[466] "The Directory became alarmed for their own existence. It had already been ascertained that 190 of the deputies had been engaged to restore the exiled royal family, while the Directory could only reckon on the support of 130; and the Ancients had resolved, by a large majority, to transfer the seat of the Legislature to Rouen, on account of its proximity to the western provinces, whose Royalist principles had always been so decided. The next election, it was expected, would nearly extinguish the Revolutionary party; and the Directory were aware that the transition was easy, for regicides, as the greater part of them were, from the Luxembourg to the scaffold."—Alison, vol. i., p. 491.
[467] "We may say that, on the 18th Fructidor of the year V., it was necessary that the Directory should triumph over the counter-revolution, by decimating the Councils; or that the Councils should triumph over the Republic, by overthrowing the Directory. The question thus stated, it remains to inquire, first, if the Directory could have conquered by any other means than a coup d'état, and, secondly, whether it misused its victory."—Mignet, p. 338.
[468] "Though France suffered extremely from the usurpation which overthrew its electoral government, and substituted the empire of force for the chimeras of democracy, there seems no reason to believe that a more just or equitable government could, at that period, have been substituted in its room."—Alison, vol. i., p. 496.
[469] Bourrienne, vol. i., p. 250.
[470] These men were in constant correspondence with the Bourbons, and were conspiring for their restoration.
[471] Mémoires de Napoleon, dict. au Montholon et Gourgaud, vol. iv., p. 233.
"The 18th Fructidor is the true era of the commencement of military despotism in France. The subsequent government of the country was but a succession of illegal usurpations on the part of the depositaries of power, in which the people had no share, and by which their rights were equally invaded, until tranquillity was restored by the vigorous hand of Napoleon."—Alison, vol. i., p. 496.
[472] Mignet says, "The offers of Pitt not being sincere, the Directory did not allow itself to be deceived by diplomatic stratagems. The negotiations were twice broken off, and war continued between the two powers. While England negotiated at Lille, she was preparing at St. Petersburg the triple alliance or second coalition."—Mignet, p. 341.
[473] Mem. de Napoleon, dict. au Month, et Gourgaud, vol. iv., p. 271.
The English Tory historians, such as Scott and Alison, denounce France vehemently for refusing to abandon her allies, Spain and Holland, for the sake of peace with England. At the same time they load Napoleon with epithets of infamy for refusing to continue a bloody war with Austria for the sake of protecting an aristocratic and perfidious enemy, Venice, from the rapacity of Austria, an ally with Venice in the unjust war upon France. The remarks of Alison upon this subject are a melancholy exhibition of the power of prejudice to prevent the sense of justice. "Austria," writes T.W. Redhead, "nefariously appropriated the possessions of a faithful and attached ally, while France did but consent to the despoilment of a hostile government, ready to assail her upon the least reverse."—The French Revolutions, vol. ii., p. 100.