The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-31 00:00:00

/Z!e-

other days. Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey, the City Police
• Commissioner, gave some very striking and cckeiprehens
sive evidence, founded on "careful returfis! • "The
number of persons," he said, " who had, been charged
with drunkenness during the 10 or 11 months since the
act had been in operation was 2,817 in the eityof lon=
don • and the number of cases of the atine kind for a
similar period of the previous year before the passing of '
the act was 2,809 ; making, in point of fiat, only a difs
ference of eight Since the passing of .the-act" -Viri •
still greater_point he deposed that "the cases ofeleunkw t ,
ness on glindaysThefore the passing of the act were 317 " -
for 11 montb, and for 11 months subsequently
334. On Monday, before the passing of the act, 418,
and after the act 486. On the Saturdays before the act
passed 536, and after the act 606." - • •
Such testimony as we have quoted would certainly
tend to shoW either that Sunday drunkenness bad net
much decreased, or that the diminution was Counter-
balanced by increased' drunkenness on otiler days. We
admit,--however, that there must be strong a priori
ground for concluding that intemperance was diminished
at the particular periods when the means of obtaining
drink were taken away ; but we now ask the reader to
consider at what expense this result was secured. In
order to prevent 1 man in 100 abusing tbe'ilie of liquor,
99 have been prevented from getting any refreshment
at times when it would have been most serviceable. Very
likely drunkenness has been diminished pro .canto, but
what of that ? If no persons were allowed to get into a
boat, or to bathe, there would, no doubt, be fewer deaths
from drowning ; if no fruit were alloed to be consumed,
there might be few bowel complaints'; or, to carry the
arguinent to its extreme point, if all food were forbidden,
there would be an end of the adulteration question ; but
would not the cost overbalance the gain? Is it just or
reasonable to say that-no perion shall have access to is
public-house in order that one or two persons may be
prevented from abusing the opportunity ? When a most
respected alderman of the city of London give it as his
opinion that " the greater the restriction upon public-.
houses the more would be the diminution of drunken-
ness," he was, no doubt, correct in his deductions. The
greater the restrictions upon butchers' shops the less
would be the consumption of meatz-ari article of diet
which vegetarians condemn as roundlyas the teetotallers
do drink. But is the use of a thing to be proscribed for
the sake of preventing its abuse I
We confess we have very great doubts as to the gene-
ral applicability of coercive or restrictive
-legislation to
questions like these. About the expediency'of repress-
ing intemperance there' cannot be two opinions ; but
when Mr. D. W.. Harvey expressed his conviction that
" no kind of legal restraint would stop disaiiketUtess•-.ibi,
must be by moral restraint," we think he spoke with
great_reason. Except under the absolutism of a Maine
Liquor Law, it is pretty certain that a man who chooses
to get drunk will do so—on Monday, if not on Sunday ;
in an unliceneed house, if not in a licensed house. And
this, we fake it; is the explinat?on of the 'evidence,
which, notwithstanding 'the probability that Sunday
drinking had diminished; showed theaggregate.of,firun-
kenness at pretty much the same height as'before.• If the
result, however, is thus unsubstantig. thd'grievanoe is r
-by no means so. For the sake of peeduci*g this dimi-
nution, or, as we should perhaps say, this d.iiip4cement.
of, intemperance, a large section of the community has -
been depraved of the common and harmless aids of recrea- 1
tion during the brief periods when it is within theirreach. )
It is idle to talk of a "publichousti." as necessarily the ,
Scene of vice or misdoing. To thousands of persons such
houses are the only houses ever known, in so far as the
word involves the idea of comfort, convenience, "or plea- •
sure. It is here that restrictive enactments operate so
unfortunately in producing in vidiounclistinctiorui between

.pn -

the rich and the.poor. It may be ttruaithat no such dis-
tinctions are intended, but they are createdneverthe-
less, for the law which shuts out a poor man- from
his best or Ms only place of accommodation is attended
with little or no inconvenience to those who require no
such aid.
,;
We do not attempt to question the countless. evils qf
intemperance, or the advantage of endeavouring to ',im-
press so productive a source of crime ; but surely this
is not an 'am!, when we need resort to so rude or violent
a method of proceeding as to prohibit .use in order to
check abuse. W,e have many agencies in operation
which were denied to former ages. ' NYt ffibre v
schools, more churches, more education, and a greater r
diffusion of religious feeling. Canriot we avail ourselves
of these means of moral suasion ? Mr. Broughton gave
it as his opinion,that the establishment of such institu-
tions as baths and model dwellings vtds of far greater
importance than legislating for pt4ic-houses, and that
drunkenness could' be much better met in this way ;
while Mr. Wakley said that if the rational amusements
of the public were extended drunkenness would soon
diminish.

