Вальтер Скотт
Life of Napoleon Bonaparte. Volume V
What we have stated above is exemplified by Napoleon's reception of Sir Hudson Lowe, against whom he appears to have adopted the most violent prejudices at the very first interview, and before the governor could have afforded him the slightest disrespect. We quote it, because it shows that the mind of the prisoner was made up to provoke and insult Sir Hudson, without waiting for any provocation on his part.
The governor's first aggression (so represented,) was his requiring permission of General Buonaparte to call together his domestics, with a view to their taking the declaration required by the British Government, binding themselves to abide by the rules laid down for the custody of Buonaparte's person. This permission was refused in very haughty terms. If Napoleon had been at the Tuileries, such a request could not have been more highly resented. The servants, however, appeared, and took the necessary declaration. But the affront was not cancelled; "Sir Hudson Lowe had put his finger betwixt Napoleon and his valet-de-chambre." This was on the 27th April, 1816.237
Upon the 30th, the governor again paid his respects at Longwood, and was received with one of those calculated bursts of furious passion with which Napoleon was wont to try the courage and shake the nerves of those over whom he desired to acquire influence. He spoke of protesting against the Convention of Paris, and demanded what right the sovereigns therein allied had to dispose of one, their equal always, and often their superior. He called upon the governor for death or liberty – as if it had been in Sir Hudson Lowe's power to give him either the one or the other. Sir Hudson enlarged on the conveniences of the building which was to be sent from England, to supply the present want of accommodation. Buonaparte repelled the proposed consolation with fury. It was not a house that he wanted, it was an executioner and a line. These he would esteem a favour; all the rest was but irony and insult. Sir Hudson Lowe could in reply only hope that he had given no personal offence, and was reminded of his review of the domestics; which reproach he listened to in silence.238
Presently afterwards, Napoleon fell on a new and cutting method of exercising Sir Hudson's patience. A book on the campaign of 1814,239 lay on the table. Napoleon turned up some of the English bulletins, and asked, with a tone which was perfectly intelligible, whether the governor had not been the writer of these letters. Being answered in the affirmative, Napoleon, according to Dr. O'Meara, told Sir Hudson they were full of folly and falsehood; to which the governor, with more patience than most men could have commanded on such an occasion, replied, "I believe I saw what I have stated;"240 an answer certainly as temperate as could be returned to so gratuitous an insult. After Sir Hudson left the room in which he had been received with so much unprovoked incivility, Napoleon is described as having harangued upon the sinister expression of his countenance, abused him in the coarsest manner, and even caused his valet-de-chambre throw a cup of coffee out of the window, because it had stood a moment on the table beside the governor.241
Every attempt at conciliation on the part of the governor, seemed always to furnish new subjects of irritation. He sent fowling-pieces to Longwood, and Napoleon returned for answer, it was an insult to give fowling-pieces where there is no game; though Santini, by the way, pretended to support the family in a great measure by his gun. Sir Hudson sent a variety of clothes and other articles from England, which it might be supposed the exiles were in want of. The thanks returned were, that the governor treated them like paupers, and that the articles ought, in due respect, to have been left at the store, or governor's house, while a list was sent to the Emperor's household, that such things were at their command if they had any occasion for them. On a third occasion, Sir Hudson resolved to be cautious. He had determined to give a ball; but he consulted Dr. O'Meara whether Napoleon would take it well to be invited. The doctor foresaw that the fatal address, General Buonaparte, would make shipwreck of the invitation. The governor proposed to avoid this stumbling-block, by asking Napoleon verbally and in person. But with no name which his civility could devise for the invitation, could it be rendered acceptable. A governor of St. Helena, as Napoleon himself observed, had need to be a person of great politeness, and at the same time of great firmness.
RUPTURE WITH SIR H. LOWE
At length, on 18th August, a decisive quarrel took place. Sir Hudson Lowe was admitted to an audience, at which was present Sir Pulteney Malcolm, the admiral who now commanded on the station. Dr. O'Meara has preserved the following account of the interview, as it was detailed by Napoleon to his suite, the day after it took place.
