The Sun.
London, England, 1832-12-04 00:00:00

SITTING OF DECEMBER 1.

Before the Sitting was opened, the Polish Committee
caused to be distributed among the Duputies an address,
having for its object to remind them of the engagements
they had solemnly taken, during the last Session, to
maintain the nationality of Poland. They further begged
of the Legislature to be allowed to entertain that opinion
without any molestation, to preserve the national honour,
and be formed into Polish legions, should the liberty and
independence of France be again threatened ; to he assured

that the Hood of the heroic bands should not be wasted

in distant or foreign expeditions, &c. That address was
acvornpanied by the petition, forwarded by 2,000 Polish
'efugees in France, to the House of Commons of Great
Mit tin and Ireland, dated May 29, 1832 ; by a protest
of the National Committee against the organized Statutes
and the decrees of Nicholas ; and an appeal to the Russian
nation.

At i o'clock M. Dupin, the President, took the chair,
when the discussion on the address to the King was re-
sumed.

de Mosbourg said that. although the Chamber had
nct rejected, yesterday, M. Merilhotes amendment to the
ninth paragraph of the address, their respect for the
Charter, nevertheless, imposed upon them the obligation
to blame the measure of the state of siege as illeg,l. He

then proposed that they should -state in their address
" that the Government had, no doubt, conceived that the
repressive measures it had resorted to, in order to subdue
the insurrection, were authorized by the existing legisla-
tion ; but that the Charter formally enacted that no ea-
t; aordinary Commission should be established under any
pretence whatsoever ; and that if the srfety of the State
required the enacting of special laws to prevent the recur.
fence of such disssters, the Chamber would not hesit ite to
grant them." M. Mosbourg contended that his amend-
ment
bad nothing hostile is the Ministry ; after their vic-
tory over the faction they should not, he said, have had
recourse to arbitrary measures, but, on the contrary, pro-
pose to the King, in virtue of his prerogative, to grant a
general pardon to the revolters. Too much blood had al-
ready been shed in those deplorable days. M. Mosbourg
then showed the illegality of the state of siege, and per-
sisted in his amendment.
M. Gannerou observed that M. de Mosbourg's amend-
ment presented three questions—that of the validity, op-

portunity, and a judiciary question. He argued that the
Court of Cassation bad recognised the validity of the state
of siege, and the power the Government had to proclaim
it. The opportunity was sufficiently illustrated by the
facts and arguments adduced yesterday by the Keeper of
the Seals; and the judiciary question was merely brought
forward for the purpose of interesting the public in favour
of the revolters.

Al. de Ladre said that the Ministers, after recurring to
extraordinary measures to suppress the insurrection,
should have immediately convoked the Chambers, and
have had the manliness to come forward and offer their
responsibility and their heads. If it were then ascertained
that they had saved the country, they would have re-
ceived, independently of a bill of indemnity, the vote of a
national recompense. He was not competent to decide
the question of the validity of the state of siege,
as an administrative measure; but be conceived no•
thing could be objected to the sentence pronounced
by the most exalted Court in the kingdom, the
Chamber of Peers ; who, in the case of Polignac
and the other Ministers of Charles X., had pro-
claimed the illegality of the state of siege, and declared
that it constituted the crime of high treason. He conten-
ded that the Ministers of War and
.Justice, who had issued
tl.e instructions relative to the jurisdiction of the Military

