_Position of the French and Austrian Armies after the Battle of
Eckmühl--Napoleon crosses the Danube--Great Conflict at Asperne,
when victory was claimed by both parties--Battle of Wagram fought
6th July--Armistice concluded at Znaim--Close of the Career of
Schill and the Duke of Brunswick Oels--Defence of the Tyrol--Its
final unfortunate result--Growing resistance throughout
Germany--Its effects on Buonaparte--He publishes a singular
Manifesto in the Moniteur._
[Sidenote: PASSAGE OF THE DANUBE.]
We left Napoleon concentrating his army near Vienna, and disposing it so
as to preserve his communications with France, though distant and
precarious. He occupied the city of Vienna, and the right bank of the
Danube. The Archduke Charles now approached the left bank of the same
river, which, swollen by the spring rains, and the melting of snow on
the mountains, divided the two hostile armies as if by an impassable
barrier. In the year 1805, when Napoleon first obtained possession of
Vienna, the bridges over the Danube were preserved, which had enabled
him to press his march upon Koutousoff and the Russians. This time he
had not been so fortunate. No bridge had been left unbroken on the
Danube, whether above or below Vienna, by which he might push his forces
across the river, and end the war by again defeating the Austrian
archduke. At the same time, the hours lost in indecision were all
unfavourable to the French Emperor. Charles expected to be joined by his
brothers, and, being in his own country, could subsist with ease; while
Napoleon, in that of an enemy, could expect no recruits, and might have
difficulty in obtaining supplies. Besides, so long as an Austrian army
was in the field, the hopes of Germany remained unextinguished. The
policy, therefore, of Buonaparte determined him to pursue the most
vigorous measures, by constructing a bridge over the Danube, and
crossing it at the head of his army, with the purpose of giving battle
to the archduke on the left bank.
The place originally selected for this bold enterprise was at Nussdorf,
about half a league above Vienna, where the principal stream passes in a
full but narrow channel under the right bank, which is there so high as
to command the opposite verge of the river, and affords, therefore, the
means of protecting the passage. But above five hundred men having been
pushed across, with the view of re-establishing the old bridge which had
existed at Nussdorf in 1805, were attacked and cut off by the Austrians,
and this point of passage was in consequence abandoned.
Napoleon then turned his thoughts to establishing his intended bridge at
the village of Ebersdorf, on the right bank, opposite to which the
channel of the Danube is divided into five branches, finding their
course amongst islands, one of which, called the island of Lobau, is
extremely large. Two of these branches are very broad. The islands are
irregular in their shape, and have an alluvial character. They exhibit a
broken and diversified surface, partly covered with woods, partly
marshy, and at times overflowed with water. Here Napoleon at length
determined to establish his bridge, and he collected for that purpose as
many boats and small craft as he could muster, and such other materials
as he could obtain. The diligence of the engineer officer, Aubry, was
distinguished on this occasion.
The French were obliged to use fishers' caissons filled with bullets,
instead of anchors, and to make many other substitutions for the
accomplishment of their objects. They laboured without interruption; for
the Austrians, though they made various demonstrations upon Krems and
Linz, as if they themselves meant to cross the Danube above Vienna, yet
did nothing to disturb Napoleon's preparation for a passage at
Ebersdorf, although troops might have been easily thrown into the island
of Lobau, to dispute the occupation, or to interrupt the workmen. It is
impossible to suppose the Archduke Charles ignorant of the character of
the ground in the neighbourhood of his brother's capital; we must
therefore conjecture, that the Austrian general had determined to let
Buonaparte accomplish his purpose of passing the river, in order to have
the advantage of attacking him when only a part of his army had crossed,
and of compelling him to fight with the Danube in his rear, which, in
case of disaster, could only be repassed by a succession of frail and
ill-constructed bridges, exposed to a thousand accidents. It is doing
the archduke no discredit to suppose he acted on such a resolution, for
we shall presently see he actually gained the advantages we have pointed
out, and which, could they have been prosecuted to the uttermost, would
have involved the ruin of Buonaparte and his army.
The materials having been brought together from every quarter, Napoleon,
on the 19th May, visited the isle of Lobau, and directed that the
completion of the bridge should be pressed with all possible despatch.
So well were his orders obeyed, that, on the next day, the troops were
able to commence their passage, although the bridge was still far from
being complete. They were received by skirmishers on the left bank; but
as these fell back without any obstinacy of resistance, it became still
more obvious that the archduke did not mean to dispute the passage, more
especially as he had not availed himself of the important means of doing
so which the locality presented.[495]
At the point where the extremity of the last bridge of the chain (for
there were five in number, corresponding to the five streams,) touched
the left bank of the Danube, the French troops, as they passed over,
entered upon a little plain, extending between the two villages of
Asperne and Essling. Asperne lies farthest to the left, a thousand
toises distant from the bridge; Essling is at the other extremity of the
plain, about one thousand five hundred toises from the same point. The
villages, being built of mason-work, with gardens, terraces, and
court-yards, formed each a little fortified place, of which the
churchyard of Asperne, and a large granary at Essling, might be termed
the citadels. A high-road, bordered by a deep ditch, extended between
these two strong posts, which it connected as a curtain connects two
bastions. This position, if occupied, might indeed be turned on either
flank, but the character of the ground would render the operation
difficult.
Still farther to the right lay another village, called Enzersdorf. It is
a thousand toises from Asperne to Essling, and somewhat less from
Essling to Enzersdorf. Before these villages rose an almost
imperceptible ascent, which extended to two hamlets called Raschdorf and
Breitenlee, and on the left lay the wooded heights of Bisamberg,
bounding the landscape in that direction. Having passed over near thirty
thousand infantry, with about six thousand horse, Napoleon directed a
redoubt to be constructed to cover the extremity of the bridge on the
left side. Meantime, his troops occupied the two villages of Asperne and
Essling, and the line which connected them.
The reports brought in during the night were contradictory, nor could
the signs visible on the horizon induce the generals to agree concerning
the numbers and probable plans of the Austrians. On the distant heights
of Bisamberg many lights were seen, which induced Lannes and others to
conceive the enemy to be there concentrated. But much nearer the French,
and in their front, the horizon also exhibited a pale streak of about a
league in length, the reflected light of numerous watch-fires, which the
situation of the ground prevented being themselves seen.
From these indications, while Lannes was of opinion they had before them
only a strong rear-guard, Massena, with more judgment, maintained they
were in presence of the whole Austrian army. Napoleon was on horseback
by break of day on the 21st, to decide by his own observation; but all
the ground in front was so thickly masked and covered by the Austrian
light cavalry, as to render it vain to attempt to reconnoitre. On a
sudden, this living veil of skirmishers was withdrawn, and the Austrians
were seen advancing with their whole force, divided into five columns of
attack, headed by their best generals, their numbers more than double
those of the French, and possessing two hundred and twenty pieces of
artillery. The combat commenced by a furious attack on the village of
Asperne, which seemed only taken that it might be retaken, only retaken
that it might be again lost. The carnage was dreadful; the obstinacy of
the Austrians in attacking, could not, however, overcome that of the
French in their defence. Essling was also assaulted by the Austrians,
though not with the same pertinacity; yet many brave men fell in its
attack and defence.
The battle began about four afternoon; and when the evening approached,
nothing decisive had been done. The Archduke brought his reserves, and
poured them in successive bodies upon the disputed village of Asperne.
Every garden, terrace, and farm-yard, was a scene of the most obstinate
struggle. Waggons, carts, harrows, ploughs, were employed to construct
barricades. As the different parties succeeded on different points,
those who were victorious in front were often attacked in the rear by
such of the other party as had prevailed in the next street. At the
close of the day, Massena remained partially master of the place, on
fire as it was with bombs, and choked with the slain. The Austrians,
however, had gained possession of the church and churchyard, and claimed
the superiority on the left accordingly.
[Sidenote: BATTLE OF ESSLING.]
Essling was the object, during the last part of this bloody day, of
three general attacks; against all which the French made decisive head.
At one time, Lannes, who defended the post, was so hard pressed, that he
must have given way, had not Napoleon relieved him and obtained him
breathing time, by a well-timed though audacious charge of cavalry.
Night separated the combatants.
The French could not in any sense be said to have been beaten; but it
was an unusual thing for them, fighting under Napoleon's eye, to be less
than completely victorious. The Austrians could as little be called
victors; but even the circumstance of possessing themselves of the most
important part of Asperne, showed that the advantage had been with,
rather than against them; and both armies were affected with the results
of the day, rather as they appeared when compared with those of their
late encounters, than as considered in their own proper character. The
feeling of the Austrians was exultation; that of the French not
certainly discouragement, but unpleasant surprise.
On the 22d, the work of carnage recommenced. Both armies had received
reinforcements during the night--Napoleon from the left bank, the
Archduke from reserves in his rear. The French had at first the
advantage--they recovered the church of Asperne, and made a number of
Austrians prisoners in the village. But the attacks on it were presently
renewed with the same fury as on the preceding day. Napoleon here formed
a resolution worthy of his military fame. He observed that the enemy,
while pressing on the village of Asperne, which was the left-hand point
of support of the French position, kept back, or, in military language,
refused the right and centre of his line, which he was therefore led to
suppose were weakened for the purpose of supporting the assault upon
Asperne. He determined, for this reason, to advance the whole French
right and centre, to assail the Austrian position on this enfeebled
point. This movement was executed in echellon, advancing from the French
right. Heavy masses of infantry, with a numerous artillery, now advanced
with fury. The Austrian line was forced back, and in some danger of
being broken. Regiments and brigades began to be separated from each
other, and there was a danger that the whole centre might be cut off
from the right wing. The Archduke Charles hastened to the spot, and in
this critical moment discharged at once the duty of a general and of a
common soldier. He brought up reserves, replaced the gaps which had been
made in his line by the fury of the French, and seizing a standard,
himself led the grenadiers to the charge.
At this interesting point, the national accounts of the action differ
considerably. The French despatches assert, that, notwithstanding the
personal gallantry of their general, the Austrians were upon the point
of a total defeat. Those of the Archduke, on the contrary, affirm that
the resistance of the Austrians was completely successful, and that the
French were driven back on all points.[496] All agree, that just at this
crisis of the combat, the bridge which Buonaparte had established over
the Danube was swept away by the flood.
This opportune incident is said, by the Austrian accounts, to have been
occasioned by fire-ships sent down the river. The French have denied the
existence of the fire-ships, and, always unwilling to allow much effect
to the result of their adversaries' exertions, ascribe the destruction
of the floating bridge to the trunks of trees and vessels borne down by
a sudden swell of the Danube.[497] General Pelet,[498] indeed admits,
with some reluctance, that timber frames of one or more windmills,
filled with burning combustibles, descended the river. But whether the
Austrians had executed the very natural plan of launching such
fire-works and driftwood on the stream, or whether, as the ancient
heathen might have said, the aged and haughty river shook from his
shoulders by his own exertions the yoke which the strangers had imposed
on him, the bridge was certainly broken, and Buonaparte's army was
extremely endangered.[499]
He saw himself compelled to retire, if he meant to secure, or rather to
restore, his communication with the right bank of the Danube. The French
movement in retreat was the signal for the Austrians' advance. They
recovered Asperne; and had not the French fought with the most
extraordinary conduct and valour, they must have sustained the greatest
loss. General Lannes, whose behaviour had been the subject of admiration
during the whole day, was mortally wounded by a ball, which shattered
both his legs. Massena sustained himself in this crisis with much
readiness and presence of mind; and the preservation of the army was
chiefly attributed to him. It is said, but perhaps falsely, that
Napoleon himself showed on this occasion less alertness and readiness
than was his custom.
