Star.
London, England, 1819-04-20 00:00:00

SITTING OF THURSDAY.

M. FIGAROL spoke in favour of the unqualified
adoption of the project as presented by the Minis-
ters. He was surprised at the reduction proposed
by the Commission in the different fines and penal-
ties, and thought that, at a moment when the public
mind was so much agitated, and when the licentious-
ness of the press exceeded all bounds, the law ought
to be maintained in its utmost rigour.
M. Ctrvisn, one of the Commission on the Law,
then ascended the tribune, and replied at consider-
able length to the different objections which had been
made to the project.

M. COURVOISIER, the Reporter of the Commission,
^was also called upon to reply, but not having had
an opportunity of advising with the other Members
oa the various amendments which had been proposed,
ha contented himself with remarking, in reference to
the objection of M. FIGAROL, that the Commission
had been guided in their proposed reduction of the
&les and penalties by a principle which he believed
to ba incontestable, namely, that too great a severity
of punishment contributes invariably to defeat its
own object, and to let the guilty escape.
The closing of the general discussion was then
loudly called for, and agreed to.
The PRESIDENT then proceeded to give a sum-
mary'analysis of the principal dispositions of the law
o,nd of the amendments proposed, and concluded
with putting the question on th, Ist article, to which
the Commission had pr posed no amendment.

M. JACQUINOT-PAMPELUN E had two amendments
to propose to this article. The first was to strike out
the word tenus in the following expression: 4, Who-
ever shall by discourse held (tenus), or by cries or
by menaces preferred in public places," &c., Persons'
might hold a private conversation with a friend at a
public assembly, which, not being made public,,
ought not to be regarded as matter of public offence.,
The second was merely of a verbal nature, in order'
to put the law in conformity with a relative provie
sion of the Penal Code.

The KEEPER of the SEALS acceded to the propriety
of both Amendments, and on being put to the vote,
they were adopted by a large majority.

The PnEstuENT then read the second Article of
the Law, which provides that though any attempt to,
provoke a breach of the Laws shall not be attended'
with success, the autiwrs of the attempt shall never-
thercss be liable to punishment.

I. dacQui NOT-PA rer.usix proposed to reduce the
minimum of fine in this case from 500 fr. to 50fr.—
The Chamber had abolished confiscation. The Cham-
ber should nut revive it by obliging Judges to pro.
pounce extravagant fines. Confiscation had been
abolished because it was a punishment not confined,
to the guilty individual, but Which might extend to
his innocent family and relatives. M. Jacquinot-
Pampelune also supported another Amendment pro,-
posed by the Commission, fur reducing the minimum
of imprisonment in this case, from three months to
three days.
The Chamber voted successively in favour of both
Amendments.
In Article 3, a similar limitation of the fines and
periods of imprisonment was prOposed by M. JAQUI-
NorTnbaracurat, and the Article, thus amended,
vas adoptedby the Assembly.
The PILEMDENT read Article 4, relative to formal
attacks upon the order of succession to the Throne,
of against the consittuional authority of the King
and Chambers.
JACQUINOT PAMPF.I.UNZ proposed to sub6titute
for. the words." order of succession to the Throne,
cr against the Constitutional authority of the King
and Chambers," the following—" the inviolabilny

^- -L

~...

11

-