The Sun. — London, England, 1832-01-11 00:00:00

pleaded the contrary, aad, as had already been observed, the object of one of their articles was to establish that the Duke of Bourbon thought of appoi❑ting the Duke of Bourdeaux his residuary legatee. Thus the inheritance which they demanded so loudly, was one which, by their own confession, was not destined for them. It was against the wishes of the Duke of Bourbon, admitted by them, that they wished to be his heirs, and yet they com plained of spoliation, and uttered the words " suggestion and inveiglement." They spoke of a misunderstood wish ! This was sufficient to enable any one to judge of the mo- rality of their complaints. If the Duke of Bourbon could not select the brother of the Duchess ef Berri, nor any member of the family of Ruben, where could he look for an heir to his title and his wealth with so much propriety as in the bosom of that noble family, which was his own, and of which numerous branches, full of vigour, would free him from all embar rassment in his choice. It was attempted to be shown that the Duke of Bourbon was not likely to have adopted such a resolution. Those who bad instituted the suit not having been able to find any plausible ground of personal estrangement between two Princes who were connected by ties of blood, —and, be did not hesitate to add, by mutual esteem,—it had been attempted to establish a misunderstanding between them, grounded on civil discord. It has been said that no op position could be more complete than that which had se parated the Duke of Orleans from the Duke of Bour bon,—that at every period these Princes had marched un der different banners,—that one had always supported the causes of privileges and the ancient constitution of the mo narchy, whilst the other had embraced the cause of Reform and new ideas,—that one by the misfortune of the times had become the ally of the foreigner, and the other had re mained faithful to the country, and had never fought ex cept under the French flag,—that on their return from exile, each adhered to his peculiar opinions ; and that if from this scene of public life reference was made to their private conduct, the same diversity of education, ideal, and tastes, would be found to prevail. God forbid that he should complain on the part of the august father of his young client of this reference to the past ! The pages of his history were too glorious to allow of any interest inspiring him with the desire of effacing them. But was it not calumniating the memory of the Duke of Bourbon to suppose that the honourable conduct of his nephew had left an irremoveable Leven of enmity in his mind ? It was unfortunately observable every day that vulgar men could not pardon a political difference, and could not conceive that others could honestly speak and act differently from themselves ; but noble minds could understand and honour each other, even when they did act under the same inspirations. It was only treason, or base and shameful acts, which they could not pardon. In a word, the two Princes had pursued dif f erent courses, but the progress of each bad been honourable. There existed between them a difference of opinion, but no enmity ; and when the hand of time, which effaces every thing, had weakened the memory of their opposition, when the Princes found themselves again on the soil of their country, and better days brought them closer together, the voice of consanguinity made itself heard, and he re peated it was calumniating the Duke of Bourbon to pre tend that he felt unjust sentiments against a nephew whose life lead always been honourable and pure. As a proof of the kind feeling which existed between the Dukes of Orleans and Bourbon, the learned advocate here read several letters from the latter to the former, filled with expressions of the most tender friendship ; and also other letters written by the Duke to Madame Feucheres, in which he expressed himself in the most affectionate manner to wards the Duchess of Orleans. In 1822, the bonds which united the two houses were strengthened by a new tie. The family of Orleans was augmented by the birth of a Prince. The Duke of Bourbon was asked to stand godfather; he acceded in the kindest manner, and himself asked Mademoiselle Orleans to assist him in the ceremony. The Advocate of MM. Roban pre tends, that this was an act of complaisance—a compliance with family tyranny, from which it was difficult for him to escape. Nothing could be adduced in support of that assertion ; on she contrary, the Duke of Bourbon, in a let ter written some days before the ceremony, stated with what delight he saw a day approach, which was deeply in teresting to his heart, and " so fortunate," he added, " for our family." Their adversaries, skilful in perversions and misrepre sentations, had carried hack their supposed plan of in veiglement to 1826 ; and attributed, in this respect, the most miserable combination to the house of Or leans. Some journals had indiscreetly announced that the Duke of Bourbon had adopted the Duke de Nemours, and appointed him his residuary legatee. Nothing, it was said, could be more ingenious than to indicate thus indirectly to the Prince what was expected of him. He, on the contrary, would say that nothing could be more unskilful. Who, indeed, could believe that the reading of such announcement could inspire the Duke of Bourbon with a thought which he had not entertained, and parti cularly with one to which he was repugnant ? Such an article was calculated to offend the Prince, and not in veigle him. In this light it was viewed at the Palais Royal; au I therefore 31. de Broval, the Duke of Orlean's Secretary, was desired to write to M. de Gatigny that the Palais Royal was not any way implicated in the indis cretions of the Journals. Besides, it cannot be sus pected that the Aristarque would have been a party to a suggestion intended to promote the interest of the house of Orleans. On several occasions officers of the Prince's household, eitl.er because they were commissioned to do so, or because they wished to pay their court merely, had told the Duke of Orleans that the Duke of Bourbon seemed disposed to adopt one of the young Princes, and asked whether he was willing to consent to it. The Duke of Orleans received these overtures as he ought : he said that he should doubt less be flattered to see one of his sons adopted by the Duke of Bourbon, provided it was not the Duke de Chartres, who must retain the name of his family ; that, however, he would await his uncle's pleasure on this subject. In 1827 a more decisive step was taken ; and now, for the first time, Madame de Feucheres appeared. She wrote to the Duchess of Orleans, to say that she participated in the desire expressed by many persons to see the Duke d'Aurnale adopted by the Duke of Bourbon; and that she was willing to persuade the Prince to accede to the proposition. What did the Duchess of Orleans do ? Did she receive this proposition with indiscreet warmth? Did she ask 31adame de Feucheres to come to an understanding with her, and to combine a plan of inveiglement? No ; she wrote a letter, which bad been already read ; and which he begged to read again, as an unequivocal evidence of the noble sentiments which animated the family so unworthily accused.—(Here the Learned Advocate read the letter, which has already been given.) Two years passed away and no step was taken either by the family of Orleans or in their name, and when at a later period the subject of the will was again brought under consideration, it was on the occasion of an event which was known to the Court. Towards the end of 1828 the Duke of Bourbon was seriously ill. Some persons asserted that Madame de Feucheres had obtained all for herself; that she was residuary legatee; that it was for this purpose that she had not quitted his pillow. This report acquired credit, and reached the ears of Madame de Feucheres. It appears that she was deeply afflicted by it, and under the influence of her feelings, she wrote the famous letter of the Ist of May, 1829.