The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-01 00:00:00

ward, and if the fountain head were well supplied, its te..Ptilizin
fruits would descend through all the various lower channth::
the arts—( Great cheering.) _ . .

" The British, Itoyal Hibernian, and Scotch Institutions,"
" The Officers of the Institution," " The Stewards," and se-
veral other toasts were drank, and the company separated ; t
eleven o'clock.

FRA.NCE.

CIIAMBER OF PEERS.--.SITTINO OF MAT 29.

TRIAL or TUE DEFENDERS OF THE POLITICAL PRISONERS.
The doors of the new.ball of audience were opened at 11
o'clock. The Peers entered at a quarter before 1 o'clock.
The President then announced that the Chamber would
proceed with. the case relative to the address to the prisoners
of April, inserted in the numVera of the Tribune and I?efor-
mateur -of May 11. -
. . By order of the Pres,ident, the accused parties and their
counsel were introduced. Amongst the former we remarked
Messrs. Carrel, Voyer.(P Ar;fenson, Michel (de Bourges),
Dupont, Thibaudcau, and the Abbe de la Mennais, whose.
appearance created considerable sensation. M. Audry .de
Puvraveau was absent.

The President. —ls the gZrant of the Tribune present ?
M. Bichat (the gerant) answered in the affirmative.
M. Sarrut, defender of M. Bichat, and proprietor or the
Tribune, demanded to be heard on the question as to whether
the Peers, as a legislative body, were competent to judge in
the matter of an offence against the Court of Peers alone.
M. Sarrut added, that to avoid taking up the time of the
Court, M. Michel had been selected by his colleagues to treat
the question of competency.
The President.—We do not proceed here as a judicial
Court, but as a Chamber, and in virtue of the law of the
95th of March, 1832, which contains all the forms of proceed-
ing applicable to the present case.
' M. Cremieux, counsel for M. Bichat and-some others, ob-
:served that the mode in which the President explained the
question by no means solved it. -The Peers had been offended
in their judicial capacity, and they sat in judgment as a Le.
gislative Chamber. In that-he thought, lay the difficulty of
the case, and it was upon that difficulty that M. Michel had
been deputed by his colleagues to address the Chamber. He
therefore-made a formal demand that, previously to the inter-
rogatory, the Chamber shcaild order that the .question of com-
petency bepleaded.
Mr. Michel was permitted to address the Chamber. In ex-
ambling tile competency of the Peers, in the present case, ho
was not ehout to discuss a question of law, but to discharge a
duty. The question of competency was calculated to wound
none in that assembly—to excite neither hatred nor passion—
for neither the republic nor the monarchy would be brought
into question. The sole point now to be considered by him
was, whether in the year 1835 the Chamber of Peers could
be so identified with the Court of Peers, that an offence
against the latter could affect the former. The law of 1822
was passed during a period of re-action, and he knew not by
what fatality some of the Noble Peers who at present seemed
the most disposed to apply the law were then its most energe-
tic opponents. The disastrous law of 1822 had been opposed
in the Chamber of Deputies by men the majority of whom had
since been among the reost active in contributing to the re-ac-
tion of the 7th of As:Ernst. Manuel, Foy, Benjamin Constant,
and . Casimir Perier, refused to sanction by their votes a law,
the eradication of wbiCh was now sought to be enforced.
Even among the Peers, before whom he now. appearhd,
there were many who:tilea acted with dignity, and treated the
• law of 1822 assaati-ezial and counter-revolutionary.—(Agi-
tation.) Theqiiiiveaf :11322 was but the forerunner of the fatal
ordinances Of Itaabe of changed the entireface of things
except- for .the party Which he represented, and which was
still -persecuted' as before. The first conquest of July had
been to submit to the jury the political offences committed by
the instrumentality of the press, but an exception was made
in favour of the Chambers, which still preserved the exorbi-
tant
power of Avenging the offences addressed to them. It
betrayed profound ignorance of the human heart to believe
that a political body could be impartial in a case in which its
honour was concerned. He was ready to accept the Peers
for his judges in their individual, but not in their collective
capacity. He would now examine the spirit of the law of
1822. The legislators of that period had designed to punish
the offences addressed to the judicial order, and the attacks
aimed at the sovereignty of the two Chambers. But in
answer to that he would remark that Royalty was also inde-
pendent, and invested with sovereign ower, and yet the law
ef 1822 had not conferred on the King the privilege of
avenging the offences addressed to him. He maintained that
the law invested not the judicial, but the legislative power,
with the exorbitant privilege now exercised by the Chamber.
According to the spirit and the letter of the law of 1822, the
Chamber and the Court of Peers were two distinct bodies.
The defenders of the accused parties had arrived from all
parts of France to plead their cause, and were naturally indig-
nant at their exclusion from the tribunal, but their indignation
was directed against the judge, not against the Peer. It was
evident, that the Chamber could not - sit in judgment on this
case. If it proceeded in virtue of an exceptional law, all
that was demanded was, that the spirit and meaning of that
law should not be perverted. The Peers at least should re-
spect it, for it was of their own creation.—(Movement.)
The Chamber decided unanimously upon rejecting the con-
clusions of M. Michel, and m detaining its competency.
M. Bichat (gerant of the Tribune), having been interro-
gated, declared that his detention had prevented him from
easing any knowledee of the inculpated letter till the moment
of its publication. He nevertheless accepted its responsibility.
M. Jauffrenan (gerant of the Reformateur), on his interro-
gation, named M. Rasped as his advocate.
M. Itaspail declared that the letter reached the office of his
journal without any signature. On its receipt he had taken
the signatures of the defenders, which were in type in the
printing-office, and had affixed them to the letter. As to the
motives which had induced the conductors of the Reformateur
to act in this manner, they were matters of conviction, and es-
caped the competency of the Court. As to the letter itself,
he considered it extremely moderate, much more so than many
articles published in the Reformateur.
M. Carrel demanded that the original document and the
autograph signatures snould be produced.
M. Dubouchage supported the demand ; but the Chamber
decided that the printed letter was sufficient to warrant the
continuation of the trial with regard to-all the accused parties