[Sidenote: DEATH OF LANNES.]
At length, the retreat of the French was protected by the cannon of
Essling, which was again and again furiously assaulted by the Austrians.
Had they succeeded on this second point, the French army could hardly
have escaped, for it was Essling alone which protected their retreat.
Fortunately for Buonaparte, that end of the bridge which connected the
great isle of Lobau with the left bank on which they were fighting still
remained uninjured, and was protected by fortifications. By this means
he was enabled to draw back his shattered army during the night into the
great island, evacuating the whole position which he had held on the
right bank. The loss of both armies was dreadful, and computed to exceed
twenty thousand men on each side, killed and wounded. General St.
Hilaire, one of the best French generals, was killed in the field, and
Lannes, mortally wounded, was brought back into the island. He was much
lamented by Buonaparte, who considered him as his own work. "I found
him," he said, "a mere swordsman, I brought him up to the highest point
of talent. I found him a dwarf, I raised him up into a giant." The
death of this general, called the Roland of the army, had something in
it inexpressibly shocking. With both his legs shot to pieces, he refused
to die, and insisted that the surgeons should be hanged who were unable
to cure a mareschal and Duke de Montebello. While he thus clung to life,
he called upon the Emperor, with the instinctive hope that Napoleon at
least could defer the dreadful hour, and repeated his name to the last,
with the wild interest with which an Indian prays to the object of his
superstition.[500] Buonaparte showed much and creditable emotion at
beholding his faithful follower in such a condition.[501]
The news of this terrible action flew far and wide, and was represented
by the Austrians as a glorious and complete victory. It might have well
proved so, if both the villages of Asperne and Essling could have been
carried. As it was, it cannot properly be termed more than a repulse, by
which the French Emperor's attempt to advance had been defeated, and he
himself driven back into an island, and cut off by an inundation from
the opposite bank, on which his supplies were stationed; and so far,
certainly, placed in a very precarious condition.
The hopes and wishes of all Europe were opposed to the domination of
Buonaparte; and Hope, it is well known, can build fair fabrics on
slighter foundations than this severe check afforded. It had been
repeatedly prophesied, that Napoleon's fortune would some time or other
fail in one of those hardy measures, and that by penetrating into the
depth of his enemy's country, in order to strike a blow at his capital,
he might engage himself beyond his means of recovery, and thus become
the victim of his own rashness. But the time was not yet arrived which
fate had assigned for the fulfilment of this prophecy. More activity on
the part of the Austrian prince, and a less vigorous development of
resources and energy on that of Napoleon, might have produced a
different result; but, unhappily, the former proved less capable of
improving his advantage, than the latter of remedying his disasters.
[Sidenote: THE DANUBE.]
On the morning of the 23d, the day after the bloody battle of Asperne,
Buonaparte, with his wounded, and the remnant of his forces, was cooped
up in the marshy island of Lobau, and another nearer to the left bank,
called Enzersdorf, from the village of that name. This last island,
which served as an outwork to the larger, is separated from the left
bank, which was occupied by the Austrians, only by a small channel of
twenty toises in breadth. The destruction of the bridges had altogether
divided Buonaparte from the right bank, and from his rear, under
Davoust, which still remained there.[502] The nature of the ground, on
the left side of the Danube, opposite to the isle of Enzersdorf,
admitted cannon being placed to command the passage, and it is said that
General Hiller ardently pressed the plan of passing the stream by open
force at that point, and attacking successively the islands of
Enzersdorf and Lobau, and offered to answer with his head for its
success. The extreme loss sustained by the Austrian army on the two
preceding days, appears to have been the cause that this proposal was
rejected. It has been also judged possible for Prince Charles to have
passed the Danube, either at Presburg or higher up, and thus placed
himself on the right bank, for the purpose of attacking and destroying
the reserves which Buonaparte had left at Ebersdorf under Davoust, and
from which he was separated by the inundation. Yet neither did the
Archduke adopt this plan, but, resuming the defensive, from which he had
only departed for a few hours, and concluding that Napoleon would, on
his part, adopt the same plan which he had formerly pursued, the
Austrian engineers were chiefly engaged in fortifying the ground between
Asperne and Essling, while the army quietly awaited till it should suit
Napoleon to renew his attempt to cross the Danube.
With unexampled activity, Buonaparte had assembled materials, and
accomplished the re-establishment of his communications with the right
bank, by the morning of the second day after the battle. Thus was all
chance destroyed of the Austrians making any farther profit of the
interruption of his communications. With equal speed, incessant labour
converted the isle of Lobau into an immense camp, protected by battering
cannon, and secured either from surprise or storm from the Austrian side
of the river; so that Hiller's plan became equally impracticable. The
smaller islands were fortified in the like manner; and, on the first of
July, Buonaparte pitched his headquarters[503] in the isle of Lobau,
the name of which was changed to Napoleon Island, as in an immense
citadel, from which he had provided the means of sallying at pleasure
upon the enemy. Boats, small craft, and means to construct, on a better
plan than formerly, three floating bridges, were prepared and put in
order in an incredibly short space of time.[504] The former bridge,
repaired so strongly as to have little to fear from the fury of the
Danube, again connected the islands occupied by the French with the
left-hand bank of that river; and so imperfect were the Austrian means
of observation, though the campaign was fought within their own country,
whose fate depended upon its issue, that they appear to have been
ignorant of the possibility of Napoleon's using any other means of
passage than this identical original bridge, which debouched betwixt
Asperne and Essling; and they lost their time in erecting fortifications
under that false impression. Yet certainly a very little inquiry might
have discovered that the French Emperor was constructing three bridges,
instead of trusting to one.
For several weeks afterwards, each army was receiving reinforcements.
The Austrian and Hungarian nobles exerted themselves to bring to the
field their vassals and tenantry; while Buonaparte, through every part
of Germany which was subject to his direct or indirect influence, levied
additional forces, for enabling him to destroy the last hope of their
country's independence.
More powerful and numerous auxiliary armies also approached the scene of
action from the north-eastern frontier of Italy, from which the Archduke
John, as we have already mentioned, was retiring, in order, by throwing
his army into Hungary, to have an opportunity of co-operating with his
brother, the Archduke Charles. He came, but not unpursued or unmolested.
Prince Eugene Beauharnois, at the head of the army which was intended to
sustain the Archduke John's attack in Italy, joined to such forces as
the French had in Dalmatia, followed the march of the Austrians, brought
them to action repeatedly, gained advantages over them, and finally
arrived on the frontiers of Hungary as soon as they did. Here the town
of Raab ought to have made some protracted defence, in order to enable
the Archduke John to co-operate with his younger brother Regnier,
another of this warlike family, who was organising the Hungarian
insurrection. But the same fatality which influenced every thing else in
this campaign, occasioned the fall of Raab in eight days, after the
Austrian prince had been worsted in a fight under its walls.[505] The
Italian army of Eugene now formed its junction with the French; and the
Archduke John, crossing the Danube at Presburg, advanced eastward, for
the purpose of joining the Archduke Charles. But it was not the purpose
of Napoleon to permit this union of forces.
On the 5th of July, at ten o'clock at night, the French began to cross
from the islands in the Danube to the left-hand bank.[506] Gun-boats,
prepared for the purpose, silenced some of the Austrian batteries;
others were avoided, by passing the river out of reach of their fire,
which the French were enabled to do by the new and additional bridges
they had secretly prepared.
[Sidenote: BATTLE OF WAGRAM.]
At daylight on the next morning, the Archduke had the unpleasing
surprise to find the whole French army on the left bank of the Danube,
after having turned all the fortifications which he had formed for the
purpose of opposing their passage, and which were thus rendered totally
useless. The villages of Essling and Enzersdorf had been carried, and
the French line of battle was formed upon the extremity of the
Archduke's left wing, menacing him, of course, both in flank and rear.
The Archduke Charles endeavoured to remedy the consequences of this
surprise by outflanking the French right, while the French made a push
to break the centre of the Austrian line, the key of which position was
the village of Wagram. Wagram was taken and retaken, and only one house
remained, which was occupied by the Archduke Charles, when night closed
the battle, which had been bloody and indecisive. Courier after courier
were despatched to the Archduke John, to hasten his advance.
On the next day, being the 6th July, was fought the dreadful battle of
Wagram, in which, it is said, that the Archduke Charles committed the
great military error of extending his lines, and weakening his centre.
His enemy was too alert not to turn such an error to profit. Lauriston,
with a hundred pieces of cannon, and Macdonald,[507] at the head of a
chosen division, charged the Austrians in the centre, and broke through
it. Napoleon himself showed all his courage and talents, and was ever in
the hottest of the action, though the appearance of his retinue drew on
him showers of grape, by which he was repeatedly endangered.[508]
At length the Austrian army seems to have fallen into disorder; the left
wing, in particular, conducted itself ill; cries of alarm were heard,
and the example of precipitate flight was set by those who should have
been the last to follow it, when given by others. The French took twenty
thousand prisoners; and so complete was the discomfiture, that though
the Archduke John came up with a part of his army before the affair was
quite over, so little chance was there of redeeming the day, that he was
glad to retire from the field unnoticed by the enemy.[509]
All hope of farther resistance was now abandoned by the Austrian princes
and government; and they concluded an armistice with Buonaparte at
Znaim, by which they agreed to evacuate the Tyrol, and put the citadels
of Brunn and Gratz into the hands of Napoleon, as pledges for their
sincerity in desiring a peace.[510]
With this armistice sunk all the hopes of the gallant Tyrolese, and of
the German insurgents, who had sought by force of arms to recover the
independence of their country. But the appearance of these patriots on
the stage, though productive of no immediate result of importance, is
worthy of particular notice as indicative of a recovery of national
spirit, and of an awakening from that cold and passive slavery of mind,
which makes men as patient under a change of masters, as the dull animal
who follows with indifference any person who has the end of his halter
in his hand. We, therefore, referring to what we have said of the
revival of public feeling in Germany, have briefly to notice the
termination of the expeditions of Schill and the Duke of Brunswick,
together with the insurrection of the Tyrolese.
The career of the gallant Schill had long since closed. After traversing
many parts of Germany, he had failed in augmenting his little force of
about 5000 men, against whom Jerome Buonaparte had assembled a large
army from all points. In his marches and skirmishes, Schill displayed
great readiness, courage, and talent; but so great were the odds against
him, that men looked on, wondered, and praised his courage, without
daring to espouse his cause. Closely pursued, and often nearly
surrounded, by bodies of Dutch, of Westphalians, and of Danes, Schill
was at length obliged to throw himself into some defensive position,
where he might wait the assistance of Great Britain, either to prosecute
his adventure, or to effect his escape from the Continent. The town of
Stralsund presented facilities for this purpose, and, suddenly appearing
before it on the 25th of May, he took possession of the place; repaired,
as well as he could, its ruined fortifications, and there resolved to
make a stand.
But the French saw the necessity of treading out this spark, which might
so easily have excited a conflagration. A large force of Dutch and
Danish troops advanced to Stralsund on the 31st May, and in their turn
forced their way into the place. Schill, with his brave companions, drew
up in the market-place, and made a most desperate defence, which might
even have been a successful one, had not Schill himself fallen, relieved
by death from the yoke of the oppressor. The King of Prussia had from
the beginning disavowed Schill's enterprise; and when the capture of
Vienna rendered the Austrian cause more hopeless, he issued a
proclamation against him and his followers, as outlaws. Availing
themselves of this disavowal and denunciation, the victorious French and
their vassals proceeded to inflict on the officers of Schill the doom
due to unauthorised robbers and pirates--a doom which, since the days of
Wallace and Llewellyn, has been frequently inflicted by oppressors on
those by whom their tyranny has been resisted.
