Memoirs of Napoleon Bonaparte — Complete
which it would be rendered independent both of Great Britain and
France. We clearly saw that this was only a lure, and that, whatever
arrangements might be entered into, England would keep Malta, because it
was not to be expected that the maritime power would willingly surrender
an island which commands the Mediterranean. I do not notice the
discussions respecting the American islands, for they were, in my
opinion, of little consequence to us.
--[It is strange that Bourrienne does not allude to one of the first
arbitrary acts of Napoleon, the discussions on which formed part of
those conversations between Napoleon and his brother Lucien of which
Bourrienne complained to Josephine he knew nothing. In 1763 France
had ceded to England the part of Louisiana on the east of the
Mississippi, and the part on the west of that river, with New
Orleans, to Spain. By the treaty negotiated with Spain by Lucien
Bonaparte in 1800 her share was given back to France. On the 80th
April 1803 Napoleon sold the whole to the United States for
80,000,000 francs (L 3,260,000), to the intense anger of his
brothers Joseph and Lucien. Lucien was especially proud of having
obtained the cession for which Napoleon was, at that time, very
anxious; but both brothers were horrified when Napoleon disclosed
how little he cared for constitutional forms by telling them that if
the Legislature, as his brothers threatened, would not ratify the
treaty, he would do without the ratification; see Iung's Letter,
tome ii. p. 128.
Napoleon's most obvious motives were want of money and the certainty
of the seizure of the province by England, as the rupture with her
was now certain. But there was perhaps another cause. The States
had already been on the point of seizing the province from Spain,
which had interfered with their trade (Hinton's United States, p.
435, and Thiers tome iv, p. 320).
Of the sum to be paid, 20,000,000 were to go to the States, to cover
the illegal seizures of American ships by the French navy, a matter
which was not settled for many years later. The remaining
80,000,000 were employed in the preparations for the invasion of
England; see Thiers, tome iv. pp. 320 and 326, and Lanfrey, tome
iii. p. 48. The transaction is a remarkable one, as forming the
final withdrawal of France from North America (with the exception of
some islands on the Newfoundland coast), where she had once held
such a proud position. It also eventually made an addition to the
number of slave States.]--
They cost more than they produce; and they will escape from us, some
time or other, as all colonies ultimately do from the parent country.
Our whole colonial system is absurd; it forces us to pay for colonial
produce at a rate nearly double that for which it may be purchased from
our neighbours.
When Lord Hawkesbury consented to evacuate Malta, on condition that it
should be independent of France and Great Britain, he must have been
aware that such a condition would never be fulfilled. He cared little
for the order of St. John, and he should have put, by way of postscript,
at the bottom of his note, "We will keep Malta in spite of you." I
always told the First Consul that if he were in the situation of the
English he would act the same part; and it did not require much sagacity
to foretell that Malta would be the principal cause of the rupture of
peace. He was of my opinion; but at that moment he thought everything
depended on concluding the negotiations, and I entirely agreed with him.
It happened, as was foreseen, that Malta caused the renewal of war.
The English, on being called upon to surrender the island, eluded the
demand, shifted about, and at last ended by demanding that Malta should
be placed under the protection of the King of Naples,--that is to say,
under the protection of a power entirely at their command, and to which
they might dictate what they pleased. This was really too cool a piece
of irony!
I will here notice the quarrel between the First Consul and the English
newspapers, and give a new proof of his views concerning the freedom of
the press. However, liberty of the press did once contribute to give him
infinite gratification, namely, when all the London journals mentioned
the transports of joy manifested in London on the arrival of General
Lauriston, the bearer of the ratification of the preliminaries of peace.
The First Consul was at all times the declared enemy of the liberty of
the press, and therefore he ruled the journals with a hand of iron.
--[An incident, illustrative of the great irritation which Bonaparte
felt at the plain speaking of the English press, also shows the
important character of Coleridge's writings in the 'Morning Post'.
In the course of a debate in the House of Commons Fox asserted that
the rupture of the Peace of Amiens had its origin in certain essays
which had appeared in the Morning POST, and which were known to have
proceeded from the pen of Coleridge. But Fox added an ungenerous
and malicious hint that the writer was at Rome, within the reach of
Bonaparte. The information reached the ears for which it was
uttered, and an order was sent from Paris to compass the arrest of
Coleridge. It was in the year 1806, when the poet was making a tour
in Italy. The news reached him at Naples, through a brother of the
illustrious Humboldt, as Mr. Gillman says--or in a friendly warning
from Prince Jerome Bonaparte, as we have it on the authority of Mr.
