“It is obvious from this letter that the duke of Wellington, one of the parties to the capitulation of Paris, considers that that instrument contains nothing which can prevent the king from bringing marshal Ney to trial in such manner as his Majesty may think proper[103].
“The contents of the capitulation fully confirm the justice of the Duke’s opinion. It is made between the commanders in chief of the contending armies respectively; and the first nine articles relate solely to the mode and time of the evacuation of Paris by the French army, and of the occupation by the British and Prussian armies.
“The 10th article provides that the existing authorities shall be respected by the two commanders in chief of the allies; the 11th, that public property shall be respected, and that the allies shall not interfere en aucune manière dans leur administration et dans leur gestion; (in any manner, either in their administration or in their management;) and the 12th article states, Seront pareillement respectées les personnes et les propriétés particulières: les habitants, et, en général, tous les individus qui se trouvent dans la capitale, continueront à jouir de leurs droits et libertés, sans pouvoir être inquiétés, ni recherchés en rien relativement aux fonctions qu’il occupent, ou auraient occupées, à leur conduite, et à leurs opinions politiques. (The persons as well as the property of individuals, shall be equally respected; the inhabitants, and in general every individual residing in the capital, shall continue in full possession of their rights and liberties, without being molested in any manner, on account of the functions which they may have filled, their conduct, or their political opinions.)
“By whom were these private properties and persons to be respected? By the allied generals and their troops mentioned in the 10th and 11th articles; and not by other parties to whom the convention did not relate in any manner.
“The 13th article provides that les troupes étrangères, (the foreign troops) shall not obstruct the carriage of provisions by land or water to the capital.
“Thus it appears that every article in the convention relates exclusively to the operations of the different armies, or to the conduct of the allies and that of their generals, when they should enter Paris; and, as the duke of Wellington states in his dispatch of the 4th of July, with which he transmitted the convention to England, it ‘decided all the military points then existing at Paris, and touched nothing political[104].’
“But it appears clearly that, not only was this the Duke’s opinion of the convention at the time it was signed, but likewise the opinion of Carnot, of marshal Ney, and of every other person who had an interest in considering the subject.
“Carnot says, in the Exposé de la conduite politique de M. Carnot, (page 43,) Il fut résolu d’envoyer aux généraux anglais et prussiens une commission spéciale chargée de leur proposer une convention purement militaire, pour la remise de la ville de Paris entre leurs mains, en écartant toute question politique, puisqu’on ne pouvait préjuger quelles seraient les intentions des alliés, lorsqu’ils seraient réunis. (It was decided to forward to the English and Prussian generals a special commission, to the purport of proposing to them a convention, purely military, for the surrender of the city of Paris into their hands, setting aside all political questions, since it was impossible to foresee what might be the ultimate intentions of the allies, when they should be assembled.)
“It appears that marshal Ney fled from Paris in disguise, with a passport given to him by the duc d’Otrante, under a feigned name, on the 6th of July. He could not be supposed to be ignorant of the tenor of the 12th article of the convention; and he must then have known whether it was the intention of the parties who made it, that it should protect him from the measures which the king, then at St.-Denis, should think proper to adopt against him.
“But if marshal Ney could be supposed ignorant of the intention of the 12th article, the duc d’Otrante, could not, as he was at the head of the provisional government, under whose authority the prince d’Eckmühl must have acted when he signed the convention[105].