The Sun.
London, England, 1852-02-02 00:00:00

FRANCE.
Four political refugees, from Geneva, wiao entered
France on the sth of December, and assassinated a
gendarme who attempted to arrest them, have been
sentenced by court-martial, at Lyons, one to hard
labour for life, one for twenty years, and one to
death. One was acquitted.
The senior member of the Senate is M Thibau-
dean, born in March, 1765, ex-member of the Con-
vention.
The reception of Count de Montalembert at the
French Academy is to take place on Thursday next,
February sth, at two in the afternoon.
The committee of dramatic authors was received
on Wednesday by M. de Persigny. The object of this
interview was to submit to the Minister various ob-
servations on the present state of dramatic art, and on
the situation of the theatres, particularly in what con-
cerns the tax for the poor, which !presses so heavily on
theatrical undertakings. The Minister replied that
their observations should be taken by him into serious
consideration, and that he should be happy to aid in
restoring the former prosperity of the theatres, so ma-
terially injured during the last two years.
The following are the official prices fixed by the
Minister of War for horses and other quadrupeds for
the service of the army :—Horses for the reserve,
800 f. ; for the line, 550 F. ; for the light cavalry, 550 f.;
ditto for Africa, 350 f.; for artillery and waggon train,
650 f. ; draught horses, 550 f. ; trained horses for the
military schools, 1,000 f.; officers' horses, 900 f. ; mules,
500 f. ; donkeys, 200 f. ; camels and dromedaries,
2001.
The Moniteur announces that the electric telegraph
line between Paris and Chalon-sur- Soane is now com-
plete, and that dispatches may be transmitted by it.
The receipts of the Orleans and Bordeaux Railroad
Company, for the week ending the 19th inst., amount
to 104,414 f., being an increase of 36,997 f. as com-
pared with the corresponding period of the year 1851.

GERMANY.
The Prussian Stoats Anzeiger of the 28th pub-
lishes the new regulations designed to secure the more
efficient action of the landwehr, by incorporating the
active forces of that body in the brigades and
squadrons of the regular army.
In the sitting of the First Chamber at Munich on
the 24th, the Bill on the press was voted, as well as
a Bill empowering the Crown to name the president
of that Chamber.
The debates on the war budget in the Second
Bavarian Chamber have fur the last few days been
very animated. Allusions to the Rhine, and to
General St. Arnaud's circular have been frequent, and
M. von der Pfordten's patriotism has led him to
express himself very warmly on the duty of omit-
ting no measures for guarding its sacred banks. A
portion of the Opposition, foremost in which was
Prince Wallerstein, ridiculed all apprehension of
danger from France. In the beat of debate M.
von Lassaulx supported the Government estimates,
and stated that he did so the more readily, as
the States of Germany must be prepared for the
eventualities, since the political power in France
had been seized by a " freebooter." The French
Minister made a formal remonstrance to the Presi-
dent of the Ministry, M. von der Pfordten, against
the application of such an expression by a deputy of
the Chambers, to the chief of the French Government.
In the siting of the 24th, M. von der Ptordten ex-
pressed his regret that M. von Lassaulx should have
used so injurious a term; had be heard it he should
have requested that the Hon. Deputy be called to
order. The President of the Chamber also stated that
he had not heard the word, a declaration the Chamber
received with loud laughter.

