s, gauzes and
gloves. "Let," said I to M. Eudel, "the Paris Duane be asked what that
town alone exports in matters of this sort and it will be seen how
important it is not to stop a trade all the more profitable to France,
as the workmanship forms the greatest part of the price of the goods
which make up this trade. What would happen if the importation of these
goods were absolutely prohibited in Hamburg? The consignments would
cease, and one of the most productive sources of trade for France, and
especially for Paris would be cut off."

At this time neither Hamburg nor its territory had any manufacture of
cloth. All woollen stuffs were prohibited, according to M. Eudel, and
still my duty was to furnish, and I had furnished, 50,000 cloaks for the
Grand Army. In compliance with a recent Imperial decree I had to have
made without delay 16,000 coats, 37,000 waistcoats, and the Emperor
required of me 200,000 pairs of boots, besides the 40,000 pairs I had
sent in. Yet M. Eudel said that tanned and worked leather ought not to
enter Hamburg! If such a ridiculous application of the law of 1796 had
been made it would have turned the decree of 21st November 1796 against
France, without fulfilling its object.

These reflections, to which I added other details, made the Government
conclude that I was right, and I traded with England to the great
advantage of the armies, which were well clothed and shod. What in the
world can be more ridiculous than commercial laws carried out to one's
own detriment?

At the beginning of 1807 my occupations at Hamburg were divided between
the furnishing of supplies for the army and the inspection of the
emigrants, whom Fouche pretended to dread in order to give greater
importance to his office.

I never let slip an opportunity of mitigating the rigour of Fouche's
orders, which, indeed, were sometimes so absurd that I did not attempt to
execute them. Of this an instance occurs to my recollection. A printer
at Hamburg had been arrested on the charge of having printed a libel in
the German language. The man was detained in prison because, very much
to his honour, he would not disclose the name of the writer of the
pamphlet. I sent for him and questioned him. He told me, with every
appearance of sincerity, that he had never but once seen the man who had
brought him the manuscript. I was convinced of the truth of what he
said, and I gave an order for his liberation. To avoid irritating the
susceptib