This post is a part of the 2024 Selected Papers of the Consortium on the Revolutionary Era, which were edited and compiled by members of the CRE’s board alongside editors at Age of Revolutions.

By Peter Hicks

Alexander Antonovitch Ramsay, comte de Balmain (1779-1848), descended from a Scottish family, the Ramsays of Balmain, which had left Scotland in 1685 and eventually emigrated to Russia. A cornet in the Life Guards cavalry regiment at the age of 10, he rose to the rank of Staff Captain before being demoted in 1800 for having struck a bailiff.^[1]After being reinstated to his rank on the accession of Tsar Alexander in 1801, he then pursued a diplomatic career with missions to Sardinia in 1801 and Naples in 1803, becoming secretary in Vienna in 1810 and, after several other diplomatic missions (Graz and Trieste), secretary again in London at the end of 1812. He returned to Russia in 1813 to participate, as lieutenant-colonel, in the two campaigns against Napoleon. He was decorated for his actions (orders of Saint Peter, Saint Vladimir and Saint Anna), notably at Grossbeeren, Dennewitz, Hannau and Cassel. Given his proximity to the Tsar Alexander I (one of his sisters was a lady-in-waiting to the Tsarina and he himself was sent to Alexander on 21 June 1815 to announce the taking of Paris), on 1 September 1815, he was appointed as the Russian commissioner in St. Helena. This article attempts to establish a hierarchy of importance for the existing sources for Balmain’s reports on Napoleon from St. Helena, with aim of shedding new light on Napoleon’s clandestine activity on the island. While historians today depend on the edition of his reports published at the end of the 19^th century in La Revue Bleue, this article reveals that the source for La Revue Bleue‘s text was a fuller version, published twenty years earlier in the exceedingly important Russian journal, Russkie archiv. This article also reveals how the English translation of these reports was translated from neither of these but from the reports Balmain’s actually sent, the manuscripts of which today languish inaccessibly in Moscow. This article then goes on to compare Balmain’s reports with other contemporary accounts, most notably with those of Gaspard Gourgaud, companion of Napoleon, to offer new conclusions about events there. My current research revealing – for the first time since it was written 200 years ago – the complete, correct text of Gourgaud’s exceedingly important St. Helena journal leads to new conclusions concerning Balmain and Napoleon and the latter’s clandestine activities during the captivity there.

Why the commissioners?

In the aftermath of Waterloo and the presence of the allies in Paris, Britain set about arranging the new order in France. One minor problem remained: what to do about Napoleon? Barely a month after the victory in Belgium and just as Napoleon was boarding Bellerophon, Lord Liverpool was thinking ahead, noting to Castlereagh on 15 July: 

If you should succeed in getting possession of his person, and the King of France does not feel himself sufficiently strong to bring him to justice as a rebel, we are ready to take upon ourselves the custody of his person on the part of the allied Powers and, indeed, we should think it better that he should be assigned to us than to any other member of the confederacy. In this case, however, we should prefer that there were not commissioners appointed on the part of the other Powers, but that the discretion should be invested entirely in ourselves.^[2]

On 20 July he clarified his thoughts on commissioners and the choice of St. Helena further: 

“Since I wrote to you last, Lord Melville and myself have conversed with Mr Barrow (Secretary to the Admiralty, afterwards, Sir J. Barrow) on the subject, and he decidedly recommends St. Helena as the place in the world the best calculated for the confinement of such a person. […] We are very much disinclined to the appointment of commissioners on the part of the other Powers. Such an arrangement might be unobjectionable for a few months, but when several persons of this description get together in a place in which they had nothing to do, and of which they would very soon be tired, they would be very likely to quarrel amongst themselves, and the existence of any disputes amongst them might seriously embarrass the safe custody of the prisoner. To conclude: we wish that the King of France would hang or shoot Bonaparte, as the best termination of the business; but if this is impracticable, and the allies are desirous that we should have the custody of him, it is not unreasonable that we should be allowed to judge of the means by which that custody can be made effectual.”^[3]

Castlereagh, writing to Lord Liverpool on 24 July, believed that he thought the allies would not object to “leaving the unrestricted custody of Bonaparte’s person to the British government, under, perhaps, some engagement with the other Powers not to turn him loose without their consent. The idea of commissaries [sic] was a party suggestion of my own, which, upon reconsideration, appears to be open to much objection.”^[4]

Liverpool and Castlereagh were not, however, to have their way, and the Commissioners were to be included in the treaty of 2 August. The agreement began as follows: 

In the Name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity.

NAPOLEON Buonaparté being in the power of the Allied Sovereigns their Majesties the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the King of Prussia, the Emperor of Austria and the Emperor of Russia, have agreed, in virtue of the stipulations of the Treaty of the 25th March 1815, upon the measures most proper to render all enterprize impossible, on his part, against the repose of Europe;

The […] Plenipotentiaries have agreed upon the following points and Articles:

Article I.—Napoleon Buonaparté is considered, by the Powers who have signed the Treaty of the 25th March last, as their prisoner.

Article II.—His custody is especially entrusted to the British Government.

The choice of the place, and of the measures which can best secure the object of the present stipulation, are reserved to His Britannic Majesty.

Article III.—The Imperial Courts of Austria and of Russia, and the Royal Court of Prussia, are to appoint Commissioners to proceed to and abide at the place which the Government of His Britannic Majesty shall have assigned for the residence of Napoleon Buonaparté, and who, without being responsible for his custody, will assure themselves of his presence.

Article IV.—His Most Christian Majesty is to be invited, in the name of the four above-mentioned Courts, to send in like manner a French Commissioner to the place of detention of Napoleon Buonaparté.

Article V.—His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, binds Himself to fulfil the engagements which fall to Him by the present Convention.

Article VI.—The present Convention shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged within fifteen days, or sooner, if possible.

In faith whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Convention, and have affixed thereto the seals of their arms.

Done at Paris, the 2d August, in the year of our Lord 1815. ^[5]

Bilateral treaties with identical articles (written in French) were signed by each power, Metternich Plenipotentiary for Austria, Nesselrode for Russia, and Hardenberg for Prussia. Castlereagh and Wellington, both in Paris at the time, signed for Great Britain.

Lowe’s words to his secretary Gideon Gorrequer in 1819, which sum up the British approach to the commissioners, are worth quoting in full: 

His suppressed rage when he remarked it was very extraordinary (this was on receipt of a conciliatory plico [letter] from Frog [Montchenu]) that they, the Commissaires, never would understand their real situation, that they were here [as] mere cyphers and that all they had to do was to live as well as they could and pocket their allowances. I observed that it was a pity their governments did not themselves see the uselessness of their being kept there, as placing people here in their situation it was really making the individuals conceive themselves people invested with a certain character and having certain functions dependent upon it and as persons therefore of some consequence.^[6]

The Commissioners on arrival

The commissioners were Victor François, marquis de Montchenu for France, Alexander Antonovitch Ramsay, comte de Balmain for Russia, and Bartholomäus, Graf von Stürmer. The Prussian commissioner, Johannes Ludwig Léopold Mund, in the end never made the journey.

