The Sun.
London, England, 1846-09-03 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY E

It should only be used on criminals of the deepest de-
pravity, of the most infamous class ; but we
cordially approve of its use in such cases.
We should have no objection to its appli-
cation on such offenders as JOSEPH HENRY.
Seven times has the life of Louis i'IIILIPPE been
attempted. The peace and tranquillity of the world,
the happiness and prosperity of nations, have been
endangered by the atrocious acts of miscreants, ac-
tuated by various motives. The evil is a fearful
one; it requires active and energetic measures to
prevent its further spread. We think that the nature
of HENRY'S sentence is a step in the right direction ;
we hope that it will be followed up by enactments,
authorising rigorous and degrading punishment for
any demonstrations against the life of the French
Sovereign ; and, by so doing, the Monar h will be spared
from such annoyances and the people from knowing
that their beloved ruler is subjected thereto.
Punishments create terror according to the rarity of
their infliction ; a constant repetition takes greatly
away from the effect the horror excited. In our own
country the lash does not excite the same horror—
from its being known that it will be used on our
soldiers or sailors for offences of the most trivial cha•
,•aster, involving no moral guilt—that it would in
France, from whose punishments it has been blotted
out altogether. Let such criminals be declared liable
:hereto, and it will go far to prevent the possibility cf
s similar offence.

The Countess Sam°Low, the widow of a Russian
nobleman, has had her property confiscated by
the Russian Government, because she has con-
tracted a second marriage with a foreigner in Trieste.
The Countess has large estates in Russia, which will
he put up to public auction in the space of six months.
The 'Warsaw Courier of the 26th August publishes
a new ukase from the EMPEROR, which states that all
persons condemned to hard labour for life in the
kingdom of Poland, and even all those condemned to
hard labour and to imprisonment for stated periods,
if their punishment has yet five years to run, shall be
sent to Siberia. The first-named shall be employed
20 years in the mines, and shall be colonists for the
rest of their days. The others shall be employed in
mines or at fortifications for the half of the time
which their punishment would have lasted in Poland,
but they are also to remain for the rest of their lives
in Siberia. It is not stated whether the prisoners
are free to accept or refuse these conditions.

In the Augsburgh Gazette of the 27th August we
find it announced that Prince PASKEWITCU has been
entrusted with the execution of a plan for relieving
the inhabitants of Poland from all the feudal services
which at present they are liable to render.

Madrid papers of the 27th ult. have arrived.
They all speak of the marriage of the QUEEN with
Don FRANCISCO D'ASSIS as of a matter completely
determined on. The news from Lisbon by these
papers is to the 22d ult. The rumour that GONZALES
BRAVO had been recalled, at the instance of the Por-
tuguese Government, on account of his intrigues in
favour of the CARRALS, is confirmed. The Spanish
army, which, in consequence of his representation,
had been concentrated on the Portuguese frontier, has
been withdrawn, and the two Spanish ships of war
which he had ordered to Lisbon, have been dis-
patched to Vigo. Admiral PARKER, in consequence
of the directions given by General VILLALONGA to
qis troops, to pursue the Spanish refugees into the
Portuguese territory, had immediately on his arrival
at Lisbon sent off a steamer to Corunna with dis-
oAtches to VILLALONGA, warning hi.n to abstain from
All armed demonstration against Portugal.
MADRID BOLSA, AuG. 27.—The Three per Cents.
were done at 34* for cash ; the Four per Cents. at 211 ;
the Five per Cents. at 22i ; the Debt without Interest
at 64 ; and the Coupons at 20*.

