Star.
London, England, 1830-12-20 00:00:00

NOT lICLIIIIIVZ.

FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE.

EXTRAORDINARY EXPRESS.
TRIAL. OF THE EX-MINISTERS.—(Fourre DAY.)
PARIS, Dec. 18.
Letters of yesterday will have acquainted you with the
close of the evidence for the prosecution. The Commis-
sioners (Commissaires) appointed by the Chamber of Depu-
ties to ccnduct it, will this day address the Court in support
of the charges, after which the evidence for the defence will
be proceeded with. A report, which I inclose, will,
however, more fully satisfy you on that head.
The appearance of the neighbourhood of the Luxem-
bourg was this morning more tranquil than on that of /my
day since the commencement of the trial, a consequence
foreseen from the anticipated rigour of the season. The
snow lay deep on the ground, which, aided by a sharp north
west wind, deterred the people from assembling to indulge
their curiosity.
The tribunes (galleries) of the Court were, however, Le-
cupied as early as usual. Previously to the commencenieLt
of the proceedings, an old gentleman entered the Chamhe, ,
and conversed a few moments with a member of the bar. In
reply a person next me said' that is NI. &pier, president of
the four Royale. He is now, you observe, on easy anti
familiar terms with the Libiraux—but had we failed in
chasing Charles X. and his myrmidons from Paris, and in
effecting our Revolution, M. Seguier would be at this m,
meat not an auditor and spectator of the trial of the Minis-
ters of the ex-King, but sitting in judgment on Lafitte,
Gerard, Casimir Perrier, and Lobau, and would condemn
them too."

At a quarter put ten o'clock the prisoners entered in di.•
usual order, preceded by two officers, and followed by
soldiers of the Garde Municipale. The Peers entered im-
mediately after.
The prisoners appeared this day to participate in the
general belief of all who have attended to the evidenci.
They seemed even cheerful, and saluted various persons
the tribune near them.

