The Sun.
London, England, 1833-01-24 00:00:00

the Chamber u nderstand that, although the general dis-
cussion was closed, the orator had a right to be heard on
the amendment.
M Berryer said that he opposed all the amendments,
and particularly that of the Chamber of Peers, because it
stamped the bill with a character of hypocrisy. It hail
never, be said, been properly explained what it was in the
proposition which contained the seeds of such dissension
as existed on the subject, not only between the two
branches of the Legislature, but between different Mem-
bers of the Cabinet, as was evident from comparing the
speech of the Minister of Justice, in the Chamber of
Peers, with that of Minister for Foreign Affairs in the
same place 10 months ago. He (M. Berryer) would ex-
plain th,s. It was pretended that the law of 1516 was an
insult to the country, inasmuch as it supposed a national
participation in the death of Louis XVI. It did no such
thing, and those who put forth that pretence well knew
that the framers of that law were perfectly aware that
the nation repudiated the sacrifice of the illustrious vic-
tim : that the noble minority in the Convention, de-
mauded an appeal to the whole country on the question,
which was refused by the majority with savage ac-
clamation, as such an appeal would always be by ty-
rannies of every description.—(Strong sensation.) The
object of the law of 1816 was two-fold ; it was intended,
first, to consecrate the principle of Royal inviolability, and
secondly, as had properly been said in another place, to
recognise the legitimate rights of the elder• branch of the
Bourbons. The vote of the death of Louis XVI., founded
on the declaration pronounced at the tribune of the Gm..
veution, that every one who bad or might be guilty of an
offence against the national sovereignty deserved death.
was far more than a mere condemnation of a man—it was
the destruction of a principle. This principle was re
consecrated by the law of 1816, and hence arose the
embarrassment of the Ministry. They wished the law to
be repealed, inasmuch as it was the recognition of the
rights of the dynasty of the Restoration; but they did not
wish it to be repealed, inasmuch as it consecrated the prin-
ciple of Royal inviolability. They, therefore, sought a
medium between repealing and not repealing, and thought
they found it in the epithets " fatal and ever deplorable."
which, however appropriate in an historical account of
the transaction, could have no effect in a law but to give
a hypocritical gloss to its real scope and object. He bad
opposed the proposition originally, because it was repug-
nant to his feelings and principles, but it was at 1.-ast a fair
and open declaration of the choice of the Chamber be-
tween the principles of 1816 and those of 1832, and
therefore he preferred it to the mendacious and hypocriti-
cal bill adopted by the Chamber of Peers, the expressions
of which were a mockery, and contradictory of its scope
and tendency.
The Minister of Justice defended the line of conduct
pursued by Government in sanctioning the amendment of
the Chamber of Peers. He said that the law of 1816
was a law conceived in a spirit of party and reaction, and
was therefore repudiated by France. The country was
too decidedly opposed to the death of Louis XVI. for any
one to conceive it necessary that a law should exist to say
to France, " Thou shalt not slay thy Kings." The sup-
position was an insult to the nation, and on every prin-
ciple the law ought to be repealed. If hypocrisy existed
and where, it was in the law itself, for every one would
admit that it was the worst species of hypocrisy to cover
with the cloak of generous and moral sentiments for the
indulgence of party hatred and political passions.—(Loud
applause ) The law of 1816 ought, therefore, be re-
peated, to be repealed ; hut as it had been said by a certain
party, that its repeal was an indirect sanction to a regicide,
the Chamber of Peers, anxious to avoid even the slightest
ground for such an accusation, however unjust and absurd,
insisted on inserting in the bill words which, while they
did ❑ot weaken the effect of the measure, prevented any
misrepresentation of the feelings of those who had adopted
it. If this hid been refused the bill would have been re•
jected; and Government, feeling all the inconveniences of
dissension between the two branches of the Legislature,
and feeling, also, that the measure remained substantially
the same, felt it its duty, in a spirit of conciliation, to
press the adoption of the amendment of the Peers.—
(Loud and general applause.)
31. Cabet, in a speech interrupted at every sentence by
the indignant exclamations of the greater part of the
Chamber, argued in favour of the suppression of the
words added by the Peers.

After a few words from M. de Grammont, in praise of
the courageous minority of the Convention who opposed
the vote of condemnation, and an expression of his assent
to the amendment of the Peers, as embodying the senti-
ments of horror with which the 21st of January ought
always b, regarded.
AI. de Corcelles said, that as he did not wish in any
in inner to be a party to so extra-legal and unusual an
amendment as that of the Chamber of Peers, be withdrew
his amendment.

