The Sun.
London, England, 1839-01-12 00:00:00

//.~ .~

-2--01

The debate in the Chamber of Deputies on Wednesday
offered the most animated spectacle. On the first paragraph
being read, sad it being understood that a Ministerial Mem-
ber, M. Amilhau, had proposed an amendment, M. Gamier
Pages delivered the sentiments of the Extreme Left, which
appeared to be those of contempt for all parties in the
Chamber, whether Ministerial, or Constitutional Opposition.
He could not but vote for the address, as it spoke his opinions;
but yet he had no desire that the adoption of this address
should overthrow the Cabinet—be preferring a weak and poor
Ministry like the present, who might be forced into doing good,
to a strong and talented, and even more liberal one, which,
notwithstanding its greater degree of liberality, would do
nothing for the people or their cause. He declared
that the ills, which all united in complaining of, the
feebleness of all Parliamentary influence and weight,
and the predominance of the Court over the repre-
sentation of the country, proceeded from the Legislature not
sufficiently representing the great body of the people. The
Chamber was returned by a small and isolated body of inte-
rested electors, and had thus neither the country nor the popu-
lar voice with it.
M. Barthe, Keeper of the Seals, replied to M. Gamier
Pages, and accused Messrs. Thiers and Guizot of leaguing
with the left, in order to turn Destructives.
M. Guizot then mounted the tribune, and said that since he
was called factious and revolutionary for having aided in
framing the Address, he would read the address, and ask
which paragraph contained anything factious or revolutionary ?
A scene then ensued, almost as shameful as can well be de-
scribed. The one hundred and fifty thick-and-thin supporters of
all Ministers, occupying the centre of the Chamber, who
had listened in silence to the Republican, M. Gamier
Pages, began to bellow at M. Guizot, with an accord and
a zeal only to be equalled by the claqueurs of a French pit.
They would not hear him. He said they should, and it was
only by force of lungs that he got through the first paragraph.
Here the Centres clamoured against the expression, " the
peace, which we have maintained," as if it was the Chamber,
and not the Government, which had maintained peace. M. Gui-
zot replied, we meant both Chamber, Government, and coun-
try. None of the three Ministerial Members of the Commis-
sion had objected to the phrase. Hereupon ensued a murmur,
and the three Ministerial Members of the Commission got up,
one after another, in the tribune, M. Guizot returning to the
back of it, but not quitting it. All three made the same ex-
cuse, viz., that the whole tone of the Address, from beginning
to end, was so deplorable, and disagreeable to them, that they
gave up cavilling about words and isolated expressions, and
rather desired to see its bitterness exaggerated than softened,
in the hope that the whole would be rejected by the Chamber.
M. Guizot then continued to read the Address, in which
he repeated there was nothing revolutionary—nothing against
the King, but a very plain, unambiguous condemnation of the
Ministry as incapable and insufficient. The Ministry did not
represent the country with dignity. The Address said so.
Was this the factious and revolutionary paragraph ? Yes and
No were heard in answer from behind the Ministerial bench of
which the occupiers remained silent, though much agitated.
M. Thiers then summoned Ministers to speak out, and declare
boldly was this revolutionary? Silence prevailed. M. Gui-
zot then read the paragraph, which declared the Throne to
repose in the " altnzight of the national will." Was this re-
volutionary ? M. Montalivet here observed that he was no
partisan of quasi-legitimacy. M. Guizot denied that he had
ever uttered the phrase attributed to him of considering
Louis Philippe by right of quasi-legitimacy. He was
King by right of a legitimate revolution, and that
he (M. Guizot) loudly professed. He then passed
to the phrase that demanded a Ministry capable of " covering
the throne with its responsibility." This responsibility ought
to be real, and not dependent on the assertion of Ministers
themselves. The King might take the first men he might
meet in the street and make Ministers of them. The act was
legal and, perhaps, constitutional. But they would not pro..
tect the throne by their responsibility. It was highly consti-
tutional to remind the throne of this, and he defied them to
stigmatize such advice as revolutionary. The address was a
sincere, a needful, a noble document, and neither factious nor
revolutionary, and he would be proud of having been alone the
author of it.

