The Sun.
London, England, 1815-10-21 00:00:00

CHAMBER, OF PEERS.

The Address of the. Peers, presented to the King
the night before last, was not adopted without
much discussion, and great difference of opinion.
There were many alterations in the one origithdly
proposed by Lally Tollendal. For instance,. in-
stead of sOliciting front the King, justice, the're-.
tribtition of rewards for fidelity, punishment of
the guilty, and finally, purifications, be is asked
for a just' retribution of rewards and punishments,
and for the purity of administrations-. In addition
to these alterations, the following words were
inserted, " to cause the administration of justice
to flourish according to the existing laws.."
In the di..,cussion, M. de Trondeville proposed to omit the
words e.risling .laws, because, according to his opinion, ex-
traordinary measures ought to be adopted. .
Count Barbe Marbois 'opposed the clause which asked from
the King justice and the retribution of punishnients.- He•
appealed to the ancient and modern laws, which agree in, re-
garding a Judge as challengeable it hit_ have made any recom-
mendation or solititatiou in an affaii- on which he is called to
decide. Public opinion would apply this principle to the
~Introller of Peers in the situation in which it stood, whether
regarded as to its constitutional competency,
,or to us
ledge of.the lists already published. Ile moved the omission
of the clitise.
- A Peer .remallted,•that only general observations were, in
the present,case, under the consideration of the Chamber.
Count BarbeMarbois replied that the recommendation
dent ly applied to persons accused, and- who were already ull7:
der cognizance of the law, and insisted on the. omission. .
The Duke of Richelieu supported the.. motion, and expressed
a wish, if it should be thought proper to retain the clause,
that the reeminnendation of justice should not apply to the
past, but ooly to the future. • „.
The Duke of Broglie spoke to the same effect.
The Bishop of Langres opposed the change. fie thought
that Judges might with propriety recommend the exercise of
justice, provided they make no mention of the
Baron Stguier, in support of this doctrine, 'referred to the:
celebrated affair of the Duke d'Arguillon, in which the Parlia.
'tient claimed its violated competence.
The Duke de Broglie observed, that the competence Of the
Chamber was not disputed.
M. ile Lally-Tollendal defended the new draft: of the Ad-!
dress with regard to the part iu -question.. It appeare 4 to
hint to contain only general expressions and the crust perfect
- •
mode. at ion.
,The Duke de Broglie voted fur the omission, precisely on
the ground of the cautious manner in which the clause appear-
ed to be expressed. it is proper to• declare plainly what we
Wan. The phrase signifies sonnithingotnothiug ; hut what is
deducted from it in appearattint is added to it in reality.. If, as
the Duke of Richelieu understandS it, only future offences arc
referred tot let that be frankly stated ;
,if it. be hot, thepb-
jection must remain, howevet much thelangidtge, may lie soft
tuned. - It iv to the substance -of-the idea the public will hil;h,
under whatever form you 1113-y present it to theni.„l more flie
suppression .of the whole paragraph, after the words ti tnet-
lary throne become the•ultarof the 'country."
Count Castelione supported the amendment for inserting
the words in future. He obserted that. the' Chamber of
!attics,' which did notary the crime of Higii Treason, might
with less impropriety solicit front the King, ui Fero:nine:id to
him the exercise of justice. • • • ,
' Count MOnville declared, that he had'heen struck with the.
silence observed by his Majesty respecting the acts of rigour
• which it was wished to recommend to birn ; and also respect-
ing that purity of administration,' which he did- not under-
stand, and of which the Ring had said nothing. It you do
not suppres; the paragraph in epaN;tion, you will deteriorate,
by the influence you are attempting to .exercise' 1 that inde-
pendence in which the distinct powers of the Government
ought to exist. .
Count Mule °tithe reading of •the passage in the Address,
whieb expresses an eulogium on the measure adopted Unit he
King for augmenting the national representation, proposed
its omission, unless the same motive which: as assigned for
the measure by his Majesty was added, namely, the imperious
circumstances in which the 'ft, rone is placed. •
Count .Montempriou moved its total omission, as a question
of so much importance ought not to be prejudged.
The Duke of Orleans proposed the amendment, which was
finally adopted in the following terms :—" The Chamber re-
cognizes the beneficent intentions of his Majesl, iu.the zing-
. nictitation of the number of Deputies-."