THE MURDER OF THE AUSTRIAN AMBASSADORS.. TnE mystery that attaches
to the horrible outrage committed on the persons of the French Plenipotentiaries when on their way back to France, in deference to the official intimation from the Imperial authorities that they considered the Congress at Rastadt suspended, has recently formed the subject of much discussion. In rapid succession there have appeared in Germany several pub- lications, each professing to elucidate from original sources what hitherto in the transaction has been matter for controversy,— namely, who were the real authors of the crime. It has never been questioned that the Ambassadors were waylaid by men in the Austrian uniform, but whether these were really Austrian soldiers, and even if so, whether the act can be ascribed to superior authority, has been the matter of much controversy. Professor Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, the author of remarkable works in re- ference to modern German history, and who has been favoured always with particular facilities of access to Austrian sources, re- opened the controversy by a publication professedly based on the Vienna State papers never before communicated, which has for object to explode the accusation that has been levelled at the Imperial authorities in reference to their conduct in the matter. Able and rich in interesting material as the book is, it has not at all set at rest the points under discussion. On the contrary, two pamphlets, each bringing original materials, were instantly called forth by it,—the one by Baron Reichlin being remarkable for its critical tone, while the other, by Professor Zandt, is chiefly note- worthy for the personal reminiscences of his father, who resided at the time of the murder in the immediate neighbourhood of Rastadt. To the latter, Mendelssohn has replied in a few pages, 'which betray much irritation, but contain very little new matter, though we are informed that it is his intention to follow it up by publication in extenso of the whole documentary evidence in the Vienna archives, whereon he rests, an account " which," he tatters himself, " modifies, and in some respects completely overturns, the hitherto received opinion about the catastrophe of the 28th of April, 1799." We see no reason for anticipating that the promised publication can do more than add in detail to what we already have. The evidence is sufficiently distinct, on all chief • Der Rastadter Gesandten-Mord mit Benutsung handsehriftlichen Materials aus den Archives von Wien and Karlsruhe. Von Karl Mendelssohn-Bartholdy. Heidelberg. 1869.
Der Rastadter Gesarulten-Mord aus den hinterlassenen Papieren von J. Fr. Th. Zandl. Eferausgegeben von E. Zsndt, Professor am Lyceum. Karlsruhe. 1869.
Der Rastadter Gesandten-Moroi naeh den Quellen dargestelll and beleueltet von Joseph Preihern eon Reichlin-Mettlegg. Mit 12 urkundlichen Beilagen. Heidelberg. 1869.
Der Rastadter Gesandten-Nord and die Anekdotensammtung des Herrn Zandt. Von Earl Mendelssohn-Bartholdy. Heidelberg. 1869.
Lea Plenipotentiaires de Rastadt. Par Paul Knot. Paris. 1869.
heads, to warrant a verdict ; and if it might be thought that the Vienna archives can furnish the one link which is perhaps de- fective—namely, the acts of the Court of inquiry into the circum- stances of the outrage—we have it on Professor Mendelssohn's word that they do not exist there. We may add, for those who may not care to go through the evidence for themselves, that a lucid and judicial summary has issued in French from the pen of M. Paul Huot. We will now give succinctly the principal points in this extraordinary case.
