The Sun.
London, England, 1851-09-01 00:00:00

rint, standing out in broad type for public edifica-
don. The audience on the occasion nould be the
community in general. It would not be a
;elect assembly of some ten or a dozen spi-
; 'itual Peers, aided and assisted by an equal
umber of temporal Peers ready to applaud any so-
p bistry that sustained the prejudiced and bigotted
vi ews of the majority ; or that endeavoured to retain
on e of the last vestiges of intolerance on the national
eta ute-book—an enactment that restricted the privi-
lege s of British subjects, that forbade them to judge
for t hemselves on the most interesting and important
question that could possibly arise, one affecting the
most ; sacred relationship of life, and possibly occa-
sioning the future happiness or misery of the parties
who should refuse to sacrifice the dearest affec-
tions of the heart to the absurd, the unavailing,
and the unreasonable prohibition, and of their
innocent offspring. The House of Lords night,
unquestionably, be a fitter atmosphere for the pur-
pores of the Bishop, but the public generally will
know how to estimate his refusal to reply to the
challenge on equal terms, where neither of the par-
ties would have any 'vantage ground.
We cannot conclude without once more requesting

those of our renders who still entertain any doubt on
this subject to read calmly and attentively Mr.
SLEIGH'S pamphlet, which we venture to assert must
completely remove every difficulty. Mr. SLEIGH has
applied himself to the theological part of the question,
and his success has been of the most unequivocal
character. We would gladly explain the nature of
his views, but any attempt to epitomise would be an
act of injustice to the learned author. Every
sentence, every paragraph is important, and
should be read, that the whole might be
duly appreciated. Mr. SLEIGH does riot merely
depend on the high authorities which he brings for-
ward in support of his proposition—authorities at
least as imposing as P":iy that could be produced on
the other side ; but, conscious of his own strength
and the righteousness of his cause, he stands on
the broad scriptural foundation, which should
be regarded as the only basis that could justify le-
gislation on religious questions. On these points
his arguments are indeed unanswerable, and must
convince every person who brings an unbiassed mind
to the consideration of the question.
There is no Protestant Church that is unanimous
on the point, although, even if such were the case, we
should deny the right of any sect to impose fetters on
others, who claim the right of judging for
themselves. If the advocates of the restriction
can cite the opinions of the Bishops of Lost-
nom and EXETER, we can point to those
of the Bishops of ST. DAVID'S and NORWICH, while
we will add the respected names of CHALMERS and
SOUTHEY, whose views, briefly but clearly expressed,
have been quoted by Mr. SLEIGH in the following
terms :

"In verse 18, of the 18th chapter of Leviticus, the
prohibition is only against marrying a wife's sister
during the lifetime of the first wife, WHICH OF ITSELF
IMPLIES A LIBERTY TO MARRY THE SISTER ♦FTER
HER DEATH."—Dr. Chalmers' Daily Scripture Readings,
vol. 1, p. 225.
" But has it never occurred to you, my dear Wynn,
that this law is an abominable relic of ecclesiastical
tyranny ? Of all second marriages, I bare no be-itation
i❑ saying that these are the most suitable and likely to
be the most frequent, it the law did not sometimes pre-
vent them. It is quite monstrous, judges and lawyers
(might not the venerable Laur. ace have added
•• bishops?") speaking as they have done of late upon
this subject."—Robert Southey, vol. iv., p. 114.

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC.

We have received the Paris journals of Saturday
and yesterday.
The journals of Saturday give the following ac-
count of the conclusion of the proceedings before the
court-martial at Lyons :
The judges retired to deliberate at half-past twelve,
and returned iato court between six and seven in the
evening.
The Preident then, " in the name of the French peo-
ple"(the guard presenting arms), delivered the judgment.
The accused, as is usual before courts-martial, were not
present. The reading of the judgment occupied an hour
and a half, the details being repeated for every one of the
accused. After setting forth the constitution of the Court
and the names of the judges (one of them a sergeant-major),
and the manner in which the trial had been conducted,
this document stated that the questions which the court
had examined were:-1. Was the accused guilty of
having taken part in a plot at Lyons for the purpose of
destroying or changing the government of the Repub-
lic? 2 Was that plot followed by an act committed,
or commenced, for preparing the execution of it? 3.
Was the same accused guilty of having taken part in a
plot formed at Lyons, for the purpose of exciting civil
war by arming the citizens against each other? 4.
Was that plot followed by an act committed or com-
menced, for preparing the execution •of it? 5. Was
the same accused guilty of having formed part of a
seeret society ? As to Gent, there was an additional
question—Was the accused guilty of having been the
chief of a secret society? The decision of the Court on
these questions were— that twelve of the accused were
not guilty; and that the others, thirty-six in number,
including those in flight, were guilty.
The accused acquitted were—Belliscer, Nouis, Au-
riol, Daillan, Marion, Pinet, Alcibiade Malleval, Va-
cheresse, Pasta, Caussonel, Ands e, anti Este >ule.
The condemnations passed on the accused declsred
guilty were in virtue of Articles 87, 89, and 91 of the
Penal Code, 13 of the decree of 28th July, 1848. on
secret societies—the said articles being modified with
respect to some of the accused by Art. 463 of the Penal
Code, 1 and 2of the Law of Germinal, An. 7. These
condemnations were as follow:
.. .

