NAPOLEON AND SIR HUDSON LOWE.*

HITHERTO the story of Napoleon's captivity has been told by writers whose object was not to make known the truth, but to exalt the character of their hero, and depreciate that of Sir Hudson Lowe. O'Meara, Las Cases, Montholon, and Antommarchi, had each of them well-known and well-appreciated causes for ill-feeling against the Governor of St. Helena. O'Meara was removed from his post of physician to Napoleon, and afterwards dismissed from the navy, for conduct at utter variance with his duty; Antommarchi was offended at being subjected to the same regulations as the captives, and at Sir Hudson Lowe's pressing upon the attendants of Napoleon the necessity of having recourse to additional medical advice when his illness became serious; Las Cases and Montholon were fellow-exiles and sufferers with Napoleon. The records of Sir Hudson Lowe's administration, now first laid before the public, attest a constant system of double espionage on the part of O'Meara, unfair to the governor, unworthy of the man, and discreditable to the government that fostered it; and, on the part of Las Cases and Montholon, an incessant hostility to everything emanating from the British authorities, a peevish and illnatured view of everything done alike for their comfort or for the security of the ex-Emperor, and a constant misrepresentation of facts, purposely made, in order to embitter the feelings of Napoleon against Sir Hudson, and, in consonance with Napoleon's own inclinations, to place his governor before the world in the light of a tyrant, and himself as a victim and martyr.

There can, in the present day, be no doubt of these facts. Napoleon was certainly no hero at St. Helena; his dissensions shrink into the very smallest proportions. His own countryman-De Lamartine—has been fain to acknowledge it. No doubt Sir Hudson Lowe had his faults: we all know the irritating coldness with which some persons, inflated with a sense of responsibility-from the little Jack-in-office to really high authorities will perform the duties of the state, as if state and people were always in opposition, or whoever they were put in authority over were from that moment a lower order of creation than themselves. Sir Hudson Lowe's manners were evidently to the highest degree repulsive to the lively, intriguing, energetic Frenchmen; they goaded Napoleon to an unwonted degree of irritation. Montholon describes Napoleon as always expressing regret for his violence upon occasions of interviews with Sir Hudson, but he used to add, "Their phlegm leads me on, and I say more than I ought." Las Cases also reports Napoleon as saying, "I must receive this officer no more; he puts me in a passion; it is beneath my dignity; expressions escape me which would have been unpardonable at the Tuileries; if they can at all be excused here, it is because I am in his hands, and subject to his power." On another occasion he said, "Had such a scene taken place at the Tuileries, I should have felt myself bound in conscience to make some amendment. Never during the period of my power did I speak harshly to any one without afterwards saying something to make amends for it. But here I uttered

* History of the Captivity of Napoleon at St. Helena; from the Letters and Journals of the late Lieut.-General Sir Hudson Lowe, and Official Documents not before made public. By William Forsyth, M.A. 3 vols. London: John Murray, Albemarle-street.

not a syllable of conciliation, and I had no wish to do so. However, the governor proved himself very insensible to my severity; his delicacy did not seem wounded by it. I should have liked, for his sake, to have seen him evince a little anger, or pull the door violently after him when he went away. This would at least have shown that there was some spring and elasticity about him; but I found nothing of the kind." The two characters were indeed utterly irreconcilable.

99 66

Not that Sir Hudson Lowe-the bête noire of all Frenchmen-is to be blamed for peculiarity of disposition; no other governor would have met with better treatment at the hands of the imperial prisoner. The same line of conduct was shown towards Sir George Cockburn. "The policy at Longwood," justly remarks Mr. Forsyth, the editor of the Hudson Lowe papers," was a policy of deception and intrigue. It was a desperate attempt by Napoleon to create sufficient sympathy in Europe to render probable the chance of his removal from his ocean prison; and to attain this end no calumny was deemed too gross-no misrepresentation was thought too mean.' 'My good friend," said General Montholon one day to Lieutenant (now Lieutenant-Colonel) Jackson, at St. Helena, who told him that Sir Hudson Lowe had refrained from appointing him orderly officer at Longwood out of delicacy to Napoleon, because he was then only a lieutenant-" my good friend, you have had a fortunate escape; for had you come hither as an orderly officer, we would most assuredly have ruined your reputation. It is a part of our system, et que voulez dire?" The whole affair of the sale of plate at Longwood, which excited so much sympathy at the time, was a manoeuvre of Napoleon's to create false sympathy for himself, and draw public odium Hudson Lowe.

upon Sir

To prove this, we shall cite a witness whose testimony here admits of no dispute. O'Meara himself shall reveal the truth. In vain, however, shall we search his printed pages for the real explanation of the circumstance. There we find nothing to lead the reader to believe that the sale was caused by anything but want of food. And yet he had himself written, on the 23rd of September, to Sir Thomas Reade, "You know they have taken out the Eagles, and beaten up into a mass a portion of the plate, openly and avowedly for the purpose of providing money, in order to cover expenses over and above the government allowance. The object they have in view in this is very evident, and does not require me to point it out to you." And again, in a private letter to his friend Mr. Finlaison, on the 10th of October, after mentioning that the French at Longwood daily spent more than the government allowance, to meet which outlay Bonaparte had caused some of his plate to be broken up, he adds,-" In this he has also a wish to excite an odium against the governor, by saying that he has been obliged to sell his plate in order to provide against starvation, AS HE HIMSelf told me wAS HIS OBJECT."

