I think Cardinal Ruffo would have been a supporter of imposing some form of disciplinary restraint on Emma Hamilton.  He did strongly insist on the treaty being honourably adhered to, but his view was overruled, and he retired in consequence in bitter indignation.

So much for the vaunted fairness and impartiality of our treatment of Napoleon!

It is only when we come to study the life of this man that we realize how he towered above all his contemporaries in thought, word, and deed.  Napoleon’s authentic doings and sayings are wonderful in their vast comprehensiveness and sparkling vision, combined with flawless wisdom.  When we speak or think of him, it is generally of his military genius and achievements and of what we term his “gigantic ambition”; and in this latter conclusion the platitudinarians, with an air of originality, languidly affirm that this was the cause of his ruin, the grandeur of which we do not understand.  But never a word is said or thought of our own terrible tragedies, nor of the victories we were compelled to buy in order to secure his downfall.  His great gifts as a lawgiver and statesman are little known or spoken of.  Nelson’s views of him were of a rigid, stereotyped character.  He only varied in his wild manner of describing him as a loathsome despot, whose sole aim was to make war everywhere and to invade England and annihilate her people.

II

In the light of what is happening now in the world-war 1914-1917, and the world-wide views expressed about the German Kaiser, it may be interesting to write Pitt’s opinion of Napoleon, though they are scarcely to be mentioned in the same breath.  The former, who is the creator of the world-tragedy, is a mere shadow in comparison to the great genius of whom Mueller, the Swiss historian, says:  “Quite impartially and truly, as before God, I must say that the variety of his knowledge, the acuteness of his observations, the solidity of his understanding (not dazzling wit), his grand and comprehensive views, filled me with astonishment, and his manner of speaking to me with love for him.  By his genius and his disinterested goodness, he has also conquered me.”  But I give another authority, Wieland, the German author, who was disillusioned when he had the honour of a conversation with Napoleon on the field of Jena.  Amongst the many topics they spoke of was the restoration of public worship in France by Napoleon.  In his reply to the German writer as to why religion was not more philosophical and in harmony with the spirit of the times, Napoleon replied, “My dear Wieland, religion is not meant for philosophers!  They have no faith either in me or my priests.  As to those who do believe, it would be difficult to give them, or leave them too much of the marvellous.  If I had to frame a religion for philosophers, it would be just the reverse of that of the credulous part of mankind.”  Wieland’s testimony