Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1817-05-09
RICHMOND, VTRGLNI.4, FRIDAY, MAY 9, 1917.

NicuCiai Sotiiii bfou'nOiOf1. anu addressed
by him TO the Governor of ST. Helena, by
the order and direction of Bonaparte-a
paper which, he had reason TO believe.
would he made public, and which had
been since made public-he then thought
that the complaints had assumed a shape
which rendered il necessary TO call their
Lord ships' attention to the subject. He
didshot say that their Lordships ought
10 give implicit credit 10 these statements.
without one examination. God forbid
they should be found 10 deserve implicit
credit. He hoped, that they would meet
witt, the fullest and most complete con
tradiction; but they did appear TO him TO
havcassmmed a shape which, if they re-
mained uncontradicted, would, i'm the o.
p;nion of the people of this country, in the
opinion of Europe, and in that of pos.er-
ty, afford ground for believing that harsh,
cruel, and unjust usage had been expert
enced by Napoleon Bonaparte in his con-
tinemcnt; and thus a deep and indclible
stain might. in history, he fixed upon the
character of the British nation. He had
now, therefore, brought the matter be-
fore their Lordships. that such reports, if
untrue, might be promptly coniradicted
and, If true, that no time might be lost in
correcting the abuse. He would now
state what the reports were :and if the
facts were as represented in these reports
ne contendeh, that they did exceed the
limits of that necessity upon which the
First, then, with respect TO the liberty al
lowed to Bonaparte, as to the several
parts of fine island itself; the letter of
Count Montlolon stated, that very con
siderable restriction had lately taken
place. The climate of the Island, as had
been often asserted when the Bill was in
progress, was in general he believed good
-fuf that was not the case with the high
or grounds, TO which Bonaparte was said
to be confined ; and the restriction lately
resOrted to was, in that respect, severe
hardship for the hours fit for exercise in
such situation were those during which
noingress nor egress was permitted to or
from the house at Longwood. One of
two things must, therefore, follow-either
that Saint Helena was very i'll chosen as
the place of detention or, that Bonaparte
was confined with unnecessary rigour-
Another restriction, which was not in
contemplation when the Act passed, was
stated in the letter of Count Montholon,
Ma nelly, that Napoleon ROnaparte was not
permitted 10 receive such books, journals,
newspapers, and public prints, nor to
Thought proper. This, 10 person with
the prospect of a long life, was most
cruel and unnecessary hardship; and if
there had been no other complaint than
this alone, 1t ought 10 be contradicted, or
the proper remedy applied. Another
more important complaint was, however
stated, and one in which the subjects of
this country were deeply concerned, es-
pecially at the present period, when min
listers had been invested with such extra
ordinary powers, namely the intercept
ing the communications by Bonaparte TO
the great and iilustrious person at the
head of government. acting in the name
and on the behalf of his Majesty In his
view of ofthis proceeding, it was ar i'm
proper and Illegal interference with the
roval prerOgative. He would not he con
sidered as having any wish to extend the
prerogative beyond lis due limits but
the prerogatiye, within its just limits, was
granted for tie benefit of the public; and
IN this country, where imprisonment was
regarded with such horror, that 10 pris-
oner confined for life without trial, the
law, never contemplating The case, had
afforded no remedy prisoner confined
III this manner would surely be consider
ed as entitled to every degree of buman-
one had a right TO withhold from the
Crown any applicationfo for mercy or par
don. IT might, however. be said, that
some rule or point of etiquette was OPP
posed to communications sealed up but,
as TO that matter, there was nothing TO
prevent the sovereign from exercising his
own Judgment. If person in Bonaparte's
situation wished 10 apply to the SOY ereign,
1t might be for the purpose of complain
ing of the individual under whose charge
he was placed ; and TO say, that he should
be compelled to send only an open paper,
when the very person to transmit IT might
perhaps he the person complained of,
would be monstrous and unjust; and it
ought TO be rec0llected, that the fOunda-
ton of the detention was necessity aud
danger TO the country. Now, where
would be the dangerto this country, or
the necessity for the purposes of deteDti-
on, in permittinga sealed letter to be con
veyed 10 the sovereign? If such were
the rule-fOr it could not be law, that APP
plications by sealed letters could not be
made TO the throne-such letter might,
at least, be sent TO the Secretary of State
unopened and unexamiHed. This was a
most important subject with reference to
the subjects Of this country. All were
entltleU 10 lillS DeneVOlenCe, ana III 10
quarter could they receive more bcnev-
oleut attention than from the iIlustrous
parsonage now at the head of the govern
ment. IT, then, the Governor of st. He
lena was instructed TO permit no sealed
communication to pass through his hands,
it was an infringement of the royal pre-
rogative. He admitted, however, that an
unYestraiued and indiscriminate inter
course with other persons was not com
paiible with the safe custody Of person
rnnE ned for liz. rnasnnS-rriren for the dc