The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-27 00:00:00

differ f 7 ..em him, that Mr. COBDEN has contrived
throng ,pout to be most lucidly sequential in his
argur neat. The case is stated, in fact, by COBDEN
as c le,arly as ever case was stated by COBBETT—
aIIe L surely nothing stronger than this could be
sa3 .d in the way of panegyric ! The whole
pt trophlet is so convincing in the simplicity and
it tcidity,of its logic, that we are sanguine it will
w take converts to its opinions far and wide among
rn ur intelligent population. For ourselves—we are
fry no means converts to the opinions of Mr.
COBDEN, having for years and years thought pre-
cisely as he does in reference to the course pur-
sued by Europe, but especially by England, upon
the outbreak in 1789 of the French Revolution.
Heart and soul do we go with him in his asser-
tion—" I do not hesitate to affirm that nothing was
ever more clearly proved by evidence in, a Court of
Law than the fact, resting • upon historical docu-
ments and official acts, that England was
the aggressor in the last French War !" Heart
and soul do we go with him when
he adds "It is not enough to say that
France did nct 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 r Yes, it is true—England in that last
war, that atrocious and sanguinary war, that
war which lasted two-and-twenty years, and
which entailed upon this country a debt
of 500, 000, 000/. sterling—was the Aggressor.
It was a war not to confine France within her
ancient boundaries (for when it was commenced
she had not transgressed them), but to crush
OPINION, to strangle LIBERTY, to restore to the
throne at the Tuileries an abhorred dynasty—a
dynasty that has been again and again expelled
from the soil of France, though dragged back
again and again over the ravaged provinces, to
that capital which has only been captured by the
banded armies of Christendom. Yes ! France in
the last war was the Victim, and England
the Aggressor. History proves this—read her
documents, con her official acts, and
answer when you have done so—answe
from your conscience if there be not truth
in the assertion. Painful the admission may be,
but it is an admission inevitable with after genera-
tions. Terrible the truth may be to our amour
propre as a nation, but it is a truth that must
nevertheless be at last universally recognised.
Others have proclaimed it before now, but scarcely
any one so unanswerably as Mr. COBDEN in the
course of this noble pamphlet a pamphlet
both brave and magnanimous. Nothing could
be more happily timed than the moment
of its publication. It may exercise no feeble in-
fluence in saving this nation from a grievous peril,
and an execrable injustice and a ruinous expen-
diture—but most of all from that national remorse
which is a consequence of every unjust war, a
remorse which hangs like a palsy upon the arm of
Power, though it be the Power of even the
mightiest Government.

One benefit, at least, has been derived from the
dikussion on Mr. DisRAELfs proposition for the
reduction of the Malt Duties. The public atten-
tion has been prominently directed to the causes
to which the badness of quality and extravagance
of price of the poor man's beverage may fairly be
attributed. These unquestionable evils do not arise
solely from the Malt Tax, and the vexatious Excise
regulations consequent thereon. We are told on
high authority, that, if the entire impost were
repealed, it would not reduce the price of ale or
porter more than the fraction of a penny per pot.
This, one of the most eminent of the metropolitan
ale-kings has announced ; and from the calcula-
tions by which he sustains his views, the state-
ment may be accepted as strictly accurate. It
appears, however, from the experience of gentle-
men who have brewed their own beer, that, even
with the existing tax, they can produce a good
wholesome beverage for about one-half the pric?,
at which an adulterated article is supplied by the
retailers—that for one penny per pint a better arti-
cle can be obtained than that for which two pence
is charged at the different public-houses. Withoat
then in any degree depreciating the advantages
that would arise from the total abolition of the
Malt Tax, of which we are strenuous advocates,
we must look to other matters in which the beer-
drinking community, that is to say, nine-tenths
` the labouring population of the country, are
deeply interested, and for which speedy and
le-
quate remedies are imperatively demanded.
We want " Free Trade" in beer ! There is at

this moment a monster monopoly existing that
considerably enhances the price of an article of
almost primary necessity, and which is only less
pernicious than that which fell before the vigor-
ous assaults of the champions of the Anti-Corn-
Law-League,—a monopoly exercised in favour of a
body insignificant in point of numbers, but power-
ful for wealth and influence. It might have
been asserted, with some plausibility, that the
entire body of agriculturists were concerned
in maintaining the bread-tax—that the owners
and occupiers of the soil derived considerable pro-
fit from the dear small loaf ; and the danger of
causing loss and inconvenience to so large a pro-
portion of the community might be—and, while
the matter remained undecided, frequently was—
expatiated on with considerable force. No such
argument, however, can be adduced in the present
instance. The " aristocracy of the mash-tub" scarcely
number units for the thousands of agriculturists ;
nor can they point to any special burdens to which
they are subjected, and which might possibly, in
some degree, be considered as sets-off against, or
equivalents for, the exclusive privileges of which
they were in the enjoyment. All that can be
said in their favour is, that by dexterous and skil-

