569 
PARIS. 
latter circumllance, which he confiders as irkfome, dif- 
pofes him to confine himfelf in a great meafure to the 
grounds of his manfion. 
“ I obferved to him, that, confidering the adtive life 
he had led, it did not appear that he took fufficient exer- 
cife to preferve himfelf in a right ftate of health. He re¬ 
plied, ‘ My rides, indeed, are too confined ; but the being 
accompanied by an officer is fo very difagreeable to me, 
that I mud be content to fuffer the confequences of 
abridging them. However, I feel no inconvenience from 
the want of exercife. Man cart accuftom himfelf to pri¬ 
vations. At one period of my life I was many hours on 
horfeback every day for fix years ; and I was once eighteen 
months without palling from the houfe.’ He often re¬ 
turned to the grievance of being watched by an officer. 
‘ You are acquainted,’ he faid, ‘ with the ifland of St. He¬ 
lena; and muftbe fenfible that a fentinel, placed on either 
of thefe hills, can command the fight of me from the mo¬ 
ment I quit this houfe till I return to it. If an officer 
or foldier placed on that height will not fatisfy your go¬ 
vernor, why not place ten, twenty, or a troop of dragoons. 
Let them never lofe fight of me ; only keep an officer from 
my fide.’ 
“ The arrival of a fleet at the ifland from India, crowded 
the little town with paflengers, who were all, as ufual, 
eager to fee Bonaparte. The countefs of Loudon difem- 
barked from this fleet; and, during her flay at St. Helena, 
was accommodated at Plantation-houfe, the refidence of 
the governor. In compliment to this lady, a dinner of 
ceremony was given on the following day, by fir Hudfon 
Lowe ; and an invitation w'as difpatched through general 
Bertrand to general Bonaparte, fo arranged in point of 
politenefs and etiquette, as to juftify an expe&ation that 
it w'ould be accepted. Count Bertrand delivered the go¬ 
vernor’s card, which was read and returned without a 
word of obfervation. ‘Sire,’ faid Bertrand, ‘what an- 
fwer is it your majelly’s pleafure that I fliould return ?’ 
—‘Say, the emperor gave no anfwer.’—Napoleon after¬ 
wards, in convention with Mr. Warden, laid, ‘ What ! 
go to dinner, perhaps, with a file of foldiers to guard me ! 
After all, they could not, I think, expedl me to accept 
the invitation. Thedillance is confiderable, and the hour 
unfeafonable ; and I have almoft relinquifhed the idea of 
exceeding my chain, accompanied as I mull be by an 
officer.’ 
Mr. Warden quitted St. Helena in June 1816. He fays 
at parting, “ I had been uniformly treated with fuch re- 
fpeflful kindnefs, and, in fome degree, with fuch partial 
confidence, by Gen. Bertrand, Monf. de las Cafes, and, 
indeed, by every one of the fuite, that I could not take 
leave of them without a confiderable degree of fenfibility. 
A more amiable, united, and delightful, family, than that 
of Gen. Bertrand, I never yet faw : nor is his affection as 
a hufband, and his fondnefs as a father, lefs finking than 
his fidelity to his mailer.” 
About the time that Mr. Warden arrived in England, 
(probably in the fame ffiip or fleet,) there came alfo from 
Sr. Helena a Monf. Santini, who called himfelf Napoleon’s 
uffier of the cabinet. On his arrival, he immediately 
publifhed a pamphlet, containing a narrative of the ill- 
treatment which, he faid, his mailer had received fmce 
his arrival on that ifland. In this narrative, which he 
entitled, “An Appeal to the Britiffi Nation on the Treat¬ 
ment experienced by Napoleon Bonaparte in the Ifland 
of St. Helena,” was an official Memorial or Remonftrance, 
(dictated by Napoleon,) from count Montholon to hr 
Hudfon Lowe, the governor of the ifland. As this Me¬ 
morial was difcuffed in the Britiffi fenate, its authenticity 
being acknowledged by the government, we ffiall lay fome 
parts of it before our readers. 
Letter , by order of the Emperor Napoleon, addreJJ'ed, by 
General Count Montholon, to Sir Hudfon Lowe, Britijh 
Governor of the If and of St. Helena. 