At half-past ten o'clock M. Persil rose, and addressed
the Court in the followiug terms.— [We have received a
verbatim report of the speech of the Learned Commissioner,
for which, however, we have not room this day. We
shall, therefore, confine ourselves to a mere outline of it,
furnished by one of our own Correspondents :---]
M. Persil commenced by referring to the circumstances
which preceded and provoked the revolution, dwelling with
eulogy on the difference between the effects of the late and
the former resolution. Instead of taking vengeance into their
own hands, as did the revolutionists of 1789, the French peo-
pie of 1830 transferred those whom they deemed guilty
of treason to tho country to the legal Tribunal.
The restoration formed a leading feature in the speech
of M. Persil. Ile described it as the result of a humi-
liating invasion, Louis XVIII. having been placed and
maintained ou the throne only by the power of foreign
bayonets. A Charter was, however, given to the natii n,
which the people observed with good faith, for they were
tired of revolutions. They did not approve it altogether,
because they saw it founded on exceptionable principles
but they conformed to it in preference to that perilous alter-
native, another revolution. Louis XVIII. remained faithfr.l
to it—for he knew that to deviate from it would be the signal
for the overthrow of the Bourbon dynasty. Not so Charles
X. who foully violated it. Under the guise of Charles X. the
people soon recognised the Count D'Artois. The steps of the
throne were occupied by, and the Court of Charles X. was
filled with, the former friends and intimates of the Count
D' Artois. The task of preserving and administering tb,
Charter, was in addition, or, perhaps, in consequence, cou-
fided to its most determined enemies. [Here M. Persil en-
tered into a detailed history of the ministries of MM. de Vil-
lele, Martignac, and the various ministerial changes which
took place up to the period, when, on the Bth of August
last year, the Prince de Polignac was placed at the head of
the Ministry. After referring to the other individuals
who formed the Polignac Cabinet he proceeded to descrih,
the means by which they attempted to destroy the
Charter]. Finding some of tbemembers of the government
indisposed to go to such extremes, MM. Courvoisier and
Chabrol were superseded by M. Chantelause and Guernon
Renville. This perfected (continued M. Persil), the mini-try
proceeded with their projected assaults on the Charter, be-
ginning by dissolving that Chamber of Deputies in which
they had been defeated by those 221 patriotic members t
whom France was not sufficiently grateful—(Hear.) II ,
then proceeded to describe the manner in which the ordi-
nances of 25th July were proposed and carried in Council.
A voice from one whom he would not name, said " dissolve
the Chamber—suspend the liberty of the press—subjugate
France." From the 15th to the 25th July the ordinances,with
these views, were discussed in Council. They were oppose d.
but ineffectually, by MM. de Peyronnet and Guerrieri
Ranville, for on the 25th they were signed by all the mem-
ber.; of the Cabinet. This act was hardly consummated.
when the authors of it became aware of its stupendous
importance. They remained for some time in stupor.
The dangers they had exposed themselves to, and to
which they had exposed France, flashed upon their
minds, and they were paralysed with terror. But they
wore soon roused from their torpor by the occurrence
of that just resistance which they had provoked. So early as
on the 26th July the people began to assemble, and e \ reed
their sense of the wrongs sought to be inflicted on them. The
crowds consisted in the beginning principally of the eurkim:
classes, among whom the printers were particularly roan-
ment. [M. Persil then described the events of that day, the
attack on the hotel of Prince Polignac, icc.] Up to that mo-
ment (asked M. Persil) how had the Ministers been occu-
pied ? " Having created chaos," said he, " it I may be al-
lowed to use the figure—they rested from their labour."
(Hear.) He then described the first firing on and sabreing
of the people by the gendarmerie and Garde Royale, and
dwelt upon the circumstance of a young officer of a regi-
ment of the line having refused to fire on the citizen., al-
though ordered by a superior officer of gendarmerie, ar.aed
with written authority. " Honour," said M. Persil, " to
that young soldier who did not, as the Garde Royale had
done, recognise and obey the principle of passive obedience!.
—(hear, hear.) He then dwelt upon the culpable igno-
rance of the Ministers, who remained throughout the day
and night of Tuesday, the 26th, unacquainted with the
indignation of the people and the effervescence produced
throughout Paris by the ordinances. Recalled, how-
ever, to a sense of danger by the events of Tuesday
night land Wednesday morning, they determined ripen
exertion—not to allay—but to increase the storm.—" May
France perish," said they, " rather than that the or-
dinances be repealed !" (Hear, bear.) He then referred to
the act of Council, by which Paris was declared in a state of
siege. " The first city of France," said he, " was placed
beyond the protection of the law for having revolted against
ordinances, the produce of the perjury of those who had
sworn to maintain her charter and her institutions ; and the
citisens were hewed down in thousands by the parricidal
hands of men armed for their protection." (Hear.) Having
returned from St. Cloud with the ordinance for placing Paris
in a state of siege, the Minister issued an ordinance for the ar-
rest of the forty-five editors of the Paris Journals, who had
signed the resolution to disregard the attack on the liberty
of the press; which order was not executed, certainly, but
the omission was duo not to returning sense and compassion

on the part of the Ministers, bet to the repugnance of Mar-
shal Marmont (to whom it was delivered for execution) to
enforce so cruel an order. He obeyed, however, the order
which placed Paris in a state of siege--that act by which
ltlini•ters said they divested themselves of all authority, and
311 responsibility. They were, however, able to command,
and vet they pretended to say that they were not account-
Am,: They directed their agent, and would absolve them-
selves from all the consequences. Were that argument to
have weight, what became of all Ministerial responsibility ?
He next dwelt upon the refusal of the Ministry to stop the
effusion of blood, at the entreaty of Mir. Lafitte, Gerard,
and the other Deputies, and the consternation of the latter
on retiring from their unsuccessful attempt to induce a
termination of the carnage. He afterwards referred to
The heartless etiquette which prevented the admission of
!bePolish Aide-de-Camp of Marshal Marmont to the presence
of the King at St. Cloud, when sent to announce the horri-
ble events then passing in Paris. The culpable passiveness
of the Ministers during the slaughter of the people was the
next point referred to by M. Persil, who afterwards alluded
to the mission of M M. d'Argout and Semonville, and its con-
sequences, so well described in their evidence. After again
complimenting the people of Paris on their moderation after
victory, be said, that they nevertheless demanded, and ex-
pected that justice should be done upon those, by whose or-
ders the streets of Paris had been deluged with the blood of
its citizens. The ministers who bad don' this, were, in con-
sequence impeached by the Chamber of Deputies—charged
with high treason, in having attempted to annul, falsify, and
alter the mode of election provided by the Charter. [Here
M. Persil anticipated tho objection to the competency of
the Chambers to institute this proceeding, contending, that
by the 55th and sGth articles of the Charter of 1814, the
very course adopted was specifically directed. By these
articles the crime of the prisoners had been clearly defined.
" Every Constitution that had been established in France
since 1789 included the responsibility of Ministers." lie
thee went on to contend that, legally as well as morally,
the Ministers, by signing the Ordinances, by placing
Paris in a state of siege, and by the sanguinary attempts
w enforce their orders, had been guilty of high treason.
Had they not signed those Ordinances, they could not have
been issued. The King had not the power to promulgate
finch decrees. " The King," it had been said, " having
been punished, the Ministers should be permitted to escape
with impunity." But, ho would ask, could the punishment
of the King be their justification ? But supposing that
the King was responsible, he would ask, were not acces-
sories always held equally guilty with the perpetrator of a
capital crime ? The Bourbons were punished for their in-
capacity, and complete unfitness to reign. The Ministers
ought to be punished for having cruelly abused the power
entrusted to them.

