wished it to be. Thus the reports of the councillors of State only
furnished fresh arguments in favour of his ambition.

I must, however, observe that in the discussions of the Council of State
Bonaparte was not at all averse to the free expression of opinion. He,
indeed, often encouraged it; for although fully resolved to do only what
he pleased, he wished to gain information; indeed, it is scarcely
conceivable how, in the short space of two years, Bonaparte adapted his
mind so completely to civil and legislative affairs. But he could not
endure in the Tribunate the liberty of opinion which he tolerated in the
Council; and for this reason--that the sittings of the Tribunate were
public, while those of the Council of State were secret, and publicity
was what he dreaded above all things. He was very well pleased when he
had to transmit to the Legislative Body or to the Tribunate any proposed
law of trifling importance, and he used then to say that he had thrown
them a bone to gnaw.

Among the subjects submitted to the consideration of the Council and the
Tribunate was one which gave rise to a singular discussion, the ground of
which was a particular word, inserted in the third article of the treaty
of Russia with France. This word seemed to convey a prophetic allusion
to the future condition of the French people, or rather an anticipated
designation of what they afterwards became. The treaty spoke of "the
subjects of the two Governments." This term applied to those who still
considered themselves citizens, and was highly offensive to the
Tribunate. Chenier most loudly remonstrated against the introduction of
this word into the dictionary of the new Government. He said that the
armies of France had shed their blood that the French people might be
citizens and not subjects. Chenier's arguments, however, had no effect
on the decision of the Tribunate, and only served to irritate the First