The Sun.
London, England, 1822-01-29 00:00:00

amendment which had been proposed by the
Committee, though it was withdrawn.—(Cries
from various quarters that this was unnecessary.)
He thought the discussion proper, in order to
spew the spirit in which the law was framed.—
A Speaker on the right had objected to the
words " Relighn of the State," and had de-
sired ano.hce who was speaking to say " the
Catholic religion."

M. de Marcellus.—Yes, the Catholic religion.
General Foy.—lt was natural that you should so speak (vio-
lent agitation) : you say, why talk of other religions ;,—ours
is the only true one. This was to be expected from you ; and
if the law with the double vote continues to transmit to this
Chamber its unconstitutional prOducts—(sdll more violent agi-
tation)—
A voice on the right.—You insult a part of the Chamber.
General Foy.-1 state a fact. (Increased tumult. Cries of
" No, no," on the right: on the left, " Go on.")
General Foy.—The double vote being unconstitutional—
(Cries on the right " No, no," on the left, " Yes, yes.")
A voice on the right.—And to the insulting of persons, you
now add an insult to the law.—(Tumult.)
The President rang his bell, but the confttsion .continued.—
Twenty voices were heard speaking at once with great vehe-
mence.

M. de Chauvelin at last was heard, calling the President to
put a stop to the interruption.
The President.—(Raising his voice.)—lt is not allowable for
a member in discllssing an article of law, to attack a portion of
the Chamber, and even the law in virtue of which that portion
of the Chamber has born chosen.

M. de .Uhauvelin.—This is not the interpretation of what
was said.

M. Mechin.—Allow him to explain his words himself.
General Foy, after a long discussion carried on in the midst
of great confusion, at last obtained an opportunity to commence
an explanation. He said the law of the 29th -of June night,
like any other law, for he did not speak of it in particular, send
into that Chamber constitutional men—men devoted to the
doctrines and interests of liberty; ,but that law was unconstitu-
tional.—(Cries on the right, " No, no!"
[Here the tumult recommenced—the President rang his bell.]
The President declared that this explanation was a deviation
from order.—(Violent agitation on both sides.) . . .

General Foy—All the men, though they may be indivi-
dually constitutional, will be an unconstitutional product.--(In.:
creased tumult.)-1 wish to attack no member individually. I
say that a law, if a violation of the charter, must yield uncon-
stitutional products. As to the objection, that of censuring a
law which is passed, it is sufficient to say that we are here both
for making and unmaking laws. He now returned to the ques-
tion, and argued that the amendment of the committee had
been suggested, not merely by the project of the law, but by
the system of the present government, which accorded with the
plan of the making distinctions between different religions. It
tended to proiielytism, and to excite discord in society. They
had a proof of this. 1.7.1)ey had doubtless all read that remark-
able petition—(violent. murmur;;)—that affair which they had
viewed with so much indulgence, had made a different impres-
sion in England, and its fruits would be seen in the approach-
ing session of the British Parliament. It will retard—it will,
perhaps, prevent the emancipation of the Catholics. The Ca-
tholic religion, being that of the majority of the country and of
the Government, needs no particular protection. It is the cha-
racter of wise laws that they defend minorities ; and if that pro-
position be true with respect to religion as well as politics, it is
to other faiths, and not to the Catholic, that securities ought to
be afforded. The King was a Catholic, but there was no law
to prevent him from becoming a Protestant if he pleased. The
General then observed, that it the press required regulation, it
was not with respect to political or religious discussions, but to
libels on private individuals. The Memoirs of Madame d'Es-
pinay and the Duke de Lauzun were read by every one ; and
yet they were mere mischievous than any writings on govern.
ment and religion could be. He next condemned the law of the
17th Feb. 1321, which had converted establishments of educatioii,
kept exclusively by ecclesiastics, by religious communities, into
colleges, to which were granted. the same privilegos as to Royal
Colleges. The usurping spirit of the Catholic religion had caused
great disorders in the provinces. Every thing that was passing
confirmed the opinion that the clergy were forming a political
spy-system. •After strongly censuring the missionaries who
now overwhelm-France, he concluded by declaring that he would
vote against the first article'in particular.
31. telalot maintained that the project which had been pre-
sented was not unconstitutional, for the 35th article of the
Charter leaves to future laws the regulation of the press. As
to the amendment of the Committee, he highly approved of
it. lie vindicated the Jesuits, as a body though lie admitted
that sonic individuals of that society did not deserve to be
esteemed.

