The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-07 00:00:00

ingly in the arrangements for securing to the surrogates
their full amount of remunerative employment ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could not undertake
to say that the orders that wculd be framed would give
to the surrogates, who were an exception to the general
rule, duties quite as extensive or as remunerative a those
they now enjoyed. The proctors of both provinces
would be placed on the same footing ; but with regard
to the surrogates of York, probably a special clause had
better be drawn up to meet their case. The object of
the hon. member (Mr. Steel) was, he thought, suffici-
ently provided for by the bill as it stood.
The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 25 was also agreed to.
In clause 26,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL introduced several
verbal amendments, for the purpose of enacting that if
any case should arise not provided for by the new rule
established under the bill, the mode of procedure should
be in accordance with the present practice. As altered
the clause would read, "The practice of the Court of
Probates shall, except where otherwise provided by this
act, or by the rules and orders made under it, be, so far
as the circumstances will admit, according to the present
practice in the Prerogative Court."
After a few words from Sir F. KELLY, expressing an
opinion that the practice under the bill would, as the
Attorney-General anticipated, be precise and simple, as
well as expeditious,
Mr. BOWYER proposed an amendment, to leave out
the words, "as far as the circumstances of the case will
admit," on the ground that they would give to the judge
an undue power to alter the practice of the court.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended that some
such power as he proposed was necessary, especially as
the bill would bring into the court many cases of a cha-
racter different from those which came* before the Pre-
rogative Court.
Mr. BOWYER thought the words would apply to all
matters to be brought before the court. It would be
easy to introduce words restricting the dispensing power
to the new cases. He begged leave to withdraw his
amendment.
The amendment was then withdrawn.
The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 27 was withdrawn, the A ETORNEY-GENERAL
stating that he proposed to substitute a new clause in
lieu of clause 27.
Clauses 28 to 31 were agreed to.
Clauses 32 and 33 were postponed.
On clause 34,
Mr. MALINS objected to the transferring of the ap-
peal from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
to the House of Lords, which was a most dilatory
and expansive tribunal. He therefore proposed to sub-
stitute the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for
the House of Lords.
The ATTORNEY-GENERALsaid that he admitted
the great value of the Judicial Committee; but, if the
amendment of his hon. and learned friend were carried,
there would be two co-ordinate courts of appeal, which
would be a great inconvenience. With regard to the
House of Lards, he hoped that before long there would
be an improved and generil court of appeal for the
whole kingdom. (Hear.) He was afraid, too, that
if the amendment were carried, it would bring the house
into collieion with the House of Lords, and might
therefore endanger the success of the bill.
Mr. CAIRNS said it was very much to be regretted
that there were two courts of appeal, but why should
they, when they bad a choice, take the worst of the two
tribunals as the court olappeal ? If the House of Lords
was improved as a court of appeal, the appeal in these
cases might be transferred to it.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that as the bill
court of appeal was the House of
was framed, the proper
Lords. The bill proeosed to affect real estate, and
issues as to the title ewe about to be tried before the
common law courts. In this respect the House of
Lords, had an advantage over the Judicial Committee as
a court of appeal, becatse the House of Lords had the
power of summoning the judges, which the Judicial
Committee had not. The procedure of the new court
was assimilated to the common law procedure, and
therefore the appeal should be to the House of Lords,
who could'summon to tleir aid the 15 judges.
Mr. COLLIER saidthat the bill, in fact, appointed a
16th common law judge, and therefore the appeal
ought to be to a court of which the 15 common law
judges might form a part.
Mr. BOWYER said t seemed to be forgotten that all
the chief judges of the common law courts, and some of
the other judges, were ant only assistants but actually
judges of the Judicial co
were always judges sittiig
Committee. In that court there
who were versed in ecclesias-
tical law, but Cure 'vets none in the House of Lords.
In appeals from the ecclesiastical courts, the Judicial
Committee had always liven. the greatest satisfaction.
A report of the House of Lords themselves had ad-
mitted that the appellatejurisdiction of that house was
in an unsatisfactory state, and nothing had since been
done to improve it. Yet,t was now proposed to send a
new class of appeals to that tribunal. The Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council to which appeals now
c
went from the testamentvyourts, sat at all times of
the year ; and some of tie most important cases came
on in November and December. If the House of Lords
