[Footnote 301:  Dupin in “Catastrophe du duc d’Enghien,” pp. 101, 123.]

[Footnote 302:  The only excuse which calls for notice here is that Napoleon at the last moment, when urged by Joseph to be merciful, gave way, and despatched orders late at night to Real to repair to Vincennes.  Real received some order, the exact purport of which is unknown:  it was late at night and he postponed going till the morrow.  On his way he met Savary, who came towards Paris bringing the news of the duke’s execution.  Real’s first words, on hearing this unexpected news, were:  “How is that possible?  I had so many questions to put to the duke:  his examination might disclose so much.  Another thing gone wrong; the First Consul will be furious.”  These words were afterwards repeated to Pasquier both by Savary and by Real:  and, unless Pasquier lied, the belated order sent to Real was not a pardon (and Napoleon on his last voyage said to Cockburn it was not), but merely an order to extract such information from the duke as would compromise other Frenchmen.  Besides, if Napoleon had despatched an order for the duke’s pardon, why was not that order produced as a sign of his innocence and Real’s blundering?  Why did he shut himself up in his private room on March 20th, so that even Josephine had difficulty in gaining entrance?  And if he really desired to pardon the duke, how came it that when, at noon of March 21st, Real explained that he arrived at Vincennes too late, the only words that escaped Napoleon’s lips were “C’est bien”? (See Meneval, vol. i, p. 296.) Why also was his countenance the only one that afterwards showed no remorse or grief?  Caulaincourt, when he heard the results of his raid into Baden, fainted with horror, and when brought to by Bonaparte, overwhelmed him with reproaches.  Why also had the grave been dug beforehand?  Why, finally, were Savary and Real not disgraced?  No satisfactory answer to these questions has ever been given.  The “Catastrophe du duc d’Enghien” and Count Boulay de la Meurthe’s “Les dernieres Annees du duc d’Enghien” and Napoleon’s “Correspondance” give all the documents needed for forming a judgment on this case.  The evidence is examined by Mr. Fay in “The American Hist.  Rev.,” July and Oct., 1898.  For the rewards to the murderers see Masson, “Nap. et sa Famille,” chap. xiii.]

[Footnote 303:  Ducasse, “Les Rois Freres de Nap.,” p. 9.]

[Footnote 304:  Miot de Melito; vol. ii., ch. i.; Pasquier, vol. i., ch. ix.]

[Footnote 305:  I cannot agree with M. Lanfrey, vol. ii., ch. xi., that the Empire was not desired by the nation.  It seems to me that this writer here attributes to the apathetic masses his own unrivalled acuteness of vision and enthusiasm for democracy.  Lafayette well sums up the situation in the remark that he was more shocked at the submission of all than at the usurpation of one man ("Mems.,” vol. v., p. 239).]

[Footnote 306:  See Aulard, “Rev. Francaise,” p. 772, for the opposition.]