The Sun.
London, England, 1857-10-24 00:00:00

PRIVILEGE OF THE BAR IN FRANCE.

In yesterday's Moniteur is published a corre-
spondence between the Prefect of Police and M.
Jules Favre, the bold and clever advocate who de-
fended M. Migeon in the late extraordinary trial
at Colmar. The Prefect of Police writes as follows :

Paris, Oct. 10.
Monsieur,—Upon instituting proceedings against M.
Juke Migeon, the Procureur-General of Colmar re-
quested my intervention, in order that he might procure
information respecting the mor-lity of the accuse-I. I
complied with the wish of that high functionary by for-
warding hies a report, which has given rise to one of the
incidents in the trial in which you have defended M.
Migeon.
As the tribunals are alone competent to deal with this
matter, it cannot become me to disease here the veracity
of the information collected by my information ; but I
have every reason to believe that if a judicial investiga-
tion were to be made upon this information you would
be the first to regret your having contested its accuracy.
Be that as it may, I find this day in the journals a re-
port of your pleading, which contains expressions that
seem to impugn the consideration due to my office, and
which I ought to regard as a personal offence to myself,
both as a government official and as a private individual.
The prefecture of police has invariably given its aid to
inform and prepare the investigations of justice, at the
instance of magistrates, by reports which generally serve
as a basis for criminal proceedings, as elementary data.,
but which it bas never given as documents absolutely
judicial, since by the very nature Of things they cannot
be established through cross-examination. Moreover, it
leaves to the discretion of the magistrates the care of
determining the use to be made of these preliminary
documents.

I fully admit that when these documents are brought

forward at the trial and publ'cly made known, it is the
right and duty of the defence to discuss them freely ;
but, I cannot believe that an advocate of your experience
and authority can have given to such a discussion a form
that would gravely inculpate my office and affect my own
dignity. lam obliged, however, as you will easily un-
derstand, to appeal to your good faith for some explana-
tions calculated to guide public opinion, and to satisfy
my own mind respecting an incident by which my sense
of delicacy and my susceptibility are acutely touched.—
Accept, Monsieur, the assurance of my distinguished
consideration.

THE PREFECT OF POLICE, PIETRI.

The following is the answer of M. Jules Favre—
Monsieur le Prefet,—l have just received the letter
you have done me the honour of writing this day, and in
which you inform me that the incident brought before
the public audieuce at Colmar, in the trial of Migeon,
and relating to a report from your office, has acutely
touched you, and, willing to appeal to my good faith,
you ask me how I was induced to censure energetically
that document. I answer you with frankness. Defend-
ing M. Migeon in a trial which involved his whtl
honour and prospects, a trial which excited as you were
enabled to perceive, he most ardent passions, I saw him
struck by a series of revelations which were extremely
serious, which emanated from your office and were ac•
companied by no preofe. Each of these alleged facts M.
Migeon met with a flat denial. I was bound to regard
them as disproved, and until a demonstration of the
contrary I shall hold the same opinion. I rose indig-
nantly to protest again,t the danger of such productions
wbieb, whilst they have not undergone the control of
justice, may entail deplorable errors. But I had no in-
tention of attacking either your delicacy or uprightness
as a public functionary. I believed your subordinates
had been misinformed, and that you were also misin-
formed thereby, and that all the scandal got up against
M. Migeon had bun cansed by erroneous information.
This, M, le Prcfet, was the full extent of ray idea. I de-
pl ired the use made by justice of documents the whole
value of which must subsist in theirbeing tested by cross
examination, and I think that on a question so vitally
affecting the honour of citizens and the defence of the
accused, your excellent mind will admit that truth was
on my side.—Receive, &c, _ _

JULIE; FAVRE.

THE WATERLOO-BRIDGE TRAGEDY.