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

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

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

Napoleon now issued a decree, appointing "his dearly beloved brother
Joseph Napoleon, King of Naples and Sicily, to the crowns of Spain and
the Indies." By a subsequent decree, 15th of July, he appointed "his
dearly-beloved cousin, Joachim Murat, Grand Duke of Berg, to the throne
of Naples and Sicily, which remained vacant by the accession of Joseph