self and my conduct to her, and bitterly lamented her cruel separation, avowing her ardent desire to join me in my exile.”

Of his own family, and particularly of the females, he appears to have been fond of indulging the recollection.

“My excellent mother,' said he, 'is a woman of courage and of great talent, more of a masculine than a feminine natifre, proud and high minded. She is capable of selling every thing even to her chemise for me. I allowed her a million a year, besides a palace, and giving her many presents. To the manner in which she formed me at an early age I principally owe my subsequent elevation. My opinion is, that the future good or bad conduct of a child depends entirely upon the mother. She is very rich. Most of my family considered that I might die, that accidents might happen, and consequently took care to secure something. They have preserved a great part of their property.' Of Joseph he thus speaks. His virtues and talents are those of a private character; and for such nature intended him: he is too good to be a great man. He has no ambition. Ile is very like me in person, but handsomer. He is extremely well informed, but his learning is not that which is fitted for a king; nor is he capable of commanding an army."" Vol. i. p. 232.

It is a curious fact, that Napoleon besought Mr. O'Meara to collect for him every book he could in which he was libelled, and read and commented on them continually, sometimes seriously refuting them, but much oftener in strains of ridicule. Occasionally some very awkward stories came out about the authors. We shall only extract one relating to Madame de Staël.

“Madame de Staël,' said he, 'was a woman of considerable talent and great ambition; but so extremely intriguing and restless, as to give rise to the observation, that she would throw her friends into the sea, that at the moment of drowning she might have an opportunity of saving them. I was obliged to banish her from court. At Geneva, she became very intimate with my brother Joseph, whom she gained by her conversation and writings. When I returned from Elba, she sent her son to be presented to me on purpose to ask payment of two millions, which her father Neckar had lent out of his private property to Louis XVI. and to offer her services, provided I complied with this request. As I knew what he wanted, and thought that I could not grant it without ill-treating others who were in a similar predicament, I did not wish to see him, and gave directions that he should not be introduced. However, Joseph would not be denied, and brought him in in spite of this order, the attendants at the door not liking to refuse my brother, especially as he said that he would be answerable for the consequences. I received him very politely, heard his business, and replied, that I was very sorry it was not in my power to comply with his request, as it was contrary to the laws, and would do an injustice to many others. Madame de Staël was not however contented with this. She wrote a long letter to Fouché, in which she stated her claims, and that she wanted the money in order to portion her daughter in mar. riage to the Duc de Broglie, promising that if I complied with her request, I might command her and hers; that she would be black and white for me. Fouché communicated this, and advised me strongly to comply, urging that in so critical a time she might be of considerable service. I answered, that I would make no bargains.

* Shortly after my return from the conquest of Italy,' continued he, 'I was accosted by Madame de Staël in a large company, though at that time I avoided going out much in public. She followed me every where, and stuck so close that I could not shake her off. At last she asked me, “ who at this moment is la preinière femme du monde ?” intending to pay a compliment to me, and expecting that I would return it. I looked at her, and coldly replied, "she who has borne the greatest number of children,” turned round, and left her greatly confused and abashed.” He concluded by observing, that he could not call her a wicked woman, but that she was a restless intrigante, possessed of considerable talent and influ. ence." Vol. ii. p. 65–67.

Napoleon, however, did not 'content himself with merely on the motives of his traducers. Wherever there appeared a

Vol. I. No. 1.-Museum.

for the accusation he went at length into the real facts, stating what took place, and what he had to say in his vindication. Thus the three great accusations against him, the poisoning of the soldiers, the massacre of the Turks, and the death of the Duke D’Enghien, he minutely enters into. He states the circumstances which gave rise to the report of the first, which he asserts never happened at all, and adds that there is no person in England now more convinced of its falsehood than the person who gave it the greatest circulation here, Sir Robert Wilson. If this be the fact, Sir R. Wilson is called upon by every feeling which ought to actuate an honourable man to come forward manfully and confess his misinformation. The destruction of 1200 Turks he avows and justifies; appealing to every military man in Europe for his justification: but war, we are afraid, has little connexion with morality. Alluding to the death of the Duc D'Enghien, he was clearly implicated in the conspiracy of Pichegru and Moreau. We take at random one passage on this subject; which is, however, frequently discussed by Napoleon at much greater length. We must premise that he uniformly imputes the denouëment to the persevering instigation of Talleyrand.

