"The Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, having every reason to believe that Napoleon Buonaparte meditates his escape, with his family, from France to America, you are hereby required and directed, in pursuance of orders from their Lordships, signified to me by Admiral the Right Honourable Viscount Keith, to keep the most vigilant look-out, for the purpose of intercepting him, and to make the strictest search of any vessel you may fall in with; and if you should be so fortunate as to intercept him, you are to transfer him and his family to the ship you command, and, there keeping him in careful custody, return to the nearest port in England, (going into Torbay in preference to Plymouth,) with all possible expedition; and, on your arrival, you are not to permit any communication whatever with the shore, except as hereinafter directed; and you will be held responsible for keeping the whole transaction a profound secret, until you receive their Lordships' further orders."

-

Now it is quite clear that Captain Maitland had no authority to make any terms or conditions with Napoleon, should he come into his power; and with equal certainty we may rely upon his well-known and honourable character for assurance that he was incapable of merely pretending to possess any such power. We therefore fully credit the statement of Captain Maitland, in his letter to Mr. Croker, the Secretary to the Admiralty, dated "Basque Roads, July 14th, 1815: That no misunderstanding might arise, I have explicitly and clearly explained to the Count Las Casas, that I have no authority whatever for granting terms of any sort; but all I can do is to convey him and his suite to England, to be received in such manner as His Royal Highness may deem expedient." After several visits from two of Napoleon's suite, Savary and Las Casas, in which Captain Maitland repeatedly, and in the presence of other officers, refused to make any promise whatever, on the 14th the well-known letter to the Prince Regent was sent to Captain Maitland, and the following day Napoleon came on board the "Bellerophon." The above circumstances being borne in mind, and it being also remembered that the latter step was not taken until, as we learn from officers in the ex-Emperor's suite, a variety of plans of escape from the ubiquitous British war-ships had been canvassed and rejected, -it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion, that the surrender of Napoleon was simply the case of a fugitive giving himself up as a prisoner of war, when he found it impossible to do otherwise. He preferred to rely upon the generosity of the British, rather than to fall into the hands of the Prussians; but the circumstances of the case gave him no right to claim, nor did Captain Maitland give him any promise that he should receive, any treatment different from that which might be resolved upon by the Government of Great Britain and her allies.

* What would have been his fate, had he fallen into the hands of the Prussians, we learn from the recent publication of Baron Von Müffling's "Memoirs." From this interesting work we find that it was the expressed intention of Marshal Blücher, to have had him conveyed to the grave of the Duc d'Enghien, and there shot.

This is not the place to discuss the propriety of banishing Napoleon to St. Helena. That the British Government had the right so to dispose of a prisoner of war, seems undoubted; and the only question appears to be as to the generosity of the measure. Now generosity is not a virtue to be exercised at the risk of others; and the safety of the lives of thousands required that he should be effectually restrained from again lighting up the flames of European war. To rely upon his word, after the escape from Elba, would have been fatuous; and his detention near the scenes of his recent exploits, retaining as he did such influence over the minds of men, would have been attended with much danger, and led to constant disquietude. England may well be excused for having desired to prevent the recurrence of wars, which had cost her so much blood and money; but it was also impossible she should neglect the interests of her ally the King of France. Sir Walter Scott justly remarks that, "while France was in a state of such turmoil and vexation, with the remains of a disaffected army, fermenting amid a fickle population,while the king (in order to make good his stipulated payments to the allies) was obliged to impose heavy taxes, and to raise them with some severity, many opportunities might arise, in which Napoleon, either complaining of some petty injuries of his own, or invited by the discontented state of the French nation, might renew his memorable attempt of February 28th."

We are strongly of opinion that the British Government were bound to inflict no greater hardship upon Napoleon than the circumstances of the case required :

"Since he, miscall'd 'the Morning Star,'

Nor man, nor fiend, hath fallen so far:".

and, notwithstanding his moral deficiencies, and the appalling amount of suffering he had inflicted upon Europe, it is impossible to view without interest and pity the condition of one hurled from such power and splendour; or to contemplate without sorrow the future of a man to whose happiness activity and command were essential.

But we cannot agree with Mr. Forsyth, that the refusal of the title of Emperor was a mistake. To grant, under then existing circumstances, what had been peremptorily and continuously refused during the whole period of his power, would have been ridiculous. If Emperor,-Emperor of what country? He had twice abdicated the throne of France; and Lord Castlereagh expressly declined to accede to the Treaty of Paris because he was there acknowledged as Emperor of Elba. But could we have allowed him the title of Emperor, which, if it had any meaning at all, must have referred to France, without insult to our ally, the King of France? And again, the title would have led to practical difficulties of a serious kind. It would have appeared to necessitate a mode of treatment which might have nullified every regulation necessary to his

security as a prisoner. It may be asked,-Who ever heard of an Emperor restricted in his promenades, or subjected, in certain cases, to the surveillance of an officer, and the restraint of sentinels? Or how could those precautions against escape have been taken, without irreverence to the person of so high a prince, which, in the circumstances of Napoleon Bonaparte, were indispensably necessary? As it was, he fenced himself around with the forms of etiquette, rendering access to his person, even to ascertain his presence, difficult. But what additional facilities to his meditated escape would have been afforded by a title, which would seem to carry with it a claim to imperial respect!

Assuming that the British Government would have incurred a most serious responsibility, had they neglected to secure the person of Napoleon at a distance from the scenes of his mighty triumphs,was the choice of St. Helena one of which we can approve? Napoleon and his friends pertinaciously insisted that the island was unhealthy, and was chosen in order to shorten his life. From some of the passionate expressions that fell from Napoleon's lips, on being informed of his destination, one would suppose he had been condemned to experience such rigours and fearful alternations as Milton's genius has embodied; and was doomed to Feel by turns the bitter change

Of fierce extremes, extremes by change more fierce,
From beds of raging fire to starve in ice."

