The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 26, 1858

The French police court has sentenced M. Mop-
TALENIBERT to imprisonment, with a fine, and that
is all, perhaps, that the judges see in their deci-
sion. They aro but the tools of the " antechamber,"
and of the Imperial chamber itself, and have no-
thing to do but to turn with the shaft that moves
them. But all Europe sees a sentence passed by
the moving power, intentionally on England, un-
intentionally on itself. And, of all parties sen-
tenced, one alone is branded with everlasting dis-
grace. The Count was indicted for bringing the Em-
pire into contempt—but it may be safely affirmed
that nothing written by M. MONTALEMBERT has
brought the Empire into such contempt as this
prosecution, and this sentence by a servile court.
There is now no evading the disgrace. The
EMPEROR might, if he were in the cue for
magnanimity—one which he has not thought it
worth while to assume lately—decline inflicting
the imprisonment and fine ; but he can never efface
from the Empire the stigma of having attempted
to silence the last breathings of French genius.
Our readers have seen the several counts of
Imperial indictment of genius ; they have proba-
bly, most of them, either read the article itself, or
the passages selected for prosecution. This notable
trial, though crowded into the corner of a subordi-
nate French court, cannot be kept in a corner. The
subject matter of the prosecution being now in
English as well as in French, lies before the whole
civilised world. Every man of tolerable education
can sit in judgment on the true character of M.
MONTALEMBERT'S pamphlet. Is it seditims ?
Does it aim at the subversion of false opinions by
unfair means ? Are the attacks upon Imperial
laws other than those to which any laws ought to
be liable—attacks of a kind which, if laws cannot
endure, they ought to be repealed ? Is there a
word beyond what a professed politician might
most reasonably write ? Anything, to be brief,
which could be objected to for a moment by an
intelligent and honest Government ? Such ques-
tions have already been answered in the negative
throughout educated Europe, and educated Ame-
rica will, as soon as she has the document before
her, give the same answer.

his dut.y.

So far as Imperial laws and the Imperial regime
generally are concerned, the only sting of the pro-
secuted expressions is their truth. The language
cannot be called fierce, low, or provocative of insur-
rection. It is satire, no doubt, but satire so grace-
ful, so unenvenomed that, though certain minis-
terial delinquents must feel its pungency, it was
theirs to meet by the pen what the pen only could
meet, and what it was the last infamy of cowardice
to meet by imprisonments and fines. Revenge, no
doubt, is sweet, but it cannot always be taken with
impunity. A man may be provoked to the last
degree by an irritating woman's tongue, but
he had better, for his credit's sake amongst
men, not seek satisfaction for the provocation
by means of the superiority of masculine to femi-
nine strength. And despotic Governments, their
fists loaded with laws made for the purpose
of crushing any victim they please, can beat his
brains out if they like. But what have they done,
after all, except to brand themselves as intellectual
impotents and tyrants ? Louis NAPOLEON has not
on his side—has not positively one writer who
could give MONTALEMBERT satire for satire, wit
for wit. It is, perhaps, no discredit to a Cabinet
that its members should be men of business rather
than writers ; but humiliating, indeed, is it that
any Government, professing to be the choice of the
nation, should not be able to find a single pen, not
even a hireling one, to answer an elegantly hostile
political pamphlet—that a Government of intellec-
tual France, the country which boasts itself of
being the Athens of Europe, should be obliged to
resort to brute force in its conflict with genius.
All in vain ! Genius is of far too ethereal a quality
to be murdered or silenced by such means. Blows
like these but show its vitality. MONTALEMBERT'S
dun&von and fine will give his sentiments voice

