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

bet I can attest that no one around me so understood him.
is, therefore, impossible for us to judge of the first pro-
position. For myself, Taut-never give a decision upon a
tact of wlticls I am not positively convinced.
M. Guizot said, there were two questions Wore the
Chamber. A question of fact as to the correctness of the
minutes, and a question of prerogative. e 'lt, was not pos-
sible to pass to the Order of the Day upon the question ef,
fact. The Chamber must decide whether the mitree
were well or ill drawn up. As to the questioia bf pre-
rogative, the Chamber tould not pass to the Order of the
Day upon it, because it was a subject Upon which it had.
no right to deliberate, for the Cheater was Imperativt,
M. Maugnin hoped that u few words mere. would ter-
initiate this lamentable debate, which was the more so as
it arose out of error.. He was sr ated by the President of
the Council, and distinctly beard him ask leave to crldreee
the Chamber upon the state of the question., bat the Cot 6
Gauche and the Cot Droite might ttot have heard him.
The President himself, he believed, did not hear him.
The President declared that he did nut.
M. Mauguin continued—The President gave the Mini-
stcc a hearing in virtue of Art. 46 of the Charter, and
toence arose all the difficulty. I move that the question
the put upon the ta ctification of the minutes, and that we
aiterwards proceed to the order of the day. With regard
to the other question, I conceive that it will be useless to
discuss it, though I cannot admit that its solution is im-
possible. If, however, the President of the Council is
thaermined to have it resolved, he may demand a hearing
upon it, in virtue of Art. 46 of the Charter, and we will
come to a decision.
The President of the Council replied, that were he to
accede to the proposition of M. Mauguin, it would be a
_ complete renunciation of Art. 46 of the Charter, and cots.
sequently a dereliction of duty ; therefore he could not
consent to it.
DI. Lafitte rose to speak on the state of the question.
Here are two prerogatives in opposition, the Royal prero-
gative defended by the King's Ministers, and the preroga-
tive of the Chamber. Who can pronounce between these
two prerogatives ?
M. Demarcay—lf yen will allow me, I'll take upon
myself, to solve the difficulty.
M. Lafitte—lt is possible that such is your opinion,
but it is not mine, and neither one nor the other is a de-
cision. Who has a right to give an interpretation to an
article of the Charter? No one except the three powers.
The President explained that neither himself nor the
. Secretaries heard the President of the Council say that be
was going to speak upon the
.state of the question. Be
thought that he intended to speak in the name of the.
Charter. He would now put to vote the order of the day
upon the rectification of the minutes- demanded by M. de
Rambuteau, leaving the constitutional question that had
been agitated completely aside.
The order of the day was adopted by a great majority.
The Chamber then resumed the debate upon the ad-
dress. The question remained at the sante point as yester-
day, when the Chamber declared the discussion upon M.
itipon's amendment, and M. Felix Bodin's sub-amendment
closed.

• The President of the Council, in rising to speak on the
state of the question, said that it was clear that the inten-
tion of M. Felix Bodin was to amend M. Bignon's pro-
position. It seemed, therefore, necessary, first to put to
the vote the amendment of M. Bodin ; which proposed to
substitute the words "firm hope," for "certainty." The
Crown had explained itself wit t frankness, and endea-
voured to accelerate the end of a struggle which kept up
such deep emotions. To go beyond this would be to de•
termine a war, for the Government could nut, without
being wanting to its own dignity, abandon a certainty
which it had affirmed, until it had exhausted all the means
of causing it to triumph. Again, in case of war, the
word " certainty," would be too strong, for it would com-
mand us to enchain fortune. Hence, Ido not object to
M. Bodin's amendment, but mu-t insist upon the word
certainty being expunged.
M. Solverte approved of M. Bignon's amendment, as
he mild discover nothing hostile in the word "certainty."
M. Bignon said, that in a conversation with Ministers,
he had learnt that there would be no objection to " assur-
ance," and consequently he would propose the substitution
of that word for "certainty."
The Minister for Foreign Affairs stated, that Ministers
,• could not object to the word "assurance," as it was pre-
, cisely that employed-in, the speech from the throne.
- M. de Tracy disapproved of the change, and added, as
M. Bignon had abandoned the word " certainty," he would
take it up.
After a discussion as to which of the amendments should
, have the priority, that of M. Bignon was put to the vote
• and adopted.
. The. next paragraph of the Address was then read as
follows :
" In the examination of these diflicta negotiations, we are
confident that we shall find a proof of the dignity and perseve-
ranee with which the true interests of France have been main-
tained.- The political system which shall ensure to our country
the benefit of the liberty she has achieved, and wi'l lay the foun-
dation of her internal prosperity, and at the same time render
her powerful and respected abroad, will receive from France the
. most entire adherence and energetic support."
Lacheze moved that this paragraph should be ex-
punged. _ _ _

