The Express.
London, England, 1857-04-07 00:00:00

EXPRESS FROM PARIS.

PARIS, TcieD►T.

• The Mositeur publishes an imperial decree,
which, after baring given all the coneidemtiorw,
declares that the sets of the Bishop of Moulins
towards his clergy are 'Moire, and are and remain

(rapid ova OWN

PARIS, UONDAT

I lately expressed a belief that the bill for punish-
ing the usurpation of titles of nobility would, not-
withstanding the high patronage under which it is
brought forward, break down under the weight
of public ridicule, and by reason of the im-
practicable nature of its provisions. The

more the question is canvassed the more
this belief is confirmed. In fact, the main argument
and in M. Abbatticets report that French legisla-
tion has at all times repressed the assumption of
titles by penal laws will not bear examination.
Under the old rigisw the precedents dwelt upon
with infelicitous fondness for a minister of a consti-
tution professing the principles of 1789 do not
establish the fact that any strict and cer-
tain role about titles was ever acted
upon by the French courts. Nobility, indeed, as a
separate class entitled to privileges utterly abhor-
rent to all modern notions, existed and was pro-
tected by law. But the particular title that a gen-
tleman chose to manes was always a matter
of small account. Certain estateswere originally, and,
according to their nee, erected into marquintes,
earldoms and heresies. They were, strictly speaking,
titles by tenure, and while they went to any new
possessor, should have been lost to the old one. But
this was never so in 'practice. Gentlemen whose
ancestors had at any time been, or were 'ap-
posed to have been, owners of any sort of " fief,"
involving a title, continued to bear it unquestioned.
The title of duke alone conferred some peculiar
privilege over and above those enjoyed by the
leoldesse in general. It must always be remembered
that noblesse in France never was soy-
thing like what we understand by 4. nobility"
in England, and, indeed, came much nearer
to oar " gentry." To restore the privileges of the
aoilaw, or gentry, is the list of all impossible things
that the Emperor would think of. However much
he may have repudiated " liberty " he has always
professed and acted upon the doctrine of " equality "
in the eye of the law. What is now proposed,
therefore, is not the revival of an old law, but the
'abetment of an " energetic " penal statute of an
entirely new kind—a statute of repression not
against the substantial Karim, (which hes become
oat of the question), but spinet the shadowy
title which the whole line of legitimate

kings never troubled themselves about. IL
Abbatueel, bent upon citing precedents, instanced
the statute of the Constituent Assembly, which,
supporting the law abolishing nobility altogether,
decreed penalties against persons who should mums
titles. This was • most unfortunate citation,
because the Constituent Assembly, so far from act-
ing on the view of keeping up the dig-
nity of genuine titles, pronounced against
them en masse as incompatible with what were
then regarded the rights of man. In the carrying
out of their enactment, therefore, there were no

nice questions of evidence to be weighed—no anti-
quarian lore required to be consulted. Any assump-
tion whatever of a title was an offence against
civism and liable to punishment There was also no
practical difficulty in the application of Article
239 of the penal code of 1808 (the abro-
gation of which M. Abbatiteci affects to lament)
because that article wan applicable only to
" imperial " nobility, namely, nobility of
very recent creation, whose origin was proved
by the Itimitnir. Morever, it never w-
eaned to anybody to usurp these mush-
room titles. The only period in the history of France
when such a law as that now proposed to be enacted
did really exist, was that between 1818—when the
substitution of the word " royal " for " imperial"
made Article 259 applicable not only to the select
imperial nobility, but also to the innu-
merable traditional nobility of France—and
1832, when the article was abolished by Louis
Philippe's parliament. But M. Abbatauci admits
that during those sixteen years no single pro.
secution for usurpation of titles was ever instituted
ht the warts. What more convincing proof can
there be of the utter unfitness of the law to the pre-
sent state of society?
Very great excitement prevails in parts of theism-
line of Pun in consequence of a recent decision of
the Council of State, from which it results OM a
vast number of houses—in some cases whole s➢-
lages—have been built nearer to the line of *OW
cations than the law allows, and must ems awn.
It was hitherto thought that the general nine
relating to this natter did not apply to Paris, but
the Council of State has ruled otherwise, and ewe of
the law marts followed the deaden (sly two days
ago. It I. also held that the landlords of
the homes that will be demolished ere liable