111. Persil then proceeded to accuse the ministers of Charles
X. of having caused the fires by which Normandy had been
devastated, and contended that the king was only a puppet
in their hands, and in those of an occult power greater than
the throne, " call it Jesuitism, or congregatianism, or what
you please," said he, " it governed France, and continues
still to exercise its baneful influence over it." He next re-
ferred to the illegal interference of the ministers in the elec-
tions, and contended that a system of corruption had been
recommended by M. Peyronnet (the minister of the interior)
so the prefects in those towns ;—" You will give to me con-
fidential information respecting the public functionaries who
shall oppose the desires of government, and that information
I will communicate to the heads of their departments, who
will visit upon them the consequences."
M. Peyronnet—That is false.
M. Persil resumed, without noticing the observation, while
Peyronnet smiled sarcastically. The Ministers, said M.
Persil, not content with their personal corrupt interference
with the elections, caused the King to address the electors
in his own name, with the same object; and this observa-
tion closes the first head of their offence. The second arti-
cle of their guilt, he said, consisted in their wishing to go-
vern arbitrarily; and, in order to have the power to do that,
an conspiring to destroy the Charter. A conspiracy bad long
existed for that object, between Charles X. the Dauphin,
the prisoner Prince Polignac, and others; but it did not ap-
pear that up to the 10th of July last, the other prisoners, or
their three colleagues who bad fled, were aware of the
nature and extent of these machinations. These were,
however, fully developed and proved by the ordinances,
which went to destroy the liberty of the press. Was not that
alone, be would ask, in the guilt of which all the ministers
participated, full proof of their crime ? The King Lad the
power (by the Charter) to dissolve the Chamber, certainly ;
but at the moment when tho ordinance with that object was
issued, no chamber existed. The new chamber was to have
been constituted only on the 3d of August—it had not, con-
sequently, existence on the 25th of July. The third ordi-
nance, altering the mode of election, dictated by the charter,
contained 30 articles, and, consequently, formed a catalogue
of 30 capital crimes. Had these ordinances been once
carried into effect, there would no longer remain liberty in
France.

Here M. Frail referred to the alleged power of the King,
by the 14th Article of the Charter, to issue ordinances re-
gpecting the Government of the nation, contending that
that power was only to be exercised to insure the safety and
welfare of the State, and not with the view to the destruc-
tion of liberty of the France, and the overthrow of all her
institutions. The King had only the executive, and not
the legislative power. No country had ever been more
tranquil—no people ever more anxious for the preser-
ration of order, than were France and her inhabitants
at the close of the Session of the year 1829. Some
alarm certainly prevailed respecting the frequent and myste-
r.mus jimmies of Prince Polignac to London. His notorious
fanaticism was another source of uneasiness. He admitted
that the King had the power to direct extraordinary and ex-
treme measures—(hew, hear), but it was not in virtue of the
(Lai ter ; it was in virtue of necessity—(murmurs). This con-
stituted the second head of offence. The third to which M.
Persil next applied himself was that which accused the pri-
viziers of having provoked civil war, a fact which had, un-
l'al)Pily, been only too well proved. An excursion through
the streets of the metropolis would convince the most incre-
dulous of that fact. The houses riddled with balls ; the
wounded, mutilated, and disfigured, and the tombs crowded
uith the slain, attested the crimes of the prisoners, and the
Liisfortunes of Paris. Women, children, and unarmed men,
crowded together and calling only for the charter (crying
Five la Charte), were shot and bayoneted by a merciless
soldiery—(bear.) lie then contended that armed resist-
ance to the ordinances was net only justifiable in, but a
duty of the people, even an attack en the troops sent to en-
rolee the ordinances would have been legal had the people
talon the first to cotunience ; but unhappily for the accused,
all plea on that head of supposed defence was taken away from
them by the incontestible fact that the troops were the first
aqressors. (Here be described the first events of the revo-
/ution, contending that cries of " Vire la Charte"could not
interpreted into illegal or seditious expressions, nor, con-
oquently, justify the fusillade or sabring by which the sot-
d,ety replied to it, &c.) 11• also referred to the fact of the
axing having taken place without the formality of 11111018011-
HI the people to disperse, directed by the law, and which
fondler to the reading of our riot act) should be made
three times before violence should be resorted to. He dwelt
-pou the distribution of money and spirituous liquors to the