N. de Keratry attacked the Jesuits and the old Government:
several of those who were now opposed to liberal views had for-
merly figured in the ranks of atheism. Was a return now to be
endured of all the corruptions of the old Court, and all the state
airs of bed-chamber gentlemen ? It was said the law ought
not to be atheistical ; but it certainly ought not to be sectanal,
if it was meant there should be freedom. The law proposed
was absurd on the face of it, unless it was really meant to for-
bid Catholic priests from launching their anathemas against all
other religions, and denouncing damnation to all out of the pale
of the Catholic religion. Was this intended ? According to
this law, the Tartuffe could not have been published. The act-
ing it must soon be prohibited.
de Courvoisier spoke in favour of the project. He was
frequently interrupted by calls for closing the discussion.
M. de St. Aulaire opposed the project, which he considered
unnecessary, as religion was sufficiently protected by the law of
the 17th of May, 1819.
de Labourdonuaye supported the project.
A long discussion followed on the question for closing the
debate.

31. Manuel was at last heard. In a long speech he went
over the arguments which had been urged against the project.
Ile also entered into a discussion with M. de Courvoisier res-
pecting what- was the understanding on the law of May, 1819.
lie read a passage from the .lioniteur, to shew that M. de Cour-
voisier did not then hold the same opinion on the question res-
pecting religion that he did now.
Count de Series argued that the article under consideration
was necessary to amend the law of 1819. It did not affect li-
berty of conscience, nor would it prevent fair controversy be-
tween two opposite opinions.
M. de Sebastian' wished to speak against the article ; but the
closing of the debate was loudly called, and at last agreed to,
by a great majority.
The President stated the question and the amendments moved
by 31. B. Constant and M. Manuel.
M. B. Constant observed, that the object of his amendment
was to expunge the words " cries and menaces" against reli-
gion, which stood in the law of 1819
. .

The amendment was rejected by a great majority.
A debate then arose on M. Manuel's amendments ; the first
of which tended to diminish the penalties ; the second had for
its object to declare that the law should in no way affect the right
of religious controversy.
After a long and warm discussion, both th amendments
were rejected. . _ .

The question was then put on the first article.
Demarcay insisted that the voting should be by ballot.
This proposition gave rise to a tumultuous discussion.
The President read the regulation, according to which there
could be no appel nomiati unless it was ordered by the
Chamber.

Al: the members on the left except one then withdrew into
the Conference Chamber.

The motion for nominal voting was then rejectud, and the
first article adopted.
M. Lafitte was heard to call from the passage leading to the
Conference Chamber—" There is not a sufficient number of
members."
The President—There is a sufficient number.
Adjourned at six o'clock.

CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES, SATURDAY, JAN. 26.

The debate began by the President stating
the second article of the project; inflicting an im-
prisonmeut of from three months to five years,
and a fine of from 300 to 6,000 francs, for at-
tacks on the Royal dignity or authority. On
this article the Committee had proposed to raise
the maximum of the fine from 6,000 to 8,000
francs. Two amendments had been proposed by
Deputies ; one, by General Sebastian', for insert-
ing the word " constitutional" after " royal au-
thority ;" the other, by General Foy, affected the
form of the article, and would render it necessary
(hat it should be drawn up anew, It resolved
into these terms :
" All formal attack by one of the said means -against the in-
violability of the King's person, the order of succession to the
Throne, the 'Constitutional 'authority of the King, and the
Chambers, shall be punished, &c." . •
M. Casimir Perrier and others called for' the
EitiestiOn on the amendment of the Committee.

- The President replied, that the Reporter had
desired him to state, that the Committee had

thought fit to withdraw the amendment on this
article, in consequence of the course which it
had adopted with regard to that. on the first.
General Foy spoke at considerable length in
support of his amendment. He insisted on the
necessity of suppressing the phrase " Royal dig-
nity" as vague. Royal dignity was different in
different times and places, as much so as the
difference between the King of England and the
Emperor of Morocco. He also proposed to omit
the words 4' attack on the rights of the King,"
as those words were liable to arbitrary interpre-
tation. The words " inviolability 'of the King's
person," which he wished to remain, %vele the
most proper for the sup sort of a constitutional
throne. He insisted upon substituting for the
words 44 authority of the King," " constitutional
authority of the King." It was fit they should
distinguish between the times before and after
the Charter. Why was authority before the
Charter spoken of ? Because it was wished to
sacrifice the present to the past. Because it is
wished to sacrifice the virtues and the knowledge
of the age, to the vices and the frivolities of for-
mer -times. NVllat ought tile law to protect ?
Authority as it now exists—not as it existed in
the days of Philip, Augustus, and Hugh Capet.
In taking away the word " constitutional," the
hand appeared which wished to revoke the Char-
ter in spite of the King. Neither the Chambers,
nor the King, have any other authority than that
which is constitutional.—(This speech was fre-
quently interrupted by murmurs and marks of
impatience on the right side.)

