The Sun.
London, England, 1851-01-16 00:00:00

following morning she beard a detailed narrative of
the transaction, and said a large bruise on the thigh
of the victim, " about the size of her hand." She
also often heard Mrs. LEE threatening to kill her ser-
vant, knock her brains out, and indulging in other
little amenities of language. Poor HINTON, who,
according to the terms of her contract, was to have
received sufficient food, constantly complained that
" she had not half enough to eat ;" and begged at
one time " a bit of bread or a cup of coffee," at an-
other " a potato." MATILDA Mu N, a dressmaker,
residing in the village, also deposed to repeated acts
of cruelty by Mrs. LEE towards the wretched child,
who frequently complained that " she was
kept short of food, beaten, and ill-used." The
witness " had known Mrs. LEE to beat the girl
with a walking stick, and heard the sufferer
screaming." She had also seen the food provided,
which was " bread with something like lard upo❑
it, which smelt very bad." The only defence set up
was "a good character of the male defendant's
humanity" !!! But that was not sufficient to get rid
of the distinct and positive testimony adduced. The
defendants were accordingly convicted of an assault,
and after a severe lecture from the chairman respect-
ing the enormity of thcir conduct, fined 2/. each and
costs ! ! !

And this is considered by a body of English gen-
tlemen a sufficient expiation for a course of deliberate
ill-treatment, of " great and unnecessary cruelty,"
where personal violence, bad language, and deprivation
of food were habitually resorted to. No wonder that we
should hear of poor girls being half starved and re-
duced to a state of weakness, being assaulted and sub-
jected to the grossest contumely, if a fine of 21. is the
only punishment inflicted in the event of a conviction.
Something must be done to protect that helpless and
suffering class, and nothing, perhaps, would prove
more effectual than resorting to civil actions for
damages. The county courts have now jurisdiction
up to 50/., which might be given to the victim of ill-
treatment. We have known, in the case of persons
named HOLLAND, where husband and wife were cri-
minally tried, convicted, and sentenced to twelve
months' imprisonment each, for cruelty to two orphan
children—a boy and a girl—whom they had hired as
servants, damages to the amount of 4001. given to
each of the sufferers. If even the tenth part of that
sum were given i❑ a few such cases it would do far
more to stop such disgraceful transactions than the
most severe magisterial censure, accompanied by a
fine of 40s.

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC.

We have received the Paris journals of yesterday.
The Committee on M. DE REMUSAT'S motion pre-
sented their report to the Assembly on Wednesday.
It was read from the tribune by M. LANJUINAIS. It
is as follows :
" Gentlemen,—A few days back, in the sitting of the
3d of January, you approved of the reply of the Com-
mander-in-Chief of the army of Paris to the interpella-
tions which had been addressed to him, and you ac-
cepted the homage which we paid to the right conferred
o❑ you by the Constitution to dispose of the troops ne-
cessary for your safety.
" The next day the Ministry was dissolved, and, after
eight days of laborious negotiations, it marked its re-
turn to power by the dismissal of General Changarnier.
It was on these circumstances that M. Remusat, in the
sittit g of January 10, demanded explanations from the
Ministry, at the end of which you adopted an order of
the day motive, declaring that the representatives should
at once withdraw to their bureaux, to nominate a com-
mittee for the purpose of proposing such measures as
the circumstances appeared to call for.
" Your Committee, named on the evening of the 10th
inst. was retarded in its labours by the printing of the
proces-verbaux of the Permanent Committee, and could
only name its reporter last evening. After having
heard several times the Ministers of War and
the Interior, and deliberating d'urgence, your
Committee not the less examined most materially
all the questions connected with the constitu►ional
relations existing between the great powers of the State.
But you must comprehend, gentlemen, that the narrow
forms prescribed to your reporter have not permitted
him to present to you all the developments which are
connected with this subject. However; as by their na-
ture, and the theatre on which the facts took place, a
mistake may be made as to their importance, we hasten
to say to you that in our opinion there is not any reason
to carry back the responsibility further than the Minis-
try.—( Movement, which lasted some time.)
It is true that the President of the Republic, in his
Message of October 31, 1843, claimed for himself the
general responsibility of the acts of his Ministers; but
the Constitution, the nature of things, and the practice
both before and after the 31st of October, 1849, have
maintained, and rill always maintain, a real distinction
between the Ministerial power and that of the President
of the Republic.
" The Constitution, in fact, declares in formal terms
that ' the Ministers are responsible,' and that ' the
Council of Ministers is a necessary authority in the
State.' The nature of things also ought at present to
dech.re to you loudly that if the President was to be
considered responsible for the details of the administra-
tion, it would be impossible for you to discuss them
without causing attains to his consideration and disturb-
ing the harmony of the great powers.
" With respect to the practice which has constantly
prevailed, several examples prove that the Ministers
have never pretended to be always protected by the Pre-
sident of the Republic. The discussion which is about
to open will prove to you still more invincibly, that for
the President of the Republic the responsibility is not to
commence, unless the Ministry is insufficient to protect
itself.
" At the commencement of our deliberations, it ap-
peared to us that the act of January 10 was not of an
isolated character, but 'seemed to be connected with
esthers of a similar kind; and that idea was confirmed
by tho perusal of the minutes of the Permanent Commit-
tee, and by the answers given by the Ministers of War
and of the Interior to the questions addressed to them by
the members of the eummittee.
It is impossible to shut one's eyes to the fact that for
a long time there has been, on the part of the Executive
Power, a tendency to place little confidence in our insti-
tutions, to consider as transitory and ephemeral the form
of government under which we live, to disseminate
among,t every rank of society doubts as to the future, to
cry up the supposed benefits of an absolute government,
and to aspire, within an undetermined time, after a sort
of imperial restoration.
" There is no one here who does not pay respect to
great reminiscences, but that feeling ought not to dege-
nerate into intoxication, which leads men's minds astray,
and prepares the way for new revolutions.
" That, however, might take place if you should not
endeavour to oppose a movement which appeared to
have stopped short under the happy influence of the
last Message of the President of the Republic, but
since then has appeared to commence again with fresh
intensity.