—(The Learned Advocate here read the letter, which has been already published, in which the writer denied the reports circulated to her prejudice, and implored the Duke of Bourbon to choose the Duke d'Au male for his heir.) He contended that this letter expressed nothing unworthy of the Prince, and nothing which could impugn the sentiments of Madame de Fencheres, and he confessed that when he perceived her motives for an action, he did not envy those who had the art of suggesting shameful ones. No secrecy attached to this proceeding. 'Madame de Feucheres sent a copy of the letter to Charles X., and another to the Duke of Orleans. Finally, she spoke of it to the Prince, in the presence of Madame de la Villegontier, who attests the fact in her deposition.—(Here the Learned Counsel read the deposition.) What was the Duke of Orleans to do under these cir cumstances? Was he to write and say, " Madame de Feucheres advises you to adopt one of my sons for your heir :do nothing of the kind,-1 do not wish it." This would have been at once unbecoming towards the Duke of Bourbon, and a forgetfulness of his duty es a parent. Did he seem eager to consider the affair as settled, and to offer premature thanks to his uncle ? This would have been another species of unbecoming conduct. The Duke of Orleans acted as became him. It was ne cessary he should receive an assurance from the mouth of the Duke of Bourbon, and for that purpose lie wrote to him on receiving the communication from Madame de Feucheres.—(Here M. Dupin read the Duke of Orlean's letter, which has already been given.) The Duke of Orleans was on the point of departing for England, taking with him his eldest son, whose education was to be completed by travelling through th it classic ground of constitutional libert y . It was his constant cus tom before every journey, even in his own country, to visit the Duke of Bourbon. This visit naturally afforded him an opportunity of learning from the Prince what his in tentions were. The Duke of Bourbon breakfasted every morning in the apartment of Madame de Feucheres; and it was there the Duke of Orleans was iivited to go to snake his farewell ~~ ~~ ~' l~ visit. An unreserved conversation took place between the two Princes ; and the Duke of Bourbon himself commu nicated to his nephew the dispositions which he intended to make in favour of the Duke d'Autnale. At a later pe- riod also, the Duke of Orleans, speaking to the Duke of Bourbon about this interview said, " The kind and friendly intentions which you were pleased to express towards me in a conversation, the recollection of which is so dear to me—" Nevertheless, the Duke of Bourbon disliked, above all things, every species of perplexity and busiaess. He de- . . . sired his nephew to make every thing ready, BO that there might be no delay with respect to a matter which recalled painful recollections. The Duke of Orleans then communicated to two Mem- bers of his Council the intentions which the then Duke of Bourbon had expressed towards him, and consulted them on the form to be followed in the adoption. These two Members of the Council were the elder Dupin and Tripier. They replied, that by reason of the Prince's minority, adoption was impossible; that in any case it could not take place by testament ; but if, notwithstanding, the Duke of Orleans wished to follow this form, accompanying it by an universal institution, it would obviate the attacks of collateral relations. It is in this sense that one of them was desired to prepare, and did prepare, a draught of a will. We shall see, besides, that it has had no influence upon the preparation of the instrument impugned, and that the testator remained perfectly free in this respect. Hitherto we have seen nothing which resembles suggestion or circumvention. Let us go on, and we shall find that so far from the Duke of Orleans having deserted the line of honour to enter a course which delicacy repudiates, we shall find him counter-working himself, and acting precisely in the inverse sense of circumvention and influence. You are aware of the sort of obstacle which the will encountered. You know the weaknessess of the Duke,— his paternal sorrows,—his perpetual hesitation. Moreover, the establishment be wished to form at Ecouen had occu pied his thoughts for several years, and created perplexities, intrigues, and difficulties of various kinds. He had also to combine what he was bound to do for those who were in his employ. He wanted to attend to and regulate these points at leisure. Madame Is Feucheres, en the contrary, urged him—" Death might come suddenly and may sur prise you. Consider what your position, your dignity, the wants of your family, and a multitude of considerations, prescribe to you." The Duke thereupon thought of having recourse to a measure which was equally honourable to the person who adopted and the person who suggested it,—a measure which proves how the Duke of Orleans stood in the esteem of the Duke of Bourbon. The Duke of Bourbon applied to him to obtain some delay for combining all the arrange ments, and not to conclude this serious affair immaturely. Au attempt has been made to discover in this letter a proof that the Prince of Conde repelled the idea of naming the Duke d'Aumale his heir. But it contains a proof of the contrary. Permit me to recall this passage to your recollection.—(Here the Learned Advocate read a portion of the letter, given in a former report.) The Duke of Bourbon had correctly appreciated the noble sentiments of his nephew ; his appeal was at tended to. The Duke of Bourbon, moreover, said to M. de Surval, " I have received the answer of the Duke of Orleans, and am perfectly satisfied." It is not cor rect to say that the Duke of Orleans had affected to in terpret his uncle's letter in a manner too favourable to the residuary bequest. . _ _ Here end the facts which relate to the Houseof Orleans. Here closes its part. It appears no more—it has nothing to do with that which subsequently occurs. All, there fore, which it has done, all it has said, all that has ema nated from it, may be reduced to this— In 1827, a letter from the Queen, full of the noblest sentiments. In 1829, a first letter from the King, in which he states that he could not receive the disclo sure of the Prince's intentions from any one but him self. The highly honourable letter which he wrote to the Duke of Boni-Lon in return to the noble confidence he bad manifested towards him. Lastly, the step he took with reference to Madame de Feucheres—a step on the honour of which my adversary had passed an eulogium which I am bound to consider sincere. Here come a multitude of allegations. Madame de Feucheres might have insisted, in spite of the step taken by the Duke of Orleans ; she might have overcome the resistance of the Prince by a variety of manceuvres— by extortion—even by violence. You are aware to what these manieuvres have been reduced ; her defender has ex plained them. The Prince said Nut yet ! Ecouen ! My son ! My house!" But he disputed only about the time, er about secondary arrangements : never respecting the universal nomination. What, in fact, is the pivot upon which the whole charge turns? Why, M. de Surval. Let us see. If the will is the result of circumvention, was the circumventor present to operate upon the Duke of Bourbon ? No ; the circumventor was absent. It was with M. Surval that the Duke prepared his last disposition. And who is M. de Surval ? He tells you, " I was the confidant of the Prince, his confidant against 11Iadame de Feucheres." Ido not inquire by whom, or by what means M. de Surval came into the Prince's house; his awn words are enough for me. M. de Surval was no friend to Madame de Feucheres, and he was the depository of the Prince's dissatisfaction towards that lady. Well, the opportunity was a fine one. If it be true that the will has been im posed upon you, make another. What says M. de Surval upon this point ? " Madame de Feucheres never knew of the will till after the Prince's death ; the Prince, prior to his death, had merely com municated to her verbally that she had succeeded in the objects which she had testified a wish to attain. She was ignorant of even any of the dispositions of the will. " The Prince was alone when he wrote and signed his will. I arrived at his house the moment he had finished writing ; and in my presence he placed it under an envelope, and wrote the superscription on it. " The Prince was alone when he remitted his testament to M. Robin, the notary; t he remitted it to M. Robin, in my presence." Now let us see what M. Robin says. .