But he kept their secret, and, as might be expected, when the revolt broke out next morning, it was under the French cockade and the same leaders who had visited Joseph the preceding morning, and the first rallying point was the French embassy-of which they possessed themselves, and which was only invaded by the police and the troops in pursuit of them; and the number of killed and wounded of both parties within the precincts of the palace proves the military use that the insurgents made of the position. We need add nothing to this simple statement, except that, when Joseph complains that the Roman Government did not send troops to protect his residence, he chooses to forget that he had not apprized them of the danger, that he had at least connived at the insurrection, and that, when it broke out, the Government could do nothing better, and in fact nothing else, for his safety and that of the city, than endeavouring to put it down, which is all that Joseph has to complain of. Conduct so treacherous, so contrary to the laws of nations, so incompatible with the internal safety of states, rendered Joseph's position in Rome politically untenable and personally dangerous, so he made a hasty retreat to Florence and subsequently to France, with, as he says, the private approbation of his conduct by his government, but not quite, it seems, with that of his brother:

'I found, on my return to Paris, my brother Napoleon much annoyed (contrarié) at the result of my embassy, and forced to conclude that diplomacy is a very uncertain science, &c. &c.'-i. 68.

Our readers may be surprised at Joseph's or Napoleon's venturing to palliate this scandalous affair as a diplomatic failure; it seems, as Joseph tells his story, to have no more to do with diplomacy than with pharmacy-but the word is not without a meaning. We find in the Correspondence a letter of confidential instructions from Napoleon to Joseph with regard to Rome and Naples, which explains the bad faith of Joseph's statement, and the reason why Napoleon was 'contrarié' by the failure of a deeplaid scheme of treachery and violence. The whole correspondence from Joseph's arrival at Rome reveals Napoleon's arrogant resolution to take every underhand as well as openly-insulting means to drive the papal government to extremities, but the point we particularly refer to is a passage in a long letter of the 29th September, when the Pope was supposed to be dangerously ill :—

'If the Pope should be dead, do all you possibly can to prevent the nomination of another, and to bring about a revolution.'-i. 168. He then desires him, in case the revolution should be got up, to declare the Roman people under the protection of the French Republic; and he instructs him how to deal with the opposition that might be expected from Naples; but he adds, if the Pope

is dead, and that there has been no movement in Rome, then that he should oppose the nomination of Cardinal Albani,' &c. (i. 16.) This is all the Correspondence gives; but who can doubt that it -besides what may have been suppressed (as much evidently has been)-gives the key to Joseph's countenance and protection of the Insurrection of the 28th December? But Napoleon wanted a Roman insurrection, and Joseph had made only a French one.

Joseph consoles himself for this failure by stating that the Directory not only expressed the strongest approval of his conduct, but also offered him as a mark of approbation the mission to Berlin. He tells us that he preferred remaining in Paris, as representative of one of the departments of Corsica in the Council of Five Hundred. This probably agreed with his own selfindulgent tastes and with Napoleon's policy; for we are told that he set up a 'grand train de maison'a large establishment and style of living-in Paris, where, as well as at Morfontaine, he laid himself out to receive and conciliate all the most influential personages of the day.

His history from this period to the '18 Brumaire' occupies but two or three pages, and tells nothing of any importance or novelty; and even for some time after the Consulate he seems to have contented himself with continuing to play the Amphitryon, in which character he gravely claims the merit of having done the State some service.'

'At this epoch of our history I flatter myself that I rendered some service. Napoleon wished extremely to know the state of public opinion, and, having the greatest reliance on my fraternal affection, he thought that, having accepted no official part in his government, I was the best person to enlighten him on this point. I accordingly saw a great deal of company, both in Paris and in the country, and, free from all details of business, I employed myself in an accurate observation and study of the views and wishes of the various classes of society. How often have I not been consulted on what such or such a person, or such or such a class at Paris, Lyons, or Marseilles, would think of such or such a measure of legislation or government !'-i. 82.

To this close imitation of 'P.P., Clerk of this parish,' he adds,

'So much was this the case that the English police at this period designated me as l'Influent.'-i. 82.

We wish for our own sakes he had told us where we could find the English word by which our 'Police' designated him. But in truth it would be better for Joseph's personal character to leave him in his long-established reputation of having been no worse than a tool. As such he was employed in the negociation

negociation of the Concordat and of the treaty of Amiens. We-who know that Napoleon prescribed, even to Talleyrand, how he should look, in what tone he should speak, and in what part of the room he should stand in an interview with Lord Whitworth (see Quart. Rev., vol. xxviii. p. 255) are not surprised that he should have availed himself of the occasion of bringing forward the name of Buonaparte in connexion with the two great objects of his then policy, the re-establishment of religion and the peace with England-and this he might safely do, as the negociations were to be conducted within reach of his personal directions. That he had as real an affection for Joseph as his nature was capable of cannot be doubted; but it is equally certain that he had a contempt for his abilities, which seems, even to us, somewhat excessive; and we are therefore warranted in concluding that it was Joseph's name, and not his talents, that procured him the diplomatic employments as well as the higher elevations which he is so desirous of ascribing to his personal merit.

We now arrive at the most important point, not only of the Autobiography, but, we may say, of Napoleon's life—the murder of the Duke d'Enghien; and, if the rest of the work appear trite and jejune, there are some points in Joseph's account of this most foul assassination that will astonish our readers :—

'The catastrophe of the Duke d'Enghien demands from me some details too HONOURABLE to the memory of Napoleon to be passed over in silence. On the arrival of the Duke d'Enghien at Vincennes I was à ma terre de Morfontaine. I was summoned to Malmaison; I had hardly arrived in the court-yard when Josephine came to meet me, in great trouble [toute émue], to announce the event of the day.'—i. 97.

