The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-03 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The brewers have published what they call their
ease, ant! a bad eit is, being alike impudent and
feeble. They teil its that the monopoly in the sale
of beer has nut been a wrong to the consumer, and
why ? Because the " Golden-Imo and other soh-
scription breweries" have failed ; while the 01 t
London brewers have succeeded. Very true : iu
the first place, who, in his senses, ever hoped that
brewing by subscription would answer, in comptf-
tion with private partnerships ? The business of a
company will never be so well done, whether it be
a traffic in tea or in rater, as that which is carried
on by one or two individuals exclusively interest,'
in the pretits.— •Secondly, the Golden-lane, or other
" subscription" breweries, had to fight against a
double monopoly—the monopoly of public-house,
trul the great parent monopoly of all—that of
the bench of magistrates. if a Golden-lane
proprietor, or his connection, wanted to pro-
cure a licence, he would be refused as a matter
of course. If a great,private brewer interested
himself on behalf of any applicant for a licence, he
applied to some good friend or neighbour on the
Bench, and the job was settled in a moment, It is
unfair, therefore, to attack a free trade in beer on
the ground that those who formerly endeavoured to
conduct it were unable to stand the competition of
the regular brewers, when the filet is, that the foe
which overwhelmed them was the monopoly of tho•e
brewers, and the impossibility of finding any inde-
pendent ale-house-keepers who durst buy beer at
Golden-lane. The argument is precisely that of
the tea-monopolists in Leadenhall-street, who tell
the nation that it would be quite foolish to attempt
a tea-trade through any medium but that of the
Company, seeing that the Company fetch home su-
perior tea, and on better terms, than would be pos-
sible for other merchants. The answer in both is
simply this—" We should like, may it please your
wisdoms, to judge for ourselves; and if you really
have better tea or porter for the same money, a cor-
responding preference will be shown to your article;
"so what right can you have to complain ?" Then
comes vested interest I—a vested interest in the
abuse and perversion of the law ! That at least
will scarcely be listened to by Parliament, which has
legislated so that licences must be renewed from
year to year : we should wish to learn, therefore,
what compensation ought to be afforded to a tenant
trt will for the loss of his fugitive interest ? But
the Scotch system of ea-y licences is, it seems, a
demoralizing system, and the Scotch are a more
demoralizes! people than the English, because the
licensing of public-howes is not so profitably jobbed
in that country between brewers and magistrates
as here ! and they who put forth such a theory as
part of their case, do it apparently with the gravest
wanner in the world, as if they had not been swill-
ing more than half a dozen pots of their own strong
liquor while they composed it. We certainly
shall vote for the utmost latitude being given
to every man in advocating what he considers
his own cause, for cure we are, that the worse
the cause, the more will it suffer from discussion.
Let it not, however, be understood that our view of
the principles which ought to regulate the beer trade
involves the slightest censure on those who have
the misfortune to be publicans, as a body. We be-
lieve very. many of them to be upright individuals,
and exceedingly charitable and humane. When we
state that- the people suffer from the monopoly of
the beer trade, it is with a full conviction on our
minds that the brewer's tenants, who possess rather
in name than truth a share even of the advantage of
that monopoly, are in most cases more sinned
against than sinning; and that they are, from the
same causes as their customers, victims to the Le-
viathans who levy on them enormous rents, hardly,
if at all, consistent with fair dealing to the drinkers
of beer, and with justice at the same time to their
own families.—Times.
CASE OF THE BREWERS AND PUBLICANS.
(FROM A CORRESPONDENT.)

1. Monopoly is objected to as a principle and more particularly in
this question, from being supposed to influence the price and
quality of so important an article as beer, unfavourable to the
consumers.
To this objection I answer, that I he question has survived many
severe tests of united opposition and inquiry, as instanced by the
Golden-lane and other subscription breweries, where every in-
vestment, however large, was lost. The recent intermediate and
retail systems have failed, whether as to quantity of business, or,
price and quality of the beer. These circumstances taken in con-
nexion with the Parliamentary inquiry in 1828, tend to prove that
the profits of the brewery have not been large. Extending our
view to Scotland, where licenses have hitherto been obtained
without limitation, the freedom of trade has not induced a con-
sumption of more than six barrels and a fraction per year in each
public-house, as per Parliamentary returns; it is full 30 per cent.
dearer than in England, in consequence of the small trade to
each house, and has not won the Seotchmen from their favourite
whiskey.
