hat the name of the
illustrious accused was not once mentioned in the course of that awful
trial?

It can scarcely be conceived that Napoleon could say at St. Helena,
"Either they contrived to implicate the unfortunate Prince in their
project, and so pronounced his doom, or, by omitting to inform him of
what was going on, allowed him imprudently to slumber on the brink of a
precipice; for he was only a stone's cast from the frontier when they
were about to strike the great blow in the name and for the interest of
his family."

This reasoning is not merely absurd, it is atrocious. If the Duke was
implicated by the confession of his accomplices, he should have been
arrested and tried along with them. Justice required this. If he was
not so implicated, where is the proof of his guilt? Because some
individuals, without his knowledge, plotted to commit a crime in the name
of his family he was to be shot! Because he was 130 leagues from the
scene of the plot, and had no connection with it, he was to die! Such
arguments cannot fail to inspire horror. It is absolutely impossible any
reasonable person can regard the Due d'Enghien as an accomplice of
Cadoudal; and Napoleon basely imposed on his contemporaries and posterity
by inventing such falsehoods, and investing them with the authority of
his name.

Had I been then in the First Consul's intimacy I may aver, with as much
confidence as pride, that the blood of the Due d'Enghien would not have
imprinted an indelible stain on the glory of Bonaparte. In this terrible
matter I could have done what no one but me could even attempt, and this
on account of my position, which no one else has since held with
Bonaparte. I quite admit that he would have preferred others to me, and
that he would have had more friendship for them than for me, supposing
friendship to be compatible with the character of Bonaparte, but I knew
him better than any one else. Besides, among those who surrounded him I
alone could have permitted myself some return to our former familiarity
on account of our intimacy of childhood. Certainly, in a matter which
permanently touched the glory of Bonaparte, I should not have been
restrained by the fear of some transitory fit of anger, and the reader
has seen that I did not dread disgrace. Why should I have dreaded it?
I had neither portfolio, nor office, nor salary, for, as I have said, I
was only with Bonaparte as a friend, and we had, as it were, a common
purse. I f