“"It was found out, continued Napuleon, by the confession of some of the conspirators, that the Duc d'Enghien was an accomplice, and that he was only waiting on the frontiers of France for the news of my assassination, upon receiving which he was to have entered France as the king's lieutenant. Was I to suffer that the Count d'Artois should send a parcel of miscreants to murder me, and that a prince of his house should hover on the borders of the country I governed, in order to profit by my assassination? According to the laws of nature, I was authorized to cause hiin to be assassinated in retaliation for the numerous attempts of the kind that he had before caused to be made against me. I gave orders to have him seized. He was tried and condemned by a law made long before I had any power in France. He was tried by a military commission formed of all the colonels of the regiments then in garrison at Paris. He was accused of having borne arms against the republic, which he did not deny. When before the tribunal, he behaved with great bravery. When he arrived at Strasburg, he wrote a letter to me, in which he offered to discover every thing if pardon were granted to him, said that his family had lost their claims for a long time, and concluded by offering his services to me. This letter was delivered to Talleyrand, who concealed it until after his execution. Had the Count d'Artois been in his place, he would have suffered the same fate; and were I now placed under similar circumstances, I would act in a similar manner. As the police,' added Napoleon,

did not like to trust to the evidence of Mehée de la Touche alone, they sent Captain Rosey, a man in whose integrity they had every confidence, to Drake at Munich, with a letter from Mehée, which procured him an interview, the result of which confirmed Mehée's statement, that he was concerned in a plot to terrasser le premier consul, no matter by what means.'»* Vol. i. p. 453, 454,

But we gladly turn from these topics to the sketches of character with which the book is filled. Nothing can be more amusing than some, or more intensely interesting than others. We question much whether they are not far better hit off in conversation as they appear, than if they had been the result of labour and deliberation. The

* While the Duc d'Enghien was on his trial, Madame la Maréchale Bessière said to Colonel Ordèner, who had arrested him, “ Are there no possible means to save that malheureux ? Has his guilt been established beyond a doubt ?” “ Madame." replied Colonel Ordener, “I found in his house sacks of papers sufficient to compromise the half of France.”—The duke was executed in the morning, and not by torch-light as has been represented.

character of Murat thus rapidly thrown off could not be improved by any polish :

“I informed him that Colonel Macirone, aid-de-camp to Murat, had published some anecdotes of his late master. What does be say of me?' said Napoleon. I replied, that I had not seen the book, but had been informed by Sir Thomas Reade that he spoke ill of him. 'Oh,' said he, laughing, that is nothing; I am well accustomed to it. But what does he say? I answered, it was asserted that Murat had imputed the loss of the battle of Waterloo to the cavalry not having been properly employed, and had said, that if he (Murat) had commanded them, the French would have gained the victory. “It is very probable,' replied Napoleon ; ' I could not be every where; and Murat was the best cavalry officer in the world. He would have given more impetuosity to the charge. There wanted but very little, 1 as. sure you, to gain the day for me. Enfoncer deux ou trois bataillons, and in all

pro bability Murat would have effected that. There were not I believe two such officers in the world as Murat for the cavalry, and Drouot for the artillery. Murat was a most singular character. Four and twenty years ago, when he was a captain, I made him my aid-de-camp, and subsequently raised hini to be what he was. He loved, I may rather say, adored me. In my presence he was as it were struck with awe, and ready to fall at my feet. I acted wrong in having separated him from me, as with out me, he was nothing. With me, he was my right armn. Order Murat to attack and destroy four or five thousand men in such a direction, it was done in a moment; but leave him to himself he was an imbécile without judgment. I cannot conceive how so brave a man could be so läche. He was no where brave unless before the enemy. There he was probably the bravest man in the world. His boiling courage carried him into the midst of the enemy, couvert de pennes jusqu'au clocher, and glittering with gold. How he escaped is a miracle, being as he was always a distinguished mark, and fired at by every body. Even the Cossacs admired him on account of his extraordinary bravery. Every day Murat was engaged in single combat with some of them, and never returned without his sabre dropping with the blood of those whom he had slain. He was a paladine, in fact a Don Quixote in the field; but take him into the cabinet, he was a poltroon without judgment or decision. Murat and Ney were the bravest men i ever witnessed. Murat, however, was a much nobler character than Ney. Murat was generous and open; Ney partook of the cunaille. Strange to say, however, Murat, though he loved me, did me more mischief than any other person in the world. When I left Elba, 1 sent a messenger to acquaint him with wbat I had done. Immediately he must attack the Austrians. The messenger went upon his knees to prevent him ; but in vain. He thought me already master of France, Belgium, and Holland, and that he must make his peace, and not adhere to demi-mesures. Like a madman, he attacked the Austrians with his canaille, and ruined me. For at that time there was a negotiation going on between Austria and me, stipulating that the former should remain neuter, which would have been finally concluded, and I should have reigned undisturbed. But as soon as Murat attacked the Austrians, the emperor immediately conceived that he was acting by my directions, and indeed it will be difficult to make posterity believe to the contrary. Metternich said, “Oh, the Emperor Napoleon is the same as ever. A man of iron. The trip to Elba has not changed him. Nothing will ever alter him: all or nothing for him.' Austria joined the coalition, and I was lost. Murat was unconscious that my conduct was regulated by circumstances and adapted to them. He was like a man gazing at the scenes shifting at the opera, without ever thinking of the machinery behind, by which the whole is moved. He never however thought that his secession in the first instance would have been so injurious to me, or he would not have joined the allies. He concluded that I should be obliged to give up Italy and some other countries, but never contemplated my total ruin.” Vol.ii. p. 94-97.

