During the Consulate the Council of State was not only a body politic collectively, but each individual member might be invested with special power; as, for example, when the First Consul sent Councillors of State on missions to each of the military divisions where there was a Court of Appeal, the instructions given them by the First Consul were extensive, and might be said to be unlimited.  They were directed to examine all the branches of the administration, so that their reports collected and compared together presented a perfect description of the state of France.  But this measure, though excellent in itself, proved fatal to the State.  The reports never conveyed the truth to the First Consul, or at least if they did, it was in such a disguised form as to be scarcely recognisable; for the Councillors well knew that the best way to pay their court to Bonaparte was not to describe public feeling as it really was, but as he 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 Consul.  The treaty was adopted almost unanimously, there being only fourteen dissentient voices, and the proportion of black balls in the Legislative Body was even less.