Star.
London, England, 1816-02-16 00:00:00

.~~ ~'

,

. 1 4

BRUCE, WILSON, AND itUTCHINSON,.
Tams 011100:10.1 Of ArreAL AOAIaST TRY 011•
or 101 r&tMCN c'okialia Of COUNCIL, OF
30, atria •
• • -
been atreited and constituted prisoner=
IssatiOil 01 having Ossified in the escape, find
condemned L:ivelette. • •
Tecies.ofottence, even sepposing it preyed,
incur* penalties entirely correctionil; We
ided •to he releise4 upon contOrina.
114 of the Code of Criminall'rotfl**
requests presented.by us with this vit4l,osave
• 'toby an Ordonnaftce dated the nth of
which in the conclusion)r presented by
Procureur. porpoits.. to pronounce is Rol;
order that the demands as( provisional'
,joiniss akjOads,.in•tonsequenc`e see decide
no ground at piesent tut.deterening,
demands."

demands.being thus in fact.twrusta,. we have
necessary to appeal against this Orden-
act signified to the King's •Proturetir'
form.-
it. Memoir hai .for its object tq develdim
Whig's have been merely peuitqd a>Yt in the
• •
,
fecthin which anus to the Ordonnargi
So, is drawn from the contredictionithieb
in the text of it,
when it is soited•that there is AO ftasber at
determine, what reason is there to believe;
cetild nut at present deterininec seeing-that
decided on the fact by adding tliat the
Le &nips& ftroviroire es fonds ?
tore 'determined by them, that they would
the ptoeisional demand, butter detersula.
But when they have decided an lel
to result ? One' of two things—.
ill be acquitted, in. which case it is
no longer stand in need of being pro.
at liberty, as we shall be' o defilhithrely,
condemned to iMprisoArnerit for' a.
which case again it is manifest that
demand becomes without en object.'
not a siegletypothesis 611 which the
. requires .kfinicfs to determine, is eta.
tide in our provisional demand, from
Wendy results that the Ordonnance is
!fining anion& to a provisionatdemand,
ily must be determined before /elands:
inional liberty must be either granted, it
charged be merely correctional, or be re.
-ime charged 'be liable to heavier penal.l
is only this'alternatiie, and the Chang.
had no authority to adopt an inter.:
of decision, which, without appearingl
demand, did nut however comply with
as jamb to the proceedings.
, in siniilar cases is, that the demand
iberty is determined merely' aeelledllig
. cne accusation. If a man is accused of,
,hether the fact is proved or not, provi-I
never granted to him. If, on the
only accused of robbery, such liberty
granted to him.
be Urged, that Articli.lll uses thel
saving to the Judge the faculty of
pleasure, or refusing, the previsional

tterpreiation may be contested by observing,
peurra; employed in Article 114, tc-
sdaject only to correctional punishment,
,ition to the words tie Imerra jamais,
Article 113, respi cant cases whose
ion bears with it aillicttve or infamous

place it may be added, that what
iscrction of the Judge, is sot therefort
arbitrary will of the man ; and fol•
iterprctation, which has nothing but
equitable, we think that the word
114. does not indicate an absolute

imparts a direct-obligation to grant
Whenever Orli accused claims it. if be
situation in Which the law prohibits the

ty prohibits the granting it when die
;don bears with it an affl ctive or in-
Intent (Art. 113), then it ought to be
- case where the title only indicates
pensl6er, (Art. 114) ; otherwise it would
'ty of persons that would mike a diffe.
decisions of the Judge, whilst, on the
ident !trait the different decisions can
the diversity of crimes.
therefore, is reduced to the verification
accusation of which we are the
criminal or correctional.
that it is purely correctional, the
, by virtue of which we remain in pri.
only these words, " accused of having
escape or concealment of the con.
Inagua.' - The escape nr concealment
these words to be applicable to the
we are charged) constitute merely
correctional, according 'to Articles
the Penal Code.

