Lords Sitting of 18 March 1817

PERSONAL TREATMENT OF BUONAPARTE AT ST. HELENA.
Lord Hollandrose, pursuant to notice, to move for papers connected with the personal treatment of Napoleon Buonaparté at St. Helena. Humanity alone might justify this motion referring as it did to the individual who had in so extraordinary a manner been exiled to the island of St. Helena: but his chief, if not his only motive for bringing the subject under their lordships' consideration was, to rescue the character of parliament, of the Crown, and of the country, from the stain which must attach to it if any harsh or ungenerous treatment had been resorted to with respect to it. He certainly felt, however, that the cause might suffer from being undertaken by himself, differing so widely as he did from his majesty's government both on questions of general policy, foreign and domestic, and on the particular policy which they had pursued in the detention and exile of Napoleon Buonaparté. He felt it necessary, therefore, before he proceeded to state the grounds of his motion distinctly to disclaim any intention at the present moment of renewing the discussion on that policy. However proper it might be on other occasions to agitate that topic, it was his wish that it should have no connexion with his present motion. It was not with the vain hope that he could produce any alteration in the principles of policy on which ministers had acted with reference to the detention of Buonaparté, that he made this motion; and as little was it with the view of incul-
1138
pating the conduct of the gallant officer who was governor of St. Helena, and with many of whose good qualities he had the good fortune to be personally acquainted. It was not his intention to call on their lordships to change that plan of policy which they had been pleased to sanction respecting the detention of Buonaparté in his exile. Though he still retained all the opinions which he had formerly expressed on that paint, he was not such a coxcomb as to suppose that after parliament had sanctioned the policy of ministers, and after the faith of the Crown and of the country was pledged to the proceeding, he was not such a coxcomb as to imagine that he could effect any change in it; the more especially when he considered that the opinion of the country (as he admitted that it did) went along with ministers on the subject. It was with no such intention that he brought forward his motion; and he disclaimed any such intention, not because there would be any thing in it of which any one ought to be ashamed, but simply for the reasons, which he had already stated. As to any other motives that might be insinuated against him, if his character and conduct were not sufficient to shield him from such imputations, certainly nothing that he could say would have an effect for that purpose. Trusting however that the character which he bore among their lordships would be a sufficient defence from such imputations, he felt himself fully authorized in treating them with the contempt which they merited. He had further to declare, that no hostility to ministers—he did not use the word hostility in an invidious sense, but meant fair political hostility,—was the cause of his bringing this subject before their lordships. Had he concurred with them in the policy of detaining Buonaparté, instead of disapproving, as he did, of that policy, it would not only have been consistent in him, but it would have been still more incumbent on him to bring forward this motion.
Having said thus much to guard himself from misrepresentation on a subject on which misrepresentation would be so apt to go forth, he would proceed to state the relation in which Napoleon Buonaparté stood with respect to this country and its government, and the ground of the measures adopted with respect to that personage, as represented by ministers themselves at the time the act relative to him was passed; and as they were understood

1139
by the people. To use the language of the legislature itself then, Buonaparté was so detained and so exiled, on the principle of necessity; because it was necessary for the tranquillity of Europe, and, through the tranquillity of Europe, for the safety of this country, that he should be thus detained. Owing, it was said, to the character of the man, and to the events which had occurred in Europe, it became necessary that this extraordinary person should be detained in this extraordinary manner; and an act of parliament was passed for that purpose; parliament in passing it undoubtedly never contemplating that any more severity was to be used than was actually required for the purposes of safety. In justice to ministers themselves, and especially to the noble earl at the head of the colonial department, he must admit that they stated the proceeding as a matter of necessity.
If, then, the detention of Napoleon Buonaparté was a matter of necessity, necessity, as it had been well said on another occasion by the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, must limit what necessity had created; and it became incumbent on ministers to show that beyond this necessity they had not proceeded. In stating necessity as the ground of detaining Napoleon Buonaparté, the statement had been accompanied by the observation that the spot in which he was to be detained, had been chosen for this among other reasons,—that there a greater degree of personal liberty might without danger be allowed him. In other respects St. Helena was ill-chosen for this purpose; as the choice was attended by considerable inconveniences, and by an expense of from one to two hundred thousand pounds a year. He might be mistaken as to the precise sum; but unquestionably the expense of the custody of Buonaparté was considerably greater at St. Helena than it would have been in most other situations. If it were at all necessary therefore to impose harsh restrictions on this individual, St. Helena must, after all, have been very ill chosen. But, it ought to be kept in mind, that the act of keeping him there was the act, not only of the executive government, but also of the legislature. Parliament was a party to it; and it therefore became the duty of parliament, if, contrary to its intention, the personage so detained met with-any unnecessarily harsh treatment in his'confmement,—and he further contended, that if rumours and reports were in cir-
1140
culation, attended with any degree of plausibility, and calculated to produce in this country, in Europe, and on posterity, the impression that unnecessarily harsh and cruel treatment had been resorted to, it became the duty of parliament to investigate the facts, and to ascertain whether those rumours were or were not well founded; in order that if not true, they might be contradicted; and that if truer measures might be adopted, without a moment's delay, to apply the proper remedy, if such reports and rumours were allowed to remain uncontradicted, when thus plausibly introduced to public notice; the opinion of this country, of Europe, and of posterity would be that they were not without foundation, and a deep stain would rest on the character of the British nation.
What, then, were the reports to which he had alluded? And why had he not till now brought forward the subject? He admitted that such reports had reached him in the course of the last three or four months from a variety of quarters. It was a matter of notoriety that he had opposed the detention of Buonaparté and had entered his protest against it in their lordships journals. For these, and for other personal reasons, it was perhaps natural that complaints respecting the treatment of that individual should reach him sooner than they did the public in general. No doubt many communications on the subject had been made to him; and from whatever quarters they came, he did not think that in a matter where the justice and character of the country was concerned, he ought to have shut his ears against such communications; but as long as they appeared to him to be destitute of real ground of authenticity, he did not think himself called upon to bring them in this way before their lordships. But when, in addition to these rumours, a paper fell into his hands, containing the same complaints, and purporting to have been written by general count Montholon, and addressed by him to the governor of St. Helena, by the order and direction of Buonaparté—a paper which at that time he had reason to believe, would be made public, and which had been since made public—he then thought that the complaints had assumed a shape which rendered it necessary to call their lordships attention to the subject. He certainly lamented the publication of such

