Star.
London, England, 1820-01-21 00:00:00

1

THE EVENING STA R.

4

.

FRIDAY, JANUARY 21, 1820.

Tint FUNDS.

PRICE OF STOCKS Till' DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK
S per Cent. Reduced 68% 78 5/3
S per Cent.' Comols 6814
per Cent. 773/4
pei Cent. s6yl Si SU 7/8
5 per Cent. Navy 102 ;s, 103 1023/4
flank Long Atinnitiei 18 1.16
Imperial 3 per Cent. Anns. 67'/ 3/6
India Bond's lls.l2s.pr.
Old Annuities 68.14
:New Annuities 67 A
I:x6equer (2d.) 2s. 3s. pr.
Commercial 7 8 discount
Uranium par.
Consols for Acct. 68r/s 1/1

It it be true. as is stated in a Morning Paper,
"'That it is the int..ntion of the Cu ANCELLOn of the
'EXCH.:QUER, to F:111:1 or Eight Millions of
7.xcheamr Dill, sad to prevail on the Bank to
].old over the payntk-at due to it for a time, so as
to prev‘at the necessity •of borrowing, to meet
aay temporary want that may arise," it really ar-
f, an-s much wisdom and foresight in the Minister.
lie who gains time, gains a great point." Nov.
it seems genet ally admitted by those who have
reasoned on the subject, that the savings of the
Tublic, including those of Corporate Bodies as well
private individuals, are little short of twenty
Liillions a year over and above what is required
fp: Trade ; but this sum can find no other source
investment than in the Funds, and every man of
common capacity must know, that the price of an
article wholly depends on supply and demand ;
theref;)re, if an annual saving of Twenty Millions,
in addition to the Sinking Fund, is applied to the
purchase of Stock, without any new creation by
Loan, the denia.id must greatly exceed the supply,
uhich will of course raise the Funds, and reduce the
permanent Interest of Money to FOUR, or perhaps
under that rate, per cent. This will enable the 31i-
nister either to liquidate the Five per Cents. or to
arranze with the holders, so as to save the cotwitry
by one stroke of finance, upwards of Thirteen Hun-
dred Thousand Pounds per Aillium in Interest, which
is equal, reckoning at four per Cent. to a CAPITAL of
Thirty-two Millions Five I lundred Thousand Pounds!

The Paris Papers of Sunday have arrived.
On Saturday, the Chamber of Deputies were oc-
cupied with the adjourned debate on the Petitions
against any alterations in the Election Law. The
Ministers appear to have been unusually hard run
the motion for the Order of the Day being carried by

a majority of no more than fire! It is to be hoped,
that after this manifestation of the feelings of the
Chamber, and considering the present agitated state
of the public mind in France, on this great and im-
portant question, Ministers will refrain, at least for
the present, from pre-sing any measure on the sub-
ject through the two Chambers. The following is a
sketch of the proceedings:

CIIAMBER OF DEPUTIES.
SITTING OF JANUARY 14.
The debate on the Petitions relative to the Elec.
tion Law was resumed.
M. NIECIIIN could conceive nothing more extra•
ordinary than what was now passing in the Cham.

ber. Principles hitherto acknowledged were now
treated with contempt, and the first elements of the
representative system completely disregarded. He
strongly supported the right of Petition, and con-
e:tided by voting for the reference to the Bureau des

JossE BEAtTvoin observed, that the right of
Petition was sacred, and inseparable from Ilepreseti-
titive Government, but it was a right capable of
buing abused. This was in particular the case with
Petitions which have for their object matters of le-
gislation or general policy. The Criminal Code
prohibits political associations of more than twenty
individuals: and yet, .by an inconceivable 'absurdity,
soot) or 10,000 persons may• unite in signing a Peti-

tion. The subversion of social order was corn.
menced in 1791 by presenting collective Petitions.
Let there be no yielding to fear. 'Were the Petitions
more numerous, what would be the result? Deduct
those who have signed without reading, and there
will remain only such as wish a religion without
morality, and a church without worship—(Bravo,
bratv,f.OM the right side). Last year an old Gene-
ral boasted, by anticipation, of gaining the battle of
tI Elettitins. lie will now lose it on the same
ground. The tears, however, which his defeat may
occasion, will be less bitter than those which victory
would soon cause him to shed. Ile would support
the Order of the Day.
M. DUMEYLET was for referring the Petitions to
the Ikreau des R...nseignemens.
M. de VILLE:LE—It appears to me that no one has
touched the real question on which the Chamber
must decide, viz.—lf what the Petitioners ask, the
riaintenance of the Charter, be compatible with the
Election Law ; and in case it should be found in•
compatible, whether it be not proper to modify that
law? In this case, is it not evident that the Peti-
tions ought to be set aside by the order of the day,
since they express an opinion contrary to that which

