SIXTH DAY OF SECLUSION.
4th.—The Emperor still remained within doors. He had, however, expressed his intention to ride on horseback about four o’clock; but the rain prevented him from stirring out. He received the Grand Marshal in his chamber.
He sent for me about eight o’clock to dine with him. He said that the Governor had called on the Grand Marshal, and had remained with him above an hour. His conversation had been frequently disagreeable and sometimes even offensive. He had spoken on a variety of topics in a tone of ill-humour and disrespect, and in a very vague and indeterminate manner: reproaching us, particularly, as it appeared, with being very loud and unreasonable in our complaints. He maintained that we were very well provided for and ought to be content; that we seemed to be strangely mistaken with regard to what was due to our persons and our situations. He added, at least so he was understood, that he was desirous of being assured every day, by ocular testimony, of the existence and presence of the Emperor.
There is no doubt that this point was the real cause of his ill-humour and agitation. Several days had passed without his having been able to receive any report from his officer or spies, as the Emperor had not gone out, and no one had been admitted to his presence.
But what measures would he adopt? This consideration occupied us all in our turns. The Emperor would never submit, even at the peril of his life, to a regular visit, which might be capriciously renewed at any hour of the day or night. Would the Governor employ force and violence to dispute with the Emperor a last asylum of a few square feet and a few hours’ repose? His instructions must have been drawn up in anticipation of the case that had now occurred. No outrage, no want of respect, no barbarity, could surprise me.
As to the Governor’s remark that we entertained mistaken ideas with regard to ourselves and our situation, we are very conscious that, instead of being at the Tuileries, we are at St. Helena, and that, instead of being masters, we are captives: how then can we be mistaken?
ON CHINA AND RUSSIA.—RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN THE
TWO GREAT REVOLUTIONS IN FRANCE AND ENGLAND.
5th.—About ten o’clock in the morning, the Emperor went to ride for the first time. While he was mounting his horse, he was informed that the Resident of the East India Company in China had come to Longwood, and solicited the honour of being presented to him. He sent for him, and put some questions to him with great condescension. We then rode out to call on Madame Bertrand. The Emperor remained there above an hour; he was weak and altered in his appearance: his conversation was languid. We returned to Longwood. The Emperor wished to breakfast out of doors.
He sent for our host at Briars, the worthy Mr. Balcombe, and the Resident from China, who was still at Longwood. The whole time of breakfast was occupied in questions relating to China, its population, laws, customs, and trade.
The Resident stated that a circumstance occurred a few years back between the Russians and the Chinese, which might have been attended with important results, had not Russia been entirely absorbed by the affairs of Europe.
The Russian traveller, Krusenstern, in his voyage round the world, anchored at Canton with his two vessels. He was received provisionally, and was permitted, until the orders of the Court should arrive, to dispose of the furs with which his ships were laden, and to take on board a cargo of tea in their stead. The orders from the Chinese court were delayed for more than a month, and M. de Krusenstern had set sail two days before they arrived. They directed that the two vessels should quit the port immediately: that all trade with the Russians in that quarter was prohibited; that enough had been conceded to their Emperor by land in the North of the Empire; that it was monstrous in him to attempt to extend his intercourse in the South by sea; and that strong displeasure would he manifested towards those who had suggested to them that course. The order further decreed that, in the event of the ships having sailed before the arrival of the answer from Pekin, the English Factory should be charged to communicate it, through Europe, to the Emperor of Russia.
Napoleon felt very much fatigued with his short ride; he had not left his chamber for seven days before; this was the first time that he had re-appeared among us. We remarked an evident change in his countenance.
He sent for me about five o’clock; the Grand Marshal was with him. The Emperor was undressed; he had tried in vain to enjoy a little rest; he thought he was feverish; the sensation proceeded from extreme lassitude. The Emperor had a fire lighted, but would not have candles in his room. We passed the time in desultory conversation in the dark, till eight o’clock, when the Emperor sent us to dinner.
In the course of the day, the conversation had turned on the similarity of the two great revolutions of England and France. “There are many points, both of resemblance and difference, between these two great events,” said the Emperor; “they afford inexhaustible subjects for reflection.” He then made some very curious and remarkable observations. I shall here note down his remarks on this occasion, as well as at other intervals during the day.
"Both in France and England the storm gathered during the two feeble and indolent reigns of James I. and Louis XV., and burst over the heads of the unfortunate Charles I. and Louis XVI.
"Both these Sovereigns fell victims: both perished on the scaffold, and their families were proscribed and banished.
"Both monarchies became republics, and, during that period, both nations plunged into every excess which can degrade the human heart and understanding. They were disgraced by scenes of madness, blood, and outrage. Every tie of humanity was broken, and every principle overturned.
