The Sun.
London, England, 1821-08-10 00:00:00

LUTON LEES RACES—(2d DAY)—Auo 6.

Ladies' Plate of 501. ; three yrs old, Bst. 41b;; four, Bst. 101 b.;
five, 9st. ; and aged, 9st. 61b.—Heats.
Mr. Rogers's Fortunio, 4 yrs old . . . 51 1
Captain Granger's c. by Sorcerer . . . 12 2
Mr. Luff's Sir Benjamin . • • . . 23 d:
Mr. Goddard's Thunderbolt, aged . . . 44 dr
Mr. Mr. Milne's b. m. Maria . . . . .3 dr
Six to 4 agst the Sorcerer colt, 2 to 1 agst Fortunio ; after the
second heat, 2tol bn the winner—a fine rac?.
The 107,s Sweepstakes did not fill.
Farmers' Stakes of lOgs each, 6 subscribers, for horses not bred.
Mr. Luff's Ge-ho
Mr. Pratt's Fickle
Five started, three bolted the Course.

The return INIATen of CRICKET between the Cambridge
And Bury Clubs took dace on Monday and Tuesday. last at
littsf, and .was dee:4CA in fur of the latter by a majority of
'4B runs.
RUlt Y.

ht Inns
2d Ditto

CAMBRIDGE.
-148 Ist inns
. 4B 2d Ditto

A CRICKET MATCH was played on tl-elst inst. at Ickleton,
between eleven playars of that village and eleven amateurs of
the game from Cambridge, which was won by the former.—
The day was spent with the utmost conviviality and harmony.
—State of the game:—
lc XL ET ON

CAMBRIDGE
AM Inns 154 lst Inns 4B
2d ditto 67 2d ditto

GENUINE INSTANCE OF BM/ N DEIIING.—At a
late fair at Ballinasloe, a rich grazier, being in
It's cups, made a boast that he and three other
pot companions had contrived to swallow sixteen
bottles of port at one sitting. " Pray Sir," said
a gentleman present, " would you have the good-
ness to give us the names of the three other brutes
that were engaged with you ?" 64 That I will,"
says he ; 44 There was Tom Matthews, that's
one ;—the two Grogans, that's two ;—mvself,
that's three;—and (after a long pause)—Why,
.by my soul there were four of us. Let me see
(reckoning upon his fingers,) there's the two
Grogans, that's one;—myself, that's two ;—Tom
Matthews, that's three;—and (by the Lord I
forget the name of the other,)—but I know
that thete were four of us any how."

FOREIGN LITERATURE.

(No. XXXIII.)

TRAITE DES PAPIERS PUBLICS, i. e. A Treatise on
the Public Papers, in which it is shewn that the Charter
does not authorize the Journals, &c., by J. A. GAY, mem-
ber of the Antient Faculty of Medicine of Montpellier.-Byo.
Paris, 1821.

