The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-24 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

•
invoice were prevalent ia the City at the clubs
pn Saturday, that the Allied Governments would
have immediately to name a substitute for Prince
as. Sovereign Prince of Greece—his Royal
Hi: ee ah having sent in his resignation of that
it ustaTis office. We regret to say, that we have
no reason to disbelieve the above reports, but, on
.the contrary, are inclined to give them credit in
every thing except their having made the alteration
of the Prince's sentiments depend on legal diffe-
rences with the Allied Courts as to pecuniary ar-
rangements. We have strong reason to be satisfied
that no difference whatever existed with regard to
money, on which point all parties had long been
agreed. It is, however, more than probable, and in
fact we are disposed to think, that another important
consideration—viz. that of the confined boundary
allotted to Greece upon the north-western fron-
tier—has been the real Cause of Prince Leopold's
reluctance to undertake at last the duties of the
Greek Government. We owe it to his Royal
Highness to admit, that if the people of Greece
should have felt the separation of so valuable u
portion of their brethren, as would have been cut
off by the course of the Aspropotamos, to be
a national disgrace or misfortune, motives far
more honourable than any of a financial nature—
for which, in fact, as we said before, there
never was any ground—may have weighed with
the Prince against his fulfilling engagements,
in the acceptance of which he had not
contemplated the refusal of the Greek representa-
tatives, through their Senate, to sanction a dismem-
berment of Greece itself. We do not understand
the objections which would appear to have been
made against extending the Greek territory to the
line of Arta and Volo, which, so far as mere space
is concerned, includes but little beyond the line of
the Aspropotamos: it rests with the Allies to de-
clare whether they will consider it worth their while
to stand out for such an object, and thus to be com-
pelled to transfer the Greek Sovereignty to some
different person. We do nor, indeed, anticipate that
there woeld be much delay or difficulty in closing
with another German Prince, of well-known name
and character. But still we feel unfeignedly desi-
rous that the scruples of his Royal Highness, which,
as represented to us, are those of a conscientious
man and a patriot, may, if possible, be respected
and indulged, so that no interruption may arise to
embarrass even for a moment (it could be but mo-
mentary) the results of a negotiation so creditable
to the parties engaged in it, and so replete with
every prospect of recovered peace, prosperity, and
happiness, to a celebrated but long-lost people.—Times.
The large minority that voted for the clause which
Mr. Monck moved to introduce into the " Beer
Bill," on Friday night, ought to convince Ministers
that the independent opinion of the House, as well
as of the reflecting and enlightened part of the
nation, is against them. The clause was to the effect
" that t►ny license which shall he gran•ed by virtue
of this Act, shall not authorise the persons so
licensed to sell beer to be drunk or consumed on the
premises so described in such license, it being the
intention of this Act to give encouragement for the
sale of beer in shops, but not to create an unlimited
number of alehouses." We have said, and do say,
that a free trade in beer is one thing, and the crea-
tion of an unlimited number of alehouses is another.
Let beer be sold as freely as bread ; but let it riot be
sold in a manner which is capable of converting a
nutritious beverage into a moral poison. The humbler
classes have temptations enough to do evil without
covering the land with low tippling-houses, where
they may be induced to consume their time in
irunken sloth, in profaneness and immorality, instead
of enjoying their leisurehours in healthful and harm-
less recreation, in the bosom of their families. Mr.
Monck, in introducing his clause, justly end truly
observed, " It was laid down by all writers on this
subject that public-houses were a nuisance when they
were not properly regulated, or unnecessarily multi-
plied, or erected in improper situations. The
licensing system was introduced for the purpose
of preventing abuses, and ascertaining the character
of the persons who occupied public-houses.—
This Bill said that public-houses could not be
too many, whereas the law, which had grown
out of experience, and been acted on for about 300
years, said the contrary." Again—the Honourable
Member stated that " he was an advocate for free
trade in general—even an advocate for free trade in
corn—though he would not go at present so far on
that point as the Hon. Member for Aberdeen ; be-
cause he was convinced that, owing to our peculiar
situation, an artificial system had been established,
and it aught to be altered only by degrees ;—for his
part he was convinced that the principle of conve-
ction in the beer trade would be carried into full
effect without the provision which went to enable
every retailer of beer to convert his house into a
tippling-shop." We quite agree with the Honour-
able Member that the principle of competition may
be carried into full effect without overlaying the
land with the dangerous receptacles of low dissipa-
tion. We have already shown that, by the common
law of England, alehouses were originally free,
until the great increase of their numbers caused that
which was intended for the accommodation of the
public to become a public nuisance. Hence arose
the restraining and regulating Statutes in the reign
of Edward VI., which formed the basis of all the
legislation on the subject down to the present time.
We have often asserted, and now assert, that the
licensing system was much abused, and that it was
frequently made subservient to feelings of favouritism
and resentment, anti sometimes used as an engine of
electioneering corruption. Its abuse, however, was
a reason why it should be reformed—not destroyed,
its principle was good, though its practice wasbften
perverted to evil. What was that principle ? A-duty
imposed by law upon Magistrates of requiring of every
applicant for a license testimonials of character, and
evidence of the house being necessary for the ac-
commodation of the public. We have heard a great
deal of late of the advantages of a preventive
system of police. The regulation and restriction of
public-houses are matter of police, and upon the
preventive principle. If it be necessary for the civil
power to watch closely over public-houses at pre-
sent, because the indulgence in stimulating liquors
is apt to lead men into irregularities and violations
of good order, how much more difficult would it
not be for the civil authorities to exercise an effec-
tive controul over those places if the occupiers were
not obliged to furnish testimonials of good charac-
ter, and enter into recognizances, as preliminary
conditions to obtaining a licence ? It is the sound
maxim of penal jurisprudence, that it is better to
Ficreut than to punish. In men of good character
the Government have a certain degree of security
that the privilege of dealing in intoxicating liquors
will not be abused to the injury of public morals;
but what security will they have when every lon,
and unprincipled adventurer who can muster two
guineas may convert his hovel into a tippling-house,
and seduce the poor man from his home to squander
his wages, his health, and his morals, in a sink of
intemperance, and in the vilest association ? Is not
demoralisation making sufficiently rapid strides at
present without this additional inducement to popu-
lar depravity ? It is true that the police will have it
among their duties to watch over those places, but
is it not wiser to prevent their existence than to put
the public under the necessity of being taxed for
the expenses which must be incurred by punishing
the. disorders and crimes that will arise out of
them ? Many a peaceful neighbourhood will be dis-
turbed, many a valuable property injured, by the
opening of the dens of low intemperance and dissipa-
tion which the new Bill, as it stands at present, will
allow to be multiplied throughout the land, without
number and without restraint. It is curious enough
that Mr. Calcraft, who brought in the Bill, talked
against monopolies, although he is at the head of
one branch of a monopoly himself—namely, one
of the two great winter theatres. Theatres that
have not patents are obliged to be licensed. Why?'
As a matter of preventive police. For the same
realm pawnbrckers are licensed and not merely as