"Both in England and France, at this period, two men vigorously stemmed the torrent, and reigned with splendour. After these, the two hereditary families were restored; but both pursued an erroneous course. They committed faults; a fresh storm suddenly burst forth in both countries, and expelled the two restored dynasties, without their being able to offer the least resistance to the adversaries who overthrew them.
"In this singular parallel, Napoleon appears to have been in France at once the Cromwell and the Wm. III. of England. But as every comparison with Cromwell is in some degree odious, I must add that, if these two celebrated men coincided in one single circumstance of their lives, it was scarcely possible for two beings to differ more in every other point.
"Cromwell appeared on the theatre of the world at the age of maturity. He attained supreme rank only by dint of address, duplicity, and hypocrisy.
"Napoleon distinguished himself at the very dawn of manhood, and his first steps were attended by the purest glory.
"Cromwell attained supreme power, opposed and hated by all parties, and by affixing an everlasting stain on the English revolution.
"Napoleon, on the contrary, ascended the throne by obliterating the stains of the French revolution, and through the concurrence of all parties, who in turn sought to gain him as their chief.
"All the glory of Cromwell was bought by English blood; his triumphs were all so many causes of national mourning; but Napoleon’s victories were gained over the foreign foe, and they filled the French nation with transport.
"Finally, the death of Cromwell was a source of joy to all England: the event was regarded as a public deliverance. The same cannot exactly be said of Napoleon’s fall.
"In England the revolution was the rising of the whole nation against the King. The King had violated the laws, and usurped absolute power; and the nation wished to resume her rights.
"In France, the revolution was the rising of one portion of the nation against another; that of the third estate against the nobility; it was the re-action of the Gauls against the Franks. The King was attacked not so much in his character of monarch as in his quality of chief of the feudal system. He was not reproached with having violated the laws; but the nation wished to emancipate and re-constitute itself.
"In England, if Charles I. had yielded voluntarily, if he had possessed the moderate and undecided character of Louis XVI. he would have survived.
"In France, on the contrary, if Louis XVI. had openly resisted, if he had had the courage, activity, and ardour of Charles I. he would have triumphed.
"During the whole conflict, Charles I., isolated in his kingdom, was surrounded only by partisans and friends, and was never connected with any constitutional branch of his subjects.
"Louis XVI. was supported by a regular army, by foreign aid, and two constitutional portions of the nation—the nobility and the clergy. Besides, there remained to Louis XVI. a second decisive resolution, which Charles I. had it not in his power to adopt, namely, that of ceasing to be a feudal Chief, in order to become a national Chief. Unfortunately he could not decide on either the one or the other.
"Charles I. therefore perished because he resisted, and Louis XVI. because he did not resist. The one had a perfect conviction of the privileges of his prerogative; but it is doubtful whether the other had any such conviction, any more than he felt the necessity of exercising its privileges.
"In England, the death of Charles I. was the result of the artful and atrocious ambition of a single man.
"In France, it was the work of the blind multitude, of a disorderly popular assembly.
"In England, the representatives of the people evinced a slight shade of decorum, by abstaining from being the judges and actors in the murder which they decreed; they appointed a tribunal to try the King.
"In France, the representatives of the people presumed to be at once accusers, judges, and executioners.
"In England, the affair was managed by an invisible hand: it assumed an appearance of reflection and calmness. In France, it was managed by the multitude, whose fury was without bounds.
"In England, the death of the King gave birth to the Republic. In France, on the contrary, the birth of the Republic caused the death of the King.
"In England the political explosion was produced by the efforts of the most ardent religious fanaticism. In France, it was brought about amidst the acclamations of cynical impiety; each according to different ages and manners.
"The English Revolution was ushered in by the excesses of the gloomy school of Calvin. The loose doctrines of the modern school conjured up the storm in France.
"In England, the Revolution was mingled with civil war. In France, it was attended by foreign war; and to the efforts and opposition of foreigners the French may justly attribute their excesses. The English can advance no such excuse for theirs.
"In England, the army proved itself capable of every act of outrage and fury; it was the scourge of the citizens.
"In France, on the contrary, we owed every benefit to the army. Its triumphs abroad either diminished, or caused us to forget, our horrors at home. The army secured independence and glory to France.
"In England, the Restoration was the work of the English people, who hailed the event with the most lively enthusiasm. The nation escaped slavery, and seemed to have recovered freedom. It was not precisely thus in France.
"In England, a son-in-law hurled his father-in-law from the throne. He was supported by all Europe; and the memory of the act is revered and imperishable.
“In France, on the contrary, the chosen sovereign of the people, who had reigned for the space of fifteen years, with the assent of his subjects and foreigners, re-appeared on the theatre of the world, to seize a sceptre which he regarded as his own. Europe rose in a mass, and outlawed him. Eleven hundred thousand men marched against him; he yielded; he was thrown into captivity, and now efforts are making to tarnish the lustre of his memory!”