76o THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



doubt, by aid of an elaborate machinery of administration and a pow- 

 erful body of police, Government can, to a certain extent, guide, or at 

 any rate restrain, the conduct of its subjects. Even in this respect its 

 powers are very limited, and a law which does not command the con- 

 sent of the body of the people must soon be repealed or become inop- 

 erative. But, as regards the creation of institutions, Parliament is 

 almost powerless, except by consulting the needs of the time, and 

 offering facilities for such institutions to grow up as experience shows 

 to be successful. But an unfortunate confusion of ideas exists, and it 

 seems to be supposed that, because for reasons of obvious convenience 

 the civil and criminal laws are as a general rule made uniform for the 

 whole kingdom, therefore the legislative action of Parliament must 

 always be uniform and definitive. When an important change is 

 advocated, for instance, in the licensing laws. Parliament collects 

 abundant information, w^hich is usually inconclusive, and then pro- 

 ceeds to effect all over the kingdom some very costly and irrevocable 

 change — a change which generally disappoints its own advocates. 

 Take the case of the Sale of Beer Act of 1830, generally known as the 

 Beershop Act. This is a salient example of bad legislation. Yet it 

 was passed by the almost unanimous wisdom of Parliament, the divi- 

 sion in the House of Commons on the second reading showing two 

 hundred and forty-five ayes and only twenty-nine noes. The act 

 originated with Brougham, in the sense that he had in 1822 and 1823 

 brought in somewhat similar bills, which were partially adopted by 

 the Government of 1830. The idea of the act was to break down the 

 monopoly of the brewers and publicans ; to throw open the trade in 

 beer on free-trade principles ; and, by offering abundance of whole- 

 some, pure, weak beer, to draw away the working classes from the gin- 

 shops. All seemed as plausible as it was undoubtedly well intended. 

 Objections were of course made to the bill, and many people predicted 

 evil consequences; but all such sinister predictions were supposed to 

 be spread about by the interested publicans and brewers. Neverthe- 

 less, the new act was soon believed to be a mistake. Sydney Smith, 

 though he had not many years before pleaded for liberty for the 

 people to drink rum-and- water, or whatever else they liked (" Edin- 

 burgh Review," 1819), quickly veered round, and gave a graphic 

 account of the beastly state of drunkenness of the sovereign people. 



It may be safely said that the Beershop Act realized all the evils 

 expected from it, and few or none of the advantages. It is difficult 

 to say anything in favor of the bar at the corner public-house, except 

 that it is better than the dirty low little beershop, hiding itself away 

 in some obscure recess of the streets. The first is at any rate under 

 the gaze of the public and the control of the magistrates ; the beer- 

 shop, until within the last few years, was too likely to become the un- 

 controlled resort of the worst classes. Even now that the beershops 

 are brought under the Licensing Magistrates, many years must elapse 



