The Sun.
London, England, 1864-06-25 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS:

TIMES.--After the very large minorities, not to
say majorities, whipped up against Government on
questions of more or less importance, it is creditable
to the sense of the House that only 118 members
were found to support Mr. Morritt's resolution last
evening. The House of Commons has very properly
decided that no Parliament has a right to letter the
judgment of any future Parliament upon a question,
all the conditions of which can only be known when
the time arrives for the actual decision. The imprce
priety of such an anticipation appears at once from
the fact, that since the repeal of the Beer Duty, 35
years ago, there has never yet been an occasion on
which any number of Conservative members would
say we ought to have repealed the Malt Tax or
largely reduced it. Of course we say this not for-
getting the repeal of the paper duty, which, it may
be said, was neither a matter of urgency nor of
general relief, and cost the revenue as much as the
iemiasion of a third of the malt tax would have
done. But it so happens that when the paper duty
was abolished, not without a vigorous protest from
the Lards, the taxes put in competition with it were
those on tea and sugar, not that on malt. Mr.
Morritt himself confines his own anticipation to the
possible day when a surplus of several millions will
allow us to remit two millions of indirect taxation.
But when that day arrives, malt will not be the
only applicant for relief. Spirits, wine, tea, coffee,
and sugar will ask to be heard. It is true they
must be taken in turn, but the turn of malt has not
yet come, and may not come yet for many a day.
What was asked, therefore, last night was that the
House of Commons should make a pledge which it
could only bequeath to its successors—perhaps to its
remote posterity. If, too, it be answered that paper
forced its way by virtue of a promise long given,
and that malt cannot do better than follow so good
an example by asking a pledge beforehand, then,
as the Chancellor of the Exchequer justly observes,
this is to admit the injustice and inexpediency of
all such pledges. If a great wrong was done by the
remission of the paper duty in the face of stronger
claims, and that wrong was done through the
power of an old pledge, then let us have no such
pledges, and let every Parliament be left fully
master of its own actions. Nobody has a right to
encroach on the just inheritance of his survivors, or
to use any office so as to diminish the power and
opportunities of his successors in it. Yet this is
what Mr. Morritt asked last night, and what the
House of Commons declined. Since the utmost that
Mr. Morritt could demand was a pledge to be re-
deemed by some other Parliament, at some distant
day, the debate itself could have no more than a
purely prospective and hypothetical character. It
could only resemble the lucubrations of a young
man thinking what he will do with the patrimony
of his uncles and cousins and elder brothers, should
all happen to die before he does. Such speculations
may be amusing, but they are unpractical, and on
that account are not so governed by considerations
of utility and prudence as when a man is under a
positive obligation to do something with the land
he stands on, the house he lives in, or the money
in his pocket. Nobody can apply the same amount
of reason to a question which may or may not have
to be settled within the next 20 years as to an im-
mediate emergency. Hence the discussion last
night was simply such as might take place at a de-
bating society or a smoking-room, upon some casual
suggestion. Even malt was hardly done justice to,
and though its rivals, wine, spirits, and tea, and
even cider, made an appearance, they were not pro-
perly represented. Malt came in its old character,
the Sir John Barleycorn of Christmas festivities. To
trust his flatterers, he is a most respectable, inoffen-
sive, healthy, and useful personage. He never makes
you drunk; you can never have too much of his ac-
quaintance; he will not hurt a bone of your body;
he will never tempt you to exceed the limits of tem-
perate refreshment. The invention of spirits has
always been referred to the most questionable of
agencies; wine has never acquired an indisputable
moral position ; but malt claims a positive goodness.
It expects you to believe that it makes men honest,
kind, and wise. In wine there is truth, says the
proverb; but in malt liquor are all the cardinal
virtues, and a good many other excellent qualities.
There is no chance for England, Ireland, and Scot-
land, we seem to hear, till every cottager shall
either brew his own beer, strong, good, and plenty
of it, or be able to buy it cheap and good. Even
the Irish, we are told, when they do take to hard
work, find a barrel of beer the best companion.
The Scotch were once beer-drinkers ; and it was
not till they had spoilt their tastes, weakened their
digestions, and impaired their faculties by untaxed
tea, hardly more than a century ago, that they had
to seek a stronger stimulant in whisky. Only let
them have untaxed beer, and they will give up the
liquid fire that plays such work with Scotch livers
and makes Scotch Puritanism an hypocrisy. Such
are the comparative qualities of malt liquor and all
other stimulating, camforting, tonic, or sedative
drinks in the scale of a proposition which only
desired to pledge Parliaments yet to be elected, and
legislators yet to be born. Such a mode of treat-
ing the question—natural as it was under the cir-
cumstances—can hardly be called serious, and cannot
pretend to be conclusive. It remains to be proved
whether it is in the power of Parliamedt to make
malt liquor take the place of its much vilified
rivals, even by cheapening it; and whether, after
all, people do not generally choose the stimulant
that suits best their constitutions and circumstances.
Paople know by their own feelings what stimulant
most immediately and effectually sets them up,
composes them, calms the nerves, and puts the
vital powers into healthy and harmonious action ;
and if habit has much to do with the greater
efficacy of one agent as compared with another,
so also have diet, occupation, and the state of
health. But, however it may stead with other
stimulants, we must protest against such a
laudification of malt liquor as seems to make it
the duty of Parliament to relieve it at once from
all share in the national burdens. A sufficient quan-
tity of strong beer, be it ever so sound, instead of
invigorating a man, will render him incapable, and
destroy his constitution. It may not make him
nervous, like strong tea; it may not make him fight
the first corner, like whisky; it may not make him
into a Frenchman, as vin ordinaire is supposed to
do; but it will make him stupid, sleepy, idle, worth-
less, and not uniformly peaceable. Oar labourers
do their work and retain their strength on very
weak potations, nor do they always do their work
better when they can get at stronger beer. The
farmer who is proud of his brewing, and who tries
to gat extra work by larger allowances, is often
a terror to his neighbours and disappointed in the
results. It may be almost laid down as a rule that
whatever stimulates above a certain point, which
may be assumed to be the standard of healthy
existence, weakens in the end. The excitement to
the brain relaxes the nerves. Beer only operates
by the alcohol in it, and cannot produce effects very
different from alcohol diluted with water. We do
not say that we should not be glad indeed to see
some millions taking an occasional glass of beer
more than they do now, but it certainly is an exag-
geration to extol malt liquor as if it was an object
worth a national sacrifice to increase its consunipe
tion.

