When Victor Hugo marked the nephew as Napoleon the Little, 
he acknowledged the uncle as Napoleon the Great. The title of his 
celebrated pamphlet* meant an antithesis, and,to some degree, did 
homage to that very Napoleon-worship on which the son of 
Hortense Beauharnais contrived to raise the bloody fabric of his 
fortune. What is more useful to impress on the present generation 
is that Napoleon the Little represents in fact the littleness of 
Napoleon the Great. The plainest illustration of this fact is 
afforded by the recent “painful misconceptions” between England 
and France, and the criminal proceedings against refugees and 
printers which they have led to on the part of the English 
Government. A short historical review will prove that during the 
whole of this miserable melo-drama Napoleon the Little has only 
re-enacted with anxious minuteness the shabby part invented and 
played before by Napoleon the Great. 

It was only during the short interval separating the peace of 
Amiens*”? (March 25, 1802) from the new declaration of war on 
the part of Great Britain (May 18, 1803) that Napoleon could 
indulge his desire for interference with the internal state of Great 
Britain. He lost no time. Even while the peace negotiations were 
still pending, the Moniteur emitted his venom on all the London 
papers venturing to question “the moderation and sincerity of 
Bonaparte’s views,” and gave no very unintelligible hint that “such 
disbelief might ere long be followed with chastisement.”° Nor did 

the Consul confine himself to a censorship over the language and 
sentiments of the British press. The Moniteur abused Lord 
Grenville and Mr. Windham for the part they took in the 
discussions on peace.* Mr. Elliot, a Member of Parliament, was 
called to account in the House of Commons by Perceval, the 
Attorney-General, for expressing his doubts as to Bonaparte’s 
intentions.” Lord Castlereagh and Pitt himself pitched the key of 
submission, by inculcating, what had never been done on any 
former occasions, forbearance of language in debate as respecting 
the Consul of France.“ About six weeks had passed from the 
conclusion of the peace, when Talleyrand, on June 3, 1802, 
informed Mr. Merry, the British Plenipotentiary at Paris, that 
Bonaparte, out of consideration for England, had resolved to 
replace Mr. Otto, the French Plenipotentiary at London, by a real 
Embassador in the person of Gen. Andréossy; but that before the 
arrival of that exalted personage at London, it was the First 
Consul’s sincere wish 

“to see such obstacles removed which stood very much in the way of the perfect 
reconciliation between the two countries and their Governments.” 

What he demanded, was simply the removal out of the British 
dominions of 

“all the French princes and their adherents, together with the French bishops 
and other French individuals whose political principles and conduct must 
necessarily occasion great jealousy of the French Government.... The protection 
and favor which all the persons in question continued to meet with, in a country so 
close a neighbor to France, must alone be always considered as an encouragement 
to'the disaffected here, even without those persons themselves being guilty of any 
acts leading to foment fresh disturbances in this country; but that the Government 
here possessed proofs of the abuse which they were now making of the protection 
which they enjoyed in England, and of the advantage they were taking of their 
vicinity to France, by being really guilty of such acts, since several printed papers 
had lately been intercepted, which it was known they had sent, and caused to be 
circulatéd in France, and which had for their object to create an opposition to the 
Government.” 4 

There existed at that time an alien law*” in England, which, 

however, was framed strictly with a view to the protection of the 

British Government. In answer to Talleyrand’s demand, Lord 
Hawkesbury, the then Foreign Minister, replied that 

“His Majesty the King? certainly expected that all foreigners who might reside 
within his dominions, should not only hold a conduct conformable to the laws of 
the country, but abstain from all acts hostile to the Government of any country 
with which his Majesty might be at peace. As long, however, as they conduct 
themselves according to these principles, his Majesty would feel it inconsistent with 
his dignity, with his honor, and with the common laws of hospitality, to deprive 
them of that protection which individuals resident in his dominions can only forfeit 
by their own misconduct. The greater part of the persons to whom allusion has 

In delivering Lord Hawkesbury’s dispatch to Talleyrand, 
Mr. Merry was by no means sparing of assurances calculated to 
“soothe, tranquilize and satisfy the First Consul.”* Talleyrand, 
however, insisted upon his pound of flesh,* stating that the First 
Consul had solicited no more than the British Government itself 
had demanded of Louis XIV., when the Pretender was in 
France, that he could not see any humiliation in the measure 
intimated, and that he must repeat 

“that the adoption of it would be in the highest degree agreeable and 
satisfactory to the First Consul,” and be considered by him as “the most convincing 
proof of his Majesty’s disposition to see a cordial good understanding established 
between the two countries.” ! 

