Imágenes de página

< joimu^s^ttorit'Wds^fon'tid to' be a deplorable mistake: but it 'was Too iATEi-Jthe)'Duke Was no more.'

Now unfortunately alike for Shvary'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. Sa!vaty says1, that the person mistaken for the Duke d'Enghien turned out evert1-'tually to be PichegpWj bttt'lti1. M^tiart shyws'trjr. 12.) from the voluminous documenM^fthte'tkral'6f Ge^rgefe/&«!'thatthe spies•'' who reported the'visi** ef'^'pretended urikdMvn had,'briL tliif 12th February; (a'W0rttb'*4'/&>'e'1*te'yeisfure;Of! the Duke,)"de-"posed that the visitor1'wa^ P&hiSgrH.'' -Agam; the same'fat:? hV' proved on the 2ist Febrttary, 'twtenty-three days before5'trie" seizure, and agamy'bit" •&# ISth' March; nine days before the Prince was murdered, tt Was therefore" rtoif 'ttio"'Aite 'to saVy,m the Prince; for the-'mlstakti, 'if it fcvtar for a'lirMrteVit'exis^d^'" (which we doubt, because no two men ■co^Td Wttibre' «rtHk,d,,,' than the Duke and Pichegru,) the mistake, we say,"iP it ever' existed/ was cleared away at least a month before1' trie Seizure0."''' That v5oleticfe,'t*iererbre, has not even the paltry ddd^in'sufflrfert't u excuse which M. Savary has falsely alleged for it.

But though Savary thus rests the whole* dase*'#rt'trie mistake'. Buonaparte himself took the more plausible, but ^ttiie 7drfr'eltJiij,riJ

ground' of %ijI dukfe'B'ba«n^ ei(dtavtWt«a Jttt1pTbfcUre/brs> a'&jafe y-°.

'- ni



Buonapa<te^?rep§atcdja^t^mp^rja^)a(!Jjis^i[6«Btiap-\art|i- toTbe» found in thenpubliaftSMM^si'Of: ,Wjaude», O'Mearai andi^d Gasest" They ali^iHkeojSBvamyyiBndeaiwtwji by mie)iiatr'6cktwtio'nii0fyM^dev''1( Talleyrand's riafoie, to>impM<2HtpJhwn, kv the affair,' a&if ittfptt(tilht& -'[ him would dear Bu&uapwtfei 'bttPtheytib not; as'^Hajteafready"0' seefl^afrr/e4»«i^m6aB4fiiyhit,KiTill6yrand;^as suppbM'' to Ka'v^corid^

ouf'preterit' pointj tne| differ'es'sentially in their/ state^r^, gf^'. Buonaparte's excuses. Warden (who wrote; imd^r, j^,diptatiQ9;, of l^as^Cases) states that Buonaparte told him, .,..*■_■.. \ . TM(\ >iu \„ 'thafiit wasdFalleymnd'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. I examined the opinion with care and caution, and the result was a perfect conviction of its necessity.'-^Warden's Letters, p. 14£). '■ ■

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



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 ventured to suggest this argument, because it would have been tantamount to declaring that the new dynasty never could be established; for there was no,juore chance of exterminating the Bourbons than there was of exterminating any other royal house of Europe; andj, besiie&,; beginning *h^;wosk by the Duke d'Enghien did not much advance the security of the usurper, for this prince was the most; reHiote.jftftw [the. crown of all the House of Bourbon. But] mcpjeoiVer^ i^iilhe; necessity of exterminating the Bourbons were ajixed unchangeable article of his politicalcreed)b.Qyv are we to account far's conduct in the affair of Spain, when he was dismissed and disgraced because he remonstrated against Buonaparte's treachery and violence to the Spanish princes of the House of Bourbon, every one of whom, yyasi nearefljtp ,the, crown of France than the l>uke d'Enghien? ,", .,ol j,,o.,lli; vlvlul -:;M ^t,iv> At. chuhi iRin/'>

WwU^'s dafe^ was so ootnjdefcelylrefMifediiilii thi^Rpji^epjv^,^^ hjsj pflq^pfcffy.Las Cases, had recWsei t^nthe, expejjjent.ojffW^ajt-^e,^ngejmftuslycalled an i Answer, to Warden,'i in wjf}c^Jie|e)a^^avpurejiI,fO)ipaJ|cj) up the inconsistencies and to colour jo.ver.jjje fjaUjeboogis w.bJcUwe had detected in Warden »>ji la this Answer a bVoader.,gjpund of defence is takep> .; aid) JuiU ,jdn.. >