It is singular that just at the time of this prose-
cution Lords PALMERSTON and CLARENDON should
have been enjoying imperial hospitality. They
were not of the EMPEROR'S Cabinet, it is true, but
they are political martyrs to their too great friend-
ship for him. They had some title to a hearing on this
business, for if ever a prosecution was intended to
condemn others than the victim whom law could
reach, it was the case now. England, as his Royal
Highness the PRINCE CONSORT would say, was on
her trial in the French
nd
police court, and by the
EMPEROR'S orders. e had been great offeers.
We would not modify English laws at the de-
mand of a foreign despot. We treated with cool
contempt the bullyings alike of French Colonels
and French Counts of the " ante-chamber." We
sentenced to deposition the Minister who did not
treat them with the same contempt as the nation
aid, M. MONTALEMBERT places all this before
French readers in the light in which the English
public viewed it, and he so did this as to place in
the most advantageous light our political liberties,
our constitution generally, and especially the free-
dom of the Press. In fact, with little more than
the shade requisite to set off the praise, M. MONTA-
LEMBERT praised English freedom in all its forms
and developments. The French police court has
condemned that praise. Our liberty is guilty of
reflecting the deformities of French despotism ; and
M. MONTALEMBERT photographed the reflection.
The artist was condemned for the truthfulness of
his picture of England. Had he shown the evils
instead of the blessings of our freedom, his article
would have been reprinted at the cost of the
Im-
perial Exchequer.
But what are we to think of a prosecution, by
Imperial order, in a police court, nominally of a
French political writer, really quite as much of a
truthful illustration of the working of the English
constitution. Taking it as a whole, every English-
I man would be gratified with the fair account
given us by the count. He would amongst
foreigners feel that it raised him in their eyes ;
he would feel, we cannot say flattered by it, but
that honourable justice had been done him. Lords
CLARENDON and PALMERSTON themselves, though
hit a little hard in it, would yet like that foreigners
should take their notion of English politics and
politicians from M. DE MONTALEMBERT. We
verily believe that, could anything similarly com-
mendatory of Imperial institutions have been prose-
cuted here, we should have no end of palaver from
the PALMERSTONIAN journals_on the danger of irri-
tating our faithful ally ; we should have been told
to look to our defences and the like. Of course
Louis NAPOLEON knows us too well not to know
that we feel honoured rather than otherwise by
the prosecution and the sentence. We, so far as
we are concerned, are no way annoyed that our
vindication of the right of asylum in the person of
Dr. BERNARD should be met by a vindication of
imperial club-law in the person of M. MONTALEM-
BERT. We almost find it difficult to sympathise
with the victim. Imprisonment, to be sure, is
wearisome, but who can pity sufferings for patriot-
ism in which the sufferer must glory ? What
man would not rather have been the writer of the
splendid and high-souled article in the Corre-
spondunt, though atoning for it in a prison, than
the hero of a treacherous and bloody coup d'etat,
though placed by it on a throne? Should the
Count be spared to come to England he may yet
see how England honours the man who has done

WILLIAM LEMON OLIVE was yesterday sen-
tenced to 20 years' penal servitude on three charges
to which he had pleaded guilty, viz.—one of for-
gery and two of misappropriating securities and
other property entrusted to him by the lawful
owners. The punishment, severe as it may be
considered, is scarcely adequate to the offence.
Until withinthe last thirty years the forgery would
have inevitably led to an ignominious death; but
the misappropriation of the securities and property
with which he was entrusted was, if possible,
fraught with more dangerous consequences to
society, and involved a deeper amountof guilt than
even the forgery itself. There was the basest
treachery, as well as the greatest amount of moral
turpitude, displayed in the manner in which he
swindled a confiding lady out of a fortune that would
have yielded her a comfortable independence, had
she not unfortunately fallen into the hands of the
obliging Mr. OLIVER, who was so anxious to spare
her the trouble of receiving her own dividends. We
can scarcely conceive a case of greater atrocity, or
one more deserving of public execration, than that
which has consigned a person once occupying a
comparatively respectable position to the utmost
degradation. He is far inferior to a bond slave,
inasmuch as his misery dates not from his birth,
but from the time when he suffered himself to yield
to temptation, and to relinquish every principle of
honour and honesty for the sake of avoiding some