I" •

. , .
. .
. . .11- • •
•
• • .
---- I not exist ageinst its any chose .founded upon dieto'
pretended circumstances.
It js not only in its comenunicatios that the present
Ordonnance is vague, it is also in its motises; thus
we read, 44 In the mean ease the accusation ought
•,• •''4'; •• • I not to be 6sed, till the preliminary process shall he
terminated, beause it is only then the ttibbnalcaa with
certainty 'reject the demand, if there is a sufficient
,
presumption of crime, or ip the'ease of a iimple'of-
, knee, tee the poNver given. to it of granting or no
-fusing thelibaration on bail."
• Considering it therefaetotanded that thitels not
evens a sufficient ?resitiiiiion of crime, we hive a
' right to be astonished-that provisional libetti.has
Seen refined its. As tit 'any thing *further, it it is
y•stated, that the Prestimptiun is not to be defini.
eively fixed tiatil•theprefitnioary process shall be ter-
krill
Limiminated.• is it not to say that there must necessari
by 1 delay, till the prennainary undress is terminated,'
,hafore the del al Vaivisional liberty can be de.
-tied upon, thoighy according to Article I lei
...The .setting at liberty,. istevidoneUy, may be de-
r mended ***granted in *Very stage of the eause"--
ifiat ii to say, as well before as after the preliminary
*ogees itaerniinated. And the very•simple ream*
for this is, that earrecdomil offences can only draw
with theni the..patalty otimprisonment ;if, therefore,
.a We
those accused of them were not allowed to be :ekes.,
,ems ed upon bail, they. would be irrevocably subjected'
tiefose.hatid to the oily try to which they could
`tab
be 'ultimately ' . And it is contrary to alb,
justice thit the ponishitierft should commence before'.
alliance,- apd that thilmodty should be inAicte&
`before it has been pronoiiiieed.
• It is therefore 'contrary to' an equity, to cleave *it-,
.vague presuniptionsor conjectures hazarded op fcf,..
sibilities which' the..preary process hay not
realize, should serve as a basis for•refusing, the en.
,largentent. 'll the proof of thirTact is still vague qr,
title of the acitisation is not that which is fixed, it'
Announces nothinig but offences purely correctional,
and theiefore it is a cue 'in which our prOvision4
liberty ought to be granted. _ . •
But if it is not enough to show that the pretended
aggravating circumstances have no foundation in the
opinions even of the /udges, we shall go mach fur-
ther, by ;hewing that they carrot exist in fact.
They dare not say openly, that we have corrupted
the guardians •of Lavalette; nor can they reproach
us with connivance. They know well that there is
nothing absolutely, nothing that presenft the slightest
proof of this corruption, of which the allegation with-
respect to us is nothing but a mere calumny. The
expressions of the ordonnauce, a little embarrassed in
this particular, give only the idea of 4/ facts of cor.•
ruption or connivance imputed either to the gaoler
'or the turnkey of Lavalette, and which would be'
of a nature to carry with them afflictive and We.:
moos punishment, as well against the principal as the
accomplices."
But it signifies little, whether the gaoler' of the
Sieur Lavalette are accused of corruption or conniv-
ance, if we r..-e not accusedof having used corruption
or connivance with them.
It appears; however, that although the terms of
the Ordonnance do not state an opinion that we have
corrupted the icaolers, yet we are included in the by.
pothesis of Article 242 of the Penal Code; and thus
we are enveloped iii the conclusion; although we are
not included in the premises. •
Adininiug, however, that the Ordonnance state*
clearly that we have corrupted the gaolers, and that
thus we are brought within the penalties designated
by Article :AZ. ' . . .
This accusation is denied by our conscience, which
at 'once rejects as a calumny an accusation supported
by no document, either verbal or *linen, and res.
pectidg which the Ordonnance itself acknowledges
that it has not even hitherto a sufficient presumption.
This accusation, we say, can no longer, so f...: as re-
spects us, be regarded but as a vain pretest, since
Madame Lavalette has obtained her liberty provi-
sionally. In fact, it is impossible to conceive that
we have corrupted the Gaolers, in_ order to allow M.
de Lavalette to escape, when it is not pretended that
we knew that. he was to escape ;—impossible that we.
should be accused of his escape without our knowing
the day, the hour, the moment, the mode of escape
—without being, in a word, in concert with Madame
Lavalette (whom none of us have ever sern)—im.
possible, in that case, that Madame Lavalette her-
self, the virtuous and honourable author of the safety
of her husband, should not know that the Gaolers
were gained and corrupted, sad that they would shut
their eyes ;—impossible, quite impossible, for any
koisonable man to conceive, that the Gaolers should
be corrupted by us in the interest of the Sieur Lava.
'bar, without Madame Lavalette being informed of it.
In this state of the affair, however, Madame de
I.avalette has obtained her liberty provisionally.
It was undoubtedly well done to grant her that
liberty, but it is, at the same time, the strongest evi.
deuce that it ought not to be refused to us from a
motive, which, if it be at all probable With regard,t•
us, must have a much stronger relation to her. '
We are Eoglishmen., but pn account of the peace
and good understanding' which prevails between.
France and our nation, we ought to bet treatedian
France like the most favoured Frenchmen; and it is
midi gfief we bud ourselves compelled to notice the
difference of treatment our demand has receiired.un.
der circumstances which we might call similar,-M-all
she shades of variation that separate them were not
'oink* to our advantage. •
It .sc{uiosfor us to combat another motive of the
Ordaining* drawn frogs this-1 the =natures
practised in order to withdraw from the operation of
the law alt individual condemned for the crime of
high treason;ought pot to be considered as catmint.
,1114 an enlasty lioe. ear an they iii emekke, le oodw the
encellsimess, ow} arceelleg se she bwoulloo wordbood by the
Ms and witness ef die losessdo ithish press* iheithenecee d
wiesseaslns sod a eumwinicy spinethe Governtawa, ail sew
iiitaiatiy of it fact igaied es a creme by the km, there eldsdoe
okeedy to tbe proceeding, docontents, ea/Went to lloPren WI
lawicter on the netting allows against the etkihthoos " •
We have already replied to the last part co( We auselve, tboa
there had related is thepinceedieg documents aided= to
. tem Into a aline a correaional Mimeo obeli* we WV
the Council would wet have 'fait .d Itself arijdolog the
ee pads. and desidioe dies Mani wen se NMI at prima to
point chant oat, or haw. fooodedoo Amide liall WWWWI.I ear
detsaad Without detraideiairk.
.We *had add to M. (lo order to aosabat witri-atectly the
motive), that the tribunals 'abut judge us by NW digits, but
by oar acts i and that if.Enplltlemosoonatudirdly radJlog in
leaner are obliged fit cantina their enteekm miens * the raise-i
'kis lovis nothing ought to Wader then hilil di** Sr (Mil
no the blots et the Seine as oat the boeforri the Thema.
Thae, whalers may ''tire' lien tiiir scent iellillasiti, eve

