The Sun.
London, England, 1850-11-04 00:00:00

for the feelings of men who have shown themselves
all along utterly and irremediably careless of the
feelings of the whole population. Consequently, in-
stead of directing public indignation against them
abstractedly as a body corporate, we would now hold
these reverend personages up to the observation of the
multitude in their own individual characters, trusting
that at least the mere dictates of shame may have
some influence over their councils, if those of con-
science and propriety have hitherto proved ineffectual.
Turning, then, to the arch offenders against public
decency in this particular, turning to the Dean and
Chapter of St. Paul's Cathedral, we would point to
the members of that ecclesiastical establishment as to
the prominent originators of this great and crying
evil. Instead of doing as heretofore, we would
now specify their names and titles in succession,
so that the people may know who are, in point of
fact, these twopenny showmen of the cathedral. We
speak no longer inferentially ; we are long since tired
of that. Our arguments have been so pertinaciously
disregarded that we content ourselves, at length, with
exposing the evil by means of a few plain statements.
Foremost among these we would mention the fact
that the following is a catalogue of the reverend gen-
tlemen who are acting as

THE TWOPENNY SHOWMEN Of ST. PAUL'IIIi
H. H. Milman, Dean.
W. H. Hale, Canon Residentiary.
Thomas Dale, Cano❑ Residentiary.
J. Endell Tyler, Canon Residentiary.
H. Montagu Villiers, Canon Residentiary.
Thomas G. Hall, Prebendary.
R. W. Browne, Prebendary.
Thomas Robinson, Prebendary.
Henry Venn, Prebendary.
Thomas Hartwell Horne, Prebendary.
Thomas Boyles Murray, Prebendary.
Alexander M'Caul, Prebendary.
11. H. Norris, Prebendary.
Richard Harvey, Prebendary.
James J. Round, Prebendary.
Derwent Coleridge, Prebendary.
R. G. Baker, Prebendary.
Thomas Henderson, Prebendary.
C. B. Dalton, Prebendary.
John Smith, Prebendary.
G. Randolph, Prebendary.
W. A. Soames, Prebendary.
J. W. Vivian, Minor Canon.
W. J. Hall, Senior Cardin?.l and Minor Canon.
E. J. Beckwith, Succentor and Minor Canon.
J. T. Bennett, Warden and Minor Canon.
J. V. Povab, Divinity Lecturer and Minor Canon.
J. H. Coward, Epistolan and Minor Canon.
W. Calvert, Gospeller and Minor Canon.

From this time forth the public cannot remain in
ignorance as to who are the offenders in this particular.
The above list contains the names of those individuals
who have so long disgraced the sacred cause of reli-
gion by affording their sanction to the continuance
of " the money-changers in the Temple !" Further
we need not go at present. The community will
not remain indifferent to the force of the foregoing
catalogue. They can draw from it their own very
emphatic conclusions. All we are solicitous about just
now is, that if only for a time, say during the days
of the Exhibition, the system of extorting halfpence
at the doors of our cathedrals shall be discontinued,
so that English customs should not in this particular
be so terribly disgraced in the eyes of so many intel-
ligent foreigners. Can nothing be done by the paro-
chial or municipal authorities to force this conces-
sion at least from the Deaa, the Prebendaries, the
Minor Canons, and the Canons Residentiary ? Acting
in accordance with their old and immemorial customs,
they will of course be unwilling to forego the chance
of such a rich harvest of copper coin likely to
be gathered from the sight-seers of 1851—but we
mean even in that regard might not some satisfactory
arrangement be come to in reference to the temporary
cessation of the existing system, viewing it simply
(0, shame that we should have to say it !) as a merely
mercantile transaction?

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC.

We have received the Paris journals of yesterday.
All Saints' Day was observed'as a holiday, conse-
quently none of the journals, with the exception of
the Republique, were published on Saturday.
" It is positively stated," says the Journal des Da-
bats, " that General NEUM4YER has written to the
Minister of War to say that he cannot accept the new
appointment just conferred on him. If this news be
confirmed we should, for our parts, regret this deter-
mination of the honourable General, as his refusal
would lead the world to believe in the prolongation
of a crisis which has so deeply afflicted all good
citizens, and which has for the last two days been
looked on as happily terminated."
The Ordre has the following on the subject of the
examination of M. BAROCHE before the Committee of
Permanence on the subject of the removal of General
NEIIIKAYER from the garrison of Paris :