On July 25, 1802, Mr. Otto, from his residence at Portman 
Square, addressed a letter to Lord Hawkesbury, requesting, in a 
very categorical way, nothing less than the suppression of the 
liberty of the English press, as far as Bonaparte and _ his 
Government were concerned. , 

“I transmitted,” he says, “some time ago, to Mr. Hammond, a number of 
Peltier, containing the most gross calumnies against the French Government, and 
against the whole nation; and I observed, that I should probably receive an order 
to demand a punishment of such an abuse of the press. That order is actually 
arrived, and I cannot conceal from you, my Lord, that the reiterated insults of a 
small number of foreigners, assembled in London to conspire against the French 
Government, have produced the most unfavorable effects on the good understand- 

ing between the two nations.... It is not to Peltier alone, but to the editor of the 
Courrier Frangats de Londres (Reynaud), to Cobbett, and to other writers who 
resemble them, that I have to direct the attention of his Majesty’s Government... 
The want of positive laws against these sorts of offenses cannot palliate the 
violation of the laws of nations, according to which peace should put a stop to all 
species of hostilities; and doubtless those which.wound the honor and reputation of 
a Government, and which tend to create a revolt of the people whose interests are 
confided to that Government, are the most apt to lessen the advantages of peace 
and to keep up national resentments.”* . 

Instead of meeting these first reproaches of Bonaparte’s 
interference on the subject of the press with a firm and dignified 
reply, Lord Hawkesbury, in a letter to M. Otto on July 28, made a 
paltry apology for the existence of the liberty of the press. He says 
that it is | 

“impossible his Majesty’s Government could peruse Peltier’s article without the 
greatest displeasure, and without an anxious desire that a person who published it 
should suffer the punishment he so justly deserves.” 

Then, after lamenting the “inconveniences” of prosecutions for 
libel, and the “difficulty” of obtaining judgment against the 
offenders, he concludes by stating that he has referred the matter 
to the King’s Attorney-General? “for his opinion whether it is or is 
not a libel.” * 

While the British Government was thus preparing a crusade 
against the liberty of the press, in order to soothe the susceptibility 
of its great and new ally, there appeared suddenly, on August 9, a 
menacing article in the Moniteur, in which England was not only 
accused of receiving French robbers and assassins, of harboring 
them at Jersey, and of sending them to make predatory excursions 
on the coasts of France, but in which the English King himself was 
represented as a rewarder and instigator of assassination: 

“The Times, which is said to be under Ministerial inspection, is filled with 
perpetual invectives against France. Two of its four pages are every day employed 
in giving currency to the grossest calumnies. All that imagination can depict, that is 
low, vile and base, is by that miserable paper attributed to the French Government. 
What is its end? Who pays it? What does it effect? A French journal,¢ edited by 
some miserable emigrants, the remnant of the most impure, a vile refuse, without 
country, without honor, sullied with crimes which it is not in the power of any 
amnesty to wash away, outdoes even The Times.” “Eleven Bishops, presided over 

by the atrocious Bishop of Arras, rebels to their country and to the Church, have 
assembled in London. They print libels against the Bishops and the French clergy.” 
“The Isle’ of Jersey is full of brigands, condemned to death by the tribunals, 
committed subsequent to the peace for assassination, robberies, and the practices of 
an incendiary. Georges* wears openly at London his red ribbon, as a recompense 
for the infernal machine which destroyed a part of Paris, and killed thirty women 
and children, or peaceable citizens. This special protection authorizes a belief that 
if he had succeeded, he would have been honored with the Ordér of the Garter.” 
“Either the English Government authorizes and tolerates those public and private 
crimes, in which case it cannot be said that such conduct is consistent with -British 
generosity, civilization and honor; or it cannot prevent them, in which case it does 
not deserve the name of a Government, above all, if it does not possess the means 
of repressing assassination and calumny and protecting social order.” ¢ 

When the menacing Moniteur arrived late at night in London, it 
produced such an irritation that The True Briton, the Ministerial 
paper, was compelled to declare, 

“That article could not have been inserted in the Moniteur with the knowledge 
or consent of the French Government.” 4 

In the House of Commons Dr. Laurence called upon Mr. Ad- 
dington (afterward Lord Sidmouth) as to the French libels on his 
Majesty.“ The Minister replied that 

“he wished he could show to the learned gentleman the satisfactory explanations 
which had taken place on that head.” ! 