It is impossible to describe the storm that burst forth be-
tween every sentence, and interrupted each minute the words
of M. Guizot. The claqueurs of the centre were merciless
and furious, and when M. Guizot descended from the tribune
he was forced to fling himself exhausted on the bench occu-
pied by the members of the commission.
Count Mole rose after M. Guizot, and began by admitting
that the address was neither factious nor revolutionary, but
that it was unconstitutional. It transferred power from the
centre of the Chamber to a side of it where power had never
before been. It accused Ministers, and for that he did not
blame it. What he blamed it for was its declaring that Mi-
nisters did not cover the throne with their responsibility. This
was to declare the Crown itself responsible, and responsible
too, for a policy stigmatized as insufficient, pusillanimous, and
pernicious.
M. Thiers replied to Count Mole, and examined his asser..
tion, that the address was unconstitutional, because it tended
to transfer the Government from one side of the Chamber to
another. M. Thiers ridiculed such an incomprehensible ar-
gument. They were quite of the school of the Ministers of
the Restoration, who always exclaimed that to drive them from
power was nothing short of revolution. It was this stupid ob-
stinacy on their part, their identification of themselves with
royalty and with public safety, that drove the Ministers of the
Restoration into the fatal blunders and policy in which they
foundered. He would not compare Count Mole with Prince
Polignac, although one Minister was as unparliamentary as
the other, and neither represented any other party than the
Court. By dint of corruption and beseeching, tolerance and
manoeuvring, such Ministers might rally a certain number of
adherents, but not a number sufficient to carry on the Govern-
ment. Besides, although numbers were very decisive, the
quality of the persons composing these numbers ought also to
be taken into account. He declared, with the address, that
the Ministry was insufficient. The interruptions during M.
Thiers's speech were as frequent as those which assailed M.
Guizot.

M. Montalivet argued that the address was unconstitutional,
because it declared that one of the three powers in the State
tended to encroach beyond its sphere. In 1834 M. Barrot
made the same accusation ; and what did M. Thiers, then
Minister, reply ?.—why, that such an accusation was uncon-
stitutional.

Here ended one of the most interesting and agitated sit-
tings of the Chamber of Deputies, but so interrupted, we
learn, that it would be impossible fur a regular report to con-
vey an idea of it.

On Thursday M. de Lamartine came to the support of the
Ministry, which he said, but more truly, represented the
country, in having no certain or numerous majority. For the
country itself was in precisely the same situation, without
fixed opinion, or united interests, or persevering zeal. He
would support the present Ministry, weak as it was, until
there appeared a decided majority in the Chamber, on which
another and a solid Administration might be based.
M. Jouffray drew different conclusions from the state of
things; he saw the country uncertain, because the Chamber
showed it the example ; and he saw the source of the evil in
the weakness of the Ministry, which it was imperative imme-
diately to remedy.
The following is the amendment proposed by M. Amilhau,
on which the Chamber was expected to divide on Thursday :
" The Chamber of Deputies joins with you in offering con-
gratulations on the prosperity of the country. This prosperity
cannot but have increased in the midst of the repose which
France owes to the government of your Majesty, and to the
regular accord of the other Powers of the State. Under a
Government jealous of our dignity, and the faithful guardian
of our alliance, France occupies (instead of will occupy) in
the eyes of the world and in the esteem of nations the rank
which belongs to her, and from which she cannot descend."
The minority of the commission of the address have pre-
sented the following amendment on the paragraph respecting
Ancona :

" You announce, Sire, that the Austrian troops have quitted
the Romagna, and that ours have quitted Ancona. France,
after having hastened, by its occupation, the term of foreign
intervention in the states of the Holy See, the independence
of which is so highly interesting to us, has given a new testi-
mony of its respect for treaties, and of the justice which be-
comes a great nation."

INFAMOUS PUBLICATIONS.—On Thursday Cyrus
Davis, landlord of a public-house in Smithfield, appeared
at Guildhall to answer a charge of assaulting a person
named Pardy. The complainant is the man who, a short
time ago, complained at Hatton•garden of attacks upon his
character in an infamous publication, he himself being sus-
pected of a connection with another publication of the same
name equally infamous. On the present occasion he had gone
into a public-house, when a number of persons suspecting
that he had come prying to pick up materials for his scan-
dalous chronicle, rudely handled him, in consequence of
which one of them was taken to the station-house. It
appears that Davis supplies the station-house with beer,
and happening to call when Purdy was there, the
latter applied some offensive expressions to him. Last
week a libellous article had appeared in the publication
referred to in reference to Davis and his wife, and Davis
having reason to believe that Pardy had written it, and pro-
voked by his behaviour at the station-house, knocked him
down. Davis was some years ago noted as a pugilist, and
has the character of a quiet inoffensive man. Pardy denied
having anything to do with the paper alluded to. Sir Peter
Laurie thought the provocation had been great, if Davis
could prove that Pardy had written the article reflecting
on his character. He would adjourn the hearing till Sa-
turday, to give the defendant an opport unity, if he could,
of showing that his suspicions were well founded. Pardy
said that he would not trouble himself to come again ; he
would indict the defendant. Sir Peter intimated that this
abandonment of the case would seem to result from a fear
that the authorship of the article would be fixed on him,
and Pardy agreed that the hearing should be postponed.
LINENDRAPERS' ASSISTANTS.—It appears that
the new arrangements for the closing of linendrapers shops
at eight o'clock in the evening do not work well. A cir-
cular has been issued by the " assistants," complaining that
some of the masters, or " employers, as they call them,
have violated their promise, and keep there assistants
cell establish-
ments" open long after the hour specified.
eall upon the public not to patronise the pledge-breakers.
The excuse of the " principals" is, that the public will not
perform their part of the arrangement by making their pur-
chases at an earlier hour. It is said that further meetings
will be held on the subject,