The Sun.
London, England, 1822-10-03 00:00:00

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1822.

Foy, and Lafayette ; that he made hiMielf be recognized by
Carbonari cards ; that he has seen them separately, and to-
gether, &c."
Thus, by the irkilful arrangement of a single phrase, you left
it to be inferred from the language of the person in contumacy,
not only that he had mentioned such a thing, butalso that such
a thing had actually taken place. You transformed the pro-
posal into a fact, and according to your general custom, Affirm-
ed it to be so; being probably at the same time ready, accord-
ing to your general custom, to agree, if necessity required it,
that there did not exist the slightest proof of it.
A measure of this nature promised soinething, I allow ; for
you announced that a witness, whom you had in reserve, and
kept in the shade, had heard these proposals made, and would
swear to them whenever you might wish it. I might even add,
as you might wish it ; for do you not tamper with false wit-
nesses ?—do you not threaten with imprisonment every witness
whose memory is so intractable as not to recollect whatever you
order him to declare ? •

If moreover, as the discussions seem to prove, this witness,
who afforded so much information regarding tin person in con-
tumacy, was himself implicated in what you have thought pro-
per to denominate the second conspiracy; if his life or his li-
berty depended upon his obsequious compliance with your
wishes, then the success of it appears infallible. Such measures
were employed in England towards the conclusion of the last
century but one ; and were successful for more than 20 years.
However, your confidence in this trick seems to be diminish-
ed • and I conceive this to be the case, because I know, by
what relates to myself, that there is not a single syllable attri-
buted to the person in contumacy which is not a lie, aid this
is assuredly the fact, too, with regard to others. Thus ii is
that there is so much nonsense in these different proposals, so
many evident marks of falsehood and imposition, so many
strange descriptions of men's persons, so many palpable contra-
dictions ! To palliate so Many embarrassing absurdities, it is
idly proposed to substitute the son for the father—a suistitu-
don of which the idea is taken from a fable of La Foltaine.,
The effect is produced. The invention of persons i con-
tumacy is rendered incapable of credit. Persons in contumacy,
Monsieur le Procureur-General, are instruments which have
now become quite hacknied. All France knows that the car-
dinal point of every indictment for conspiracy is formed by
some person or other who is in contumacy.
Such being the case, it becomes necessary to abandon the list
of the Provisional Government, because it criminates nobody,--
and the letter written at La Sarthe, because it was never written
—and the depositions of such of the witnesses as were intract-
able, and such of the accused as were conscientious, because
they only declare what they know—and even the declaratiOns
of the person in contumacy, more manageable, however, than
all the rest, since, owing to his absence, every thing can be
made of them that the prosecutor may desire. What part is
then left for you to take, M. le Procureur-General ? To search
in the distance of past time for that which cannot be found in
the clearness of the present.
Thus, what is it on which you insist in your speech of the
sth.? On charges quite new, and totally unconneced with the
pretended Provisional Government—with the suppositi tious l ;Ater
—with the suborned depositions—or with the proposals put into
the mouth of the person in contumacy. The charge made
ag.snst M. Leduc, tor example, is the gold deposited in his
hands, with which you swear (for you are ever swearing) he or-
ganises and keeps in pay bands of conspirators. The charge
against myself is a journey to Saumur in October, 1820—a jour-
ney which you connect with events that took place in February,
1822.

I leave to my honourable colleague to repel an attack of
which all France knows the falsehood, since all France knows
the firm and courageous integrity with which M. Laillac has
conducted himself on th 2 two occasions in which he was made
by turns the depositary of the wealth of misfortane and of
exile.

I proceed to address you upon what relates to myself.
I shall first of all quote your own words :
After repeating; some expressions of other deputies, and after
making a merit of not characterizing those expressions by any
other term than that of imprudences, you proceed as follows :
" Is there not, however, against them (my colleagues and
me) what I have ventured to call crowd of imprudences ?
" The town of Samnur was tranquil : its inhabitants lived
happily, and in obedience to the laws. Can, an experienced
physician, the father of an amiable family, exercised his pro-
fession in peace. M. D. Constant arrives within the walls of
thit town: What is it that you arc told by the Mayor, the Com-
Missary of Mice; in short, by all the paternal and adminis-
trative authorities ? Scarcely has that man arrived, before dis-
coid shakes her torch, and a revolutionary phrenzy seizes a
portion of the inhabitants. In the space of six months three
conspiracies arc hatched in that town, and 'Caffe. is. placed
on time bench of the accused;" and further on, you repeat the
phrase " that this culprit lived happily till the day when I
came to Saumur to seduce him."

