differences? I can say nothing of the particulars which confidentially transpired in the councils of the king.

What is the meaning of your distinction? Justice requires from you the fullest explanations, it is your duty to give them, both for yourself and your colleagues.-I cannot disclose the secrets of the council. I have no means of furnishing the particulars which transpired therein.

Who dictated the answer to the address of the Chamber of Deputies?—I am ignorant about it.

Was there not, I ask you, some opposition in the council respecting it? It necessarily gave rise to some observations and discussions.

Was not the dissolution of the Chamber a measure long resolved upon?-From what epoch do you wish me to speak?

Was it not determined upon to dissolve the Chamber at the time of the prorogation?-No, it was

not.

What was the motive which led to the measure of dissolution ?The desire to have, as we hoped we should, a better Chamber.

Why did MM. de Chabrol and Courvoissier retire from the ministry?-On account of differences in the council, but not because of the ordinance for the dissolution.

Was it not because it was wished to give a new direction to the council? No.

But there were reports made in that council, were there not, respecting certain circumstances-you have admitted this yourself?-To what circumstances do you particularly allude, and to what admissions of mine?

Did not M. Courvoissier declare he would take no part in these violent measures?-It was after the

report was drawn up for the dissolution, that he said he wished to take no further part in the proceedings of the council.

Why did you select for the ministry MM. Montbel, Capel, and Peyronnet?-It was to give the ministry more strength of able speakers.

What was the motive of the king to require the electors, by a proclamation, not to be hostile to the avowed wishes of the king?— To secure, as far as possible, the influence of his friends.

Who drew up the proclamation? -I don't know.

Was it not you who signed it ?— Yes, it was.

You have said, that, up to the moment of publication, no part of the public was apprised of your intention respecting the ordinances? -I believe none.

Precautions were taken to arrange the local command after their publication?-Yes.

Were not the proper precautions taken ?-No.

Did you not, on the 26th of July, cause a communication to be made to the king, of the public impression produced by the promulgation of the ordinances?-1 can make no communication upon that head.

Were not several hundred men, 500 or more, drawn up before the Tuilleries?-Yes, it was I ordered general Wall to make that military disposition, on hearing that crowds were collecting in the streets.

What councils did you hold during the three days?-There was only a council held on the Tuesday, the 27th of July.

Did you deliver any orders to the military, and to the Prefect of Police ?-No; I did not.

Did you not give orders to the

Procureur du Roi, and also to break the presses of the journals? -No.

Were you informed speedily of the breaking out of the troubles?I was only informed of the opening tumult in the Palais Royal.

Did you not order the execution of the ordinances?-No; that was not in my province.

Were you not at St. Cloud on Tuesday, the 27th ?-No.

Did you not hear that numbers of the manufacturers were discharging their workmen ?—Yes; on the Tuesday evening only.

pro

Were you not aware of the testations of the deputies on the Tuesday?—I was, through the medium of the public papers.

Did you give orders to arrest the deputies who had signed this protestation?-No; I did not.

Did you not cause orders to be given to the guard royal and the gendarmes to repel force by force, and put down the tumult in the Palais Royal?-I deplore, as intensely as any man can, the blood which has been shed; I lament it deeply, and it was not caused by any orders of mine; and I know it will be in proof before you hereafter, that I immediately entreated the king to revoke the ordinances, and offered at once my resignation, as a peace-offering to the resisting people. This will be proved in evidence.

Then did you not give any order to the troops to use force?-None whatever, I declare.

But if you had given no order, there is a great difficulty in believing you could be ignorant that such orders were given, and if so, what were the motives of your noninterference. Who gave orders to the police for the illegal proceed ings? Their officers, I suppose.

Did you not give the orders, or

hear them given, to distribute fifty rounds of ball-cartridges to the troops?-No; I had nothing to do with those matters. They were necessarily in the hands of the marshal in command, who had declared Paris in a state of siege. The whole military power was necessarily vested in him.

