NAPOLEON AT THE INSTITUTE.—AT THE COUNCIL OF STATE.—THE CIVIL CODE.—MESSAGE TO LORD ST. VINCENT.—ON THE INTERIOR OF AFRICA.—THE MARINE DEPARTMENT.—DECRÉS.
12th.—The Emperor, while walking in the garden and discoursing on various subjects, spoke of the Institute, the manner in which it was composed, the spirit of its members, &c. When he took his place in the Institute, on his return from the army of Italy, he said that he might consider himself as the tenth member in his class, which consisted of about fifty.
Lagrange, Laplace, and Monge, were at the head of this class. It was rather a remarkable circumstance, and one which attracted considerable notice at the time, to see the young General of the army of Italy take his place in the Institute, and publicly discuss profound metaphysical subjects with his colleagues. He was then called the Geometrician of battles, and Mechanician of victory, &c.
On becoming First Consul, Napoleon caused no less sensation in the Council of State. He constantly presided at the sittings for drawing up the civil code. “Tronchet,” he said, “was the soul of this code, and he, Napoleon, was its demonstrator.” Tronchet was gifted with a singularly profound and correct understanding; but he could not descend to developments. He spoke badly, and could not defend what he proposed. “The whole council,” said the Emperor, “at first opposed his suggestions;” but Napoleon, with his shrewdness and facility of seizing and creating luminous and new relations, arose, and without any other knowledge of the subject than the correct basis furnished by Tronchet, developed his ideas, set aside objections, and brought every one over to his opinions.
The Minutes of the Council of State have transmitted to us the extempore speeches of the First Consul on most of the articles of the civil code. At every line, we are struck with the correctness of his observations, the depth of his views, and in particular the liberality of his sentiments.
Thus, in spite of the opposition that was set up to it, we are indebted to him for that article of the Code which enacts that every individual born in France is a Frenchman. “I should like to know,” said he, "what inconvenience can possibly arise from acknowledging every man born in France to be a Frenchman? The extension of the French civil laws can only be attended by advantageous consequences; thus instead of ordaining that individuals born in France of a foreign father shall obtain civil privileges only when they declare themselves willing to enjoy them, it may be decreed that they will be deprived of those privileges only when they formally renounce them.
"If individuals born in France of a foreign father were not to be considered as enjoying the full privileges of Frenchmen, we cannot subject to the conscription and other public duties the sons of those foreigners who have married in France through the events of the war.
“I am of opinion that the question should be considered only with reference to the interests of France. Though individuals born in France possess no property, they are at least animated by French spirit, and they follow French customs. They cherish that attachment which every one naturally feels for the country that gave him birth; finally, they help to maintain the public burthens.”
The First Consul distinguished himself no less by his support of the article which preserves the privileges of Frenchmen to children born of Frenchmen settled in foreign countries, and this law he extended in spite of powerful opposition. “The French people,” said he, "who are a numerous and industrious people, are scattered over every part of the world; and in course of time they will be scattered about in still greater numbers. But the French visit foreign countries only to make their fortunes. The acts by which they seem momentarily to attach themselves to foreign governments have for their object only to obtain the protection necessary for their various speculations. If they should intend to return to France, after realizing a fortune, would it be proper to exclude them?
“If it should happen that a country in the possession of France were to be invaded by the enemy, and afterwards ceded to him by a treaty, would it be just to say to those of the inhabitants who might come to settle on the territory of the republic, that they had forfeited their rights as Frenchmen, for not having quitted their former country at the moment it was ceded; and because they had sworn temporary allegiance to a new Sovereign, in order to gain time to dispose of their property and transfer their wealth to France?”
In another debate on the decease of soldiers, some difficulties having arisen relative to those who might die in a foreign country, the First Consul exclaimed with vivacity;—"The soldier is never abroad when he is under the national banner. The spot where the standard of France is unfurled becomes French ground!"
On the subject of divorce, the First Consul was for the adoption of the principle, and spoke at great length on the ground of incompatibility, which it was attempted to repel.