were made the court of appeal, it would be shut up for
six months, and there would thus be a denial of justice
for half the year. They muld not reckon on the atten-
dance of many law lords on appeals to the House of
Lords. There was teas Lord Chancellor, and Lord
Wensleydale had recentlybeen created peer for the pur-
pose ; but they could not eeekon on the regular atten-
dance of Lord St. Leonaids and Lord Lyndhurst. In
the Judicial Committee there were five judges regularly
attending, besides Sir John Dodson,
Mr. BOLT considered the House of Lords as able and
excellent a tribunal for the final bearing of causes as
ever sat in any country. The most eminent men in the
country sat there to decide. causes, and nothing bad oc-
curred to cast discredit on except some cases which had
been tortured into an accusation against it. The Privy
Council was not without itt difficulties as to the time and
mode of hearing cases. There might be four members
present one day, and four o.hers the next. Hence cases
were sometimes adjourned far weeks or months to secure
the attendance of the same judges. They must either
have such a tribunal, or such 'an one as the House of
Lords, which only sat during half the year. As to ex-
pense, he did not think thers was any difference between
thenutrwt
of
two tribunals
Probateunal beingthe nee constituted a court of re-
cord, the appeal was prcoerly to the House of Lords ;
papers were printed in both. The
Court s i
the cases taken before the Judicial Committee included
those arising in the colonise and in courts which were not
courts of records. The matter had been fully considered
by the commission, and he hoped the house would ad-
here to the big as it stood. (Hear.)
Mr. HENLEY said that as landed property was now
. he should therefore sup-
subjected to the probate silty, it was most proper that
questions involving that property should go, as they had
i The,
opinion of the commission
been accustomed to do, to that tribunal which had
waysal-
pnno
rtt
this
the
dealt
point
bill
i with
a wass
it
stood.
uth
noe
aomdnmous
Mr. MALINS did not thini there was any great force
in the aroumeut about real property, as .the only ques-
tion which the Court of Probate had to decide was whe-
ther there wag a will or no veil ; and the forms to be
complied with were the same whether real or personal
property was concerned. He denied that the House of
Lords was a satisfactory court of appeal ; this great court
of ultimate appeal was attended by two learned lords
only—the Lord Chancellor and Lord Wensleydale.
Such a court never could be satisfactory. If it was to
be maintained, why had sot the Government taken
steps to put it on a more efficient footing ? They could
not mistake the opinion of that house last year. Even
appeals from the decision of the Lord Chancellor were
heard by himself, and one other, or at the most two
other judges. (Hear, hear) Nothing of the kind could
happen in the Judicial Committee, where there were
always five judges in attendance. He denied that the
judge of the new Court of Probate was a common law
judge; therefore that argument entirely fell to the
ground.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought nothing could
be more unconstitutional or more opposed to existing
rules than to confer this jurisdiction on the Judicial
Committee ; nor could anything be more impossible in
practice. The Judicial Committee was only created at
the expense of the ordinary tribunals of the country,
some of which had to be shut up while it was exercising
its functions as a court of appeal. The Court of Chan-
cery, fur example, had then to be closed, and they were
also obliged to draw a way one or two common law
judges from their other duties. The Judicial Committee
as at present constituted was inadequate to the discharge
of more than it now accomplished. It had not the power
of entertaining a single appeal from any common law or
equity court in Westminster-ball ; and therefore when
they were about to create a court with a jurisdiction
partaking both of common law and equity it would be
an anomalous proceeding to send its judgments to an
appellate tribunal different from that to which the other
courts were subject. They should adhere, then, to the
existing rule, and not establish one that would lead to
conflicting decisions. If the appellate jurisdiction
of the House of Lords required ameodment let them
amend it whet, they saw the prospect of their coming to
anything like a unanimous conclusion on the subjec .
But, at all events, the committee ought not to counte-
nance the present proposal, which would utterly destroy
this bill, and would impose on the Judicial Committee
of Privy Council a jurisdiction over a large of cases
which it could not possibly discharge.
Mr. NAPIER said that only last week the Lord Chan-
cellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Wensleydale, and Lord
St. Leonard's, assisted by the common law judges, sat
to hear appeals in the House of Lords, than which no
more efficient or dignified tribunal could be found in any
y
country in the world. It was said that the house last
session almost unanimous) condemned the appellate
jurisdiction of the Upper Chamber. That was entirely
contrary to his own impression of the feeling evinced by
the house. Uniformity of decision on questions affect-
ing the property of the country was indispensable, and
to secure that object the House of Lords should be their

