The Sun.
London, England, 1856-10-03 00:00:00

Sinope ? Has the cold- blooded assassination at
Hango-Udd ? Has Turkey ever been allowed from
first to last the luxury of any one just reprisal ?
Have the Allies (who were dragged into the War
by the wanton aggressions of the late CZAR)
secured to themselves for all their terrible expendi-
ture of blood and gold even the shadow of the shade
of an indemnity ? Behold, then, the fruits (ashes
to the very core) of this disgrace ful Peace, of this
most discreditable and despicable Compromise !
And, beholding them—fling your caps in the air,
0 men of England ! (ever toiling and over-taxed)
to the popular cries of the Day—" Huzza to his
Royal Highness !" " Vive l'Empereur des
Francais P'— "Hail " to the newly-crowned
" Anointed of the LORD," the young Czar ALEX-
ANDER !

The United Kingdom Alliance will not fail for
want of publicity. They first succeeded in gaining
from the Edinburgh Review an article, all whose
arguments are entirely in favour of their theory,
though finished off with some becoming apprehen-
sions for the Budget. Next they got the ear of
the Times, which took much the same course,
saying everything for the object of the Alliance,
and only providing the usual loophole for escape ;
the need of escape soon time, for the Baer Act
had to be repealed or altered, and, that being the
popular wish, of course our contemporary would
not dishonour its name ; so the Alliance was for-
gotten, or ignored, as we suppose we are now to
say. The last appearance of this Society was but
the other day—the Society being appellant, and
Lord STANLEY respondent. The Society applied
to his Lordship to honour them with his presence
at their usual meeting, which is to be held at
Manchester on the 221, and his Lordship replied
with eight reasons for declining to do so. The
letter of his Lordship rather invited a reply to his
reasons, and, of course, the Secretary, Mr. POPE,
having such an invitation from a Lord, gladly
joined issue, and the eight reasons were met by
eight answers. Lord STANLEY rejoined under
eight heads again, and Mr. POPE, of course, could
not be so wanting in respect to the heir of Duey
as not to reply again under the same number of
divisions. Our readers will not, we suppose, wish
us to present them with several long columns of
small print, but they may not dislike a brief
notice of this friendly, and, we must acknowledge,
well-conducted conflict.
Lord STANLEY draws a strong line of distinc-
t ion between the Temperance Societies, which
rely on moral suasion only, and the Alliance which
aims by legislation to put down the sale of intoxi-
cating drinks. The former he cordially supports.
To the latter he has his eight objections. The
object of the Alliance we take to be the prohibi-
tion, by act of Parliament, of the retail sale of
intoxicating drinks. Lord STANLEY objects to
wealthy law-makers legislating respecting the en-
joyments of the poorer classes ; he thinks that a
desire so strong as to expend nearly 70,000,000/.
annually in its gratification would lead to the
evasion of any law, with all the demoralising con-
sequences of evasion ; that, as things are, it would
be unjust to close the rural public-houses espe-
cially, the recreation, however indefensible, being
tthe only one the labourer has ; that the revenue
could not afford to lose some 20,000,000/., nor
could it replace the loss by direct tax ation ; that
self-control is what should really be encouraged,
but that prohibition rather incites to resistance
than otherwise; that it would be impossible to
define intoxicating substances—would tobacco and
opium, ec., be included 4 that the suppression of
the traffic, without prohibiting possession also,
would not be sufficient, and the latter would be
impossible without unbearable intrusion on domes-
tic privacy ; that every attempt at coercion dis-
credits the exertions of those who aim at the same
end by moral means.
Mr. POPE, in reply, states that it is wished to
obtain such an overwhelming pressure of public
opinion in favour of suppression as shall render
it the act of the many, and not that of wealthy
legislators only ; that the desire for strong drink
is unique, and that the trade in it does not re-
spond to the ordinary laws of political economy ;
that because the rural population have few amuse-
ments, it does not follow that what they have
should be poisoned by strong drink ; that the
revenue question might be left to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer ; and that during the ter

perance movement in Ireland under Father
MA.TIEMW the revenue gained more by 90,0001.
on other articles than it lost on spirits ; that
laws against gambling, stealing, to., do not in-
crease the desire to do the forbidden things ; that
the case of tobacco, opium, and other stimulants
could be dealt with if necessary ; that though the
law in America may be partially evaded, yet

crime has diminished 75 per cent, where it is
in operation ; and that moral force is not enough
for the world as it is.

These, in brief, are the original pleas and coun-
ter•pleas on the issue of suppressing all traffic in
intoxicating drinks. The further debate on them
is little more than reinforcement of the original
ideas. To look at the controversy as a whole, the
strength of Lord Sze NLEY lies in the unfitness of
legislating on what may be a great moral and
social evil, but is not properly an injustice to
another. The strength of the Society's Secretary
in proving, as well as he can, that selling intoxi-
cating drinks is an injury to a man's neighbour.
Indeed on this the whole controversy appears to
us to hinge. If selling spirits be really similar to
other nuisances prohibited by law, it would be the
business of the Legislature to devise a law which

should be effectual—at least as much so as laws

are generally. The laws against theft, as we too
well know, fall very far short of attaining their
object ; yet no one thinks of dispensing with them
because ho must lose his p )cket-handkerchief if

be walk pretty leisurely, looking at the shipping,
perhaps, over London-bridge. The question,
therefore, is—Can the gin-shop-keeper and the

spirit merchant be classed with those who violate

their neighbours' rights ? It would be impossible,
we think, to answer this question iq the ailirma•

' It cannot be pretended that the seller violates
the purchaser's rights. He sells him an article
capable, like innumerable other articles, of a
wrong or a right use. Vast numbers, it is true,
will use it improperly, and the
.seller who should
seduce another to do so, might be amenable to
law, indeed is so now ; for he would not long
retain his licence. Bat volenli non fit injuria, is
a maxim fundamental in law, where the party is
of age to know all c)nsequences ; and, as Lord
STANLEY observes, to depart from it would open
the widest field to civil and religious persecution.
It would authorise us to interfere by force of law,
i 6 a man, in our opiqim, injured others by in-
ducing him to believe a wro;ig creed, or to join
in a hurtful pleasure.

But does the seller violate the rights of the
purchaser's neighbours ? Surely it is not the
seller, but the purchaser, who does that. The
seller does not wish to make the buyer drunk,
boisterous, violent, and a street nuisance. It is
not, in the actual state of society, an advantage
to him to do so. If the buyer abuse in this way
his right of purchase, and if the nuisance become
intolerable, the law protects us against the drun-