has only dressed up in a grosser, and to such a taste as his, in a more piquant manner, the crambe recocta of these refuted libellers.

His work consists of two great branches, which, though twined together, are yet capable of being promptly distinguished: the first is, the charge and calumnies brought against Sir Hudson in O'Meara's proper person; the second, the charges and calumnies against the governor, and the lies and libels on all subjects and against all men, which he puts into the mouth of Buonaparte. We shall examine these in their order; for it is evident, that O'Meara's credit is the hinge upon which the whole discussion must turn, and if we do not deceive ourselves, we think that, after reading the following observations, no man, nay, no woman* alive will hesitate to say, that he is wholly discredited as a witness; he himself will be overwhelmed (if he be capable of the sensation) with shame, and those who have countenanced and encouraged him will be covered with ridicule. We doubt, whether the annals of literary criticism, nay, whether those of legal criticism, exhibit so decisive an exposure as that we are now about to inflict on this unfortunate person.

We must begin by apprizing our readers of the course we mean to pursue in unravelling the immense and complicated tissue of calumny and falsehood which occupy two thick octavo volumes. There is not, we believe, a single page in which we could not detect errors of one class or the other; some pages are erowded with them: a detailed examination would, therefore, occupy at least as many volumes as the original, and, however complete the refutation might be, would weary and perplex the most patient reader. We must necessarily, therefore, apply ourselves to the chief and most prominent subjects of which the Journal is composed;-such as Sir Hudson Lowe's folly and incapacity; his rigorous and insulting treatment of Buonaparte personally; his spiteful vigilance to prevent the prisoners enjoying the most innocent pleasures of society; his petty vexations and oppression in refusing them the perusal of newspapers, and his neglect or cruelty in depriving them of the common necessaries of life; his endeavour to seduce Mr. O'Meara to become a spy on his patient, and his unrelenting persecution of this worthy man till he succeeded in having him-merely because he had the integrity to resist his seductions-dismissed from the island."

Such are the charges which it is the first object of this book to substantiate; such are the charges which we have to examine;→

* O'Meara's work,' say our Northern brethren, (with that delicate tact which distinguishes all their compliments,) is dedicated, with peculiar propriety, to Lady Holland, whose kindness to Napoleon in his day of need, so unlike the frivolity and fickleness of her sex and station, reflect (reflects) upon her the most lasting honour.”

and

and such are the charges which we pledge ourselves to prove, not only to be false, but not even to have a colour or a pretence. And in order that the refutation may be as satisfactory in point of evidence, as it will be complete in effect, we further pledge ourselves not to make use of a single fact or argument that we do not obtain from the MOUTH OF O'MEARA HIMSELF.

The last of the above charges, namely, what relates to his dismissal from the island,-we shall notice first, because, although of the least importance in itself, it will open to the reader a very useful view of O'Meara's character, and indeed of the whole object of his book.

Our readers are well aware, that the vital importance attached to Buonaparte's safe custody, and the recollection of the escape from Elba, induced the legislature to pass an act to make penal any secret intercourse with Buonaparte. The orders of government, confirmed by this act, required that all communications with him or his followers were to be with the sanction of the governor; and, in pursuance of the authority vested in him, several regulations were established for conducting the intercourse, written or personal, between the detenus, and all other persons. These regulations were originally established by Sir George Cockburn, who preceded Sir Hudson Lowe in the awful responsibility of the custody of one who had nothing to lose and every thing to gain by an attempt to escape,-who had talent and audacity to invent the best plans for such an object,who had partizans all over the world, able, active and despe rate, who had himself an unbounded command of money, and whose nearest relations, scattered over the face of Europe and America, had wealth and station to further all their designs,and who, finally, by what we always thought a false policy, was a kind of prisoner at large, with a retinue of devoted partizans, and with full leisure and opportunity to combine and arrange any plans of escape which might be in agitation. Under such circumstances no regulations would have been too vigilant or too jealous. Those adopted by Sir George Cockburn and Sir Hudson Lowe appear to us to have been perhaps more moderate and indulgent, and less jealous, than a strict consideration of the cause would have justified:—but that is not the question These regulations, such as they were, Buonaparte took, from the first hour, in high dudgeon, and violently, and on every occasion, great and little, thwarted and opposed. He had probably three powerful motives for this opposition:-1. that the regulations denied to him the imperial character, to which personal vanity for the present, and political hopes for the future, induced him to cling, as the drowning sailor does to a plank;

now.

-2. that the regulations, if they did not render escape impossible, made it at least difficult;-3. that by continued complaints against imaginary vexations and oppressions, a degree of commiseration and sympathy might be created in the public mind, which might eventually lead to his removal to a situation more convenient for his ulterior objects. A man of true dignity of mind in Buonaparte's situation would have submitted to these regulations-even if they had been unjust and oppressive,-nay, the rather, because they were unjust and oppressive-with a calm contempt, and that resignation under such reverses, which is the true mark of a noble soul. Instead of which, we find him kicking like a froward child; scolding with all the violence and grossness of Billingsgate; and playing off every kind of evasive trick and subterfuge, like the clown of a pantomime. In this petty warfare against the regulations, his immediate followers naturally formed his chief dependence: but he soon found, as we shall see, a zealous auxiliary in O'Meara. When the surgeon began, and how far he went in the violation of the laws and regulations, it is impossible for any one but himself to say; but we shall rest the whole of this part of the case on one instance, which was discovered by an extraordinary accident.