[Sidenote: THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK OELS.]
Schill's career was nearly ended ere that of the Duke of Brunswick
began. Had it been possible for them to have formed a junction, the
result of either enterprise might have been more fortunate. The young
duke, while he entered into alliance with Austria, and engaged to put
himself at the head of a small flying army, declined to take rank in the
Imperial service, or appear in the capacity of one of their generals. He
assumed the more dignified character of a son, bent to revenge his
father's death; of a Prince of the Empire, determined to recover by the
sword the inheritance of which he had been forcibly deprived by the
invasion of strangers. Neither his talents nor his actions were unequal
to the part which he assumed. He defeated the Saxons repeatedly, and
showed much gallantry and activity. But either from the character of the
Austrian general, Am Endé, who should have co-operated with the duke, or
from some secret jealousy of an ally who aspired to personal
independence, the assistance which the duke should have received from
the Austrians was always given tardily, and sometimes altogether
withheld at the moment of utmost need.[511]
Nevertheless, the Duke of Brunswick occupied temporarily, Dresden,
Leipsic, Lindenau--compelled the intrusive King of Westphalia to
retreat, and at the date of the armistice of Znaim, was master of a
considerable part of Franconia. There, of course, terminated the
princely adventurer's career of success, as he was, in consequence of
the terms of that convention, entirely abandoned by the Austrian armies.
Being then at Schleitz, a town in Upper Saxony, the Duke of Brunswick,
instead of listening to the timid counsellors who advised him to
capitulate with some one of the generals commanding the numerous enemies
that surrounded him, resolved to cut his way through them, or die in the
attempt, rather than tamely lay down the arms he had assumed for the
purpose of avenging his father's death and the oppression of his
country.
Deserted by many of his officers, the brave prince persevered in his
purpose, dispersed some bodies of cavalry that lay in his way, and
marched upon Halberstadt, which he found in possession of some
Westphalian infantry, who had halted there for the purpose of forming a
junction with the French general Reubel. Determined to attack this body
before they could accomplish their purpose, the duke stormed the gates
of the place, routed the Westphalians, and made prisoners upwards of
sixteen hundred men; while the citizens welcomed him with shouts of
"Long live the Duke of Brunswick!--Success to the sable Yagers!"
From Halberstadt he proceeded to Wolfenbuttel, and thence to Brunswick,
the capital of his father's states, and of his own patrimony. The
hopeless state in which they saw their young duke arrive, did not
prevent the citizens from offering their respect and their services,
though certain that in doing so they were incurring the heavy hatred of
those, who would be again in possession of the government within a very
short period.
The duke left his hereditary dominions the next day, amid the regrets of
the inhabitants, openly testified by gestures, good wishes, and tears;
and forcing his way to the shores of the Baltic, through many dangers,
had at length the good fortune to embark his Black Legion for Britain,
undishonoured by submission to the despot who had destroyed his father's
house. His life, rescued probably from the scaffold, was reserved to be
laid down in paving the way for that great victory, in which the arms of
Germany and of Brunswick were fully avenged.[512]
[Sidenote: RISING IN THE TYROL.]
The defence of the Tyrol, which fills a passage in history as heroic as
that which records the exploits of William Tell, was also virtually
decided by the armistice of Znaim. Not that this gallant people
abandoned their cause, because the Austrians, in whose behalf they had
taken arms, had withdrawn their forces, and yielded them up to their
fate. In the month of July, an army of 40,000 French and Bavarians
attacked the Tyrol from the German side; while from Italy, General
Rusca, with 18,000 men, entered from Clagenfurth, on the eastern side of
the Tyrolese Alps. Undismayed by this double and formidable invasion,
they assailed the invaders as they penetrated into their fastnesses,
defeated and destroyed them. The fate of a division of 10,000 men
belonging to the French and Bavarian army, which entered the Upper
Innthal, or Valley of the Inn, will explain in part the means by which
these victories were obtained.
The invading troops advanced in a long column up a road bordered on the
one side by the river Inn, there a deep and rapid torrent, where cliffs
of immense height overhang both road and river. The vanguard was
permitted to advance unopposed as far as Prutz, the object of their
expedition. The rest of the army were therefore induced to trust
themselves still deeper in this tremendous pass, where the precipices,
becoming more and more narrow as they advanced, seemed about to close
above their heads. No sound but of the screaming of the eagles,
disturbed from their eyries, and the roar of the river, reached the ears
of the soldier, and on the precipices, partly enveloped in a lazy mist,
no human forms showed themselves. At length the voice of a man was heard
calling across the ravine, "Shall we begin?"--"No," was returned in an
authoritative tone of voice, by one who, like the first speaker, seemed
the inhabitant of some upper region. The Bavarian detachment halted, and
sent to the general for orders; when presently was heard the terrible
signal, "In the name of the Holy Trinity, cut all loose!" Huge rocks,
and trunks of trees, long prepared and laid in heaps for the purpose,
began now to descend rapidly in every direction, while the deadly fire
of the Tyrolese, who never throw away a shot, opened from every bush,
crag, or corner of rock, which could afford the shooter cover. As this
dreadful attack was made on the whole line at once, two-thirds of the
enemy were instantly destroyed; while the Tyrolese, rushing from their
shelter, with swords, spears, axes, scythes, clubs, and all other rustic
instruments which could be converted into weapons, beat down and routed
the shattered remainder. As the vanguard, which had reached Prutz, was
obliged to surrender, very few of the ten thousand invaders are computed
to have extricated themselves from the fatal pass.
But not all the courage of the Tyrolese, not all the strength of their
country, could possibly enable them to defend themselves, when the peace
with Austria had permitted Buonaparte to engage his whole immense means
for the acquisition of these mountains. Austria too--Austria herself, in
whose cause they had incurred all the dangers of war--instead of
securing their indemnity by some stipulations in the treaty, sent them a
cold exhortation to lay down their arms. Resistance, therefore, was
abandoned as fruitless; Hofer, chief commander of the Tyrolese, resigned
his command, and the Bavarians regained the possession of a country
which they could never have won back by their own efforts. Hofer, and
about thirty chiefs of these valiant defenders of their country, were
put to death, in poor revenge for the loss their bravery had occasioned.
But their fame, as their immortal spirit, was beyond the power of the
judge alike and executioner; and the place where their blood was shed,
becomes sacred to the thoughts of freedom, as the precincts of a temple
to those of religion.[513]
[Sidenote: REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS.]
Buonaparte was particularly aware of the danger around him from that
display of national spirit, which, commencing in Spain, exhibited itself
in the undertakings of Schill and the Duke of Brunswick, and blazed
forth in the defence of the Tyrol. He well knew the character of these
insurrections to be awful indications, that in future wars he would not
only have the enmity of the governments to encounter, but the hatred of
the people; not merely the efforts of the mercenary soldier, whose power
may be great, yet can always be calculated, but the resistance of the
population at large, which cannot be made subject to any exact means of
computation, and which amid disorder, and even flight, often finds a
road to safety and to revenge.
It was Napoleon's policy, of course, to place in an odious and false
point of view, every call which the sovereigns of Europe made on the
people of that continent, exciting them to rise in their own defence,
and stop the French plan of extended and universal dominion. Every
summons of this kind he affected to regard with horror, as including
Jacobinical and anti-social principles, and tending to bring back all
the worst horrors of the French Revolution. There is a very curious
paper in the _Moniteur_, upon the promises of liberty and exhortations
to national union and national vengeance, which were circulated at this
period in Germany. These were compared with the cries of Liberty and
Equality, with which the French Republicans, in the early days of the
Revolution, sapped the defences and seduced the feelings of the nations
whom they afterwards attacked, having made their democratic doctrines
the principal means to pave the way for the success of their arms. The
_Moniteur_, therefore, treats such attempts to bring the people forward
in the national defence, as similar to the use of poisoned weapons, or
other resources inconsistent with the laws of civilized war. General
Pelet,[514] also, the natural admirer of the sovereign whose victories
he had shared, has the same sacred horror at invoking the assistance of
a nation at large to defend its independence. He inveighs vehemently
against the inexpedience and the impolicy, nay, the ingratitude, of
lawful princes employing revolutionary movements against Napoleon, by
whom the French Revolution, with all the evils which its duration boded
to existing monarchies, had been finally ended. He asks, what would have
been the state of the world had Napoleon in his turn inflamed the
popular feelings, and excited the common people, by democratical
reasoning, against the existing governments? a sort of reprisals which
he is stated to have held in conscientious horror. And the cause of
civilisation and good order is invoked, as endangered by a summons to a
population to arm themselves against foreign invasion. These
observations, which are echoes of expressions used by Napoleon himself,
belong closely to our subject, and require some examination.
In the first place, we totally deny that an invitation to the Spanish,
the Tyrolese, or the Germans, or any other people, whom a victorious
enemy has placed under a foreign yoke, has any thing whatever in common
with the democratic doctrines which instigated the lower classes, during
the French Revolution, to plunder the rich, banish the distinguished,
and murder the loyal and virtuous.
Next, we must point out the extreme inconsistency betwixt the praise
assigned to Napoleon as the destroyer of revolutionary practices, the
friend and supporter of tottering thrones, and that which is at the same
time claimed for him by himself and his advocates, as the actual Messias
of the principles of the said Revolution, whose name was to be
distinguished by posterity, as being connected with it.[515] Where could
be the sense, or propriety, or consistency, of such a rant as the
following, in the mouth of one, who, provoked by the example of the
allies to appeal to revolutionary principles, yet considered them as too
criminal and too dangerous to be actually resorted to in
retaliation?--"The great principles of our Revolution, these great and
beautiful truths, must abide for ever; so much have we interwoven them
with glory, with monuments, with prodigies. Issued from the bosom of the
French tribune; decorated with the laurels of victory; greeted with the
acclamations of the people, &c. &c. &c., they must ever govern. They
will be the faith, the religion, the morality, of all nations in the
universe. And that memorable era, whatever can be said to the contrary,
will ally itself with me; for it was I who held aloft the torch, and
consecrated the principles of that epoch, and whom persecution now
renders its victim." Surely these pretensions, which are the expressions
of Napoleon himself, are not to be reconciled with his alleged regard to
the preservation of the ancient governments of Europe, and the
forbearance for which he claims credit, in having refused to employ
against these tottering thrones the great lever of the Revolution.
But the truth is, that no such forbearance existed; for Buonaparte, like
more scrupulous conquerors, failed not to make an advantage to himself
of whatever civil dissensions existed in the nations with whom he was at
war, and was uniformly ready to support or excite insurrections in his
enemy's country. His communications with the disaffected in Ireland, and
in Poland, are sufficiently public; his intrigues in Spain had their
basis in exciting the people against their feudal lords and royal
family; and, to go no farther than this very war, during which it was
pretended he had abstained from all revolutionary practices against the
Austrians, he published the following address to the people of
Hungary:--"Hungarians, the moment is come to revive your independence. I
offer you peace, the integrity of your territory, the inviolability of
your constitutions, whether of such as are in actual existence, or of
those which the spirit of the time may require. I ask nothing from you;
I only desire to see your nation free and independent. Your union with
Austria has made your misfortune; your blood has flowed for her in
distant regions; and your dearest interests have always been sacrificed
to those of the Austrian hereditary estates. You form the finest part of
the empire of Austria, yet you are treated as a province. You have
national manners, a national language, you boast an ancient and
illustrious origin. Reassume then your existence as a nation. Have a
king of your own choice, who will reside amongst you, and reign for you
alone. Unite yourselves in a national Diet in the fields of Racos, after
the manner of your ancestors, and make me acquainted with your
determination."
