The Sun.
London, England, 1831-08-20 00:00:00

FRENCH PAPERS.
CHAMBER OF DEPUTlES.—Sirrxteu Act:. it>
The President took the chair at a quarter past twelve,
though the attendance was not considerable. Various
abnle(;l‘se,leurreinenggtahgeedreiandainnginoiaftedtheminutes
of
griltuhpe s lastwe rsei tat
si
negm,
conversa-
tion. The different galleries and reserved places were
crowded, and every one appeared anxious for the commence -
ment of the debate, which was opened by—
M. de Rambuteau, who conceived it was necessary to
supply an omission in the minutes, in order to prevent the
renewal of the scenes exhibited yesterday. A great many
members heard the President of the Council declare that it
was not as Minister but as Deputy that he addressed the
Chamber, and meant only to speak as to the state of the
question. He had no doubt that if the members then pre-
sent had so understood him, the painful differences that
ensued would hove been avoided. In the midst of the
confusion, the President invoked in favour of M. Perier
Article 46 of the Charter; this it was that changed the
position of the Minister, and gave rise to the Constitu-
tional question,
M. Royer Collard said he had sat in the Chamber of
Deputies every session since the year 1815, and therefore
was perhaps better able than any member to quote prece-
dents on any question that might come into discussion.
The right of Ministers to be heard upon whatever subject
might be in debate before the Chamber was never yet con-
tented. It had often excited the jealousy and discontent of
their opponents, but no dispute ever arose in consequence,
and therefore no decision was ever called for.
The President of the Council then rose and said—
Gentlemen, however eincere may be my desire to forget the
occurrences of yesterday, I am called by my duty, as a
Minister and as a Deputy, to maintain the Royal preroga-
tive and the rules of the Chamber. In fact, an amend-
ment and a sub-amendment were before the Chamber. It
was the opinion of a great many Deputies that according
to the spirit of the standing orders the sub-amendment
ought to be first submitted to the vote. A difference of
opinion arose, and it was upon this point that I wished to
spe tk. From my seat as Deputy I asked leave to speak to
this question, and afterwards repeated it from tl:e tribune,
and I expressed my astonishment at being refused that, as
as a Minister, which would have been my right merely as
a Deputy. He then proceeded to maintain his right to he
heard as Deputy, and in r support of his claim to be
listened to as Minister, quoted Article 4€, which, in
distinct terms says, " The Ministers are to be heard when-
ever they demand it." Ile therefore hail acted in con-
sistency with the rules and orders of the Chamber, and
with the Charter, which defined the powers of all. He
then proceeded to represent how necessary it was, from
the feelings excited in the public mind by what had passed
in that assembly yesterday, to preserve harmony between
the Great Powers of the State, and he relied upon the
petriotisin of the Chamber to guard against the renewal
of similar excesses. The Ministers would do all that lay
with them to avoid it.
M. Jollivet did not mean to contest any of the rights of.
M. Casimir Perier, either as a Minister or Deputy, aed if
it had been understood yesterday that lie had- intended only
to speak upon the state of the question, no Member would
have thought of opposing his being heard. Recollect,
also, gentlemen, that General Demareay at the time 'de-
clared, that if the President of the Council intended to
confine himself to that point, he ought to be listened to ;
but at that moment the President of the Council pro-
nounced that M, Perier had not only a right to speak on
the state of the question, but generally, by virtue of the
constitutional power granted to him as a Minister, by Art.
16 of the Charter,—and it was this doctrine which gave
rise to the violent objections that were made to his being
heard. The President of the Council then conceived the
Royal prerogative to be in danger, and, in order to defend
it, declared he would speak for the Charter and in virtue
of the Charter. I went up to him with the intention of
observing to him that this right was disputed, and to cal
upon him to discuss and defend it. The Hon. Member,
after stating that he did not consider the argument of AL
Royer Collard, founded upon the absence of all precedes',
by any means conclusive, referred to the customs of Great
Britain, where the Ministers were necessarily Members ef
one of the Houses of Parliament, but could only speak in
that of which they formed a part. The author of the French
Charter, however, wished to give his Ministers a more ex-
tensive privilege, and decreed that they might be heard in
either Chamber, if they required it,without being a Member
of it. This, and this only, is what the Charter intended.
But if a Minister travels out of the question in debate,
cannot the President call upon him to confine himself to it.
Ministers think not, but I am of a contrary opinion. Sup-
pose a Minister, by his language, were to insult a Member
of this Chamber, do you conceive that the President can-
