ted in the sanguinary drama of Georges' conspiracy.
It must be remembered, too, that during the period of these events we
were at war with England, and on the point of seeing Austria and the
Colossus of the north form a coalition against the new Emperor.

I will now state all I know relative to the death of the Due d'Enghien.
That unfortunate Prince, who was at Ettenheim, in consequence of a love
affair, had no communication whatever with those who were concocting a
plot in the interior. Machiavelli says that when the author of a crime
cannot be discovered we should seek for those to whose advantage it
turns. In the present case Machiavelli's advice will find an easy
application, since the Duke's death could be advantageous only to
Bonaparte, who considered it indispensable to his accession to the crown
of France. The motives may be explained, but can they be justified?
How could it ever be said that the Due d'Enghien perished as a presumed
accomplice in the conspiracy of Georges?

Moreau was arrested on the 15th of February 1804, at which time the
existence of the conspiracy was known. Pichegru and Georges were also
arrested in February, and the Due d'Enghien not till the 15th of March.
Now if the Prince had really been concerned in the plot, if even he had a
knowledge of it, would he have remained at Ettenheim for nearly a month
after the arrest of his presumed accomplices, intelligence of which he
might have obtained in the space of three days? Certainly not. So
ignorant was he of that conspiracy that when informed at Ettenheim of
the affair he doubted it, declaring that if it were true his father and
grandfather would have made him acquainted with it. Would so long an
interval have been suffered to elapse before he was arrested? Alas!
cruel experience has shown that that step would have been taken in a few
hours.

The sentence of death against Georges and his accomplices was not
pronounced till the 10th of June 1804, and the Due d'Enghien was shot on
the 21st of March, before the trials were even commenced. How is this
precipitation to be explained? If, as Napoleon has declared, the young
Bourbon was an accomplice in the crime, why was he not arrested at the
time the others were? Why was he not tried along with them, on the
ground of his being an actual accomplice; or of being compromised, by
communications with them; or, in short, because his answers might have
thrown light on that mysterious affair? How was it t