one, but of two or three Buonapartes; if we admit nothing but what is well authenticated, we shall be compelled to doubt of the existence of any.[1]
It appears, then, that those on whose testimony the existence and actions of Buonaparte are generally believed, fail in all the most essential points on which the credibility of witnesses depends,—first we have no assurance that they have access to correct information; secondly, they have an apparent interest in propagating falsehood; and, thirdly, they palpably contradict each other in the most important points.
Another circumstance which throws additional suspicion on these tales is, that the Whig party, as they are called,—the warm advocates of liberty, and opposers of the encroachments of monarchical power,—have for some time past strenuously espoused the cause, and vindicated the character of Buonaparte, who is represented by all as having been, if not a tyrant, at least an absolute despot. One of the most forward in this cause is a gentleman who once stood foremost in holding up this very man to public execration,—who first published, and long maintained against popular incredulity, the accounts of his atrocities in Egypt. Now, that such a course should be adopted for party purposes, by those who are aware that the whole story is a fiction and the hero of it imaginary, seems not very incredible; but if they believed in the real existence of this despot, I cannot conceive how they could so forsake their principles as to advocate his cause and eulogize his character.
After all, it may be expected that many who perceive the force of these objections, will yet be loath to think it possible
- ↑ We entertain a suspicion concerning any matter of fact "when the witnesses contradict each other; when they are of a suspicious character; when they have an interest in what they affirm."—Hume's Essay on Miracles, p. 172, 12mo.; p. 176, 8vo. 1767; p. 318, 8vo. 1817.