not call him to order ?—(Murmurs.) Do you think that
the Minister would be warranted in replying, " I speak
when I will, and what I will; the Charter has given Inc
a right to do so." When a discussion is closed by a eie-
eision of the Chamber, can a Minister rise and set aside the
vote of the Chamber, and if that vote be supported by the
President, reply, " I will be heard—do you, Sir, be
silent !"—(Murmurs. ) What, gentlemen, continued the
Hon. Member, the Chairman having closed a debate, shall
a Minister, in spite of that decision, re-open it ? This would
not only be an inconsistency, but would be attended with
the most serious consequences. If, however, it could be
proved to me that this was the absolute and unconditional
spirit and meaning of the Charter, I would submit to it ;
for I respect the Charter above all other authority, but I
confess that it is not in this sense that I understand it.
M. Letnpereur argued that Ministers ought at all times
to be listened to, and in not doing so the Chamber 1, eA
failed in its duty towards one of the branches of the State,
the powers of which were equal to its own.
M. Odillon Barrot—lt is evident that if the President
had listened to the opposition, he would have found that
it merely maintained what everybody believed, namely,
that the President of the Council intended to re-open the
original discussion. If the Minister meant to speak only
upon the state of the question, there was certainly a mis-
understanding. This became the more serious from his
own fault, for by saying one word he might have put an
end to it, and he would have been listened to. But he
raised a most serious question, and one that can never be
solved—for if a conflict takes place between two equal
powers, no other power has any right to interfere and
decide between them. Happily this conflict does not
exist in this case. Fur us, we certainly shall never give
rise to a conflict so serious. Gentlemen, the Royal pre-
rogative is respected by us all ; it is useful, but it is im-
mense. A Minister has a right to speak at all times,
without waiting for his turn, he may oppose the closing
of a discussion, and may continue to speak, however
unanimous the Chamber may be in desiring to terminate
the debate. These are his rights: but brim so extensive
shall we consent that they be further enlarged? I have
said enough, gentlemen, to convince you of the danger
which may arise from solving by an absolute dictum a
question of doctrine, which, in fact, never can be
legally decided. Let us, therefore, accept the ex-
planations of M. de Rambuteau and the President
of the Council, and proceed to the order of the day.
The Keeper of the Seals, after recapitulating the cir-
cumstances, said it was not the Chamber that interrupted
the President of the Council, but only a small portion of
it, and each member ought to accustom himself to speak
in his own name and not in that of the whole assembly.
It was the duty of the President of the Council to defend
the Royal prerogative when it was attacked.—(Hear,
hear.) It was a duty he was bound to fulfil, upon pain
of treason, because he represented one of the powers of the
State. It has been said that this prerogative has its incon-
veniences. Ido not deny this. But all absolute prero-
gatives have their inconveniences, and yet is this a reason
fur annulling them ? The standing orders of the Chamber
have been set up in opposition to the Charter. Ali ! gen-
tlemen, is it possible to make a comparison between these
two authorities? It would be like repealing a law by a
Royal Ordonnunce. Besides, were you to push the argu-
ment to its utmost limits, you would destroy all the prero-
gatives of the Crown. You would deprive a Minister of
the right of speaking twice upon the same question.
M. Teste said, I will be very short, lest Ministers, in-
sisting upon Article 46 of the Charter, should interrupt my
argument.—(Laughter and murmurs.) This noise, gen-
tlemen, convinces me how difficult it is for the Chamber
to divest itself of a habit which, unhappily for its dig-
nity, has become inveterate, that of interrupting Members
by murmurs. I shall support the order of the day, as the
only means of putting an end to an unfortunate collision,
which it is to be hoped will be a useful lesson to all
parties. I wish, however, to assert one fact, which is,
that no Member on the side of the Chamber where I sit
heard the Minister ask permission to speak upon the state
of the question.

The President of the Council inquired whether the Order
of the Day was to be voted upon the motion of M. tic
Ratnbuteau ? If so, he had nothing to say ; but if it was
intended to get rid of the appeal made by Ministers to
Art. 46 of the Charter, and the rights thereby imposed
upon the respect of the Chamber, he should protest

against it with all his force.
M. de Tracy conceived there were two motions before
the
second cham w
bera—,
theth Order of
e first was
theto Day.rectify the Minutes,
couldlnutee
. and
the not
tie a third. M. de Ratnbuteau had declared that ;ILlPiirner:
sthideein tcftit:ue. Council desired
odtetidroedabttotee hweoarrdd uopio:oythe state of