1141
in parliament that publication might have been accompanied with the refutation which he trusted they would receive. God forbid they should be found to deserve implicit credit. He hoped that they would meet with the fullest and most complete contradiction: but they did appear to him to have assumed a shape which, if they remained uncontradicted, would in the opinion of the people of this country, in the opinion of Europe, and in that of posterity, afford ground for believing that harsh, cruel, and unjust usage had been experienced by Napoleon Buonaparté in his confinement; and thus a deep and indelible stain might, in history, be fixed upon the character of the British nation. He had, therefore, brought the matter before their lordships, that such reports, if untrue, might be promptly contradicted; and, if true, that no time might be lost in correcting the abuse.
He would now state what the reports were; and if the facts were as represented in these reports, he contended, that they did exceed the limits of that necessity upon which the legislature was induced to pass the act. First, then, with respect to the liberty allowed to Buonaparté, as to the several parts of the island itself; the letter of Count Montholon stated, that a very considerable restriction had lately taken place. The climate of the island, as had been often asserted when the bill was in progress, was in general, he believed, good: but that was not the case with the higher grounds, to which Buonaparté was said to be confined; the dampness of which was calculated materially to aggravate the evil of confinement; and the restriction lately resorted to was, in that respect, a severe hardship; for the hours fit for exercise in such a situation were those during which no ingress nor egress was permitted to or from the house at Longwood. One of two things must, therefore, follow—either that St. Helena was very ill chosen as the place of detention; or that Buonaparté was confined with unnecessary rigour. Another restriction which certainly was not in contemplation when the act passed, was stated in the letter of count Montholon, namely, that Napoleon Buonaparté was not permitted to receive such books, journals, newspapers, and public prints, nor to subscribe for such publications, as he thought proper. He was utterly at a loss
1142
to imagine what reason could exist for refusing to Buonaparté the permission of obtaining such journals as he wanted, in order to afford him information respecting recent events; nor could he regard such a restriction, if it existed, in any other light than as a needless aggravation of the calamities of the prisoner. To a person with the prospect of a long life, it was a most cruel and unnecessary hardship; and if there had been no other complaint than this alone, it ought to be contradicted, or the proper remedy applied.
Another more important complaint was, however, stated, and one in which the subjects of this country were deeply concerned, especially at the present period, when ministers had been invested with such extraordinary powers, namely, the intercepting of any sealed communications from Buonaparté to the great and illustrious person at the head of the government, acting in the name and on the behalf of his majesty. Was is it to be endured, that persons placed in confinement should not have the means of forwarding their complaints to their sovereign, or that when, possibly the subject matter of that complaint might involve the conduct of the individual in whose custody they were placed, that individual should have the power of inspecting the contents of the letter, and that thus in consequence the treatment of the prisoner might be rendered more harsh and vexatious? He knew of no law under which such an authority was derived. In his view of this proceeding, it was an improper and illegal interference with the royal prerogative. No one would accuse him of having any wish to extend the prerogative beyond its due limits; but the prerogative, within its just limits, was granted for the benefit of the public; and in this country, where imprisonment was regarded with such horror, that to a prisoner confined for life without trial, the law never contemplating the case, had afforded no remedy; a prisoner confined in this manner would surely be considered as entitled to every degree of humanity consistent with his situation; and no one had aright to withhold from the Crown any application for mercy or pardon. It might, however, be said, that some rule or point of etiquette was opposed to communications sealed up; but, as to that matter, there was nothing to prevent the sovereign from exercising his own judgment. If a person in Buonaparté's situation wished to apply to the sovereign, it might be for the

1143
purpose of complaining of the individual under whose charge he was placed; and to say, that he should be compelled to send only an open paper, when the very person to transmit it might perhaps be the person complained of, would be monstrous and unjust. It ought also to be recollected, that the foundation of the detention was necessity and danger to this country. Now, where could be the danger to this country, or the necessity for the purposes of detention, in permitting a sealed letter to be conveyed to the sovereign? If such were the rule—for it could not be law, that applications by sealed letters could not be made to the throne—such a letter might, at least, be sent to the secretary of state unopened and unexamined. This was a most important subject with reference to the subjects of this country. All prisoners were entitled to solicit the clemency of the Crown with a view to the mitigation of their situation, and in no quarter could they possibly receive a more benevolent attention than from the illustrious personage now at the head of the government. If, then, the governor of St. Helena was instructed to permit no sealed communication to the sovereign to pass through his hands, it was an infringement of the royal prerogative. He admitted, however, that an unrestrained and indiscriminate intercourse with other persons was not compatible with the safe custody of a person confined for the resaons given for the detention of Buonaparté, but it appeared to him, that even that principle was carried too far, if the report, were true, especially as the restraint went to deprive Buonaparté of the gratification of reading such publications as he thought proper.
It was a great hardship also, and one which was not contemplated at the time of passing the act, that Buonaparté was deprived of the means of communicating facts connected with his public life. If he were unrestrained in this respect, he might make communications which would shake some of the grounds on which the act was passed; and it was certainly a great hardship, that in a country where it had been much the fashion to load him with obloquy, he should be deprived of all remedy, and should not be allowed the means even of refuting calumny. This was not necessary for the tranquillity of Europe. He recollected, that he recommended, when the bill was in progress that Buonaparté should have the power of
1144
bringing a civil action, but the bill passed without giving him that advantage. If this restraint was intended to prevent his giving an account of the events of his extraordinary life, the restraint was an injury not merely to him, but to the public and to posterity; though, if it should be proved that the restraint was necessary for his safe custody, that inconvenience must be submitted to.
He now came to another subject of complaint, namely, the curtailing of the expense of Buonaparté's establishment. It might perhaps be said, "Do you, who have been preaching up economy and retrenchment complain of the diminution of expense?" His answer was, that he did not wish that sixpence should be expended in this way. He disapproved of the detention altogether. But the statement made by count Montholon was, that the expense being 20,000 l., this country declared that it could afford no more than 8,000 l., and that Buonaparté himself must find the other 12,000 l. It might be said, that 8,000 l. was amply sufficient; and so it probably would be in any other situation; but at St. Helena, if the report was correct, even 20,000 l. was hardly sufficient. And here he could not help just remarking, though it was rather out of his way, that even while Buonaparté was at Elba, the question whether he ought not to be sent to St. Helena was discussed at the congress of Vienna. He believed, at least, that the point was there mentioned and discussed; and he knew that out of the congress, it was stated to have been there mentioned, and discussed even at that time. That, however, was beside his present purpose. But if an extraordinary expense was necessary, it should be kept in view, that it was owing to the place where Buonaparté was confined; and it was unworthy of a great country, first to say, "I will place you in a situation where a great expense is necessary;" and then to come like a beggar and say, "You must your-self be at the greater part of that expense." He had been astonished when he saw this complaint, and had been inclined to discredit it, as he was now; but it came in such a shape, that it was necessary to mention it; and if it could be contradicted, that was a strong argument for his motion.
In bringing these statements before their lordships, he did not mention them as facts within his knowledge, or even as statements which he believed to be true

