CHAPTER II.

1784-1794.

Bonaparte enters the Military College of Paris–He urges me to
embrace the military profession–His report on the state of the
Military School of Paris–He obtains a commission–I set off for
Vienna–Return to Paris, where I again meet Bonaparte–His singular
plans for raising money–Louis XVI, with the red cap on his head–
The 10th of August–My departure for Stuttgart–Bonaparte goes to
Corsica–My name inscribed on the list of emigrants–Bonaparte at
the siege of Toulon–Le Souper de Beaucaire–Napoleon’s mission to
Genoa–His arrest–His autographical justification
–Duroc’s first connection with Bonaparte.

Bonaparte was fifteen years and two months old when he went to the
Military College of Paris.

–[Madame Junot relates some interesting particulars connected with
Napoleon’s first residence in Paris:
“My mother’s first care,” says she, “on arriving in Paris was to
inquire after Napoleon Bonaparte. He was at that time in the
military school at Paris, having quitted Brienne in the September of
the preceding year.

“My uncle Demetrius had met him just after he alighted from the coach
which brought him to town; ‘And truly.’ said my uncle, ‘he had the
appearance of a fresh importation. I met him in the Palms Royal,
where he was gaping and staring with wonder at everything he saw.
He would have been an excellent subject for sharpers, if, indeed, he
had had anything worth taking!’ My uncle invited him to dine at his
house; for though my uncle was a bachelor, he did not choose to dine
at a ‘traiteur’ (the name ‘restaurateur’ was not then introduced).
He told my mother that Napoleon was very morose. ‘I fear,’ added
he, ‘that that young man has more self-conceit than is suitable to
his condition. When he dined with me he began to declaim violently
against the luxury of the young men of the military school. After a
little he turned the conversation on Mania, and the present
education of the young Maniotes, drawing a comparison between it and
the ancient Spartan system of education. His observations on this
head he told me he intended to embody in a memorial to be presented
to the Minister of War. All this, depend upon it, will bring him
under the displeasure of his comrades; and it will be lucky if he
escape being run through.’ A few days afterwards my mother saw
Napoleon, and then his irritability was at its height. He would
scarcely bear any observations, even if made in his favour, and I am
convinced that it is to this uncontrollable irritability that he
owed the reputation of having been ill-tempered in his boyhood, and
splenetic in his youth. My father, who was acquainted with almost
all the heads of the military school, obtained leave for him
sometimes to come out for recreation. On account of an accident (a
sprain, if I recollect rightly) Napoleon once spent a whole week at
our house. To this day, whenever I pass the Quai Conti, I cannot
help looking up at a ‘mansarde’ at the left angle of the house on
the third floor. That was Napoleon’s chamber when he paid us a
visit, and a neat little room it was. My brother used to occupy the
one next to it. The two young men were nearly of the same age: my
brother perhaps had the advantage of a year or fifteen months. My
mother had recommended him to cultivate the friendship of young
Bonaparte; but my brother complained how unpleasant it was to find
only cold politeness where he expected affection. This
repulsiveness on the part of Napoleon was almost offensive, and must
have been sensibly felt by my brother, who was not only remarkable
for the mildness of his temper and the amenity and grace of his
manner, but whose society was courted in the most distinguished
circles of Paris on account of his accomplishments. He perceived in
Bonaparte a kind of acerbity and bitter irony, of which he long
endeavoured to discover the cause. ‘I believe,’ said Albert one day
to my mother, ‘that the poor young man feels keenly his dependent
situation.'” (‘Memoirs of the Duchesse d’Abrantes, vol. i. p. 18,
edit. 1883).]–

I accompanied him in a carriole as far as Nogent Sur Seine, whence the
coach was to start. We parted with regret, and we did not meet again
till the year 1792. During these eight years we maintained an active
correspondence; but so little did I anticipate the high destiny which,
after his elevation, it was affirmed the wonderful qualities of his
boyhood plainly denoted, that I did not preserve one of the letters
he wrote to me at that period, but tore them up as soon as they were
answered.

