The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-03 00:00:00

That. was certainly rather sharp' practice against
the beer (Hear.) Moreover, if a beerseller
died, 'and left a wife, his Wife was not to be allowed
to sell any beer till she had got a new license.
Mr. MASON seconded the resolution. He stated
that he-was a member of the deputation that waited
On Mr. Hardy—a gentleman who was, he said, cne
of those cool and calm persons who never laughed,
but only grinned ; who smiled, and murdered
while they smiled. Ho then proceeded to speak of
the tyranny of the licensing system, and condemned .
the bill of Mr. Hardy as tending to reintroduce a
monopoly in the sale of beer. With regard to the
argument that because men made beasts of them-
serves a 'check ought to be put upon them, he con-
sidered it as unreasonable to put down the sale of
beer because men got drank as it would be to shut
up the butchers' shops because men becathe glut-
tiins. Mr. Hardy was the crusher of the wivesiond
children of 'the beersellers, and the course which
he was pursuing on this 'subject made him un-
worthy of the name of Englishman.
Mr. 'JAMES LOWRY, who stated that he was a
cabinet-maker, and lived near the Oxford Market,
bore testimony to the improved accommodation
which the working elassei ha-.l met with under the
beer-house system, and denounced the bill as de-
testable.

The resolution was then put and carried.
Mr. DAWES moved, and Mr. WYBROW seconded,
a motion for the presentation of a petition to the
House of Commons against the bill.
Mr. BLUNT, in supporting the resolution, con-
tended that ie beerse!lers should not be contented
wish opposing Mr. Hardy's bill, but should corn-
meT.ce a movement for the total abolition of the
been-ing sys'etn. (Hear.) He did not see why
beer and spirits shodld not be sold as freely as
butcher's meat pr
Mr. BISHOP, the secretary, said, ha-vitig recently,
corresponded on this subject with the trade in seve.-
ral large townQ, he was sorry to find that greatin-
difference prevailed among them with regard to Mr.
Hardy's bill, and that the general feeling was that
it would not do.the beerseller much injury. It-was
highly desirable that such a mistaken notion should
be removed. The single fact that the bill would
prevent a beerseller from removing ought to be
os up ffip
ocsi
ietni
ot
nt owe,
or o:
11 ids e
buen iovffe re Brae ld o
top otshi tei o
bipll
Nbo
ydoubttheir
friends in the House of Commons ; but its success
would depend on the beersellers themselves. If the
trade were indifferent and inert, the bill might
pass, and they would then find, to their cost, that
they had by th, it inactivity forged fetters for them-
selves that they could not remove.
The resolution was then carried, and the proceed-
ings terminated with a vote of thanks to the chair-
man.

THE FRENCH ELECTIONS.

