« ElőzőTovább »
When Antommarchi arrives from Europe to take professional charge of the illustrious patient, he invites his medical brethren on the island to dine with him, but is amazed and mortified to find that his invitation is refused or evaded unanimously, under the apprehensive dread of the dark frown of the despot that kept watch over all their movements. Becoming shocked and alarmed himself, he asks leave to abandon his post of honour and high responsibility, and make his escape from this vile despotism—but is refused peremptorily.
When O'Meara put forth his “Voice from St. Helena,” eighteen sets of the book were sent as presents to persons on the island. “They were not retained,” we are told,“ by a single individual, but sent back to the publisher, with their leaves uncut.” Thus was he condemned unheard, unread; clearly because to read or hear him, would have incurred the marked displeasure of the insular tyrant, Governor Sir Hudson Lowe, who at that period was labouring most philanthropically to bring about the emancipation of the few slaves—the black slaves, we mean-then living on the island, and procure there the total and permanent abolition of slavery.
It scarcely seems possible that Forsyth should have been conscious of the purport of the above anecdote, strangely introduced into an eulogistic biography and carefully laboured defence of his hero, or of the tendency of the following, with which we shall close our critical disquisition.
Theodore Hook, landing for a short time at St. Helena, prepares a book, which he publishes on his arrival in England, entitled “Facts illustrative of the treatment of Napoleon Bonaparte in St. Helena; being the result of minute inquiries and personal research." Sir Hudson Lowe evidently shrinks under the laudatory representations of this literary sycophant. Was he afraid of being suspected by the British ministry of too gentle jailorship, or was he aware that the gross misstatements of the work would recoil upon him rather than its author ? “I am sensible," he says, 6 of his good intentions, although he appears to have drawn some matters in rather too glowing colours. I believe he
got his information from some naval friend, which may account for its inaccuracy."
Let us describe, in a few sentences, the progressive illness of the dying prisoner. He had long complained of symptoms varying in degree, which O'Meara ascribed to “obscure sub-acute inflammation of the liver.” In January, 1819, he was affected with vertigo, and seemed to be threatened with apoplexy. Dr. Stokoe, on examination of him, agreed with O'Meara, and called the case a chronic hepatitis. He “distinctly felt a degree of hardness in the region of the liver.” In August, Capt. Nicholls, peeping in, sees Napoleon in the bath. “He had a most ghastly appearance.” In July, 1820, he suffered from "a bilious attack, and was restless, changing from one bed to another frequently, day and night.” In October, he is described as
pale, but astonishingly fat and very drowsy." In November, he “suffers from frequent vomitings and pains in the stomach." In February, 1821, he has fever, with great prostration ; his stomach is irritable, “his mind wandering.” He says, gloomily, “there is no more oil in the lamp." Yet Dr. Arnott, most pertinaciously intruded on him by his jailors, speaks lightly of the case. Forsyth says :-" It is certainly strange that Dr. Arnott did not entertain apprehensions of a fatal result." Sir T. Reade writes :-"Dr. Arnott appears to think that Gen. Bonaparte is not affected with any serious complaint. He told Gen. Bertrand that he saw no danger whatever.” This was on the 6th of April, 1821 ! On the 11th, Dr. A. examined the abdomen manually, and told Bertrand that he “could find no hardness or swelling.” “Napoleon spoke no farther on the subject, merely signifying that he understood what was said, by a kind of contractile motion of the jaw and upper lip." On the 28th, he became so much worse, that all affectation of ignorance or doubt was necessarily laid aside for ever. On the 30th, at midnight, " he seemed dying; he was cold as ice and his pulse was gone."
We find Dr. Arnott staying with him on the 1st of May ; “he is much sunk; raves more ; rejects every thing offered ; seems collected at one time, and at another loses sense and.
recollection altogether. He speaks of O'Meara and Stokoe," (long since dismissed,) "forgetting Arnott and Antommarchi" (present). He becomes suddenly calm; remarks “on the untimely presence of Bertrand, and dictates a letter.” So he continues until the 5th of May. At eleven minutes before six in the evening, while a violent hurricane was sweeping over the island and adjoining ocean, he died, his last thought and last words redolent of his military habit of command and soldierly feeling.
His death was directly owing to cancer of the stomach ; his father, as well as some other members of his family, had been affected with similar disease. It is not difficult now to trace, in the history of his symptoms for years previous, the gradual progress of this insidious and indomitable malady.
