The Sun.
London, England, 1864-03-29 00:00:00

from Opelousas, should march upon New Orleans
from the west, v, kilo Polk moves rapidly from
the east upon the same point, the most important
of Federal oonquests may slip from their grasp,
and with its loss the evacuatio❑ of the whote
south-west would become a necc-ssity. In their
movement towards the city the Confederates
ought not to be deterred by the infamous
threat that if New Orleans has to be evacuated the
Federl gunboats will first shell and destroy the city.
Such a crime, calamitous as it would be in its re-
sults to the South, would eventually recoil o❑ the
heads of those who had perpetrated it. We do not
for a moment doubt that the Northern commanders
are capable of it. Though the destruction of a de-
fenceless city would be even more ucjastifiable than
the attempt to burn Charleston behind its triple
circle of forts, we cannot affect surprise at any
cowardice or any atrocity on the part of the men
who planned the surprise and destruction of Rich-
mon by a cavalry raid, including in the programme
the murder of the Southern President and every
member of his Government. No further attempt
has been made to question the authenticity of the
vile documents on the body of Dahlgren. It is
true that Kilpatrick endeavours to make out that
Dahlgren exceeded his instructions. This is no
more then is to bo expected of him. A man who
could place assassination would not stick at a false-
hood ; and it is easy to glees over the matter when
his wretched tool has died by the sword. The cha-
racter of this chivalrous cavalry officer is shown by
the brutal manner in which he has sought to
avenge his failure. Among the fertile pastures which
skirt the York River in Virginia is one particularly
beautiful tract of country, called King and Queen
County. The industrious farmers of this district
have meddled as little as possible with the war
that has desolated the rest of the Old Dominion. In
this quiet corner they hoped that the rush of battle
would pass them by unharmed, and leave them in
peace to cultivate their corn and tobacco. It was
not to be so. Kilpatrick has failed in his desperate
ride against Richmond. Many of his officers and
men have been taken prisoners, and will be fortu-
nate if they are allowed to share, on equal terms,
the fare of the Belle:sle prisoners whom they
wished to liberate. Smarting with rage at the
thought, the gallant Kilpatrick bethought him-
self of the women and children and unarmed
men, on whom he could wreak his vengeance
with impunity. The horde of avengers
swept over King and Queen County. A garden of
Eden in the morning, ere night it was howling
wilderness. Villages were destroyed, dwelling•
houses sacked, homesteads given to the flames, the
inhabitants flying ruined to the fields, pursued and
slaughtered. The horsemen of Kilpatrick left their
track in blood and ashes. And so the manes of
Dahlgren were pacified. Can we wonder that
people in Europe should turn sickened and disgusted
from the oft recurring news of a war which is
illustrated by such deeds, and in such profusion
that it has become monotonous in horror ? What
does surprise us is, that there should still be any
left among us, any truehearted Christian men, any
delicate, merciful women, to sympathise still with
a nation the tale of whose deeds reads so much like
the " Newgate Calendar." Revolted by these
histories, it cannot be expected of us that we should
pretend to take much interest in the political
intrigues, the continual changes of command, which
argue the weakness and imbecility of the Washing-
ton misrule. What particular concern of ours is it
whether Mr. Lincoln is to be re-elected, or whether
General Grant is to succeed General Halleck in the
chief command of the armies of the Federal Union ?

TIMES.—A case was tried last week at Cambridge
which may certainly be termed a remarkable one,
though for very unusual reasons. It was a case
admitting of no doubt, of very little defence, and of
as little uncertainty in the verdict. It involved no
heavy damages, affected no commercial interests,
resolved no intricate question of law. In all these
points it was absolutely without importance; but it
possessed, nevertheless, an aspect notable enough
to excite much comment and invite special reflec-
tion. I❑ its actual form it was an action for tres-
pass. The Stewards of the Jockey Club had warned
Mr. Irwin Lewis Willes off Newmarket-heath, and
as that gentleman had appeared there in despite
of their notice, they indicted him accordingly. .No
doubt the Jockey Club owns the Heath and can
regulate the admission to the ground. In this
sense Newmarket Racecourse is private property.
but, exactly in the same sense, theatres are private
property too, and we can hardly illustrate the case
better than by supposing that the proprietors of
Drury-lane or Covent-garden should, by their com-
mittee or stewards, warn off the premises any thea-
trical critic who had given an unfavourable opinion
of any piece or actor. This they have certainly the
right—that is to say, the power—to do ; but what
would be thought if it were exercised ? What
would be said if the managers of our operas, who,
like the Stewards of the Jockey Club, do enforce their
rights against objectionable characters, should ex-
tend his punishment, as the Stewards have done,
to a writer who had offended them by a report
in a public journal ? Would it not be evident
that such a measure, besides being arbitrary in its
character, was detrimental in its effects to the inte-
rests of the public ? What results from the proceed-
ings at Newmarket is this—that a report from that
place on the doings there msy now be regarded as
conveying not what the reporter would wish to say,
but what the authorities of the Jockey Club per-
mit to be said, There is no limit to the " warnings"
which may thus be given. If the system were car-
ried out and applied to other public entertainments
or transactions, an honest, independent report would
be thought an impossibility, and one of the best
securities for public morality would soon disappear.
It is surprising to us that these consecluer.ces were
not foresee❑ by the committee of the Jockey Club.
They are peculiarly interested in the maintenance
of all these safeguards. The morality of the turf,
which they charge themselves with protecting, is
❑ot so solidly established that they can afford to
dispense with any of its supports, and nothing could
aid them more than free criticism and perfect pub-
licity in upholding those principles which, as is ad-
mitted on all sides, they are sincerely anxious to
maintain. It would have been better to put up
with even unmerited or unjustifiable criticism than
to interfere by the exercise of a private right with
the freedom of the Press. That right undoubtedly
existed, but it was a great mistake to extend its
application front cases obviously within its scope to
one in which the only offence was the expression
of an opinion.