'Paris, the 29th Ventose, the 12th 'The Government of the Republic decrees as follows:'Art. I. The ci-devant Duc d'Enghien, accused of having borne arms against the republic;-of having been, and still being, in the pay of England; of participating in plots carried on by the latter power against the internal and external safety of the republic; shall be tried before a military commission, to be composed of seven members named by the General (Murat), Governor of Paris, and which shall assemble at Vincennes. Art. II. The Grand Judge, the Minister of War, and the General, Governor of Paris, are charged with the execution of this decree. (Signed) A true copy. BUONAPARTE. MURAT, Governor of Paris.' The first observation on this precious document, which must strike every reader, is, that in this, the solemn, formal and official statement, by Buonaparte himself, of the supposed crimes of the Duke d'Enghien-there is not even an insinuation of his having participated in any assassination plot! On that point, therefore, the negative evidence of this indictment is conclusive. This order was signed on the 20th March, and probably did not reach Murat till long after Buonaparte's sealed letter, sent the same day, by Savary; for the next document, namely, the proces-verbal of the Rapporteur, or Judge-Advocate of the courtmartial, begins in this manner: In the 12th year of the French Republic, this day, 29th Ventôse, (20th March,) at twelve o'clock at night, I, major of the gendarmerie d'elite, by order of the general commanding the corps (Savary), attended at the residence of General Murat, governor of Paris, who immediately, gave me orders to proceed to General Hulin, whom I should find at the castle of Vincennes, from whom I was to take and receive ulterior orders.'-Pièces Hist. p. xi. Here we discover a circumstance of atrocious precipitation, which even M. Dupin has overlooked; he thinks it was at midnight, that the Judge-Advocate entered on his functions at Vincennes; but it is clear, that it was at midnight that he waited on Murat in Paris, to receive his first orders. Murat's house in Paris was in the Place Vendôme, at least six miles from Vincennes. The sentence was passed at two in the morning, (as is stated in the body of the instrument itself,) so that the judge-advocate received Murat's instructions-travelled from the Place Vendôme to Vincennes-there received, General Hulin's orders-had to look for evidence and prepare the ne cessary papers-examined the prisoner-summoned and constituted the court-held the trial-made out several drafts of a long sentence; and had the whole passed, signed, and perfected, within two hours! But Buonaparte says, this was a fair trial, and Buonaparte' is an honourable man!” The judge-advocate proceeds in his procès-verbal to state that Having arrived at Vincennes, General Hulin communicated to me, 1. A copy of the decree of the government of the same day, ordering that the ci-devant Duke d'Enghien should be tried by a military commission, composed of seven members to be named by General Murat ; and 2d, the order of General Murat of the same date, directing that General Hulin and six other officers, colonels and commandants of regiments, should constitute the court, and further that I (the writer of the report) should act as rapporteur (judge-advocate); and further, that the court should assemble forthwith, in the castle of Vincennes, there, without delay or separation (sans désemparer), to judge the accused on the charges stated in the said decree of the government.—Pièces Hist. P. xii. Here we must pause a moment-let us consider the state in which this judge-advocate found himself. At midnight he is. summoned to attend Murat in Paris-thence he is ordered to proceed to attend General Hulin at Vincennes-there he finds, at about one o'clock in the morning, that he is to be the conductor of this most extraordinary and stupendous trial, and all the evidence put into his hand is, the indictment and an order to proceed to judgment forthwith, without separation or delay. Not one other iota of evidence was furnished to him-what then was to be done? We think no reader can anticipate what is about to follow. The duke had not been out of a travelling carriage for three days and nights; worn out with wonder, anxiety, and fatigue, the victim had fallen asleep. Between one and two o'clock in the morning, the judge-advocate with two officers and two private gendarmes, suddenly entered his room, awakened him, and began immediately to interrogate him; in hopes of getting from his own mouth, in the confusion and fatigue in which he naturally must have been, some colour of evidence against him. We firmly believe that a scene of such romantic atrocity was never before acted. Now comes the interrogatory. Asked him his name, christian name, age, and birth-place? ' Answered, That he was Louis Antoine Henri de Bourbon, Duc d'Enghien, born the 2d of August, 1772, at Chantilly. Asked, When he had quitted France ? Answered, "I cannot exactly tell, but I believe it was about the 16th! 16th of July, 1789;" added, that he went with the Prince de Condé, his grandfather, his father, the Count d'Artois, and his children. 'Asked, Where he has resided since he left France? Answered, "On leaving France I went with my parents, whom I always accompanied, to Mons and Bruxelles; thence we went to Turin, where the King of Sardinia received us for about sixteen months;" that thence, still with his parents, he had gone to Worms and its neighbourhood on the Rhine; there the corps of Condé was formed, and I served in the whole war. I had before made the campaign of 1792, in Brabant, with the corps de Bourbon, a part of the Archduke Albert's army.' ' Asked, Whether he had retired since the peace between France and the Emperor? (of Germany.) Answered, "We ended the last campaign near Gratz, where the corps of Condé, which was in English pay, was disbanded;" that he afterwards remained for his amusement in the neighbourhood of Gratz for six or seven months, waiting directions from his grandfather, the Prince of Condé, who had gone into England, and was to let him know what allowance that power would make him, it being not yet settled. During this interval I asked the Cardinal de Rohan's consent to reside in his territory at Ettenheim, in the Brisgaw, part of the late archbishopric of Strasbourg; that for the last two years and a half he had resided at Ettenheim; that, on the cardinal archbishop's death, he had officially requested the Elector of Baden's consent for a continuation of his residence at Ettenheim, which was granted; for he would not have thought it proper to reside there without the Elector's consent. Asked, If he has not been in England, and if this power does not still make him an allowance? Answered, That he never was in England; but that England does still make him an allowance, and that he has nothing else to live upon! 