–[I remember, however, that in a letter which I received from him
about a year after his arrival in Paris he urged me to keep my
promise of entering the army with him. Like him, I had passed
through the studies necessary for the artillery service; and in 1787
I went for three months to Metz, in order to unite practice with
theory. A strange Ordinance, which I believe was issued in 1778 by
M. de Segur, required that a man should possess four quarterings of
nobility before he could be qualified to serve his king and country
as a military officer. My mother went to Paris, taking with her the
letters patent of her husband, who died six weeks after my birth.
She proved that in the year 1640 Louis XIII. had, by letters
patent, restored the titles of one Fauvelet de Villemont, who in
1586 had kept several provinces of Burgundy subject to the king’s
authority at the peril of his life and the loss of his property; and
that his family had occupied the first places in the magistracy
since the fourteenth century. All was correct, but it was observed
that the letters of nobility had not been registered by the
Parliament, and to repair this little omission, the sum of twelve
thousand francs was demanded. This my mother refused to pay, and
there the matter rested.]–

On his arrival at the Military School of Paris, Bonaparte found
the establishment on so brilliant and expensive a footing that he
immediately addressed a memorial on the subject to the Vice-Principal
Berton of Brienne.

–[A second memoir prepared by him to the same effect was intended
for the Minister of War, but Father Berton wisely advised silence to
the young cadet (Iung, tome i. p. 122). Although believing in the
necessity of show and of magnificence in public life, Napoleon
remained true to these principles. While lavishing wealth on his
ministers and marshals, “In your private life,” said be, “be
economical and even parsimonious; in public be magnificent”
(Meneval, tome i. p. 146).]–

He showed that the plan of education was really pernicious, and far from
being calculated to fulfil the object which every wise government must
have in view. The result of the system, he said, was to inspire
the pupils, who were all the sons of poor gentlemen, with a love of
ostentation, or rather, with sentiments of vanity and self-sufficiency;
so that, instead of returning happy to the bosom of their families, they
were likely to be ashamed of their parents, and to despise their humble
homes. Instead of the numerous attendants by whom they were surrounded,
their dinners of two courses, and their horses and grooms, he suggested
that they should perform little necessary services for themselves, such
as brushing their clothes, and cleaning their boots and shoes; that
they should eat the coarse bread made for soldiers, etc. Temperance and
activity, he added, would render them robust, enable them to bear the
severity of different seasons and climates, to brave the fatigues of
war, and to inspire the respect and obedience of the soldiers under
their command. Thus reasoned Napoleon at the age of sixteen, and time
showed that he never deviated from these principles. The establishment
of the military school at Fontainebleau is a decided proof of this.

As Napoleon was an active observer of everything passing around him, and
pronounced his opinion openly and decidedly, he did not remain long at
the Military School of Paris. His superiors, who were anxious to get rid
of him, accelerated the period of his examination, and he obtained the
first vacant sub-lieutenancy in a regiment of artillery.

I left Brienne in 1787; and as I could not enter the artillery,
I proceeded in the following year to Vienna, with a letter of
recommendation to M. de Montmorin, soliciting employment in the French
Embassy at the Court of Austria.

I remained two months at Vienna, where I had the honour of twice seeing
the Emperor Joseph. The impression made upon me by his kind reception,
his dignified and elegant manners, and graceful conversation, will never
be obliterated from my recollection. After M. de Noailles had initiated
me in the first steps of diplomacy, he advised me to go to one of the
German universities to study the law of nations and foreign languages.
I accordingly repaired to Leipsic, about the time when the French
Revolution broke out.

I spent some time at Leipsic, where I applied myself to the study of
the law of nations, and the German and English languages. I afterwards
travelled through Prussia and Poland, and passed a part of the winter
of 1791 and 1792 at Warsaw, where I was most graciously received by
Princess Tyszicwiez, niece of Stanislaus Augustus, the last King of
Poland, and the sister of Prince Poniatowski. The Princess was very
well informed, and was a great admirer of French literature: At her
invitation I passed several evenings in company with the King in a
circle small enough to approach to something like intimacy. I remember
that his Majesty frequently asked me to read the Moniteur; the speeches
to which he listened with the greatest pleasure were those of the
Girondists. The Princess Tyszicwiez wished to print at Warsaw, at her
own expense, a translation I had executed of Kotzebue’s ‘Menschenhass
and Reue, to which I gave the title of ‘L’Inconnu’.

–[A play known on the English stage as The Stranger.]–

I arrived at Vienna on the 26th of March 1792, when I was informed
of the serious illness of the Emperor, Leopold II, who died on the
following day. In private companies, and at public places, I heard vague
suspicions expressed of his having been poisoned; but the public, who
were admitted to the palace to see the body lie in state, were soon
convinced of the falsehood of these reports. I went twice to see the
mournful spectacle, and I never heard a word which was calculated to
confirm the odious suspicion, though the spacious hall in which the
remains of the Emperor were exposed was constantly thronged with people.

