Chapter VI: Part 6

"In this singular parallel, Napoleon appears to have been in France at once the Cromwell and the Wm. III. of England. But as every comparison with Cromwell is in some degree odious, I must add that, if these two celebrated men coincided in one single circumstance of their lives, it was scarcely possible for two beings to differ more in every other point.

"Cromwell appeared on the theatre of the world at the age of maturity. He attained supreme rank only by dint of address, duplicity, and hypocrisy.

"Napoleon distinguished himself at the very dawn of manhood, and his first steps were attended by the purest glory.

"Cromwell attained supreme power, opposed and hated by all parties, and by affixing an everlasting stain on the English revolution.

"Napoleon, on the contrary, ascended the throne by obliterating the stains of the French revolution, and through the concurrence of all parties, who in turn sought to gain him as their chief.

"All the glory of Cromwell was bought by English blood; his triumphs were all so many causes of national mourning; but Napoleon’s victories were gained over the foreign foe, and they filled the French nation with transport.

"Finally, the death of Cromwell was a source of joy to all England: the event was regarded as a public deliverance. The same cannot exactly be said of Napoleon’s fall.

"In England the revolution was the rising of the whole nation against the King. The King had violated the laws, and usurped absolute power; and the nation wished to resume her rights.

"In France, the revolution was the rising of one portion of the nation against another; that of the third estate against the nobility; it was the re-action of the Gauls against the Franks. The King was attacked not so much in his character of monarch as in his quality of chief of the feudal system. He was not reproached with having violated the laws; but the nation wished to emancipate and re-constitute itself.

"In England, if Charles I. had yielded voluntarily, if he had possessed the moderate and undecided character of Louis XVI. he would have survived.

"In France, on the contrary, if Louis XVI. had openly resisted, if he had had the courage, activity, and ardour of Charles I. he would have triumphed.

"During the whole conflict, Charles I., isolated in his kingdom, was surrounded only by partisans and friends, and was never connected with any constitutional branch of his subjects.

"Louis XVI. was supported by a regular army, by foreign aid, and two constitutional portions of the nation—the nobility and the clergy. Besides, there remained to Louis XVI. a second decisive resolution, which Charles I. had it not in his power to adopt, namely, that of ceasing to be a _feudal Chief_, in order to become a _national Chief_. Unfortunately he could not decide on either the one or the other.

"Charles I. therefore perished because he resisted, and Louis XVI. because he did not resist. The one had a perfect conviction of the privileges of his prerogative; but it is doubtful whether the other had any such conviction, any more than he felt the necessity of exercising its privileges.

"In England, the death of Charles I. was the result of the artful and atrocious ambition of a single man.

"In France, it was the work of the blind multitude, of a disorderly popular assembly.

"In England, the representatives of the people evinced a slight shade of decorum, by abstaining from being the judges and actors in the murder which they decreed; they appointed a tribunal to try the King.

"In France, the representatives of the people presumed to be at once accusers, judges, and executioners.

"In England, the affair was managed by an invisible hand: it assumed an appearance of reflection and calmness. In France, it was managed by the multitude, whose fury was without bounds.

"In England, the death of the King gave birth to the Republic. In France, on the contrary, the birth of the Republic caused the death of the King.

"In England the political explosion was produced by the efforts of the most ardent religious fanaticism. In France, it was brought about amidst the acclamations of cynical impiety; each according to different ages and manners.

"The English Revolution was ushered in by the excesses of the gloomy school of Calvin. The loose doctrines of the modern school conjured up the storm in France.

"In England, the Revolution was mingled with civil war. In France, it was attended by foreign war; and to the efforts and opposition of foreigners the French may justly attribute their excesses. The English can advance no such excuse for theirs.

"In England, the army proved itself capable of every act of outrage and fury; it was the scourge of the citizens.

"In France, on the contrary, we owed every benefit to the army. Its triumphs abroad either diminished, or caused us to forget, our horrors at home. The army secured independence and glory to France.

"In England, the Restoration was the work of the English people, who hailed the event with the most lively enthusiasm. The nation escaped slavery, and seemed to have recovered freedom. It was not precisely thus in France.

"In England, a son-in-law hurled his father-in-law from the throne. He was supported by all Europe; and the memory of the act is revered and imperishable.

“In France, on the contrary, the chosen sovereign of the people, who had reigned for the space of fifteen years, with the assent of his subjects and foreigners, re-appeared on the theatre of the world, to seize a sceptre which he regarded as his own. Europe rose in a mass, and outlawed him. Eleven hundred thousand men marched against him; he yielded; he was thrown into captivity, and now efforts are making to tarnish the lustre of his memory!”

EXPLANATION WITH DR. O’MEARA.—THE CONSULATE.—OPINION OF THE EMIGRANTS
RESPECTING THE CONSUL.—THE EMPEROR’S INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO
EMIGRANT PROPERTY.—CONCURRENCE OF FORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE
EMPEROR’S CAREER.—OPINION OF THE ITALIANS RESPECTING NAPOLEON.—HIS
CORONATION BY THE POPE.—EFFECT OF THE CONFERENCES AT TILSIT.—THE
SPANISH BOURBONS.—ARRIVAL OF THE FAMOUS WOODEN PALACE.

