PARI S. 503 
the Treaty of perfonal fafety, which maintaining his title 
of Emperor, afligned to him the Iiland of Elba as his place 
-of abode, and confirmed to him the fovereignty over its 
territory. The 5th article of the fame Treaty afligned 
to me the fovereignty of the dates of Parma, tranfmiflible 
to my fon and his defcendants. 
“ I will not difcufs the merits of thefe treaties in re- 
fpeft of the Emperor Napoleon. They are more or lefs 
binding on him, in proportion as he exercifed his will 
•more or lefs freely in figning them. We will limply fay, 
that he had not the power of difpoling, after his life, of 
the crown which his fon received as his birth-right from 
the French nation and its conftitutional laws. If the fo- 
vereignsof France, no more than the other principal fo- 
vereigns of Europe, have never been able to break through 
the eftablilhed rule of fucceflion in their own families fo 
as to tranfmit their crown to their fecond or third fon, 
to the prejudice of their firft born, how comes it that the 
Emperor Napoleon fliould be able to deprive the Prince 
Charles-Francis-Napoleon of his right of inheritance, in 
order to transfer it into foreign hands ? Can a confpiracy 
have deftroyed, by its irregular afts, the force and virtue 
of the laws of the French empire? Can it have deftroyed 
the royalty which the prince, my fon, holds -of divine as 
well as national right ? The princes whom this confpi¬ 
racy has put upon the throne of my fon, fully admitted 
thefe principles themfelves, when they refufed to ac¬ 
knowledge the afts of the government, ftyled proviflonal. 
Ten years of free-government, acknowledged by all the 
powers in Europe, at a time when the name of Bonaparte 
was not yet infcribed in the annals of war; fifteen years 
exiftence of an empire, the focial conventions of which 
eftablilh the rights of the Emperor Napoleon, and thofe 
of his dynafty; rendered indisputable the legitimacy of 
his crown. 
“ When, during my refidence at Blois, I exercifed the 
authority of Regent, I appealed to the devotion ofFrenclri 
men 5 I received the ftrongeft teftimonies of their love and 
zeal for the caufe of their legitimate Prince. The pre¬ 
fence of your armies, and the tendency of your policy, 
forbade me to refpond to the wilhes of that faithful na¬ 
tion. 
“ The fate of nations being fubmitted to your award, 
your objeft will no doubt be to conciliate their rights 
and willies with the rights and interefts of fovereigns. 
Circumftances have deprived my fon of his fovereignty 
over the French Nation, and both himfelf and his People 
are equally injured in their rights by this fatal refult of 
the late courfe of events. In this ftate of things, we, in 
our quality of Emprefs and of Mother, and before any 
authentic refolution be taken by the Congrefs, protcft, 
by the prefent deed, againft all afts of the exifting go¬ 
vernment of France, which has been eftablilhed to the 
prejudice of the legitimate heir to the throne. We pro- 
teft, likewife, in our own name, as well as in that of the 
Prince Charles-Francis-Napoleon, Prefumptive Heir to, 
•and pofleffor by right of, the French Crown, againft all 
refolutions of the High Powers afl'embled at Congrefs, 
whether taken collectively or individually, and tending to 
impair the rights of the prince my fon to the faid French 
crown. 
“ The throne of the Prince Charles-Francis-Napoleon 
is that raifed by the French Nation, fuch as it exifted at 
the time when its choice and eleftion called the Emperor 
Napoleon to the head of its government. But if, in the 
arduous ft niggle in which it has been engaged, the French 
Empire has been coultrained by the force of arms to lign 
the Treaty of Paris, we think it juft, inafmuch as refpefts 
the territories not forming part of prefent France, that 
the conditions thereof be faithfully and for ever obferved. 
To this end we here declare, that the prefent Proteft folely 
applies to the illegal occupation of that territory of 
France conliituting the prefent monarchy. 
