Napoleon's Poisoned Chalice

by Dr Martin Howard

  This heartfelt plea deserved a straight answer but the Admiral had a different agenda. Instead of dignifying Stokoe with a coherent reply, he attacked him for being late for his appointment. The doctor defended himself, saying that his patient was receiving treatment and that he had judged it advisable not to leave him earlier. Plampin relentlessly pressed his point, concluding that ‘neither necessity nor humanity’ justified Stokoe’s late appearance and his failure to obey an order. The Admiral now decided to formally reply to Stokoe’s letter of the previous day in which he had asked to cease his visits to Longwood.

  Briars, January 21, 1819

  Sir,

  In answer to the letter you left with me yesterday evening I have only to observe it’s of no consequence to me to know what experience you yesterday gained, nor do I conceive it requisite for you to ask my leave to decline your services in aid of General Bonaparte, which I have never commanded; and never having had any correspondence with Count Bertrand I cannot condescend to commence one with him for the mere purpose of conveying your wishes on that head, more specially as you did not conceive any previous communication with me requisite before you gave your full consent to him to become General Bonaparte’s physician, as has been stated from Longwood to His Excellency the Governor.

  I am sir

  Your most obedient servant

  Robert Plampin

  This is a typically slippery St. Helena letter. Plampin implies that Stokoe accepted the role of Napoleon’s physician unconditionally – palpably untrue. Furthermore, he denies ordering the doctor to Longwood. This is a straightforward lie as the Admiral gave Stokoe an explicit order to attend the Emperor at the onset of his illness on the 17th. This directive was issued via Captain Stanfell of the Conqueror and Stokoe, realising that his behaviour was now being deliberately misrepresented, requested a second reading of the note sent by the Admiral to the Captain. He received no reply from Stanfell who was known to be a loyal supporter of all Lowe’s policies.18

  Notes

  1. Chaplin, A, The Illness and Death of Napoleon Bonaparte, pp. 17–18; Richardson, F, Napoleon’s Death; An Inquest, pp. 132–3; Markham, JD, Napoleon and Dr Verling on St. Helena, pp. 34, 39.

  2. Stokoe, J, With Napoleon on St. Helena, pp. 5, 214–5; Young, N, Napoleon in Exile, Vol. II, p. 127; Richardson, p. 141.

  3. Stokoe, pp. 9–17, 39–48, 69–70, 76; Marchand, Mémoires de Marchand, Vol. II, p.171; Chaplin, A, A St. Helena Who’s Who, pp. 112–5; Balmain, Count, Napoleon in Captivity, p. 91; Gorrequer, Major G, St. Helena during Napoleon’s Exile, p. 70; Lowe Papers 20133 f. 859.

  4. Stokoe, pp. 48–50; Chaplin, pp. 198–9; Gourgaud, Général Baron, Journal de Sainte-Hélène, Vol. II, pp. 281, 289.

  5. Stokoe, pp. 50–63; Young, Vol. II, pp. 128–30; Gourgaud, Vol. II, p. 280.

  6. Stokoe, pp. 63–8; Marchand, Vol. II, p. 189; Forsyth, W, History of the Captivity of Napoleon, Vol. II, pp. 556–8; Bertrand, Général, Cahiers de Sainte-Hélène, pp. 147–8, 150.

  7. Balmain, pp. 186–7; Lowe Papers 20125 f. 198; Stokoe, pp. 73–5; Malcolm, Lady, A Diary of St. Helena, p. 158; Gorrequer, p. 95.

  8. Stokoe, pp. 75–9, 203–13; Forsyth, Vol. II, pp. 616–7; Korngold, R, The Last Years of Napoleon, p. 321; Masson, F, Autour de Sainte-Hélène, Vol. III, pp. 205–6; British Library, Eg. 3717 f. 120.

  9. British Library Eg. 3717 ff. 161, 163; Stokoe, pp. 82–6, 217–9; Bertrand, pp. 245–6; Markham, pp. 44–5; Journeaux de Sainte-Hélène, pp. 146–7; Korngold, p. 321; Forsyth, Vol. II, p. 11; Young, Vol. II, pp. 131–2.

  10. British Library Eg. 3717 f. 159; Stokoe, pp. 86–93, 221–2; Young, Vol. II, pp. 132–6; Journeaux, pp. 147–50; Markham, p. 47; Bertrand, p. 246; Korngold, p. 322–3; Masson, Vol. III, pp. 207–8.

