The Sun.
London, England, 1833-04-11 00:00:00

FRENCH PAPERS.

CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES—Sim/4a OF APRIL 8.
Dupin took the chair precisely at one. The De-
puties present were far more numerous than usual, and
every seat appropriated to spectators was occupied. From
an early hour the public tribunes were besieged by a
crowd far grs arer than they could accommodate. Imme-
diately after the proces-verbal bad been read and adopted,
the President said,—" Gentlemen, the first thing in the
order of the day is the discussion of the proposition made
by the committee, on the reclamation of N. Vienne,
against the journal the Tribune. Amidst the passions
which are fomenting around us, the Chamber of Deputies
should give to them all an example of moderation ; it
owes it to itself to preserve the str ctest silence, and main-
tain that calmness, without which its deliberations cal
have neither dignity nor freedom. In a discussion, the
result of which may be the trial of a citizen, every opinion
ought to be freely and uninterruptedly expressed, as the
only tn• arms of arriving at a just decision, feunded upon a
full and free conviction.—(Universal applause.) Having
premised these observations, to which I am convinced the
Chamber will adhere, I call upon N. de la Rochefoucauld,
the first orator inscribed, to speak on the general dis-
cussion."

M. Gaetan de Is Rochefoucauld regretted to fee a dis-
position to pur•ue a course which bad been fatal to the
regulation. The liberty of the press had, he said, been
annihilated under 'he despotism of the empire, and al-
lowed only the semblance of vitality under the restoration ;
it ought to be the glory of the 'evolution of July to re-
store it to the full exercise of its p ewers. If those
powers were abuse d, a jury would avenge the injured ;
but it was boll unjust and unconstitutional for the
Coambusr to make itself judge in its own cause. Ile,
therefore opposed the proposition of the committee to
summon the responsible editor of the Tribune to the bar
of the Chamber.

M. Petit contended, that the laws of the 25th of
March, 1822, and the 25th of October, 1830, gave the
Chamber full power to punish the insults irected against
its dignity, and that it was, there ore, absurd to questio❑
the legality of the proceedings. With respect to its ex-
pediency, he urged that it was the duty of the Chamber
to set jut-is s an example of energy, and that if it shrunk
from pert ruling its necessary, though painful duty, it
would inspire a want of confidence in its strength, and
probably alienate many of its supporters in the nation.
111. Salverte slid that as he could not doubt that every
member of that assembly could conscientiously say, with
respect to the articles of the Tribune, " Such accus,tions
touch me not," he was decidedly of opinion that there
were no grounds for any proceedings; but if it were
otherwise, the tribunals alone were the proper judges of
the offence, and it could hardly he said that the dignity of
the Chamber was injured by such a cour,e, since it was
not considered derogatory for the King to cause proceed
ings to be instituted before the ordinary tribunals for pre-
cisely similar offences.
M. Pataille looked upon the articles in the Tribune as
part of a regulatly organized conspiracy against the ex'st-
ing powers of the State, and urged that if the Chamber
allowed such productions to remain unpunished, it was
not only admitting the press to be a fourth power of the
State, hut, while professinr, unbounded love for liberty,
conniving at the exercise of the most intolerable tyranny
on the part of that fourth power over the three others.
M. Laurence referred particularly to the proceedings
taken in similar circumstinces against the Journal du
Commerce, under the restoration ; and, alt, r reminding
the Chamber that although a slight punishment was in.
flicted on the author of the obnoxious article, far greater
punishment was endured by the Chamber itself in the
odium and reprobation the public lavishly evinced towards
it, urged that similar causes would produce similar effects,
and that the most prudent ❑s well as most dignified course
for the Chamber to adopt would be to take no notice of
the affair at all. _ _ _

.51. de Rernusat contended that the question at issue was
one of high political importance, since it involved the deci-
sion whether the Chamber would or would not retreat be-
fore the party du reurersement, of which the Tribune was
the principal representative. The Hon. D, puty then
pass.d rapidly in review the state of feeling in the country
since the revolution, arguing that the real majority had
pronounced itself more and more strongly in favour of
order and stability ; as a proof of which he cited the case
of U. Casimir Perier, who, although long the butt of the
factious abuse ot the party whose uncompromising adversary
be wa-, d'ed the most popular man in France.—(Applause
from the centres, murmurs from the extremities.) lle
then urged that the offence of the Tribune did not consist
of an isolated article, but of a systematic attack on the
constituted authorities; and in reply to those who main-
tained that the course recommended was not consistent
with free institutions, referred to two cases which had oc-
cur red in the United States in 1795 and 1801, in which
the Arneric in Congress arrested and impri-oned editors of
journals for insults addressed to the Legislature; and in
one of which Mr. Jefferson expressed a Ivish for a direct
law authorizing the grin ral Congress to punish such of-
fences against itself. lie did not agree with M. Viennst
as to the insufficiency of the existing legislation, but he
wished that legislation to be allowed its full force, and to
be used to vindicate the cause of social order from the at-
tueks directed against the constitution on which it was
founded. _ _ _

