The Sun.
London, England, 1849-08-16 00:00:00

LOUIS BLANC AND "THE "SUN." ! just been opened, scandalously dispute their paternal
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. heritage. Here, the brutality of conjugal despotism is
See,—ln your reply to a *complaint, a very nit= retaliated by the cunning intrigues of adultery; there,
tural and a very just one, of my editor, Mr. De la a child is discovered naked, bruised and starved
Trehonnais, you come back upon an accusation, now in a dungeon, is here his inhuman parents cast him;
on record in your last number, that my publication here is a son who has been instructed by his father in
epracticemother
e of theft; there, a daughter, taught by her
<<t
contains a ferocious attack on order, family,
own , lessons
of debauchery! Such is the mourn-
and property." As the contrary, absolutely the con-
ful glare which
now
and then is cast on the darkness in
trary, is the truth ; as order, family, and property, which private life is so carefully shrouded. But what
far from being attacked in the a New World,' are awful scenes remain in the shade! How many terrible
there, on the contrary, warmly defended, I had, at occurrences which will never see the light, correspond
first, attributed the accusation directed by you with those which chance or an excess of imprudence
against me to some unaccountable error on your have laid bare to our gaze! Let us see, let that social
part; but that which I had simply regarded as an regime so carefully protecting Family, plainly answer:
error, your persistance, Sir, converts into a calumny. we ask : why is adultery taught onoever);,tage, learnt from
To give some foundation to this calumny, to prove every novel, sung by every poet ? In one word, what
that lam an enemy to order, you endeavour to prove isea
imtaalt?rimfny in our time, that is under the sway of
my complicity in the invasion of the National As- code,i there I, fiinndurt(hica'rt to obtain a
.definition, I open the
mon) t an association nearly
sembly on the famous 15th of May. Well, Sir, similar to a joint stock commercial company:. the code
against this unproved assertion I appeal to incon- in its various dispositions, inclines to consider matri-
testable witnesses, to official documents, even to mony as an establishment of a peculiar kind, of which
solemn declarations either from the National Tribune, the husband is the manager. If I consult facts, I find
or before the High Courts, by men known to be my that matrimony is almost always a bargain, a specula-
adversaries. tion, a means of making or enlarging one's fortune, and,
according &le mode of expression, one of the various
Pray read, Sir, in the Aloniteur, the reports of the
debates of the 31st of Ma and of the 2d of June,
ways of acquiring property. Natural attraction, union
y
of two hearts thrilling with love, sovereigns laws of
1848 ; in the Gazette des Tribunaux the celebrate
trial at Bourges. Then you will see in lookin sympathy, all come after the deed that regulates matri.
, g over menial conventions. The notary in this c
the formal testimonies (and none suspected of parti- most important personage; so much so, that inatsleie is theorder
ality) of the representatives Pietri, Berancon, duet,
of forms, the legal settlment must precede the celebra-
Junferund, de Trevenene, Morerhy, Bucher, Corbou, tion of matrimony. And, those manners have created a
Armand Marrast, Lamartine, Cremieux. language worthy of themselves. People do not marry
You will read that on the 15th of May I was at a woman when they love; they marry dia., quinze, vinyl
my post in the Assembly, at the time of its invasion ; millehlivres de rente, anl expectations. Yes, expectations
that my colleagues, in great numbers, supposing me a.setdeeaytharoefdreern.iinated in the matrimonial grammar—
es! What.. think you of the influ-
to have the power of calming the multitude, came to "I
ence exercised buti:thu
Bpurtevtaoilifnogrmsys overer the.d cmonsnti-
me in order to press me, to supplicate me to interfere
atembett
and to harrangue the crowd—that it was solely upon lotion of Familyy
it is in the bosom of the poor people's familyjug that
their reiterated and impassioned entreaties I decided we must search. Wo !to the poor if he happen to
to address the people; that before doing so, and to marry! Unable to nourish his offspring, he is reduced
show that I did not intend in any way to separate to the necessity of abandoning their bodies and souls to
myself from my colleagues, I went up to the Bareau the evil genius of production; he will require part of
of the President and demanded his authority for my his maintenance from their tender age, oppressed,
intervention—that the President gave me his autho- withered by premature labour, he will bury them alive
rity and added "Go, you will perform the duty of a in one of those factories, in which the philanthropists
good citizen "—that it was only then, after so full a of the prevailing political economy have been can-
warrant, I addressed the crowd—that, the M lied to show oniteur Peus, poor little wretches of six or seven
of the 16th May, reports my words, I invited the 1 eyes, Years old, with their dim sallow cheeks, and bent
bodies. Out of 10,000 young men called up to military
people to respect, in the Assembly, the national service, the ten most manufacturing departments of
sovereignty represented by it—that my words had France, offer 8,980 incapacitated by infirmities and de-
the effect of appeasing the tumult, which up to formities. This has been declared in the Chamber of
that moment had been frightful that I was Peers by M. Charles I)upin, one of thy defenders of
carried in triumph to the Chamber; it order, family, and properly; such are the fruits which
was in opposition to my wishes, in spite of my pro• are brought to the family by those social abuses which
testations, in spite of my efforts to snatch myself are so unblushingly upheld for its sake, and in its sacred
from this ovation, which filled me with consterna- name! Now consider, if you have the courage to do it,
tion—that, after the dissolution of the Assembly, the frightful progression in the number of foundling hos-
pronounced by Hubert, whom I did not know, whom pitals, draw up the list of those tours* which have been
I had never seen in the whole course of my life, I erected to provide for a mother, how horrible! the means
went home, and never for a single instant made my not to destroy the fruit of her womb. Who now will
appearance at the Hotel de Ville, as it has been most dt
aam,ri,
le.i.
3,
gteoxatsnaeyn that
a lo
et hi
ael familye . institution
pp
falsely reported. In a word, on that fatal day,
all my conduct was that of a man principles woof which it is importantat first to
