The Sun.
London, England, 1832-06-20 00:00:00

SUNDAT.-SECOND TRIAL.

At eleven o'clock the Council of War, presided by M.
Chateauheandot, Colonel of the 2d regiment of Dragoons,
and consisting of the same officers who sat yesterday on
the trial of M. Pepin, took their seats.
An officer of the Court then placed a few cavalry sword.,
a musket, and a fowling-piece, upon the table ; after which
the Captain-Reporter read the charges against the accused,
M. Wachez, a baker, who was absent from the audience.
The charges resulting from the various proces verbaux,
and depositions of 16 witnesses read by that officer, were,
that in the evening of the sth inst , Wachez, dressed in
his uniform of a National Guard, sallied out from his
home, ordered a barricade to be raised in front of his
door, introduced a number of persons into his house,
armed them, and, when M. Gournay d'Arnonville, a
Commissary of Police, was advancing at the head of the
troops to restore order, fired upon him from a window
of the first floor of his house, and killed him. Another
shot had been fired at the same time on the Commissary,
by a man, dressed in a blouse (smock-frock), from
a coach door ; and one of the witnesses who was in
Wachez's house stated, that an unknown man had forced
his way in, at the approach of the troops, had gone up
stairs, and might have fired the shot that killed the Com-
missary. One of the witnesses, a wine-merchant, of the
rue Montmartre, had stated in a first interrogatory, that
Wachez, on coming to drink a glass of wine in his shop,
had said, " I thought I had taken a better aim at the
Commissary, but it would seem that I had missed
him." This, he asserted, had occurred the very evening,
but in another interrogatory, the same witness said that
meeting Wachez the next morning, he had accosted him,
and said " every body in this quarter attributes to you the
honour of having killed the Commissary." " Ta, ta, ta,"
replied the baker, "it is not worth talking of."
The reading of the charges being concluded, the priso-
ner was then introduced. He was a man about fifty
years of age, advanced with a steady pace, and presenting
himself before the Court, protested against the compe-
tency of the Council, but said he would defend himself but
as one yielding to superior force.
M. Henrion, the counsel of the prisoner, also pro-
tested, and said he would contend the question of com-
petency in the pleadings; but prayed the Court not to
consider the protest of his client a distrust in the justice
of the Court, who had given the day before so manifest a
proof of it. Wachez was then questioned, and replied
with the utmost manliness—" On returning from La-
marque's funeral, be found several persons collected round
his house, who had already forced several other houses to
obtain instruments for making barricades. They took an
iron bar from his shop. Whilst the barricade was making
he was in his shop with his wife, and several unknown
persons, who had taken shelter in it at the approach of
the troops. It would have been inhuman in him to close
his doors against the people, who were flying before the
troops. He prevented a man from firing, and no shot
was fired from his house. His wife was very ill; if he
had a notion to go out, she would have hindered him.
The loaded musket found in his room was not loaded by
him, and it was only the next morning he perceived that
it was loaded. If a shot had been fired from his window,
some neighbour would have seen it. There were seven or
eight persons, in his room, whom he repeatedly left to
go to his wife, who was in tears, and cannot say that some
one of them might not have loaded his arms in his ab-
sence. M. Courtin, the wine-merchant, called him in,
and asked him if he had not had the honour of killing the
Commissary. " MalLeteux," replied he, " don't credit
such a report ; I did no such thing."
Mr. Henriod here explained to the Court the circum-
stances that led to the invasion of his shop, which it was
not in his power to prevent. lie then gave some expla-
nation relative to the distribution of his shop.
Mr. Thomasy, the first witness, was called, but did not

answer.
M. Thomas, the second sergeant of the 14th regiment,
did not know the prisoner. He formed part of a de-
tachment which proceeded under the orders of Captain
Thomasy, to take a barricade in the rue Montmartre. A
shot was fired from the window of the first floor, at the
corner of the street, but was not sure it was from a window,
out of which hung a tricoloured flag, or the next.
The prisoner said that the flag hung out of his window
since 1830.
Thomas deposed that the Commissary of Police had been
wounded by the shot fired from the window. It was the
only one fired at the time he fell.
A corporal of the same regiment recognised the accused
upon the occasion in question. Witness was stationed at
the Post-office, and accompanied the Commissary of K..
lice. On arriving at rue Montmartre, they perceived the
insurgents bad left, who fired upon them, and a man at a
window to the right, with military cap, and the uniform
of the National Guard. The Commissary was wounded

tilt
•

LONDON,
WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 20, 1832.

