The Sun.
London, England, 1868-10-13 00:00:00

MR. MORGAN HOWARD.

The " Constitutional" candidate for Lambeth
would seem to be a publican. There is in his speeches
the same unctuous mixture of pious phrases that we
read in the beer-barrel organ ; the same divided
affection for things spiritual and things spirituous.
For instance, Mr. Howard had to deliver an address
which would please sound Protestants and licensed
victuallers, ditto unlicensed; so he chose with
great adroitness, a British and Foreign School-
room in order to denounce the iniquities
of the Public-house Regulation Bill. He was
fervid in his exaltation of the " Sabbath,"
equally
_fervid in his denunciation of teetotalism.
The man who would venture to open a picture
gallery on the Sunday was invading "the sanctity of
the Sabbath ;" but a law which would close the
public-house on the Sunday was a tyrannical law,
and the men who passed it would be making a law
for• the poor which they dared not enforce
upon the rich. Mr. Howard appears to have
forgotten that the rich can not only drink their
wine on Sundays at home, but can also look at their
pictures. Therefore the man who opposes a public-
house closing bill because the poor ought to be in the
same position as the rich, ought also to advocate a
pictiire-gallery opening bill. But Mr. Howard loves
the gin-palace and damns the Crystal Palace. He
will have the streets of our large cities turned into
Pandemonium, because, as he says, " I like to drink
my glass of port wine on Sunday." As for the Per-
missive Bill, he can scarcely contain himself
at the sound of those words. He is like
bottle of Bass very much "up." He fizzes and
splutters with indignation, and wonders at the
impudence of the man who proposes that " ese
unfortunate public-houses and the conven~~'tnceof the
public, together with the interests of the publican,
are to be squashed up to suit an audacious and
energetic minority." Mr. Howard says that he
requires stimulants. We should think that he must
have required a good deal before he managed to find
out that " two-thirds " of the ratepayers were a
minority. Some men see double when they have
been "stimulated." Mr. Howard appears to see only
half. He had better not try " half and half " again,
but attempt some other liquor which will not affect
his vision.

TILE " PEII4LE MAN."

The Standard of to-day publishes one of the best
parodies we remember ever to have read. It has all
the cleverness of a parody without any of the usual
drawback by which the poem parodied is also
degraded. In all seriousness the writer imitates
Tennyson's "In Memoriam," and finds in that
noblest of books a model for an argument against
female suffrage. The closeness and real poetical
beauty of the verses will cause the reader to overlook
the lack of logic. Beautiful, indeed, as the lines are
--and the following are witty as well as beautiful-
0, mother ! whilst in bedward stoles
Those prattling urchins clasp thy gown ;
Say, would'st thou change one curly crown
For all the heads of all the Polls ?
—they are vitiated by a glaring petitio
Female suffrage may be good or it may be bad, but
why should not the mother keep the " curly crowns "
and have some share in "the heads of all the Polls"
as well ? The father, we suppose, does not surrender
his share in the " curly crowns " when he goes to the
polling-booth. Why should the mother ? Besides—
and here is another fallacy—it is not every woman to
whom the choice is given. There are a million of
British women unmarried ; one out of every eight
wives is childless. The poet's argument, if it be good
for anything, would prove that at least those who do
not possess the "curly crowns " should concern them-
selves about " the 1 eads of all the Polls."