The Sun.
London, England, 1869-04-29 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOULITI..?

The Times, in discussing the recent debate on our
licensing system, observes that within ten years of the
beer law, Lord Brougham, who had been one of its
strongest advocates, proposed a measure for its repeal, so
terrible had been the immorality occasioned by the system.
The notion of the reformers was that by bringing good
beer to every poor man's door they would be keeping him
from the public-house-- in ether words, from bad company
and vicious habits, The result, as they discovered too
late, was that by putting beer in everybody's way they
induced a certain number of persons to drink too much of
it, and so promoted the very evil they desired to suppress.
To this disappointment was added another misfortune
of unexpected magnitude. The object of the Legis-
lature in transferring the licensing power from the
magistrates to the excise was unquestionably good.
Magistrates were often brewers themselves, still more
frequently connected with brewing and moneyed
interest; so that for various reasons they might be
expected to discourage the new establishments, and, under
cover of requirements touching moral character and repute,
to put difficulties in the way of beer licenses. The excise
officers, on the other hand, would be anxious only to
increase the revenue by the consumption of exciseable
articles, and, moreover, they bad no ,liscretion in the mat-
ter, provided the applicant for a license complied with the
very easy condition of the Act. The consequence was, in
the words of Mr. Bruce, "a check exercised on public-
houses which did not exist in regard to beerhouses "—in
other words, beerhouses became independent of all
control whatever. A bench of magistrates could
refuse a wine and spirit license without diffi-
culty— the Excise could not possibly refuse a beer
license. No doubt the reformers of 1830 imagined
that a shop for the sale of beer alone would be as harmless
an establishment as that of a grocer or teadealer ; but
experience has shewn how completely they were mistaken.
The truth came out the other day in our reports upon the
haunts of habitual criminals. Of all the bad places in the
country, a bad beershop—and of these there are many—is
about the worst. Over these houses- tile' ma'gratiates have
no control, the police have no control, and the Excise have
only a control which is utterly nugatory. That, in fact,
is the point at which reform is now most imperatively
needed. It is idle to think of establishing a reign of
sobriety by putting beer absolutely out of reach, but we
can insure that beershops should, at any rate, be no worse
conducted than public-houses, and that when they are
turned into dens of thieves a short and sharp remedy
should be in the hands of those who are responsible for
public order.

