1853.]

pressions and misstatements of O'Meara and others might have been by these means corrected. The Lowe papers, it appears, were placed some years ago (the exact period is not stated) in the hands of the late Sir Harris Nicolas, with a view to edit them. But he was probably bewildered by the magnitude of the materials. Thirty folio volumes are filled with copies of correspondence and other writings, carefully made under the direction of Sir H. Lowe, who seems to have treasured a memorial of almost every incident, however trivial, connected with that important period of his life. In addition to these, there were several large boxes of MSS. relating to the same events, all of which have been examined for the purpose of the present work. There were also two sets of copies of O'Meara's letters to Mr. Finlaison, of the Admiralty, together with a vast number of despatches of Earl Bathurst, who was Secretary of State for the Colonies while Napoleon was at St. Helena. Sir H. Nicolas underwent the heavy labour of arranging these documents; and before his death, had proceeded so far as to have a voluminous mass of documents set up in type, down to the date of September, 1817. The plan of Sir Harris, Mr. Forsyth tells us, was to print almost every letter and other MS. at full length, in chronological order, connecting them with a slender thread of explanatory remark. The work thus meditated must have consisted of eight or nine closely printed octavo volumes; and who, in this busy and work-a-day world, could read eight or nine volumes, even supposing the price to render them accessible? Patience becomes exhausted and attention bewildered when minute details are thus spun out. Mr. Forsyth, the present editor, adopted a different plan. After full consideration, he resolved to re-write the work.

He

has made use of the letters and documents as materials for a narrative; but though he has abridged and curtailed possibly to the extent of a third, yet the work, even as it now stands in three volumes, is far too voluminous. Mr. Forsyth fairly acknowledges that his task has been lightened by the previous labours

145

of Sir H. Nicolas, who had rendered the materials more manageable, and who also carefully collated them; and he also acknowledges his obligations to Lieut.-Colonel Jackson, now professor at the East India College, Addiscombe, who was at St. Helena during the captivity of Bonaparte. This is all candid, proper, and gentlemanlike. But we may, in passing, remark, that notwithstanding the copiousness of materials through which he had to wade, Mr. Forsyth might have vindicated the memory of those long calumniated, and have proved that neither the British Government nor Sir H. Lowe were in fault, in a smaller space.

Albeit the work before us is a third too long, we must say, that we believe it to be emphatically a true narrative. O'Meara, Las Casas, Montholon, and Antomarchi, who were the immediate attendants of the exile at Longwood, and in whose statements the opinion of the British public mainly rests, had each a separate cause of quarrel with Sir Hudson Lowe; and their object was not to make known the truth, but to exalt the character of Bonaparte, and to depreciate that of Sir Hudson Lowe. O'Meara attributed to Sir Hudson his removal from the post of physician and his dismissal from the navy for conduct, not merely at variance with his duty as an officer, but utterly unworthy of a gentleman. This, as Mr. Forsyth truly observes, rankled in his heart; and his book bears in every page the mark of implacable hatred against those who were the authors of his disgrace. We do not agree with Mr. Forsyth in thinking that the Voice from St. Helena is a voice wholly unworthy of belief. On the contrary, there is a great deal of truth in it on matters not having reference to Sir Hudson Lowe; but in all that bears reference to the conduct of that officer, O'Meara so distorts, perverts, and misstates facts-mixing up a little truth with a great deal of misrepresentation, that his statements are not to be believed. Las Casas, in his journal, has perverted, we will not say with Mr. Forsyth, almost every fact

which he records, but a great many facts and circumstances of the greatest moment to the reputation of Sir H. Lowe and the British Government, which he represented. Las Casas, though a Royalist and an emigrant, who served in the army of Condé-though a zealous ultra, who followed the Count d'Artois to Quiberon (none of which particulars are given by Mr. Forsyth) -profited in later life of the amnesty which followed the 18 Brumaire, and re-entered France. He remained for six years in tranquillity, during which time he occupied himself in the preparation of the Atlas Historique of Le Sage. The reputation of this work, as well as his offering himself as a volunteer for the defence of Flushing, brought him under the notice of Bonaparte, who made him one of his chamberlains. Ultimately, the Emperor became the god of his idolatry, and it is not wonderful that he came into collision, at St. Helena, with the officer to whose keeping his master was committed. The dismission from St. Helena, to which we have before referred, created in his mind an irritation which never subsided. Montholon, as an authority, and as a man, was less credible than Las Casas; while as to Antomarchi, it may be remarked that his self-love had been wounded by his having been subjected to the same regulations as the French residents, and also by the earnestness with which Sir Hudson Lowe pressed upon the attendants of Napoleon the necessity of having recourse to additional medical advice when his illness became serious.

