The Sun.
London, England, 1832-01-10 00:00:00

SITTING OF JAN. 7.

At one o'clock M. Girod de l'Ain, the President, took
the Chair.

The Chamber having adjourned the discussion of the
Civil List until Monday, M. Parent was called to the tri-
bune to present a report on M. Roger's motion relative to
marriages between brothers and sisters in law, and vice
versa, and between uncles and nieces, and aunts and
nephews.
M. Parent said that the Commission appointed to exa-
mine that important question was unanimously of opinion
that it was necessary to modify the 162 d and 164th Ar-
ticles of the Civil Code, which prohibited such marriages.
The Commission, however, was divided on the nature of
the modifications to be introduced. Before the revolution
of 1789, when the clergy were solely invested with the
religious and civil authority, the Church condemned mar-
riages between relations of every degree ; but the Court
of Rome could give dispensations for unions even between
brothers and sisters in law. Those marriages, he said,
have nothing contrary to public manners ; they are even
in those of the French society; they are tolerated in seve-
ral Christian countries, and no good reason could be ad-
duced to condemn in France what is allowed in other
countries. The prohibition, at any rate, should not be so
absolute as it was in the Civil Code. The Reporter then
asserted that such marriages were just, useful, and neces-
sary. He afterwards examined the reasons given by the
partisans of the absolute repeal of the 162 d and 164th
Articles of the Civil Code, who had put forward, as an
objection to their partial repeal, the necessity under which
the parties would be to reveal now and then scandalous
domestic transactions in order to obtain dispensation from
the Government. 51. Parent, however, stated that, after
examining the question most attentively, they had decided
that it might be inconvenient to abrogate those articles
entirely ; that the system of dispensation should be intro-
duced into the law; but that the Government should not
deliver any except for the most urgent motives. They
consequently proposed to word M. Roger's proposition as
follows :

" The Government is authorised, whenever the case will
appear sufficiently urgent, to raise the prohibition contained in
the 162 d and I64th Articles of the Civil Code against marriages
between brothers and sisters in law, uncles and nieces, and
aunts and nephews; but such dispensations are never to be
granted when one of the parties shall have been divorced."

After the Chamber had decided that the proposition de-
served its consideration, the sitting closed.

PROTEST OF THE DEPUTIES OF FRANCE
AGAINST THE USE OF THE WORDS " SUBJECTS" AND
" KING OF FRANCE" BY THE MINISTERS OF LOUIS

PHILIP.

The members of the Chamber of Deputies who assisted
with grief at the sittings of the 4th and sth of January,
1832, in which the Ministers of the King reproduced and
endeavoured to justify the double expression of " King of
France," and of " subjects of the King," attested by the
Moniteur—expressions which were struck out from our
charter of 1830 as irreconcileable with the principle of
the national sovereignty--owe to themselves and to their
country to protest solemnly against those expression.,
which tend to alter the new public French right. The
President of the Chamber not having put to the vote the
suppression of these words in the proces-verbal, and the
Chamber not having therefore voted relative to this sup-
pression, which would tend to give a legal and parlia-
mentary character to the present protest, the undersigned
have recourse to the only way left open to them, that of
publishing their sentiment., and hereby protest, in the pre-
sence of France, against the expressions of which the Mi-
nisters have made use, and against all the consequences
which may hereafter be drawn from them
Allier, Audry de Puyraveau, Auguis, Bacot, Basterreche,
Baudet, Dulary, Baudet Lafarge, Bavoux, Beausejour,
Bernard (Cote du Nord), Bertrand (General), Beslay fils,
Blaque Belair, Boudet, Bousquet, Briqueville, Brosse,
Bryas, Cabanon, Cabet, Chaigneaux, Charpentier, Clauzel
(Marechal), Clerc Lasalle, Coloines, Comte, Corcelles,
Cordier, Cormenin, Conderc, Coulmann, Couturier, De-
gouve Denuncques, Demarcay (General), Desaix, Dubois
Ayme, Duboise (Ardeche), Dubois (Loire Infer.), Duchaf-
fault, Ducluzeaux, Dulong, Dupont (de l'Eure), Duris
Dufresne, Escanier, Eschasseriauz, Faure Dare, Faure
(Hautes Alpes), Fiot, Gauthier d'llauteserve, Gautier de
Rummy, Gavarte, Genoux, Girardin, Girod Pouzol, Glais
Bizoin, Grammont, Grea, Guillemaut, Havin, Heram-
bault (d'), Hernoux, Jousselin, Junyen, Kcechlin, La-
boissiere, Lafayette (Georges), Lafitte, Lamarque (Ge-
neral), Larabit, Las Cases pore, Laurence, Lebastard de
Kerguifinec, Legendre, Legrande, Lenouvel, Levaillant,
Ludre (de), Luminais, Luneau, Loyer, Mallye, Marche-
geay, Marschal, Mauguin, Meilheurat, Milory, Mornay
(Laguette), Nicod, Odillon Barrot, Pages, Perin, Perot,
Petou, Podenos, Pons (Vaucluse), Portalis, Pourrat, Poux
(Thierry), Proust, Raynaud, Realier Dumas, Renouvier,
Resnier, Robert (Ardennes), Robineau, Roger, Rousshile,
Sade (de), Salverte, Sans, Saubat, Subervic (General) Sul-
picy, Taillandier, Tardieu, Tessiere, Teulon, 'Fhevenin,
Thiars (General), Thouret, Thouvenel, Toupot de Bevaux,
Tracy, Tueux, Vidal, Voyer d'Argenson.
" My health not having permitted me to be present at
the sittings of yesterday and to-day, I pray my colleagues
to have the goodness to receive my adhesion to their protest
against the two expressions which I regard as an attack on
the revolution of July. " L AFAYETTE.
" Paris, Jan. 5, 1832."

" The undersigned, absent from the sittings of the 4th
and sth instant, adhere without reserve to the protest of
their colleagues:—
" FELIX REAL " KERMORIAL
" MERILHOU " JOLY
"J. BERNARD " General SEMELE.
" Paris, Jan. 6,1832."