The Express.
London, England, 1851-06-09 00:00:00

FRANCE.

PARIS, SATURDAY ETRNINO.
The composition of the committee of the revision,
and the debate in the bureaux, absorb public
attention. I send you below a sufficiently ample
report of this important discussion to enable your
leaders to discern the opinions of various parties.
M. Base has been elected a member of the com-
mittee of revision by the 15th bureau. Thus
there are seven members in favour of the revi-
sion, and seven against, while M. de Tocqueville
is neutral. In the discussion the members
of the club of the Ituc des Pyrxmides, repre-
sented by the Duke de Broglie, M. IMontalembert,
M. Moulin, and M. Dana, declared in favour of
giving the amplest powers to the future constituent
for total revision, except in the matter of discussing
the fundamental question of a return to monarchy.
They were also in favour of maintaining the law of
May. The moderate legitimists would adhere to
the motion of the 232, but expressed in larger terms,
so as to admit the discussion of the question of re-
storing the monarchy. They also adhere to the law
of May. There is no shade of difference between the
opinions of the fusionists and those of the
modera!e legitimists. The ultra-legitimists, through
the organ of Laborde and Laruehejaqueliii, call for
the repeal of the law of May. M. de Kerdrel, a
shade more moderate than the preceding, wishes the
law of May to be retouched. The party of M.
Thieni, whose opinions were expressed by Croton. do
Mornay, Piscatory, and de ltemusat, reject revision,
us pat forward by the Rue des Pynimides, as a
covert means of procuring the prolongation. But
still they leave a loophole for adhesion, under condi-
tions which are not easy of fulfilment. Generally,
the Left oppose all revision. The party of Oirardin
will consent, however, if the law of May be re-
pealed.
One of the features in the important operation of
yesterday which has most struck public attention, is
the election of four members of the Left on the com-
mittee—Cavaignac, Jules Favre, Charnui, and Chars-
manic.

More than GOO representatives were present in the
bureaux. Of 543 voters in the fourt en bureaux
who appointed their committeemen, about 291 were
in favour of revision, and 232 opposed to it.
The speech of Al. de Falloux has attracted much
attention from the outrageous violence of his attack
on the Dijon speech. The answer of M. Faucher
deserves attention. Odiloa Barret spoke in favour
of revision.
M. Thiel", since his return from England, talks
much about the figure which France makes in the
London Exhibition, and is confirmed by the su-
periority of tho French articles in his anti-free-trade
doctrines of revision.
M. Dupin, the President of the National Assembly,
was to leave Paris yesterday for London to visit the
Exhibition, and to return the beginning of next
week.

Montalembcrt is the clearest exponent of the views
of the most powerful faction of the majority. Ho is
for maintaining the law of May. Ile deems it useless
to proscribe limits to the new constituent, as no
earthly power will prevent that body from dealing as
it will with the constitution. Although pre-
ferring monarchy he feels that France is too
revolutionary at present to admit a return to
that form of government ; and since the country
seems doomed to the republic, he would have the re-
public as good as possible. But, above all, let the
nation assert the full exercise of its sovereignty.
The opinion of M. Moulin, who pronounced in &-
your of total revision, was equally decided as to the
folly of limiting the mission of the constituent. He
regarded revision as necessary, because institutions
which had been assailed by such a series of blows
front public opinion, ought either to be confirmed by
a fresh sanction, or altered. The election of the
10th December, the petitions of the Councils-General,
the petitions now pouring in from every part of the
country, were demonstrations that must 'be answered
by revising the constitution. Where so much was to
be changed, to restrict the change was impossible.
Therefore he was for total revision.
In the third bureau, M. Coquerel, a member of the
tiers-parti was in favour of revision, as he felt
assured that it would lead to a fresh popular sanc-
tion and confirmation of the republic. M. Poujoulat,
an ultra-legitimist, desired total and legal revision
I with abolition of the law of May. M. Casimir Perim
wished that the motion for revision drawn up by the
committee should neither specify nor exclude, but
be as general as possible. He was opposed to a
single chamber, and wished to give such a fresh
I organisation to the executive power, as would re-
move the incongruity of exorbitant power coexisting
with mean restrictions. In the 4th bureau, M.
Yenisei, a legitimist, declared in favour of revision,
and adhered even to the Duke do Broglie's motion
with certain reserves, but protested against foi-
-1 lowing in the train of the President, who placed
himself at the head of the revisionist movement. M.
, Creton would not support the Duke de Broglie's
motion for revision on account of its Twenties. These
who wanted revision ought to openly their want.
He had always been, and was still in favour
I of two chambers, by which he would have tho pre-
. sliest elated. The monarchic parties were too