Immediately setting foot on the island, it was to be the French commissioner, the marquis de Montchenu, who set the tone (to the detriment of all three commissioners). Balmain gives a very accurate account of the issues relating to the Procès-Verbal, or report that the marquis de Montchenu thought that his instructions obliged him to send every week to the French king regarding Longwood and the French.^[7] On arrival on 18 June 1816, Montchenu made a fuss, disembarking with the admiral Pulteney Malcolm and demanding that he be allowed to go immediately to Longwood, much to governor Hudson Lowe’s frustration. On learning of Montchenu’s foolish behaviour, Napoleon decided to take advantage of the situation by writing the famous “Remonstrance” (dictated to, and signed by, the comte de Montholon) dated 24 July 1816, communicated to Lowe (and also secretly to the commissioners) and then published in London in March 1817 alongside the “Appeal to the British Nation,”^[8] complaining, inter alia, about the Paris agreement of 2 August setting up the commissioners. Napoleon’s relations with the commissioners were governed by their nationalities. Montchenu is from Royal France and so persona non grata. Napoleon (and his supporters) do all they can to ridicule him – though Gourgaud in his encounters with the Frenchman is relatively positive. Napoleon has more skin in the game with Stürmer. Napoleon’s son is with his Austrian wife, guarded by Metternich. The issue of continued contact is of interest. Napoleonist opposition to Royal France occurs in Austrian lands (notably northern Italy and Austria) – Sturmer on leaving St. Helena is sent to Philadelphia because it is a hotbed of Napoleonic resistance organized around Napoleon’s brother Joseph. Furthermore, Sturmer’s wife is young (not yet 20) and pretty, French, and known personally to Las Cases. Balmain, by comparison, is an honest broker, with no credentials other than the magnanimity of Tsar Alexander. Napoleon frequently says to his companions that he should have come to terms with Alexander, should have gone into exile there – but is this believable?

Balmain’s (carefully publicized) approach

Though he too had to provide reports to his masters in London and Russia, Balmain had an approach different from that of his colleagues, more suited to the good-natured persona he had adopted as diplomat and commissioner, in direct contrast to the behavior of his French colleague. According to his Austrian colleague on 2 September 1816 (in other words, three months after their arrival): 

Count Balmain has won general esteem here. His conduct contrasts strikingly with that of Mr de Montchenu. He is full of modesty and acts only with great circumspection, carefully avoiding anything that might give the governor offence. He is knowledgeable and writes very well. Obligeant by nature and amiable without pretension, he knows how to make himself loved by all those who come into contact with him. He has very little regard for his colleague Mr de Montchenu and does not hide this fact from me. He has already complained more than once about his indiscretion.^[9]

Napoleon’s Irish doctor Barry Edward O’Meara made two remarks: that Balmain was not really a Russian name,^[10] and that the Russian was generally considered a man of talent.^[11] In August 1816, O’Meara once again acted as a conduit to Napoleon of Balmain’s public persona, reiterating: the tsar’s good opinion of Napoleon; and the tsar’s instructions to treat the fallen emperor with the greatest respect. To which Napoleon replied: “he’s a good man”, in other words, implying for Balmain, we can do business, thereupon detailing ways in which Balmain could come up to Longwood and act as a conduit of information, a fascinating detail given the allegations of bribery mentioned by Balmain’s son (see below).^[12]

In his biography of his father, Adolf Balmain noted how even amongst Russian diplomats, Alexander was thought of as particularly gifted. 

And in fact, in order simply to carry out his instructions in this difficult place, in order to deal with such a person as the governor of the island, Sir Hudson Lowe, to maneuver between the French and the English in such a way as not to overwhelm either one or the other and at the same time earn everyone’s general favor, in order to finally gain the trust of Napoleon himself, which neither the French nor the Austrian commissioners achieved, tact, intelligence, and a lot of that skill were needed. Our diplomats are distinguished, a fact to which even the French give due justice: ‘Les Russes sont les plus grands diplomates du monde,’ they say, but adding, as usual, ‘après les Français.’^[13]

Indeed, the doctor Walter Henry noted that Balmain was a gentleman who, though somewhat eccentric, was nevertheless very sociable and amusing, the latter a trait also highlighted by his son Adolf and for which Balmain was apparently renowned in the Russian diplomatic corps.

Alexander distinguished himself amongst the commissioners by attempting to visit Napoleon as a private person rather than as an official.^[14] Already on 21 October 1816, O’Meara at dinner at the governor’s mansion, Plantation House, with Balmain and Sturmer heard the Russian describe his unhappiness with the treatment meted out to him on the island – we saw above the reluctance of the British even to agree to commissioners in the first place. Balmain, he said, had remarked that whilst Alexander “had great interest in preventing the escape of Napoleon,” the emperor nevertheless wished that Napoleon should be well treated, and that it was for this reason that he (Count Balmain) had asked to see the fallen emperor only as a private person and not officially as commissioner. Stürmer kept on noting how Balmain would continue this policy throughout his time on the island, without any success.^[15]

Balmain and the French: Gourgaud first, then the Bertrands, then Montholon

To interpret Balmain’s reports correctly, it is first of all necessary to establish which is the authoritative version of those reports. Once this philological question has been settled, it is then possible (as Adolf de Balmain suggested) to view the reports alongside the memoirs of the other St Helena witnesses, notably Gourgaud, Bertrand and Montholon.

The philology of Balmain’s papers

Balmain’s reports have been published three times. The periodical Russkie Archiv published them for the first time in 1868-9, in the original French with a Russian translation.^[16] Unfortunately, this Russian edition was prepared from copies of “rough originals” (i.e., Balmain’s own minutes and not the documents he actually sent to his superiors) communicated to Russkie Archiv by Balmain’s son, Adolf.^[17] As noted by the commentator in Russkie Archiv, “for a more accurate publication, one should turn to the official dispatches, probably stored in the Archives of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, from where it would be useful to extract letters from Count Nesselrode to Count de Balmain”.^[18] Nearly thirty years later (1897) in six consecutive issues, a French periodical, La Revue Bleue, published a significantly shortened version of the Russkie Archiv material, but only the French texts.^[19] Sixty or so years after the publication in Russkie Archiv, Buffalo professor of European history, Julian Park, prepared an English translation of Balmain’s papers, published under the title Napoleon in Captivity. The Reports of Count Balmain Russian Commissioner on the Island of St. Helena 1816-1820 in 1927.^[20] He claimed his source text was held in “three huge volumes,” though he did not indicate their provenance. Since his translation contains more material than present in the Russkie Archiv edition, it would appear, remarkably, that he had access to the documents in the Russian Foreign Office Archive. It is therefore the primary source for what Balmain actually sent to his superiors, and this is particularly the case where the English translation has text that the Russian edition lacks. One particularly useful feature in the English translation is the notes Balmain made on the letters and documents he received, absent from Alexander’s minutes used for the Russian publication. On the negative side, Park’s translation however is not only extremely free but also frequently incorrect (one flagrant example is dated 31 December 1817 where the French words “Il est fâcheux” (meaning “It is bothersome/annoying”) were rendered catastrophically by Park as “He is angry”!!!). Park’s edition also often omits material and is frequently unclear where Balmain’s comments stop and Park’s remarks begin. While awaiting a full transcription of the documents in the archives of the Russian foreign ministry, and so a believable view of what Balmain actually sent to his superiors, Julian Park’s translation is the only text available; with however the proviso that the translation is very poor, and always comparing it with the edition in Russkie Archiv where possible (the version in La Revue Bleue is entirely derivative of the Russian edition and so redundant).

