Historic Doubts Relative To Napoleon Buonaparte | Page 8

compensation. And the re-establishment of the Polish kingdom would
have been as evidently politic as it was reasonable. The independence
of a faithful and devoted ally, at enmity with the surrounding
nations--the very nations that were the most likely to combine (as they
often had done) against him,--this would have given him, at no cost, a
kind of strong garrison to maintain his power, and keep his enemies in
check.
Yet this most obvious step, the history tells us, he did not take; but
made flattering speeches to the Poles, used their services, and did
nothing for them!
This is, alone, sufficiently improbable. But we are required moreover to
believe that the Poles,--instead of execrating this man, who had done
them the unpardonable wrong of wantonly disappointing the
expectations he had, for his own purposes, excited, thus adding
treachery to ingratitude--instead of this, continued to the last as much
devoted to him as ever, and even now idolize his memory! We are to
believe, in short, that this Buonaparte, not only in his own conduct and
adventures violated all the established rules of probability, but also
caused all other persons, as many as came in contact with him, to act as
no mortals ever did act before: may we not add, as no mortals ever did
act at all?
Many other improbabilities might be added to the list, and will be
found in the complete edition of that history, from which some extracts
will be presently given, and which has been published (under the title
of "Historic Certainties") by Aristarchus Newlight, with a learned
commentary (not, indeed, adopting the views contained in these pages,
but) quite equal in ingenuity to a late work on the "Hebrew Monarchy."
After all, it may be expected that many who perceive the force of these
objections, will yet be loth to think it possible that they and the public
at large can have been so long and so greatly imposed upon. And thus it

is that the magnitude and boldness of a fraud becomes its best support.
The millions who for so many ages have believed in Mahomet or
Brahma, lean as it were on each other for support; and not having
vigour of mind enough boldly to throw off vulgar prejudices, and dare
be wiser than the multitude, persuade themselves that what so many
have acknowledged must be true. But I call on those who boast their
philosophical freedom of thought, and would fain tread in the steps of
Hume and other inquirers of the like exalted and speculative genius, to
follow up fairly and fully their own principles, and, throwing off the
shackles of authority, to examine carefully the evidence of whatever is
proposed to them, before they admit its truth.
That even in this enlightened age, as it is called, a whole nation may be
egregiously imposed upon, even in matters which intimately concern
them, may be proved (if it has not been already proved) by the
following instance: it was stated in the newspapers, that, a month after
the battle of Trafalgar, an English officer, who had been a prisoner of
war, and was exchanged, returned to this country from France, and
beginning to condole with his countrymen on the terrible defeat they
had sustained, was infinitely astonished to learn that the battle of
Trafalgar was a splendid victory. He had been assured, he said, that in
that battle the English had been totally defeated; and the French were
fully and universally persuaded that such was the fact. Now if this
report of the belief of the French nation was not true, the British Public
were completely imposed upon; if it were true, then both nations were,
at the same time, rejoicing in the event of the same battle, as a signal
victory to themselves; and consequently one or other, at least, of these
nations must have been the dupes of their government: for if the battle
was never fought at all, or was not decisive on either side, in that case
both parties were deceived. This instance, I conceive, is absolutely
demonstrative of the point in question.
"But what shall we say to the testimony of those many respectable
persons who went to Plymouth on purpose, and saw Buonaparte with
their own eyes? must they not trust their senses?" I would not disparage
either the eyesight or the veracity of these gentlemen. I am ready to
allow that they went to Plymouth for the purpose of seeing Buonaparte;

nay, more, that they actually rowed out into the harbour in a boat, and
came alongside of a man-of-war, on whose deck they saw a man in a
cocked hat, who, they were told, was Buonaparte. This is the utmost
point to which their testimony goes; how they ascertained that this man
in