time, and his assistant denied the sale. Documents were also produced proving that the imprint on the title-page of the Scio New Testament was false, as at the time it was printed no such printer as AndrÉas BorrÉgo (who by the way was the Government printer and at one time a candidate for cabinet rank) lived in Madrid. In drawing the British Minister’s attention to these matters, Count Ofalia wrote (31st May):

“It would be opportune if you would be pleased to advise Mr Borrow that, convinced of the inutility of his efforts for propagating here the translation in the vulgar tongue of Sacred Writings without the forms required by law, he would do much better in making use of his talents in some other class of scientifical or literary Works during his residence in Spain, giving up Biblical Enterprises, which may be useful in other countries, but which in this Kingdom are prejudicial for very obvious reasons.”