pecuniary troubles.
But, if his fate should be regarded as an example
to deter others in a similar position from crime,
the serious loss which his too•confiding client has
sustained, will, we trust, induce other persons who
have money to invest to take care that
they receive the securities for which they have
provided the means of purchase. If the lady who
entrusted OLIVER with so large a sum of money
had insisted upon receiving her stock, and depogited
it herself in a bank, there could have been no pos-
sibility of deception. It was her credulity that
enabled him to obtain a term of exemption from
the liability which he so recklessly undertook.
He was, we believe, not a sworn stockbroker. He
had given no securities for his good conduct, and
yet, simply on the faith of a plausible address, and un -
blushing assurance in arrogating to himself a posi-
tion to which he was not entitled, he was entrusted
with the sum of £5,000 sterling, no step being
'
taken to ascertain that he had faithfully applied
the money, or that the securities, if originally pur-
chased, might not be misapplied at the first financial
pressure on the agent. If the community will
profit by the painful lesson, some advantage may
result therefrom. No respectable broker would
object to satisfy his client that he had
actually purchased and would receive the stipu-
lated securities. There are none who would
not gladly get rid of the responsibility of retaining
the property of others, not intended for speedy sale,
in their hands. Those who think their honour im-
peached, if proof be demanded, are certainly not the
cZass with whom we should advise a friend to entrust
his money. The higher the position, the more un-
doubted the solvency of the agent, the more ready
will he be to satisfy his principal that everything
has been strictly correct, and that there is not the
slightest possible ground for doubt or suspicion.

A Coroner is an important public officer. He
has arduous duties to perform, and has
propor-
tionate powers. He has, what the Grand Jury
ought to do on an inquest, to inquire into doubtful
matters and decide thereon. Their verdict may
consign a man to prison until the next gaol de-
livery. It will suffice to place him on his trial
before a. jury of his countrymen. On that he must
be arraigned, although the indictment may e

ignored on other points. It is, therefore, of vast
importance' that he should be enabled to defend
himself before the tribunil by which hy

aay be subjected to the greatest inconvenience

and annoyance. But owing to an absurd
technicality, a piece of official " red•tapism," he is
not permitted to be present when the witnesses are
examined and the case investigated. He cannot
defend himself, nor can the jury form an estimate
of his demeanour or the state of his mind. The
magistrates have refused to permit the accused to
be brought before the coroner and jury, and the
cause of public justice and the interests of the
accused are both greatly prejudiced by the unfair
and unwarrantable obstruction interposed in the

way of complete justice.
Many attempts have been made to get rid o,
this striking anomaly, but in vain. It is even said
that the Secretary of State has not the power to
order the accused to be brought up before the
coroner and jury. If such be the case, an act
should be forthwith passed to remedy the
flagrant grievance, and to afford the relief
which the common sense of the nation
sees to be so urgently demanded. Th e coroner
of Middlesex has taken a leading part in the con-
test. He has justice and equity on his side, and we
have no doubt that the Secretary of State for the
Home Department will render his aid to get rid of
the crying evil. The case of the unfortunate
maniac charged with the murder in Queen-square
has exhibited the matter in the strongest point of
view, and Mr. Secretary WALPOLE will be prepared
to introduce a measure which will henceforward
prevent the recurrence of so great a scandal.

THE BOMBAY MAILS.

(BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.)

SOUTHAMPTON, FRIDAY MORNING.
The Ripon, steamship, Captain Powell, has ar-

rived.
She left Alexandria the 11th ; Malta, 15th ; and
Gibraltar, 21st ; and she brings 30 passengers,
one package specie, value not stated ; 1,430 bales
silk, 141 boxes of shawls, 181 barrels of dates, &c.
Passed the steam-ship Indus, on entering Malta
and the Tagus, off Lisbon.

THE MONTALEMBERT FINE.

TO THE EDITOR.OF THE SUN.

Sir,—An opportunity is now afforded the Bri-
tish public of showing their opinion of the result of
the trial of M. Montalembert by opening a franc
subscription from any three thousand individuals de-
sirous of recording their sympathy.—l am, &c.,
London, Nov. 25. I. Q.

LATEST NEWS.

'HIE INDIAN EMPIRE.

The Atlantic Royal Mail Steam Navigation Com-
pany have received the following
" The steamship Indian Empire his not been at
sea one month. She was at Halifart by our last
advices undergoing repair of damages caused by a
brig running foul of her." •
. .

MARSEILLES, Nov. 24.
The King of Wurtemberg, who arrived by rail-
way, left soon after for Nice.
The Journal de Monaco states that brilliant
offers have been made to the Government o'
that country by Piedmont, but that the Prince,
Sovereign has refused every kind of cession.

VIENNA, Nov. 25.
The Emperor and Empress, will arrive this
evening from liatargis.
It is reported that the Caimacan of Moldavia
has resigned.

FRANKFORT, Nov. 25.

