The Sun.
London, England, 1830-12-20 00:00:00

our conclusions. Until then we have the right to delibe-
rate upon them, and we do deliberate.
M. Persil—The Committee of the Chamber of Depu-
ties have a right to interrogate the defendants.
M. de ntrtigsme-...The right is not absolute ; it may
be subject to some restriction..
M. Persil—No, Sir.
M. de Martignac—Let us argue the question.
M. le President—The right of the Committee on that
point cannot admit of any doubt ; they have a right of in-
terrogating the defendants.
M. Persil---I will ask M. le Prince de Pelignac whe-
ther, in the Council held on Tuesday, the 27th of July,
any report was made of the occurrences of that and the
preceding day ?
M. ale Polignae—No report could ba made to the Coun-
cil of Ministers. No authority could make that report.
No authority is in communication with the Council of Mi-
nisters. Each of the Ministers comtnutticated to the
Council his individual observations, information, opinions,
and advice.

M. Persil—There watt in that Council a Minister of the
Interior, whose duty it was to regulate every thing relat-
ing to the situation of the interior. I ask you, whether
that Minister of the Interior originated a deliberation on
the subject of declaring the city in a state of siege?
M. de Polienac—That question will be treated in our
defence, but if you inset on it, I will reply, that although
there was no report maderby anyone whatever, no written
report, the Council was "'stormed of the events of the
dcy ; the particulars brigtht separately by each membtr
of the Council were sufficient to demonstrate to the Council
the necessity of declaring the city in a state of siege.
M. Persil—How did declaring*
Polignac collect these par-
ticulars? In his capacity of Minister of Wer ail interim,
he ought to have been in communication with the agents
of the military police. Had he any reports from those
agents? and was it from them that he was enabled to
judge of the situation of the public feeling ?
M. de Polignac—The military police bad nothing to do
with me that day. The reports made to me as Minister
of War, could not come to me from the agents of the mili-
tary police, I was primarily Minister of Foreign Affairs;
I was only Minister of War ad interim. The Under Se-
cretary of State of the War Department was the central
point with which all reports were communicated. If
such reports were made, it was in his office.
M. Persil—Did the Ministers consider themselves die-'
charged from all responsibility after the declaration of the
city being in a state cf siege ?
M. de Polignae—That question has already been an.
swered. The Ministers did not consider themselves dis-
charged from the responsibility attaching to their acts as
Ministers, but they had nothing to do with what related
to the functions of the Duke of Ragusa, the Commandant
of the city.
AL Persil—You hare said that the Duke of Ragusa
spoke to you conceining the order to arrest a certain num-
ber of persons ; what did he say to you on that subject ?
M. de Polignac—He only told me that he had given
the orders. lie enumerated the names, amongst them
were names of individuals whom Ido not know. How•
ever, these orders given by the Duke of Ragusa were
never executed. He told me himself that he had counter-
manded them.

M. Persil—Were the orders of arrest signed by you or
by the Duke of Ragusa?
M. de Polignac—By the Duke of Ragusa.
M. Persil—Without doubt he ought to have signed
them, as he was invested with the military authority. But
I ark you who gave these orders of arrest?
M. dr Polignae—l did not.

M. Persil—..You have said that there was no Council
held after Tuesday. Why, then, did the Ministers as-
semble at the Tuileries; and why did they remain there
until the next day ?
Prince de Polignac--I have already said that I was
driven from the Hotel of Foreign Affiirs, and from hence
alone it arose that I was found at the Tuileries with two
or three of my colleagues ; the others arrived afterwards.
M. Persil—Thus, accidentally, the Ministers all re.
mined at the Tuileries, which gave a perfect resemblance
of a permanent Council, and yet you,my.tl)o there was
no Council at all. • .

M. Persil—l repeat, Count de Peyronnet, a question to
which you have gived an answer which appears to me
very extraordinary, and which tends to fix the opinion of
this Court, and of all France, as to the real state of
things. How did it happen that on the Sunday evening,
when the Prefect of Police was with you, you did not give
him any orders relating to what was to take place the fol-
lowing day, and particularly why you did nut call for
reports ?
M. de Peyronnet—This question is repeated to me
in a manner which authorizes toy saying that my answer
was either not heat dor not comprehended. I have care-
fully distinguished what passed un the 25th, from the oc-
currences of the following days. I have said, that on the
25th of July, I sent for the Prefect of Police. I have
said, and I repeat again, that I gave him instructions,
which I now regret I have not printed and published,
because it would have rendered a recurrence to this point
of the accusation totally unnecessary. On that day (said
the accused, raising his voice), and on every subsequent
d I fulfilled soy duties in a complete and irreproachable
manner. Let us hear, then, no more of astonishment at
my having had interviews with the Prefect of Police, and
not availing myself of them to give him my proper in-
structions. 1 have been required to explain the motives
of my conduct. I have already answered as far as I ought
to answer, and I will not add any thing more to it. The
President and the Court must be fully aware that when,
upon any serious question, I have expressed a determination
that appeared to me just and right, my miud was con-
scientiously convinced, and eotliing would shake my deci-
sion. I declare that I have no further explanations to give
than are already comprised in a written document with
which the Commisioners are fully acquainted. I am
justified in expressing surprise that they urge new answers
to questions already replied to, and the answers to which
are recorded and printed in their own words.
M. Persil—The Commissioners are not acquainted with
the printed Answers referred to. They will demand of the
accused whether, on the Monday, he was still Minister of
the Interior, and if there woe a Prefect of Police; and
they would ask him why, on the Monday evening, he did
nut take measures to secure the exertions of that subordi-
nate. As the Commissioners had not understood the
former answer, they were obliged to pet sist in repeating it.
M. de Peyronnet—l am convinced that, on reflecting,
a little, the Commissioners will understand why: I add
nothing to my former answer. I am.astoniehed that he
should have repeated his question; I cannot think that
he is ignorant of what I have read, for it is they who have
written it ; and they have doubtless considered it before 1
could read it.
M. le President-,I have.suother question to address to
M. tie Peyronnet. There is a contradiction between your
answers at this audience, and those which you gave in the
previous examinations. You now say that you saw M.
Man& on Sunday evening, while M. Mangin says that
he first became acquainted with the ordinances through
the Monitory..
M. de Peyronnet-.-It had been agreed, that front the
Wednesday I was to arrange with the Prefect of Police as
to the measures necessary to he adopted ; this resolution
led to no result ; and it was only on Sunday evening, that
on leaving the Council I wrote to the Prefect of Police to
come to use in the course of the evening. Ile came about
ten o'clock. I did not communicate to him the details of
the ordinances, but only told him the nature of them, and
enjoined hint to redouble his exertions in order to prevent
any disturbance of public tranquillity. It ought not to
excite surprise that I did not give the Prefect of Police
instructions relative to the course he was to pursue during
the day of Tuesday, in respect to disturbances, the exist.
enee of which I was very far from foreseeing.
President.—Will the Count de Peyronnet indicate the
passage in the printed report to which lie has just now
alluded ?
M. de Peyronnet—At this moment I have not the re-
port;
gentlemen of the commission will feel what is my teply.
I request that I may not be forced to go farther. In
truth, it is certain that, dating from the Monday, I have
had no relation with the Prefect of Police. It IN equally
certain that, on the Monday and Tuesday, the Prefect of
the Seine having come to me, I told him that I had no
orders to give him.
M. le President--Iluiseier, call the first witness.
Count Christophe Chabrol de Cruzol, Peer of Feaster,
having been introduced, was addressed by the President
to the following effect :-.-
You•formed:part of the Ministry of the Bth of August,
of orm us what part you took ia it, and on what prig-