M. Bernard proposed that this paragraph should b.
worded as follows:—" The Chamber is expecting the
communication of the diplomatic documents which served
for the bases of them negociations. It will examine them
with scrupulous attention, and with the hope of finding
the proof that the real interests of France oud her dignity
have not been compromised." Tho Hon. Deputy said
this amendment did not proceed from himself, but was in
conformity to the orioioal draft of the Address, which
was voted unanio.ously by the Committee. Subsequently,
M;n;a►ers gave explanations which satisfied the majority
of the Committee, and the paragraph was changed. He
(M. Bernard), however, who was in the minority, re-
produced the original paragraph in the form of an amend-
ment.

M. de Vatimesnil was far from blaming the revelation
made by M. Bernard of what had passed in the Commit-
tee, because he was of opinion that whatever was done he
Hon. Members should be made public. Tie change
male by the Committee was an act of good faith, because
the information given by Government was simple and sa-
tisfactory.
M. de Tracy supported the amendment, as far as the
diplomatic papers were concerned. A multitude of cir-
cumstances were connected with past negociations which.
would afflict Frenchmen of all opinions. He could also
wish to express the hope that Ministers had neither
wounded the interest nor the honour of France, but it was
impossible for him to express confidence in a thing of which
he was ignorant, and which it was sought to conceal from
the Chamber.
M. Pelet de la Lozere did not think it reasonable to say
that the Chamber was expecting a communic ition that had
neither been promised nor asked. If the Chamber wished
for papers to be communicated, it should send up a special
address.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs said that diplomatic
papers had been before asked for, and a promise had been
made that they should be communicated at the proper time.
No answer could be given but that already given. It had
been said that the expedition to the Tagus had been con-
summated under the patronage of a neighbouring nation ;
but this was not the case, for it had been decided upon in
24 hours, and terminated in 36 days.
M. Glais I3izoin reminded the Chamber that at the time
of the discussion of the Address in 1826, General Sebas-
tiani demanded the communication of papers, a course
which he now opposed.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs replied that the treaties
shoold he communicated when they were ratified.
The amendment of M. Bernard was then put and re-
jected. M. Lacheze withdrew his amendment, and the
paragraph was adopted.
The remaining paragraphs were then adopted as fol-
low .
" If Europe is convinced of the honour of our intentions, and
the sincerity of our wishes for the maintenance of peace, she
ought also to be convinced of our power, and of our determina-
tion to use it in causing or independence and our rights to be re-
spected. France will preserve them with the utmost care. At
the first call her generous children flew to arms, and she saw
with pride the sons of her King fly to the combat and recall the
example given by their father when he fired the fiat cannon in
support of liberty.
" For us, Sire, whom our country has inve,ted with her con-
fidence in these momentous days, we will fulfil our mission he
dosing round your Constitutional Throne, and focusing a ram-
part for it by our union, our perseverance, land our invaluable de-
votion to our country."
The Chamber then proceeded to ballot upon the en-
semble of the Address, which was adopted by a majority
of 282 against 73.
The President drew lots for the grand deputation to
up the Address, after which the Chamber adjouined.

La France .Nouvelle.—" The discussion of the Addre's
dais of
taken
kthe most
sat length terminated. After seven d
animated debates which have for a long t
in the Elective Chamber, the idea which predominated "
drawing up the Address—en idea wholly in accordance
with the Ministerial system—has triumphed over all the
efforts of the Opposition. Its adoption by an imineow
majority confirms what every dly was rendering apparent,
the happy accordance existing between the Representative
Chamber and the Ministers, in whom the King has placed
his confidence."
Le Journal des Debals congratulates the country on
the calm and rational manner in which (with the single
exception of the epi.ode in Tuesday's debate) the discussion
on the Address has been conducted. With respect to the