tribunal of last resort. -----
Mr. MALINS Legged leave to withdraw his amend-
ment.

The committee,
withdrawn, and a division took place. The numbers
however, would not allow it to be

were—

For the amendment ..................... 27
For the clause ........................... 271
Majority ...........

On the question that the clause be agreed to,
Mr. MALINS said he wished the committee distinctly
to understand that he greatly regretted they had had the
trouble of dividing. lie had been desirous of withdraw •
ng bie amendment, and he thought it was not fair that
;he division should have been forced upon bim under the

circumstances. (Laughter.)
The clause was then a,ireed to, as were the following
clauses to 39 inclusive.
On clause 40, which provides that probates and admi-
utration may be granted in common form by the district

registrars when the pereon'el estate of the deceased is
ui der the value of 1,5001.,
Mr. WESTHEAD moved the orniesiote of the woriis
after the word "affidavit" in line 30, end the insertion
of the following war +s —" and that such probate or let-
ters of administration shall cover all personality, wher-
ever situate." The object of his amendment was to en-
able exscutors, or persons taking out letters of
administration, to do so to any amount of personalty. It
was stated that four-fifths of the wil's proved in England
related to- amounts below 1,5001., and he could not con•
ceive what good reason there could be for debarring tes-
tators from obtaining probate of wills to any amount of
personalty in the district courts. (Hear.)
Mr. CAYLEY supported the amendment, and ap•
pealed to the right hon. member for Oxfordshire (Mr.
Henley), who was a member of the c immission, to
explain upon what ground the limit of 1,5001. was
adopted. In many instances the machinery in one nia-
nufectory might be worth 1,5001., and in another worth
2, 0001., and why should the executor of a man whose ma-
chieery was worth the former sum be enabled to take
out letters of, administration in York, while the executor
of a person who possessed machinery worth 2,0001. was
obliged to come to London. The same observation
would apply to household furniture, which in many cases
was worth 2,0001., 3,000/ , or 4,0001., and in suoh in-
etances probate could not be obtained in the district
court, but the wills must be proved in London.
Mr. HENLEY regretted that he could not give a
satisfactory answer to his hon. friend's question, for he
must honestly say be was unable to a_sign any reason
for the adoption of the limit of 1,5001 (" Hear," and
a laugh.) He (Mr. Hanley) divided in the commission
against the limit of 1,5001., and he was in a minority of
one. (A laugh.) He must say, however, that persons
whose opinions were entitled to much greater weight
than his (Mr. Henley's) were strongly in favour of
adopting a lower limit than 1,5001., and in several of the
hills which had been introduced or shadowed out of late
years it was proposed that t:se powers of proving in
country districts should be limited to a much lower sum
than 1,5001. For his own part, be would,have been glad
to see the limit extended to 2,0001., or.even higher ; but
as some concession roust be made when differences of
opinion existed, he would rather have this measure with
the limitation to 1,5001., than run any risk of its defeat.
If, however, those who had charge of the bill would ex-
tend the limit, he believed it would be a boon to the
country, for 1,500/. would not cover the value of stock
upon a great proportion of farms. (Hear, bear )
Mr. MOWBRAY hoped the Attorney-General would
accede to the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman, for
the only objsct of the clause seemed to be to take busi-
ness out of the hands of the proctors in the country, and
transfer it to Doctors'-commons.
Mr. ROEBUCK said he should wish to ascertain from
his hon, and learned friend the Attorney-General what
reason existed for fixing a limit at al. (Hear.) There
was just as much necessity for the employment of officers
possessing integrity and intelligence in the granting pro-
bates of wills in cases in which the sum involved did not
exceed 1001. as in those in which it reached 10,0001. If,
then, the same qualifications were re guired in the farmer
as in the latter case, why fix a limit 1 He saw no good
reason why it should be done, while there were many
strong arguments against the adoption of such a course.
The tendency of the present day was to bring the law
home to every man's door, and he should like to know
why that which was a sound policy had been departed
from in the present instance.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the point
to which his hon. and learned friend who had just
sat down, as well as the hon. member who had im-
mediately preceded him, referred, was one which had
been the subject of frequent deliberations upon the
part of tne commission, That deliberation, he might
add, had depended not so much upon the pre con-
ceived notions of the members of the commission, as
upon the evidence of the very experienced solicitors and
other practitioners who had been examined before them,
and all of whom had concurred in representing thegreat
dangers which must attend the unlimited extension of
the sum with respect to which probate should be granted
in the country districts. He had not been aware that
the point would have been pressed so much upon their
attention that evening, but since the discussion with re-
ference to it bad arisen he had looked over some passa-
ges of the report of the commissioners, as well as of the
evidence which they had taken, and he found in the re-
port the folio wing distinct expression of opinion upon
the part of the commissioners :
" We think it evident that protection would be best af-
forded the public by the establishment of a central court
in London. The skill and vigilance which are required to
guard against fraud and mistakes will be, we think, most
certainly possessed by officers in London, under the imme-
diate control of a judge, to whom they will have an oppor-
tunity of applying in any emergency that may arise, and to
whom they will be immediately responsible."
Such was the opinion of the commissioners, and he might
remind the committee that the practical working of the
law as it stood, owing to the doctrine of bona notabilia,
was to bring every cause in which the sum involved ex-
ceeded 5001. or 6001. within the jurisdiction of the Pre-
rogative Court. Now, if probate were granted upon an
imperfect will, or to the wrong parties, and an executor
