Memoirs of Napoleon Bonaparte — Complete
Bonaparte's visit to the Senate gave rise to a change of rank in
the hierarchy of the different authorities composing the Government.
Hitherto the Council of State had ranked higher in public opinion; but
the Senate, on the occasion of its late deputation to the Tuileries, had
for the first time, received the honour of precedency. This had greatly
displeased some of the Councillors of State, but Bonaparte did not care
for that. He instinctively saw that the Senate would do what he wished
more readily than the other constituted bodies, and he determined to
augment its rights and prerogatives even at the expense of the rights
of the Legislative Body. These encroachments of one power upon another,
authorised by the First Consul, gave rise to reports of changes in
ministerial arrangements. It was rumoured in Paris that the number of
the ministers was to be reduced to three, and that Lucien, Joseph, and
M. de Talleyrand were to divide among them the different portfolios.
Lucien helped to circulate these reports, and this increased the First
Consul's dissatisfaction at his conduct. The letters from Madrid, which
were filled with complaints against him, together with some scandalous
adventures, known in Paris, such as his running away with the wife of
a 'limonadier', exceedingly annoyed Bonaparte, who found his own family
more difficult to govern than France.
France, indeed, yielded with admirable facility to the yoke which, the
First Consul wished to impose on her. How artfully did he undo all that
the Revolution had done, never neglecting any means of attaining his
object! He loved to compare the opinions of those whom he called the
Jacobins with the opinions of the men of 1789; and even them he found
too liberal. He felt the ridicule which was attached to the mute
character of the Legislative Body, which he called his deaf and dumb
assembly. But as that ridicule was favourable to him he took care to
preserve the assembly as it was, and to turn it into ridicule whenever
he spoke of it. In general, Bonaparte's judgment must not be confounded
with his actions. His accurate mind enabled him to appreciate all that
was good; but the necessity of his situation enabled him to judge with
equal shrewdness what was useful to himself.
What I have just said of the Senate affords me an opportunity of
correcting an error which has frequently been circulated in the
chit-chat of Paris. It has erroneously been said of some persons that
they refused to become members of the Senate, and among the number
have been mentioned M. Ducis, M. de La Fayette, and the Marechal de
Rochambeau. The truth is, that no such refusals were ever made. The
following fact, however, may have contributed to raise these reports and
give them credibility. Bonaparte used frequently to say to persons in
his salon and in his cabinet; "You should be a Senator--a man like you
should be a Senator." But these complimentary words did not amount to a
nomination. To enter the Senate certain legal forms were to be
observed. It was necessary to be presented by the Senate, and after
that presentation no one ever refused to become a member of the body,
to which Bonaparte gave additional importance by the creation of
"Senatoreries."--[Districts presided over by a Senator.]--This creation
took place in the beginning of 1803.
CHAPTER XV
1802.
The intoxication of great men--Unlucky zeal--MM. Maret, Champagny,
and Savary--M. de Talleyrand's real services--Postponement of the
execution of orders--Fouché and the Revolution--The Royalist
committee--The charter first planned during the Consulate--Mission
to Coblentz--Influence of the Royalists upon Josephine--The statue
and the pedestal--Madame de Genlis' romance of Madame de la
Valliere--The Legion of Honour and the carnations--Influence of the
Faubourg St. Germain--Inconsiderate step taken by Bonaparte--Louis
XVIII's indignation--Prudent advice of the Abbe Andre--Letter from
Louis XVIII. to Bonaparte--Council held at Neuilly--The letter
delivered--Indifference of Bonaparte, and satisfaction of the
Royalists.
Perhaps one of the happiest ideas that ever were expressed was that of
the Athenian who said, "I appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober." The
drunkenness here alluded to is not of that kind which degrades a man
to the level of a brute, but that intoxication which is occasioned by
success, and which produces in the heads of the ambitious a sort of
cerebral congestion. Ordinary men are not subject to this excitement,
and can scarcely form an idea of it. But it is nevertheless true that
the fumes of glory and ambition occasionally derange the strongest
heads; and Bonaparte, in all the vigour of his genius, was often subject
to aberrations of judgment; for though his imagination never failed him,
his judgment was frequently at fault.
This fact may serve to explain, and perhaps even to excuse the faults
with which the First Consul has been most seriously reproached.
The activity of his mind seldom admitted of an interval between the
conception and the execution of a design; but when he reflected coolly
on the first impulses of his imperious will, his judgment discarded
what was erroneous. Thus the blind obedience, which, like an epidemic
disease, infected almost all who surrounded Bonaparte, was productive of
the most fatal effects. The best way to serve the First Consul was never
to listen to the suggestions of his first ideas, except on the field of
battle, where his conceptions were as happy as they were rapid. Thus,
for example, MM. Maret, de Champagny, and Savary evinced a ready
obedience to Bonaparte's wishes, which often proved very unfortunate,
though doubtless dictated by the best intentions on their part. To
this fatal zeal may be attributed a great portion of the mischief
which Bonaparte committed. When the mischief was done, and past remedy,
Bonaparte deeply regretted it. How often have I heard him say that Maret
was animated by an unlucky zeal! This was the expression he made use of.
