The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-15 00:00:00

FRANCE.

MODERN FRENCH POLITENESS TOWARDS A SOVE-
REIGN, A LADY, A WIFE, AND A MOTHER.
PARIS, JAN. 12.—You will perceive by the journals of
the last three days that the very proper interference of the
Governnient in preventing a theatrical performance at
the Theatre de la Renaissance on Saturday night-last
has awakened all the civisme and all the patriotism of the
Paris press,
The theatrical piece in question was entitled 11 etait
une lois un Roi et une Reine (" There was once upon a time
a King and. Queen"). It is the production of M. Leon
Gozlan, and contained, in its original shape, several
phrases, passages, and situations, referring so directly and
so offensively to her Majesty Queen Victoria and Prince
Albert that the censors determined, at first sight, on reject-
ing it altogether, but after much negotiation, and very
ample omissions and alterations, to which the author yielded
with good will, the Minister submitted it to Lord Gran.
silk, or read to his Lordship the passages in the work
that, it was felt, referred to her Majesty. Lord Gran.
ville is reported to have said, that he could wish that
no such piece should be performed, hut that he saw
nothing calling for his interference, and therei
fore left it to the Government to decide upon
the expediency of permitting or prohibiting it,
The Minister, in consequence, sent for M. Gozlan,
who consented to make all the alterations :n his work that
.vere required, and thereupon the permission was given.
Subsequently, however, and upon this you may rely, the Go-
vernment was informed, on unquestionably authority, teat
a body of 509 young men, students and others, had been
organized for the purpose of turning the performance of
the piece to their political purposes. They were to take
possession of the pit, and to seize upon every incident or
situation in the performance that could be tortured into
any meaning referable to England, her sovereign, or her
people, and to make of it a vehicle for the expression of
their dislike of all. This would of itself have fully justi.
fled the Minister of the Interior in prohibiting the perfor-
mance, and at 4 o'clock in the afternoon he recalled the
permission he had given : but the
.information went fur-
ther. It stated that the malcontents, after having had it,
as they reckoned, all their own way at the theatre, were
to proceed to the hotel of the British Embassy, and demo-
lish the windows.
This outrage would of itself have been productive of
serious consequences ; but who is there bold enough to say
that the proceedings of this band of patriots would have
been marked by violence and insult only? Who is there
who has seen how reckless, how frantic, how ferocious, how
ungovernable, how irresistible, is a French mob, who will
say that the lives of every British subject in Paris would
not have been in jeopardy the moment the Representative
of Great Britain should have been outraged ? You in
London have no idea of the extremity of dislike enter-
tained here for even the most unoffending Englishman
or Irishman, for let me tell you there is no distinction
made). There is no day on which facts do not come
to my knowledge proving how deadly' is the feeling
raised against you in the breasts of the people by the
liberal Newspapers, the supporters of M. Thiers, those
Journals which, while rantingly and hypocritically deal-
ing out cheap and small-scale humanity, and advocat-
ing the administering of warm flannel waistcoats and
hot rolls and coffee to convicted pickpockets and cut-
throats, denounce to tbe most savage populace in the uni-
verse (when once inflamed) thousands of persons who, pre-
suming on the alleged civilization and hospitality of Paris,
have trusted their lives to their safeguard. The 500 per-
sons who were to have composed this sacred band meant
not, possibly., to have done more than merely to break
the windows of Lord Granville's residence, but as there
are in Paris 4,400 liberated convicts, and as these art
nearly to a man irreclaimable, and capable of any crimb
in the catalogue, and as the whole of the lower orderS
are in a state of excitation, produced by the press, be.
yond anything you can conceive, who is there who can
venture to say that a number of those villains and des-
peradoes, or of those madmen, might not mix themselves
up in the affair, and give to it a cnaracter and an exten-
sion not contemplated by the original actors in it?
(From the Messager.)
Several papers continue to comment on the subject of
the piece prohibited by the Minister of the Interior to be
performed at the theatre of , the Renaissance the day be-
fore yesterday. The facts are these :—The censors had at
first ihterdieted the piece. For the interest of all parties
the Director of the Beaux Arts endeavoured, by retrench-
ment, to do away with what appeared objectionable. On
Friday he consulted the Minister as to the best measure to
take. The Minister, after having read the first scenes,
thought the representation could net be permitted, and in.
timated so to the Director.
The next day, two honourable deputies accompanied
the author and the director to the Minister, to solicit his
permission. The Minister stated his objections wishing to
conciliate. It is true.he consented to the representation of the
piece, but stipulated the retrenchment of the passages which
appeared to make allusions which he wished to avoid- ln
this case he yielded from a desire to avoid injuring the
work of re man of talent, and the interests of theatrical en-
terprise. Soon after this interview the Minister was in-
formed that; hoWever they Might retrench, there existed
ietvtitiOns to cause scandal by allusions to great personages.
The Minister found it necessary to recall his decision, and
at three o'clock he sent an order to the Director of the
Beaux Arts to forbid the representations How can it be
said that the Director of the Renaissance has been drawn
into expenses and losses by the Administration ? The
Director had incurred those expenses before obtaining the
authorisation, and when he might expect, from the first
opinion of the censors, a refusal. It was not the permis-
sion of a moment which engaged him to make these ex-
penses. Dates are sufficient to show that. Bssides; there
is a rule, known to all Directors, that a piece mu't not be
rehearsed till it has been authorised. Directors who act
contrary to thir rule do it at their own risk.
As to public order, that has not been compromised ; the
suspension was signified in time to occasion no trouble.
Let us now come to the thing itself. We render fell jus-
tice to the intentions of the author, but the result of the-
atrical representations does not depend upon intentions ;
the probably effect must be appreciated by the Government.
The piece in question has no reference to present cir-
cumstances. It contains nothing against the English
nation or its, Government. But the two principal per-
sons represent the respective situations of the Queen of
England, and the Prince her husband. The Governinent
was informed that these analogies would be eagerly seized
upon' and become a subject,of scandal. An article in the
National prove ;that it was not misinformed. Acting from a'
desire of not subjecting a young Queen and her litithand
the Prince to allusions, and perhaps to the jokes of which
some papers have spoken, is it not committing a cowardly
action, a lowering of France before foreigners, a wanting
In nationality and 'patriotism ? We leave the public to
decide upon this question. Political circumstances are so
totally foreign to the decision taken by the authorities,
that, in our opinion, were France even at' war with Eng-
land, as she now is at peaces the French Government
should show the same respect, the same propriety. This
should be the line of conduct dictated by its own dignity.
In reply to the above, the Gazette des Tribunaux ob
serves:—
" The Messager has forgotten to include the fact that,
on the 7th instant, the manuscript was returned to the
author with the visa (approbation) of the censors, and
also that of M. Cave. It, therefore, this act be connected
with the verbal assent of the Minister, given two days
afterwards in the presence of two Honourable Deputies, it,
will be impossible to reconcile it with the interdiction pro-
nounced three hours later.'
To which the Constitutionnel adds—
" We do not understand the anxiety of the
_Minister. to
interdict the piece beforehand,- especially since the prac-
tice of our, censorships allows of the representations of a
piece being spspended. The effect which the drains' would
have produced on the public might, at least, have been
waited for. We knOte what respect should be paid to
thrones ; but, when the English stage pays so little respect
to the honour of France, we do not comprehend the exces-
sive delicacy which desires to preserve English royalty
from possible allusions at the expense of French interests."