‘ On the 30th of August, 18.29, the Prince sent for me to his Cabinet, and handed over to me a packet, which on being opened at his decease by the President of the Tribunal of First Instance, proved to contain the Prince's will. In giving me this packet, the Prince said that he was confiding to me an im portant deposit, and asked several questions for the purr ose of knowing whether it would be safe with me, and out o' the view of every person. I represented to him that it would be advisable for him to indicate upon the packet that it proceeded from him; and he wrote in consequence these words upon it : Important deposit made by me to M. Rubin, my notary, 30th August, 1829: " Then M. Robin speaks of questions addressed to him by the Prince, for the purpose of being assured that the will would remain in secrecy and safety in his study. Could any one imagine a greater proof of liberty? The will is written entirely in his own hand ; it was drawn up from his notes and instructions ; he adopted all its phrases and expressions; he wrote, and signed it, in the presence of the Intendant; who might have assisted him in changing the dispositions. Let no one, then, say, that the will did not express his sentiments ; and that he felt himself bound down by his promisee. Truly, if he had been, as it is asserted, under the controul of a violent woman, would it not have been becoming his dignity to free himself from such a yoke ? And if he could not do so by openly expelling Madame Feucheres, he at least might hare opposed cun. ning to force, and substituted his real intention for what was dictated to him. But if we examine what took place after the completion and deposit of the will, we find hint persevere in the marks of that affection which he had never belied. We find them in the letter which he wrote at the time. Let no one be deceived with respect to the sense in which we appeal to these letters of the Prince. It is not to the title of confirmation that I oppose them, for that would be an admission of the nullity alleged by our adversaries. But I appeal to them, as the expressio❑ of the Prince's continued disposition—as a commentary upon the will. If the will had been extorted from the Prince, his ex pressions would undoubtedly have been merely those of simple politeness; his language would have been dry and constrained. See, now, how he expresses himself. LETTER TO THE DUCHESS OF ORLEANS. " Madam,—l derive a true satisfaction from the kind things you have said to me on the occasion of the disposition which I have made in favour of your children. My heart and my friend ship for all your family have dictated it, and I shall be very happy to repeat it to you when I shall have the pleasure of seeing you. " It is always with satisfaction that I renew to you the as surance of the tender attachment and the sincere friendship which I have felt for you through life." LETTER TO MADEMOISELLE. " I am very sensible, Mademoiselle, of all the amiable things that you have expressed to me with respect to the disposition which I have made in favour of our dear little godson. No one appreciates more than I do the amiable qualities which he evinces, and which I have no doubt will contribute to the happi ness of his relations. " If I do not hold with you, Mademoiselle, a more prolonged conversation, it is because it brings to my recollection ideas too afflicting for a lacerated mind. I therefore confine myself in this letter to repeating to you the assurance of the tender at tachment and sincere friendship which I have ever felt towards you." _ _ Thus you here see the Prince speaking with a warm affection of hie dear little godeom and his amiable qualities; and in truth, gentlemen, the Prince never united to him- ' self more charms and fair promises. These were the .entiments which the Prince always disclosed, and which nothing will be able to efface. Charles X. and his family were informed of the dispo sition of the Duke of Bourbon ; there was no secret made of it; Madame de Feucheres did nothing more than hasten a determination which every thing indicated as honourable for all parties. The Royal family bare good-will to wards Madame de Feucheres ; the King also declared that lie regarded the success of her proceeding in the light of a personal service. If then you say there was suggestion, I will reply that it was a suggestion honourable,—a suggestion known, ap proved, and participated by the entire family. And this is the place to explain that which has been represented as a scandalous bargain,—as the price of the circumvention. Madame de Feucheres had some differences with her husband, which produced a disagreeable notoriety even in the Court. Louis XVIII. thought it right to withdraw from her the entrée to the Tuileries. Subsequently Madame de Feucheres, having obtained a separation, presented a petition to the King She said, " See my position is adjusted ; there is no further pretext for shutting me out from the Court to which my rank be stows upon me the right of access." It has been made a matter of reproach to the Duke of Orleans that he supported thatrequest ; but observe, gentle men, that the exclusion of Madame de Feucheres was painful, not only to herself, but also to the Duke of Bour ban, who in consequence of it found himself placed in a position of humiliating suspicion. On what right, it might be said to him, should this unworthy intercourse be permitted to exist between her and the Duke of Bourbon ? Permitted to suspect that intercourse—but no one had a right to affirm it to be proved. Indeed, when the Duke of Bourbon evinced for himself the wish that Madame de Feucheres should succeed in her request, they blame the Duke of Orleans for having understood that desire, and to have promoted that success. Do they even think it bad that the Duke of Orleans had felt a sentiment of benevo lent interest towards a lady who lad shown herself obliging and eager? An influential Prelate, 'whose name I shall conceal, wished that the entrée of Madame de Feucheres to the Court should be permitted, but that she should be obliged to leave the Palais de Bourbon, the King himself perceived, as did the Duke of Orleans, that this was a gratuitous af front to the Prince of Conde, and be replied " No ; do not cause this annoyance to the Duke of Bourbon." Madame de Feucheres was then admitted this is what has been so strangely disfigured. The Duke of Bourbon might have revoked his will ; nay, if this will was not the expression of his thoughts, he ought to have destroyed it. In order to do that, it WAR only - to go to the notary, with whom it was deposited. He might have even cent a revocation in two lines ; but he does no- thin... A year passes away, and there is no revocation. The Duke of Bourbon entertains no idea of abrogating what his regard created. Igo further. You invoke the testi mony of M. Surval. I accept of it. Did the Prince say to M. Survat that he wished to revoke his will ? Never. M. Surval himself himself declares to us that the Prince never manifested to him any other intention than that of , completing his testamentary dispositions. Further, the ' Prince appointed M. Surval his executor ; he did not say to him, " You know the violence of which I have been the victim. Protest on my behalf—avenge my memory." No; the Prince said to him, on the contrary, " I enjoin you to protect my last disposition.' Here a mistake has escaped my colleague. He said that, far from attacking us, M. de Surval ought to be on our aide to defend us. M. de Surval does not deserve this reproach. He has had for a year legal possession ;he has figured in Court in the character of one who demanded the execution of the will, and who demanded it in his capacity of executor. If, therefore, there had been any thing of fraud in the making of this will, he would have been an accessory after the fact. In short, the Prince was so far from wishing to revoke his will, that he had, on the con trary, a persevering intention of adding thereto the benefit of adoption. This is attested by M. de Belzunce, one of his principal officers. Upon this point I invoke a later document. The Prince had as counsellor one of our col- leagues, whose respected name recalls the idea of the most severe probity, the most religious delicacy, of an advocate (M. Gait al). I affirm that he was been consulted some time before the Prince's decease respecting the measures proper to be taken with reference to the adoption.