The autopsy, as given by Forsyth, is it somewhat curious specimen of a layman's paraphrase of a technical statement. The following are the points of interest:-“ The body was very fat, the layer of adipose matter being one inch thick on the breast, and one and a half over the abdomen. The lungs were sound; the heart of the natural size, but thickly covered with fat. The stomach was the seat of extensive disease, connecteu externally with the liver by strong adhesions, and internally a mass of schirrhus, with cancerous ulceration. It contained a large quantity of fluid resembling coffee grounds. The liver adhered to the diaphragm, and the organ was, perhaps, a little larger than natural. Except the adhesions, no unhealthy appearance was observed in the liver. Dr. Short said it was enlarged ; all the medical men present differed from him. Dr. Arnott said there was nothing extraordinary in its appearance. Antommarchi said it was a large liver, but not otherwise extraordinary."
The Italian did not sign the report made at the time, but afterwards published his own. In that he says :—“The liver, which was affected by chronic hepatitis, closely ad* hered by its convex surface to the diaphragm ; the adhesion
occupied the whole extent of that organ, and was strong, cellular, and of long existence."
Count Montholon requested that the heart should be taken
out and sent to Maria Louisa, in compliance with the wish of the dead Napoleon. This was refused by Sir Hudson Lowe. It was afterwards put into a silver vessel, and sealed or “ soldered up with a silver shilling ;" the stomach, also, was enclosed " in a silver pepper-box," and both, in a tin case, placed with the body in a wooden box, within a leaden coffin. These remains of the Mighty Conqueror mouldered in the dust of the distant island to which he was exiled ; but this was not their place of final rest. They lie now in his beloved Paris.
On visiting St. Helena in 1828, even the impassive soul of Sir Hudson Lowe must have experienced some emotion. Longwood, for so many years a centre of warm and profound interest to the whole civilized world, presented a scene of neglect and abandonment, decay and dilapidation, almost beyond belief. " The chief approach to the house was through a large pig-stye. Out of the windows of Napoleon's bed-room protruded bundles of hay; the chamber in which he had breathed his last, was converted into a stable."
ART. V.-WHAT IS OUR GOVERNMENT ?
1. Tract on Government. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 2. Southern Quarterly Keview. April, 1854. Charleston : C. Mortimer. Art. VIII. On Government.
The subject of government—what it is and what it should be—is one that can scarcely be too frequently discussed by the press, in the present condition of our own and the several civilized states of the world. We shall, accordingly, offer no apologies for once more urging its consideration upon the attention of our readers. We are specially prompted to this performance by the review contained in the April number of this periodical, of the tract first mentioned in our caption. This tract is understood to be from the pen of Mr. James M. Walker, of the Bar of Charleston ; the review is ascribed, without denial, to the pen of the Hon. Robert Barn
well Rhett. The high reputation of the latter, as a lawyer and politician, confers so much authority upon his opinions, as renders it necessary that his errors (if he has uttered any in his opinion) should meet with prompt exposure and analysis ; and this must be our excuse for undertaking the review of the reviewer. We shall do our spiriting as gently as possible ; but frankly state, that, in dealing with one of so much rank and experience, we shall feel no necessity to speak quite so gingerly, as if our customer were a young one, and only beginning his career in politics and polemics. We take for granted that Mr. Rhett has been sufficiently indurated, during his political career in Washington and elsewhere, to endure, with equanimity, an occasional rough jostle in debate. Besides, it should be enough for him to know, that “those who play at bowls inust expect rubbers.”
It is necessary, in order to understand the issues between Mr. Rhett and Mr. Walker-the reviewer and the tract writer—to observe that the treatise, so far as it considers the government of the United States, urges, as its main proposition, the necessity of an amendment of the Constitution. The particular amendment suggested, is to eradicate from that instrument the words “provide for the general welfare ;" by virtue of which, tariff laws, and others similar in their effects, have been enacted. It will not be denied that these have been extremely injurious to our section of the confederacy. It is a fact, that the intelligent men of the Union are divided in opinion upon the question, whether or not Congress has a specific power to promote the general welfare. But it is certain that Congress has claimed and exercised this power frequently, and that, too, with the sanction of the Supreme Court.
Until within a very short period of time, no one was more ardent, and, we believe, more honest, than Mr. Rhett, in suggesting means to remedy the evils consequent upon the possession by Congress of this power “ to promote the general welfare.” For more than twenty years, the party to which he belonged, and of which, until very lately, he was the most conspicuous leader, has been sedulously devoted to the discovery and application of an efficient remedy. In 1832