The Sun.
London, England, 1824-02-27 00:00:00

[THE TIMES.]

We are convinced that a manly effort of the
people is all that is necessary at present to pefF
away the weak delusive plan of finance produced
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to
substitute in its stead the sensible repeal of
some heavy tax or taxes; and we are fur-
ther convinced, that without that effort, the
people have seen an end of the relief proposed
to be afforded to them by the diminution of their
burdens. Here we are to stand, and from this
point, if any unfortunate occurrence takes place, ,
provoking us to draw the sword again, we are
to begin to be taxed anew. 1f) therefore, there

ever was an occasion for bestirring ourselves,
that occasion is arrived. While Ministers went
on. in the work of unburdening us, however
slowly and unwillingly they proceeded, we might
retain ourselves ; but when they stop short, it is
time for us to move. The use, indeed, to
which they were going to apply the sums now
extorted from us, show that they considered
the fund upon which they draw—namely, our
taxes—as liable to no farther diminution. But
with respect to the scheme of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, we assert it to be a scheme of
the most novel and portentous nature in its chief
features, and to be, in truth, no finance measure
at all, nor one which can with any propriety be
introduced into tine Budget. We know very
well what the imposition or repeal of a tax is.
By the former, so much money (of which an
estimate is always required and given) is
taken from tine people ; and by the latter,
so much remitted to them. Now, compare this
description with the proposed measures of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, respecting the
silk and the wool trades. He starts a
new theory for our commerce in these articles :
and upon this theory he says he is willing to risk
the loss of 350,0001. from the wool-dealers, and
460,0001. from the silk-manufacturers ; but does
he mean to say that those sums (as is the case
in every repeal or diminution of a tax) are
respectively remitted to the dealers mention-
ed ? Does he say that he remits any thing to
them ? He limits his own losses to a specific
sum. Does he say that he can so limit the losses
of the wool-dealers and silk-manufacturers ?
or that he can even secure those persons from
ruin ? We ask him—and we defy him to give
us an answer—whether he calls his measure the
imposition or the remission of burdens to British
subjects ? The application of three hundred
thousand pounds (iet any one calculate in
his mind what a sum that is, and for repairs,
too) to be expended on Windsor Castle, is an
insult to the nation. On looking back over the
Civil Lists, and the Debates on the Droits of
Admiralty, sums of money for the repair of
Royal Palaces meet our eyes every where. But
what is more to our present purpose, we find in
the Civil List of 1816, attached to the sum of
40,0001., demanded for the repairs of all the Pa-
laces, Windsor included, the following note :
" It is also proposed, in the event of any new
" buildings being to be undertaken, or any very
44 extensive repairs beyond what the present'
44 estimate is calculated to cover, that an esti-
" mate of the expence shall be submitted
" to Parliament previously to the commence-
ment of the works, in order that their stun-
cc tion for the same may be obtained, and
44 provision made for defraying the expense
`'of the execution." The works, it may be said,
are not* commenced. No; but if the money be
granted, what use is there in having the estimate
afterwards ? Shall the money be granted in the
gross—shall three hundred thousand Pounds be
given in the lump, blindly, before any estimate
is seen ?

• See, however, the paragraph from Windsor.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

BETTING-ROOM, FEB. 26.-STATE OF THE ODDS.

It II) l)Lk,

2 to I agst Reformer
4 to 1 agst l'rudenee
5 to 1 agst Quadrille

4 to 1 agst Swiss
11 to 2 agst Reformer
10 to 1 agst Grenadier
23 to 2 agst Agnes
13 to 1 agst Banshee
33 to 1 agst Osmond

4 to I agst Prudence
6 to 1 agst Sister to Sailor
.4 to 1 agst Fillagree
1)0 NC A sT

to 1 agst Swiss
11 to 1 agst Altisidora filly
14 to 1 agst Rosanne
20 to 1 agst Elephant.

Iv 0 itTff.

t to 1 agst Don Carlos
20 to 1 agst any other.

IBY.
17 to 1 agst Don Carlos
17 to 1 agst Bakulc
13 to 1 agst Jewy
20 to 1 apt liv.rly Burly
25 to 1 agst Shim colt
, 35 to 1 agst eir Grey.
tea.
9 to 1 agVt Barossa
25 to 1 agst Miss Jig.

ST. LEGER.
25 to I. apt Ringlet
28 to 71 apt Trulla
28 to 1 agst Streatham
30 to 1 agst Diadem.