come to Property, the nature and
who felt himself the friend of order, and indicate andthia characterise., Who shall we con.
who was convinced of the inviolability f the suit onPerhaps the adversaries
Assembly issuing from universal suffrage. And of Socialism will pointnot refuse to accept Thiers as an
upon all this, Sir, it is impossible to bring the authority? Now, in the National Assembly, M. Thiar
fundamental principles
slightest contradiction; for, I repeat it, the whole of has solemnly asserted that the of
it rests upon irrefragable declarations. M. de La- the right of property was labour. We do not care to
this; but then,
martine, one of my adversaries, has just published a contradict let the actual Social system
book upon the Revolution. Now he affirms, Vol. 11., defend itself if it can. For, how many thousands of
belowen are at this day proprietors without working! and
p. 434, that he heard from the midst of the crowd m
them, how many thousands who labour without
several of myand that I sentences, was conjuring the being or even expecting ever to be owners of pro-
people to retire, to moderate themselves, and to restore perty? Whose is this house? Does it belong to him
their liberty to the general representation of the who has built it? He can scarcely find a shelter.
people. Would you desire other proofs ? Among Whose are those rich silk stuffs? are they the property
the Members of the English Parliament two hap- of him who has woven them? He is covered with rags.
pened to be present at the meeting of the Assembly Whose is that plentiful harvest? is it owned by him
on the 15th May. These gentlemen do not in any through whose labour it has sprung forth from the earth?
way partake of my opinions, they have offered me He has scarcely food. Nevertheless, and it is again
M. Thiers' assertion, Property. is something essential to
their public testimony regarding the loyalty and the
human nature. Whence it follows that every individual
rectitude of my conduct amidst these circumstances. whohas no
But what demonstration more decisive could I give
nature. But then, what must we d think of the
is ty-
than that which consists in the vote by which the labourer? A day-labourer then not a man? Yes,
National Assembly itself refused, on the 2d June, Sir, you are right: Property which derives its legiti-
-1848, and by a great majority, its consent for my macy from labour, is an essential condition of life. And
prosecution—a vote which lost to MM. Portalis this is why, in the name of human nature, in the acme
and Landrin their places as Procureur-Ge- of life, we reproach present society with not being con•
neral and, Advocate-General of the Republic ? stituted in such a manner as to render property acces-
and, moreover, the majority which agreed upon sible to all.— The New World, No. 1., pp. 7-10.
this striking verdict was composed of Royalists, ' Sort of cylindrical cupboards turning on pivots to trans-
the greater number of whom could not pardon me for mit parcels, &c. into the interior of convents or hospitals,
t
withoeither the giver or receiver being able to have a
having been one of the founders of the Republic. As glimpse of each other; they are much used in foundling
to the decision of the 25th of August, 1848, arrived hospitals.
at, in the midst of Paris inflamed under the empire of
an unbridled movement of reaction, without any dis-
cussion, by men who did not blush to reverse all their
decisions, and at a meeting which absorbed twenty-
four hours (for they wished at whatever cost to pre-
vent the judgment of public opinion), every one
knows that this scandalous decision was but a coup
d' itat, and those who struck the blow have themselves
avowed their act. The truth is that they pursued not
my acts, but the influence over the people, which they
attributed to me. On the morrow of the 25th of
August, General Cavaignac said to the editor of the
Presse, "I know well that in all that Louis Blanc is
not more guilty than I am"—words which have since
been publicly thrown up to the General's flee,
and which he has never denied. You say,
further, Sir, or at least, you insinuate that, if I am in
London, it is in consequence of my participation in
the insurrection of June. Well, to this insinuation,
I answer by a peremptory fact: at a moment when my
enemies sought, with an eager avidity, every pretext
of which they could lay hold on in order to crush rue,
they could not accuse me of even the slightest parti-
cipation in that formidable rising. And how would
they have dared to do it, since it was known to every
one, that during the battling of June, I remained
night and day in the Assembly, in the midst of my
colleagues, from whom I was not separated a single
instant ? It may be added, moreover, Sir, that it is
absolutely false that the insurgents of June used the
word pillage on their banners. Those which were
captured at the barricades, and which were brought
to us had inscribed on them, some " Vive le Pain !"
(bread for ever), others, " Mort aux Voleursl" (death
to thieves)—these things, I myself, as well my collea-
gues, saw with our own eyes.
Now, what shall be said of this anecdote, gathered
from the filth of I know not what libellous produc-
tion, and the conclusion of which is, that "My look,
though it was not very easy to interpret it, suf/iciently
marked that my sympathies were not with the defen-
ders of order." Hatred, when thus it tumbles into
the ridiculous, is not fit to be regarded.
Two words more. You quote a passage of mine
where I have denounced marriages for money as an
abuse of the most sacred of all institutions ; and in
this you confound what is an attack against abuses
with what would he an attack against principles.
And it is in the name of the institution of marriage
that you find me wrong in denouncing that vile spirit
of speculation which sullies its purity and outrages
its holiness 1 Have a care, Sir, for it is I who would
have the right here to hurl against you the accusation
which, with.so much imprudence, you have levelled
against me.
Finally, Sir, you affirm, that in the New World
I hare attacked, in a " ferocious manner, Order,
Family, Property." I affirm exactly the contrary.
The passage to which you allude commences
nearly at the bottom of page 7, and concludes at
page 10, consequently it is short. Well, Sir, in the
name of justice, in the name of truth, in the name of
your honour, I demand of you to reprint in your
columns the whole of this passage ; and with the
text before their eyes, your readers shall judge be-
tween you and me.
I expect, from your sense of right feeling as a
gentleman, the insertion of this letter • and
I am, Sir, your very obedient, humble servant,
London, Aug. la, 1849. LOUIS BLANC.

