The Express.
London, England, 1853-05-23 00:00:00

FRANCE.

PARIS, SUNDAY Evzeiwo.
The Minister of Public Instruction has ordered a
crucifix to be placed in all the class rooms in the
governmental colleges and lyceums.
A telegraphic despatch received via Brussels, an-
nounces a reported change in the Ministry at Con-
stantinople. Mastapha Pacha is appointed Grand
Vizier ; the former Grand Vizier, Mehemet Ali Pacha,
is now Minister of War; Ali Yachts Minister for
Foreign Affairs; Find Effendi, Minister of the In-
terior; and Itifaat Pacha, Minister of Justice.
The folllowing is a rerbatitn report, as given in
the Moniteur of this morning, of the scene in the
Corps Legislatif on Friday, ou the wasion of M. de
Montalembert's protest against the confiscation of
the Orleans property :
M. DZ bIONTALEMBERT said he egreed entirely with the
speech made yesterday by the Count de Flavigny, bat he
could not follow the example set him by that honourable
member. It was impossible for him to consider as serious
the position in which the chamber was placed in
regard to the budget by the em otus consuitum of
December Vith, 18;12, and the organic decree of the
IMO year.
The PILESIDENT reminded the speaker that it was open
to no one not to take seriously the constitution and laws of
the country.
M. DE MONTALEMBEILT replied that he WA not speaking
of the constitution, but of the situation in which the Chain.
her was placed by the muslin conoullwa.
The PIiEFIDENI said the senatess consultum was a part
of the constitution, and that the honourable member could
not be allowed to speak as be bad just done of &constitution
to which he had sworn. . . .

M. DE MONTALEMBERT continued. The regulations
imposed upon the Cnamber were such that its members
might speak as much as they liked, but they could not Mir.
port their speeches by their votes, and in his opinion they
were made to furnish additional weight to the most seriouil,
the most popular, and the most nrjust argument that had
been urged against parliamentary government—that it
was a government which talked without acting. lie
would bow to the constitution and the decrees, which,
as the president remarked, were laws of the state,
but he would not have the proverb applied to him "silence
gives consent." He would, therefore, explain the vote that
he intended to give against the budget. He was not going
to make a speech, but to fulfil a grave duty. He opposed
the budget of 1864, because that budget sanctioned the
&maims consullum of December 25th, 1852, and the decrees
of January 22, of the same year—a means cost-
sidtues which stripped the Chamber of all effi-
eacious control over the public finances—decrees
which despoiled the Orleans family of its legitimate patri-
mony. Ho opposed the budget, because light was not iu it,
and because confiscation was there. He would say nothing
of the senalus consultuns, in order to conform to the admoni-
tion'. which the president had just given him. That was a
question of independence, which he would leave to the
appreciation of his colleagues. But by. the side of this
question there was another one, of conscience and probity,
and upon this point he begged leave to speak freely. Last
year be had called attention to the fact that the budget im-
plied no sanction, no approbation of the decrees of Jan. 22.
This year, on the contrary, the budget of receipts contained
sums the vote of which would be a direct and formal sanc-
tion given to those decree.
The PRESIDENT—Thins decrees had no need of any
sanction. Art. 58 of the constitution declared that those de-
crees had the force of law. _

Y. DE MONTELISIBERT would go on. He believed they
would unction those decrees by voting the budget now
submitted to the Chamber. That was his argument.
If he were not permitted to support it, be would withdraw
in deference to the authority of the President, but then it
would be no longer true, as the President of the Council of
State had affirmed in a firmer sitting, that freedom of
speech existed within the walls of the Corps Legislatif.
The PRESIDENT said that members might say what they
pleased in that Chamber, provided only they respected the
constitution and the laws of the empire.
M. DI MONTALIDIDERT repeated that the vote of the
budget would constitute in his eyes a positive 'auction of
thou decrees. The decrees were laws, he admitted, but
the Chamber had not hitherto been ;ailed upon to pro-
nausea any opinion on the subject, and before it did so he
wished to explain the meaning of the vote he was about to
give.
The PRIMMER said it was not for the Chamber to
sanction either the senatics consuitton or laws that were in
full vigour, and consequently this sanction could not be the
subject of discussion.
M. DE MONTALESIBEIT thought it could not be
contrary to the coustiiution or the laws to ex-
plain beforehand the reasons for a vote. He, in concert
with two other members, had proposed an amendment de-
manding the erasure from the budget of the sums arising
from the sale of the property of the house of Orleans, of
that roysl race which many members of that assembly had
served, and which, notwithstandiag all that might be said
in the way of reproach with regard to the origin and
the end of its power, had nobly and freely governed
Frames. He was aware that he could not now re-
produce or argue his amendment, but the rejection
of that amendment by the commission had Mud him to
vote against the budget. He maintained that the Chamber
was now eked to do what the republicans and socialists,
triumphant in 1848, shrank from doing, and what the
Council of State—a council rensoveable at pleasure, and
which, on this occasion, had been made to feel all the pres-
sure of which its constitution was susceptible—had ap-
proved outs by the majority of a single voice. The commit.
tee had grounded the rejection of his amendment upon this
that the decree of January 22 had the force if law. He I
thought they should ;rather have said that the decrees of
January 22 hia farce against the law, for he knew of no
Metatarsi and uo plebiscite that could authorise any man
to make laws against right, against property, and against
conscience. In his belief, what was asked of the chamber
was to participate in the most serious attack which had ever
been made in the nineteenth century upon the principle of
property, and in the al of confiscation under its most
odious km.