There are many sketches of Murat, but this is the best. It was Mr. O'Meara who communicated to Napoleon the intelligence of Murat's death. “ He heard it,” says he," with calmness, and immediately demanded if he had perished on the field of battle.” He afterwards remarked that the conduct of the Calabrese towards Murat was

mercy compared with the treatment which he was experiencing. The following are descriptions of soine of his generals and ministers.

“Moreau,” said he, “ was an excellent general of division, but not fit to command a large army. With a hundred thousand men, Morcau would divide his army in different positions, covering, roads, and would not do more than if he had only thirt thousand. He did not know how to profit either by the number of his troops, or by their positions. Very calm and cool in the field, he was more collected and better able to command in the heat of an action than to make dispositions prior to it. He was often seen smoking his pipe in battle. Moreau was not naturally a man of a bad heart; Un bon virani, mais il n'avait pas beaucoup de caractère. He was led away by his wife and another intriguing Creole. His having joined Pichegru. and Georges in the conspiracy, and subsequently having closed his life fighting against his country, will ever disgrace his memory. As a general, Moreau was infinitely inferior to Desais, or to Kleber, or even to Soult. Of all the generals I ever had under me, Desaix and Kleber possessed the greatest talents; especially Desaix, as Kleber only loved glory, inasmuch as it was the means of procuring him riches and pleasures, whereas Desaix loved glory for itself and despised every thing else. Desaix was wholly wrapt up in war and glory. To bim riches and pleasure were valueless, nor did he give them a moment's thought. He was a little black-looking man, about an inch shorter than I am, always badly dressed, sometimes even ragged, and despising comfort or convenience. When in Egypt, I made him a present of a complete field-equipage several times, but he always lost it. Wrapt up in a cloak, Desaix threw himself under a gun, and slept as contentedly as if he were in a palace. For him luxury had no charms. Upright and honest in all his proceeding's, he was called by the Arabs, the just sultan. He was intended by nature for a great general, Kleber and Desaix were a loss irreparable to France. Had Kleber lived, your army in Egypt would have perished. Had that imbecile Menou attacked you on your landing with twenty thousand men, as he might have done, instead of the division Lanusse, your army would have been only a meal for them. Your arıny was seventeen or cighteen thousand strong, without cavalry.” (Vol. i. p. 257, 238.)

I asked his opinion of Clarke. He replied, “he is not a man of talent, but he is laborious and useful in the bureau. He is, moreover, incorruptible, and saving of the public money, which he never has appropriated to his own use. He is an excellent redacteur. He is not a soldier, however, nor do I believe that he ever saw a shot fired in his life. He is infatuated with his nobility. He pretends that he is descended from the ancient kings of Scotland, or Ireland, and constantly vaunts of his noble descent. A good clerk. I sent him to Florence as ambassador, where he employed himself in nothing but turning over the old musty records of the place, in search of proofs of the nobility of my family, for you must know that they came froin Florence. He plagued me with letters upon this subject, whiclą. caused me to write to him to attend to the business for which he had been sent to Florence, and not to trouble his head or mine with his nonsense about nobility: that I was the first of my family. Notwithstanding this, he still continued his inquiries. When I returned from Eiba, he offered his services to me, but I sent him word that I would not employ any traitors, and ordered him to bis estates." I asked if he thought that Clarke would have served him faithfully. “Yes,” replied the

emperor, “as long as I was the strongest, like a great many others.” (Vol. i. p. 400, 401.)

