The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-10 00:00:00

biennx nu,

LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1544

Lord CLARENDON announced in the House of
Lords last evening, that, in consequence of the ill-
ness of Lord ABERDEEN, he would postpone his
motion on the affairs of Spain till Monday next.
The Bill entitled " Actions for Penalties on Gaming
Discontinuance Bill," was, on the motion of Lord
BROUGHAM, read a third time and passed.
On the motion of the same Noble Lord, a re-
turn of the number of appeals heard, and remaining
to be heard, before the Committee of the Judicial
Privy Council was ordered. This led to a little
amicable conversation between Lord CAMPBELL and
Lord BROUGHA.M.

-In answer to a question from the LORD CHAN-
CELLOR, Lord NORMANBY said, it was his intention to
bring on his motion relative to the state of Ireland on
Tuesday.
Lord CAMPBELL brought in a Bill, which was read
a first time, to enact that when a prosecution was in-
stituted for seditious libel, and falsehood was charged
in the indictment, it should be lawful to give evidence
of the truth of the alleged libel. The object of the
Bill is to supply the deficiency in the Act of last
session, relative to Governmefit prosecutions.
The Commons did not make a House, there being
only thirty-five Members present at four o'clock.

r It is quite clear that public men are entitled to
claim a liberal construction not only for their mo-
tives, but for their conduct, and that no harsh rule of
construction should be applied to them ; but that, on
the contrary, every latitude should be allowed to

persons situated as they are, and placed under per-
petual observation as to their every action. But if
public men are entitled to claim this indulgence, it is
equally evident that they are bound, by the strictest
ties, not to abuse the privileges they enjoy, and that
their conduct, when it departs from the line of pro-
priety, is neither shielded from censure, nor en-
titled to any protection on account of station or
position.

The conduct of the Irish law officers is to be
judged entirely by this""rule. So long as their
official capacity demanded from them the performance
of certain duties, they were perfectly justified in
using their ability and energy to make the utmost of
their position, and if possible to secure for themselves
and their principals a successful result. But they
were not justified in using the powers of the law to
the abuseir and perversion of justice—to the denial of
a fair tribunal, before which the guilt or innocence
of the accused should be tested—or to the refusal of
every privilege which persons similarly situated have
a right to demand, as the means of preparing for their
defence. The suppression of nearly one-tenth of the
jury list—the exclusion of all men of the Roman Ca-
tholic religion—and the denial of the names of the
witnesses to support the charge against the accused
cannot be justified by any principle of law or equity,
and will always remain a stigma upon the officers en-
gaged in the now pending trial.
It is greatly to be regretted that common sense
forms so small a portion of the attainments of legal
functionaries. Common sense would have told the
Irish Attorney-General that an indictment such as
he had prepared was absurd and ridiculous—that the
evidence by which he sought to support it was farci-
cal, and altogether unworthy of the attention of a
jury—and that the powers of the law were not to be
sustained by the monstrous appeal to arms of an -Irish
Attorney-General. Common sense now points to
the verdict the jury ought to pronounce—will the
jury follow the dictates of common sense or of the
Attorney-General ?

