Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1831-02-08

The President having called upon tho Commits |
sioners of Accusation 10 proceed.
Berenger, the Reporter of tho Commission,
rose, and addressed the Court, and said that the
Act OF Accusation which had just been read against
the Ministers of 'harles X formed the subject of
the inquiry upon which the Chamber was about TO
proceed. In the name of the Chamber of Dcpu-
ties, by whom the impeachment had been crdcred he
demanded the convection and punishment Of the pr-
soners, for having conspired attempt overthrow
by of,rbiirary power, the liberties of France,
and for having wilfully and unlawfully shed the
blood Of its citizens. In thus calling for Justice Of
the Peers he wished to remind them that the citizens
of Paris who had suffered fghtully in the strug-
gle only solicited justice. Tie whole naton'concur-
red that CALL and would be attended TO when ne
should have developed and proved the guilt Of the
prisoners. the ia ion has right, cont nued he, to
require solemn satisfaction. II is OF Importance
that the tribun" which is to pronounce be nGepen-
dent. lfit could cease TO be so, its decision would
not be i sentence. France, Europe, and pos,erty
would contest its validity Gentlemen TO the Cham
Der, 1t is in your conscience in the powers which the
Constitution has invested you with, that you must
find the guarantee which society requires.
The PnEsrDENr then addressed NJ. de Pognac.
Iou know the charges against you. Your answers
must De clear, order 10 satisfy the conscience of
the Peers When you entered the Ministry of the
6th oil August, were You not already acquainted
with the intention of King Charles y. with regard
to you ?-No.
Was it you who formed that Ministry?-Several
persons were recommended to me; for example,
Messrs Chabrol and Courvosier.
Was that formation preceded by conference, hav-
ing Tor ITS object TO prevail on Mr. Chabrol TO join
the Ministry?-No.
Was there plan formed for the Administration?
No.
Why did NJ. Labnurdnnnaye retire from the Min
is'ry?-On account of some difference of opinion
relative to the appointment OF President of the
Council
What the nature of ti."t dIaronce:--I ca
not disclose the secrets of the Council.
Whatever scrlplas you may have IN that respect,
your duty to promote the course of u>ca ia deli ed
you rights still more limited than you believe as
there is question at which involves the pun
ishment OF your coleugues.-I bound To dis
close what has taken place in the Council. cannot
beray my oath
WHO drew - the answer To the al iress of the
ChaInber?-I don'l know.
Was there any opposition in the Counci, on that
occasi1n'-Therc were snnts observations made.
Was not the dissolution of The Chamber at that
period already resolved uoon3-I am rnorau, OF he
period you refer to.
am speaking of tie Prorogationo-No.
w as that dissolution attended with any discu;sion'
No
What was The cause of That ncasurc:-The hone
OF having Chamber favorable to our views
Why did MesLrs Ch7b5ol ani Convosicr retire.
from the Minisiry?-In consequence OF difference
of opiuon, but not OF account OF the performances of
S,iatoh. Was there any other question discussed
n the Counci?-No.
However, did you not make propositions relative
to cerI ain POSSIBLE contUgsncies?-In the event of
tue occurrence OF certain circumstances, we Discus
sed what was best to be done
Did NJ. Courvoisier show any Discrimination tc
participate in The measures relative to those circum
sances'-' was on account of the dissolution that he
thought proper 10 retire.
Why N II. Montbel, Capcl and PeYronne
appointcd'-In order to introduce good orators into
the Cabinet.
Why was the King prevailed upon to address 9
personal Proclamation to the electorS?-It was for
the purpose of obtaining avoraGs choices from he
electors.
Who wGote the proclamation?-T don't know.
signed IT. II was thought proper 10 have signed by
the President of the Council.
Was not that idea connected with former plan'
The note written the 5th April seems 70 Justify
that suPposition'-I would wish to see that note
Here the note was handed 10 NJ. Poignac; when
the President proceeded. see nothing IN this no e
to justify your assertion re- ort sent 10 the KING
OF the 7th May, proves an intention not to violate
the Charter.
NJ de Peyronnet here expressed wish to make
e" observations but, at the request Of the President
he sat down.
NJ. Martignac required that the explanations con
corning these facts should be adjourned because thev
~ ere connected with the defence.
Were not threats moral violence every sort of
nanGuvre used to influence the elections?-No vio-
ence was used towards any body.
Was not the secrecy OF the votes violated
lont believe it was.
AT what Tina was the question of the ordinances
Is days before.
What motives induced the Administration to adopt
those ordlnances?-7'hat Is part of my plan of de
fence.
BY whose direction were they inserted in the NO
nitsnr'-By that off one of my colleagues
Were the ordinances debated in Couucii?-Tbcy
we're.
BY whom were they signed?-By all the Ministers
by whom was the ordinance relative 10 the Press
drawn up?-l cannot denounce any of my colleagues
Il was discussed IN Council, and signed by ali The
Minister'S also the ordinance relative to elections
signed by the whole Council. No persons foreign
TO the Administration made acquainted with
the proposed measure; resortcd to in order
10 enforce the execution Of these ordinances Tho
Council did not resolve establishing extraordinary
tribunals.
Was it determinated in the Council TO collect in
Paris strong military force2-The garrison Of Paris
only was employed, aud did not undergo any auemcn-
.ation.
Was the King asked to give the command in Chief
10 the Duke Of Ragusa'-l had already proposed that
measure to the King two months bef,re. The Mar
shall was Governor of the first military division: he
received no letters but those to invest him With the
Command in Chief
Were the Project Of the Seine and the Project Of
ha Police made officially acquainted with the ordi
hey must have been.