The Sun.
London, England, 1824-04-09 00:00:00

[MORNING HERALD.]

it has been a matter of some surprise to those
who have attended the career of the Ministers
and partisans of the French Revolution and of
Buonaparte, that Cambaceres was so mildly
treated by the House of Bourbon since its re-
storation. Though a man of rather moderate
character and conduct, he never. lost the confi-
dence of the Emperor and the Revolutionists,
and there could not be a question of his stre-
nuous hostility to the return of the old dynasty.
The enigma has at length been solved upon the
death of this personage. It appears that he was
in possession of certain letters which were ad-
dressed to him during the wra of his power,
and which would compromise high person-
ages.—Upon the death of Cambaceres these
letters became, as a matter of course, part
of the inheritance of his heir-at-law, and
the announced publication of the poAhu-
humoua Memoirs of the Ex-Chancellor spread
consternation, particularly at the Tuileries.--
The mode adopted to prevent the apprehended
scandal would do credit to the Cabinets of St.
Petersburgh, Constantinople, or Madrid. .Z he
Government claims the
theheletterqusaessttn hashioeprop akel
property of
the State, and pending
forcible possession of the effects in dispute !
There are some circumstances iirJrth notice con-
nected with the seizure. Such is the myste-
rious nature of these letters, that no description
of their st/bject matter or cone its is to be le•
corded. In the next place, Cambaceres had not
for ten y ars before
.his death experienced any
public fun tions, 3,-et was he not called upon to
deliver them Op to any successor or to the state.
As a question of individual right, it is important
only in France. But as affecting the history of
the French Revolution, the spoliation is a mat-
ter of general outrage and regret. There is a
report, and it is oouetenanred by some remarks
in (he French Papers, that the seized letters were
addressed by',the present King of France toCam-
bacers—then the colleague of Buonaparte in the
Consulship--m eking certain propositions, which
Cambaceres declined. The publication of-these
letters would, no doubt, throw great upon
the intrigues connected with the French Revolu-
tion, and which even divided the Members of the
House of Bourbon. But even their suppression
is not without importance. It lends to authen-
ticate the Coblentz Papers, and to obtain credit
for the overtures reported to have been made by
the exiled family, even to Robespierre. A very
able pleading against this act of spoliation has
been published by M. Dupini one of the most
eminent of the French Advocates, and brother of
the .writer so named, who is so well known in
this country. But there can be no doubt the
seizure will be justified, and the suppression of
the papers ordered, for the Council of state is, in
the last resort, both party and Judge.

[BRITISH PRESS.]

An nccount has been laid on the table of the
House of Commons, by the Home Secretary, of
the number of foreigners sent out of this country
under the Alien Act, from the Ist of Jan., 1816,
to the commencement of the present year. This list
details the names of the individuals, the ports at
which they were embarked, and .the countries to
which they were sent. Within the eight years, 17
individuals are returned as having been banished
from these shores under the provisions of this
Bill ; twelve of these were males, and live fe-
males. Among the former, in 1817, was the Count
de Las Cases, and Emanuel de Las Cases, his son;
in 1818, General Gourgaud ; in 1819, Madame
Moutholon ; in the last year only one, Count
Vito Batten], who had made himself so remark-
able by his attacks on Prince Esterhazy. In
1816, no exercise was made of its powers; in
1820 also none ; in 1822 the same return ; and
last yt ar, Count Battera was the only
and he, from his dangerous and troublesome cha-
racter, deserved to come within its powers.
'Thus, though we cannot advocate the renewal of
this arbitrary Act, its powers have certainly, with
very few exceptions, been mildly applied. Count
de. Las Casas, we think, was hardly treated,
and so was General Gourgaud. Madame Mon-
tholon, on her return flow St. Helena, expe-
rienced also excessive harsh treatment; we know
of no danger that
.could have been apprehended
from her residence here, and she was nut suffered

even to land, after a most fatiguing voyage. But
considering the numbers of foreigners who for
years have crowded to these shores, induced by
necessity or political persecution on, the Conti-
nent; this statute has affected them very lightly,
and fallen upon very few. Within the last two
years, since Lord. Sidmouth's resignation, and
Mr. Peel's accession to office, it has scarcely
been exercised at all. We cannot conceive this
Act to be a matter of imperious necessity ; and
yet, from the vast influx of foreigners of every
nation, and often most dangerous characters, to
these shores, some restraining measure is neces-
sary, as regards foreigners who are resident here.
The same laws that apply to the subjects of this
country are sufficient to controul them ; but they
give no power of deporting them out of England,
except as with a natural-born subject, on convic-
tion of felony. We trust that Mr. Canning's
liberal anticipations may be realized, and that
this Act, in its present state, will not need a
revival. We do not think it would be either
prudent or safe to suffer thousands of disap-
pointed foreigners to throng these shores, wholly
unrestrained. The existing laws of this country
would not be sufficient to check at once any dan-
m
gerous tnachinations theyight form, either against
the safety of this, or other countries with whom
we are in alliance, and with whom we might
be seriously implicated by such projects, hatch-
ed in this country. But a salutary enactment
may be devised, less harsh and arbitrary than
the present Alien Bill, whose character and
clauses are scarcely suited to the spirit of this
free country. It is but justice to the foreigners
now resident here to say that their conduct in
general is most peaceable and correct. We hear
of few violations of any sort committed by them;
and, with the• exception of the quack Rosin-
ski, tried at Manchester the other day, we do
not remember one of them brought for some time,
on any serious charge, to the bar of a Court
of Justice ; they are in general temperate
and industrious. Hundreds at present re-
sident here are the hopeless victims of ruthless
despotism : for them the sincerest commise-
ration has been shew I:, and is still uni-
versally felt. This country has long been a refuge
to the unfortunate and persecuted of all nations;
they have fled to its shores with a certainty of
protection the moment they landed on them.
We wish that high and interesting character still
to attach to England. The day has passed when,
if ever it was necessary, there is any present
cause for fencing in our shores by an enactment
of this sort. It is not liberal either in its inten-
tions or its spirit ; and we trust it will not be
again renewed, at least as it now stands.

