The Sun.
London, England, 1869-11-12 00:00:00

REWARDS TO INFORMERS.

The Telegraph regards the case recently decided in
its favour as evidence against the practice of offering
certain penalties as rewards to the persons who
undertake prosecutions. A common informer the
other day brought an action against the Telegraph to
recover penalties for publishing advertisements
offering a reward for the return of lost or stolen
property, accompanied with a promise that no ques-
tions should be asked. The prosecution was founded
upon an old Act of George 11., which stipulated that
the publisher of such advertisements should bo
liable to a penalty of £5O, this sum being payable
to any person who . chose to sue for the
penalty. Unfortunately for the informer in
this case it was found that the statute had been
repealed, and that the proceedings therefore were
invalid. The Telegraph deprecates the practice of
encouraging the trade of common informer by offer-
ing fines to prosecutors. This noble profession is
much less practised than formerly, but "even recent
legislation commits this species of mistake." An Act
passed so recently as 1861—one of the Criminal
Law Consolidation Acts—directs that the penalty
of £5O for publishing the illegal announcement shall
be payable "to any person who will sue for the same
by action of debt, to be recovered with full costs of
suit." But the courts of justice discourage informa-
tions in every possible way, and for an evident reason:
the informer brings only those actions which are
likely to pay, and thus the operation of the law
becomes very irregular and uncertain. The informer,
too, is most commonly merely the puppet of some
attorney. The practice, our contemporary thinks, is
decidedly prejudicial to the interests-of justice.

" BOSCH."

"Bosch," unhappily, is no bosh, but a very sad
reality. A little while ago a man was charged with
stealing a large quantity of suet from a " factory,"
and it transpired in evidence that this fat was used
in the manufacture of butter. The owners of the
" factory" indignantly denied the imputation. But
the Grocer, whilst accepting this explanation, declares
that in London there are several manufacturers of
what the public buy for butter, but which is known
in the trade as " bosch." "We regret that this is the
case, but it is of no use blinking the fact. -it is, per-
haps, the work of that inexorable master—the law
of supply and demand. There is a large section of
the public who will have butter at a less price than
any dairy man or woman could produce it for, so
the manufacturer of bosch steps in and fills the
gap."
WARFARE BY NON-CONSUMPTION.

The resolution of the Amnesty Committee to bring
tne English Government to its senses by discouraging,
the use of tobacco, and thereby injuring the re-
venue, is by no means without precedent. The
Italians of Milan, whilst under Austrian rule, re-
nounced the use of cigars made by their hated
masters ; the women of St. Petersburg forswore
French millinery during the Crimean War; and the
New Englanders, in 1770, bound themselves to drink
no tea until the obnoxious Stamp Act was with-
drawn. But, though these examples are undoubtedly
highly respectable, it does not appear that the self.
denying persons ever achieved anything.