The PREBIDINT, interrupting, said it was impossible to
allow such expreuiens to be uttered.
IL DE MONTALZXBEIT said he would appeal to the pre-
sident's delicacy, to his fair renown, to hie whole past life.
He could not understand how he who had been the advocate
anise Duke d'Aumale could shut his (M. de Montalembert's)
mouth, when he was the advocate of a king who died in
exile.
The PILUIDENT said he had never attacked the charter
or the laws of his country, and that he had always respected
his oath. This duty, practised by him, ought to be so
equally by all.
K. DE MONTALENDZRT, so far from addressing any
reproach to the President, merely wished to refer to ante-
cedents that did him honour. If he were not permitted to
speak of the decrees of January 22, 1862, in themselves, he
might at least he permitted perhaps to allude to the recitals
in those decrees. Ile regretted that one of the reasons given
was that the Orleans family would have enough left to
maintain their rank in a foreign country; he regretted
also that another reflected upon the memory of
the deceased kin.. He saw in the vote of the
budget the sanction of an set against which he
protested, and for his own part he washed his bands
of ail solidarity in it. He disavowed before Ood,
before the country, and before posterity, the responsibility
which the Chamber was about to assume. In conclusion,
the honourable member quoted the words of Napoleon,
Bossuet, and leaden relative to the inviolability of pro-
perty, and expressed a live that those words might en.
lighten and strengthen the consciences of his colleagues, as
they had enlightened and strengthened his own.
The names of the four members who voted against
the budget are—Count de Montalembert, the -Duke
d'Uzi:s, the MaNuis de Talhouct, and M. Charlier.
The Count de la Cluarronniere has been chosen'
reporter by the committee on the bill for the revival
of the political guillotine. It is known that he is
opposed to the measure.
Final quotations.—Money: Three per Cents., 81f.
50e.; Four-and-a-Half per Cents., 103 E 80c. For
the end of the month: Three per Cents., 81f. 50c.;
Four-and-a-Half per Cents., 104 f. Bank Stock,
2,700 f.; liortherns, 9251. Paris and Orleans, I,IIOE ;
' Paris and Strasbourg!, 9381. 75e.; Paris and flocs,
9701.; Paris and Rouen, 1,147 f. 30e.; Lyons to the
Mediterranean, 813 f. 73e.; Western of France, 783 f.;
Rouen and Havre, .540 f.; Bordeaux and Cette, 670 f.;

Caen and 'iliptbdarm 845 f.; Dijon and Besancon,
675 E; Diexpe,aird Feescup, 380 f.
• , , rws, SATURDAY EVENING.
• the /iretsfkair eintaihshisme highly imported** .
planation' re-beim to thh measure just proposed, w•
iitukcl "a bill foe the cofteysion of the departmental ;
sad ciimneenall debts." • Aker stating in the admit
that within the last few years the burdens - of the ,
11;ktsits abd emonstmes have been very consider:
:reused, and alluding to an official declaration
in 1830 that means ought to be taken to prevent the
municipal and departmental councils from augment-
ing. local charges, it says the moment has now
arrived for the government to attend to the subject.
This attention, many will think, has been awakened
somewhat tardily, seeing that the distinguishing
characteristic of the now expiring session of 1833
has been the presentation by government of an un-
precedented number of bills, to enable the depart-
ments and communes to raise fresh loans, and
to lay "additional centimes" upon the tax-
payers. The Corps Legislatif has been called upon I
to vote bills of this kind one after the other in rapid
succession, without having the means of knowing
the capacity of the communes to bear the burdens
imposed, or any idea of the general total to which I
they were continually adding. Most of these bills
have passed without discussion, but when occasion-
ally some scrupulous deputy hes expressed a fear
that they might be going too fast, the only answer
has been that the council of state is habitually pru-
dent in the extreme, a fact of which one of the offi-
cial orators exc'aimed the chambers would be con-
vinced if they only knew the number of applications
for local money bills made and rejected. The result
of this extreme prudence has been that in the course
of this session 39 departments, 22 first-class com-
munes—including those of Marseilles, ltouen,
Rheims, Avignon, Blois, Tours, Poitiers, Cette, Saint
Etienne, Angers, Arles, Rochefort, and Dieppe
—besides an infinity of minor communes,
have been authorised to add to their already
overgrown debts, and now the Mmitertr declares
that the burden of them is intolerable. The remedy
devised for this state of things is highly character-
tic of the present epoch. It consists simply and
avowedly in relieving the existing generation at the
expense of posterity. A law of 1830, passed ex-
pressly to check the natural tendency of local coun-
cils to augment their own power and influence by
raising as much money as possible to be laid out by
themselves, enacted that no departmental or com-
munal loan should be effected, except upon the terms
of being paid off, with interest, by Instalments
within ten years. All the existing local debts have
been contracted under this law. The Moniteur now
says that the reason why the debts are found trouble-
some arises from the necessity of paying them off in
so short a time, and that ;f the reimbursements were
spread over a considerable period, say forty or fifty
years, it is clear that the communes would instanta-
neously feel a considerable relief. This is undeniable.
It is as clear a proposition as that a debtor pressed
by an overdue bill finds a present accommodation
in capitalising the interest and expenses, and le-
mming at a long date. But the Moniteur gees on to
say that the scheme is not only convenient, but pru-
dent and just; and here is a verbatim specimen of
the reasoning:—" As to the communes and depart-
ments, is it not plain justice that expenses necessary
for undertakings not of present utility alone, but
still more useful in time to come, should not be borne
wholly by those who execute them, and should in
part be laid upon the next generation, destined to
reap their fruits ?"

