His habits of life were different, and therefore his gaolers should
have been especially careful not to subject this singularly organised
man to a poisonous climate and to an unheard-of system of cruelty.
Yes, and they would have been well advised had they guarded with
greater humanity the fair fame of a great people, and not wantonly
committed acts that have left a stigma on the British name.

Sir Walter Scott, who cannot be regarded as an impartial historian of
the Napoleonic regime, does not, in his unfortunate "Life of
Napoleon," produce one single fact or argument that will exculpate the
British Government of that time from having violated every humane law.
The State papers so generously put at his disposal by the English
Ministry do not aid him in proving that they could not have found a
more suitable place or climate for their distinguished prisoner, or
that he would have died of cancer anyhow. The object of the good Sir
Walter is obvious, and the distressing thing is that this excellent
man should have been used for the purpose of whitewashing the British
Administration.

The great novelist is assured that the "ex-Emperor" was pre-disposed
to the "cruel complaint of which his father died." "The progress of
the disease is slow and insidious," says he, which may be true enough,
but predisposition can be either checked or accelerated, and the
course adopted towards Napoleon was not calculated to retard, but
encourage it. But in order to palliate the actions of the British
Government and their blindly devoted adherents at St. Helena,
Gourgaud, who was not always strictly loyal to his imperial
benefactor, is quoted as having stated that he disbelieved in the
Emperor's illness, and that the English were much imposed upon.