or administrator were appointed to take possession im-
mediately of the estate of the testator, and it should be
afterwards found that probate had been improperly
granted, those persons who might have paid money
money under its operation would have to pay it over
again. The question therefore was one in which bankers
and public companies, as well as the community at large
were deeply concerned, and the commissioners taking
these matters into consideration, had concurred in the
expediency, of a thorough and frequent examination
of the documents produced being entered into before
probate could with any degree of security be granted.
One of the witnesses who had been examined
before the commission--he meant Mr. Trevor
of the Legacy Duty-office, a gentleman of great
experience and intelligence—stated, in reply to a ques-
tion which had been put to him, that, in his opinion, one
tribunal for proof of wills would be found more efficient
than a great number, in consequence of the uniformity
in dealing with those instruments which it would be cal-
culated to produce. He had gone on to say that since
the passing of Lord Campbell's Wills Act he had known
probates of wills to be granted iu the diocesan county
in cases in which the document had been obliterated,
and in which no inquiry had taken place as to whether
the obliteration had occurred before or after the comple-
tion of the will. Such was the nature of the proceedings
which were sometimes observable in the diocesan courts
as they stood, and he did not therefore think that the
committee would be warranted in assuming that each
individual registrar would be competent to exercise over
wills that same careful superintendence that would be
exercised by the officers successively through whose
bands they must pass in the Court of Probate in Lon-
don. He might also refs; to the evidence of Mr. Shep-
herd, who had been examined before the commission,
and which went t 3 establish the justice of the view
which he had urged upon the committee. The testimony
of men of experience in such matters having then been
opposed to the continuance of the power of granting
probate to an unlimited extent in the case of the dioce-
san courts, the commissioners had come to the conclu-
sion that for the benefit of the country districts liberty
should be given the registrars of those courts to grant
probates to some fixed amount, but that that liberty
ought to be confined within very narrow limits. His
right hon. friend the member for Oxfordshire was quite
right in stating that several members of the commission
had been desirious to fix that limit at even a lower
sum than 1,5001., but it had not been deemed expedi-
ent to take that course ; while he was of opinion that,
as great critical nicety, great care, and a knowledge
of law were required in dea:ing with wills, it was
desirable that the district registrars should not
be intrusted with granting of probates in cases in
which a larger amount was involved. Some limit
must be taken, and, it he was not mistaken, the present
limit had been fixed by his right hon. friend the member
for Oxfordshire, who had stated that, in his opinion, the
farmers, whose interests would be affected, would rarely
be found to possess bona notabilia exceeding the sum of
1,5001. (Mr. Henley was understood to express his dis-
sent from this statement.) He had understood the right
hon. gentleman to have said so, but, be that as it might,
he felt perfectly confident that any gentleman who
looked carefully into the evidence which had been taken
before the commissioners, and at their report, would feel
that they had acted wisely in adopting the course which
they had pursued. He hoped, therefore, that the com-
mittee would not consent to a proposition the effect of
which would be to subject wills involving large amounts
of property to a comparatively insufficient examination.
Sir J. TROLLOPE said the argument of the hon. and
learned gentleman sought to establish the expediency of
a strict reliance being placed upon the evidence of the
solicitors and other practitioners who had been examined
before the commission. Now, so far as he (Sir J. Trol-
lope) recollected the evidence which had been adduced
before that commission, it had emanated from persons
who were connected with the courts in London—(hear)
--and the whole tendency of whose testimony had been
in favour of the system of centralisation. His own ex-
perience went to prove that the business which had been
urought under the consideration of the district courls
had been most satisfactorily discharged, and he should
wish to know from the bon. and learned gentleman
whether property which did not exceed a sum of 1,5001.
was not of as much value to the person who possessed it
as a larger sum would be to the person vrhoin the hon.
and learned gentleman seemed to take it for granted
would, if he were empowered to do so, seek for pro-
bate in the district court-. Now, everybody must be
well aware that those who bad a large amount of
property at stake brought their business up to London.
He should like, however, to know why the shopkeeper
upon one side of the street, who had property in-
volved m nly to the amount of 1,0001., should be enabled
to transact business at a comparatively trifling expense
in the district courts, while a farmer upon the other
side, because he happened to possess some hundreds
more, should be compelled to resort to the central court
f London. He thought the reasoning of the hon. and
learned gentleman in support of this view upon the
matter was of a character the most unsound. He ob-
jected to any Ihnitetion at all, and should, therefore,
vote in favour of the amendment.
Mr. ROEBUCK said, the Attorney-General seemed
to fancy that there must he some essential difference
between the will of a rich man and that of a poor man,
and that he was now making an experiment im corpore
vile. (A laugh.) The hon. and Darned gentleman ap-
peared to think that a testator dying and leaving pro-
property worth only -1,5001. was a person so poor and
unworthy that any inefficient officer might administer
his estate, but that a man dying worth a greater amount
of property required the exercise of a far higher amount
of intelligence in the distribution of his effects. (Hear.)
He (Mr. Roebuck) would ask the committee to look
how these matters were managed in America. There
they had local sou etc of probate which were re girded as
great safeguards of the constitution, and appreciated ley
the whole population. He wished to see law cheap,