Balmain and Gourgaud (but also the Bertrand and Montholon)

It is in the journal of the emperor’s First Ordnance Officer, Gaspard Gourgaud, that we get the clearest picture of Balmain’s relations (covert and otherwise) with Napoleon and the French at Longwood and information gathering (Gourgaud was to leave the island in March 1818). 

Within the first year of the captivity, on 27 and 28 October 1816, Gourgaud notes new intrigues regarding the Russian commissioner, in particular with the comte de Montholon, and the possibility that Balmain (referred to as “Smolensk”, a codename used by Gourgaud first identified here) had secretly visited Longwood.^[21] Later in February 1817, Gourgaud notes how Balmain had proposed to, and been rejected by, the daughter of a member of the St. Helena elite.^[22] In April of the same year, at the races, Gourgaud had two long chats with Balmain about the Russian campaign and the Frenchman notes how the Russian always refers to Napoleon as “l’Empereur” and “le grand homme”, unlike the two other commissioners.^[23] Later that month, Gourgaud met again with Balmain (accompanied by the French commissioner’s ADC, Gors), this time in a semi-staged encounter. There were great hopes that the arrival of HMS Conqueror (with the replacement Admiral) would also bring them new instructions allowing the commissioners to visit Longwood as private individuals, adding that the departing admiral was jealous of anyone else having privileged access to Napoleon and receiving documents.^[24] In his report dated 1 May, Balmain notes an encounter with Gourgaud who, according the Russian (and quite differently from the Frenchman’s account), communicated Napoleon’s impatience to see the commissioner and his friendly disposition towards him. Later, on 20 July, in his notes on a letter sent to him by the governor (present only in Park), Balmain refers to two further meetings with the Frenchman and a 20-minute conversation.^[25] In the same time period, Gourgaud in a conversation with the fallen emperor notes how a letter of exchange for Gourgaud’s mother could be sent to Europe via the Russian commissioner, thereby proving that contacts with him were really quite close.^[26]Indeed, already on 30 June 1817 Napoleon had mentioned slipping the Russian a copy of the Emperor’s Observations on Lord Bathurst’s speech.^[27] On 23 July, Balmain refers to another meeting with Gourgaud mentioned by Gourgaud on 28 July. Interestingly their accounts differ slightly, Gourgaud’s being largely a complaint about being spied on by Cipriani and O’Meara (though it does give details of Napoleon sending all of Longwood out to meet the Russian), whilst Balmain implies he put some pressure on the French to make it up with the governor in order to make the commissioners’ mission easier.^[28] Gourgaud on the following two days makes it clear that Napoleon is trying to get Gourgaud to deliver a copy of the “Observations” to Balmain and that Gourgaud is worried that he will be expelled from the island if he is caught.^[29] Gourgaud describes a meeting with all the commissioners at the races on 9 September, and Balmain sends a long report to London on the subject, dated 1 October. More importantly, Gourgaud on 26 September 1817, describes precisely how Cipriani slipped Balmain the whole dossier of documents published in the “Observations”:

[…] H.M. calls for Cipri.[ani], gives him [symbol for a document]. Tells him to get together with M.[ontholon]. H.M tells me not to go because he has sent M.[ontholon], that Smol.[ensk] is coming, and that Balcom.[be] was following.^[30]

Though Balmain did not report this handover, he did give an account of all the documents in the publication, reported in Park but not Russkie Archiv. In a letter by Balmain dated 14 October (present in Russkie Archiv but not Park), there is a reference to a conversation with Gourgaud and Montholon on Napoleon’s health. Gourgaud’s entries for the month of October speak of feeding documents to Balmain and machinations by Napoleon sending notably Montholon out to meet the commissioners. He recounts how Balmain then talks to him, Gourgaud, about the “Observations”, how Stürmer is copying them, how they should give Balmain a copy of Bertrand’s first letter, dated 30 September (present in Park but not in Russkie Archiv).^[31]

After all the excitement of October, Gourgaud again mentions conversations with Balmain in November. On 2 November, both Gourgaud and Balmain refer to the same conversation, Gourgaud recounting what Balmain said and Balmain Gourgaud’s words. Whilst Gourgaud reports in his notebooks that Napoleon was cheerful and dressed, Balmain (oddly) recounts Gougaud’s words that Napoleon was depressed, ill and no longer working. His state brought Gourgaud to tears.^[32] How are we to read this discrepancy? Gourgaud recounts a conversation with Balmain on 16 November in which he reports that Balmain asks: “Is it true that H.M.’s health is failing, that he [is] falling into apathy, as the rumors say?” to which Gourgaud says “I replied vaguely, afraid of saying the wrong thing”. This exchange would seem to imply that Balmain had mischievously put the rumor (or more likely remarks made by Napoleon’s doctor O’Meara) into Gourgaud’s mouth! According to Gourgaud, on 7 December Gourgaud tells Balmain his famous pun on Montholon’s name, Montholon = “Ment-au-long” (in short, “liar, liar, pants on fire”) which he daubed on the mantlepiece at Longwood and which was found when Gourgaud left Longwood in February 1818. This is not reported back to the Tsar. On 31 December, Balmain notes that in a conversation with Mme Bertrand he learnt how Napoleon often talked of the Tsar, how Napoleon frequently was annoyed with himself (and would be eternally) that he did not hand himself over to Russia. Balmain for his part noted how annoying it was that he could not talk to the fallen emperor as he suspected the latter had confidence in him and would tell him very interesting things. He recounts how he was to receive a copy of Napoleon’s account of Waterloo, the one published eventually by O’Meara and Mme de Montholon, but that Napoleon changed his mind. On 5 January, Gourgaud recounts an extraordinary remark of Napoleon’s to Bertrand: “Did you hand over to the Russian the thing?” to which Gourgaud has Bertrand reply: “Yes, Sire, while my wife was talking to the surgeon of the 66^th [Walter Henry]”, particularly extraordinary when seen in the light of Balmain’s remark “Bertrand wanted to imply to me that they would be delighted to communicate to me a letter for our August Majesty. But I feigned not to understand their drift.” This reference to the handing over of “the thing” furthermore sheds doubtful light on Balmain’s protestations that he would not accept a bribe to communicate a letter (see below). That being said, no letter from Napoleon to the Tsar has ever come to light. On 30 January, Gourgaud reports Balmain telling him mysteriously about Latapie and Brayer in Rio de Janeiro and the attempt to rescue Napoleon from St Helena with a steam ship. The final references by Balmain to Gourgaud include a quote of Gourgaud’s duel cartel sent to Montholon (only in Park and undated, though 4 February)^[33]and an account of a conversation (provided by O’Meara and Mme Bertrand) between Napoleon and Gourgaud which rings completely true, especially since Gourgaud was very frequently in conversation with the Grand Maréchal’s wife (dated 27 February 1818). A final reference to Balmain in Gourgaud’s writings on St Helena refers to the letter given to him by Balmain to give to Lieven in London, which Gourgaud in London tries to deliver on 10 May 1818.

Balmain and the Montholon bribe

The following section from Adolf’s biography of his father gives a remarkable insight into the pressures put on the Russian diplomat. 