The following is his description of Carnot.

“A man laborious and sincere, but liable to the influence of intrigues and easily deceived. He had directed the operations of war, without having merited the eulogiums wbich were pronounced upon him, as he had neither the experience, nor we habitude of war. When minister of war, he showed but little talent, and had many quarrels with the minister of finance and the treasury; in all of which he was wrong. He left the ministry, convinced that he could not fulfil his station for want of money. He afterwards voted against the establishment of the empire, but as his conduct was always upright, he never gave any umbrage to the government. During the prosperity of the empire,'he never asked for any thing; but after the misfortunes of Russia, he demanded employment, and got the command of Antwerp, where he acquitted himself very well. After Napoleon's return from Elba, he was

;

minister of the interior; and the emperor had every reason to be satisfied with his conduct. He was faithful, a man of truth and probity; and laborious in his exertions. After the abdication, he was named one of the provisional government, but he was joué by the intriguers by whom he was surrounded. He had passed for an original amongst his companions when he was young. He hated the nobles, and on that account had several quarrels with Robespierre, who latterly protected many of them. He was member of the committee of public safety along with Robespierre, Couthon, St. Just, and the other butchers, and was the only one who was not denounced. He afterwards demanded to be included in the denunciation, and to be tried for his conduct, as well as the others, which was refused; but his having made the demand to share the fate of the rest, gained him great credit.” (Vol. i. p. 186–188.)

The characters of Fouché and Talleyrand are strongly and unfavourably drawn. The following anecdote, if not probable, is at least amusing

“ Madame Talleyrand was a very fine woman, English or East Indian, but sotte and grossly ignorant. I sometimes asked Denon, whose works I suppose you have read, to breakfast with me, as I took a pleasure in his conversation, and conversed very freely with him. Now all the intriguers and speculators paid their court to Denon, with a view of inducing him to mention their projects or themselves in the course of his conversations with me, thinking that even being mentioned by such a man as Denon, for whom I had a great esteem, might materially serve them. Tal. leyrand, who was a great speculator, invited Denon to dinner. When he went home to his wife, he said, 'my dear, I have invited Denon to dine. He is a great traveller, and you must say something handsome to him about his travels, as he may be useful to us with the emperor.' His wife being extremely ignorant, and probably never having read any other book of travels than that of Robinson Crusoe, concluded that Denon could be nobody else than Robinson. Wishing to be very civil to him, she, before a large company, asked him divers questions about his man Friday! Denon, astonished, did not know what to think at first, but at length discovered by her questions that she really imagined him to be Robinson Crusoe. His astonishment and that of the company cannot be described, nor the peals of laughter which it excited in Paris, as the story few like wild-fire through the city, and even Talleyrand himself was ashamed of it.” (Vol. i. p. 434–436.)

“ At one time I had appointed Talleyrand,” said he, "to proceed on a mission to Warsaw, in order to arrange and organize the best method of accomplishing the separation of Poland from Russia. He had several conferences with me respecting this mission, which was a great surprise to the ministers, as Talleyrand had no official character at the time. Having married one of his relations to the Duchess of Courland, Talleyrand was very anxious to receive the appointment, in order to revive the claims of the Duchess's family. However, some money transactions of his were discovered at Vjenna, which convinced me that he was carrying on his old game and determined me not to employ him on the intended mission. I had designed at one time to have made him a cardinal, with which he refused to comply. Madame Grand threw herself twice upon her knees before me, in order to obtain permission to marry him, which I refused; but through the entreaties of Josephine, she succeeded on the second application. I afterwards forbade her the court, when I discovered the Genoa affair, of which I told you before. Latterly," continued he, “ Talleyrand sunk into contempt.” (Vol. i. p. 446, 447.)

The last character which we can afford to take out of these volumes, is that of his Majesty of Prussia.

“ I asked him, if the king of Prussia was a man of talent. “Who,' said he, the king of Prussia?' He burst into a fit of laughter. He a man of talent! The greatest blockhead on earth. Un ignorantaccio che non ha nè talente, nè informazione. A Don Quixote in appearance. I know him well. He cannot hold a conversation for five minutes.'” (Vol. i. p. 102.)

“When,” continued Napoleon, “ I was at Tilsit, with the Emperor Alexander and the King of Prussia, I was the most ignorant of the three in military affairs. These two sovereigns, especially the King of Prussia, were completely au fait, as