« WThtJ qfitirHtiii-JtttklHiyd^it^Dac d'Enghien," says Hapoleon, "ougbu* b»Ju%al 4>y;6h«,law.ot'iftatuVe and policy." "By'lheNfoz^ef natujt<,"',]St: maintains "that he wat no* only authorised to trtuW'hhn to tattfifskjw^ ^ytM* tqgHMMAhi* hfliwg^jn&ilei dfftrtb»■> Wbat.Tsaid /h«vi I "ca)}lf)ie.|ay«^2ed|iM ,(ayour of the pj-joqu^f a.^<M»^nWU,*V'«tiS>)VUBi<ifibYv ■ coNiyi^TE^p/ being the coiitrivjei^m^b* iRJernftl/aafihjo^anid aflift^adv,. actually disgorged sixty brigands ii^pn.^arjs^|pr3fKe^upD^,cau4fiJjg!( , me to be assassinated? Was upt.l, by the %ms of^aatufe^^autp^rise.^.ta cause the Count d'Artois to be assassinated in!London?' By,flip Iaw'pi , policy, the^'whole republic tottered upon the biiilK1'rfr a precipice, and the Due d'Enghien was one of the chiefs Who conspired'Wfafti Ifttf besides, it was necessary to check the audacity of the Baudot!*, tfrBttf'1 had sent to Paris sixty of their adherents, amongst whom were the Rivieres, the Polignacs, Bouvets and others; people of no ordinary staittWf i; and not brigands or murderers accustomed to assassinations and robberies like the Chouans. The republican government could not, consistent ■with its dignity, do less, when the assassination of its chief was publicly plotted—than causers thunder to strike the family which dared Xhaiivgage in such attempt.".'—'pp,^, 145. . -., .,., ..« - K.'



. Here thea we have Buonaparte in 18 Hi—not alleging any joiiruies 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. . . . ,m«i

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 j 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'Ett* gSPiP"^ ■'■* '■ ■-.-••• .i. Jjm' « »-• ■«>•■«: -.iwr-i» vM

In Las Cases' late publication, however, (after a good deal Of shuffling^;, Buonaparte is.made to nejst Jiis< defence upon the Prince's actual and personal participation in the pretended plot for assassinating'him. ... .: ».'• >u- J^iiujk. <mi>. •«/< u\ ln»i) b«&

« " If I had not had in my favour the laws of the countiy'to-punisH fte c\ilprrt," he would say to them, " I should still have had the right of the law ofnature, of legitimate self-defence. The Duke and his party had constantly but one object in view, that of taking away my life:'' < was assailed on all sides, and at every instant; air guns, iufernal ins' chines, plots, ambuscades of every kind, were resorted to for that purpose. At last I grew weary, and took an opportunity of'slrikfrfg' ttfeth with terror in their'turrr in London: I succeeded, ahd Vrom"thrft,ttStt'ment there was art etikl to all conspiracies. Who ca'rY'tflatffe'' rtW'fof having acted So? What* blows threatening My existeWfc* dre tfftted'iat me day after day, front'Hi disranre-ef one hundred- and1 f?ft/M£li6S; no power on earth, no'fribffnal'c*n 'afford me-redress | 'and T'smM not be allowed to use the rigkt'Of'n&tOrre, and return war;fir w'aH- "Whrft man, unbiassed by party feeling, possessing the smallest &idi<€ 6f jndfe-ment and justice, can take upon himself lo'condemri nte"? jdn what side will he not throw blame, odium, ami eriminat accusatiohs'?"'Blood for bloddj'sueh is the natural, inevitable, and infallible law of retaliation: woe tdhim who provokes it 9** ►••**•*•• <■»' •'■ ■•■ ■ ■»-«* —i :*4**i

'", We must here pause a moment to observe on the repeatet} re* ferejtces which Buonaparte makes to the law of nature. Such a mode of defence is sufficiently surprising, but it is not.q.ui^.flkifi;-ginal; 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, ajacobin deputy,) the fol


lowing Cases, an absolute certainty; but that both the probability and the certainty were conditional on a supposed event which never existed.


All this tissue of absurd falsehood, however, is at once destroyed by a paragraph of General Hulin's pamphlet.

'I am bound to say that the prisoner presented himself before us "(Hvlin was president ofthis mock court) with a noble assurance; he repelled ■with great force the charge of having conspired directly or indirectly in any plot for assassinating the first consul-^-but he owned that he had borne arms against France, insisting, with a degree of courage and pride, . {which even for his own sake we could not repress,) that he had maintained the rights of his family; that H Conde never could enter France, but with his arms in his hand. "My birth, my feelings, my opinions," he added, " render me the eternal enemy of your government."'

Will any of Buonaparte's bribed apologists dare after this to accuse the Duke d'Enghien of having asked to serve under the usurper?

We now proceed to examine the mockery, wliicli '(i'6 avoid circumlocution) we will call the trial. '*

M. Dupin, a very eminent French lawyer, known to this country as the defender of Sir Robert Wilson, and'in Frahceas'a man of liberal and constitutional principles, whose opinion therefore will not be liable to the imputation, as it is'by sbrrie.rJers'ons considered, of ultra-loyalty, M. Dupin, we say, proves by legal'au-thorities, what was already clear to common sen^e, that' even if the charge was as true as it was false, a court-martial was not the tribunal to try it—that a packed court-martial was not a fit tribunal to try any thing—that a trial in the middle of the night was as illegal as it was atrocious; that the immediate execution was contrary not only to the general law, but even to the military code under which the court sat; and that, in one word, the whole proceeding was a foul conspiracy, and the result a black assassination. This M. Dupin shows, even if the charge had been proved; but he shows, not from reasoning, but from the production of the actual documents, that there was not only not a tittle of evidence to support the charges, but that what was produced as evidence actually contradicted them.

The indignation which the following details, extracted from the proceedings of the court, must excite, will prevent their appearing tedious.

The first document is the order for the trial—the bill, as it were, of indictment—and a most curious and important paper it 'is.


« AnteriorContinuar »