The Bank has reduced its rate of discount
from 5 per cent. to 4 per cent. The Bourse is
firm.

but in the state of uncertainty which at present
prevails in the East, it -would be imprudent, on the
part of £hose who have contrary interests to defend
and another policy to vindicate, not to bestow
attention on every act that contains the elements
of possible complications. I may add that the
Turin semi-official journals will very probably con-
test the statement of this 'cession, the exact truth
of which must, however, be revealed in the course
of the approaching session. I may conclude by
stating that the visit of the King of Prussia is
again uncertain, for the medical advisers of that
monarch display as much hesitation as his former
ministers."

TRIAL OF M. MONTALEMBERT.

(From the Correspondent of the Daily News.)
PARIS, WEDNESDAY NIGHT.
Having had the extreme good fortune to obtain
a ticket of admission to the trial of Count de Mont-
alembert, I am able to tell you something about it,
but I cannot pretend to give anything worthy the
name of a report. The most accomplished of your
parliamentary reporters would, I fancy, be able to
do but poor justice to two of the finest forensic
speeches ever pronounced at the bar in any country
in the world, if he were deprived of the power of
taking notes. The use of pen or pencil was, as you
are aware, absolutely interdicted on this occasion to
all but the judges and counsel concerned. I, there-
fore, with none of the habits or experience of a re-
porter, can only jot down such loose and disjointed
fragments of a discussion which lasted six hours as
my unassisted memory will enable me to recall ;
and, moreover, I write under the disadvantage of
being tired to death with the heat of the court and
the excitement of the scene I have witnessed. I
will promise to be accurate, as far as I go. Deeply,
indeed, do I regret that the magnificent speeches of
MM. Berryer and Dufaure will in all probability
be lost to the world. Few things would give me
more intellectual pleasure than to read them at
leisure, word for word as they were pronounced.
But unless there was a Government short-hand
writer concealed somewhere behind the panels of
the court they were not taken down. I know
they were not written beforehand, and neither
of the distinguished advocates made more than
three or four short notes while the trial was going
' on. I have heard all the most distinguished advo-
cates of the present day in England, and I think I
am not carried beyond the bounds of sober judg-
ment by the enthusiasm of the moment, when I
offer the opinion that none of them, in point of
eloquence of the highest order, are at all compara-
ble to either M. Berryer or M. Dufaure. Berryer,
quivering -with contagious passion, and yet never
for a moment forgetting the legal points of his
case during a speech of three hours, was one of the
finest sights I ever saw in my life. Dufaure, re-
' garded as a mere lawyer, is probably the greatest
now at the French bar, but he is much more than
a mere lawyer. His severe logic and concentration
remind me somewhat of the late Sir William Fol-
lett ; but he is much more eloquent, his action is
more varied and dignified, and he has humour,
which Follett had not. No one can hear him speak
and doubt that he is what his whole career, and the
universal testimony of his friends (and even of his
enemies, if he have any), testify him to be—an
honest man.
The sixth chamber of the Tribunal of Correc-
tional Police, in which Montalembert was"tried, is
a newly built handsome room, adjoining the pre-
cincts of the Sainte Chapelle. It is small, not much
larger than the old Vice-Chancellor's Court, in
Lincoln's-inn, but more lofty. I should think
it would hold at the utmost 209 people. I
am anxious now, as at all times, while fairly
exposing, as matter of contemporary history,
the characteiistics of the repressive system
upon which the present French government is
founded, not to represent things as worse than they
are. I have in former letters explained that the
principle of publicity in the administration of jus-
tice, which the government professes to observe, is
all but nullified in the case of a political trial,which
takes place In a' room so small as to hold but very
few people. To this small room, no one, speaking