—(After a pause of a quarter of an hour, during which the sitting was suspended for the purpose of affording M. Dupin some relief, he resumed his speech.) What do Messieurs de Rohan, he asked, oppose to all this accumulated evidence? In the first place, some comments upon letters : and in the second place, certain facts touching the house of Or leans. With respect to the letters, they are now known and explained ; their honourable text triumphs over the perfidy of the comments. As to the facts pleaded, those which relate to the family of Orleans are either negatived by the correspondence, and by the ex hibits in the cause, or they are without relevancy, and so futile that they scarcely merit a reply.—(M. Dupin then proceeded briefly and energetically to refute each of these facts, and gave the summary of his argument. He then proceeded. )—What signifies, then, in the face of these facts, the allegation which has been offered ? This is it. The will of the Duke of Bourbon was displeasing to the party conquered is the great days of July; the accession of Louis Philippe to the throne displeased that party still more. We know that envy and malignity are wounds of the human heart ; that they derive a solace from depres4ng what is exalted,from tarnishing what is bright, and soiling what is pure ; and that in times of political ferment especially, there is no chirge, however absurd, which is not readily received and propagated. Summon ing these considerations to his aid, the Counsel of Messieurs Bohan has told you that the great names which figure in this cause call upon you to sacrifice them, to proclaim with the more eclat the grand protective principle of the moral liberty of testators. Undoubtedly this prin ciple is a great and a sacred one, but in order to main tain it, it is net necessary to have the illustrious holo causts which it is proposed to sacrifice, and which justice will not accept - . Here my task ought to end, but another charge offered by Messieurs de Bohan calls for a new refutation. The '727th article of the civil code declares the heir of one of age unworthy to succeed, who, well aware of the murder of the deceased, did not avenge his memory. The application of this article has been invoked against us, or, in other words, it is invoked without being invoked. It is left in the proceedings as a memento and declamation. I cannot conceive the argu ment which it is intended to draw from it. Tite house of Orleans, it may be said, cannot inherit in one of its branches from a party whose vindication they have fore gone. But, in the first place, it is the Duke d'Aumale, not the house of Orleans, who is a party in this suit. The right is personal; the unworthiness, if it exist, ought to be equally so. How then can the inaction of the family prejudice the universal legatee ? Moreover, the law requires that the legatee should be congnizant of the murder. What is the argument of our adversaries upon this point? They say they are indications, there are strong presumptions, but it is necessary to render con jecture probable to give consistency to these presumptions. It is necessary, to write, to print, to circulate memoirs ; to avenge the memory of the deceased at all haz ads, But, gentlemen, there is a cons id erat i on tuat supersedes all others, which is that of truth ; and when they come to reproach us with not associating ourselves with their calumnies, we answer, that not only have we not failed in a single duty, but we have fulfilled that which was imposed upon us by the laws of honour and conscience. I have read all the documents in the proceeding, I have impartially examined the instruction, and I declare my firm conviction that the murder is evidently a fable. If I repel the idea of murder, and say there has been a suicide, I may be told, you outrage the memory of the Prince. But one consideration re-assures me. If I blun der in the position which was not chosen by me, but in which my adversaries have placed me, I take the whole responsibility upon myself; for you must be aware I can not bring here the exact feelings of the universal legatee ; I can follow here no other guides than truth and m y own conscience. When the revolution of July broke out, I am not prepared to deny that it produced a s t rong impres sion upon the mind of the Duke of Bourb on . T he sud den and terrible resentment of the people, th e th ree gene rations of Kings and Princes expelled to a for e i gn soil, the misfortunes of his house, the excitement of his country, and the possibility of personal danger to him, all very sensibly agitated his understanding and his affections. Meanwhile we are all agreed that when the Duke de Bourbon was informed that the Duke of Orleans had ascended the throne, and that a regular Governm ent was about to be established at the same moment, wh en one woul4 have supposed there was no reason to fear th e in vasion of anarchy, the Duke de Bourbon became re.„_cured, sured, and even viewed this last event with perfe c t sat i s. faction. We have a proof of this in a letter tro ts t h e Prince himself. 'When the Lieutenant-General of th e kingdom was called to the Chamber to accept the Charter, and to take the oath, he wrote to the Duke de Bourbon the following letter : " To-morrow, Monsieur, the Chambers re-assemble to re ceive the oath which I am about to take. It will be very gra tifying to me to see you occupying the place to which you are entitled, close to myself; it will be reserved for you should you arrive to claim it ; but I am not ignorant that the state of your health does not allow me to hope for your prigence. My filthily and I thank you for the answer with which you favoured us yesterday, and also for the other marks of friendship of which my faithful messenger yesterday evening informed us upon your part. Remain perfectly easy at St. Lcu, take especial care of what we all esteem so precious—the re-establishment of your health, and accept herewith the expression of the lively and tender friendship which I feel towards you. " L. P. D'ORLEANS." Here is the answer which the Duke de Bourbon imme diately returned, and without any hesitation, as is suffi ciently attested by the evidence in the cause : " I should have exerted myself to the utmost, Monsieur, in order to accompany you to-morrow to the Chambers, had there been any possibility that I could have been able to do so, but the state of my health absolutely prevents me from fulfilling my intentions. Be assured, Monsieur, with your accustomed kind ness, of my very great concern, and also receive the assurance of that tender and sincere friendship with which I shall always regard you during life. If I write to you again, Sir, as Lieute nant-General of the Kingdom, to-morrow, I shall be with you at heart, and you shall always find in rise an equally faithful and devoted subject." You see, gentlemen, added M. Dupin, that the pride of the first Prince of the blood was trot in any way offended I by the term " subject."