|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 16
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 Due 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 Due 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 Due 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 Due 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 me
to have dissuaded Bonaparte from his fatal design, inasmuch as I
positively know that his object, after the termination of the peace, was
merely to frighten the emigrants, in order to drive them from Ettenheim,
where great numbers, like the Due d'Enghien, had sought refuge. His
anger was particularly directed against a Baroness de Reith and a
Baroness d'Ettengein, who had loudly vituperated him, and distributed
numerous libels on the left bank of the Rhine. At that period Bonaparte
had as little design against the Due d'Enghien's life as against that of
any other emigrant. He was more inclined to frighten than to harm him,
and certainly his first intention was not to arrest the Prince, but,
as I have said, to frighten the 'emigres', and to drive them to a
distance. I must, however, admit that when Bonaparte spoke to Rapp and
Duroc of the emigrants on the other side of the Rhine he expressed
himself with much irritability: so much so, indeed, that M. de
Talleyrand, dreading its effects for the Due d'Enghien, warned that
Prince, through the medium of a lady to whom he was attached, of his
danger, and advised him to proceed to a greater distance from the
frontier. On receiving this notice the Prince resolved to rejoin his
grandfather, which he could not do but by passing through the Austrian
territory. Should any doubt exist as to these facts it may be added that
Sir Charles Stuart wrote to M. de Cobentzel to solicit a passport for the
Duc d'Enghien; and it was solely owing to the delay of the Austrian
Cabinet that time was afforded for the First Consul to order the arrest
of the unfortunate Prince as soon as he had formed the horrible
resolution of shedding the blood of a Bourbon. This resolution could
have originated only with himself, for who would have dared to suggest it
to him? The fact is, Bonaparte knew not what he did. His fever of
ambition amounted to delirium; and he knew not how he was losing himself
in public opinion because he did not know that opinion, to gain which he
would have made every sacrifice.
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|