Yes, in a certain measure this may be true enough,
but the argument begs the question whether the
money so coolly carried to the debit of the next
generation has been wisely expended for the benefit
of the inheritance. The next generation, it must be
remembered, has had no 'voice in the matter, and no
share in the pickings and patronage which, always
a great inducement to public extravagance, are
doubly so at a time when all the municipal offices are
filled with the creatures of a government that sets
the example of discounting future prosperity to an
extent that makes all prudent men tremble. The
admission that the communes feel so severely the
burdens imposed upon them is a confession that their
resources, with a view to short payments at least,
have hitherto been imprudently estimated. There is
very little security that, when relieved at the expense
of posterity, they will not speedily incur fresh debts.
This is, indeed, admitted to be the danger of the new
system, and to guard against it the new law proposes
to deprive the prefects of a power conferred upon
them by the dictatorial decree of March 23, 1832, of
authorising extraordinary taxes in certain cases
without appealing to the legislature. It is to be in-
ferred from this that they have made a pretty liberal
use of their powers during the last twelve months.
Bat if the Corps Legialatif continue to pass local
bills as lightly as it has done this session, the pockets
of the local taxpayers will be as little protected as
ever.

I believe it may be considered certain that in con-1
sequence of the attitude of the committee on the bill
for restoring articles 86 and 87 of the penal code the
government will remodel the bill by striking out the
clauses imposing death as the penalty for any plot
against the state, or any attempt to alter the succes-
sioa to the crown, and leaving only so much of the
bill as affixes the punishment of death to any attempt
upon the life of the Emperor or any member of his
family.

The Senate is discussing to-day the new law for
compelling superior officers in the navy to retire at a
certain fixed age. M. Duces, the Minister of Marine,
was to deliver a set speech in support of the measure
against the hostile report of the committee presented
by Admiral Mackau. Although the committee with but
a single dissentient voice opposes the promulgation of
the law as unconstitutional, it is not thought that the
majority of the Senate will follow them in so bold a
step. It is to be remembered that the Senate have
no right to put their veto upon a law merely because
they may think it a bad one. They are only em-
powered to oppose the promulgation of a measure
upon certain specified grounds, such as that it is un-
constitutional, inconsistent with the rights of pro-
perty, or calculated to "compromise the defence of the
country." That the bill for turning adrift old admi-
rals is obnoxious to the latter clause is very naturally
the opinion of Admiral Mackau and two of his
gallant brethren on the committee, who will be
among the first victims of the new regulation; but
the Senate is hardly likely to risk a collision with
the executive upon so nice a point. I understand,
however, that this hitherto uniformly complaisant
body will very probably make a demonstration of
independence with regard to a proposition
,just laid
before them, which is a direct attack upon their own
privileges. A draft Senatus Conaultum has been
sent to the Luxembourg for empowering the Council
of State to frame rules of public administration for
the organisation of the colonies. Now, the constitu-
tion of Jan. 15, 1852, expressly says, "the senate
regulates the constitution; of the colonies and Al-
geria," and the conscript fathers feel their dignity
offended at being asked to delegate this their consti-
tutional right.

The committee on the Lyons and Geneva Railway
Bill is now understood to be favourable to the pro-
ject. M. Dubois who at first pronounced an opinion
against it, has now declared himself in favour of the
measure. There is reason to think this change of
opinion is owing to a belief encouraged by the go-
vernment that the Victor Emanuel Railway Bill was
hurried on at Turin, with a view of tempting France
to construct her Geneva line by way of St. Genii,
and in the hope of diverting the English and north-
ern traffic to the Mediterranean away from Lyons
and Marseilles to Genoa, through Savoy.
The superior railway commission has given in its
adhesion to the fusion of the Rouen, Havre, Western
and Cherbourg railways, and negotiations arc now
going on to obtain the definitive approbation of the
government.