BOOKS.
A SECRET AGENT UNDER THE EMPIRE.* HISTORIANS, for the most part, confine their attention to personages who have taken a prominent part in the doings which they describe, although it may be that others less known, perhaps utterly unknown save to students and specialists, have influenced events in almost equal measure. How many people, for instance, have heard of Louis Emmanuel Henri Alexandre de Launai, Comte d'Antraigues, or having heard, know aught of his strange, eventful history ? Even the voluminous and omniscient Alison mentions him only twice, once in a foot-note which states (untruly) that the secret articles of the Treaty of Tilsit were obtained by the British Government through the Count's agency, and again in a brief sentence wherein he says (truly) that the proceedings of Louis XVIII. at Verona were mainly under the Count's direction. Yet D'Antraigues in his time played many parts, and for years intrigued and conspired against the Consulate and the Empire. In 1797, the Directory tried to justify the Coup d'Etat of the Eighteenth Fructidor by publishing, as evidence of the Royalist conspiracy which they professed to have de- tooted, certain papers found in his possession at Trieste. In 1803, De Launai's name, pronounced with threats by the First Consul at Paris and repeated at Dresden and St. Peters- burg, served as one of the pretexts for the impending rupture between Russia and France, At that time D'Antraigues was attached to the Russian Mission at the Saxon capital, which four years later he had to quit as the alternative of being shot, and to take refuge in England, then the only country where a man could " write, speak, think, and aut."
The Count, born in 1753, came of a noble and distinguished family which had been settled in the Vivarais for ages. But his own life belonged to three distinct periods, the old Reginie, the Revolution, and the Empire. In the reign of Louis XVI. he was a curious traveller, a dabbler in literature and science, and a gallant. At the beginning of the Revolution he became a member of the States-General and the Con- stituent Assembly. In 1790 he quitted France, as it proved, never to return, and thenceforth devoted his talents and his rare capacity for underground work to the cause of the Bourbons and the counter-revolution. For seven years he was the confidential agent of Louis XVIII. ; he served, in diplomatic capacities, the Governments of Spain and Russia, had intimate relations with nearly every Cabinet in Europe, and was continually furnishing them with ideas, information, and advice. He made a long sojourn in the East ; travelled in Poland, Austria, and Italy, and after leaving France lived successively in Venice, Vienna, Dresden, and London, where his erratic career was closed by a terrible tragedy.
In 1797 there befell the most important event of De Launai's life,—his meeting with Bonaparte, and the mysterious affair of the captured portfolio. At that time the Count, who had become a Russian subject, was on the staff of the Russian Legation at Venice. But his real occupation was intriguing against the French Republic. The French Minister accused him of organising religious crusades (in La Vendee), risings, and massacres,—charges which were not altogether without warrant. He had secret correspondents in the bureaux of the Directory and, at a later date, in the very household of the First Consul. Some of his letters fell into the hands of Bonaparte during the campaign of 1797, and when, after his victory over the Austrians, the victorious General decided to despoil Venice, D'Antraigues was advised that if he did not take instant flight, ho would almost certainly be arrested, and probably shot. But being unable to believe that the French would dare to lay their hands on one who, though a born Frenchman, belonged to a foreign mission, the Count refused to hasten his departure. Nevertheless, he took the pre- caution to deposit with the Austrian Legation a box in which he placed his principal papers, and kept only three
Um Agent Secret, sons /a Rdvolittin a. et P Empire. Per L6nnio Pinganti. Paris Librairio Pion.
portfolios containing, as he believed, or as he afterwards pro- tested he had believed, nothing more important or com- promising than literary MSS. and philosophic dissertations. On May 15th, 1797, when the French troops were at the gates of Venice, Mordinev, the Russian Minister, asked Villetard, chief of the French Legation, for passports which would enable himself and the members of his mission to travel through the French lines. The request was granted, except so far as concerned D'Antraigues, "agent of a French emigrant who imagined himself to be the heir to the crown of France." But doubting whether, considering the Count's diplomatic character, this restriction would hold good, Villetard forwarded to all the frontier stations and to Trieste, at that time occupied by Berna- dotte, a full description of the man whom he had orders to have arrested at all hazards. During the earlier part of the journey all went well. The French posts made no difficulties ; but when, on the evening of May 2nd, the travellers arrived at Trieste, their carriages were beset with soldiers and they