298 Note on the Operations against the Forts at July, NOTE On the Operations against the Forts at the Mouth of the Peiho in June 1859. IN a Review of the 'Letters and Journals of Lord Elgin,' which was published in this Journal in January last, we quoted (p. 52 of our last volume) a passage from Lord Elgin's Memoranda, in which he mentioned that his brother, Sir Frederic Bruce, had abstained from stating in his own justification all the circumstances of the unfortunate affair at the Peiho; and in corroboration of this note, the writer of the article added from information he had received, that Sir Frederic Bruce had done all he could to dissuade the Admiral from making the attack at all, and had even written a despatch to that effect, which has never been produced. It has been represented to us by unquestionable authority, that this statement is not correct, and that no such despatch was written by Sir Frederic Bruce; and undoubtedly the papers laid before Parliament clearly establish that he accepted his full share of the responsibility in the affair. As we have unintentionally given currency to a version of the story which was founded on a misapprehension, we think it due to the distinguished officer who commanded her Majesty's naval forces in North China at that time, to quote one or two passages from Sir Frederic Bruce's own despatches which rectify the error. When it became apparent that the Chinese Government were taking measures to evade the fulfilment of the Treaty of Tientsin, and to prevent the British and French Plenipotentiaries from ascending the river for the exchange of ratifications, Sir F. Bruce wrote to Admiral Hope in his own name and in that of M. de Bourboulou, on the 21st June, 1859, that we have resolved to place the matter in your hands, and to request you to take any measures you may deem expedient for clearing the obstructions in the river, so as to allow us to proceed at once to Tientsin.' Admiral Hope had left Shanghai with his squadron five or six days before the Plenipotentiaries. The place of rendezvous was fixed at the Sha-loo-tien Islands, whence the Admiral was to communicate to the Chinese authorities the approaching arrival of the Ministers of France and England. These islands are, we understand, 60 or 70 miles from the mouth of the Peiho. On arriving at the rendezvous in the 'Magicienne' frigate, Sir F. Bruce found the squadron no longer there, but it was already assembled at the mouth of the Peiho on the 20th June, the Admiral having sent the gun-boats over the bar, on account, as was alleged, of the heavy sea running outside. The instruction to the Admiral, above quoted, was written on the following day. On the morning of the 25th the attack on the forts was made, unfortunately without success. But in his despatch of the 13th July to Lord Malmes bury, Sir F. Bruce gives it as his opinion, that at that moment and under the circumstances to have adopted a different course 'would have 'been to enter on a path which must have ended in disgrace and 'failure;' and he adds, 'nothing would have justified us in consenting 'to it, unless the only competent authority to pronounce a judgment on 'such a question had expressed doubts as to the result of an attempt 'to force the passage of the river. But I can state positively that if 'Admiral Hope had expressed doubts on the subject, they would not 'have been shared by the squadron, nor by those who have had most experience of warfare in China; and if it be decided that the means at our command were insufficient to justify us in pursuing so bold a 'line of policy, it is but right that I should share that responsibility 'with him.' We have no wish to prolong this discussion or to reflect in the slightest degree on any of the distinguished persons who were called upon to act in these difficult circumstances. But if any error of judgment was committed, it appears, from this brief narrative of the facts and a comparison of dates, to have occurred before the Plenipotentiaries rejoined the squadron. When the Plenipotentiaries and the squadron found themselves off the mouth of the river, some of the gunboats having already crossed the bar, and within a few days of the expiration of the term fixed for the exchange of the ratifications, there was no alternative but to attempt to force the passage. Erratum, page 13, line 19. We are informed that the statement in the article on the Trevelyan Papers, that the ancient abode of the family in the parish of St. Veep near Lostwithiel has been repurchased by the present representatives of the name, is not correct. No. CCLXXXII. will be published in October. THE EDINBURGH REVIEW, OCTOBER, 1873. No. CCLXXXII. ART. I.—1. The Man with the Iron Mask. By MARIUS TOPIN. Paris and London: 1869. 2. La Vérité sur le Masque de Fer. Par TH. IUNG, officier d'état-major. Paris: 1873. THE HE subject of these volumes forms one of those curious riddles of history which, if not of special interest in themselves, become, nevertheless, important from the associations and mystery connected with them. Ever since the brilliant pen of Voltaire gave definite shape to the strange legend, the story of the Man in the Iron Mask has stirred the fancy or perplexed the judgment of students of the reign of Louis XIV.; and few tales in the annals of France are more dramatic and suggestive of awe than the phantom of this imprisoned victim, withdrawn from the sight of men by his pitiless gaoler, and, after a life of fearful seclusion, disappearing finally within the shadow of the Bastille, one of the untold secrets of that terrible prison-house. Increasing research and knowledge, indeed, have, in the opinion of judicious critics, put an end to most of the extravagant guesses of the eighteenth century upon this subject; and the incident is not so attractive now as it was in the days when it was thought to hide a state secret which perhaps affected the fortunes of France and even of Europe. Few at present imagine that the prisoner of SaintMars was an illegitimate son of Anne of Austria, a twin brother of Louis XIV., or even a personage of great distinction; and still fewer, probably, think that the tale points to some horrible and nameless deed which the House of Bourbon was afraid to divulge even at the period of its highest power. Of late years three views only have been commonly held on this VOL. CXXXVIII. NO. CCLXXXII. X question; and it has been generally supposed that the Mask was either Mattioli, an Italian agent of the Duke of Mantua, of no great note, or else an unknown prisoner of obscure station, or, finally, that the tale is a myth, and that the existence of the Mask is incapable of proof. The vagueness, however, of notions like these has obviously left the problem unsolved; and as it remains one of no ordinary interest, we purpose to examine it in detail, and to review this tragedy of the seventeenth century with the aid of the latest information on the subject. That information has, in the main, been gathered from the volumes before us; and our readers, we hope, will be of opinion that, if not as complete as could be wished, it is, nevertheless, of real value. A word, however, must first be said as regards the character of these publications, which may not unfitly be placed together, although of very unequal merit. M. Topin's is an agreeable essay abounding in interesting and useful matter, and written in a singularly pleasing style; but though it refutes with clearness and force what at one time were popular theories as to the identity of the masked prisoner, it puts forward, we think, a false hypothesis and arrives at an incorrect conclusion. The elaborate treatise of M. Iung is a work of a very different kind, and we do not hesitate to assert is the most earnest attempt to master the real facts of the question which any writer has hitherto made. This gentleman, a staff officer in the French army, has examined with the most praiseworthy care, and analysed with no little ability, the evidence which the state papers and archives of the War Department in France yield upon the subject; and the result has been, that although he has not succeeded in proving his case, he has certainly narrowed the field of inquiry and reduced it within a small compass. His diligent and exhaustive studies, too, have thrown a great deal of fresh light on passages in the age of Louis XIV. which had not attracted sufficient notice; and if, as we think, the chief value of investigations of this description is the addition they make to historical knowledge, we must characterise his work as very successful. We repeat, however, we believe he has failed to establish the identity of the Mask; and his book, we must add, swarms with errors of the press, which occasionally greatly obscure the narrative. Who then was the Man in the Iron Mask, and is it possible to ascertain the name and rank of the captive whose fate Voltaire records so vividly and with such a parade of circumstance? It is necessary, however, first to show that |