« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
monsters Chaumette and Hébert as joint Procureurs de la Commune of Paris during the Reign of Terror, but we cannot understand what should have induced him not merely to accept, but even voluntarily to assume, as Joseph describes, any responsibility in a crime in which it seems that he could have had no direct concern. We therefore have no hesitation in saying that we totally disbelieve Joseph's personal assertion that he had this story from Real himself. We have many cogent reasons for this disbelief-one will suffice, that Napoleon, in the various versions, meant as exculpatory, that he gave of the matter, never, that we recollect, thought of making Real a scapegoat, or ever alleged the delay of any letter but the fabulous one alleged to have been written by the Duke.
Joseph winds up his long, incoherent, contradictory, and utterly futile apology for this enormous crime, by a phrase which, even from the pen of a Buonaparte, surprised us :
NAPOLEON NEVER SHONE WITH A MORE BRILLIANT GLORY THAN ON THIS SAD AND CALAMITOUS OCCASION.'-i. 100.
But we have not done with Joseph's own share in this terrible affair. He adds a peculiarity that enables us to convict him of the most deliberate falsehood. We have seen that, having been summoned and consulted by Napoleon on the day of the Prince's incarceration at Vincennes, he returned to dinner at Morfontaine, where he had a large party, including some distinguished names of the old noblesse ; and, with the invidious object of exhibiting such guests as making light of the danger of the unhappy Prince, he gives us the following narrative :
'I returned to Morfontaine: my guests were already at table; I sat down by the side of Madame de Staël, who had M. Matthieu de Montmorency on her left. On my assuring Madame de Staël of the intention of the First Consul to pardon (faire grace) a descendant of the great Condé, she replied with this woman's phrase (propos de femme), " Ah! so much the better, else we should lose the company of our friend Matthieu.” (Ah! tant mieux ; s'il en était autrement nous ne verrions plus ici Matthieu.) M. de C.... B..., who had not emigrated, said to me, on the contrary, “What, then, shall the Bourbons be allowed to make such conspiracies with impunity? The First Consul is much mistaken if he thinks that the noblesse who have not emigrated, and particularly the noblesse historique, take any great interest in the Bourbons : see how they treated Biron and my own ancestor (aieul), and so many others.” And then, calling with a loud voice to the Comte de Clermont-Tonnerre, who was one of my guests,
Tonnerre, Tonnerre !” he cited him as a witness to the truth of his assertion.'-i. 98.
We will not take the trouble of explaining to our readers the peculiar malignity with which Madame de Staël and M. de Montmorency are mixed up in the cruel frivolity and indifference exhibited on this occasion; but it is more important to expose the fraud with which Joseph endeavours to represent two of the ancient historical noblesse of France as approving—the one loudly, the other tacitly—this atrocity. And it is certainly very singular that the two names he introduces should have been those of two of the most remarkable and most deplored victims of the earlier revolution. We presume that M.C...B... means M. Cossé-Brisac, a name honoured by the loyalty and gallantry of the venerable Duke of Cossé-Brisac, massacred at Versailles in the fatal days of September. He left no son—but a distant relation, calling himself at first Citoyen and afterwards Comte de CosséBrisac, had degraded "a name illustrious till it was his,' by his servility to the Buonapartes, and by descending even so low as to accept an office in the household of Madame Mère ; if this was the person meant by “M. C...B...,' we cannot be surprised at the sentiments Joseph attributes to him. In the same way his Monsieur de Clermont-Tonnerre, a cousin, we know not how near, of that amiable and able Count de Clermont-Tonnerre, massacred on the 10th of August—who was not ashamed to attach himself in a very inferior rank to the service of Joseph himself. These are the specimens of the old historic noblesse whom Joseph cites as countenancing the murder of the Duke d’Enghien !
We must now beg our readers to observe the minute accuracy of Joseph's recollection of the whole scene : he remembers who sat on Madame de Staël's right and left—the woman's sneer' with which she pointed out the only inconvenience that she could apprehend from the murder of the Duke d’Enghien ; nay, he recollects the tone of voice and the style of address in which M. de C..B .. appealed to M. de Clermont-Tonnerre.
. But mark the fact-Madame de Staël was not then in France. She had been exiled some months before, by a violence as despotic, though not so bloody, as the murder of the Duke d’Enghien. It was at Berlin, whither she was obliged to fly for refuge, that she first heard of this terrible atrocity; and she herself, in her work of “Dix Années d'Exile,' tells us how she heard it. The 19th chapter of that work is headed · MURDER OF THE DUKE D’ENGHIEN.' And it proceeds :
'I resided at Berlin, on the Quay of the river Spree. My apartment was on the ground floor. One morning at eight o'clock my servants woke me to say that Prince Louis Ferdinand was on horseback at my window and wished to speak to me. Very much astonished at so early a visit, I hastened to get up, and went to the window. He seemed much agitated. Do you know," said he, “that the Duke d'Enghien has been carried off from the territory of Baden, brought before a
military commission, and shot within twenty-four hours after his arriral at Paris ?" [in fact, within twelve hours]. I confess that my hatred of Buonaparte, strong as it was, did not go to the extent of making me believe in the possibility of such a crime.“ As you doubt what I tell you, replied the Prince, “ I will send you the Moniteur, where you will read it all.”?—Euvres de Staël, vol. i. p. 98.
There our limits oblige us for the present to leave worthy King Joseph and his veracious Autobiography. Before our next number we hope to receive the rest of the volumes, and to be able to pursue to its conclusion our examination of this curious work, which becomes more important as we escape from the equivocations of the Buonapartes, to the less fallacious documentary evidence of their acts.