generally, is admitted but by tickets extremely
difficult to be had, the use of pen or pencil in court
is prohibited, and the sentence of condemnation or
acquittal is all that the journals are allowed to pub-
lish. The justification of these rules in the view of
the French government is that a report of a trial
for a political libel propagates the libel a thousand-
fold and creates scandal, and that the restricted
audience permitted to witness the proceedings is
still numerous enough to prevent all the abuseis of
justice rendered "in a corner." It is needless to
say that we English think these reasons insufficient ;
but I readily admit that the French Government,
which, of course, acts upon them, is entitled to
some credit for the relative fairness with which the
patronage of giving tickets of admission was exer-
cised to-day. The mere fact of my having been
present shows that none of those severe measures
were adopted, which might easily have been taken
had it been intended, in defiance of all decency, to
compose the audience exclusively of people ready
to applaud an unjust judgment. Ten tickets
were presented to M. de Montalembert him-
self ; and, although he would naturally have been
glad to have had more to distribute among his
numerous relatives and friends, and his colleagues
of the Academy, the number, considering the
limited area of the court, was certainly not illi-
beral. A fair sprinkling of the junior bar, some-
where about 20, chosen by lot, obtained places, and
there were among the auditory many people well
known not to be admirers of the present dynasty.
The truth is, that the despotism, the harshness,
and the duplicity of French political institutions are
as yet tempered by old traditions, and a lingering
desire to reconcile the preservation of some of the
forms of liberty, with a denial of the substance.
At five minutes before 12, Count de Montalem-
bert entered the court, accompanied by the Duke
de Broglie and Odillon Barrot. He took his seat
in the front row of the bar, between his counsel,M.
Berryer, and M. Dufaure, counsel for M. Douniol,
the gerant of the Correspondant. M. Douniol sat
on the bench immediately behind him. At this
moment every seat in court was occupied, and the
slight strip of space railed off at the end, which by a
pleasant fiction is supposed to belong to the public,
was crowded to excess by well-dressed people stand-
ing. I believe some four or five people, who had
waited at the doors from 8 o'clock in the morning,did
obtain admission without tickets to this small space,
just by Way of tribute to the principle that the cpurt
was open. At 12 precisely the judges took their
seats. There were four of them, and not three only,
as I was led to expect yesterday. Their names are
M. Berthelin, the president ; MM: Laisvaux and
Benoit, judges of the Tribunal of the First Instance ;
and M. Glandaz, a supernumerary or apprentice
judge (juge suppleant). On the bench there was a
large array of judges, of different courts, and among
them M. Benoist Chamfy, the president of the Tri-
bunal of the First Instance. Seven or eight mem-
bers of the corps diplomatique sat on privileged
seats under the bench. The disappointment among
the many grandes dimes of the Faubourg St. Ger-
main, who had asked for tickets, must have been
immense. There were very few ladies in court. I
observed the Countess of Montalembert, with one
of her daughters and a friend, and Madame Arthur
Berryer. There were not more than four Tent,
five
other ladies in court. Two priests were p
but the two bishops who, according to one story,
were to have escorted M. de Montalembert, did not
appear.
The proceedings commenced by
M. President
Berthelin warning the auditory that no marks of
approbation would be permitted—a warning which
it will be seen in the sequel was not attended to.
He then called on the defendant, Douniol, who, in
answer to the interrogatories put to him, said merely
that he was the responsible editor of the Corre-
spondant ; that M. de Montalembert's article was
published without his seeing it during his absence,
he having full confidence in the persons left to con-
duct the journal ; and that he had no observations
to offer.
M. de Montalembert, on being asked the usual
preliminary questions, said that his name was
Charles (he did not mention his English Christian