In the month of April 1792 I returned to Paris, where I again met
Bonaparte,

–[Bonaparte is said, on very doubtful authority, to have spent five
or six weeks in London in 1791 or 1792, and to have “lodged in a
house in George Street, Strand. His chief occupation appeared to be
taking pedestrian exercise in the streets of London–hence his
marvellous knowledge of the great metropolis which used to astonish
any Englishmen of distinction who were not aware of this visit. He
occasionally took his cup of chocolate at the ‘Northumberland,’
occupying himself in reading, and preserving a provoking taciturnity
to the gentlemen in the room; though his manner was stern, his
deportment was that of a gentleman.” The story of his visit is
probably as apocryphal as that of his offering his services to the
English Government when the English forces wore blockading the coast
of Corsica,]–

and our college intimacy was fully renewed. I was not very well off, and
adversity was hanging heavily on him; his resources frequently failed
him. We passed our time like two young fellows of twenty-three who have
little money and less occupation. Bonaparte was always poorer than
I. Every day we conceived some new project or other. We were on the
look-out for some profitable speculation. At one time he wanted me to
join him in renting several houses, then building in the Rue Montholon,
to underlet them afterwards. We found the demands of the landlords
extravagant–everything failed.

At the same time he was soliciting employment at the War Office, and I
at the office of Foreign Affairs. I was for the moment the luckier of
the two.

While we were spending our time in a somewhat vagabond way,

–[It was before the 20th of June that in our frequent excursions
around Paris we went to St. Cyr to see his sister Marianne (Elisa).
We returned to dine alone at Trianon.–Bourrienne.]–

the 20th of June arrived. We met by appointment at a restaurateur’s
in the Rue St. Honore, near the Palais Royal, to take one of our daily
rambles. On going out we saw approaching, in the direction of the
market, a mob, which Bonaparte calculated at five or six thousand
men. They were all in rags, ludicrously armed with weapons of every
description, and were proceeding hastily towards the Tuilleries,
vociferating all kinds of gross abuse. It was a collection of all that
was most vile and abject in the purlieus of Paris. “Let us follow the
mob,” said Bonaparte. We got the start of them, and took up our station
on the terrace of the banks of the river. It was there that he witnessed
the scandalous scenes which took place; and it would be difficult to
describe the surprise and indignation which they excited in him. When
the King showed himself at the windows overlooking the garden, with the
red cap, which one of the mob had put on his head, he could no longer
repress his indignation. “Che coglione!” he loudly exclaimed. “Why have
they let in all that rabble! They should sweep off four or five hundred
of them with the cannon; the rest would then set off fast enough.”

When we sat down to dinner, which I paid for, as I generally did, for
I was the richer of the two, he spoke of nothing but the scene we
had witnessed. He discussed with great good sense the causes and
consequences of this unrepressed insurrection. He foresaw and developed
with sagacity all that would ensue. He was not mistaken. The 10th of
August soon arrived. I was then at Stuttgart, where I was appointed
Secretary of Legation.

At St. Helena Bonaparte said, “On the news of the attack of the
Tuilleries, on the 10th of August, I hurried to Fauvelet, Bourrienne’s
brother, who then kept a furniture warehouse at the Carrousel.” This
is partly correct. My brother was connected with what was termed an
‘enterprise d’encan national’, where persons intending to quit France
received an advance of money, on depositing any effects which they
wished to dispose of, and which were sold for them immediately.
Bonaparte had some time previously pledged his watch in this way.

After the fatal 10th of August Bonaparte went to Corsica, and did not
return till 1793. Sir Walter Scott says that after that time he never
saw Corsica again. This is a mistake, as will be shown when I speak of
his return from Egypt.

–[Sir Walter appears to have collected his information for the Life
of Napoleon only from those libels and vulgar stories which
gratified the calumnious spirit and national hatred. His work is
written with excessive negligence, which, added to its numerous
errors, shows how much respect he must have entertained for his
readers. It would appear that his object was to make it the inverse
of his novels, where everything is borrowed from history. I have
been assured that Marshal Macdonald having offered to introduce
Scott to some generals who could have furnished him with the most
accurate, information respecting military events, the glory of which
they had shared, Sir Walter replied, “I thank you, but I shall
collect my information from unprofessional reports.”–Bourrienne.]–

Having been appointed Secretary of Legation to Stuttgart, I set off for
that place on the 2d of August, and I did not again see my ardent young
friend until 1795. He told me that my departure accelerated his for
Corsica. We separated, as may be supposed, with but faint hopes of ever
meeting again.