We have received the Paris papers of Tuesday.
On Monday the Chamber of Deputies were engaged
in discussing the validity of the return of M. DRAULT
for Poitiers. M. DRAULT was a member of the Left
Centre, but in order to secure the votes of the Legiti-
matists, he had given them a written pledge to vote in
a certain manner on certain questions. His return
was petitioned against on the ground that, having
given a written pledge, he did not enter the Cham-
ber as a free agent, that he was in fact a
mere delegate and not a representative. The
.fiscussion on this question, involving as it
does the whole theory of representative government,
was very animated and very interesting. M. Guizoz,
who is opposed to this system of pledge-giving, thus
detailed his views of the true theory of representative
Government. He said "that hitherto he had refrained
from entering into the question of pledges given by
candidates to the electors, as he considered it as one
of great delicacy. He now, however, felt that he
could no longer remain silent on the subject. The
great characteristic of a representative government
was, that every member should have the free exercise
of his own conscience. At the two extremities of
the :Government there was irresponsibility. The
KING, who appoints peers and ministers, is irre-
sponsible, and the electors, who named Deputies, were
.o likewise. The giving of pledges would tend to
overthrow the equilibrium that ought to be main-
tained, as it would confer power on those who did not
discuss. What would be said if the Crown were to
require pledges from the Peers of France whom it

created ? The Crown did not demand any such en-
gagement, and why should electors ? It would, in his
opinion, be the subversion of a representative govern-
ment for a federative one ; which was the worst of all
governments, for it was the aristocracy of localities.

To grant to the electors the right of requiring pledges,
was to create 459 sovereigns; it was to bring together

in a hostile manner a c,Ttain number of absolute
sovereigns, and thus destroy the unity of France.
The requiring pledges struck at the root of all free
discussion; it abolished the freedom of those who
took part in debate ; in fact, it was the abolition of a
free government. It had been said that those pledges
were null. The Chamber did not recognise them,
and they were consequently not obligatory. That
doctrine, however, he must designate as an immoral
one. It was like a man contracting a debt of honour,
and then not paying it. It had been also said that a

Deputy from whom pledges had been required might

resign. But what would be the consequence of such
a state of things It might follow that on the very
day that the Government had rallied round it a certain
number of Deputies, those men might find themselves
compelled to resign. The liberty of the Deputy, he
repeated, should be unlimited, and therefore he
thought the election ought not to be validated."
M. ODILON BARROT, who supported the return of
M. DRAULT, admitted the validity of M. GUIZOT'S
theory, but contended that it did not apply to the
case then under consideration. He observed—

" That undoubtedly the constitution did not recognise,
in a legal point of view, the giving of pledges by a
wouldl)ePutYand if such
introduce afea
federative
ecgtioce were
government established
tfura it
repre-
sentative one. But, be would ask, was there really any
great danger of such a result in the present day ?
Could, fur instance, the pledges now protested against
be for a moment assimilated to those commonly
' given in a Swiss canton ? There was nothing but a
moral engagement, and into that the Chamber had
no right to inquire. Were, indeed, that done it would
be to exercise a species of inquisition. Where was the
limit to be placed. How far was a candidate to go, and
where was he to stop ? When was an election to be an-
nulled under a moral engagement ? If a candidate, in
a meeting of electors, pledged himself to vote against
flotations, was the election to be annulled ? Certainly
not, for if that were done the majority would be deci-
mated ! (Hear, hear.) AI; Drault had entered into
personal engagements, such as he had a perfect right to
take. But it was objected no pledges ought to be given,
xeept in conformity with one's convictions. Granting
that, by what right was the Chamber to decide on any
inan's sentiments ? Why was it to be changed into a
confessional ? Was it when the pledge was given on
one point or on several that the election was uull ?
Where was the line to be drawn ? Ile maintained, that
M. Drault had morally engaged himself to support
opinions which were his own, and that he was per-
lectly justified in doing so."

On a division the numbers were for annulling
the return, 151 ; against it, 134. The Opposition
papers of all shades are outrageous against this deci-
sion of the Chamber. The Legitimatist France
designates it as an abuse of the right of majorities.
The C onstitutionnel stigmatises it as one of the
gravest and most violent acts that has been committed
by the Parliament for the last fifteen years, and
it would say for the last thirty years, if the ex-
clusion of MANUEL had not been the first ex-
ample of that abuse of strength on the part of
the majority in arbitrarily attacking the minority. And
it sneeringly asks, " Does not M. GUIZOT know that
in his Cabinet he has himself taken from many can-