6th.—The Emperor sent for me at nine o’clock. He was vexed at the conduct of the new Governor, and particularly at the intention that seemed to be entertained of violating his last humble sanctuary. He preferred death to this last outrage; and he was resolved to run every risk in opposing it. A catastrophe seemed inevitable. The Emperor indeed concluded that there was a determination to bring it about, and that only some plausible pretence was sought for. He was resolved not to evade it. “I am prepared for every thing,” said he, in a certain moment of confidence. “They will kill me here, it is certain....”

The Emperor sent for Dr. O’Meara, in order that he might learn his personal opinion. He desired me to express to him, in English, that he had hitherto no cause of complaint against him: on the contrary, that he considered him to be an honest man, and as a proof of this, he would rely implicitly on the answers he might receive to the questions which he was about to put to him. It was necessary, he said, to come to an understanding. Was he to consider him as his own physician personally, or merely as a prison doctor, appointed by the English Government? Was he his confessor or his inspector? Had he made reports respecting him, or was it his intention so to do, if called upon? In the one case, the Emperor said he would readily continue to receive his attendance, and was grateful for the services he had already received; in the other case, he thanked him and begged him to discontinue his visits.

The doctor replied with great firmness, and in a tone of feeling. He said that his appointment was entirely professional, and had no connection with politics; he conceived himself to be the Emperor’s personal medical attendant, and was a stranger to every other consideration; that he had made no report respecting the Emperor, and that none had yet been demanded of him; that he could not imagine any circumstance which should induce him to make a report, except in case of serious illness, when it might be necessary to call in the aid of other professional men.

About three o’clock, the Emperor went into the garden with the intention of mounting his horse. He had been dictating for a considerable time to General Gourgaud, and had nearly got through the events of 1815. He was very well satisfied with the result of his labour.

I recommended to him next to commence the history of the Consulate; that brilliant period in which a nation in a state of dissolution was in a few moments magically re-composed, with respect to its laws, religion, morality, true principles, and honest prejudices; and all this amidst the universal applause and admiration of astonished Europe.

I was in England at this time. I told the Emperor that the mass of the emigrants were forcibly struck by these acts. The recal of the priests and of the emigrants was received as a blessing; and the great majority profited by it.

The Emperor asked me whether we had not been shocked at the word amnesty?—"No," I replied, “we knew all the difficulties which the First Consul had experienced in this respect. We knew that all the advantages of the measure were due to him, that he alone was our protector, and that every evil originated with those with whom he had been obliged to contend in our favour. Subsequently,” added I, “on our return to France, we found indeed that the Consul might have treated us better with respect to our property, and this without much difficulty, merely by assuming a silent and passive attitude. This we conceived would have sufficed in every case to have produced amicable arrangements between the old proprietors and the purchasers.”

“Doubtless, I might have done so,” said the Emperor, “but could I have trusted sufficiently to the emigrants?—Answer me this question.”

“Sire,” I replied, “now that I have more knowledge of public affairs, and take a more comprehensive view of things, I can readily conceive that policy required you to act as you did. Recent circumstances have proved how wise was the course which you pursued. It would have been bad policy to have dissatisfied the nation. The question of national property is one of the first bulwarks of public spirit and of the national party.”

“You are right,” observed the Emperor; "but I might nevertheless have granted all that was wished. For a moment I cherished the idea of doing so, and I committed a fault in not fulfilling this idea. I intended to form a mass, or a _syndicate_, of all the unsold property of the emigrants, and, on their return, to distribute it in a proportional ratio among them. But when I came to grant property to individuals, I soon found that I was creating too many wealthy men, and that they repaid my favours with insolence. Those who, by dint of petitioning and cringing, had perhaps obtained an annual income of 50 or 100,000 crowns, no longer lifted their hats to me; and far from evincing the least gratitude, they had the impertinence to pretend that they had paid secretly for the favours they enjoyed. This was the conduct of the whole Faubourg Saint-Germain. I restored the fortunes of these people, and they still remained no less hostile and anti-national. Then, in spite of the act of amnesty, I prohibited the restitution of the unsold forests, whenever they should exceed a certain value. This was doubtless an act of injustice, according to the letter of the law; but policy imperatively called for it: the fault was in the drawing up of the law, and the improvidence which dictated it. This re-action on my part, destroyed all the good effect of the recal of the emigrants, and robbed me of the attachment of all the great families. I might have guarded against this evil, or I might have neutralized its effects by my syndicate. For one great family alienated, I might have secured the attachment of a hundred provincial nobles, and thus I should in reality have strictly conformed with justice, which required that the emigrants, who had all run the same risk, embarked their fortunes in common on board the same ship, suffered the same wreck, and incurred the same punishment, should all receive the same indemnification. Here I committed an error,” said the Emperor, “which the more unpardonable as I entertained an idea of the plan which I have just mentioned. But I stood alone, and was surrounded by opposition and difficulty. All parties were hostile to the emigrants: and meanwhile I was pressed by important affairs, time was running on, and I was compelled to direct my attention to other matters.

