paring, or rather contrasting, the public works and institutions, connected with the naval service of the two countries, he candidly admits that France is thrown to an immeasurable distance behind us; that our ships, in point of workmanship, equipment and establishment, and our officers and men, in point of discipline, treatment, knowledge of naval tactics, and every particular that can constitute an efficient marine, are infinitely superior to those of the French navy, and such, in fact, as could not fail to have ensured to us the victories which we obtained, whenever the two hostile fleets met and engaged.

We observe, however, that in most of his comparisons the allusion is made to the marine impériale; to the navy as it was under Buonaparte; who, it is pretty broadly hinted, knew nothing about the matter on the present state of the French marine, M. Dupin touches with a gentle hand, recommending improvements founded on English practice, rather than censuring defects, the existence of which, however, he does not affect to conceal. Standing thus between the old school and the new, but evidently leaning to the side of the ' powers that be,' and fearful at the same time of offending both parties, we can readily conceive the moral restraint the painful embarrassment under which he writes, and the necessity he feels of having recourse to something like trimming;

Willing to wound and yet afraid to strike.'

There is one subject, however, regarding England, as we have just hinted, on which his views are as distorted and illiberal as his pretended statement of facts is unfounded:-we speak of his accusations against the British nation for its inhumanity towards the French prisoners of war,-a subject apparently no less agreeable to his own taste than that of his friends-otherwise he would not have thought it necessary to serve it up for the third time, with additional garnish and higher and higher seasoning on each successive occasion. Though our respect for M. Dupin might lead us to regret this pertinacity in misrepresentation, yet, as far as regards ourselves, we are not sorry for it on the present occasion, as he has thus afforded us an opportunity of showing the malignity of his insinuations, and (while we undeceive the abused ear of Europe) of refuting those of his assertions which are so scandalously destitute of truth.

It is well known how little regard the French officers of high rank, prisoners of war in England, paid to their parole of honour;

*Ictus piscator sapit. M. Dupin had the misfortune to exasperate the learned and liberal members of the Institute, by merely speaking the truth regarding the perfection to which works of art and manufactures were carried in Great Britain.

and

and that Buonaparte was more than suspected of encouraging the violation. Better sentiments, we trust, are returning under the old dynasty; as, instead of directly justifying the breach of parole, M. Dupin now affects to show that the English prisoners of war in France were as destitute of honour as the French prisoners of war in England, and that they, in fact, set the example. For this purpose, he produces a statement, which he pretends to have in his possession, and which he calls official, comprising two lists of all the prisoners of war, French and English, who, from the year 1803 to 1814 inclusive, are said to have broken their parole; the result of which is that, in 10,000 prisoners of all ranks, the number of évadés (such is the gentle term) were as follows:

32

French detained in England Evadés, although on parole English detained in France. . 110

'We shall make no observation,' says M. Dupin,' on these numbers; they speak for themselves: they certainly do-but not much in favour of the authenticity of his list, which we have no scruple in terming a mere fabrication, by whom, he best knows. This we shall prove from an authority to which M. Dupin will not venture to refuse due respect-the genuine official list of the Minister of Marine himself. The Transport Board of England, who had the care and custody of prisoners of war, having transmitted to that minister (M. Decrès) two lists of French officers who had broken their parole, (between the recommencement of the war and the month of August, 1811,) one of which contained the names of 270 officers who had escaped but been retaken, the other of 590 who had succeeded in effecting their escape; in all 860; there appeared shortly after, in the Moniteur of the 31st December, 1812, (which now lies before us,) an official statement, under the signature of Decrès, containing a counter-list of the names of all the English prisoners, who were accused of having broken their parole, amounting, of all classes, to 355. Now taking the number of French prisoners detained in England at 70,000, and of English prisoners, and persons detained contrary to the usage of war among civilized nations, at 20,000, which numbers are sufficiently near the truth for our purpose, we shall have, according to these official lists, in every 10,000 prisoners, 123 French, and 178 English, (instead of 32 and 110,) who stand charged with the crime of a breach of parole. But as the numbers are of very little importance in comparison with the ranks of those who had violated their word of honour, let us see of what materials M. Decrès's list of Englishmen is composed. At the head of it we find, Sir James Craufurd, Agent Diplomatique,' and Thomas Brook, Membre du Parlement, who are accused of having set the

A 2

example

example to the French. Then follow one colonel-two lieutenant-colonels-one major-nine captains (one of which only is of the navy)—ten lieutenants of the army, navy, and marines— making in all, twenty-three commissioned officers. There are fiftythree midshipmen, and the rest of the list is made up of 'ler, 2me, 3me capitaines de commerce-lieutenans de commerce-gentilshommes-négocians-propriétaires-médecins'-with about forty who have no designation at all. These are evidently, and indeed we know the fact to be so, non-combatants, consisting of those who were detained (as we have said) contrary to the practice of civilized nations, and among whom were Sir James Crauford and Mr. Brook. We know nothing of their cases but what appeared in the public papers; but we will fearlessly take upon us to say, that not one of the twenty-three commissioned officers above-mentioned was guilty of a breach of parole, but that every one of them escaped from a close and rigorous confinement in prison. Some few midshipmen, merely boys, did, we believe, take advantage of the mistaken encouragement of the people with whom they lived, and make their way to England: with respect to the rest of the list, they were persons from whom the French had no right whatever to exact parole.