Transportation—Alphonse Gent, Albert Ode, Lon-
gomazino, De Saint Prix, Antoine Rey, Carriere,
SLIM& nt. . .

---Fifteen years' "detention"—Montegut.
Ten years' "detention"—H. Delescluza, Bouvier,
Barbut, Dsumas, Marmot, Sslabelle, Lamorthe, and
Mortanier.

—Five years' " detention"—Borel, Chevasaus, Grill,
Isidore Gent, Jean, Prurient, Robert, Msistre, Pierre

Fat; years imprisonment, five years' deprivation of
civil rights, and 100 f. fine—Merle.
Two years' imprisonment, five years' deprivation of
civil rights, and 100 f. fine—Beridot, Jouvenne,
Petitbon.

A year's imprisonment, 100 f. fine and two years' de-
privation of civil rights-6auve, Bonsirven, Ccarpen-
tier. .

Six onthe imprisonment, and two years' deprivation
of civil rights—Dupont, Carle.
A year's imprisonment and 100'. fine—Thourel (by
the minority of four).
(Detention, is what the French law calls afflictive a
infamante, it is more severe than ordinary imprisonment,
and subjects the offender after his release to surveillance
of the police for lite.]
Just as the Presiaent had terminated the reading of
the judgment, a loud cry of " Viva la Republique!" was
heard.

The President—Whence comes that cry?
Captain Montlouia, the officer on duty—From the pri-
son, Colonel.
The President—Send a commissary to cause justice
to be respected. The President then said that the
Court ordered the public prosecutor to read the judg-
ment to the accused, in presence of the guard assem-
bled under arms, and to the acquitted in presence of
the guard assembled without arms; also to inform the
condemned that the law granted them twenty-four
hours to appeal to the Court of Revision. Ho added
that the public prosecutor was to see the judgment ex-
ecuted.
The public prosecutor than wont to the prison and
read the judgment.
In the vicinity of the court large crowds were as-
sembled, but the military precautions taken prevented
any demonstrations, and the rain having begun to fall
heavily, caused them after a while to disperse.
The Messager states that the Mayor of Poitiers
and his two deputies have been dismissed, on the ap-
plication of the Prefect of the Vienne. On this
statement the National remarks as follows :
" This decree of revocation has been issued on the de-
mand of the Prefect of Vienne, and based on the letter
addressed by the mayor to the president of the Cercle
des Ecoles,' to inform him that the Prefect had inter-
dicted that club, under the pretence that its object had
become political. The following is the letter of the
mayor addressed to the president of the Cercle. We
think it right to reproduce it, in order to enable the pub-
lic to judge of the facts:—
" Poitiers, 16th August, 1851.
" Liberti, Egalit4, Fraternic
" Monsieur le President,—l have the honour to send
you a copy of a decree of the Prefect, dated the 2d, in-
terdicting the meeting called the Cercle des Ecoles. I
take pleasure, on this occasion, in preventing an official
notification from being made to you, because it might be
painful to yon, and it is my wish to soften as much as pos-
sible the rigour of the decree which strikes you. I greatly
regret not having been able to prevent it. I think, however,
that the Prefect, enlightened by you and the members
of your bureau, may perhaps retract the measure which
disperses you, but in any case lam persuaded that he
will completely approve my manner of acting towards
you. Be kind enough, Monsieur le President, to ac-
knowledge the receipt of the enclosed document, &c.
"‘ ORILLARD, Mayor.'
" M. Bonaparte, the only man in France who has
taken an oath of fidelity to the Republic, must have
found himself in a terrible perplexity before signing
this dismissal. What will ill disposed people not
say Will they not recal to mind that M. Orillard is the
only functionary who during the journey to Poitiers ad-
dressed a republican speech to M. Bonaparte? Will it
not be said that that speech is not yet forgotten at the
ElPie? Will it not be thought that the Republican ac-
clamations of the population of Poitiers were but
little agreeable to official ears ? We can under-
itind the frpselatuilons which AL Sonapt te must