The Sun.
London, England, 1835-10-13 00:00:00

nation.

Now, as far as we have heard of any comparison
made by Liberals betweenthe two attacks on the Press,
we cannot perceive any injustice in the analogy which
they have drawn. They say that Louis PIIILLIPPE
has done what CHARLES X. subverted his dynasty
by attempting—namely, destroyed the Liberty of the
French Press. They say, further, that in so doing he
has committed the great and principal sin of CHARLES
-X., by violating the Charter, which he had sworn to
&fend. Let the Globe, if it really means to palliate
the acts of the French Government, defend it against
these charges, instead of wasting its time in demolish-
ing exaggerations, which it has first been obliged to
invent, and put into the mouths of those who differ

from it.
The Globe, indeed, seems to think that the FIESCIII
laws have interfered but little with the freedom of the
Press. " They have not even slackened the fire of
the opposition Press for a single day." We think
that extinguishing a number of papers, parti-
cularly in the provinces, is something very like
" slackening their fire ;" and this these laws have
clone by their provisions respecting the can-
tionnement, which have, in fact, produced ,as
scandalous a destruction of private property, as has
disgraced any modern tyranny. Then we arc told that
the French opposition papers still attack the Ministers
with bitterness. They do ; they are not yet gagged :
but how long will they enjoy the liberty, of which at
the outset it is not thought prudent to deprive them ?
What guarantee has the French Press for any free-
dom ? Under the vague wording of the new laws what
passage in a newspaper is free from prosecution ? Be-
fore juries voting by ballot, where the completest res-
ponsibility is most wanted, and deciding by simple
majorities—before a Chamber of Peers, packed by the
prosecutor, and filled with all the slavish supporters of
every successive tyranny of the last half-century—be-
fore Carlist judges and Carlist peers—what chance
has the innocence of the Press ? A chance of impri-
sonment for life in the dungeons of the Tropics. We
say then that the liberals are sight in saying that Louis
PHILIPPE has, by these laws, as effectually destroyed
the liberty of the Press, as CHARLES X. would
have done by the Censorship, which he endeavoured
to establish. And, as journalists, we say that we should
write more freely with the prospect of having our effu-
sions erased by a Censor, than punished by such pe-
nalties and such judges as the Press of France is now
subjected to.
The Liberals also accuse LOUIS PHILLIPPE of
violating the Charter just as grossly as CHARLES X.
did. An article of the Charter declares that the
offences of the Press shall be cognizable only by juries.
The FIEsCRI laws subject them to the Chamber of
Peers. The only excuse the Globe urges for this is,
that " these laws have passed with all the regular
forms of legal discussion ;" that is, that the packed
and ♦enal Chambers, representing 180,000 of the
thirty-two millions of the French people, have lent
themselves as accomplices to the infraction of the
Charter. For the Globe, we suppose, knows that the
Chambers have no more right than the KING•to alter
the Charter—the fundamental, and, according to
French notions, the unalterable compact between the
people and their governors. The " forms of legal dis-
cussion" cannot legalize an usurpation of power.
" The passive and apparent acquiescence of the whole
class represented by the National Guard," means sim-