The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-12 00:00:00

charges involved in the statement, in order that they
(the directors) might convene a special meeting of
the company, and have the opportunity of refuting
the accusation thus brought against the integrity of
a body of gentlemen who felt that they stood as high
in the estimation of the public at large as the indivi-
duals who had affixed their names to this slanderous
document." This bold and manly defiance was not
without its effect. It arrested the progress of the mania
and satisfied the less timid of the unmitigated folly of
which they had been guilty ; and coupled with the
timely appearance of the North-Western and other
railway " statements," and our own humble but un-
ceasing exertions on behalf of the railway interest,
completely turned the tide, and overwhelmed the
" Rears " in the ruin they had prepared for their
innocent victims. They sunk unpitied into the
snares and pitfalls they had digged for others, and
were compelled to disgorge a large portion of
their " ill-gotten gains."
It became manifest that such shallow pre-
texts would no longer be available that
stories, to have any effect, should contain .a
direct and positive charge, capable of being substan-
tiated or rebutted; and at this crisis the unfortunate
mistake that was made by the Secretary (Mr. CLOSE),
with respect to Mr. PLEWS'S calculations, afforded the
opportunity that had so long been desired. It was
known that certain 151. shares had been transferred
to the company at prices not only beyond the
nominal quotations, called the market value, but
beyond their actual intrinsic bona fide value,
and that these shares had been the property of Mr.
HUDSON ; or, at least, of persons whom, according
to Mr. PRANCE, in his capacity as witness, " they
had learned to identify as trustees for Mr. HUDSON."
This was an opportunity not to be neglected or lost
sight of. A charge was prepared and publicly
brought forward at the general meeting of the share-
holders, on the 20th February. No hint was given
to Mr. HUDSON, no opportunity of explanation.
Mr. PRANCE proposed the motion for inquiry, which
Mr. LOVE seconded; Mr. PRANCE and Mr. LOVE
were the two first members of the committee,
and we can well recollect the excitement that pre-
vailed when it was ascertained that PRANCE and
LOVE had not the nomination of their associates—
but that indifferent and unprejudiced men were ap-
pointed with them on the committee. From the
evidence it will appear, that Mr. PRANCE conducted
the examination of the witnesses, save when he de-
scended from the judicial chair to tender his own
evidence, when Mr. LOVE assumed the congenial duty.
We have already shown how signally these accusations
have failed—how completely they have been rebutted,
and how triumphantly the innocence of Mr. HUDSON
has been substantiated. There have unfortunately
been mistakes, but for these he is not responsible ;
not one word can be uttered against his honour
or integrity, which remain wholly unsullied. Each
person may study the evidence for himself, and he
should recollect that he bas as ample opportunities for
forming a sound judgment as the com-
mittee themselves. The report may be looked
on as the charge of the judge (if we
could suppose the Crown prosecutor to as-
sume the ermine and ascend the bench of justice,
after he had discharged his other functions), but the
verdict must be in accordance with the evidence, and
the public are the jury to decide thereon. We
cannot entertain any doubt as to what that verdict
will be, by those at least who can bring calm and
unprejudiced minds to the consideration of the evi-
dence—that it will be the full and triumphant
acquittal of Mr. HUDSON from the grave and serious
charges alleged against him.

TBE FRENCH REPUBLIC.

We have received the Paris papers of yesterday.
The National Assembly on Tuesday rejected the
Bills for the organization of the courts of law by a
majority of 545 to 8. It appears that the reaction-
aries wished to make all magistrates immoveable, a
principle to which the Republicans were opposed, and
which the reactionaries carried against them. On
the other' hand, the Republicans succeeded in modi-
fying certain other clauses in a manner of which the
reactionaries highly disapproved, and both parties
being dissatisfied with the Bill as a whole, united
their forces, and threw it out by an overwhelming
majority. During the course of the discussion, M.
BAzE accused M. CREMIEUX of having intended, on
the 24:11 of February, 1848, to proclaim the Duchess
of ORLEANS Regent, which drew from M. CREMIECX
. _ . .