M. de Talleyrand was almost the only one among the ministers who did not
flatter Bonaparte, and who really served both the First Consul and the
Emperor. When Bonaparte said to M. de Talleyrand, "Write so and so, and
send it off by a special courier," that minister was never in a hurry to
obey the order, because he knew the character of the First Consul well
enough to distinguish between what his passion dictated and what his
reason would approve: in short, he appealed from Philip drunk to Philip
sober. When it happened that M. de Talleyrand suspended the execution of
an order, Bonaparte never evinced the least displeasure. When, the
day after he had received any hasty and angry order, M. de Talleyrand
presented himself to the First Consul, the latter would say, "Well, did
you send off the courier?"--"No," the minister would reply, "I took care
not to do so before I showed you my letter." Then the First Consul would
usually add, "Upon second thoughts I think it would be best not to send
it." This was the way to deal with Bonaparte. When M. de Talleyrand
postponed sending off despatches, or when I myself have delayed the
execution of an order which I knew had been dictated by anger, and had
emanated neither from his heart nor his understanding, I have heard
him say a hundred times, "It was right, quite right. You understand me:
Talleyrand understands me also. This is the way to serve me: the others
do not leave me time for reflection: they are too precipitate."
Fouché also was one of those who did not on all occasions blindly obey
Bonaparte's commands. His other ministers, on the other hand, when told
to send off a courier the next morning, would have more probably sent
him off the same evening. This was from zeal, but was not the First
Consul right in saying that such zeal was unfortunate?
Of Talleyrand and Fouché, in their connections with the First Consul, it
might be said that the one represented the Constituent Assembly, with
a slight perfume of the old regime, and the other the Convention in all
its brutality. Bonaparte regarded Fouché as a complete personification
of the Revolution. With him, therefore, Fouché's influence was merely
the influence of the Revolution. That great event was one of those which
had made the most forcible impression on Bonaparte's ardent mind, and
he imagined he still beheld it in a visible form as long as Fouché
continued at the head of his police. I am now of opinion that Bonaparte
was in some degree misled as to the value of Fouché's services as
a minister. No doubt the circumstance of Fouché being in office
conciliated those of the Revolutionary party who were his friends. But
Fouché cherished an undue partiality for them, because he knew that
it was through them he held his place. He was like one of the old
Condottieri, who were made friends of lest they should become enemies,
and who owed all their power to the soldiers enrolled under their
banners.
Such was Fouché, and Bonaparte perfectly understood his situation. He
kept the chief in his service until he could find an opportunity of
disbanding his undisciplined followers. But there was one circumstance
which confirmed his reliance on Fouché. He who had voted the death of
the King of France, and had influenced the minds of those who had voted
with him, offered Bonaparte the best guarantee against the attempts of
the Royalists for raising up in favour of the Bourbons the throne which
the First Consul himself had determined to ascend. Thus, for different
reasons, Bonaparte and Fouché had common interests against the House
of Bourbon, and the master's ambition derived encouragement from the
supposed terror of the servant.
The First Consul was aware of the existence in Paris of a Royalist
committee, formed for the purpose of corresponding with Louis XVIII.
This committee consisted of men who must not be confounded with those
wretched intriguers who were of no service to their employers, and were
not unfrequently in the pay of both Bonaparte and the Bourbons. The
Royalist committee, properly so called, was a very different thing. It
consisted of men professing rational principles of liberty, such as the
Marquis de Clermont Gallerande, the Abbe de Montesqieu, M. Becquet,
and M. Royer Collard. This committee had been of long standing; the
respectable individuals whose names I have just quoted acted upon a
system hostile to the despotism of Bonaparte, and favourable to what
they conceived to be the interests of France. Knowing the superior
wisdom of Louis XVIII., and the opinions which he had avowed and
maintained in the Assembly of the Notables, they wished to separate
that Prince from the emigrants, and to point him out to the nation as a
suitable head of a reasonable Constitutional Government. Bonaparte,
whom I have often heard speak on the subject, dreaded nothing so much as
these ideas of liberty, in conjunction with a monarchy. He regarded
them as reveries, called the members of the committee idle dreamers, but
nevertheless feared the triumph of their ideas. He confessed to me that
it was to counteract the possible influence of the Royalist committee
that he showed himself so indulgent to those of the emigrants whose
monarchical prejudices he knew were incompatible with liberal opinions.
By the presence of emigrants who acknowledged nothing short of absolute
power, he thought he might paralyse the influence of the Royalists of
the interior; he therefore granted all such emigrants permission to
return.
About this time I recollect having read a document, which had been
signed, purporting to be a declaration of the principles of Louis XVIII.
It was signed by M. d'Andre, who bore evidence to its authenticity.