These four individuals-we cannot call them authorities-have long had their sway. Their books have been too long read unquestioned; and the period has at length arrived, though late, when there are fuller materials for judgment, and when an impartial verdict may be given. It is not wonderful that nearly all French writers should take but one view of the question of Napoleon's captivity. They deal, with scarcely an exception, in nothing but panegyrics on Napoleon and in invectives against Sir Hudson Lowe. There is, however, as Mr. Forsyth

says, one honourable exception. Lamartine has done homage to truth, and, so far as he had the means of forming a just judgment, has taken pains to arrive at it. That Governor, says Lamartine, whom the myrmidons of Napoleon, and Napoleon himself, attacked with groundless and passionate charges, had neither criminal intent against his captive in his thoughts, nor insults towards the unfortunate in his heart. But, crushed under the load of responsibility which weighed on him, lest he might suffer to escape the disturber whom Europe had given him to guard, narrow in his ideas, jealous in his regulations, nervously tenacious of forms, deficient in tact, and odious to his captives from the very nature of his functions, he wearied Napoleon with restrictions, superintendence, orders, visits, and even marks of respect.

This portrait, though not for a Frenchman harshly drawn, is, nevertheless, incorrect. Instead of Sir Hudson Lowe wearying Napoleon with visits, we learn from the journals before us, that during the whole of the six years of the captivity the Governor had only five interviews with his prisoner; and that Napoleon rudely and discourteously refused, after insulting him to his face with the grossest language of abuse, to see or have intercourse with him again.

It is difficult for the present generation, many of whom were not born at the period of the battle of Waterloo, and who cannot from reading form an adequate conception of the immense struggle in which we were engaged, to conceive the importance of the question which presented itself to the consideration of the British Ministry, in 1815, when Napoleon surrendered himself. It was a case without precedent. Sir Wm. Grant, Sir W. Scott, Lord Ellenborough, and Lord Eldon were consulted, and gave conflicting opinions. Lord Chancellor Eldon said the case was not provided for in Grotius or Vattel, but that the law of self-preservation would justify the keeping of Napoleon under restraint in some distant region, where he should be treated with all indulgence compatible with a due regard

1853.]

The

for the peace of mankind. question then is, as Mr. Forsyth puts it, what was his real position when he set foot in the Bellerophon. Was he a guest, or an enemy brought to bay-in a word, a prisoner of war? Napoleon himself assumed that he was a guest, and protested against any forcible dealing with his person or liberty. But a claim or an assertion is not a title, and one fact is certain, that, vanquished at Waterloo, Bonaparte fled through Paris, and reached Rochefort, from which he found escape impossible. We learn from Müffling's memoirs that if he had fallen into the hands of the Prussians it was the intention of Blücher to have him shot over the grave of the Duke d'Enghien, in the ditch of Vincennes. Napoleon, then, it appears had merely the choice of the nation to which he must give himself up, and not of the mode in which he was to be disposed of by that nation. It should be remembered that he had escaped from Elba, and the result was the battle of Waterloo, and the loss of 60,000 men. Can it, then, be contended that the British Ministry was not justified in considering the ex-emperor a prisoner of war, and in relegating him out of Europe, which he had so long threatened and disturbed?

The generality of Frenchmen will answer both of these queries in the negative; but let it be remembered by those Frenchmen who reproach England that Abd-el-Kader was kept in close confinement for many years among themselves, after relying on the promise of a French prince, who assured him that he would not be dealt with as a captive. Justifiably restrained in his personal liberty, Napoleon was sent to St. Helena, with no greater measure of severity or restriction imposed on him than was deemed necessary for the security of his person. Instructions were given to the British officers to whom he was committed to allow him every indulgence consistent with the safe custody of his person.

