etire respectfully; but his Majesty said to me, "No,
Constant, remain a minute longer, and tell me what you saw on your road."
Even if I had any intention to conceal from the Emperor a part of the
truth, taken thus unawares I should have lacked the time to prepare an
agreeable falsehood; so I said to him that everywhere, even in Silesia,
my eyes had been struck by the same frightful spectacle, for everywhere I
had seen the dead and the dying, and poor unfortunates struggling
hopelessly against cold and hunger. "That is true, that is true," he
said; "go and rest, my poor boy, you must be in need of it. To-morrow
you will resume your service."

The next day, in fact, I resumed my duties near the Emperor, and I found
him exactly the same as he had been before entering on the campaign; the
same placidity was evident on his countenance. It would have been said
that the past was no longer anything to him; and living ever in the
future, he already saw victory perched again on our banner, and his
enemies humiliated and vanquished. It is true that the numerous
addresses he received, and discourses which were pronounced in his
presence by the presidents of the senate and the council of state, were
no less flattering than formerly; but it was very evident in his replies
that if he pretended to forget this disastrous experience in Russia, he
was more deeply concerned about the affair of General Malet than anything
else.

[In the reply of the Emperor to the council of state occurred the
following remarkable passage, which it may not be amiss to repeat at
this period as very singular:

"It is to idealism and that gloomy species of metaphysics which,
seeking subtilely for first causes, wishes to place on such
foundations the legislation of a people, instead of adapting the
laws to their knowledge of the human heart, and to the lessons of
history, that it is necessary to attribute all the misfortunes our
beautiful France has experienced. These errors have necessarily led
to the rule of the men of blood. In fact, who has proclaimed the
principle of insurrection as a duty? Who has paid adulation to the
nation while claiming for it a sovereignty which it was incapable of
exercising? Who has destroyed the sanctity and respect for the
laws, in making them depend, not on the sacred principles of
justice, or the nature of things and on civil justice, but simply on
the will of an assembly of m