After reading this exhortation, it will surely not be believed, that he
by whom it was made felt any scruple at exciting to insurrection the
subjects of an established government. If the precise language of
republican France be not made use of, it must be considered, first, that
no one would have believed him, had he, the destroyer of the French
republic, professed, in distinct terms, his purpose to erect
commonwealths elsewhere; secondly, that the republican language might
have excited recollections in his own army, and among his own forces,
which it would have been highly imprudent to have recalled to their
mind.
The praise so gratuitously assumed for his having refused to appeal to
the governed against the governors, is, therefore, in the first place,
founded on an inaccurate statement of the facts; and, next, so far as it
is real, Napoleon's forbearance has no claim to be imputed to a respect
for the rights of government, or a regard for the established order of
society, any more than the noble spirit of patriotism and desire of
national independence, which distinguished Schill, Hofer, and their
followers, ought to be confounded with the anti-social doctrines of
those stern demagogues, whose object was rapine, and their sufficing
argument the guillotine.
FOOTNOTES:
[495] Tenth Bulletin of the French Army; Savary, tom. ii., part ii., p.
78; Jomini, tom. iii., p. 188-196.
[496] "Asperne was ten times taken, lost, and again conquered. Essling,
after repeated attacks, could not be maintained. At eleven at night the
villages were in flames, and we remained masters of the field of battle.
The most complete victory crowned our army."--_Austrian Official
Bulletin._--See _Supplement to the London Gazette, 11th July_.
[497] Tenth Bulletin of the French Army; Jomini, tom. iii., pp. 303,
214; Savary, tom. ii., part ii., p. 82; Rapp, p. 123.
[498] Mémoires sur la Guerre de 1809.
[499] "The enemy had a complete view of our body in its whole extent;
and contriving to fill with stones the largest boats they could find,
they sent them down the current. This contrivance proved but too
successful."--SAVARY, tom. ii., part ii., p. 85.
[500] "He twined himself round me with all he had left of life; he would
hear of no one but me, he thought but of me, it was a kind of
instinct."--NAPOLEON, _Las Cases_, tom. ii., p. 353. On the 31st May,
Napoleon wrote to Josephine--"La perte Duc de Montebello, qui est mort
ce matin, m'a fort affligé. _Ainsi tout finit!!_ Si tu peux contribuer à
consoler la pauvre Maréchale, fais-le."--_Lettres à Joséphine_, tom.
ii., p. 67.
[501] "The Emperor perceived a litter coming from the field of battle,
with Marshal Lannes stretched upon it. He ordered him to be carried to a
retired spot, where they might be alone and uninterrupted: with his face
bathed in tears, he approached and embraced his dying friend."--SAVARY,
tom. ii., part i., p. 87.
[502] "The two arms of the Danube which traversed the island, and had
hitherto been found dry, or at least fordable, had become dangerous
torrents, requiring hanging bridges to be thrown over them. The Emperor
crossed them in a skiff, having Berthier and myself in his company. When
arrived on the bank of the Danube, the Emperor sat down under a tree,
and, being joined by Massena, he formed a small council, in order to
collect the opinion of those about him as to what had best be done under
existing circumstances. Let the reader picture to himself the Emperor
sitting between Massena and Berthier on the bank of the Danube, with the
bridge in front, of which there scarcely remained any vestige, Davoust's
corps on the other side of the broad river, and, behind, in the island
of Lobau itself, the whole army separated from the enemy by a mere arm
of the Danube, thirty or forty toises broad, and deprived of all means
of extricating himself from this position, and he will admit that the
lofty and powerful mind of the Emperor could alone be proof against
discouragement."--SAVARY, tom. ii., part ii., p. 88.
[503] "Malevolence has delighted in representing the Emperor as of a
mistrustful character; and yet on this occasion, where ill-intentioned
men might have made any attempt upon his person, his only guard at
headquarters was the Portuguese legion, which watched as carefully over
him as the veterans of the army of Italy could have done."--SAVARY, tom.
ii., part ii., p. 91.
[504] "General Bertrand, the Emperor's aide-de-camp, was the officer who
executed this splendid work. He was one of the best engineer officers
that France could boast of since the days of Vauban. The exhaustless
arsenal of Vienna had supplied us with a profusion of timber, and also
with cordage, iron, and with forty engines to drive the piles
in."--SAVARY, tom. ii., part ii., p. 93.
[505] Nineteenth Bulletin of the French army; Jomini, tom. iii., p. 248;
Savary, tom. ii., part ii., p. 105.
[506] "The island of Lobau was a second valley of Jehosophat; men who
had been six years asunder met here on the banks of the Danube for the
first time since that long separation; 150,000 infantry, 750 pieces of
cannon, and 300 squadrons of cavalry, constituted the Emperor's
army."--SAVARY, tom. ii., part ii., p. 109.
[507] "On the day after the battle, Napoleon, on passing by Macdonald,
held out his hand to him, saying, 'Shake hands, Macdonald--no more
enmity between us--we must henceforth be friends; and, as a pledge of my
sincerity, I will send you your marshal's staff, which you so gloriously
earned in yesterday's battle.'"--SAVARY, tom. ii., part ii., p. 128.
[508] "Out of seventy-two hours of the 4th, 5th, and 6th July, the
Emperor was at least sixty hours on horseback. In the height of the
danger, he rode in front of the line upon a horse as white as snow (it
was called the Euphrates, and had been sent to him as a present from the
Sophi of Persia.) He proceeded from one extremity of the line to the
other, and returned at a slow pace: it will easily be believed, that
shots were flying about him in every direction. I kept behind, with my
eyes riveted upon him, expecting at every moment to see him drop from
his horse."--SAVARY, tom. ii., part ii., p. 120.
[509] Twenty-fifth Bulletin; Jomini, tom. iii., p. 267; Savary, tom.
ii., part ii., p. 117.
[510] Twenty-seventh Bulletin.
[511] Le Royaume de Westphalie, par un Témoin Oculaire, p. 66; Mémoires
de Rapp, p. 123.
[512] Le Royaume de Westphalie, par un Témoin Oculaire; Jomini, tom.
iii., p. 287.
[513] Geschichte Andreas Hofer, Leipsic, 1817; Jomini, tom. iii., p.
290; Savary, tom. ii., part ii., p. 143.
[514] Mémoires sur la Guerre de 1809.
[515] "Sir Walter confounds the object of the Revolution with its
horrors. Napoleon may well have said uncontradicted, 'that from him
would date the era of representative governments'--that is to say, of
monarchical governments, but founded upon the laws. He might have added,
without contradiction or exaggeration, that he had put an end to the
atrocities of the Revolution and to popular fury, the renewal of which
he prevented. Impartial posterity will, perhaps, reproach my brother
with not having kept an even way between the weakness of Louis XVI. and
an inflexible firmness: it will reproach him with not having confided
the preservation of the rights and the newly-obtained advantages of the
nation to fundamental and stable laws, instead of making them rest on
his own existence: but I am greatly deceived if it will confirm the
predictions of Sir Walter. I believe that it will divide the good and
the advantages of the French Revolution from its excesses and horrors,
the end and suppression of which it will attribute to Napoleon."--LOUIS
BUONAPARTE, p. 58.
APPENDIX.
No. I.
INSTRUCTIONS BY NAPOLEON TO TALLEYRAND, PRINCE OF BENEVENTUM.
[See p. 15.]
This very singular memorandum contains the instructions given by
Napoleon to Talleyrand, concerning the manner in which he wished him to
receive Lord Whitworth, then about to quit Paris, under the immediate
prospect of the war again breaking out. He did not trust, it seems, to
that accomplished statesman the slightest circumstance of the
conference; "although," as Talleyrand himself observed, as he gave to
the Duke of Wellington the interesting document, in Napoleon's own
hand-writing, "if I could be trusted with any thing, it must have been
the mode of receiving and negotiating with an ambassador." From the
style of the note, it seems that the warmth, or rather violence, which
the first consul had thrown into the discussion at the levée, did not
actually flow from Napoleon's irritated feelings, but was a calculated
burst of passion, designed to confound and overwhelm the English
nobleman, who proved by no means the kind of person to be shaken with
the utmost vehemence. It may be also remarked, that Napoleon, while he
was desirous to try the effect of a cold, stern, and indifferent mode of
conduct towards the English minister, was yet desirous, if that should
not shake Lord Whitworth's firmness, that Talleyrand, by reference to
the first consul, should take care to keep open the door for
reconciliation.
The various errors in orthography, as _fait_ for _fais_ or _faites_,
_dit_ for _dis_ or _dites_, are taken from the original.
"_St. Cloud, à 4½._
"Je reçois votre lettre qui m'a été remise à la Malmaison. Je desire que
la conference ne se tourne pas en partage. Montezvous y froid, altier,
et même un peu fier.
"Si la notte comtient le mot _ultimatum_, fait[516] lui sentir que ce
mot renferme celui de guerre, que cette manière de negocier et d'un
supérieur à un inférieur. Si la notte ne comtient pas ce mot, fait[517]
qu'il le mette, en lui observant qu'il faut enfin savoir à quoi nous en
tenir--que nous sommes las de cet état d'anxiété--que jamais on
n'obtiendra de nous ce que l'on _a obtenu des dernières années des
Bourbons,--que nous ne sommes plus ce peuple qui recevra un Commissaire
à Dunquerque_; que, l'ultimatum remis, tout deviendra rompût.
"Effrayez le sur les suites de cette remise. S'il est _inebranlable_,
accompagnez le dans votre salon ...[518] de vous quitter dit lui, mais
le Cap et l'Isle de Gorée, sont ils évacués?--radoucissez un peu la fin
de la conference, et invitez le à revenir avant d'écrire à sa cour,
enfin que vous puissiez lui dire l'impression qu'elle a fait sur moi,
qu'elle pourrait être diminué par les mesures de ces evacuations du Cap
et de l'Isle de Gorée."
TRANSLATION.
_St. Cloud, half-past four._
I received your letter, which was brought to me at Malmaison. I request
that the conference do not go into dialogue. Show yourself cold, lofty,
even a little haughty.
If his note contains the word _ultimatum_, make him sensible that that
word imports war, since such a manner of negotiating only takes place
betwixt a superior and an inferior. If the note does not contain that
word, contrive to make him insert it, by observing to him that it is
necessary at length we should know upon what footing we are to stand
with respect to each other; that we are weary of this state of anxiety;
that they will never obtain from us those advantages which they extorted
during the latter part of the reign of the Bourbons; that we are no
longer the same people who received an English commissary at Dunkirk;
that the _ultimatum_ being rejected, all treaty will be broken off.
Alarm him upon the consequences of that rejection. If he remains still
immovable, accompany him into your saloon ... and at the moment of his
departure, ask him incidentally, "By the way, the Cape and the Island of
Goree, are they evacuated?" Soften your tone a little towards the end of
the conference, and invite him to return before writing to his court. At
last, you may hint that the unfavourable impression he has made on me
may possibly be diminished by the evacuation of the Cape and the Isle of
Goree.
