The Express.
London, England, 1861-06-11 00:00:00

EXPRESS FROM PARIS.

Gloat on ow,

PARIS, MONDAY EVENING.

The tribunes of the Corps Legislatif were un-
usually crowded to-day, owing to the expectation
that the attack upon the government for its alleged
revolutionary and anti-religious tendencies, which
was delivered by M. Keller on Saturday, would
tad to a stirring debate. Public curiosity was,
however, very imperfectly gratified. In the first
place, the adjourned debate commenced at an un-
usually late hour, owing to a ministerial council at
Fontainebleau, from which Count de Morny and
M.Baroche were not able to return till an hour and
a quarter after the usual time for taking the chair.
The interest was filled up by the performances of
M. Revell, a vice-president, who, amidst general
inattention, languidly disposed of a vast number
of unopposed local bills. When at length Count
de Morny made his appearance and relieved his
deputy in the chair, there was buzz of expectation,
and M. Emile 011ivier rose to speak. It was soon
evident, however, that M. Keller's elaborately pre-
pared attack was not to be honoured by any reply
of commensurate length and vivacity. M. 011ivier
in a few well chosen sentences said that he would
leave the defence of the government to the minis-
ters present, but that for himself and his friends
he protested against indiscriminate abuse of the
"Revolution," and demanded that the sense of the
word should be defined. To rake up at the pre-
sent day the horrors of 1791 was AN useless, ab-
surd, and unjust, as he was free to admit it would
be to hold K Keller responsible for the monstrous
cruelties which history recorded as having been
committed at certain times by catholics. He dis-
claimed, as fit only for the judgment of an sense
court and not of a political assembly, all the sub-
versive principles which were vulgarly attri-
buted to the revolution. But he glorified
the vivifying principles of 1789, and was per-
suaded that the success and progress of
those principles constituted in reality the grievance
of M. Keller. He and his friends were not sent to
that house as government candidates, but they sup-
ported the government in well doing. He told an
amusing story of a Carthusian monk, who, being
asked by a great man why the portrait of a sove-
reign of by no means spotless character was exhi-
bited in the monastery as thatof a saint, said, " In
this country we call a saint anybody who does
good." He was opposed to the system of abstention
from political affairs, and he considered systematic '
opposition as the worst and most cowardly form of
abstention. He and his friends understood liberty
in a different way from AL Keller. He was
was afraid that K Keller would adopt M.
Venillot's view, "when our enemies are in
power we ask for liberty, because that is their
principle, and when we are in power we refuse
it because that is our principle." (Great laughter.)
M. Keller might be certain that if he was perse-
cuted the democratic party in the house would
defend him, "but we will not defend you when
you cry out because you cannot persecute others."
This speech was loudly applauded on several
benches. M. Baroche, wbo seemed to feel that
M. 011ivier had done his work, very shortly replied
to M. Keller, denying in a general way that the
government was persecuting the church. The de-
bate was going on without much animation when I
left

The ind4paidance inclines to believe the rumour
that the Emperor personally assured Count Vimer-
cati, at Fontainebleau, that the recognition of the
kingdom of Italy will suffer no delay by Cavour's
death. That is in terms an ambiguous promise ;
but the same journal suggests, not without plausi-
bility, that the fear of either a rash or reactionary
movement on the part of the Italian government
if it should be longer left in painful uncertainty
has stimulated Napoleon 111. to make up his mind.
It appears that the M. d'Azeglio whose arrival
in Paris from Turin, immediately after Count
Cavour's death, was thought au important event,
is not the Marquis Massimo d'Aseglio, but his
nephew, M. Emmanuel d'Azeglio, the Italian
ambassador to London, who was in Turin on
leave of absence at the moment when the fatal
event occurred. It is said that he merely passed
through Paris on his way to England without
communicating in any way with the French govern-
ment.

The Bourse was dull, and left off without any
change whatever.

ITALY.

(rsox ova ows coi

TURIN, FRIDAY.

The Senate, as well as the Chamber of Deputies,
met yesterday afternoon in the Palazzo Madams,
about two o'clock. The President, who is Count
Sclopis, said :—" I have to announce to you a
very sad event. one that will spread mourn-
ing not only throughout all Italy, but
the whole civilised world. There is no example in
history of any man having conceived such a vast
design as that undertaken by the great statesman
we have just lost, and of its having been executed
with so much ability and firmness, in spite of the
numerous obstacles which were almost insurmount-
able, or which would have been, perhaps, to any
other man a barrier that could not be overcome.
There is a sentence iu Tacitus which we may apply
to him, and say of him, " Camillus Cavour paten-
tati narratus et traditus superstes erit." :Now let
all party passions be extinguished over his tomb,
for even his political adversaries must deplore this
as a national loss." The Minister of Justice,
Cassinis, then spoke a word or two on the subject,
announcing that the department of Foreign Affairs
was confided ad interim to Minghetti, and that
Fanti took charge of the Marine. A leader of the
Conservative Opposition in the Senate, Pareto,
spoke of the late Minister thus :—" Public affairs
have been so conducted by his lofty mind, that
the enterprise begun under our magnanimous king
Charles Albert is now almestentinsly accomplished;
and it is at this moment, when perhaps be was at
the point of giving the finishing touch to his great