2. But the large breweries must be attacked : it has been uni.
formlyso whenever the question has been agitated.

Answer.—'They are open to the same objection as the large
woollen manalactures, the iron-works, or the cotton lords.
Wherever large capitals arc employed with the talent necessary
for conducting extensive concerns, and the consequent small
profits oil large returns, the smaller adventurers cannot come in
competition with them ; but the public reap the advantage of the
lower prices attendant on the system, and no where more so than
in the public breweries, which are admitted to supply that part of
the kingdom within their reach, from 45 to 30 per cent. cheaper
than where they do not supply the consumers.
3. Objected, that the licensing system is bad in theory of com-
merce ; and not being a vested right, is liable to be changed or
removed at pleasure.
Answer —By inquiring where an absolute vested right exists,
they arc all conditional and liable to chance; but the questions
of compensation, or progressive arrangement, are here brought
into action. My freehold may be taken tOr some speculative im-
provement, for a money compensation, that but ill supplies the
place of the property taken. The tithes have not proved vested
right, when Harry VIII. laid his paw upon them ; but the free-
hold and the patent place, perhaps created and given for ques-
tionable purposes, obtain pecuniary compensation ; and other
interests depending on Parliamentary arrangements, get time and
progressive changes to meet the necessity of the parties con-
cerned, as has been instanced in the cases of the East India
Company and slave trade.

Tlie licensed houses have their share of claim to the character
of vested right, having been acted upon as such for nearly four
centuries, in the face of and with the implied sanction of Go-
verinnent : it has induced nearly 60,000,0001. of property to be
embarked by upwards of 50,000 families in connection with it.
To change a system under such circumstances, requires more
deliberation than a revolutionary principle which pulls down,
under the influence of popular clamour, what it will be glad to
reinstate on the morrow if practicable. Speculative experi-
ments will dangerously affect large interests, and should not be
resorted to where precedent can be called in aid of the judg-
ment. The Scotch system is the nearest parallel case, and if
correctly stated in the last number of the Quarterly Journal of
Agriculture, published in Edinburgh, does not offer a flattering
prospect of success. The price of beer has already been stated
as excessive; the drunkards issuing from innumerable licensed
hovels in every corner, and the encouragement given to (Ns_
honesty and bad conduct among the servants of almost every
family in Scotland, with the wretched state of the publicans,
have rendered it necessary, within these two years, to place the
public-houses there under the controul of Magistrates, to stem
the demoralizing torrent issuing from the free trade system.
The early period when legislative controul was thought neces-
sary top public-houses in England, does not encourage a hope
that in the present more populous state of the country the regula-
tions call be suddenly removed. This point was adverted to by
Mr. l'eel on the 21st May, 1828, in reply to a proposal that the
sale of beer should be placed on the same footing as bread and
cheese. He then said, " that if we throw open the sale in the
manner alluded to, we shall find it necessary to retrace our
steps," as the sale of intoxicating liquors does not admit of being
so treated. lf, therefore, permanency cannot be calculated
upon, the certainty of ruin to property is obvious, but to replace
the individuals expelled will be impracticable.
I theretire conclude that the necessity of the case does not call
for so violent an attack on property held for years under the
sanction of the Legislature, as is contained in the Bill now before
Parliament; but that such temperate change will be efltcted as
will meet the feeling of the age, and interest of the public, with-
out destroying the property of a mass of individuals, with the se-
curities and provision for widows and orphans thereon.
The advantages of a free trade in beer may he sufficiently se-
cured by its being sold as an article of commerce by any person
taking a license for that purpose, but that without a license from
the Magistrates it shall not be consumed on the premises. This
will encourage the purchase of beer by the labouring class, to be
drank at home with their families, and, while avoiding the de-
moralizing effect of an unlimited number of licensed houses, will
afford as much protection to the persons now interested in the
trade as they ought to expect or wish to ask. It will ascertain
where other public-houses are wanted by the quantity of business
done; and with the more enlarged view taken by the Magistrates
incident to a change that will call the public attention to the sub-
ject, a great extent of freedom of trade will ensue ; for when the
"schoolmaster is abroad," even Magistrates—and clerical Magis-
trates too—may be taught that John Bull must be indulged with
his favourite beverage.—Tinicr.

