The Sun. — 1835-05-11 (London, England)

KING. They are now, for the first time, aware that they have been summoned from their ancestral halls to bedizen with the ornaments of justice an act of cruel oppression ; and that in the event of their being overpowered by the people, his most Christian Majesty would be the first to wash his hands of all participation in their judicial proceedings. The knowledge of their danger, has, however, no other effect on them than to render them desperate. A large body of them agreed forthwith, that in the event of the prisoners continuing to disturb the Court in the discharge of its judicial functions, the accused, so offending, should be conveyed to prison, and their trials take place in their absence, in the same manner as if they were present. Count MOLE, the Duke de CAZES, and several other highly influential members of the Chamber of Peers, protested against so unconstitutional a proceeding, and even threatened that if such a proposition were assented to, they would at once quit the Court. The Procureur-General, M. MARTI N (du Nord) had the effrontery to cite the course adoptedby the National Convention in the trial of Danton and Desmoulins, who were condemned to the guillotine in their absence, as a precedent which ought to be followed on the present occasion. The President of the Chamber, Baron PASQUIER, dissented from the doctrine laid down by the Procureur-General. M. PERSIL, the Minister of Justice, thoug!at the precedent a good one, but failed in his endeavours to make the Court adopt it. On Saturday the Court suffered such interruption from the prisoners of Paris, that it was obliged to remand them to their dungeons. The reading of the accusation was then proceeded with, and will continue to occupy the Court for at least three more sittings. How the Peers, who protest against the trial of the prisoners in their absence, can reconcile to themselves a tacit consent to the reading of the accusation in the absence of the accused—and which forms a material part of the trial—is beyond our comprehension. Has the Court changed its opinion respecting the precedent cited by the Procureur-General ? Has it come to the conclusion that it is safer to imitate the conduct of the Government of the Reign of Terror, than to allow a body of men about to be tried for their lives, to choose their own counsel ? Are there no fears entertained that the slumber of France may at last be broken by such crying acts of injustice as'are now in the course of perpetration ? What !—conderrin men to death, in their absence, because they insist on being defended according to the express constitutional laws of their country ? This is horrible. Far better dispense altogether with the mockery of a trial, than thus tarnish the sacred robes of justice. If the Peers are resolved to proceed with these disgraceful persecutions of comparatively innocent men, let them at once condemn them to death. The act will be less cruel, and as far as they are concerned, the consequences will be precisely the same as if they arrived at such a conclusion by a much more tedious process. They have gone as far as they will be suffered to go with impunity. The condemnation of the prisoners in their absence, must be regarded in the light of a judicial murder. There is no disguising this fact ; nor will all the power of the KING be able to defend them from the punishment which a justly incensed people will visit upon them, should they be weak and wicked enough to listen to the suggestions of M.