ful management, and by the judicious application
of the enormous funds at their disposal, they were
enabled to convert to their own peculiar advantage
the working of measures which were originally
framed for the benefit of the community, and which,
intended to be of national utility, were changed
by their devices from a blessing into a curse.
It is the " licensing system" that has been
productive of so much mischief, Which, if it has
not created, has fos,%ered and increased the alo -
kings' monopoly until it has swelled into its
present gigantic dimensions. ;With a laudable
desire of securing, or at least obtaining, the best
guarantee for the correct management of the dif-
ferent public-houses, various regulations were
enacted by Parliament; and, amongst others, the
power of giving or withholding licences in each
district was bestowed on the local magistracy.
This extraordinary power was but too frequently
capriciously exercised. We do not ascribe im-
proper motives to the privileged body. We be-
lieve, generally speaking, they were actuated by a
sincere and conscientious desire to benefit the
community by restricting the number of public-
houses. But good intentions, if leading to
evil results, cannot be justified nor would
we sustain an authority that had been
productive of serious mischief, because those
by whom it was wielded were well meaning,
though imprudent, men. The brewing oligarchy
were soon enabled to ascertain the grounds on
which a certain number of houses only were tole-
rated in each district. The great firms found
that it would be worth their while to acquire an
interest in every licensed house, the goodwill of
which was offered for sale or mortgage ; they
were always ready to step in with almost un-
limited funds purchasing not merely an interest
in a certain house and premises which could not
fairly be objected to, but the privilege of supply-
ing all the thirsty souls of the vicinity with malt
liquor at their own prices.
The sapient Justices, who thought that two or
three houses in which considerable capital was
invested, and which became of a palatial cha-
racter, were quite sufficient for the wants of a
locality, little tholight that the effect of their cha-
riness was to act as a virtual prohibition of any
malt liquor, but that which was brewed in the
establishments of BARCLAY and PERKINS, TRU-
MAN, HANBURY- and BUXTON, COMB; DELAFIELD,
and CO., REID and Co., MEux and Co., or any
others of the brewing oligarchy. If any person at-
tempted to break the monopoly, and to enter into
fair competition with the brewers' houses, many
vexatious, and almost insuperable, obstacles were
interposed in his way, and the chances were that
he had only expense and trouble for his pains.

If, however, he persevered, and eventually tri-
umphed over every impediment, and he started
on the sound principle of going with ready money
in hand to purchase in the best and cheapest
market,—he was subjected to many annoyances.
It would be well worth the while of two or three
firms, that counted their annual profits by tens or
hundreds of thousands, to combine to crush the
interloper, or, if these means failed, to buy up the
good-will of the Free-trader.

Thus it came to pass that a free public-house—
or one in which the occupier was at liberty to
purchase or brew his own beer, as he thought
proper—became the exception, not the rule ; and
thus it was that the brewers could afford to set
public opinion at defiance, and to make no
allowance for the great reduction in the price of
barley consequent upon the abolition of the Corn
Laws and the establishment of that which, al-
though termed Free Trade, is only so far as
the solid products of our cereal crops are con-
cerned, but which cannot apply to the liquids so
long as the Malt Tax and the licensing system
are retained in their present form.

We invite the attention of our readers, of those
who belong to the Established Church especially, to
the letter of Mr. TUCKETT, which appeared in our
impression of Tuesday last. If any denomination of
Dissenters is entitled to be heard on the question
of Church Rates, it is the Society of Friends. Not
even the most virulent High Churchman ventures
to charge them with unworthy motives. Their
principle, whether we agree to it or dissent from
it, is clear and self-consistent ; and it must be no
small degree of bigotry which would refuse to call
it a noble one. The only question, indeed, is,
.whether it be not too noble for the world as it is.
It is well known that they decline the payment of
Ecclesiastical Taxes, not from the slightest tinc-
ture of insubordination, for they avow and practise
non-resistance as a part of their religious creed, but
because they acknowledge no secular authority in
r gigion. They conceive of it as a purely spiritual
iraing, and infer that all contributions for its sup-
port must be the spontaneous offerings of spiritual
motives ; and hence when money is demanded of
them in the name of a secular Sovereign, and the
demand enforced by the terrors of secular law,
they at once reply, "In secular matters we
acknowledge the sacred authority of the Sovereign
and the law, but when it assumes to address us in
a religious capacity, we are compelled by our views
to regard the authority as usurped, and to decline
even the slightest acknowledgment of its exist-
ence." Many of our High Church friends,
indeed—Mr. GLADSTONE amongst them certainly
—ought to sympathise with all this. It is one
and the same principle as that on which they rest,
when they claim such an elevated position for the
Church in regard to the State. The principle that
religion ought to be free from the control of
worldly powers is common to both ; and we may
fairly put it to the reader to decide which takes
the nobler course—the High Churchman who
sighs for Church independence of State control,
and yet will not part with State dignities and
State pay ? or the Quaker who chooses to be
independent of State control, but who consistently
refuses all State favours also. It has been in the
upholding of this—one of the great principles of
the sect—that they have endured, as Mr. TIICKETT
says, almost unheard-of sufferings. We make
these remarks, because it is time for the Society of
Friends to be not only known as one of the most
peaceful and inoffensive of Christian denomina-
tions, but also to have the real mgrit of many of
their leading principles fairly acknowledged and
explained. Their only fault, at least in this case,
it will be owned by all candid men, is, that they
soar too high for the world as it is, the greater
part of church-goers not being prepared to do in
support of their religion what the Friends cheer-
fully do for theirs.