• M. Odillon Barrot said that little could be added to
• assist the argumentation of the friends of the Ministry
after the able manner in which the question had been dis-
cussed by M. Nicod, who had clearly shown that, in
creating Councils of War, they had done more than esta-
blish Prevotal Courts, to which so much odium was affixed.
He then asked the Keeper of the Seals if he had dared to
to execute Geoffroi, sentenced to death by the Council of
War, before the Supreme Court had pronounced on t•is
fate, would it not have been a real assassination ? The Mi-
nistry ought not to sav that they wished to leave the matter
to be decided by the Court of Cassation. That C:iur•t had
decided against their special wish, and without their par-
ticipation. He then concluded by saying the Opposition
did not wish to impeach them, but to blame their conduct.
M. Marmier next came forward, and stated that the
insurrection was not so suppressed on the 6th June as to
preclude his remaining under arms the entire of that night.
Atter a few observations from M. Gartoupe, the atnend-
rnent of M. Mosbourg was put to the vote and negatived.
M. Teste then moved as an amendment to the first
part of the paragraph, the.e words.--." To repress these
violent and simultaneous attacks against established order,
your Government, Sire, has thought it necersary to have
recourse to laws anterior to the Charter, but the diffi-
culties," &c. And again, for the words, " The necessity
of a mote precise and more complete legislation," to in-
. sert the words, " The necessity of a more precise legisla-
tion, which shall conciliate." The Hon. Member,
in supporting his amendment, contended that the legisla-
tive measures of the Government were contrary to the
political rights of the people.
The Keeper of the Seals opposed the amendment as go-
ing further than even the proposer imagined.
After a few words from 1%1. Teste in reply, and M.
Barthe, it was rejected by a small majority.
M. Prunel then proposed another amendment to the
same effect, upon which a rather stormy discussion arose.
It having been said the National Guard itself called for
coercive laws,

M. Jolly reproached the Ministry with having let it-
self be influenced by the National Guard with arms in its
hand•. There was an end of the Constitution if armed
bodies once took upon themselves to deliberate.
M. Le Marechal Lobau said that the National Guard
had not deliberated as a body ; hut the National Guard
was cornpo:ed of citizens, and under that title they had a
right to express their opinions.
M. Jolly repeated that the Constitution of a country
was at an end when armed bodies deliberated.
M. Lefebvre—lt was not only the National Guard of
Paris which called for the state of siege ; it was the
whole population of Paris, except the factions and their
friends.

The uproar in the Chamber at this declarati:in was im-
mi-nse; the left side shouting " Nu, no," and the centre
" Yes, yes," As soon as he could obtain a hearing,
The President said that M. Lefebvre was Deputy for
Paris, and was entitled to be heard on this point.
M. Lefebvre would affirm that the King, in his tour
through the different quarters of Paris, beard no other
cry than for the city to be placed in a state of siege.—
(Fresh uproar.) The capital was in such it state of alarm

. .
at the sedition and pillage with which it was threatened,
that the factions alone desired that Paris should not be

declared in a state of siege, and the cry for it was
unani-
mous when his Majesty, on the 6th of June, went through
the streets and upon the quays from wh, nce the revolters
had but just been driven.—(Great confusion.)
M. Sslverte, (another Deputy for Paris)—.This is an
insult upon the population of Paris. It is false.—(Loud
shouts, and cries of " Order.")

The President having with difficulty restored order,
M. Lefebvre repeated his previous assertions, and said
that if the factions had triumphed, the republic would
have been proclaimed, and again would they have been
afflicted with its sanguinary saturnalia.
M. Sa(vette said that, as a deputy for the capital, he
thought himself called upon to contradict M. Lefebvre.
lie only arrived in Paris some days after the step had
been taken ; hut, from all he had heard of it, he looked
upon it as affitcting to the country, and dangerous to the
Government.*

M. Jacqueminot, as head of the Staff of the National
Guard, bore testimony to the re!uctance with which the
Government had had recourse to vinlent measures, and
contended that the arms and barricades of the factious

bad, in reality, placed Paris in a state of sieg;:btf;ert
was declared to be so by the authorities.

M. Pi unelle's amendment was then put and negatived.
Several other amendments were proposed by the Oppo
sition ; but they were all, in like manner, lint.

The Chambers rose at six o'clock, without concluding
the debate.

* According to the report of M. Salverte's speech in another
paper, he said that, "according to all the information he had
received, the population had called for justice, not vengeance."
—En. Sun.

BRUSSELS PAPERS.

