The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-26 00:00:00

bvinng AUL

LONDON, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1844.

The report of that "hedging" Bill, entitled the
" Horse-racing Penalties Bill," comes on for further
consideration this evening. If we had ever doubted
the inherent tendencies of such an assembly as the
House of Commons to the vice of class-legislation,
the frivolous and selfish debate on this question
last week would have effectually dispelled ally
such scepticism. But, believing always that such
tendencies are absolutely inseparable from the ele-
mentary constitution of a Chamber, which, even since
the passing of the Reform Bill, still continues
rather the representative of the two aristocracies of
rank and money than of the people and popular prin-
ciples, we are disposed to look upon the discussion in
question. tt.s the most characteristic which has taken
place, within the same walls, for some time past. The
Bill was introduced into the House of Lords by the
Duke of RICHMOND, with the candid admission that
s object was—what ? To put down the frightful
practice of gaming ? To withhold or deter the rich
from setting a demoralising example to the poor, in
staking sums of money on the event of races to be
run between certain horses ? To impress upon the
ill-paid agricultural' labourer, the small tradesman,
the plodding artisan or operative, the profligacy of
their reckless conduct in perilling the support of their
families, and the maintenance of their homes, on
wagers as to the uncertain issue of matches at any
rural or local sports ? To encourage the abstinence
ofsmall farmers and their servants, of humble tenants
and humbler husbandmen, of provincial shopkeepers
and working men, from habitual betting and games of
hazard,- by the disinterested promulgation of penal
Acts against such practices, at the special instance of
noble or opulent landlords, merchants, manufacturers,
and mill-owners ? No—nothing like this was the
avowed object of his Grace's Bill, as stated by Mr.
WORTLEY, who has charge of it in the Commons. It
was simply to protect some noble and other patrons
of the turf from qui tam actions which have been
brought against them by parties prepared to prove
the well-known facts of their having won and lost,
paid or received, large stakes at races, and othersports,
and hoping to realise, by such actions, penalties to
an enormous amount under the statute of Queen
ANNE. We need not recur to the recent deliberations
of the Lords upon this measure, or to the amendment
by which the operation of the Act of ANNE was su-
perseded for a limited period. It is our purpose to
look at the principle of the Bill, as it has been
brought into the House of Commons.
Now, how grossly partial, how palpably exclusive
this principle is—how clearly invoked, pro Mc vice,
ns it were—to serve the turn, to meet the ease of the
Lord GEORGE or the Sir JOHN, or the sporting Peer,
or the titled Commoner, whom -the dreaded qui tam
" Ogres" were about to pounce upon, and tear to
pieces, like the Mr. BOND (who has, indeed, escaped
from their clutches, but with only a rat-like extrica-
tion, minus its tail)—enough, perhaps, has been already
pretnised to show. But the hypocrisy of the prin-
ciple, and the defectiveness of the scope of this Bill,
may be much more strongly illustrated. Why
Was not the protection of the Bill to be thrown
around the copper or , shilling " collection," " top-
ping 101.," contribi* by the sturdy cham-
pions of the village green, as well as the " sub-
scription horses " and gold cups, the splendid plates
and magnificent sweepstakes, provided by the patri-
cian subscribers to the betting-rooms,. " the " Dii
maims" of the Grand Stands,—the elite of Tatter-
sall's ? But is this invidious distinction, thus sought
to be established against the poor, who may be dis-
posed to follow their native English bent for " sport-
ing," in common with their wealthier compatriots, an
imaginary grievance ? There is very little of mere
abstract, inferential reasoning,—of purely sentimental
hypothesis in the practical illustration supplied by
Mr. WAKLEY

