The Sun. — 1822-10-01 (London, England)

NEW TIMES.] It is always with pain that we feel ourselves compelled to censure a respectable Contemporary—but the disgraceful attacks in The Morning Chronicle of yesterday on the French Government, and the infamous personalities levelled against two honourable individuals ranking high in the administration of the French law, call aloud for the indignant reprobation of every man of honour and integrity. We presume the Editor will shelter himself under the plea, that these atrocious libels were not his own writing, but that of a Parisian Correspondent ; but though some latitude is certainly to be allowed on this account, yet the plea is not sufficient to justify such glaring violations of every thing like justice and decency. We shall -state the facts : and leave it to every candid mind to determine, whether the article in question is not to be ranked among the worst excesses of a licentious Press. It is matter of notoriety, that in several distant parts of France there burst out, nearly at the same moment, several treasonable insurrections, under the accursed symbol of rebellion and regicide—the tricolor flag. It is unquestionable, that if the traitors had succeeded, the Monarchy and the Charter would have been alike overthrown, the Monarch and Royal Family massacred, France once more deluged with blood, and Europe once more desolated by revolutionary war.—Almighty God, in his , goodness, frustrated the designs of the traitors ; several of them were arrested and brought to trial, and four of them were condemned. Of their guilt not even impudence itself affects to doubt ; and the utmost that is pretended, even by the Correspondent of The Morning Chronicle, is that there was some technical defect in the legal proof of the overt act. The Judges and Jury, however, decided that there was no such defect; the legal conviction went along with the moral certainty of guilt, and never was sentence more rightfully passed, or more properly executed. The four unhappy men suffered as justly, and for the very same crime, as ThiStlewood, I ngs, and their wretched associates. Nt vertheless a letter appears in The Morning Chronicle, asserting, that " in this case the forms and principles of law and justice have been monstrously violated ;" that their execution was " a judicial crime"—" a murder"—" a judicial assassinatign"  —thai it was not a punishment, but " a mere political measure of terror, a Coup d'Etat, a massacre !" What, we ask, can have been the motive for these false and detestably wicked assertions, but to stir up among the French hatred against , their King and of his Government, to excite new rebellions, and to cause future civil war ?—The personal attacks on the King's Attorneys General at Paris and Poitiers are, in their way, quite as wicked, and their object is as little to be mistaken. These eminent persons are accused of having shewn 64 a fury outrageously indecent " of having evinced " the passion and exultation of a cannibal savage"—of having presented an "atrocious and disgusting exam ple of illegality and ferocity." It is asserted that their 66 names will ever excite just horror "—and they are reckoned with others under the scandalous designation of  cc purveyors of massacre," against whom will be excited in France " abhorrence and vindictive sentiments." This base and cowardly mode of marking out individuals for the dagger of the assassin will excite in every honourable mind a detestation of its author, which nothing that we say can possibly exaggerate or inflame.