The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-22 00:00:00

.'THURSDAY EVENING,

and majestic image of French regeneration. We may
now despise the efforts of calumny." Still however
excellent in some particulars the Constitution of 1793
may have been, there was a capital error in its mode
of inauguration—an error which led to its speedy an-
nihilation. It was traced in letters of blood. In the
beginning of June, 1848, another body of revolu-
tionists have framed another Constitution for Repub-
lican France—a constitution which resembles its pre-
decessor in some particulars, while in principle it is
directly opposed- to it. In comparing the drafts of
these two constitutions we recognise the rapid de-
velopment of civilization and Christianity during the
last half century. The framers of the first Repub-
lican Constitution aspired after liberty, it is true, but
it was a liberty of that spurious kind where
men " call it freedom when themselves are
free." One of their first liberal acts was
to declare liable to arrest all persons who "by
their conduct, their relations, their conversation, or
their writing, showed themselves partisans of tyranny
or federation, or who had not incessantly manifested
their devotion to the Revolution,"—that is to say, all
persons who might happen to differ in opinion from
themselves. The new French Constitution declares,
on the contrary, in one of its first articles, that
" Liberty" consists among other things "in the right
of associating; of petitioning; of exercising one's
religion ; of manifesting his thoughts and opinions
by means of the press or otherwise." The exercise of
these rights has no other limits than " the
rights and liberties of other nations, and
the public security." Another and a most
striking difference between these Constitutions
is, that whereas in the former, according to the
ironical but truthful remark of CHABOT, the
guarantee of liberty was the guillotine, the first
article of the latter declares the fundamental prin-
ciple of social duty to consist in the practice of that
sublime maxim so beautifully termed the golden rule
of Christianity—" Do unto others as ye would be
done by." The recently formed Constitution is
almost as democratic in form as that which ROBES-
FIERRE styled the most democratic that ever existed,
and we are inclined to consider it infinitely more
liberal in effect. The only respect in which it
may appear less democratic than its predecessor,
is in its proposing triennial in place of annual Parlia-
ments. In its other articles it realises the Utopian
dreams of Chartism. Every citizen aged 21 years is
to be an elector, and every citizen aged 25 is to be
eligible as a representative. A direct tax can be fixed
for one year only. Trial by jury is to be very gene-
rally applied, and in the jury of the High Court of
Justice, before which crimes and offences against the
State are to be tried, the verdict of guilty is to be
decided by a majority of two-thirds. These are some
of the most important innovations suggested in the
draft of the Constitution. The whole document, which
is very lengthy, is well drawn up, but for the
most part it only contains an enumeration of
those great maxims which are the groundwork of

social community and of those liberal institutions,
with the value of which we ourselves are practically
acquainted. A Constitution may look well on paper,
it may even elicit applause when delivered from the
tribune by the earnest voice of ARMAND MARRAST,
but for all that it may be found worthless in practice-
Such, however, will not, we are inclined to think, be
the fate of this Constitution, because, although
aiming after the perfect in theory, it condescends
to the possible in practice. It is certainly
far inferior as a composition to that sub-
lime chclaratiou of rights of ROBESPIERRE—a do-
cument containing an eloquent demonstration of
human perfectability—a document which might be
treasured up_by the Christian and the philanthropist,
were it nut sullied by the blood-stained hand which
traced it. We shall more particularly analyse this
new Constitution when it shall have been adopted
by the National Assembly. In the meantime we are
satisfied with the practical liberty which it promises
—a liberty not likely to degenerate into tyranny in
the persons of the powerful few, nor into anarchy in
the hands of the mighty many. Nevertheless, while we
rejoice in finding how greatly the spirit of moderation
has become developed during the last fifty years, let
us not forget that, without the violent Republicanism
of 1793, we should not, perhaps, have witnessed the
moderate Liberalism of 1648. In the first revolution
the people were like slaves newly emancipated from
their fetters. They felt their powers, and they disco.
vered their rights, but they neither knew how to use
the one nor how to obtain the other. An impos-
sible ideal enthralled the imaginations of the
nobler spirits of that epoch, but, practically, the
liberal dogmas of the multitude were but the bab-
blings of children unlearned in their mother-tongue.
Fifty years of apprenticeship (we may suppose)
taught them their lesson. We shall now (let us
hope) witness the realisation of those sublime visions
which agitated the enthusiastic heart of ROLAND,
which inspired the earnest eloquence of VERGNIAUD,
which gleamed through the, dismal philanthropy of
ROBESPIERRE, and which have recently foiled such
an able interpreter in the ardent and high-soused
LAMARTINE.

The Committee of Secret Service Money' yester-
day called before it the Members of the Executive
Government, to demand explanations of the manner
in which 1,200,090 f. had been disposed of in the in-
tPrval between the 24th of February and the Ist of
June. M. LEDRU ROLLIN, through whose hands, a:-
Minister of the Interior, this amount of 50,000/.
sterling passed, was the chief object of their inter-
pellations ; every effort was made to resist inquiry,
and the traditions of the monarchy were appealed to
as to the privilege of the Executive to dispose of such
funds without rendering an account. The Committee,
however, declared that under a republic such secresy
and irresponsibility are inadmissible, and M. LEDRU
ROLLIN and his successor, M. RECURT, were ordered
to supply to a sub-committee the vouchers necessary
to show the application of the large sum which has
been disposed of.