troops, to encourage them pitilessly to slaughter the people.
He next combated the assertion that the Ministry had ceased
to exist from the moment when Paris wns declared in a state
of siege, and recapitulated various acts done by them, which
proved that they had continued to issue orders after the pro-
clamation of the state of siege. After closing► his references
to the evidence, M. Persil said that the most guilty of the
Ministers was M. de Polignac, reminding the Court of the
order given by that Minister, that the troops of the line
should be fired on by the Garde, when he heard that the
former were fraternising with the people. M. de Peyreiiiiet,
though less guilty, had incurred the vengeance of the law by
not only signing the ordinances, but by seeking to alter and
falsify the laws for regulating elections. Jl. Chantelauze
had defended himself by pleading the repugnance he had
evinced to enter the ministry; but that was no justification
of bis signing the ordinances. M. Guernon-Ranville de-
fended himself on the same ground, and his attachment to the
charter, which it had been proved, he said, embodied his po-
litical creed—but he, too, had signed the ordinances. M.
Persil concluded by calling on the court to convict and con-
demn the prisoners.

A cry of "Bravo I" followed the conclusion of this speech,
which occupied him two hours and three quarters in its de-
livery ; and which, neither by its composition, nor its logic,
merited approbation.
M. Peyronnet then rose, and, enlling for documents,
showed that the circular letter to the Prefects could not
have been his, it being dated April 13, and ho had not
entered the ministry until tho 18th of June.
After a few words, in reply, from MI. PERSI L, the Court
adjourned fur half an hour.