efficient, and brought home to every man's door, and he
would therefore support the amendment.
Mr. ROLT said, there vim, r.o r'onbt the small trades.
man or farmer valued his property as much as a man
possessed of a far higher ann.nnt of wealth ; but the rea-
son for the limitation proposed by the clause under con-
sideration w that a mistake in the granting of probate
for farming stock was not irretrievable, and might be set
right before any mi,chief was done ; but if they were
dealing with money in the funds to the amount of thou-
sands of pounds, and any mistake were committed even
for an hour or a day in the granting of probate, that
mistake would be irretrievable. It was that considera-
tion which led the commission to the conclusion that
it was right to limit the amount of the property on
which property could he granted by the diocesan courts.
Mr. ROEBUCK said the hon, and learned gentleman
who last addressed the committee fancied that all pro-
perty under the value of 1,5001. must necessarily be
farming stock, and that all above that sum was money
in the funds- (A. laugh.) He would ask the hon. and
learned gentleman whether a mistake committed in the
granting of probate would not be quite as fatal where
the money in the funds, which was the subject of it, was
below 1,5001., as it would be where the sum was 15,000/.?
If they wanted integrity in the administration of an
estate above the value cif 1,5001., he (Mr. Roebuck) con-
tended they wanted it equally with respect to property
below that amount.