"'That governor,' said Napoleon, 'came here yesterday to annoy me. He saw me walking in the garden, and in consequence, I could not refuse to see him. He wanted to enter into some details with me about reducing the expenses of the establishment. He had the audacity to tell me that things were as he found them, and that he came up to justify himself; that he had come up two or three times before to do so, but that I was in a bath.' I replied, 'No, sir, I was not in a bath; but I ordered one on purpose not to see you. In endeavouring to justify yourself you make matters worse.' He said, that I did not know him; that, if I knew him, I should change my opinion. 'Know you, sir!' I answered, 'how could I know you? People make themselves known by their actions – by commanding in battles. You have never commanded in battle. You have never commanded any but vagabond Corsican deserters, Piedmontese and Neapolitan brigands. I know the name of every English general who has distinguished himself; but I never heard of you, except as a scrivano [clerk] to Blucher, or as a commandant of brigands. You have never commanded, or been accustomed to men of honour.' He said, that he had not sought for his present situation. I told him that such employments were not asked for; that they were given by governments to people who had dishonoured themselves. He said, that he only did his duty, and that I ought not to blame him, as he only acted according to his orders. I replied, 'So does the hangman; he acts according to his orders. But when he puts a rope about my neck to finish me, is that a reason that I should like that hangman, because he acts according to his orders? Besides, I do not believe that any government could be so mean as to give such orders as you cause to be executed.' I told him, that if he pleased, he need not send up any thing to eat; that I would go over and dine at the table of the brave officers of the 53d; that I was sure there was not one of them who would not be happy to give a plate at the table to an old soldier; that there was not a soldier in the regiment who had not more heart than he had; that in the iniquitous bill of Parliament, they had decreed that I was to be treated as a prisoner; but that he treated me worse than a condemned criminal or a galley slave, as they were permitted to receive newspapers and printed books, of which he deprived me.' I said, 'You have power over my body, but none over my soul. That soul is as proud, fierce, and determined at the present moment, as when it commanded Europe.' I told him that he was a sbirro Siciliano (Sicilian thief-taker,) and not an Englishman; and desired him not to let me see him again until he came with orders to despatch me, when he would find all the doors thrown open to admit him.'"242
It is not surprising that this extreme violence met with some return on Sir Hudson's part. He told Napoleon that his language was uncivil and ungentlemanlike, and that he would not remain to listen to it. Accordingly, he left Longwood without even the usual salutation.
Upon these occasions, we think it is evident that Napoleon was the wilful and intentional aggressor, and that his conduct proceeded either from the stings of injured pride, or a calculated scheme, which made him prefer being on bad rather than good terms with Sir Hudson Lowe. On the other hand, we could wish that the governor had avoided entering upon the subject of the expenses of his detention with Napoleon in person. The subject was ill-chosen, and could produce no favourable result.
They never afterwards met in friendship, or even on terms of decent civility; and having given this account of their final quarrel, it only remains for us to classify, in a general manner, the various subjects of angry discussion which took place betwixt them, placed in such uncomfortable relative circumstances, and each determined not to give way to the other's arguments, or accommodate himself to the other's wishes or convenience.
CHAPTER XCV
Instructions to Sir Hudson Lowe – Sum allowed for the Ex-Emperor's Expenses – Napoleon's proposal to defray his own Expenses – Sale of his Plate – made in order to produce a false impression: he had at that time a large sum of Money in his strong-box – Wooden-House constructed in London, and transported to St. Helena – Interview between Sir H. Lowe and Napoleon – Delays in the Erection of the House – The Regulation that a British Officer should attend Napoleon in his Rides – Communication with Europe carried on by the Inmates of Longwood – Regulation respecting Napoleon's Intercourse with the Inhabitants of St. Helena – General Reflections on the Disputes between him and Sir H. Lowe.
LOWE'S INSTRUCTIONS
Before entering upon such brief inquiry as our bounds will permit, into the conduct of the new governor towards Napoleon, it may be necessary to show what were his, Sir Hudson Lowe's, instructions from the English Government on the subject of the custody of the Ex-Emperor: —
"Downing Street, 12th September, 1816.