1145
but they had been laid before the public, I and, if not true, it was proper that they should be contradicted; for any harshness; of treatment, beyond what was necessary for the safe custody of the person, would be a stain on the character of the country. The best mode of proceeding would be to investigate the facts. When a clamour was raised in 1798 or 1799, respecting our treatment of prisoners of war, Mr. Pitt moved for a committee to investigate the facts, contradicted the statements, and extinguished that calumnious report through-out all Europe. This was what he now recommended. If the reports were untrue, let them be contradicted; if true, their lordships would express their disapprobation of the conduct which had been adopted, and apply the remedy. However they might now flatter themselves by aspersions on Napoleon, the judgment of posterity might not be the same on that subject. For instance, there could be no doubt that Mary queen of Scots was in the time of Elizabeth most dangerous to the country; and yet, who that had a heart alive to the dictates of integrity and humanity did not wish to obliterate from the page of history the cruel and harsh treatment of that queen? Who was there, with a just sense of the glory of the reign of the illustrious Elizabeth, that did not lament, not the unjust (for unjust it was not) but the harsh and ungenerous treatment of Mary? It would not be considered by posterity, whether Buonaparté had been justly punished for his crimes, but whether Great Britain had acted in that generous manner which became a great country. These were the views which they took of the past, and such would be the view which history would take of their conduct.
Such, then, were the grounds of his motion. It was made for the purpose of ascertaining how the facts really stood—to give an opportunity for contradicting the rumours which had gone abroad, if they were unfounded; and for applying the proper remedy, if they were true. If their lordships would acquiesce in the motion, end the reports should be contradicted, he would rejoice for the sake of the House, for the sake of the country, of parliament, and even of the noble lords opposite, particularly the noble earl at the head of the treasury; for, however they might have differed on political questions, the sense of friendship was not by that circumstance so deadened in his breast, that he could see, without pain, an immoral character
1146
fixed upon any administration of which he was at the head. He ought to apologize for having taken up so much of their lordship's time; but he trusted that, in speaking upon a subject as to which misrepresentations were so likely to arise, it would not be considered as improper in him to have stated at some length the grounds of his proceedings, and the motives by which he was actuated. He would conclude by moving an address to the Prince Regent, that he would be graciously pleased to order to be laid on their lordships table—1st, Copies of all instructions to the governor or governors of St. Helena, as to the personal treatment of Napoleon Buonaparté. 2d, Extracts of all such parts of the correspondence as had passed between Napoleon Buonaparté and the secretary of state, relative to the expenses of Buonaparté's establishment. 3d, Copies of such letters or applications of Buonaparté to the governor or governors of St. Helena, with the answers of the governor, as had been received by the secretary of state. 4th, Copies of all such dispatches as had been transmitted to the secretary of state relative to the intercourse claimed by Napoleon Buonaparté to be allowed between his place of residence and other parts of the island, with any remarks by Napoleon on that subject. 5th, Copies of any dispatches to the secretary of state relative to applications by Napoleon Buonaparté to the Prince Regent. Some of those who had chosen to follow the fortunes of Buonaparté had children; and it had been stated, that their parents had manifested an anxiety to have the means of religious instruction for these children, but that there was no clergyman of their persuasion in the island: and therefore, he moved, 6thly, for copies of all dispatches from the governor of St. Helena to the secretary of state, respecting any application by the persons in question, on the subject of religious instruction for themselves or their children.
The first of these motions being put,
Earl Bathurstrose. He said, that in part, he agreed with the noble mover's observation, that an opinion respecting the justice or injustice of the detention of Napoleon Buonaparté should have no effect on the discussion of the present question. He had no hesitation in agreeing with the noble lord, that those who considered the detention of Napoleon Buonaparté not only necessary, but just, might object to the mode of that detention;

1147
but, on the other hand, he doubted whether those who objected to that detention altogether, could with a proper degree of impartiality consider the propriety of the mode of detention. The noble lord had recorded on the Journals his protest against the detention of this individual, as being contrary to the principles of justice and humanity. Holding such an opinion, it was hardly to be conceived that the noble mover could discuss with a due degree of impartiality the restrictions imposed upon this prisoner, while he conceived restrictions of any kind so ever to be inhumane and unjustifiable.
The noble mover had laid the foundation of his motion partly on a paper written by order of Napoleon, and signed Count Montholon, and partly on rumours which had reached him from other quarters. It was not his (Earl B.'s) intention to reply to these rumours, any more than to a paper signed by a man named Santini, to which no credit whatever was due. It was creditable to the noble lord, that he had not made that paper the foundation of his remarks, for no one looking at it for a moment, could fail to perceive that it was full of the grossest misrepresentations. He should therefore look upon that publication as disavowed, and totally unworthy of attention, and should confine his remarks to that paper which certainly was authentic, and which was signed by the Count de Montholon. He should first show to their lordships what the instructions to sir Hudson Lowe were, and he should then show that all the complaints contained in that paper written by order of Napoleon Buonaparté, either arose out of the due execution of those instructions (the nature of which was well known to Buonaparté himself), or were misrepresentations of facts, or were direct and absolute falsehoods. In the first place, as to the instructions to sir Hudson Lowe their lordships had been long in possession of these instructions, for when admiral Cockburn went out to St. Helena, instructions were given him which would apply to him while he remained there, and which would also apply to his successor after his departure. These instructions had been published on the continent, whence they had found their way to the papers in this country. That authentic copy had been long before their lordships, and it was the general opinion they contained nothing improper, considering the end for which they were drawn up. Those instructions considered Napoleon as
1148
a prisoner of war, and consequently laid down this general rule, that all restrictions should be imposed which were necessary to secure detention, but that no restrictions should be imposed which were not necessary to that detention. This principle he was prepared to show had actuated all the instructions from his majesty's government, and all the steps which sir Hudson Lowe had taken in pursuance of those instructions. Up to this moment he was prepared also to state there had been no substantive alteration of those instructions. All the communications from the government to St. Helena had been rather in the way of explanation than instructions, and whatever change had taken place, either in the explanation of the instructions, or the execution of them, were to the benefit of the person who was the subject of it. He should classify the complaints made respecting the treatment of the individual, and should then read what parts of the instruction applied to the several heads of those complaints. The complaints which had been made, might be reduced under two heads—1st, Restrictions as to the communication of the prisoner with others, either in writing or personally; and 2d, those complaints which applied to the personal treatment, of the individual himself. In the first place, as to communications with others by writing, the noble mover had stated that there was an utter impossibility of his communicating with his wife and child, or relations. Now he (earl B.) should read the part of the instructions which referred to all communication in writing with the individual in question. The instructions were these—
"All letters addressed to the general, or to persons in his suite, must be delivered to the admiral or the governor, (as the case may be), who will read them before they are delivered to those to whom they are addressed.—Letters written by the general or his suite are subject to the same rule.—No letter that comes to St. Helena, except through the secretary of state, must be communicated to the general or his attendants, if it be written by a person not residing on the island; and all letters addressed to persons not living on the island, must go under cover to the secretary of state.—It will be clearly expressed to the general, that the governor and admiral are strictly commanded to inform his majesty's government of all the wishes and representations which the ge-

