The Sun.
London, England, 1833-01-21 00:00:00

CHAAIBER OF PEERS.--SITTING or JAN. 17.

The President read a message from the Chamber of De-
puties, announcing its adoption of a bill for the repeal of
the law of the 19th of January, 1816, and put it to the
Chamber whether it would refer the bill to the committee
which had before been charged to report upon the mea-
sure, or whether It would appoint a new one.
General Excelmans—lf we name the same committee
we shall have the same result, and thence a deplorable
collision will arise between the Chambers.
The Marquis de Dreux-Breze.—l cannot conceive it
would be mole proper to refer it to a new committee. The
Chanther of Deputies, from motives which it does not be•
come me to characterize, has thought proper to decide in-
continently, and without waiting for the presence of seve-
ral members who would have thrown d light on the sub-
ject. The Chamber of Peers, in the spirit of calmness
and conciliation which becomes it, will act otherwise. It
will consider the question in a spirit of prudence, and
with a desire to do well, and prove that it decides with-
out acrimony, by sending the bill before a new cum

luittee.

Baro❑ Mounier said that the invariable practice of the
Chamber in such cases was to refer the measure to the old
committee, and this was acted on last session with respect
to the very bill under consideration,
The question was then put to the vote. The first
epreure was doubtful; on the second, the reference to the
old cointnittee was adopted by a sin ill majority.
The Chanibt-r then proceeded to the discussion of the
bill for definitively regulating the accounts of the budget
of 1829.
Articles 1 to 7, inclusive, were successively adopted
without observation. Oa article 8, which states the ex-
cess of the receipt over the expenditure, being read,
Count Roy said that as this was the last budget of the
Restoration he hoped that, as one of the Ministers of that
tlyna,ty, he might be permitted to exculpate it from the

charges of extravagance and improvidence which had been
brought against it in a late sitting, by the Minister of Fi-
nances. He then passed in review the various expenses
which had been defrayed by the Restoration, particularly
the expeditions of Greece and Algiers, and the repair of
the fortresses, which had b,en suffered to fall into decay
by Napoleon, and concluded by a brilliant eulogium on the
aytem which, notwithstanding such heavy expenses, had
left the finances in a state of such prosperity as they were
in at the breaking nut of the revolution of 1830.
The Minister of Finances, in reply, recapitulated the
charges of improvidence which he had brought against the
Restoration in a former sitting, dwelling particularly on
the enormous expenses of the hundred days, and the per-
aonal extravagance of the Princes of the late dynasty ; but
it the same time regretting that the discussion bad been
forced upon him, as it was, he said, his wish and disposi-
tion to respect and spare the fallen.,
The Marqnis de Drettx-Br(ze said that, far from sharing
the regret of the Hon. Minister, he rejoiced in having been,
on a former occasion, the means of provoking a discussion
which had produced the unanswerable defence of the Res.
toration pronounced by Count Roy. As to the expenses
of the second invasion of France, they were not to be
attributed to the Bourbons, but to the inordinate ambition
of Napoleon, which had occasioned his expedition from the
Island of Elbe to regain the throne from which he had
fallen.—(Murmurs.) In conclusion, be could only wish
that the present Government might find the means of
replacing the country in anything like the state of pros•
perity which it enjoyed under the Restoration.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs remarked, that whe-
ther the second invasion was caused by the Bourbons cr
by Napoleon, and whether the Government of the Restora-
tion was a good or dbad Government, were questions which
had not the slightest connection with the Bill of Finance
under the consideration of the Chamber. If these ques-
tions were made the subjects of a regularly announced dis-
cussion, be, as well as every other member of the Go-
vernment, would be found ready to declare and support
his opinion; but at present he appealed to the Chamber
whether such an extraneous discussion ought to be con-
tinued.—(General applause.)
The Bth, 9th, and 10th articles were then adopted
without further observation.
On the 11th at title, which provides, that in future
no Minister should be allowed any sum as outfit, except
under extraordinary circumstances, to be specified by a
It.yal ordinance, and which the committee recommended
to be suppressed,
The Count de Pontecoulant opposed the recommenda-
tion of the committee, urging that the grants for the
outfits of Ministers were abuses which ought to be put an
end to, and related the following anecdote of the Duke (le
Richelieu : —When the noble Duke entered office in 1815,
as Minister for Foreign Affairs, the first person who pre-
sented himself was the Principal Secretary, with a parcel
of bank notes. " What is this ?" demanded the Duke.
" My Lord Duke," replied the Secretary, " it is a sum of
25,000 E, which is allowed you for the first expenses of
your establishment." " What !" continued the new Mi-
nister, " if you give me 30 sous to pay the porter who
brought my trunk, I shall be amply indemnified." " 1
am sorry," concluded M. de Puntecoulant, " that the
Ministers of the present day should consider the Duke de
Richelieu as not to be imitated."—(Laughter.)
Count D'Aubersaert (the reporter) persisted, in the
name of the Committee, in recommending the suppression
of the Article, as being derogatory to the dignity of the
Ministerial station, and a misplaced and unnecessary
economy.
The Minister of Finances urged the inconvenience of a
third time sending the Bill back to the Deputies by the
rej,ction of the Article, and pointed out that in all cases
in which a Minister, from any peculiar circumstances in
his situation, required an outfit, the King bad the power
to grant it by ordinance.
The Article was then put to the vote, and adopted by a
considerable majority.
Article 12 was also adopted, and the ensemble of tl e
Bill passed by a majority of 113 against 9.
The Bill authorizing the Treasury to take possession of
sums of money sent through the Post-office, and not
claimed at the place of their destination, was then unani-
mously adopted without observation.—Adjourned.

CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES.—SITTING or JAN. 18
M. Dumon, on behalf of the Finance Committee,
brought up the report on the Budget of the Department of
Justice. The Hon. Deputy read the report in so low and
rapid a tone, that it was impossible to catch the purport
of it, but we shall give the particulars of the modifica-
tions recommended by the Committee when they are
brought into discussion. It was ordered tope printed, and
taken into consideration after the termination of the dis-
cussion on the Departmental Law, which was then re-
sumed on the 524th Article.

This article provides that the members of the councils
of arrondissement returned by each canton shall be elect-
ed by 1-200th part of the population of each commune
in the canton, such 1-200th part being composed of the
citizens paying the greatest amount of tax, s, and also by
the members of the learned professions and others quail-
fiel to vote on the election of members of the general
council.

On the proposition of M. Verollot, 1-100th part was
substi•uted for 1-200th part, notwithstanding the opposi-
tion of M. Gillon (the reporter), and the article so amend-
ed was adopted.

Article 25, declaring that all electors who pay 100 f.
direct taxes, one halt of which must be in the arrondisse-
ment, shall be eligible as members of the council of ar-
rondissement, was adopted without opposition.
Article 26, providing that no one can be a member of
two councils of arrondissement at once, and articles 27
zind 28. relating to mere administrative arrangements,
were adopted without any discussion of interest except
that on article 28 M. Larabit proposed an amendment,
declaring the publicity of the sittings of councils of ar
rondissernent, which was opposed by General Bugeaud,
and rejected by a large majority.
Article 29 was about to be put to the vote, when it
was observed that the Chamber was not in number to de-
liberate.—Adjourned.