"You will observe, that the desire of his Majesty's Government is, to allow every indulgence to General Buonaparte, which may be compatible with the entire security of his person. That he should not by any means escape, or hold communication with any person whatsoever, excepting through your agency, must be your unremitted care; and those points being made sure, every resource and amusement, which may serve to reconcile Buonaparte to his confinement, may be permitted."
A few weeks later, the Secretary of State wrote to Sir Hudson Lowe a letter to the same purpose with the former, 26th October, 1816: —
"With respect to General Buonaparte himself, I deem it unnecessary to give you any farther instructions. I am confident that your own disposition will prompt you to anticipate the wishes of his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, and make every allowance for the effect which so sudden a change of situation cannot fail to produce on a person of his irritable temper. You will, however, not permit your forbearance or generosity towards him to interfere with any regulations which may have been established for preventing his escape, or which you may hereafter consider necessary for the better security of his person."
The just and honourable principle avowed by Government is obvious. But it was an extraordinary and most delicate tax upon Sir Hudson Lowe, which enjoined him to keep fast prisoner an individual, who, of all others, was likely to be most impatient of restraint, and, at the same time, to treat him with such delicacy as might disguise his situation from himself, if it could not reconcile him to it. If Sir Hudson failed in doing so, he may be allowed to plead, that it was in a case in which few could have succeeded. Accordingly, Napoleon's complaints against the governor were bitter and clamorous.
HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES
The first point of complaint on the part of the family at Longwood, respected the allowance assigned by the British Government for their support, which they alleged to be insufficient to their wants. This was not a point on which Napoleon thought it proper to express his feelings in his own person. His attention was apparently fixed upon obtaining concessions in certain points of etiquette, which might take him from under the condition in which he was most unwilling to allow himself to be placed, in the rank, namely, of a prisoner of war. The theme, of the inadequacy of the allowance, was not, however, left untouched, as those concerned were well aware that there was no subject of grievance which would come more home to the people of England than one which turned upon a deficiency either in the quantity or quality of the food supplied to the exiles. Montholon's letter was clamant on the subject; and Santini intimated, that the Emperor must sometimes have gone without a meal altogether, had he (Santini) not been successful with his gun.
The true state of the case was this: – The British Government had determined that Napoleon's table should be provided for at the rate of a general of the first rank, together with his military family. The expense of such an establishment was, by the regulations furnished to Sir Hudson Lowe, dated 15th April, and 22d November, 1816, supposed to reach to £8000 a-year, with permission, however, to extend it as far as £12,000, should he think it necessary. The expense could not, in Sir Hudson Lowe's opinion, be kept within £8000; and indeed it was instantly extended by him to £12,000, paid in monthly instalments to the purveyor, Mr. Balcombe, by whom it was expended in support of the establishment at Longwood. If, however, even £12,000, the sum fixed as a probable ultimatum, should, in the governor's opinion, be found, from dearth, high price of provisions, or otherwise, practically insufficient to meet and answer the expense of a general's family, calculated on a liberal scale, Sir Hudson Lowe had liberty from Government to extend the purveyor's allowance without limitation. But if, on the other hand, the French should desire to add to their housekeeping any thing which the governor should think superfluous, in reference to the rank assigned to the principal person, they were themselves to be at the charge of such extraordinary expenditure.
It is apprehended that the British Government could not be expected to do more for Napoleon's liberal maintenance, than to give the governor an unlimited order to provide for it, upon the scale applicable to the rank of a general officer of the first rate. But yet the result, as the matter was managed, was not so honourable to Great Britain, as the intentions of the Government really designed. The fact is, that virtues as well as vices have their day of fashion in England; and at the conclusion of the peace, when the nation were cloyed with victory, men began, like epicures after a feast, to wrangle about the reckoning. Every one felt the influence of the Quart d'heure de Rabelais. It ascended into the Houses of Parliament, and economy was the general theme of the day. There can be no doubt that a judicious restriction upon expenditure is the only permanent source of national wealth; but, like all other virtues, parsimony may be carried to an extreme, and there are situations in which it has all the meanness of avarice. The waste of a few pounds of meat, of a hundred billets of wood, of a few bottles of wine, ought not to have been made the shadow of a question between Britain and Napoleon; and it would have been better to have winked at and given way to the prodigality of a family, which had no motives of economy on their own part, than to be called upon to discuss such petty domestic details in the great council of the nation, sitting as judges betwixt England and her prisoner. A brief answer to those who might in that case have charged the government with prodigality, might have been found in referring the censors to the immense sums saved by the detention of Napoleon in St. Helena. It is something of a different scale of expense, which is requisite to maintain a score of persons even in the most extravagant manner, and to support an army of three hundred thousand men.
