The evil of Betting Offices is too serious to be treated with raillery. Let us recur to a more sober strain. These ulcers are spread widely over our metropolis. We are afraid that they also disfigure our country towns. They are a libel and an insult upon the manners of the nation. Let it not be supposed that we speak as rigid puritans, or canting moralists. We delight in horses and horse-racing, and, although innocent of betting ourselves, do not wish to oppose a certain amount of speculation upon fair events. No one can interfere with private bets. The excitement on a Derby-day is to some extent legitimate. The evil attending it is in a great measure counterbalanced by the good. It is a national amusement, and promotes the excellent breeding of horses. Besides, traders speculate. Hop-merchants speculate. The whole system of the Stock-Exchange is a kind of, not always respectable, gambling. But we object to the organization of betting. We object to the sign-post of temptation. We condemn this banking system against the small fortunes of our poorer countrymen. We call a second time upon the Government to protect those who require protection against the open allurements of profligacy. "What! you agree," cries one, "that private betting may exist. Then why not give the thing a local habitation and a name?" Simply because the circumstances forbid it. Beer-drinking is allowed, and allowable. The Government cannot prevent a man getting privately drunk. There are, it is true, certainpenalties imposed upon drunkenness. But great caution is not the less necessary in the licensing of beer-shops and public-houses. Otherwise the result would soon manifest itself in disorder and low debauchery, and in the degradation and ruin of the lower classes.

In sternly addressing ourselves to the Government and

the Public, we wish to avoid personality. Much private information has been voluntarily afforded us. We are anxious to avoid availing ourselves of it. We shall only do so at a future period, if it be necessary to advise individuals of their danger, by telling them who are their deluders. But we hope for no such necessity in the general condemnation which will probably ensue.

court.

The establishment of Betting Offices derives its origin from some of the lowest hangers-on of the Stock Exchange, and from the broken and dispersed "staggism" of CapelWe understand that the very first which started as a racing-office, whose prizes (?) were drawn in the New Strand Theatre, was first kept by a man who had acquired about £4,000 in getting up a bubble railway (the Direct Bombay and Madras). A most worthy origin! In a racelottery at Boulogne, under apprehension of conviction here, not a single prize was drawn. The real owners and proprietors of these places never appear. They are generally "independent gentlemen," living a little way out of town. No man is safe, even should he win; since the betting-office which is unlucky can so easily abscond. There is no one responsible-no one ostensible. Rogues keep their counsel better than honest men. The "flat" remains, either in good or evil fortune; but the "sharps" in both cases are apt to disappear, and the places that knew them once know them no more. Let us give a hint to those now venturing their little savings, or, more probably, that which they have not saved, in such transactions, not to be surprised at any closing scene after the occurrence of the St. Leger!

AUGUST, 1850.

A PILLORY FOR HAYNAU :

OR, ENGLISH BREWERS AND AUSTRIAN

BUTCHERY.

OUR readers are familiar with the circumstances of an attack made the other day upon General, or as he is pleased now to be called Baron HAYNAU, by the brewers of Messrs. Barclay's establishment; during his visit to honour those gentlemen's premises with an inspection. The sanguinary old man, so near about to render his account at a tribunal which considers neither monarchs nor expediency, was somewhat roughly handled by a mob of what the Times calls "five hundred infuriated savages." We regret the circumstance, because it affords a plea both for sentimental and hypocritical sophistry, and because it manifests only a partial demonstration of what ought to be an universal expression of detestation over the land of Englishmen.

But if HAYNAU had otherwise successfully played the part of the illustrious foreigner, visiting our “industrial establishments," as the phrase is; if he had been fêted during his stay, and stared at by vulgarity in high life; if he had been suffered to depart from these shores without the shout of execration which is now likely to ring in his ears whilst he continues to pollute our soil, then we rejoice that the sturdy brewers pelted and buffeted him, ay, in spite of his white hairs-whitened like sugar by the refining process of blood that flowed from the best and noblest veins in Hungary.

And this man finds advocates in the writers of English journals! Yes! in this monied age "there exists such a diversity of opinion that if Nero lived or Judas, there would be found supporters and admirers of Judas and Nero."

Such was the remark we made a week since. It could scarcely meet with a more apt and immediate illustration. So it is. Posterity will alone stamp the brand of universal execration on the forehead of a monster in the nineteenth century, or dare loyally to award the crown of true virtue to the hero or the patriot.

The deeds of General HAYNAU were slurred over, denied, or defended, in the very midst of his bloody saturnalia. In the hurry of venality, things were said in defence of bloodshed and deeds of violence as atrocious as ever stained the annals of the civilized or uncivilized world. Let us draw a parallel between the educated men who defended the acts of HAYNAU when they took place, and the uneducated men who in their rude manner have shown aversion to their memory. Yet the latter had no motive in their act, save one of justice. They were not paid-only indignant 66 savages!"

Who will be the champion of Jefferies? Who mourns over the last moments of Robespierre? Yet Jefferies, when old and ill, narrowly escaped being torn to pieces by an English mob; and Robespierre, half dead by his own hand, found no Parisian softness in the pitiless crowd that haled him to his fate. But these men are pilloried in history, and their defence neither affects our partizanship nor our pockets. After all, what did HAYNAU suffer at the hands of these "brutal ruffians," these "cowardly assailants," who would not respect hospitality, but who had read on Sunday afternoons amongst their shuddering families, of atrocities they could scarcely believe, until the blear-eyed incarnation of the chief actor in them presented itself in the semblance of a gaunt old man at their gates-what did he suffer from them? The old English punishment of the pillory, unsanc

tioned it is true by law, but never more fitly administered. "Hospitality!" For such as he there should have been no landing-place in England. It is an insult to the country to use such a term. That which he claims is not of necessity our gift. Six feet of English ground to an enemy in arms, a welcome to an unarmed foe, an asylum even for a rebel and a traitor, are what England freely accords; because she boasts of being free; but her freedom cannot break bread with the dastard who flogged high-born ladies in the market-place of Pesth, or with the cruel assassin of the high-souled Bathyany. The very bones of HAYNAU should not rest in England! Did he not sanction the murders of Herod? Is not the story of the Countess of Madersbach true? Was she not flogged almost unto death, when stripped naked before battalions of bearded men under the inspection of HAYNAU, because she lampooned the Austrian soldiery? Did not her husband commit suicide when he heard of the fiendish atrocity? Was not Bathyany, one of a name familiar to us here, horribly executed without ever having struck a blow against Absolutism, and taken forth from his prison in cold blood by this old Moloch, after the cessation of hostilities? throat to the gallows-he, a soldier and a gentleman, whose only desire was to reconcile his unhappy country to her merciless oppressor, but who did not even rebel whilst he refused to persecute? He acted merely as envoy, and strove to make terms between two bodies of his distracted countrymen. He came in all trustingness to Windisgrätz, was thrown into prison, where he remained throughout the war, and then sentenced by HAYNAU to the death of a dog to gratify a thirst for blood and strike terror, if possible, into the brave hearts of the Hungarians. What was the fate

Was he not dragged with bleeding