The Sun.
London, England, 1856-10-25 00:00:00

LINDON, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1855.

Nearly six months ago, on May-day in this
present year, when commenting on the onslaught
by Count WALEWSKI on the Belgian Press, we
unhesitatingly designated it as a " formidable
attack on British institutions, which, although
nominally directed against Belgium, was really
aimed against this country ;" and in reference
to the surrendering by a faint defence of the
liberty of journalism and the rights of an inde-
pendent kingdom, inquired—" What answer can
be made when the precedent wablished with re-
gard to Belgium is attempted to be followed to
its legitimate results against Great Britain ?"

Our forebodings have already been too pain-
fully verified. A direct attack has already been
made against the freedom of the Fourth Estate in
England. A feeler has just been thrown out in the
Moititeur, couched undoubtedly in cautious terms,
but there can be no doubt as to the animus of the
article, or the quarter from whence the official
journal derived its inspiration. It is neither
more nor less than a significant hint for the esta-
blishment of a Censorship in the united kingdom
—a hint that will speedily be followed by a direct
demand for stringent restrictions on those who,
through good report, and bad report, have, with
few and trivial exceptions, been the vigilant and
indefatigable champions of national liberty. We
say this in honour of our brethren of all shades
and varieties of political opinion. That there
will be considerable differences must be antici-
pated. But almost all are actuated by an earnest
desire to promote what they believe to be for the
benefit of the community ; and any flagrant abuse,
or manifestly wrongful act, will be condemned
with extraordinary unanimity. Indeed it must
be so, when we consider how greatly dependent
they are on public opinion, and the support that
will never be accorded to those who do not pursue
their vocation with honesty and sincerity.
Under the system thus established any erro-
neous views will be at once grappled with, and
truth is generally
elicited in the discussion,
any unfounded statement may be promptly
and efficiently repelled, and ample redress
obtained. by the injured parties. The law
of libel is sufficiently stringent to pre-
vent any party legally responsible from
resting on a bed of roses. We say, " legally
responsible," because it is not merely the author
of an objectionable article, but even the proprie-
tor, printer, publisher, and, in fact, every person
in any degree concerned in giving circulation to
the obnoxious paragraph, who may be punished.
It is, in fact, almost the only case in which a
party may be criminally convicted, altnough per-
fectly innocent of any wrongful intention or motive !
The French Government really—.though nomi-

nally the Editor of the Moniteur—publishes the
following statement :—" For some time past
different organs of the English Press have endea-
voured to spread calumnies respecting the
French Government, which are the more odious
:t3 they are concealed under an anonymous
mask, and can only be answered by contempt.
We are aware of the respect which is paid
to the liberty of the press in England ; and
in thus pointing out its deviations we confine our-
selves to an appeal to the common sense and good
faith of the English people to warn them against
the dangers of a system which, by destroying the
confidence between the two Governments, would
-tend to disunite two nations whose alliance is the
best guarantee of the peace of the world."
Now we positively and emphatically deny the
truth of this statement. We call upon the
Moniteur, if it would avoid the imputation of
wilful mendacity, to specify some of these
" calumnies," which different organs of the
English Press have endeavoured to circulate
respecting the French Government. That they
have commented fearlessly on the acts of
that Government that they have tried to
turn the EMPEROR from what they be-
lieved to be injurious to himself and his country
is indisputable, and in that they will persevere,
utterly ind►fferent to the wishes of Czar or Kaiser,
Emperor or King. Nothing has been said against
the French, that has not been just as energetically
urged against our own Government whenever the
occasion required it. We believe that many
officials in this country would be only too happy
to obtain an opportunity for "gagging the Press,"
and placing it more in accordance with German
models. But they well know that the mere
attempt would be the signal for their own evic-
tion from office—that England would never tole-
rate a crusade against journalism.
It is therefore perfectly ridiculous to assert
that any statement in an English journal
could have the effect of " destroying the
confidence between the two Governments,"
or to disunite the peoples. The EMPEROI,
is perfectly well aware that in such mat-
ters the Government is perfectly helpless, and
that all the powers of France and Germany, aye,
and of Russia in addition, could not induce the
people of Great Britain tamely to surrender one of
their most highly-prized institutions, which has
justly been regarded as one of the greatest palla-
diums of national liberty. When Louis NAPOLEON
merits praise he shall receive it; but we shall not,
under any circumstances, strive to toady him,
or to gratify his vanity, at the expense of truth.
We feel a strong and cordial friendship for the
brave and high-minded people of France, but we
cannot blind ourselves to the errors of the Go-
vernment, that may prove seriously prejudicial
to their best interests. The assertion of
truth is not " calumny.'' Nor can well
established journals be spoken of as
" anonymous sources," worthy only of con-
temptuous silence. It is true that the name of
the writer is not affixed to every article, but the
names of the parties concerned in the getting up
of each day's publication are by no means kept
secret, and they willingly hold themselves both
morally and legally responsible for everything
that appears under their sanction and authority.
We cannot conclude without referring to an
excellent article which we have extracted from the
Daily News, which deserves the highest credit for
the manly and straightforward view it takes on
this important subject.