DERBYSHIRE COURSIN—G 'SOCIETY'S MEETING,
AT SUDBURY—FI.RST DAY.
Foil c,upS.
Mr. Longden's red d. Grasper h
-ea.t Mr. Smith's bl. b. Negress
Mr. Hassall's fa. d. Hercules be; ,
vert's b.d. Lord Rivers
Mr. Beer's bl. b. Venus beat Mr. Whateley's bl. b. Widgeon
Mr. Crockett's bl. and w. d.
-ogul beat Mr. Sneyd's bl.b. H ebe
Mr. Lloyd's rd. d. Beliario lJeat Mr. R. Crockett's bl. b. Sylph
Mr. Nielson's W. b. Smoker brat Mr. Davenport's Dimple
Mr. Hope's bl. b. ?...iquib beat Mr. Dicken's bl. p. d. Blucher
Mr. Hoskins's Colchicum beat Mr. Asbury's Valiant

onE,AT DOVEIIIDGE STANICS.
Mr. Calvert's b. (1,. 'Popham beat Mr. Dicken's bl. b. Nimble
Mr. Worthingtors's b. Swallow beat Mr. R. Crockett's Philo
Tarnworth's, b. d. Brief beat Mr. Hoskind's r. d. Capsicum
Mr. Whateley.'s bl.b. Wildgoose beat Mr-Longden's b.d.Remus

TUE PUPPY CUPS.
Mr. Calyer t's blk. d. Charcoal beat Mr. Hope's Harlequin
Mr. it. C rockett's r. d. Moscow beat Mr. Hassall's Heorino
Mr. Dawenport's bl. d. Dancer beat Mr. Asbury's tickled b. Fly
Mr. Lviagden's bl. b. Swallow beat Mr. Whateley's Waterhen
Mr. Worthington's bl. b. Puff beat Mr. Nixon's wh. d. Tramp
Mr. 'Kendall's bl. and wh. b. Juliet beat Mr. Lloyd's Marygold
Mr. Hoskin's bl. d. Capricorn beat Lord Tamworth's Minna
Crockett's wh. d. Peruvian beat Mr. Dicken's bl. d. Ryder

HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEB. 26.

BEAR BAITING.

