The Sun.
London, England, 1851-01-20 00:00:00

ference, as if it were one of the laws of the Medes
and Persians.

A case was tried on Thursday, before Mr.
Baron PLATT and a common jury, which
afforded a powerful illustration of the ex-
tensive hardship of the present system, and
pointed out the imperative necessity of giving a right
of appeal whenever the presiding judge of the in-
inferior tribunal should erroneously interpret or im-
properly admit or reject evidence. The action was
brought by a poor washerwoman for a breach of
contract. No less than eleven pleas were
placed on the record in answer to the allegations
contained in the declaration. It is needless to show
how greatly this multiplication of issues must have
increased the costs and expenses of the suit ; but such
matters can scarcely be avoided while the present
system of special pleading is maintained with all its
abuses. The case was one that should have been
tried in the County Court (for the amount in dispute
was under 20/.) ; but the action was rendered
necessary in consequence of the want of a "right of
appeal." It appeared that a plaint had been
previously brought in the Marylebone Court, but that
the plaintiff had been non-suited in consequence of
the written contract that had been signed by both
parties having been rejected by the County Court
Judge, it being without a stamp. The Judge, how-
ever, who recognised the justice of the claim, advised
the plaintiff to get the document stamped, and to
bring her action in the superior court. The latter part
of the recommendation was adopted, but the former
was considered unnecessary by the Learned Counsel for
the plaintiff, who contended that a stamp Ras quite
unnecessary, as the amount to be recovered was under
20/. Baron PLATT took this view of the case, for
he admitted the document in evidence, giving the de-
fendant leave to move for a nonsuit if necessary. A
verdict was thereupon found fi.,r the plaintiff, the
justice of whose claim was thus established by the
jury.

The Learned Judge, however, refused to cer-
tify that it was a proper case to be tried
in the superior courts. The result, therefore,
that the unfortunate woman will have
to bear her own costs for more than the amount in
dispute. This she would have been spared if there
was " a power of appeal ;" and it certainly appears
rather hard to refuse costs, when the only alternative
allowed to the unfortunate woman was either to
relinquish her demand altogether or to bring
it before a superior court. It a6o appears
that she was mulcted of 71. in consequence
of a mistake of her pleader, who substi-
tuted the word " plaintiff" for "defendant" in one
part of the declaration. On the whole poor Mrs.
THANATT appears to have been a severe sufferer by
the present state of the law, and we trust that her
case may not be lost sight of when the entire code is
again brought before the Legislature for revision and
emendation.

