332 



ANNl'AL REGISTER, I8I6. 



t3(i in the same charge ; but their 

 trial does not belong to the pre- 

 SL'nt nanative. It may, however, 

 be remarked, that the wife of La- 

 vilette was entirely discharged 

 fro.n |»rosetution. 



'J'he Assize Court sat on April 

 2'3, when the trial of the three 

 English pri^oners, which attracted 

 a vei y numerous auditory, among 

 \vh:)ni weie many English gen- 

 tlemen and ladies, commenced at 

 eleven o'clock. The |)resident 

 was M Koniain de Seze, son of 

 the person honourably distingnish- 

 e,l by his defence of Louis XVI. 

 M. Hua, advocate-general, acted 

 as public prosecut(n". The <idvo- 

 c ite for the pri-^orters was M. Du- 

 pin. Sir R. Wils<m appeared in 

 grand uniform, decorated with 

 seven or eight orders of different 

 European States, oi;e of which 

 was tiie coidon of the Russian or- 

 der of St. Anne, f'apt Hntctnn- 

 son wore the imif »rm of his mi- 

 litary rank. When the accused 

 were called upon to give tiieir 

 names and qualities, Mr. IJrnce 

 sail] with energy, " I am an Eng- 

 lish citizen." The president ob- 

 seived, that though relying on 

 tlieir correct knowleilge of the 

 Fr;'iich language, they did not 

 ask for an interpreter, yet the 

 1 iw of France willed that the ac- 

 cused should not be deprived of 

 a IV means (f facilitating their 

 j istilication, e- en when nnclaim- 

 e ; M. Robtrt was accordingly 

 111') ed aad sworn to tha ndice 



Mr. Mruce, speaking in K ench, 

 t'len said, that although he and 

 his countrymen had snbmitte.l to 

 t!ie law of Kranci.-, they h id not 

 lost he privilege of invoking the 

 law »,f rations. Its principle was 

 reciprocity ; and as in England 

 French culprits enjoyed the light 



of demanding a jury composed of 

 half foreigners, it ap|)eared to 

 them that the same right, or fa- 

 vour, could not be refused to them 

 in France. The decision of se- 

 veral eminent lawyers of their 

 own nation had strengthened 

 them in this opinion ; but the 

 justice which had been rendered 

 them by tiie Chamber of Accusa- 

 tion, in acquitting them of one 

 charge, had deternuned them to 

 renounce this right, and they 

 abandoned themselves without re- 

 serve to a jury entirely composed 

 of Frenchmen. That, however, 

 no precedent might be drawn 

 from their case against such of 

 their countrymen who miglit here- 

 after be in the same situation, 

 they had made a special declara- 

 tion of the purpose of their re- 

 nunciation. 



M. Dupin moving the court 

 that tliis declaratiim might be en- 

 tered on the record, the .Advocate- 

 general expressed his astonish- 

 ment at a claim in France, for an 

 oftencc committed in France, of 

 the p iviietres of a foreign legis- 

 lature, and o])|)osed entering the 

 declaration. After s.juie arguing 

 on the subject, the couit pro- 

 n(nu\ced the following decision : 

 " Because every offence commit- 

 ted n a territory is an object of 

 jurisdiction, and because the ex- 

 ception demanded by the prison- 

 ers is not allowed by any con- 

 struction of the crinnnal code of 

 Fiance, the court declares that 

 there is no ground for recording, 

 at the lequest of the English 

 prisoners, the dec'aration now 

 made by them ; the court there- 

 fore orders the trial to proceed."' 



The arret of the act of accu'^a- 

 tion drawn up by the procureur- 

 generul was then read, which 



took 



