Why does Scott quote Gourgaud if, as he says, it is probable that the
malady was in slow progress even before 1817? The reason is quite
clear. He wishes to convey the impression that St. Helena has a
salubrious climate, that the Emperor was treated with indulgent
courtesy, and had abundance to eat and drink. It will be seen,
however, by the records of other chroniclers who were in constant
attendance on His Majesty, that Sir Walter Scott's version cannot be
relied upon.

If the statements in the annexed letter are true--and there is no
substantial reason for doubting them, supported as they are by
facts--then it is a complete refutation of what Scott has written as
to the health-giving qualities of the island.

Here is the statement of the Emperor's medical adviser (see p. 517,
Appendix, vol. ii., "Napoleon in Exile"):--

"The following extract of an official letter transmitted by me
to the Lords of the Admiralty, and dated the 28th October, 1818,
containing a statement of the vexations inflicted upon Napoleon,
will show that the fatal event which has since taken place at
St. Helena was most distinctly pointed out by me to His
Majesty's Ministers.

"I think it my duty to state, as his late medical attendant,
that considering the disease of the liver with which he is
afflicted, the progress it has made in him, and reflecting upon
the great mortality produced by that complaint in the island of
St. Helena (so strongly exemplified in the number of deaths in
the 66th Regiment, the St. Helena regiment, the squadron, and