The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-23 00:00:00

of such stake, or another of five times its amount,
to be recoverable in her MAJESTY'S Courts of Law, by
"qui tam" actions. These heavy penalties are to be
payable notwithstanding such stakes shall have been
won at fair play. In cases where unfair play shall be
proved to have attended the winning of any such
stakes, in addition to the mulcting in five times the
amount, the winner " to be deemed infamous, and
shall suffer such corporal punishment as in cases of
wilful perjury." The liability to come within reach
of the paternal solicitude of such an Act of Parliament
as this must undoubtedly operate, when once it has
been invoked, to mar, very considerably, the Horatian
pleasures of those whom the possession or the backing
of the winning horse in the Derby or the Great St.
Leger, for the time at least, " evehit ad Deos." When
they sit down to multiply their " winnings" by the
square of the penalties which attach to them, the re-
sult is a loss, for which all their accustomed sagacity
in hedging will be at fault to find a set-off.

When the Duke of RICHMOND, in the; Upper House,
and 'Colonel PEEL, if we remembit,rightly, in the
Lower, brought into Parliament, and carried through,
a Bill to suspend the determination of the pending
actions, already alluded to, we briefly remarked on
the " sense of duty" which induced Sir ROBERT PEEL,
after a little unmeaning coyness, to support it. We
are confirmed in our notions on this point. We should
add that his " well-known sense of public duty" did
not induce even Sir J AMES GRAHAM to resist it, not-
withstanding the heroic virtue with which he, by a
" coup de MAYNE" (i.e., with the aid of the Metro-
politan Police), routed from their customary strong-
holds at Epsom and at Ascot all the minor gamblers
of the roulette board, the roxige-et-Noir table, the
chicken-hazard hells, and the thimble-riggery stalls.
It was literally notorious. from the Gallant Colonel's
own acknowledgment, that he stood to be victimised,
if these reputable actions could be established, to an
enormous amount. To stay their progress by such
a Bill is not the most regular, or constitutional, or
convenient course for reforming a bad law, or neu-
tralising the abuses of a good one. Yet Sir ROBERT
PEEL voted in its favour. The Duke of RICHMOND
and Lord GEORGE BENTINCK are both, with other
eminent persons, assumed to be under these informa-
tions to a stupendous extent. How the fact may be,
we do not pretend to know ; but if it be as we have,
on public rumour, thus stated, we think that the Noble
Steward and Course-owner of Goodwood has a better
right to resist "qui tam" actions than Sir JAMES
GRAHAM, for his Grace was impartial enough, after
the ambulatory gaming establishments we have de-
scribed had paid for their standings, in the usual
manner, at Goodwood, to allow them to pursue their
vocations unmolested. This fact was brought under
Sir JAMES'S notice by and on behalf of the wandering
CROCEFORDS in question. But, not being " people
of mark or condition," he was inexorable. The
Caro-like inspector of sealed letters dispersed this
wretched canaille in every direction ; but he voted for
suspending the qui tam actions against his Noble
and Honourable Friends. Among, as we understand,
those friends, and the defendants to those actions, is
Lord GEORGE BENTINCE. On the 10th instant this
nobleman, in the House of Commons, took part in a
debate on the Gambling Actions Suspension Bill, by
delivering himself of a speech reflecting in no mea-
sured terms, it would appear, upon a Mr. RUSSELL, by
whom the actions referred to have been brought, and
another Mr. RussELL, his brother, a solicitor. Lord
GEORGE'S speech having been reported in the Morn-
ing Post and the Globe, the editors of those journals
were favoured, respectively, with a letter from the
solicitor—a Mr. J. T. RUSSELL. In this letter the
writer complains of the reported speech as containing
gross slanders upon his character. He thus addresses
the editor of the Morning Post:—"l am under the
painful necessity of commencing an action against
you for libel, in order to maintain my position in so-
ciety, which I must inevitably forfeit if I permit so
atrocious a siatement to pass unpunished. I only re-
gret the privileges of the House of Commons will not
allow me t ) punish Lord G. BENTINCK for his
attack upon ine. I will thank you to forward me the
name of your solicitor to whom I can forward the writ."
For our own part, we were sn fortunate as not to have
admitted into our columns the offensive matter here
in question. We contented ourselves by remarking
in our Parliamentary Summary " that a debate of
such a kind ensued which might probably be inte-
resting to gamblers" (we forgot the qui tam
people). Under this impression w did not feel our-
selves called upon to give gratuitous diffusion to a
piece of squabbling in which we were quite assured
that our readers Would feel no more interest than
ourselves. We have a great affection for sporting,
in proper times and places—no toleration for its per-
sonal bickerings when these are obtruded upon the
business and attention of the Legislature. It
seems to us at least imptrtinent to the legiti-
mate objects of Parliament, 'for sporting Dukes,
or sporting Colonels, to solicit its interpoSition with
a view to protect private pecuniary interests of their
own, or their connexions. It seems to us to be in
still worse taste for noble members of the Jockey
Club, who happen to be Members of the House of
Commons, to avail themselves of that position in order
to denounce private characters from that place, by
reason of private injuries resulting to them from con-
nexions, whether voluntary or accidental, with the
individuals they inveigh against.

