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

EVENING, AUGUST 16, 1849.

!LOUIS BLANC AND';" THE' SUN." ( just been opened, scandalously dispute their paternal
TO THE EDTrOR OF THE 54).417. , beritag.. Tr"ip !i,.-. hrot.,l:ts- .4' , -,i..,,0 ,ia r„,,, i.
Sia.,—Jo y.,lti -.1,1.y ;0 i -00-1i,!:-....L, - ,e-. .4...- •a:-."1I .. .'
:: r. 64
-- ,
I tural and a very just one, of my editor, Mr. De la a child is 0i..c.,ver...1 rea!,..,., b.-tii,ti and ' 's:?,ry A
Trehonnais, you come back upon an accusation, now
the here p
r i s e
ea t i sunee
of who
theft;h as
there,
her beene, instructed
a da oi,t e
r b,
in a dungeoh, where his inhuman parents cast him;
on record in your last number, that my publication
y taught iris
fabtlyierheinr
i " contains a ferocious attack on order, family,
i_,
y,
whichf glaprrefvsand proTArtv." As the contrary, absolutely the cane which
life
f en now
saan and
carefullyt hcn i is castshr aound
et hd.e darkness
But
whatin
ousvin mother, lessons of debauchery! Such is the mourn-
trary, is the truth; as order, family, and property,
far from Wipg attacked in the "New World,' are awful scenes remain in the shade! How many terrible
warmly defended; I had, at occurrences
there, on the contrary, which will never see the light, correspond
first, attributed the accusation directed by you with those which chance or an excess of imprudence
Wreagam.a regime so carefully protecting Family,
against me to some unaccountable error on your havei laid bare to our gaze! Let us see, let that social
plainly answer:
part; but that which I had simply. regarded as an
e_erye why is ashiltery taught on ever);•tage, learnt frcm
error, your persistence, Sir, converts into a calumny.
novel, sung by every poet ? In one word,n
To give some foundation to this calumny, to prove is
capital? If, in order to obtain a definition, I oswanythof
matrimony in our time, that is undr the
that I am an enemy to order, you endeavour to prove
code, there I find that matrimony is an associationpneearl
my complicity in the invasion of the Natrona l
....s-
-similar to a Joint stock commercial sir,
sembly on the famous 15th of May. Well/ company: the codey
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 specu'a-
adversaries. tion, a means of making or enlarging one's fortune, and,
reports of the according to legal mode of expression, one of the various
Pray read, Sir, in the Itioniteur, the
_o_ _
of a waysacquiring property. Natural attraction, union
debates of the 31st of May and of the 2d I
hJuneci
of two hearts thrilling with love, sovereigns laws of
1848 ; in the Gazette des Tribunaux the Vele rate
sympathy, all come alto. the deed that regulates matri.
trial at Bourges. Then you will see, in looking over menial conventions. The notary in this case is the
the formal testimonies (and none suspected of parti- most important personage; so much so, that in the order
slity) of the representatives Pietri, Berangan, 'lna/ of forms, the legal settlement 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 whoa they love; they marry dix, quinze, vinyl
'
my post in the Assembly, at the time of its invasion , mile livres de rente, ani expectations. Yes, expectations
as they are denominated in the matrimonial grammar—
that my colleagues, in great numbers, supposing me
the death of relations! What think you of the influ-
to have the power of calming the multitude, came to
ence exercised by the prevailing system over the consti-
me in order to press me, to supplicate me to interfere
tution of Family? But to form a better judgment,
and to harrangue the crowd—that it was solely upon it is in the bosom of the poor people's family that
their reiterated awl impassioned entreaties I decided we must search. Wo !to the poor if he happen to
to address the people; that before doing so, and tomarry! 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 Bureau 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 authe- withered by premature labour, he will bury them aliv
rity and added "Go, you will perform the duty of a in one of those factories, in which the
good citizen "—that it was only then, after so full a of the prevailing political economy have been coin-
elled to show us, poor little wretches of six or seven
warrant, I addressed the crowd—that, the Moniteur P
years old, with their dim eyes, sallow cheeks, and bent
of the 16th May, reports my words, I invited the
bodies. Out of 10,000 young men called to military
people to respect, in the. Assembly, the national
service, the ten most manufacturing partdments ot
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 I had been. frightful that I W 45 Peers by M. Charles Dupin, one of thy defenders of
carried in triumph to the Chamber; it• order, family, and property; such are the fruits which
was in opposition to my wishes, in spite of my pros- are brought to the family by those social abuses which
testations, in spite of my efforts to snatch mysef 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 bad never seen in the whole course of my life, I eretcteddto provide for a mother, how horrible! the means
went home, and never for a single instant made my dnaoretote destroy the
hfruit of her womb. Who now will
appearance at the Hotel de Ville, as it has been most taming sucyh a sociael familyr institution gains, by main-
egime.
falsely reported. In a word, on that fatal dayi, " Next we come to