After seventeen months of vain negotiations between France and the Empire, hostilities broke out afresh between the former and Austria (not the Empire), and the Austrian Plenipotentiaries left Rastadt. On the 22nd April, the commander of the advancing Austrian forces intimated officially that he would not consider Rastadt any longer as under protection of neutrality. On the 28th April the victorious Austrians had pushed on actually to Rastadt, the gate of which was occupied in the afternoon by a body of Hungarian Szekler Hussars, whose commander handed an order to the French Plenipotentiaries to leave the city within twenty-four hours, and was empowered by the Archduke Charles (we learn this from Mendelssohn) to use violence if they would not go quietly. At this time there were still the representatives of several German States, including Prussia, in Rastadt. The French Envoys—they were three, Debry, Bonnier, and Roberjot—re- solved at once to leave for France, the frontier of which was not three miles off. They had made their preparations, and their carriage had been packed all day, when on receipt of this imperious missive they determined not to stay another night, though on the testimony of surviving witnesses it was one of terrific storm, rain, hail, and sleet mingling in wild turmoil with a dark- ness so intense that men with torches had to guide through the streets the postilions who drove the departing Envoys. They demanded an escort from the Austrian officer in command, and this request, in itself perfectly right, and backed by the urgent representations of the German diplomatist; was yet sternly re- fused, and the French were left to proceed by themselves. There were eight carriages, the first being occupied by Debry, while Bonnier sat in the third, and Roberjot in the fourth. They had not got more than five minutes' distance from Rastadt (Debry, in his report says, fifty yards), than horsemen, in the same Szekler Hussar uniform worn by the soldiers at the gate, dashed up to the carriages, and dragging forth the Plenipotentiaries, cut them down with brutal ferocity. Bonnier and Roberjot were murdered with many blows, but Debry, grievously wounded, contrived to roll himself into a ditch in the dark, and to crawl away into a thicket by the side of the road. It is affirmed by Mendelssohn that from amongst the horsemen was heard the exclamation in French, " Es-tu le ministre Jean Debry !" and also in the same tongue to the others. This, if correct, would prove a very important fact, tending to establish the presence of men superior in education to privates of a Hungarian regiment, for it is distinctly deposed to that no officer was seen. This story of French spoken was first stated in the despatch of the Prussian Envoy, who wrote at second- hand ; and as Mendelssohn gives no authority in his text, nor refers to the original Austrian sources, and as he is elsewhere very particular in pointing to as supporting this noteworthy and, for his case, signally telling incident, we cannot avoid con- curring in Reichlin's view, that not only does evidence utterly fail in support thereof, but that it is overwhelming against. For neither in Debry's own statement written to his Government is there any allusion to such a fact, which to him would necessarily have appeared most significant, nor is there in the very circum- stantial depositions of the German postilions, who expressly speak to having heard Hungarian spoken ; while Debry's own servant, who knew German, and probably was an Alsatian from his name, Sigrist, deposes to have heard German spoken, but not one word of French. All this will be found in the appendix of documents given by Reichlin, and really Professor Mendelssohn, who is very sharp on the assumed want of criticism in others, might be expected to fortify the allegation of so very important a point by something more than his mere affirmation, if he has anything to show. The news of the outrage reached the city in a few minutes, and the bewildered diplomatists rushed to the Austrian officer at the gate, who received them most uncourteously, declined to send out a patrol, and sharply retorted on the remon- strating Danish Envoy with the words that he would not put up with being questioned. It was due only to the exertions of a Baden officer that an effort was at last made to do something; and
when he got to the spot, hussars (but without any officers with them) were found rifling the carriages. This officer, Major von Harrant, perceiving that Debry's body was missing, searched all
night, when he learned (and Mendelssohn does not dispute this) that Austrian hussars had been to the moire of a neighbouring village, and bidden him, in the event of his coming across a wounded Frenchman, either to bring him to their quarters, or to keep him till they came back. During the same night, the Prussian Secretary, with an official despatch from the assembled envoys in ltaatadt, rode over to the superior Austrian officer in command of the advancd party, Colonel Barbaczy, to demand personal pro- tection. He was not admitted to present his communication (Mendelssohn acknowledges this fact). " Not even if he came from God the Father or the Son could he see the Colonel," was the reply ; nevertheless, the request was at last conceded, and in writing at last Barbaczy gave instructions that an escort should be accorded to the French Legation. It is, however, a not immaterial fact that when, by dint of resolute remonstrances, Major von Harrant had induced the hussars to-abstain on the previous night from further acts of violence, they did not give up the carriages of the Legation, but insisted on first carrying them round the town to a military post, the superior officer of which supervised the ransacking of the contents, and took to himself all papers, which, when restored after some weeks to the French authorities, were found (and this, again, is not controverted) to be imperfect. In reply to the col- lective remonstrance of the envoys at so horrible an outrage, Barbaczy expressed in writing his profound grief at the perpetra- tion of such a deed " by privates under my command," and intimated that he had ordered their arrest. Similarly, the -General-in-Chief, Archduke Charles, under date of several days after the event, wrote of the perpetrators as having been soldiers in the advanced post, and gave an assurance of "condign satisfac- tion" that should be exacted in reparation. A court of military inquiry was instituted, and