(From the Times.)
Certainly the Straits of Dover divide two very
different peoples. If the one are very right, the
other must.be very wrong ; and if either Empire is
celestial the other is outer barbarian. Conceive
Queen Victoria, immediately after a dissolution
of Parliament, transmitting through Sir George
Grey a Circular to all the High Sheriffs, Mayors,
and other returning officers, with a list of candi-
dates, charging them to use every exertion to
procure their return, on the ground that nearly all
of them Iliad given_ her the utmost satisfaction in
the late Parliament, and with a few new and
carefully picked men, ought to be trusted to do the
same in the next. Conceive her dwelling on the
support they had given to her dynasty, on,
their sense of the glory and the misfortunes
connected with her name, and on their
loyal belief in the name of Guelph, or what-
ever name was taken for the purpose, as the
watchword and safegard of France. Conceive all
this done in the most delightful confidence that
the appeal would be responded to,—only just a
lit-le apprehension betrayed that the people would
take it too quietly, too much as a matter of course,
and let the Queen's candidates be elected by ex-
cessive and indolent unanimity. But go to Dover,
look across the Channel, ani there you may see
the very cornfields and dwellinghouses of the people
who like this style of things, who are governed in
this way, who are proud of it, who indignantly
spurn any other, and who are most acutely sensible
of our own political absurdities. -Is it possible to
imagine ourselves coming to such a pass ? What if
Charles I. had carried the day, with the assistance
of his Holiness, his most Christian Majesty, and his
faithful Irish subjects ? The name of Stuart would
then have been the mlladium of British order and
British glory. Her Majesty would have found in
the member for Buckinghamshire a zealous, en-
lightened, and eloquent champion of her dynasty,
her prerogative, her estates, and her' 'policy ; and
she would accordingly recommend him to the par-
ticular attention of the electors of Bucks. She
would tell them that she would take it very ill of
them if they passed him by for some other less
tried per Lon : s' ill more, if they used the opportu-
nity for factious disturbance by returning some-
body who was positively disagreeable to her Ma-
jesty. It is remarkable that Charles I. did this, not
through Secretaries of the Treasury, or any other
quiet agency, but openly ! and even then it was
thought highly unconstitutional. Napoleon 111.
does it. He says, with courageous logic, " Others
recommend candidates, why should not I ? These
are good men and true, why should not I recom-
mend them ? They have done their duty, and de-
serve to be kept on. You need not return them
unless you. :like : but, take my word for it, you
cannot do better."
It would be very little to the purpose to main-
tain that our way is better, for the plain fact is
that we have our way and the French have theirs ;
and we might as well propose that cat and dog
should interchange their respective habits or adopt
a common model, as that either of us should fol-
low the example of the other. It is almost useless
to discuss such- a style of politics on this side the
Channel. No Frenchmen would pay the slightest
attention to what we had to say on the subject,
and to our English readers argument is super-
fluous. Any attempt of the sort would bring on
a revolution. Eve,Y candidate branded with the
Royal approbation would be obliged to retire, not
only from the field, but from public life,—from the
sight of man. The most indifferent or most mer-
eenary would redden with indignation if the candi-
date asked for his vote on so damning a plea. We
have our own way, and it is the only right one in
our own eyes. Instead of a name or a dynasty we
take a policy, not always the distinctest and clearest,
but,embodied in men or in measures, generally in
both. The measures refer to certain changes de-
sired, or otherwise, in our Parliamentary and other
national institutions. No doubt, as a fact, the
Critical questions on which elections have turned
for a whole generation have related to rather im-
portant changes, constituting, in the whole, a great
social revolution. On abstract grounds it might be
colourably maintained that this continual and
rather feverish agita ion of serious changes affecting
the relations of Church and State, the composition
of the Legislature, the Courts of Law, the Colonies,
and other important matters, was not much better,
longer remember that
mrtt
ahaoey,
nnSethavv-eearueacenturies
or, indeed, very different, from the standing ques-
tion of this or that dynasty in France ; and that
the sort of dictation which the mass of the electors...
submit to from the chiefs of party and opinion. is.
substantially much the same thing as the. Imperial
rescript in favour of a list of 260 candidatest,thais
proved friends of the reigning dynasty.
can be no
with one another, and. thehre
it, we no
iasn not anotthe
fr abstract
Sovereigns
haveos
an
gyTi!..egn
:B.
irstiotrieas
responsible
under-
standingpeople-unsi
be
mistake. So, as the old
Sovereign
forgets it.
to the people, and the Sovereign
hence. Victoria's
Buts-
we are 4 nation of politicians, . .
thatvoice in the con. -
we are loyal on
political system, and in
the choice of the men to carry out
our views. No
doubt Louis Napoleon would be only too' ready to
let his 9,000,000 electors discuss. politics and-return
members of their own choice, if he could secure that
they would not, on some reason or none, vote him a
nuisance, and send him out of the country. 'But
this is the very question which the French wish to
tWit
e ri
nh We
conditionaaYll lw• fi
leleisi4t
reconstruction tohntimoralleviceeot I 1 rf
our
keep always open. Their question is not measures
or men, but the man and the family.
It must be admitted that the exaggeration is
common to both countries. France thrives with a
despotism, and we thrive with a very " anomalous"
Legislature. Purists and theorists want a thousdnd
reforms not only in the, Commons; but in the
Lords, and far more in the latter than in the for-
mer ; yet we have attained to great material pto-
sperity and social happiness. It is a question whe-
ther we shall get on better with a House of CoM
mons reformed into the most plausible-and symMe-
trical representation of the people—quite as much
a question as whether our neighbours would get ni
bdeetetdelr
if anybody
withany other form of government. -
comes
how very little visible share most of us have in this
representative system .
to consider,
of
whichcovriear it is aT
re,
proud,allrioazt g