The Tragedy of St. Helena | Page 6

and guarded him with
warships, a regiment of soldiers with fixed bayonets, and the uneasy
spirit of Sir Hudson Lowe.
After six years of unspeakable treatment he is said to have died of
cancer in the stomach. Doubtless he did, but it is quite reasonable to
suppose that the conditions under which he was placed in an unhealthy

climate, together with perpetual petty irritations, brought about
premature death, and it is highly probable that the malady might have
been prevented altogether under different circumstances. At any rate,
he was without disease when Captain Cockburn handed him over, and
for some time after. But he knew his own mental and physical make-up;
he knew that in many ways he was differently constituted from other
men. His habits of life were different, and therefore his gaolers should
have been especially careful not to subject this singularly organised
man to a poisonous climate and to an unheard-of system of cruelty. Yes,
and they would have been well advised had they guarded with greater
humanity the fair fame of a great people, and not wantonly committed
acts that have left a stigma on the British name.
Sir Walter Scott, who cannot be regarded as an impartial historian of
the Napoleonic regime, does not, in his unfortunate "Life of Napoleon,"
produce one single fact or argument that will exculpate the British
Government of that time from having violated every humane law. The
State papers so generously put at his disposal by the English Ministry
do not aid him in proving that they could not have found a more
suitable place or climate for their distinguished prisoner, or that he
would have died of cancer anyhow. The object of the good Sir Walter
is obvious, and the distressing thing is that this excellent man should
have been used for the purpose of whitewashing the British
Administration.
The great novelist is assured that the "ex-Emperor" was pre-disposed to
the "cruel complaint of which his father died." "The progress of the
disease is slow and insidious," says he, which may be true enough, but
predisposition can be either checked or accelerated, and the course
adopted towards Napoleon was not calculated to retard, but encourage
it. But in order to palliate the actions of the British Government and
their blindly devoted adherents at St. Helena, Gourgaud, who was not
always strictly loyal to his imperial benefactor, is quoted as having
stated that he disbelieved in the Emperor's illness, and that the English
were much imposed upon.
Why does Scott quote Gourgaud if, as he says, it is probable that the

malady was in slow progress even before 1817? The reason is quite
clear. He wishes to convey the impression that St. Helena has a
salubrious climate, that the Emperor was treated with indulgent
courtesy, and had abundance to eat and drink. It will be seen, however,
by the records of other chroniclers who were in constant attendance on
His Majesty, that Sir Walter Scott's version cannot be relied upon.
If the statements in the annexed letter are true--and there is no
substantial reason for doubting them, supported as they are by
facts--then it is a complete refutation of what Scott has written as to the
health-giving qualities of the island.
Here is the statement of the Emperor's medical adviser (see p. 517,
Appendix, vol. ii., "Napoleon in Exile"):--
"The following extract of an official letter transmitted by me to the
Lords of the Admiralty, and dated the 28th October, 1818, containing a
statement of the vexations inflicted upon Napoleon, will show that the
fatal event which has since taken place at St. Helena was most
distinctly pointed out by me to His Majesty's Ministers.
"I think it my duty to state, as his late medical attendant, that
considering the disease of the liver with which he is afflicted, the
progress it has made in him, and reflecting upon the great mortality
produced by that complaint in the island of St. Helena (so strongly
exemplified in the number of deaths in the 66th Regiment, the St.
Helena regiment, the squadron, and Europeans in general, and
particularly in His Majesty's ship _Conqueror_, which ship has lost
about one-sixth of her complement, nearly the whole of whom have
died within the last eight months), it is my opinion that the life of
Napoleon Bonaparte will be endangered by a longer residence in such a
climate as that of St. Helena, especially if that residence be aggravated
by a continuance of those disturbances and irritations to which he has
hitherto been subjected, and of which it is the nature of his distemper to
render him peculiarly susceptible.--(Signed) BARRY E. O'MEARA,
Surgeon R.N. To John Wilson Croker, Esq., Secretary to the
Admiralty."

It is a terrible reflection to think that this note of warning should have
gone