The Sun.
London, England, 1833-02-18 00:00:00

FRENCH PAPERS.

CHAMBER OF PEERS.—Sirmo or FEE. 15.

13aron Pasquier took the chair a few minutes before 2.
The attendance of Peers was very great, and every part of
the Chamber appropriated to spectators was crowded.
After the proces-verbal had been adopted, Generals Gerard,
1-laxo, and St. Cyr NugLes, newly-created Peers, took the oath
and their seats.

The Chamber proceeded to the consideration of the right of
Count d'Astorg to take his seat without creating a maJorat.
M. Brayer and the Count de Pontecoulant agreed with the
Committee that M. d'Astorg ought to be admitted ; but the
Count d'Anthouard and the Count de Montalivet were of opi.
Ilion that he must first either create a majorat or obtain a
royal ordinance relieving him from the obligation to do so. On
the suggestion of the latter Noble Peer, the further considera.
tion of the question was adjourned. _ _

During this discussion Marshal Soult entered the Chamber,
supported by crutches, and took his seat on the Ministers' bench.
The Count De Bondy brought up a report, recommending
the adoption of a bill relative to the monument of the Place de
la Bastille.—Ordered to be printed..
The Chamber then proceeded to the general discussion of
the bill relative to the etat de siege.
The Marquis De Dreux-Breze said that he rose to exa-
mine the spirit and consequences of the bill in what regarded
its political bearing, leaving to more experienced men to can-
vass it in a military point of view. The committee, notwith.
standing the numerous modifications they had introduced, had
not been able to get rid of all the provisions hostile to liberty.
—(Murmurs.) When it was proved that a constitution did
not meet the wants of a great nation, wishes and hopes were
directed elsewhere. Ministers believed that arbitrary mea-
sures were necessary, and had therefore proposed the bill be-
fore the Chamber. The Chamber should fear that when it had
granted them what they asked, they should take what it did not
grant. Public liberty was the first necessity of France. The
revolution of July was directed against arbitrary rule, and the
object of the bill was to re-establish it. A Prince, who did
not imagine that he was attacking the charter, but was exer_
cising a constitutional right, in signing the ordinances of July,
was designated a traitor; and yet this bill only gave vigour
and rendered more clear and tamous article 14, the obscurity of
which was so disastrous to France. In case the bill were re.
jected, it would be better to build a new Bastile than to erect a
monument upon the site of the old one. If the bill had been
applied to strong towns alone, it would have been conceivable,
but it must be inapplicable to open towns and the communes.
The committee ought to have proposed the rejection of the
bill; because the Chamber should devote its attention to use-
ful measures, and not to dangerous projects.
M. Villemain strongly protested against the comparison of
the etat de siege of July' 5, 1630, and that subsequently called
for by the whole population of the capital. If the 27th of
July had triumphed, would the Peers of France, and the De.
puties who had temporarily conducted the administration of the
state been allowed to appeal to the Court of Cessation ?—The
heads of all those suspected of having taken part in the holy
insurrection would have fallen. Never was there a comparison
more scandalous. The etat de siege of June was called for by
the National Guards who were outlaws on the 25th of July.
The Minister of Justice inquired whether the rebels of the
Cloitre Saint- Mery were the population of Paris or the National
Guards combined with the troops of the line surrounding the
King ?—(Cheers.) After the revolution of July the Govern-
ment had to face dangers from two parties,--the one the re-
publicans, who made a direct attack ; and the other the legiti-
matists, who divided themselves into two camps, the one being
for a direct attack with arms, and the other imagining that if
they eould drive the Government to radicalism it would be ne-
cessarily overthrown. The. Minister then cited a passage from
Burnet, relative to the English revolution, in which the par-
ties opposed to the Government were represented as adopt-
ing a policy very similar ; but, continued he, society and the
Government are stronger than the calculations of these parties.
He then refuted the objections of the noble Marquis, advocated
the Bill as amended by the Committee, and concluded in the
following terms :—" At present no one fears for liberty in
France, which can only be endangered by disorder. The ene-
mies of the Government having no apprehensions for liberty,
set themselves up against public order. The Bill contains no-
thing contrary to liberty, but provides measures to preserve
France from disorder."

, General Mathieu Dumas gave an account of the motives upon
which the amendments of the Committee were grounded.
Baron "Wormier, in expatiating on the existing laws intended
to be modified by the new Bill, admitted that important modifi-
cations were necessary, but he did not consider that in the Irma-
sure before the Chamber Ministers had succeeded in reconciling
the interests of the Government with the liberties of the people.
The Noble Peer concluded by proposing several amendments
which would render the measure a totally different Bill, and to
which we shall refer more particularly when they are brought
under discussion.
The Chamber then adjourned till to-morrow.