themselves were taken to head-quarters, where Mordinev had an interview with Bernadotte, of which he gave a vivid descrip- tion in a despatch to his Government, cited by M. Pingaud. The Minister protested against his arrest, and claimed for the Count de Launai d'Antraigues the consideration assured by international law to every member of a public mission. To this Bernadotte answered that M. d'Antraigues was also the ambassador of Louis XVIII., "our enemy, wherefore I declare to you that he is under arrest. If he were the stronger he would have us all shot, and now, we being the stronger, shall use the same right." Mordinev protested again, whereupon Bernadotte explained that as he had received orders from his Government to arrest the Count, he could on no account let him go, but the other members of the Russian Legation might proceed on their journey. In the meantime, Madame d'Antraigues, acting doubtless on. a hint from her husband, made away with two of the portfolios. But, owing either to a, miscon- ception or a mischance, the portfolio which she retained was precisely the one which she ought to have destroyed. It was seized by the French, and despatched, together with its owner, to Milan. It may interest present-day tourists to know that the journey thither from Trieste lasted six days. At Milan, D'Antraignes was lodged in a dungeon, and Bona- parte, breaking the seals of the captured folio, made careful examination of its contents. Among a number of unim- portant documents, including some letters from Jean Jacques Rousseau, was found the precis of a conversation which De Launai had held with a certain Montgaillard, the previous year. From this man, an adventurer, under suspicion of acting as a spy for whichever side paid him best, he received much information of a highly compromising character touch- ing negotiations which had recently taken place between the Prince de Condo and Pichegru. There had likewise been a question of winning over to the Royal cause the conqueror of Italy himself, all of which was fully set forth in the precis. After reading it, Bonaparte had a long interview with D'An- traigues. What passed at this interview has never been fully revealed. Two accounts of it were given,—one by Napo- leon in his official correspondence, the other by D'Antraigues in his letters ; and as both men were unscrupulous liars and had excellent reasons either for exaggerating or sophisticating, it is more than likely that neither account was true. Bona- parte, who wanted to destroy Pichegru and Moreau, would naturally pose as the discoverer of a Royalist conspiracy, and colour his report to the Directory in the sense of his antipa- thies and his interests ; D'Antraigues, on the other hand, was in a double serape from which he could not extricate himself without a considerable amount of promiscuous lying. As he had been concerned in an attempt to tamper with the allegiance of French soldiers, Bonaparte might have had him tried by court-martial and shot, and the Count doubtless know that in default of revelations this would be his fate ; while, on the other hand, if he did make revelations and the fact were to • come to light, D'Antraigues would lose the confidence of the Prince whom he regarded as his Sovereign, and forfeit the respect of his Royalist friends. Nevertheless, there is good reason to believe that fear proved stronger than loyalty, and that either by threats or cajolery, or both, Bonaparte got to know all he wanted to know, and that the documents found in De Launai's portfolio and supplemented by "admis- sions," led to the arrest of Pichegru and his transportation to Cayenne. On the morrow of the interview, D'Antraigues began to receive the price of his treachery, or, it might be, incon- stancy and indiscretion. He was transferred from cell No.10 to a suite of apartments in the citadel, where his wife and son were allowed to join him, and thence, a week later, to the palace of the Marquis d'Andreoli, where, though still strictly guarded, he was treated in other respects as an honoured guest. Meanwhile, the prisoner was very busy with his pen ; be addressed to Louis XVIII. a memoir justifying his con- duct, and wrote to the Directory denouncing his enemies and demanding his release. In the end, Bonaparte allowed him to escape. The sentinels were withdrawn from the Andreoli Palace, the prisoner received leave to walk on the pub- lic promenades, and, on August 29th, he took French leave, in the guise of an ecclesiastic, and got safely to Inns- bruck, whither he was presently followed by his wife and son. After a short stay at Innsbruck, they went to Vienna. As touching what befell D'Antraigues during the rest of his sojourn on the Continent, we must refer our readers to M. Pingaud's book, which they will find both entertaining and instructive. The affair of the portfolio cost him the confidence of Louis XVIII., and laid him open to suspicion of disloyalty; yet he remained in the pay of Russia, intrigued continually against France, waged an incessant paper war against Bona- parte, and so irritated the French Government that Fouch6 proposed to kidnap the Count and shoot him before his sur- render could be demanded by the Saxon Government.
