The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-01 00:00:00

NO. 22,102.

.-,,-;

...4d.
STAMPED

EIVSP

ISt

can be no doubt but that George-street 010 !film.
Tne\diate vicinity would be benefited. The question
ireTnowever, whether, in obedience to the Jews of
supply and demand, the particular establi si msnts
a boil. heel in on, ter, et ne-iy Lot spring en in treeehi r.
and that, too, under ts e ore ration of a conce ntiet.ve
force tending to ex,gg,rare pri,viou•ly txirtirg
evils. Ail the res Its of simiiar pi,ochiel tazzies
which we can call to mind testify to the utter
inefficiency, in a comprehensive sense, of this wey of
dealing with houses known to the law as " disor-
derly establishments." It is not by way of
f
w.-
it to
any
is ift
general
nj
liF•Pe r:i ea;bgir:::itthw'oath'folivaluesroY expectedur. i make
it
11'
oociparochial,Pllertl'i: take, l
yisiot ts i 186
tit 11
itieih. statement
achieve
tnitters exterior to the rieg letice of their respective
pati,l,rs. The becetne all
the mote desirable as a place of reeirl, nee if " dis-
orderly" houses in the sense of the law he therein
abolished, and conceeitrated, let us teseurne, in St.
George's, Bloomsbury ; but whether the moral con-
dition of London gt nerally would he benefited by
any such change of. venue is the qecrtion, or rather
iit is hardly a Question, inasmuch as the negative
L response is so demonstrable. We are of opinion that
the time has almost, if not quite, arrived for speak-
. ing out r-ore plainly than has been the custom in
respect of what convention insists on calling the
"social evil"—viewing it comprehensively, as states-
men should view an evil, and adopting general mea-
sures for its control and miigiti icegnhaeitrminolln)lay.s
uasNeui
odpnerdi
an
tce(iliviiline-
social vices and
n
be well that individuals should not scrutinise
smitojohfleeecyi civi-
lised
abstract
bi
slexecutivepro')c'lt
wrongs.tY that,
alt nh t ebl
he ore
el 3mns
me recognitionwa circles of private life it
of
toon y
social acrirrcolwesl
haevacehat other'sdsposi
tvi iocnesa; and m
summaryo r
me oevaenrs,
of redress. Ejectment is the normal consequence
of violating the precepts of social morality to any
abnormal extent. Society, in its largest sense of
a whole nation, has no such expedient at command;
hence it becomes a bounden duty of every civilised
executive to recognise social maladies of whatever
Kind, just as a surgeon recognises—with treatment
and cure in view—a malignant ulcer or cancerous
sore. In viewing under many of its aspects the
subject of debate, we are by no means unconscious
of numerous and grave difficulties that will bristle
up in the path of any social legislator bold enough
to grapple with the enormous evils to which we
refer. The continental system of police is so oiffe-
rent in its funetions from our system ; an English-
man's house is so practically his castle ; and the
license of free comieunication and free discussion is
so great, that any literal assumption of foreign
precedent and experience in the matter under band
would be purely impossible. D ffieutti(s in the way
of accomplishing a result should, however, furnish
no plea for not aiming at it. Mucn might be effected
without a further exercise of supervision and scru-
tiny tnan is compatible with the degree of personal
liberty to which Englishmen have tecome accus-
tomed. Even were it certain that nothing in the
way of amelioration collid be immediately brought
about by any measure of State interference, still,
practical affirmation of the principle that no existing
social vice or social malady should be studiously
' igeored and kept out of sight to the inteet of
making society appear better than it is, would be a
measure consonant with the soundest principles of
social government. To foster hypocrisy can never
be desirable, no matter what the subject or the oc-
casion. Now, it is gross hypocrisy—no better—to
affect that in respect of that particular class of sins
to which our observations point, the English public
is sO much purer than the continental public, as the
advocates tor non-intervention in this matter would
wish inferentially to make one believe. Such affec-
tation of purity deceives nobody. The utmost to be
expected of it is the fostering of a sentiment so near
akin to selfishness that it approaches the character
of sin; the sentiment of complacency, namely, and
false tranquillity, that weak natures sometimes
realise to themselves; by keeping displeasing ob-
jects out of sight, though the reality of them is no
more questionable than the sun's presence at noon-
day.

IPER

'll/111.-, I%\i;