The Temple had more terrors than St. Pelagie, but not for the prisoners who were committed to it, for none of those illustrious victims of police machination displayed any weakness, with the exception of Bouvet de Lozier, who, being sensible of his weakness, wished to prevent its consequences by death.  The public, however, kept their attention riveted on the prison in which Moreau was confined.  I have already mentioned that Pichegru was conveyed thither on the night of the 22d of February; a fortnight later Georges was arrested, and committed to the same prison.

Either Real or Desmarets, and sometimes both together, repaired to the Temple to examine the prisoners.  In vain the police endeavoured to direct public odium against the prisoners by placarding lists of their names through the whole of Paris, even before they were arrested.  In those lists they were styled “brigands,” and at the head of “the brigands,” the name of General Moreau shone conspicuously.  An absurdity without a parallel.  The effect produced was totally opposite to that calculated on; for, as no person could connect the idea of a brigand with that of a general who was the object of public esteem, it was naturally concluded that those whose names were placarded along with his were no more brigands than he.

Public opinion was decidedly in favour of Moreau, and every one was indignant at seeing him described as a brigand.  Far from believing him guilty, he was regarded as a victim fastened on because his reputation embarrassed Bonaparte; for Moreau had always been looked up to as capable of opposing the accomplishment of the First Consul’s ambitious views.  The whole crime of Moreau was his having numerous partisans among those who still clung to the phantom of the Republic, and that crime was unpardonable in the eyes of the First Consul, who for two years had ruled the destinies of France as sovereign master.  What means were not employed to mislead the opinion of the public respecting Moreau?  The police published pamphlets of all sorts, and the Comte de Montgaillard was brought from Lyons to draw up a libel implicating him with Pichegru and the exiled Princes.  But nothing that was done produced the effect proposed.

The weak character of Moreau is known.  In fact, he allowed himself to be circumvented by a few intriguers, who endeavoured to derive advantage from the influence of his name.  But he was so decidedly opposed to the reestablishment of the ancient system that he replied to one of the agents who addressed’ him, “I cannot put myself at the head of any movement for the Bourbons, and such an attempt would not succeed.  If Pichegru act on another principle—­and even in that case I have told him that the Consuls and the Governor of Paris must disappear—­I believe that I have a party strong enough in the Senate to obtain possession of authority, and I will immediately make use of it to protect his friends; public opinion will then dictate what may be fit to be done, but I will promise nothing in writing.”  Admitting these words attributed to Moreau to be true, they prove that he was dissatisfied with the Consular Government, and that he wished a change; but there is a great difference between a conditional wish and a conspiracy.