Memoirs of Napoleon Bonaparte — Complete
Fouché, through the medium of his agents, had given Pichegru, Georges,
and some other partisans of royalty, to understand that they might
depend on Moreau, who, it was said, was quite prepared. It is certain
that Moreau informed Pichegru that he (Pichegru) had been deceived, and
that he had never been spoken to on the subject. Russillon declared
on the trial that on the 14th of March the Polignacs said to some one,
"Everything is going wrong--they do not understand each other. Moreau
does not keep his word. We have been deceived." M. de Riviera declared
that he soon became convinced they had been deceived, and was about to
return to England when he was arrested. It is certain that the principal
conspirators obtained positive information which confirmed their
suspicions. They learned Moreau's declaration from Pichegru. Many of the
accused declared that they soon discovered they had been deceived; and
the greater part of them were about to quit Paris, when they were all
arrested, almost at one and the same moment. Georges was going into La
Vendée when he was betrayed by the man who, with the connivance of the
police, had escorted him ever since his departure from London, and who
had protected him from any interruption on the part of the police so
long as it was only necessary to know where he was, or what he was
about. Georges had been in Paris seven months before it was considered
that the proper moment had arrived for arresting him.
The almost simultaneous arrest of the conspirators proves clearly that
the police knew perfectly well where they could lay their hands upon
them.
When Pichegru was required to sign his examination he refused. He
said it was unnecessary; that, knowing all the secret machinery of the
police, he suspected that by some chemical process they would erase all
the writing except the signature, and afterwards fill up the paper
with statements which he had never made. His refusal to sign the
interrogatory, he added, would not prevent him from repeating before
a court of justice the truth which he had stated in answer to the
questions proposed to him. Fear was entertained of the disclosures he
might make respecting his connection with Moreau, whose destruction was
sought for, and also with respect to the means employed by the agents of
Fouché to urge the conspirators to effect a change which they desired.
On the evening of the 15th of February I heard of Moreau's arrest, and
early next morning I proceeded straight to the Rue St. Pierre, where M.
Carbonnet resided with his nephew. I was anxious to hear from him the
particulars of the general's arrest. What was my surprise! I had hardly
time to address myself to the porter before he informed me that M.
Carbonnet and his nephew were both arrested. "I advise you, sir," added
the man, "to retire without more ado, for I can assure you that the
persons who visit M. Carbonnet are watched."--"Is he still at home?"
said I. "Yes, Sir; they are examining his papers."--"Then," said I, "I
will go up." M. Carbonnet, of whose friendship I had reason to be proud,
and whose memory will ever be dear to me, was more distressed by
the arrest of his nephew and Moreau than by his own. His nephew was,
however, liberated after a few hours. M. Carbonnet's papers were sealed
up, and he was placed in solitary confinement at St. Pelagic.
Thus the police, who previously knew nothing, were suddenly informed of
all. In spite of the numerous police agents scattered over France, it
was only discovered by the declarations of Bouvet de Lozier that three
successive landings had been effected, and that a fourth was expected,
which, however, did not take place, because General Savary was
despatched by the First Consul with orders to seize the persons whose
arrival was looked for. There cannot be a more convincing proof of
the fidelity of the agents of the police to their old chief, and their
combined determination of trifling with their new one,
CHAPTER XXII.
1804.
The events of 1804--Death of the Duc d'Enghien--Napoleon's arguments
at St. Helena--Comparison of dates--Possibility of my having saved
the Duc d'Enghien's life--Advice given to the Duc d'Enghien--Sir
Charles Stuart--Delay of the Austrian Cabinet--Pichegru and the
mysterious being--M. Massias--The historians of St. Helena--
Bonaparte's threats against the emigrants and M. Cobentzel--
Singular adventure of Davoust's secretary--The quartermaster--
The brigand of La Vendée.
In order to form a just idea of the events which succeeded each other
so rapidly at the commencement of 1804 it is necessary to consider
them both separately and connectedly. It must be borne in mind that all
Bonaparte's machinations tended to one object, the foundation of the
French Empire in his favour; and it is also essential to consider how
the situation of the emigrants, in reference to the First Consul, had
changed since the declaration of war. As long as Bonaparte continued at
peace the cause of the Bourbons had no support in foreign Cabinets, and
the emigrants had no alternative but to yield to circumstances; but on
the breaking out of a new war all was changed. The cause of the Bourbons
became that of the powers at war with France; and as many causes
concurred to unite the emigrants abroad with those who had returned but
half satisfied, there was reason to fear something from their revolt, in
combination with the powers arrayed against Bonaparte.
