The Sun.
London, England, 1833-01-09 00:00:00

•
enemies or thelevolution of July? What said tbose roc nl,
who regretted trio-restoration—who regretted it by prin-
ciple, by interest, by attaelonerit, by any motives and upon
any account aVhatevail? They then " You have
either done too much or too little ; according to the terms
of the charter, Charles X. is not responsible for the
acts of his Government. Do you wish to stand by
the charter ? In that case let Charles X. still occupy the
throne, and content yourselves with putting his Ministers
upon their trial. Do you wish to render the charter void?
Then try Charles X., but do not condemn him without a
hearing ; above all, do not involve in his condetnnrion his
innocent family and children." Such was their argument
then, and taking it upon strictly logical grounds, there was
no reply to it. It was an argument, however, which the
Chambers (lid not regard, and they were right in not re-
garding it. They declared that the crown of France did
not belong to any person, and that it was not the property
of any man or of any family ; that no one had any right to
it, even if he were innocent, but in the interest of all.—
(Unanimous tokens of approbation.) The Chambers have
declared, and France confirmed the declaration, that oaths
are reciprocal between the Prince and the country, and that
it must be understood that the principle of irresponsibiliky
could not altogether apply to them. Thus political necessity
assumed a higher tone than the written law. However, in
acknowledging that there are certain extreme cases ; that
there are certain limits to the principle of Royal irresponsi-
bility, the Chambers acknowledged, and France with them,
that the conservative principle of society extended to
Charles X. The Chambers and France thought that it
would be an affront to the people who had achieved the
revolution of July to act otherwise, and accordingly he was
conducted into exile in mourn'ul and respectful silence.

A commission, several of the members of which I now
perceive in the Chamber, accompanied the exiled Monarch
en that occ rsion, and rendered to him all the honours ap-
pertaining to the rank of which he was just deprived.
Some days afterwards four Ministers of Charles X. were
seized in a corner of the kingdom. The Chamber of De-
puties preferred an accusation against them, and put them
on their trial before the Chamber of Peers. Then again
was the argument repeated that had been adduced in favour
of Charles X. " Charles X.," said his friends, " has suf-
fered for his Ministers,—either restore him to the throne,
or leave his servants in peace." Such was the whole gist
of the eloquent address then made by their advocate before
the Chamber of Peers. However, neither the Chamber
of Peers nor the Chamber of Deputies allowed themselves
to be entrapped by such polemical subtilties,—they yielded
na the strong law of necessity. The Chamber of Depu-
ties accused the Ex-Ministers, and the Chamber of Peers
condemned them. The first, having no law to regu-
I rte the mode of accusation, created one for the pur-
pose, and the Chamber of Peers, which had the right to
condemn the prisoners, having no law to apply to such a
case, also created the law which it required.—(Movement
at the further end—a slight murmur.) The year 1830 was
spent in internal discussions ; upon the strength of those
discussions the fallen party took courage, and commenced
intrigues which caused just alarm. Then was seen the
rigin of that law, the object of which was to arm the
Government against those different parties whose exultation
rendered it necessary for us to pronounce the expulsion of
the Bourbons from the French territory. You recollect the
sbjections that were made against that law ; I acknowledge
that those objections were not without foundation. You
wisely overruled such objections as did not go to the bottom
of things. Your intention was not to inflict a punishment
for what had taken place, but to provide for the safety of
the State, and to furnish it with those guarantees which it
required; and the legitimate course which you adopted in
so doing was approved of in your ow• eyes, and in the eyes
o•f France. You have said, " Charles X. and his family
belong no longer to France"—a strange thing. They
belong no longer to any nation : they are placed by the
force of circumstances without the common law of all
—without our public law—without, I frankly assert it, the
law of nations. France owes them nothing more than she
owes to her declared enemies. Their presence in France
would be the signal for public disorders, and France has a
right to preserve herself against such evils. But at the
same time take care to bear in mind, tkat in refusing to
Charles X. and his family all the rights of the general
Irw,—in stripping them of all the guarantees which
that law affords, you have renounced to a cert tin extent
the imposition of its penalties upon them. France in dis-
owning them, in flinging them from her bosom, has inter-
dicted herself to a certain extent from demanding from
them, with the law in her hand, their sentiments towards
her. France has, to a certain extent, waved the right of
ever treating them as ungrateful children or rebellious
sons. We pursue our enemies, we disarm them, and re-
duce them to a state of impotence; but we do not deliver