Cottle--and the Pope appears to have been reluctant to have a hand
in the business, and, in fact, to have furnished him with a
passport, if not with a carriage for flight, Coleridge eventually
got to Leghorn, where he got a passage by an American ship bound for
England; but his escape coming to the ears of Bonaparte, a look-out
was kept for the ship, and she was chased by a French cruiser, which
threw the captain into such a state of terror that he made Coleridge
throw all his journals and papers overboard (Andrews' History of
Journalism, vol. ii. p. 28).]--
I have often heard him say, "Were I to slacken the reins, I should not
continue three months in power." He unfortunately held the same opinion
respecting every other prerogative of public freedom. The silence he had
imposed in France he wished, if he could, to impose in England. He was
irritated by the calumnies and libels so liberally cast upon him by
the English journals, and especially by one written in French, called
'L'Ambigu', conducted by Peltier, who had been the editor of the 'Actes
des Apotres' in Paris. The 'Ambigu' was constantly teeming with the most
violent attacks on the First Consul and the French nation. Bonaparte
could never, like the English, bring himself to despise newspaper
libels, and he revenged himself by violent articles which he caused to
be inserted in the 'Moniteur'. He directed M. Otto to remonstrate, in
an official note, against a system of calumny which he believed to be
authorised by the English Government. Besides this official proceeding
he applied personally to Mr. Addington, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
requesting him to procure the adoption of legislative measures against
the licentious writings complained of; and, to take the earliest
opportunity of satisfying his hatred against the liberty of the press,
the First Consul seized the moment of signing the preliminaries to make
this request.
Mr. Addington wrote a long answer to the First Consul, which I
translated for him. The English Minister refuted, with great force, all
the arguments which Bonaparte had employed against the press. He also
informed the First Consul that, though a foreigner, it was competent in
him to institute a complaint in the courts of law; but that in such
case he must be content to see all the scandalous statements of which
he complained republished in the report of the trial. He advised him to
treat the libels with profound contempt, and do as he and others did,
who attached not the slightest importance to them. I congratulate myself
on having in some degree prevented a trial taking place at that time.
Things remained in this state for the moment; but after the peace of
Amiens the First Consul prosecuted Pettier, whose journal was always
full of violence and bitterness against him. Pettier was defended by
the celebrated Mackintosh, who, according to the accounts of the time,
displayed great eloquence on this occasion, yet, in spite of the ability
of his counsel, he was convicted. The verdict, which public opinion
considered in the light of a triumph for the defendant, was not followed
up by any judgment, in consequence of the rupture of the peace occurring
soon after. It is melancholy to reflect that this nervous susceptibility
to the libels of the English papers contributed certainly as much as,
and perhaps more than, the consideration of great political interests
to the renewal of hostilities. The public would be astonished at a great
many things if they could only look under the cards.
I have anticipated the rupture of the treaty of Amiens that I might not
interrupt what I had to mention respecting Bonaparte's hatred of the
liberty of the press. I now return to the end of the year 1801, the
period of the expedition against St. Domingo.
The First Consul, after dictating to me during nearly: the whole of one
night instructions for that expedition, sent for General Leclerc, and
said to him in my presence, "Here, take your instructions; you have a
fine opportunity for filling your purse. Go, and no longer tease me with
your eternal requests for money." The friendship which Bonaparte felt
for his sister Pauline had a good deal of influence in inducing him to
take this liberal way of enriching her husband.
The expedition left the ports of France on the 14th of December 1801,
and arrived off Cape St. Domingo on the 1st of February 1802. The fatal
result of the enterprise is well known, but we are never to be cured
of the folly of such absurd expeditions. In the instructions given to
Leclerc everything was foreseen; but it was painful to know that the
choice of one of the youngest and least capable of all the generals
of the army left no hope of a successful result. The expedition to St.
Domingo was one of Bonaparte's great errors. Almost every person whom
he consulted endeavoured to dissuade him from it. He attempted a
justification through the medium of his historians of St. Helena; but
does he succeed when he says, "that he was obliged to yield to the
advice of his Council of State?" He, truly, was a likely man to submit
a question of war to the discussion of the Council of State, or to be
guided in such an affair by any Council! We must believe that no other
motive influenced the First Consul but the wish, by giving him the means
of enriching himself, to get rid of a brother-in-law who had the gift of
specially annoying him. The First Consul, who did not really much
like this expedition, should have perhaps reflected longer on the
difficulties of attempting to subdue the colony by force. He was shaken
by this argument, which I often repeated to him, and he agreed with
it, but the inconceivable influence which the members of his family
exercised on him always overcame him.
Bonaparte dictated to me a letter for Toussaint, full of sounding words
and fine promises, informing him that his two children, who had been
educated in Paris, were sent back to him, offering him the title
of vice-governor, and stating that he ought readily to assist in an
arrangement which would contribute to reconnect the colony with the
mother-country. Toussaint, who had at first shown a disposition to close