The Sun.
London, England, 1842-10-18 00:00:00

- t
bunal, and the COurt, unfortunately, 'as Berryer
thinks, for the prisoner, declaredi itself incompetent.
The cause, therefore, was transferred to the House
of Peers, the Court appointed by 'the charter for the
trial of treason, The object of Ney's counsel was to
gain thee. They knew, from the experience of thirty-
live years of revolution, that political resentment is a
passion sa fleeting as it is fierce; and that, if a delay
of a few months could be obtained the Government
would no longer have the courage to, execute him, nor
indeed the wish. For this purpose they endeavoured
to show, that although the charter rendered treason
cognisable by the House of Peers, yet it laid down no
rules by which the House was to be governed when
sitting as a Court of criminal justice ; and they re-
quired that the trial should be suspended until a law
regulating the procedure of the House should have
been passed. M. Berryer's speech is an admirable
specimen of legal and constitutional reasoning; and
indicates, with great sagacity, the errors into which
such a tribunal, unless supported and directed by
strict regulations, would be likely to fall. The House,
however, after a secret deliberation of an hour and a
half, decided that the trial should go on. Objections
were then raised to the indictment, and though they
were over-ruled, so much time was gained, that the
House, which had met for the trial on Nov. 11, did,
not really begin it till Dec. 4.
In the meantime, Ney had applied to the Ministers
of the Allied Powers, and required them to interfere,
and prevent the Convention of the 3d of July from
being violated in his person: Their answer, drawn
up by the Duke of Wellington, and adopted by the
Ministers of Austria and PriisSia, stated that "the
object of the 12th article was to prevent the adoption
of any measure of severity; under the military autho-
rity of those who made it, towards any person in
Paris, on account of the offices which they had filled,
or their 'conduct, or their political opinions ; but it
was not intended, and could not be intended, to pre-
vent either the existing French Government, or any
French Government which should succeed to it, from
acting in this respect as it might deem fit."
In this extremity Madame Ney sought the aid of
Lord Holland, a name illustrious throughout Europe
as the friend of the oppressed. She requested him to
lay Ney's memorial before the Prince Regent. It
was done; but the only effect was a letter from. Lord
Liverpool, referring her to the communication al-
ready made to her husband by the Duke of Welling-
ton. Lord Holland, however,- did not yet despair.
He still thought that the Duke of Wellington's in-
terference might be obtained, and must be decisive;
and in that hope he addressed to their common friend,
Lord Kinnaird, then at Paris, a letter which was to
be shown to the Duke. What effect it might have
had cannot be told. It arrived the day after the sen-
tence had been executed. As this admirable letter
has never been published, we cannot resist the temp-
tation of extracting some of its most material pas-
sages :

" Middleton, Dec. 5, 1816.
" Dear Kinn.aird,—What is passing at Paris annoys
me more than I can describe. For La Valette, on
the score of private acquaintance, though slight, I am
much concerned ; but from regard to the character of
our country, and to that of the Duke of Wellington
(in whom, after the great things he has done, even as
decided an opponent of the war as myself must feel a
national interest), I have conceived more horror at
the trials and executions going on in the teeth of our
capitulation than mere humanity could create.
" How can such a man as Wellington assert that
the impunity for political conduct extends only to im-
punity from the Allies for offences committed against
them ? When ships, when garrisons surrender, do
the captains or commanders stipulate that the foreign
conqueror shall not molest them for their political
exertions ? With or without such stipulations, what
shadow of right has a foreign enemy to punish indi-
viduals for opinions held or conduct pursued in their
own country ? It is clear that the impunity promised
was impunity for crimes, real or supposed, against a
French Government. If the French Government was
a party to that promise, by that promise it must
abide; if not, the other Allies are bound in honour
not to deliver over a town taken in virtue of it,
without exacting the same terms from those to
whom they deliver it. Such, perhaps, is the formal,
technical way of putting the argument. Practi-
cally and substantially the case, if not more striking,
is yet more conclusive to men of justice and honour.
The Allies have virtually, I might say forma)ly,
too, been masters of Paris, while the persons who de-
livered it to them on the faith of impunity for politi-
cal offences have for political offences been impri-
soned, tried, condemned, and executed! Wellington
has himself precluded all doubt on the question. He
maintained, in his letter to Lord Castlereagh, that
there is no article in the capitulation securing to the
town of Paris the pictures and statues ; and therefore
he argues, and he acts on his argument, that the Al-
lies may seize the pictures, &c., and seize them with-
out any fresh or formal cession from Louis XVIII.