them to the executioner after we have obtained the vic-
tory. Such were your sentiments, Gentlemen, when you
rejected the penal sanction—and what a penal sanction,
the capital punishment!—on the occasion of the discus-
sion of the law of the 10th of April, 1832. The Minister
went cn to explain that on this state of things the
Duchess of Berry, to whom a life of adventures and dan-
gers appeared to be too pleasing for her to give it up, was
arrested ; that, under such circumstances, the law was
not wanted by the Administration (he spoke of the
moral law, he said) to act, but they required the legal
means for enforcing it. We have taken upon our-
selves (he continued) to order her provisional deten-
tion, and to come to ask &ern the Chamber those
special measures which the improvidence of the law
that you voted last year has not placed in our hands ;
and we have considered ourselves the more autho-
rized to do so, inasmuch as already the Cour Reya'e
of Aix, and that of Poitiers have directed prosecutions
against the Duchess of Berry. We have pledged ourselves
to bring this great question before the Cambers. We
should have desired to have raised it even at the opening
of the session, immediately after the discussion upon the
address; but you are aware that the course of events,
which it is not within human power to control, ordained
that this session should open to the noise of the cannon
thundering before the citadel of Antwerp ;—at a moment
when France on one side, and all continental Europe on
the other, appeared to lie surveying each other with fixed
attention;—at a moment when persons who were over-
reached, no doubt, and badly informed, believed I said it
at the period, and I now repeat it, that they should see
decided all the chances of an European svar.—(Uproar—
, agitation.) Under such circumstances, we did not bring
' forward this question, but now that it has been introduced
by others, we shrink not from its discussion, and we are
ready to answer all the opponents which such a question
can call up against us. Two charges, if I recollect rightly,
are preferred against us. One party says that we should not
interrupt the cause of justice, but that we should deliver the
Duchess of Berry over to the laws. The other tells us that
the Duchess of Berry should not be tried,—that we acted
properly in shutting her up in the castle of Blaye, but that
that was an act of the Government, that the Government
should act alone, and should not divide its responsibility
with the Chamber. Hear our answer to those two
charges. We have not delivered the Duchess of Berry
over to the tribunes, because, in their existing state, our
criminal laws are not applicable to her case. The Duchess
of Berry and all the Princes of the elder branch of the
house of Bourbon, are our enemies ; let us defend ourselves,
Gentlemen ; we are 30,000,000 against six persons,—
that is surely enough,—(lnterruption; the President en-
forces silence.) I have said that this sentiment is univer-
sally entertained throughout France. I will go further,
and assert that it is even entertained by those who call
most loudly to have the Duchess of Berry put upon her
trial. What do they demand? Is it her head? Not a
voice has been raised to make such an odious demand, and
nevertheless the attempt in which she was taken was evi-
dent—the crime was flagrant. What do they ask for,
then? A trial; but, after the trial, what would they
wish for but the imprisonment of the Duchess, with such
attentions as her situation might demand. That, then,
which they ask for already exists. It was not a real trial
that was sought fur, but as the culpability of the party in
question was already known, it was a trial for form's sake
that was wished for,—a farcical exhibitio❑ of justice,—a
solemn comedy, with the parts distributed beforehand, and
the denouement of which was foreseen and regulated.
Where would be the use of such a trial? What purpose
would it serve ? It would not he, surely, to lay before us
the spectacle of a great reverse of fortuue. That would be a
sad and odious subject of exultation on our part. But
we are told that it is in order to satisfy a principle of the
written law—that of the equality of Frenchmen under the
laws. However good, however salutary, however conser-
vative that principle may be, it was once applicable to the
Princess, but it is no longer so ; for the Duchess is not a
French woman, she was not so by birth, and she is no
longer so by alliance.—(Movement. M. I3erryer takes
notes.) Since the' act of the 9th of August the Duchess
is no longer French by alliance. Well, that principle of
equality, which is nut applicable in this case, is not more
sacred than those other principles of the written law
which you have made bend to circumstances in the in-
stance of this family ; it is not more sacred than the prin-
ciple of individual liberty violated in the transportation of
Charles X. and his relatives out of France,—than the
principle of Regal irresponsibility violated in his deposi-
tion, or than the principle that no one can be tried except
for an offence according to laws already made, which you
violated when you wished to take vengeance upon the
Ministers of Charles X. Are we, then, in tbat position
that we ought to say, " Perish the State rather than a
principle ?" I think not ; at all events those words