the state of the affair on Bonaparte's elevation to the Consular
power. The loss of Mantua, the possession of which had cost him so many
sacrifices, roused his indignation to so high a pitch that whenever the
subject was mentioned he could find no words to express his rage.
He stopped the investigation of the court-martial, and issued a violent
decree against Latour-Foissac even before his culpability had been
proved. This proceeding occasioned much discussion, and was very
dissatisfactory to many general officers, who, by this arbitrary
decision, found themselves in danger of forfeiting the privilege of being
tried by their natural judges whenever they happened to displease the
First Consul. For my own part, I must say that this decree against
Latour-Foissac was one which I saw issued with considerable regret. I was
alarmed for the consequences. After the lapse of a few days I ventured
to point out to him the undue severity of the step he had taken; I
reminded him of all that had been said in Latour-Foissac's favour, and
tried to convince him how much more just it would be to allow the trial
to come to a conclusion. "In a country," said I, "like France, where the
point of honour stands above every thing, it is impossible Foissac can
escape condemnation if he be culpable."--"Perhaps you are right,
Bourrienne," rejoined he; "but the blow is struck; the decree is issued.
I have given the same explanation to every one; but I cannot so suddenly
retrace my steps. To retro-grade is to be lost. I cannot acknowledge
myself in the wrong. By and by we shall see what can be done. Time will
bring lenity and pardon. At present it would be premature." Such, word
for word, was Bonaparte's reply. If with this be compared what he said
on the subject at St. Helena it will be found that his ideas continued
nearly unchanged; the only difference is that, instead of the impetuosity
of 1800, he expressed himself with the calmness which time and adversity
naturally produce.

--["It was," says the 'Memorial of St. Helena', "an illegal and
tyrannical act, but still it was a necessary evil. It was the fault
of the law. He was a hundred, nay, a thousand fold guilty, and yet
it was doubtful whether he would be condemned. We therefore
assailed him with the shafts of honour and public opinion. Yet I
repeat it was a tyrannical act, and one of those violent measures
which are at times necessary in great nations and in extraordinary