In these observations, however, it has not been our
object to express any opinion on the merits of Lord
GEORGE BENTINCK'S accusation, of which we know
nothing ; or of J. 11..RusszLes complaint, of which
we know only what appears on the face of his letters.
Our desire is, once more, to direct attention to a
matter of far graver, public, and even constitutional
importance, than a miserable affair of crimination and
recrimination between a betting Lord and the
solicitor and kinsman' of a plaintiff in certain
" qui tam" actions, of 6 character in them-
selves, and instituted fur objects sufficiently
notorious and appreciated. We wish the public to
observe what are the fruits of the anomalous, the scan-
dalous condition, in which the law of libel is left in con-
nexion with the question of Parliamentary privilege,
when the freedom of language claimed for, and con-
ceded to, every Member, at the opening of every
session, is transferred to the columns of our news-
papers, through the medium of those faithful daily
reports, which the wants of society, the convenience
and information of the public, the wishes of the indi-
viduals composing the two chambers of Parliament,
and the habits and the will of the nation at
large, equally demand. This practice Parliament
has long virtually conceded and hourly recognises.
For its upright, able, and impartial exercise that Par-
liament holds all parties concerned in the business of
thus communicating their opinions and proceedings to
the world, severely and personally responsible. When,
therefore, Mr. J. T. RUSSELL talks of privileges of
the House of Commons, which prevent him from pun-
ishing Lord G. BENTINCK "for his attack upon him,''
and so turns round upon the " Globe "and "Post" to
ask for the names of their solicitors, to receive on
their behalf process against2them for giving
S.
publicity to that attack, 9Ate., want to know
why Parliament has not long ago interfered to
shield the public Press from any such iniquitous
liability ? If Lord GEORGE BENTINCK, or any other
Member, cannot bring himself to see that there is
not much chivalry in denouncing men out of doors,
whilst they are ensconsed themselves behind the safe
protection of Parliamentary privilege, Parliament
ought surely to save the connexions of the Press
from all the penalties attaching to the fair and faithful
exercise of their duty to it and to the public at large.

This is a short statement of the grievance and. the
remedy. To visit such a discharge of such a duty
with pecuniary or other penalties, is to give a pre-
mium to the abuse of a most important privilege
within the walls of Parliament, and to visit the pu-
nishment of that abuse on innocent heads without its
precincts. If Parliament be determined to discoun-
tenance the practice or duty itself, let Par-
liament 'lkiestly
,announce its decision and
settle the matter With the public whom
it represents. In a clear and ascertained settlement
of this question only, can the Press ever be secure
from the most monstrous of all oppressions, to the
working of which the powers of the law can be per-
verted. It is high time that "privilege of Parlia
ment" were restricted within some limits, beyond
which it cowls not be strained to override the ordi-
nary privileges of every man at common law; or
that it were expanded to an extent which should save
parties like the Press—merely ministerial, as it were,
between Parliament and the pnblic—from the penal