The Sun.
London, England, 1836-10-25 00:00:00

nia+

LONDON,
TUESDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 25, 1836.

A philosophical historian has observed that no
people ever surpassed the Greeks in uniting an entire
obedience of the laws with an extreme jealousy of per-
sonal liberty, and a devout observance of religious
rites with an enthusiastic love of military glory. We
believe it will not be disputed that England, if she
have not surpassed, has at least equalled Greece in the
union of the two first requisites for the maintenance of
free institutions. In England, as in Greece, the
sovereign authority, before which all bow down, is the
law, and care is taken that that law shall not be so
framed as unnecessarily to infringe the personal liberty
of the humblest individual. Our public roads are not
blocked up with the agents of an Executive, jealous of
every movement of the subject, and suffering none to
travel on their ordinary business without passports ;
nor are our citizens constrained to be silent as often
as they may feel or fancy themselves aggrieved from
any apprehension of calling down upon them the ven-
geance of the Government. It is totally dif-
ferent in France—and with the single exception
of the Swiss Confederacy—different in every other
State in Europe. Perhaps there is no country in the
world which has given such an impulse to liberty, and
yet understands so indifferently the art of uniting a
strict observance of the laws with the security of indi-
vidual independence as France. Her Statesmen have
all fallen into one great error—namely, that of study-
ing only how to make the system of centralization as
perfect as possible, without having due regard to the
possible climes of the supreme ruling. Power. Cen-
tralization cannot be too perfect when the people have
sufficient guarantees for the honesty of the Executive,
and the wisdom and justice of all compulsory enact-
ments; but it becomes the curse of a free State—the first
and strongest link in the chain of slavery, when the Go-
vernment, like that of France under Louis PIIILIPPE,
is bent upon the re-establishment of Monarchical tyranny
in its most odious form. Centralization, under such
circumstances—by annulling the political importance
of municipal rights—by forcing the people, as it were,
to appear individually before the Minister of the Inte-
rior as supplicants for justice----by destroying all those
symbols of fraternity which spur on the more sluggish
and ignorant to join their brethren in opposing a com-
mon wrong, and in braving a common danger—neces-
sarily leads to a state of popular inaction highly favour-
able to the designs of despotism.
These considerations are sufficient to cause any in-
telligent British subject to regard with peculiar atten-
tion the report of a speech delivered by M. ODILLON
BARROT, at a public dinner given him by the Electors
of the Department of Aisne, of which a condensed re-
port will be found in another part of The Sun. It is
rarely inii6::(l that the electors of France make such near
approaches to public meetings for political purposes as
the giving of politics.' dinners ; and still more rarely do
the Deputies hazard the displeasure of the Government,
by addressing the assembled guests on political topics.
This is a mode of political education—a sure and safe
method of ascertaining the true state of public opi-
nion, of which France is still nearly ignorant. But
in M. ODILLON BARROT she has found one able
instructor. Others, it is to be hoped, will follow his
example, and thus the safest of all popular safety-
valves will lend its influence in strengthening the whole-
some operation, and in correcting the most dangerous
errors of the French Government. This is well
pointed out by NI. ()DILLON BARROT in the fol-
lowing passage of his speech` in which he proves that
political liberty cannot exist apart from public dis-
cussion :

" Liberty has its conditions, as well as despotism. Des-
potism lives isolated and selfish; liberty in assemblies and
associations, Despotism says to the people, Mind your
private affairs, work, busy yourselves in private life ; the
rest is my concern, and does not regard you.' Freedom, on
the contrary, says, Your first, your most holy, occupation
is to interest yourself in public affairs, You have con-
quered the honour of governing yourselves, and this cannot
be done without devoting your time and faculties to it, Lot
not the duties of private life absorb you. Watch vigilantly
those entrusted with power ; make large use of the right
of manifesting your opinions ; prepare for the solemn judg-
ment which you have to pronounce upon your represen-
tntive in the day of re-election ; enlighten your minds--
fortify they. Remain alive to the public weal, for liberty
can be secured at no other price.' Government, faithless
to its origin, would limit the political life of a great nation
to the right
toa hundredgigive
three
every and thirty,or byfour years
r eaa
rhsuann-
idsrooldat.ea or andfti'e
electors,
si nt vote in the choice of a deputy. It would
re-plunge the population in that lethargy which is deemed
neemary for security, It would limit political life to the
electing PPtY,
where local interests arid private spe-
culation would atone predominate, They cell 'this repre-
sentative eIP
sentative government. But I toil yqq it 1§ bqt the wetly
of one, I am proud of representing a population which
h.„ ober ideas than these, and which is alive to the danger
orptkir• pire,sep.t P9so. 9n f'_

Thg last ;euteOc,e, it P9t meye nnplimeot to the
audience, is frangbt with the 4ee4s of 4 Ibrig4 Cutup/
The growth of political freedom is often as miraculously