“A true slave of his duty,” noted Adolf, “he [Alexander Balmain] several times he rejected a very significant sum that Montholon persistently offered him, on the orders of Napoleon, for the delivery of a letter written by the latter to Emperor Alexander. A million is a great temptation; and even more so when it can be acquired without any difficulty, without a particularly important violation of one’s duty and almost without any bad consequences for oneself. The Count de Balmain knew well that, except for an official reprimand, he had nothing to fear for delivering this letter, neither the royal anger, nor the reproaches of his superiors, nor the bad opinion of anyone. Just compassion for Napoleon’s unfortunate situation could serve as a sufficient justification for him: but besides, there were thousands of ways to present the whole matter in such a light as to not only avoid reproaches, but also earn approval. Of course, behind everything, this would leave a blemish on the conscience, but such a tiny, so unnoticeable that many, of course, would not pay attention to it. The count, however, was afraid of this speck and triumphed over temptation. The letter was left in Napoleon’s briefcase, and the million received another purpose. Subsequently, upon returning from St. Helena, the count frankly told the sovereign all the details of this case and finished his story with the following question: “Si un cas pareil se présentait de nouveau, Sire, si j’étais chargé encore une fois de faire parvenir une lettre de Napoléon à Votre Majesté, pourrais-je le faire sans concourir le blâme et le déplaisir de mon auguste Maître?”^[34]

What Plantation House thought of Balmain

As we saw above, Lowe was exasperated by the presence of the Commissioners. He refused the Procès-Verbal, refused to let Balmain see Napoleon as a private individual, in short, gives the impression he has secret instructions not to let the commissioners see the fallen Emperor. A look at other accounts of Balmain, notably Stürmer and Gorrequer reveals the gradual change from frustration, anger, and resentment, to delight and personal satisfaction. 

On 5 May Gorrequer reported a conversation between Balmain and Lowe in which the governor was exasperated at how the commissioners were always “Rencontrant et jasant^[35]”,  with the Longwood folk. One example, in addition to that mentioned by Montchenu and Stürmer, was the one reported by the Austrian, but obviously from information from Balmain, on around 15 May 1818 (absent from Balmain). According to Stürmer, Bertrand came down to town and had lunch with Balmain. Lowe heard about it and came to Balmain to shout at him.^[36] Stürmer also noted that though the fault (if it was one) was Bertrand’s, Lowe made Balmain entirely responsible. Why Balmain did not report this to his ambassador, we do not know. Bertrand likewise mentioned it in his notes,^[37] but the text produced by Fleuriot de Langle is clearly incoherent and the result of an incomprehension of Bertrand’s code. Nevertheless, we can see that that Lowe was aware that the lunch had taken place and that the officer accompanying Bertrand had been asked to wait in the corridor during the meal, and that Balmain had accompanied the Bertrands in all their errands in Jamestown. 

In 1819, however, relations between Lowe and Balmain reached an all-time high. Balmain had stopped trying to talk to the Longwood folk,^[38] and Gorrequer reports on 17 October how Lowe thought that Balmain had made a confidant of him.^[39] It was at this time that Balmain had decided to marry Lowe’s stepdaughter. Balmain’s obsequious manipulation of Lowe,^[40] pretending to compromise the new Russian deputy consul in the Cape, Harrington, (an administrator organized in London by Lowe’s nemesis, the admiral Pulteney Malcolm) by communicating Harrington’s letters from the Cap, yet at the same time (1819) writing friendly letters to Pulteney Malcolm^[41] criticizing Lowe. 

As for Lowe’s opinion of Balmain, Gorrequer gives a snapshot in 1819, calling the Russian a “a d….d little whipper snapper rascal”. Though Gorrequer adds a postscript noting how Balmain was not too positive either, noting that Balmain had said that he never came to dine at Plantation House without feelings of revulsion.^[42] But Balmain, in the end, out-manipulates Lowe. Gorrequer records how the Russian would ride up to Longwood, feed details from Longwood to his intended bride (notably how Madame Bertrand was “continually praising” her father), who would then of course relate them on to her mother who would repeat them to her stepfather. For Lowe, Balmain could do no wrong, and even his “want of dignity and manners” were excused by Lady Lowe.^[43] All these details put into context Balmain’s decision to marry Lowe’s stepdaughter. At that point Balmain knew that he had managed to get himself replaced at St Helena – in January 1820, shortly before his marriage and departure he received the confirmation that he had been made ADC to the Tsar. However, on returning to Europe, Balmain was almost sent back to the island because his replacement, Baron Holland, had been given another posting, only turning back just as he was about to get on the boat to return in July 1821, when news of the fallen Emperor’s death reached Europe. Though still mostly in the Tsar’s good graces (his St. Helena pension was granted for life), he remained at the London diplomatic mission until 1828, when he returned to the military. He retired for health reasons in 1837, retiring to St Petersburg where he remarried. Lowe’s stepdaughter had died in August 1824 and was buried in Smolensk. Their four-year-old son would follow her in 1825. In 1827, Balmain remarried, this time to Glafira Nikolaevna Svistunova (1801 – after 1860) a pious woman not blessed with beauty, together with whom they had four children, a son (Adolf) and three daughters. After retiring in 1837, blind as a result of cataracts, Balmain died in St Peterburg in 1847. Adolf would go on to publish (as noted above) a short biographical sketch of his father and the minutes of his reports to the tsar in the periodical Russkie Archiv in 1868-69.

Conclusion

After this presentation, we can see that first, the situation regarding the most authoritative version of Balmain’s reports is complex. The Russian edition, apparently unknown in the West, is not in the end the most complete or the most authoritative, representing merely the minutes of correspondence that Balmain kept with him. The English translation of 1927 of the official reports still in Moscow today, whilst the most complete is nevertheless severely vitiated by poor translation. Second, by comparing Balmain’s reports with Gourgaud’s diary we can see that where Balmain is economical with the truth, presenting information from an English source (O’Meara) as if from a better French source (Gourgaud). We also see that Napoleon spent a great deal of energy sending out the people of Longwood to meet Balmain, often having them spy on each other in doing so. Third, perhaps most interestingly, given the strong implication that Gourgaud and Montholon clandestinely passed documents to Balmain, we are perfectly warranted in not believing Balmain’s son when the latter protests (probably too much) that Balmain refused Montholon’s bribe and that Balmain frequently collaborated with the French at Longwood, probably for money. Indeed, Pierre Branda has clearly shown that Napoleon spent a great deal of money bribing couriers to transport material back to Europe.^[44] We would be justified in thinking that Balmain did the same.

---

Peter Hicks is an historian of the Napoleonic period and International Affairs manager at the Fondation Napoléon, Paris. He was Visiting Professor at the University of Bath (UK) (2008-2018). He also is lecturer at the Institut Catholique des Etudes Supérieures (ICES), La Roche sur Yon (Vendée France), and a trustee of the Masséna Society. He is general editor of the periodical, Napoleonica the Journal. His recent books include: Cambridge History of the Napoleonic Wars, volume 3, (CUP 2022) (joint-editor with Alan Forrest); Emmanuel de Las Cases, Le Mémorial de Sainte Hélène: Le manuscript retrouvé, critical edition, with presentation and commentary with Thierry Lentz, François Houdecek and Chantal Prevot, Perrin/Tempus 2017 and 2018. His current publication projects include: “Général Buonaparte, notre voisin”: Témoignages anglais sur Napoléon prisonnier (1815-1821) (Perrin forthcoming 2025), new eyewitness texts in English on Napoleon 1815-1822, edited and translated into French with commentary.

Title Image: Napoleon on Saint Helena by František Xaver Sandmann. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Further Reading:

Pierre Branda, Napoléon à Sainte-Hélène, Paris, Perrin, 2021.