Now let us compare the alleged breach of parole of British commissioned officers with those of French officers, prisoners of war in England. From the recommencement of the war to the month of August, 1811, the numbers will stand as follows:

The difference up to this time is pretty well marked, even supposing, what we confidently deny, that the English officers had been guilty of the charge brought against them; but in the three following years, the number of French officers who violated their parole was nearly doubled. The list of those unworthy persons who fled during the period we have mentioned, contains the names and rank of 406 officers, all of them combatants; and among them the following commissioned officers of the army and navy; the rest being captains, lieutenants, and midshipmen of privateers, and ensigns, surgeons, commissaires, &c. of the

army.

Generals

Now as we cannot learn that any English officer returned from France during these three years, the number of French commissioned officers, who actually violated their parole of honour, is to that of the English alleged to have done so, as thirteen to one; and would be nearly as four to one, on the supposition of the number of prisoners of war in each country being equal; so that M. Dupin's statement is totally at variance with the truth, and he might have known it to be so.

Perhaps he will say that our information is derived from no better authority than his, and that it is as easy to write down one figure as another; but even here we are prepared for himwe have in our possession a liste nommé; and if M. Dupin should be so imprudent as to persist in the accuracy of his unfounded statements, and deny the authenticity of ours, little as we feel disposed to hold up the unfortunate individuals to that disgrace which would have inevitably befallen them under the ancient government of France, we shall not hesitate a moment to print, for his better information, and in imitation of M. Decrès, the name of every officer who has been guilty of the offence.

We cannot much admire the apology set up by M. Dupin for this dereliction of all honourable feeling, on the part of his countrymen. It might, and certainly did, happen in a few aggravated cases, where an officer had been repeatedly guilty of a breach of parole, like the notorious Field-Marshal Pillet, or of some atrocious conduct like Colonel Pocris,* that the offenders were sent to the hulks. Of these ships of war, prepared for the reception of prisoners, M. Dupin has thought fit to give a description, as inaccurate as it is malicious. That they are not fitted up with all those conveniences and comforts which luxury would require, we are ready to admit; but that they bore the slightest resemblance to those horrible excavations (fosses) of the East, where wild beasts are kept for the amusement of the despots,' is a gross and unfounded calumny: what he subjoins is not less so that in these

*The miscreant who poisoned the wells of Cerigo, to get rid of a body of Albanian refugees, who had put themselves under his protection.-Quar. Rev. vol. iii. p. 204.

fosses the wild beasts find, what is wanting to the captives of the hulks, space to enable them to feed at their ease, to walk about, to breathe, and to sleep.' It is not true, as he asserts, that there were crammed into each of these horrible ditches,' from 600 to 900 prisoners; (the falsehood is apparent from his own previous statement, in which he made them from 800 to 1,200;') and it is false, ten times false, that the bad air, scanty provisions, added (as he says) to the despotism, the avarice, and the cruelty of military jailors, killed a great many, and ruined the constitutions of the rest.' If he really believes all that he has stated, we see no reason why he should refuse implicit faith to the narrative of Field-Marshal Pillet. I can hardly believe,' says he, (alluding to the tale which that veracious personage has told of the sufferings of the French prisoners,) that the visitor of a prison, having left his horse in the court-yard, found only the naked skeleton on his return; because the prisoners, dying of hunger, had cast themselves upon the poor beast, which they cut up alive with their knives.' Hardly believe'! Such incredulity must astonish the reader, and, above all, M. Pillet. That worthy gentleman may reasonably complain of the perverse nature of M. Dupin's faith, who hesitates to give full credit to his simple story, and yet (besides what we have quoted) can readily believe, and confidently assert, that' inhuman officers and knavish accountants united their authority and their bad faith, to plunder the unhappy prisoner of a part of his provisions, and to give him the other part of an inferior quality.'

We are too much accustomed, in this country, to the jargon of advertising philanthropists, to be much affected by the whining declamations on humanity, which M. Dupin calls to his assistance on all occasions; we shall only observe that, if real humanity is not to be found in England, we shall in vain look for it in France. The insinuation that the object of the British government, in maltreating prisoners of war, was to annihilate the seamen of foreign powers that fell into its hands, or to make the situation of prisoners so intolerable as to force those who were not French to enter into its service, and to render those who were, incapable of serving against it, is so base as to place it beneath our contempt. Surmises of this kind, without a shadow of fact to substantiate them, are not very creditable, either to the head or the heart of any one. In answer therefore to his general and unfounded charges of cruelty towards a set of men entitled to our commiseration, we shall briefly state, from authority which it will not be safe in M. Dupin to dispute, the simple facts regarding the prison-ships, the regulations under which they were placed,

the