He did not arrest the Duke d'Enghien, for his seizure was executed and consummated by chef d'escadron Ch***. Neither directly, nor indirectly, did he give orders for seizing the prince: for the particular mission, to carry him off, was confided to General Ord**, and this general had no orders to receive from M. de Caulincourt his equal, perhaps even his inferior. What made it be supposed, at a time when it was not possible to explain the facts, that M. de Caulincourt had been employed to seize the Duke d'Enghien, or cause him to be seized, was, that M. de Caulincourt received, at the same moment as General Ord**, orders to repair to Strasbourg, to cause the emigrants and English agents, who had fixed the seat of their intrigues at Offenbourg, to be carried off. But this mission, for which it would be requisite to take measures in concert with General Ord**, and perhaps even to assist him in case of need; for a simultaneous proceeding was necessary, that one expedition might not cause the failure of the other; this mission, I say, though analogous to that of General Ord**, had no real connexion with it. Their objects were different: That of one was to carry off the Duke d'Enghien from Ettenheim; That of the other, to seize the conspirators at Offenbourg, which was eight or ten leagues distant. Perhaps it will be objected, that M. de Caulincourt was not ignorant of General Ord**'s being directed, to seize the Duke d'Enghien. Be it so: I cannot perceive the consequence, attempted to be drawn from this. But what I have _seen_ in the cabinet, and what I attest, is, that the order given to M. de Caulincourt said nothing of Ettenheim, and that the name of the Duke d'Enghien was not even mentioned in it: it related solely, in the first place, to the construction of a flotilla, that was preparing on the Rhine; and, secondly, to the expedition of Offenbourg; an expedition that terminated, as no doubt is still remembered, in the laughable flight of the minister Drake and his agents.