The Express.
London, England, 1863-04-23 00:00:00

EXPRESS FROM PARIS.

(nod OVR OWZ

PARIS, WIDNISDAT $1731110.
I have never seen a sore unfortunately worded
warning than that which DE de Persigny has
thought fit to administer to-day to the Journal des
De'bats. He places in juxtaposition the oath im-
posed upon all candidates fur the legislature, and
M. Prevost Paradol's interpretation of it. The
Sat of this oath is :—".I swear obedience to the

ecastitution and fidelity to the Emperor." K
Paradol argued that citizens who think they ought
not to be prevented by this oath from endeavouring
as public men to ameliorate the institutions of
their country might conscientiously oonstrue it as
imposing no other duty "than not to enter into
the doubtful and obscure paths of conspiracies, and
to observe respect for the laws recommended by
morality to all good 'citizens:" Thereupon Kde
Persigny warns the journal on the ground that it
"lads tY deceive the public mind oa tke bearing
aaelessza aca.sehfish fourna.amabselata bee*
et honour beteeet hfm *lieu Ova sad
who readies, 'between the Emperor and the
candidate." It is especially indiscreet ick ,the
minister of Napo/eon 111. to provoke inquiries
about the precise meaning and binding of loney of a
political oath. In common predesee, ha of all
men should Jests the largest latitude of interpreta-
tion to a " legal" text, and should say nothing
about "honour." The present oath was conceived
and born of the breach of another. What is the
official defence of that tremendous perjury which

was committed on Deo. 2, 1851, the world is yet to
learn. I have been on the daily look out fort e
apology ever since ; but, exptekuts apeetari, 1 ha a
never seen a word. Neither Cassava*, nor Gu
ronnihre, nor Limayrac,nor any of the most devo:t
soldiers of the present dynasty, have ever vertu
to grapple with that debate subject. There cap
be no other defamer bat expediency. The public
interest, the partisan' of the coup d'ilat may say,
required that the oath taken by the President of
the Republic to be faithful to the Republic

and not to dissolve the National Assembly, should
be broken. He destroyed the Republic and dissolved
the. assembly. His minister now argues thit
another oath, the power to impose which dates from
the supremacy obteined ly the breach of the formet,
is so textually seared that any nitioeination shoat
its meaning is seditious ; and he esekato impose the
narrowest oonstrnotion of it upon the great Franck
nation for all time. It is boasted that the imperial
constitution is " perfectible "—,-i.e., susceptible af
change ; but how is it ever to be amended if the
representatives of the people, whose business it
to watch and criticise its daily working, are to
perpetually chosen front the ranks alone of sae -
vile admirers l In strict logic, all political oat
are anomalous under a governMent based on univo-
cal suffrage. The sovereign rights of the people
as sovereign now as they were in 1851. It is cl
not wise in the executive to strain the cord
tight, and force upon the liberal party the con • -
tion which it is frYing to escape, that liberW
sever again be established in France except by .
rebellion. .

The Corpa Legislatif yesterday voted unani-
mously the bill for amending the law relating to
societies en cow -`,--that is to say, partnerships
in which thor who furnish

Aire are sleeping partners, who
a proportion of capital. It hae been complained et
late that the severity of the law relating to swill
partnerships checked enterprise. A single act sf
management (gsetion) made the cosimandite partial*
liable to the full extent of hie fortune. The objeet
of the change in the law is to make such a partn4r
liable only for the consequences of the particular
act of management which may be proved agaiwit
bim, or in awe of s series of acts of management,
then to the fullest possible extent, or to some limited
extent, according to the nature of 'lissom as estimated
by a court of justice in its discretion. M. Ern*
011ivier thought the present state of the law unob-
jectionable, and looked with suspicion upon an

extension of the immunities of commantlife &nolo-
ties ; but he did not support his opposition by'
vote, and the bill, as above stated, passed nem. cots.
My attention has been called to a decision of I,
French law court, affecting English subjects, which
is represented as being, and probably is! of con-
siderable importance to the interests of commerce
under the treaty with England. The main facti,
which I assume to be correct, are that an English
firm, Selby and Fracklyn, having a branch house
in Paris, bought through their agents in Man-
chester, last year, a quantity of prints of various
patterns, which they imported and sold in France.
Two French houses, Messrs. Chartier, Jeune, and
Co., and Messrs. Lecocq and Co., purchased some of
times goods, and in their warehouses four different
patterns were seized at the instigation of K
Hazard, a Rouen manufacturer, as being piracies
of a French patent belonging to him. For the
infringement of this patent Messrs. Selby and Co.
have been condemned, by a decree, confirmed on
appeal, to pay a fine to government of 2,000 fr. and
10,000 fr. damages to M. Hazard, the patentee.
A written statement, furnished to me by an agent
of the defendants, affirms that in France patented
designs are deposited under seal, and no one can
tell what designs are registered, except the parties
themselves who deposited them. If that state-
ment is correct it no doubt discloses a most absurd
state of the French law in the matter. A patent
which only makes its existence known by the
condemnation of its violator, must oer-
tainly be an unjustifiable institution. If
there be nothing more in the ;ass, I cannot but
endorse the alarming cry of my informant, that
" there must be an end of the trade in fancy
goods." But I think the complaint proves too
much to be credible. It can hardly be that the
patent law of France is a trap which no wariness
eaa avoid. lam never slow to advocate redress of
grievances which may afflict English subjects in
France, but I cannot rapport the proposition that,
because a French copyright of design may have
been pirated with impunity in Manchester, there is
any lesion in the commercial treaty from the fact of
the owner of the design having asserted his rights in
Paris. I am told that the damages usually given for
an infringement of a patent in Treace are only from
500 fr. to 1,000 fr., and that the large amount in the
present case (10,000 fr.) proves the French judges
to be animated with a design to warn Englishmen
that every effort will be made to impede their com-
merce with France. I have no superstitions rever-
ence for the French judger, but I cannot think that
they have been influenced by political eon/Lidera-
, tions in the present instance, and, moreover, as-
suming them to be liable to intimidation, I do not
believe the executive power is inclined to exercise a

proem in the direction supposed. The lugs in-
terests, involved will no doubt lead to a searching
investigation of the now alleged grievance, and if
the French law be really as bad as represented its
very absurdity east lead to a reform.