In answer to several other questions, he stated that the last moments of the duke de Berry, opened his eyes to the enormity of his guilt, but he refused to answer whether his heart was touched by it-that religion now could not remedy the crime he had committed that his chief reading was The Rights of Man and The Constitution. Being asked, which constitution? he said that of 1789 or the others, for all were alike to him-that he read no newspapers of late, and protested solemnly that he had had no accomplice.

Several witnesses were now examined as to the circumstance of his arrest, and Louvel being asked why he had two poniards, he answered," that I might succeed the better."

Several witnesses recounted the circumstances of the duke de Berry's last moments, but the re-examinations were frequently interrupted by questions proposed by the peers to Louvel. His answers stated, that he had constantly watched the motions of the princes; that he had had some favourable opportunities of assassinating the duke of Berry at an earlier period, but that his courage failed him. He had gone to Calais in 1814, principally to collect the sentiments of the people where the king had passed, "and then to see if I ought to execute my commis

sion."

At the suggestion of M. Lally Tolendhal, he was solemnly adjured by the president to tell if he had had any accomplices, but

imposed upon himself. [Here

there was a confusion of voices in the Court.] Listen to me," he exclaimed, "I am not an orator: I cannot utter pretty sentences; I speak as I can."

The Viscount de Montmorency. -The accused has himself qualified his crime as horrible, and his action as cruel; he perceived then its entire enormity.

Louvel. It is a horrible action; I cannot deny it. When one kills a man, it cannot pass for virtue, it is a crime. I should never have committed it, were it not for the interest that I took in the nation. According to my own ideas, I was acting well.

Though adjured under the most sacred sanctions several times, to confess his accomplices, he repeatedly and most solemnly denied that he had any. One witness, however, proved an attempt by some person unknown, to intoxicate the sentinel on duty at the theatre, a short time before the murder; and some fragments of papers found on the murderer, seemed to confirm the suspicion of his having associates in his guilt. The witnesses were all examined, and the Court adjourned to the following day.

Previous to trial, Louvel continued apparently indifferent. MM. Archambault and Bonnet repaired to him, to announce to him that they had been officially nominated to defend him, but that nevertheless he was perfectly at liberty to choose other counsel. "Gentlemen," replied Louvel, "I have full confidence in you. Besides, there will be but little to say. I have received a copy

of the indictment; I find it cor rect, and I think you will be satisfied with it." After a pause, he added, with as much unconcern as if he had been remarking on the fate of another, "On Monday I shall be tried, on Tuesday I shall receive sentence, -well! all may be over on Wednesday." Several days previously to the visit of his counsel, Louvel said to one of the officers charged with his safety, "I shall doubt less have counsel appointed me!" "Yes," "Would you defend me, Sir?" "No; your crime is too odious." "Bah!" replied the assassin, "it is these trials which afford scope for counsel to display their eloquence."

On Tuesday the Court resumed the trial.

M. Bonnet, counsel for the accused, spoke at considerable length and with great eloquence; he first urged several objections to the competence of the tribunal, and then endeavoured to set up for his client a defence of insanity. Louvel himself read two sheets of paper which he had written while in prison; but of the nature of his own defence the reporters do not inform us. The attorney-general was then heard in reply, and after a consultation of two hours, the Court declared the accused Guilty, and pronounced upon him the sentence of decapitation provided by the charter, which was executed upon the following day.

The following is the account of Louvel's execution, extracted from the Journal des Debats:

"The procureur-general, M. Bellart, interrogated Louvel in prison, on Wednesday morning. The culprit seemed disposed to repel the succours of religion; he

refused to hear a respectable ecclesiastic of Notre Dame. At last his obstinacy was overcome, and he confessed himself to the ordinary of the prison of Conciergerie. The execution, which was fixed for four o'clock, did not take place till six. Every precaution was taken to maintain good order. Two legions of the garrison occupied the Place de Greve. The line of soldiers from that to the Conciergerie was formed by gens d'arme, the chasseurs of the guard, and troops of the line. At a quarter to six Louvel mounted the fatal cart: he was accompanied by the respectable ecclesiastic of whom we have spoken, who offered him perseveringly, though at first unsuccessfully, the succours of religion. His face was extremely pale. During the passage from the prison to the place of execution he never ceased to look to the right and left. The cart arrived at the Place de Greve four minutes before six o'clock. At the foot of the scaffold the confessor redoubled his zeal, and Louvel conversed with him for four minutes. The alteration in his features and his consternation were visible. Two of the executioner's assistants were obliged to support him, and aid him to mount the scaffold. Whilst they tied him to the beam he looked round on all sides. At a minute past six o'clock his head was severed from his body. The crowd dispersed without the least disorder.