Las Cases also bears evidence to the same policy. In a suppressed passage of the count's journal, eliminated by Sir Hudson Lowe, he says: "We had nothing left us but moral weapons; that to make the most effective use of these it was necessary to reduce to a system our demeanour, our words, our sentiments, even to our privations; that a large population in Europe would take a lively interest in our behalf; that the opposition in England would not fail to attack the ministry on the violence of their conduct towards us." De Lamartine felt this, and added: "The desire of provoking insult by insult, and of afterwards exhibiting these insults as crimes to the indignation of the Continent, and of making Sir Hudson Lowe the Pilate of this Napoleonic Calvary, is plainly evident

in all those letters." The truth was told by Count Montholon when he said to Lieutenant-Colonel Jackson, who visited him at his château of Frémigny, near Arpajon, in France, after their return to Europe, " Mon cher ami, an angel from heaven could not have pleased us as governor of St. Helena."

The Northumberland arrived at St. Helena with Napoleon Bonaparte on board on the 15th of October, 1815; so early as the 5th of November Count Bertrand addressed a long official paper to Sir George Cockburn, protesting, in the name of his master, against the whole proceedings of the English government towards the ex-Emperor and his suite, and complaining of the regulations to which they were subjected. The complaints were directed against trifles, such as bad accommodation, want of a bath, and of saddle-horses, but they also comprised two serious items: firstly, the constant surveillance of the ex-Emperor and his party; and secondly, the disavowal of Napoleon Bonaparte's claim to consideration as an exEmperor. "You oblige me officially to explain to you," wrote Sir George Cockburn, in answer to the "Grand Maréchal's" letter, " that I have no cognisance of any Emperor being actually upon this island, or of any person possessing such dignity, having (as stated by you) come hither with me in the Northumberland." This was a mere piece of official affectation, and we quite agree with the editor, that it was puerile in us to ignore a title by which Napoleon will be known in history as certainly as Augustus or Charlemagne. It was impolitic, also, as it gave rise to a constant source of irritation and vexation. Again, also, as to an equally grievous source of annoyance and vexation-the close surveillance of the persons of the exiles-posterity will undoubtedly agree that it was carried to a ridiculous and most irritating extreme. There can be no doubt that Napoleon and his suite would have tampered with whosoever they came near; but on such a mere rock in the ocean, its shores well guarded, and its coast screened at every side by men-of-war, what evil could have possibly come of the free run of the island? The measures pursued in this respect towards Napoleon were as impolitic as they were absurd and uncalled for.

On the 20th of December, Sir George Cockburn went to Longwood, but the ex-Emperor would not receive him, he was so angry at the restrictions placed upon him, and he ordered Count Montholon to write a series of complaints on the subject-complaints urged in so offensive a manner as to have drawn a strong recriminatory answer from the admiral. Another grievance bitterly complained of by the prisoners was, that all letters whatsoever written by them, or directed to them, must be first delivered to the governor. Sir George Cockburn appealed to his "instructions" upon the point, which were definite; yet Sir Hudson Lowe was afterwards accused of having innovated in this practice upon his prede

cessor.

It is quite evident that Sir George Cockburn and his measures were as displeasing to Napoleon as any that were put in force by the muchmaligned Sir Hudson. O'Meara, in the correspondence with Mr. Finlaison of the Admiralty-a correspondence which throws a very different light upon his character than that which is shed by his published journals -records Napoleon as having said: "Who is the admiral? I never heard his name mentioned as conquering in battle, either singly or in general action. 'Tis true he has rendered his name infamous in America, Aug.-VOL. XCVIII. NO. CCCXCII.

2 F

which I heard of, and he will render it so here on this detestable rock.” And then he added: "Next to your government exiling me here, the worst thing they could have done, and the most insufferable to my feelings, is sending me such a man as him!"

Napoleon fully detested Sir George Cockburn as much as he did Sir Hudson Lowe. And the origin of the feeling can be easily understood. That, however, it was not creditable to him as a man, there can be no difference of opinion. Still less so was it worthy of Napoleon the Great. "In reading," says Lamartine, "with attention the correspondence and notes exchanged on every pretext between the attendants on Napoleon and Sir Hudson Lowe, one is confounded at the insults, the provocations, and the invectives with which the captive and his friends outraged the governor at every turn." It would have been the same with any governor. As Las Cases said: "Les détails de Ste. Hélène sont peu de chose; c'est d'y être qui est la grande affaire."