“It is pretended,” said he, "that divorce is contrary to the interests of women and children, and to the spirit of families; but nothing is more at variance with the interests of married persons, when their humours are incompatible, than to reduce them to the alternative of either living together, or of separating with publicity. Nothing is more opposite to domestic happiness than a divided family. Separation had formerly, with regard to the wife, the husband, and the children, nearly the same effect as divorce, and yet it was not so frequent as divorce now is. It was only attended with this additional inconvenience, that a woman of bad character might continue to dishonour her husband’s name because she was permitted to retain it."
When opposing the drawing up of an article to specify the causes for which divorce would be admissible, he said; "But is it not a great misfortune to be compelled to expose these causes, and reveal even the most minute and private family details?
“Besides, will these causes, even in the event of their real existence, be always sufficient to obtain divorce? That of adultery, for instance, can only be successfully maintained by proofs, which it is always very difficult, and sometimes even impossible, to produce. Yet the husband, who should not be able to bring forward these proofs, would be compelled to live with a woman whom he abhors and despises, and who introduces illegitimate children into his family. His only resource would be separation from bed and board; but this would not shield his name from dishonour.”
Resuming the support of the principle of divorce, and opposing certain restrictions, he continued; "Marriage is not always, as is supposed, the result of affection. A young female consents to marry for the sake of conforming to the fashion, and obtaining independence and an establishment of her own. She accepts a husband of a disproportionate age, and whose tastes and habits do not accord with hers. The law then should provide for her a resource against the moment when, the illusion having ceased, she finds that she is united in ill-assorted bonds, and that her expectations have been disappointed.
"Marriage takes its form from the manners, customs, and religion, of every people. Thus its forms are not everywhere alike. In some countries, wives and concubines live under the same roof; and slaves are treated like children: the organization of families is therefore not deduced from the law of nature. The marriages of the Romans were not like those of the French.
"The precautions established by law for preventing persons from contracting unthinkingly at the age of fifteen or eighteen an engagement which extends to the whole of their lives, are certainly wise. But are they sufficient?
"That after ten years passed in wedlock, divorce should not be admitted but for very weighty reasons, is also a proper regulation. Since, however, marriages contracted in early youth are rarely the choice of the parties themselves, but are brought about by their families for interested views, it is proper that, if the parties themselves perceive that they are not formed for one another, they should be enabled to dissolve a union on which they had no opportunity of reflecting. The facility thus afforded them, however, should not tend to favour either levity or passion. It should be surrounded by every precaution and every form calculated to prevent its abuse. The parties, for example, might be heard by a secret family council, held under the presidency of the magistrate. In addition to this, it might, if thought necessary, be determined that a woman should only once be allowed to procure divorce, and that she should not be suffered to re-marry in less than five years, lest the idea of a second marriage should induce her to dissolve the first; that, after married persons have lived together for ten years, the dissolution should be rendered very difficult, &c.
“To grant divorce only on account of adultery publicly proved, is to proscribe it completely; for, on the one hand, few cases of adultery can be proved, and, on the other, there are few men shameless enough to expose the infamy of their wives. Besides, it would be scandalous, and contrary to the honour of the nation, to reveal the scenes that pass in some families; it might be concluded, though erroneously, that they afford a picture of our French manners.”
The first lawyers of the council were of opinion that civil death should carry along with it the dissolution of the civil contract of marriage. The question was warmly discussed. The First Consul, with great animation, opposed it in these terms; "A woman is then to be forbidden, though fully convinced of her husband’s innocence, to follow in exile the man to whom she is most tenderly united; or, if she should yield to her conviction, and to her duty, she is to be regarded only as a concubine! Why deprive an unfortunate married couple of the right of living together under the honourable title of lawful husband and wife?
"If the law permits a woman to follow her husband, without allowing her the title of wife, it permits adultery.