Art. VIII.-1. The Progress and Present Position of Russia in
the East : an Historical Summary. 3rd ed., continued down
to the present time. London. 1854. 2. Lettres sur la Turquie; ou Tableau Statistique, Religieux, Poli
tique, Administratif, Militaire, et Commerciale de l'Empire Ottoman depuis le Khatti-Cherif de Gulkhané (1839) jusqu'à
nos jours. Par M. A. Ubicini. 1854. 3. La Question d'Orient devant l'Europe. Documents Officiels,
Manifestes, Notes, Firmans, Circulaires, etc., depuis l'Origine du Différend; annotés et précédés d'une Exposition de la Question
des Lieux-Saints. Par M. A. Ubicini. 1854. SINCE the settlement of the great conflicting political interests
of Europe by the Treaty of Vienna, and the consequent establishment of the balance of power, statesmen have looked to the East as the most probable source of the next general war. The reasons are evident enough. In the first place, Turkey, from circumstances into which it is scarcely necessary here to enter, was not consulted in the political combinations contemplated by the Treaty of Vienna, and was not admitted into the so-called European family: in the second, the anomalous condition of that empire, its increasing weakness, its liability to foreign influences, and the antagonistic nature of its component parts, rendered its rapid decline almost inevitable. Still the immediate occurrences which were to bring about its dissolution remained a matter of doubt. The war with Mohammed Ali Pasha, and the death of the Viceroy of Egypt, were at one time looked upon as events which would hasten, if they did not actually cause, the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The corruption government itself, the embarrassed state of the finances,
the introduction of reforms inconsistent with Mussulman dominion over a Christian population, vastly exceeding in the most important provinces the dominant race, -were confidently brought forward as inevitable precursors of a final crisis. Those, however, who had studied this all-important question, and who had endeavoured with a knowledge of the true condition of the Turkish Empire to trace the various sources of its weakness and decline, had long looked upon the relations between Russia and the Porte, and the influence claimed and exercised by the Czar upon the subjects of the Sultan professing the Greek religion, as the real danger which must sooner or later threaten the
very existence of Turkey. The moment has at length come when these fears have been realized; and unless success—scarcely to be hoped for-attend the last efforts of the four Powers in favour of peace, we are on the eve of a war which may lead to changes of the utmost importance in the political condition of Europe, and may even seal the fate of the Ottoman Empire.
Such being the case, three questions, upon which it is desirable that we should have the fullest and most satisfactory information, naturally suggest themselves. 1. What are the causes which have led to the present difficulties, and are the interests at stake sufficient in themselves to warrant our supporting the Turks in resisting the demands of Russia even to the extent of war? 2. Are the resources of Turkey such as to allow her, even with our aid, to offer a successful resistance to her powerful neighbour? And, 3. Supposing Russia to be defeated, and the independence of Turkey guaranteed, what hopes have we that the Ottoman Empire will preserve sufficient strength to maintain that independence, or under what new conditions cản a powerful state be raised up in her stead? We will endeavour to answer these questions with strict impartiality, referring our readers to those documents which have been published officially, * and to such independent information as, we have every reason to believe, may be most fully relied on.
1. It is scarcely necessary at this time to inquire into the origin of the disputed claims of France and Russia to certain privileges connected with what are commonly called the Holy Places. However much the just demands of Russia may have been disregarded—whatever may have been the bad faith of the Porte- we will shortly show that they have now nothing whatever to do with the matter. Russia herself has placed the controversy upon a different basis. But still, in order that our readers may have a complete view of the whole subject, we will, as concisely as possible, narrate the events which preceded, and may have afforded a pretence for, the present difficulties.
* We shall quote from the State Papers published by the French Government and its official organ the “Moniteur,' and collected by M. Ubicini. Our dwn Government has hitherto, with one exception, refused to communicate any of these documents to the public.
So far back as the year 1535, Francis I. obtained from the Ottoman Sultan Soliman a capitulation or treaty, conceding to France, amongst other privileges, the right of Catholics, or Francs,' residing in Jerusalem, to certain sanctuaries. These sanctuaries were not described, and different writers have endeavoured to classify and determine them. The capitulation of 1535 was renewed and confirmed by a further treaty in the year
1740, in which the claims of France to the same Holy Places were again recognised, and an additional power given to her to repair such of them as might have fallen into decay on an application through her" ambassador. Still the sanctuaries were not specified, an omission which gave rise to endless disputes between the Roman Catholics and the Greeks, who also possessed sanctuaries and had a share in those claimed by France. The Greeks succeeded in obtaining, at various periods, firmans from the Porte, and decrees from the local tribunals, conferring upon them the possession of sacred spots held by the Francs or Latins (as those professing the Roman Catholic faith are called), and contradictory or inconsistent firmans were as continually granted to their opponents. The scandalous state of things to which these dissensions gave rise is well known to travellers in Palestine. When, as happens periodically, the feast of Easter was celebrated simultaneously by both sects, and when pilgrims from all parts of the East were gathered together in Jerusalem, the most bloody contests took place on the very spot which tradition had assigned as the sepulchre of the Saviour. So fatal were these disgraceful conflicts that the Turkish authorities were compelled to interfere, and in order to prevent bloodshed the entrance to the Temple was guarded by Mussulman troops during the celebration of Christian worship.
In 1847 an event occurred which, if possible, exasperated still further the religious animosities of the two sects, and led to the direct interference of the French Government. sanctuary claimed by the Latins, a silver star suspended in the air marked the spot of the Saviour's birth.. On the 1st of November it was secretly removed, and the Greeks were accused of this act of sacrilege. Complaint was made to the French embassy, and gave rise to a reopening of the whole question concerning the Holy Places. M. de Lavalette was unfortunately at that time the French representative at Constantinople. He was known to be a man of an intriguing and ambitious tempe