Property, the nature and
all my conduct was that of a man principles of which it is importantat first to
who felt himself the friend of order, and indicate and characterise. Who shall we con-
who was convinced of the inviolability of the salt on this point ? Perhaps the adversaries
Assembly issuing from universal suffrage. And of Socialism will not refuse to accept Thiers as an
upon all this, Sir, it is impossible to bring the authority? Now, in the National Assembly, M. Thiers
slightest contradiction; for, I repeat it, the whole of has solemnly asserted that the fundamental principle of
it rests upon irrefragable declarations. M. de La- the right of property was labour. We do not care to
martine, one of my adversaries, has just published a contradict this; but then, let the actual Social system
book upon the Revolution. Now he affirms, Vol. 11. defend itself if it can.
.For, how many thousands of
men are at this day proprietors without working! and
434, that he heard from the midst of the crowd
P. below them, how many thousands who labour without
several of my sentences, and that I 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 rage.
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. Thi '. era 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. who has no property, lacks what is essential to
But what demonstration more decisive could I give nature. But then, what must we think of the day-
than that which consists in the vote by which the labourer? A day-labourer then is 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 nemo
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 Bible to all.—The New World, No. 1., pp. 7-10.
this striking verdict was composed of Royalists, 4, 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,
having been one of the founders of the Republic. As
g..
glimpse of
without eitheacher theo hie,; theyver or receivare emuch used ablein tofoun havedling a
li
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 4
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'etat, 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 or
August, General Cavaignac said to the editor of the
Presse, "I know well that in all that Louis Blanc ii
not more guilty than I am"—words which have since
been publicly thrown up to the General's facet,
and which he has never denied. You says
further, Sir, or at least, you insinuate that, if I am id
London, it is in consequence of my participation i
the insurrection of June. Well, to this insiauatio
lanswer by a peremptory fact: at a moment when m
enemies sought, with an eager avidity, every pretext
of which they could lay hold on in order to crush me,
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 14
colleagues, from whom I was. not separated a singly
instant ? It may be added, moreover, Sir, that it i 3
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 1"
(bread for ever), others, " More aux Voleurs !" (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 loop,
though it was not very easy to interpret it, sufficientlk
marked that my sympathies were not with the defen-
ders of order." Hatred, when thus it tumbles intei
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 abeam
with what would be an attack against principlei.
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 ! Have a care, Sir, for it is I who would
have the right here to huegainst you the accusation
which, with so much imprudence, you have levelled
against me.
Finally, Sir, you affirm, that in the New World
I have 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. 18, 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 ofMr. 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 inspecting
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 pillbox, 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 this, 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,
and if 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 Office 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 trea'-
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 the'too 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, iNurophlA v
leitscerEvanAf.,L.
Aug. 7, 1849.
en Cottage, Notting-hill,

*** 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 boon which so many people cannot
make up their mind to accept; and should there be an
absolute necessity, in order to save society, to suspend the
action of the law, to shackle the expression of thoughts,
to profane family homes, torn-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 requires 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 povei ty? Is it grief stifling its sobs? Is
it conspiring hatred? Is it au 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 no need of being de-
fended. Order is not protected, it is founded, and to do
this, it is necessary to know how to prevent that which
you combat, and combat the more vainly because you
battle against it desperately. But it is in vain, wo 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. Let 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 brothers, overthe half-filled grave which has

Campd

THE SUBLIME
AND BEAUTIFUL.—" You've
been
.0
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?" " Ho, the Minister is pretty, worry;
but the cream, Sir, the crean3, Sir, they 'ave hin that
city is magnificent!"