—(Laughter.) After the Duke of Orleans had ascended the throne, the Duke de Bourbon received a visit from the Queen. He was very sensible of the complaisance and courtesy which this step appeared to indicate. But his acquiescence in the new order of things received a shock from another quarter. What ! the son of the Prince of Conde attached to a Government which had emanated from barricades. He refused to retire once more into banishment—he gave in his adhesion to the Go vernment of Louis Philippe I A certain party had its ad herents about the person of the Duke de Bourbon, and they strained every effort to make him change his determina tion. Figure to yourselves this unhappy oil man in the midst of those deplorable scenes which were each moment assailing him. If you do not emigrate, whispers some without ceasing, you dishonour your name--you are want ing to the memory of your race—you disgrace the last days of the life of the last Conde. Your natural po sition is alongside of Charles X. If you remain, the reproaches of history await you. Alas ! the house of Conde is about to terminate in infamy ! The wretched old man, like all the other emigrants who did not wish to recommence emigration in 1830, knew too well by how many wrongs it was necessary in 1792 and 1793 to suffer in return for the succour of a foreign country ; he knew too well what recollections that emigra tion had left in France, indeed throughout all Europe, to enter voluntarily again upon a similar course of experience. Every thing attached him to France, his habits, his years, his fortune, and even the nature of his pleasures. His was not a case merely of intention, it was one of neces sity, it was life itself. Behold him perpetually harrassed by those who surrounded him, in order to break the many ties which held hini, to wean him from the affections which dictated his stay. It was by invoking the name of his father, the honour of his own name, which was to him an object of idolatry, that he was implored to endure the miseries of an exile, which to him would have been death. What then was his duty —what should he do? Distracting thoughts, conflicting opinions, agitate and pos sess him. He is in a Ikrinth which has no issue. Hie brain turns. On the 27th of August the mournful intel- ligence was announced that the Prince was found dead in his bed-chamber. At length, by a providential miracle, certain papers, which had not been at first perceived, were found in the fire-place ; amongst them the melancholy idea of the Prince was found written : a postscript intimates the spot where he wishes that his remains should be transported. Here, again, the genius of com ment does nut fail the Messieurs de Bohan. This note was written to prevent the pillage of the chateau. More over, in order to conciliate the inhabitants, the Prince begins by begging them to be good enough not to plunder, burn, and murder, which supposes that they were capable of all ; that is, lie insults i❑ order to conciliate them. He wished to travel, say MM. de Rohan. What a journey ! Read as far as the postscript, and you will see, that after bidding adieu to the inhabitants of St. Leu, he adds in the postscript, his desire to have his remains placed near those of his unhappy son. Say, if these melancholy expressions could have been written with the view of a journey, and as the announcement of a departure into exile. M. Ber nard, the Attorney- General, whose perfect honour is well known, made his report to the Keeper of the Seals, and you are aware that the Keeper of the Seals at that period was the severe Dupont (de l'Eure), the austere Dupont. It resulted from this report, and from the inquiries of the public Ministry, that there was a great misfortune to de plore, hut no crime to punish. Passions, nevertheless, fermented; charges were made; the activity of personal interests redoubles its efforts ; animosities offer their poisonous contributions. Justice weighs these elements with a steady hand, rejects whatever wears the mark of passion and party spirit, recognizing only what bears the seal of truth ; and a requisition of the present At torney-General declares, not only that the facts are not proved, but the publication of MM. Bohan is defamatory; but the prosecution of defamation does not belong to him. The clamours of MM. de Bohan, however, still continue ; they become louder and bolder than ever. Justice has pro nounced her decision in vain ; she is deceived ; there bas been a crime ; there has been a murder. Beyond the criminal proceeding they behold in the distance a civil suit. The registry of the Cour Royale of Paris was viewed by them as a step to reach Chantilly. Who would believe it ? It is not enough for them to have prosecuted —to have calumniated. In the very teeth of all which has taken place, they accuse us of not ourselves prosecuting what they term the murder of the Prince of Conde ! I reply, with the sentence of the Court in my hand, that there has been no murder. But it will be said, you attack the memory of the Prince ; you dishonour his last mo ments. No, gentlemen ; God forbid that, deserting the principles of morality, I should appear here as an apologist of suicide. I should undoubtedly be •pen to your reproach if the party concerned was a young man, in the vigour of his age, who, when threatened with great peril, or great suffering, incapable of braving the one, or of resisting the other, had put an end to his life. But the part in this case is an aged person, who remembering three re volutions and two exiles, dreaded another. Thus gentle. men, vanishes this strange reproach of indignity: you, gentlemen, will be satisfied that there is no indignity but in the invoking and employing such expedients. Yet, gentlemen, it is in the name of all that is moat sacred, it is in calling upon God and virtue, the obligation of duty and the sanctity of your office, that you are required in a solemn tone to crown the rash and guilty efforts of MM. de Rohan. We, also, appeal to your independence ; but we appeal, at the same time, to your impartiality. What, then, are the declarations of MM. de Bohan, and the empty murmurs of the passions they have grouped around them ? They cannot reach, they cannot move you ; and from the very bosom of this sanctuary, so majestic and so pure, a voice will rise which will drown all these clamours, and re-echo even to futurity the inextinguishable voice of justice and of truth. This speech lasted three hours ; scare , ly had it ended, when plaudits burst from the spectators. A number of counsel pressed round M. Dupin, jun., and warmly con gratulated him. The cause was adjourned to the Stb, for M. Hennequin's reply. A circumstance has occurred at Egremont, which has excited much speculation in that place; the following are the particulars, as detailed by a correspon dent. A few days ago a person named HEARD, who lives at St. Bees, was, on some occasion or other, in Walto❑ Wood, where he discovered among the brushwood two wooden legs, with the pieces that fix them to the thighs, and also the strap and buckle which secure them to the waist. The circumstance would at any other time have excited little attention, but so much has lately been said about Barking that a doubt was immediately started, whether they might have belonged to some poor fellow who had fallen a victim to some travelling Buffo!. or WILLIAMS. At last Martinmas fair there was a man with two wooden legs, hawking about watch guards, and our correspondent describes him as a stout man, apparently five feet ten inches in height, wearing a glazed hat, and a plaid over one shoulder crossing his body to the other side, and speaking with the Scotch accent. Nobody knew where lie came from, and at sione of the lodging houses in Egremont do they recollect entertaining him. The mat ter may be satisfactorily explained, but at present there is a strong suspicion that somebody has met with foul play. --Whitehaven Herald. A murder took place at Ballycorick, county Clare, on Friday last. Our readers will recollect that after the murder of Sergeant ROBINSON, a number of the people were taken up for it; some of them were hanged, others transported, and more remained in gaol to abide their trials at the next Assizes. illicataxr. DILLON, the man who was then murdered, was supposed to have given in form ition respecting the murder against one of the prin.. cipals now in gaol. On the night of Friday Dit.r.ox was invited to take share of some spirits, which they had drunk. DILLON left them to go home, it is supposed, w h en they followed him till he came to Ballycnrick bridge, on which one of the men was hanged, and there they butchered the unfortunate man by cutting off the roof of the skull, inflicting three wounds on the back of the head, and cutting him almost in two across the back.