PROVINCIAL JOURNALS.

( From the Southampton County Chronicle. )

We regret extremely the ill success that has
attended the praise-worthy efforts of the zealous and humane
Member for Galway (Mr. MARTIN) to protect the brute
creation, or, in other words, to prevent Cruelty to animals.—
We lament this sincerely, because we do not think such a
subject beneath the consideration of the House of Commons,
and because those whceare prone by nature, or habit, or both,
to indulge in wanton and cruel sports, will, we fear, take en-
couragement from the manner in which the late attempts
of that gentleman have been scouted from that House. The re-
ception he has met with from the Lower House, reflects little
credit on the feeling or judgment of its members. After
admitting, as it has done, the principle of the proposed Bill,
in the enactment against cruelty to cattle, upon what grounds
Pk, in its application to other
, Why should not a dog or a cat be pro-
tected as well as a horse or a sheep ? We could understand,
acannim theais extension
bere ftisec ofl
? that•
though
n linecouldthteh validity of the objection, taken,
Yeaindtiyrtoduction of this question
io n the noto e e admit,asion of
into Parliament, by the late lamented Lord Erskine namely,
that cruelty could not be defined, and
therefore it was not possi-
ble to legislate at all on the subject. This was taken high
ground. Here there was something in the semblance of argu-
ment—something that looked like reasoning at least ; and until
the objection was fairly answered, and its unsoundness shown;
the opponents of the measure might, in reason, be permitted to
retain all their hostility to it. After being driven from their van-
tage-ground,after being dislodged from disposition, the enemies
of innovation on the subject of established sports,have taken up
a new one; anil, on Mr. Martin's moving for leave to bring in a
Bill fer the prevention of the practice of Bear Baiting, he
has been assailed on all sides by the cry of, Oh you should
not meddle with the sports of the lower orders—why not attack
the sports of the higher orders ? Why not as well strive to
put clown hunting, and shooting, and fishing, which are equally
cruel with the less dignified amusements of bear baiting, &c,
If this argument (we must we suppose in courtesy so term it) be
meant for any thing more than for the purpose of evading the
question, or that of gaining a little temporary popularity, we are
utterly at a loss to guess at its drift. It is, in our humble judg-
ment, one of the weakest and shallowest objections ever started.
What ! blame the benevolent Mr. M. for not undertaking what
he and every body else must justly deem impracticable j What !
make it a reproach to him that he does not attempt the un-
attainable ! This is very reasonable indeed. What would
have been thought of him, and said to him, if, ignorant of his
own strength, he had attempted the mad, Titanic exploit of
putting down the field sports of the shot-belted preservers of
game by their own votes. What, we repeat, would have
been thought of him, if he had been foolish and enthu- '
siastic enough so to have conduted himself? Why, the
very individuals who so lately taunted him with the above
sapient interrogatory would most probably have prevent-
ed him from delivering his sentiments on such a sub-
ject, drowning his voice with coughing, blowing noses, and
every other nasal pulmonary Parliamentary mode of si-
lencing an obnoxious member. As for the argument
that the sports of the field are not less cruel than hear,
bull, and monkey-baiting, and other barbarous and wanton 11
sports, we boldly deny it ; there is no fair analogy between
them. The reason is obvious. Hunting, shooting, and fish-
in,
are necessary to enable man to obtain possession of animals
fercc naturce, and, whatever occasional, unintentional cruelty is
inflicted in the pursuit of these sports, cannot, we apprehend,
be put in competition with the deliberate and wanton cruelty
purposely inflicted upon an animal already caught, to gratify
a depraved disposition. It may be said, indeed, that there are
sportsmen who pursue game from, the mere abstract love of
sport, without reference to any value attaching to the dead
pheasan or hare ; but these gentlemen, we kmagine, are
very few in number compared with those who are governed
by mixed motives. Fox-hunting may appear to contradict
this assertion ; but, in effect, it does not ; the principle of uti-
lity holding good still : for although the animal hunted cannot
he served up at table, its destruction is highly beneficial. There
is, in fact, no resemblance between the cased of an animal
coursed, or shot, or hooked, to afford sustenance to man, and
one of no value as food, caught for no other purpose, than to be
worried to death by dogs, for the sake of affording a kind of
inhuman satisfaction to a set of brutal spectators. The only
case, in what is termed genteel sports, that -at all applies, is
that of pigeon-shooting from a trap, and even this is not a pa-
rallel case ; since the-pigeon, when he does not effect his escape
is generally killed outright, and not put an end to by pro-
tracted torture. As for the argument that is founded on
the liberty of the subject, we can only say that we have as
much respect for that freedom as any Member of the House
of Commons can have, nor do we see how it is invaded
because permission find encouragement are not extended
to sports which debase and. brutalize the lower classes,
and consequently render them unfit for the enjoyment of any
thing good or rational. It is, perhaps, a reflection on the po-
pulace of England, that any such legislative prohibitions are
required ; but that theyare necessary is too true ; anti if it rested
with us, we should not hesitate to protect the inferior creation
from undergoing all unnecessary suffering, and, if we could not
do all, we might wish, we would do what we could.