The Express.
London, England, 1858-12-23 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 23, 1858.

THE
TRIAL OF M. MONTALEMBERT.

(11111011 OCR OWX

PARIS, Trmsnm Imsrme.

Public cariosity to hear M. de hiontalemberee
appeal was to the fall u great as that niasibeted at
the trial before tbe Tribunal of Pint Instants. At
beet an hour before the doers 'plod a nag line at
titbit holders besieged the gammon of the wart,
although it was know* that, whoa admitted, they
would have to wait another hour before the pro-
andinp commenced. The dignity of the Court of
Cerrestional Appeals is not in say way enhanosd by
the kesis in which it is held. A mere dark,
damp, dismal dungeon I sever in my life
saw jetties of any rank whatever emidesaned
to at in. The area of the place, how-
ever, is more spacious than that of the watt below,
and accordingly there were a good sag mow epeo.
talon. By 11 o'clock the court was erammed ee fall
as it could possibly be within danger of disturbanoe
to the proceedings. Amon the andiron wen
ob-
awed :—Oent de Foam

Ambusader end other members of the corps tliplo-
maligns, and a crowd of senators, deputies, judges,
and public hsctionaries. M. President Berthelin
ant M. (Hendee, two el the judges who oroudssuned
M. de Montalseibert on Nov. 24, came to haw the

appeal aa spectators. Many more ladies were
present than on the fret occasion; the number
could not have been less than twenty-five.
Among them were Madame Plasy-Arnoult and
Malls. Augustine Broken, of the Theatre Francais.
At a quarter past II the judges, nine in number,
took their seats. M. Perrot de Chezellee, the presi-
dent, is an old judge, of bland manners and very
gentlemanly demeanour. Among his colleagues
were M. Conchon, the brother-in-law of M. Ronher,
the Minister of Public Works; and M. Pasquier,
nephew to the fawns president of the Chamber of
Peers of that name and M. Treillard, the judge
reporter. I did not learn the names of the other
judges. The seat of the Procureur-Oenstal was
occupied by M. Chain d' set Ange. He was assisted
by M. Roussel, the Advocate-General.
The proceedings commenced by a formal question
to M. de Montalembert as to his name, age, and
quality. M. Treillard then read his report, which

was entirely of a formal character, merely recapitu-
lating the charges against the defendant and the
judgment of the court below.
M. de Moetalembert, in answer to a question from
the mart, admitted himself to be the author of the
snicks in the Cbrrespowdesit. He was not subjected
to any further interrogatories.
M. Defiere then rose, and said that M. Douniol,
the publisher of the Correspondent, being desirous
not to do anything to compromise the interests of
the highly respectable periodical for which he was
responsible, had not thought fit to appeal, but had
submitted to the sentence passed on him. He (M.
Dufaure) therefore no longer represented M.
Douniol, but, yielding to the desire of M. de Monte-
lembert and M. Berryer, he was there to take his
' modest part in arguing the appeal. He had seceded
to their request the more readily because it was his
deep conviction that the cause involved a question
of a far more general and important character than
the particular interests of H. de Montalembert—
• question whether ft wan now possible in
France for men of highly cultivated intellect and
known moderation of character to writs on matters
of history, philosophy, and politics with any degree
of freedom. He had read and re-read many
timea the seventy pages of M. de Montalembert's
article, and employed all the faculties of his mind to
understand it, and he could find in it no legal offence.
He entreated every member of the mart to read
them separately, and to ask his own individual con-
science what were his own impressions after the
reading. M. Dufaure here read a few passages from
the article. In one M. de Montalembert said he did