" The Minister was interrogated five times (before the
Parliamentary Committee) on the subject of the political
cause to which the revocation of General de Neumayer
was publicly attributed, or rather he was invited in the
most precise manner to declare if it was true or
not, that the commander of the first military division
had been revoked because he had enunciated
personally an advice condemnatory of cries by soldiers
under arms, and the Minister, we repeat, refused
obstinately to give any reply. Nor was the committee
in the least astonished. Nor do we allege it as a
crime against M. Baroche. He would not tell a lie :
voila wait. His silence was an avowal. How could he,
forsooth, contradict a fact which is not only true, but
which has been at different times attested to General
Neumayer by the Minister of War himself in presence of
a witness whose word would not be questioned. This
fact we were the first to affirm; we affirm it again, and
we protest beforehand against the imposture or the error
of whoever would dare to deny it; we say, moreover,
that such imposture, however well calculated, would be
vain, for it would be exposed on the first public debate
that should take place."
This account is by M. DE CHAMSOLLE, himself a
member of the Committee, and therefore likely to be
well informed with regard to all that passed. The
Prefect of Police, however, ➢T. CARLIER, addressed a
summons to the giant of the Ordre to insert a con-
tradiction of the statements which had appeared in
that journal on the subject of the removal of General
NEUMATER, and to that summons M. DE CHAM-
ROLLE replies as follows :
" The personal fact regarding General Neumayer—
and it is a grave one—is recalled in the article in which
you find yourself alluded to. Do you meet it with a de-
negation? If you say yes, I will then answer that it is
your denegation which is false. I will maintain that no
other explanation than that given by the 0, dre can be
honestly sustained. I will affirm that the Minister of
the Interior did not dare to contradict it before the Par-
liamentary Committee. I will add that if it is contested
at the tribune it will be confirmed by such testimony as
to remove all shadow of doubt." "

The same journal gives the following account of
the manner in which General NEUMAYER acted on
receiving the announcement of his removal from
Paris to Rennes :

' General Neumayer is without fortune. The blow
which has been levelled at him so unjustly, if it does
not deprive himself of the means of existence, yet,
does it, at least, affect the prospects of his wife and
family. On this account it was, that when he thought
appearances saved by the ordinance in the Moniteur, he
felt painful hesitation. In the meantime his brother-in-
law the Commandant Trochin consulted his sister, and
soon after leading the noble woman by the hand, fol-
lowed by her two children, he presented himself to the
General, saying—' You have been placed between a
question of interest and a question of honour, the advice
of your family is, that you ought not to hesitate.' C. esi
bien, replied the worthy seldier—' You have compre-
hended me, itis on their account, that, in fact, I did aimit
a moment's hesitation,' and he immediately wrote a letter
of refusal to the Minister of War."

How the proposed removal of General NEUMAYER
from Paris to Rennes (for, be it remembered, he is
not dismissed but promoted) could injuriously affect
him in a pecuniary point of view, as stated by the
Ordre, does not very clearly appear, seeing that the
rank to which be was appointed was higher than the
rank he held in Paris, the emoluments greater, and
the expenses less; it is those, therefore, who induced
him to refuse the command at Rennes, who are re-
sponsible for any injurious consequences to the pro-
spects of his wife and family which may arise, and
not the PRESIDENT of the Republic, who appears to
be justified in taking steps to reduce the un-
constitutional, anomalous, and dictatorial power
of CHANGARNIER, who seems anxious to ex-
p4iter all parties for the sake of his own personal
ambition. It strikes us, however, that M. BAROCHE
was much to blame if he gave any pledge, as alleged,
to the Committee of Permanence that the removal of
General NEUMATER should be an isolated act; if it is
an isolated act, it is worse than a fault, worse even
than an ordinary mistake, it is a stupendous blunder,
as it will irritate, without essentially weakening,
CIIANGARNIER and the Bourbonists. If, however, it
is the first of a seriss of well• considered acts for
breaking down the power of the would-be dictator,
and for ultimately depriving him of the com-
mand of the army of Paris, then it is a
bold first step in a justifiable course of policy, which
will be successful in exact proportion to the fidelity of
the PRESIDENT to the Constitution and the Republic ;
in the meantime, it is abundantly evident that the
split between the Orleanists and the Bonapartists is as
complete as that between the latter and the Legiti-
matists.

A complete reconciliation has been brought about
between the PRESIDENT and the other members of the
Bonaparte family by the good offices of his cousin the
Prince of CANINO.