The atrocious outrage committed yesterday
on his MAJESTY, by an expelled Greenwich
pensioner, cannot fail to call forth the warm in-
dignation of all classes of his subjects. A more
unmanly, a more ruffian assault was never yet
perpetrated. Fortunately, his MAJESTY re-
ceived no serious injury, and when recovered
from the first shock of so sudden and
unexpected an attack, showed himself on the
balcony of the grand stand to his people, who
hailed this proof of his safety with loud and re-
peated acclamations of loyalty. The miscreant
was instantly secured.

There is no metamorphosis recorded by OVID
so sudden or so striking as that which takes
place in the sentiments of a patriot when once he
becomes fairly installed into office. The air of the
Treasury Bench has a wonderful effect on the
minds of all who come within reach of its in-
fluence. It paralyses their memory, tames their
energy, and throws such a cloud over their un-
derstanding that they can see neither before
nor behind them. Place is the touch-stone of
political integrity ; the fiery ordeal which few
can pass unscathed. Sir J. HOBIIOUSE, we fear,
is not one of these select few. He has been
singed dreadfully in his transit across the
ordeal of the Treasury Bench. " The flaming
patriot who so lately scorched us in the East,
now sinks calmly in the West, and is hardly felt
as he descends." His loud, indignant elo-
quence has subsided into a whispered so-
briety of thought and language, as
if he had
no longer the free use of his speech, and
was under a sort of tacit agreement to say
as little as possible about those abuses
which formerly called forth his most im-
passioned Philippics. This change was very
perceptible last night in the Right Honourable
Secretary at War's reply to Mr. HUNT
Proposition for abolishing the punishment' of
flogging in the army. He asserted, indeed, that
his opinions on the subject were still unchanged,
but—we never yet knew a confession proceed
from the Ministerial Bench, without a " but
clinging to it like a burr—he added, that

with respect to Mr. ITtnrr's proposed ad-
dress to the Crown, he was not sure that the
KING was able to carry into effect the abolition or
suspension of corporeal punishments. This may
or may not be the case, but we should have thought
that a stanch patriot like Sir J. HOBHOUSE,
who when on the Opposition Bench, rendered
himself so conspicuous by his denunciation of
military flogging, would not have left it to con-
jecture, but made himself sure of the point
long ere now, and on his very first entrance

into office, proposed some decisive measure to
do away with that crying enormity which for
so many years furnished him with his most
fruitful theme for eloquence and vituperation. But
the Right Hon. Gentleman is now in office, and
it would be contrary to all precedent to expect
him to be otherwise than most rigidly discreet.
The Treasury Bench is not exactly the theatre
from which any undue ebullition of public spirit
is to be expected. As to the Secretary of War's
boast of his having been able to reduce the
" number of lashes inflicted by Regimental
Courts-martial from 300 to 200, and by
Garrison Courts-martial from 500 to 300,"

it is a mere begging of the question, a paltry
quibble, unworthy the sagacity of a Statesman
like Sir J. HOBHOUSE. No man knows better
than the Right Hon. Gentleman, that it is not
the number of lashes, but the dishonour attend-
ing the infliction even of one, that constitutes
the enormity of military flogging. The question
is not one of bodily, but of mental, torture,
for the soldier who has received but one lash
is in effect quite as much degraded, quite
as much lost to himself, the service, and
his country, as he who has received a
thousand. We hope Sir J. HOBTIOUSE will
not deem it inconsistent with his notions of the
duties of office, to turn his attention seriously
to this subject, with the view of applying a
prompt and efficient remedy.

According to the Nuremburg Correspon-
dent, it would seem that the late fete at Ham-
bach has given prodigious offence to the German
Authorities, who are all on the qui vine respect-
ing it. The Brussels Papers contain no news of
interest.