(From the Moniteur Beige.)
PROCLAMATION.

" Leopold, King of the Belgian=,—To all present, and

to come, saluting—

" Considering that although all precautions have been
taken, in order that the neutrality of the city of Antwerp
should be respected, it is prudent to anticipate the possibi-
lity of the enemy subjecting the population to any of the

evils of war ;

" Considering that in this anticipation measures against
firing have already been taken at Antwerp; and
" Wing desirous to insure the prompt and efficacious
application of these measures, and to recompense the zeal,
courage, and devotedness that the good citizens may mani-
fest on the occasion ; on the report of our Minister of the

Interior,
" We have decreed and do decree—

" 1. That in the event of the city of Antwerp bring
subjected to the horrors of another bombardment, tn,ciai_
lions shall be struck for the purpose of recompensing o
individu :Is who shall have most powerfully contributed to
prevent the effects of the firing and the destruction of pro.
perty.
" 2. These medallions shall be gold, and of the value of
100, 75, or 50 florins, in proportion to the service rendered.
"3. We reserve to ourselves the rig lit of decreeing-with
regard to the presentation of the Ministee of the Interior,
who will publish through the local authorities the neces.
sary instruction.
"4. Our Minista of the Interior is charged with the

Commissions in Paris, and the Western departments,
At, u:ty of treason, and supp rted M. Mosbourg's
ameNelmenr.
M. Gaillard de Kerbertin in pressing the legality of
the extraordinary means taken by the Government in
June last, assimilate I the crimes committed by the insur-
gents arrested with arms in their hands to military of
fences which were within the cognizance of Counc Is of
War. He then endeavoured to clear the Ministry of the
charge of having violated the Charter, and read a decision
taken by the Court of Cessation on the sth Feb., 1824,
in which that Court stated that all Frenchmen taken with
arms in their hands against their country, should be tried
by Military Commissions, and, notwithstanding his re-
spect for the Supreme Court, he could not but observe
that the decision of June 28 list was in opposition to the
precedent. The Carter of 1830 could not, he main-
tained, be invoked, for the 63d article of the Charter of
1814, contained the very same clauses as the 54th article
of the former.
M. Farmier begged leave to observe that, under the re-
storation itself, the French taken with arms in their
hands in 1823, on the frontiers of Sp in, were first deli-
vered up to Councils of War, but public opinion cotn-
elled the Government to send them to be tried by their
nvional Judges, the Jury.
M. Nicod, of the Court of Cessation, con,ended that
there was an enormous difference between the two deci-
sions adduced by M. Kerberrin. It would be a monstro-
si•y to assimilate them. The Councils of War were
merely instituted to try military offenders. The re-
volters of June were not military ; women seized in their
ranks were not military. The decision of the Court of
Cessation of 1824, was founded on the doctrines of the res
toration, which the Chamber so solemnly branded by its
vote of yesterday. The Charter of 1830, enacts that no
citizen could be tried by any tribunal but his national
Judges, the Jury. He added that the Legislatnre at that
epoch had formally declared that no extraordinary trilru-
nal, whatever be its title or denomination, should here-
after be established. He then showed that the restoration
itself had not had recourse to such extraordinary measures ;
that the Prevotal Courts, instituted immediately after
Marshal Ney's ex,cution, and tinder the influence of foreign
bayonets, offered at least some security to the citizen, since
the President of those Courts, who was the sole Judge, to
he sure, was assisted by five civil magistrates, who might
be considered as a sort of Jury. The execution of the
21 peasants, among whom were children of 16 years of
age, who had formed part of a band of insurgents near
Grenoble, in 1816, furnished M. Nicod with the theme of
roost pathetic appeal to the House.
M. Bartle, Minister of Justice, went over the argu-
ments adduced by M. Kerberrin, and announced that the
question would soon be submitted to the decision of the
Chamber in a Bill, which he would very soon lay on the
table.

eft CS,
Y_A+fir—,cl_*-447
eS -