We will not dwell on some impossibilities as to some dates and distances which this statement presents. The Duke d'Enghien did not arrive at Vincennes till half-past five in the evening of the 20th March, 1804. Morfontaine and Malmaison are about 36 miles apart. There was therefore a physical impossibility that the events related by Joseph could have happened after the arrival of the Prince. But let us for a moment suppose that Joseph's memory or veracity has failed him on the subordinate points, as they have done on so many others, and that, in fact, Napoleon had summoned him early on the morning of the 20th in the expectation of hearing of the Prince's arrival in the course of the day-how was it that Josephine should meet him in the court-yard to tell him the event of the day,'—an event that had not yet happened, and that, when it did happen, several hours later, was kept a most profound secret? But we pass that also as a mere inaccuracy of expression. Joseph proceeds—

'Napoleon

'Napoleon had consulted Cambacérès and Berthier, who were both favourable to the prisoner; but Josephine said that she was afraid of the contrary influence of Talleyrand, who had been for some time walking in the park with the Consul. "Your brother," she said, "has been often asking for you. Make haste to interrupt this long conversation that lame fellow frightens me!" When I arrived at the door of the salon, my brother dismissed Talleyrand and called me in. He expressed his astonishment at the extreme contradiction of opinion between the last two persons he had seen, and asked me mine.'—ib. Joseph says he advised mercy, and recalled to Napoleon's recollection the kindness which the Prince de Condé had shown the school of artillery at Autun when Joseph was there in 1783; and he recited some verses that had been addressed to that Prince on the occasion. The result of this worse than puerile way of treating so awful, so appalling a question was, that at the close of the stanza―

a tear escaped from the eyelid of Napoleon; and he told me, with a nervous movement that with him always accompanied a generous thought, "His pardon is in my heart-since I can pardon him. But that is not enough for me- -the grandson of the Great Condé MUST SERVE IN OUR ARMIES. I feel myself strong enough for THAT.'—-1b. This, for history, is much the most important point of Joseph's narrative. Our readers know that Napoleon himself at St. Helena and all his former apologists have accused the young Prince of the baseness of having written a letter to Napoleon soliciting to be allowed to serve as his aide-de-camp,' and that this letter would have secured his pardon, but that Talleyrand had delayed its delivery to ensure the catastrophe. This falsehood was long ago disproved (Q. R. xxi. p. 566) by reasoning as strong as any negative evidence could be; but here we have the origin of the calumny. The idea was Buonaparte's ownannounced to Joseph, before there had been any personal communication whatsoever with the Prince, as the price at which only his life would be spared. Whether the insulting proposition was made to him in the short interval between his arrival and his death, is not and probably never can be known; if it was, it was rejected-Napoleon found that he was not 'strong enough for that'-the murder of the Duke's person was consummated

that of his character failed!

But there is another and most important inference to be drawn from all that is credible of Joseph's story, of which he seems quite unconscious. All that he says about these various intercessions for pardon'—all Napoleon's dispositions de faire grace'-nay, the tear that escaped his eyelid'-all these circumstances would be applicable only to the case of a prisoner already condemned and an object of grace-mercy, but here they are

applied

applied to a person, not only not condemned-not tried, but not yet legally accused-not arraigned-not examined-not identified-not even arrived within the jurisdiction in which he was to be tried! The grave, we know, was dug at Vincennes, before the sentence was pronounced-the sentence, we see, had been passed at Malmaison, before there was either charge, court, or culprit.

Joseph proceeds to say that he returned to dinner at Morfontaine (on which we shall have a word to say presently), in the belief that the Prince was to be spared, but that on returning to Malmaison next day he found Napoleon enraged (furieux) against the Count Real (his Minister of Secret Police), who influenced, Napoleon said, by his originally Jacobinical principles, had caused the prisoner to be executed even before Napoleon had heard of his condemnation. It is true enough that the execution took place before Napoleon could hear of the sentence, but that was only because of the nefarious resolution that execution should follow the sentence so rapidly as to leave no interval. Joseph says that he also at first blamed Real, but that, meeting him afterwards in America, Real exculpated himself by what Joseph produces as a sufficient apology for both Napoleon and his minister :—

'Count Real was the Counsellor of State charged with the police of Paris, including Vincennes; it was to him that the despatch, announcing the sentence of the Prince, arrived during the night. The clerk of the police, who was sitting up in the ante-room of his bedroom, had already twice waked him up for matters of little importance, which had vexed (impatienté) M. Real. This third despatch was placed upon his chimney, and did not meet his eye till very late in the day; having opened it, he hastened to Malmaison, where, however, he was anticipated by an officer of Gendarmerie, who had brought intelligence both of the sentence and its execution, the commission [court-martial] having concluded, that since the Government was silent there was no hope of mercy. I will not expatiate on the regrets, the impatience, the indignation of Napoleon.'-i. 101.

Now, if every word of this were true, as it assuredly is not— it would make no difference whatsoever in the case; for Real, the Minister of Civil Police, had officially nothing whatever to do with the affair, which was altogether military: court-chargetrial-sentence-execution-all were under martial law, or rather affected to be; for even the lax rules of that law were scandalously disregarded, and the whole proceeding from first to last was, as M. Dupin justly characterizes it, a monument alike of ignorance and infamy.' We can have no partiality for Real -the tool of Danton-the first Public Accuser of the Revolutionary Tribunal, and subsequently the colleague of those

6

monsters