No. II.
FURTHER PARTICULARS CONCERNING THE ARREST, TRIAL, AND DEATH OF THE DUKE
D'ENGHIEN.
[See p. 52.]
This most melancholy history appears to deserve farther notice than we
had it in our power to bestow, without too long interrupting the course
of our narrative. It has been, and must for ever remain, the most marked
and indelible blot upon the character of Napoleon Buonaparte. "A young
prince," says the author of a well-reasoned dissertation on this
subject, "in the flower of his age, treacherously seized in a neutral
country, where he reposed under the protection of the law of nations,
dragged into France, brought before judges, who had no pretension to
assume that character, accused of supposed crimes, deprived of the
assistance of a legal advocate or defender, put to death by night in the
ditches of a state-prison;--so many virtues misconstrued, so many fond
hopes crushed in the bud, will always render that catastrophe one of the
most revolting acts which absolute power has been tempted to
consummate."
The Duke d'Enghien was one of the most active and determined of the
exiled princes of the House of Bourbon, to whom the emigrants and the
Royalists who remained within France were alike devotedly attached. He
was master of many of their secrets; and in July 1799, when the affairs
of the Republic were in a very perilous state, and the Royalists were
adjusting a general rising through all the south of France, his name was
used upon the following extraordinary occasion.
A former member of the Representation, known as much by his character as
a Royalist, as by his worth and probity, requested a private interview
with General Bernadotte, then minister at war. The audience being
granted by the minister, with whom he had some connexion, the
representative entered into a long argument to prove what could not be
denied--the disastrous and dangerous state of France, and then proceeded
thus: "The republican system being no longer able to support itself, a
general movement is about to take place for the restoration of the King,
and is so well organised, that it can scarce fail to be successful. The
Duke d'Enghien, lieutenant-general of the royal army, is at Paris at
this very moment while I speak to you, and I am deputed by one of his
most faithful adherents, to make known these circumstances to General
Bernadotte. The prince esteems you, confides his safety to your loyalty,
reckons on your assistance, and is ready to grant any conditions which
you may attach to your services." Bernadotte replied to this unexpected
communication, "That the Duke d'Enghien should have no reason to repent
the confidence which he had reposed in him: but that the loyalty which
the duke had ascribed to him prevented his complying with the prince's
wishes and request." He proceeded to state, that his own fame and
personal interests were alike interested in his adherence to a
government sprung from the will of the people; and that he was incapable
of violating his oath of fidelity, or overthrowing the constitution to
which he had sworn. "Make haste," he continued, "to convey my sentiments
to him who sent you; tell him they are sincere and unalterable. But let
him know, that for three days I will keep the secret which I have just
learned, most profoundly. During that time he must find means of placing
himself in security, by repassing the frontiers: but on the fourth
morning, the secret will be mine no longer. This very morning, the term
of three days will commence; make haste--and remember that the least
imprudence on your part will be attended with fatal consequences."
It was afterwards ascertained that the deputy was mistaken, when he
averred that the Duke d'Enghien was in Paris. It was pretty certain that
he had never crossed the Rhine, and only waited the favourable reply of
the minister at war to make the attempt. But in the light in which the
case was presented to Bernadotte, his generous and firm conduct does not
the less honour that eminent person, especially when contrasted with
that of Napoleon. There might have been a strong temptation, and even a
show of right, to have seized on the unfortunate Prince, supposing him
to be in Paris, negotiating plans against the existing government, and
tempting the fidelity of their principal ministers;--there could be none
to kidnap him in foreign parts, when, however it might be suspected, it
could not be shown by proof, that the unfortunate duke was concerned in
any of the political intrigues which were laid to his charge. The
tottering state of public affairs requiring so much vigilance and vigour
on the part of the government, might also have been pleaded in excuse of
Bernadotte, had he delivered up the Duke d'Enghien to dungeon or
scaffold; while Napoleon, on the contrary, took the unhappy prince's
life at a moment when his own power was so firmly established, as rather
to incur danger than to acquire safety by the indulgence of a cruel
revenge. The above anecdote, not, we believe, generally known, may be
relied upon as authentic.
Napoleon, four years later, adopted towards the unfortunate prince that
line of severity with which the world is acquainted. His broad
vindication uniformly was stated to be, that the duke had offended
against the laws of the country, and that, to put a stop to
conspiracies, he had, from the beginning, determined to let the law take
its course against him. He alleged, as we shall hereafter notice,
various pleas in palliation or excuse; but his chief defence uniformly
consisted in an appeal to the laws; and it is therefore just to the
memory of Napoleon and his victim, that we should examine whether, in a
legal sense, the procedure against the Duke d'Enghien is vindicated in
whole or in part. The labours of Monsieur Dupin, the learned author of a
pamphlet already quoted, have furnished us with an excellent work on
this subject.
The case of the unfortunate duke must always be admitted to be a hard
one. This is not denied by Buonaparte himself; and, on that account, it
is the more necessary to the vindication of those upon whom his fate
depended, to bring their procedure within the pale of the law. We are
not now talking of reconciling the tragedy to the general rules of
justice, generosity, or humanity; but in resigning the arguments which
these afford, we are the more entitled to expect that the procedure
which we impugn should, however harsh or cruel, be at least in strict
conformity with the existing laws of France at the time, and such as
could be carried on and vindicated by daylight, and in an open court.
This is surely limiting our inquiry to the narrowest possible ground;
and we shall prosecute the subject by examining the process in detail.
ARREST OF THE DUKE D'ENGHIEN.
Every arrest, to be legal, must be so in three points of view: 1. As to
the place where it is made; 2. concerning the person whom it regards; 3.
in respect of the grounds on which it proceeds.
The duke was residing in the territories of the Elector of Baden, a
sovereign prince who had not ventured to afford him that refuge without
consulting the French governor on the subject, and who was authorised to
believe that his affording hospitality to the unfortunate prince would
afford no cause of rupture with his powerful neighbour. The acquiescence
of the French government affords too much reason to suppose, that the
measure afterwards adopted had been for some time premeditated; and that
there was a secret design of detaining the victim within reach of the
blow which they had already resolved to strike, when they should see
convenient. Whether this was the case or no, the Duke d'Enghien was
residing under protection of the law of nations, which proclaims the
inviolability of the territories of one state by the soldiers of
another, unless in case of war openly declared. It would be wasting
arguments to show that the irruption of the French troops into the
territory of Baden, and the seizure of the prince and his retinue, were
directly contrary to public law, and could only be compared to an
incursion of Algerines or robbers. Thus the place of arrest was highly
and evidently illegal.
The charge on which the arrest was granted did not improve its legality.
The only laws which could be referred to as applicable to the occasion,
are those of 28th March, 1793, and of 25 Brumaire, An III. tit. 5, sect.
i., art 7. By these, it is provided that _emigrants_, who have carried
arms against France, shall be arrested, _whether in France, or in any
hostile or conquered country_, and judged within twenty-four hours, by a
commission of five members, to be named by the chief of the état major
of the division of the army quartered in the district where they are
found. A third law extended this order to all emigrants of every
description, _arrested within the territory of the Republic_; but
provided that the court should consist of seven persons, instead of
five, to be named by the general commanding the division in which the
arrest was made. These ferocious laws had in practice been so far
modified, that it was laid down in the law books, that although,
speaking strictly, they continued to exist, yet "the government always
limited to deportation the sentence of such emigrants as were arrested
within the French territory."[519] Before reviving them in their utmost
severity against a single individual, it was therefore doubly incumbent
to show that the party arraigned fell within these charges.
By no force of construction could the Duke d'Enghien be brought under
the influence of these laws. He was not, properly speaking, an emigrant,
nor did he possess the qualities of such. He was a Prince of France--as
such declared an alien, and banished for ever from France. But, what is
much more to the purpose, the Duke d'Enghien was neither found within
France, nor in the precincts of any hostile or conquered country; but
brought by force from a territory neutral to, and friendly in its
relations with, France; and that without legal warrant, and by main
force. Buonaparte took credit to himself for having prevented the
execution of these laws against emigrants who had been forced on the
shore of France by tempest, and had thereby come under the letter,
though not the spirit, of the law. How much more ought the Duke
d'Enghien's case to have been excepted, who was only within France by
the force exercised on his person, and, instead of being arrested within
the territory, as the law required, was arrested in a neutral country,
and brought into France against his will? The arrest was therefore, so
far as respected the person on whom it was used, an act of illegal
violence; and not less so considering the grounds on which it proceeded,
since there was no charge founded on any existing law.
INCOMPETENCY OF THE COURT.
A military commission was assembled at Paris, to take under trial the
Duke d'Enghien, accused of having borne arms against the Republic--of
having been, and of still being in the pay of England--and, lastly, of
having taken part in the conspiracies against the safety of the
Republic, both external and internal.
Mons. Dupin, by the most decisive arguments and authorities, shows, that
although the military commission might possibly be competent judges in
the case of bearing arms against France, or receiving pay from England,
yet the trial of a criminal accused of political conspiracy, was totally
beyond the power of a court-martial, and could only be taken cognizance
of by the regular tribunals. He quotes decisions of the minister of
justice upon this point of jurisprudence, and concludes by applying to
the military commission the well-known brocard of law, _Nullus major
defectus, quam potestatis_.
IRREGULARITIES IN THE PROCEDURE.
I. The procedure took place at the dead of night, contrary to the laws
of France and every civilized country. The worn-out and exhausted
criminal was roused at midnight from the first sleep he had been
permitted to enjoy for three nights, and called in to place himself on
defence for his life, whilst, through fatigue of body and mind, he could
scarcely keep himself awake.
He answered to their interrogatories in a manly and simple manner; and
by the French order of process, his answers ought to have been read over
to him, and he should have been called upon for his remarks upon the
exactitude with which they had been taken down; but nothing of this kind
was proposed to the Duke d'Enghien.
II. The French law enjoins, that after closing the interrogatory, the
reporter should require of the accused person to make choice of a friend
for the purpose of conducting his defence. The accused, it further
declares, shall have the selection amongst all the persons present, and
failing his making such a choice, the reporter shall select a defender
to act on his behalf. No such choice was allowed to the Duke d'Enghien;
and, indeed, it would have been to little purpose; nor was any legal
assistant assigned to him in terms of the law. The law presumes an open
court at a legal hour, and held in broad daylight. It would have been
but an additional insult to have required the duke to select a friend of
a defender among the gendarmes, who alone were bystanders in the castle
of Vincennes, or at the hour of midnight. Contrary, therefore, to the
privilege of accused persons by the existing law of France, the accused
had no benefit either of legal defence, or friendly assistance.
DEFECTS OF THE SENTENCE.
The trial itself, though it deserves not the name, took place on the day
after the interrogatory, or more properly on the night of that day,
being what was then called the 30th Ventose;--like the previous
interrogation, at the hour of midnight. The whole castle of Vincennes
was filled with gendarmes, and Savary was in the actual command. He has
published that he was led there by curiosity, though the hour was
midnight, and the place so strictly guarded against every person, saving
those who were to be officially concerned, that even one of the
officers, who had been summoned, had considerable difficulty in
procuring admission. We shall presently see if his presence and conduct
indicated the part of a mere bystander; for the vindication which he was
pleased to publish, drew forth that of General Hullin, president of the
military commission, who has informed us of several important
circumstances which had escaped the memory of the Duke of Rovigo, but
which bear, nevertheless, very much on the point at issue.
