The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-28 00:00:00

quibbl e or prevarication. He contents himself
with . demonstrating most elaborately and logically
thatt he rupture of 1793 was attributable, not to the
Fri ch, but to the English Government. He does it
in a most masterly manner—setting facts in such
a NI ray as to render them altogether incontroverti-
ble,. He sets out, as we remarked yesterday, by
ass erting most earnestly—" It is not enough to
say that France did not provoke hostilities—she
all but went down on her knees (if I may apply
such a phrase to a nation) to avert a rupture
with this country." In testimony of this, Mr.
CoB: DEN describes the whole of the conduct and
treatment--the conciliatory conduct, the harsh,
repi3lling, and even ignominious treatment—of
M. CHAITVVLIN, the French Ambassador. He
mentions the indefatigable endeavours made
by that diplomatist, to guard against any
rupture between his own and the British 1
Government—together with the haughty, and,
at last, insolent rebuffs given to him by the then
Foreign Secretary, Lord GnEyviLLE. He recounts
the correspondence between Lord GRENVILLE and
M. CHAIIVELIN, up to the 24th January, 1793,
when the latter received the peremptory order of
the Privy Council, requiring him within eight
days to quit the shores of England. So far Mr.
COBDEN justifies to the full, his strong but not
extravagant assertion, that France (to use his own
phrase) " all but went down upon her knees to
avert a rupture with this country." But he con-
tentshimself withthis when he might have gonefur-
ther—little dreaming, possibly, of the wretched
little quibble by which the whole of his power-
ful argument might be evaded—the quibble
that the war was not the same war during the
whole of the twenty-two years from 1793 to
1815, for that after the Treaty of Amiens it was
a war against NAPOLEON, and not against the
French Revolution. We say that had Mr. Con-
DEN anticipated this most frivolous objection to
the continuity of his argument, he might have
gone further, instead of contenting himself with des-
cribing the conduct and treatment of M. CHAIIVELIN.
He might have accepted, " for the sake of argu-
ment," the distinction without a difference of a
war against NAPOLEON in lieu of a war against
the Revolution, and might have proved as
clearly and as logically as in the insta nc
of the original rupture of 1793, that England
was systematically the aggressor, the fomenter,
the sustainer of the quarrel throughout. What
are those three facts glaring upon us so reproach-
fully from the scroll of the Past, the records of
that age of blood and disaster ? They are visible to
every eye—those who " run rc-ly read"—they are
three documents, documents from no obscure
hand, documents penned by NAPOLEON, the Con-
queror of almost all the great powers of Chris-
tendom. Those documents are letters addressed
by that great man, upon three very momentous
occasions, to the Royal personage at the head of
the British Government. Two of them were ad-
dressed to the KING, the other to the PRINCE
REGENT. The two first were appeals made
by NAPOLEON to England, appeals in the name of
humanity that the war might cease—the earliest
of these appeals was forwarded to the Court of
St. JaMes's, when the great French chieftain was
elected First Consul, the second, when his autho-
rity was rendered permanent. Observe ! so
deeply was NAPOLEON interested in pressing his
demand upon the attention of this country, that
he broke through the rules of diplomatic etiquette,
and personally addressed himself to the English
SOVEREIGN. The third document we are all of
us familiar with—that Letter to the PRINCE
REGENT, in which the great EMPEROR likened
himself to THEMISTOCLES, and in which he
appealed not to our humanity but to
our magnanimity. There is something de-
plorably "in keeping "in the result of all
those communications. It is not sufficient' :-
borne in mind in this country, and may here not
unprofitably be recalled to the popular
recollection. Not one of these three let-
ters was ever even answered. Courtesy, to
speak of no other consideration, might have
dictated some response, no matter how evasive,
from the hand of the KING or of the PRINCE
REGENT. But no, there they remain, those
three documents, flaming reproach from the
scroll of history—unanswered ! Were we wrong,
therefore, in saying that Mr. ' COBDEN might
had he listed, have gone yet further in his argu-
ment ? But, Heaven knows, he went far enough
in the melancholy record of those atrocious wars
—demonstrating as plainly as any fact can by
possibility be demonstrated, that from first to last,
throughout the whole of those twenty-two years,
from 1793 to 1815, England was systematically
the aggressor—and the aggressor because France
had declared for freedom of opinion, and the
principle of equality, and the right of self-govern-
ment.

We yesterday pointed out how it was that the

retail trade in beer was practically vested in the
Ale-kings by means of the licensing system, and
that any person who, despite the numerous impe-
diments in his way, succeeded in opening a free
public-house was either crushed or bought off,

according to his circumstances. The " unlimited
competition," the proprietyand expediency whereof

has been admitted by nine-tenths of the members
of the popular branch of the Legislature, and by
even a larger proportion of the community in gene-
ral, was thus effectually prevented, and the
" thirsty souls" of every district were thus com-
piled to draw their supplies from the stores
of the great monopolists, at any prices which they
thought proper to demand. Hence it is, that no
matter how the price of barley may vary, the
charges for its liquid extracts remain un-

altered. A reduction in price of twenty
or thirty per cent. does not in any degree affect
the consumer—its only effect is to enhance the
previously inordinate profits of the brewer.
Another evil of the system is, that it leads, in
too many instances, to the adulteration or dilution
of the beverage. The moment a public-house falls
into the hands of one of the great firms, the oc-
cupant for the time being must submit ;to a com-
plicated and stringent code of rules and regula-
tions. He is no longer his own master. Any
disobedience may be severely punishee,
must not only purchase all his supplies from his
landlord's brewery, but the rate at which he is to
retail it is alto specified ; and between the two
regulations, unable to gain a fair and remunerative
profit if he distribute the beer in the same condi-
tion in which he receives it into his cellars, in
self-defence he is obliged to tamper with his stock.
To be enabled to live he must sell out of
each cask many more gallons than it originally
contained, and thus the consumer again suffers
from the virtual monopoly—the deterioration in
quality being even a greater grievance than the
increase in price.

It may be said that the evil is more apparent
than real—that there is nothing to prevent any
capitalist from entering into the brewing trade,
and that if he supply a superior article at a mo-
derate charge, he may confidently rely on public
support. Never was there a greater fallacy. No
matter how sound and palatable may be his beer,
or low its cost, he cannot find customers amongst

those who, by the primary condition of their
leases, are bound to draw all their supplies from
an exclusive source ; and it would take much time
and expense before he could establish a private
connexion that would render his establishment
remunerative." It may be said that good ale, like
" good wine, needs no bush" ; but if there
be no place where it can be obtained, either with
or without " a bush," the adage falls to the
ground. The licensing system prevents it being
sold under a bush, because the magistrates will
not allow the new brewer to open a house for the
sale of his beverages if the number previously
licensed were in their opinion sufficient for all the
wants of the district. It matters not how unex-
ceptionable the character of the occupant, or un-
equivocal his testimonials, the invariable rule is
appealed to. NO more than two or three houses
will be tolerated, and nothing can shake the
magisterial determination. On the other hand,
the activity of the police effectually prevent the
20 ssibility of any considerable quantity being sold
,
without. " a bush," or, in other words, in an un-

iceo, 1 house.
-.Again, it may he said that licences may be ob-