  11. Stokoe, pp. 93–5; Young, Vol. II, p. 136.

  12. Stokoe, pp. 95–9; Journeaux, p. 147; Markham, p. 45; Forsyth, Vol. II, pp. 13–14; Marchand, Vol. II, pp. 206–7.

  13. Stokoe, pp. 99–101; Young, Vol. II, pp. 136–7; Bertrand, pp. 246–7; Journeaux, pp. 147–8; Masson, Vol. III, pp. 213–4; Masson, Napoleon at St. Helena, p. 219; Chaplin, The Illness and Death of Napoleon Bonaparte, pp. 19–20; Markham, p. 47.

  14. Stokoe, pp. 101–3; Young, Vol. II, pp. 137–8; Bertrand, p. 246.

  15. British Library Eg. 3717 f. 167; Stokoe, pp. 103–7, 225; Young, Vol. II, pp. 138–40; Journeaux, p. 148; Markham, p. 63.

  16. Stokoe, pp. 107–9; Young, Vol. II, p. 140; Bertrand, p. 247; Journeaux, pp. 148–9; Markham, pp. 49–50.

  17. British Library Eg. 3717 f. 170; Stokoe, pp. 109–112; Young, Vol. II, pp. 140–1; Journeaux, pp. 148–9; Bertrand, p. 247.

  18. Stokoe, pp. 112–6, 223–4; Young, Vol. II, p. 142; Bertrand, pp. 247–8; Journeaux, p. 149; Chaplin, A St. Helena Who’s Who, p. 129.

  5

  COURT-MARTIAL

  Stokoe’s visits to Napoleon were now at an end. He remained under close scrutiny. Gorrequer wrote to Verling requesting any additional information he might have regarding his colleague. The Governor had denied Napoleon his chosen physician but he was not satisfied. He was now convinced that Stokoe had to be punished and, using Plampin as his willing accomplice, he started to construct a legal case. In a letter to the Admiral, he outlined his chief accusations against Stokoe. First, he deviously used French correspondence to undermine the doctor’s assertion that he had only accepted the conditions of employment conditional to his superior’s consent. In Montholon’s letter of the 19th to the Governor, the Count stated that Stokoe had immediately approved the articles presented to him and, despite all the evidence to the contrary, this was the version of events Lowe chose to give credence to, commenting to Plampin, ‘Mr Stokoe not merely, it appears, signified his acquiescence to these proposals, but further, without any reference to your Excellency’s authority or mine, proceeded to act upon them.’

  The Governor objected to Stokoe’s perceived lack of consultation with Verling and also inferred that he had exaggerated Napoleon’s symptoms. His medical bulletins, handed to Bertrand, were allegedly in contravention of a standing order issued in July 1817 forbidding officers of the squadron ‘to hold communication of any sort, by writing or otherwise, upon any subject with any of the foreign persons upon the island’. Just for good measure, Lowe raked up the clandestine correspondence from Holmes, reminding Plampin that Stokoe’s name had been connected with this. He signed off with an invitation to the Admiral to seriously consider the naval surgeon’s conduct and to take steps which he thought to be ‘expedient’. If Stokoe was a pawn in the St. Helena game, then Plampin was a minor piece manoeuvred relentlessly around the board by Lowe.

  The Governor’s charge that Napoleon’s symptoms had been talked up reflected continued British scepticism regarding the supposed illness. Marchand believed Lowe to be entirely dismissive of his master’s medical problems and Bertrand noted acidly that French concerns would only be recognised when the Emperor was found dead in his bed. In this war of words, Baxter was enrolled to interpret Stokoe’s bulletins, just as he had previously vetted O’Meara’s script. He told Verling that Stokoe had ‘attempted’ to support O’Meara’s diagnosis of liver disease but that he (Baxter) was sceptical that there was any significant illness. In a pencilled note found among the Lowe papers, Baxter tells the Governor what he wants to hear. He criticises Stokoe’s diagnosis and his recommendation of a nourishing diet. ‘Such articles ordered for a patient who is considered to be in danger of a determination of blood to the head would convey suspicion either of the sincerity or professional talents of Mr Stokoe.’ He quibbles with the findings of both O’Meara and Stokoe, emphasising every inconsistency between the accounts of the two men. Lowe was presumably reassured by Baxter’s words but he still could not be certain that Napoleon was out of danger. Indeed, on 24 January, three days after Stokoe’s last consultation with the Emperor, he confided to Verling that he was considering sending Stokoe back to Longwood. The doctor would be confined to a cottage near the main house and
would be forbidden any contact with the inhabitants of Longwood except to attend to Napoleon in an emergency. Lowe consulted Thomas Reade with his idea but, after discussion with the Admiral, it was dropped.1

