The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-27 00:00:00

`,..✓

THE SUN.
LONDON, WEDNESDAY, FEB. 27, 186

How charmingly the free institutions of France
work ! There is the Address of the Senate in
answer to the Speech from the Throne, the High-
sounding speech delivered by the EMPEROR at the
inauguration of the present session of the Imperial
Parliament. It is quite a case in point. For
recollect—this answer in reply to the Speech of
the EMPEROR begins a new system of free dis-
cussions upon his Majesty's policy, as expressed
through his owm words or through the acts of his
Ministers ! It is the initial proceeding of an
epoch in which the legislation of imperial France
will ensure to itself, outwardly, at least, somewhat
of the characteristics hitherto appertaining almost
exclusively to our English Parliament. Will it,
however ? Will it, in real earnest, bear any resem-
blance, even the remotest, to the Lords and Com-
mons down at Westminster ? We were certainly
led to believe that it would when those last impe-
rial concessions of the reigning Sovereign were
originally vouchsafed, or at least foreshadowed. It

was intimated that the PERSIGNY regime was at
length to restore to France under the Empire—free-
dom of Speech and freedom of Writing—liberty of
the Press and of the Tribune. These were the
alluring prospects held out to 40,000,000 French-
men. The Only difference, it was hinted as gravely as
possible, the only appreciable difference henceforth
to be discernible between the political institutions
of France and the political institutions of England
would be something equivalent to the contrast face-
tiously indicated by the juxtaposition of six and half-

a-dozen. France, like England, was to have open
discussion, free debate, in both Chambers. The
debates were to be reported stenographically, and
to appear first of all epitomized in the evening
journals and afterwards in extenso in the columns
of the great official organ, the Paris 2foniteur.
The newspapers generally were to be allowed,
under the auspices of Monsieur le Comte DE PER-
SIGN Y, the same privilege of unfettered writing
enjoyed on the northern side of the British Chan-
nel--with this one only distinction, that the redac-
tem., when issuing his leading article under the
auspices of the responsible gerant of the establish-
ment, would, as usual, append his individual sig-
nature to his lucubrations, whereas the Editor in
England is an individual lost sight of absolutely
under the shadow of the anonymous. Otherwise
the press of France and the press of England were
to be in freedom of discussion perfectly similar.
It was intimated even that but one subject would be
forbidden to the political writers in France—
namely that dynastic theme which said the Minis-
ter of State,
in his argument upon the matter, was
alike a the
me forbidden to political writers in Eng-
land. It fell out, unfortunately, that no sooner were
these fair promises heard of, but something else was
heard of also in regard to the liberty of the Press
in France—namely, the renewal, even under the
rEItSIGN v regime, of arbitrary proceedings in refe-
rence to the Press similar to those which had dis-
tinguished (;shall we say disgraced ?) the previous
Administration. It was not even that M. DE PER-
stcsv could "keep the Word of promise to the ear,"
and at the rametime "break it to the hope," Appear-
ances even
were not kept up—foreign newspapers
were seized at the Post-office just as insolently—
home newspapers were warned just as haughtily
as of yore, and told to keep a civil (meaning
an obsequious) pen thenceforth in the right
hands of their reclacteurs, As it proved
bus in regard to the Press, in regard to
the ostentatiously and slJeciously promised