We each presented our budgets, and agreed that a residence in Paris would cost 15,000, 40,000, and 100,000 francs. The Emperor dwelt much on the prices of various articles, and even on the prices of the same articles, as they are charged to different persons, and under different circumstances.
“When I was about to leave the army of Italy,” said he, “to return to Paris, Madame Bonaparte wrote to inform me that she had furnished, in the best possible style, a small house that we had in the Rue de la Victoire. The house was not worth more than 40,000 francs. What was my surprise and vexation to find that the drawing-room furniture, which, after all, appeared to me nothing out of the way, was charged at the enormous rate of between 120 and 130,000 francs. In vain did I remonstrate; I was obliged to pay the amount. The upholsterer showed me the directions he had received, and which required that every article should be the very best in its kind. Every thing had been made after new designs, and the designs themselves had been invented expressly for the fitting up of my house. Any judge of the case must have condemned me.”
The Emperor then adverted to the extravagant charges made for furnishing the imperial Palaces, and the vast saving which he had made on this point. He told us the price of the throne, the imperial ornaments, &c. Nothing could be more curious than to hear him detail these charges, together with his own plans of economy. How much I regret not having noted them down at the time! The following particulars will serve to show some of the methods which he adopted for ascertaining the correctness of the accounts that were presented to him:—
On one occasion, when he returned to the Tuileries, which had been magnificently fitted up during his absence, those about him were anxious to direct his attention to all the new furniture and decorations. After expressing his satisfaction at every thing he saw, he walked up to a window overhung with a rich curtain, and, asking for a pair of scissars, cut off a superb gold acorn which was suspended from the drapery, and coolly putting it into his pocket, he continued his inspection to the great astonishment of all present, who were unable to guess his motive. Some days afterwards, at his levee, he drew the acorn from his pocket and gave it to the person who superintended the furnishing of the palace. “Here,” said he, “Heaven forbid that I should think you rob me; but some one has doubtless robbed you. You have paid for this at the rate of one-third above its value. They have dealt with you as though you had been the steward of a great nobleman. You would have made a better bargain if you had not been known.” The fact was that Napoleon, having walked out one morning in disguise (as he was often in the habit of doing), called at some of the shops in the Rue Saint Denis, where he enquired the price of ornaments similar to that which he had cut from the curtain, and enquired the value of various articles of furniture like those provided for the palace, and thus, as he said, he arrived at the result in its simplest form. Every one knew his habits in this respect. These, he said, were his grand plans for ensuring domestic economy, which, notwithstanding his extreme magnificence, was carried to the utmost degree of precision and regularity.
In spite of his numerous occupations he himself revised all his accounts; but he had his own method of doing this, and they were always presented to him in their details. He would cast his eye on the first article, sugar for example, and, finding some thousands of pounds set down, he would take a pen, and say to the person who drew up the accounts: “How many persons are there in my household?”—"Sire, so many:" (and it was necessary to give the answer immediately.)—"And how many pounds of sugar do you suppose they consume per day on an average?"—"Sire, so many."—He immediately made his calculation, and, having satisfied himself, he would give back the paper, saying, “Sir, I have doubled your estimate of the daily consumption, and yet you are enormously beyond the mark. Your account is erroneous. Make it out again, and let me have greater correctness.” This reproof would be sufficient to establish the strictest regularity. Thus he sometimes said of his private, as of his public, administration, “I have introduced such order, and employed so many checks, that I cannot be much imposed on. If I am wronged at all, I leave the guilty person to settle the matter with his own conscience. He will not sink under the weight of his crime, for it cannot be very heavy.”
THE GOVERNOR’S VISIT TO MY APARTMENT.—CRITIQUE ON VOLTAIRE’S MAHOMET.—REMARKS ON THE MAHOMET OF HISTORY.—GRETRY.
22nd—25th. The weather has been very bad for several days past. The Emperor discontinued his morning walks, and applied himself with greater regularity to his different occupations. He dictated every morning on the events of 1814.
Sir Hudson Lowe came to visit our establishment. He entered my apartment and remained there for a quarter of an hour. He expressed his regret for the inconveniences to which we were exposed; and observed that we were lodged in bivouacs rather than in apartments. He was right; the pitched paper which had been used for the rooms was already beginning to yield to the effect of the hot climate; when the sun shone I was stifled; and when it rained I was inundated. Sir Hudson Lowe said that he would give directions for having these evils remedied as far as possible, and politely added that he had brought with him about 1500 or 2000 French volumes, which, as soon as they were arranged, he should feel great pleasure in placing at our service.
Racine and Voltaire occupied us for these two or three evenings. Phedre and Athalie, which were read to us by the Emperor, afforded us delightful entertainment; for his observations and commentaries gave twofold interest to what he read.
Mahomet was the subject of deep criticism. “Voltaire,” said the Emperor, "in the character and conduct of his hero, has departed both from nature and history. He has degraded Mahomet, by making him descend to the lowest intrigues. He has represented a great man, who changed the face of the world, acting like a scoundrel, worthy of the gallows. He has no less absurdly travestied the character of Omar, which he has drawn like that of a cut-throat in a melo-drama.