[34]. This letter was only made public a year after it had been written; the motive which led to its publication has already been seen, and will be further explained in the sequel of these pages.
[35]. The Statement of the Grievances of Longwood, addressed to Sir Hudson Lowe.
[36]. All solicitations in this respect with the English Ministry have proved vain. This demand, frequently repeated, remains without an answer, or has produced only a refusal; as may be particularly seen in one of the letters in this collection.
[37]. This letter was put into the post at Vienna. I know not whether it ever reached its destination; but most probably it did not.
[38]. A similar letter was addressed to the Emperor Alexander, and the King of Prussia.
[39]. See those letters in the sequel of these pages.
[40]. Experience seems to have proved too clearly that there existed more knowledge of mankind at Longwood than in the Frankfort correspondent.
[41]. See these letters in the following pages.
[42]. We have thought it right to insert here this letter, because it affords additional details respecting the interior of Longwood, and adds new features to all that has been said of its real situation.
[43]. It has been thought necessary to introduce here the following letters of Count de Las Cases; 1.—Because they are alluded to in the preceding letter from Count Bertrand, and help to complete the sense and understanding of it; 2.—Because they evince the candour and good faith with which this correspondence with Longwood was carried on; 3.—In short, because they enable the reader to give its due value to the extraordinary assertion of Mr. Goulburn, who, whilst he received these letters, and acknowledged with courtesy the receipt of them, nevertheless ventured to affirm in the House of Commons, on a certain occasion, that the author’s expressions were always clothed in language admitting of a twofold interpretation. How can a man of candour, such as the person to whom the aforesaid letters were addressed, who had received, and must have read my letter to Lord Bathurst particularly, take upon himself to assert that the author’s expressions were always given in language that admitted of a double interpretation? Surely, Mr. Goulburn must be very fastidious in point of explicit and positive meaning, or else he does not understand French. But has he read? Has he misunderstood? Did he wish to misunderstand, and, in imitation of Lord Bathurst, may he not, like his noble patron, on the occasion of his famous denials to Lord Holland in the House of Peers, have founded his arguments not upon what really existed, but upon what appeared to his advantage? The communication of these letters is made chiefly from the necessity of enabling every one to judge of the degree of credit which is due to Mr. Goulburn’s assertion. That they were not intended to be made public is sufficiently evident from the careless and unaffected style in which they are written.