In a subsequent part of our examination we shall show, that this story of the mistake of the police, and of Buonaparte's surprise at the discovery, &c. is ALL FALSE; but as regards the first point of our inquiry-viz. the charge against M. de Talleyrand— let us for a moment admit that Real told Savary that Buonaparte had exclaimed to Real, Ah, wretched Talleyrand, what have you made me do! We then ask, what, even according to Savary's insinuation, could this exclamation mean?-nothing more nor less than that the Duke was murdered by a mistake, and that Talleyrand was the author or cause of that mistake.

But we have already seen, and Savary fully admits, that the mistake was originally made by a spy of the police, and subsequently confirmed by an officer of the gendarmerie; and that the mistake of the one was conveyed to Buonaparte by Real, and the error of the other was conveyed (passing over Real) direct to Buonaparte himself by the commanding officer of the gendarmerie: it follows therefore that the pretended mistake was neither made by, nor reported to M. de Talleyrand, who really had, ac'cording to Savary's own statement, no more to do with it than the Archbishop of Paris.

Thus, then, Savary has not only failed to fix any participation in the actual murder upon M. de Talleyrand; but the exposure of his malice and falsehood affords reason for believing, that Talleyrand had even less knowledge of the preliminary steps than "we were prepared to expect.

But this is not all that we have to say in behalf of M. de Talleyrand. Warden, O'Meara, and Las Cases (who refers to and corroborates the two former) represent Buonaparte as alleging not merely a different but a contradictory accusation against M. de Talleyrand's conduct in this affair. After calling him a rogue, a villain, a liar, aud several other opprobrious names, (which proves that neither decency nor truth would prevent his saying all that he thought might injure M. de Talleyrand's character,) he adds, that in the affair of the Duke d'Enghien, M. de Talleyrand's crime was not mistaking Pichegru for the Dukenor hastening the execution—but the suppressing of a letter written by the duke to Buonaparte, supplicating pardon, professing admiration for the first consul, and finally soliciting to be received into his service. Questo è senza dubbio,' said Buonaparte to O'Meara, che il briccone Talleyrand'-"It is beyond all doubt that the villain Talleyrand' kept back this letter till after the duke's execution! and then Buonaparte goes on to say, that if he had received this letter, he probably should have pardoned him!

We for once believe him; if the illustrious heir of all the Condés could have written such a letter, he would have been a fit

subject

subject for Buonaparte's favour. But in the facts themselves there is not a word of truth! In the first place it will be observed that Savary, as he and Caulaincourt had the care and custody of the prisoner from his arrest to his execution, knew they could only be responsible for the conveyance of such a letter; and he therefore makes no charge of this kind against M. de Talleyrand, but insinuates, what he could know nothing about, that M. de Talleyrand interfered with Buonaparte and Murat to hasten the murder; while, on the other hand, Buonaparte alleges no such interference, but charges him with the suppression of a letter which never could have reached M. de Talleyrand's hands! The charges are therefore widely different: we have seen that Savary's accusation is false, and we shall now show that Buonaparte's is equally

so.

There was not only no such letter ever written, but there was no letter to Buonaparte at all. If there had been such, can it be doubted that he would have produced it? and amidst all the trash which he dictated to his scribes, would he not have given so important and exculpatory a document?

M. Maquart proves satisfactorily, by an abundance of moral evidence, the non-existence of such a letter; but M. Dupin proves it by incontrovertible documents-by the diary of the prince's imprisonment by the procès-verbaux of the whole transaction, and by the official list of one letter (addressed to the Princesse de Rohan) and some small effects found on his person, which list, with the letter and effects, were transmitted by Hulin, the presi dent of the court-martial, to Real.

Thus, by the fortunate recovery of the papers connected with the trial, (which M. Savary in his pamphlet asserted, and no doubt believed, to be lost,) the memory of the duke is cleared from the imputation of writing such a letter; the character of M de Talleyrand rescued from the charge of having suppressed it; and the falsehood and calumnies of Buonaparte and his tools exposed and defeated by the most triumphant refutation.