Up to that time, then, the Allies, according to him,
were in military possession of Paris, and up to that
time, therefore, even upon his own view of the sub-
ject, the inhabitants were entitled to claim impunity
for all political opinions and conduct. Those who had
the right and the power of taking forcibly from Paris
property not specified or disposed of in the capitula-
tion, notwithstanding the nominal government of
Louis XVIII., must surely have a right to enforce on
any such nominal and dependent Government the ob-
servance of the promises on the faith of which the in-
habitants had surrendered the town.
"Technical arguments may possibly be urged on
both sides ; and, though they appear to me all in
favour of Ney's claim, it is not on them I lay stress,
but on the obvious and practical aspect of the transac-
tion, as it must strike impartial men and posterity.
The plain relation of the events in history will be this.
A promise of security was held out to the inhabitants
of Paris—they surrendered the town, and while
Wellington and the Allies were still really in posses-
sion of it, Labedoyere was executed, and Ney was
tried for political opinions and conduct. . Even of sub •
sequent executions, and I fear there will be many, it
will he said—the Allies delivered over their authority
in Paris to a French Government, without exacting
an observance of the stipulations on which' they had
originally acquired it.
" Had we taken Martinique in 1794, on a promise
of not molesting individuals for political opinions
or conduct, should we have been at liberty to cede
it, had Louis XVIII. been then restored,
without insisting on the impunity of all po-
litical offenders ; or, at the very least, on the
right of leaving the country for all such as might
have so offended ? In Egypt the French stipulated
that no natives should be molested for their conduct or
opinions during the war. We took military posses-
sion of the country on these terms, and then delivered
it over to the political authority of the Ottoman
Porte. When, however, the Capitan Pacha, acting
under that authority, began murdering the Beys, and
proceeding against the adherents of the French, we
not only remonstrated and threatened, but actually
protected the persecuted men within our own lines.
Yet, by reference to the history of those times, we
find that many blamed Lord Hutchinson for not
having recourse to yet more violent methods, to en-
force on the legitimate political authority the observ-
ance of engagements entered into by our military
power on taking military possession of the country.
" What would Wellington himself have said, if the
British troops had surrendered any town in Spain to
the French with a similar stipulation, and if, on the
flimsy and hypocritical subterfuge of a distinction
between Joseph's Government and the French mili-
tary authorities, all the Spaniards who had assisted
us during the siege had been prosecuted for treason
against Joseph ? Yet, where is the distinction ?
" The want of principle and consistency, and the
disgusting changes of the Marshals, have, I know,
steeled men's minds to their sufferings. This is na-
tural enough. But when the violence of the times is
gone by, and, above all, when the tomb has closed on
their offences, the transaction will be judged with re-
ference to the nature of the promise' not to the con-
duct or misconduct of the sufferers. Si ego digna in-
p "
Nor is this ati•ant faceres, tamen indignus qui feceris, Pamphile.
If we judge by former instances,
even the crime itself will be regarded with more in-
dulgence by posterity than any irregular mode of
punishing it. Allowance for individuals is made in
all great changes. It is difficult in sudden emer-
gencies and great convulsions of state, especially for
professional men whose lives have been passed in
camps, to weigh maturely all the considerations by
which their conduct should, in the strict line of duty,
be regulated. Unforeseen cases occur, and men of
good principles and understanding are hurried into
acts of inconsistency and political immorality.
"In this latter view of the subject, 1 know I am
somewhat singular, Few at present make such allow-
ances for the political tergiversations of the Marshals ;
and many, more indulgent than I
am in their judg-
ment of political apostacy in England, are quite out-
rageous. with Frenchmen for not acting with in
flexible principle in the most trying and difficUlt
circumstances. Some, however, among the most in-
dignant at their crimes, yet doubt the justice, policy,
and safety of punishing them ; and, more especially
among the moderate of all parties, think the claim of
the capitulation conclusive ; or, if not quite so, of a
nature questionable enough to induce Wellington, for
the preservation of his own and the national character,
to give it the construction most favourable to the
weaker party.
"My opinion is of no importance ; but it is so
strong that I could not resist expressing it to you,
who have access to those whose character is most in-
terested in forming a sound one on this important
subject. I have not spoken of La Vallette. All my
arguments apply in his favour as strongly as in Ney's;
and surely he is not, as others may be, any object of
a bystander's indignation. He 'seems an honourable
man throughout. Your's ever truly,
" VASSALL HOLLAND."
The progress of the trial had been comparatively
rapid. In two sAtinp, on the sth and 6th pf De-