“ Having thus developed her claims, the Emprefs Ma¬ 
ria- Louifa, Archduchefs of Auftria, Duchefs of Parma, 
&c. reprefenting the Prince Charles-Francis-Napoleon, 
her fon, a minor, requefts of the juftice and magnanimity 
of the Allied Powers, that the fubjeft of her claims be 
fubmitted to the deliberation of Congrefs ; and that an 
acknowledgment of the prefent Proteft be delivered unto 
her, in order that ftie may produce it whenever it may 
pleafe Divine Providence to afford her time and place for 
that purpofe. 
“In faith of which, and to give all due authenticity 
to the prefent Proteft, ftie has affixed to it her leal, and 
written it in her own hand, at the Palace of Schcenbrun, 
February 19, 1815. Maria-Louisa, Imperatrice.” 
“ The High Powers affembled at Congrefs, after having 
deliberated, in their fitting of the 24th February, on the 
prefent Reclamation of her Imperial Majefty Maria-Louifa; 
conformably to the opinion of his Imperial Majefty the 
Emperor of all the Rufllas, of his Imperial and Royal 
Majefty the Emperor of Auftria, the Father of her Im¬ 
perial and Royal Majefty the Emprefs Maria-Louifa, and 
from the refpeft due to the perfonal character of her Ma¬ 
jefty the Emprefs; have refolved, that the Aft emanated 
from her the 19th February, commencing with the words 
“ Maria-Louifa,” and ending by thofe, “ written it in her 
own hand,” ftial! be infcribed in the Protocole of the Afts 
of the Congrefs.” The French Minifters, having pro- 
tefted againft this decifion, abftained from figning it. 
The date of the above document will not efcape notice ; 
it was only a week previous to the day on which Napo¬ 
leon embarked ; and, within a week of its being acknow¬ 
ledged and authenticated by the Congrefs, the emperor 
was again upon French ground. 
It has been much difputed in France whether Napoleon 
took the determination of returning from Elba of his own 
accord, or by the invitation of a party. The royalifts, 
who are almoft all fticklers for the latter aflertion, were 
not a little mortified that the trials of Ney, Labedoyere, 
Drouot, and others, offered nothing to confirm their fa¬ 
vourite hypcthefis; and the partifans of Napoleon pofi- 
tively afierted that there was no regular confpiracy formed 
for aiding him in his jnvafion of France. Carnot declared 
that he had held no communication with Elba, nor was 
he aware that any had been held ; Labedoyere affirmed 
that “he had no fort of intercourle with the ifle of Elba ; 
that he had never been prefent at any meeting in whicli 
the recall of Bonaparte had been agitated ; that he had 
often heard vague luggeftions, and fome expreffions of 
difcontent, but he knew nothing of any determined plan.” 
Of the fuperior officers who attended the ex-emperor in 
Elba, the principal were Bertrand and Drouot. The lat¬ 
ter (a very different perfon from Drornt comte d’Erlon) 
is comparatively little known in this country : but we 
would advife thofe of our readers, who feel an intereli: in 
the real circumftances of Bonaparte’s return from Elba, 
to perufe the trial of Drouot, 6th of April, 1816 ; where 
they will find that this officer was unfriendly to the at¬ 
tempt; and that, amid all the applications made to him 
for favour in Bonaparte’s fecond reign, no one founded a 
claim on a fecret correfpondence with that iiland. 
Mr. Hobhoufe, who refided at Paris during “ the hun¬ 
dred days,” writes upon this fubjeft as follows : “ Having 
taken confiderable pains to afcertain the faft, I am come 
into that perfuafion which prevails moll generally amongft 
thofe who have the reputation of being the belt informed; 
which is, that there was no correfponding fcheme laid at 
Paris for this reftoration, and that the whole projeft and 
execution are to be attributed folely to the daring deter¬ 
mination of Napoleon himfelf to recover his crown, moft 
happily coinciding with the aftual condition and general 
feeling of France. What was that condition and that ge¬ 
neral feeling, it is likely that the exile at Elba well knew. 
He might be informed of this even by the public papers, 
had he not been poflelied of correfpondents at Paris and 
agents at Naples. But what I mean to afiert is, that 
there was no confpiracy in France correfponding with the 
difembarkation 