The Star says the beershops may probably be dealt
with, or at least their evils will be so thoroughly exposed
in discussions such as that which took place on Sir 11.
Selwin-Ibbetson's bill, that a general measure on licensing
kill at last be extorted from Parliament. :eucceseive
Governments have long been willing enough to deal with
the subject ; but they have always found themselves
hampered and impeded by certain great interests and
crganisatior.s which effectually prevent the matter from
being settled on its merits. If the agitations which have so
usefully begun go on, it will be seen that the present state
of things is unbearable. It would be a good thing at once
to get rid of beershops, becarse they, unlike public-
houses, are inevitably, if not intrinsically, bad ; but
this part of the work were acconirAished there would still
be many questions to be disposed of. We should have to
snake up our minds whether the liquor trade ought to be
open or restricted, whether the restriction should be in
the form of certain requirements in the way of rental and
accommodation, or should be secured by placing a discre-
tionary power in the hands of magistrates, or by giving a
veto to the inhabitants of each neighbourhood. For the
peace of the country, as well as for its sobriety and decency.
all these questions ought to be settled.
The Standard refers to Mr. Lowe's scheme for hiding
the law courts in a hole where nobody can see them
except by adventuring himself upon a penny steamboat,
and declares that by the side of the Government proposi-
tion Sir Charles Trevelyan's plan appears at once
economical, magnificent, and convenient. Mr. Lowe and
Mr. Layard have mutilated the Embankment saheme,
rejecting all its good and retaining all its bad features.
The sum of Mr. Lowe's financial operation is this. He
could erect such law courts as Le considers necessary
for he has substituted h's judgmeet that of everybody
at all conversant with the question, upon the Carey-street
site for a net sum of about—including the money already
expended—one million and six. hundred thousand pounds.
This, however, he refuses to do, and embarks in a
speculation which, however favourably it may turn
out, assuming the land to be acquired for £OOO,OOO,
most necessarily turn out a losing one to the public.
Mr. Lowe, in the name of economy, wants to make ducks
and drakes of the public money to prevent the erection of
a palace on rising ground, which those who have to use it
can conveniently get at : proposes at greater cost one in a
'aollow which cen be convenient to nobody except, perhaps
a few of Mr. Layerd'e constituents, and, in a noble
paroxysm of economy, attempts to dragoon the House of
Commons into the perpetration of the most costly filly--
if it be not the most scandalous job—its annals can ahem
The Times contrasts the position of a clergyman of the
Established Church with that of A minister of a voluntary
Church, as exhibited in two cases recently brought before
legal tribunals—the cases of Mr. Bennett, of Frome, and
of Mr. Gordon, the pastor of an Independent chapel as
Peening. The clergyman holds a stetus fixed by law.
The position of the minister is fixed by private contract.
The clergyman, if only he obey the law, is safe, neither
congregation nor bishop having power to interfere
with him ; whereas in many denominations, whether
or not among the Independents, the minister is at
the mercy of his congregation. In short, the clergy-
man's tenure is infinitely tire more secure ; though
that this is a doubtful advantage is, of course, open to
voluntaryists to maintain. Upon the question whether
the bishop should be invested with a discretion as to the
initiation of proceedings against a clergyman, much may
he said on both sides. The law, it may be urged, is made
to protect the congregations ; it is they who seller from its
violation. Hew can the law be equal for all, if each judge
• is to have a dispensing Tower? Why give a discretion to
bishops, who, m the matter of doctrine orceremony, are ae
great offend ersas the clergy under their charge ? If a bishop
may spare a heretic, what is to prevent him from sparing
an open profligate? The law is the same both for one and
the other. For these reasons LOrd Shaftesbury, in his bill be-
fore Parliament, proposes to give power to prosecute to any
three inhabitant householders of the • diocese who are
Churchmen. On the other hand, it is necessary to look to
the practical working of the system. As to immorality,
no bishop is charged with being indulgent to immoral
clergymen in his diocese, though he may not prosecute
them, on account of the expense ; but for this the remedy •
lies elsewhere. Then as to doctrine, the truth is, it is not
Food that the law should always be rigorously enforced.
These prosecutions are often oppressive to individuals •
they disturb the public, beget ill-will where all should be
friendly co-operation, and entirely fail to produce doc-
trinal uniformity,
The Herald thinks it necessary that an ample reserve of
well-trained regular soldiers should be created, who should
be ready to join the ranks when required. The great
obstacle to its creation hitherto has consisted iith
length of the recruits' engagement. But the
new regulation, which leaves the colonies to pr o•
vide for their own protection, and largely increases
the home force, e and by to
make the term of service shorter; and by Passing the
soldiers more rapidly through " the mill," will provide an
ample supply of the best description of men for the reserve
Lord Menck, while bearing ample testimony to the
. patriotism of the volunteers and their utility
should occasion arise for their services, very pronerry
" objects to their being reckoned among the standing
forces of the country ;" but we cannot coincide in hi;
opinion that the total abolition of the purchase system
would tend to increase the efficiency of our army. reee
motion from the ranks can only with safety be adopted
in an army raised by conscription, which ensures the
presence in the ranks of men of family and such
education as would qualify them for promotion. In
ours, consisting of volunteers from the lowest, most
ignorant, and generally the worst-conducted class
of the population, it would be simply impossible to find
persons suited for commissioned officers in such numbers
as would at all affect its organisation for the better ; while
special provision for one pot tion of the men existed would
not only be attended with increased expense, but would
create jealousy and discontent amongst the others. The
first need of the country is a reserve of regular
troops, which will place it beyond the risk of danger.
and from the tenor of the debate in the Upper Il ouse on Lord
Monck's motion we have every hope of the speedy realise
tiou of this most necessary adjunct to our national defences.
The Daily News says that the story of Mr. Benjamin
Higgs remains something more than a nine days' wonder,
even in these days of sensational crime. If that gentle-
man is watching the world from the retirement he so
opportunely sought, he has at least the satisfaction of
having made a sensation. Though the crime of which he
has been guilty is nothing but commonplace and vulgar
felony, he may at any rate claim the advantage of the
very Philistine distinction between wholesale and
retail. He has been a wholesale dealer_ in rogueries,
and the more his proceedings are investigated
the more strange
_and startling they become.
It is of course easy to be wise after the event.
but it dace seem remarkable that Mr. Higgs's double life
should never have became known to
.the directors of the
• very immenslty of the difference
gasbetween Mr. office, and Mr. Higg,3 of
Perhapsl 1 ofti ‘-
the -
pastf his security. The con.
Teddingtoe, constituted
idea'. Where the
tract is almost like one of the dreams of romance. It
the antithesie of the real and ti,elti4 ,i;seen,,i;
failing in
ti,
directors of this company ale a
inquire into their clerk's private ,f,„'n'e•iditere, but in fail-
ing to see that their oe system iof' accounts was fairly
e `ect eve;,
carried out. They had a syslein Si) tint,better, leo
now, the accountants can devise netei,n,
worked. Yet
they took for granted that it was bens,.
Time
it wes on this very system that Higgs also relied.
directors did not. look alter it; but he den an 1 it

answered his purpose as it rniL-ht 'have answered theirs.
After all Higgs held his p,sition by the sane tenure by
which everything is hell--that of wakefnlns,4 and watch-
fulness. He was kept awako by the penalty of dis-
covery—those, who should have mad., the d'seovery had' no
such fear to keep tiled) Tv.vake, and they went on •in the
sleepy way in which business is so generally transacted.
Active personal supervi.,ion will always beat systems ir.
&Inv; business, and the v: ry best machinei7 of accolm
worked by a clever r,gne for his own inter-st. and no
careftiflywatched by those whose interest,, :t id sueant, t;•
guard, uiil on'y give a frau : a lon,;er ehanc of life.