[11] Extracts from the Journals of John Spencer Stanhope, 1810-1813. Published, 1903. Page 452.
CHAPTER VI
[1] Walter Boyd, born in 1745; of the firm of Boyd, Benfield, & Co; an intimate friend of Pitt and Melville. He is supposed to have been saved from bankruptcy by a loan which Lord Melville advanced to him out of the public funds, and on account of which the latter was afterwards impeached. See Annals of a Yorkshire House, vol. ii., pages 287-291.
[2] With reference to this episode at the Institute Stanhope adds: "I find that the learned Editor of the Quarterly Review has been as much taken in as were the savants of whom he speaks. One of his articles states that the late President of the Cour of Cassation—the Magistrate, according to M. Roger Collard, of whom regenerated France has most reason to be proud— expressed himself as follows to three of the most distinguished men of science of the day: 'I regard the discovery of a dish as a more interesting event than the discovery of a star, for we have always stars enough, but we never have too many dishes; and I shall not regard the Sciences as sufficiently honoured or adequately represented among us, until I see a cook in the first class of the Institute.'
"It is quite evident from this that the Editor supposes that M. de Baure was quite serious in making that observation, and no less so that the distinguished literary men, from some of whom he must have derived his information, must have been equally convinced of the fact. I was present, however, on the occasion, and can assert that nothing could be more contrary to the real state of the case."
[3] Olympia or Topography illustrative of the actual state of the Plain of Olympia and of the Ruins of the City of Elis, published by John Murray in 1817. It was re-published in 1824 and 1835, and again, with the addition of many engravings, in 1865, under the title of Plataea, Olympia, Elis.
[4] Joachim Murat, an inn-keeper's son, born in 1771, at the Revolution entered the army and soon rose to be Colonel. He served under Bonaparte in Italy and Egypt, became General of Division, and in command of the Cavalry at Marengo he covered himself with glory. Bonaparte gave him his sister, Caroline, in marriage. In 1806 the grandduchy of Berg was bestowed upon him; in 1808 he was proclaimed King of the Two Sicilies, as Joachim 1st, and took possession of Naples. After Napoleon's final overthrow he proceeded with a few followers to the coast of Calabria, and proclaimed himself King; but being taken, he was tried by Court-martial, and shot on October 15th, 1815. His widow subsequently assumed the title of Countess of Lipona and lived near Trieste. He left two sons, the elder of whom married a niece of Washington.
[5] Frederick Douglas, 1791-1819, M.P. for Banbury, a son of Lord Glenbervie.
[6] John Stanhope subsequently wrote: "I know the existence of the conspiracy is denied, but how account for the conduct of Napoleon after his return save from the supposition that he was fettered by the engagements he had made in his exile?… He threw himself entirely into the arms of that party to which he had hitherto evinced the greatest hostility, and which, upon principle, were opposed to his system of Government. He appointed Fouché, whom he had offended and disgraced, and Carnot, the most unbending republican in France, to be Ministers instead of resuming the Empire just as he had left it. He did not establish himself in the Palace of the Tuileries, by which he showed his weakness without gaining a single partisan…. He should either at once have entered upon the Imperial Government, prorogued the Chamber till the fate of France was decided by arms, or he should have adopted the Constitution which he found actually existing, pledging himself to make, subsequently, such modifications as the country might desire; but, in fact, till he found himself at the head of his army he was not his own master, he was bound by the chains he himself had forged, and which he, no doubt, would have immediately broken had he been successful at Waterloo…. The legislative body were undoubtedly prepared to adopt any expedient for limiting the Imperial or Royal Prerogatives, and it was a great oversight on his part to leave them sitting. He should not have remained in Paris at all, but to have put himself immediately at the head of the army and to have given the Government of Paris to a General in whom he could implicitly confide. His only chance was to have been able to say, 'L'Empire—c'est moi!'"