“Even so late as my return from Elba,” continued the Emperor, “I was on the point of executing a project of the same sort. If I had had time, I should have turned my attention to the poor emigrants from the provinces who were neglected by the Court. It is rather a singular circumstance that this idea was suggested to me by an old ex-minister of Louis XVI., whose services had been but ill requited by the Princes, and who pointed out to me various plans by which evils of the same kind might have been advantageously remedied.”

“Sire,” observed I, “the reasonable portion of the emigrants well knew that the few generous and liberal ideas that were cherished with respect to them originated only with you; they were aware that all who surrounded you wished for their destruction. They knew that the very idea of nobility was hateful to them; and they gave you credit for not being of that opinion. Would you believe it, their self-love occasionally found a certain degree of consolation in the reflection that you were one of their own class?”

The Emperor then asked me what was the opinion of the emigrants respecting his birth, the incidents of his life, &c. I replied that we beheld him for the first time at the head of the army of Italy; and that we were totally ignorant of all his previous history. We never could call him _de Buonaparte_. At this the Emperor laughed. The turn of our conversation then led him to observe that he had frequently reflected on the singular concurrence of secondary circumstances which had brought about his wonderful career.

1st, “If,” said he, “my father, who died before he attained the age of forty, had survived some time longer, he would have been appointed deputy from the Corsican nobility to the Constituent Assembly. He was much attached to the nobility and the aristocracy; on the other hand, he was a warm partisan of generous and liberal ideas. He would, therefore, either have been entirely on the right side, or at least in the minority of the nobility. At any rate, whatever might have been my own personal opinions, I should have followed my father’s footsteps, and thus my career would have been entirely deranged and lost.

2ndly, “If I had been older at the time of the revolution, I should perhaps myself have been appointed deputy. Being of an enthusiastic disposition, I should infallibly have adopted some opinion, and ardently followed it up. But at all events I should have shut myself out from the military service, and thus again my career would have been changed.

3rdly, “Had my family been better known, more wealthy, or more distinguished, my rank of nobility, even though I had followed the course of the revolution, would have made a cipher of me and proscribed me. I could never have obtained confidence; I could never have commanded an army; or, if I had attained such a command, I could not have ventured to do all that I did. Had my family circumstances been different from what they actually were, I could not, with all my success, have followed the bent of my liberal ideas with regard to the priests and nobles, and I should never have arrived at the head of the Government.

4thly, “The number of my sisters and brothers is also a circumstance which proved of great use to me, by multiplying my connections and means of influence.

5thly, “My marriage with Madame de Beauharnois brought me in contact with a party, whose aid was necessary in my system of amalgamations, which was one of the chief principles of my government, and that by which it was especially characterized. But for my wife, I should not have obtained any natural connection with this party.

6thly, “Even my foreign origin, though in France an endeavour was made to raise an outcry against it, was not unattended by advantage. The Italians regarded me as their countryman, and this circumstance greatly facilitated my success in Italy. This success being once obtained, inquiries were set on foot respecting our family history, which had long been buried in obscurity. My family was acknowledged by the Italians to have acted a distinguished part in the events of their country. It was viewed by them as an Italian family. Thus when the question of my sister Pauline’s marriage with the Prince Borghese was agitated, there was but one voice in Rome and Tuscany among the members of that family and their adherents: ‘Well,’ said they, ‘the union is among ourselves; they are our own connections.’ Subsequently, when it was proposed that the Emperor should be crowned by the Pope at Paris, great obstacles were, as circumstances have since proved, thrown in the way of that important event. The Austrian party in the conclave violently opposed the measure; but the Italian party decided in its favour, by adding to political considerations a little consideration of national self-love. ‘We are placing,’ said they, ‘an Italian family on the throne, to govern these barbarians: we shall thus be revenged on the Gauls.’”

These remarks naturally led the Emperor to speak of the Pope, who he said was rather favourably disposed towards him. The Pope did not accuse Napoleon of having ordered his removal to France. He was very indignant at reading in certain publications that the Emperor treated him with disrespect. He had received at Fontainebleau every mark of consideration that he could wish. When he learned the Emperor’s return from Elba to France, he said to Lucien, in a tone expressive of his confidence and impartiality, _’E sbarcato e arrivato_ (he has landed, he has arrived.) He afterwards said: “You are going to Paris; make my peace with him. I am in Rome; no cause of difference shall arise between us.”

“It is certain,” said the Emperor, “that Rome will afford a natural and favourable asylum for my family: there they may find themselves at home. Finally,” added he, smiling, “even my name, Napoleon, which in Italy is uncommon, poetic, and sonorous, contributed its share in the great circumstances of my life.”

I mentioned to the Emperor, what I had already remarked, namely, that the great mass of the emigrants were far from being unjust to him. The sensible part of the old aristocracy disliked him, it is true, but only because he proved an obstacle to their views. They knew how to appreciate his achievements and his talents, which they admired in spite of their inclination. Even the fanatics acknowledged that he had but one fault: “Why is he not legitimate?” they were frequently heard to say. Austerlitz staggered us, though it did not subdue us; but Tilsit prostrated every thing. “Your Majesty,” said I, “might yourself have judged of this, and have enjoyed on your return the unanimity of homage, acclamation, and good wishes.”

