Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/757

 Antwerp. Fouché thereupon issued an order to the prefects of the northern departments of the empire for the mobilization of 60,000 National Guards. He added to the order a statement in which occurred the words: “Let us prove to Europe that although the genius of Napoleon can throw lustre on France, his presence is not necessary to enable us to repulse the enemy.” The emperor’s approval of the measure was no less marked than his disapproval of the words just quoted. The next months brought further causes of friction between emperor and minister. The latter, knowing the desire of his master for peace at the close of the year 1809, undertook on his own account to make secret overtures to the British ministry. A little later Napoleon opened negotiations and found that Fouché had forestalled him. His rage against his minister was extreme, and on the 3rd of June 1810 he dismissed him from his office. However, as it was not the emperor’s custom completely to disgrace a man who might again be useful, Fouché received the governorship of Rome. He went thither, not as governor but as fugitive, for on receiving the emperor’s order to give up certain important documents of his former ministry, he handed over only a few, declaring that the rest were destroyed. At this the emperor’s anger burst forth again, and Fouché on learning, after his arrival at Florence, that the storm was still raging at Paris, prepared to sail to the United States. Compelled, however, by stress of weather and sickness to put back again, he found a mediator in Elisa Bonaparte, grand duchess of Tuscany, thanks to whom he was allowed to settle at Aix and finally to return to his domain of Point Carré. In 1812 he sought vainly to turn Napoleon from the projected invasion of Russia; and on the return of the emperor in haste from Smorgoni to Paris at the close of that year, the ex-minister of police was suspected of complicity in the conspiracy of General Malet, which came so strangely near to success. From this suspicion Fouché cleared himself and gave the emperor useful advice concerning internal affairs and the diplomatic situation. Nevertheless, the emperor, still distrustful of the arch-intriguer, ordered him to undertake the government of the Illyrian provinces. On the break-up of the Napoleonic system in Germany in October 1813 Fouché was ordered to repair to Rome and thence to Naples, in order to watch the movements of Murat. Before Fouché arrived at Naples Murat threw off the mask and invaded the Roman territory, whereupon Fouché received orders to return to France. He arrived at Paris on the 10th of April 1814 at the time when Napoleon was being constrained by his marshals to abdicate.

The conduct of Fouché at this crisis was characteristic. As senator he advised the senate to send a deputation to the comte d’Artois, brother of Louis XVIII., with a view to a reconciliation between the monarchy and the nation. A little later he addressed to Napoleon, then at Elba, a letter begging him in the interests of peace and of France to withdraw to the United States. To the new sovereign Louis XVIII. he sent an appeal in favour of liberty and recommending the adoption of measures which would conciliate all interests. It was not successful, but Fouché remained unmolested.

This was far from satisfying him, and when he found that there were no hopes of advancement, he entered into relations with conspirators who sought the overthrow of the Bourbons. Lafayette and Davout were concerned in the affair, but their refusal to take the course desired by Fouché and other bold spirits led to nothing being done. Soon Napoleon escaped from Elba and made his way in triumph to Paris. Shortly before his arrival at Paris (March 19, 1815) Louis XVIII. sent to Fouché an offer of the ministry of police, which he declined, saying, “It is too late; the only plan to adopt is to retreat.” He then foiled an attempt of the royalists to arrest him, and on the arrival of Napoleon he received for the third time the portfolio of police. That, however, did not prevent him from entering into secret relations with Metternich at Vienna, his aim being then, as always, to prepare for all eventualities. Meanwhile he used all his powers to induce the emperor to popularise his rule, and he is said to have caused the insertion of the words “The sovereignty resides in the people; it is the source of power” in the declaration of the council of state. But the autocratic tendencies of Napoleon could scarcely be held in check, and Fouché seeing the fall of the emperor to be imminent, took measures to expedite it and secure his own interests. On the 22nd of June Napoleon abdicated for the second time, and Fouché was next day elected president of the commission which provisionally governed France. Already he was in touch with Louis XVIII., then at Ghent, and now secretly received the overtures of his agent at Paris. While ostensibly working for the recognition of Napoleon II., he facilitated the success of the Bourbon cause, and thus procured for himself a place in the ministry of Louis XVIII. Even his skill, however, was unequal to the task of conciliating hot-headed royalists who remembered his vote as regicide and his fanaticism as terrorist. He resigned office, and after acting for a brief space as ambassador at Dresden, he retired to Prague. Finally he settled at Trieste, where he died on the 25th of December 1820. He had accumulated great wealth.