2. We now approach the second object of M. Savary-the exculpation of Buonaparte which we promise our readers will be found more false and futile even than the attempt at inculpating M. de Talleyrand.

Savary's defence of Buonaparte, though spread over many pages, is narrowed to a single point of fact:-the mistake of the police as to the person who visited Georges.

Savary admits, almost in terms, that the supposed journies of the Duke d'Enghien to Paris were the only possible justification of the seizure. He admits, further, that there were no such

'journies

'journies that it was found to be a deplorable mistake: but it was TOO LATE the Duke was no more."

Now unfortunately alike for Savary's character for veracity and his master's for humanity, this pretence (weak and inefficient even if it were true) can be proved to be utterly false. Savary says, that the person mistaken for the Duke d'Enghien turned out eventually to be Pichegru; but M. Maquart shows (p. 12.) from the voluminous documents of the trial of Georges, &c. that the spies they who reported the visits of the pretended unknown had, on the 12th February, (a month before the seizure of the Duke,) de- " posed that the visitor was Pichegru Again; the same fact is proved on the 21st February, twenty-three days before the seizure, and again, on the 19th March, nine days before the 1 Prince was murdered. It was therefore not too late to saveir the Prince; for the mistake, if it ever for a moment existed, (which we doubt, because no two men could be more unlike...b than the Duke and Pichegru,) the mistake, we say, if it ever existed, was cleared away ut least a month before the seizure."19! That violence, therefore, has not even the paltry and insufficient excuse which M. Savary has falsely alleged for it.

But thougly Savary thus rests the whole case on the mistake, Buonaparte himself took the more plausible, but quite different ground of the duke's having endeavoured to procure his assassis 79 nation; which, if it were true, would, it must be owned, be the best apology for his conduct; but we can show, beyond all doubt, that this pretence is as false as the other broïd s 19went, eidt Buonaparte's repeated attempts at a justification are to The found in the

2

Buoncations of Warden, O'Meara and Las Cases.o

23

They all, like Savary, endeavoury by the introduction of M. de bus Talleyrand's name, to implicate him in the affair, as if implicating him would clear Buonapartes but they do not, as we have already seen, agree as to the mode in which Talleyrand was supposed to have conduced to the object; and, what is more important to our present point, they differ essentially in their statements of Buonaparte's excuses. Warden (who wrote under the dictation of Las Cases) states that Buonaparte told him,idguti su sát nổ 'that it was Talleyrand's principle, and one from which he never deviated, that the new dynasty could not be secure while the Bourbons remained. This was a fixed unchangeable article of his political creed; but I (Buonaparte) did not become a ready or willing convert. examined the opinion with care and caution, and the result was a perfect conviction of its necessity.Warden's Letters, p. 149.

TITE

Now here is no mention of journeys to Paris-no assassination plot-no interviews with Georges-no mistake-no ambiguity;

but

1

but a clear statement that, on the most careful examination, he Buonaparte himself—had arrived at the conviction that in order to establish his dynasty he must exterminate the Bourbons. We do not deny that such may have been Buonaparte's own conviction; but we must doubt that M. de Talleyrand could have ven. tured to suggest this argument, because it would have been tantamount to declaring that the new dynasty never could be esta blished; for there was no more chance of exterminating the Bourbons than there was of exterminating any other royal house of Europe and besides, beginning the work by the Duke d'Enghien did not much advance the security of, the usurper, for this prince was the most remote from the crown of all the House of Bourbon. But moreover, if the necessity of externa minating the Bourbons were a fixed unchangeable article of his political creed, how are we to account for M. de Talleyrand's conduct in the affair of Spain, when he was dismissed and disgraced because he remonstrated against Buonaparte's treachery and vios lence to the Spanish princes of the House of Bourbon, every one of whom was nearer to the crown of France than the Duke d'Enghien? JI Tot bagelle vibelst en 267? að dɔidw senɔ79 Warden's defence of Buonaparte was so completely refuted ni this Review, that his prompter, Las Cases, had recourse to the expedient of what he ingenuously called an Answer to Warden, in which he endeavoured to patch up the inconsistencies and tom colour lour over the falsehoods which we had detected in Warden. In this Answer a broader ground of defence is taken, and 5