Then it is not true that you were a party to any of these military orders, or that you ever said to an officer in command, "You will fire every where where you can, and you wish to fire?"-I never said

SO.

Did you render any account to the king of what passed on the Tuesday?-No; for I had no official correspondence upon the subject, and could not therefore make official communications to him relative to it.

Did you not know that the combat was then every where raging? No; I did not.

Nor of the number of persons then killed?—No.

Nor that the shops were shut, and the armourers plundered ?Nothing of the kind.

Nor of the fire at the exchange? -No.

Were you not soon apprized of the re-assemblage of the deputies at the house of M. Cassimir Perier, and of their resolution?--Of none of these things.

Nor of the formal protest drawn up in their name by MM. Guizot, Dupin, Villemain, &c. ?-I knew of none of these details until after my arrest.

You repeat, you had no official communication with the king on Tuesday?—None officially, but verbally.

What communication had you with your colleagues?—We had a council on Tuesday evening.

Who was it that proposed to

Was there any opposition?-The proposal to place Paris in a state of siege was adopted.

What reason induced its adoption? The motives will be assigned in the defence.

Was the placing Paris in a state of siege spoken of in the council? -No.

At what hour on Wednesday were you at St. Cloud?-Eight, or half-past eight, in the morning. Were you informed as to the state of Paris?—No.

Did you propose to the king to sign the ordinance, placing Paris in a state of siege ?—Yes.

At what o'clock did you return to Paris?-At eleven o'clock.

Did you inform the marshal of the placing Paris in a state of siege?—Yes.

Were the civil authorities informed of it?-It must have been

So.

Was it with the council that the marshal put himself in relation?With me and with the council.

At what o'clock on Wednesday did you leave the hotel of the

Did you communicate with the other ministers ?—Yes.

Did you communicate with the marshal?—I asked him what had passed, and what he thought of it.

At what hour did you part with the deputies at head-quarters ?— In the morning.

Did the marshal give you an account of the proceeding of the deputies?-He made several observations to me on the subject. When I knew that the deputies were with him, I caused it to be intimated to the marshal that I could not see them. He told me that the conditions they insisted on were the withdrawal of the ordinances. I answered, that I could not take that upon me, but that I would communicate with the king. I then sent an officer to the deputies to say, that I would see them; but when I knew the conditions on which I had already made my answer, I did not think it my duty to see them.

About two o'clock.

What induced you to leave the hotel?-The crowds were numer

ous.

Did you make your determina tion known to the other ministers? -There were one or two of them with me at the time.

Were you informed of the resistance made by the inhabitants? -The information was not brought

to me.

Then you did not inform the king of what had taken place? I could not do so, as I did not know it till late in the day-towards eleven o'clock. I wrote that

it was my duty to send it to the competent authorities.

Had the council any sitting after Paris was placed in a state of siege ?-There was no meeting of council after the evening of the 27th.

Did you do nothing to stop the effusion of blood ?-The placing Paris in a state of siege placed all power in the hands of the marshal. I

could have wished to stop the effusion of blood; but I repeat, that I could do nothing to prevent it.

Did you make the king acquainted with what was passing

at Paris?-No; but I think the marshal did.

At what o'clock did you rejoin your colleagues on Thursday morning? I cannot say precisely.

What did you resolve on with them?-We resolved to proceed immediately to St. Cloud, to require the recall of the ordi

nances.

Did you not issue orders to arrest several persons, amongst whom were some of the deputies? -Such orders appear, indeed, to have been given, though not by me, and were revoked an hour after.

However, it is not probable that the marshal would have taken such a measure of his own accord? -I do not know who gave him the orders in question.

After the departure of the deputies, were you not informed that the troops were declaring for the people; and did you not then say, that the troops of the line ought to be fired at?-I do not remember having said any thing to that purpose.