In all these expressiints, Sir, there is, with regard to the
facts, the most downright falsehood ; in the last of them there
is an imputation to which I will not give any title. When
shall have established, the truth, sure I am that France will
give it the title it deserves, and therefore I leave it to her to
of to it the proper epithet. Let us now examine your words
once more, M. Ie Procureer-General. " What is it that you
are told by the Mayor ?" is your question ,• and your answer—
" Scarcely has that man arrived, before discord shakes her
torch, and a revolutionary phrenzy seizes a portion of the inha-
bitants."

You are unfortunate in your proofs, M. le Procureur-Gene-
ral. You quote the Mayor of Saumur; and it is from the
Mayor of Saumur that I now hold in my hand a letter in which
he does justice to my conduct, and marks out the real authors
of the disturbances, which you are now endeavouring to attri-
bute to me.

" Sir," writes this Mayor to me on the Bth of October, 1820,
at 11 o'clock at night—" I am very sorry to find myself corn-
pelled to write to you on the troubles which have taken
.place
during the last two days in our town ; I take-pleas-are in -ac-
knowledging that your conduct, and that of the individuals
with whom you lived, have not given, rise to them in any. de-
gree. Butyou know that insultingand provoking cries, which
NC attribute to the folly of some young men belonging to the
school of Equitation, were set up yesterday evening underneath
your windows, &c.
(Signed) " The Mayor of Saumur, N. H. MAHAUD."
The remainder of the letter refers.to a banquet which was to
take place the next day.
Thus the Mayor of Saumur declares that nothing in my con-
duct, or in that of the individuals with whom 1 lodged, gave
rise to the riots which then took place. He does more than
this—he points out the real authors of these riots. He proves
that these riots were directed against me, and were commenced
by insulting land age and provoking cries set up under my
windows. lie bears witness. that these riots commenced the
very evening of my arrival, before I had seen who there was
in Saumur in point of fact, I had arrived there at three or four
o'clock ; I had not gone out ; and when the cries were set up,
I was at dinner with myhosts and some other persons, amongst
whom were some of the magistrates of the town.
This is the testimony of the Mayor of Saumur ; and you, M.
le Procureur-General, you dare to assert that I was the author
of those riots, which were directed against myself : I repeat the
expression, of those riots, to which the paternal and admini-
strative authorities, to use your own expressions, have solemnly
declared that 1 was a perfect stranger. You call these riots
revolutionary ; and the Mayor testifies that the authors of these
riots were young men distinguished, as you well know, for
their anti-revolutionary spirit and prejudices.
Will you say, that in speaking of the Mayor of Saumur,
you have not spoken of the Mayor of 1820, but of the indivi-
dual now holding that office ? But at that time this latter
gentleman was not one of the paternal and administrative au-
thorities. Why have you given him that designation ? 'Co
give additional weight to his declarations ? Is .not this to de-
ceive justice and to outrage truth ?
But let us see what the present Mayor has said. I should
be astonished if his words were to justify your assertions ; for
he has always been represented to me as a very praise-worthy
character.

He has said that he learnt from the Commissary of Police,
that before my presence at Saumur, M. Cafe never interfered
with political matters. I take the version of the Monitcur, that
I may not be exposed to any contradiction on your part, thoughi
there is good reason for thinking it not very accurate, since .the
Moniteur has mutilated, in the face of all France, the defence
of the principal person accused in this indictment. If I were
to borrow the version of journals which I think more faithful to
the truth, the Mayor of Saumur would say, that up to the pe-
riod of my arrival, M. Caffe had never been the object of the
surveillance of the, police, which is a
very different thing ; for
the police, we all know, watches—ay, and does more than watch,
men of irreproachable character; but I adopt the official words
and the analysis of the trial approved by yourself. It is, then,