LAW OF LUNACY.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
SIR,---I shall be much obliged to you if you will
correct one or two errors and omissions in the report
you have given of my speech at Exeter Hall, upon
the amendment of the Law of Lunacy, on Monday,
the 30th ult.

In the first place, after having proved that persons
were liable to be confined unjustly as lunatics, and,
therefore, that we were not in that respect fighting a
shadow, I spoke to this effect—that I was prepared
also to prove the second allegation of the resolution
entrusted to me ; namely, " That acts of the greatest
oppression and cruelty were still committed in lunatic
asylums," but that I had only time then to refer to
the reports of Mr. G. B. Purnell, to which the Chair-
man had alluded, as bearing ample testimony to that
fact, and consequently to the insufficiency of the pro-
tection afforded by the present mode of inspectiog
asylums. The question was, how were these evils
to be remedied? It was a difficult one. But I had
contended, and I continued with great confidence to
entertain the opinion, that, whatever was done, the
clergy ought to be called upon to render their assist-
ance. There could be no doubt that I was right in
principle, and that the clergy were bound to take an
interest in the state of the insane as much as in that
of any other persons who were afflicted; but, as the
spiritual order and authorities in these kingdoms,
they had also a right to exercise some authority in
these matters; and, indeed, it was one of my objects
in speaking on this subject, to raise the tone of public
feeling ; and I heartily desired to see my countrymen
rescued from the degraded position in which I found
them, submitting the judgment of mind to the medi-
cal profession, to physicians who handled the lancet
and the pill-box, and the object of whose studies was
matter and medicine. That it might be objected,
that the ministers of religion were not competent to
undertake and discharge these duties, and I was sorry
to think that might be in some respects true, but they
were entitled, like the medical men, to learn by ex-
perience; and it was the fault of my fellow-country-
men if persons were in their pulpits in whom they
could not place confidence to discharge all the duties
of their profession; for in a free country like thin, if
they bestirred themselves, they could recover the
power of controuling the election of their own minis-
ters, a privilege which formerly belonged to the laity
of the Christian Church.
I then proceeded to say—." The-great principle for
which I contended is, that no Englishman should be
confined without having access to his legal advisers,
in the first place ; and next, that no Englishman
should be judged behind his back. Under the present
system, if any party appealed against his confinement,
andif he was fortunate enough to succeed in securing'
the attention of the Commissioners or visiting magis-
trates, an inquiry might be entered upon into his case ;
but in such a manner that he neither knew when or
where it was to be held—neither could he be present
in person or by attorney, to watch the proceedings,
to confront and cross-examine the witnesses, or to ex-
plain any circumstances that might bear a suspicious
appearance, but perhaps easily accounted for. In
short, the system was one of profound secrecy ; the
Commissioners were bound by an oath of secrecy—
and they resembled, too much, a tribunal which was
hateful to England—the Holy Ofqce of the Inquisi-
tion. It was because the Commissioners in Lunacy
had carried out this detestable system, in spite of re-
monstrances, so long, without coming to Parliament,
in which so many of the members of that board had
seats, to obtain a reform of it—a step which their
native sentiments as British subjects should have dic-
tated to them—that I declared them to be devoid of
proper British feeling and manly sentiment, and un-
worthy of the confidence of their fellow-countrymen,
and I hoped to see that board abolished. When I said
so, however, I wished to guard myself against the ac•
cusation that I decried their services as a medical
board. As a medical board, exercising surveillance
over the management of asylums, the medical treat-
ment, and the diet of patients, their services were
valuable and necessary ; but I wished to see them con-
fined to their proper province and duties, which were
quite enough for them to attend to. I desired to see
the board abolished as a tribunal of appeal, and power
restored to the magistrates, in the metropolis as well
as in the country, to discharge the duties which pro-
perly belonged to them, in visiting and inspecting
asylums, and in preventing persons being illtreated
or improperly confined in them." These passages in
my speech contain such important principles that I am
' anxious that they should be clearly laid before the
public. There is also an error in point of fact that I
ought to correct. I stated that his having discovered
the principle of the atmospheric railway was mainly
the circumstances that led to Mr. Bailey being kept
in confinement by the Commissioners, from thetoo san-
guine manner in which he spoke of the profits which
he expected to realise from his invention, of the merits
of which they were not competent to judge. But I
do not know that they treated the invention as
' visionary, and made it per se a ground for detaining
him in imprisonment.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient, humble servant,
JOHN PERCEVAL.
Campden Cottage, Notting-hill, Aug. 7, 1549