As to Mr. TUCKETT'S proposition, that while
" a parochial rate upon property is deemed the
best mode of defraying the cost of public worship
and the repair of churches, all known Dissenters
should be written off exempt as when a house is
void." We can only say that we would ourselves
most gladly bear the increased expense which
might thereby fall upon us personally, and we are
confident the vast majority of Churchmen have
the same feeling. Moreover, we believe that the
spirit of liberality has so much increased amongst
Churchmen of late, that the amount required
would not be felt as a burden, but raised with
pleasure. Theinstances quoted byMr. TRELAWNEY,
and by us from him, fully bear out this view ;
indeed, the plan so successfully carried out by the
Churchwarden of Headingley, that of rating each
person occupying a sitting according to his house-

rental, brings out the same result nearly as Mr.
MONETT'S proposition. The chief difference as
the two stand would be, that Mr. RED) NEWSOME
TMauckKeSET:nwlyouithde
makeactualailpay the Church Rate
worshippers pay. Mr.
who could not give evidence of contributing to
the support of some other denomination ; he
would make contribution the practical test of
dissent ; he would make it also the answer to
those who allege, with Sir H. INGLIS, that the
occupiers of houses were morally bound to con-
tribute to the support of religion, from the fact of
all
Ohnoeu sg op
re
apnrdreer
reason,
n,being
however,
liable to
t the
that Church
eh
Rates
are so specially odious to the great majority of
Dissenters is, no doubt, the peculiar form they
assume as a tax. They are voted every year by
every little parish parliament. Generally a con-
siderable number of the rate-payers, sometimes a
majority of them, are composed of persons who
not only conscientiously prefer a different mode of
worship to that which they are forced to support,
but who are paying much more than the amount
exactcd for their own worship. Let us only place
ourselves in their position. How should we relish
it, if the Quakers, Methodists, Baptists, and In-
dependents, could call us together, and compel us
to vote a rate for the support of their worship ?
Would not the compulsion rouse our English feel-
ing ? Should we not feel it a degradatiou to be
obliged to assess our own tribute to those whose
services we never used ? Should not we,asnot
too, feelthe
that the amount, generally small, w
question with us, so much as the dishonour done
to our faith ? We are certain, from personal
knowledge, that the great mass of candid
and honourable Churchmen are taking the
view of the subject which we now. in-
dicate, and that therefore the immense ma-
jority of the country desires to see Church Rates
put an end to for ever. We should,_ then, cor-
dially approve of Mr. TUCKETT'S proposal, did we
not hope that the House of Commons would soon
deal with the whole subject in a yet more satis-
factory way. Mr. BETHELL, it will be remem-
bered, wished the proceeds of cathedral sinecures
to be applied to the support of the fabrics of the
churches. Mr. TRELAWNEY would sell the LORD
CHANCELLOR'S livings to raise the desired fund.
We must say that nothing would rejoice us more
than to see petitions from our fellow-Churchmen
declaring their ability and
wveiryllinnumerously si
glithede; own churches in repair,
and praying that Cathedral Revenues, money
II
raised by the sale of advowsons, and money now
diverted from educational purposes to the purses
of sinecurists, should all be thrown into one grand
fund, in aid of a really national education. It is
grievous to think what a glorious fund might thus
be raised, which now is literally wasted. Applied
to education all sects would benefit alike ; at pre-
sent it only feeds and nurtures two of the greatest
nuisances in the country—Government patronage

and sinecurism.
If arguments were needed to urge our new
Ministry to act promptly in a matter which Mr.
MELAWNEY'S Committee has rend9Ted easy for
them, they would be found in the openings fur-
nished •by the present state of the law for the
gratifying of magisterial spite, and the cupidity of
constables. We have just noticed a gross case of
this kind at Tynemouth. The seizures were made
upon the Society of Friends, apparently with a
sort of selection of what would be least convenient
to be deprived of ; but when the bill of costs came
in, it was made out with enormous profits to the
constable and his clerk. Thus,—they paid a man
17s. 6d. for keeping the goods in his possession,
but they charged for this man 101. 10s. ! ! For
bills of sale, and posting them, they paid 110. 6d.,