ought to be held by the Chamber? An organiza-
tion of the Electoral Colleges could produce.only
elements of opposition, and is incompatible with the
Charter. There is incompatibility.between the exist-
ing Law of Election and the Charter which tl.-.2. King
has given, us. This truth is so strongly.felt, that in
retreating from the difficulty of proposing changes
in this part, the moment the changes. are rejected
we are reduced to the necessity of modifying- the
Charter. lam not afraid of being contradicted by
Ithe event, when I say, that it is impossible the pre-
sent. Session can terminate without the Chamber of
Deptities being driven either to modifications of the
Law of Election or of the Charter—( Violent murmurs
on Use lilt ).—I should regard it as much the more
dangerous, that the modification should not be made
lin the Election Law ; for seeing no other legal
means for the Government maintaining itself, and
saving us, I dread to see it endeavour to succeed
by illegal means. It is for your wisdom to con-
sider the consequences, and not by an ill-calcu-
lated refusal to support the Government, render
necessary a recourse to extreme measures, which
must annihilate all that you would wish to preserve
(Marks of disapprobation on thrift?. MM. B. Con.
stant, de Corcellis, 4c. speak at the sane time, in the
,midst of the tumult ).
M. de CIietUVELINT-4‘ Hear!"
M. de VILLELE-4,- I have said, and I believe I
have proved, that the Election Law can only pro-
duce elements of opposition, as long as the Govern-
ment shall not be sufficiently dreaded for exercising
on the Elections the same influence which parties
exercise over them. We cannot form Electoral Col-
leges in our unhappy country, such as the Revolution
has left it, except out of individuals whose situation
exposes them to the seductions of power, or of the
spirit of party."—After describing in detail the cir-
cumstances to which he attributed this difficulty, M.
de Villele argued, that in all the Departments, the
Electors of the chief Town, according to the present
system, return all the Deputies. This mode of Elec-
tion, he observed, had existed for three years. It was
called the support of the Charter, and was said to be
supported by public opinion; but he was convinced
that that mode of Election which had been adopted
compromised the existing institutions. He could not
participate in the opinion of the petitioners, who
prayed for its maintenance, and therefore would vote
for the order of the day.
M. COURVOISIER rose amidst some agitation. With
regard to the present question, he asked, miry adopt
a different course from that which has hitherto been
followed ? We have scarcely ever rejected Petitions
On the ground that they referred to an object of gene-
ral interest. For example, in 1815, a Petition prayed
for the dismissal of all persons holding offices who
had signed the additional Act. That Petition was not
rejected by the order cf the day. It was even refer-
red to Ministers. He concluded by supporting the
reference to the Bureau des Renseignemens, which, he
observed, left the main question open, and was only
a less harsh mode of proceeding to the order of the
day. He would have the reference made with the
exception of such Petitions as the Reporter, in the
name of the Committee, should state to be disrespect-
ful to the King or the Chamber—(Cries on the left,
Ayeed, agreed I)
M. LAME.—" Supposing, for argument, the Peti-
tions all freely presented, devoid of passion, and ex-
empt from the influence of party, I shall consider them
merely with respect to our practice; and, in that
point agreed, the Chamber will not hesitate to pass
to the order of the day. The Petitioners have exer-
cised a right ; they have kept within the bounds of
respect for the law. But in examining their petitions,
we have also a right to fulfil—a right, if not superior,
at least equal to theirs. You ought to pass to the
order of the day in the first place, because the. prayer
of these Petitions is hostile to the rights of others ;
secondly, because it is in contemplation to improve
our electoral system. The Petitioners say, the Charter
must not be modified, and that the Election Law
must not be changed. Ido not regard the Charter
as in any way compromised in the present question;
but the Chamber is impatient to consider the changes
necessary in the Election Law"—( Tumult ). He paid
.respect to public opinion, but insisted that the law
ought to be changed, and founded his objection on the
impolitic weakness in which he thought it left the aristo-
cracy—(Murrnsurs and laughter). M.LAINE resumed,
and observed, that it was a general opinion in France,
and avowed in the writings of foreign publicists, that.
our Aristocracy is deficient in due weight and autho-
rity. The two powers which were destined to. act
' as restraints on the People, were too weak (Murmurs).
By Aristocracy he did not mean what in former ages
might have been injurious, but a body recently con-
stituted for constitutional equilibrium. To propose
that the Chamber should not take into consideration
the modification of. a law, was to fail in respect to
the Royal prerogative of proposing laws. It would
be, in a certain measure, putting a veto on the Mi-
nisterial portfolios, which might, perhaps, at this
moment, contain contrary orders from the King.
The Chamber had passed to the order of the day
last Sessior, on the motion of the Marquis Barthe-
lemy; why was not a similar course to be adopted
now ? To say it could not, would be to place the
right of petition above every other, and we should
then have only to envy petitioners. He concluded
by voting for the order of the day.
M. MANUEL began by remarking, that the discus-