At one time Napoleon represents himself as having been taken by surprise:  his ministers come on him when he is alone, at midnight, and inform him that the Bourbons have conspired to assassinate him—­that the proofs are in their hands—­that the Duke d’Enghien has already been more than once in Paris, and is lying close to the frontier, expecting the signal to return and head the conspirators in person.—­In the first flush of indignation he gives the order for arresting the duke—­every artifice is adopted to prevent him from interfering afterwards—­everything is arranged by Talleyrand—­the duke addresses a letter to him from Strasburg—­that letter Talleyrand suppresses until the tragedy is over—­had it been delivered in time, the life of the unhappy prince had been saved.

Unfortunately for Buonaparte, eight days elapsed between the order for the arrest and the order for the execution, a much longer period than was ever necessary for restoring the composure of his strong understanding.  Further, the Duke d’Enghien kept a diary during his imprisonment, in which the minutest incidents are carefully recorded; it contains no hint of the letter to Napoleon; and the Baron de St. Jaques, who never quitted his master’s chamber while he remained at Strasburg, bears distinct testimony that no such letter was written there.  Moreover, neither Talleyrand nor any other individual in the world, except Buonaparte, could have had the slightest motive for desiring the death of D’Enghien.  On the contrary, every motive that has weight with mankind in general, must have swayed the other way with Talleyrand; a member of one of the noblest families in France; a man unstained by participation in any of the butcheries of the revolution; and, above all, a man whose consummate skill has through life steadily pursued one object, namely, his own personal interest, and who must have been mad to perpetrate a gratuitous murder.  And, lastly, Talleyrand was minister for foreign affairs.  A letter written at Strasburg could by no accident have been forwarded through his department in the government; and, in fact, there is perfect proof that the whole business was done by the police, whose chief, Savary, communicated directly with the Chief Consul, and the military, who acted under the orders either of Buonaparte’s aide-de-camp, Caulaincourt (afterwards Duke of Vicenza), or of his brother-in-law, Murat, the governor of Paris.  It is needless to observe, that Napoleon’s accusation of Talleyrand dates after that politician had exerted all his talents and influence in the work of procuring his own downfall, and the restoration of the House of Bourbon.  But in truth whether Talleyrand, or Savary, or Caulaincourt, had the chief hand in the death of the Duke d’Enghien, is a controversy about which posterity will feel little interest.  It is obvious to all men, that not one of them durst have stirred a finger to bring about a catastrophe of such fearful importance, without the express orders of Napoleon.