The Sun.
London, England, 1848-10-26 00:00:00

FRANCE.

[The following appeared in our Fourth Edition of
last night]:—
We read in the Moniteur :—" The vigilance exer-
cised by the Government over all the reports more or
less alarming which certain journals take pleasure in
propagating, and the care it takes to rectify or con-
tradict them, before there has been time for it becom-
ing accredited, are beginning to bear their fruits.
Thus forewarned that attempts to impose upon the
credulity of the public, without being caught in fla-
grante delicto, in falsehood or error, the press in
general uses more circumspection and reserve in the
choice of its news, and the reports to which it gives
echo by its publicity. But malevolence, confounded
and defeated in Paris, has reared itself again in the
provinces, where it flatters itself that the distance
from the central authority will render confidence
more easy to be surprised and truth less
prompt in becoming known. Scarcely a day passes
without our reading in the departmental papers,
representatives of parties the least interested in the
stability of order and the Republic, the most alarming
reports on the state of the capital. They represeht
Paris as being the theatre of civil war, and even as a

prey to triumphant insurrection, hoping to make
anarchy profit by these rumours skilfully spread
abroad. But in all parts these perfidious inventions
are received with the incredulity and contempt which
such perfidious inventions merit. Everywhere the
good sense and good spirit of the people, their
sympathy for the Republic, and confidence in the
future inspired by the past, destroy the manoeuvres
of factions reduced to the most shameful expedients.
Everything concurs in assuring France against a
return of the unexampled scenes which caused blocd
to flow in the capital, for the raising of the state
of siege, recommended by the Government itself,
is the most striking testimony of its strength and
security."

It is not alone the departments of France that are
the scenes of the intrigues of those vzeneurs, there are
those who have recently become connected with the
newspaper press in England, who, forgetting the
nobility of their birth and station, forgetting that, in
England at least, noblesse oblige are content to be-
come the mere understrappers of M. Emile de Gir-
ardin, and to adopt at second hand the " enormous
lying" which the reactionary party in France has
organized into a system, in hopes, perchance, that
they may be rewarded when the restoration arrives,
by succeeding the Duke de Praslin in the Royal
confidence, or be permitted to share with the De
Beauvallons, D'Equivellys, and Granier de Cassaignacs
in the proceeds arising from the sales of places con-
ducted in the interior cabinet of the President of the
Council.

General Lebreton has addressed the subjoined
letter to the Presse :—" Some journals attack in
terms which I have no need to qualify the reflections
which I presented on the 21st in favour of the army.
These journals only follow their trade ; when people
live on abuses they must defend them. I have no
need to answer them. But it is not such a motive
which dictated to you the phrase, General Lebr&
ton committed a great injustice in accusing the
Minister of War of having attained his position by
chance. France knows his services, and General
Lebreton who has served in Africa ought, less than
any other, to require to be reminded of them.' Permit
me then to observe that I know the services of
General Lamoriciere, as I know those of the Generals
Baraguay Bedeau, Changarnier, Duvivier,
Isiegrier, and so many others with whom I served in
the war of Africa, who have not been Ministers of
War any more than Marshal Bugeaud, but who,
however, would have been by the same title as Gen.
Lamoriciere, if good and noble services sufficed. I
was consequently able to say, without disregarding
the services of General Lamoriciere, which, in my
opinion, are not superior to those I have indicated,
that chance or fortune had placed the destinies of the
army in his hands. I could also say that he bad made
a bad use of it. As a general officer, it was my right
to think it, as representative of the people, my right
to say it."