CHAP. XIX.

THE MASSACRE OF THE TURKS IN EGYPT.

"THERE is one fact stated in Mr. O'Meara's book which we regard as perfectly conclusive,-the fact that Buonaparte deliberately, and in cold blood, shot 1200 prisoners of war. Sir Robert Wilson first brought this horrid charge publicly against the Corsican. It was repeated by M. Wittman, by M. Miot, and by some other writers; but, for the honour of humanity, most moderate people refused to give it credence, and those who yielded to the force of evidence were regarded as violent and prejudiced individuals: but, to our astonishment, on perusing Mr. O'Meara's book, we found it stated, that Buonaparte, without circumlocution or disguise, coolly admitted the fact. Military history presents, absolutely, no parallel whatever to this horrid deed. We have challenged the production of any instance of any thing like the same barbarity.

"Jaffa was taken by assault, and, three days afterwards, did the diabolical monster, Buonaparte, deliberately order out 1200 fellow-creatures to be shot. But Buonaparte says, Wellington would have acted at Jaffa as he did. Impudent assertion! When did Wellington do any thing in the least like it? when did any general? No, no,-the fact stands, and we trust ever will stand, insulated, in the history of human wickedness. It is a murder paramount amongst murders. We defy the Edinburgh reviewer to produce its parallel. We

defy him to produce so bloody a monster as Napoleon Buonaparte.

66

Buonaparte is told that Miot says the number killed was three or four thousand.

"It deserves to be noticed, that, until Buonaparte's confession, the Edinburgh reviewer was among the incredulous many (and we confess we were so too) who could not bring themselves to believe this, and some other charges against

him.

"Let the reviewer answer this; and then let him point out, if he can, any one individual, ancient or modern, who ever committed the delinquency, or the crime, of shooting 1200 prisoners, except Napoleon Buonaparte."-New Times, September, 1822.

AN ample field now offers itself for investigation: desirous of doing the subject justice, we have given, word for word, every passage from the New Times journal which can bear upon the discussion. On this particular part of our work, we had rather be accused of prolixity, than, by any abridgment, avoid replying to the serious charges brought against Napoleon, for his conduct whilst in Egypt. It is here, in preference to every point, that the Editor has taken his stand, to hand down Napoleon as a monster to posterity, to brand upon his character the indelible stamp of infamy,-to impress upon his name the stain that never fades. The execution of the Turks is the sticking-place to which the Editor

has screwed himself: it forms the ground on which he has chosen to fight the fight,-the citadel of each argument,-the first and the last of every denunciation,-the opening curse of the morning the closing one of the night. "The damning fact of wholesale murder," exclaims triumphantly the Editor, "stands untouched; our arguments on it rest unanswered, and will to the last trump be unanswerable." The Edinburgh reviewers, the whole literary world, have been thrice and thrice challenged to produce the shadow, even, of a parallel to Egypt's horrors; but, like spirits from the vasty deep, they have been called in vain. After an appeal so stoutly made, it may appear most rash in us to be the first to break a lance with the formidable Editor; but, if we cannot beat him from his vantage station, we shall endeavour, at least, to make him pay the price of the victory. We, too, are in quest after truth; and, since we have chosen to play at bowls, we must e'en consent to take the rubs.

The Editor certainly has made his grand attack on Napoleon with great skill and judgment. He has brought up his whole host to annihilate the foe, his light troops as well as his masses. No species of force has been left idle; and we are free to confess, that he has hitherto enjoyed, if we may be permitted the term, a literary Waterloo, for his pains. We shall, in part at least,

combat him with his own arms, and shall commence too the campaign, by throwing out our skirmishers.

Napoleon is made by the Editor to assert, that Wellington would have acted at Jaffa as he did; on which the Editor observes," Impudent assertion! when did Wellington do any thing in the least like it?" This is a shrewd remark of the Editor, although it is not a correct one. Supposing that Napoleon expressed himself in the very terms he is asserted to have used, what conclusion can be fairly drawn from the language? Napoleon spoke in the conditional tense, which the Editor takes especial care to answer in the present. Napoleon's assertion was merely one of opinion:-"It is my conviction," said Napoleon, "that Wellington, had he found himself in the predicament in which I was at Jaffa, would have acted in the way I did." This idea of Napoleon's might be right or wrong: he was perfectly justified, however, in giving it; and the Editor might, with equal propriety, have denied, had he chosen, its correctness; but he had no right to call for any example wherein Wellington had acted as Napoleon is said to have done at Jaffa, because it was never asserted that Wellington had; but merely that, in a certain case, he would have followed the same line of conduct, which, we repeat, is a mere matter of opinion,

and, as such, open to every person's own conclusions.

The Editor remarks, that most moderate people refused to give credence to the execution of, the Turks; that, on this subject, many, until Buonaparte's own confession, were incredulous ; and, that he (the Editor) was of this number. The Editor bestows on his opinions the virtue of moderation. We have had occasion several times to show the kind of moderation he evinces, in speaking of Napoleon; and we shall make it apparent, we believe, as we proceed, that it never rached much further than the lip. The Editor could not accredit the destruction of the Turks:

-why not? There existed numerous accounts of the transaction, and the Editor was aware of them; but he could not make up his mind to believe them, for the honour of humanity.

Was there ever such a reason given? An historian may, or not, place reliance on a fact, according to the evidence by which it is supported; but who ever before heard of discrediting a relation, because it dishonoured humanity? -a barrister, too, to possess such refined notions of human virtue, a scholar too,-a man of experience, one well versed in the concerns of the world, to suffer his feelings to run away with his judgment. Did the Editor never hear of the massacre of Thessalonica, or of the Sicilian