not write for those progressive spirits who think
parliamentary government advantageously replaced
by universal suffrage. Well, if there were no such
spirits we should assuredly not have seen this
prosecution. (Mach laughter, which the court did
not attempt to check.) He desired to contest no
right of the Emperor ; be would assume that his
rights went to the bathed extent that fancy
oonld carry them, and yet he would con-
tend that the article contained no attack upon
them. (Here he read pages 260 and 266.) He
*Abell denied the doctrine that offences com-
mitted by the press wen, according to the present
constitution, to be judged mere severely than other
cancee. In a court of law they stood upon the
same hating as they ever did. The present govern-
ment had only demanded an increase of administra-
tive power as regards the pram; " bat it has asked
nothing sew from you—you are to judge according
be old-established principles, and are neither called
upon to invent new offences nor to inflict aggravated
penalties." On the second head of the accusation,
that of an attack on the respect due to the laws, he
would be more rapid—he would imitate the brevity
of the court below, which had said very little
sheet it. He could find no " irony or insult"
bowleg on this charge (read page 262). The only
page of all the seventy in which any allusion was
made to any individual attached to the present go-
vernment was 249, in which he spoke in the most
handsome and laudatory terms of the Deka of Mala-
koff. As to the sanction in the judgment that the
article was impregnated with a spirit of dhiiere-
mew, be would observe that the expression savoured
of a precis de sentience which was not admissible in
these days. For himself, he had retained, from his
reading the article, three principal intrusions—l.
That M. de Montalembert wrote against those
journalists in France who systaratieally libel
England, and endeavour to vmdernrine the English

•
alliance; 3. That M. de Mentalembert had a great
admiration fa the parliamentary system which pre-
vailed in England, and for the great results produoed
in that country by individual initiative and individual
puha, without any aid from government; and 3.
That this personal initiative was ready encouraged
aai sondsred fruitful by the liberty of the prem.
Admiration Ines sentiment not to be proscribed—
it will do you no good to attempt to proscribe it.
(" Bravo," from M. Villemais.) As to tits slaw
that the liberty of England was ostatesetsd with the
=triads= saftweed is Erases, =sparks= of =oh a
=tan mem sad led bees always allowed.
They were going on all over the world. If yea will not
have them yea mud same= Mostasquisa's " Esprit
iss Leis;" ad yes mud suppress the Feet Cerneilles
eccaparima between an empire and a repubßo. Re
had lately heard absolute power exalted hem the
prelpit. Why might not admiration for mother eye-
tem be expressed by a literary man at a moats=
when great intellectual struggles were so rare ? M.

de Montslembert's life had been devoted to the grand
contests of the tribune. He had shone in parliamen-
tary assemblies at an age when other men were but
apprentices to public life. Let the tolerance which
they were in the habit of extending to other dames of
politicians be granted to M. de Montalembert. When
they saw a soldier who from his youth had followed
Napoleon the First through all his battle fields retain
unchanging affection for his memory, and a feeling
for him akin to worship in his fall, had they not
always honoured and respected the feelings of such
1 a man? Did they not elle understand and respect
the devotion of an old servant of a grey-haired king
of an ancient race who had been driven from his
throne and his country? Again, wee it not
permissible to indulge in a certain admira-
-1 .
non for the men who had cherished a pious
souvenir of an august family overwhelmed by
misfortunes, whom he had faithfully served.
and of whom it might truly be mid, in the wade
limited cm Douglas's tomb in Westminster Abbey,
that "all the eons were brave, and all the daughters
chaste P Why they should he not equally honour a
like sactimat of fidelity to an idea! Why amid
seepsella. de Mentalemlineta laurel regrets
far the loes of that parliamentary ririona of which
be was so great an ornament ? (Load applause.)
At this stage the court rose for half an hour.

The Procureur-Oeneral began by stating with
a certain degree of emphasis the dates of
the proseelition, the sentence, the pardon✓
and the entry of the appeal, which latter for-
'laity he observed was only fulfilled after the par-
don, and on the last day bat one allowed by the law.
He desired to explain, that there might be no equi-
Dario about the matter, that the pardon was full,
absolute, entire, and extended to all the consequences
of the sentence. (I infer from this statement that
M. Chaix d'Est Ange knows it to be the Emperor's
intention to sign a decree of amnesty. He did sot
attempt to contest the law as laid down by M. Da
fame touching the shortcomings of a simple'
pardon.) The Emperor, who did not know by
heart the code of criminal procedure, yielded too
quickly to his desire to extend clemency to
a man who had formerly rendered great services
to the cause of order and legality, had granted him
a pardon on December 2, the anniversary of the
regime which M. de Montalembert had served, voted