By a decree of the 28th of March of 1793, all French agents abroad were
ordered to return to France, within three months, under pain of being
regarded as emigrants. What I had witnessed before my departure for
Stuttgart, the excitement in which I had left the public mind, and the
well-known consequences of events of this kind, made me fear that
I should be compelled to be either an accomplice or a victim in the
disastrous scenes which were passing at home. My disobedience of the law
placed my name on the list of emigrants.

It has been said of me, in a biographical publication, that “it was as
remarkable as it was fortunate for Bourrienne that, on his return, he
got his name erased from the list of emigrants of the department of
the Yonne, on which it had been inscribed during his first journey to
Germany. This circumstance has been interpreted in several different
ways, which are not all equally favourable to M. de Bourrienne.”

I do not understand what favourable interpretations can be put upon a
statement entirely false. General Bonaparte repeatedly applied for the
erasure of my name, from the month of April 1797, when I rejoined him
at Leoben, to the period of the signature of the treaty of Campo-Formio;
but without success. He desired his brother Louis, Berthier, Bernadotte,
and others, when he sent them to the Directory, to urge my erasure; but
in vain. He complained of this inattention to his wishes to Bottot,
when he came to Passeriano, after the 18th Fructidor. Bottot, who was
secretary to Barras, was astonished that I was not erased, and he made
fine promises of what he would do. On his return to France he wrote to
Bonaparte: “Bourrienne is erased.” But this was untrue. I was not
erased until November 1797, upon the reiterated solicitations of General
Bonaparte.

It was during my absence from France that Bonaparte, in the rank of
‘chef de bataillon’, performed his first campaign, and contributed so
materially to the recapture of Toulon. Of this period of his life I
have no personal knowledge, and therefore I shall not speak of it as an
eye-witness. I shall merely relate some facts which fill up the interval
between 1793 and 1795, and which I have collected from papers which
he himself delivered to me. Among these papers is a little production,
entitled ‘Le Souper de Beaucaire’, the copies of which he bought up at
considerable expense, and destroyed upon his attaining the Consulate.
This little pamphlet contains principles very opposite to those he
wished to see established in 1800, a period when extravagant ideas of
liberty were no longer the fashion, and when Bonaparte entered upon a
system totally the reverse of those republican principles professed in
‘Le Souper de Beaucaire.

–[This is not, as Sir Walter says, a dialogue between Marat and a
Federalist, but a conversation between a military officer, a native
of Nismes, a native of Marseilles, and a manufacturer from
Montpellier. The latter, though he takes a share in the
conversation, does not say much. ‘Le Souper de Beaucaire’ is given
at full length in the French edition of these Memoirs, tome i. pp.
319-347; and by Iung, tome ii. p. 354, with the following remarks:
“The first edition of ‘Le Souper de Beaucaire’ was issued at the
cost of the Public Treasury, in August 1798. Sabin Tournal, its
editor, also then edited the ‘Courrier d’Avignon’. The second
edition only appeared twenty-eight years afterwards, in 1821,
preceded by an introduction by Frederick Royou (Paris: Brasseur
Aine, printer, Terrey, publisher, in octavo). This pamphlet did not
make any sensation at the time it appeared. It was only when
Napoleon became Commandant of the Army of Italy that M. Loubet,
secretary and corrector of the press for M. Tournal, attached some
value to the manuscript, and showed it to several persona. Louis
Bonaparte, later, ordered several copies from M. Aurel. The
pamphlet, dated 29th duly 1793, is in the form of a dialogue between
an officer of the army, a citizen of Nismes, a manufacturer of
Montpellier, and a citizen of Marseilles. Marseilles was then in a
state of insurrection against the Convention. Its forces had seized
Avignon, but had been driven out by the army of Cartesna, which was
about to attack Marseilles itself.” In the dialogue the officer
gives most excellent military advice to the representative of
Marseilles on the impossibility of their resisting the old soldiers
of Carteaux. The Marseilles citizen argues but feebly, and is
alarmed at the officer’s representations; while his threat to call
in the Spaniards turns the other speakers against him. Even Colonel
Iung says, tome ii. p. 372, “In these concise judgments is felt the
decision of the master and of the man of war….. These marvellous
qualities consequently struck the members of the Convention, who
made much of Bonaparte, authorised him to have it published at the
public expense, and made him many promises.” Lanfrey, vol. i. pp.
201, says of this pamphlets “Common enough ideas, expressed in a
style only remarkable for its ‘Italianisms,’ but becoming singularly
firm and precise every time the author expresses his military views.
Under an apparent roughness, we find in it a rare circumspection,
leaving no hold on the writer, even if events change.”]–

