The Sun.
London, England, 1839-01-07 00:00:00

SIXTH DAY.

The proceedings commenced at half-past ten o'clock, with
the reading of a letter by the President from the Mayor of
Bercy, to rectify the assertion of one of the witnesses, who
had stated that the four omnibus numbers bad been granted
on the application of the authorities of Bercy; whereas, two
of the latter had merely applied to the Prcfcet against the
total suppression of the line of the Algeriennes from Bercy
to Neuilly.
M. Gisquet observed that the mistake must have arisen
from the incorrect report of the proceedings of the Court in
the journals. M. Foucaud, in boasting of his ability to give
information on Spanish affairs, could have had no other mo-
tive than to corrupt the persons employed in the Prefecture,
as he (M. Gisquet) had never disclosed the secrets of State
eitberto M. Hediard or:M. Foucaud, or to any other individual.
If he had wished to profit in a pecuniary point of view by his
functions, he might have made money on a variety of privi.
leges, as every thing might have been sold, even to the most
petty places and concessions, without excepting even the ad-
mission tickets to the Court of Assizes.

The President presumed that M. Gisquet spoke figuratively
as, if an admission ticket to that Court had been sold, he would
have expelled the party engaged in such a traffic.
The Advocate General then addressed the Court amidst
the deepest silence. He commenced by noticing the gravity
of the case now submitted to the Jury, who, he was convinced,
would be guided in their verdict by the same scrupulous regard
for truth and justice with which he himself was actuated in
summing up the facts of the case. He would lay down certain
principles which formed the basis of his arguments. The law
had expressly stipulated that public functionaries should not be
inviolable; for, as Benjamin Constant had justly observed, the
functionary who was inviolable by the law was dishonoured.
The grand question was, not whether ,the grants made by M.
Gisquet were useful or legal, but whether they had been
granted on those moral grounds on which all the acts of an
upright and impartial administrator should be founded.
This point he would now proceed to examine. M. Gisquet
bad been appointed to the eminent functions of Prefect of
Police; and he would ask if he had been a faithful observer
of his public duties? Were he to interrogate his conscience on
this point, what would be the answer of that inward monitor ?
The Learned Gentleman then pronounced a severe censure
on the rapacity of the witnesses compromised in the case,
especially Messrs. Hediard, Aragon, and Foucaud, the latter
of whom had extorted 150,000 f. from M. Gi- rivet. What
had been the services rendered by M. Foucaud for this sum,
which had assuredly not been lavished in the interest of the
public ? The r ature ef those services remained a I rofound mys-
tery, the elucidation of which, however, the public had a right
to expect. A new undertaking had afterwards been set on foot,
and a disgraceful attempt had been made to terrify a commer-
cial company with the threat of a competition, which there
was no intention of following up. The consequence was,
that the company decided upon purchasing the credit of M.
Foucaud with the Prefect for the sum of 40,000 f., making
nearly 200,000 f. which that gentleman had pocketed. This
man—this Foucaud—was now dragged into Court and com-
pelled to drink of the poisoned cup which he had presented
to another. He would even add that one of M. Gisqieet's
greatest misfortunes was to be obliged to appear
in Court side by side with such a man. The Advocate-
General then dwelt in strong terms on the immorality of M.
Gisquet in promoting an association between his mistress,
Madame de Nieul, and his own son-in-law, and stigma-
tised his indelicacy and total want of proper feeling in bar-
gaining with a mother ( Madame Pradel) for a daughter's in-
famy. He then, after a short suspension of the siting, entered
into an examination of the incriminated article of the Messager.
He said that, according to the strict terms of the law, the
responsible Editor of that Journal ought to be condemned,
as, in the strict sense of the phrase, M. Guisquet bad not been
guilty of peculation; but he contended that the inaccuracy of
the term made use of found its excuse in the gravity of the
facts stated in evidence, and, consequently, that no culpa-
bility in reality existed on the part of the Messager, which
bad, on the contrary, rendered a service to the came of public
morals. Defamation, however, existed in the portion of the
article of the Messager relative to M. Gisquet's private life.
The Jury, lie said, were called upon to examine not the truth
of the statement as to the alleged immorality of the Prefect's
private life, but whether the Massager had been guilty of de-
famation. To tax a man with indelicacy and immorality was
to give scope to the hatred and the vengeance which the
Legislature had expressly wished to prevent. Consequently,
defamation. was expressly forbidden by law. The public ser-
vices rendered by M. Gisquet in 1834 had not been forgotten,
and he trusted that the assurance that he had not been guilty
of peculation would be some consolation to him—some allevia-
tion of the bitterness of the lesson which he now received. If
the Jury faithfully fulfilled the important mission entrusted to
them—and be bad no doubt that such would be the case—a
great moral lesson would result from the present trial; and it