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC

We have received the Paris journals of yesterday.
The great debate on M. DE RE➢IUSAT'S motion ter-
minated on Saturday in the defeat of the Ministers,
by the enormous majority of 139 ; but the victory is
not to the Monarchists but to the Republicans, and
the defeat, however annoying it may be to the PRE-
SIDENT and his Ministers, is absolutely a vote of annihi-
lation to General CIIANGARNIER,WIIO was sacrificed by
his friends to secure the votes of the Left. The Bur-
graves withdrew their own resolution, which censured
the Ministry for the dismissal of CFIANGARNIER, and
adopted that of M. ST. BEUVE—" Tne Assembly de-
clares that it has not confidence in the Ministry, and
passes to the order of the day"—which was carried by
a majority of 417 to 278, the whole of the
Left voting for it. Had the original reso-
lution, blaming the dismissal of CHANGARNIER, been
persevered in, the Left would have abstained from
voting and the Ministry would have triumphed ; but
to secure the satisfaction of defeating the PRESIDENT
the different Monarchical factions surrendered at dis-
cretion to the Republicans, and carried their amend-
ment. The reasons which induced the Republicans to
support the amendment are ably set forth in the
following speech of General CAVAIGNAC:—
" General Cavaignac ruse to explain the motives that
had induced him and two of his colleagues to condemn
the resolution of the committee. When the harmony
existing between the majority and the Ministry appeared
compromised by the proposition of M. Bemuse% some of
his friends asked him what. were his is elings on the
subject? He replied that he viewed those new disposi-
tions of the majority with reserve and coldness. He
had ever waged a legitimate opposition to the
Government. From the military reviews to the
speech of M. Berryer, be and his party cared little
who should be the conqueror, but they had a right
to feel uneasiness at the use that might be made
of the victory. The rupture between the Ministry
and the majority had placed them in presence of two
adversaries. The choice was delicate. In that alterna-
tive he had recollected the numerous grievances of his
friends against the Government. Most of those adduced
in the course of the debate were common to them. The
laws on public instruction and the electoral law had
raised an insuperable barrier betwee❑ them, particularly
after a member of the Cabinet had come forward to pro-
claim from the tribune that the revolution of February
was a catastrophe. Under these circumstancf•s he
should have readily voted for the resolution moved by
M. St. Beuve, declaring that the Ministry did not enjoy
the confidence of the Assembly. But the speech of M.
Berryer had deeply wounded him in his convictions,
when he stated from the tribune that there
was a Prince, whose mere appearance on the French
territory would at once supersede the nationa
sovereignty. He could not agree with him, that
France was advancing towards a period when the form
of the Government could be legally changed. He could
not accept that theory. Under the monarchy it was
forbidden to contest the principle of the institution. It
was fully justified in doing so, for any Government that
allowed its principle to be discussed was doomed to
perish. The Constitution of 1848 had not invented na-
tional sovereignty and universal suffrage. They pre-
existed, and nobody had a right to suppress them. The
Assembly had afterwards heard another eminent orator,
some of whose admissions had given him much pleasure.
But he could not agree with him that France was now
trying an experiment, and that the present Government
was precarious and transitory. This was not the
means of restoring tranquillity. It was by declaring
it eternal that repose and security could be re-estab-
lished. After those two speeches he could not consent to
vote s common resolution with the, majority without
some previous explanations. In France there were only
two things possible—the monarchy or the republic.
Whoever was not for either form was against it. Those
who mismanaged the affairs of the monarchy prepared
the advent of the republic. Those who mismanaged the
affairs of the republic were preparing the return of mo-
narchy. General Cavaignac, after explaining the rea-
sons of his hesitation, said that two years ago the ma-
jority had assumed the exclusive denomination of the
party of order. There lurked at the bottom of their
hearts a sentiment that the republic was not practicable
in France, and they coalesced, not for the present but
fur the future. Their union was a sort of dis-
armament. M. Thiera intimated that a conspiracy
existed to silence the tribune. For his l. :art
(the General declared) that if it was threatened he

I -
should not demand a vote of confidence, but enrol himself
as a simple soldier in the army of its defenders. He
fully respected the ConstitutioLal Monarchy and its de-
ceased- chief, although he was not a partisan of the
Parliamentary form. That Government, consisting of
a hereditary monarch and two chambers, had never given
the country but a theoretical liberty. He bad witnessed
the downtal of two monarchies. Had the Restoration
offered the guarantees of practical liberty, it would not
have been overturned. Had the Parliamentary monarchy
presented it, Parliamentary men would not have been
obliged to seek arms for its defence. For his part he
would support the Republican Government and nothing
else, and, after mature reflection, would vote in favour

of M. de St. Brave's amendment, which was as follows:
—" The Assembly dtclares that it has not confi-
dence in the Ministry, and passes to the order of the
day."
The Ministers waited on the PRESIDENT of the
Republic on Saturday evening, and placed their re-

signations in his hands. It-was thought probable
that the PRESIDENT would send for either M. DE

LAMARTINE, General CAVAIGNAC, or M. BILLAULT,

The Journal des Debate unhesitatingly condemns
the vote of the Assembly.
The speech of M. TRIERS exhibited such a bitter
feeling of hostility to the Executive, that when it
became known on the Bourse the Funds gave way.
The minority in favour of the Governnuint repre-
sents a much stronger party than its number of 278
would imply. In fact, it contains named of the first
weight in the Chamber. Out of the Committee of
the seventeen leaders of the Parliamentary majority
who were appointed on the Ist of May to form the
new electoral law, no fewer than seven have sided
with the Government of Louis NAPOLEON. These
are MM. DE BROGLIE, DE MONTALLAIBERT, DARU,
DE CRASsELOUP-LAUBAT, LEON FAUCLIER, BEUGNOT,
and BUFFET. M. MOLE absented,himself from tf e
vote, BO did ODILON BARROT• PASSY, LACROttSE,
and DR TRACY, old colleagues of ODILON BARROT,
voted with the Government. DE TOCQUEVILLE was
absent on leave, as were also DE LAIIITTE and DE
FALLOUX.

Among those who abstained from voting next to
MOLE and ODILON BARROT, the names of CHARLES
DUPIN, COETLOSQUET, FREAIY, FRESNEAU, and
Parisis, Archbishop of Orleans, deserve notice. Two
Vice-Presidents and four secretaries of the Assembly
voted with the Government.
Among various reports in circulation yesterday,
the one to which most credit seems to be attached was