The popularity enjoyed by Moreau was probably inferior only of that of the first consul. As a general, his reputation was even more exalted. His talents as a statesman were untried; but the known moderation of his character, and the soundness of his judgment, naturally produced very strong impressions in his favour. The jealousy of his rival appears to have consigned him to a life of retirement, in order to prevent his popularity from deriving any accession from an able execution of public duties. Even had the guilt of which he was accused been fully substantiated, the sacrifice of so great a favourite of the public might have deprived the first consul of the ensigns of imperial dignity.

When the counsellors of state read to the tribunate the report of the grand judge, Moreau, in terms of the strongest fraternal emotion, vindicated the innocence of his brother, and even declared that every thing which had been said was an infamous calumny. How far General Moreau was implicated in the plot, it is impossible to determine, since, for various reasons to which we have just alluded, it was deemed expedient not to give him an opportunity of defending himself before any of the public tribunals. It may, however, be collected from his exculpatory letter to the first consul, that be was both dissatisfied with the actual government, and that he was not altogether ignorant of the existence of designs formed for its subversion. The ground of the suspicion of his implication he states to have probably arisen from the connection which, with fluctuating degrees of intimacy, had long subsisted between General Pichegru and himself. He acknowledges that distant overtures had been made to him to enter into correspondence with the French princes; but to these proposals, which appeared to him to be ridiculous, he affirms that he returned no answer. With respect to the actual conspiracy, he asserts that he was far from having the least share in it; and that whatever proposition was made to him, he rejected from a conviction of its extreme folly. He admits it

bad been represented to him, that the chances of the invasion of England were favourable to a change of government; but he declares that he always replied, the senate was the authority round which all Frenchmen, in case of troubles, would unite, and he would be the first to obey its orders. The part of giving information to government was repugnant to his character; it was an office which is always judged of severely; but it becomes odious, and is marked with the seal of reprobation against the individual who exercises it to the injury of those persons to whom his gratitude is due, and with whom he has long cultivated habits of friendship. Duty, he proceeds to observe, may sometimes yield to the voice of public opinion.

Such is General Moreau's exculpation, which we have given nearly in his own words. That this is a feeble defence of innocence, is too strikingly manifest. If he were unconscious of all guilt, he should have assumed a manly and heroic tone of self-vindication. He should have demanded to be brought before a public tribunal. His great and well-merited popularity would have confirmed a just assertion of his innocence. Even the uplifted sword of tyranny would not have dared to strike. But instead of pursuing this glorious course, he acknowledges that he has been imprudent, but not guilty, and, in an inauspicious moment, cancels a part of his fair fame, and courts life, liberty, and service, by throwing himself at the mercy of the first consul, by weakly and extravagantly accusing England of having prepared this snare for his destruction, and vainly asserting that Great Britain may judge of the evil he is capable of doing her, by what he has already performed.

The truth appears to be, that Moreau was not unaware of the conspiracy; but that he ever had any active share in it, not the least evidence seems to have been produced. Thus fell one of the most celebrated generals of the republic. At a moment when the remembrance of the important services

he had performed, together with the universal esteem in which his many public and private virtues were held, contributed to secure to him perhaps a greater share of general love and admiration than was enjoyed by his dazzling competitor for fame,-one single act, to speak of it in the mildest terms of civil imprudence, precipitated him from the glorious height to which he had raised himself, and laid him at the feet of his rival, a humble and degraded suppliant.