1149
neral may desire to address to it. In this respect, they need not use any precaution; but the paper in which such request or representation is written, must be communicated to them open, that they may read it, and accompany it with such observations as they may think necessary."
Thus, then, when Napolean Buonaparté represented that it was impossible for him to write to those to whom he wished to write, it was not true. If he meant to say, that he could not write without those letters being opened, that was merely in conformity to the instructions which had been delivered to the governor. But he had no right to represent that as an absolute prohibition, which was only optional. The next complaint was, that he had not received letters from his relations and friends in Europe, and that it was impossible for him to receive them. This was not true—It was not impossible for any of his relations and friends to communicate with him, if they chose to send their letters to the secretary of state, where they would be opened, and afterwards undoubtedly would be forwarded to him. But there was one preliminary to his receiving letters from his friends, which was, that his friends should write to him, and the fact was, that only one of his relations had written to him—namely, his brother Joseph, whose letter reached the office in October last, where it was opened, and immediately forwarded to him. Another complaint of the same nasure was, that he was not permitted to send a sealed letter to the Prince Regent. Of course, sir Hudson Lowe, if any application had been made to him, would have obeyed the instructions which had been read to their lordships; but, in point of fact, no application had been made to sir Hudson Lowe on that subject. An application had indeed been made to sir G. Cockburn, he believed from count Bertrand, to know, whether if a letter were written by the emperor to the Prince Regent, he would undertake to deliver it without suffering it to be opened by any person. Sir G. Cockburn, of course, could give no such assurance; but all that he could do was, to communicate the substance of his instructions respecting letters written by general Buonaparté, and then leave him to his judgment how he might act. Since that time, no farther application of that nature had been received.— In directing that any complaint against the conduct of the governor towards ge-
1150
neral Buonaparté, sent to the government in this country, should be left open, there was not any discretion remaining with the governor, whether he would or not transmit it; but at the same time, he was allowed to enter into an explanation of the allegations contained in the letter. The object of this regulation was, on the one hand, to protect the governor against frivolous charges; arid, on the other hand, if any grave charge could be adduced, to insure relief sooner than would otherwise be possible, because it would not be necessary to send back to St. Helena to inquire into the truth of it, before steps could be taken to remove the inconvenience complained of. It was in that sense that this part of the instructions had been taken by general Buonaparté, as might be inferred from a letter of sir G. Cockburn to him, of which he should read a passage. The passage ran to this effect:—"I have no hesitation in agreeing with you, that the spirit which influenced his majesty's government in this part of their instructions, was the desire of speedily remedying any inconvenience you might have to complain of: but though the spirit is favourable to you, they do not lose sight of the circumstance, that is due in justice to me and my successors, to prevent any complaint against us from being known in Europe for six months, without being accompanied by any observation from us."—Now it was clear, that, as the governor was bound to send every charge against him to Europe, general Buonaparté had no reason whatever to complain. As to the sealed letters to the Prince Regent, he could only say, that if sir G. Cockburn or sir Hudson Lowe had thought fit to allow any such letters to come to Europe sealed up, he (earl B.) should have felt it to be his duty to open them. He agreed with the noble mover, that if he had prevented any such letters from reaching his royal highness, he should have been guilty of a base and unwarrantable breach of duty; but at the same time, in this country, where the ministers were responsible for the acts of the sovereign, he did not know how he could discharge his duty, if he did not make himself acquainted with the nature of such communications.
The next complaint of general Buonaparté was, that when he had requested to have some books from Europe, those which referred to modern times had been kept back. The fact was this:—Soon

1151
after his arrival at St. Helena, he expressed a wish for some books to complete his library, and a list was made out by general Buonaparté himself, and transmitted to this country. This list was sent to an eminent French bookseller in this town, with orders to supply such of the books as he had, and to obtain the rest from other booksellers. As several of the books were not to be obtained in London, the bookseller was desired to write to Paris for them. He accordingly obtained some of them from Paris, but others of them could not be obtained; those which could not be procured were principally on military subjects. These books, to the amount of 13 or 1,400 l. worth (which the letter called "a few books"), were sent, with an explanation of the circumstances which prevented the others from having been sent. This anxiety to attend to the wishes of the individual in question, was not at all taken, I in the paper he had referred to, as an excuse for the omission. A complaint, connected with this, was, that newspapers had been withheld. As to this, he should say, that if the noble mover thought that general Buonaparté should be furnished with all the journals he required, he (earl B.) had a different sense of the course which it was proper for him to pursue. And this opinion was grounded on the knowledge, that attempts had been made, through the medium of newspapers, to hold communication with Napoleon.
The next complaint was, that he was not allowed to open a correspondence with a bookseller. Now this was not true, unless it meant that that correspondence could not be carried on under sealed letters; for there was no reason for preventing that correspondence, unless it was carried on in that particular manner. It was also said, that he could not correspond even with his banker or agent. Now it was, in point of fact, open to him to enter upon any such correspondence under the restrictions he had mentioned; and there was no reason why a letter to a banker should be sent sealed up. He (earl B.) did not deny that, on a correspondence between friends, the necessity of sending letters open was a most severe restriction, because it was impossible to consign to paper the warm effusions of the heart, under the consciousness that it would be subject to the cold eye of an inspector. But this, surely, did not apply to a correspondence with a banker. Who had ever heard of an affectionate draught on a
1152
banking-house, or a tender order for the sale of stock?
He now came to the most important charge, which was, that the letters sent by general Buonaparté, or persons of his suite, were read by subaltern officers on the island. This was not true. Sir Hudson Lowe had exercised the trust reposed in him with the utmost delicacy; and when any letters were transmitted through his hands, had never permitted any individual, however confidential, to see them, whether they were addressed to individuals at home or at St. Helena. It was difficult to know on what such general charges were founded, but the following occurrence was the only one which he could conceive to have any reference to it:—When Napoleon and his suite were first sent out to St. Helena, from the haste in which the ships sailed, they were left in want of many necessaries, such as linen, and other articles of that kind. It was judged that great inconvenience might be felt, if they were obliged to wait till they could send to this country for them, and accordingly a considerable quantity of such articles were sent out in anticipation of their wants. It so happened, that about the time when these articles arrived, Las Cases wrote a letter to Europe, which of course came under the inspection of sir Hudson Lowe, who found that it contained an order for some of those very articles which had been sent out. Sir Hudson Lowe then wrote to Las Cases to inform him, that he had those articles which he had ordered, and which were much at his service; and observed, that it would not perhaps be necessary to send the letter, or that he might now omit that order. Las Cases returned an answer full of reproaches to sir Hudson Lowe, for his presumption in reading a letter directed to a lady, and for offering him articles out of a common stock, when he knew that he had been solely supported by the emperor. Thus was sir Hudson Lowe treated, for his endeavours to accommodate these intractable people, and such was the only foundation for this part of the charge.
The next complaint was in these, words:—"Letters have arrived at St. Helena for general officers in the suite of the emperor—they were broken open and transmitted to you; but you refused to communicate them, because they had not been received through the channel of the English minister. They had to travel back 4,000 leagues, and these officers en-

