The Express.
London, England, 1851-11-14 00:00:00

IMPORTANT FROM PARIS.

DEFEAT OF THE MINISTRY.
BY SUBMARINE ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.

PARIS, TEIVIPADAT, S P.Y.

The Assembly has rejected the Electoral Law.
The numbers were: for the second reading, 348;
against it, 333; majority against the ministry, 7.

PARIS, THURSDAY EvExtmo.
In the sitting of today the great debate WAS
opened by
" - - • -

M. DE i:AROCHEJAREELIN, who begged to inquire, before
commencing his speech, whether at a meeting held this
morning an engagement had not been entered into to make
very large modifications in the law of May 31 ?
The PRESIDENT said that the Assembly knew nothing of
meetings held elsew here. Representatives were only to
speak in their own individual names.
M. VATIRESNIL, as a member of the committee on the
bill, and also as a member of the committee on the muni-
cipal law, demanded to speak. He gave a history of elec-
toral ,legislation. Ile admitted that many of the gua-
rantees to be found in that legislation hail be-
come incompatible with the existing constitution.
But that of domicile was not prohibited. This was
proved by a comparison of the 25th and 26th arti-
cles of the constitution. To that guarantee, therefore, they
ought to adhere. He thought, and the committee on the
u oici pal law were of the same opinion, that there ought
to be but one ar.d the same electoral list, both for political
and municipal elections. The committee thought that
a three year* domicile should continue to be required as as I
electoral qualification, but they were disposed to concede I
greater facilities as to the manner of proving that
domicile. It was upon the discussion of the municipal
law that all admissible modifications should be introduced.
The executive power should have understood thle
and by not understanding it, the President had
separated himself from the policy of order. It was yet
time for him to take that course. This would reconcile the
honour and secure the union Si the two great powers of the
stste. Ile concluded by saying that he should vote for the
rejection of the government bill, and for placing the muni-
cipal bill on the order of the day as soon as possible. (Pro-
longed movement.)
M. de Tnontoxv said the last speaker had expressed a
sincere wish to maintain the most perfect harmony between
the two great powers of the state. I desire it equally, but
I regret that the mode in which that object is proposed to be
attained is the rejictiou, without examination, the bill
presented by one of those powers. The motive for
this bill is one of order and justice. The results of the law
of May have gone beyond all the calculations that were
made. No one foresaw that a third of the electors would
be deprived of their rights.
M. Moat said—l predicted it. (Laughter on the Right,
and some interruption.)
M. DE TRORIO II Y. in continuation,said—lf the result had
been foreseen, the greater number of those who voted for the
law would have njected it as an infringement of rights
which up to that time had been recognised. Does this law con-
tain no vice ? The hon. reporter of the committee has not
hesitated to confess that it is susceptible of modification.
Why then propose the rejection of the bill without deigning
to enter into the details ? Is the bill so rash as not to be
worthy of serious discussion ? (Great noise on the Right.)
I cannot understand these interruptions. I find in the bill
the principle that has given strength to the glorious party
of order. I find in it an immense basis for the executive
power, and an inncostestable power for all of us to
work together for the welfare of the state. Can
that principle now be rejected as an instrument hence-
forth useless ? I do not hesitate to sae that your
committee has gone too far, and is inviting you to
pursue a dangerous path. (Tremendous interruption on
the Right, and cries of "Order.") Did not M. Vete-
mesnil just now say that when the harmony of
the two powers was digurbeil there was danger
, for the country? How is it possible to reject at once a bill
which has for its object to repair an injustice ? (More up-
roar.) I beg to be allowed to finish. What I call an in-
justice could not have been foreseen by the authors of the
law. In using that term, I place myself in the point
of view of those who, having once been inscribed upon
the electoral list, have seen their names erasedlifrom it.
In calling upon you to interest yourselves opt behalf of
those men, I believe I am acting uoon ideas of order.
Do not believe that this bill is any concession to threats.
It is no act of weakness. The government, in propos-
ing to you to restore rights to men belonging
for the most part to the agricultural classes,
believed that it was proposing a measure of order.
You know how readily in ranee hatred follows discon-
tent. Do you think there is no danger in exciting the
hatred of the excluded electors ? (Violent interruption.)
I regret to find myself interrupted at each instant. I re-
gret that some members of this Assembly seem to misinter-
pret my meaning. Independently of material disorder,
moral disorder must be also provided against.
It is to secure the peaceable renewal of both
powers in 1852 that the bill has been presented. Do
You conceive it of small importance for France, for Europe
to prevent agitation about the electoral arm in 1832. The
powers being the result of universal suffrage, if they are
attacked the whole country will rise in their defence.
Established on this broad base your powers will be
more than ever respected. (A voice on the Right:
" Witness the 15th of May.") I am astonished to
hear the necessity of union between the powers proclaimed
by the manse persons who recommend the rejection,
pure and simple, of the bill presented by the go-
vernment. The exclusion of three millions of electors
was never proclaimed at the tnbune as the object of the
law of May 31.: (M. Rigel excited same agitation by affirm-
ing that such an aim had been overtly professed.) Hail
the results of the law been known beforehand,

tainly a great number would have abstained from voting
it. Its abrogation was a wise, necessary, and eminently
just measure. (Interruption.) The goverument had not
been influenced by an empty terror; and the report of the
committee was wrung in making aecusations on this point.
The government will not yield to such considerations, but
it knows the impressions of the people with regard
to the law of May. (luterruption.) I am inter-
rupted at every moment. You feign not to un-
derstand me when 1 say that 1 combat the law of May
in the name of order. If that law should be maintained, ft
will doubtless be the duty of the government to see it exe-
cuted. But would it not be better to prevent the breath of
a law than to punish it. lam astonished at the manner in
which the committee has expressed its opinion.
After the speech of the Minister of the Interior, the sit-
ting was suspended for a short time. M. Michel de Bourges
having mounted the tribune, M. Dupin announced that it
was proposed that the division should take place by ballot,
at the tribune, with calling over the names.
M. Micmac said that the speech of the Minister of the
Interior,reste<upon arguments which were completely in-
different to him. He supported tho bill on arguments of
principle. The other side of the Assembly might seek to
place the two powers in harmony. His side of the house sought
to place in harmony the great laws and the constitution of the
country. A week ago the committee on the Municipal Bill
(of which M. Michel is a member) was required to bring
that bill on the order of the day. 'Why ? Because it was an
answer to the government. What the committee refused to
do was obtained by the complaisance of its reporters.
M. Vatimesnil. In tact, the whole force of the argument of
M.Vatimesail consisted in these words We also have
prepared a bill in which we have considered a question of
Will the domicile which we have adopted for the
. .