and compared with official documents, and in some cases even with other writings of the same authorities, the difference between Legend and History was revealed. It was discovered that the French at St. Helena magnified and invented grievances on a systematic policy, while, in the case of O'Meara, it was found that his contributions were inspired by spite, and are unreliable in the extreme. O'Meara makes a declaration in his will:

I take this opportunity of declaring that with the exception of some unintentional and trifling errors in the Voice from St. Helena, the book is a faithful narrative of the treatment inflicted upon that great man, Napoleon, by Sir Hudson Lowe and his subordinates, and that I have even suppressed some facts which, although true, might have been considered to be exaggerated and not credited.

Lord Rosebery writes, "No one can read the volumes of Forsyth in which are printed the letters of O'Meara to Lowe, or the handy and readable treatise in which Mr. Seaton distils the essence of those volumes, and retain any confidence in O'Meara's facts." Again Lord Rosebery says, in another place:

There seems to have been something in the air of St. Helena that blighted exact truth; and he who collates the various narratives on any given point will find strange and hopeless contradictions. Truth probably lurks in Forsyth, but the crushing of the ore is a hideous task; and, for various other reasons, it is equally difficult to find in the more contemporary narratives.

Since that was written Mr. Seaton published Napoleon's Captivity in Relation to Sir Hudson Lowe, in which he criticizes Lord Rosebery's book. Dr. J. Holland Rose, in his Life of Napoleon, and in his Napoleonic Studies, effectively burst the legendary bubble, and presents the historical side of the situation. When all the evidence is examined impartially, the only conclusion is that Sir Hudson Lowe has been grossly maligned, and was unjustly made the victim of abuse by the French suite, and O'Meara, for their special purposes. Thus the public did not know that Las Cases had written in his journal the following passage under the date of November 30, 1815, which was suppressed from the printed edition.

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 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.

Lord Rosebery casts some doubt on the very existence of this entry, but it is among the Lowe Papers in the British Museum, and is supported and confirmed by another member of the suite.

Colonel Basil Jackson, who was at St. Helena as a lieutenant, met Count Montholon in Paris, in 1828, and writes:

He [Count Montholon] enlarged upon what he termed La Politique de Longwood, spoke not unkindly of Sir Hudson Lowe, allowing he had a difficult task to execute, since an angel from heaven as Governor could not have pleased them. When I more than hinted that nothing could justify detraction and departure from truth in carrying out a policy, he merely shrugged his shoulders and reiterated, “C'était notre politique, et que voulez-vous ?"

On French evidence, then, it is quite clear that the grievances were specially staged for effect, and no effort was spared to magnify those that made the strongest appeal to public opinion.

O'Meara joined whole-heartedly in La Politique de Longwood, as it was the game he was playing; he confirmed their complaints, and possibly invented some of them, while Las Cases certainly altered his journal to corroborate O'Meara.

It

Sir Hudson Lowe had a very hard task, and, when the true situation is realized, it is the more to his credit that so little can be said against him that is of consequence. is true, most unfortunately, that public opinion was successfully stirred up against him for political purposes, but the grounds for his unpopularity are really almost ridiculous. Sir Hudson is accused of want of tact, lack of manners, of being too punctilious over trifles, and, as the crowning insult, his critics quote the Duke of Wellington as calling him a stupid man, or Lord Rosebery, who says that he was not a gentleman. The adherents to the Napoleonic Legend appear to forget all the weak points about their hero, and they are many, while they accentuate those of Sir Hudson Lowe, which are comparatively few. No impartial judge can deny that Sir Hudson's military career was most meritorious. His critics seize on the surrender of Capri as a proof of his incompetence. With seeming fairness the writer of the Memoir of Sir Hudson Lowe in the 1888 edition of O'Meara's Napoleon at St. Helena, mentions that the terms of surrender were honourable, but, as if to cancel this, a quotation is given from Napier's History of the Peninsular War. In this Lowe is severely blamed for his conduct.

Among the Bathurst Papers at Cirencester Park, there is a letter from Lord Bathurst to Colonel W. F. P. Napier, dated July 15, 1826, which throws an interesting light on the "impartiality" of the historian. It runs :

As it appears by the letter which your sister delivered to me yesterday that the criticism of the manner in which the Government conducted the war forms

part of your plan of writing the history of the Peninsular War, you will, I am sure, readily understand that I am not, and indeed ought not to be, prepared to furnish materials from official papers placed in my custody, which might be the means of casting reflections on my predecessors. Until, therefore, you come to that period of the history when I received the seals of this office, I do not think myself at liberty to show any official papers.

The writer of the Memoir omits to say that Lowe was congratulated by his immediate chief, and the Commanderin-Chief, on his conduct. Napoleon looked forward to the defeat of the British Ministry before very long, and to the Opposition coming into Office, trusting that the change would mean his removal from St. Helena, if not his release. The Ministry, however, remained in power, in spite of all Napoleon's efforts, Sir Hudson carried out his orders to the letter, and, what was more annoying, refused to lose his temper.