oresent.
Messrs. Thouret, Imberdis, and Carrell, on being interro-
gated, declared that they had not signed the letter.
M. Michel, after observing that he had alroady openly
avowed his signature, demanded that a letter addressed by
himself and M. Trelet to the President should be read in
Court. As soon as the reading had terminated, M. Michel
stated, that as a former letter which he had neither read nor
signed had been published with his name by the Committee
of Defenders, be had thought himself at liberty to publish the
inculpated letter with the names of all the defenders, in virtue
of the common rer.ponsibility, which be had for his own part
accepted.
Messrs. Coralli, Trinchane, Aiguebelle, Jules Bernard,
Naintre, Le Breton, Bouquin, and Duffraise, declared that
they had neither signed nor published the letter.
The President interrogated M. Raspail, and demanded his
profession ?
M. Raspail—l have none ; I have been ruined by your Go-
vernment.

The President—Your residence ?
M. Raspail—l have none.
The President—Did yon sign the letter?
M. Raspail—My signature is at the bottom of the letter, as
well as that of M. Carrel.

The President—Did you take part in the publication?
M. Raspail—The gerant of a journal is the only individual
who publishes. You ought to know the fact—you who make
the laws to which we are compelled to submit.
M. Raynaud stated that-he had neither signed nor published
the letter inserted in the Tribune, but that he full! concurred
in its sentiments.
The President—Arc you aware of the consequences of your
expressions ?
M. Raynaud—Yes; and I persiit in them.
M. David de Thais refused to give any explanation.
Messrs. Bastard, Bravard, Thomai, P. Leroux, Martinault,
Fabas, Vasseur, Caylus, and Roue declared that they had
neither signed nor published the inculpated letter.
Adjourned at six o'clock.

• SUMO OF SATURDAY, MAY 30.
At 1 o'clock the preirdent, Baron Pasquier, took the chair, •
and after the pAces verbal-of the preceding, sitting had been
read, and the names of the Peers called over, the editors of
the Refbrrnatezt.r. and Tribune newspapers,, and the persons
whose names were affixed to The incriminated letter in those
journals, were called in and placed at the bar to nearly the
number of 100. As several benches upon which the state
prisoners were seated during the trial were occupied by seve-
ral members of the Chamber of Deputies and other persons,
there did not remain sufficient space to accommodate any
counsel that the persons-called before the bar might have cho-
sen to assist them. This circumstance had nearly produced a
scene of tumult similar to'thosti that signalized the first days
Of the trial, some 30 or forty of the supposed signers of the
letters insisting upon' having their counsel alongside them,
whilst others insisted ‘i.m4in 'having , two. This scene was,
however, avoided by the President 'declaring, that as each
person was questioned, he might have his counsel called in.
Up to half-past 3 o'clock all those questioned as to the let-
ter denied the more -material fact of having either signcd the
letter or authorized its publication, some at;_the' tame time
protesting that they entirely concurretl the ,opinions ex-
pressed in that letter. The most remarkable of those ques-
tioned was M. Chervet de -I.tour.t.n;.silio 'addressed the Court
with great energy of manner and voice, reprobated in no mea-
sured terms their I:receeding:, and warned them of the
consequences of their uneoliSthiltional acts. . - •

Lord Hill has issued a General Order, forbidding
private soldiers on home service appearing in the streets with
their side arms.—Atlo.