Peter Hicks, Thierry Lentz, François Houdecek and Chantal Prevot, Emmanuel de Las Cases, Le Mémorial de Sainte Hélène: Le manuscrit retrouvé, critical edition, with presentation and commentary, Perrin/Tempus 2017 and 2018.

Endnotes:

^[1] A biographical sketch of Balmain by Balmain’s son, count Adolf Aleksandrovich Balmain, was published in Russkie Archiv, “Графъ А. А. де Вальменъ (Русский приставъ при первомъ Наполеоне на острове св. Елены) виографический очеркъ”  [Count A. A. Balmain (Russian commissioner to Napoleon I on the island of St Helena), a biographical sketch], n° 3/1868, pp. 462-474. From this, an entry in Polotsov’s dictionary of biography was compiled on all the members of the Balmain family, Русский биографический словарь А. А. Половцова, т. 2 (1900): Алексинский — Бестужев-Рюмин, с. 456—458 [A. A. Polovtsov’s Russian biographical dictionary, vol. 2 (1900): “Aleksinsky – Bestuzhev-Ryumin”], St Petersburg, Typographia I. N. Skorokhodova, vol. 2/1900, p. 456-58).

^[2] Secret and Confidential, Liverpool to Castlereagh, Fife House, July 15th, 1815, in Charles Duke Yonge, Life and Administration of Robert Banks, Second Earl of Liverpool, London, Macmillan, 1868, vol. II, p. 196.

^[3] Private and Confidential, Liverpool to Castlereagh, 20 July, 1815, in Yonge, ibid., p. 199, ff.

^[4] Duke of Wellington (ed.), Supplementary Despatches, Correspondence, and Memoranda of Field Marshal Arthur, Duke of Wellington, K. G.,London, Murray, 1864, vol. 11, p. 55.

^[5] This is the English translation laid before the British House of Commons in 1815.

^[6] Gorrequer, Diary, 14 November 1819, in James Kemble, St Helena during Napoleon’s exile. Gorrequer’s Diary, London, Heinemann, 1968, p. 148 (with corrections from the ms).

^[7] Balmain, Report no 6, dated 10 September 1816, “Изъ бумагъ графа де Балъмена, Русскаго пристава на острове св. Елены (письма о Наполеоне 1-иъ 1816 года, на Францускомъ языке съ Русскимъ переводомъ)” in Русский архивъ [Russkie Archiv, “From the papers of Count de Balmain, Russian commissioner on the island of St Helena (letters concerning Napoleon 1 in 1816, in French with Russian translations)], issues 4 and 5, 1868, p. 707-711, but also Julian Park, (trans./ed.), Napoleon in Captivity. The Reports of Count Balmain Russian Commissioner on the Island of St. Helena 1816-1820, Century Co. New York/London, 1927, republished in Julian Park (trans./ed.), revised with additional notes by Alan Sutton, Napoleon in Captivity. The reports of Count Balmain Russian Commissioner on the island of St Helena 1816-1820. Aleksandr Antonovich Balmain, Fonthill Media Ltd, UK, 2014, pp. 34-46, which includes crucially, in addition to Lowe’s letter to Balmain, Montholon’s letter to Lowe regarding the commissioners, and the text of “the Remonstrance” (given to Balmain by Montholon) with Balmain’s own commentary on the latter text (absent from Russkie Archiv, which justifies (!) the omission with the unfortunate note “The text of the omitted no.s [reports 7 and 8] does not contain anything interesting or noteworthy”). Stürmer speaks of Montchenu and the Procès-Verbal in his report dated 2 September 1816, in Hanns Schlitter (ed.), Die Berichte des Kais. Kön. Commisärs Bartholomäus Freiherrn von Stürmer aus St. Helena zur Zeit des dortigen Internirung Napoleon Bonaparte’s 1816-1818, Vienna, In Commission bei Carl Gerold’s Sohn, 1886, pp. 36-39.

^[8] Appel à la nation anglaise […] par M. Santini, huissier du cabinet de l’Empereur, suivi de sa Lettre addressée à Hudson Lowe/An Appeal to the British Nation on the Treatment Experienced by Napoleon Buonaparte in the Island of St. Helena, by M. Santine […], with an authentic copy of the official memoirs [The Remonstrance] dictated by Napoleon and delivered to Sir Hudson Lowe, London, Ridgway, 1817. It was said that Piontkowski had learned “the Remonstrance” off by heart in case of confiscation.

^[9] Schlitter, Die Berichte cit., p. 39.

^[10] Schlitter, Die Berichte cit., 31 December 1816, p. 64.

^[11] O’Meara, “Notebooks”, 18 June 1816, “[…] He [Napoleon] asked if any of them had talent. I said I had heard that the Russian had.”. On 28 July, ibid., O’Meara reported to Napoleon the fact that Balmain had not signed to document demanding to see Napoleon officially, had said he would be proud to visit Napoleon as a private individual. Napoleon also noted to O’Meara how he thought the whole idea of commissioners was “coglioneria” [bullshit]. The Irishman also noted how the Russian was a man of talent and highly esteemed by those who knew him, see The Century Magazine, vol. LIX, February 1900, n^o4, pp. 611-633, March 1900, n^o5, pp. 778-793 and April 1900, n^o6, pp. 860-870, and also Hicks, « Général Buonaparte, notre voisin » cit., in press.

^[12] O’Meara, Notebooks, see The Century Magazine cit., and Hicks, « Général Buonaparte, notre voisin » cit., in press, 14 August 1816.

^[13] Adolf Balmain, “Графь А. А. де Вальмень » cit., Russkie Archiv, n° 3/1868, pp. 468.

^[14] Deliberately in contrast to the French commissioner, the marquis de Montchenu’s, bull-in-a-china-shop approach, mentioned above. 

^[15] Schlitter, Die Berichte cit., 4 juillet 1817, p. 85: « Le comte de Balmain n’a cessé jusqu’à présent de mettre beaucoup de circonspection dans toutes ses démarches. Son caractère liant, ses formes douces et honnêtes, et cette apparence de simplicité et de bonhomie qui invite à la confiance, lui ont gagné celle de tout le monde et auraient dû lui assurer celle de Sir Hudson Lowe ; mais, sous ce rapport, il n’a pas été plus heureux que nous. » Schlitter, Die Berichte cit., 26 juillet 1817, p. 89 : « Le comte de Balmain a demandé à voir Bonaparte comme particulier, mais cette démarche n’a point eu le succès qu’il en espérait. »

^[16] His reports appeared in four issues of the journal Russkie Archiv, as follows : “Изъ бумагъ графа де Балъмена, Русскаго пристава на острове св. Елены (письма о Наполеоне 1-иъ 1816 года, на Францускомъ языке съ Русскимъ переводомъ)” in Русский архивъ [Russkie Archiv, “From the papers of Count de Balmain, Russian commissioner on the island of St Helena (Letters concerning Napoleon 1 in 1816, in French with Russian translations)], 4 and 5/1868, pp. 659-734; “Письма въ Россию съ острова святыя Елены графа де Балъмена, Русскаго пристава при первомъ Наполеоне. 1817 годъ. Француские падлинники съ Русскимъ переводомъ” in Русский архивъ [Russkie Archiv, “Letters to Russia from the island of St Helena by count de Balmain, Russian commissioner to Napoleon 1. 1817, French originals with Russian translations], 11/1868, pp. 1924-1984; “Письма съ острова св. Елены Русскаго пристава при первомъ Наполеоне, графа А. А. де Балъмена. 1818 годъ.” in Русский архивъ [Russkie Archiv, “Letters from the island of St Helena from the Russian commissioner to Napoleon 1, count A. A. de Balmain. 1818], 4/1869, pp. 647-731; “Письма съ острова св. Елены Русскаго пристава при первомъ Наполеоне. Графа А. А. де Балъмена. 1819.” in Русский архивъ [Russkie Archiv, “Letters from the island of St Helena from the Russian commissioner to Napoleon 1. Count A. A. de Balmain. 1819], 5/1869, pp. 765-838.