But although such disputes arose, we think, from the governor mistaking the meaning of the British ministers, and descending, if he really did so, to details about the quality of salt or sugar to be used in the kitchen at Longwood, there is no reason to entertain the belief that the prisoners had any actual restriction to complain of, though it might not always happen that articles of the first quality could be procured at St. Helena so easily as at Paris. The East India Company sent out the supplies to the purveyor, and they consisted of every luxury which could be imagined; so that delicacies very unusual in St. Helena could, during Napoleon's residence, be obtained there for any one who chose to be at the expense. The wine was (generally speaking) excellent in quality, and of the first price;243 and although there was rather too much said and thought about the quantity consumed, yet it was furnished, as we shall hereafter see, in a quantity far beyond the limits of ordinary conviviality. Indeed, though the French officers, while hunting for grievances, made complaints of their treatment at table, and circulated, in such books as that of Santini, the grossest scandal on that subject, yet when called on as men of honour to give their opinion, they did justice to the governor in this respect.
In a letter of General Bertrand to the governor, he expresses himself thus: – "Be assured that we are well persuaded of the good intentions of the governor, to supply us with every thing necessary, and that as to provisions there will never be any complaints, or if there are, they will be made against the government, not against the governor, upon whom the matter does not depend." He adds, "that such were the sentiments of the Emperor. That indeed they had been under some difficulties when the plate was broken up, but that ever since then they had been well supplied, and had no complaint whatever to make." Such is the evidence of Count Bertrand, when deliberately writing to the governor through his military secretary.
But we have also the opinion of the Ex-Emperor himself, transmitted by Dr. O'Meara, who was at that time, as already noticed, in the habit of sending to the governor such scraps of information as he heard in conversation at Longwood:
"5th June, 1817.
"He (Buonaparte) observed that Santini's was a foolish production, exaggerated, full of coglionerie, and some lies: Truths there were in it, but exaggerated. That there never had existed that actual want described by him; that there had been enough to eat supplied, but not enough to keep a proper table; that there had been enough of wine for them; that there certainly had been sometimes a deficiency of necessary articles, but that this might be accounted for by accidents; that he believed frequent purchases had been made, at the camp, of bread and other provisions, which might also have occasionally arisen from the same cause. He added, he was convinced some Englishman had written it, and not Santini."
There is something to the same purpose in Dr. O'Meara's printed book,244 but not so particular. What makes Napoleon's confutation of Santini's work the more amusing, is, that according to General Gourgaud's communication to the British Government, Napoleon was himself the author of the whole, or greater part, of the work in question. The difference between the prisoner and governor, so far as it really existed, may have had its rise in the original dispute; for a table, which suited the rank of a general, must have been considerably inferior to one kept for an emperor; and while the former was what the governor was directed to maintain, the latter was what Napoleon conceived himself entitled to expect.
The permission given to Buonaparte, and which indeed could not be well refused, to purchase from his own funds what additional articles he desired beyond those supplied by the British Government, afforded peculiar facilities to the French, which they did not fail to make use of. Napoleon's money had been temporarily taken into custody when he left the Bellerophon, with a view to prevent his having the means of facilitating his escape by bribery. The permitting him to draw upon the Continent for money, would have been in a great measure restoring to him the golden key before which prison-gates give way, and also tending to afford him the means of secret correspondence with those friends abroad, who might aid him to arrange a scheme of flight.
