The conversation next turned on M. Cambacérès, whom Napoleon called the man of abuses; observing that he had a decided inclination for the old regime. Lebrun, on the contrary, had a predilection to the opposite extreme. He, said the Emperor, was the man of idealisms. These two men, he observed, were the counterpoises between which the First Consul had placed himself, and he in his turn was humourously called the consolidated third.
Messrs. de T.... and Fouché were next spoken of. After saying a great deal respecting both, the Emperor proceeded to make some energetic remarks on the morality of individuals connected with the ministry in France, and generally of all functionaries or men in office; on their want of political faith, or national feeling, which led them to serve indifferently one person to-day, and another to-morrow. “This levity, this inconsistency,” said he, “has descended to us from antiquity. We still remain Gauls, and our character will never be complete, until we learn to substitute principles for turbulence, pride for vanity, and, above all, the love of institutions for the love of place.”
The Emperor concluded that, at the close of our late events, the Monarchs of Europe must necessarily have retained a retrospective feeling of scorn and contempt for the great people who had thus sported with Sovereignty. “But,” said he, “the excuse may perhaps be found in the nature of things, and in the power of circumstances. Democracy raises up Sovereignty, aristocracy preserves it. Mine had neither taken a root deep enough, nor acquired sufficient spirit. At the moment of the crisis it was still connected with democracy; and it mingled with the multitude instead of becoming the sheet-anchor to secure the people from the fury of the tempest, and to guide them in their blindness.”
The following are some fresh particulars respecting M. de T—— and M. Fouché, whose names have so frequently been mentioned. I endeavour as much as possible to avoid repetitions.
“M. de T——” said the Emperor, “waited two days and nights at Vienna for full powers to treat for peace in my name; but I should have been ashamed to have thus prostituted my policy; and yet, perhaps, my conduct in this instance has purchased my exile to St. Helena; for I cannot but allow that T—— is a man of singular talent, and capable at all times of throwing great weight into the scale.
“T——” continued he, “was always in a state treason; but it was in partnership with fortune. His circumspection was extreme; he treated his friends as if they might in future become his enemies; and he behaved to his enemies as if they might some time or other become his friends. M. de T—— had always been, in my opinion, hostile to the Faubourg St. Germain. In the affair of the divorce, he was for the Empress Josephine. It was he who urged the war with Spain, though in public he had the art to appear averse to it.” Thus it was from a kind of spite that Napoleon made choice of Valencey as the residence of Ferdinand. “In short,” said the Emperor, “T—— was the principal instrument and the active cause of the death of the Duke d’Enghien.”
Ch. Maurice de Talleyrand
Engraved by Thomson, from the Original Painting by F. Gérard
Napoleon observed that a celebrated actress (Mademoiselle Raucourt) had described him with great truth. “If you ask him a question,” said she, “he is an iron chest, whence you cannot extract a syllable; but if you ask him nothing, you will soon be unable to stop his mouth—he will become a regular gossip.”
This was a foible which, at the outset, destroyed the confidence of the Emperor, and made him waver in his opinion of T——. “I had entrusted him,” said Napoleon, "with a very important affair, and, a few hours afterwards, Josephine related it to me word for word. I instantly sent for the Minister, to inform him that I had just learned from the Empress a circumstance which I had told in confidence to himself alone. The story had already passed through four or five intermediate channels.