  Plampin had a more unpleasant fate planned for Stokoe. A few days later, the doctor was approached by Stanfell on the Conqueror and informed that it was the Admiral’s intention to try him by a court-martial. When he asked the reason, he was told that it was for ‘contempt and disobedience of orders’. Stokoe retorted that it was his obedience to the Admiral’s demands that had landed him in trouble and that, left to his own discretion, he would not have attended Napoleon. Stanfell replied that in view of the proposed court-martial it would be improper for him to comment. The Captain returned to the shore and, after a period of grim reflection, Stokoe followed him to Jamestown. Here, he informed his superior that his health had deteriorated due to the climate and because of the fall from his horse and that he had been unable to attend to his duties for several days. He asked to leave St. Helena and to be invalided home. Stanfell promised to pass this request on to the Admiral but said that he was not optimistic as he understood that Plampin and Lowe were already preparing the charges against the doctor. Stokoe waited two days before Stanfell asked him to put his plea in writing, giving details of his ill health. After more procrastination, his application was granted and he departed St. Helena for England on the Tricomalee on 30th January. He poignantly writes, ‘I thought all my sufferings at an end.’

  Balmain was a perceptive witness of the infighting between the British and French, being a recipient of propaganda from both sides.

  The English have assured me that on the 18th, the day after that on which he was said to be dying, Napoleon had taken a walk round his new home in a red flannel dressing gown, leaning with his left arm on a billiard cue, holding in the other a field glass and that the ordinary officer had heard him singing Fra Martino in his bedroom.

  On the day of Stokoe’s departure, he writes,

  Here is the second English doctor dismissed from Longwood. With the exception of Baxter, who the French say is a poisoner, Verling, who they will not see, and Livingstone, who is an accoucheur (obstetrician), there is none other to give to them.2

  After a second debacle involving Napoleon’s doctor, Lowe was keen to distance himself from recent events. He did not want to be seen to have personally forced Stokoe off the island. In a letter from Gorrequer to Verling of 25th January, he stresses that Stokoe had been sent home because of his ‘own particular desires’. While the Military Secretary was obediently transcribing Lowe’s orders and opinions, in his secret journal he was contemptuous of the Governor’s efforts to evade responsibility.

  Mach’s [Lowe’s] anxiety to turn off all the acts towards 2nd Magnesia Navale [Stokoe] being sent home upon the Polyphemes [Plampin] saying it was all his doing, and that he had no business to send him home; and that as for himself he had no hand whatsoever in it. It was very badly managed of Polyphemes. What hypocrisy when everything was at his instance and active instigation. The next moment he was abusing Polyphemes for shrinking upon all and every occasion from any share of responsibility.

  For the moment, Lowe and Plampin were apparently satisfied just to have removed Napoleon’s favourite doctor from Longwood. On the Governor’s direction, the Admiral wrote a long report detailing Stokoe’s behaviour and this was forwarded to the Admiralty on the same vessel on which the surgeon of the Conqueror was returning home.3

  Stokoe disembarked at Portsmouth on 14 April 1819. He first had to attend the Admiralty offices in London to submit himself for a medical examination. He had no qualms regarding this as he was confident that his state of health justified a period of leave and he was on friendly terms with the Principal Physician. When he entered the room he was surprised to find himself in the company of another medical man, Dr Weir, the medical member of the Transport Board, and also Sir George Cockburn and Sir Henry Hotham. Instead of performing a careful examination, Weir limited himself to a few peremptory questions and was dismissive of Stokoe’s replies. The surgeon sensed that his senior colleague was acting under instruction. Cockburn concluded the brief proceedings by dismissing Stokoe with the comment that it was likely he would be sent back to St. Helena.

  Stokoe’s first reaction was to seek an independent medical opinion. Before leaving the building, he met Sir Pulteney Malcolm, a man who had little time for Lowe and his repressive regimen. When Stokoe complained of how unpleasant it would be for him to again serve under Plampin, Malcolm immediately reassured him.