both Barbaczy and the subaltern in -command at the gate were put under temporary arrest. There exists a despatch to Vienna of the Archduke, in which, referring to the report handed to him, he again speaks of the deed having been In presence of such patent slackness of prosecution, was it possible not to entertain suspicions ? Accordingly, grave writers like Schlosser, Wachsmuth, and Masse came to the deliberate conclusion that Lehrbach, the ruling Minister in Austria, had himself planned the outrage. This idea Professor Mendelssohn scouts, and he thinks that he has triumphantly exploded the possibility of Austria having had any preparatory hand in the erime. This he ascribes solely to French emigrants, who succeeded in making accomplices of some subaltern officers, who then set in motion their soldiers ; and the quashing of all inquiry he explains by the Austrian Government, on discovery of the high French -emigrant influence which had been at work, having screened the same from shameful conviction, out of its strong sympathies at that time with the Bourbons. Now the only evidence the Professor -advances, in spite of his access to the Imperial archives, consists, —(1), in stories of the criminal fanaticism generally animating French emigrants ; (2), in a letter from an emigrant, Count 'Toulouse, in which he mysteriously refers to something astonish- ing which will soon happen in the world. Now if this allusion, written three weeks before the outrage, really refers to the murder of the French Envoys, then the Professor certainly fur- nishes against the very man whose innocence he defends, the most serious piece of evidence that has yet been given ; for this letter of Toulouse was found by the Professor amongst Lehrbach's papers, so that, on his own showing, the supposed concocter of murder was in communication with the Minister. But the whole thing is really not worth a moment's thought, for a more flimsy substructure for a serious charge cannot be conceived than so vague an allusion to there being something startling in the wind uttered at a period so pregnant with events. What, however, is an important fact we have to thank the Professor for is, that in the Vienna archives there are not to be found the papers about the inquiry which was instituted by the Archduke. It is con- ceivable that the Austrian Court, on finding its Legitimist allies guilty of murder, should have abstained from adding to the con- tumely of fallen royalty by making its criminality public ; but what is not conceivable is, that out of the secret records of the archives it should have removed the evidence of an inquiry, un- ieas the disappearance of the same it had a strong personal interest. It was one thing to screen from public conviction the Royalist cause, and quite another gratuitously to remove from the inaccessible pigeon-holes of the mtusiment-room the dom. mentary proof establishing the innocence of the Imperial autho- rities from a foul charge that was heard directly after the event, and by them vehemently denied. The Professor is very angry at the levity of those who have presumed to identify Count Lehrbach with this deed. It is quite true that the evidence is not such as would justify a verdict against him in a court of justice ; and for the reason that no one except the Professor has ever been admitted to an inspection of his papers. Why Lehrbach has been held privy by serious historians is simply because, having come to the conclusion the Austrian authorities could not be acquitted of, at least, connivance, they were unable to believe that with the preponderating influence then wielded by Lehrbach, subaltern officials would have ventured on such an act except with the knowledge of his sanction. The Professor dwells strongly on the expressions of horror at the incident which he has read in Lehrbach's private papers. The value of such evidence materially depends on our estimation of a man's love of truth. That the Austrian statesmen then were not scrupulously veracious is clear, by what they saw fit to utter in writing on this very matter. In the teeth of the original admission by the military authorities that soldiers had been the culprits, Prince Colloredo, when it had been found desirable to quash inquiry, wrote to the Diet the patently false allegation that men disguised in Imperial uniform had com- mitted the crime. In Reichlin's appendix there is an official account, every word whereof is false, written by the Austrian President of the Freiburg district—the one adjoining to Rastadt —an official who could not but know the true state of the case. Again, the Alagyar Kurir, the journal circulating in Lower Hun- gary—and it is:enough to remember the date to know that no paper then could exist in the Empire except under strict official supervision—contained an account of the transaction, according to which the Envoys, on being challenged by a patrol, persistently refused to show passports, and one of the ministers, Roberjot, even fired a pistol at the soldiers, who, then infuriated, fell upon them. In another paper it was stated that the deed had been done by men in masks. But, says Mendelssohn, how preposterous to suppose the Austrian Government so stupid as to be guilty of a foul act, when it had no possible interest for it ! That great crimes have, as a rule, been great blunders is true ; and yet they have been com- mitted by men of genius, too, as witness the Due d'Eughien's murder. It is, however, proved that the Austrian Government did desire to get hold of the correspondence of these French Envoys, for only a few days earlier, in defiance of recognized privilege, their special courier had been waylaid by. Austrian Hussars, and his papers carried away. Whether the outrage actually perpetrated had been contemplated is a point impossible to decide at present. All probability appears to the contrary. It does seem inconceivable that so brutal a deed should have been designed by astute diplomatists, but it really is utter loss of time to attempt arguing away the complicity of the Imperial Govern- ment on the strength of evidence so flimsy as has been adduced by Professor Mendelssohn. Lehrbach, if not murderer-in-chief, uudoubtedly harboured the murderers, for no one ever heard of anything having been done to those military men who stood im- mediately connected with the deed, and whose signal punishment had been promised by the Archduke Charles, whose good faith and honourable character have not been impugned.
Previous page