POST.—The Cabinet will meet to.day to take into
its most serious consideration the momentous ques-
tion which England has presently to answer in the
face of Europe, and on Monday next Lord Palmer-
ston will state to the House of Commons the course
of action which, under existing circumstances, her
Majesty's Government propose to adopt to maintain
and uphold the honour and interests of the Crown
and the country. There is naturally great anxiety
on this subject. The vast importance of the issue is,
however, fully apprehended, and the public impa-
tience is controlled by an overruling sense of confi-
dence in the Premier. Nor is it less satisfactory that
her Majesty's Government is sustained at such a
moment by the assurance that any measures which
may be necessary to restore peace on an equitable
and permanent basis will receive cordial and con-

sentaneous support. This sensibly reduces the diffi-
culty of the situation; and, though it undoubtedly
increases the responsibility of the Cabinet, there is
happily a mutual good understanding subsisting
between the Premier and the country which ren-
ders the burden one that can be borne with upright
fidelity. Public opinion on this question may
have been somewhat roughly formed, but th at it is
genuine and fervently entertained
eaism ie a indisputable.
Nelsonputable
The people think now muchc_th
some fifty-nine years ago—We have a very power-
,
fal fleet, and are not to be held cheap" and they
believe, as he did, that, no matter how strong their
enemies may be, if they could get at them they
would "give them such a shaking as they never
yet
experienced. This may be said to convey the
e x
popular answer to the rather indiscreet and taunt-
ing assumptions of the German papers, and the
more reserved, but not lcss offensive, arrogance of
the Prussian Government. At the same time, it
is perfectly understood that, the impulsive feelings
of a nation must be weighed and filtered in the
Councils of a cabinet. Whatever course England
is about to take will not be dictated by passion.
This miserable war, which will in a few hours be
commenced again, was, we know, instigated as
much by fear as by ambition. It was to escape
from her internal difficulties that Prussia drew the
sword and dragged Austria with her to the brink
of a European precipice. A strong Power would
have resisted the pressure to which a weak Power
yielded. Her Majesty's Government will not be
coerced by clamour. Nor will factious threats
interfere with the fulfiment of an imperative obli-
gation. The Cabinet does not meet this afternoon
to calculate its voting power in the House of Come
mons, or to adopt its policy to any real or sup-
posed party exigency. Lord Palmerston is in.