country;" and this modest declaration was not, we know, without precedent in classic annals. The Editor, however, asserts that our country consists in the laws and institutions and liberties derived from our ancestors, and not in the air, the soil, and other objects, which the unenlightened of all ages have hitherto considered, although so foolishly, as its attributes. Allowing the Editor to be on this head correct and we are far, in part at least, from denying the justice of his assertion,-we beg to ask why one man born in Corsica cannot be as great an admirer of the laws and institutions of France as another man born in France, and, consequently, why Napoleon, under this view of the argument, could not have been as true a Frenchman, although a native of an Italian isle, as if light had first shone upon his countenance in the busy street of St. Honoré. Delolme, the learned author of the work "On the Constitution of England," was by birth a Swiss and a republican; yet, enamoured of our laws, he became by choice an English subject!* And what man, after having read Delolme, could conceive him, under any circumstances, a traitor to his adopted country, merely because he happened to be ushered into the world amongst the snows

Delolme on the Constitution of England.-Letter to George III. Lond. 1817.

of the Alps, in lieu of the fogs of the Thames: yet Delolme was far from being bound so irrevocably to Britain as Napoleon was to France. Were our first William and first Henry worse kings to England because they were born in Normandy? Were the first, second, and third Philips worse kings to Portugal because they were born in Spain? Was Philip the Fifth a worse king to Spain because he was born in France? Was Charles the Fifth a worse king to Austria because he was born in the Netherlands? Were Henry of Anjou and Stanislaus worse kings to Poland because the one was born in France and the other in Russia? Was James the First a worse king to England because he was born in Scotland? Was William the Third (to whom at this day we decorate statues) a worse king to Britain because he was born in Holland? Were George the First and Second worse kings to England because they were born in Germany? Was Washington a worse president to America because he was born in England? Is the present king of Sweden a worse monarch to that country because he was born in France ?—or, not to swell examples, was our late gracious sovereign a worse elector to Hanover because he was born in England? If, amongst these princes, many of them could rule with impartiality over the states they were called to govern, although

not born natives of those states, what could have prevented Napoleon, in a similar situation, from being equal to them, and from fulfilling the duties of the kingly office with as much benefit to his people as they before him did to their's? We know of no reason, except, indeed, human nature has changed, and that Napoleon was destined to be the first individual into whom Providence had instilled new principles. Really, it would better suit the position which the Editor seems desirous of establishing to pick out some more glaring fault in Napoleon than the very thing of all things the most insignificant, and, whether in some eyes insignificant or not, precisely that over which no mortal can have control. But party spirit is alike blind to common sense and common liberality: when no nobler game presents the wing, it will revel in the attack of the barn-yard fry, and will quarrel with the Great Architect of all that is, about the stature and nativity of his own creation.

CHAP. II.

EXPEDITION TO ST. DOMINGO.-TOUSSAINT

L'OVERTURE.

"FRANKNESS is a pleasant term, with which the Edinburgh reviewer glosses over this monster's hardness of heart (Napoleon). With his wonted frankness, says the critic, he describes the St. Domingo expedition as one of the greatest follies he was guilty of; and the reviewer forgets that this folly consisted in the treacherous attempt to enslave a free nation,-in the spreading fire and sword through great part of Hayti,―in the destruction of an army of 40,000 Frenchmen, -and in dragging the noble Toussaint to perish in an European dungeon. Folly! Frankness! Alas, for the candour of liberal criticism!"-New Times, September, 1822.

"ALAS for the candour of liberal criticism!"So say we, too;-let us oppose facts to the liberal criticism of the Editor of the New Times. Napoleon is accused of a treacherous attempt to enslave St. Domingo. What constitutes trea→ chery?-Stratagem. The expedition to St. Domingo was partly undertaken to satisfy the explanters of that island,—a numerous and powerful body. The forces destined to act consisted of several thousand of the choicest troops, em

barked on board many ships of war and transports. There neither was, nor could be any secrecy in the assembling or departure of this armament; its object was perfectly notorious,it was known even at St. Domingo*. Where,

then, the treachery of the attack? Of injustice there might be ample store, but of treachery there could exist none.

St. Domingo was, according to the Editor, a free nation in 1802. We presume he means independent, since countries-Turkey, for instance-may be independent without being free. Assuredly, if the laws of equity, in lieu of convenience, were more adhered to than they are, St. Domingo ought, in 1802, to have been considered independent; but the question, with respect to the attack on St. Domingo, is not whether, in abstract right, France had a claim to the country, but whether she had one to its sovereignty, according to those laws which regulate the civilized world. We assert that she had. Hispaniola was discovered by Columbus in 1492 and with the Spaniards, to discover and to enslave were alike. In 1660, the French made

It was impossible to surprise Toussaint l'Overture. The armaments which had been making in the ports of France had attracted every body's attention; and the blacks had agents and friends at Paris, Nantes, Bordeaux, Rochfort, Antwerp, Amsterdam, and London.-Napoleon Memoirs, vol. 1, p. 207.