Sir Hudson Lowe's first visit was attended by a slight incident, almost ridiculous in its character, but which gave rise to considerable ill-feeling, and curiously illustrates the petty intrigues of the ex-courtiers at Longwood. Sir Hudson Lowe's account of the affair, given in a letter to Sir Henry Bunbury, is as follows:

In order that there might be no mistake respecting the appointment being for Sir George Cockburn as well as myself, I distinctly specified to Bertrand that we should go up together. We went, were received in the outer room by Bertrand, who almost immediately ushered me into Bonaparte's apartment. I had been conversing with him for nearly half an hour, when, on his asking me if I had brought with me the Regent's speech, I turned round to ask Sir George Cockburn if I had not given it to him, and observed to my surprise that he had not followed me into the room. On going out I found Sir George in the ante-chamber much irritated. He told me that Bertrand had almost shut the door in his face as he was following me into the room; that a servant had put his arm across him. He said he would have forced his way, but that he was expecting I would have turned round to see if he was following me, when he supposed I would have insisted on our entering the room together. I told him I knew nothing of his not being in the same room until Bonaparte asked me for the Regent's speech; that I had not turned round before, nor would it have ever occurred to me to do so, not having any suspicion of what was passing. Bonaparte was ready to receive him after I had left the room, but he would not go in. Bertrand and Montholon have been with him since, making apologies; but the admiral, I believe, is still not quite satisfied about it. I mention these particulars for your private information, in the event of anything being said upon them, either in an official or private manner, by the admiral.

In his published account, O'Meara says that "Sir Hudson Lowe started up, and stepped forward so hastily, that he entered the room before Sir George Cockburn was well apprised of it. The door was then closed; and when the admiral presented himself, the valet, not having heard his name called, told him he could not enter." In his correspondence with Mr. Finlaison, he gives a different version of the same affair. "After a few minutes' delay, Sir Hudson was called and went in, but on the admiral's attempting to follow him, the servant whose office it is to announce, stopped him, and actually put his hand close to his breast to prevent his entering, telling him at the same time that the Emperor wished to see the governor alone."

Count Las Cases says that Napoleon was delighted with the circumHe burst into a fit of laughter, rubbed his hands, and exhibited

stance.

the joy of a child-of a schoolboy who had successfully played off a trick on his master. "Ah! my good Noverraz," said he, "you have done a clever thing for once in your life. He had heard me say that I would not see the admiral again, and he thought he was bound to shut the door in his face. This is delightful!" Count Montholon, however, describes Napoleon's conduct very differently, and as having been much more becoming his character:-" The oversight of the valet grieved him (le peina). He charged O'Meara to say so to Sir George Cockburn, and even sent one of us to express to him his regret." O'Meara, on his side, makes no mention of being charged with such a message; but he says in his Admiralty correspondence, that "Montholon went the next day to the admiral full of excuses, which I believe to be all lies and (to coincide with?) his own views, and not authorised by Bonaparte."

When Sir Hudson Lowe arrived at St. Helena he found the accounts of Mr. Balcombe, purveyor to the ex-Emperor's house, to amount to somewhere between 13,000l. and 16,000l. a year. This, it appears, was incurred by the love of good cheer and good wines. There were altogether fifty-one persons, of whom nine alone, with four children, were of his family; the rest, with the exception of two officers in attendance upon Napoleon, were servants. This expenditure Sir Hudson Lowe was most anxious to reduce within the bounds of moderation. Government, thinking that some of the followers would weary of their exile, and that the attendance might be made to undergo reduction, limited the allowance to 80007.; but this was found to be so utterly inadequate, that Sir Hudson added 4000l. a year on his own responsibility; yet this unfortunate reduction became the theme of constant wrangling and recrimination.

The following is O'Meara's description of the style of living of the French exiles, and serves to explain the immense expenditure incurred for their table. We shall look in vain through his printed pages for a passage in which he calls them, "except one or two, the greatest gluttons and epicures he ever saw."

"With respect to the allowance within which all the expenses were directed to be comprised, viz., 8000l. sterling per annum, to which Sir Hudson Lowe has, on his own responsibility, since added 4000l. yearly, in my opinion a due regard has not been paid to circumstances, and I do not think even this latter sum will be sufficient. The ministers, when they fixed 8000l. as the maximum of expenses, doubtless thought that almost all the generals and their families would embrace the opportunity offered them of leaving him, which, however, has not been the case, and in consequence Sir Hudson increased the sum to 12,000l. Perhaps it may be thought presumption in me to offer an opinion about a matter which, doubtless, abler heads than mine have maturely discussed; but nevertheless I will venture to suggest something which might perhaps tend to explain why it is not sufficient. You perhaps are not aware of the French mode of living and their cookery; they have, in fact, two dinners every day-one at eleven or twelve o'clock, to which joints, roast and boiled, with all their various hashes, ragoûts, fricasees, &c., are served up, with wine and liqueurs, and another at eight P.M., which only differs from the first in being supplied with more dishes. Besides these two meals, they all have (except Bonaparte himself, who only eats twice a day, certainly very heartily) something like an English breakfast in bed, at between eight and nine o'clock in the morning, and a luncheon with wine at four or five in the afternoon. The common notion of the English eating more animal food than the French is most incorrect. I am convinced that between their two dinners and luncheon they consume three or four times as much as any English family