M. Gauthier de Ruwilly insisted that the Chamber
ought not to be judge in its own cause ; and maintained,
that the legislative dignity bad been much more set lonely
attacked by the recent dismissal of Messrs. Baude and
Dubok, on account Of their parliamentary conduct; and
yet those who were now so anxious to attack the Tribune
preserved an obsequious silence on that occasion.—(Loud
murmurs from the centrt s )
M. Lemercier supported the recommendation of the
cornwittee, considering that it was the duty of the Chain-
her to maintain its own dignity, and put a stop to the
calumnies with which the columns of some of the public
prints were daily saturated.
M. Gamier Pages said the opposition side of the Cham-
ber was as violently attacked by the ministerial journals
as the ministerial party was by those of the ' opposition,
and in support of his opinion read some severe p tssagts
from ajournal called Le Sens Commun ; but, he conti-
nued, the opposition never thought of attacking the writers
in Parliament. The Convention had been blamed for try..
ing a King at its bar, and the Chamber of Deputies ought
not to incur a similar reproach with respect to a jour-
nalist. "As for rair dignity," added the Hon. Deputy
in conclusion, "do not forget what occurred when the
English House of Commons once ordered an individual to
ask pardon on his knees ; he did so, but on getting up,
brushing off the dust, exclaimed aloud, ' 1 his is the dir-
tiest house I was ever in in my life.' "—(Laughter.)
M. Sylvain Damon maintained that the best interests
of the press would he served by checking a license which,
if unrestrained, must end in its destruction. The case of
the Journal du Commerce had ti,) resemblance to the
present, because at that time the press was fettered,
whereas now it enioyed full liberty, and it was only when
every rule of decency was openly violated that any curb
was attempted to be imposed upon it.
ill. Thouvenel read a discourse aeainst the proposition
of the committee, which was rendered inaudible by the
private conversations in which the Hon. Deputies, who
appeared tired of the discussion, freely indulged.
General Bertrand considered that the cause of the evil
complained of was to be found in the privilege of jour-
nalism, created by the necessity of furnishing a large pe-
cuniary deposit, &c., which compelled proprietors to make
newspapers mer, commercial speculations, and fill them
with whatever might be most acceptable to the taste, how-
ever vitiated, of critic readers. Under such circumstances,
be was only surprised that the abuses were not greater,
and lie theref ,re opposed any proceedings being taken
against the Tribune, and voted for the abolition of pri-
vileges, and for " the unlimited liberty of the press."—
(Applause from the extremities.)
Genaral Lafayette observed, that the Legislative As-
sembly had ever been more violently attacked, both indi-
vidually and collectively, than the Constituent Assembly,
and yet it had never thought it necessary to make itself
the judge in its own cause by summoning a printer to its
bar. After questioning the accuracy of M. de Remusat's
remark respecting Mr. .hiferson, be said that he (General
Lafayette) had always been the enemy of exceptional
measures, whether directed against a Neapolitan Princess
or against his own friends. He had formerly approved of
the resistance of Lyons to the measures of the Conven-
tion, feeling that there were laws to which, as a citizen,
he might yield obedience, but which, as a judge and 3
legislator. he could not recognise. Such were the laws
which it was sought to apply in the present case, and he
was only acting in obedience to his old mission—the de-
fence of liberty—in calling on the Chamber to pass to the
order of the day on the proposition..--(Loud applause (row
the extremities.)
M. Cbaigneau said that he should move the previous
question, on the ground that the laws of 1825 and 1830
were contrary to the spirit of the 53d, 54th, and 69th
articles of the charter, and could nut therefore be applied. -
The general discussion was then declared s
ofa be closed ;
irder of the.day proposed by General Lyette Was
# " ' a unit vote. "'
----,,,„ 2
fke.;`lAA' ' ; gdilo,l3lX°
t demanded a ballot, which was or.,
Ir.?' ',„:-7" OW, 8.'10%64 lav with unusual regularity, each.
.deputy,
''.;l his.paws-svaiiiilled by the secretary, depositing his
'' . . . .--. his place.
(
I, ' .I,,orote anti etarrning..to his place.
k,..:'714. I.abalisicFerilie first deputy who voted, having
5;..::,....-::7- r-r:,,,,..,-1
*l----L'::-.i,,,
Foji-1-4.,,f:Fr-

„
(

/~. /~

dropped his balls into the urns in snob a manner as to
show the Chamber Low be voted,
The President directed the ballot to be recommenced,
remarking that such a course was a direct violation of the
secrecy of the bdlot, as if members on one side showed their
votes, they by implicatio❑ disclosed those of their oppo-
nents. All the Ministers who are deputies voted ; the
President of the Chamber did not ; M. Viennet also, on
his name being called, declined to vote.
The following was the result of the scrutiny :
Against the order of the day
For it

Majority ll
—(Applause from the centres )
The discussion on the proposition on the committee will
therefore be resumed this day.—Adjourned.