[CHAPTER XCIII.]
Causes which justify the English Government in the measure of Napoleon's Banishment—Napoleon's wish to retire to England, in order that, being near France, he might again interfere in her affairs—Reasons for withholding from him the title of Emperor—Sir George Cockburn's Instructions—Temporary Accommodation at Briars—Napoleon removes to Longwood—Precautions taken for the safe custody of the Prisoner.
We are now to touch upon the arguments which seem to justify the Administration of England in the strict course which they adopted towards Napoleon Buonaparte, in restraining his person, and abating the privileges of rank which he tenaciously claimed. And here we are led to observe the change produced in men's feelings within the space of only twelve years. In 1816, when the present author, however inadequate to the task, attempted to treat of the same subject,[208] there existed a considerable party in Britain who were of opinion that the British government would best have discharged their duty to France and Europe, by delivering up Napoleon to Louis XVIII.'s government, to be treated as he himself had treated the Duke d'Enghien. It would be at this time of day needless to throw away argument upon the subject, or to show that Napoleon was at least entitled to security of life, by his surrender to the British flag.
As needless would it be to go over the frequently repeated ground, which proves so clearly that in other respects the transaction with Captain Maitland amounted to an unconditional surrender. Napoleon had considered every plan of escape by force or address, and none had seemed to him to present such chance of a favourable result, as that which upon full consideration he adopted. A surrender to England ensured his life, and gave him the hope of taking further advantages from the generosity of the British nation; for an unconditional surrender, as it secures nothing, so it excludes nothing. General Bertrand, when on board the Northumberland, said that Napoleon had been much influenced in taking the step he had done by the Abbé Siêyes, who had strongly advised him to proceed at once to England, in preference to taking any other course, which proves that his resolution must of course have been formed long before he ever saw Captain Maitland. Even M. Las Cases, when closely examined, comes to the same result; for he admits that he never hoped that Napoleon would be considered as a free man, or receive passports for America; but only that he would be kept in custody under milder restrictions than were inflicted upon him. But as he made no stipulation of any kind concerning the nature of these restrictions, they must of course have been left to the option of the conquering party. The question, therefore, betwixt Napoleon and the British nation, was not one of justice, which has a right to its due, though the consequence should be destruction to the party by which it is to be rendered, but one of generosity and clemency, feelings which can only be wisely indulged with reference to the safety of those who act upon them.
Napoleon being thus a prisoner surrendered at discretion, became subjected to the common laws of war, which authorise belligerent powers to shut up prisoners of war in places of confinement, from which it is only usual to except such whose honour may be accounted as a sufficient guarantee for their good faith, or whose power of doing injury is so small that it might be accounted contemptible. But Buonaparte was neither in the one situation nor the other. His power was great; the temptation to use it strong; and the confidence to be placed in his resolution or promise to resist such temptation, very slight indeed.
There is an unauthorised report, that Lord Castlereagh, at the time of the treaty of Fontainbleau, asked Caulaincourt, why Napoleon did not choose to ask refuge in England, rather than accept the almost ridiculous title of Emperor of Elba. We doubt much if Lord Castlereagh did this. But if, either upon such a hint, or upon his own free motion, Napoleon had chosen in 1814, to repose his confidence in the British nation; or even had he fallen into our hands by chance of war, England ought certainly, on so extraordinary an occasion, to have behaved with magnanimity; and perhaps ought either to have permitted Napoleon to reside as an individual within her dominions, or suffered him to have departed to America. It might then have been urged (though cautious persons might even then hesitate,) that the pledged word of a soldier, who had been so lately a sovereign, ought to be received as a guarantee for his observance of treaty. Nay, it might then have been held, that the talents and activity of a single individual, supposing them as great as human powers can be carried, would not have enabled him, however desirous, to have again disturbed the peace of Europe. There would have been a natural desire, therefore, to grant so remarkable a person that liberty which a generous nation might have been willing to conceive would not, and could not, be abused. But the experiment of Elba gave too ample proof at once how little reliance was to be placed in Napoleon's engagement, and how much danger was to be apprehended from him, even when his fortunes were apparently at the lowest ebb. His breach of the treaty of Fontainbleau altered entirely his relations with England and with Europe; and placed him in the condition of one whose word could not be trusted, and whose personal freedom was inconsistent with the liberties of Europe. The experiment of trusting to his parole had been tried and failed. The wise may be deceived once; only fools are twice cheated in the same manner.
It may be pleaded and admitted for Napoleon, that he had, to instigate his returning from Elba, as strong a temptation as earth could hold out to an ambitious spirit like his own—the prospect of an extraordinary enterprise, with the imperial throne for its reward. It may be also allowed, that the Bourbons, delaying to pay his stipulated revenue, afforded him, so far as they were concerned, a certain degree of provocation. But all this would only argue against his being again trusted within the reach of such temptation. While France was in a state of such turmoil and vexation, with the remains of a disaffected army fermenting amid a fickle population—while the king (in order to make good his stipulated payments to the allies) was obliged to impose heavy taxes, and to raise them with some severity, many opportunities might arise, in which Napoleon, either complaining of some petty injuries of his own, or invited by the discontented state of the French nation, might renew his memorable attempt of 28th February. It was the business of the British Ministry to prevent all hazard of this. It was but on the 20th April before, that they were called upon by the Opposition to account to the House of Commons for not taking proper precautions to prevent Buonaparte's escape from Elba.[209] For what then would they have rendered themselves responsible, had they placed him in circumstances which admitted of a second escape?—at least for the full extent of all the confusion and bloodshed to which such an event must necessarily have given rise. The justice, as well as the necessity of the case, warranted the abridgement of Buonaparte's liberty, the extent of which had been made, by his surrender, dependent upon the will of Britain.
In deducing this conclusion, we have avoided having any recourse to the argument ad hominem. We have not mentioned the dungeon of Toussaint, on the frontier of the Alps, or the detention of Ferdinand, a confiding and circumvented ally, in the chateau of Valençay. We have not adverted to the instances of honours and appointments bestowed on officers who had broken their parole of honour, by escaping from England, yet were received in the Tuileries with favour and preferments. Neither have we alluded to the great state maxim, which erected political necessity, or expediency, into a power superior to moral law. Were Britain to vindicate her actions by such instances as the above, it would be reversing the blessed rule, acting towards our enemy, not according as we would have desired he should have done, but as he actually had done in regard to us, and observing a crooked and criminal line of policy, because our adversary had set us the example.
But Buonaparte's former actions must necessarily have been considered, so far as to ascertain what confidence was to be reposed in his personal character; and if that was found marked by gross instances of breach of faith to others, Ministers would surely have been inexcusable had they placed him in a situation where his fidelity was what the nation had principally to depend on for tranquillity. The fact seems to be admitted by Las Cases, that while he proposed to retire to England, it was with the hope of again meddling in French affairs.[210] The example of Sir Niel Campbell had shown how little restraint the mere presence of a commissioner would have had over this extraordinary man; and his resurrection after leaving Elba, had distinctly demonstrated that nothing was to be trusted to the second political death which he proposed to submit to as a recluse in England.