Indeed, the advantages of this species of correspondence were of such evident importance, that Napoleon, through General Montholon, made the following proposal, which was sent to Lord Bathurst by the governor, 8th September, 1816: —
"The Emperor," he said, "was desirous to enter into arrangements for paying the whole of his expenses, providing any house here, or in England, or on the continent of Europe, to be fixed on with the governor's consent, or even at his own choice, were appointed to transact his money-matters; under assurance from him, General Buonaparte, that all letters sent through his hands would be solely on pecuniary affairs. But provided always, that such letters should pass sealed and unopened to their direction."
It is probable that Napoleon concluded, from the ferment which was at that time taking place in Parliament on the subject of economy, that the English nation was on the point of bankruptcy, and did not doubt that an offer, which promised to relieve them of £12,000 a-year, would be eagerly caught at by Sir Hudson Lowe, or the British Ministry. But the governor saw the peril of a measure, which, in its immediate and direct tendency, went to place funds to any amount at the command of the Ex-Emperor, and might, more indirectly, lead the way to private correspondence of every kind. Napoleon, indeed, had offered to plight his word, that the communication should not be used for any other than pecuniary purposes; but Sir Hudson liked not the security. On his part, the governor tendered a proposal, that the letters to the bankers should be visible only to himself, and to Lord Bathurst, the secretary for the colonial department, and pledged his word that they would observe the most inviolable secrecy on the subject of the contents; but this arrangement did not answer Napoleon's purposes, and the arrangement was altogether dropped.
It was about the same time that Sir Hudson Lowe was desirous to keep the expense of the establishment within £12,000. A conference on this subject was held betwixt General Montholon, who took charge of the department of the household, and Major Gorrequer, belonging to Sir Hudson's staff, who acted on the part of the governor. It appears that Sir Hudson had either misapprehended the instructions of the government, and deemed himself rigidly bound to limit the expenses of Longwood within £12,000 yearly, not adverting that he had an option to extend it beyond that sum; or else that he considered the surplus above £1000 per month, to consist of such articles of extra expenditure as the French might, in a free interpretation of his instructions, be required to pay for themselves, as being beyond the limits of a general-officer's table, provided upon the most liberal plan. General Montholon stated, that the family could not be provided, even after many reductions, at a cheaper rate than £15,194, and that this was the minimum of minimums, the least possible sum. He offered, that the Emperor would draw for the sum wanted, providing he was permitted to send a sealed letter to the banking-house. This, Major Gorrequer said, could not be allowed. Count Montholon then declared, that as the Emperor was not permitted by the British Government to have access to his funds in Europe, he had no other means left than to dispose of his property here; and that if the Emperor was obliged to defray those expenses of the establishment, which went beyond the allowance made by Britain, he must dispose of his plate.
This proposal was too rashly assented to by Sir Hudson Lowe, whose instructions of 22d November empowered him to have prevented a circumstance so glaringly calculated to accredit all that had ever been said or written respecting the mean and sordid manner in which the late Emperor of France was treated. Napoleon had an opportunity, at the sacrifice of a parcel of old silver plate, to amuse his own moments of languor, by laughing at and turning into ridicule the inconsistent qualities of the English nation – at one time sending him a house and furniture to the value of £60,000 or £70,000; at another, obliging him to sell his plate, and discharge his servants; and all for the sake of a few bottles of wine, or pounds of meat. Sir Hudson Lowe ought not to have exposed his country to such a charge; and, even if his instructions seemed inexplicit on the subject, he ought, on his own interpretation of them, to have paid the extra expense, without giving room to such general scandal as was sure to arise from Napoleon's disposing of his plate.
But if the governor took too narrow a view of his duty upon this occasion, what are we to say of the poor conduct of Napoleon, who, while he had specie in his strong-box to have defrayed three times the sum wanted to defray the alleged balance, yet preferred making the paltry sale alluded to, that he might appear before Europe in formâ pauperis, and set up a claim to compassion as a man driven to such extremity as to be obliged to part with the plate from his table, in order to be enabled to cover it with the necessary food! He was well aware that little compassion would have been paid to him, had he been possessed of ready money sufficient to supply any deficiencies in the tolerably ample allowance paid by England; and that it was only the idea of his poverty, proved, as it seemed, by a step, which even private individuals only take in a case of necessity, which made his case appear strong and clamant. The feeling of compassion must have given place to one of a very different kind, had the actual circumstances of the case been fully and fairly known.