" The tendency which we point out to you has not
been opposed by the Government, and even has been
encouraged by some of its acts. The seditious cries of
Vile l'Euipereue were uttered at reviews, and a ger
nerat officer who resisted the impulse so given was dis-
missed.

" The press, enjoying the privilege of being sold in
the streets, has been full of insult and calumny against
the National Assembly, apparently for the object of
disparaging it, and undermining its moral power; and,
in fine, a more important act, and one which appears
to us connected with the preceding ones—the dismissal
of General Changarnier—has attracted your attention.
"Each of these acts has been maturely examined in the
Committee. The first, namely, the cry of Vive l'Em-
pereur,' not only was not punished, but even encou-
raged. The information collected by your Permanent
Committee, and that in particular of the General-in-chief
of the army of Paris, does not leave any doubt as to the
fact, nor on other facts of a nature to compromise mili-
tary discipline.
" The Minister of the Interior has denied those facts;
and to the acts which passed at Satory opposed the evi-
dence of what he saw himself. The Minister might be
right on some particular facts, but so absolute a dene-
gation, whatever may be the good faith of the person
making it, appears to us to depart from the truth."—
(Great agitation.)
In this, continued the Hon. Gentleman, addressing
the Assembly, there is not the slightest contradiction.

The Hon. Minister only saw on© review, and four

were held.

Voices—Go on go on ! Read ! read!
M. LArJUINAIS continued the report—
" The dismissal of General Neumayer is a fact sill
mere grave, the circumstances of which you are ae•

(painted with. That General being asked by an officer
under him whether he ought to give his men orders to
cry out, replied that 'silence under arms appeared to
him the attitude most in conformity with military disci-
pline.' That was the only reason that caused him to be
deprived of his command; and his dismissal took place
in spite of the exertions to the contrary of his superior
ctlicer, the General-in-chief of the army of Paris.
A" Can there be any doubt relative to this fact? The
language of the Minister?, even their own assertions, do
not allow us to doubt it. The Minister of the Interior
confined himself to pointing to the rights of the execu-
wintli,,vhi,rseisenapihalohhwbeeeenirhnt;agcdantna.
aindlnlrtneethidt;:necg,a tth si
me o, f h
eGeneral
dN
tenu cat
hany
ae rn'sa
wdei
rss-
ivaennd
doendatrltade
that he
hcet
hi!reifnoereititibeer
/
to deny nor admit that cause.--(Agitation.) Ho added
that the Government had conterred on General Neu-
msyer a higher post than that which be had been de-
prived of; and that, on the application of the General to
withdraw from the service, the Government had, by a
special favour, kept him en disponibilite. A member of
the Committee having asked the Minister of War if be
would consent to communicate to the Committee the
official correspondence which passed between him and
that General,
such l, h
a u
replied c
othraste
would,
he did
inno thci
so consider
opinion,it proper
to do so, a
consti-
tute an objectionable precedent.—(Movement.) As to
of
e impulsentero
igr refused to acceptiventotheNlinister the responsibilityialprese
,the Mini ster
the of
that matter. He declared that he did not reproach the
heads of parties with the mope of their journals; that