At the sitting of the French chamber of deputies on the day of the appearance of the foregoing letter, Comte de Mun, a member of the chamber and representing the monarchical party, questioned the government “as to the measures which the minister of war intends to take, in consequence of the article published this morning by M. Emile Zola.” After a stormy debate and a suspension of the sitting, M. Méline, the prime minister, reluctantly declared the intention of the government to prosecute the author of the article. Accordingly, on January 20, the assize court of the Seine served notice on M. Zola and M. Perrenx to appear before it at the Palais de Justice on the following February 7, and there answer to a charge of having publicly defamed the first council of war of the military government of Paris, the charge being based on the following passages from the incriminated article: “A council of war has just dared to acquit an Esterhazy in obedience to orders, a final blow at all truth, at all justice. And now it is done; France has this stain upon her cheek; it will be written in history that under your presidency it was possible for this social crime to be committed.” “They have rendered an iniquitous verdict which will weigh forever upon our councils of war, which will henceforth tinge all their decrees with suspicion. The first council of war may have been lacking in comprehension; the second is necessarily criminal.” “I accuse the second council of war of having covered this illegality, in obedience to orders, in committing in its turn the judicial crime of knowingly acquitting a guilty man.” On January 22 “L’Aurore” published a second letter from M. Zola, addressed to the minister of war, in which he complained that the government had based its charge of defamation exclusively on those passages of his first letter which related to the trial of Major Esterhazy, carefully refraining from specification of those passages relating to the trial of Captain Dreyfus, lest thereby the truth about the latter should come to light and compel a revision of his case. This second letter concluded as follows: Why were you afraid to take notice of all my charges? I will tell you. Fearing an open discussion, you have resorted, in order to save yourself, to the methods of a prosecuting attorney. They have called to your attention, in the law of July 21, 1881, an Article 52 which permits me to offer proof concerning only the matters “set forth and complained of in the summons.” And now you are quite at your ease, are you not? Well, you are mistaken; I warn you in advance; you have been ill-advised. The first thought was to bring me before the police court, but they did not dare, for the court of appeals would have upset the whole procedure.