* * The following is the quotation entreated to be
made in our columns by M. Louis Blanc, and re-
ferred to in our leading article :
"And against this happy necessity, what have persons
presumed to invoke? Order, family, and property.
"Order, just heavens! but what is that order which
conciliates itself with misery, prostitution, theft, murder,
with the galleys to be filled, with the scaffold, which it
dares not pull down? What order is that which is un-
ceasingly tossing society from crisis to crisis, from riots
to insurrection, and from insurrection to civil war? I
put no trust in a boos which so many people cannot
make up their mind to accept; and should there be an
absolute necessity, in order to save soci▪
ety, to suspend the
action of the law, to shackle the expression of thoughts,
to profane family homes, to re-establish proscription tables
in the fashion of Sylla, to array in battle order a hundred
and twenty thousand men along the streets of a city, to
enforce silence with artillery; what disorder should be
compared with that order. which requi▪
res to be so main-
tained? Provisional measures, I hear it argued. What
matters, if the cause which yesterday necessitated their
adoption, unavoidably briugs them back to-morrow ? Is
order, bashful poverty? Is it grief stifling its sobs? Is
it conspiring hatred? Is it an adjourned revolt? Is it
a panting pause between two revolutions, a dead calm
between two shipwrecks? Oh! self-styled defenders of
order, you do not even know your own language: true
order is precisely that which has
it
no need of being de-
fended. Order is not protected, is founded, and to do
this, it is necessary to know how to prevent that which
you combat, and combat the more vs.anly because you
i
battle against it desperately. But it s in vain, we should
expect even this, from them, they would answer that to
pretend to suppress misery and conquer evil is only
a mad scheme; that evil exists in the essence of things;
that misery is indestructible. For,incredible insanity!
wonderful inconsistency those pretended defenders of
order, are the first to proclaim that, disorder is necessary
and indestructible.
" As to family, I should like to know what that social
regime which is held out as its palladium, is doing for its
welfare. Ah! let our adversaries, know it well and re-
member it: it is because family is by excellence a sacred
and inviolate institution, that it requires a medium
purer than that in which it is seen in our days, getting
more and more depraved, and gradually sinking into
destruction. Lot us open the records of criminal justice,
and let us read. What gloomy dramas. Here a wife
has poisoned her husband to sport and enjoy his spoils;
there two Jnothers, over the half-filled grave which has

THE SUBLIME AND BEAUTIFUL.—" You've been to
York, Tom?" said a gentleman the other day to a cock-
ney friend, on meeting him in the Strand, " what do
3ou think of it?" " Ifo, the Minister is pretty, worry;
but the cream, Sir, the cream, Sir, they 'en bin that
city is Magnificent!"

~! . .w ~.

t..._~~

al2{JU:i.:,~:.

;;L•1