— Limerick Evening Post. FROM ATE GAZETTE OF LAST NIGHT. MASTER OF THE HORSE'S OFFICE, JAN. 9, 1834. The King has been pleased to appoint Henry Turrens D'Agui lar, Esq. l'age of Honour to his Majesty in ordinary, ill the room of William Henry Hervey Bathurst, Esq. promoted. CIRCUITS OF THE COMMISSIONERS FOR RELIEF OF INSOLVENT DEBTORS, SPRING CIRCUITS, 1832. MIDLAND CIRCUIT. 11. R. REYNOLDS, Esq. Chief Commissioner, Hertfordshire—Hertford, Thursday, March 15. Essex—Chelmsford, Saturday, March 17. Essex—Colchester, Monday, March 19. Suffolk—lpswich, Tuesday, March 20. Norfolk—Yarmouth, Thursday, March 22. Norfolk—Norwich and City, Friday, March 22. Norfolk—Lynn, Monday, March 26. Suffolk—Bury St. Edmund's, Tuesday, March 27. Cambridgeshire—Cambridge, Wednesday, March 28. Cambridgeshire—Ely, Thursday, March 29. Northamptonshire—Peterborough, Friday, March 30. Huntingdonshire—Huntingdon, Saturday, March 31. Bedfordshire—Bedford, Monday, April 2. Northamptonshire—Northampton, Tuesday, April 3. Leicestershire—Leicester, Thursday, April 5. City of Litchfield, Saturday, April 7. Staffordshire—Stafford, Monday, April 9. Shropshire—Shrewsbury, Wednesday, April 11. Warwickshire—Birmingham, Friday, April 13. City of Coventry—Monday, April 16. Warwickshire—Warwick, Tuesday, April 17, Buckinghamshire—Aylesbury, Thursday, April 19. NORTHERN CIRCUIT. J. G. HARRIS, Esq. Commissioner. Rutlandshire—Oakham, Monday, Feb. 28. Lincolnshire—Lincoln and City, Tuesday, Feb. 28. Nottinghamshire—Nottingham and Town, Thursday, March 1. Derbyshire—Derby, Saturday, March 3. Yorkshire—Wakefield, Tuesday, March 6. Town of Kingston-upon-Hull—Saturday, March 10. Yorkshire—York and City, Tuesday, March 13. Yorkshire—Richmond, Thursday, March 15. Durham—Durham, Saturday, March 17. Northumberland—Newcastle.upon-Tyne and Town, Monday, March 19. Cumberland—Carlisle, Wednesday, March 21 . Westmoreland—Appleby, Friday, March 23. Lancashire—Lancaster, Monday, March 26. Lancashire—Liverpool, Monday, April 2. Cheshire—Chester and City, Thursday, April 5. SOUTHERN CIRCUIT. W. J. LAW, Esq., Commissioner. Berkshire—Reading, Monday, Feb. 20. Oxfordshire—Oxford, Tuesday, Feb. 21. Worcestershire—Worcester and City, Thursday, Feb. 23. Herefordshire—Hereford, Saturday, Feb. 25. Monmouthshire—Monmouth, Monday, Feb. 27. Gloucestershire—Gloucester and City, Wednesday, Feb. 29. City of Bristol—Friday, March 2. Somersetshire—Bath, Monday, March 5. Somersetshire—Wells, Tuesday, March 6. Devonshire—Exeter and City, Thursday, March S. Devonshire—Plymouth, Saturday, March 10. Cornwall—Bodmin, Monday, March 12. Dorsetshire—Dorchester, '1 hursday, March 15. Wiltshire—Salisbury, Friday, March 16. Hampshire—Winchester, Saturday, March 17. Town of Southampton—Monday, March 19, Sussex—Horsham, Wednesday, March 21. Kent—Maidstone, Saturday, March 24. City of Canterbury—Monday, March 26. Kent—Dover, Tuesday, March 27. BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED. JOHN JONES, Tottenham-court-road, lodging-house-keeper. BANKRUPTS. ISAAC WATT, Millman-street, Bedford-row, Middlesex, agent, to surrender Jan. 17, Feb. 3, and 21, at twelve, at the Court of Commissioners. Bell, Brodrick, and Bell, Bow Church. yard. HENRY BAYLIS, Johnson's-court, printer, Jan. 17, at eleven, 24, at twelve, and Feb. 21, at eleven, at the Court of Commis sioners. Jay, Serjeants' Inn, Fleet -street. THOMAS GEORGE CONINGHAM, Limehouse, baker, Jan. 17, 24, and Feb. 21, at eleven, at the Court of Commis sioners. Ling, Took's-court, Chancery-lane. THOMAS TROTTER, Liverpool, commission -broker, Feb. 9, 10, and 21, at one, at the Clarendon-buildings, Liverpool. Gandy, Liverpool ; Chester, Staple-inn, London. FRANCIS CASEY, Manchester, merchant, Jan. 28, 30, at two, and Feb. 21, at nine, at the Palace Inn, Manchester. Bracken bury, Manchester; Johnson and Weatherall, Temple, London JOHN WILLIAM SHERWOOD, Newgate-street, cheese monger, Jan. 17, 24, and Feb. 21, at one, at the Court of Com missioners. Bousfield, Chatham-place, Blacktriars. JOHN COLLINS and EDWARD PRIOR, Goswell-street, horse-dealers, Jan. 13, 20, and Feb. 21, at ten, at the Court of Commissioners. Scargill, Hatton-court, Threadneedle-street. JOHN MAYOR, Preston, Lancashire, innkeeper, Feb. 1,2, and 21, at eleven, at Mr. Haydock's entice, Preston. Chester, Staple Inn, London; Greenwood or Haydock, Preston. ROBERT DOVE, Botwell, Middlesex, brick-maker, Jan. 17, 24, and Feb. 21, at eleven, at the Court of Commissioners. Po cock, Bartholomew-close. WILLIAM WROE, Toller.lane, Bradford, Yorkshire, wool. comber, Feb. 21, at one, at the Palace Inn, Manchester. Johnson and Weatherall, Temple, London:. Hitchcock, Manchester. CHARLES TAVARE, Manchester, dyer, Jan. 23, 25, and Feb. 21, at ten, at the Dog Inn, Manchester. Milne, Parry, Milne, and Morris, Temple, London; Nadin, Manchester. JOHN PYM BLACKMOKE, Morrice.town, Devonshire, attorney, Jan. 25, 26, and Feb. 21, at eleven, at Elliott's Royal Hotel, Devonport. Husband, Devonport; Smith, Basingliall. street, London. JOHN SEALE BIRD and JAMES TAYLOR, Bath, cabinetmakers, Jan. 25, 26, and Feb. 21, at twelve, at the Three Cups, Bath. Harvey, Barnard's Inn, London; Hellings, Bath. EDWARD REDMAN, Worthing, Sussex, shopkeeper, Jan. 30, at four, 31, at two, and Feb. 21, at eleven, at the Sea-house Hotel, Worthing. Tribe, Worthing ; Hillier and Lewis, Ray mond-buildings, Gray's-Inn, London. DIVIDENDS. J. S. Geldard, Pulteney Lodge Academy, Enfield Highway, Enfield, Middlesex, boarding-house-keeper, Jan. 31, at ten, at the Court of and W. Lowe, Bridgeford Mills, Staffordshire, millers, Feb. 9, at twelve, at the Union Hotel, Newport, Shropshire--J. James, Liverpool, ship-builder, Jan. IS, at twelve, at the Office of Mr. Leather, Liverpool—T. Blame ley, Bury, Lancashire, cotton-spinner, Feb. I, at eleven, at the Star Hotel, Manchester—J. C. James, Bathford, Somersetshire, stone-merchant, Feb. 2, at eleven, at the Castle Inn, Bath—B. Marshall, Huddersfield, Yorkshire, woollen-manufacturer, Feb. 2at one, at the Clarendon.rooms, Liverpool—W. Sandbach, Liverpool, provision-merchant, Feb. 9, at twelve, at the Claren don-buildings Liverpool—J, Fry, Liverpool, merchant, Feb. 6, at two at the Clarendon-rooms Liverpool—J. Clayton, jun. Castle Mills, Goldington, Bedfordshire, ' miller, Feb. 2, at eleven, at the Cross Keys Inn, St. Neots,‘Huntingplonshire—G. Walker, Wellington, Shropshire, draper, Feb. 28, at nine, at the Red Liou Inn, Newport, Shropshire—W. Burraston,:Worcester ' hop. merchant, Feb. 2, at elev e n, a t th e St ar an d Garter Inn, Wor cester—W. Penny, Titchfield, Southampton, brewer, Feb. 6, at twelve, at the Red Lion Inn, Fareham—P. and F. Jones, Bolton le-Moors, Lancashire, brush-manufacturers, Feb. 7, at nine, at the Palace Inn, Manchester—G. Jnsole and R. Biddle, Cardiff, Glamorganshire, brick-makers, Feb. 1, at twelve, at the Com mercial-rooms, Bristol—C. F. Bullivant, Swadlincote-house, Derbyshire, dealer, Feb. 3, at eleven, at the King's Head Inn, Derby. . _ CERTIFICATES, JAN. 31. J. Palmer, Wells, innholder—S. Hall, Duke-street, West Smithfield, brazier—.T. Elder, Oxford street, horse-dealer—W. Coates, St. Martin's.lane, woollen-draper—R. Foulerton, Bow_ lane, warehouseman—J. Cheesernan ' Reading, Berkshir e , b a k er —J. Bennell, Kennington-lane, boarding-house -keeper—W. Ma son, Margaret street, Cavendish-square, axle-tree manufacturer —W. Battams, Hardingstone, Northamptonshire, grazier —J. and T. Barston, Grantham, Lincolnshire, ironmongers —R. Greenough, Manchester, manufacturer—T. Shephard, Up per Marylebone-street, victualler—T. Hartwell, Derby, silk throwster. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. F. Mullings and W. Ashforth, Birmingham, pearl-ornament makers—J. Sim and J. B. Hodson, Liverpool, hide-merchants— J. and J. Worthy, Exeter, inerchants—J. Shepherd an d H . Holland, Exeter, wine.merchants—W. Knight and C. Norton, New Sarum, Wiltshire, cabinet-makers—W. Watson and Co., Leeds, dyers—H. Hole and C. Ross, B arnstaple, Devonshire, lime-burners—M. Bischoff and F. Lineau, Dock-street, Rose mary-lane, sugar-refiners—J. Jefferson and C 0.., Fetter-lane, goldsmiths—W. H. Blackmore and C. Nichols, Chenies-street, Tottenham-court-road, painters—J. and E. Blundell, Liverpool, tobacco-manufacturers--J. Largie and Co., Liverpool, commis sion-merchants—J. Gummersall and Co., Dudley-hill, Bradford, Yorkshire, card-makers—A. Knowles and Co., coal merchants, so far as sack-mak regards J. Hudson Carroll and F. Bacon andJ. G rayston, Rood-l a nd, E. G. Brown, Great Winchester streets, merchants—J. M. Cottle and R . J ones, Leamington Priors, Warwickshire, surgeons—W. Ogden an d S . W allwork, Heywood, Lancashire, cotton-spinners —lt. J. Bridges and J. J. Frankis, Bristol, attorneys—W. Bacon and J. Barnett, Tetbury, Gloucestershire, attorneys-at-law—J. and C. Butterworth, Roch dale, woolstaplers—E. and S. Briggs, Gould-square, Crtstched friars' merchants—lt. Ward and H. Humphreys, Woolmore street, Poplar, bricklayers. My Lord BROUGHAM, allow me most re spectfully, but most sincerely and earnestly, to address myself to you. Do you think you are serving the cause of humanity, and liberty, and civilization, if, after you have taught men, by means of your schoolmaster, the value of knowledge and of freedom, you allow your dis- ciples to be crushed by the brute force of savage and igno rant Governments ? Take the cases of Poland and of Italy. Go no further. The young men in Poland have encouraged your schoolmaster have read your primer— have studied your tracts—know all about your London University, arid your Society of Useful Knowledge—and theTyhbless. desireey approvethat the and samelove you ings may be secured to Poland. Now, my L or d, t h ey ask y fo n r ur ai L l y an mi ca i s i te av t e ia d n on S e c , ho a o n l d s. you simply to assure to them their national independence. If they may make use of their own language, and have a national existence, they ask for no more. Russia opposes this, because the Russian Government loves slavery and despotism. Great Britain and France should insist on this independence, and should refuse to allow the Autocrat to carry into effect his cruel and wicked threats of exter mination. Just the same observations will apply to Italy. They have heard of your Mechanics' Institute at Bologna, and have read your speeches and your essays ; or, at least, extracts from them. They want freedom and civilization i n Bologna, and they have risen en masse to defend their principles and sacrifice their lives, if but thereby they can purchase liberty ; and they would have obtained it —nay, they did so—but that Austria invaded Italy, came with superior brute forces, and directed the cannon ball against the schoolmaster and the Mechanics' Institute. And should France and Great Britain permit this? Are Rus sia, Prussia, and Austria, to be united against the progress of knowledge, freedom, and religion—and are the two most powerful and most liberal countries in Europe to re main unassociated, and, therefore, unable to make one great, common, and vast effort in favour of civilization ! My Lord, you must answer this question to yourself—to your country—to civilization—t o the world —to poste rity—and, above all, to God ! Our talents, whatever they may he, are lent and nut given. Some can produce but little. Where little is given little will be required. But from him who bath much, why much will be ex pected.—O, P. Q., Morning Chronicle. COURT-MARTIAL ON COL. BRERRTON• (From the Times.) BRISTOL, TUESDAY,J4N. 10. , At ten o'clock precisely the officers composing this Court martial took their seats. Colonel Brereton was then informed that the Court was waiting, on which he immediately came in, attended as yes terday by an officer. The names of the members having been called over, Mr. Serjeant Ludlow was then cross-examined—Question. When you asked Colonel Brereton if he had any instructions to prevent his acting under the Magistrates' orders, did he not offer to obey any explicit orders which they would give ?—An swer. The only answer I recollect Colonel Brereton to have given was in the words I stated yesterday—that he was ready to obey the Magistrate's orders ; and I wish to add, that in the course of the evening Lieutenant-Colonel Brereton frequently said he was ready to obey the orders of the Magistrate, but at the same time he generally or always accompanied that with dis couraging the use of force. Did not Colonel Brereton repeatedly request the Magistrates to give explicit orders as the extent to which they required him to use force ?—I have no other recollection, than that upon some discussion taking place about firing, I think Colonel Brere. ton one or twice said, " If I am to fire, I must have an ex. plicit order." Did not the Magistrates consult about giving explicit or ders as to the force to be used, and did they not avoid giving any explicit orders ?—I am not aware of any regular consul tation, but there was from time to time conversation be tween the Magistrates, myself, and Colonel Brereton, with respect to the state of the tumult, and the measures neces_ sary to quell it. I am not aware that any explicit order was given in the course of that evening to fire in my pre sence. Colonel Brereton was, in the course of the evening, frequently informed by the Magistrates of their desire to have the city restored to a state of quiet, and they looked to him to effect that object. (The prosecutor here stated that he admitted that the pri soner did, at a protracted period of the evening, receive from the Magistrates a sanction not to fire.) Did not the Magistrates consult about taking on them selves the responsibility of ordering more force to be used, and did they not decline to take on themselves that respon sibility ?--I am not aware of their having had any further consultation than that which I have mentioned, nor am I aware of their having declined to take any responsibility on themselves. Did not the rioters cease from all acts of violence, except occasionally throwing stones, after the arrival of the military, on the 2t)th of October ?—They abstained from battering the doors and windows of the Mansion house, which they were en gaged in doing when the military arrived. The acts of violence to which I am able to speak are the breaking of the windows, which happened from time to time, and the wounding of sol diers and constables, whom I saw brought in subsequently to the arrival of the military. The cross-examination here terminated. The prosecutor then proceeded to re-examine the witness. ..... When directions were first given by the civil authorities to Lieutenant-Colonel Brereton to quell the riots, was there ally restriction as to the use of firearms or the edge of the sword ? —Those which I gave or heard were altogether without any distinction. Did any Magistrate, on the evening of the 30th of October, accompany Colonel Brereton or the troops to direct them in the suppression of the tumult P—l have no personal knowledge of that fact. The scene of action was close to the Mansion.house, where all the Magistrates were. Had the Riot Act been read when Colonel Brereton requested authority from the Magistrates to use force ?