hority of Ney was too great for the
Government. Frightened friends, plotting Royalists, echoed the wild
words of Ney brave only against physical dangers. Instead of dying on
the battle-field, he had lived to ensure the return of the Bourbons, the
fall of Bonaparte, his own death, and the ruin of France.

Before his exception from the amnesty was known Ney left Paris on the 6th
of July, and went into the country with but little attempt at
concealment, and with formal passports from Fouche. The capitulation of
Paris seemed to cover him, and he was so little aware of the thirst of
the Royalists for his blood that he let his presence be known by leaving
about a splendid sabre presented to him by the Emperor on his marriage,
and recognised by mere report by an old soldier as belonging to Ney or
Murat; and Ney himself let into the house the party sent to arrest him on
the 5th of August, and actually refused the offer of Excelmans, through
whose troops he passed, to set him free. No one at the time, except the
wretched refugees of Ghent, could have suspected, after the capitulation,
that there was any special danger for Ney, and it is very difficult to
see on what principle the Bourbons chose their victims or intended
victims. Drouot, for example, had never served Louis XVIII., he had
never worn the white cockade, he had left France with Napoleon for Elba,
and had served the Emperor there. In 1815 he had fought under his own
sovereign. After Waterloo he had exerted all his great influence, the
greater from his position, to induce the Guard to retire behind the
Loire, and to submit to the Bourbons. It was because Davoust so needed
him that Drouot remained with the army. Stilt Drouot was selected for
death, but the evidence of his position was too strong to enable the
Court to condemn him. Cambronne, another selection, had also gone with
Napoleon to Elba. Savory, another selection, had, as was eventually
acknowledged, only joined Napoleon when he was in full possession of the
reins of Government. Bertrend, who was condemned while at St. Helena,
was in the same position as Drouot. In fact, if any one were to draw up
a list of probable proscriptions and compare it with those of the 24th of
July 1815, there would probably be few names common to both except
Labedoyere, Mouton Duvernet, etc. The truth is that the Bourbons, and,
to do them justice, still more the rancorous band of mediocrities who
surrounded them, thirsted for blood. E