•
memo=
BY MiMRS.
CONTAININeTi
DOWIpiNCII 0
JAIIVAIIIr 30,
•
We haire b
on the aced's!
I Right of the c
As this spel
1 , can only inc
have del:sande
ble to Article
The request
been replied t
January( Ifilf
the King'a Pr
lu.vs We
1I1) I tY.'roienej
that there id
upon thesaid I
Our demani
thought it
.ne
nante, by an
in the usual fo
.The present
• the reasons. V/h
act ol appeal.
The first obj
of January So,
is presented in
In fact; whe
present 10 dote
• that they ceold
they had decic
• Chamber /sin/ I
It is therefor
not deeideon tli
ing on Is fond:.
fonds, what is
either we shall
c'ear we shall
vision-illy set at
or vke shall be
inked time, in
our proviilonal
It is therefore
tribunal which •
bled to decide
whence it evil
ill judged, in joi
which necessaril
The proviaior
the offence char;
fused, if the crin
ties; but there i,
bee of Council II
mediate mole ol
to refuse the den
• it, and joined au
The principle
. of provisional lib
to the tide of tile
murder, whether
sional liberty is
contrary, he is oi
may be, and is g
Vainly will it I
word itosirra, lea
granting at his pl
enlargement.
• um enterpreta
that the word pen
specting cases Jut),
is put in opposit,
employed in Art
title of :Kew • ion
punishment.
In the second
is left to the discr4
abandoned to the
• lowing 'this inter
what is truly eq
pairra, in article
discretion, but im
the enlargement is
• is not in that ritual
granting it.
•
If the law only
title of the accusal
lama's punishiiiet
granted in every
correctional penal
be the diversity of
• rence in the decii
contrary, it is evid
• only atise out of
The whole, then
of the tide of the
ject, whether it is
We maintain
modals de delta, b,
son, containing on
assisted in the Cl
deinned Lavalett
(even supposing t
fact with which
offences purely c
• • 2+o and 1.48 of th
• It is true that
tempts to add to
eating CiTCURIIII.II
transtoraiing then
But what are it
gravation 1
They would be
connivance with tl
21. Having. in:
- tention of an atte
vernMetil.
We may make,
aggravations, a ge
%WM&
The general re
these pretended ci
the Judges who b.
• Intact if they t
least'convietion,
vases to saying tt
'at4ti theirs, they'
&mad offeifdt,
daakaad is an, abs
their opinion icy(
tectiepal offence ti
As they have su
Opatore be coact
•• • •