The committee then divided upon the question that
the word, propos.ed to be left out stand par,: of the clause,
the effect cf th.e amendment being to strike out the pro-
vision of the bill by which the jurisdiction of district re-
gistrars was confined to est Ate under the va ue of 1,500/.
Tne numbers were—
Ayes
Noes
Maj+Tity ---31
The announcement of the numbers was received with
lou i cheers.

The queAtion was then put, that in lieu of the words
struck out the words " and that such probate or letters
of aCmiwstration shall cover all personalty wherever
situate" be inserted in the clauie.

Mr. AYRTON suggested that, considering the late
ne•s of the hour, the further consideration of the clause
of the bill might be postpon d.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the practical
effect of the vote at which the committee had unfortu-
nately arrived—(a laugh)—hon. gentlemen might laugh,
and no doubt those woo were opposed to the principle of
tl.e bill bad cause to do so, but that vote would, if car-
ri,d into effec., render the whole bill useless. So fully did
he feel the fatal results to the tneaF,ure if the amendment
of the hon, gentleman were carried, that he should feel
it to be his duty to take the sense of the committee upon
the question of the insertion of the words proposed to be
introduced by the hon. gentleman.
The committee then divided :
For the motion l4l
Against it 139

Majority
The announcement of the numbers was received with
great cheering.
On the moti•.n of Lord PALMERSTON,
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and a,ked leave
to sit again.

SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE JUSTICES

OF THE PEACE BILL.
The house then went into committee on this bill.
On clause 1, Justices to have power to state a case for
the opinion of the superior courts,

Mr. HENLEY thought 14 would throw a great in-
crease of business on the superior courts, and be often
used for the purpose of delay.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL believed the effect of
the bid would be t bring up only difficult questions of
law, which the magistrates were as anxious as the parties
themselves to have the opinion of the court on, and no
case could be stated except on the application of the
parties, and with the consent of the justice. .
Mr. G. HARDY considered no case had been made
out to show the necessity of this bill.
Mr. NAPIER supported the bill. It was a simplifi•
cation of procedure, and afforded a substitute fur the
circuitous process of the certtorari.
Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD con'idered the provisions
of the bill so valuable that at his suggestion it was pro-
posed to extend its operation to Ireland.
Mr. MASSEY said that at present there was no means
of reviewing the decisicm of a magistrate at petty sessions
if erroneous in point of law. The object of the bill was
to remedy this defect.

Mr. EiENLEY must protest against the magistracy
being put to any expense. He should euggest that the
cases go through the Home office.

Mr. NAPIER thought that his right bon. friend was
under a misapprehension with regard to the bill. In most
cases before magistrates there were two parties to the
question, and these two parties would alone be Becessary
to be represented before the superior courts. The ma-
gigtratewou,dbe put to no expense.
. .

Mr. HILDYARD c )nsidered it had not been shown
that this act would not throw great r xpenses upon the
magistracy.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL explained that under
the bill all that was necessary was fur the magistrate to
write down upon a piece of paper the point of law upon
which he bad based his conviction. Beyond this he had
nothing to and would be pet to no expense. •
Mr. MILES moved that the chairman report progress.
The bill would require great consideration before it
could be assented to.

The motion was agreed to, and the house resumed.
SUPPLY.

The report of the committee of supply was brought up
and agreed to.

ATTORNEYS AND SOLICITORS (COLONIAL

COURTS) BILL.
This bill passed thr. ugh committee
CONSTABULARY FORCE (IRELAND) BILL,
Tnis bill was read a third time and passed.