RIOTS.-The rabble of the Fauxbourg St. Antoine and the Palais Royal, whose exploits have earned such a disgraceful eminence in the history of the French Revolution, repeatedly attempted, during the last three or four days,

to renew the horrors of that disastrous period, under the pretence of resisting the new election law; but the vigilance of the police, the interference of the military, and, what is much more gratifying and important, the zealous cooperation of a large proportion of the people, were found sufficient to frustrate their malignant efforts.

The feeblest attempt at tumult was that made on the night of Tuesday [the 6th], which was suppressed without difficulty; and during the early part of Wednesday the most profound tranquillity prevailed.

On the morning of the latter day, Lallemand, a law student shot in the riot of Saturday, was buried in the cemetery of Bonne Nouvelle. His remains were attended by a number of his comrades, and three funeral orations were pronounced upon the grave. The last speaker, was indulging in so violent a strain, that his friends thought it necessary to compel him to silence.

The Commission of Public Instruction has issued a proclamation, warning the pupils of the public schools, "that the name of

any student found engaged in the present tumults, shall be irreversibly struck out of the registry of the faculty to which he belongs."

COURT OF KING'S-BENCH. The King v. Waithman and others. Mr. Brougham, of counsel for the defendants, said, the main question upon which their lordships would have to decide was, whether, upon the day appointed by charter for the election of the lord-mayor, it was, or was not, competent to the livery

to enter upon the consideration of other business. He contended that the livery had a right to do so.

Mr. Justice Bayley observed, that if it was competent to the livery to introduce any one extraneous topic upon the day of election, it was competent to them to introduce an unlimited number, even to the superseding of that business for which the meeting was originally intended.

Mr. Brougham said, that he must be an individual of no common sagacity, who, when men were assembled, and speeches were making, could fix the moment at which the discussion would terminate; but contended that there were no fewer than ten instances upon record since the year 1769, in which, at meetings for the election of the lordmayor, discussions foreign to that immediate purpose had been gone into; such discussions having in five cases occurred previous to the election, and in the other five subsequent to that ceremony. He submitted, therefore, that under the peculiar circumstances of the present proceeding, and with reference to the conclusion which those ten precedents might naturally have produced upon the minds of the parties, the Court would not, even if they should think that the defendants had acted irregularly, grant a criminal information. He then proceeded to compare the livery of London, assembled for the election of their chief magistrate, to a grand jury, who, though called together for the purpose of making presentments, and finding bills against individuals, did occasionally employ themselves upon

matters of minor importance, such as voting addresses of thanks or of condolence. The learned counsel then quoted the opinion of Mr. Sergeant Glynn, as confirming his own positions, both as to the necessity of the presence of the livery, and as to the right of the livery, when so assembled in common-hall, to enter into indifferent discussions.

Mr. Justice Bayley wished to know whether the livery were to proceed to those discussions before the election took place, or after it was over.

Mr. Brougham did not find that that point had been decided. He then contended that the livery might assemble in common-hall in despite of the lord-mayor, and, of course, in his absence; and concluded by commenting upon the impropriety of granting a criminal information in a case where nothing like corrupt intention had been proved.

The Solicitor-General, in support of the rule, was disclaiming any vindictive feelings on the part of the prosecutors, whose object was merely to try the right, when he was stopped by an intimation that their lordships had agreed upon the subject.

The Lord Chief-Justice said, that upon the point of right the Court was agreed. The duties of the livery, upon the election of the lord-mayor, were clearly and expressly defined. It was necessary, in order to constitute the assembly, that the lord-mayor and a certain number of aldermen should be present; and it was not competent to the assembly to proceed to other business after the lord-mayor and aldermen had retired, and when a part of their

body only could consequently be present. As it was not competent to the livery to enter upon such discussions after the elections, so it was not competent to them to occupy the time of the Court upon indifferent subjects before such matter which formed the object of the meeting had been completely gone through. To grant a criminal information, however, was a different question. The custom, although erroneous and illegal, had certainly existed, not immemorially, because the first instance quoted had been in the year 1769, but for a very considerable time. The defendants might therefore have been deceived, and might very honestly have imagined, that they had that right, which it turned out that they had not. Unless criminal intention and a wilful desire to commit outrage had been proved, the Court would not feel disposed to make the rule absolute for the criminal information.

The rule was discharged, but without costs, it appearing to their lordships that sufficient ground had existed to warrant the application.

The loan of five millions, for the service of the year 1820, was contracted for yesterday morning, by Messrs. Reid, Irving, and Co., on the following terms:

To receive, for every 100%. subscribed in money, 100%. Reduced Annuities, interest commencing from April 5, 1820; 42. 4s. Three per Cent Consols, interest commencing from July 5, 1820. Discount after the rate of 3 per cent per annum for payments made in full.