The Express.
London, England, 1863-09-28 00:00:00

mi. Miss FROM PAR]

Wit IPEE OWN cointr.sroximr.)
PARIS, SUNDAE EVENING.

The curious note in the Moniteur about minis-
Eerie' responsibility seems to have been the result
of a great deal of consideration. M. Emile de
Girardin makes the disclosure that the Presse was
to have had a warning 'for an article of his of
September 22, but that a second article in yester-
day's paper led to the suppression of the warning,
which was ready drawn up, and the substitution
for it of the paragraph at the head of the leading
column of today's Moniteur. M de Girardin
thinks, or at least professes to think, that the
"able minister who holds the portfolio of the
Interior in the absence of K Boudet " (K
Baroche is the minister alluded to) meant the
lints in the Moniker to be an answer to the follow-
ing challenge in the Prase:—"Let a communiqui
tell us that if we are less ministerial than the minis-
ters we are more monarchical than the monarch."
The Prase declares now that it wanted a boun-
dary line marked, not for the purpose of overstep-
ping it, but in order to keep within it. The writer
hopes he may be permitted to say that the Moniker
does not draw the line with suffioient precision.
lie knew perfectly well before that, according to
the constitution of 1852, the " idea" which
" directs" affairs emanates directly from the Sove-
reign. He proceeds to contend that in the present
instance he in no way blamed the praiseworthy
wish of the Sovereign that Poland should be placed
'in that condition of well-being which her seventy
years' martyrdom so richly merits. What he
blamed was the manner in which the minister,
K Drouyn de Lhnys, acted in the execution of
the Emperor's idea. His contention was that, in-
stead of embittering the discussion by sending
irritating despatches to St. Petersburg, it would
have been better to have despatched a special en-
voy to St. Petersburg, which envoy, accordingly as
it was desired to be more firm or more conciliatory,
might have been either the Duke de Morny or
Prince Napoleon. On this occasion, as on all others,
the Prase has endeavoured respectfully to keep the
person of the Sovereign out of the debate ; and
that, he confesses, out of an old habit which M. de
Girardin learnt under the charter of 1830—a habit
which, notwithstanding that the constitution of
1852 declares the Emperor responsible, he is desir-
ous not to lose. The reason he gives is stated in
language of startling frankness, and which may
possibly not be taken in good part by the autho-
rities. " When a minister has met with more
checks than successes it is easy to change him ; but
to change a monarch is always and every-
where a very serious task." It would be
difficult to tell the Emperor more plainly that if he
will persist in his system of personal government
he will some day come to grief. After some histo-
rical allusions to the governments of monarchs by
divine right, M. de Girardin concludes by the very
true remark that it is impossible in practice to
draw the line between the direction and execution
of a policy. In short, he very boldly contests the
principle of ministerial irresponsibility, and leaves
MO be inferred very clearly that if the acts of
ministers are to be sheltered from discussion so far
as they are in execution of the "direction" of the
Sovereign, there is no such thing as liberty.
The France, which is also an advocate for minis.
terial resiousibility, though a lees bold and deter-
mined one than M. de Girardin, affects to see in
the note of the .Ifunitenr " nothing discouraging to
those who hope and believe that the Emperor has
ceased to be a personal government" The Prance
builds upon the word in the Moniker " alone"—
(" the minister is not alone reeponsible") as showing
that be has "a " responsibility. It overlooks the
argument that the line drawn by the Moniker is
too shadowy to be any practical guarantee.

PARIS, SATURDAY EVENTS°.

My instinctive suspicion of the falsity of the
sensational news given by the evening papers
yesterday is countenanced by the most official of
the setni-official journals, the Pays, which denies
them all es bloc, in the following terms :
It is stated that Prince Napoleon will set out for Landon
to-morrow. The journey of his imperial highness to Leedom
has, however, no political character. Übe@ been rumoured
to-day at the Bourse that M. Drouyn de Lheye bad resigned.
This news is altogether false. It is equally incorrect to
unit, M 4 an evening paper (the Nation) did yesterday, that
de Gramost, the French ambassador to Vienna, has
been charged to address communications to the Austrian
government regardiag its attitude on the Polish quietism.
Moreover there is no ides whatever of superseding Baron
Gros as ambassador in London. The Baron is in Paris at
this moment, but he leaves for his post to-morrow.

Thu falls to the ground a whole batch of start-
ling intelligence which was telegraphed to England
last night, and fills au important plaice in all the
Loudou journals of this morning. The misfortune
is--so ingrained is the habit of enormous lying
with automaton journalists enjoying no liberty
and saddled with no responsibility—that little
more credit can be given to the Pays' denial than to
statements of the papers which it is instructed to
contradict. It speaks, however, upon second
thouglirs--twenty-tour hours later than the others
—acid therefore, so far, its heading " Latest news"
is justifiable. But just to show you how much the
"well-informed" are at sea at this moment, I may
I mention that Bullier's Correspondence, which comes
out an hour or two later than the Pays, and gives
the cue to all the prefectoral journals in the pro-
vinces, says, speaking of the news of Baron Gros'
recall "There must be some foundation for the
rumour, because neither the Moniteur nor the semi-
official journals have contradicted it."
I spoke yesterday of the inanity of the assertion
of the Pays (which had received a commission to
denude the publication of the despatch to Prince
Czartoryski of its importance), that the Moniker
in its uon-official part was "a journal just like any
other journaL" It would be scarcely worth while
to slay the slain by quoting passages from French
journals confirmatory of % proposition so evident
to any one acquainted with Preach politics, were it
not that mistakes on the point are frequent in
England. I haveexplained over and over again at
intervals of years—but such things are naturally
forgotten—that the difference between the official
and the non-official part of the Moniteur constant
not in the importance but in the nature of the
matter printed. All decrees, ministerial reports
upon which decrees are founded, and formal matters
generally, are published in the official part. But
the most important political notifications, contradic-
tions of other papers, nay, letters of the Emperor him-
self, appear always ih the "non-official" columns.
The obvious ressoo is that the official part of the
Muniteur is a Gazette. Political discussaion, how-
-1 ever momentous, never appears but iu the non-
official part. There is, indeed, a column of faits
divers (for which the nearest Euglish translation is
I "accidents anal offences"), the paste 'indecision con-
tributors to which have perhaps a certain, though
by no means an unlimited latitude to select such
matter as they may think most likely to interest
subscribers. But no political extract from home
or foreign journals of the slightest importance is
ever made without high authorisation. Everybody
iu France knows this. It is only foreigners that
can be for a moment deceived by the falsehoods
which the France and Pays were instructed to tell
yesterday.
As this is a general queetioa of continual reeve.
relit*, I send in aid of my own assertion some short
extracts from the French papers.
The Temps says :

If in its nor •olleial part the Moniteur i. bat a journal
Jost like &bother, low *owe. it that is doe. not reprodeee,
without distioetion, all important dam/trots as soca as they
oonse oat! Wily did it not print the letter to Prince Car.