the following interesting narrative :
"It has been frequently asserted in articles in public
journals that I was prepared to proclaim the Duchess of
Orleans Regent, and that I had prepared a grand speech
for the purpose.—(Hear, hear.) This is what occurred.
—([fear, hear.) I was on the Piace de la Concorde on
February 24, 1848, when I was informed that the Duchess
of Orleans, her son (the Count de Paris) and the Duke
de Nemours had proceeded to the Chamber. When I
entered, I heard M. Dupin intended to propose the
Duchess Regent, with the Count of Paris King. lat
once exclaimed to my friends,' We will not allow the
revolution of 1848 to be juggled from us, as was done in
the case of the revolution of 1830;' and I added, 'The
question is, not to have a Regency ; what we want is a Pro-
visional Government to decide what is to be done.' M.
Marie and M. Ledru Rollin both heard me express my-
self to this effect. When M. 0. Barrot was about to
ascend the tribune, to speak in favour of a regency, I
addressed ihim in favour of a Provisional Government,
declaring that nothing else could answer for the present
time, and I advised him to propose it from the tribune.
That Hon. Deputy appeared by no means opposed to
such a course.—(Loud marks of incredulity, " Oh, oh,"
great agitation, which lasted some time.) Just at that
moment I perceived the Duchess of Orleans seated in
front of the tribune ; and hearing that she intended ad.
dressing the Chamber in favour of her son as king, I
considered it such a step, which nothing that was passing
could for a moment justify. Looking on the question of
a Regency as downright folly, I went up to the Duchess
and said to her, " Madame, your friends are
leading you to your ruin. Do not propose
} ourself as Regent—do not propose your sun as
King. At present it is the people that must
decide. The people are masters ; let them judge." I
then went and wrote four lines, which I recommended
her to speak, the purport of which was to declare that
she rejected the Chamber as the party to decide—that
she appealed to the people to say vi bat ought to be done.
—(Ah,ah, and great agitation.) Yes, I told her to say
that the people alone should decide in what position she
ought to be placed—(Renewed agitation)—and that she
would bring up her son in ideas or constitutional liberty.
That was what I said—neither more nor less. But
whilst this was passing, and before the Duchess could
speak, the Chamber was invaded by the crowd; and in
the end she thought best to withdraw. Well, it is from
what I have just stated that has been founded the rue
mour that I was prepared to proclaim the Regency.
It was even added that it was because M. Dupin
had the proof of this in writing that I had
thought fit, when I became Minister of Jus-
tice, to maintain him Procureur- General of the
Court of Cessation. But I can appeal to M. Dupin
himself if, when I spoke to the Duchess of Orleans,
I did not say to her to consult M. Dupin as to the pro-
priety of appealing to the people; and if he did not ac-
cede to the propriety of the counseL I, on February 25,
signified Dupin that he was to remain in his place;
and my reason was because he approved of making the
people the judge. . Such are the whole of the circum-
stances connected with the incident of the Regency. I
can to- morrow give to the Monileur the very words which
I wrote on that occasion—though they are already
known to many.
The editor of a journal called La Revolution Demo-
cratique et Sociale was convicted on Tuesday of libel,
and condemned to three years imprisonment, and a fine
of 10,000 francs. In commenting on this severe
sentence the Reforme justly remarks—
"lt is war to the death that has been commenced
against the Republican press. The proceedings of Louis
Philippe are outdone by those of the officers of Louis
Bonaparte, and the fines inflicted amount to confiscation.
Three years imprisonment and 10,000 f. fine for an of-
fence of the press are inflicted on the journals of the
revolution. by this Government of the 10th of December,
whose chief would yet be dragging in exile his impotent
ambition, only that the press and the people, in
February, opened to him the doors of his country.
Never has any free country exhibited such violence, and
we defy those English who are here new invited to be-
hold the fruits of our civilisation to find anything like it
in the history of their country, unless by going back
to the pillory of Daniel Defoe."
M. DUCHATEL has accepted an invitation from the
electors of Jonzar to stand for the Department of
Charente Inferieure at the approaching elections.

The Patrie says :
"It was asserted yesterday, at the Assembly, that
France and England, in azcordance with Austria and
Piedmont, are of opinion that a Congress should be
established at Verona, for a final arrangement of the
affairs of Italy."
It is stated in the Constitutionnel, on the authority
of a letter from Perpignan, " That a battle had taken
place in Catalonia, between the Royalist Chief Pon
and CABRERA, in which both generals were killed.
Other accounts say that CABRERA took refuge in a
cavern, where he was found and put to death by the
Miquvletes."
We do not attach much credit to this rumour, this is
at hest the twentieth time that the French papers
have killed CABRERA within the last six months.
tAiosAnsesnmortraordinary scene took place in the National
Assembly yesterday.
Assembly,yesterday .
andl
nthwehimleidtshteodfistchuesdsieolnibel‘r.asa-
going one I. Eugene Raspail rose, and walking up to
Att, roint, one of nil colleagues, gave !aim slap in Op