O'Meara's dismissal from St. Helena was sudden, and earlier than his or Buonaparte's secret correspondents in Europe expected. A short time after his departure a ship arrived from England, having on board a box of French books verbally stated to be for O'Meara, and a letter addressed to a Mr. Fowler, the partner of Balcombe, Buonaparte's purveyor. Mr. Fowler, on opening the cover, found that it contained nothing but an inclosure addressed to James Forbes, esq. As he knew no James Forbes, he thought it his duty to carry the letter to the Governor; further inquiries ascertained that there was no person of the name of James Forbes on the island; and accordingly it was thought proper to open this mysterious letter before the Governor and Council, when it was found to begin with the words' Dear O'Meara;' it is dated Lyon's Inn, London, and is signed' William Holmes. We find, in vol. i. p. 12, a confession of O'Meara's, which implicates him in the whole affair, and proves that the letter was on the business of Buonaparte; namely, that' Mr. Holmes, of Lyon's Inn, was Napoleon's AGENT in London, and that O'Meara kept up,-by means of a friend on board one of the King's ships in the roads,a communication with this Agent of Buonaparte.' If all had been of the most innocent and indifferent kind, it must be admitted that the very fact of such communications-secret communications between the confidential attendant of Buonaparte at St. Helena and his agent in London-was

highly improper, and of itself required the removal of O'Meara but what will our readers say, when they see the nature of them

'Dear O'Meara,

June 26, 1818. 'I have at length seen. Mr. (a person lately come from St. He lena,) who I am sure will exert himself much for his friends at St. Helena. His stay in London will be about a fortnight, most of which time he will remain at my house. The letter you gave him for me, he left at Ascension Island, to be forwarded; so that, I know not your instructions. He did think of going to the continent for the benefit of his wife's health, but is fearful of improper motives being ascribed to the taking the journey, and particularly as the tongue of slander has already been busy with his name. I told him, that, if BUSINESS* had any thing to do with the object of his journey, I would be happy to go in his place; but, he says, he has only one commission to execute at Paris, which is so unimportant, that he would not trouble me; and that, indeed, his name being mentioned, he thought I could not effect it. If, therefore, you are aware of the nature of the commission, and that it is necessary still to execute it, you had better get ME AUTHORIZED to transact the business.

I expect to hear from my friends at Rome and Munich, of which you shall have due information.'

Our readers know, that at Munich resided His Imperial Highness Prince Eugene Napoleon, and at Rome Cardinal Fesch and the princesses of the imperial family. Before this letter was dispatched, O'Meara's own letter, which had been left at Ascension, reached the hands of Buonaparte's agent, who thereupon adds a postscript, from which we may judge of the nature of O'Meara's instructions.

I continue the duplicate, to say, that the letter from Ascension Island, left by is just come to hand. All the parcels sent in July last, by Mr. J. are safe; since which, two have been left by some un known hand; one brought by B. and two, by B. This is the sum total of my receipts, except your letters of the 17th and 31st March, and 2d April.

I intend starting for Paris next week, to see LAFITTE; and, perhaps, will see Las Cases; but I fear my journey will be useless, from the insufficiency of the documents I hold.

'Seek every opportunity of writing me, and sending what you can. S. and P. refused to pay Gourgaud's bill for £500, but they have since heard from Las Cases, and it is settled. I understand the old general does not mean to publish; but should he, Perry, of the Chronicle, has promised his assistance."

I understand you are to draw for £1,800. You shall hear the issue of my visit to LAFITTE; and, if your remittances are paid, TRADE of that kind can be carried on to ANY EXTENT.

The friend on board the King's ship in the roads was, we suppose, the surgeon Stokoe, whom O'Meara had probably initiated into these practices, to supply his place when he should be sent away. Stokoe was also dismissed from the service, we suppose, on the discovery that Holmes had endeavoured to transmit secretly through him, 'in case O'Meara should have left St. Helena,' a communication to General Bertrand :

"Dear Sir,

3, Lyon's-Inn, Strand, London, August 26, 1818.

If my friend and client O'Meara has left, oblige me by giving the inclosed to Count Bertrand in private, for although it is not of much importance, I nevertheless do not wish the Governor to peruse it; have the goodness also to give my address, and desire any letters to be sent to my office. 'I am, &c. (Signed)

W. HOLMES.'

(Letter inclosed in the above without address.)

'London, August 25, 1818.

'Reply to Letter addressed to Paris :

The 100,000 francs lent in 1816 are paid; likewise the 72,000 francs, which complete the 395,000 francs mentioned in the note of the 15th of March. The 36,000* francs for 1817, and the like sum for 1819, have also been paid by the person ordered.

Remain quiet as to the funds placed; the farmers are good, and they will pay bills for the amount of the income, which must be calculated at the rate of four per cent. commencing from 1816, that is to say, there will be three years of the interest due the expiration of the present year. All other letters have been delivered.'

We shall not insult the understanding of our readers by any comments on these letters; we will only remind them, that it has since appeared, by legal proceedings in France, that the house of Lafitte had in its possession, at this period, an immense sum of money belonging to Buonaparte. It will also be observed, that O'Meara, whose salary appears to have been under £500 per annum, was to draw, in one sum, for £1,800! We believe we shall hear no more of the injustice of removing Mr. O'Meara from about Buonaparte; and we hope that the world will appreciate the credit to be given to so candid and disinterested a witness.

*།

We shall next proceed to observe upon a most extraordinary and important transaction, which, although it has made a considerable noise in every part of Europe, and been connected with the most serious personal consequences to Mr. O'Meara himself-he has not chosen to mention in these volumes; we mean his charge

*If this sum of 36,000 francs was, as it appears to have been, interest money, would, at 4 per cent. which, we see, was the rate the 'farmer' paid, prove a capital in the hands of one person alone of 900,000 francs.

against