The President—l was just about to remark that the
amendment of the Hon. Deputy is not of a nature to be
put to the vote, for as it consists only in demanding the
suppression of some of the words added by the Chamber
of Peers, it amounts surely to voting against that addition.
M. de Corerlles does not, therefore, make any sacrifice in
wit! drawing his amendment.—(General laughter.) The
same observation applies to the amendment of M. Cibet.
The words added by the Chamber of Peers were then
put to the vote, and adopted by an immense majority, not
above forty or fifty Members of the extremities rising
against them.

The Chamber then proceeded to ballot on the ensemble
of the bill so amended. The following was she result of
the scrutiny :

For the Bill 262
Against it tit

Majority ISO
SITTING OF JAN. 22.

M. Dupin took the chair at twenty-five minutes past
one, but, as usual, it was two o'clock before the Depuries
attended in sufficient number to allow any business beyond
the adoption of the preces verbal to be proceeded with.
Nearly an hour waa occupied with the discussion of a
bill re'pecting the expenses of a new barrack erected at
Caen. The question was wholly of local interest, and
turned upon the point as to whether the whole expenses
should be borne by the town, or whether Government
should contribute part of them. The former altern rtive

was adopted by a large majority, and the ensemble of a bill
authorizing the town to tax itself for that purpose was
passed by a majority of 198 against 32.
The discussion of the Bill for regulating the departmen-
tal organization was then resumed at the 28th article, re-

lative -to the penalties incurred by members of general
councils, or councils of arrondissement, who participated in
informil meetings of the council or other illegal acts. The
Government proposed that in the event of a council being
dissolved by the King, those of its members who by the
competent tribunals should be convicted of having partici-
pated in the deliberations or acts of the assembly declared
illegal should be, ipso facto, ineligible fur a period of not
less than three, nor more than six years.
M. Peau proposed as the amendment that if among the
acts of a council dissolved by the King there be any
punishable by the penal laws in force, the members who
had knowingly participated in such acts should be prose-
cuted according to law." The Hon. Deputy contended
that the article, as proposed by Government, conveyed too
vague and arbitrary a qualification of penalty, and that no
citizen should be subjected to a deprivation of his electoral
rights without a specific and well-.defined offence.
M. Macarel (the Commissioner of Government) and
M. Podenas opposed the amendment, and M. Gillen (the
reporter) then proceeded to address the Ch imber.

FRENCH FUND;, PARIS JAN. 22.-Five per Cents. 10If. 90c.
65c. 90c. 83c. 90c. 85c. 90c. 55c. SOc. 101 f. 85c. 80c. 85c. 80c. 70c.
7 ; Loan of 1832,102 t: ,• Four per Cents., 90f: 50c. ; Three per
Cents., 73f. 85c. 75c 70c. 75c. 70c. 65c. 60c. 50c. ; National Loan,
101 f. Sic. ; Bank Actions, 1,66.5 f.; Rente de Naples, 85f. 90c.
85c. SOc. 90c. 80c. ; Roman Five per Cents., 81% ; Rente
d'Espagne, Five per Cents., 12%; Three per Cents., 36
i,ti3 34; ; Royal Spanish Loan, 8351 Rente Perpetuelle d'En-
pagne 5914 ; ; Belgian Loan, 1831, 785 1,-,178. Exchange
on London, one month, paper, 25f. 65c. ; money, 25f. 65c. ;
three months, paper, 25f. ; three months, paper, 25f. 50c.
money, 25;. Oc.-Cours Authentique.

(From the Journal des Debella of Tuesday.)
PARIS, JAN. 21.—1 t is affirmed that the Government
has received to-day positive information of the complete
route of the army of the Grand Vizier.
" The Egyptian army under the command of Ibrahim
13-icha, met the army of Mahmoud at the issue of the de-
files of Mount Taurus, o❑ the east side.

" The Turkish army has been entirely defeated. The
Grand Vizier has fallen into the hands of Ibrahim. Part
of the defeated army has joined the Egyptian standard.
" The victors are on their march to Constantinople,
Lod, at their departure, were only SO leagues distan t
from the capital of the Ottoman empire.
" It is said that Sultan Alahmoud has abandoned the
Serapho, and repaired to the Divan, in which there is a
treat number of enemies of Reform."
The Constitutionnel quotes the same news, ward for
word, which it says was circulated in the Chamber of De-
puties, and believed to be true.

Death has just taken from us Baron de Wimpflen, eldest
son of Felix Barom Wimpflen, who in 1792 defended
Theonville against the Prussian army, and was the first
member of the Constituent Assembly who declared the
necessity of a constitutional monarchy.
(From th.. Constitutionntl.)
PARIS, JAN. is well known that the C mrt of
Criminal Justice can never be su.pended even in the
holydays ; the.' Court of Assizes of Paris ought
.t.ieref, re