It may be remarked, that in all that has come to us from St. Helena, not
a word is said of this youthful production. Its character sufficiently
explains this silence. In all Bonaparte’s writings posterity will
probably trace the profound politician rather than the enthusiastic
revolutionist.

Some documents relative to Bonaparte’s suspension and arrest, by order
of the representatives Albitte and Salicetti, serve to place in their
true light circumstances which have hitherto been misrepresented. I
shall enter into some details of this event, because I have seen it
stated that this circumstance of Bonaparte’s life has been perverted and
misrepresented by every person who has hitherto written about him;
and the writer who makes this remark, himself describes the affair
incorrectly and vaguely. Others have attributed Bonaparte’s misfortune
to a military discussion on war, and his connection with Robespierre the
younger.

–[It will presently be seen that all this is erroneous, and that
Sir Walter commits another mistake when he says that Bonaparte’s
connection with Robespierre was attended with fatal consequences to
him, and that his justification consisted in acknowledging that his
friends were very different from what he had supposed them to be.
–Bourrienne.]–

It has, moreover, been said that Albitte and Salicetti explained to
the Committee of Public Safety the impossibility of their resuming the
military operations unaided by the talents of General Bonaparte. This is
mere flattery. The facts are these:

On the 13th of July 1794 (25th Messidor, year II), the representatives
of the people with the army of Italy ordered that General Bonaparte
should proceed to Genoa, there, conjointly with the French ‘charge
d’affaires’, to confer on certain subjects with the Genoese Government.
This mission, together with a list of secret instructions, directing him
to examine the fortresses of Genoa and the neighbouring country, show
the confidence which Bonaparte, who was then only twenty-five, inspired
in men who were deeply interested in making a prudent choice of their
agents.

Bonaparte set off for Genoa, and fulfilled his mission. The 9th
Thermidor arrived, and the deputies, called Terrorists, were superseded
by Albitte and Salicetti. In the disorder which then prevailed they were
either ignorant of the orders given to General Bonaparte, or persons
envious of the rising glory of the young general of artillery inspired
Albitte and Salicetti with suspicions prejudicial to him. Be this as it
may, the two representatives drew up a resolution, ordering that General
Bonaparte should be arrested, suspended from his rank, and arraigned
before the Committee of Public Safety; and, extraordinary as it may
appear, this resolution was founded in that very journey to Genoa
which Bonaparte executed by the direction of the representatives of the
people.

–[Madame Junot throws some light on this Persecution of Bonaparte
by Salicetti. “One motive (I do not mean to say the only one),”
remarks this lady, “of the animosity shown by Salicetti to
Bonaparte, in the affair of Loano, was that they were at one time
suitors to the same lady. I am not sure whether it was in Corsica
or in Paris, but I know for a fact that Bonaparte, in spite of his
youth, or perhaps I should rather say on account of his youth, was
the favoured lover. It was the opinion of my brother, who was
secretary to Salicetti, that Bonaparte owed his life to a
circumstance which is not very well known. The fact is, that
Salicetti received a letter from Bonaparte, the contents of which
appeared to make a deep impression on him. Bonaparte’s papers had
been delivered into Salicetti’s hands, who, after an attentive
perusal of them, laid them aside with evident dissatisfaction. He
then took them up again, and read them a second time. Salicetti
declined my brother’s assistance is the examination of the papers,
and after a second examination, which was probably as unsatisfactory
as the first, he seated himself with a very abstracted air. It
would appear that he had seen among the papers some document which
concerned himself. Another curious fact is, that the man who had
the care of the papers after they were sealed up was an inferior
clerk entirely under the control of Salicetti; and my brother, whose
business it was to have charge of the papers, was directed not to
touch them. He has often spoken to me of this circumstance, and I
mention it here as one of importance to the history of the time.
Nothing that relates to a man like Napoleon can be considered
useless or trivial.