It was replied that while the British Government made a public 
matter of a jest on Bonaparte and his wife, and Mr. Peltier was, 
for his jokes upon those people, to be brought into the Court of 
King’s Bench”*’ and to be arraigned as a criminal; in the other 
case, when the British nation was libeled and its royal master, in 
the official gazette of France, styled the rewarder of assassins, the 
matter was to be settled by an “explanation”, and that explanation 
so secret, too, as not to admit of being communicated to 
Parliament. Encouraged by the apparent vacillation of the English 

December 24, 1800 in the rue Saint-Nicaise.— Ed. 

Ministry, Otto, on Aug. 17, 1802, came out with a most impudent 
note to Lord Hawkesbury, in which the demand is formally put to 
adopt effectual measures for putting down ail the unbecoming 
and seditious publications of the English prints, to send out of 
Jersey certain individuals, to expel the French bishops, to 
transport Georges and his adherents to Canada, and to send the 
French princes to Warsaw. With reference to the alien law M. Otto 
insists that the Ministry must possess 

“a legal and sufficient power to restrain foreigners, without having recourse to 
the courts of law;” 

and he adds, 

“The French Government, which offers on this point a perfect reciprocity, 
thinks it gives a new proof of its pacific intentions, by demanding that those 
persons should be sent away whose machinations uniformly tend to sow discord 
between the two nations.” 4 

Lord Hawkesbury’s answer, dated Aug. 28, sent in the form of a 
dispatch to the English Plenipotentiary at Paris, has during the late 
quarrel with Bonaparte III. been quoted by the London press as a 
model of statesmanlike dignity; but it must be confessed that in 
spite of the terms of virtuous indignation in which it is couched, 
promises are held out of sacrificing the French emigrants to the 
jealous fears of the First Consul.? 

In the beginning of the year 1803 Napoleon took upon himself 
to regulate the proceedings of Parliament and to restrain the 
liberty of speech among its members. With respect to the 
ex-Ministers, Mr. Windham, Lord Grenville, and Lord Minto, he 
intimated literally in his Moniteur, 

- “It would be a patriotic and wise law which should ordain that displaced 
Ministers should not, for the first seven years after their dismissal, be competent to 
sit in the English Parliament. Another law, not less wise, would be that every 
member who should insult a friendly people and power should be condemned to 
silence for two years. When the tongue offends, the tongue must suffer 
punishment.” © 

At the same time Gen. Andréossy, who had meanwhile arrived 
at London, complained in a note to Lord Hawkesbury that the 
despicable pamphleteers and libelers of the British press 

b R. Hawkesbury’s dispatch to A. Merry, dated August 28, 1802, Cobbett’s 

“have found themselves invariably supported in their insolent observations by 
particular phrases, taken from the speeches of some leading Members of 
Parliament.” 

Of these speeches it is said that 

“every reasonable Englishman must be humiliated by such unheard-of 
licentiousness.” 

In the name of the First Consul he expresses the wish 

“that means should be adopted to prevent in future any mention being made of 
what is passing in France, either in the official discussions or in the polemical 
writings in England, as in like manner, in the French official discussions and 
polemical writings, no mention should be made of what is passing in England.” 4 

While Bonaparte in this tone of mingled hypocrisy and 
arrogance privately addressed the British Government, the 
Moniteur teemed with insults against the British people, and also 
published an official report of Col. Sebastiani, containing the most 
injurious charges against the British army in Egypt.” On Feb. 5, 
1803, the French Commissaire de Reiation Commerciale at Jersey, 
though acknowledged in no public capacity, had the insolence to 
prefer a complaint against some printers for inserting paragraphs 
from the London papers offensive to Bonaparte, and to threaten 
that if the practice was not punished, Bonaparte would certainly 
revenge himself upon Jersey. This threat had the desired effect. 
Two of the printers were brought before the Royal Court, and the 
positive injunction was laid on them not to publish in future 
anything offensive to France, even from the London papers.‘ On 
Feb. 20, 1803, one day before Peltier’s trial, Lord Whitworth, the 
English Embassador at Paris, was summoned into the presence of 
the great man himself. Being received in his cabinet, Whitworth 
was desired to sit down after Bonaparte had sat down himself on 
the other side of the table. He enumerated the several provoca- 
tions which he pretended to have received from England. 

