for by Article 68 of the Constitution, and renders, in the terms of the aforesaid article, the meeting of the High Court indispensable.

“It is declared that the High Court of Justice is organized, that it appoints[4] ... to fulfil with it the functions of the Public Ministry; that M. Bernard, the Recorder of the Court of Cassation, should fulfil the duties of Recorder, and in order to proceed further, according to the terms of the aforesaid Article 68 of the Constitution, the Court will adjourn until to-morrow, the 3d of December, at noon.

  “Drawn up and discussed in the Council Chamber, where were sitting
  MM.  Hardouin, president, Pataille, Moreau, Delapalme, and Cauchy,
  judges, December 2, 1851.”

The two Assistants, MM.  Grandet and Quesnault, offered to sign the decree, but the President ruled that it would be more correct only to accept the signatures of the titular judges, the Assistants not being qualified when the Court was complete.

In the meantime it was one o’clock, the news began to spread through the palace that a decree of deposition against Louis Bonaparte had been drawn up by a part of the Assembly; one of the judges who had gone out during the debate, brought back this rumor to his colleagues.  This coincided with an outburst of energy.  The President observed that it would be to the purpose to appoint a Procureur-General.

There was a difficulty.  Whom should they appoint?  In all preceding trials they had always chosen for a Procureur-General at the High Court the Procureur-General at the Court of Appeal of Paris.  Why should they introduce an innovation?  They determined upon this Procureur-General of the Court of Appeal.  This Procureur-General was at the time M. de Royer, who had been keeper of the Seals for M. Bonaparte.  Thence a new difficulty and a long debate.

Would M. de Royer consent?  M. Hardouin undertook to go and make the offer to him.  He had only to cross the Merciere Gallery.

M. de Royer was in his study.  The proposal greatly embarrassed him.  He remained speechless from the shock.  To accept was serious, to refuse was still more serious.

There was risk of treason.  On the 2d December, an hour after noon, the coup d’etat was still a crime.  M. de Royer, not knowing whether the high treason would succeed, ventured to stigmatize the deed as such in private, and cast down his eyes with a noble shame before this violation of the laws which, three months later, numerous purple robes, including his own, endorsed with their oaths.  But his indignation did not go to the extent of supporting the indictment.  An indictment speaks aloud.  M. de Royer as yet only murmured.  He was perplexed.

M. Hardouin understood this state of conscience.  Persistence would have been unreasonable.  He withdrew.

He returned to the room where his colleagues were awaiting him.

In the meantime the Commissary of the Arsenal Police had come back.