The court being constituted duly, the warrant was read, which contained
the charge against the prisoner. It accused him, 1. Of having fought
against France; 2. Of being in the pay of England; 3. Of plotting with
the latter power against the internal and external safety of the
Republic. Of the _two first_ counts, as they may be termed, of the
indictment, we have already shown that they could not be rendered
cognizable under any law then existing in France, unless qualified by
the additional circumstance, that the emigrant accused had been found
either within France, or in a country hostile to, or which had been
subdued by France, which could not be stated to be the case of the Duke
d'Enghien. Respecting the _third_ count, the military commission were
not legally competent to try it; the courts ordinary of France alone had
the alleged crime within their jurisdiction. Nevertheless, in mockery of
the form, as well as the essence of law, the court proceeded upon the
trial upon two points of accusation, which were irrelevant, and upon a
third, which was incompetent.
The mock trial, when brought on, was a mere repetition of the
interrogatory which the duke had been previously subjected to. We are
now to give an abstract of both interrogatories, only premising that
within their limits must be found the whole head and front of the
offences charged. The guilt of the accused must either be proved from
thence, or his innocence must be acknowledged; the sole evidence
produced, or attempted to be brought forward, on the trial, being the
answers of the duke.
Upon the first examination, the following admissions were made by the
accused. The duke avowed his name, birth, and quality; his exile from
France, and the campaigns which he had made with the emigrant army under
his grandfather, the Prince of Condé. He stated the various countries
which he had inhabited since the army of Condé was disbanded, and that
he had resided at Ettenheim for two years and a half, by permission of
the elector. Interrogated, if he had ever been in England, or if that
government had made him any allowance? He answered, he had never been in
that country; but that England did allow him an annuity, which was his
only means of support. Interrogated, what were his reasons for residing
at Ettenheim? He answered, that he had thoughts of settling at Fribourg
in the Brisgaw, as a pleasanter place of residence, and had only
remained at Ettenheim on account of the elector's indulging him with
full liberty of hunting, to which amusement he was very partial.
Interrogated, if he kept up any correspondence with the French princes
of his family who were at London, and if he had seen them lately? He
replied, that he naturally kept up a correspondence with his
grandfather ever since he had left him at Vienna, after the disbanding
of his army; but had not seen him since that period;--that he also
corresponded with his father, (Duke of Bourbon,) but had not seen him
since 1794 or 1795. Interrogated, what rank he occupied in the army of
Condé? He answered, commandant of the vanguard; and that when the army
was received into Prussia, and divided into two corps, he was made
colonel of one of them. These admissions might have been deduced or
presumed from the simple fact, that the individual before them was the
Duke d'Enghien, whose history and military services were sufficiently
known.
The subsequent part of the examination consisted in an attempt to
implicate the accused in the conspiracy of Georges, Pichegru, and
Moreau. The reader will see how far his answers make the charge good.
"Interrogated, if he knew General Pichegru, and if he had any connexion
or intercourse with him? Replied, I do not know him; I have never, I
believe, seen him; I have had no conversation with him; I am glad I have
not been acquainted with him, if the story told be true respecting the
vile means which he proposed making use of."
"Interrogated, if he knew General Dumouriez, or had any connexion with
him? Answered, that he knew him no more than the other--he had never
seen him."
"Interrogated, if, after the peace, he had not kept up a correspondence
in the interior of the Republic? Replied, I have written to some friends
that are still attached to me, who had fought along with me, both on
their affairs and my own. These correspondences were not of the
character which I conceive to be alluded to."
The report further bears, that when the process-verbal was closed, he
expressed himself thus:--"Before signing the process-verbal, I make with
urgency the request, to have a particular audience of the First Consul.
My name, my rank, my manner of thinking, and the horror of my situation,
make me hope he will not refuse my desire."
In the second interrogatory, in presence of the military commission, the
duke adhered to what he had said in his preceding examination, with the
sole additional circumstance, that he was ready to renew the war, and to
take service in the approaching hostilities betwixt England and France.
The commission, as appears from record of their proceedings, received no
other evidence of any kind whatever, whether written or oral, and
undertook the task which they knew was expected from them, of extracting
reasons for awarding a capital punishment out of a confession from which
nothing could be drawn by any ordinary process of reasoning, save that
the accused person had been in arms against France, and was willing to
be so again--but in open warfare, and in the hope of recovering what he
considered as the rights of his family--a case which could not be
brought under the penalty of death, except under the laws of 28th March,
1793, and of 25th Brumaire, An. III., where the capital punishment is
limited, as we have repeatedly said, to emigrants taken within the
limits of France, or of countries hostile to her, or subjected by her
arms. The avowal that the duke had a pension from England did not infer
that he was in her military pay, nor, indeed, did he in fact hold that
allowance on any other conditions than as an alimentary provision
allowed by the generous compassion of the British nation. Neither could
he be found guilty upon his candid avowal that he was willing, or even
desirous, to enter into the English service; for, supposing the actually
doing so were a crime, the mere intention to do so could not be
construed into one, since men are in this world responsible only for
their actions, not for their thoughts, or the unexecuted purposes of
their mind. No other evidence was adduced excepting the report of an
officer of police, or state spy, sent to watch the Duke d'Enghien's
movements, who declared that the Duke d'Enghien received many emigrants
at his table, and that he was frequently absent for several days without
his (the spy's) being able to discover where he went; but which
suspicious facts were sufficiently explained, by his having the means of
giving some assistance to his distressed companions, and his long
hunting parties in the Black Forest, in which he was wont to pass many
days at a time. A report from Shee, the prefect of the Lower Rhine, was
also read; but neither Savary nor Hullin mention its import, nor how it
was converted into evidence, or bore upon the question of the Duke
d'Enghien's guilt or innocence. Hullin also mentions a long report from
the counsellor of state, Real, where the affair, with all its
ramifications, was rendered so interesting, that it seemed the safety of
the state, and the existence of the government, depended on the judgment
which should be returned. Such a report could only argue the thirst of
the government for the poor young man's blood, and exhibit that open
tampering with the court, which they were not ashamed to have recourse
to, but certainly could not constitute evidence in the cause.
But both Savary and Hullin are disposed to rest the reason of the
condemnation upon the frank and noble avowal of the prisoner, which, in
their opinion, made it imperative on the court to condemn him. He
uniformly maintained, that "'he had only sustained the right of his
family, and that a Condé could never enter France save with arms in his
hands. My birth,' he said, 'my opinions, must ever render me inflexible
on this point.' The firmness of his answers reduced the judges,"
continues Hullin, "to despair. Ten times we gave him an opening to
retract his declarations, but he still persisted in them immovably. 'I
see,' he said, 'the honourable intention of the members of the
commission, but I cannot resort to the means of safety which they
indicate.'" And being acquainted that the military commissioners judged
without appeal; "I know it," he replied, "and I do not disguise from
myself the danger which I incur. My only request is, to have an
interview with the First Consul." It is sufficiently plain, that the
gallant bearing of the prince, so honourable to himself, brought him
under no law by which he was not previously affected. But it did much
worse for him in a practical sense. It avowed him the open enemy of
Buonaparte, and placed each judge under the influence of such reasoning
as encouraged Sir Piers Exton to the murder of a deposed prince at the
hint of a usurper.[520]
The doom of the prisoner had been fixed from the moment he crossed the
drawbridge of that gloomy state prison. But it required no small degree
of dexterity to accommodate the evidence to the law, so as to make out
an ostensible case of guilt, which should not carry absurdity and
contradiction on its very front. This was the more difficult, as it is
an express legal form in French courts-martial, that it shall express
upon its record the exact fact for which death is to be inflicted, and
the precise article of the law under which the sentence is awarded. The
military commission had much more trouble in placing the record upon a
plausible footing, than they found in going through the brief forms of
such a trial as they were pleased to afford the accused. They
experienced the truth of the observation, that it is much more easy to
commit a crime than to justify it.
VERDICT.
The first difficulty which occurred was to apply the verdict to the
indictment, to which it ought to be the precise answer, since it would
be monstrous to find a man guilty of a crime different from that of
which he stood accused; as, for example, to find a man guilty of theft,
when he had been charged with murder, or _vice versa_. The judges of
this military commission had, at the same time, the additional
difficulty of reconciling the verdict with the evidence which had been
adduced, as well as with the accusations laid. If the reader will take
the trouble to peruse the following copy of the record, with our
observations, which we have marked by italics, they will see how far the
military court of Vincennes had been able to reconcile their verdict
with the act of accusation, and with the sentence.
The verdict bears: "The voices being collected on each of the
underwritten questions, beginning with the younger, and ending with the
president; the court declares Louis Antoine de Bourbon, Duke de
Enghien,--
"1. Unanimously guilty of having borne arms against the French
Republic."--_This is in conformity with the accusation, and the
evidence; therefore, so far regular._
"2. Unanimously guilty of having offered his services to the English
government, the enemy of the French Republic."--_This is not in
conformity to the charge. The duke only said he was willing to join the
English in the new war, not that his services had been either offered or
accepted. The former was a matter of intention, the latter would have
been a point of fact._
"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 internal and
external safety or the Republic."--_The facts alluded to in this clause
of the verdict may be considered as contained by implication in the
general charge in the accusation, that the duke plotted with England.
But certainly they are not there stated in the precise and articulate
manner in which a charge which a man must answer with his life ought to
be brought against him. As to evidence, there is not, in the examination
of the duke, the slightest word to justify the finding him guilty of
such an offence. Not a question was put, or an answer received,
respecting the plot with England, or the duke's accession to and
encouragement of them._
"4. Unanimously guilty of having placed himself at the head of a large
collection of French emigrants, and others, formed in the frontiers of
France, in the county of Fribourg and Baden, paid by England."--_There
is not a word of such a charge in the accusation or indictment, nor was
the slightest evidence of its existence brought forward before the
court, or inquired into upon the duke's examination._
"5. Unanimously guilty of having had communications with the town of
Strasburg, tending to excite insurrection in the neighbouring
departments, for the purpose of a diversion in favour of
England."--_There is no mention of this charge in the accusation--there
is no mention of it in the evidence._
"6. Unanimously guilty of being one of the favourers and accomplices of
the conspiracy carried on by the English against the life of the First
Consul; and intending, in the event of such conspiracy, to enter
France."--_There is no mention of this charge in the act of accusation
or indictment. The evidence on the subject goes distinctly to disprove
the charge. The Duke d'Enghien said he did not know Pichegru, and had no
connexion with him; and added, that he rejoiced at the circumstance, if
it was true that the general aimed at success by means so horrible._
The result of the whole is, that this most liberal commission, in answer
to the three charges, brought in a verdict upon six points of
indictment; and that, on applying the evidence to the verdict, not one
of the returns is found supported by evidence, the first excepted; of
the other five, of which three at least are gratuitously introduced into
the charge, four are altogether unsupported by the evidence, and the
sixth is not only unsupported, but disproved, being in direct
contradiction to the only testimony laid before the commissioners.
SENTENCE.
Having drawn up their verdict, or answer to the act of accusation, with
so little regard either to the essence or forms of justice, this
unconscientious court proceeded to the sentence, which, according to the
regular form, ought to bear an express reference to the law by which it
was authorised. But to discover such a law, must be inevitably a work of
some difficulty; and, in the mean time, the devoted victim still lived.