^[17] Adolf Balmain, “Графь А. А. де Вальмень » cit., 5/1869, p. 838 note.

^[18] Ibid. The documents in Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire (AVPRI) in Moscow bear the shelfmarks: Chancellery (4489, 4489 9059, 9060 10602 to 10611) and Administrative affairs (2-IV-6-1815; 7-IV-6-1819; 8-IV-17; and 11-IV-11-1817) – thanks to Michel Dancoisne Martineau for this information.

^[19] La Revue Bleue, 1897, No. 19/8 May, pp. 578-84, No. 20/15 May, pp. 614-22, No. 21/22 May, pp. 647-55, No. 22/29 May, pp. 678-86, No. 23/5 June, pp. 716-23, No. 24/12 June, pp. 745-50, citing as its source, “‘Ise boumague grafa de Balmain’ in “les Archives russes” or “Rousskii Archive (Moscou, 1868-69)” [sic].

^[20] Park, Napoleon in Captivity cit.

^[21] Gourgaud, Journal, new edition by Hicks in preparation, 27 October 1816: “Je fais le tour du camp. Je trouve Fitzgerald et Harrison à cheval ; nous sortons des limites. Je rencontre en revenant le petit Emmanuel qui va à cheval à Alarm House. Nouvelles intrigues pour le Russe.”, [“I went around the camp. I met Fitzgerald and Harrison on horseback; we went outside the limits [imposed by the British on the French at Longwood]. I met young Emmanuel [de Las Cases] who was riding to Alarm House. New intrigues related to the Russian.”] and 28 October 1816: “[…] Je vais à la chasse, rencontre culèche, reviens, trouve [l’]Em.[pereur], nouvelles manœuvres du Basset avec Russ[e] etc.  […] Il parait que Smolensk est en jeu, peut-être est-il venu de 1h 1/2 à 4.” [“[…] I went hunting, met « kiss ass » [meaning either Montholon or Las Cases], returned, found [the] Em.[peror], fresh manœuvres by Basset  with Russ[ian] etc.  […] It appears that it’s a question of Smolensk , maybe he came from 1-30 pm to 4pm. »] For the quotations from Gourgaud’s Journal, bold italic means “text absent from the 2019 edition, Général Gourgaud. Journal intégral [sic!], Paris, Perrin, 2019),”. Bold non italic means “the reading of the manuscript but different from the published editions”.

^[22] Gourgaud, Journal, new edition by Hicks in preparation, 20 February 1817, “[…] Après déjeuner, je vais chez lui, j’y trouve le capitaine de la Julie. Il confirme que le commissaire russe Balmain a demandé Miss Brooke en mariage et a été refusé.” [“[…] After lunch I went to his [Bertrand’s] house, found the captain of the Julia [Jenkin Jones] there. He confirmed that the Russian commissioner Balmain had asked for Miss Brooke’s hand in marriage and had been refused.”]

^[23] Gourgaud, Journal, new French edition by Hicks in preparation: 7 April 1817 “[…]Je cause campagne de Russie avec le c.[omte Balmain]. Mme Stürmer, son mari, Mme Younghusband, Montchenu sortent ; le Russe m’engage à les suivre. […] Je prends congé à Hutt’s Gate […] Je retourne, trouve le Russe, l’accompagne jusqu’à Alarm House. Il me parle campagne, espère de bonnes nouvelles pour S.[M.] par le Conqueror ; m’assure qu’aucun d’eux n’a reçu de son g.[ouvernemen]t de nouvelles instructions, qu’il n’y a que le Conqueror qui en apportera. Le Russe a presque touj.[ours] dit “l’Emp.[ereur]”, “Le grand homme” ; Mont.[chenu], une ou deux fois : “Bonap.[arte]” et ensuite, même devant lady Lowe, “l’Emp.[ereur]”. M. de Stürmer, je crois, n’a jamais dit positivement une de ces trois dénominations.” [“[…] I chatted about the Russian campaign with the C.[ount Balmain]. Mme Stürmer, her husband, Mme Younghusband, Montchenu went out; the Russian proposed that we should follow them. […] I took my leave at Hutt’s Gate […] I returned, bumped into the Russian, accompanied him as far as Alarm House. He talked campaigns with me, hoped for good news for H.[M.] via the Conqueror ; assured me that none of them had received from their g.[overnmen]ts new instructions, that these would only come from the Conqueror when it arrived. The Russian almost al.[ways] said “the Emp.[eror]”, “the great man”; Mont.[chenu], once or twice: “Bonap.[arte]” and then, even in front of lady Lowe, “The Emp.[eror]”. M. de Stürmer, I think, never positively said any of these three appellations.”] and 10 April 1817 “Un peu avant la fin des courses arrive le Russe. C’est le seul commissaire. Il est en bourgeois, vient me saluer, me dit que Montchenu est indisposé etc. […] Le Russe me dit qu’il ne peut entrer à Longwood que jusqu’à la deuxième barrière etc. Il y aura un grand dîner chez le gouverneur, les commissaires y dînent etc. […].” [“Just before the very end of the races, the Russian arrived. He was the only commissioner there. He was dressed as a private individual, came up to greet me, told me that Montchenu indisposed etc. […] the Russian told me that he could only come enter Longwood as far as the second fence etc. There wasw going to be a grand dinner at the Governor’s, the commissioners would be dining there etc. […].”]