In our leading article on the distillery question in
Saturday's Paper, we stated from linics's pamphlet
that the consumption of rum was, in 1825, 2,832,833
gallons, and in 1829, 3,702,143 gallons. This state-
ment is said by the British distillers, in some print's('
remarks on Mr. Innes's publication, to be incorilitl,
the consumption for 1825 being not 2,832,833, but
1,980,807 gallons. We can neither verify the ori-
ginal statement nor the correction, because we have
not the Parliamentary papers on the subject at
hand ; but if the consumption was in 1825 only
1,980,807 gallons, it is evident that it has nearly
doubled since, instead of having increased in the
ratio stated by Mr. Innes.—Times.
The Bill for the relief of the Jews stands for a
acnoY Member less dis•
than
i
second reading this evening. Had this Bill been
introduced
Parliament
abnyd
conscientiousness
Mr. R. Grant, we should have conceived the object
tnguisiied tooor
gravity

or its proposer had been either a burlesque of t e
sionrvtitoti"°r7duac: t
tempt
tmeasureodetra otf
frloams t
istess smi oenr,i t
sort
ya
an
lio ad absurdum. The well-known integri'y and
honour, however, of the Member for Fortrose, not
only leave no doubt as to the sincerity and good
faith with which he has come forward to advocate
the cause of the Hebrew nation, but make us hesi-
tate in expressing that'decided disapprobation with
which, under different circumstances, we should
have met his propositions. We are as ready as the
Hon, Member to admit the truth and importance of
those general principles which recognise the right
of every citizen in a free state to be admitted to all
its offices, unless he labours under a moral disquali-
fication; but in our humble opinion these principles
do not apply to the case of the Jess. It is true,
that, from the very nature of civil government, the
Jews, who reside in any country, are entitled to
the protection of those laws which' they are
bound to obey : if, instead of mere residents,
they become natural-born subjects, they would,
according to the fair and liberal construction
of the best rules of political administration, be
entitled to all the privileges of native citizens.Whst,
then, excepts the Jews from the advantage of this
general principle ? Themselves alone; their own
institutions alone. The Jews, if there be any truth
in their traditions, any validity in their Scriptures,
must be strangers and aliens in every land, but one,
which they inhabit. We do not mean aliens in the
ordinary sense of the term, because every law, stu-
dent even knows that legally no Jew born in Eng-
land is an alien ; but we mean aliens according to
the best, and indeed only, construction which their
own scheme of civil and religious polity can bear.—
The Jews are not, cannot be, component parts of
any nation; their civil, religious institution forbid
any such amalgamation. They are, however, scat-
tered, however distant from each other, not only, in
the language of their own sacred volume, " a pecu-
liar people," but a separate nation. They cannot
have, they must not have, any identity of political
interest with any people but their own. They may
have, they must have, a common interest with the
inhabitants of those kingdoms where they are domi-
ciled, on many, perhaps on all the points of
pecuniary and commercial prosperity ; but on
questions of political right, in cases of na-
tional interest, they have tIV., they cannot have,
faunry
uc,ohncche
HampdenNi'hatt.ant bledhe Jewin tli the ltabout the cause
i, aid Sidney
on the scaffold ?" What recollections, whatas-
sociations can give him even a momentary interest
in our glorious revolution ? The names of Somers,
of Locke, of Holt, and Russell, at the sound of
which every Englishman's heart leaps with sym-
pathy, must to him be " a mere sounding brass and
tinkling cymbal." His national associations refer to
far different persons—to far different objects. That
such is the opinion of the leaders of the Jewish
people, and the expounders of their institutions,
may be inferred from the very slight interest which
those persons appear to take in Mr. Grant's Bill.