Austria still occupies the Principalities. So
far, indeed, from exhibiting any intention to
withdraw her forces, they have advanced and
taken possession of new points. The excuse is,
the shuffling way in which Russia has acted since
the Treaty of Paris. Instead of being all docility
and good faith, as a beaten power might be ex-
pected to be, she has presumed to have and to
hold interpretations of her own, which, as a matter
of course, tend to her advantage, and are opposed
to those of the Allies. She can't see why the
Serpents' Island should not be in her
possession, nor why Bolgrad should not be in-
cluded in her boundary line. The Allies tell
her, because her possession of either would
be in violation of the spirit of the Treaty
of Paris, menacing to Turkey, and dangerous to
the peace of Europe. Still Russia can't quite see
it, and must have her claims submitted to the
consideration and judgment of a Congress, which
is to be held in the French capital.

A practical comment on " the precious peace t"
We don't remember its being recorded of war
that it gives sight to the blind, but there can be
no doubt that the victors in a great struggle have
considerable influence over the mental vision of
the vanquished. A really beaten enemy, when
admitted to terms, is generally prompt to see
what the intentions of the victors are. A sound
drubbing is universally considered a good eye-
water. Russia, however, can't see with the eye 3
of the Allies, nor judge with their judgment, and
the inevitable deduction is Russia did not get
enough. The eye-water was but imperfectly ap
plied. Russia, in other words, only consented to
a truce in order to take breath, and the hundred
millions we have spent—to say nothing of the
heavy outlay of our Allies—i 4 so much money
thrown to waste.

The excuse, and the fact which constitutes its
groundwork, are alike discreditable, if not alike
inconsequential. What necessity was there for
Austria to occupy the Principalities at all—or,
having done so, to continue in occupation after
the Russians were known to have re-crossed the
Pruth "for good ?" We know of none. The
only reason we can see for either procedure is the
accomplishment of her insidious designs. The
population certainly did not seek her aid. No
procedure of theirs was of a nature to call
for it. They were able to manage their own
affairs. They were glad to be relieved from the
Russian incubus. They had no liking whatever
for Austrian rule. They regarded it with dislike
and apprehension, and not, as they have found,
without good cause. What service could an
Austrian occupation be of to the Allies ? What
real milita& advantage ? What credit could it
do them ? The history of every Austrian inter-
vention, it was well known, was a history of
pillage, brutality, and massacre. It could do the
Allies no good to have aid of this sort. Besides
Austria was notoriously suspected of a desire to
appropriate the Principalities to her own uses.
In no sort of way was an Austrian occupation de-
sirable, by none ought it to have been called for,
and we know of none who did so. The occupa-
tion of the Principalities ought never to have
been permitted.

Strong, however, as the reasons against such
occupation were, every succeeding week of it
added to their strength. The friendly occupation
turned out worse than the hostile. The departure
of the Russians was within a week regretted.
The Austrian soldiery out•Cossacked the Cossack.
The population were plundered ; each succeeding
day told a fresh story of brutal outrage. The
husband or father was cut down while endeavour-
ing to protect his outraged wife or child. The
prison, the cord, and the bullet did their deadly