“ General ; I have received the Treaty of the 2d of 
Vol. XVIII. No. 1265. 
Augufl, 1815, concluded between his Britannic Majefly, 
the Emperor of Aullria, the Emperor of Ruffia, and the 
King of Pruffia, which accompanied your letter of the 23d 
of July. 
“The Emperor Napoleon protefls againfl the contents 
of that Treaty ; he is not the prifonerof England. After 
having placed his abdication in the hands of the repre- 
fentatives of the nation, for the advantage of the conlli- 
tution adopted by the French people, and in favour of 
his fon, he repaired voluntarily and freely to England, 
with a view of living there, as a private individual, under 
the protection of the Britiffi laws. The violation of every 
law cannot conllitute a right. The perfon of the Emperor 
Napoleon is adlually in the power of England ; but he 
neither lias been, nor is, in the power of Aullria, Ruffia, 
and Pruffia, either in fad or of right, even according to 
the laws and cultoms of England, which never included, 
in the exchange of prifoners, Ruffians, Pruffians, Aullrians, 
Spaniards, or Portuguefe, though united to thefe powers 
by treaties of alliance, and making war conjointly with 
them. 
The Convention of the 2d of Augufl, concluded fifteen 
days after the emperor was in England, cannot have, of 
right, any effefl. It exhibits only a fpedlacleof the coa¬ 
lition of the four greateil powers of Europe, for the 
oppreffion of a Angle man ! a coalition which the opinion 
of every nation, and all the principles of found morality, 
equally difavow. 
“ The Emperors of Aullria and Ruffia, and the King of 
Pruffia, having, neither in fad, or in right, any claim over 
the perfon of the Emperor Napoleon, could decide nothing 
refpeding him. 
“Had the Emperor Napoleon been in the power of the 
Emperor of Aullria, that prince would have recolleded 
the relations which religion and nature have formed be¬ 
tween a father and a fon ; relations which are never vio¬ 
lated with impunity. He would have recolleded that 
Napoleon had four times rellored to him the throne; 
viz. at Leoben, in 1797; at Lunevilie in 1801, when his 
armies were under the wails of Vienna; at Preffiurg, in 
1806 ; and at Vienna, in 1809, when his armies had pof- 
feffion of the capital and three-fourths of the monarchy ! 
That prince would have recolleded the protellations he 
made to Napoleon, at the bivouac in Moravia in 1800, 
and at the interview in Drefden in 1812. 
“ Had the perfon of the Emperor Napoleon been in the 
power of the Emperor Alexander, he would have recoP" 
leded the ties of friendfhip contraded at Tilfit, Erfurth, 
and during twelve years of daily correfpondence. He 
would have recolleded the condud of the Emperor Na¬ 
poleon the day after the battle of Aulleidirz, when, 
though he could have made him, with the wreck of his 
army, prifoner, hecontented himfelf with taking his parole 
and allowed him to operate his retreat. Afluredly, that 
prince would never have violated the duties of friendlhip 
and gratitude towards a friend in misfortune. 
“ Had the perfon of the Emperor Napoleon been in the 
power of the King of Pruffia, that fovereign could not 
have forgotten that it depended on Napoleon, after the 
battle of Friedland, to place another prince on the throne 
of Berlin. He would not have forgotten, in the prefence 
of a difltrmed enemy, the protellations of attachment, and 
fentiments of gratitude, which he teflified to him in 1812, 
at the interviews in Drefden. 
“ It accordingly appears, from articles two and flve 
of the treaty of the ad of Augull, that thefe princes, 
being incapable of exercifing any influence over the dif- 
pofal of the emperor, who was not in their power, accede 
to what may he done thereon by his Britannic majelly, 
who takes upon himfelf the charge of fulfilling every ob¬ 
ligation. Thefe princes have reproached the Emperor 
Napoleon with having preferred the protection of the 
Engiifli laws to theirs. The falfe ideas which the Emperor 
Napoleon had formed of the liberality of the laws of Eng¬ 
land, and of the influence of the opinion of a great, ge- 
7 .F nerous. 
