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

adhered the same day to the new Charter and the election
of a new King, and declared at the same time that
they depended on his prudence for the exclusion of his
colleagues. The excluded Peers have the same right to the
Peerage as all the others. I have been elevated to the
Peerage by Louis XVIII. and I consider all those who have
received the same honor from Charles X. have the same
right to it as Ito mine. But their exclusion bears in par-
ticular the most inauspicious character, in regard to the accu-
sation now preparing against the Ministers of Charles X.
The natural Judges of Ministers are, not a portion of the
Peers, but the whole Peerage. Art. 62 of the Charter,
which all the Peers have sworn to, says, " None can be di-
verted from their natural Judges." Art. 63 adds, " That
in consequence, no commission or extraordinary tribunal can
be formed." I consider that the highest established
tribunal of the State, arbitrarily divested of a portion
of its members, if summoned to judge, must be trans-
formed into a commission or extraordinary tibunal ;
in fact, I do not see how it can be other-
wise maintained, and I am convinced that poste-
rity will sicken, and look back with horror, upon con-
demnations to death sentenced by such a species of tribunal.
I shall therefore not associate myself by an oath to an act of
exclusion, which transforms the Court of Peers into a Com-
mission or Extraordinary Tribunal; as the condemnation to
death which it has the power to pass, will be defaced before
band with the character of judicial murder. Posterity will
be more severe in discerning that character, when the Judges
have in the condemnation of the accused an apparent interest.
The Peers who have adhered in the Sitting of the 7th of
August last to the declaration of the vacancy of the Throne,
do not pretend to be relieved from the oath which they had
taken to his Majesty King Charles X. and to the Constitu-
tional Charter, but they charge that unfortunate Prince
with having by: the advice of his Ministers violated the
charter himself ! These same peers have, then, an apparent
interest in tinding guilty, the Ministers for whom the accusa-
tion is preparing; and I will not associate myself by an oath
to a system which gives to Ministers for Judges, men who
have created to themselves an apparent interest to condemn
them. I have just explained the motives of my refusal to
take the oath which is required of me. I considered it my
duty to declare it to my colleagues. I therefore beg
of you, M. le President, to have the goodness to
give to the Chamber, in its sitting of to-day, the read-
ing of this letter, and beg it to order the insertion
in its verbal process. A member of the Chamber of Peers,
dismissed from his right of sitting because be remains faith-
ful to his oath, cannot think himself validly discharged by
that of his obligation to determine and to vote in a Cham-
ber of which he is a member. His will does not make him
an accomplice of the obstacle which prevents him from ful-
filling his duty. He gives up to the abuse of material
strength.—l am, &c.
The Count FLORIAN DE HEROORLAY,
Paris, Rue St. Dominique, No. 102, Peer of France.
Sept. 23, 1810.