"Society is sufficiently avenged by the sentence of condemnation, when the criminal is deprived of his property and torn from his friends and his connections. Is there any need to extend the punishment to the wife, and violently to dissolve a union which identifies her existence with that of her husband? Would she not say:—‘You[‘You] had better have taken his life, I should then have been permitted at least to cherish his memory; but you ordain that he shall live, and you will not allow me to console him in his misery.’[misery.’] Alas! how many men have been led into guilt only through their attachment to their wives! Those therefore who have caused their misfortunes should at least be permitted to share them. If a woman fulfils this duty, you esteem her virtue, and yet you are allowing her no greater indulgence than would be extended to the infamous wretch who prostitutes herself!" Volumes might be filled with quotations of this sort.
In 1815, after the restoration, as I was conversing with M. Bertrand de Molleville, formerly Minister of the Marine under Louis XVI., a man of great abilities, and who has distinguished himself in more ways than one, he said:—"Your Bonaparte, your Napoleon, was a very extraordinary man, it must be confessed. How little did we know him on the other side of the water! We could not but yield to the conviction of his victories and his invasions, it is true; but Genseric, Attila, and Alaric, were as victorious as he. Thus he produced on me an impression of terror rather than of admiration. But, since I have been here, I have taken the trouble to look over the debates on the civil code, and I have ever since been filled with profound veneration for him. But where in the world did he collect all his knowledge?... I discover something new every day. Ah! Sir, what a man you had at the head of your government. Really, he was nothing less than a prodigy!..."
About five o’clock the Emperor received Captain Bowen, of the Salsette frigate, which is to sail to-morrow. He behaved very condescendingly to him. In the course of conversation the name of Lord St. Vincent, who the Captain said was his patron, happened to be mentioned, on which the Emperor remarked: “You will see him on your return to England, and I commission you to present my compliments to him, as to a good sailor, a brave and worthy veteran.”
About 7 o’clock the Emperor took a bath. He sent for me, and we conversed for a long time, first on the events of the day, then on literary subjects, and lastly on geography. He expressed his astonishment that we possessed no certain knowledge of the interior of Africa. I told him that I had entertained the idea, some years ago, of presenting to his Minister of Marine a plan of a journey into the interior of Africa; not a secret and adventurous excursion, but a regular military expedition, in every respect worthy of the age and of the Emperor. The Minister laughed in my face when I first conversed with him on the subject, and looked upon the idea as an absurdity.
My plan was to have entered Africa at once on the north, south, east, and west, and to have formed a junction in the centre; or, if starting only from the east and west, I proposed that the two divisions of the expedition should meet in the centre, separate again and proceed, one to the north, the other to the south. I thought it probable that, after obtaining from the Court of Portugal all the information that could be procured, it would be found that there already existed a communication from east to west, or that at all events very little was wanting to effect it. The state of public feeling at the time, our enthusiasm, our enterprizes, our prodigies, would have rendered it easy to procure 5 or 600 good soldiers, with the requisite number of surgeons, physicians, botanists, chymists, astronomers, and naturalists, all willing to embark in the enterprize, and we should undoubtedly have accomplished something worthy of the age.
The necessary supply of beasts of burthen, small leathern boats for crossing rivers, skins for conveying water through the deserts, and light manageable field-pieces, would have rendered the execution of the enterprize easy and complete.
“No doubt,” said the Emperor, “your idea would have pleased me. I should have taken it up, submitted it to the consideration of a committee, and brought it to a result.”
He said that he very much regretted his not having had time, during his stay in Egypt, to accomplish something of this sort. He had troops suited in every respect to brave the dangers of the desert. He had received presents from the Queen of Darfour, and had sent her some in return. Had he remained longer, he intended to have carried to a great extent our geographical investigations in the northern district of Africa, and that too by the simplest means, merely by placing in each caravan some intelligent officers, for whom he would have procured hostages.
