As soon as the decree of the special Tribunal was delivered, Murat, Governor of Paris, and brother-in-law to the Emperor, sought his presence and conjured him in the most urgent manner to pardon all the criminals, observing that such an act of clemency would redound greatly to his honour in the opinion of France and all Europe, that it would be said the Emperor pardoned the attempt against the life of the First Consul, that this act of mercy would shed more glory over the commencement of his reign than any security which could accrue from the execution of the prisoners.  Such was the conduct of Murat; but he did not solicit, as has been reported, the pardon of any one in particular.

Those who obtained the imperial pardon were Bouvet de Lozier, who expected it from the disclosures he had made; Rusillon, de Riviere, Rochelle, Armand de Polignac, d’Hozier, Lajolais, who had beforehand received a promise to that effect, and Armand Gaillard.

The other ill-fated victims of a sanguinary police underwent their sentence on the 25th of June, two days after the promulgation of the pardon of their associates.

Their courage and resignation never forsook them even for a moment, and Georges, knowing that it was rumoured he had obtained a pardon, entreated that he might die the first, in order that his companions in their last moments might be assured he had not survived them.

CHAPTER XXVII.

1804.

Clavier and Hemart—­Singular Proposal of Corvisart-M.  Desmaisons—­ Project of influencing the judges—­Visit to the Tuileries—­Rapp in attendance—­Long conversation with the Emperor—­His opinion on the trial of Moreau—­English assassins and Mr. Fox—­Complaints against the English Government—­Bonaparte and Lacuee—­Affectionate behaviour—­Arrest of Pichegru—­Method employed by the First Consul to discover his presence in Paris—­Character of Moreau—­Measures of Bonaparte regarding him—­Lauriston sent to the Temple—­Silence respecting the Duc d’Enghien—­Napoleon’s opinion of Moreau and Georges—­Admiration of Georges—­Offers of employment and dismissal—­ Recital of former vexations—­Audience of the Empress—­Melancholy forebodings—­What Bonaparte said concerning himself—­Marks of kindness.

The judges composing the Tribunal which condemned Moreau were not all like Thuriot and Hemart.  History has recorded an honourable contrast to the general meanness of the period in the reply given by M. Clavier, when urged by Hemart to vote for the condemnation of Moreau.  “Ah, Monsieur, if we condemn him, how shall we be able to acquit ourselves?” I have, besides, the best reason for asserting that the judges were tampered with, from, a circumstance which occurred to myself.

Bonaparte knew that I was intimately connected with M. Desmaisons, one of the members of the Tribunal, and brother in-law to Corvisart; he also knew that Desmaisons was inclined to believe in Moreau’s innocence, and favourable to his acquittal.  During the progress of the trial Corvisart arrived at my house one morning at a very early hour, in a state of such evident embarrassment that, before he had time to utter a word, I said to him, “What is the matter?  Have you heard any bad news?”