Star.
London, England, 1830-09-30 00:00:00

conduct! Are we again at that period when M. de Damn
owned at the Tribune the contenpt of Spain.—Le Globe.

A letter of the 17th instant from Barcelona says—" The
Monks, in their sermons, preach nothing but massacre; the
furious zeal of the Capuchins and Cordeliers for the exter-
mination of the Liberals knows no bounds. Passports for
France are now granted to none but Ultra-Royalists, for
whose good conduct the notable Apostolics will engage to
become responsible. Not a single letter from France is
suffered to be delivered, till it has been opened and exa-
mined by the Black Cabinet of Spain." The Semaphore
of Marseilles states, that several officers of the 18th regi-
ment of the line, in garrison at Toulon, have just received
orders from the General Commandant of the division, to
quit the town within twenty-four hours. This measure was
occasioned by the officers individually, sending in a note ex-
pressive of their obedience to the King of the French, to
the Lieutenant-Colonel, the Colonel being absent. Upon
the return of the Colonel, he became furious, upon learning
the steps that had been taken, and threatened the officers to
expel them from the regiment. The officers, filled with in-
dignation, went to the General Commandant, to beg that
they might pass to another regiment, but the result of the
application was, an order to quit the town.

AUD•CITY OF THE CARLIaTZ PARTIN—Is an estab-
lisbed Government forbidden to defend itself against the open
and violent attacks of its enemies ? An individual whoopenly
disclaims the Government under which be lives, the laws
under whose protection he shields himself, and who by the
publicity given to his opinions, endeavours as far as in him
lies, to find imitators—does this individual exercise a right, or
does he commit an act subversive of public order ? This Is
a question which naturally rises to our lips, on reading a
letter of M. de Kergorlay, inserted in the Quotidienas of
this morning, and in which we find the following passages :
—" In default of any right, which is alleged in favour of
the King, whom the Chambers have thought fit to place
upon the Throne, it is said that he alone had the power to
save France. I, on the contrary, think that he, of all others,
was the most capable to save the kingdom, because he
of all Frenchmen, is the one to whom usurpation
should appear the most criminal . .
fore taking the oath to a modified charter, I shall
wait till the modification which the French na-
tion may desire, shall be granted under the authority
of a legitimate King. Brought up by his noble Mother
In an intimate knowledge of his duties towards his people,
this scion of a royal stock will flourish for the happiness
of France, and will, I trust, one day be restored to us."
Let us suppose a partisan of Napoleon, asserting, under
the Bourbons, that the Royal Government, established by
foreign bayonets, was a usurpation, and a crime, if be
had predicted the return of the King of Rome, would
the Assize Court have had any punishment severe enough
for him ? For the sake of freedom, it is necessary to
have the power of attacking the proceedings of Govern-
ment ; but, if any one is to be allowed to declare it
null and void—to be usurping, criminal, ready to give
way before the first competitor,—if those, who take arms
to overthrow it, are not to be punished—for in seeing
the Government tolerate so violent an attack, they are
easily led to believe that the slightest exertion would
cause it to totter,—why, we say, strive to find imaginary
evils in political societies?—Here the danger is neither
imaginary or distant, but real and imminent.—Costrrier
Francais, of the 26th.

To the President of theliramber of Peers. Monsieur le
President—On the 30th of August last, eighty-seven Peers
agreed to declare personally the forfeiture of the right of
sitting in the Chamber of which they are members, all
those who had not, during the lapse of a month, taken
the oath to a King newly elected, and to a new charter.
I am ignorant of the power under which the right of that
election and that charter has been made. As to me, I
have sincerely taken a serious oath to my :King, and he
constitutional charter which one of them gave to France.
In taking that oath to them, I always understood that my
fidelity was engaged not only to them, but also to the
legitimate successors, and to the nation itself—to that fun-
damental law which has ruled amongst us for the last
century, the succession to the Crown. In taking oaths
to my kings, I believed I had taken them to men subject
as myself to errors : but I never considered that the errors
which they might be guilty of, would relieve me from the so-
lemn oath I had taken ; I did not believe either that it would
authorise me to bereave my countrymen from the salutary in-
stitution of the throne being hereditary. I have always con-
sidered that institution as the only solid security of all our
liberties; and I refuse to contribute to its destruction, be-
cause I am equally well convinced that its destruction will
only open amongst us the road to tyranny. The Charter,
which all the Peers have sworn to, contains, in Art. 13,
that " the person of the King is inviolable and sacred,
and that his Ministers are responsible." This fundamental
principle of the Charter, does not allow that the King be
personally considered as a party to the grievances, which his
Government may cause to arise. The responsibility of his
Ministers is the constitutional way open to obtain the reform
of those grievances. A constitutional fiction does not allow
us to impute to the King the faults of his government ; the
reality of things permits in a still less degree, that they should
be imputed to the Royal Infant, still a minor, who is a stranger
to the acts of his grandfather; and who,by the simple fact of the
double abdication of his Majesty Charles X. and his royal son,
became at the same instant the 2d of August last, the King,
to whom my fidelity is engaged. The Chambers, without
being able to allege any thing against the rights of the Duke
of Bordeaux, have transferred, the 7th of the same month,
his crown to the first of his subjects. I shall not associate
myself by an oath, to an act which would make me guilty,
if I contributed to it. In default of any right, which is al-
leged in favour of the King whom the Chambers have
thought fit to place upon the throne, it is said, that he alone
had the power to save France. I, on the contrary, think
that be, of all others, was the most incapable to save the king-
dom, because he, of all Frenchmen, is the one to whom usur-
pation should appear the most criminal. One of his ances-
tors badly governed France, but was nevertheless parent and
faithful Regent during the minority of an infant King,
whose life alone intervened between him and the
Throne. This example deserves to be preserved as a rule of
behaviour to remembrances not far distant. As to the
Charter, I have respecting it two certain convictions ; the
one that a King who has sworn to a Charter, has not the
right to infringe it; the other, that if even modifications to
a Charter were considered useful, the Chamber who has
sworn to that Charter has not the right or power to give as
a base to those modifications, the expulsion of the Lag. I
shall wait then, before I take an oath to a modified Charter,
that the modification which the French nation may desire,
shall be granted under the authority of a legitimate King.
Brought up by his noble mother in an intimate knowledge of
his duties towards his people, this scion of a royal stock, will
flourish for the happiness of France, and will, I trust,
be one day restored to us. There is, however, one of
the articles of the new Charter upon which this day I
believe I ought not to be silent. Two hundred and nine-
teen Deputies declared, on the 7th of August last, the
throne vacant; made a new Charter, one article of which
excluded from the Chamber of Peers all those whom
Charles X. had named, and offered the crown to the
Lieutenant-General of the kingdom. Eighty-nine Peers