The Procureur Imperial, M. Cordouen, then pro-
pronounced his requisitoire, or speech, for the
prosecution. It was weak beyond description.
M. Chaix d'Estrange, the " Procureur-General
Imperial," who sat half hidden behind one of the
judge's chairs looked vexed beyond measure
at the poor exhibition which his inferior officer
made. Etiquette prevented him from speaking
himself, as he belongs to a superior court. The bar,
anxious to see a fair forensic fight, lamented that
the gentlemen who performed the duties of public
prosecutor was not more nearly on a par with the
illustrous advocates of the defence.
M. Cordouen, feeling probably that he had very
little to stand upon in regard to the specific pas-
sages of the article in the Correspondent, on which
his indictment was founded, relied especially upon
the general spirit of the writing compared as a whole.
He accused M. de Montalembert of having praised
England for the express purpose of disparaging
France by contrast. Englishmen, he said, had their
good qualities and their faults, but one merit they
had incontestably—they always spoke well of their
country. No Englishman would have been capable
of drawing any such contrast to the disparagement
of his own country as M. de Montalembert had done.
He indulged in a few commonplaces about parlia-
mentary government having broken down in France,
the immense popularity of the Emperor, and the
necessity of a strong Government. England, he
said, could support liberty, because her dynssty
was founded nearly 200 years ago, whereas that of
France was only 60 years old. No young dynasty
had ever been so liberal, so moderate, so indulgent,
as that of Napoleon 111. He cited laws of William
111. against the press, which he said remained in
force in England till 1771, and which were more
severe than any now in France. The manifest in-
ference from this part of his argument was that
France must wait 150 years or more before she
would be fit for free institutions. France, although
not parliamentary, had representative institutions,
which constituted a free Government. He concluded
by apostrophising M. de Montalembert as a man
having lost the feelings of a Frenchman, and said,
repeating the expression three times, " You have
laid France prostrate at the feet of England; you
have struck France in the face ; yes, struck her in
the face—unworthily struck her in the face."
M. Berryer, on rising, said that no one could have
so well answered the charge made against M. de
Montalembert as M. de Montalembert himself ; but
that he had promised not to speak, and to confide
his defence to his counsel, because they were per-
suaded that the law was altogether on their side.
He described the proseeotion as " unjust, unfounded,
ill-advised, and, he.waa going to say—rash." He
desired to accept the proposition of the Procureur
Imperial, tkat M. de Weitalembert's article must
be judged of as a whole, ;.and not from miserable
details, ta the strained intatpretation of here and
there a strong expression dropped from the pen of
a vivacious writer. The spirit of the article was
not an attack upon anything French, but a genuine
admiration of English free institutions; produced
by hearing a splendid debate in the English Par-
liament on one 'of the grandest questions which
ever occupied a deliberative assembly. He here
pronounced a most eloquent eulogium on the con,
duct of the English Parliament and nation on the
occasion of Lord Ellenborough's resignation on ac-
count of his answer to Lord Canning's despatch,
and said that M. de Montalembert, who at twenty-
one had made a brilliant defence of himself in the
Chamber of Peers for having founded a free school
with Abbe Lacordaire—M. de Montalembert,
whose whole life had been passed in Parliamentary
struggles for religion and liberty, as he understood
them, must naturally look back with regret to in-
stitutions which France had but very recently lost.
On M. Berryer saying that to affirm that France
did not now possess liberty was not an attack upon
the Government, but merely the assertion of a
notorious and undeniable fact, he was interrupted
by—
The President, who said—" Maitre Berryer,
defence is free, as you have seen ; but you are now
going too far, you are repeating at the bar the very
offence with which M. de Montalembert stands
charged ; and that cannot be permitted."
M. Berryer, with a gesture of eloquent astonish-
ment, continued—" Must. I then throw up my brief ?
Have I lost my reason an conscience ? Do I un-
derstand what the court means ? Can it be that a
counsel is to be construed as atte.eking the govern-
ment because he will not say that black is white ?
Why, it is the boast of the government that it has
bartered liberty for order—and it has done volt says
with the consent of the French people ; and-that I
am not here to deny. Yes, France has repudiated
her own liberty. That is a fact which some people
may and others may not regret ; but it is notrastimionpalel
to hold it an offence in any one to state the
of the
tf ahcetn tehxaatml
nb eerdt
nd odeest
aniolt nt h
accusation, and argued that no one of them was
ooNdviffeexriesnt.t" heMads.Boe
borne out by any passage in the article. With re-
gard to M. de Montalembert's severe remarks upon
servile flatterers and hangers-on of ante-chambers,
it was no attack upon the present government, but
upon a class of men who existed under all govern-
ments. He and his immediate friends were men
who hadtaken leave of ambition, and refused offered
honours ; but if he were in the habit of frequenting
the ante-chambers of palaces he was sure that he
should find in them now the same faces which he
remembered years ago among the fawning adulators
of former governments. Coming to the most im-
portant count in the indictment, that of an attack
on " the rights of the Emperor under the constitu-
tion and the principle of universal suffrage," he
would prove to demonstration that there was no
scrap of law to support it. This accusation was
entirely based upon a law of 1849, passed to pro-
tect from attacks and insults the constitution of the
Republic with a President for four years. How
could that law be applicable to the empire ? Would
it be replied, by analogy ? This was his answer.
In 1819 a law couched in somewhat similar lan-
guage was passed to protect the charter of the re-
storation grantei by Louis XVIII. of his sovereign
will and mere motion by virtue of "his rights by
birth." Louis XVIII. swore to maintain this char-
ter, and he kept his oath. (Laughter and sensation
in court.) When the revolution of 1830 took place,
it never occurred to any lawyer or statesman that