The conversation then turned on the marine department. The Emperor entered very deeply into the subject. He could not say that he was satisfied with Decrès; and he even thought that the confidence he reposed in him was not altogether irreproachable. The difficulty of finding persons better qualified maintained him in his post; for, after all, the Emperor said, Decrès was the best he could find. Ganteaume was merely a sailor, and destitute of every other talent. Cafarelli, he said, had forfeited his good opinion, because he had been informed that his wife intrigued in political affairs, which he regarded as an unpardonable offence. Missiessi was not a man to be depended on; for his family had been one of those who surrendered Toulon. The Emperor had, for a moment, cast his eye on Emériau; but, on consideration, he did not think that he possessed adequate capabilities. He had asked himself whether T...... might not have filled the post; but he decided that he was not qualified for it. He was a good man of business, it is true; but he had plunged very deeply into the affairs of the revolution; and what had confirmed the Emperor in his disapproval of him was that he had subsequently seen some of his private letters, by which it was evident that he still adhered to his old jacobinical sentiments.
“I had,” observed the Emperor, “rendered the duties of all my ministerial posts so easy that almost any one was capable of discharging them, if he possessed only fidelity, zeal, and activity. I must however except the office of Minister of Foreign Affairs, in which it was frequently necessary to exercise a ready talent for persuasion. In fact,” continued he, “in the marine department but little was required, and Decrès was perhaps, after all, the best man I could have found. He possessed authority; and he discharged the business of his office scrupulously and honestly. He was endowed with a good share of understanding, but this was evinced only in his conversation and private conduct. He never conceived any plan of his own, and was incapable of executing the ideas of others on a grand scale; he could walk, but he could never be made to run. He ought to have passed one-half of his time in the sea-ports, or on board the exercising squadrons. He would have lost none of my favour by so doing. But, as a courtier, he was afraid to quit his portfolio. This shews how little he knew me. He would not have been the less protected by removing from my Court: his absence would have been a powerful circumstance in his favour.”
The Emperor said he very much regretted Latouche-Tréville, whom he regarded as a man of real talent. He was of opinion that that Admiral would have given a different impulse to affairs. The attack on India and the invasion of England would by him have been at least attempted, and perhaps accomplished.
The Emperor blamed himself for having employed the pinnaces at Bologne. He said it would have been better had he employed real ships at Cherbourg. He was of opinion that had Villeneuve manifested more vigour at Cape Finistèrre, the attack might have been rendered practicable. “I had made arrangements for the arrival of Villeneuve, with considerable art and calculation, and in defiance of the opinions and the routine of the naval officers by whom I was surrounded. Every thing happened as I had foreseen; when the inactivity of Villeneuve ruined all. But,” added the Emperor, "Heaven knows what instructions he might have received from Decrès,[[10]] or what letters might have been privately written to him which never came to my knowledge; for, though I was very powerful and fond of searching into every thing, yet I am convinced that I was far from knowing all that was passing around me.
"The Grand Marshal said, the other day, that it used to be remarked in the saloon of the household that I was never accessible to any one after I had given audience to the Minister of the Marine. The reason was, because he never had any but bad news to communicate to me. For my part I gave up every thing after the disaster of Trafalgar; I could not be every where, and I had enough to occupy my attention with the armies of the continent.
"I had long meditated a decisive expedition to India; but my plans had been constantly frustrated. I intended to have fitted out a force of 16,000 troops, on board ships of the line; each 74 to have taken 500 troops on board, which would of course have required thirty-two ships. I proposed that they should take in a supply of water for four months; which supply might have been renewed at the Isle of France, or in any habitable spot of the desert of Africa, Brazil, or the Indian Ocean. In case of need, they might have taken in water wherever they chose to anchor. On reaching the place of their destination, the troops were to be put ashore, and the ships were immediately to depart, making up the number of their crews by the sacrifice of seven or eight of the vessels which might be condemned as unserviceable; so that an English squadron arriving from Europe immediately afterwards would have found no trace of ours.
“As for the army, when abandoned to itself and placed under the command of a clever and confidential chief, it would have renewed the prodigies that were familiar to us, and Europe would have beheld the conquest of India as she had already seen the conquest of Egypt.”
