And, on the supposition that we had been at war with France, a second question was raised by Lord Ellenborough, the Chief-justice, "what rights result on principle from a state of war, as against all the individuals of the belligerent nations--rights, whatever they may be, seldom, if ever, enforced against individuals, because individuals hardly ever make war but as part of an aggregate nation." The question--as, after consultation with Lord Ellenborough and his own brother, Sir William Scott, it finally appeared to Lord Eldon, on whom the Prime-minister naturally depended, as his chief legal counsellor, though in its political aspect he judged for himself--was, firstly, "whether it could possibly be inconsistent with justice or the law of nations that, till some peace were made by treaty with some person considered as Napoleon's sovereign, or till some peace were made with himself, we should keep him imprisoned in some part of our King's dominions." And, secondly, "whether there were any person who could possibly be considered his sovereign, after the treaty of 1814 had clothed him with the character of Emperor of Elba, with imperial dignity and imperial revenue." Lord Liverpool himself, however, raised another question: whether, by his invasion of France, he had not forfeited his right to be regarded as an independent sovereign; resting this doubt on a suggestion which, among others, he proposed to the Lord Chancellor, that "at Elba he enjoyed only a limited and conditional sovereignty, which ceased when the condition on which he held it was violated." This last suggestion, it must be confessed, appears untenable, as totally inconsistent with the language of the Treaty of Fontainebleau, under the provisions of which Napoleon became sovereign of Elba, and which does not contain a single article which bears out the opinion that his sovereignty was limited or conditional.

On the contrary, the words of the treaty expressly agree that "Elba should form during his life a separate principality, which should be possessed by him in full sovereignty and property." There is no need to discuss the views of Blucher.

On the news of Napoleon's landing at Frejus reaching the plenipotentiaries assembled at the Congress of Vienna, they at once issued a declaration that, "in breaking the convention which had established him at Elba, Buonaparte" (for they refused him his imperial appellation of Napoleon) "had destroyed the only legal title on which his existence depended....

He had placed himself out of the pale of civil and social relations, and, as the enemy and disturber of the peace of the world, he was delivered over to public justice." And the old Prussian, burning with a desire to avenge the indignities and injuries which he had inflicted on Prussia, avowed his determination to execute him as an outlaw, if he should fall into his hands.

And it is still less worthwhile to inquire--though Lord Holland in his place in Parliament did desire the House to consult the judges on the point--whether, if Napoleon were a prisoner of war, he "were not entitled to his _habeas corpus_, if detained after the signature of a treaty of peace with all the powers, or any of which he could be considered as the subject." On the whole, the simplest view of the position and of our detention of him, the view most reconcilable with the principles which regulate the waging and the relinquishing a state of war, seems to be to consider that Napoleon was a sovereign with whom we were at war; that that war could only be terminated by a treaty of peace between ourselves and him; that it rested with us to conclude, or to abstain from concluding, any such treaty; and that, till we should conclude it, we had clearly a right to detain him as a prisoner of war.