  Stokoe, you are a surgeon. You are more independent than any of us so long as you do your duty, but I think you ought to view being sent back again as a proof that your conduct has been approved of.

  Much cheered by this vote of confidence, the surgeon returned to Portsmouth believing that at least he was not returning to St. Helena in adversity. In fact, Malcolm was either not party to the views of his colleagues in the Admiralty or he was being duplicitous. On 7th August, a full week before Stokoe had arrived back in England, charges for a court-martial had already been drawn up from Plampin’s report and signed by senior officials including Lords Melville and Cockburn. Henry Goulburn, the Undersecretary, wrote to Lowe on the following day confirming that the doctor would be sent back to St. Helena, ‘in order to his being brought to trial for the offences to which he has been guilty’. Stokoe’s first impression that his cursory medical examination was premeditated was correct. Melville and Cockburn and the other Lords of the Admiralty had had their fingers burnt in the O’Meara affair and they were going to take no chances with Stokoe. He was to be sacrificed to placate St. Helena’s Governor.

  The surgeon, oblivious of any betrayal, made preparations for his return passage. Being only a few months from retirement after twenty years of service, he had not anticipated another period at sea and had dispensed with items such as his cot, bedding and light clothing. His other belongings, including his medical instruments, were on their way to London. Accordingly, he asked the Admiralty officers for some extra time to make arrangements but they were surprisingly unsympathetic – he was to be rushed out of the country with no time to prepare for a warm climate or to take proper leave of his friends. The few comrades he did meet tried to raise his spirits, an old messmate congratulating him that his conduct must have been much approved of for him to be reappointed to the island. O’Meara also completely misjudged the reason for Stokoe’s return; in his Exposition he writes, ‘The universal burst of public opinion which has led to ministers sending Mr Stokoe back to St. Helena only proves that those principles of justice to which Napoleon Bonaparte continues to appeal are not extinct in the British nation.’ Stokoe departed on 19th April and after a ‘tedious and disagreeable’ voyage on the Abundance, arrived at St. Helena four months later.4

  The surgeon rejoined the Conqueror but was then unexpectedly forbidden to return to shore without further orders.

  The following day at about one o’clock, the officer of the watch, Lieutenant Lloyd, received a letter from Captain Stanfell directing him to put the memorandum No. 22 into my hands on the quarter deck. It contained the first intimation I had of their Lordships’ kind intentions towards me in sending me back again to St. Helena (a distance by the Cape of more than eight thousand miles), for the sole purpose of trying me by court-martial!

  Placed under arrest, Stokoe now realised that he had been duped by Cockburn and his fellow Lords, who had already decided to court-martial him at the time of his medical examination in London but had withheld this information. To send him back without knowledge of his impending trial was unnecessarily cruel. More importantly, Stokoe was denied vital time to prepare his case. If he had known of his fate whilst in England, he could have collected the necessary papers and sought legal advice and the testimony of his friends.

  Rumours of the surgeon’s return had been circulating since early July. Two days before his arrival, on 19th August, Bertrand wrote to Lowe demanding that Napoleon
should again have the vital assistance of ‘his physician Stokoe’. The French made further similar requests in the following weeks but they were informed that he was not available because of the legal process. Napoleon was said to be ill again and he allegedly requested the doctor’s help more each day, but this exacerbation of symptoms coinciding exactly with the return of Stokoe was designed to increase the scepticism of the inhabitants of Plantation House. Here, the surgeon’s trial was a cause for celebration. Gorrequer writes in his diary for 21st August,

  The joy demonstrated by Nincumpoop [Reade] on opening the plichi by Abundance and finding that Magnesia de la Marina 2nd [Stokoe] was to be traduit [indicted] before Maritime Tribunal. How he jumped and raced all around the table, clapping his hands and shouting on Mach’s [Lowe] telling him of it, and the ferocious grinning of the latter about it.5

  The ten charges against Stokoe were as follows:

  1st. For having on or about the 17th January last, when permitted by Rear-Admiral Plampin, Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty’s Ships and Vessels at the Cape of Good Hope and the seas adjacent, etc., to visit Longwood for the purpose of affording medical assistance to General Buonaparte, then represented as being dangerously ill, communicated with the said General or his attendants upon subjects not at all concerned with medical advice, contrary to standing orders in force for the governance of His Majesty’s naval officers on St. Helena.