Now, with respect to the question of salubrity, not to dwell upon the fact that the island was continually being chosen as a place for recruiting the health of invalids from India,-was, in fact, a sanatorium of the East India Company, we have the distinct evidence of persons competent to decide the point. In a report made in March, 1821, by Dr. Thomas Shortt, Physician to the Forces, it is stated that at that period the proportion of sick among the military in the island was as one to forty-two; a proportion smaller than at that time prevailed in the service. Dr. Shortt imputes it to the circumstance of the island being situated in the way of the trade-winds, where the continued steady breeze carries off the superfluous heat, and with it such effluvia, noxious to the human constitution, as may have been generated. Lieut.-Col. Jackson, who resided several years on the island, states, that, owing to the above-mentioned circumstance, there is, perhaps, no finer climate to be found than in certain parts of St. Helena; and that he scarcely ever saw the thermometer higher than 80° in James Town, while the average throughout the island was about 75°. A fire, he says, was seldom requisite, and the duration of life he takes to be about the same as in England.

The evidence of Mr. Henry, who was stationed at St. Helena, as assistant-surgeon, during the time of Napoleon's residence, is to the same effect. He states, that during a period of twelve months not one man died from disease out of five hundred of the

sequences which their originators supposed them to involve. The degrees of the Council of Trent are among the authorities quoted by Lord Eldon in support of the doctrine, of which Mr. Shore is now about to be made the victim. The Popish pedigree of the doctrine is quite correct. The Church of England took it bodily from the Church of Rome: where it had been debated as a sacrament, and as a point of school divinity question of Scripture, or public policy or common sense. What passed at the Council of Trent upon the subject, we will sum up in the words of Dr. Campbell.

never as a

In regard to the indelibility, all agreed; insomuch that ، though a bishop, priest, or deacon, turn heretic or schismatic, 'Deist or Atheist, he still retains the character; and though f not a Christian man, he is still a Christian bishop, priest, or deacon; nay, though he be degraded from his office, and excommunicated, he is, in respect of the character, still the same. Though he be cut off from the Church, he is still a minister in 'the Church. In such a situation, to perform any of the sacred functions would be in him a deadly sin; But these would be equally valid as before. Thus he may not be within the pale ' of the Church himself, and yet be in the Church, a minister of 'Jesus Christ. He may openly and solemnly blaspheme God, and abjure the faith of Christ. He may apostatize to Judaism, ، Mahomedanism, or Paganism — he still retains the character. 'He may even become a priest of Jupiter or a priest of Baal,

,and still continue a priest of Jesus Christ. The character ؟

So

'say the schoolmen, is not cancelled in the damned, but remains ❝ with the wicked, to their disgrace and greater confusion. ' that even in Hell they are the ministers of Jesus Christ, and the messengers of the New Covenant. Nor is it cancelled in the blessed; but remains in Heaven with them, for their greater ' ornament and glory.'

The English Parliament will surely enter upon the subject in a different spirit, and settle it on other grounds.

ART. VI.-1. The Saxons in England; a History of the English Commonwealth until the Norman Conquest. By J. M. KEMBLE, M.A. 2 vols. 8vo. London, 1848.

2. Codex Diplomaticus Evi Saxonici. Operâ JOHANNIS M. KEMBLE. 5 vols. Londini, 1839-48.

FIF

IFTY years have elapsed since Gibbon, reposing under the laurels he had won in the fields of Roman history, attempted to revive the interest of his countrymen in the annalists and

muniments of their forefathers. His appeal to the labours of the Camdens, the Savilles, and the Spelmans, was at the time ineffectual; for it was addressed to an age which regarded history as a vehicle for eloquence, rather than as a science with laws and objects of its own. The author of the appeal had himself indeed in his great work wedded philology to narrative; but his single example could not counteract a prevailing fallacy; and the provinces of the antiquary, the jurist, and the historian were then and long afterwards believed to be distinct. The track, however, which had been opened by Gibbon, was followed up by continental scholars. Wolf discerned that Bentley had contributed nearly as much to historical studies as to philology itself. Heyne perceived that the agrarian laws of Rome had still living relations to political economy; and Niebuhr, combining almost unprecedented resources with practical experience, treated ancient history with the enthusiasm of a scholar, the science of a jurist, and the sense of a contemporary statesman. The example of Gibbon and the German philologers, was at first more readily adopted in France than in our own country. When statesmen like Guizot, or men engaged in administration like Sismondi, sat down to write history, it was scarcely possible they should overlook its deeper and more comprehensive relations, or postpone the matter to the form. In the History of Civilisation,' and in that of the French,' accordingly, are united the functions of the antiquarian, the jurist, and the political economist. The reception of their works, both at home and abroad, was an indication that juster notions of history were becoming prevalent; and that readers would now require something more than skilful groupings and portraitures, or than graceful disquisition and agreeable narrative. The intrinsic virtues of the earlier school of historians were not indeed abrogated, but raised upon a firmer basis and applied to more catholic purposes.

6

With all the adjuncts of the press, of public libraries, of cathedral and corporate muniments, of government patronage, and of private enterprise or speculation, it must be admitted that, since the close of the 17th century until a comparatively recent period, very little advance had been made in the study of early English annals. One at least of our universities has a professorship of Anglo-Saxon, to say nothing of other chairs more or less connected by the design of their founders with legal or historical archæology. But endowments of this kind are only a security for scholarship when their subjects have a value already, in the university or the world. As soon as the opinion of a society has been sufficiently pronounced, its