would be difficult to administer, but he had the means of doing it with the sword.  The sanctuary of his abode should not be violated, and the troops should not enter his house but by trampling on his corpse.  He then alluded to an invitation sent to him by Sir Hudson Lows to meet Lady Loudon at his house, and said there could not be an act of more refined cruelty than inviting him to his table by the title of “General,” to make him an object of ridicule or amusement to his guests.  What right had he to call him “General” Bonaparte?  He would not be deprived of his dignity by him, nor by any one in the world.  He certainly should have condescended to visit Lady Loudon had she been within his limits, as he did not stand upon strict etiquette with a woman, but he should have deemed that he was conferring an honour upon her.  He would not consider himself a prisoner of war, but was placed in his present position by the most horrible breach of trust.  After a few more words he dismissed the Governor without once more alluding to the house which was the object of the visit.  The fate of this unfortunate house may be mentioned here.  It was erected after a great many disputes, but was unfortunately surrounded by a sunk fence and ornamental railing.  This was immediately connected in Napoleon’s mind with the idea of a fortification; it was impossible to remove the impression that the ditch and palisade were intended to secure his person.  As soon as the objection was made known, Sir Hudson Lowe ordered the ground to be levelled and the rails taken away.  But before this was quite completed Napoleon’s health was too much destroyed to permit his removal, and the house was never occupied.

Napoleon seems to have felt that he had been too violent in his conduct.  He admitted, when at table with his suite a few days after, that he had behaved very ill, and that in any other situation he should blush for what he had done.  “I could have wished, for his sake,” he said, “to see him evince a little anger, or pull the door violently after him when he went away.”  These few words let us into a good deal of Napoleon’s character:  he liked to intimidate, but his vehement language was received with a calmness and resolute forbearance to which he was quite unaccustomed, and he consequently grew more angry as his anger was less regarded.

The specimens here given of the disputes with Sir Hudson Lowe may probably suffice:  a great many more are furnished by Las Cases, O’Meara, and other partisans of Napoleon, and even they always make him the aggressor.  Napoleon himself in his cooler moments seemed to admit this; after the most violent quarrel with the Governor, that of the 18th of August 1816, which utterly put an end to anything like decent civility between the parties; he allowed that he had used the Governor very ill, that he repeatedly and purposely offended him, and that Sir Hudson Lowe had not in a single instance shown a want of respect, except perhaps that he retired too abruptly.