The Sun.
London, England, 1870-08-08 00:00:00

LONDON, MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 1870.

MOST persons will, we suspect, be surprised—we
adinit that we ourselves are—to find that there is
absolutely no treaty obligation upon this country to
defend the neutrality of Belgium. We once took
upon ourselves that obligation, as did the
other great Powers which signed the Treaty of
1831—namely, France, Russia, Prussia, and
Austria. But eight years later, the King of HOLLAND
having agreed to recognise the separation of his old
Belgian provinces and the independence of Belgium,
a new Treaty was drawn up and signed in 1839 by all
the great Powers before-mentioned, by Belgium, and
by Holland. It set forth the independence
of Belgium and Holland's recognition of it,
acknowledged the right of the King of
HOLLAND to enter the Germanic Confederation as
Grand Duke of LUXEMBURG, and it declared that the
Treaty of 1831 was " not obligatory upon
the high contracting parties." It would
seem, therefore, that the older Treaty was
intended merely to guarantee the independence
of Belgium against Holland, and not at all
against the Great Powers. It is true that the 7th
article of the 1839 treaty states that " Belgium bliall
form an independent and perpetually neutral State ; "
but there is no article in this treaty as there was in
the older one, whereby the Great Powers guarantee,
either collectively or individually, the ob-
servance of this provision. If, therefore, we
decide to defend Belgium we shall do
so, not because of the Treaty obligation,
but because of a moral obligation, and possibly also
because of considerations for our own safety. In
connection with this matter it will be well to notice
the very remarkable words addressed recently by the
CZAR to the Belgian Minister at St. Petersburg. The
Emperor ALEXANDER spoke of "the respect and
consideration acquired throughout Russia and
Europe by a young Sovereign who, following in his
father's footsteps, had been able with so much wisdom,
to uphold the positiim of his country, by basing the
rights guaranteed to it by treaties on the strict
observance of the duties imposed upon him."
It would seem as if one of the great Powers, at all
events, was prepared to join England in uphold-
ing the independence of Belgium against conspira-
tors in high places, whether at Paris or Berlin.

WE must not let this war absorb all our attention.
The session which closes this week has, thanks to
the feebleness of the HOME SECRETARY, brought
no relief to the sixty thousand victims who every
year are slain by drink. If the delay should lead to
a more vigorous measure next year than we should
have had this year, it will not be altogether regret-
though the slaughter is a heavy price to pay.
In the meanwhile all true friends of the
we rking • classes must not cease from point-
ing out over and over again the 6vils of
the drink traffic. It is a case of line upon
line, precept upon precept ; a case of scope cadendo,
which in time will make an impression even upon
the mind of Mr. BRUCE. As an ounce of fact is said
to be worth a ton of theory, we give the right hon.
gentleman the following incident. A few months
ago a seaman named EDWORTHY having just been
paid off, went to Torquay with more than £lOO in his
pocket. He daily frequented the Steam Packet Inn
kept by ft man named CROCKER; and every night he
was carried back to his house hopelessly drunk. On July
30th he was drinking at this same inn from twelve at
noon to twelve at midnight. He was, as usual, carried
home intoxicated, and put to bed. During the night
he turned his face on the pillow, but seems to have
been unable to turn back, and the next morning he
was found suffocated. A coroner's inquest was held,
and the verdict was that " the deceased was acci-
dentally suffocated while in a state of helpless
intoxication." The coroner " severely repri-
manded" CROCKER "for supplying, the man
with so much drink when he was
already drunk." " Severely reprimanded !" And
is that all ? Was not CROCKER—he who supplied
a man without possession of his faculties with that
which might, and in all probability would, bring him
into some serious disaster—exposed to any severer
punishment than this ? Why was he not tried for
manslaughter ? The railway signalman who has
been kept for fifteen hours at his post, and when
wearied out so that he can hardly keep his eyes open,
forgets to turn the points, and brings about a
fatal collision, is tried for manslaughter, and
has to undergo imprisonment. And yet
the signalman never meant to make a
mistake, never contemplated the possibility of it, was
doing all that his benumbed faculties would allow to
prevent a mistake. But CROCKER, of malice afore-
thought, seeing EDWORTHY drunk, supplied him
with more drink ; seeing him in a state already full
of danger, deliberately increased the peril. Nay,
more than that, he put his victim's money into his
own pocket : that is, not only did him
a grievous wrong; but made him pay for it.
And yet CROCKER does not even get his licence re-
voked; simply gets a reprimand, which he can laugh
at among his boon customer companions at his own
bar. It is useless to appeal to this man's conscience.
It is useless to tell him that he is morally respon-
sible for. EDWORTHY'S death, that the blood of his
brother cries against him from the ground. Publi-
cans would do a very small business indeed if they
were troubled with qualms of that sort.
Our readers may perhaps draw from this case the
inference that in the forthcom►'.ng Lice using Bill Mr.
BRUCE should provide penalties against those pub-
licans who supply drink to persons already intoxi-
cated. We draw no such inference, for we are quite
sure that any such provision would be
unworkable. Who is to decide when a
man is drunk ? Sober persons, who see a
man walking 'homeward through the streets,
zig-zag, say that that man is drunk
even though he should, after much faubling, succeed.