Historical criticism of this document has moved, as it were, in the air.
Historians have relied mainly on “mémoires”-writers and confined their
labours to ingenious guesswork. According to Lucien Bonaparte
(“Mémoires,” II, ch. IX), Napoleon “dictated” the Report with the
express purpose of rousing “John Bull.” Meneval (“Mémoires,” I, ch. III)
says that Jaubert saw a proof of the Report as it was to be printed in
the “Moniteur” and advised the omission of the most irritating passages.
But Maret refused to take upon himself to do this. We have also to take
into account the fact that a few days after the publication, Sebastiani
himself met the British Ambassador at Talleyrand’s and “recanted
everything he had said in his report disrespectful to General Stuart and
mentioned him in terms of great esteem.” (Whitworth’s despatch, 3rd
February, 1803, Browning, p. 59.)
Fournier (“Life of Napoleon,” I, p. 316, note) dismisses the hypothesis
that Sebastiani told Napoleon something other than he told the British
Ambassador and believes that Napoleon “altered” the despatch of the
Colonel. The inference is that Napoleon fabricated a report and
attributed it to his agent.
But all this is wrong. We will print below a letter sent from Sebastiani
from Alexandria which is couched in the same style and expresses the
same views as the Report itself. We will also print those passages from
the manuscript report which have been either omitted from or changed in
the “Moniteur” version. The conclusions are:—