M. P F. US I t. observed that of the three accusations brought
a!rainst the ministry, one alone, relative to the elections, was
objected to by M. Peyronnet. The passage quoted from M.
Peyronnet's correspondence was extracted from documents
communicated to the Chamber of Deputies. There is an
error certainly in that charge, 1 attributed to M. Pevronnet
instructions to the Prefects, which were transmitted by his
predecessor, NI. Nlontbel. We should be happy if he could
adduce such a powerful argument against the two other
charges, which, unfortunately for him, are too well proved.
He would find us as ready to rectify our errors as in the present
instance. M. Persil here read a totter from M. de Peyronnet
to the Nliniater of Ecclesiastical Affairs, requesting him to
use his influence with the Bishops, to obtain their participa-
tion in promoting the success of the Royal candidates at the
next elections. This letter was dated the 30th of June,
1830. M. Persil then gave communication of a letter from
the Prefect of the department of the Meuse, complaining to
M. Peyronnet of the refusal of a receiver of contributions of
his department to vote according to his desire, with another
letter signed M. Peyronnet, to the Minister of Finances,
calling for the punishment of that receiver.
M. Peyronnet endeavoured to do away with the impres-
sion made on the Court by the reading of those letters. He
said that he merely called for the punishment of an insult
offered by the Receiver to the Prefect, who resented it so
much that he tendered his resignation.
M. Martignac, counsel for M. Polignac, then rose to
present the defence of his client—" A crisis, of which Pro-
vidence presents now and then the recurrence, to instruct
Kings and nations, has destroyed a monarchy, and allowed
that the powerful King, who had a few weeks before de-
stroyed the empire of barbarity on the African shore,should
now be exiled in the mountains of Scotland. He then
mentioned how M. Polignac had charged him with
his defence. His incapacity, be feared, will be the only
obstacle to the success of his cause ;—for the proofs
he has of the innocence of his client proclaimed
it aloud. M. Martignac then explained the manner in
which the Charter was granted. He blamed the principle
on which it was founded—that of divine right, and recapi-
tulated the various feelings with which it was received, by
those who regretted that it granted too much to democracy,
and by others, who thought that it did not concede enough.
Liusis XVIII. respected it ; but, an Jecith, tne division
of property, the liberty of the press, the independence of
the Courts of Justice, were represented to his summer as
forerunners of a new crisis. On the other hand, the attacks
against the press, the increasing power of the Clergy, the
assumption of the education of youth by a proscribed re-
ligious class, created uneasiness in the minds of the
people, who, in the year 1827, returned a Chamber of
Deputies composed of man able to resist the encroach-
ments of the Royal power. lie (Martiguac) could not
perceive the danger of that situation ; but others thought
differently, and the efforts of the latter tended to remove the
ministry to which l►e belonged. They succeeded at last.
A man who had studied in a neighbouring country the con-
stitutional form of government—a man of sincere piety, but
who, unfortunately, was little acquainted with the state of
this country—such was theperson whom Charles X. wished
to invest with his confidence, as early as the year 1825. He
then contended that the violation of the charter was not the
result of a preconcerted plan, and he endeavoured to prove
it by the composition of the new ministry, to which Messrs.
Courvoisier and Chabrol, both well known for their liberality
and moderation, were called. M. Martignac afterwards
recapitulated the acts of that ministry, and arrived
at the ordinances of the 25th of July, which, he says,
time alone will permit to appreciate as well as the
events which it brought about. He then went over all
tl►e occurrences of the revolution, and the acts of the new
government which succeeded that of Charles X. He con-
tested the right of the Chamber of Deputies to order the
prosecution of the late ministry, replied to the charge
brought against M. Polignac, for having deceived the king,
to be the author of all the crimes of that deplorable period,
and to have participated in the fires that desolated Normandy.
He praised the moderation displayed by the chamber, in
the prosecution, and referred to the murmur of approbation
with which he was received, when he announced to it that
M. Polignac had entrusted him with his defence. He
then contended that the accusation was inadmissible, i►►as-
much as the charter was without force after the fall of the
dynasty ; that there was no law, not even the articles of d►e
penal code invoked by the commissioners, applicable to trea-
son ; and that the Chamber of Peers were not invested with
the power to try the ministers. He then examined these vari-
ous objections. The throne was overturned, the charter was
lacerated and modified ; and how, exclaimed M. Martignac,
can the thirteenth article be invoked against my client when
it is a mere remnant of the Constitution? He compared the
ministers to prisoners taken after a victory, and asked if they
would consent to sacrifice them in cold blood, contrary to all
laws of war and humanity. M. Martiguac then contended
that the charter that proclaimed the responsibility of minis-
ters, also provided that they should be judged by the Chain-
her of Peers : but this chamber should be composed of the
same elements it contained at the time that charter was in
force, by a Chamber whose existence was not uncertain as it
was now, but by a fixed and immutable Chamber. On the
30th of July it consisted of 330 members ; that day the
Peers regularly appointed by Charles X. were suppressed,
and the present number is reduced to 192. However, his
client does not refuse the chamber, mutilated as it is; be
submits his acts to the decision of his cotempomries and his-
tory. M. Martignac then proceeded to prove that no law
existed by which the Ministers could be punished. He here
read the 4th article of the penal code, stating that no offence
can be punished in virtue of a law framed after 'the offence
was committed. He then examined the 55th and 56tb

articles of the Charter, and the articles of the p.nal cod-
invoked by M. Persil. M. Martignac then presented long
considerations relative to the nature of the accusation, and
paused awhile before he proceeded to the investigation of the
charges against his client.—(Left sitting.)

FRENCH FUNDS, Dec. 18.
Fire per Cents. 86f 40c 2k 1k 2bc 50c 25c 30c 20e 25c 30e 25c 30c
40c 50e "Me 95c 87f 881 90c 95c.
Three per Cents, 56f 50c 40c 50c 40c 23c 30c 20c 40c 55c 80c.
Bank Actions, 1,500 e
Roue de Naples, 67f 50c 40c 20c 60e 75c 58f.
Bente d'Espagne, 134 f 14.
Royal Spanish Loan, 66.
Rente Perpetuelle d'Espagne, 450 45 454 45 454.
Haytian Loan. 300 f.
Rechange on London, one month, paper, 2Sf 2k ; money, 25f 20c :
three months, paper, 25f 15e; money, 25110 c.