Imágenes de página

ber for July, 1817, pp. 522—590; we shall only refer to it as far as may be necessary for our examination of Savary's tissue of falsehood. , . ,- . - '•

Iftheoccasion were not so grave, and the subject so melancholy, we should smile at the kind of proof which Savary brings against Talleyrand. The first is an attempt at a syllogism. Talleyrand was Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Prince was to be seized in a foreign state, there/ore it was M. de Talleyrand's province to have managed the affair. This, though not strictly logical, is plausible enough for such a reasoner as M. Savary—but why should he only hint at this? Why, if such were the fact, does he not say so? He could not be ignorant of the truth; for, besides the general confidence which Buonaparte placed in him, Savary was at this time the head of his secret police, and was especially employed in unravelling the thread of that conspiracy which was made the excuse for the Duke's murder. If he could have stated the fact, no doubt he would; and not venturing upon that, he has attempted ' a lie by implication.' But the very next page contradicts that implication; for although the affair might have been within the natural management of the foreign department, it is admitted that the foreign department zvas not entrusted with the execution of one tittle of the transaction. 'A person, of a noble aspect,' says Savary, ' was seen by the spies of the police to visit Georges in his lodgings in Paris, who treated him with great respect.' Buonaparte, Savary, and the Police, (not a word of the foreign office,) guessed that this mysterious visitor could be no other than the Duke d'Enghien. The privy counsellor Real (and not M. de Talleyrand, or any of his subordinates) was employed to conduct the development of this affair. Real, by Buonaparte's order, applied—not to the Foreign Office, but—to the Inspector-General of the gendarmerie, for a confidential officer to send into the territory of Baden, to act as a spy on the prince. This officer proceeds—examines, reports, -—not to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, but—to his own Inspector-General, who reports directly to Buonaparte. On this report, another emissary was sent to seize the duke; and this emissary was to call to his assistance the armed force at Strasburgh. Was this emissary one of the creatures of Talleyrand? No; he , was a colonel of grenadiers, aide-de-camp to the First Consul— in short, Caulaincourt, Duke of Vicenza! But, it will be asked, had not M. de Talleyrand correspondents at Baden ?—was he not charged with the external espionage of the prince ?—was it not the province of the foreign department to report his various proceedings ?—and did not these reports conduce to his seizure?— and is not M. de Talleyrand therefore implicated in it? It would

be be a hard measure to any minister, in any country, to hold lrim responsible for all that others might do on intelligence conveyed through him; but M. Savary, with the blundering candour of a talkative liar, answers himself on this point also. A special spy was sent to Ettenheim, the prince's residence; therefore the ordinary channels did not afford the information required;—the spy too was a soldier, and sent from the gendarmerie, and therefore bad no connection with the foreign department. When the report of this spy reaches Buonaparte, he sends for—Talleyrand? No; —for Real, and asks him, in anger, how it is possible that Tne Police should not know a word about what was going on at Ettenheim? and on this report, which dispelled the previous ignorajice of Buonaparte, as to what passed at Ettenheim, the duke is seized.

This proves two facts; first, that M. de Talleyrand did not make Buonaparte acquainted with what passed at Ettenheim; and secondly, that Buonaparte did not even expect him to do so; for it was of the negligence of the Police, and not of the foreign department, that he complained.

- Such is Savary's own story; and better negative evidence against liis presumption that the minister for foreign affairs was at all engaged in the affair could hardly be adduced. But this is not all.— If the Court of Baden had been the Court of Vienna, Buonaparte might have employed diplomacy to prepare or to excuse this violence :—he had no such deference for the Sovereign of Baden.

-.1 The margrave, through his minister at Paris, complained at the Tuiileries of this aggression. In giving him satisfaction, he was at the same time ordered to send immediately out of his territory the assemblage of emigrants which had appeared on the banks of the Rhine, no matter under what pretence they were there. The Court of Baden obeyed, and nothing more was said of the seizure of the Due d'Enghien.'—Sav. Mem. p. 18.

What Savary may mean by the term ' giving satisfaction' is not easily to be guessed; but we gather from the allusion to the Tuiileries that the complaint was made and the answer given by Buonaparte himself. Be this as it may, it is evident that a court, which was ultimately reduced to accept such humiliating satisfaction, did not require any other diplomacy than that of Colonel Caulaincourt and the gendarmerie of Strasburgh.

The next charge against Talleyrand would be ridiculous, if it were not for the malignity which prompts it.

'The consul called me into his closet at Malmaison,' says M. Savary, ' about five o'clock in the evening, (of the day of the duke's arrival,) and gave me a sealed letter, with directions to carry it to General Murat, the then governor of Paris. 1 set out on horseback. I arrived at Murat's about six o'clock, and as I entered I passed the minister for


foreign affairs, M. de Talleyrand, who was coming away. As I had seen him in the morning at Malmaison, and as I knew Murat was so ill as to be confined to his roonj, I did not give much weight to the reflexion which occurred to me at the moment, that this was not the usual hour of the minister, and I placed this visit to the account of General Murat's indisposition.'—Sav. Mem. p. 2.

This was very natural; but M. Savary soon grows more cunning, and he suspects and insinuates (though he does not venture quite to assert) that this visit was made by Talleyrand to induce Murat to hasten the execution of the Due d'Enghien, who (be it observed) was not yet even put on his trial! Mr. Puff's commentary on Lord Burleigh's portentous shake of his head, is not more absurd than these inductions from a call made at the door of a sick friend. But it is a duty to historical truth to examine the allegation seriously.

It is not even said that Talleyrand was admitted into the den of the sick lien; but even if he had been, it is evident, and indeed admitted by Savary, that the sealed letter, which he himself brought, contained Buonaparte's orders to Murat about the Duke d'Enghien, which orders, Savary (so far as they related to him) afterwards executed. Thus it appears by Savary's own confession, that Talleyrand was not with Buonaparte when he wrote that fatal letter; nor with Murat after he had received it; and these two facts remove from M. de Talleyrand all immediate responsibility as to that infernal letter. And we must further observe, that it is clear that M. de Talleyrand had left Malmaison that morning, many hours before the Due d'Enghien had arrived; and there seems reason to suppose that he did not again see either Buonaparte or Murat till some hours after the murder had been committed. These facts, whatever else may be their value, are more than enough to defeat all the implications which M. Savary has derived from the visit.

The third piece of evidence against Talleyrand, is an exclamation.

It seems (and M. Savary dwells on it as greatly extenuating the subsequent transaction) that the pretence on which the Duke d'Enghien was arrested, namely, his supposed visits to Paris, was utterly unfounded. The police had mistaken Pichegru for the prince!

'M. Real, on learning these particulars, (that Pichegru, and not the Prince, was the mysterious visitor,) was struck with astonishment—he hastened to the first consul to acquaint him with the discovery—Buonaparte became thoughtful, and, after some moments of silence, exclaimed, "Ah, wretched Talleyrand, what have you made me do.1" But it was Too Late; the Duke d'Enghien was dead—victiin of this Mistake!'Sav. Mem. pp. 43, 44.

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

{joint of our inquiry—viz. the charge against M. de Talleyrand— et us for a moment admit that Heal told Savary that Buonaparte had exclaimed to Real, Ah, wretched Talleyrand, what have yon 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, according td 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, and 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 Duke—nor 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 e senza dubbio,' said Buonaparte to O'Meara, 'die 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 Condes 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 sitch 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 proces-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 president 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. -1

Savary's defence of Buonaparte, though spread over manyi 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


« AnteriorContinuar »