Marked at the outset by fanaticism, which, though cruel, was at least conscientious, Fouché’s character deteriorated in and after the year 1794 into one of calculating cunning. The transition represented all that was worst in the life of France during the period of the Revolution and Empire. In Fouché the enthusiasm of the earlier period appeared as a cold, selfish and remorseless fanaticism; in him the bureaucracy of the period 1795–1799 and the autocracy of Napoleon found their ablest instrument. Yet his intellectual pride prevented him sinking to the level of a mere tool. His relations to Napoleon were marked by a certain aloofness. He multiplied the means of resistance even to that irresistible autocrat, so that though removed from office, he was never wholly disgraced. Despised by all for his tergiversations, he nevertheless was sought by all on account of his cleverness. He repaid the contempt of his superiors and the adulation of his inferiors by a mask of impenetrable reserve or scorn. He sought for power and neglected no means to make himself serviceable to the party whose success appeared to be imminent. Yet, while appearing to be the servant of the victors, present or prospective, he never gave himself to any one party. In this versatility he resembles Talleyrand, of whom he was a coarse replica. Both professed, under all their shifts and turns, to be desirous of serving France. Talleyrand certainly did so in the sphere of diplomacy; Fouché may occasionally have done so in the sphere of intrigue.

Bibliography.—Fouché wrote some political pamphlets and reports, the chief of which are Réflexions sur le jugement de Louis Capet (1793); Réflexions sur l’éducation publique (1793); Rapport et projet de loi relatif aux collèges (1793); Rapport sur la situation de Commune-Affranchie [Lyons] (1794); Lettre aux préfets concernant les prêtres, &c. (1801); also the letters of 1815 noted above, and a Lettre au duc de Wellington (1817). The best life of Fouché is that by L. Madelin, Fouché (2 vols., Paris, 1901). The so-called Fouché Memoirs are not genuine, but they were apparently compiled, at least in part, from notes written by Fouché, and are often valuable, though their account of events (e.g. of the negotiations of 1809–1810) is not seldom untrustworthy. For those negotiations see Coquelle, Napoléon et l’Angleterre (Paris, 1903, Eng. trans., London, 1904). For the plots with which Fouché had to deal see E. Daudet, La Police et les Chouans sous le Consulat et l’Empire (Paris, 1895); P. M. C. Desmarest, Témoignages historiques, ou quinze ans de haute police (Paris, 1833, 2nd ed., 1900); É. Picard, Bonaparte et Moreau (Paris, 1905); G. A. Thierry, Conspirateurs et gens de police; le complot de libelles (Paris, 1903) (Eng. trans., London, 1903); H. Welschinger, Le Duc d’Enghien (Paris, 1888); E. Guillon, Les Complots militaires sous le Consulat et l’Empire (Paris, 1894).

 FOUCHER, SIMON (1644–1696), French philosopher, was born at Dijon on the 1st of March 1644. He was the son of a merchant, and appears to have taken orders at a very early age. For some years he held the position of honorary canon at Dijon, but this he resigned in order to take up his residence in Paris. He graduated at the Sorbonne, and spent the remainder of his life in literary work in Paris, where he died on the 27th of April 1696. In his day Foucher enjoyed considerable repute as a keen opponent of Malebranche. His philosophical standpoint was one of scepticism in regard to external perception. He revived the old arguments of the Academy, and advanced them with much ingenuity against Malebranche’s doctrine. Otherwise