1153
dured the mortification of knowing, that there existed on the island accounts of their wives, their parents, and their children, of which they could not be informed in less than six months. The heart revolts at such treatment!" Now this was a direct falsehood, for which there was not the smallest foundation. Sir Hudson Lowe, on seeing this passage in the letter, wrote to Montholon, saying there was no foundation for this charge, and calling on him to adduce any one instance. No instances had been given, no answer had been returned, and the reason was this, that the assertion was absolutely false. Indeed, in the voluminous papers which had been transmitted from St. Helena, nothing was more painfully disgusting than the utter indifference to truth shown throughout.
Having said thus much as to the restriction on communication by letter with general Buonaparté, he should proceed to the complaints of restraints on his personal intercourse with others. He should read the part of the instructions which referred to this subject, and which had been a year and a half before the country, and to which no objection had ever been made. The words were these:—"When ships arrive, and as long as the}' are in sight, the general must remain confined within the boundary where sentinels are placed. During this interval, all intercourse with the inhabitants is forbidden."
Such was the letter of the instruction, but the execution of it had been very liberal; persons who arrived at the island were, on procuring a pass from the governor or admiral, permitted to go up to Longwood, but to prevent the privacy of the general from being broken in upon by the curiosity of individuals, they were prevented from going to Longwood, unless they obtained the previous consent of count Bertrand, or some of the individuals near his person. The complaint that all intercourse with the inhabitants was prevented was untrue. It was true that the inhabitants could not approach him without a pass, but there was no instance in which a pass had been refused, or that any had been prevented from going to him, but those who had been detected in attempting to approach him in disguise, or in false characters. It had been also said that he had been prevented from having any intercourse with the officers of the garrison. There was no foundation for this. He had on one occasion entered
1154
into conversation with an officer of the 53d regiment, in which he bestowed high praises upon that regiment and its officers (none of which could be too high for their deserts), and then expressed a regret that all intercourse with them was interdicted him. The officer assured him that no such interdiction existed, at which he expressed some surprise, but since that time he had not more frequent communication with them than he had previously, when he supposed the prohibition which he so much lamented, to have existed.
He had thus answered the complaints of restrictions on the communication of Buonaparté with individuals either by letter or personally, and he should next advert to the charges respecting his personal treatment. The instructions on this subject were these: "The general must always be attended by an officer appointed by the admiral or the governor, as the case may be. If the general is allowed to go beyond the boundary where the sentinels are placed, he must be accompanied by one orderly man at least." Now the practice had been, that during the first period of his confinement he had a ciroumference of no less than twelve miles, in. which he might ride or walk without the attendance of any officer, and that range was not reduced till it had been found that he had abused that confidence reposed in him by tampering with the inhabitants. That range was now reduced to eight miles instead of twelve, and within that boundary he might at present walk without the attendance of any officer. Beyond those limits he might go over any part of the island, attended by an officer of rank not lower than a captain in the army. On this ground, therefore, it could not be objected that there was an unreasonable degree of restraint.
The next complaint which the noble mover had urged was, that general Buonarparté could not move out of his house at the only time when exercise was healthy in that climate. Now the fact was, that though he had not free passage through the island after sun set, he might at any hours walk in his garden. Sentinels were stationed there after sun set, and he expressed his dislike to walk when he was: thus watched. Sir H. Lowe, with every desire to attend to his wishes, after that fixed the sentinels in places where they would not look on him. Would their lordships wish these sentinels to be removed altogether just at the time when it was most likely