work, that in the impenetrable designs of Provi-
dence he is taken away from us ; and this is cer-
tainly not in order that we should stop in the path
we have followed for several years past, but it
should teach us that this is the right path, and
that we must persevere, grateful to those who have
led the way. An adjournment for three days,
and the black hangings in the hall for twenty days,
as tokens of public sorrow, were ordered by the
Senate, of course.
By his will, Cavour, who as you know was never
married, has left the bulk of his property to
Einardo di Cavour, his brother's sou, and there is
a bequest of 50,000 lire to his native city of Turin,
for an infant schooL The corpse has been lying
in state this day, and visited by hundreds, if not
thousands, of his fellow-townsmen. The funeral
ceremony takes place this evening at 7 o'clock, that
is, a procession through the streets from his house,
returning to the church close by. The municipality
has requested his family to allow his coffin to be
interred ins reserved portion of the Campo Santo
or Cemetery, and the King has offered it a place in
the vaults of his royal ancestors beneath the dome
of Superga ; but it was Cavour's own wish to be
buried near his father's country house at Santena,
beyond MOllCAliali, some twelve miles from
Bus city. The procession, which is now going
on, comprises the surviving Ministers and Council
of State, the Senate and Chamber, the grand
officials of Court, the adjutants of the King and
Princes, the magistracy, the clergy, the university
professors, the trades' unions and working men 'a
societies, the officers of the army and navy, and all
the national guard. In spite of a heavy rain the
streets are crowded for this sad parade, which is
followed surely by a nation's grieving heart.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

EQUITY COURTS.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir R. T. Kindanley.)
BMUS V. nu CH MICR AND HOLTHIAD ILALLWAT CON.

The plaintiff in this case is the owner of a large tract of land
in Worth Wales, through • portion of which the Chester and
Holyhead Railway runs. In 1859 he commenced construct-
ing • railway over his land to join the Vale of Clwyd Rail-
way, the intention being to aces over or under the defen-
dants' railway, so as to communicate with a jetty
to be erected on the shore. The defendants, look.
hag upon this as a railway which would corn.
pete with theirs, sent • number of workmen
upon it, who drove the plaintiff's workmen away, and pre-
vented them going on with the works. Plaiutiff thereupon
filed his bill in this court, and • motion was made for an in.
jpnction, his counsel relying on the 334th section of the
Motar and Holyhead Railway Act, which provides that the
owners, lessees, or occupiers of the adjointi~nngg land shall
have power to " make any railway or tramraad across the
said railway for the benefit of themselves, and for all other
person or persons to whom they or any of them may from
time to time give leave, and in such way and for such
they or any of them may require.'
WirT as
Honour refused the injunction, and the motion
was then taken by appeal to the Lords Justices, who
granted the injunction, the plaintiff undertaking to
abide by the order of the court as to the use which should
be made of the railway, and they smelted that the case
should be heard before the Vier-Chancellor, with
the assistance of two common law judges. The
ease was heard accordingly in February last
before his Honour, Mr. Baron Chanoell, cod Mr. Justice
Willes, and this morning it came on for judgment. The
railway, it should be observed, bas been constructed, and
the practical question to be decided was whether plaintiff is
entitled to use it as • public railway for the conveyance of
passengers and geode, or only as a private railway for the
more beneficial occupation and enjoyment of his land.
Mr. Baron Channell first delivered his opinion. He said
the question was one of great difficulty, and during the time
that he had considered it his opinion had several time
fluctuated, and be distrusted the correctness of his opinion.
The question depended on the construction of the clause.
and in his opinion the right to make the railway was given
not to all the world, but only to a definite class, the owners,
lessees, and occupiers of adjoining land, and the use of the
rsalwai was limited to them, and to such persons as they
might give leave to enable them to have • full and com-
plete enjoyment of the lands, and no further, and therefore
the plaintiff was not entitled to use the railway for the
purpose of conveying geode and passengers.
.fustice Wiles said, reading the enactment by the
light of the recital, he should think that the section was
framed with the smile view of preserving those advantages
which the owesse and occupiers of the land could enjoy,
and those only. On the other band, evading the enactment
by the last section, that "the said company should not be
entitled to have or demand any compensation whatever for
the passing of any horses, carriages, he., across the
said railway," he should think the plaintiff had
power to use the railway for other purposes.
Upon consideration, he had come to the con-
' elusion that there was nothing in the recital or the
enactment sufficient to cut down the words " for the benefit
of themselves and every other person and persons to
whom they give leave, and in such way as they or
any of them may require." In his opinion, with sincere
deference to his brother Channell, the railway, when made
in conformity with tho 334th section of the act, might be
used for any lawful purpose whatever.
The Vice-Chancellor then gave his opinion. He said he
felt some doubt., but on the whole his opiuion was in
favour of the construction contended for by the defendants.
His Honour then went through the clause critically, and
stated that in his opinion the only reasonable construction
that could be put upon it, whether taking the enacting part
separately, or the recital and the enactiog part to-
gether was, that the intention of the legislature was to
give to the owners, lessees, and occupiers of the adjoining
land power to make a railway for the better nee and enjoy.
meat of their land only, and for no other purpose. The
decree would be that the injunction should be perpetual,
and there would be a declaration that the plaintiff was
not entitled to we the railway for the purpose of conveying
pmeengers or goods se • public carrier, charging tolls. He
added that it did not appear to him to be • awe in which
he could give any costa on either side.