The record of the court-martial bore the date, _two in the
morning_;[521] so that _two hours_ had already elapsed upon the trial
and subsequent proceedings, and it was destined the sun should not rise
on the devoted head of the young Bourbon. It was, therefore, necessary
that he should be immediately found guilty and executed, as all that was
considered the direct object for which the court was convened. It would
be time enough to consider after he was no more, under what law he had
suffered, and to fill up the blanks in the sentence accordingly. One
would have thought such a tragedy could never have taken place in a
civilized age and country; seven French officers, claiming to be
esteemed men of honour by profession, being the slavish agents. It must,
one would say, have occurred at Tripoli or Fez, or rather among the
Galla and Shangalla, the Agows, or the Lasta of Abyssinia. But here is
the sentence to speak for itself:--
"The prisoner having withdrawn, the court being cleared, deliberating
with closed doors, the president collected the votes of the members;
beginning with the _junior_, and voting himself the last, the prisoner was
unanimously found guilty; and in pursuance of the----_blank_----article
of the law of----_blank_----to the following effect--------[two or
three lines left blank for inserting the law which should be found
applicable]--------condemned to suffer the punishment of death.
_Ordered that the judge-advocate should see the present sentence
executed, IMMEDIATELY._"
Most laws allow at least a few days of intervention betwixt sentence and
execution. Such an interval is due to religion and to humanity; but in
France it was also allowed for the purpose of appeal. The laws, 25
Brumaire, An. VI., and 27 Ventose, An. VIII., permitted appeals from the
judgments of courts-martial. The decree of the 17 Messidor, An. XII.,
permitting no appeal from military sentences, was not then in existence;
but if it had, even that severe and despotic enactment allowed prisoners
some brief space of time betwixt this world and the next, and did not
send a human being to execution until the tumult of spirits, incidental
to a trial for life and death, had subsided, and his heart had ceased to
throb betwixt hope and fear. Twenty-four hours were permitted betwixt
the court of justice and the scaffold--a small space in ordinary life,
but an age when the foot is on the brink of the grave. But the Duke
d'Enghien was ordered for instant execution.
Besides the blanks in the sentence of this court, as originally drawn
up, which made it a mockery of all judicial form, there lay this fatal
error to the sentence, that it was not signed by the greffier, or clerk
of court.
We do the judges the credit to believe that they felt for the accused,
and for themselves; saw with pity the doom inflicted, and experienced
shame and horror at becoming his murderers. A final attempt was made by
General Hullin to induce the court to transfer to Buonaparte the request
of the prisoner. He was checked by Savary. "It will be _inopportune_,"
said that officer, who, leaning on the back of the president's chair,
seems to have watched and controlled the decisions of the court. The
hint was understood, and nothing more was said.
We have given one copy of the sentence of the court-martial. It was not
the only one. "Many draughts of this sentence were tried," says Hullin;
"among the rest, the one in question: but after we had signed it, we
doubted (_and with good reason_) whether it were regular; and,
therefore, caused the clerk make out a new draught, grounded chiefly on
a report of the privy-counsellor, Real, and the answers of the Prince.
This second draught was the true one, and ought alone to have been
preserved."
This second draught has been preserved, and affords a curious specimen
of the cobbling and trumping up which the procedure underwent, in hopes
it might be rendered fit for public inspection. Notwithstanding what the
president says was intended, the new draught contains no reference to
the report of Shee, or the arguments of Real, neither of which could be
brought into evidence against the duke. The only evidence against him,
was his owning the character of a prince of the blood, an enemy by
birth, and upon principle, to the present government of France. His sole
actual crime, as is allowed by Monsieur Savary himself, consisted in his
being the Duke d'Enghien; the sole proof was his own avowal, without
which it was pretended the commissioners would not have found him
guilty.
To return to the new draught of this sentence. It agrees with the
original draught, in so far as it finds the duke guilty of _six_
criminal acts upon a charge which only accused him of _three_. But there
is a wide distinction in other respects. The new draught, though
designed to rest (according to Hullin's account) upon the report of the
privy-counsellor, Real, and the answers of the prince, takes no notice
of either. It does make an attempt, however, to fill up the blanks of
the first copy, by combining the sentence with three existing laws; but
how far applicable to the case under consideration, the reader shall be
enabled to judge.
Article II. 1st Brumaire, An. V. Every individual, of whatever rank,
quality, or profession, convicted of being a spy for the enemy, shall be
punished with death.--_The Duke d'Enghien had neither been accused nor
convicted of being a spy for the enemy._
Article I. Every plot against the Republic shall be punished with
death.--_There was no evidence that the Duke was engaged in any plot; he
positively denied it on his examination._
Article II. _All conspiracies or plots tending to disturb_ the state by
a civil war--to arm the citizens against each other, or against lawful
authority, shall be punished with death.--_Here the same want of
evidence applies._
Upon the whole, it appears that the law could neither be so moulded as
to apply to the evidence, nor the evidence so twisted as to come under
the law--the judges were obliged to suppress the one or the other, or to
send their sentence forth with a manifest contradiction on the face of
it.
But this second draught of the sentence was so far conforming to the
law, that it was signed by the greffier or clerk of court, which was
not the case with the former. It was also more indulgent towards the
accused; for the order for immediate execution was omitted, and its
place supplied by the following details:--
"It is enjoined to the capitaine rapporteur instantly to read the
present judgment to the condemned person in presence of the guard
assembled under arms.
"Ordered that the president and the reporter use their diligence
according to the legal forms, in despatching copies of this procedure to
the minister at war, the great judge, minister of justice, and to the
general in chief, governor of Paris."
By the interposition of these legal forms, the commissioners
unquestionably desired to gain some time, to make interest with
Buonaparte that he might not carry his cruel purpose into execution.
This has been explained by the president of the court-martial, General
Hullin himself, who, blind, aged and retired from the world, found
himself obliged, on the appearance of Savary's vindication of his share
in the murder of the Duke d'Enghien, to come forward, not to vindicate
his conduct, but, while expressing his remorse for the share he really
had in the tragedy, to transfer the principal charge to the superior
officer, who was present during the whole trial, to overawe, it would
seem, and to control the court. His account is in these words:--
"Scarcely was it (the sentence) signed, when I began a letter to
Napoleon, in which I conveyed to him, in obedience, to the unanimous
wish of the court, the desire expressed by the prince of an interview
with the first consul; and farther, to conjure the first consul to remit
the punishment, which the severity of our situation did not permit us to
elude. It was at this moment that a man interfered, [Savary,] who had
persisted in remaining in the court-room, and whom I should name without
hesitation, if I did not recollect that, even in attempting a defence
for myself, it does not become me to accuse another. 'What are you doing
there?' said this person, coming up to me. 'I am,' I replied, 'writing
to the first consul, to convey to him the wish of the prisoner, and the
recommendation of the court.'--'You have done your business,' said he,
taking the pen out of my hand, 'and what follows is mine.' I confess
that I thought at the moment, and so did several of my colleagues, that
he meant to say, that the conveying of these sentiments to the first
consul was his business. His answer, thus understood, left us still the
hope that the recommendation would reach the first consul. I only
recollect, that I even at the moment felt a kind of vexation at seeing
thus taken out of my hands, the only agreeable circumstance of the
painful situation in which I was placed. Indeed, how could we imagine,
that a person had been placed about us with an order to violate all the
provisions of the law? I was in the hall, outside the council-room,
conversing about what had just occurred. Several knots of persons had
got into private conversation. I was waiting for my carriage, which not
being permitted (any more than those of the other members) to come into
the inner court of the castle, delayed my departure and theirs. We were
ourselves shut in, and could not communicate with those without, when an
explosion took place--a terrible sound, which struck us to the hearts,
and froze them with terror and fright. Yes, I swear, in the name of
myself and my colleagues, that this execution was not authorised by us;
our sentence directed that copies of the sentence should be sent to the
minister of war, the grand judge, and the general Governor of Paris. The
latter alone could, according to law, direct the execution; the copies
were not yet made; they would occupy a considerable portion of the day.
On my return to Paris, I should have waited on the governor--on the
first consul; who knows what might have happened?--but all of a sudden,
this terrific explosion informed us that the prince was no more. We know
not whether he [Savary] who thus hurried on this dreadful execution, had
orders for doing so. If he had not, he alone is responsible; if he had,
the court, which knew nothing of these orders, which, itself was kept in
confinement--the court, whose last resolution was in favour of the
prince, could neither foresee nor prevent the catastrophe."
EXECUTION.
The gallant young prince, therefore, was cut off in the flower of his
age, and, so far as we can see, on no evidence whatever, excepting that
he was a son of the house of Bourbon, the enemy, by his birth, of the
temporary Governor of France, but his public and declared enemy, who had
never owed duty to him, and who had not been taken engaged in any active
proceedings against him. The descendant of the great Condé was
condemned to a bloody death, by a court, the judges of which were
themselves prisoners, at the hour when thieves and murderers deal with
their victims, and upon an unproved accusation tried by incompetent
judges.
The research of the lawyer must go beyond the prince's nameless and
bloody tomb to inquire into the warrant by which he was consigned to it.
Was it by virtue of the first or of the second draught of that sentence,
which the military erudition found so much difficulty in cobbling up
into the form of a legal sentence? We suppose it must have been in
virtue of the _first_ draught, because _that_ commands instant
execution. If this conjecture is allowed, the Duke d'Enghien was
executed in virtue of a document totally deficient in solemnity, since
that first remains blank in its most essential parts, and is not signed
by the greffier or clerk of court--a formality expressly enjoined by
law.
If, again, we suppose that the _second_, not the _first_ copy of the
sentence, was the warrant made use of, the proceeding to execution will
be found not less illegal. For that second draught, though it exhibits
no blanks, and is signed by the greffier, and is so far more formal than
the first, gives no authority for _instant_ execution of the sentence.
On the contrary, it enjoins the usual legal delays, until the copies
should be made out and sent to the various officers of state mentioned
in the warrant itself. The effect of this delay might have probably been
the saving of the unfortunate prince's life; for if Paris had not heard
of his death at the same time with his arrestment, it is not likely that
Buonaparte would have braved public opinion, by venturing on concluding
his nocturnal tragedy by a daylight catastrophe. But, laying that
consideration aside, it is enough for a lawyer to pronounce, that such
sentence, executed in a manner disconforming from its warrant, is
neither more nor less than A MURDER; for as such are construed in the
laws of every civilized country, those cases in which the prompt will of
the executioner anticipates the warrant of the judge.
GENERAL VIEW OF THE PROCEDURE.
Looking over this whole procedure, with the eyes of one accustomed to
juridical reasoning, it is impossible to resist the conviction, that a
train of more gross inconsistencies, practised with a more barefaced
audacity, or for a worse purpose, does not stain and disgrace the page
of history. The arrest was against the law of nations; the constitution
of the court was against the military law; the mode of conducting the
trial was against the law of France; the sentence was contrary to the
forms of every civilized nation; the execution was a contravention of
the laws of God and man. It would be absurd to term the slaughter of the
Duke d'Enghien a murder committed by the sword of justice, unless we
understand Hogarth's parody of that allegorical figure, with one eye
open, one scale depressed with a bribe, and a butcher's knife in her
hand instead of the even-swayed sword.
* * * * *
Having endeavoured to trace this bloody and cruel proceeding in a legal
point of view, we must, before leaving the subject, consider what
apologies have been set up against the black charge which arises out of
the details.
The first of these screens would have been doubly convenient, providing
it could have been rendered plausible. It amounted to the transference
of the more active part of the guilt from Napoleon himself to
Talleyrand, whom it would have been delicious revenge to have
overwhelmed with the odium of a crime which must have made an impassable
gulf between the ex-imperial minister and the restored royal family.