In the memoranda of instructions delivered by the Government to Sir G. Cockburn, it was provided that the captive should be allowed to

147

have all his furniture, books, and wine; that he should have plate sufficient for domestic use; but that his money, diamonds, and negotiable bills should be given up, not to be confiscated, but to be administered merely to prevent their being converted into an instrument of escape. Count Montholon invents a story of Bonaparte's sword having been demanded of him by Lord Keith, but this is pure fiction, and is contradicted by Las Casas.

The suite of the ex-emperor consisted of twenty-five persons. The Northumberland, of which he was aboard, sailed on the 8th August. They hove to off Funchal, in Madeira, for refreshments, and arrived at St. Helena on the 15th October. In a letter written a few days after they landed, by O'Meara to his friend Mr. Finlaison of the Admiralty (with whom he kept up a secret correspondence), he gives a description of the exiles, which stands in remarkable contrast to his printed work. He speaks of the tastes and humours of the ladies; of their ever unceasing caprices; and of their never complaining of loss of appetite. They generally eat,' says he, of every dish in a profusely supplied table of different meats twice every day, besides occasional tiffins, bowls of soup, &c. They most hate each other, and I am the depository of their complaints, especially Mde. Bertrand, who is like a tigress deprived of her young when she perceives me doing any service for Mde. Montholon. The latter, to tell the truth, is not so whimsical, nor subject to so many fits of rage as

the other.'

From this letter it will be at once seen that O'Meara was a coarse, low, and vulgar-minded man, without the feelings or tone of a gentleman. That he had a good deal of smartness, some education, and a competent knowledge of his profession, has never been denied; but from every line of his private correspondence in these volumes any candid person would come to the conclusion that he was totally deficient in the feelings and tone of a gentleman.

The educated countrymen of O'Meara, it must be admitted, gene

rally possess these feelings in a preeminent degree, and it has become almost a proverb that a really Irish gentleman is the most perfect model of the character to be found; but as the corruption of the best things is, according to the old maxim, the worst, so when you meet a ribald and coarse-mouthed, or coarseminded Hibernian, he is the most insufferable and most dangerous animal in the creation. During the passage out to St. Helena, Napoleon did not appear in the after cabin before twelve, breakfasted either in bed or in his own cabin before eleven, dined with the admiral about five, stayed about half an hour at dinner, then left the table and proceeded to the quarter-deck, where he generally spent a couple of hours in walking, or else leaning against the breech of one of the quarterdeck guns, talking to Las Casas.

Early in November, 1815, a correspondence took place between General Bertrand and Sir George Cockburn, relative to the title of Emperor. Sir George answered that he had no cognizance of any Emperor being actually on the island, or of any person possessing such dignity having come out in the Northumberland, as stated by Bertrand. Mr. Forsyth considers this' some affectation' in Sir George, and is of opinion it is difficult to refute the arguments used by Napoleon in favour of his right to be styled Emperor. Mr. Forsyth remarks that he was Emperor of France by a solemn act of coronation, with the assent and amidst the acclamations of the nation.

He confidently urges, too, that if, at any time between his ceasing to be First Consul and his invasion of Spain, he had been willing to make peace upon firm and equitable terms, England would have treated with him in his character of Emperor. This, we think, may be doubted; for we never had recognised the title of Emperor. But be this as it may, Mr. Forsyth seems to forget the abdication at Fontainbleau.

After abdications, even born and hereditary emperors and kings do not continue to wear their titles; and we may cite, as cases in point, the Emperor Ferdi

nand, the uncle of the present Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria; the King of Bavaria, father of the present monarch; and the late King of Sardinia.

Though, therefore, we cannot agree with Mr. Forsyth in thinking it puerile not to have called him Emperor, we conceive it would have been politic to have called him exEmperor. This would have gratified his feelings, and done much to smooth the difficulties which occurred at St. Helena. Mr. Forsyth thinks we chose for him the worst title that could have been selected— General Bonaparte; but he does not give us a reason for this opinion. His observations on the question of title may be answered by the remarks of Lamartine,

He persisted,' says the author of the Histoire de la Restauration, 'with an affectation which his flatterers consider heroic, but which history will judge as puerile, because it is a misconception of his fortune, in exacting the titles of Emperor and Majesty, which England, never having acknowledged the Empire, was not officially bound to give him. He appealed to Heaven and earth against this breach of etiquette. He dictated notes on this trifle, as he would have done on the conquest or the loss of Europe.'