We see no reason to contest the general soundness of
these views. 'There was a time, witbip hying men's
memory, when inteemerance was as common among the
lower classes of society. What hasidriven it out ? Npt
restrictions upon the wine trade, or upon clubs, or upon
any other such things, but the gradual improvement of
feeling tinder better social influences.' Wiky,„ then,
should not similar influences be employed in the case of
the working classes also, in place of measures *Welt are
disapproved by many cf the most experienced authori-
ties, which appear to produce but a doubtful balance of
good, and which manifestly create serious inconvenience
and discontent ?-77incs.
•

TUE NEW SALE OF BEER BILL

We subjoin Mr. li. Berkeley's bill, issued yes-

;erday

A. Bill to repeal, alter, and amend the act of the seven-
teenth and eighteenth years of her present Majesty for
further regulating the sale of beer and other liquors
on the Lord's-day, and to substitute other provisions
in lieu thereof.

Whereas the laws now in force against the sale of fer-
mented and distilled liquors on the Lord's-day have been
found to be attended with inconvenience to the people :
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most excellent
Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this
present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of
the same, as follows :
That the act of Parliament passed in the seventeenth
and eighteenth years of the reign of her present Majesty,
entituled "An Act for further regulating the Sale of
Beer and other Liquors on the Lord's-day," bo and the
same is hereby repealed.
It shall not be lawful for any licensed victualler, or
person licensed to sell beer by retail, to be drunk on the
premises, •or not to be drunk on the premises or any
person licensed or authorised to sell any fermented or
distilled liquors, or any person who by reason of the
freedom of the:mystery or craft of vintners of the City
of London, or of any right or privilege, chilli claim to
be entitled to sell wine by retail, to be drunk or
consumed on the premises, in any part of England or
Wales, to open or keep (Ten his house for the sale of or
to sell beer, wine, spirits, or any other fermented or dis-
tilled liquor between the hours of three and five o'clock
in the afternoon, nor after eleven o'clock in the evening
on Sunday, or on Christmas Day, or Good Friday, or
any day appointed for a public fast' or thanks.
giving, or before four o'clock in the morning of the day
following such Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday, or
such days of public fast or thanksgiving, except to a tra-
veller or lodger therein.
3. No person shall open any house cr place of public
resort for the sale of fermented or distilled liquors, or
sell therein such liquors, in any part of England or Wales,
between three and five o'clock in the afternoon or after
eleven o'clock in the afternoon on Sunday, or on Christ-
mas Day or Good Friday, or any day appointed for a
public fast or thanksgiving, or before four o'clock in the
morning of the day following such Sundays, Christmas
Day, Good Friday, or such other days appointed as afore.
said, except to travellers.
4. It shall be lawful for any constable at any time to
enter into any house or place of public resort for the
sale of beer, wine, spirits, or other fermented or distilled
liquor or liquors ; and every person who shall refuse to
admit or shall not admit such constable into such house
or place shall be deemed guilty of an offence against this
act.
5. Every person who shall offend against this act shall
be liable, upon a summary conviction for the same before
any justice of the peace for the county, riding, division,e
liberty, city, borough, or place where the offence
five poun_ds mr
committed, to a penalty not exceeding
every such offence, and every sale shall be deemed a se-
parate offence.
by any conviction of any justice
6. Every person who shall think himself orde ag-
grievedheeersdeerlftbiequarter sessions of the peace holden
or place wherein
act may appeal against such conviction to
th thee
ogoeonoetrya,l
riding, division, liberty, city, borough,
in
vided for appeals to quarter sessi_on
the conviction shall have been made,
d in the ninth year of
tion of the act of Parliament p_aa intituled
thlicences to% Keepers
the
hean2n7ethr par:.
An
eiAgnetotfohriesoulaltaeteMthaje_lestlnKtiitioGfeloierg
tolseresginuiEatnigolnasndr,e':
and all the enactrnet, p
of Inns, Alehouses, and
uarter sessions in the said last.
lating to appeals to V i
revisions,rc t
under the act.
appeals to be madementioned act containedq shall extend to and regulate

FEW QUERIES ON MONEY FOR THE
woRgiNG MEN OF DERBYSHIRE.

(Front the Derbyshire Courier.)
1. Whether the Currency Question does not affecf
are
working men more than they think ?
2. Whether panics
ot causedcf peni by
cs
are Peel'sne t
the
ebill, s t
ca and
if the necessaryconsequence
ping of trade, and the turning off of men ?
3. Is not labour the source of all wealth, and should it
not be the foundation of all money ?
4. If a man produces anything should he not be able
to raise money on it immediately, and this by the assist-
ance of a national bank, and not by the ruinous aid of.
pawnbrokers ?
5. Should not money increase as wealth increases ?
6. If all the gold and silver in England were thrown
into the sea to-morrow, would not paper money, issued
by Government, and declared legal tender for debts and
taxes, enable the people to follow their trades, and pro-
duce all useful commodities ?
7. If this is true, is it not absurd to go to the anti-•
podes for a yellow metal, to serve as a money, when
slips of paper would do as well, stamped and signed by
Government, and declared legal tender by Act of Par-
liament for debts and taxes ?
8. Is not this jealousy of Government a low, radical,
and revolutionary feeling ?
9. If Government may not issue money, who may ?
Liverpool. Jaszo HABITT.