1155
that he should escape? Let them suppose for a moment, that instead of debating on the motion of the noble lord, that intelligence was brought them by Sir Hudson Lowe that general Buonaparté had actually escaped. Let them suppose, that instead of sitting to discuss whether a little more or little less restriction should be imposed, that they had thus to examine sir Hudson Lowe at their bar. How and when did he escape?— In the early part of the evening, and from his garden. Had his garden no sentinels?—The sentinels were removed. Why were they removed?—General Buonaparté desired it—they were hurtful to his feelings, they were then removed, and thus was he enabled to escape. What would their lordships think of such an answer? He begged them to consider the situation of sir Hudson Lowe—in what a painful and invidious station he was placed. If general Buonaparté escaped, the character and fortune of sir Hudson Lowe were ruined for ever.
It was now said in the Memorial, that the residence pitched upon for general Buonaparté was unpleasant and unwholesome. He could only say, that this was not the general account of that place. It had formerly been the house of the lieutenant-governor, and it was not the custom for lieutenant-governors to choose the most unpleasant and unwholesome spots. Neither had this been the former opinion of general Buonaparté himself. When the general had first been sent there, it was left to the discretion of sir G. Cockburn to fix on a residence for him, with only one exception, namely, the house of the governor. That choice was to be directed by a view to the safe custody, and as far as was consistent with that, by the consideration due to his comfort. Soon after his landing, general Buonaparté rode out with sir George Cockburn, till he reached Long-wood, with which, at first sight, he was so much captivated, that he wished to remain there, and not to go back to the town. He was told that it would be impossible so soon to remove the lieutenant-governor's family. He then wished a tent to be erected, which it was also represented would much incommode the lieutenant-governor, but he was assured that the occupants should be removed as soon as possible. As they returned they came to a house prettily situated, which belonged to Mr. Balcombe, near which a detached room had been built. General Buonaparté expressed a wish to occupy that
1156
room, and after sir G. Cockburn had in vain endeavoured to dissuade him from it, he took up his abode there for the time. It was but two days after, however, that his attendants complained of this harsh usage, as they termed it, in placing the emperor in a single room. This was the manner in which the compliance of sir G. Cockburn was received. So many alterations were made at Longwood, that general Buonaparté remained in that room two months. Constant improvements or alterations were made at Longwood, suggested by himself or his suite, which delayed his removal; for the fact was, that he was unwilling to remove from Mr. Balcombe's, on account of the facility of communication with the town. During his residence there he was circumscribed to a small garden, beyond which he never moved without a guard; he did not, however, at that time, make any complaint; but he now, for the first time, complained of restrictions on his liberty, when he was allowed to range within a circuit of eight miles, if he pleased unattended. When the prisoners were first sent to St. Helena, orders were given to send out a frame for the purpose of constructing a house for general Buonaparté. When the materials arrived, sir H. Lowe wrote to the general, whether he would like to have a new house erected, or additions made to the old one. He received no answer; in two or three weeks he went to the general to endeavour to obtain a decision from him. The general at last answered, that if he were to answer him officially he should say, "build a new house;" but as that must take five or six years, and as he knew that in two or three years either the administration in this country would be overturned, or a change would take place in the government of France, and in either case he should be released, he was privately of opinion that addition should be made to Longwood. As this was all the answer sir Hudson Lowe could get, he proceeded to make alterations in the present house. General Buonaparté then objected to this, though it was done by hiso own desire, and for the purpose of lodging his attendants. He (earl B.) did not object to general Buonaparté's choice either of the new house or the old one, or between alterations and no alterations, but he objected to this—that every attempt to render his residence convenient was made the foundation of a charge against the governor, and that he watched the moment when an attention was paid to his wishes, to

1157
make that very attention a source of complaint.
He should now advert to the subject of the expense bestowed on the maintenance of this individual; but he should previously mention the rumour that St. Helena had been mentioned at the Congress of Vienna, as a place to which Buonaparté might be removed from Elba. This was really one of those rumours from foreigners to which the noble lord lent too ready an ear——
Lord Holland"I have not received this information from foreigners alone."
Earl Bathurst.It was of no consequence whence the intimation came. It was altogether groundless. There was no mention at the congress of such a proposition. As to the expense of the establishment of general Buonaparté at St. Helena, it had been at first from the want of arrangements for regular supplies, unavoidably great; but it had always been in contemplation when those arrangements were made that the expenditure should be considerably reduced. The permanent expense of the establishment of Buonaparté had from the first been fixed at 8,000 l. a year, though it was of course contemplated that the first year would much exceed that expense. In fixing that allowance, the government had been somewhat guided by the expenses which the governor of the island had been found to have incurred. That governor was paid by the India company; his salary was 1,800 l. a year, and his table expenses were paid, as he was bound to receive and entertain all the passengers in the company's ships touching at the island. Those table expenses had been found on an average of years to be 4,700 l. a year, in all 6,500 l. which was regarded as a fair criterion of the expense of supporting an establishment on that island. As general Buonapartè was not subject to those expenses which the governor had been obliged to incur, 8,000 l. a year was deemed a fair allowance; that estimate, it was to be remembered had been given in to the other House of Parliament as the probable expense of that establishment, and the instructions of sir H. Lowe on this subject were founded on it. This sum was considered sufficient to provide general Buonapartè with all that could be considered as suitable for a person in his situation. Instructions were, however, transmitted to the governor, informing him if it required more for the support of general
1158
Buonaparté than what had been considered sufficient for that purpose, if he thought any additional luxury necessary beyond what could be provided for the sum fixed in this country, his majesty's ministers were inclined to allow it. Sir Hudson Lowe, in answer, said he thought the establishment of general Buonaparté could not be suitably provided for under 12,000 l. a year. An intimation was immediately given that the sum of 12,000 l. was agreed to by his majesty's ministers. If their lordships considered this too small a sum for the expenses of general Buonaparté, he only wished them to recollect that sir H. Lowe himself was only allowed 12,000 l. for himself and his staff, and all his other expenses, of whatever nature they might be. A fortnight after the receipt of the letter from this country, general Buonaparté entered into a negociation with sir Hudson Lowe, in which he undertook to furnish the whole of his expenditure, amounting to 17 or 18,000 l. himself, if he had permission to correspond with any banker, provided the letters were allowed to be sealed, and provided all the money so received should be wholly at his disposal; and so confident was lie that he had this money at his command, that he offered at once to draw for it, and he assured sir Hudson Lowe that he might advance the money with safety, because he had no doubt that his draught would be accepted. In stating this, he did not mean to say, that because general Buonaparté possessed funds, and even large funds, that therefore the government of this country ought to make him pay for the expenses of his establishment out of these funds; but he said this, that having given him so high an allowance as 12,000 l. a year (such an allowance as they gave to their own governor, who was exposed to great expenses, and who had to receive the visits of the inhabitants, and of the commissioners of the allied powers) if this sum was sufficient for the governor, it was sufficient for general Buonaparté; and, if he wished for more than this, it ought to come out of the funds, and large funds, at his own disposal.
There was one other point which he should notice, as it related to a statement in a publication formerly mentioned by him—that one bottle of wine a day only, was allowed for each person, and that if this allowance was drunk by any of the individuals on the establishment—he could get no more. In order to ascertain the