Notwithstanding, however, this morbid irritation on the question of title, Napoleon often exhibited himself, and more especially when at the Briars, in a most amiable mood. He liked the family of the Balcombes, who did everything in their power to minister to his comfort. He was especial favourite with the young people; and one of the daughters (now Mrs. Abell) has written a very interesting account of his stay amongst them. We learn from her book how good-humouredly he bore her girlish tricks -how she made him burn his fingers with hot sealing-wax-how he revenged himself by running away with her ball-dress-how he played at blindman's-buff, and entered into the spirit of the game as heartily as a child. These,' says Mr. Forsyth, are pleasing traits of Napoleon's disposition, and showed that he still retained a freshness of heart and elasticity of mind which the vicissi

tudes of his marvellous career and his mighty fall had not been able to destroy.'

Soon, however, there were complaints of the wind, and the rain, and the clouds, and the damp of St. Helena. But it is beyond the power of the British or any other Government to remedy defects of climate or temperature. It is very evident that Napoleon was surrounded by a set of persons who imposed on and deceived him. This is over and over again related in O'Meara's letters to Mr. Finlaison. Writing to this gentleman, in March, 1816, he says The Admiral's conduct has been most grossly and shamefully misrepresented and blackened to him. The people he is surrounded by at present give me some faint idea of what the court of St. Cloud must have been during his omnipotent sway. Everything even here is disguised and mutilated in the representation to him, particularly by Montholon.'

Among those who were about the person of the Emperor, there was no one, except O'Meara, who had done more mischief than Montholon. To any who has been familiar with the society of Paris for the last twenty years, the character given of this man will not appear extraordinary. Most people familiar with Paris are aware that in 1829 he was deeply engaged in commercial speculations the very reverse of prosperous. The last time we ourselves saw him was on the morning of the 6th of August, 1840, when he arrived at Boulogne with M. L. N. Bonaparte, the present Emperor of the French. His demeanour on that occasion impressed no one in his favour; and his subsequent declaration before the Court of Peers, that he was only aware of the criminal attempt ten minutes before the period of landing at Wiméreux, was disbelieved by every human being, and would have been disbelieved, so monstrously improbable was it, if even uttered by a man not known as a romancer. O'Meara, writing of this man, says, Napoleon said to him, Now, Montholon, do not bring me back any lies as news, as Marshal Bertrand is going to town to-morrow; and I will then hear the truth." Yet such

149

are the men on whose testimony we are called upon to brand and stigmatise the character of a distinguished British officer.

We think Mr. Forsyth has conclusively proved that one of the principal objects which O'Meara had in view was to avenge himself upon Sir Hudson Lowe as the supposed author of his disgrace. His means of accomplishing this were to re-cast his memoranda, suppressing some passages and altering others. That he thus garbled his matter, sacrificing truth, honour, and honesty, is proved to demonstration by Mr. Forsyth. There exists, as we before stated, a series of confidential letters written by O'Meara, during a great part of the period embraced by his book, in which he relates conversations and events as they happened: and the narrative is obviously taken from the same notes of which he professed afterwards to give to the world a true transcript.

We are thus enabled to compare his written and his printed statements of the same occurrences, and the result will show that to gratify his malice against Sir H. Lowe he published a most unfair version of his own notes, and that no reliance whatever can be placed on his veracity. It should also be remarked that at most of the conversations recorded by O'Meara, Major Gorrequer, the military secretary of the governor, was present. wrote down full minutes of all that passed, and he, in almost every instance, bears testimony against O'Meara.

He

It may be asked who was Sir Hudson Lowe. From a fragment of an autobiography which he has left, and which Mr. Forsyth publishes, we learn that to use his own words-he was born in the army. His father was an Englishman, a native of Lincolnshire, who obtained a medical appointment with the troops that served in Germany during the seven years' war. Sir H. Lowe was born in the town of Galway, on the 28th July, 1769, and was within one month of the age of Napoleon. Before he was twelve years old he obtained an ensigncy in the Devon Militia; in 1787, a King's commission as ensign in the