Much as the public were concerned at the fate of General Moreau, their interest in his misfortunes was for a time suspended by the melancholy event of the death of General Pichegru. A very circumstantial account of his death was published in the Moniteur, in order, without doubt, to remove from the government every suspicion of having murdered an old and much-beloved general of the republic. We shall concisely state the singular circumstances attending his death, as detailed in the official journal of the French government. In the juridical report of the suicide which he is said to have committed, the surgeons appointed by the criminal tribunal to inspect the body of General Pichegru, in order to ascertain the immediate cause of his death, unanimously declare that he died of strangulation. They state that they found a black silk handkerchief about his neck, through which was passed a small stick forty-five centimetres long, and from four to five centimetres in circumference. This stick, forming a tourniquet of the cravat, was stopped by the left jaw, on which he lay, with one end of the stick underneath. This is stated to have produced a degree of strangulation sufficient to occasion his death. They then remark, that this stick had rested by one of its ends on the left cheek, and that, by moving round irregularly, it had produced a transversal scratch of about six centimetres. The face was discoloured, the jaw locked, and the tongue pressed betwixt the teeth. The discoloration extended over the whole body. The extremities were cold. The muscles and fingers of the hand were strongly contracted. From all these circumstances

their opinion was, that General Pichegru had committed suicide.

The evidence of various persons then follows, to prove that no one had entered General Pichegru's chamber, during the night, in order to make any attempt against his life. One of the gen d'armes stationed near his chamber heard a considerable degree of struggling and noise; but supposing the general laboured under such difficulty of breathing, he did not imagine any particular assistance was required. Another person, near the same place, awoke about four o'clock, but did not hear any particular noise. The principal door-keeper of the hall of justice in the Temple went on the 6th of April, about half past seven in the morning, into General Pichegru's chamber to light his fire; but not hearing him either speak or stir, he dreaded that some accident had happened to him. The colonel of the gen d'armerie and the accuser-general were immediately informed of it, and medical assistance was instantly sent for. The chamber-keeper also states, that on the preceding evening he had taken away with him the key of General Pichegru's apartment, and had kept it in his pocket till the time he went to light the fire in the morning.

Notwithstanding this report respecting the mode in which General Pichegru is represented to have destroyed himself, and the evidence of the several persons stationed near his chamber, there are many very strong grounds of suspicion that he was clandestinely sacrificed. In the first place, there appears every reason to doubt the possible accomplishment of so singular a mode of self destruction. Ordinary suicides are perpetrated by a single determination of the will. The acts of shooting, hanging, drowning, and the like, deprive the unhappy individuals determined upon the commission of suicide, of the power of attempting the recovery of life. Nor, when the act is once perpetrated, have they any further power to prosecute the accomplishment of their rash resolution. The commission of suicide, therefore, is in the first instance à voluntary act; but the continued execution of the means of

self-destruction requires, afterwards, no effort of the will. The loss of life must involuntarily and necessarily follow. But in the case of General Pichegru, a continued effort of the will was necessary to complete the suicide. It must have been continued until strangulation was completely effected; for, until the strangulation was complete, the involuntary effort of nature to retain life would still preserve, however difficult it might be, some degree of respiration. Even admitting the continued exercise of the will under such circumstances, which may reasonably be doubted, the question, with respect to the capability of executing this mode of suicide, will be reduced to these terms:-Which will be the most powerful, supposing a certain degree of strangulation to be produced, the involuntary efforts of nature to preserve life, or the physical strength necessary to execute the determination of the will? To us it appears that no doubt can arise on the subject.

With regard to the other grounds of suspicion, it may be observed, that the very parade of the French government in publishing to the world a minutely circumstantial account of General Pichegru's death, together with a mass of collateral evidence, discovers a strong degree of apprehension that the world would naturally suspect that cruel and unjustifiable violence had been resorted to, in order to gratify personal revenge, or to obviate the consequence of a public trial, and a public execution. It was very commonly believed in Paris, that General Pichegru had been privately murdered. To prevent the circulation of reports to that effect, Murat, the governor of Paris, shortly after this event, issued general orders, in which he recommended all the military in Paris to enlighten the citizens upon, what he termed, the false reports circulated on the subject.

But one of the strongest confirmations that General Pichegru did not commit suicide is to be found in the character of the individual. Upon this point, our personal knowledge of him gives us the highest degree of confidence. Religion,