When the Battle of Austerlitz made Napoleon the master of Europe, he did not, even amid so great a blaze of glory, forget his enemies. The bulletin which announced the de- thronement of the Neapolitan Bourbons concluded with these words :—" Let her (the Queen of Naples) go to London and augment the number of intriguers She can summon there if she deems it expedient, Baron Armfelt and Messieurs de Person and d'Antraigues." D'Antraigues rightly understood this as signifying that the implacable vendetta of Bonaparte would pursue him to the death. He had also good reason for believing that before the year (1806) was over, there would be war between France and Prussia, and that the French troops would overrun Germany, in which event neither his diplomatic character nor the might of Russia would avail to protect him from the vengeance of his formidable foe. Moreover, the Count had received a significant warning from Paris. " If you are taken," it ran, "you will be shot within twenty-four hours." It was time for him to go. He sent his papers to London, and asked permission of Czartoryski, the Russian Chancellor, to betake himself to the same place. The permission was granted, and on August 2nd he left Dresden,—none too soon, for a body of French troops were already within a few marches of the Saxon capital, and on their arrival thither made diligent search for the fugitive, but he was well on his way, and a month later reached his destination. D'Antraigues, who some time previously had been elected a member of the Royal Society, was well received in London. The Government, who thought they might turn his knowledge of Continental politics and talent for intrigue to account, allowed him £50 a month from the Secret Service vote, afterwards increased to £1,000 a year, which was all the more necessary as, after the Peace of Tilsit, the Emperor of Russia, who had fallen com- pletely under the influence of Napoleon, suppressed De Launai's salary. On the other hand, he made a friend of Canning, and wrote for him numberless memoirs ; but the Marquess of Wellesley, who succeeded Canning at the Foreign Office, gave D'Antraigues the cold shoulder, partly out of dislike for his character, partly because Louis XVIII. —who was then in England, and had neither forgiven nor forgotten the affair of the captured portfolio—had pre- judiced the Marquess against his former. agent. Moreover, D'Antraigues, though an able man, was vain, conceited, and meddlesome. He had a mania for writing State papers, and was continually offering unasked advice. To make matters worse, he quarrelled with his Royalist fellow-exiles, some of whom denounced him as a traitor. His wife, once Madame Huberty, had been a famous actress and his mistress, and was not received in society ; her temper, naturally sharp, did not improve with advancing years, and altogether De Launai's life in London was not happy. But early in 1812 his prospects brightened. The relations between France and Russia were becoming strained ; a rupture seemed imminent. In the ap- proaching struggle, a man like D'Antraigues might be useful Alexander sent him a friendly message ; he was asked to enter into correspondence with the Russian Foreign Office, and in June of the same year received instructions to draft pro- posals for a treaty of commerce between England and Russia. Had this reinstatement in the Czar's favour and renewed political activity aught to do with the tragedy that presently befell P It is impossible to say. But we do know from Do Goncourt's " La Huberty," and other sources, that De Launai's rising fortunes neither improved his spirits nor restored his courage. Rightly or wrongly, he believed that a watch was set upon him, even in his own house, and that he was con- tinually surrounded by redoubtable yet invisible enemies. In July, 1807, a burglar was caught in the very act of plundering the cabinet whore he kept MR papers. Another time the same cabinet was set on fire, nobody knew how, and his MSS. were with difficulty saved from destruction. On July 22nd, 1812, D'Antraigues, who lived at Barnes, had arranged to go to London. At the appointed hour, his carriage drew up at the door, his wife took her seat, and he was about to follow her when Lorenzo, his Italian man-servant, fired a pistol point- blank at the Count's head. The bullet missed its mark, whereupon Lorenzo ran through the smoke to his master's study, and returning with a dagger, stabbed him to the heart ; then, turning to the Countess, who, alarmed by the report, had alighted from the carriage, he stabbed her. She fell at his feet and expired almost immediately. Meanwhile, D'Antraigues managed to reel back into the house and reach his room, where he fell face downward on his bed and there died. The murderer followed him. The coachman, jumping from the box, fol- lowed the murderer, and was just in time to see him blow out his brains with a second pistol and fall at the foot of De Launai's bed. This terrible tragedy and mysterious crime naturally caused a great sensation in London, especially in political circles, and among De Launai's. compatriots., All sorts of theories were suggested as to the murderer's motives. As the man was a deserter from the French Army, it was at least conceivable that be was in the pay of the French police, and that the crime had been instigated by Napoleon. But in that case, why should Lorenzo commit suicide ? Another and more plausible theory was that he had been suborned to pur- loin some of De Launai's papers. Purloining papers was a common practice in those days. D'Antraigues himself had employed a returned emigre, who afterwards killed himself, to abstract papers from Fouche's office in Paris. It was sup- posed, further, that D'Antraigues had missed some of the stolen documents, and suspected Lorenzo, and that Lorenzo, perceiving this, murdered his master and mistress, to prevent exposure ; and then, horrified by what he had done, took his own life. This hypothesis, though unsupported by any evi- dence worthy of the name, is at least possible. But the simplest and most probable explanation is that Lorenzo, who had been reprimanded and " warned " by his mistress the night before, killed her and the Count out of revenge, and committed suicide to avoid the inevitable hanging, which, had he sur- vived, would have been his fate. Or he may have been mad, and his conduct is certainly more suggestive of a Malay running " a-mok " than a cold-blooded murderer with a pre- meditated motive.
D'Antraigues had few friends ; his son was probably his only sincere mourner. As he wrote to the Emperor Paul, in 1797, he had "intrigued with all his strength and all his means." He might have added that he had never been scrupulous as to the means. It is no more possible to re- spect an intriguer than a spy, and the Count was in a measure both. Nevertheless, he deserves honourable mention for refusing in an age of time-servers and sycophants to bow the knee to Baal. Had he accepted the proffered amnesty and made his peace with Bonaparte, ho might have returned to France and won credit and renown in the Imperial diplo- matic service. But he preferred exile to what he would have deemed the extremity of dishonour.
D'Antraigues has been called the " Gil Bias of the French Revolution." The comparison is unjust to both. The Spanish adventurer was a man of action, who regarded life as a joke ; the French intriguer, a man of letters, who took life seri- ously and lived in his study. A fighter indeed, and a hard hitter ; but his ammunition was ink, his weapon a goose- quill. The best description of him is summed up in the epithet applied to him by M. Pingaud, " A guerilla of the pen."
Previous page