Napoleon therefore repeatedly hinted and expressed, that the measure of
the Duke d'Enghien's death had been thrust upon him by the advice of
Talleyrand, and that, without giving the matter due consideration, he
had adopted the course recommended to him. It was afterwards still more
broadly averred, that Talleyrand had intercepted a letter written by the
prince from Strasburg, begging his life, and offering, in grateful
return, to serve Napoleon in his armies. This boon Napoleon intimates he
might have granted, if Talleyrand had delivered the letter; but by
intercepting it, that statesman became the actual murderer of the
unfortunate prince.
There are two modes of considering every allegation, that is, according
to the presumptive, or the positive and direct evidence brought in
support of it. If we look at the former, we cannot discern the shadow of
a motive why Talleyrand, however unprincipled we may suppose him, should
have led his master into the commission of a great and odious crime, of
which he was likely to have the whole unpopularity thrown upon himself,
so soon as it should be found too heavy for his principal. Talleyrand
was a politician; but so far as we have ever heard, possessed of no
bloodthirsty disposition, and being himself descended from a noble
family, was unlikely, to say the least, to urge the catastrophe of a
young prince, against whom, or his family, he is never believed to have
had any especial enmity. On the other hand, if we suppose him guided to
the step by foolish and misguided zeal for Buonaparte's own interest, we
traduce Talleyrand's mental capacity as much in the one case, as we
should do his natural disposition in the other. No man knew better than
the Prince of Beneventum, that power is, in enlightened nations,
dependent on public opinion, and that the blood of an innocent and
high-spirited enemy might indeed stain his master's throne, but could
not cement its basis.--Again, if we regard the spirit displayed by the
Duke d'Enghien upon his mock trial, when he declared he would not recall
his avowed enmity to the French, in conformity to the hints thrown out
by the court-martial, how is it possible that the same individual can be
supposed capable of having, two days before, crouched to Buonaparte for
his life; or how are we to reconcile his having offered to accept
service under the first consul, with his declaration that it did not
become a Condé to enter France, save with arms in his hands? We must
suppose him a madman, if, having endeavoured to creep to Buonaparte's
favour by the means of submission, he should have assumed an air of
contumacy and defiance towards the judges who were to report his conduct
on his trial to the first consul. The existence of the letter, and the
fact of its being intercepted by Talleyrand, is, therefore, disproved as
far as it can be, both by the character of the alleged writer, and of
the minister for foreign affairs.
But, farther, it is disproved not only by reasoning _à priori_, but
directly and from the state of facts, as far as negative evidence
possibly can go. The whole proceedings against the Duke d'Enghien took
place under the Counsellor of State, Real, and was managed entirely by
the police; those safe, silent agents, who acted by immediate directions
from the supreme head of the government, like the mutes of the seraglio,
and were not liable to the control of any subordinate minister.
Talleyrand never interfered, nor indeed had an opportunity of
interfering, in it.
It was an officer of the police who was sent to inquire into the state
of things at Ettenheim; and his report was made _not_ to Talleyrand, not
even to his proper chief, Real--but to Buonaparte himself. This is
proved by Savary's own narrative, who says expressly, that "the first
inspector of the gendarmerie received the report from the officer, and
carried it himself to the first consul, instead of giving it to M.
Real." The troops employed in the act of seizing the Duke d'Enghien,
were also gendarmes, that is, policemen; and had a letter been written
by their prisoner at Strasburg, or any where else, it would certainly
have gone, like the report above mentioned, to the first consul, and not
to Talleyrand to the foreign department. _2dly_, There is a sad, but
minute memorial of his imprisonment, kept by the duke as a sort of
diary. In this record is no mention of his having written such a letter.
_3dly_, As the Baron St. Jacques, secretary to the unfortunate prince,
was with his master constantly until the duke was taken from Strasburg,
he was in a situation to offer a formal testimony against the very
allegation of such a letter having been written, since he must have
become acquainted with it, if it had any real existence. _4thly_, The
gendarmes who collected the duke's few papers, and made an inventory of
them, would not have failed to secure such a document, if, as we said
before, there had been such a document to secure.
For all these reasons, the story of the suppressed letter must be
considered, from beginning to end, as an absolute fiction, invented to
absolve Napoleon of what he felt was generally considered as a great
crime, and to transfer the odium to Talleyrand, whose active offices in
behalf of the royal family, his former master could neither forget nor
forgive.
But the story of the letter was not the only one to which Napoleon had
recourse to qualify the public indignation, which was so generally
directed against him as the author of this unhappy deed.
In the examination of the persons who were arrested on account of
accession to the conspiracy of Pichegru and Georges, it appeared,
according to a very apocryphal statement by Napoleon, that a person
occasionally appeared among the conspirators, of noble mien and
distinguished manners, to whom the principal conspirators showed such
symptoms of homage and deference as are paid only to princes. "He
appeared," says Savary, "36 years of age, his hair was fair, his
forehead open, of a middle stature and size. When he entered the
apartment, all present, even Messrs. de Polignac and De Riviere, rose
and remained standing in his presence." The police considered who this
mysterious personage could be, and agreed it must be the Duke d'Enghien.
To the impression this supposed discovery made on the mind of the first
consul, was to be imputed, according to his own account and General
Savary's, the mission of the police officer to Strasburg, as already
mentioned. The report of the spy concerning the frequent absences of the
Duke d'Enghien from Ettenheim, was held sufficient to identify him with
the mysterious stranger at Paris--the resolution to kidnap him was
formed and executed; and although no circumstances occurred to show that
he had been in Paris, or to identify him with the incognito above
alluded to, and although they were not even at the trouble of
confronting the duke with the persons who described that individual, to
see if they could recognise them to be one and the same; yet he was put
to death, we are called upon to believe, upon the conviction that he was
the visitor and friend of Georges Cadoudal, and the person in whose
presence all the world testified such profound respect. Hardly, however,
had the duke been huddled into his bloody grave, than we are told it was
discovered that the mysterious personage so often alluded to, was no
other than Pichegru; and the blame of keeping up the mistake in the
first consul's mind is imputed to Talleyrand, who is destined to be the
scape-goat in every version of the story which comes from Napoleon or
his favourers.
We submit that no author of a novel or romance, when compelled, at the
conclusion of his tale, to assign a reason for the various incidents
which he has placed before the reader, ever pressed into his service a
string of such improbable and inconsistent circumstances. Was it
credible that a prince of the blood, supposing him to have ventured to
Paris during the consulate, and mingled with a band of conspirators,
would have insisted upon, or would have permitted, the honours of his
rank, and thus have betrayed his character to those who did not profess
to know more of him than from that circumstance only? The very mention
of a line of conduct so improbable, ought to have made the legend
suspected at the very outset. Secondly, How could a mistake possibly
occur betwixt the person of the Duke d'Enghien and that of General
Pichegru? The former was fair, with light-coloured hair; the latter was
dark, with a high-coloured complexion, and dark hair. The duke was
slight and elegant in his form; Pichegru was stout-made, robust, and
athletic. The prince was but just turned of thirty; Pichegru was forty
years of age and upwards. There was scarcely a point of similarity
between them. Thirdly, How was it possible for those circumstances to
have occurred which occasioned the pretended mistake? Under what
imaginable character was Pichegru to have commanded the respects paid to
a prince of the blood, and that not only from the Chouan Georges, but
from the Messieurs De Polignac and De Riviere, who, it is pretended,
remained uncovered in his presence? Lastly, On the voluminous trial of
Georges, which was published in the _Moniteur_, though several of his
band were brought to bear witness against him, there was no evidence
whatever of royal honours being rendered either to him or any one else.
So that the whole legend seems to have been invented, _ex post facto_,
as a screen, and a very frail one, behind which Napoleon might shelter
himself. It is evident, indeed, even by his own most improbable account,
that if the Duke d'Enghien died in consequence of a blunder, it was one
which a moment's consideration must have led every one to doubt, and
which a moment's inquiry would have explained, and that Napoleon's
credulity can only be imputed to his determination to be deceived. How
Talleyrand could have contributed to it, is not intimated; but General
Savary informs us that the consul exclaimed--"Ah! wretched Talleyrand,
what hast thou made me do!" This apostrophe, if made at all, must have
been intended to support a future charge against his minister; for as to
being led by the nose by Talleyrand, in a matter where his own passions
were so deeply interested, it is totally inconsistent with all that is
recorded of Napoleon, as well as with the character, and even the
private interest, of his minister.
After this tedious dissertation, the reader may perhaps desire to know
the real cause of the extraordinary outrage. Napoleon's interest seemed
no way, or very slightly, concerned, as the sufferer was, of all the
Bourbon family, the farthest removed from the succession to the throne.
The odium which the deed was to occasion, without any corresponding
advantage, was, it might have seemed, to the politic and calculating
spirit which Napoleon usually evinced, a sufficient reason for averting
an unnecessary outrage; nor was his temper by any means of that
ferocious quality which takes delight in causing misery, or in shedding
blood.
All these things admitted, we must remind our readers, that, as
Napoleon was calm and moderate by policy, he was also by temperament
fierce and ardent, and had in his blood a strain of the wild and
revengeful disposition, for which his native Corsica has been famous
since the days of the ancients. The temptation was strong on the present
occasion. He felt himself exposed to the danger of assassination, to
which his nerves seem to have been peculiarly sensible; he knew that the
blow would be aimed by the partisans of the royal family; and he
suspected that they were encouraged by the exiled princes. In such a
case, what is the principle of the savage state, or that which
approaches next to it? A North American Indian, injured by one white
trader who escapes his vengeance, retaliates on the first European who
falls within his power. A Scotch Highlander, wronged by an individual of
another clan, took vengeance on the first of the sept which he happened
to meet. The Corsicans are not less ruthless and indiscriminate in their
feuds, which go from father to son, and affect the whole family, without
the resentment being confined to the particular persons who have done
the wrong. Upon this principle the first consul seems to have acted,
when, conceiving his life aimed at by the friends of the Bourbons, he
sprung like a tiger at the only one of the family who was within his
reach and his power. The law of nations and those of society were alike
forgotten in the thirst of revenge; and, to gratify an immediate feeling
of vengeance, he stained his history with a crime of which no time can
wash away the infamy.
The tendency to violence, arising out of a fierce and semi-barbaric
resentment and love of revenge, might perhaps have shown itself in more
instances than actually occurred, had it not been for Napoleon's policy,
and his respect for public opinion, which would not have borne many such
acts of vindictive cruelty. But though he was able in general to subdue
this peculiar temper, he could not disguise it from those by whom he was
closely observed. When some one, in the presence of Mounier, pronounced
a eulogium upon Napoleon, and concluded by defying any of the listeners
to produce a parallel character--"I think I could find something like
him," said Mounier, "_among the Montenegrins_."
END OF VOLUME THIRD.
FOOTNOTES:
[516] Fais.
[517] Fais.
[518] Illegible.
[519] _Nouveau Repertoire de Jurisprudence, au mot COMMISSION._
[520]
"Did'st thou not mark the king, what words he spake?
Have I no friend will rid me of this living fear?
Have I no friend? quoth he: he spake it twice,
And, speaking it, he wistfully looked on me;
As who should say--I would, thou wert the man,
That would divorce this terror from my heart;
Meaning, the king at Pomfret.--Come, let's go;
I am the king's friend, and will rid his foe."
[521] A sense of shame caused these words to be erased, but the
operation has left them still legible. The attempt at concealment shows
the sense of guilt, without hiding the crime.