It seems that Dr. GAY is determined to carry
on a war of extermination against •the French
Journals. He attacked them with great warmth
in 1819, when the measure of the Censorship
was proposed and carried, in the French Cham-
bers, and he attacked them with equal fury very
recently, in the work which forms the subject
of the present article, when the Censorship on the
French periodical publications was prolonged to
the next Session of the French Chambers. I
should like to know what offences the Journals
have committed against Dr. GAY ? and by what
crime, or rather by w hat article, they have pro-
voked his rage ? Can he accuse them of having
injured his medical reputation ? Alt! if such a
charge was well founded, they would find in their
own consciences severer judges than Dr. GAY
himself : and, following the example of FENELON,
who burnt one of his mandates which the Sove-
reign Pontiff had disapproved, they would in-
stantly convert into expiatory ashes the offend-
ing sheets. But let us hear what Dr. GAY has
to allege against them.
." I have written," Nty:s he, " A Treatise
against Blood-letting ; Resistance on the part of
Physicians and Journalists ;" the crime would
certainly be a very serious one, but we, the Jour-
nalists, have not certainly committed it. The Phy-
sicians are guilty, but we are innocent ; besides,
what interest have we in this dispute ? Whether
Dr. Gay writes for or against blood-letting, how
can that concern us ? and shall we, for a few
blood-lettings, more or less, harrass an honest
man, and especially a Physician ho possesses
-knowledge and skill ? The supposition is con-
trary to all probability.
That the physicians should have attacked the
antiphlebotomical doctrine of Dr. Gay we can
easily imagine ; it was their business : bat igno-
rant as we are of the art of medicine, though
good patients, did it become uslo offer an opi-
nion on 'a question of thigimportance ? " Ought
we to bleed or not to bleed in apoplexy ?"
Would not people have a right to say to us, what
are you meddling with ? Talk of politics, for
you really speak very well on that subject, but
do not touch on medicine,—that to you is pro-
hibited ground.
We hay.e fortunately avoided this folly.' Dr.
Gay published his Treatise against Blood-letting,
and the Journalists, very properly, confined their
labours to an exposition of the author's ideas :
I.ot one of themeven remarked that Hippocrates,
the divine Hippocrates, was of a contrary opi-
nion, that he resorted to blood-letting on all oc-
casions, and that he was decidedly favourable to
this remedy. Such was our discretion r and we
were led to hope that Dr. Gay would have duly
appreciated it; but it is precisely since we have
been so discreet that he has sworn our ruin.
Two years and upwards have not been able to
produce more amicable feelings towards us, and
he wishes the Journals as much harm in 1821 as
"he did in 1819. '.17-rtirrlione to prove that he
belongs to the sect of humorists .2 The proof is
good enough, but we could have done very well
without it; for the Treatise against Blood-letting
put it beyond a doubt.
I grant that all which now passes in the world,
with respect to medical treatment, is little cal-
culated to please Dr. Gay, but he ought to know
that we cannot prevent it. Is it our fault that
he sees, for some-time past, a system gaining
ground, the very opposite of his own ?‘ Is it our
fault, if, as the Journals have lately announced
with great truth, five hundred and sixty thousand
more leeches have been used in 1820 than in any
preceding year ? and lastly, is it our fault if
blood-letting was never so much practised as
since Dr. Gay endeavoured to chew the serious
evils attending it ? All this has taken place
without our assistance, and would have occurred
in spite of us. Why then, when the Physicians
alone are guilty, does Dr. Gay attack the Jour-
nalists ? Why, instead of applying for the sup-
pression of leeches, does, he apply for that of the
Journals? But doubtless we shall not be con-
demned without being heard, and we shall have
no difficulty in proving that the reasons advanced
by Dr. Gay in support of his request are weak
edeed.

According to his account, the Journals are not 1
authorised by the charter. What a paradox !'
But charters are not framed, I think, that we
may have journals, and journals-are not published
only for the maintenance of charters. I remark
it without vanity, that they are under great obli-
gations to us. We give them life and action.
Without us would they exist ? Dr. Gay is there-
fore in the wrong. Journals come within the
charter, at least so they are considered. If they
are shut out °fit, truly it would be a fine day's

Can any one conceive a representative govern-
ment unless its proceedings be made public ? Dr.
Gay has felt the full force of this argument,
he therefore admits the publication of its acts, but
rejects that of its discussions; for he is certain
that the representative form of government was
never devised in order that we might discuss
every thing from morning to night. The pub-
licity of its acts is important, but a constitutional
state wishes
,something more. It imagines that if
the government alonespoke, certain points might
not be sufficiently explained. In short, such is
the nature of a representative government, that it
cannot tolerate soliloquies.
Dr. Gay informs us that there are in Europe
two Ministers, whom he names, of the same opi-
nion as himself respecting the journals. This
surprises me not a little ; but instead of two had
there been two hundred, I should not consider
myself as beaten, and would say to him what an
interlocutor, in the Provincial Letters, said to his
adversary, who heaped monk upon monk in sup-
port of his opinion : " But my good Sir, monks
4! are not reasons." The authorities quoted by
Dr. Gay are certainly very respectable, especially
on the point in question, and no person holds
them in greater respect than I do ; hut is not a
good argument of much greater value ? I am very

glad, however, to find that Dr. Gay is not singu-
lar in his opinion respecting the publicity of dis-
cussions, and that he has for supporters those
persons to whom this publicity is naturally dis-

agreeable.
If, from excess of generosity, I should concede
that this publicity is dangerous, would he then
stand on higher ground ? In politics, as well as
in medicine, there are disorders which are very,

difficultoot to say impossible, to cure, and which
exercise the skill, too often in vain, of the most
able physicians. Such is, I am afraid, that of
which Dr. Gay has undertaken the treatment.
Besides they have called him in too late, and all
the remedies proposed by him want, if not energy,
at least opportunity.
La Fontaine, a much more profound politician
than is generally imagined, said to the pastors of
the human race, and not of sheep, " Make use of
your nets. Power does every thing." Dr. Gay
gives in the present day the same advice ; but
the pastors of the human race, especially the
constitutional pastors, will find it difficult to fol•
low his advice. The spirit of the age has enlarg-
ed excessively the meshes of their nets ; and,
whether right or wrong is not a point I am re-
quired to examine, our representative govern.
molts seem formed to restrict this power which

does every thing. Suppose Dr. Gay were to visit
a patient who had lost the use of his legs, and
should say to him : " Walk, walk, the legs do
" every thing."—" Ah ! Doctor," he would reply,
" enable me fixst to make use of them :'there lies

