Historic Doubts Relative To Napoleon Buonaparte | Page 5

much for our clear knowledge of the means of information
possessed by these witnesses; next, for the grounds on which we are to
calculate on their veracity.

Have they not a manifest interest in circulating the wonderful accounts
of Napoleon Buonaparte and his achievements, whether true or false?
Few would read newspapers if they did not sometimes find wonderful
or important news in them; and we may safely say that no subject was
ever found so inexhaustibly interesting as the present.
It may be urged, however, that there are several adverse political parties,
of which the various public prints are respectively the organs, and who
would not fail to expose each other's fabrications.[7] Doubtless they
would, if they could do so without at the same time exposing their own;
but identity of interests may induce a community of operations up to a
certain point. And let it be observed that the object of contention
between these rival parties is, who shall have the administration of
public affairs, the control of public expenditure, and the disposal of
places: the question, I say, is, not whether the people shall be governed
or not, but, by which party they shall be governed;--not whether the
taxes shall be paid or not, but who shall receive them. Now, it must be
admitted that Buonaparte is a political bugbear, most convenient to any
administration: "if you do not adopt our measures and reject those of
our opponents, Buonaparte will be sure to prevail over you; if you do
not submit to the Government, at least under our administration, this
formidable enemy will take advantage of your insubordination, to
conquer and enslave you: pay your taxes cheerfully, or the tremendous
Buonaparte will take all from you." Buonaparte, in short, was the
burden of every song; his redoubted name was the charm which always
succeeded in unloosing the purse-strings of the nation. And let us not
be too sure,[8] safe as we now think ourselves, that some occasion may
not occur for again producing on the stage so useful a personage: it is
not merely to naughty children in the nursery that the threat of being
"given to Buonaparte" has proved effectual.
It is surely probable, therefore, that, with an object substantially the
same, all parties may have availed themselves of one common
instrument. It is not necessary to suppose that for this purpose they
secretly entered into a formal agreement; though, by the way, there are
reports afloat, that the editors of the Courier and _Morning Chronicle_
hold amicable consultations as to the conduct of their public warfare: I

will not take upon me to say that this is incredible; but at any rate it is
not necessary for the establishment of the probability I contend for.
Neither again would I imply that all newspaper editors are utterers of
forged stories, "knowing them to be forged;" most likely the great
majority of them publish what they find in other papers with the same
simplicity that their readers peruse it; and therefore, it must be observed,
are not at all more proper than their readers to be cited as authorities.
Still it will be said, that unless we suppose a regularly preconcerted
plan, we must at least expect to find great discrepancies in the accounts
published. Though they might adopt the general outline of facts from
one another, they would have to fill up the detail for themselves; and in
this, therefore, we should meet with infinite and irreconcilable variety.
Now this is precisely the point I am tending to; for the fact exactly
accords with the above supposition; the discordance and mutual
contradictions of these witnesses being such as would alone throw a
considerable shade of doubt over their testimony. It is not in minute
circumstances alone that the discrepancy appears, such as might be
expected to appear in a narrative substantially true; but in very great
and leading transactions, and such as are very intimately connected
with the supposed hero. For instance, it is by no means agreed whether
Buonaparte led in person the celebrated charge over the bridge of Lodi,
(for celebrated it certainly is, as well as the siege of Troy, whether
either event ever really took place or no,) or was safe in the rear, while
Augereau performed the exploit. The same doubt hangs over the charge
of the French cavalry at Waterloo. The peasant Lacoste, who professed
to have been Buonaparte's guide on the day of battle, and who earned a
fortune by detailing over and over again to visitors all the particulars of
what the great man said and did up to the moment of flight,--this same
Lacoste has been suspected by others, besides me, of having never even
been near the great man, and having fabricated the whole story for the
sake