“What, after all, was the result of this strange business which
might have cost Bonaparte his head?–for, had he been taken to Paris
and tried by the Committee of Public Safety, there is little doubt
that the friend of Robespierre the younger would have been condemned
by Billaud-Varennes and Collot d’Herbois. The result was the
acquittal of the accused. This result is the more extraordinary,
since it would appear that at that time Salicetti stood in fear of
the young general. A compliment is even paid to Bonaparte in the
decree, by which he was provisionally restored to liberty. That
liberation was said to be granted on the consideration that General
Bonaparte might be useful to the Republic. This was foresight; but
subsequently when measures were taken which rendered Bonaparte no
longer an object of fear, his name was erased from the list of
general officers, and it is a curious fact that Cambacérès, who was
destined to be his colleague in the Consulate, was one of the
persons who signed the act of erasure” (Memoirs of the Duchesse
d’Abrantes, vol. i, p. 69, edit. 1843).]–

Bonaparte said at St. Helena that he was a short time imprisoned by
order of the representative Laporte; but the order for his arrest was
signed by Albitte, Salicetti, and Laporte.

–[Albitte and Laporte were the representatives sent from the
Convention to the army of the Alps, and Salicetti to the army of
Italy.]–

Laporte was not probably the most influential of the three, for
Bonaparte did not address his remonstrance to him. He was a fortnight
under arrest.

Had the circumstance occurred three weeks earlier, and had Bonaparte
been arraigned before the Committee of Public Safety previous to the 9th
Thermidor, there is every probability that his career would have been
at an end; and we should have seen perish on the scaffold, at the age of
twenty-five, the man who, during the twenty-five succeeding years, was
destined to astonish the world by his vast conceptions, his gigantic
projects, his great military genius, his extraordinary good fortune, his
faults, reverses, and final misfortunes.

It is worth while to remark that in the post-Thermidorian resolution
just alluded to no mention is made of Bonaparte’s association with
Robespierre the younger. The severity with which he was treated is the
more astonishing, since his mission to Genoa was the alleged cause of
it. Was there any other charge against him, or had calumny triumphed
over the services he had rendered to his country? I have frequently
conversed with him on the subject of this adventure, and he invariably
assured me that he had nothing to reproach himself with, and that his
defence, which I shall subjoin, contained the pure expression of his
sentiments, and the exact truth.

In the following note, which he addressed to Albitte and Salicetti,
he makes no mention of Laporte. The copy which I possess is in the
handwriting of, Junot, with corrections in the General’s hand. It
exhibits all the characteristics of Napoleon’s writing: his short
sentences, his abrupt rather than concise style, sometimes his elevated
ideas, and always his plain good sense.

TO THE REPRESENTATIVES ALBITTE AND SALICETTI:
You have suspended me from my duties, put me under arrest, and declared me to be suspected.

Thus I am disgraced before being judged, or indeed judged before being heard.

In a revolutionary state there are two classes, the suspected and the patriots.

When the first are aroused, general measures are adopted towards them for the sake of security.

The oppression of the second class is a blow to public liberty. The magistrate cannot condemn until after the fullest evidence and a succession of facts. This leaves nothing to arbitrary decision.

To declare a patriot suspected is to deprive him of all that he most highly values–confidence and esteem.

In what class am I placed?

Since the commencement of the Revolution, have I not always been attached to its principles?

Have I not always been contending either with domestic enemies or foreign foes?

I sacrificed my home, abandoned my property, and lost everything for the Republic?

I have since served with some distinction at Toulon, and earned a part of the laurels of the army of Italy at the taking of Saorgio, Oneille, and Tanaro.

On the discovery of Robespierre’s conspiracy, my conduct was that of a man accustomed to look only to principles.

My claim to the title of patriot, therefore cannot be disputed.

Why, then, am I declared suspected without being heard, and arrested eight days after I heard the news of the tyrant’s death.

I am declared suspected, and my papers are placed under seal.

The reverse of this course ought to have been adopted. My papers should first have been sealed; then I should have been called on for my explanation; and, lastly, declared suspected, if there was reason for coming to, such a decision.

It is wished that I should go to Paris with an order which declares me suspected. It will naturally be presumed that the representatives did not draw up this decree without accurate information, and I shall be judged with the bias which a man of that class merits.

