The Sun. — 1849-08-16 (London, England)

LOUIS BLANC. himself—beginning at page 7, and ending at page 10, is printed in extenso in The Sun of this evening. M. LoniaßLasic regards the quotation as one affording proof positive that the " New World" does not contain a ferocious attack on Order, Family, and Property. We regard it as containing proof positive that the "New World" does contain a ferocious attack on Order, Family, and Property. Our t opinions as to the meaning of language are thusueifoair as diametrically opposite as our principles. Let s the l public read dispassionately the paragraphs in a and decide. Why, the very opening words of the passage are premonitory symptoms of its tendency M. Louis BLANC has been speaking of Socialism and he exclaims in a tone of scornful indignation— And against this happy necessity (namely, Socialism) what have persons presumed to invoke ? Order, Family, and Property." True he subsequently attempts to emblazon those three sacred names on his own standard, nay, he does (as we bave aireivlY  observed on a former occasion) inscribe them on his banner—but he does so after having polluted them with charges of every imaginary infamy, he does so after having blackened them with every conceivable misrepresentation, be does so after having held them up to derision and abhorrence as the symbols nowa-days of imposture, atrocity, and despotism. To repeat an illustrative expression to which we have already given utterance—Yes ! M. Louis BLAric does inscribe the names of Order, Family, and Property upon his political banner, he inscribes them on his banner as the consecrated vestments of the priesthood are borne on the shoulders of a rioter through the midst of the orgies and ribaldries of an Insurrection. M. Louis BLArlc, a panegyrist of Order, Family and Property ! Why, in France, in England, in every place in which he has ever been heard of, his name has been associated with that general disorganization which is the necessary antecedent to the establishment of Socialism ! This, forsooth, an eulogium upon Order, Family, and Property ! Why every phrase is a libel, every sentence is a slander, every paragraph is a calumnious impeachment! We have insisted, and we still insist, that it is a ferocious attack upon Order to say, that now-a-days it is "the conciliation of itself with misery, prostitution, theft, and murder, with the galleys and with the scaffold !" We have insisted, and we still insist, that it is a ferocious attack upon Family to say that now-a-days it means " brutality," and " adultery," " debauchery," and " speculation !" We have insisted, and we still insist, that it is a ferocious attack upon Property to say, that now-a-days it is so distributed that, supposing the logic of the writer to be sound, it would be by no means difficult to demonstrate within the compass of a syllogism that the old notions respecting meum et tuum are illusive, and that it would be justifiable to re-distribute all terrestrial possessions That there are abuses in Order, as at present existing, and abuses ranging from the most petty to the most stupendous acts of despotism, is undeniable. Equally undeniable is it that Family is tarnished as an institution by many paltry vices, and occasionally by diabolical crimes— and that Property is so lamentably apportioned that in many instances the worthless are battening in th( midst of indolence and luxuries, while the industrious are starving, and theatvirrtruoopuerstay7Faabmainlydo,nanedd to penury. But to declare tb Order are uow-a-day en masse so corrupted and so execrable, is certainly, to our thinking, nothing less than a monstrous misrepresentation, and an atrocious attack on what we may term (with the most profound reverence) the Trinity of Civilization. Why, by the assertion that existing Order, Family and Property are thus infamous when contrasted with some other ideal Order, Family and Property—we should be justifying a tremendous and devastating revolution, such as the world has not yet witnessed ; we should be goading on class against class, party against party, sex against sex; we should be inflaming passions that ought rather to be allayed, and exciting appetites that would prove insatiable. The truth is this, that we do not the less clearly than M. Louis &law perceive the evils infesting our present istitutions, but we would REFORM, while he would