" the rub." It is precisely the same with the
power who did every thing. It cannot do so
now ; and it is only lost labour to recommend
energetic measures when it is impossible to carry
them into execution, and which moreover frightens
little minds. It is bound, and closely too; for
a representative government ties up the hands

rather tightly.
Let Dr. Gay cut the knot, then this and still
more energetic advice may be given. But we are
reasoning on another hypothesis; and the prin-
ciple once admitted, the consequences must fol-
low,—publicity of discussions, the tribune, and
the 'journals, especially the journals which for-
tunately for, them are authorised by the charter;
for if they were not, 1 suspect Dr. Gay would
refuse them its sanction.

Notwithstanding the- great liberties he has
taken in his pamphlet, he does not the less con-
sider us as very formidable Sovereigns. Our
power, if we are to believe him, has no limits.
Every thing trembles before it. Yet we know
that this very terrible power most frequently ex-
pires, at the doors of our offices ; and two steps
beyond them, no person will acknowledge it.
Poor Sovereigns are we! , It is not the same
with our decrees as with those of Dr. Gay, to

which men must submit, and sometimes at the risk
of their lives. Our subjects, less tractable than
his patients, treat us.very cavalierly, and never
are of our opinion, except when we think as they
do. But as other Sovereigns besides ourselves
are, in the present day, liable to the same vexa-
tion, we submit to it without a murmur. We are
very easy respecting. our regal rights, and are
tolerably. good Princes, whatever Dr. Gay may
say; and if more proof were. wanting to shew how
ge;itly we exercise our royal authority, and how
little it is dreaded, we refer to the Doctor's
Treatise on the Public Papers, in which we are
treated very irreverently.
Dr. Gay urges besides the suppression of the
Journals; people never take this liberty with any
powers snail after, in. point of fact, they have
ceased to exist. It is well known that the abdi-
cation of a late Emperor was not voluntary, but
.forced from him. He was the`f► no longer able to
shew his power, for up to that time the French
respected him, and found even in him, I know
not how, a certain air of legitimacy. What then
must be thought of the power of Journalists,
whom Dr. Gay represents as so formidable, of
that pen, which is a sceptre of ... ? Ah ! poor
power! poor sceptre!
You attack, says Dr... Gay. to us, and you do
not suffer any reply to be made to you. I have
before observed, that we did not attack Dr. Gay ;
and can he be so ignorant as not to know that
the journalists are -on such good terms, that
it is quite enough to be attacked by one of them,
in order to be defended by another. If, there-
fore, Dr. Gay, whom we all esteem, could not
find, in what he calls our empire, a single cham-
pion, it was owing to the general impression that
the subject which he was discussing ought to be
decided elsewhere, and it consequently be-
came necessary to pass to the order of the day.
The Revjews dedicated to medicine were the only
fields of battle which could be opened to him :
in then► his natural judges attacked. him, and
through the same channel, therefore, ought he to
have defended his doctrines. What business had
he to meddle with us ? There is not one of our
readers who would not rather be blooded every
morning, and copiously too, .than be condemned
to read a dissertation, let it be ever so learned',
pn. the dangers of phlekotomy.
• Lastly, and 1 inlreat Dr. Gay to weigh well
this consideration, his doctrine not having been
well received by his colleagues, it was certainly
an act of prudence On our parts to be silent.
We wish to be on good terms with the faculty,
and we should not like, for the sake of one of its
members, to embroil ourselves' witl► the remain-
der. They say it might be attended with seri-
ous consequences.
Dr. Gay brings several other heavy charges
against us ; among others, that we are the authors
of discord in families, respecting which I leave
his readers to form their judgments. They will
decide whether weare so black as he represents
us. He thence concludes, that the Journals
ought to be immediately suppressed, except that
which is published by authority. Then the pas-
sions will be allayed. Every official Journal is
sedative ; and when that shall, be the only one
read, if indeed it is worth reading, pe►►ce will
reig►► on earn►. "It is folly," says Dr. Gay,
" to fear it will be used as an extinguisher, and
" unnecessary to add. that I am not an .enemy to
" liberty of speech." You hear : Dr. Gay per-
mits you to speak. Profit by the concession he
has granted to you, but do'not-abuse it.
Yet we, more generous than Dr. Gay, we al-
low him not only to talk, but also to write ;

and, as he writes Well, we will read Ms works
with pleasure, even though he should write
against the Journals. It becemes hirn to consi-
der whether it is not more for-his interest than
their's to come to a reconciliation with them.--=
He has already enemies enough : and to attack
at the same time three powerful bodies—Physi-
cians; Blood letters and JournalWS, is a proof
of greater courage than of prudence. Such at
leaSt is the advice of a Journalist.