^[24] Gourgaud, Journal, new edition by Hicks in preparation: “27 avril, […] Vais à l’Alarm House. Etant près du canon, je vois le Russe et M. Gors venant de la ville. Aussitôt qu’ils me voient, ils retournent leurs chevaux; ensuite, par réflexion, ils continuent leur route. Je les laisse passer, ensuite je reviens au pas derrière eux. Le Russe se retourne souvent ; enfin, il vient à ma rencontre, me dit que je dois paraître étonné de ce qu’ilretournait son cheval, mais la dernière fois que le hasard me le fit rencontrer, le gouverneur avait été très contrarié, que le lendemain, l’amiral était venu chez lui, lui demander pourquoi il avait eu une conférence avec moi, que lui avait répondu que c’était par hasard, mais qu’il était enchanté d’avoir vu quelqu’un de Longwood pour savoir si l’on était toujours dans l’intention de les recevoir, que lui se ferait certainement présenter, aussitôt l’arrivé du Conqueror etc., que l’amiral lui avait dit qu’il ne lui défendait pas de me voir, mais qu’il le priait d’attendre jusqu’à l’arrivée du Conqueror etc. Le russe ajoute : “L’amiral est jaloux que d’autre[s] que lui ai[en]t des communications avec Longwood, reçoiventdes papiers etc. : il craint que je n’aie de Waterloo une relation autre que celle qu’il nous fait.” Je dis au Russe que c’est le hasard qui me l’avaitfait rencontrer la première comme la seconde [fois], que je suis bien fâché de le compromettre. Je l’engage à retourner. Il se pique, me dit qu’il n’a pas d’ordre à recevoir du gouverneur ni de l’amiral, que c’est par pure complaisance qu’il a promis à ce dernier etc. Il me dit, ainsi que M. Gors, il serait enchanté que le Conqueror leur apportât des nouvelles qui leur permissent de venir nous voir souvent, que la société des Anglais est ennuyeuse, qu’il y a un mur d’airain entre leur manière d’être et la nôtre etc. Je le reconduis à la limite. Ils m’ont beaucoup demandé des nouvelles de B.[ertrand] et de sa f.[emme], m’ont chargé de leur faire compliments etc. » [“27 April, […] I went to l’Alarm House. When I was close to the canon, I saw the Russian and M. Gors coming from town. As soon as they saw me, they turned their horses. And then, on second thoughts, they continued on their way. I let them pass, then came up with my horse at a walk behind them. The Russian kept turning around; finally, he came up to me, told me that I must be surprised that he had turned his horse around, but that the last time that chance had brought together, the governor had been very cross, that the following day, the admiral had come to his house and asked him why he had had a conversation with me, that he had replied it was by chance, but that he had been delighted to meet someone from Longwood so as to find out whether it was still their intention to receive them, that he would definitely present himself as soon as the Conqueror arrived etc., that the Admiral had said that he did not forbid him to see me, but rather begged him to wait until Conqueror had arrived etc. the Russian added: « The admiral is jealous that others aside from himself should have communications with Longwood, receive documents etc.: he fears that I may have a version of Waterloo that is different from the one he recounted to us. » I said to the Russian that it was purely by chance that first time, and indeed also the second, that had brought about my meeting with him, that I was very sorry to compromise him. I exhorted him to go back. He took offense, told me that he was not one to be receiving orders from the governor or from the admiral, that it was by pure politeness that he had promised to the latter etc. He told me that he, and M. Gors, would be delighted if the Conqueror brought them news which allowed them to come and see us often, that English society was tedious, that there was a wall of bronze between their manner of being and ours etc. I accompanied him to the limit. They were very insistent in asking for news of B.[ertrand] and his w.[ife], and bade me send their respects etc.”]

^[25] Gourgaud probably refers to one of these conversations on 12 July 1817 (Journal, new edition by Hicks in preparation): “En continuant ma promenade, je me remonte [sic] avec le Russe et M. Gors. Je leur demande s’ils ne se compromettent pas en me parlant : “Non, non.” Ils viennent à moi, me font beaucoup d’amitiés. Le Russe me dit que le lendemain de la dernière entrevue, le gouverneur lui avait fait promettre de ne pas me voir avant [l’arrivée du] le Conqueror, que l’amiral était un courtisan, que le nouveau, Plampin, était un bon homme et un homme bon etc., que lui, Balmain, avait écrit il y a trois jours au gouverneur pour demander d’aller voir Mme B.[ertrand], qu’il attendait la réponse.” [“Continuing my ride, I went back with the Russian and M. Gors. I asked them if they would not be compromising themselves by talking to me: « No, no. » They came up to me, were exceedingly friendly. The Russian told me that the day after our last conversation, the governor had made him promise not to see me before [the arrival of] the Conqueror, that the Admiral was a courtier, that the new admiral, Plampin, was a good man, a solid man etc., that he, Balmain, had three days ago written to the governor to ask permission to go and see Mme B.[ertrand], that he awaited the reply.”]

^[26] See Gourgaud, Journal, new edition by Hicks in preparation: “19 juin [1817], “B.[ertrand] à cette époque m’a fait signer tant de choses que je croyais qu’il y avait pour votre mère. Cela peut se réparer, faites un billet, je le signerai; qu’est-ce que 12 000 francs pour moi ? Croyez-vous que cela soit assez?” – “Ah, certainement, sire”. – “Eh bien, on le fera partir ou par le Russe, l’amiral, ou Fowler”. Je rép.[onds] que je n’aurais pas peur de me compromettre pour secourir ma bonne mère.” [“19 June [1817], “at that time Bertand had me sign lots of things amongst which I thought there was something for your mother. This can be rectified. Write me a note and I will sign it. What is 12 000 francs to me? Do you think that will be enough?” “Ah, for certain, Sire.” “Well then, we should have it sent either by the Russian, the admiral or Fowler. I replied that I was not scared of compromising myself if it was a question of helping my dear mother.”]

^[27] Observations on Lord Bathurst's Speech in the House of Peers on March 18, 1817, London, Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme and Brown, early March 1818. See Gourgaud, Journal, new edition by Hicks in preparation: “30 juin [1817], A 2 heures et demie, S.M. me demande, a l’air de mauvaise humeur, me dit qu’Elle est resserrée. Me fait asseoir, me dit qu’il parait que le russe doit venir voir Mme B.[ertrand] dans deux ou trois jours, et de m’y trouver etc. […] Je lui raconte du Russe ; elle s’anime alors, dit que le gouverneur est un homme adroit, qui quand il parle au Russe dit du bien des Russes, et aux Français du bien des Français, dit qu’il faudra donner à Balmain la rép.[onse] à lord Bathurst.” [“ 30 June [1817], A half past two, H.M. called for me, seemed in a bad mood, told me he was hemmed in. Bade me sit down, told me that it would appearthat the Russian is to come and see Mme B.[ertrand] in two or three days’ time, and that I should make sure to be there etc. […] I told him about the Russian; he then became animated, said that the governor was a cunning man, who, when he spoke to the Russian , spoked well of the Russians, and when with the French, well of the French, said that Balmain should be given the Rep.[ly] to lord Bathurst.”]

^[28] Balmain, bulletin no 12 (Park, Napoleon in Captivity cit, p.68)/9 (Russkie Archiv, pp. 1953-54): “Gourgaud spoke to me of my visit to Betrand. ‘‘Since the Conqueror has arrived, he said, can we hope to see the Commissioners?’”. I told him simply that I had written to the governor […] but that there seemed to be difficulties […]. ‘What, he said, not even a little bonjour to Mme Bertrand?’ ‘Not, I replied, while Longwood and Plantation House are at war […]’”. Gourgaud, Journal, new edition by Hicks in preparation 28 July 1817: “Le Russe me dit que l’empereur A.[lexandre] lui a fait faire des compliments sur sa conduite ici, lors du procès-verbal, que ses rapports faisaient plaisir, qu’il le priait de ne pas craindre de les charger de détails etc. Je lui demande s’il compte venir voir bientôt Mme B.[ertrand], que je le présenterai s’il veut etc. Pressé deoui ou non, il me dit qu’il viendra jeudi avec Stürmer.” [“The Russian told me that the Emperor A.[lexander] had complimented him on his conduct here, during the procès-verbal affair, that his reports were highly appreciated, that he should not worry about cramming them with details etc. I asked him if he planned on coming to see Mme B.[ertrand] soon, that I would introduce him if he wished etc. When pushed to reply either yes or no, he told me he would come on Thursday with Stürmer.”]

