Star.
London, England, 1831-07-15 00:00:00

THE NEW BEBRJ BILL.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR.

Slll, Your Friend of Truth has inifort..uattly
drawn a false conclusion, or cominitte.l the error
which the logicians call fullacia aecilentii,
he has inferredageneral conclusion from hicidental
and not from general circumstances.
There are many thousand beer situps and chap
coffee shops, and because some dozen or score may
perhaps have allowed vicioas practices, is he, or
the Bishop, justified in coed 'mating the whole ?
Are not licensed public-i:ouses open to every
objection which he starts against the I,crr houses
and coffee shops ; and when did he hear of such a
crime being committed in one of them, as he hi4n-
sel: relates in regard to a licensed public 110i1:;t: 2
To make out a case against the BLE:t net
CCFFEE Snot's, it is necessary to chew that
tolerate crimes which are not equally tolerated hi
public houses, taverns, coffee houses and hotel.; ;
and even then in regard to all, abuse is not use
Because some gaming, some drunkenness, some
lee:drugs may take place in one house in a timid; ed,
of the entire of all the classes, should we he jus-
tified in closing the whole, or putting them ender
such impertinent restrictions as would reNler it
impossible to conduct them with fair advantage to
the parties, or common convenience to the public?
It is not to lso concealed that an interested patty,
powerf..l because wealthy, have been very active in
their opposition to the beer houses and coffee shops
ever since their first establishment. This patty
has craftily played on the prejudices of the cantos,
who desire that only another kind of shops in
which they practice should flourish ; and they play
alto on a race of monopolists, who begrudge by
habit every indulgence of the industrious classes its
their retail enjoyments, while they themselves
indulge by wholesale in every luxury of all cli-
mates.

Why is the drinking of a pot of beer, paid for
out of the earnings of labour, a greater crime than
the drinking of a bottle of wine after a luxuriou3
dinner, by those who know not how to earn the
value of either ? Why is it a more culpable indul-
gence to drink a cup of coffee at 2d. or 3d. than
at Gd. or Is ? Why is it to be prohibited to the
productive classes to read a newspaper, or what
else they please, more than to one who does nothing,
and yet is able to spend 1,0001. a year ? Why
may they not meet and talk about public affair,
which proportionally often affect them and tlieii
families far more than men of property? In short,
why should they be denied their less showy recit—
ations, while other classes are tolerated in eve' v
variety? Is there more mischief in a hop with .1
blind fiddler, than in a ball or assembly with a cost!)
band ? Is a game of cribbage or all-fours fu;
pence, more mischievous than whi-t at guitie.i
points, or nicking with dice for thousands ? In k
word, since the Friend of Truth has chosen to
allude to that cheap indulgence, is a pipe of tobacco
more ruinous than a hunter, a carriage, a pack of
hounds, a mistress, or a house at a watering-
place ?
Let folks look at home, and take the beam out of
their own eye before they set about, so Pharisee-
like, to take the mote out of the eye of others.
I too, Sir, am a FRIEND of Taunt, but my
truth is Commos SENSE.
Tottenham Court Road, July 13.

STAPLES OF BRITISH COMMERCE.
(THIS D%Y.)

, WRIGHT
RIND& I AJID
WE/WHIM