I am reading this book and have come across a slightly puzzling passage on p. 154:
[Palmerston] kept on good terms with Louis Philippe of France until he felt, in 1846, that Louis was taking an unreasonable line about French claims to the Spanish throne. He made his resentment plain, and within two years Louis was an exile in England.
What could have the author had in mind? He seems to ascribe to Palmerston a positive agency of some sort in removing Louis Philippe but I've never seen such a claim in other sources. Perhaps he means that Palmerston failed to support Louis Philippe in his hour of need when revolution against the latter broke out, but then, again, I cannot imagine how Palmerston could have materially helped the French King to hold on to his throne.
So am I missing something or had D. Thomson committed a Post hoc ergo propter hoc?