^[29] Gourgaud, Journal, new edition by Hicks in preparation: “29 [juillet 1817], […] Je vais à 1 heure chez B.[ertrand]. Peu après, y vient Melle B.[eaumont] qui était à déjeuner chez la M.[ontholon]. B.[ertrand] sort avec moi et je lui raconte le Russe ; B.[ertrand] pense comme moi qu’il ne doit pas venir ici furtivement. Je lui dis qu’il parait qu’il voit ainsi S.M., que je le prie dans tous les cas de dire à S.M. que je ne veux pas me charger de remettre papiers etc. B.[ertrand] veut me prouver que le gouverneur ne peut pas nous enlever pour des papiers remis etc.”. [“29 [July 1817], […] I went to B.[ertrand]’s at one o’clock. Shortly afterwards, Melle B.[eaumont] arrived – she had come from lunch with la M.[ontholon]. B.[ertrand] went out with me and I told him all about the Russian; B.[ertrand] thinks like I do that he should not come here furtively. I told him that H.M. apparently sees it the same way, that I asked him that in any case to say to H.M. that I did not wish to take on the delivery of documents etc. B.[ertrand] tried to prove to me that the governor could not expel us for documents passed on etc.”.] See also the following day 30 July 1817.

^[30] Gourgaud, Journal, new edition by Hicks in preparation :“S.M. demande Cipri.[ani], lui remet [symbole de document]. Lui dit d’arranger avec M.[ontholon]. S.M. me dit de ne pas y aller parce que envoie M.[ontholon], que Smol.[ensk] vient et suivait Balcom.[be]. »

^[31] 2, 4, 6, 8, 11 October 1817.

^[32] Balmain, reports, 2 November 1817 (Park, Napoleon in Captivity cit., p. 89/Russkie Archiv p. 1974): “Le général Gourgaud, que j’ai vu ce matin [sic] à la promenade, m’assuré que Bonaparte devenait mélancolique et tombait par degrés dans une entière apathie. “Il ne travaille plus, me dit-il, à son histoire. Il a tout abandonné et passe sa vie à niaiser ou ne rien faire. Il lui en coute même de se raser. Depuis cinq semaines, il dine seul, s’isole entièrement et ne parle que de sa mort. Hier, il nous fit le tableau de son infortune qui me déchira le cœur. J’eus à peine à retenir mes larmes”” [“General Gourgaud, whom I met this morning [sic] while riding, assured me that Bonaparte was becoming melancholy and falling by degrees into total apathy. “He no longer works,” he said, “on his history. He has given everything up and spends his time on pointless tasks or doing nothing at all. It’s bothersome even for him to shave. During the last five weeks, he has dined alone, he isolates himself completely from everyone, and only talks about his death. Yesterday, he painted such a picture of his misfortune that it broke my heart. I could barely hold back my tears.””]

^[33] Document in the Paris Archives Nationales (A.N. 314 AP 4) published by Jacques Macé, Le Général Gourgaud, Paris, Nouveau Monde Editions, 2006, p. 164 (incomplete) (for the full version, with PS, see Lowe Papers, Mss. Add. 20141, fols. 43-4), and in Park, Napoleon in Captivity cit., p. 99, for a very poor translation of part of the second half of the cartel, a copy of which must be in Balmain’s papers in Moscow.

^[34] In French in the original. Interestingly, in a report dated 10 April 1818 (Russkie archiv, 4/1869, p. 674-5), Balmain noted how Bertrand had tried to get him to take a letter from Napoleon, and that he would be recompensed by Russia.

^[35] In French in the original. Sturmer describes a friendly encounter in one of the East India company’s gardens near Longwood, between all the commissioners and the Longwood folk the day before, see Schlitter (ed.), Die Berichte cit., p. 136. Montchenu describes the same event but without giving the date, Georges Firmin-Didot, La captivité de Sainte-Hélène; d’après les rapports inédits du marquis de Montchenu […], Paris, Firmin Didot, 1894, p. 155-56.

^[36] Schlitter (ed.), Die Berichte cit., p. 137.

^[37] Henri-Gatien Bertrand, Paul Fleuriot de Langle (dir.), Cahiers de Sainte-Hélène, Journal 1818-1819, Paris, Albin Michel,1959, May-June 1818, p. 141.

^[38] Gorrequer, Diary, 7 October (Kemble, St Helena cit.): “When speaking to me about Bear’s [Balmain’s] not going [to] Neighbour’s [Napoleon’s] people, by replying he could not do that when he was riding the whole time with the heroine of his choice.”

^[39] Gorrequer, Diary, 17 October 1819 (Kemble, St Helena cit.): “the candour in telling me Bear [Balmain] made a confidant of him!”

^[40] Gorrequer, Diary, 7 November 1819 (Kemble, St Helena cit.): “Bear’s [Bear’s] turncoat proceedings in sending Consul’s [Thomas Harrington, Russian consul at the Cape] letter and newspapers, forwarded to him, to Nincumpoop [Sir Thomas Reade], who was expected in a ship to call en passant hourly. Also his [Balmain’s] general obsequiousness ever since becoming ‘amouraché’.”

^[41] Private collection.

^[42] Gorrequer, Diary, 21 February 1819 (Kemble, St Helena cit.): “Mach [Hudson Lowe] called Bear [Balmain] a d….d little whipper snapper rascal, saying “Merely to gratify his vanity this little popinjay must be sending home all the little trumpery stories he can pick up for Countess L[ie]v[e]n, Nesselrode, Chernicheff (and others whom he named but [whom I have] forgot) and such people about the Court of the Imperial Bear [Tsar Alexander], to involve me in all his trouble when I ought to be employed about something else; and throwing obstacles in the way of my duties in the care of the man of the greatest consequence in the world. But I know people at that Court of much greater consequence and power than his friends; and if I was just to write a private letter to lord C.[a]th[car]t], which I may yet do if he does not take care of himself, I could ruin him forever. He [Cathcart] has more weight at that Court than any of Mr B.[almain]’s friends. He would believe anything I say, for he well knows the principles upon which I have always acted. My account would be much sooner believed than that of such a little jackanapes fibble of a fellow.” He then told me about Bear [Balmain] having told Veritas [Montholon] that if he could mention to him any little anecdotes which he might send his Court to interest Imperial Bear [Tsar Alexander], it would make his fortune. But they have the greatest contempt of him, both our Neighbour [Napoleon] and those about it [sic], and laugh at him. He [Lowe] also mentioned that Bear [Balmain] had told cap.[tai]n Phoebus [Captain Stanfell?], who had repeated it to Nincumpoop [Thomas Reade] from whom he had it thus, that though he was not a young man, he would gladly give up 10 years of his existence to be off. That was (he said) because he was frightened of the consequences of his conduct; he[’d] do anything to get out of this scrape, and to stand in any other shoes. He was as much alarmed as Autrichien [Stürmer] who, when « Pozzo’s » business took place, had told him, “Ça pourrait empoisonner le reste de mon existence”; but he had soon got him under his thumb and he would not let him off so easily. He’d be d….d if he would. Mach [Hudson Lowe] did not say however that Bear [Balmain] had told Phoebus [Stanfell?] that he never came to dinner but in misery. It was the greatest punishment to him. In fact, all this said to Phoebus [Stanfell?] was from disgust.”

^[43] Gorrequer, Diary, 28 January, 1820 (Kemble, St Helena cit.). Walter Henry in his account of his time on the island gives a mocking caricature of Balmain and his courting of Charlotte and how the groom was shut out of the bedroom on his wedding night, Walter Henry, Trifles from my portofolio […], Québec, William Neilson, 1839, vol 1, pp. 248-9.

^[44] Pierre Branda, Napoléon à Sainte-Hélène, Paris, Perrin, 2021, pp. 387-395.