“That is to say,” observed the Emperor, smiling, “if, at that time, I could or would have indulged in repose and pleasure; if I had resigned myself to indolence, if every thing had resumed its old course, you would have adored me? But if such had been my taste and inclination, and certainly nothing was more opposite to my natural disposition, circumstances would not have permitted me to act as I pleased.”

The Emperor then adverted to the numerous difficulties by which he had been incessantly surrounded and controlled; and, alluding to the Spanish war, he said, “That unlucky war ruined me; it divided my forces, obliged me to multiply my efforts, and caused my principles to be assailed: and yet it was impossible to leave the Peninsula a prey to the machinations of the English, the intrigues, the hopes, and the pretensions of the Bourbons. Besides, the Spanish Bourbons were not calculated to inspire much fear. Nationally they were foreign to us, and we to them. At the castle of Marrach, and at the Bayonne, I observed that Charles IV. the Queen knew no difference between Madame de Montmorency and the new ladies: the names of the latter were indeed rendered more familiar to them by the newspapers and public documents. The Empress Josephine, who had the most delicate tact on matters of this sort, never ceased alluding to the circumstance. The Spanish Royal Family implored me to adopt a daughter, and to create her a Princess of the Asturias. They pointed out Mademoiselle de Tascher, afterwards Duchess of Aremberg; but I had personal reasons for objecting to this choice. For a moment I decided on Mademoiselle de la Rochefoucault, afterwards Princess Aldobrandini; but I wanted some one sincerely devoted to my interests, a true Frenchwoman, possessing talent and information, and I could not fix on one endowed with all the qualities I wished for.”

Then returning to the war in Spain, the Emperor resumed:—"This combination ruined me. All the circumstances of my disasters are connected with that fatal knot: it destroyed my moral power in Europe, rendered my embarrassments more complicated, and opened a school for the English soldiers. It was I who trained the English army in the Peninsula.

"Events have proved that I committed a great fault in the choice of my means; for the fault lies in the means much more than in the principles. It cannot be doubted that, in the crisis in which France then was, in the struggle of new ideas, in the great cause of the age against the rest of Europe, we could not leave Spain behind, at the disposal of our enemies: it was absolutely necessary to enchain her, voluntarily, or by force, in our system. The destiny of France required this: and the code of the welfare of nations is not always that of individuals. Besides, to political necessity was here superadded for me the force of right. Spain, when she saw me in danger, Spain, when she knew that my hands were full at Jena, had almost declared war against me. The insult ought not to pass unpunished: I could declare war in my turn, and assuredly the success could not be doubtful. It was this very facility that misled me. The nation despised its government: it called loudly for a regeneration. From the height to which Fortune had raised me, I considered myself called, I considered it worthy of me to accomplish in peace so great an event. I was solicitous to spare blood, that not a drop should stain the Castilian emancipation. I therefore delivered the Spaniards from their abominable institutions; I gave them a liberal constitution; I deemed it necessary, perhaps too lightly, to change their dynasty. I placed one of my brothers at their head; but he was the only foreigner among them. I respected the integrity of their territory, their independence, their manners, the remnant of their laws. The new monarch gained the capital, having no other ministers, no other councillors, no other courtiers, but those of the late Court. My troops were about to withdraw: I had done the greatest benefit that ever was conferred on a nation—so I said to myself, and so I still say. The Spaniards themselves, as I have been assured, thought so in their hearts, and never complained of any thing but the forms. I expected their blessings, but I was disappointed: disdaining interest, they thought only of the insult: they were indignant at the idea of an affront, enraged at the sight of force, and all flew to arms. The Spaniards, collectively, behaved like men of honour. I have nothing to say on that head: but, if they triumphed, they have been cruelly punished for it. Perhaps they are to be pitied.... They deserved better."

The Emperor dined with us to-day; it was long since we had enjoyed his company. After dinner he read to us Florian’s novel of Claudine, and some extracts from Paul and Virginia, a work which he says he is very fond of, on account of early recollections.

The Adamant transport has arrived. This vessel a short time ago missed the island. She formed part of a convoy, the remainder of which arrived nearly a month back. These ships brought the famous wooden palace, accounts of which have filled all the newspapers in England, and probably in Europe; and also the furniture, about which the papers have also made a great parade. The wooden palace proved to be nothing more than a number of rough planks, which no one knows how to put together at St. Helena, and which it would require several years to fit up. The splendour of the other articles was of course well suited to our situation. Ostentation, pomp, and luxury, were for Europe; truth and wretchedness for St. Helena.

THE ILIAD.—HOMER.

7th.—The Governor came to Longwood about four o’clock, and went over the establishment without asking to see any one. His ill-humour was visibly increased, his manners had become fierce and brutal.

About five o’clock the Emperor sent for me; the Grand Marshal had been with him for some time. When he went away, the Emperor began to talk with me upon literature; and we reviewed almost every epic poem, ancient and modern. When conversing on the Iliad, he took up an edition of Homer, and read aloud several cantos. The Emperor greatly admired the Iliad. “It was,” he said, "like the Books of Moses, the token and the pledge of the age in which it was produced. Homer, in his epic poem, has proved himself a poet, an orator, an historian, a legislator, a geographer, and a theologist. He may be justly called the encyclopedist of the period in which he flourished.”

