The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1804-10-13

.ir>' Nh "a n L plcTftH ProT75ed to re-ejI0G
Ajb tie Bonrdons. dpromi,s atteJfes b. re-
| port5 cirea1afeaix London.
The particulars collected in the aq ofoccufs.
ton, and upon which this charge is made, are
as follow. -
Kufrllon declares that Lajolais had afTerted.
IN London, that Moreau, difcontented with the
government of the Fira-Conful, wif1ed, and
would with all his power aid in accomplifbiue
its overthrow.
Bouvet faid that Lsjolais confirmed all the
hopes which, in London, had been built upon
Moreau that he had entered into the defign OF
the princes; and promiied that he would pre-
tent the prince to the armies.
Rochelle affirmed that, in London, they cal.
culated on Moreau; without faying that Laio-
lais was author of the reports.
And Roger Gf we are to take the tcftimonv
OF four gendarmes who guarded him in the tenn
Pie) had heard it faid that Moreau was one of
the chiefs of the confpiracy.
mus reports, the author of which is not az
certained, were circulated at London, that Mo-
reau was chief in the confpiracy of royalifts
thete reports are attefed by two witnefTes only,
Rochelle and Roger; and two other perfons un-
der accuiation, Ruiiillon and Bouvct allure Ms
that Lajolais had told the princes that Moreau
had declared for them.
| Behold all the .tefimoDy upon which this i'm
portant fact NUT ref.
We will not confnme our time in ol,ferving
that, at the trial, Gonc OF thefe declarations
were con!iderably varied and enfeebled. Bou-
vet in particular avowed that the royalifts had
been deceived by thofe who had promiEed Mo-
reau to their party. He even REQUIRED fevcraI
times, with great energy, to the confidence he
had with too much facility placed upon hear
Jays concerning MORGAN.
Nor IS it peceliary TO notice that the decJara-
ton faid to have been made by Roger at the
temple, was formally denied by him at the trial,
in preience of two of the gendarmes who report
ed it; one OF whom faltered, and another en-
tirely retra6ted. This laif was Gilbert, who ex-
prefsly fdid that he knew not how the name of
Morcau had crept into his depoition, as Ro-
ger had never, in his prefence, fpoken of him.
he forcioly repeated this retraeiion three
times.
We may alto be allowed to pafs over the i'm
probability tat Roger, who in all his examina-
tons bad denied every charge made againf him,
and had ufed all his efforts TO free himfelf from
that OF being confpirator, ihould afterwards,
without any reafon or progocation, fcolifhy a.
vow, not TO one only, but to fecond, third,
and fourth, fuccefively, that he was 70 that
be had heard Morsau named as one of its chiefs :
and this for the FLY pleafure OF placing fIici-
dial confidence in four perfons utterly unknown
TO MN.
Much lefs need we feek TO divine the extraor.
binary motives, however knowledge of them
might invalidate the tei,imony, which could in
duce theie four gendarmeS 20 intimate them
fclYes into the confidence of their priforer, and
to draw him into fuch conversation as might f1it
their Purpote; when their duty was merely to
guard him, and be fient.
General Moreau is under no necelTity Of ex-
teuuating this charge by any of thefe means.
We viii then content ourfelves with making,
IN this place, one obfervation, which 10, that the
act OF accutstion might have exhibited many o.
tber proofs equally fubRantial, had it plesfed
Mr.. Attorney General to have availed himfeI
OF them. We are told that, lait fummer, man,
joarnslfs, in London and America gave po6i