Of course, O'Meara and the French have declared that Sir Hudson was a man unsuited for the duties he had to perform, and the Opposition dutifully said the same. The Duke of Wellington is quoted, rather unfairly, as against Sir Hudson, and the restrictions on Napoleon at St. Helena. The two conversations referred to took place in 1837 and 1848. The Duke said that he was in favour of keeping Colonel Wilks, the East India Company Governor, for he said that Napoleon was favourably inclined towards him. Napoleon is reported to have looked forward to conversations with Lowe, but the hope was not realized, the "policy would not allow of it. The Duke's opinion that Sir Hudson was a stupid man, " and that he knew nothing of the world, may well refer to the very great mistake he made in not taking measures to defend himself, and his reputation, by publishing a reply to O'Meara's book.

The exact definition of a "gentleman" is difficult, but there is no doubt that Sir Hudson may be classed as such. His father belonged to an old Lincolnshire family, and died with the rank of Surgeon-Major. His mother was of a good Galway family. Sir Hudson may be said to have been born to the Army, and he wore uniform before he was twelve years old. It would indeed be well if all who called themselves gentlemen rendered equally good service to their country. Let us glance at the evidence produced by the diarist, as the latest witness against Sir Hudson's administration of St. Helena.

Mr. Hall, Surgeon of the Favourite, lands at St. Helena, July 20, 1818, and purchases some very broad gold lace at Solomon's shop. It is off a blue coat that was presented

to Napoleon by the City of Lyons, and we can imagine that the reason for selling it was said to be need of ready money. He listens to the gossip, and hears that the general public sympathize with Napoleon on account of the restrictions placed upon him. Mr. Hall has brought with him from England several articles consisting of books, etc., some of which were for Napoleon," and he writes, "I was directed to give them to no one but O'Meara." One wonders who gave these directions. Mr. Hall then writes a note to O'Meara, making an appointment to carry out his mission. When they meet, Mr. Hall gives to O'Meara a note to Napoleon, with a message from Princess Pauline. The next day they meet again, O'Meara says that Napoleon was very much pleased to hear from his family, and Mr. Hall is treated to a recital of "various acts of annoyance practised on Napoleon," and in his diary a selection is recorded.

The first is that a ship arrived with a bust of young Napoleon intended for Napoleon-" this was ordered to be destroyed." Then O'Meara told Mr. Hall that the same had been done with regard to a picture."

66

The story of the bust of the young Duc de Reichstadt figures in O'Meara's book, and it is now certain that it was a snare set for Sir Hudson Lowe, for the bust was smuggled on board the Baring that sailed for St. Helena in January 1817. The Baring arrived on May 28th, and the bust was landed on June 11th, and was delivered to Napoleon at Longwood the next day. Napoleon knew that the bust was on board, and told O'Meara that if he had not received it he intended "to have made such a complaint as would have caused every Englishman's hair to stand on end with horror. I would have told a tale which would have made the mothers of England execrate him (Sir Hudson) as a monster in human shape." General Gourgaud told Major Gorrequer that the bust was planned as a trap, and that letters had been written ready to be sent to the Ministry. When the bust reached Longwood, and Sir Hudson had not been caught, as the General said, "l'échafaudage tomba par terre."

The grievance as to the " picture," taking into consideration the date of the entry in the Diary, is interesting, for it looks like another trap, in course of preparation. The date of the conversation with O'Meara was July 21, 1818, and it was not until January 14, 1819, that Montholon complained to Sir Hudson that a bust and picture of Napoleon's son had been detained by him, instead of

having been sent to Longwood. Sir Hudson sent to say that he had only heard of the one bust that had come in the Baring. He knew nothing of any picture for Napoleon, but had heard that a print of the boy had appeared in a paper not in his possession. The paper belonged to Admiral Plampin, who, on hearing that Napoleon wanted it immediately, asked him to accept it. Montholon reported that Napoleon was very pleased with it, and that "he knew of its being in the island for three months past. So much for the "destruction" of the bust and the picture.

Then O'Meara referred to the restrictions on Napoleon and his suite, and the ill effect that lack of exercise was having on Napoleon's health. One would almost imagine that Napoleon could only go round and round a chickenrun of a few yards area, until the fact is stated that he and his suite could walk, ride, or drive, unattended, within an area of some twelve miles in circumference. This was curtailed for a time, as it was found that the natives were being tampered with, but the reduced area was about eight miles in circumference. General Gourgaud was, no doubt, right when he said that if Napoleon had been able to go unattended over the whole island, he would still have been discontented. He added: "Enfin, il a été Empereur; il ne l'est plus, et voilà ce que c'est."

Mr. Hall was also told by O'Meara that "Napoleon had certainly a chronic inflammation of the liver," which was his own diagnosis, and a wrong one. The legend attributes the complaint to the climate of St. Helena. The result of the post-mortem definitely proved that cancer of the stomach was the cause of death, though the Italian surgeon Antommarchi refused, on various grounds, to sign the certificate of five other doctors to that effect.

Count Montholon, in a letter to his wife just after the death of Napoleon, writes:

The opening of his body took place this morning. It proved that he died of the same illness as his father, a "squirre ulcereuse" in the stomach, near the pylorus. It is in our misfortune a great consolation for us to have obtained proof that his death is not and cannot have been in any way the result of his captivity or of the deprivation of all cares that perhaps Europe might have offered.

On August 2nd, O'Meara sailed from St. Helena for England on board the Griffon, or Griffen, and on December 13th, Admiral Plampin wrote to Sir Hudson saying that O'Meara had accused him of a design to poison Napoleon. Mr. Hall says that the information reached Sir Hudson "by