(Before Vice-Chaueellor Wood.)
DARE THZ LONDON AND NORTH WriTt RN RAILWAY CON•

PAN Y.—THE SCOTCH eaa Fele ARRA NGIN ENT.
The Vice-Chancellor gave judgment in this case. His
Honour said that the bill was filed by a shareholder in the
London and North Western Railway Company against the
directors of that company and seveml other companies who
were parties to an agreement made in the your for the
purpose of putting an end to the competition then prevailing
amongst the companies owning the two main routes to
Scotland. The object of the bill was in effect to set aside
that agreement on the ground of its being beyond the
powers of the compaetes. Now the provisions of
the agreement might be described briefly as these—
that in order to provide for the convenient conduct of the
traffic of the two main routes to Edinburgh and the north,
the traffic should be taken to be divided between the com-
panies owning those routes, according to a schedule to the
document, and that if in fact it was not so divided then out
of the gross revenues of the companies received
beyond the amount set forth in the schedule such
a sum should be paid as would bring the ratios of the re-
ceipt. of the several companies to the rates set forth therein.
The plaintiff*, case had been argued in the first instance
upon the broad ground of general public benefit, and it had
been said that this agreement injured the public by the
effect it had in stopping competition. It did not, however,
trto his Honour that any reliance could be placed on
senantention. The practice of parliament was certainly
not to do aught to encourage ruinous competition be-
tween companies. In fact, the running of two
lines from the MOW starting points to the same termini wee
• state of things which the legislature rather struggled to
avoid. And no one could doubt hut that the true interested
the public were not served by • competition which only ended,
if pushed to its limit, in the ruin of one or the other line of
railway. The question then resolved itself to this, was the
agreement et e 4 ao agreement as it was within the
powers of the companies to make. Now as to
this point the principle was clearly this- -that •
company could not divert its funds to purposes not within
the scope of the authority which was given to it by
parliament, or otherwise, upon its original constitution.
The difficulty in this, as in all these cases. was
the application of the principle to the particular
facts before the court. Now the present case was one mem
which previous authorities not only touched but to which
they extended in such a manner as to comprise its facts
almost completely within their scope. One authority in
' especial (the Shrewsbury and Birmingham case). ae'7,l4
by Lord Cottenham, was directly in point. (In the ether
band, however, there were not wanting decisions of other
judges, difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with the
decision of Lord Cottenham. But thin much was clear
that if that last named decision was to govern this cons
then this agreement must be heldivalid. It had been •
matter of anxious consideration with his Hounitr what
course, considering the importance of the q'-'0"
Lions and the state of the law, he ought to
take. There were but two methods open to him—the one
1 to decide the case on his own authority, the other to ask the
I assistance of two learned judges of the common law. But he
' found, on referring to the authorities cited in argumeet.that
the decision of Lord Cottenham had been precticallY affirmed
by a decision already pronouuced by the Court of Queens
Bench by four learned judges there. With every revercooes
which he mast sincerely felt, for the learned judges at 121,•
he doubted whether it would be possible to him to gain
more resistancefrom them than the case in the Queens
Bench afforded. There remained open to him come
quently only the alternative of deciding this case
upon his own authority ' • and the conclusion he came to was
this, that the agreement was one which it was within the
powers' of the several companies to enter into, and that con-
sequently the plaintiff's case failed, and his bill must be dis-
missed with oats.