The Sun. — 1869-02-09 (London, England)

OUR OWN CORRESPONDKNT-) PARIS, MONDAY, February 8. The great debate in the Senate is still the topic of the daiPri!A.eric rule, M. Maupas is supported on all sides, ...iberals, of course, agree with him in preference tc M. tiCulter. The Imperialistjournals canhardlyoffer down. right opposition to so staunch a supporter of the Empire. Some of them are inclined to agree with him, for his argument is plausible enough. It amounts, as I said before, simply tc this : though he vehemently opposed the press law and the law of public meetings, as being too great a concession to be consistent with public safety, yet he would now extend reform and grant Ministerial responsibility, simply because these concessions laid the Emperor open to per. sonal attacks. In another sense M. Rouher's speech gives satisfaction. He rejected, it is true, the request for Minis. terial responsibility, but he accompanied the rejection by the important statement that he would retire the moment he received personal blame from the Legislative Body, and that each of his colleagues would do the like in a similar ease. The Siècle and other papers consider this a great admission. If M. Rouher would really resign if he received a check from the Legislative Body, then Ministerial responsibility is already established. The Corps Ldgislatif could change a Minister or a Ministry. But, unfortunately for the SMde, its enthusiasm carries it too far. Where is the Chamber of Deputies or the Senate which would pass a direct vote of censure on any Minister? Neither are likely to be found under the present system. M. Rouher wae. quite safe. Nevertheless, the whole discussion is not merely interesting, but important as an indication of the spread of Liberal ideas. Some further particulars have transpired respecting the mystery of the Rue Princesse. As your readers may be lost in Paris mysteries, I may just mention that this is the affair of the two legs being fished up from a well in the dismal quarter of Paris known as the Rue Princesse. There is now no doubt that a crime was committed, and that the victim is an upholsterer, of about 50 years of age, residing in the Rue Dauphine. He must have been murdered on the night of the 14th, or early on the 15th of December. He was separated from his wife, and was endowed with the not uncommon vanity of desiring to appear richer than he really was, frequently drawing gold coins from his pocket mixed with smaller change. On the night of the. 14th of December, he was observed to enter his apartment with a young woman, and shortly afterwards to go out with her. He wag never again seen alive. On the 15th, part of his body, the trunk, was found in the Seine, and a waistcoat which s  covered it was recognised by his wife ; as were other garments. It is certain, therefore, that the trunk found in the Seine, the part of a breast found on the quay, and the two legs fished out of the well all belong to one person.  So far the mystery ends. It is supposed that the n;;; was murdered by one of the women with whom he was in the habit of associating. The gold which he was so fond of displaying had been his ruin.  Yesterday took place that yearly absurdity, the promenade of the Bceuf Gras. The weather was fine and the crowd immense, but the display- itself was inferior to that  of last year. This mock pageant seems to be dying a natural death. I even hear it hinted that this may be the last year of its existence. There was a band of music, irr the costume of Louis