THE ASSIZES;

CHELMSFORD, AUG. 13.

--- HAYWARD, ESQ. QYI TA I, ir.. .
This was an acticin upon the Statute of Anne, against the de-
fendant, to recover a penally of 51. for keeping a dog for thi
purTose of killing gaine,,not being duly qualified.
The plaintiff': case was conducted by Mr. MARRYATT sad
Mr. JEssor, and the defendant's by Mt. GURNEY and .Mr.

The plaintiff was stated to be a Gentleman of landed property
at Haveril, in this county, and' the defendant a considerable
landholder in his neighbourhood, in the parish of Helion 'Bum-
sted. The facts proved against the defendant were, that be kept
a setter bitch and two puppy pointers in his house. About vita
years since, he had used the setter for the purpose of killing
game ; but front that time to this, there was no proof that he
hr..d ever used the dog, except for the purpose of taking it out
now and then for a little air and exercise. In other respects it
was only used as,a house dog. The question was, whether thS
defendant was liable to a penalty for keeping a dog for the pur-
pose of killing game ? .
• Mr. 'GURNEY, for the defendant,. submitted that this was not
a case wit Lin the statute. To bring the defendant within the
penalties, it must be clearly shewn that he kept the dog with the
intent to kill game. He referred to a case in 15th Last's Re-
ports, wheie it has held by Lord Ellenborough, under nearly
similar circumstanees, that a young dog k_ pt in the house,
' though of &sporting breed, was not sufficient to subject t.h
_party•to the penalties of the statute.
Mr. 'Justice BuirreoUGg thought it was a question !Or ' the
Jury, and said, he was not aware that itlad been ever yet diS"
tinctly decided that a person who kept a sporting dog, though
:he did not actually use it for thatpurpose, was exempt from tlld
penalty: • The Case referred to was distinguishable froin
because there the dog was so young, that it would have Wl*
uselesi for the purpose of killing game ; but here the dog wa6
obviously a sporting dog, and two
_years kir* had been so used
by the defendant. fle could barb sincerely wished, hirarevcri
that the law would have. enabled him to nonsuit the plaintiff'
for he had never heard of a more cruel or unjustifiable action 911! .
the game laws.
Mr. GURNEY then went to the Jury, and put it to themjil
strong terms, whether the defendant had kept the dog with
tent to . kill -game. He urged that the evidence in the cano
completely 'negatived the intention. He animadverted all
the iniVity of the action, which strongly marked a spirit 0.
oppression which, he hoped and believed; was, not prevalec4
amongst the Gentry of the county towards their tenantry.
they believed-that the defendant had not kept the dog for
ttr
purpose imputed; he was entitled to a verdict. ,I 1 hoped l
law of England was not yet so oppressive, that a man might Doe
breed &VS, either for sale or domuStic uses, without subjectir, •
himself to penalties. The ,game lawi were written in
ciently strong characters, and already executed With a sufficii:!,,,r'
degree
,of rigour, without putting.this additional construt;
upon them, which would render the situation of a farmer en.
an oppressive Squire absolutely, intolerable.
Mr. Justice BunnouGn.express'A extreme regret that t1d
action had been brought by a gentleman, described as a inclit,;,3
fortune.and respectability, because_ lie thought • it. one Of
ai
hardest that ever-came to his knowledge; but lie w,as bot-o'y.
tell the Jury,..that a man who kept a sporting dog, though thto
was no proof of his having actually used it to destroy gsl.3c7-111-4
liable to a penalty. The same - observation would. rice *VI .!
the keeping a gun, because a gun is necessary to the defence•
a-man's house. But there is no occasion for a man keepiqiii
sporting dpg for that purpose. A common house dog wlo
answcrthe same object equally well. If he was wrong i"
ruling, the defendant would have an opporttmity of corrcctl:;,
his judgment in the Court of King's Bench, and with that be`
he would reserve the. question, in order tharthe point
finTheall settled. . ,
y Jury. expressed greatreluetafiee in finding a verdict ixt,
the plaintiff, but in deference to his Lordship's Opino3' for
point of law, they felt themselves bound to find a verdict
the plaintiff—Penalty L 5.- _
The business on this side finished to-day, at twelve o'cloc''' .
In the Crown Court there was nothing worth mentioning.