The Sun.
London, England, 1856-10-31 00:00:00

`l4eubt that it covers the wh-(51-eiriiiiiid which is occupied
by commerce. Now, the French Government has not
confined its activities within a purely political sphere.
It has not been satisfied with laying an embargo on
the press, and repressing the liberty of private indi-
viduals. It has been as active in commerce as in
politics ; and, unless grave mistakes have got abroad
about the simplest matters of fact, or the ettabli hed
maxims of political economy are wrong, we are now
suffering, in the strin iency of the money market,
for the policy of the French Government. In such
circumstances have we no right to speak ? Are we to be
prevented from criticising actions performed in the face
of day, with all the pretences of philanthropy and sound
statesmanship, but which we believe to be only less in-
jorious to ourselves than they are to Franc.' If it is
true that members of the French Government have lent
themselves to a system of excessive speculation, to a
wholesale tampering with public credit, and have con-
descended to use Ibis policy as an instrument for building
up their own fortunes, are we to bedenounced as calum-
ni3tors because we trace these tortuous deeds to their
source, and expose their true character by confronting
them with the maxims of science and the dictates of
public morality ? The Emperor of the French is not
nice about measures when his own interests are con-
cerned ; surely he will not refuse us permission to take
care of ours.

But why this sensitiveness to the comments of the
English press ! We were not aware that they ever
penetrated further than the French Post-office. Unless
the Vrench Government allows itself a liberty which it
refuses to Frenchmen in general, it must he profoundly
ignorant of any unfriendly sentiments which find their
way into English newspapers. If truth is so disag,reeable,'•
it would be easy to carry the system of repression a little
further. Let the members of the Government place'
themzelves on the common hoodwinked level, and our
severest strictures will not harm their nerves. Perhaps
we have sometimes sp ken more freely than we might
have done if we had not known that the French Govern-
ment knew too well how to protect itself, and that the
- censor's scissors supplied a ready antidote to the bane of
free discussion. If we are to understand thatievery French-
man who knows English will in future be permitted to
read what we write, and that French journals will
not be prevented from translating into their columns
those pungent observations which may be thought
likely to prove acceptable to their readers, English
journalists may be induced to be more scrupulously
guarded in their expressions. This would be
eotnetbing like "an appeal to the good sense
and loyalty of the English people." Happily we are
not menaced, as Belgium was menaced, with an armed
intervention in case of non-compliance. We are simply
" forewarned " of the " dangers of a system which de-
stroys c mfidenee between the two Governments." Why
this avowed moderation ? We confess the principle on
which it is adopted is not quite satisfactory. The Aroni-
teur sayi.:-7".We know the respect which surrounds the
liberty of the press in England, and therefore in pointing
out its errors we confine our-elves to making an appeal,"
Lc. The liberty of the press is surrounded with quite as
much respect in Belgium as in this country, yet this did
not prevent Count Walewski from intimating that un-
less some restrictions were Placed upon it an armed in-
tervention would follow. We are in precisely the same
Predicament, if we are not the greater sinners of the two.
Why, then, is not the same remedy threatened ? It may,
of course, be said that England is able to defend herself.
eWe have a well-appointed army and a powerful fleet,
evieidle are quite able to guard our printing offices against
,oste invasion of imperial censors. We can see no other
season for the difference between Count Walewski's
language to Belgium and the language just addressed to
ourselves in the Moniteur, and it leaves an impression
by no means comfortable. It is another illustration of
the policy which we are assisting to carry out against
Naples—a policy which makes up by astuteness for what
it wants in hdnesty, which adopts one rule for the weak
and another for the strong, and reduces a so-called
system of moral influence to a mere calcalation of physical
ability to resist attack.
We do not pretend to be alarmists. We believe the
Emperor of the French is desirous of remaining in
alliance with this country, and if that alliance is re.
Seicted to legitimate objects 'we have no wish to see
ie severed. At, the same time, this manifesto in the
Moniteur makes its appearanct), at an awkward mo-
ment. The previous acts of the alliance have placed
us in the midst of eemplications which .make it
difficult to ascertain hoir we stand. Causes of jealousy
aro rife on all sides. e A mischievous rivalry is going
on at Constantinople. The question of the principa-
lities, involving the mode of government to be adopted
in those provinces and the continuance of Austria's occu-
pation, is yet insettled. The recent demand of the Porte
for the recall of our ships from the Black, supported, as
is alleged, by the influence of M. Thouvenel, may furnish
a new occasion of difference. To crown all, there is
the Pr 'teen intervention in the affairs of Italy, which
has already assumed so many shapes, and is on the point
of making us look so supremely ridiculous. Whither
will these things lead ? Assuredly it behoves us to hold
the reins of our foreign policy with firm hands, and,
above all, to hold them in our own. As for the press,
we know our province, and we mean to retain it, come
what may. We have, doubtless, certain sins of our
own to answer for, but they are not such as our impe-
rial censor has a right to condemn, and, with whatever
other trophy he may adorn his marvellous career, he
must not hope to intimidate or stifle the free voice of
the English people.