66

cause the Coated

q

to

The affair the AFFAIR!) of the Duc d'Enghien," says Napoleon, "ought to be judged by the law of nature and policyBy the law of o nature," he maintains that he was not only authorised to cause himo to be tried, but even to procure his being put to death, 9 What," said he, U can be alleged in favour of the princes of a house, who were PUBLICE YOSES CONVICTED of being the contrivers of the infernal machine, and who hadosz actually disgorged sixty brigands upon Paris, for the purpose of causing of me to assassinated? by the laws of nature, authorised t London? By the law of policy, the whole republic tottered upon the brink of a a precipice, and the Duc d'Enghien was one of the chiefs who conspired its falt, and 10 besides, it was necessary to check the audacity of the Bourbons, whodr› had sent to Paris sixty of their adherents, amongst whom were the Ri vières, the Polignacs, Bouvets and others; people of no ordinary stam and not brigands or murderers accustomed to assassinations and robbe-Ja ries like the Chouans. The republican government could not, consistent with its dignity, do less, when the assassination of its chief was publicly plotted than cause its thunder to strike, the family which dared to en gage in such attempt." pp. 144, 145....

וות

Here

to

.. Here then we have Buonaparte in 1816-not alleging any jour nies to Paris-not deploring any mistake-not even pretending that he had been deceived--not humanely ejaculating against the wretched Talleyrand-not even alleging that the Duke was personally engaged in the assassination plot; but like a gay boldfaced villain'-justifying not only the individual murder, but taking merit for not having assassinated the whole family.

If the Count d'Artois had been publicly convicted of what Buonaparte charges, it would have been no excuse for murdering the Duke d'Enghien, against whom no personal share in the assassination plot is even alleged; but what will our readers say when they are reminded that at the trial of Georges and his associates, which was the only event to which Buonaparte could refer as a public conviction, no such fact was proved against any of the French princes! and that, moreover, this public conviction did not take place till two months after the murder of the Duke d'En1 ghien!

In Las Cases' late publication; however, (after a good deal of shuffling Buonaparte is made to rest his defence upon the Prince's actual and personal participation in the pretended plot for assassinating him.. bei nu galopu tun 2!! wl Tests b

* If I had not had in my favour the laws of the country to punish the culprit," he would say to them, I should still have had the right of the law of nature, of legitimate self-defence. The Duke and his party had constantly but one object in view, that of taking away my life I was assailed on all sides, and at every instant; air guns, infernal machines, plots, ambuscades of every kind, were resorted to for that pur pose. At last I grew weary, and took an opportunity of striking them with terror in their turn in London: 'I succeeded, and from that moment there was an end to all conspiracies! Who can blame me for having acted so ?. What blows threatening my existence are aimed ať

fifty

ine day after day, from a distance of one hundred a leagues;

shall not

no power on earth, no tribunal can afford me redress be allowed to use the right of nature, and return war for war! What man, unbiassed by party feeling, possessing the smallest share of judg ment and justice, can take upon himself to condemn me? on what side will be not throw blame, odium, and 'criminal accusations? Blood for blood; 'such is the natural, inevitable, and infallible law of retaliation: woe to him who provokes it!” ~

We must here pause a moment to observe on the repeated references which Buonaparte makes to the law of nature. Such a mode of defence is sufficiently surprising, but it is not quite original; the massacres of September, 1792, had been already defended on the same ground. We find in a laboured apology for these atrocities, (published by Robert Lendet, a jacobin deputy,) the fol