Footnote 2: Napoleon, according to the common report, was frequently heard to repeat, after his abdication, "I have been ruined by liberal ideas." I do not think that he ever expressed himself in this manner. I do not intend to doubt the irresistible force which liberal ideas have now acquired; but I do not think, that they contributed to effect the first downfal of the imperial throne. Nobody thought about liberal ideas at that period. France had been trained to the government of Napoleon, and his despotism gave rise to no complaints. She was not free in the manner according to which the nation now wishes to enjoy liberty. But the liberty which France then possessed was enough for the French. Napoleon would often exercise unlimited authority, but the country had only one master, and he was the master of all. If it is true that the French abandoned Napoleon in 1814, it was not because we were tired of Napoleon or discontented with his government, but because the nation was exhausted, discouraged, and demoralized by an uninterrupted succession of calamitous wars. The people would still have been delighted to obey him, but they had neither strength nor soul.

The real causes of the downfal of Napoleon are to be found in his hatred towards England, and in the continental system, which resulted from that hatred. This gigantic system, which oppressed all Europe, could not fail to raise the entire continent against Napoleon and France, and thus to bring on the ruin of both. "Rome," as it is said by Montesquieu, "extended her empire because her wars only followed in succession. Each nation, such was her inconceivable good fortune, waited till another had been conquered, before beginning the attack." Rome fell as soon as all the nations assailed and penetrated on every side.[(Back to main text)]

Footnote 3: He arrived at Paris before his august brother, and by these pleasing expressions he replied to the addresses of congratulation presented to him by the municipality of Paris.[(Back to main text)]

Footnote 4: Extracted from the Journal des Débats. The principal proprietor and editor of this paper was Monsieur Laborie, one of Talleyrand's creatures, and private secretary to the provisional government.[(Back to main text)]

Footnote 5: This expression was one of those of which the ministers made the worst use. If they were told that any magistrate, any officer, any functionary, whom they had turned out, had fulfilled his duties with honour and distinction, that he was loved and regretted by the people, they answered, "he is a dangerous character," and there was an end of the business.[(Back to main text)]

Footnote 6: When Dupont capitulated to the Spaniards, the insurgents refused to acknowledge the Emperor. Dupont therefore only took the title of general in the French service.[(Back to main text)]

Footnote 7: I speak only of acting and thinking beings. In all countries there is to be found a class of cyphers, who are so careless, stupid, or selfish, that they belong to no party, and indeed to no nation.[(Back to main text)]

Footnote 8: The accusation that a spirit of mutiny prevailed amongst them cannot be refuted more effectually than by quoting the expressions used by M. de Montesquiou on the 14th of March. "In the last two months," said he, "not one of the soldiers or officers belonging to the corps of the old guard composing the garrison of Metz, has been once reprimanded."[(Back to main text)]

Footnote 9: The Chouans never allowed the opportunity of committing murder to escape them. They carried their muskets as they walked by the side of the plough, and the furrows which they trod were frequently sprinkled with blood. The priests who had taken the oaths, and the purchasers of national domains, were particularly the objects of the refinements of their cruelty. They seldom entered a town without plundering the inhabitants, and without slaughtering those who had been pointed out to their vengeance.—Lacretelle, Précis de la Revolution.[(Back to main text)]

Footnote 10: M.M. David and Falconnet. In order to appease the public indignation, a summons was issued against these writers, it being stated in the process that they had endeavoured to excite civil war. There was no difficulty in guessing that this proceeding was a farce, and that by overcharging the crime it was the intention of the government to favour the acquittal of the accused; and accordingly they were acquitted.[(Back to main text)]