'Desires to add to the above answers, that the reasons which induced him to reside at Ettenheim having ceased, he was about to change his residence to Friburg, in the Brisgaw, a much more agreeable town than Ettenheim, in which latter he would not have stayed so long, but that the Elector had given him extensive permission to shoot, of which amusement he was very fond. 'Asked, If he maintained any correspondence with the French princes in England, and if he had lately seen them? Answered, That he naturally kept up a correspondence with his grandfather since they had parted, on the reduction of the corps, and with his father, whom he had not seen since 1794 or 1795, Asked, What rank he held in the army of Condé? Answered, "Commanding the advanced guard." Before the campaign of 1796, he served as a volunteer on his grandfather's staff; but ever since 1796 he was always at the advanced guard-observing, that after the army of Condé was taken into the service of Russia, it was divided into two regiments, one of infantry and one of cavalry; of the latter the emperor made him colonel, and it was in this capacity that he returned to the army on the Rhine. 'Asked, If he knew General Pichegru, and if he had any intercourse or correspondence with him? in Answered, I never saw him to my knowledge; I never had any tercourse or correspondence with him; I know that he wished to see me; but I am happy at not having known him, if what they say be true, of the vile means he intended to employ. Asked, If he knows the ex-general Dumouriez, and if he has had any relation with him? Answered, No more than with the others—I never saw him. Asked, If since the peace he had not kept up correspondences in the interior of the republic? Answered, "I have written to some private friends who had served with me, and who were still attached to me, about their and my own private concerns:" but these correspondences were not of the nature which he supposes are alluded to.'-Pièces Hist. pp. xiii. xvii. Such was the evidence; next we have the verdict and sentence. The voices being collected on each of the under-written questions, beginning with the junior and ending with the president, the court declares Louis Antoine de Bourbon, Duc d' Enghien, 1. Unanimously, guilty of having borne arms against the French republic. 2. Unanimously, guilty of having offered his services to the English government, the enemy of the French people. 3. Unanimously, guilty of having received and accredited, agents of the said English government, of having procured them means of intelligence in France, and of having conspired with them against the external and internal safety of the republic. 4. Unanimously, guilty of having placed himself at the head of a large collection of French emigrants and others, formed on the frontiers of France, in the countries of Fribourg and Baden, paid by England. 5. Unanimously, guilty of having had communications with the town of Strasbourg, tending to excite insurrection in the neighbouring departments, for the purpose of a diversion in favour of England. 6. Unanimously, guilty of being one of the favourers and accontplices of the conspiracy carried on by the English against the life of the First Consul, and intending, in the event of the success of such conspiracy, to enter France. 'Thereupon the president put the question as to the punishment to be inflicted, and the voices being collected as before, the special courtmartial unanimously condemns Louis Antoine de Bourbon, Duc d'Enghien, to death, for the crimes of " espionage--correspondence with the enemies of the republic-and attempts against the external and internal safety of the republic."' Our readers have now before them, the charge, the evidence, the verdict, and the sentence:-they must be astonished to seethat there was not only no evidence on oath, but there was no evidence at all; there was not even a witness-there was no exami nation, nation, except of the prisoner himself; and that examination contradicted almost every particle of the charge; but Buonaparte says he had a fair trial, and Buonaparte is an honourable man!' The reader has observed the abhorrence which the Prince expresses on the vile means (viz. the assassination) imputed to Pichegru; he has also seen, that the Prince distinctly states, that he had no correspondence with France, except on private affairs, and that above all, he had none of the kind, (viz. treasonable,) which was alluded to; and finally, that he received an allowance from England, because he had nothing else to live upon. Yet, upon this interrogatory, produced in writing to the court, and there acknowledged and repeated by him, and upon this interrogatory alone the Duke was unanimously found guilty of 'having' (amongst other matters) 'received the agents of England, procured them the means of treasonable correspondence with the interior of France, and conspired with them against the internal and external safety of the state;' there not being a syllable of the evidence which has the most remote relation to such a charge. He is unanimously further found guilty of having placed himself at the head of an assemblage, formed of emigrants and others, in English pay, on the French frontiers-there not being a tittle of the evidence which has the most remote relation to such a charge. He is further unanimously found guilty of having held com, munications within the town of Strasburgh, tending to create insurrections in the neighbouring departments, for the purpose of operating a diversion favourable to England-the word Strasburgh never having been before uttered in the proceedings, and there not being a tittle of the evidence which has the most remote relation to such a charge. He is further unanimously found guilty of having been an accomplice in the plots carried on by the English for the assassination of the chief consul, there not being a syllable about any such a plot in the whole proceedings; and the only allusion to any attempt on the life of the first consul being an imputation on Pichegru, a Frenchman, and which was reprobated with indignation by the prisoner. But Buonaparte says he had a fair trial, and Buonaparte is an honourable man!' But the most monstrous follows: It is a form of the French law of court-martials, that every sentence of death shall, besides the finding on the several charges, (some of which may not be capital,) express the exact fact for which death is to be inflicted, and the precise article of the laws under which it is pronounced. Let us see how this difficulty was managed. The prisoner having withdrawn, the court being cleared, and deli PP 4 berating |