Historic Doubts Relative To Napoleon Buonaparte | Page 7

tyrant, at least an absolute despot. One of the most forward in this
cause is a gentleman, who once stood foremost in holding up this very
man to public execration--who first published, and long maintained
against popular incredulity, the accounts of his atrocities in Egypt. Now
that such a course should be adopted for party-purposes; by those who
are aware that the whole story is a fiction, and the hero of it imaginary,
seems not very incredible; but if they believed in the real existence of
this despot, I cannot conceive how they could so forsake their
principles as to advocate his cause, and eulogize his character.
Besides the many strange and improbable circumstances in the history
of Buonaparte that have been already noticed, there are many others,
two of which it may be worth while to advert to.
One of the most incredible is the received account of the persons
known as the "Détenus." It is well known that a great number of
English gentlemen passed many years, in the early part of the present
century, abroad;--by their own account, in France. Their statement was,
that while travelling in that country for their amusement, as peaceable
tourists, they were, on the sudden breaking out of a war, seized by this
terrible Buonaparte, and kept prisoners for about twelve years, contrary
to all the usages of civilized nations--to all principles of justice, of
humanity, of enlightened policy; many of them thus wasting in
captivity the most important portion of their lives, and having all their
prospects blighted.
Now whether these persons were in reality exiles by choice, for the
sake of keeping out of the way of creditors, or of enjoying the society
of those they preferred to their own domestic circle, I do not venture to
conjecture. But let the reader consider whether any conjecture can be
more improbable than the statement actually made.
It is, indeed, credible that ambition may prompt an unscrupulous man
to make the most enormous sacrifices of human life, and to perpetrate
the most atrocious crimes, for the advancement of his views of
conquest. But that this great man--as he is usually reckoned even by
adversaries--this hero according to some--this illustrious warrior, and
mighty sovereign--should have stooped to be guilty of an act of mean

and petty malice worthy of a spiteful old woman,--a piece of paltry
cruelty which could not at all conduce to his success in the war, or
produce any effect except to degrade his country, and exasperate
ours;--this, surely, is quite incredible. "Pizarro," says Elvira in
Kotzebue's play, "if not always justly, at least act always greatly."
But a still more wonderful circumstance connected with this transaction
remains behind. A large portion of the English nation, and among these
the whole of the Whig party, are said to have expressed the most
vehement indignation, mingled with compassion, at the banishment
from Europe, and confinement in St. Helena, of this great man. No
considerations of regard for the peace and security of our own country,
no dread of the power of so able and indefatigable a warrior, and so
inveterate an enemy, should have induced us, they thought, to subject
this formidable personage to a confinement, which was far less severe
than that to which he was said to have subjected such numbers of our
countrymen, the harmless non-belligerent travellers, whom (according
to the story) he kidnapped in France, with no object but to gratify the
basest and most unmanly spite.
But that there is no truth in that story, and that it was not believed by
those who manifested so much sympathy and indignation on this great
man's account, is sufficiently proved by that very sympathy and
indignation.
There are again other striking improbabilities connected with the Polish
nation in the history before us. Buonaparte is represented as having
always expressed the strongest sympathy with that ill-used people; and
they, as being devotedly attached to him, and fighting with the utmost
fidelity and bravery in his armies, in which some of them attained high
commands. Now he had it manifestly in his power at one period
(according to the received accounts), with a stroke of his pen, to
re-establish Poland as an independent state. For, in his last Russian war,
he had complete occupation of the country (of which the population
was perfectly friendly); the Russian portion of it was his by right of
conquest; and Austria and Prussia, then his allies, and almost his
subjects, would gladly have resigned their portions in exchange for

some of the provinces they had ceded to France, and which were, to
him, of little value, but, to them, important. And, indeed, Prussia was
(as we are told) so thoroughly humbled and weakened that he might
easily have enforced the cession of Prussian-Poland, even without any