In the course of the evening did you not assemble your colleagues, in order to deliberate on what was to be done the next day, which was Thursday?-No council met since that moment.

Did you take every measure necessary to prevent the effusion of blood?-No measure could be taken; for we continued to hope that the disorders would cease.

Was the Cour Royale ordered to the Tuilleries in consequence of your directions ?—Yes.

Was this measure adopted in the council? I have already observed, that no council was held since the Tuesday.

the events which were taking place in Paris? By MM. de Semonville and d'Argout.

On hearing the reports of these two peers, did you not retire with your colleagues to deliberate on the subject?-I certainly spoke on the subject with my colleagues, but I declare again that no council was held.

When the repeal of the ordinances and the dismissal of the ministry were once decided upon, how did it happen that such a length of time elapsed before this resolution was made known in Paris, and did you make no opposition to it? When the king signed the repeal of the ordinances, I immediately retired; and, from that moment, I have remained a total stranger to the public affairs.

--

Do you know if any money was given to the troops? On the Monday they received none; but I heard that those who were in Paris received some money on Wednesday.

In virtue of what ordinance was that money distributed?-In virtue of an ordinance emanating from the minister of the Finances.

Where, and by whom, were the orders given to dissolve the camp of St. Omer?-By the king, during the night between Wednesday and Thursday.

Examination of Count Peyronnet.

Were you acquainted with the measures which preceded your accession to the ministry ?-No.

Did you hold any conference with your colleagues relative to the measures which were to be ultimately taken concerning the elections ?-I attended one conference previous to my accession

Was there not a scheme formed to effect an entire change in the system of elections ?—I believe, that in the proceedings there are most evident proofs of the contrary. The only report to the king on the subject is one, dated the 14th of April, and which announces, on the part of the government, the formal intention of maintaining the charter. This report was made a few days before I became minister.

What motives determined the king to appeal in person to the electors by the proclamation which preceded the elections?—I do not feel it my duty to investigate the intentions of the king. However, it is probable that his motives were the same as those which prompted Louis XVIII in 1820. Was the proclamation issued by the council?—Yes.

Who drew it up?-I am bound

to name no one.

Why was it signed by the prince de Polignac, and not by yourself? -Because it was thought more proper at the moment.

Were not many illegal measures taken to influence the elections?I took no measure of the kind you allude to; on the contrary, I always opposed them. I shall avail myself of the present opportunity to beg of the Court to allow my defender to read the only circular which I wrote at the moment of the elections.

[M. Hennequin, defender of M. de Peyronnet, then read the circular, in which the minister gave orders to the prefects to take every measure necessary, in order that the electors might vote freely, and in perfect security.]

M. de Peyronnet-I shall also beg leave to enter into some details, in order to bring to light the

sincerity of my conduct at that period. Of the presidents of the electoral colleges, three were chosen in this Court, and now attend the present trial; they thought proper to consult me on the speeches they were to make at the opening of the colleges, and I hope that they will not refuse to do me justice by making known my answer to their demand.

Were no threats made use of against any public functionary who should venture to oppose the intentions of the government?—— I can affirm positively that no menace was made use of by me in my relations with the public functionaries.

Were no circulars addressed to the electors?-I have been informed that several prefects did address circulars to the electors of their departments, but they acted on this occasion without my orders.

Did not many violent disorders take place at Montauban at the moment of the elections, and what measures did you adopt to repress them?-On being informed that disorders had arisen at Montauban and at Figeac, I transmitted immediate orders for the punishment of those who had disturbed the public tranquillity. I am truly sorry that the orders in question have not been found, and I have already expressed my regret on that point to the Commission of the Chamber of Peers.

The President.-I have myself written to Montauban, in order to cause due researches to be made for the letters you affirm having written, but the prefect of that town has replied, that all investigation has been unsuccessful.

M. de Peyronnet. I should wish that the clerks of the ministry of the Interior, charged with that