The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-17 00:00:00

malice of a vindictive creditor ; above all, he
should not act with greater severity or rigour
than the plaintiff is disposed to require him to do, for
that plaintiff must have a better opportunity of know-
ing the circumstances of the case than be can possibly
do, and will be found much oftener to require the
curb than the spur in bis anxiety to obtain full
satisfaction of his demands.

A correspondent, whose communication will be
found in another part of our impression, has stated a
case which, if well founded, is deserving of imme-
diate notice. If there be no material point omitted in
the report, the presiding Judge has much to answer
for, and if such practice should be repeated, a feeling
of indignation will be excited against a code under
which such abuses are possible that must eventually
lead to its repeal or modification. We have had
enough of Palace " leniency" and " forbearance." Let
us not see the County Court Judges regarding cases
brought before tthemtbrough a similar medium. An
institution that might be a great public benefit may
become a scandal and opprobrium to the nation.

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC.

We have received the Paris journals of yesterday.
The High Court of -Versailles pronounced judg•
ment on Thursday par contumace against the accused
of the 13th June who have not surrendered. The
whole of them, Jardigon, Buverdier, Cceur de Roy,
Thore, Jules Lechevallier, Ch. Delecluze, Ribeyrol-
les, Servient, Gongeon, Morel, Madier de Montjau
jeune, Tessier•Dutnothay, Ledru Rollin, Victor
Considerant, Boichot, Rattier, Beyer, Pflieger, Avril,
Martin Bernard, Koenig, Rongcot Menaud, Lan
dolphe, Hofer, Kopp, Anstett, Rolland, Cantagrel,
Heitzmann, Jannot, Fehr Pyat, Kersamie, Villain,
Etienne Arrago, and Perrier, have been sentenced to
transportation for life.

IVJ. PROM:MON has roused the ire of his brother
Socialists by the publication in the Voix du People of
the following observations on the conviction of the
accused of the 13th June by the jury of the High
Court of Versailles :

‘• We do not hesitate to say, although the declaration
may excite much hatred against us, that it was owing to
the ur..-heard-of an guilty determination of the counsel.
When it was necessary to justify the good faith of the
prisoners, to show that the constitution had been violated
oy the majority and by the Government; when the
question was consequently to lay down and defend the
appeal to the people, the right of p cific and legal mani-
festation, the only point that was in question, the counsel
preferred to raise the argument, doubtful in its kind, and
in all cases perfectly useless, of the right of insurrection.
When Republican dignity commanded that the charge
should be deprived at any price of its last pretext, the
counsel considered that it was better for the defence
to withdraw before a decision, which only imposed
limits to their chattering, than to expose themselves
to a condemnation doubtless possible, but which,
efts r the solemnity of the discussion, would
have b. come for every one unjust in its ground-
work—unjust in all and everywhere. Now, thanks
to the Moritagnard ectinsellin, the high jurymen may
sly, while they rub their- Lands, Thank Heaven, we
have not condemned innocent men ! The conspiracy
betrayed itself by the mouth of the counsel employed for
the defence ; the insurrection was plainly laid down be-
fore us—Hauimus confitentes reos. Contrary to what
ought to have taken place, the prisoners have been sacri •
Seed to their counsel, absolutely as a patient dies to save
the reputation of his physician. We certainly do not
mean to give our approbation to the sentence which has
just been delivered by the High Court, any more than
the policy which has been followed by the Government
tor more than a year ; but it must be confessed that on
this occasion .the Revolution has been betrayed by its
own partizans. After having committed suicide politically
is: the public street, the Mountain has now done it morally
before the High Court. What, in fact, is this premeditated
retreat of the counsel charged with the defence but
a judicial 13th of June? What could be the objects of
these strange tactics? Let them utter as much as they
like the high-sounding phrases of liberty of defence,
right of counsel, dignity of the robe, tyranny of the
court, the solidarite of the defence, community of
system, discipline of opinions—all that, in our eyes, is
only a vain disguise, under which is concealed, in the
place of a true love for the Republic, the most absurd
of all despotisms—that of party spirit. God forbid that
we should, by the severity of our remarks, aggravate the
grief of the condemned, any more than the remorse of
the counsel; but we cannot prevent ourselves from say-
ing that, in the present case, both prisoners and counsel
have failed in their duty. Why did not Guinard, Pores-
tier, Pilhes, Langlos, all, in fact, whom we have heard
from the commencement of the trial protest as to the
pacific -character of the manifestation, rise after the
decree delivered against the conclusions of the counsel,
and declare to the Court that, as their intention had
never been any other than a pacific manifestation, they
could not conceive the utility of pleading in their defence
the right of insurrection?"
It is said to be the intention of the Passinceer to
extend the amnesty on the 10th Decerber to all poli-
tical persons convicted of offences, including those
excluded from the recently published amnesty, the
convicted of Bourges and of Versailles, and the exiles
of England, Belgium, and Switzerland.