Mr. R. MARTIN rose to move for a Committee to inquire
into the question of how far the indulgence in cruel sports
tended to demoralize the people. He conceived that when
man first had dominion over the animal creation it was given
him as a sort of trust, which bound him to treat all animals
with as much kindness as was consistent with their nature and
the uses to which they were placed. He contended that it was
a libel on the Aristocracy to compare their sporting pursuits
with the monstrous proceedings of those monsters at the Pit in
Westminster. The place was in Duck-lane, and had been
complained of by the Masters of Westminster as a great nui-
sance. The manner in which they fought the monkeys was
shocking to think of by any man who had a principle of hu-
manity in his heart. The animal was brought out, and not
only fought by the dogs, but literally torn to pieces, and in this
state they often existed for a long time after. The persons
who engaged in these abominable sports were the very lowest
dregs of the people. It was impossible to say, therefore, that
in abolishing them they were interfering with the amusements
of the people of England. He should like to see the man who
would get up and say that the bull-fighters were the people of
England. The real sentiments of the thinking and moral part
of the people would soon be before the House, as he had Peti-
tions to present in favour of his Bill from all parts of the United
Kingdom. He moved for a Committee to inquire into the
practice of bear-baiting, and other cruel sports, and how far
they affected the morals of the people.
Sir R. HERON rose to give his utmost opposition to the
motion, and to enter his protest against this petty, blundering,
and trumpery mode of Legislature.--(A laugh.)—lt was blun-
dering, because, when the Hon. Member formerly brought in
his Bill he said it was not his intention that it should extend
to bull-baiting. The other night, however, he stated, that
it was his glory to know that his former measure had put
down bull-baiting. That was, he gloried in his Bill having
done that which it was his intention it should not do. The
Hon. Member had thus at least given the people bull for
bull.—(A laugh.)—Notwithstanding what had been said, he
should defend his opposition to the motion upon his unwilling-
ness to interfere with the sports of the people. He could see
no difference between the sports of the poor and the rich, and
it was not true that either had led to cruelty, for in that re-
spect no doubt could be entertained but that a great ameliora-
tion had taken place in the habits of the people.. The higher
classes had set an example which had been followed by the
poor, and much less cruelty was now practiced than formerly.
If the Honourable Member would not allow bear-fighting
on account of its cruelty, why did he stop at that sport ?
What did he say to cock-fighting ? Or how could the
Honourable Gentleman think of eurturing an oyster by eat-
ing it alive ? He could see no difference between tearing a
monkey to pieces by dogs, or serving a fox in the same man-
ner. It would be also neceseary for his Majesty to enter into
a treaty with the King of `'ranee, to prevent the cruel putting
to death of frogs.—(A laugh.)—There must be no more Stras-
burgh pies made contained the liver of the goose cured
with the utmost cruelty. With regard to field sports being less
cruel than others, it only appeared to him that the Hon. Mem-
ber made an exception in favour of sporting for the pot.
Mr. W. PEEL said, he thought it high time that the House
hould see a stop put to the ultra humanity of his Honourable
Friend. He deprecated these attacks upon the amusement
of the, lower classes, and he was quite convinced that such
suleiects were unworthy the serious consideration of that
House.—(Hear, hear, hear!)—He did not mean to say that
badger fighting was likely to inculcate morals ; but what did
his lion. Friend say to the first persons in society who crowded
to the Opera every Saturday night, and remained there till
Sunday morning ? Was that setting an example of moral and
religious conduct ? If his Hon. Friend must legislate, for
which he saw no necessity, he would advise him to fly to higher
game, and not seek out the poorer classes as the first objects of
punishments, while those who ought to know better, if what he
complained of was criminal, were doing the same things. He
should oppose the motion.
Mr..l. SMITH said, that if it were for the good and com-
fort of the poor to prevent them from indulging in these cruel
sports, he thought it the duty of the House to do so. He found,
upon inquiry, that the persons who attended these fightfsmswuoercarhel
of the very lowestdeastctrainpttiinoin;aannddthenattiirtelvryaadethsteitwutaentonf
and religious education. He thought this was a matter re-
quiring the greatest. 5,
instruction which filled our Courts of Justice with criminals
and our ships with convicts. He was quite certain that no part
of the surplus money of which the country seemed possessed
could be better applied than if a sum were appropriated to the
removal of this evil. lie did not think the motion free from
objection, but upon the whole he should give it his vote.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said that the arguments of the Hon.
Member who spoke last had not at all convinced him that the
motion before the House was a proper one. The argument
that the people who frequented these sports were uneducated,
might be a good argument in favour of education, but it was
none whatever in favour of a special legislative enactment to
prohibit a particular sport. In fact the converse argument
might be drawn from it, and in the want of education might be
found an excuse, while those who had literary and other amuse-
ments ought to become the first objects of his Hon. Friend's legis-
lative warfare. It was argued that the dominion given to man
over brute creation involved a certain care and protection from
cruelty ; but was not that to extend to all classes, literate or illi-
terate ? They were in the habit of seeing the newspapers filled
with exulting and triumphant accounts of the sports of the
higher classes. A gentleman would often be seen to challenge
the whole country to a cock-fight. Why did not his Hon.
Friend put that down ?—(Mr. Martin said across the table that
he intended to do so.)—He dared say that his Hon. Friend would
go on upon every individual case that came within his know-
ledge. First he would come with a story of a cock, and then
with a story of a bull.—(Laughter.)—The subject was really
one not deserving the attention of the House. Ile thought it was
better that they should not condescend to that prying, inter-
fering spirit.—(Hear, hear !)—Perhaps it might be shown that
thete was some advantage in such proceedings ; in the case of
the regulations on the continent with regard to entering and
leaving towns, there might be some advantages of policy. Yet
he liked to see England as it was. He liked to see the free
luxuriant plant in all the vigour of its natural growth, and not
cut down into the fanciful forms and shapes which his lion.
Friend's humanity would devise. The subject was absolutely
unfit for the grave attention of Parliament. He knew its
powers of enquiry were unlimited, and it had been compared
to the elephant, who, with his proboscis could tear up the
rooted oak, or pick from the earth the minutest thing. But Lt
would ill become the dignity of the House to stoop to so minute
a subject as the present for legislation. He assured his Hon.
Friend that he acted from a sense of duty, and opposed the mo-
tion, because the dignity of that House, as well he believed as
the interest of the brute creation, required that they should re-
fuse to enter into the inquiry.
Mr. R. MARTIN replied, his answer to the question of
why he did not propose putting down field sports was, that lie
saw a material difference between them and the monstrous
cruelties which he desired to abolish. According to the argu-
ment that there was no such difference, his Right Hon. Friend
whom he knew to be fond of shooting, might with perfect
consistency appear at the pit in Westminster. Besides, his
not being able to effect complete good was no argument
against his doing as much as he could. His Right Honourable
Friend, he knew, was very laudably addicted to devotion.--
(A laugh.)—He knew he was very much in the habit of going
to church, and he would ask him what he was in the habit of
hearing from the pulpit ? Most learned Divines inculcated
the doctrines of charity and humanity ; but after that night
they might no longer think that the road to preferments. He
had one reason for not pressing a division, and that was, ten-
derness for the House. If there should be a majority against
him, and the list was given to the public, it would not be a
thing at all creditable to the House, and therefore he should
withdraw his motion.