SMOKE NUISANCE (SCOTLAND) ABATEMENT

BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
THE MILITIA.

Sir J. RAMSDEN brought in a bill ti suspend t 6•
making of lists for toe militia
LIFE INSURANCES.
Mr. WILSON obtained leave to bring in a bill to re-
gulate life insurance officits.

The other orders of the day were then disposed o:
and the house adjourned at a quarter to two o'clock.

THE FEE'NC fl ELECTIONS.

(From the Times.)

The elections for Paris have terminated in the
return of three Opposition candidates whose pre-
sence in the Chamber must be most profoundly
distasteful to the Government. The intelligence
which we publish this morning was received in
London after midnight. It is, that Gen. Cavaignac
has been elected by 10,950 votes against 9,952
given to M. Thibaut, the Government candidate'
for the third electoral district of the French capital.
For the fourth district M. 011ivicr, the Opposition
candidate, has beaten M. Varin, the Government
nominee, by 11,005 votes against 10,006. For the
seventh district, M. Darimon, the well-known
publicist, who at this election represented the Op-
position, has obtained 12,078 votes, whereas M.
Lanquetin, the Government candidate, obtained
but 11,038. A comparison of the figures will show
how strenuous and determined the struggle was on
either side. This is the first considerable check
which the authority of the French Emperor has re-
ceive], and yet its significance will ba considerably
exaggerated. As a demonstration it might be ofgreat

mportance if the real brunt of the battle were:io be
encountered on the floor of the Chamber ; but the
Emperor is well aware that his power is not based
upon that foundation. A Parliamentary majority
to him is the laurel wreath round the sword ; it is
not the sword itself. Tne army and the peasant
proprietors are the real safeguards of his power and
the guardians of his throne. M•re than this, if the
great majority of the metropolitan voters, who
really dislike the established order of things, and
who have voted for the Opposition candidates, had
believed that the effect of the votes which they
have recorded would be to plunge France once
more into the revolutionary Maelstrom of 1848,
they would have held their hands. They may he
very adverse to the present Government, but they
are still more oppoSed to barricades, street fights,
intestine turmoil, and the ruin of their private for-
tstaes. They do not, however, shrink from the
organisation of a Parliamentary oppositiou, because
'he power against which they are acting seems so
well established that its destruction, as they sup-
pose, 'can scarcely follow from such an attempt.
We cannot blame them. It is natural that they
should seek for freedom of action and speech, and
for some share in the direction of political affairs, al-
though Frenchmen have grievously misused the op-
portunities presented to them in the course of the
last seventy years. From the days of Louis XVI.
to the days of Louis Philippe a stable Throne and
an out-spoken Parliam'ent have never long coexisted
in France. We have little expectation that any ft eq.].
result will now be realised. TlaeXhamber will de-
stroy the Emperor, or the Emperor the Ckanber,
and the chances are much n favour of the latter
alternative. We believe the Emperor would wel-
come an Opposition in the Chamber which was not
at the same time a threat against his dynasty and
a conspiracy against his throne • and, allowance
being made for the subAantial 'differences which
exist between his position and that of a constitu-
tional Sovereign, he would be well satisfied that
the "grievances of the country should exhale in the
rounded periods of a few orators, and that it should
no longer be possible to assert that his rule was the
paralysis of political emotion, the death-blow to I
fresdom of thought in France.
Is this possible ? Can the French Emperor do
this ? Can he place confidence enough in the mo-
deration, the patriotism, the generosity of his
opponents, to intrust them with power which
they may turn at any moment against his
supremacy ? Can he govern constitutionally if he
would ? Many great things he has accomplithel
for the • benefit of France ; he has established
tranquility and order within the limits of the
mother country ; he has restored lustre to tile
French arms,,.somewhat dimmed by the internecine
strife of 1848 ; he has ever shown himself, finan-
cial mistakes apart, eager to further every-scheme
which could promote the material pros' • ity of the
people. All this ho has accomplished, but the con-