The communications of General Gourgaud, upon parting with Sir Hudson Lowe, put the governor in possession of the curious fact, that the breaking up of the plate245 was a mere trick, resorted to on account of the impression it was calculated to produce in England and Europe; for that at the time they had at Longwood plenty of money. Sir Hudson Lowe conjectured, that General Gourgaud alluded to the sale of some stock belonging to Las Cases, the value of which that devoted adherent had placed at Napoleon's disposal; but General Gourgaud replied, "No, no; before that transaction they had received 240,000 francs, chiefly in Spanish doubloons." He further said, that it was Prince Eugene who lodged the money in the hands of the bankers. In London, General Gourgaud made the same communication. We copy the words in which it is reported by Sir Hudson Lowe to Lord Bathurst: —
"General Gourgaud stated himself to have been aware of General Buonaparte having received a considerable sum of money in Spanish doubloons, viz. £10,000, at the very time he disposed of his plate; but, on being pressed by me as to the persons privy to that transaction, he contented himself with assuring me, that the mode of its transmission was one purely accidental; that it could never again occur; and that, such being the case, he trusted that I should not press a discovery, which, while it betrayed its author, could have no effect, either as it regarded the punishment of the offenders, or the prevention of a similar act in future. The actual possession of money was, moreover, not likely, in his view of the subject, to afford any additional means of corrupting the fidelity of those whom it might be advisable to seduce; as it was well known, that any draught, whatever might be its amount, drawn by General Buonaparte on Prince Eugene, or on certain other members of his family, would be scrupulously honoured."
He further stated, that it was Napoleon's policy to make a moyen, a fund for execution of his plans, by placing sums of money at his, General Gourgaud's command, and that he had sustained ill-treatment on the part of Napoleon, and much importunity on that of Bertrand, because he declined lending himself to facilitate secret correspondence.
Whatever sympathy Buonaparte may claim for his other distresses at St. Helena, it was made plain from this important disclosure, that want of funds could be none of them; and it is no less so, that the trick of selling the plate can now prove nothing, excepting that Napoleon's system was a deceptive one; and that evidence of any sort, arising either from his word or actions, is to be received with caution, when there is an apparent point to be carried by it.
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE GOVERNOR
When Sir Hudson Lowe's report reached England, that the excess of the expenditure at Longwood, about twelve thousand pounds, had been defrayed by Napoleon himself, it did not meet the approbation of the Ministry; who again laid before the governor the distinction which he was to draw betwixt expenses necessary to maintain the table and household of a general officer, and such as might be of a nature different from, and exceeding those attendant on the household of a person of that rank; which last, and those alone, the French might be called on to defray. The order is dated 24th Oct. 1817.
"As I observe from the statement contained in your despatch, No. 84, that the expense of General Buonaparte's establishment exceeds £12,000 per annum, and that the excess beyond that sum has, up to the date of that despatch, been defrayed from his own funds, I deem it necessary again to call your attention to that part of my despatch, No. 15, of the 22d November last, in which, in limiting the expense to £12,000 a-year, I still left you at liberty to incur a farther expenditure, should you consider it to be necessary for the comfort of General Buonaparte; and to repeat, that, if you should consider the sum of £12,000 a-year not to be adequate to maintain such an establishment as would be requisite for a general officer of distinction, you will have no difficulty in making what you deem to be a requisite addition. But, on the other hand, if the expenses which General Buonaparte has himself defrayed are beyond what, on a liberal construction, might be proper for a general officer of distinction, you will permit them, as heretofore, to be defrayed from his own funds."
These positive and reiterated instructions serve to show that there was never a wish on the part of Britain to deal harshly, or even closely with Napoleon; as the avowals of General Gourgaud prove, on the other hand, that if the governor was too rigid on the subject of expense, the prisoner possessed means sufficient to have saved him from any possible consequences of self-denial, which might have accrued from being compelled to live at so low a rate as twelve thousand pounds a-year.