The Emperor considered Homer inimitable. Father Hardouin had ventured to question the authenticity of of the Iliad, and to attribute that sacred monument of antiquity to a monk of the tenth century. This the Emperor said was perfect absurdity. He added that he had never been so struck with the beauties of the Iliad as at that very moment; and that the sensations with which it then inspired him fully convinced him of the justice of the universal approbation bestowed on it. One thing which particularly struck him, he observed, was the combination of rudeness of manners with refinement of ideas. Heroes were described killing animals for their food, cooking their meat with their own hands, and yet delivering speeches distinguished for singular eloquence and denoting a high degree of civilization.

The Emperor desired me to stay and dine with him. “Yet,” said he, “you would probably fare better at the table of the household; you will be starved with me.” “Sire,” I replied, “I know that you are ill provided; but I prefer privation shared with you to luxury enjoyed elsewhere.”

During the day, the Emperor was ill with the head-ache, of which some individuals of his suite also complained. I regretted that he was unable to go out, for the weather was very fine. After dinner, the Emperor summoned the whole of his suite into his own chamber, and we remained with him until ten o’clock.

8th.—About five o’clock the Emperor took an airing in the calash. On his return he was visited by several English gentlemen, of whom, according to custom, he asked a multitude of questions. These gentlemen had arrived by the Cornwall: they were proceeding to China, and were expected to touch at St. Helena in the following January on their passage back to Europe.

After dinner one of the suite remarked to the Emperor that his feelings had been painfully excited in the morning when writing out a fair copy of his dictation respecting the battle of Waterloo, to find that the result had depended, as it were, on a hair. The Emperor made no reply, but, turning to Emmanuel, said, in a tone expressing deep emotion: “_My son_ (which was his usual mode of addressing him) go and get Iphigenia in Aulis, it will be a more pleasing subject.” He then read to us that beautiful drama, which he admires exceedingly.

CHARACTERISTIC REMARKS MADE BY THE EMPEROR.

9th.—I went to dine at Briars with my son and General Gourgaud; and we staid to a little ball. I met the Admiral there, and I never found him in a more agreeable humour. This was the first time I had seen him since the adventure of Noverraz; I was aware how much the circumstance had hurt him. He was on the point of departing for Europe, and I knew the Emperor’s sentiments. I was twenty times almost tempted freely to enter upon the subject, and thus to be the means of reconciling him with Napoleon. Truth, justice, and our own interest, demanded this; but I was deterred by considerations that were doubtless trivial. How often have I blamed myself since!... But I had not received this delicate mission, and I could not venture to take it upon myself. The admiral might have given publicity to the affair, and perhaps have represented it in a way that would have highly displeased the Emperor, and possibly have exposed him to fresh vexations. On this subject I will note down the following remarks which were made by the Emperor, and which characterize him too well to be omitted.

He was one day describing to me evils attendant on weakness and credulity in a sovereign; the intrigues which they engender in the interior of the palace; and the fickleness which they create. He demonstrated very clearly that a sovereign distinguished for these qualities must inevitably become the dupe of courtiers and the victim of calumny. “Of this I will give you a proof,” said he. “You yourself, who have sacrificed every thing to follow me; you, who have evinced such noble and affecting devotedness, how do you think your conduct is viewed? How do you imagine your character is estimated? You are regarded merely as one of the old nobility, an emigrant, an agent of the Bourbons, maintaining correspondence with the English. It is said that you concurred in betraying me to them, and that you followed me hither only to be a spy upon me and to sell me to my enemies. The aversion and animosity which you evince towards the Governor are affirmed to be only false appearances agreed upon between you for the purpose of disguising your treachery.” When I smiled at the lively turn of his fancy, and the volubility with which he expressed himself: “You may laugh,” resumed he “but I assure you that I am not inventing, I am merely echoing the reports that have reached my ears. And can you imagine,” continued he, “that a silly, feeble, and credulous being would not be influenced by such stories and contrivances? My dear Las Cases, if I had not been superior to the majority of legitimates, I might already have been deprived of your services here, and your upright heart would perhaps have been doomed to suffer the cruel stings of ingratitude.” He concluded by saying: “how wretched is the lot of man! He is the same every where: on the summit of a rock or within the walls of a palace! Man is always man!...”

REMARKS ON HOCHE AND VARIOUS OTHER GENERALS.

10th.—The weather was very bad, and the Emperor, finding it impossible to go out, walked up and down in the dining-room. He afterwards ordered a fire to be kindled in the drawing-room, and sat down to play at chess with the Grand Marshal. After dinner he read to us the history of Joseph from the Bible, and the Andromache of Racine.

The Bengal fleet arrived yesterday evening. The Countess of Loudon and Moira, the wife of the Governor-General of India, was among the passengers.

To-day, in the course of conversation, the name of Hoche having been mentioned, some one observed that at a very early age he had inspired great hope. “And what is still better,” said the Emperor, “you may add that he fulfilled that hope.” Hoche and Napoleon had seen each other, and had conversed twice or thrice together. Hoche esteemed him even to admiration. Napoleon did not hesitate to say that he possessed over Hoche the advantages of extensive information and the principles of a good education. There was, he said, in other respects a great difference between them. “Hoche,” said he, “endeavoured to raise a party for himself, and gained only servile adherents. For my part, I had created for myself an immense number of partisans, without in any way seeking popularity. Hoche possessed a hostile provoking kind of ambition; he was the sort of man who could conceive the idea of coming from Strasburg, with 25,000 men, to seize the reins of government by force. But my policy was always of a patient kind, led on by the spirit of the age, and the circumstances of the moment.”