for, and caused others to vote for. With this a-
pl►nation he admitted to the tallest extent the right
to appeal. Bo law as a man had a right to demand
judges there existed no right to impose a pardon
upon him. The appeal was, therefore, serious, and
he should argue it as if the pardon did not exist.
The English people were so umlauted that
they could go quietly about their ordinary avoca-
tions the day after a grand political struggle ;
but Frenchmen had not yet attained such sang froid.
There was no occasion to suppress Montesquieu or
Corneille, but they would repress attacks against
the laws and the principle of the government, such
as in England had never, never been permitted. H.
here read with great emphasis the passage in which
M. de Montalembart speaks of quitting "pestilential
misname," and "taking a bath in the free air of
England," sad said that the defendant could find no
liberty firPrenee, no municipal institationsin France,
although in France the oouncils-generaland municipal
councils were elected by universal suffrage, and thathe
painted the French government as despotic and bru-
talising, and the French people am slaves and a trompeam
de betels immondu. [Nothing like these expressions
are in M. de Montalembert'm artiole, but such was
the Procareur-General's interpretation of some par

sages in it.] He also admired England to a certain
extent, but be admired the good points in the
English character ; and among their good points he
admired less the courage, the energy, the perseve-
rance of the English people than le did their sever-
failing patriotism—their constant refusal to allow
any comparison disparaging to their own country.
He admired Mr. Roebuck noticing with delight
at Cherbourg, while doing ample justice to the
French soldiers and sailors who fought aide by
side with his countrymen at Sebastopol, that the
English flag was floating in the harbour. But
M. de Montalembert had insulted France when he
gloated on the fact, as stated by him, that England
has harbours six times more vast than Cherbourg ;
and when he =jams England to be on her guard
against the aggressive tendency of despotisms. In
conclusion, the Proeureur-Cieneral read the letter
from M. de Montalembert to the Archbishop of Faris,
published by the lisdepoidance Beige, in which
he told his eminence that having heard a rumour
that he intended to solicit the Empress to intercede
with the Emperor for a pardon, be (M. de Montalem-
bert) begged that he would take no mash step, as he
felt " proud and honoured" by the condemnation,
and was anxious to leave to his judges the responsi-
bility of their acts. This language wee an insult to
the judicial bench. How did the letter become
public P The archbishop would certainly not have
sent it to the papers without M. da Montalembert's
consent. Why did not M. de Montalmabert publish
the text of the archbishop's answer P This letter
aloes showed M. de Montalembert's estrangement

from his country, for in it be talked of justifying
himself in the eyes—of Europe.
M. Berryer, in reply, began by observing that the
greater part of the political speech of the Pro-
curenr•Oeneral had nothing whatever to do
with the cause. From the language whioh he
had at first used, in reference to the extremely im-
proper paragraph io the Ilfewitear, he (M. Berryer)
had for a moment supposed that the ears was at an
end. He had been told that the pardon was banded
to apply to all the eoesequenees of the sintenee, and
therefore ha was led to think that the sentence would
be declared void. He was mistaken ; for the Pro-
cureur-Cieneral went an to argue the case upon the
merits. He was nearly 70 years of age, and had
seen no less than seventeen changes of government
In Franc.. It entirely pained his understanding

. -
to oonoeire how • law made to enforce respect

to certain political institutions could be made
use of to punish a man fir regretting that
those very polideal institutions so haw existed.
(A laugh.) You my that good 'ease, ressoo, and
asosseity show that the law of 1849 mast be appli-
cable to the misting oonetitution. Necessity, for you,
if you please, bat ea to good sense end moon, quite
the contrary. Whether the law woe in point of
fact abrogated he would presently consider, but in
the view of good sense sad nama the notion that
the law existed was absurd. What wee the eon-
etitutio• which the law of 1849 was meant to de-
feed f What has become of it? Who broke it to
pieces? Who trod it nudes foot ? (A laugh.) The
I ab/Gray of implying the law is the way contended
will be sesa—not, perhaps, b 7 Frahm, far we are
here speaking in a very limited arena, sad
what poem here has small publieite ; but your judg-
ment at any rota will be known. The court below