In the absence of the Duke of RICHMOND, Lord
BROUGHAM on Thursday moved the second reading
of the Actions. for-Penalties-on-Gaming-Discontinu-
ance Bill—the longest-tailed Bill we ever remember to
have seen, and which might put even a Bond-street
tailor's to the blush. In bringing forward his mo-
tion, his Lordship observed that the Legislature had
at various times passed laws for.the suppression of
gambling, and among them was one which imposed
a penalty on parties who should lose more than ten
pounds at a sitting at any game. In consequence of
this stringent law—which, by the bye, had fallen into
desuetude—not having been acted on for fifty years,
many Noble and Hon. Gentleman had had qui tans
actions brought against them to recover penalties to
an immense amount on account of their having betted
at horse-races. They had done so in perfect igno-
rance of the law on the subject, and when they lost
they had paid honourably ; but certain individuals
with whom they had betted had acted in a
far different spirit, and resolutely refused to
pay their bets. Steps had, in consequence, been
taken to drive these scamps from the turf; upon which,
from motives of sheer spite, they had raked up the
penal clauses of the obsolete enactment in question,
anti brought qui tam actions for the recovery of penal-
ties against many of the most honourable and distin-
guished patrons of the turf. His Lordship having
briefly stated these particulars, concluded by moving
the second reading of his long-tailed Bill, and added,
that what it proposed was, " not that any prospective
law should be passed, but only that the bad parts of
the old law should be repealed, and some good and
sound provisions be substituted in their stead." To
this moderate proposition we do not see that the
slightest objection can be offered; indeed we could
have wished that it had been more comprehensive in
its character; though it must be confessed, at the
same time, that a law for the suppression of gambling
would he one which it would be very difficult, if not
impossible, to carry into effect. The vice,*if put
down in one shape, would be pretty sure to start up
in another, and contrive, by some ingenious means or
other, to elude the most stringent enactments. Still
the experiment, impracticable as it may appear, is
worth making, for there is no social evil so utterly
demoralising in its character as that of gambling—
none which inflicts such an immense amount of grief,
remorse, and humiliation on the upper and middle
classes of society, among whom it is chiefly prevalent.
The Bishop of LONDON, while professing his intention
not to oppose the second reading of the Bill, took the
opportunity of stating that he " could not approve of
any measure that tended to encourage betting; espe-
cially among the poor. They might leave the rich
to do what they chose with their property, but they
ought to interfere to protect the poor." The logic
of this is exceedingly curious, and deserves a word or
two of comment, if not for its force, at least for its
singularity. Why should the rich be allowed to
ruin themselves ad libitum; and the property of the
poor only—which in far too many cases amounts to
the exact sum of nothing—be vigilantly looked after
by the law, in order that it may be turned to the
best account, and not be wasted in gambling ? Has
his Lordship no consideration—no bowels for the
wealthy and, aristocratic victims of CROCKFORIA
and TATTERSALL'S ? Can he allow these peo-
ple to lose thousands upon thousands at
hazard, or in the betting-room, without making the
slightest attempt at interference; while at the same
time he puts a stern interdict upon the poor man's
harmless bet of a few pence on a game of skittles in
the bowling-green, or on a game of cribbage in the
sanded parlour of the village alehouse? Is gambling
correct and orthodox when practised by the rich, and
criminal only when practised by the poor ? With
great deference to his Lordship's better judgment,
we must frankly confess that we do not understand
these nice distinctions; but are old-fashioned enough-
to believe that vice is vice, whether indulged in by
rich or poor. In the present instance, however, the
Rev. Prelate's anxious solicitude to protect the poor
from the evil consequences of betting, is altogether
superfluous, for gambling is certainly not the beset-
ting vice of poverty. If you desire to see it flourish-
ing, like some poisonous weed, in rank perfection, you
must go to the halls of the wealthy and the affluent,
and not to the mechanic'Sor theslabouter's cottage.
In taking leave of this subject, we cannot refrain from
noticing the extraordinary way in which his Lordship is
usually in the habit of exhibiting his affectionate
regard for the welfare of the poor. It is only a few
years since he spent a whole Sunday afternoon, with
his episcopal nose flattened against the window-pane,
watching, from his palace at Fulham, the boats that
were constantly paSsing and re-passing, filled with
hard-working citizens, who were taking that oppor-
tunity of enjoying, after the toils of the week, a
mouthful of fresh air on the breezy river. The
ghostly Prelate was of course shocked at this act o:

desecration on the part of the poorer classes of society,
and, by way of showing his affection for them, he did
his best to put a stop to their harmless Sunday water
excursion by holding it up to public reprobation in
the House of Lords. We do not learn that he ever
spent a Sabbath afternoon watching the carriages
of rank and affluence rolling past his town-house in

St. James's-square, on their way to the Parks,
the Zoological Gardens, and other places of
fashionable resort. The occupants of such car-

riages were, we presume, privileged persons,
and not to be subjected to episcopal scrutiny.
It is good that a High Church dignitary should

always have the welfare of the poor in his

eye; but it is not good that his interference with

;hem should be of a petty, teazing, vexatious, and

Pharisaic character. Interfere as much as you please,
my Lord Bishop, to better their condition in life--to
improve the quantity and quality of their food—to

give them the means of acquiring a better education
—and to obtain for them more regard and kindness
from the rich; but leave them to the quiet enjoyment
of their harmless bet at skittles when the day's work
is at an end ; and even should you again chance to
see them rowing on the water on Sunday afternoons,
inhaling the fresh air—a luxury to them, though not
perhaps to you—and feasting on the tranquil sylvan
beauty of the landscape, pray, shut—we beseech you
—your pious eyes, and forbear to horrify the House
of Lords with your indignant denunciation of the
spectacle.

The following paragraph appeared in a leading
article of the Post, a day or two since, and we quote
it for the purpose of making a few comments on it : --
p
"A rumour has found its way into some of the news-
paers respecting a Central Association fur the Pro.