xxi] EFFECT IN PARIS.

779

him, he would not have waited for the completion of the 1860.
fortifications. The effect in Paris was what Cobden had Zn. se.
foreseen, as the entries in his journals testify.
“July 25—Called on Lord Cowley, and in the course
of conversation expressed my disapproval of Lord Palmer-Son's
 project for fortifying the British coasts at the expense
of ten or twelve millions sterling. I also censured the tone
of hig speech in alluding to France as the probable aggres-Sor
 upon England. The scheme and the speech were a
Mockery and insult to me, whilst engaged in framing the
Treaty of Commerce; and I frankly avowed that if I had
10t my heart in the business in which I was engaged here,
I would return home and do the utmost in my power to
destroy the Ministry, and thus prevent it from committing
the popular party to the policy of the present Government.
He admitted that Lord Palmerston’s speech was injudicious
 in having alluded so exclusively to the danger to be
8pprehended from France.
“July 26.—Lord Palmerston’s speech in the House of Com-Mons
 has produced considerable emotion in the political
tircles of Paris. The proposal to spend nine millions on fortifications
 has occasioned less offence than the speech which
8ccompanied it, wherein he directed the apprehensions of
the country towards France exclusively as the source of our
danger of attack and invasion. People speak of it as an
indication that our Court and aristocracy are inclined to
Tenew the policy of 1792, by forming another coalition in
Opposition to France. They say that the inspiration of our
Policy in arming and fortifying comes from Berlin and
Brussels through the British Court. :
“July 28.—Dined with Mr. P—— and a party at the
restaurant of Philippe. M. Chevalier, one of the company,
told me a curious story about a recent interview between
M, Thouvenel, the French Foreign Minister, and Lord