Such was the state of things with regard to the emigrants when the
leaders and accomplices of Georges' conspiracy were arrested at the very
beginning of 1804. The assassination of the Duc d'Enghien
--[Louis Antoine Henri de Bourbon, Duc d'Enghien (1772-1804), son of
the Duc de Bourbon, and grandson of the Prince de Condé, served
against France in the army of Condé. When this force was disbanded
he stayed at Ettenheim on account of a love affair with the
Princesse Charlotte de Rohan-Rochefort. Arrested in the territory
of Baden, he was taken to Vincennes, and after trial by
court-martial shot in the moat, 21st May 1804. With him
practically ended the house of Bourbon-Condé as his grandfather
died in 1818, leaving only the Duc de Bourbon, and the Princesee
Louise Adelaide, Abbesse de Remiremont, who died in 1824.]--
took place on the 21st of March; on the 30th of April appeared the
proposition of the Tribunate to found a Government in France under
the authority of one individual; on the 18th of May came the
'Senatus-consulte', naming Napoleon Bonaparte EMPEROR, and lastly,
on the 10th. of June, the sentence of condemnation on Georges and
his accomplices. Thus the shedding of the blood of a Bourbon, and the
placing of the crown of France on the head of a soldier of fortune were
two acts interpolated in the sanguinary drama of Georges' conspiracy. It
must be remembered, too, that during the period of these events we were
at war with England, and on the point of seeing Austria and the Colossus
of the north form a coalition against the new Emperor.
I will now state all I know relative to the death of the Duc d'Enghien.
That unfortunate Prince, who was at Ettenheim, in consequence of a love
affair, had no communication whatever with those who were concocting a
plot in the interior. Machiavelli says that when the author of a crime
cannot be discovered we should seek for those to whose advantage it
turns. In the present case Machiavelli's advice will find an easy
application, since the Duke's death could be advantageous only to
Bonaparte, who considered it indispensable to his accession to the crown
of France. The motives may be explained, but can they be justified?
How could it ever be said that the Duc d'Enghien perished as a presumed
accomplice in the conspiracy of Georges?
Moreau was arrested on the 15th of February 1804, at which time the
existence of the conspiracy was known. Pichegru and Georges were also
arrested in February, and the Duc d'Enghien not till the 15th of March.
Now if the Prince had really been concerned in the plot, if even he
had a knowledge of it, would he have remained at Ettenheim for nearly
a month after the arrest of his presumed accomplices, intelligence of
which he might have obtained in the space of three days? Certainly not.
So ignorant was he of that conspiracy that when informed at Ettenheim of
the affair he doubted it, declaring that if it were true his father and
grandfather would have made him acquainted with it. Would so long an
interval have been suffered to elapse before he was arrested? Alas!
cruel experience has shown that that step would have been taken in a few
hours.
The sentence of death against Georges and his accomplices was not
pronounced till the 10th of June 1804, and the Duc d'Enghien was shot
on the 21st of March, before the trials were even commenced. How is this
precipitation to be explained? If, as Napoleon has declared, the young
Bourbon was an accomplice in the crime, why was he not arrested at
the time the others were? Why was he not tried along with them, on the
ground of his being an actual accomplice; or of being compromised, by
communications with them; or, in short, because his answers might have
thrown light on that mysterious affair? How was it that the name of the
illustrious accused was not once mentioned in the course of that awful
trial?
It can scarcely be conceived that Napoleon could say at St. Helena,
"Either they contrived to implicate the unfortunate Prince in their
project, and so pronounced his doom, or, by omitting to inform him of
what was going on, allowed him imprudently to slumber on the brink of
a precipice; for he was only a stone's cast from the frontier when they
were about to strike the great blow in the name and for the interest of
his family."
This reasoning is not merely absurd, it is atrocious. If the Duke was
implicated by the confession of his accomplices, he should have been
arrested and tried along with them. Justice required this. If he was
not so implicated, where is the proof of his guilt? Because some
individuals, without his knowledge, plotted to commit a crime in the
name of his family he was to be shot! Because he was 130 leagues from
the scene of the plot, and had no connection with it, he was to
die! Such arguments cannot fail to inspire horror. It is absolutely
impossible any reasonable person can regard the Duc d'Enghien as
an accomplice of Cadoudal; and Napoleon basely imposed on his
contemporaries and posterity by inventing such falsehoods, and investing
them with the authority of his name.
Had I been then in the First Consul's intimacy I may aver, with as much
confidence as pride, that the blood of the Duc d'Enghien would not have
imprinted an indelible stain on the glory of Bonaparte. In this terrible
matter I could have done what no one but me could even attempt, and
this on account of my position, which no one else has since held with
Bonaparte. I quite admit that he would have preferred others to me, and
that he would have had more friendship for them than for me, supposing
friendship to be compatible with the character of Bonaparte, but I knew
him better than any one else. Besides, among those who surrounded him I
alone could have permitted myself some return to our former familiarity
on account of our intimacy of childhood. Certainly, in a matter which
permanently touched the glory of Bonaparte, I should not have been
restrained by the fear of some transitory fit of anger, and the reader
has seen that I did not dread disgrace. Why should I have dreaded it?
I had neither portfolio, nor office, nor salary, for, as I have said,
I was only with Bonaparte as a friend, and we had, as it were, a common
purse. I feel a conviction that it would have been very possible for