1159
expenditure of any establishment, it was usual to calculate on a certain quantity of such things as were used for each individual, per day. It was by no means intended, that the same quantity should always be drank by each individual. With respect to the calculation of one bottle per day, for each person, it was one which would be considered in this country as not an unfair one—this was the allowance for the king's table. A bottle a day, for each person, was considered by the officers of the British army as sufficient for the supply of their messes—sufficient for themselves, and for such company as might be invited to their mess: it was not usual to allow more one day with another to any person in the prime of life. But to show how liberally the allowance to general Buonaparté was calculated, he should read to their lordships an extract from the estimate for his table, in which this very article of wine was minutely specified. There was an allowance of strong and of weak wine. The quantity of weak wine was 84 bottles in the course of the fortnight; but he should put that out of the question, and merely state the quantity of the other description of wine. Of that better sort of wine, there was no less than 266 bottles, in one fortnight, applicable, wholly and entirely to general Buonaparté and his attendants. The particulars were—7 bottles of Constantia (or 14 pint bottles), 14 bottles of Champaign, 21 bottles of Vin de Grave, 84 bottles of Teneriffe, and 140 bottles of Claret. In all 266 bottles. The number of persons connected with general Buonaparté, excluding those of tender age, amounted to nine, so that there was an allowance of nineteen bottles in one day for ten persons; and taking one day with another, the allowance might be considered two bottles a day for each grown person; which he was sure was as much as would satisfy the noble lord's wishes either for himself or for any person in whom he was interested. In addition to this quantity of wine, forty-two bottles of porter were allowed every fortnight, being at the rate of three to each individual. From this statement he was convinced that their lordships would see there was no reason to corn-lain of an inadequate or scanty supply. Indeed, on the consideration of the whole case, he felt convinced, that the House would perceive no severity, no harshness, nothing but the enforcement of restrictions necessary for the safe custody of our pri-
1160
soner. Those persons who were placed under his control, had behaved in the most insolent manner towards the governor; and if their lordships were willing to lend an ear to every complaint proceeding from them, there would be no end of their complaining. The governor could not support his authority, or execute his duty, in keeping these persons in his power, with fewer restrictions than he had enforced, or with greater lenity than he had shown. It might be made a question, whether this person was to be detained at all; but if he was to be detained, proper means ought to be taken to secure him, and proper vigilance employed to prevent his escape; nor should any mistaken compassion be allowed to influence us to depart from this cautious and prudent course. It would be most unjust to throw a heavy responsibility on the governor, and at the same time prevent him from enforcing such measures as the secure detention of his prisoner demanded from him. If by our negligence Buonaparté were allowed to escape, we should not only incur the censure of those who now called for a relaxation of vigilance and restraint, but our conduct would be liable to misrepresentation throughout Europe: it would be asserted, that we intended to allow his enlargement for some purposes of out own; and we should be accused of acting under the most detestable hypocrisy, in first conveying him to that distant station, and in pretending to place him under restrictions, while we really wished his escape. Seeing, therefore, no ground whatever for the motion, he would give it his decided opposition.
The Marquis of Buckinghamcontended, that no one could hesitate to give his noble friend, who brought forward this motion, the greatest credit for good intentions and upright views. Nobody who knew the pure and honourable mind of his noble friend could for a moment doubt the integrity of his motives, or the laudable nature of the object which he proposed to accomplish: notwithstanding this, he (Lord B.) lamented that his noble friend had taken his present course, because he was afraid that his motives, honourable as they were, might be misrepresented, and his conduct lead to misconception both in this country and over Europe. He confessed that he himself did not come to the consideration of the subject with any of the feelings of his noble friend, or perhaps with those feelings that he ought to entertain. He

1161
was willing to allow that he did not possess a mind entirely unbiassed; for, be it error, be it prejudice, or any feeling less defensible, he acknowledged that he could not bring himself to view this person or his fate without considering him as the most bitter and rancorous enemy that this country ever had. The question, in this case, was confined within narrow limits. The policy of his imprisonment was now not before the House: that had already been decided on. If imprisoned it was plain that he must be under restrictions of some kind or another, sufficient to guard against his escape. Would any person say that these restrictions were more than necessary for their object? Would any one say that he could be kept in safe custody without them? He (lord B.) did not believe so. For the unnecessary severity of these restrictions we had the authority of a paper signed Montholon. This paper was filled with complaints and accusations. Against it we now had the evidence of his majesty's ministers; who, in a case of this kind, might be expected to be cautious, deliberate, and guarded in their statements. Which was the House to believe—the ministers of the Crown, with all their responsibility upon them, and speaking from the most minute information—or this prejudiced individual? He could not hesitate for a moment. He did not think that ministers could be disbelieved; he did not see that it was possible to doubt their statements. He felt, that the paper which they had been called upon to answer was an additional insult to this country: proceeding from a person who had so often tried to insult it. He stated, "that he was not the prisoner of England;" that he had not surrendered to us, but that he repaired voluntarily and freely to England, to place himself under its laws, and to enjoy its liberties. He stated, that he had the option of surrendering himself either to Austria, Russia, or Prussia; and he invidiously insinuated that he would have found in any of those states a more honourable reception, greater kindness, or more justice, than with us. This he asserted with the recollection of his former history before his eyes. Had he tried the experiment he could not have found it successful. In Austria, instead of protection, he must have met with the deep rooted recollection of broken treaties, and of wanton aggression—the trace of the ruin he had created, and the hatred of the people whom he had insulted. Had
1162
he sought an asylum in Russia, he would have found that the injustice of his invasion, and the burning of Moscow, were not forgotten by the inhabitants: and had he endeavoured to take refuge in Prussia, he would have been execrated as the person who had plundered the kingdom, and insulted its beautiful queen. He stated, that if he had surrendered to the House of Lorraine, "the emperor would have recollected the relations which religion and nature have formed between a father and a son; that he would have recollected that he restored him at Luneville, at Vienna, and had received protestations of his good-will at Dresden; that the emperor Alexander would have recollected the ties of friendship contracted at Tilsit, and during ten years of correspondence; and that upon his surrender to the king of Prussia, he would have recollected the protestations of attachment and sentiments of gratitude that he testified to him in 1812." But leaving out of his view all those who owed him such obligations, he chose to surrender himself to this country, and his demand on our generosity was certainly great, considering the grounds on which they were made, and the relation in which he stood to us. He had restored, according to his own declaration, their crowns to the sovereigns of each of the countries which he renounced, giving the preference to this; and what was the price he exacted from them for this kindness? Why, that they should join him in an alliance against that very country in which he took refuge, and which he afterwards abused. He now appealed to our feelings of compassion and justice, by telling us what stock of merits he had laid up with those whom he had prevailed upon to become our enemies, but to whom he did not choose to surrender; and adduced, as claims on our kindness, treaties that enforced the continental system against us, and were intended for our commercial annihilation. Considering that there was no ground for the present motion, considering the production of the papers as perfectly uncalled for and unnecessary, he would join the noble secretary in opposing the motion of his noble friend. He was of opinion that this person should be kept in close confinement, and that every restriction should be enforced, and every degree of vigilance exercised, that should be found necessary for that purpose. The severe and close durance to which general Buonaparté was subjected was not dictated by motives of

