The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-23 00:00:00

THE SUN LOND

which took place in regard to it during the passage
of the bill through the House of Commons. To
three men above all others may we consider his
grace in this matter to stand very heavily indebted.
First of all, to one who is unhappily as yet name-
less—meaning the individual, whoever he may
have been, who contrived so cleverly to " dodge "
Mr. DISRAELI out of his signature to that very
important paper which pledged the Treasury to the
renewal of the lease of Montagu House ! That very
renewal of the lease which Mr. DISRAELI had him-
self before then so peremptorily and distinctly re-
fused to countenance! The other two " friends "of
his grace in this affair of Whitehall-gardens and
the Thames Embankment—don't we all remember
who they are? Their names are at any rate not
lying perdu in this attempt at a dirty, muddy eva-
sion of the Thames Embankment immediately oppo-
site Whitehall-gardens, but especially opposite that
sacred part of Whitehall-gardens adorned by his
grace's /I ew town palazzo, Montagu House ! To
Mr. GORE and to Mr. lIORSMAN, but to the latter
gentleman especially,theDuke of BUCCLEUCII is more
largely indebted in this affair than it is very easy
for anyone upon the spur of the moment to calcu-
late. There are other kinds of candour in a friend
(so-called) than that peculiar description of candour
from enduring the effects of which Mr. CANNING,
in the famous couplet of the "Anti-Jacobin," so pas-
sionately besought Heaven that he might be spared.
And throughout the whole of the late discussions
in the House of Commons in reference to the lease
of Montagu House, and especially in reference to
the alteration (in one sense so petty, in another so
monstrous) insinuated into the scheme of the Thames
Embankment by the seven obsequious committee-
men—Mr. HORSMAN was, in the Duke of BIJC-
CLEUCII'S regard, so painfully " candid" from first
to last, that his grace might, in the recent recol-
lection of his very painful experience in this matter,
echo from his heart Mr. CANNING'S agonised sup-

plication,—
~ But, of all ills, good Heaven, Thy wrath can send,
Save, save, 0 save me from the Candid Friend I"

Fortunately for himself, the Duke of BUCCLEUCH
has known how (upon the first opportunity) to
shake his reputation free from these candid
friends of his, who were for dragging his great
name down into the dust and mire, in the hope of
keeping the vulgar daily trail of London Traffic,
tho common place stream of 'busmen, and cabbies,
and costermongers, and the like, from coming be-
tween the wind and his nobility ! " 0 for an ounce
of civet, good apothecary !" There is no help for it
now—the river front of Montagu House must needs
be desecrated after this deplorable fashion. The
House of Commons has decided it. The Duke of
BUCCLEUCH consents. The tall Mr. HIGGINS "has
his way," much after his wont. " J.o."—According
to Mr. DICKENS'S whimsical way of expressing it—
has put an end to another " J. 0.8." So that after
all, the Duke's men—" Flunkeys," Mr. CARLYLE
would probably be disposed to call them—have
toiled and moiled—in vain. The River Thames
is to be Embanked continuously upon the northern
side from the bridge at Blackfriars to the bridge at
Westminster.

Just as the " Night Poaching Prevention Bill has
passed its second reading in the Commons—a trial
takes place, founded on a sad poaching affray of
1848, as if to remind all of us of the evil which this
bill is designed to foster and protect. Its better
title would be, " The Game Preservers Indemnity
Bill ;" for, its real object is to save landlords who
gather together their game in such flocks and herds,
and in such exposed places, as to invite the poacher's
visits, the expense attendant on watching it. It is
gang poaching which is the occasion of all the
murderous battles between poachers, and game-
keepers, and it is just gang poaching which Lord
BERNERS' Bill is sure to increase. Mr. HENLEY,
whose lead his brother Tories would have wisely fol-
lowed on this occasion, showed them unanswerably,
how certainly the poachers woohl protect them-
selves by numbers against the interference of the
solitary county policemen, as they now do against
that of bands of gamekeepers. Gang work will be
increased not lessened, when it will be necessary
the poachers' safety from sunset till eight nex

morning.
Our readers have probably almost forgotten the
frightful affray near Beverley, in which Jex, the
gamekeeper, was murdered after having first en-
deavoured to murder the poacher, and his assistants
badly wounded. Seven men were tried for the of-
fence at York, and four of them are still undergoing
penal servitude for the offence. The onenow tried,
convicted of assaulting a watcher with intent
to kill, and sentenced to three years'
penal servitude, escaped the police for
a long time, but was at last captured in a brick-
yard near Scarborough. That JEX was savagely
murdered, and that the others were attacked, is
true, but that JEX was as ready to commit murder,

for he and his two companions attacked eight men,
and could have no hope of success but by murderous
violence, is equally true. If nothing can excuse
the extreme violence of the poachers, neither can
anything excuse that of the -watchers. All the
game in the preserve was surely not worth the life
of one watcher or one poacher ; but both parties
had gone out armed with deadly weapons, both in-
tending to fight rather than not to capture, or to be
captured.
It is really horrible to think of the bloody-
mindedness with which both keepers and poachers
sat out on their rounds. The reason is obvious.
The brutal stringency of the laws which pro.
tect the wild animals called game, and the bar-
barous severity of their administration by the clergy
and game preservers, make poachers desperate in
resisting capture. At the same time they know
that the keepers will be equally desperate to catch
them. Hence, as the distant or extensive preserve
is an irresistible temptation, the dangers are risked,
and these fierce, bloody contests are the result.
Now, we hold that the last thing the law of the
1.. a ahuula ao is to encourage this inexcusable
mode of game preserving. We mean, of course,
not the preservation of what we may call a natural
head of game in such numbers and over such an
extent of wood or country as may furnish ample
manly sport, but what is now understood by game-
preserving. When the pheasants roost in the
woods as numerously as hens on a farm-yard
tree, or hares issue from them in flocks almost like
sheep, destroying far more generally than the
same number of sheep wuuld consume —this is the
social crime which law ought to discourage, not to
protect. It is in vain to make more stringent laws
to prevent poaching and the murder and demorali-
sation consequent on it while these allurements to
the vice exist. Game preserves ought to be known
to the law very much as houses of ill-fame and
gambling are—as a nuisance to be abated, not in-
stitutions to be put under the special charge of the
county police. Least of all ought arbitrary and
irresponsible powers, against poachers, to be in-
trusted to the police much like those now assumed
by the gamekeepers. The result will be as was well
pointed out by Mr. HENLEY and others, that the
P°lieen'an now respected as a thief-taker, will be
bitterly
hated and assailed as a gamekeeper. In-
• deed the
"unties will have to double their police to
save the game_
Preserver's pockets.
Ono of our contemporaries, from whom we ex-