—lt seems to me that the question implies that I have stated that Colonel Brere ton applied for authority to the Magistrates to use force. lam not aware of his having made such application. I have no per sonal knowledge of the Riot Act having been read. I believe that it was read in the afternoon. PRESIDENT—BeIief is no use. Witness—l saw some of the Magistrates go down stairs for the purpose of reading it some time before the military arrived. That part of the question which relates to Lieutenant-Colonel Brereton's application to the Magistrates for permission to use force I do not understand. Mr. Serjeant Ludlow requested that any evidence he night be wished by the Court to give should be called for this week_ PRESIDENT—I have no hesitation in answering that no pledge can be given by the Court upon the subject. Sir CHARLES DALBIAC said, that he would move that the second, third, and fourth charges should be taken together, and that the evidence of Mr. Serjeant Ludlow upon these charges should be first taken. PRESIDENT—I do not think that the position of the Court respecting the attendance of the witness is altered. Does the prisoner wish Mr. Serjeant Ludlow to withdraw ? Lieutenant-Colonel Brereton intimated a wish to that effect, and the Learned Serjeant withdrew. Charles Pinney, Esq. (Mayor of Bristol) examined—Was there not great riot and disturbance in the city of Bristol on , Saturday, the 29th of October, 18:31, and if so in what part of it ?—ln my opinion there was a great riot and disturbance in Queen-square. Was the Riot Act read ; if so, at what time, and by whom was it read ?—I cannot speak accurately as to time ; but I believe • it was read about five o'clock in the afternoon : it was read about that hour by me. I read it three or four times. Did you make any application to Colonel Brereton, as com mander of the troops in the city, for the use of the military in aid of the civil power ?—I did. At what time did the troops arrive in Queen-square ?—About half an hour after the Riot Act was read. What were the temper and conduct of the rioters at the time of the arrival of the troops ?—ln consequence of the arrival of the troops, the rioters retired a little from the door of the Man sion.house. When the troops arrived the doors and windows 'of the Mansion -house had been broken in, the pannela of the door had been broken, and the people had entered into the dining room through the windows. The hall had been raked with stones and sticks. This was shortly preceding the arrival of the troops. When the troops arrived, or very soon after, did you give, or did other civil authorities in your presence give, to Lieute nant-Colonel Brereton any directions for the dispersion of the rioters ? If so, be pleased to state, as distinctly as you can, what those orders were.—Orders were given soon after the trri val of Colonel Brereton, by Alderman Fripp, which orders I confirmed, to clear or disperse the rioters, or clear the square, I cannot recollect the precise word. And on Colonel Brereton asking whether the troops should fire, he was told if it was necessary to fire, he must do so; or words to that effect, which I confirmed. Upon that particular occasion, or at any other period through the night of the '29th of October, was Lieutenant-Colonel Brere ton in any way restricted by you or any other of the civil autho rities, from the application of the edge of the sword ?—On that particular occasion there was no restriction that I am aware of. He was not restricted by me, and I am not aware that he was restricted by any one. Did Lieutenant -Colonel Brereton at any time on that evening or night, protest against using actual force ; and if so what plea did he urge for abstaining from it ?—He did not protest at one period against using force. I don't recollect the exact expres sions of the Colonel, but the general plea that he made use of was, that they were a good-humoured mob,—that the troops could either ride or walk them down, or something to that effect,—and that they were lessening in numbers. I recollect the Colonel coming in at one period, and to show the good temper of the mob, he said that his arm was tired shaking hands with the people. He said, in my presence, " Mind, the re sponsibility is with you ; I protest against using force, for it is unnecessary, and contrary to my opinion ;" or words to that effect. Be pleased to relate to the Court any further information you may possess, arising from your personal knowledge or observation, touching the conduct of Lieutenant -Colonel Brereton on that night, with reference to the charge under con sideration. —Colonel Brereton repeatedly came in, to re port the conduct of the mob or people, and we had re peatedly given directions to clear the square. I cannot call to mind exactly the expressions or the answers, but I recollect the conduct of Colonel Brereton occasioned the town.clerk to ask him if he had any instructions from Government not to act, or something to that effect. He replied that his orders were to obey the Magistrates. The town-clerk then told him, " the Magistrates direct you to clear the square, or keep the streets quiet. It was on this occasion he made the protest I reeollect some soldiers being brought in wounded; and the town-clerk making use of the expression, " Is this a proof of the good temper or quietness of the mob ?" I recollect Alder man savage, who had been looking out of the window, telling me— The DEPUTY JUDGE ADVOCATE objected to going into parole evidence. The PRESIDENT thought it would be better for the witness to confine himself to what he had personally observed. Witness proceeded—l recollect an officer came in, and he said that the mob took refuge in the trading vessels, and as sailed the soldiers from thence, and that they could not follow them. He applied generally for orders to tire into the vessels. I suppose he meant to apply to the Magistrates, I think it was an officer of the 14th, but I cannot recollect his name. I think an Alderman observed, that there were many people on board the vessels, who, in the event of the soldiers firing, would be sacrificed without having to do with the mob. A gentleman present (a constable I think) came forward, and offered, with 25 men (not soldiers), to go on board the vessels and clear them, if he could be supported by the troops. PRESIDENT—It is a pity that so active a person's name should not be recorded. Witness —This was not done, in consequence of Colonel Brereton stating that the mob was dispersing, and that he would patrol the street, and would be answerable for the peace of the streets. The mob did actually go away towards morning. I cannot state the fact on personal knowledge, but the Mansion_ house was not again attacked that night. Were the rioters promptly and effectually dispersed by Lieu tenant-Colonel Brereton in conformity with the directions which were delivered to him for that purpose 7—ln my opinion they were not. I think that what was ultimately effected might have been done at an earlier period. Did the outrage or the violence of the rioters increase at any period during the night of Saturday, the .29th of October, after you first gave orders to Colonel Brereton to put down the rioters P—ln my opinion the riot did increase. I was in the room, and, therefore, had not so good a judgment as those outside. When the officer, whom you have stated to have been at the Nfansion-house (Lieutenant-Colonel Brereton being present), asked for authority to fire at some of the rioters who were an noying and pelting the soldiers from the boats in which they lOM rte th IS at leer ited 1)0 the "lit 1 Is re ndo den C 114; 1 ltd At t h a , ing 'vhi g tat On the lerg id hi Iver an t rerel hat i Dten ore Agis tat t Di( )ndu tem der sch; dere nip( ade At nda 2 V j ;ht. To ni rOUI encl Do tar( feet tell xliz pr, 251 Fll i%ll