The Minister of Finance supported the article
as it was expressed in the project. With regard
to the omission of the word " constitutional," he
frankly declared that in the, fourth bureau he had
been of opinion that it ought to be re-inserted. But
there was a particular reason for the omission, with
which he was not then acquainted, but which the
Keeper of the Seals had a few days ago stated
to the Chamber, and of the propriety of which
every one might judge.—(lnterruption and calls
for explanation.)—ln the fourth bureau he had
expressed regret at the suppression of the epi-
thet 44 constitutional," and he declared that he
regretted it still. Ite would rather it had been
retained, with all the inconveniences that might
attend it, than that he should have to defend the
omission at a time when endeavours are made to
calumniate the best intentions, and to distort the
most evident facts. After he had taken his place
in the Council of Ministers, he asked for expla-
nations on this point. He then learned that
writings which attacked the authority of the
King had escaped condetnnation, because " the
constitutional authority" of the King was not at-
tacked. Such was the fact of which the Keeper
of the Seals had himself already informed the
Chamber.

M. de Chauvelin apologized for reading, con-
trary to his usual practice, a speech. He did
this because he wished to incur the whole respon-
sibility of what he said, without being exposed
to the risk of misrepresentation. He insisted, in
a long argument, on the necessity of restoring
the word " constitutional," and observed that the
King had been ill advised when he dated his or-
dinances" the 26th year of his reign."—(This
observation excited a violent agitation.)—The
word" reign " had quite another acceptation than
that of a right founded on hereditary succession.
M. de Serre replied to General Foy and M.
de Chauvelin. The restoration of the word " con-
stitutional," he contended, was altogether unne-
cessary. When the authority of any Government
was spoken of, it was understood that authority
was according to the laws of the country. No
unconstitutional authority could be recognised in
France, because no such authority existed. The
Royal authority was formerly limited by a great
aumber of privileges and rights belonging to dif-
ferent bodies. Now it was limited by the legis-
lative Chambers.

General Sebastjani argued for adding the word
" constitutional" according to his own amend-
ment. It was the more necessary that the word
should be restored, as the Reporter and M. de
Kergorlay had contended for its suppression,
because it tended to limit the Royal authority.
It was necessary to tranquillize the public mind
on this subject.

M. Delalot spoke in support of the article.
M. Manuel spoke against the article, but experienced re-
peated interruptions. He argued that the proposed law was de-
structive of the Charter.

M. de Peyronnet opposed all the amendments, and insisted
upon the necessity of preserving the article, such as it was pre-
sented by the former mister.
M. Devaux then supported an amendment which he had pro-
posed, and which resembled General Sebastiani's.

The debate was then closed, and the President put the ques-
tion on the different amendments which had been moved, pa-
ragraph by paragraph. They were all rejected ; only the Mem-
bers of the extreme left voted for them.

The President then notified that he was going to put the
question on the 2d Article.
Almost all the Members of the left immediately withdrew
into the passages and the conference chamber. •
The Articl was unanimously adopted by the remaining
Members, in number about 250 or 260.
The right side then loudly demanded that the third Article
should be put to the vote :
" Art. 3.—An attack by any of these means, on the rights
guaranteed by the sth and 9th Articles of the Constitutional
Charter, shall be punished by an imprisonment from one month
to three years, and by a fine of from 100 to 4,000 francs."
Ni. Demarcay, having with great difficulty procured a hear-
ing, moved that the words " tie Articles sth and 9th" should
be left out, because he said it was important to calm the
fears of the purchasers of national property, who in many
departments were three-fifths of the population. He stated
that he knew of his own knowledge, that great numbers
were putting in claims for the restitution of national pro-
perty. A great portion of old proprietors were busily em-
ployed in rummaging the archives of the prefectures for the
purpose of setting up claims, and that lawsuits had already
commenced. He then proceeded to give several details in sup-
port of his assertion : in the course of his narrative he was, in
a very, peremptory tone, called to order by M. de Serre, who,
however, was speedily silenced by the indignant murmurs of
the left side, and was told that he was no longer Minister to in-
sult the Chamber in that manner. M. Demarcay then conti-
nued his relation at: great length.
M. de Serre then spoke for the purpose of declaring, in the
most positive manner, that there was so ground for the least
alarm on this subject ; and that the proprietors of national. do-
mains were never more secure from any disturbance of their
acquired rights than they were at present.
M. Cuvier (one of the Royal Commissioners) also declared
that national property was never safer than at present. .
All the amendments were then rejected: the third article
was carried, and at seven o'clock the Chamber adjourned to
M on day.

CHAMBER OF PEERS, SATURDAY, JAN. 26.

At one o'clock the Chamber met, and after
some preliminary business, the Duke de St.
Aignan, in the name of the Committee of Pe-
titions, made a report on the petition presented
to the Chamber by Mr. Douglas Loveday.
The Committee having unanimously proposed