would be recognised that the press, in spite of some excesses,
had honourably discharged its sacred mission, and had given
proof, if he might use such an expression, of the utility of
scandal.
M. Gisquet declared that the Advocate-General deceived
himself in supposing that be, as Prefect, had given money to
the men by whom he was surrounded. " I have not given
money," be added, " I never exacted conditions—l never bad
any participation. If you would hear Messrs. Blanc and
Nabon"—
A Jura man—We are convinced.—( Movement. )
M. Gisquet proceeded to repeat the observations which he
had already made during the course of the trial as to the
right which he derived from his situation of Prefect of Po-
lice of conceding the lines to omnibuses. He inveighed
against the reproaches which had been addressed to him by
the Advocate- General, which would have such a painful
effect on the future life of his children and his family. He
spoke not for himself; the remainder of his life, he added,
was embittered. His acts, be continued, were free from
any exaction ; the fortune which he now possessed be had
enjoyed in 1830, and that fortune would hardly suffice for the
wants of his family. " Wheel" exclaimed M. Gisquet, "could
I become an extortioner, a peculator—could 1 commit crimes
which are punishable with the pinery ? No, Gentlemen ; you
have seen my actions, and you will render me decide d satis-
faction. Observe v. hat an enormous difference there r xists
between my position. and that of the Messager. What risk
does that journal run? • To what is it exposed ? To a fine--
to a year's imprisonment, which its responsible editor will go
and spend in in a 'liaison de sante, as was done in my time.
For me, Gentlemen, what have lat stake ? It is my honour,
my whole life, my children's bread ! Everything; neighs on
me, Gentlemen ; at this very moment, perhaps, it 13 in contem-
plation to erase my name from the list of Councillors of State.
I value that honourable title, which was given tie by my friend
Casimir Perier. This, Gentlemen, is my stake, welt I shall
lose all—all in this fatal trial." M. Gisquet here sat down
strongly agitated.
M. i%lauguin rose and said that his client hod intr alum' no
hatred in the whole affair, and the opinion of the public was
not courted by him. The Massager belonged to M. Walew-
ski, a man of honour, and possessing an independent f.trt tine.
M. Brineleau, the responsible editor, held an opinion which
had never been hostile to that of M. Gisquet.
M. Brindcau, the defendant, wished to say a few words in
explanation of the motives which had actuated the pasties
connected with that journal in regard to the incriminated
article. The directors and editor of the Messager, he stated,
were totally unconnected with M. Gisquet, and had, there-
fore, been influenced by no feelings of hatred cr yeagt ance in
their publication of the inculpated article. Supported by the
documents with which they had been furnished, they had pro-
ceeded on public grounds, at the risk of their interests and the
peril of their personal liberty, and they now awaited the ver-
dict of the Jury, in the full confidence of its justice.
The President then charged the Jury, minutely summing
up all the evidence with great ability and impartiality, and ex-
pressing his conviction that the attention which they had paid
to the painful case submitted for their consideration would en-
able them, on retiring to their private room, to supply any
omission with which he might be chargeable. He felt con-
fident that they entertained a just sense of the importance of
the task confided to them. They were called upon to decide
whether an old friend and associate of Casimir Perier, a man
formerly entrusted with elevated public functions, heel been
guilty of a series of acts which rendered him a fit object of
public malediction—whether such a man had disposed of the
prorerty which of right belonged to the State, in favour of his
friends, his creatures, and his mistress. They sat there to pro-
nounce whether the press had published its disclosures With a
view to gratify the public appetite for scandal and to serve
paltry personal interests ; or whether it bad conscientiously
, discharged a public duty by unmasking a corrupt and unworthy
functionary, and holding him up to public reprobation. Never
had the verdict of a Jury been looked forward to with more
confidence and more respect. The President then formally
addressed the two following questions to the Jury : —Has the
defendant, Achille Brindeau, in the number of the Massager
for the 12th of September last, been guilty, lit, of the offence
of defamation against a public functionary? 2dly, of the
offence of defamation against a private individual, by imputing
to him acts of immorality of a nature to affect his consideration
and honour? The President, at the same time, reminded the
Jury that in the case nof nffeces committed by the Press the
existence of extenuating circumstances was not recOgnised.
The Jary retired at six o'clock precisely to deliberate on
their verdict, and returned into Court at half-past seven. At
that hour both Messrs. Gisquet and Nay were absent. The
Foreman of the Jury returned a verdict declaring the respon-
sible editor of the Messager guilty of defamation against a
public functionary, and not guilty of defamation with regard
to his private life. Much surprise seemed to be excited in
Court by the verdict.
M. Cappin, in answer to the usual question from the Presi-