1163
revenge, but of security; and he considered any measure justifiable which was necessary to prevent that man from again breaking loose and throwing Europe into agitation. It was a piece of political justice that we owed to Europe and the world. It taught a political lesson that should never be forgotten in this country or any other.
The Earl of Darnleydid not feel that hostility towards the individual under confinement at St. Helena, professed by the noble marquis; and though he agreed with him that they were called on to take such measures as the security of his person demanded, still it was their duty to see that no unnecessary severity was used towards him. Feeling an anxiety for the character of the country, which was affected by the reports in circulation on this subject, he could not but be pleased that his noble friend had brought forward the present motion, which had afforded an opportunity to the noble earl opposite to make the candid and able statement by which the allegations on which the motion was founded were certainly entirely refuted. After the facts disclosed by the noble secretary of state, he did not think that his noble friend ought to press his motion any farther.
Lord Hollandthought the charges were of such a kind and of such magnitude, that in opposition to one of his noble friends, he must persist in thinking that they called for contradiction; and, in opposition to the other, that they were not yet sufficiently contradicted. That contradiction ought to rest, not on the declaration of a minister, but on documentary evidence. He could not accept, therefore the compliments of the former to his motives, while he lamented his conduct; nor the thanks of the latter, for the statements which he had given the noble secretary an opportunity of making, while he did not think that statement satisfactory. He was not disposed to pay much attention to the construction that might be put on his motives: both because he was conscious of their rectitude, and because, in obeying them, he was convinced he had done an essential service to his country. No praise on the goodness of the intentions by which he was actuated would make him surrender the impression of the service he had accomplished. He rejoiced that he had made a motion which produced a contradiction of charges that were injurious to the honour of the country. He should
1164
rejoice still more that documents were produced to disprove abuses; or if his exertions would tend, if they existed, to correct them. Whatever might be the result of their lordships deliberation, he enjoyed the satisfaction of thinking, that there was one individual in the country who could not hear imputations on our national character without calling for inquiry, and giving an opportunity of showing their unfounded nature.
The noble secretary had said, that those who were adverse to the confinement of Buonaparté at St. Helena, must necessarily be biassed in judging of the degree of restraint necessary for his safe custody. The noble secretary should at least give an opportunity of deciding whether too great severity had been used, by producing the documents he had moved for. He (lord H.) neither approved of the spirit of that speech, nor was convinced by its arguments. It seemed throughout to support the motion it was intended to oppose. The noble earl had contradicted the reports on which the motion proceeded, but would not produce evidence, to refute them. The noble secretary seemed to think, that the motion was one of censure, and not of inquiry—one that assumed the facts as true, instead of one that called for information. He had, therefore, answered his statements as charges, and not as grounds for examination. He (lord H.) moved for papers. What did the noble secretary do? Instead of producing them to parliament, he read his own justification from them by extracts, while he refused to lay the documents themselves on the table of the House. This was the most extraordinary and unjustifiable conduct that ever existed; a mode of proceeding which, till within these ten or twelve years, was completely unknown—that a minister should make use of documents not before the House, which he had an opportunity of quoting, stretching, or garbling at his pleasure. How did the noble secretary answer the charges? He refused the papers; and, as a man of wit and pleasantry, instead of allowing the justification of the absent to be heard, he cracked jokes upon an individual, whose character and person were in his power. If this was his glory, if this was his triumph, he did not envy him his feelings, or his taste.
The noble secretary had denied the papers, on the allegation that it would be six months before they could be obtained

1165
from St. Helena; and during all that time the imputations against the government would remain uncontradicted; but what would he say to Buonaparté's situation, against whom the noble secretary had not only stated things that could not be contradicted, but whom, in his absence and in captivity he had made the subject of ill-timed pleasantry. The whole tenour of the noble earl's speech showed the propriety of the present motion. He (lord Holland) never stated that the accounts were true; and indeed he knew nothing about the statements that had been published, except that they were confirmed by private accounts from other quarters. He only said that they required contradiction; and however much he might admire the speech of the noble earl, he did not think the contradiction contained in it equal to a contradiction by documents. If the charges were light and trivial, why did the noble secretary take such pains to refute them? And if they were serious, why did he not give the means of rendering that refutation most effectual, by producing the papers? The contradiction ought not to rest on the breath of the noble lord.
He was not entitled, from the source whence he had received his information, to lay his authorities before the House; but notwithstanding the noble lord's assertion, he still believed that the sending of Buonaparté to St. Helena was a subject of discussion with the congress of Vienna. He had been told this circumstance before the battle of Waterloo, and he believed Buonaparté himself had heard of it. Gentlemen might think this very pleasant; they might think, perhaps, that Buonaparté had set such a rumour afloat merely from a wish to suggest it to congress? Was it not more probable that he mentioned it only after having had reason to suppose that such an arrangement was in contemplation? This however, was a point on which he would not enlarge, as it had no reference to his present motion, neither had his motion any reference to the Memorial of Montholon, or the other papers in publication. All that he wanted was, recorded documents against those rumours that affected the character of the country: all that he got was a speech of the noble lord instead of papers. This speech might probably be as convincing to his (lord Holland's) mind and the House as the papers themselves; but it could not be equally convincing to Europe and pos-
1166
terity. Would posterity and the world look upon statements from the mouth of the noble lord as of equal authority with parliamentary documents, although substantially they might be the same?
The only ground on which papers could be refused was, that the charges were too trivial to deserve inquiry. He was far from thinking them of such a nature; they appeared to him to be of the greatest importance; and he could by no means agree in what seemed to be the sentiments of his noble friend, that now Buonaparté was sent to St. Helena, it was of no consequence how he was treated. His noble friend had alluded to Austria, Prussia and Russia, as states in which he could not find an asylum; but (and it was another ground of the present motion) he should not be surprised if a foreign power, affecting popularity, should make a remonstrance on the subject of his treatment. The speech of the noble earl would not be so good an answer to such a remonstrance as the papers; still less would it be as good if Buonaparté should happen to expire while these rumours were yet in existence. The noble earl had dwelt with much pleasantry on a person who was absent, and could not defend himself; and had taken up the defence of sir Hudson Lowe, as one who was exposed to the plots and insolence of his prisoner on the island, and to the suspicions of the people at home. Even the strictest confinement of his captive could not, it seems, relieve his fears; indeed he probably would be "afraid of this gunpowder Percy, though he were dead." Looking at it as a point of taste and feeling, he could not admire the attempt to turn into ridicule the ebullitions even of ill-humour in one so circumstanced, for, God knew ill-humour might be pardoned in a man who had met such dreadful reverses; and, however successful such an attempt might be, he should be sorry to have produced an effect by such means. He still adhered to the propriety of his motion, as he had seen and heard nothing to make it unnecessary.
The motion was negatived without a division.