“He adverted to the abuse thrown out about him in the English prints, but this 
he said he did not so much regard as that which appeared in the French papers 
published in London. This he considered as much more mischievous, since it was 
meant to excite his country against him and his Government. He complained of the 
protection given to Georges and others of his description; [...] he acknowledged 
that the irritation he feit against England increased daily, because every wind which 

blew from England brought nothing but enmity and hatred against him.... As a 
proof of his desire to maintain peace, he wished to know what he had to gain by 
going to war with England. A descent was the only means of offense he had, and 
that he was determined to attempt, by putting himself at the head of the 
expedition. He acknowledged that there were one hundred chances to one against 
him, but still he was determined to attempt it if war should be the consequence of 
the present discussion; and that such was the disposition of the troops that army 
after army would be found for the enterprise.... To preserve peace the treaty of 
Amiens must be fulfilled, the abuse in the public prints, if not totally suppressed, at 
least kept within bounds and confined to the English papers, and the protection so 
openly given to his bitterest enemies must be withdrawn.” 4 

On Feb. 21, Peltier was tried before Lord Ellenborough and a 
special Jury, for libeling Bonaparte and “intending to excite the 
people of France to assassinate their ruler.” Lord Ellenborough 
had the meanness to terminate his address to the Jury with the 
following words: 

“Gentlemen, I trust your verdict will strengthen the relations by which the . 
interests of this country are connected with those of France, and that it will 
illustrate and justify in every quarter of the world the conviction that has been long 
and universally entertained of the unsultied purity of British judicature.” ¢ 

The Jury, without retiring from their box, immediately returned 
the verdict of Guilty. In consequence of the subsequent rupture 
between the two countries, Mr. Peltier was, however, not called 
upon to receive judgment, and the prosecution thus stopped. 
Having goaded the British Ministry into these persecutions of the 
press, and wrung from them Peltier’s condemnation, the truthful 
and heroic Moniteur, March 2, 1803, published the following 
commentary: 

“A person of the name of Peltier has been found guilty, before a court of 
justice at London, of printing and publishing some wretched libels against the First 
Consul. It is not easy to imagine why the English Ministry should affect to make 
this a matter of so much éclat. As it has been said in the English newspapers that 
the trial was instituted at the demand of the French Government, and that the 
French Embassador was even in the Court when the Jury gave in their verdict, we 
have authority to deny that any such things did ever take place. The First Consul 
was even ignorant of the existence of Peltier’s iibels till they came to his knowledge 
in the public accounts of the proceedings at his trial.... Yet it is to be acknowledged 
that these proceedings, however useless in other respects, have afforded an 
occasion to the Judges who presided at the trial to evince, by their wisdom and 

* Napoleon I’s conversation with Lord Whitworth, dated February 20, 1803, 

impartiality, that they are truly worthy to administer justice in a nation so 
enlightened, and estimable in so many respects.” # 

While the Moniteur in the same article insisted that the duty 
weighed on all “civilized nations in Europe” reciprocally to put 
down the barbarians of the press, M. Reinhard, the French 
Plenipotentiary at Hamburg, summoned together the Hamburg 
Senate, in order to consider a requisition from the First Consul to 
insert in the Hamburger Correspondent an article most offensive to 
the British Government. It was the wish of the Senate at least to 
be allowed to omit or qualify the most offensive passages; but, 
M. Reinhard said his orders were positive for the full and exact 
insertion of the whole. The article appeared consequently in its 
original coarseness. The French Minister desired that the same 
should be published in the papers at Altona; but the Danish 
magistrates said that they could not possibly permit it without an 
express order from their Government. In consequence of this 
refusal, M. D’Aguesseau, the French Minister at Copenhagen, 
received from his colleague at Hamburg a copy of the article, with 
the request that he would solicit permission for its publication in 
the Danish papers. When called upon with respect to this libel by 
Lord Whitworth, M. Talleyrand declared that 

“the British Ministers could not be more surprised than the First Consul had 
been at seeing such an article inserted by authority; that an immediate explanation 
had been required of M. Reinhard, etc.”> 

Such was Napoleon the Great. 

Written on April 4, 1858 Reproduced from the newspaper 

Daily Tribune, No. 5309, April 27, 1858