"A number of little boys were in the habit of amusing
themselves by playing at pitch and toss—which some
persons considered a highly immoral and injurious
practice, while others regarded it as innocent and one
to which no punishment ought to be attached; but he
regretted to say that there were magistrates in this
town—stipendiary magistrates—who were in the habit
of sending little boys to prison and to the treadmill for
indulging in that practice. In the course of t6e present
week, only two days ago, three boys were committed

for having been guilty, as was stated in the warrants, of
the enormous crime of playing at pitch and toss.'"
There are few country gentlemen who have had
more experience of the business of quarter sessions,
and of the sort of cases which come before county
magistrates to be summarily disposed of, than Lord
WHARNCLIFFE or the Duke of RICHMOND. There
have been few keener patrons of the turf and the
betting room than the Duke of RICHMOND and Lord
WHARNCLIFFE. Is either of these Noble Peers pre-
pared to bring in a Bill to rescue the infant patrons
of that most ancient" of all- games of chance, "pitch
and toss," from the avenging mittimuses of the magis-
tracy—unpaid or stipendiary ? Such a course may
be thought very incompatible with the dignity of a
present Lord President, or an ex-Postmaster-General
—but it would be conduct much more consistent
than the support of either to a " Goodwood" Bill of
this kind.
We are anxious not to be misunderstood as being
the apologists of betting, or of gaming of any kind.
If we cannot go the whole length of Lord Howzcx's
serious appeal to the Legislature to discourage (by
some new. enactment ?) " the practice of betting on
horses;" if, on the contrary, we plead guilty to a
little secret passion for horse-racing, the excitement
_of which, we _find, years cannot quite extinguish—
we willingly concur with Mr. WORTLEY, Sir JAMES
GRAHAM, and others, in wishing that the." practice
of betting" could be entirely abolished. But since
this is about as futile an expectation—since it is to
suppose about as complete a revulsion of men's
natures, as to look for the Bishop of LONDON'S
petitioning the QUEEN and the Parliament to be al-
lowed to exchange his mitre and his see against the,
surplice and " perpetual curacy" of some Rev. OWEN-
AY-MEREDITH, among the mountains of South Wales ;
we must deal with the matter as we find it—an origi-
nal innate propensity of man, as strong in the rudest
state of savage nature, as in this most refined civili-
sation. The Bill before us, then, ought to have in-
corporated the broad principle involved in the amend-
ment moved by Mr. BRIGHT, which would have
crushed at once the pretences and the profits of a race
of men who are the common pest and nuisance of so-
11e_moved, " That on the motion for going
into a Committee on the Horse-racing Penalties Bill,
instructions be given to the Committee to extend the
provisions of the Bill -to all proceedings of common
informers, under the authority of any penal statute."
The amendment—although supported in an excel-
lent speech:from Mr. CHRISTIE (who argued that,
if the House passed the Bill to defeat the objects of
common informers in this particular case, they were
" bound to stop all proceedings of common informers
in every case")—was finally lost. Sir R. Pam.,
whom we shall henceforth be apt to regard as a
trimmer in legislation and public morals as well as
in politics, after deprecating the danger of the prin-
ciple involved in measures of this kind, which went
to intercept the- operations of existing laws,- made
this characteristic compromise of his constitutional
principle with the- conventional expediency which is
ever his besetting sin :—" It was the peculiar circum-
stances of the present case which made him ready to
grant the relief asked for."
Very peculiar circumstances, no doubt ; and among
them not the least is, if we mistake not, the accident
of a namesake of the Right Hon. Baronet being one
of the victims whom qui tam voracity had contem-
plated for its peculiar delectation. The frankness of
Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMDE'S statement is much snore
to his credit and to our taste. He described the Bill
as being -" essentially a private and personal Bill, to
exempt certain noblemen and gentlemen from penal-
ties to which they had subjected themselves by their
ignorance of the law," and he fairly avowed his sup-
port of the measure on these grounds.

