that constituted human existence was feeble and narrowed down to the nightmare of the “tumultuous mind” whose sole aim was the conquest of the Continent of Europe and the invasion of these Islands.  The “usurper” must be subdued by the force of arms, the squandering of British wealth, and the sanguinary sacrifice of human lives.  That was the only diplomacy his mental organism could evolve.  He used his power of expression, which was great, to such good purpose that his theories reflected on his supporters.  Had Pitt been talented in matters of international diplomacy, as he was in the other affairs of Government, he would have seized the opportunity of making the Peace of Amiens universal and durable.  It is futile to contend that Napoleon was irreconcilable.  His great ambition was to form a concrete friendship with our Government, which he foresaw could be fashioned into a continental arrangement, intricate and entangled as all the elements were at the time.  Napoleon never ceased to deplore the impossibility of coming to any reciprocal terms with England so long as Pitt’s influence was in the ascendant, and he and a large public in France and in this country profoundly believed that Fox had not only the desire but the following, and all the diplomatic qualities to bring it about.  Any close, impartial student of history, free from the popular prejudices which assailed Napoleon’s origin and advent to power, cannot but concede the great possibilities of this view.

It was only statesmen like Fox who had unconfused perception, and inveighed against the stupidity of ministers acclaimed by an ignorant public as demigods.  Napoleon’s starting-points were to “Surmount great obstacles and attain great ends.  There must be prudence, wisdom, and dexterity.”  “We should,” he said, “do everything by reason and calculation, estimating the trouble, the sacrifice, and the pleasure entailed in gaining a certain end, in the same way as we work out any sum in arithmetic by addition and subtraction.  But reason and logic should be the guiding principle in all we do.  That which is bad in politics, even though in strict accordance with law, is inexcusable unless absolutely necessary, and whatever goes beyond that is criminal.”  These were briefly the general principles on which he shaped his ends, and they are pretty safe guides.  His mentality, as I have said, was so complete that it covered every subtle and charming form of thought and knowledge, even to the smallest affairs of life.  No theologians knew more than he or could converse so clearly on the many different religions; and he was as well versed in the intricacies of finance and civil law as he was in the knowledge of art, literature, and statecraft.