The Emperor added that Hoche would ultimately either have yielded to him, or must have subdued him, and, as he was fond of money and pleasure, he doubted not that he would have yielded to him. Moreau, observed he, in similar circumstances, knew not how to decide. Thus Napoleon attached but little importance to him, and regarded him as totally wanting in ability; without however extending this opinion to his military talent. “But he was a weak man,” said the Emperor, "guided by those who surrounded him, and slavishly subject to the control of his wife: he was a general of the old monarchy.

“Hoche,” continued the Emperor, "died suddenly and under singular circumstances; and as there existed a party who seemed to think that all crimes belonged to me of right, endeavours were made to circulate a report that I had poisoned him. There was a time when no mischief could happen that was not imputed to me; thus, when in Paris, I caused Kleber to be assassinated in Egypt; I blew out Desaix’s brains at Marengo: I strangled and cut the throats of persons who were confined in prisons; I seized the Pope by the hair of his head: and a hundred similar absurdities were affirmed. However, as I paid not the least attention to all this, the fashion passed away, and I do not see that my successors have been very eager to revive it; and yet, if any of the crimes imputed to me had had any real existence, the documents, the perpetrators, the accomplices, &c. might have been brought forward.

“However, such is the influence of report that these stories, however absurd, were credited by the vulgar, and are perhaps still believed by a numerous class of persons. Happily the statements of the historian who reasons are divested of this pernicious effect.”

Then, returning to the former topic of conversation, he said, "What a number of great Generals arose suddenly during the revolution: Pichegru, Kleber, Massena, Marceau, Desaix, Hoche, &c., and almost all were originally private soldiers. But here the efforts of nature seem to have been exhausted; for she has produced nothing since, or at least nothing so great. At that period every thing was submitted to competition among thirty millions of men, and nature necessarily asserted her rights: whereas, subsequently, we were again confined within the narrower limits of order and the forms of society. I was even accused of having surrounded myself, in military and civil posts, with men of inferior ability, the better to display my own superiority. But now, when the competition will not certainly be renewed, it remains for those who are in power to make a better selection. We shall see what they will do.

"Another circumstance, not less remarkable, was the extreme youth of some of these Generals, who seemed to have started ready made from the hands of nature. Their characters were perfectly suited to the circumstances in which they were placed, with the exception of Hoche, whose morals were by no means pure. The others had no object in view save _glory_ and _patriotism_, which formed their whole circle. They were men after the antique model.

"Desaix was surnamed by the Arabs the _Just Sultan_; at the funeral of Marceau, the Austrians observed an armistice, on account of the respect they entertained for him: and young Duphot was the emblem of perfect virtue.

"But the same commendations cannot be bestowed on those who were farther advanced in life: for they belonged in some measure to the era that had just passed away. Massena, Augereau, Brune, and many others, were merely intrepid plunderers. Massena was, moreover, distinguished for the most sordid avarice. It was asserted that I played him a trick which might have proved a hanging matter; that, being one day indignant at his last depredations, I drew on his banker for 2 or 3,000,000. Great embarrassment ensued: for my name was not without its weight. The banker wrote to intimate that he could not pay the sum without the authority of Massena. On the other hand, he was urged to pay it without hesitation, as Massena, if he were wronged, could appeal to the courts of law for justice. Massena however resorted to no legal measures, and suffered the money to be paid.

"O ——, Murat, and Ney, were common-place Generals, having no recommendation but personal courage.

"Moncey was an honest man: Macdonald was distinguished for firm integrity; I was deceived with respect to the character of B——.

"S—— also had his faults as well as his merits. The whole of his campaign in the south of France was admirably conducted. It will scarcely be credited that this man, whose deportment and manners denoted a lofty character, was the slave of his wife. When I learned at Dresden our defeat at Vittoria, and the loss of all Spain through the mismanagement of poor Joseph, whose plans and measures were not suited to the present age, and seemed rather to belong to a Soubise than to me, I looked about for some one capable of repairing these disasters, and I cast my eyes on S—— who was near me. He said that he was ready to undertake what I wished; but entreated that I would speak to his wife, by whom, he said, he expected to be reproached. I desired him to send her to me. She assumed an air of hostility, and decidedly told me that her husband should certainly not return to Spain; that he had already performed important services, and was now entitled to a little repose. ‘Madam,’ said I to her: ‘I did not send for you with the view of enduring your scolding. I am not your husband, and if I were I should not be the more inclined to bear with you.’ These few words confounded her; she became as pliant as a glove, turned quite obsequious, and was only eager to obtain a few conditions. To these, however, I by no means acceded, and merely contented myself with congratulating her on her willingness to listen to reason. In critical circumstances, Madam, said I, it is a wife’s duty to endeavour to smooth difficulties; go home to your husband, and do not torment him by your opposition."

RIDICULOUS INVITATION SENT BY SIR HUDSON LOWE.