I knew Decrès well; we had both commenced our career together in the marine. I think he entertained for me all the friendship of which he was susceptible, and I, on my part, was tenderly attached to him. It was an unfortunate passion, as I used to say when I was rallied on the subject, which was frequently the case, for Decrès was very much disliked, and I have often thought that, from some motive or other, he took pleasure in his own unpopularity. At St. Helena, as elsewhere, I found myself almost his only defender. I saw a great deal of him while the Emperor was at the island of Elba, and he was occasionally favourable to Napoleon. We conversed candidly on the subject, and I have every reason to believe that he observed full and entire confidence with respect to me.
“No sooner had your Majesty returned to the Tuileries,” said I to the Emperor, "than Decrès and I ran to embrace each other, exclaiming, ‘He has returned! we have him again!’ His eyes were suffused with tears; I must bear this testimony to his feelings. ‘Well,’ said he to me, in the presence of his wife, ‘I am now convinced that I have often done you wrong, and I owe you reparation; but your old habits and connections so naturally brought you in contact with those who are now about to quit us that I doubted not but you would sooner or later be perfectly reconciled with them, though you were perhaps often offended at the expression of my real sentiments.’”—“And did you believe this, you simpleton?" exclaimed the Emperor, bursting into a fit of laughter. “This was an excellent piece of courtier-like art; a touch for La Bruyère. It was really a good idea on the part of Decrès; for if, during my absence, any thing offensive to me had chanced to escape him, he would, you see, by this means, have atoned for it once for all.”—"Well, Sire," continued I, "what I have just told you is perhaps only amusing; but what I will now communicate is of a more important nature:—During the crisis of 1814, before the taking of Paris, Decrès was sounded in a very artful way as to his inclination to conspire against your Majesty, and he honestly repelled the suggestion. Decrès was easily and often roused to discontent; and he possessed a certain air of authority in his language and manners which rendered him a useful acquisition to any party he might espouse. He happened, at the unhappy period I have just mentioned, to visit a person of celebrity; the hero of the machinations of the day. The latter advanced to Decrès, and, drawing him aside to the fire-place, took up a book, saying, I have just now been reading something that struck me forcibly,—you shall hear it. Montesquiou, in such and such a chapter and page, says,—When the Prince rises above the laws, when tyranny becomes insupportable, the oppressed have no alternative but....—‘Enough,’ exclaimed Decrès, putting his hand over the mouth of the reader; ‘I will hear no more; close the book.’ And the other coolly laid down the volume, as though nothing particular had occurred, and began to talk on a totally different subject."
On another occasion, a certain Marshal, after his fatal defection, alarmed at the unfavourable impression which his conduct was calculated to produce on the public mind, and vainly seeking the approbation and support of those who surrounded him, endeavoured to interest Decrès in his favour. “I have always borne in mind,” said he to Decrès, “one of our conversations in which you so energetically painted the evils and perplexities that weighed upon the country. The force of your arguments greatly influenced me in the step which I took with the view of alleviating our misfortunes.”—"Yes, my dear fellow," replied Decrès; “but did it not also occur to you that you overshot your mark?”
“In order that these anecdotes may be appreciated as they deserve,” said I to the Emperor, “I must inform your Majesty that they were related to me by Decrès himself during your absence, and when he certainly entertained no idea of your return.”
The Emperor kept up the conversation for nearly two hours in the bath. He did not dine till nine o’clock, and he desired me to stay with him. We discoursed about the military school at Paris. I left the school only a year before Napoleon entered it, and therefore the same officers, tutors, and comrades were common to us both. He took particular pleasure in reverting with me to this period of our youth: in reviving the recollection of our occupations, our boyish tricks, our games, &c.
In this cheerful humour, he called for a glass of Champagne, which was rather an unusual thing; for such is his habitual abstinence that a single glass of wine is sufficient to flush his face, and to render him very talkative. It is well known that he seldom sits longer than a quarter of an hour, or half an hour, at table; but to-day we sat upwards of two hours. He was very much surprised when Marchand informed him that it was eleven o’clock. “How rapidly the time has slipped away,” said he, with an expression of satisfaction. “Why can I not always pass my hours thus agreeably! My dear Las Cases,” said he, as he dismissed me, “you leave me happy.”