If ever public man was placed in a humiliating
and ridiculous position, that man is Sir Romer PEEL.
Though he has a majority in the House of Commons
to back him, and the entire strength of the House of
Lords at his command, he cannot take a single decisive
step of moment—he dare not declare himself unreser-
vedly on the side of the monopolists, nor dare he declare
himself unreservedly against, them—he dare not ori-
ginate one solitary bold, remedial measure as regards
Ireland, for he takes fright equally at Orangeman
and Catholic—he has no comprehensive scheme 'of
'national education to propose, for the Dissen-
ters on the one hand, and the Churchmen on the
other, keep him in a constant state of uneasiness and
vacillation—he cannot offer a single authoritative
opinion on the subject of the religious disputes that
now distract the country, for the. Puseyites and the
Anti-Puseyites, and other rebellious sectaries, hold
him in such complete thraldom among them,
that he dare not side with one party,- lest he
should array against him the influence of the other.
And yet the man who acts in this tame, halting,
equivocal spirit who is neither Monopolist
nor Free-trader, neither Orangeman nor Libe-
ral, neither Puseyite nor Low-Churchman—this
khan is the Prime Minister of Great Britain Is
he not burlesqueing the high office he holds—an
office which was once
,held by a CHATHAM, a Pmr,
IL CANNING, a WELLINGTON, and a GREY—by such
abject, truckling timidity ? Should not an English
Premier lead, rather
,than follow, public opinion—put
himself boldly in the van of a movement, instead of
sneaking ingloriously in the rear ? For what pur-
pose is he placed at the helm, but that he may steer
the State-vessel steadily and safely into port? If he
is to fall asleep at his post, and trust to the
winds and waves to waft the ship into a secure haven,
we may just as well have no pilot at all. And indeed
to all intents and purposes we have none, for though
sir ROBERT PEEL is nominally at the helm, yet it
is the ship's' crew that are doing his work among
them, while he looks lazily and contentedly on, com-
forting himself with the reflection—so dear to
some men, who regard the show rather than the
substance of power—that, in name at least, he is a
pilot. There never yet lived an English Minister who,
while apparently he did so much, in reality did so
little as the Right Hon. Baronet. Not one single
bold opinion does he dare to promulgate of his own
accord. Not one single manly conviction does he
presume to, entertain. Even the slightest fragment
of a declaration must be *rung from him. It is not
he that governs England, but the two great an-
tagonist parties of the Leaguers and the protectionists !
It is not he ,that governs Ireland, but
the Repealers and the Orangemen .411 the
momentous public questions of the day are agitated
and helped forward by private—that is to say, by
non-official—individuals, without the slightest de-
ference to his authority, without even the show of
respect for his sentiments. Mr. COBDEN cares not
two straws for his opinions—the Duke of. Rten-
MOND scarcely conceals his contempt for him--Dir.
O'CoriziaLL, " convicted conspirator" as he is,
throws down the gauntlet at his feet, and
dares him to take it up. Nay, even in the
Principality, his power, or his reluctance—call

•......... AV
what you will—to act with decision is so apparent,
that the Times quietly takes the duties of Govern-
ment on its own shoulders, and tranquillises the sen-

sitive " Rebecca and her Daughters," by directing
public attention to, and suggesting remedial
measures for, the grievances under which they labour.
So far as we can see, We might just as well
have the Guildhall giant Gog or his brother Magog
for our Prime Minister, as Sir ROBERT PEEL. They
would be quite as useful, and they could not well
be more inactive. In other and better times the
country used to look to The opinions of their Pre-
mier as a so,rt of barometer, which indicated the
success or failure of the political schemes of t o day;
but no one thinks of doing so now If we wish to 'know
what chances we have of getting Commercial RNA rm
we consult the League, not the Prime Minister. If we
wish to know what hope there is for Ireland, O'coN.

NELL, not PEEL, is the individual to whom we turn
for information. In like manner, the Monopolists—
treating with utter indifference the distrusted decla-
rations of the Premier—read the speeches of the
Dukes of RicxxoND or BUCKINGHAM, in order
to ascertain what prospect they have of suc-
cess. All parties, Free-traders and Anti-Free-
traders, Orangemen and Repealers, however they
may differ in other points, yet agree in this one
—namely, that the opinions of the Prime Minister
of Great Britain—the dispenser of the favours of
the Crown—ho who, by virtue of his office, should be
the most influential person in the three kingdoms
—all parties, we say, agree in thinking that the
opinions of this illustrious individual are not worth
a moment's serious consideration; for all know

that he is the veriest slave of circumstances—the