11th.—At four o’clock I attended the Emperor. The Grand Marshal entered the room, and gave him a note. The Emperor, after glancing it over, returned it, shrugging up his shoulders and saying: “This is too absurd! There is no answer; give it to Las Cases.”

Will it be credited? This was a note from the Governor to the Grand Marshal, inviting _General Bonaparte_ to dine at Plantation House to meet Lady Loudon, the wife of Lord Moria. I blushed at the indecorum. Could any thing be more ridiculous. Sir Hudson Lowe doubtless thought the thing perfectly natural; and yet he had resided for a long time at the head-quarters of armies on the Continent; and taken part in the diplomatic transactions of the time!!...

Mr. Skelton, the Deputy-Governor of the island, who was about to depart for Europe, came accompanied by his wife, to take leave of the Emperor. They staid to dine at Longwood.

This worthy family, whom, contrary to our inclination, we had removed from Longwood, whose prospects we had overthrown by the suppression of the post of Deputy-Governor on our arrival—this excellent family, to whom we had been the occasion of real personal injury, is, however, the only one in the island from whom we have experienced invariable respect and politeness. We therefore bade them adieu with sincere wishes for their welfare. We shall always remember them with sentiments of the deepest interest.

NAPOLEON AT THE INSTITUTE.—AT THE COUNCIL OF STATE.—THE CIVIL
CODE.—MESSAGE TO LORD ST. VINCENT.—ON THE INTERIOR OF AFRICA.—THE
MARINE DEPARTMENT.—DECRÉS.

12th.—The Emperor, while walking in the garden and discoursing on various subjects, spoke of the Institute, the manner in which it was composed, the spirit of its members, &c. When he took his place in the Institute, on his return from the army of Italy, he said that he might consider himself as the tenth member in his class, which consisted of about fifty.

Lagrange, Laplace, and Monge, were at the head of this class. It was rather a remarkable circumstance, and one which attracted considerable notice at the time, to see the young General of the army of Italy take his place in the Institute, and publicly discuss profound metaphysical subjects with his colleagues. He was then called the _Geometrician_ of battles, and _Mechanician_ of victory, &c.

On becoming First Consul, Napoleon caused no less sensation in the Council of State. He constantly presided at the sittings for drawing up the civil code. “Tronchet,” he said, “was the soul of this code, and he, Napoleon, was its demonstrator.” Tronchet was gifted with a singularly profound and correct understanding; but he could not descend to developments. He spoke badly, and could not defend what he proposed. “The whole council,” said the Emperor, “at first opposed his suggestions;” but Napoleon, with his shrewdness and facility of seizing and creating luminous and new relations, arose, and without any other knowledge of the subject than the correct basis furnished by Tronchet, developed his ideas, set aside objections, and brought every one over to his opinions.

The Minutes of the Council of State have transmitted to us the extempore speeches of the First Consul on most of the articles of the civil code. At every line, we are struck with the correctness of his observations, the depth of his views, and in particular the liberality of his sentiments.

Thus, in spite of the opposition that was set up to it, we are indebted to him for that article of the Code which enacts that every individual born in France is a Frenchman. “I should like to know,” said he, "what inconvenience can possibly arise from acknowledging every man born in France to be a Frenchman? The extension of the French civil laws can only be attended by advantageous consequences; thus instead of ordaining that individuals born in France of a foreign father shall obtain civil privileges only when they declare themselves willing to enjoy them, it may be decreed that they will be deprived of those privileges only when they formally renounce them.

"If individuals born in France of a foreign father were not to be considered as enjoying the full privileges of Frenchmen, we cannot subject to the conscription and other public duties the sons of those foreigners who have married in France through the events of the war.

“I am of opinion that the question should be considered only with reference to the interests of France. Though individuals born in France possess no property, they are at least animated by French spirit, and they follow French customs. They cherish that attachment which every one naturally feels for the country that gave him birth; finally, they help to maintain the public burthens.”

The First Consul distinguished himself no less by his support of the article which preserves the privileges of Frenchmen to children born of Frenchmen settled in foreign countries, and this law he extended in spite of powerful opposition. “The French people,” said he, "who are a numerous and industrious people, are scattered over every part of the world; and in course of time they will be scattered about in still greater numbers. But the French visit foreign countries only to make their fortunes. The acts by which they seem momentarily to attach themselves to foreign governments have for their object only to obtain the protection necessary for their various speculations. If they should intend to return to France, after realizing a fortune, would it be proper to exclude them?

“If it should happen that a country in the possession of France were to be invaded by the enemy, and afterwards ceded to him by a treaty, would it be just to say to those of the inhabitants who might come to settle on the territory of the republic, that they had forfeited their rights as Frenchmen, for not having quitted their former country at the moment it was ceded; and because they had sworn temporary allegiance to a new Sovereign, in order to gain time to dispose of their property and transfer their wealth to France?”

In another debate on the decease of soldiers, some difficulties having arisen relative to those who might die in a foreign country, the First Consul exclaimed with vivacity;—"The soldier is never abroad when he is under the national banner. The spot where the standard of France is unfurled becomes French ground!"

On the subject of divorce, the First Consul was for the adoption of the principle, and spoke at great length on the ground of incompatibility, which it was attempted to repel.