THE ORLEANS PROPERTY.
The following Protest has been published in the
Itulependance, a Belgian paper, as no French jour-
nal would be permitted to reproduce such a docu-
ment :
" THE TESTAMENTARY EXECUTORS OF THE LATE KING
LOUIS PHILIPPE TO THE PRINCE PRESIDENT OF; THE
REPUBLIC.
" The testamentary executors of the late King Louis
Philippe deem it their imperative duty to protest against
the decree of the 221 of January, 1852, relative to the
property of the House of Orleans. That decree over-
turns, from top to bottom, not only the testaments which
they were appointed to execute, but also all the civil
contracts which Lave regulated and fixed the position
and the rights of the various members of that august
house. They come forward, therefore, apart from all
political prepossessions, to appeal to the justice of the
Prince President of the French Republic, and to point
out the errors in law on which the second decree entirely
rests. Unless these errors are recognised and corrected
they will inflict a blow the most serious upon the sacred
rights of the property of that family.
" In order to destroy the donation of the 7th August,
1830, and to nand over to the public the property pos-
sessed at that period by the Disc d'Orleans, the second
decree of the 22d January. 1852, invokes the ancient
principle by which the State became possessed of all the
property belonging to the Prince who ascended the
throne. We might examine historically that principle,
and hope to be able to show that it was an emanation
of the feudal system, when there existed no property in
the State distinct from that of the Crown, We might
be enabled to establish the fact that the Emperor Na-
poleon formally
_rejected it. (Senatus Consulte of the
30th of January, 1810, title iii. articles 480 and 49).
We might be able to show that Charles X. set it aside
by means of a donation in favour of his younger brother,
the Prince, who was then his presumptive heir. But
these considerations would be superfluous. One of a
totally different nature rules the question. The ancient
monarchical law cacnot be seriously invoked against a
Prince who received the Crown, not in conformity with,
but in opposition to that ancient law. King Louis
Philippe occupied the throne after King Charles :K., but
he was not his legitimate successor or his heir.
The laws of the ancient monarchy could not apply
to a new monarch, a new civil list and a new constitu-
tion leading to new arrangements in the laws, the go-
vernment, and the future of the country. Therefore in
giving up to his children on the 7th of August, 1830,
their hereditary patrimony, the Prince could commit no
breach of the law which was not applicable to his case.
Both the law and the facts of the case repel the impu-
tation which the recital of the decree would cast upon
his memory.
In the absence even of all donations the ancient
principle of the property being vested in the State ought
to remain a dead letter; but a stronger reason than that
is the condition under which the Duc d'Orleans ac-
cepted the crown in 1830. The Prince did not hesitate
to devote his life to the safety of society when in peril,
and in the midst of a convulsion which he had neither
excited nor desired; but he at the same time required
that his children should preserve the patrimony which
he had himself derived from his ancestors.
" The donation of the 7th of August, unnecessary as
regarded
a law which no longer existed, established but
called thing—the fixed will of the Prince who was
to the throne to maintain the property of his pri-
vateassuredly a
domains in the hands of his family; and that was
on the 7th stipulation which he was entitled to make
of August. At that period, in fact, though
was not, till his
declared Ring of the French by the two Chambers ,he
simple French acceptancePri. of
the Crown, more than a
of the law ofThis is so true, that by a dis-
positionstated that the civil list
theshouldorfeckMonarcfhro,mlB3t2h,o i9tthwaosf
August, the Due d'Orleans
sing till the day on which he not being recognised as
accepted the crown and
took the oaths to the constitution.
then, there was a contract, a
suotlion. At that moment,
into between the nation and theeraPnriconvention entered
Fecal all the remembrance of that nce; and when we
period we are not able
to understand from what source the idea has been drawn
that that donation ' should have roused the public con-
science.
So far from that, it is certain that the principles
the protection of which we place the question
under have
received not only the sanctionof law, but also the con-
secration of validity by all the public authorities that
have existed in France since 1830.
" In 1830, it is true, Parliament, as guardians of the
public rights, had ceased to exist; but authority was
not concentrated in one hand only, and the two Cham-
here had, without doubt, the right, as it was their . duty,
ical principles to re h
to apply the ancient monarch _ hi w
if that principle appeared to be ape
mounted the throne,
plicable to the circumstances.
formally recognised
" Now they, on the contrary,
(article 22 of the law of the 2d of March, 18327) te fact
that the King
had conserved the property which be-
longed to him before his coming to the throne.
" The law of the 2d of March, 1832, the work of
powers eminently independent, and which history do
.es
not accuse of having any great regard for the material
interests of the Royal Family, did not retroact upon the
past in matters which did not appertain to them. They
limited themselves to this, that the principles of public
right invoked by the decree of the 22d of January', 1832,
were net applicable to the special position of the Duc
d'Orleane, and that there had been no devolution upon
the State ethe property included in the donation. The
law of the 2d of March, 1832, was declarative of a pre-
existing right, as if it had been a judgment which should
intervene upon an analogous pretension to the domain of
the State, only it was enacted with more authority and
solemnity. To deny, then, that the decree of the 22d of
January feared to assume the authority
of the public
powers of the constitutional monarchy is to threaten all
the interests created and guaranteed during a period of
thirty years, and to take the first step towards a pro-
found disturbance of all our public rights.
The revolution of 1848 took place, and that should
be sufficient of itself to destroy the fact of the pretended
return of the domain to the State, even (which was not
the case) had it taken place in 1830; for the law of an-
cient times, which provided that on the Prince becoming
King he should convey his personal property to the
State, was apparently based on the condition that ho
kept the crown, and the Privisional Government, con-
fining its rigours to a measure of sequestration, re-
spected and recognised the donation of the 7th of August,
1830.
"In the month
of October, 1848, the question was
brought befoee the Constituent Assembly on the propo-
sition of Jules Fevre, a representative of the people. The
report was confided to the Hon. M. Berryer. (1-Tere are
given the words of M • Berryer.) The propoeition was
•
EWSPAP-Ekiew
unantesously rejected, without 11:3 authors even ettecipt-
- gto sustain it from the tribune.
‘l-F " More lately, the LeeisletiAssembly,
`•• • the donation or
' ntesting
T far from
the 7:1 of August, authorised
e\ the late King Louis Philippe to effect
a loan, and in
• ' teat loan the donataire's concerned
mortgaged
the pro-

•

T.

I S.