One thing at least is certain—that some reference
should have been made to them before this Bill had
been brought before Parliament. Some declaration
should have been requested from the synagogue or
synagogues of this kingdom at least, before any pro-
position was made to clothe the Jews with the
character of British legislators. What, it might
fairly be asked, are their hopes of the re-establish-
ment of their own national polity ? Do they not,
on the principles of their faith as founded on the
words of their own prophecy, look to that as a cer-
tain event, the time of which only is uncertain! If
they believe none of this, they are then simple
deists, and are in no worse situation than any
other deists or infidels, for whom the law has
not thought it expedient to make special pro-
vision. But, whatever may be the opirriene
of the self-thought philosophers among the Jews,
we suppose their priests, the depositaries of their
institutions, will not adopt their views. Of the
priests, then, it may be asked, what does their sa-
cred rite mean ? Of what covenant is it the inde-
lible test ? Has the choice which " the God of
Israel" made of them as a favoured people, ceased?
If so, when ? Are they for ever, and do the* be-
lieve themselves, as long as the world endures,
amalgamated indiscriminately with the other nations
of the earth ? Let the synagogue, or other con-
stituted religious authority of the Jews, answer
these and a variety of kindred questions, and then
Parliament will know how to legislate respecting
them. Meantime, let us not be understood as
wishing to withhold from the Jews any of 'those
rights, privileges, and advantages which are not in-
compatible with their own political and religious
condition as a separate nation. Let then', as long
as they reside among us, be treated with the
courtesy due to well-conducted and honourable
visiters. Every thing short of political iden-
tification should be granted; but that, in the
'nature of things, cannot be granted, because
a Jew cannot be a patriotic Frenchman, or Ger-
man, or Englishman, till he has put off his cha-
racter of Jew. At the same time we admit, that
by the wording of the Dissenters Relief Bill, the
Jew has been put in a worse position than before
as regards his admissibility to certain offices and
functions. A very short enactment will correct this
mistake. It is fit also that some declaratory Bill,
such as that proposed by the Solicitor-General,
should be passed, in order to remove doubts in the
public mind on a matter which, we believe, no
lawyer ever thought admitted of a doubt,—we mean
the right of a Jew to acquire landed property. At
the time of the discussion of the Jew Bill, in 1753,
Mr. Fazakerly, one of the ablest lawyers of the day,
clearly recognized and demonstrated this right: it
has been since as clearly allowed by no less an au-
thority than Lord Eldon, not to mention the opi-
nion of the present Solicitor-General. Yet the po-
pular opinion is decidedly the other way. This
matter, therefore, should be set at rest. One word
as to the policy of other nations on this question.
True it is, that in France and the Netherlands, no
less than in the United States of America, a Jew is
eligible to all offices, representative or executive,how-
ever high. But the constitution of society in those
countries forms such a check, as not merely to neutra-
lize, but effectually to invalidate the right. Neither the
Court nor people of France, or the Netherlands,
still less the Amei ican population, ate likely to select
their high functionaries or their representatives from
among the Israelites ; and in those nations there is
as yet no golden key to unlock the door of the le-
gislative assemblies : either state-influence or 'lp-
ha opinion decide the diction. So in England, if
the decision depended on the Crowe, on the execu-
tive, or the people, the Jew's right of admission to
office or Parliament would be a demi letter—a mere
abstraction : but in our anomalous system of repre-
sentation, money is as powerful as the people or the
state. More than a third of the seats in Parliament
are notoriously purchaseable, and a few years might
convert a British House of Commons into a Jewish
sanhedrim. Give the Jew an interest, it will be said,
in the British constitution, and he will become a
British patriot. To this we have already answered,
that the thing is impossible. A conscientious Jew
cannot feel a Briton's interest : he cannot, while he
professes Judaism, identify himself with England :
he cannot love England as an Englishman should,
without abjuring his faith and trampling under foot
the holy laws and institutions committed to his fore-
fathers.-2'intes.

Certain Ministerial papers, for whom no task of
servility is too desperate, have volunteered to de-
fend 413 e .conduct pursued by the Law Officers in
Ireland', in adopting the extra-judicial course of
writing to the High Sheriff of the county of Ferma-
nagh, to instruct him as to the sort of Jury whiCli
he should summon :for the Crown preparatory to
the ensuing Ennisliillen Assizes. We published
on Thursday the correspondence which has taken
place on this subject between the Crown Solicitor
and the High Sheriff. The former, our readers
may recollect, conveys the commands of the Attor-
ney-General to the latter in the folletkifib. cent
guage :—" As it is very desirable there shouldbe no
eretence for complaint as to the formation ofJurial
t.) < .
t-wr
:0* "