“It is pretended,” said he, "that divorce is contrary to the interests of women and children, and to the spirit of families; but nothing is more at variance with the interests of married persons, when their humours are incompatible, than to reduce them to the alternative of either living together, or of separating with publicity. Nothing is more opposite to domestic happiness than a divided family. Separation had formerly, with regard to the wife, the husband, and the children, nearly the same effect as divorce, and yet it was not so frequent as divorce now is. It was only attended with this additional inconvenience, that a woman of bad character might continue to dishonour her husband’s name because she was permitted to retain it."

When opposing the drawing up of an article to specify the causes for which divorce would be admissible, he said; "But is it not a great misfortune to be compelled to expose these causes, and reveal even the most minute and private family details?

“Besides, will these causes, even in the event of their real existence, be always sufficient to obtain divorce? That of adultery, for instance, can only be successfully maintained by proofs, which it is always very difficult, and sometimes even impossible, to produce. Yet the husband, who should not be able to bring forward these proofs, would be compelled to live with a woman whom he abhors and despises, and who introduces illegitimate children into his family. His only resource would be separation from bed and board; but this would not shield his name from dishonour.”

Resuming the support of the principle of divorce, and opposing certain restrictions, he continued; "Marriage is not always, as is supposed, the result of affection. A young female consents to marry for the sake of conforming to the fashion, and obtaining independence and an establishment of her own. She accepts a husband of a disproportionate age, and whose tastes and habits do not accord with hers. The law then should provide for her a resource against the moment when, the illusion having ceased, she finds that she is united in ill-assorted bonds, and that her expectations have been disappointed.

"Marriage takes its form from the manners, customs, and religion, of every people. Thus its forms are not everywhere alike. In some countries, wives and concubines live under the same roof; and slaves are treated like children: the organization of families is therefore not deduced from the law of nature. The marriages of the Romans were not like those of the French.

"The precautions established by law for preventing persons from contracting unthinkingly at the age of fifteen or eighteen an engagement which extends to the whole of their lives, are certainly wise. But are they sufficient?

"That after ten years passed in wedlock, divorce should not be admitted but for very weighty reasons, is also a proper regulation. Since, however, marriages contracted in early youth are rarely the choice of the parties themselves, but are brought about by their families for interested views, it is proper that, if the parties themselves perceive that they are not formed for one another, they should be enabled to dissolve a union on which they had no opportunity of reflecting. The facility thus afforded them, however, should not tend to favour either levity or passion. It should be surrounded by every precaution and every form calculated to prevent its abuse. The parties, for example, might be heard by a secret family council, held under the presidency of the magistrate. In addition to this, it might, if thought necessary, be determined that a woman should only once be allowed to procure divorce, and that she should not be suffered to re-marry in less than five years, lest the idea of a second marriage should induce her to dissolve the first; that, after married persons have lived together for ten years, the dissolution should be rendered very difficult, &c.

“To grant divorce only on account of adultery publicly proved, is to proscribe it completely; for, on the one hand, few cases of adultery can be proved, and, on the other, there are few men shameless enough to expose the infamy of their wives. Besides, it would be scandalous, and contrary to the honour of the nation, to reveal the scenes that pass in some families; it might be concluded, though erroneously, that they afford a picture of our French manners.”

The first lawyers of the council were of opinion that civil death should carry along with it the dissolution of the civil contract of marriage. The question was warmly discussed. The First Consul, with great animation, opposed it in these terms; "A woman is then to be forbidden, though fully convinced of her husband’s innocence, to follow in exile the man to whom she is most tenderly united; or, if she should yield to her conviction, and to her duty, she is to be regarded only as a concubine! Why deprive an unfortunate married couple of the right of living together under the honourable title of lawful husband and wife?

"If the law permits a woman to follow her husband, without allowing her the title of wife, it permits adultery.

"Society is sufficiently avenged by the sentence of condemnation, when the criminal is deprived of his property and torn from his friends and his connections. Is there any need to extend the punishment to the wife, and violently to dissolve a union which identifies her existence with that of her husband? Would she not say:—‘You had better have taken his life, I should then have been permitted at least to cherish his memory; but you ordain that he shall live, and you will not allow me to console him in his misery.’ Alas! how many men have been led into guilt only through their attachment to their wives! Those therefore who have caused their misfortunes should at least be permitted to share them. If a woman fulfils this duty, you esteem her virtue, and yet you are allowing her no greater indulgence than would be extended to the infamous wretch who prostitutes herself!" Volumes might be filled with quotations of this sort.

In 1815, after the restoration, as I was conversing with M. Bertrand de Molleville, formerly Minister of the Marine under Louis XVI., a man of great abilities, and who has distinguished himself in more ways than one, he said:—"Your Bonaparte, your Napoleon, was a very extraordinary man, it must be confessed. How little did we know him on the other side of the water! We could not but yield to the conviction of his victories and his invasions, it is true; but Genseric, Attila, and Alaric, were as victorious as he. Thus he produced on me an impression of terror rather than of admiration. But, since I have been here, I have taken the trouble to look over the debates on the civil code, and I have ever since been filled with profound veneration for him. But where in the world did he collect all his knowledge?... I discover something new every day. Ah! Sir, what a man you had at the head of your government. Really, he was nothing less than a prodigy!..."