"And, moreover, what a fascination there is respecting past times! It is most certain that I was chosen by the French: their new worship was their own work. Well! immediately upon the return of their old forms, see with what facility they have returned to their idols.
"And, after all, how could another line of policy have prevented that which ruined me? I have been betrayed by M—— whom I might call my son, my offspring, my own work; him to whom I had committed my destinies, by sending him to Paris, at the very moment that he was putting the finishing hand to his treason and my ruin. I have been betrayed by Murat, whom I had raised from a soldier to a king; who was my sister’s husband. I have been betrayed by Berthier, a mere goose, whom I had converted into a kind of eagle. I have been betrayed in the senate, by those very men of the national party who owe every thing to me. All that, then, did not in any way depend upon my system of internal policy. Undoubtedly I should have been exposed to the charge of too readily employing old enemies, whether nobles or emigrants, if a Macdonald, a Valence,[5] a Montesquiou had betrayed me; but they were faithful: let them object to me the stupidity of Murat, I can oppose to it the intelligence of Marmont. I have, then, no cause to repent of my system of internal policy."
One day at Longwood running over the list of the senators who had signed the deposition, one of us pointed out the name of M. de Valence, signed as secretary. But another explained that this signature was false, that M. de Valence had complained of it, and protested against it. “It is very true,” said the Emperor, “I know it; he has behaved well; Valence was true to the nation.”
_Drawn for the MEMORIAL DE SAINTE HÉLÈNE_,
_By an Engineer formerly of Napoleon’s Cabinet from the information contained in the work itself, and from particulars furnished by Mess^{ rs}. Marchand, S^t Denis, Pierron, and others in Napoleon’s service._ ]
CHANCE OF DANGER IN BATTLE, &C.—THE BULLETINS
28th.—The Emperor during dinner was speaking of the probability of danger in the Chinese ships, of which one in thirty perished, according to the accounts he had received from some captains. This led him to the chances of danger in battle, which he said were less than that. Wagram was pointed out to him as a destructive battle; he did not estimate the killed at more than 3,000, which was only a fiftieth: we were there 160,000. At Essling they were about 4000, we were 40,000: this was a tenth; but it was one of the most severe battles. The others were incomparably lower.