Though a patriot and an innocent and calumniated man, yet whatever measures may be adopted by the Committee I cannot complain.

If three men declare that I have committed a crime, I cannot complain of the jury who condemns me.

Salicetti, you know me; and I ask whether you have observed anything in my conduct for the last five years which can afford ground of suspicion?

Albitte, you do not know me; but you have received proof of no fact against me; you have not heard me, and you know how artfully the tongue of calumny sometimes works.

Must I then be confounded with the enemies of my country and ought the patriots inconsiderately to sacrifice a general who has not been useless to the Republic? Ought the representatives to reduce the Government to the necessity of being unjust and impolitic?

Hear me; destroy the oppression that overwhelms me, and restore me to the esteem of the patriots.

An hour after, if my enemies wish for my life, let them take it. I have often given proofs how little I value it. Nothing but the thought that I may yet be useful to my country makes me bear the burden of existence with courage.

It appears that this defence, which is remarkable for its energetic
simplicity, produced an effect on Albitte and Salicetti. Inquiries more
accurate, and probably more favourable to the General, were instituted;
and on the 3d Fructidor (20th August 1794) the representatives of the
people drew up a decree stating that, after a careful examination of
General Bonaparte’s papers, and of the orders he had received relative
to his mission to Genoa, they saw nothing to justify any suspicion of
his conduct; and that, moreover, taking into consideration the advantage
that might accrue to the Republic from the military talents of the said
General Bonaparte, it was resolved that he should be provisionally set
at liberty.

–[With reference to the arrest of Bonaparte (which lasted thirteen
days) see ‘Bourrienne et ses Erreurs’, tome i. pp. 16-28, and Iung,
tome ii. pp. 443-457. Both, in opposition to Bourrienne, attribute
the arrest to his connection with the younger Robespierre.
Apparently Albitte and Salicetti wets not acquainted with the secret
plan of campaign prepared by the younger Robespierre and by
Bonaparte, or with the real instructions given for the mission to
Genoa. Jealousy between the representatives in the staff of the
army of the Alps and those with the army of Italy, with which
Napoleon was, also played a part in the affair. Iung looks on
Salicetti as acting as the protector of the Bonapartes; but Napoleon
does not seem to have regarded him in that light; see the letter
given in Tunot, vol. i. p. 106, where in 1795 he takes credit for
not returning the ill done to him; see also the same volume, p. 89.
Salicetti eventually became Minister of Police to Joseph, when King
of Naples, in 1806; but when he applied to return to France,
Napoleon said to Mathieu Dumas, “Let him know that I am not powerful
enough to protect the wretches who voted for the death of Louis XVI.
from the contempt and indignation of the public” (Dumas, tome iii.
p. 318). At the same time Napoleon described Salicetti as worse
than the lazzaroni.]–

Salicetti afterwards became the friend and confidant of young Bonaparte;
but their intimacy did not continue after his elevation.

What is to be thought of the motives for Bonaparte’s arrest and
provisional liberation, when his innocence and the error that had been
committed were acknowledged? The importance of the General’s military
talents, though no mention is made about the impossibility of dispensing
with them, is a pretence for restoring him to that liberty of which he
had been unjustly deprived.

It was not at Toulon, as has been stated, that Bonaparte took Duroc into
the artillery, and made him his ‘aide de camp’.

–[Michel Duroc (1773-1813) at first only aide de camp to Napoleon,
was several times entrusted with special diplomatic missions (for
example, to Berlin, etc.) On the formation of the Empire he became
Grand Marechal du Palais, and Duc de Frioul. He always remained in
close connection with Napoleon until he was killed in 1813. As he
is often mentioned in contemporary memoirs under his abbreviated
title of ‘Marshal’, he has sometimes been erroneously included in
the number of the Marshals of the Empire–a military rank he never
attained to.]–

The acquaintance was formed at a subsequent period, in Italy. Duroc’s
cold character and unexcursive mind suited Napoleon, whose confidence
he enjoyed until his death, and who entrusted him with missions perhaps
above his abilities. At St. Helena Bonaparte often declared that he was
much attached to Duroc. I believe this to be true; but I know that the
attachment was not returned. The ingratitude of princes is proverbial.
May it not happen that courtiers are also sometimes ungrateful?–[It is
only just to Duroc to add that this charge does not seem borne out by
the impressions of those more capable than Bourrienne of judging in the
matter.]