"MASTEU HUMPHREY" IN ENGLAND.

Evening Star, Issue 3594, 29 August 1874, Page 2

"MASTEU HUMPHREY" IN ENGLAND.

(N0..1T.) Wolverhampton, June 3a The Government ia not getting on at all happily with its new Licensing Bill. It will be fresh in your readers’ recollection what a dead set the publicans made against the late L tbinet, on account of it having somewhat smartly limited the hours at which publie bouses might be open. In the reoent election the publicans lent all their weight to tne Conservative side, and as a reward for their support the -present Government went into office bound to do something to relax regulations imposed by their predecessors. Under the Act of 1872, the power of fixing the hours of closing within certain limitations, was left with the local authorities. The main feature in the Bill under consideration was that it fixed the hours for the whole kingdom. Bit by bit. however, the B IL has been whittled away, till there is fiardly any of it left; and now it seems as if its very vital principle were to be abandoned, by giving magistrates the power of defining what is a “ populous p ace, as such places are to enjoy the priuilegea of public-houses keeping open half an hour later. The licensed victuallers were in ecstacies on the defeat of the Libera's, which they claimed credit for largely contributing to. But the present tone of their special organ-the ‘Morning Advertiser’—is far from cheery or joyous. To show the bitter revulson of feeling, I quote the folowing; * -Never, we should imagine, was the course of a Government clearer than that of the present Government at the opening of I arhament, supposing that its object was to retam the goon will of the country while fulfilling those expectations which it distinctly invited m soliciting the suffrages of the nation. We are now specially alluding to the Licensing Act . . . The present Ministry might have brought in a Bill simply to have put an end, as their chief promised, to harrassing legislation and contusion of meaning. Gad tliey done so with hr omss and courage, they m-ght have carned anything in reason, and instead of being chaffed, reproached, and twitted with their indecision, weakness, and contradiction, they would have received the cordial support of the country. As it is, they have lost a large portion of its confidence. It is of no use to disguise the fact. Two or three more such blunders will go far to wreck the Cabinet; and people will forget the conduct of the disordered Liberals in contemplatiug the uncalled for and extraordinary performances of those who came into power in their default I” iruly tins Liberal re action may be said to have commenced.

A more spirited discussion than ordinary took place on the occasion of moving in the House of Commons the usual adjournment for the Drrby. Ihe motion was simply proposed by Mr Disraeli w.tdoufc allusion to the Isthmian games, or calling the sport a noble, manly, or distinguished one. sir Wilfred Lawson opposed the motion, on the ground of us being absurd for the House of Commoos one day to pass a Bill against betting on horses, and the next day to make a holiday that members might sanction with their presence the greatest scene bf betting on horses in the kingdom. It is needless to say that the motion was carried by an overwhelming majority. The opinion generally entertained out of doors is that the course adopted is no mure inconsistent than it is to license public houses, and yet make drunkenness penal. bUue out of ten of ail those who attend the er . J S' 1 simply for the fun and pleasurable excitement of ihe scene ; with no intention of making bets, except of the most trivial and innocent character. It is agreeable to find the question of improved dwellings for the poor receiving more attention. Sir Sydney Watrrlow, the late Lord Mayor, has been instrumental in getting up an enter prise known as the Improved in. dustnal Dwellings Company, the object of which is sufficiently indicated by its name, ilns association has erected no less than tifteen separate blocks of houses for the aceommodatl.)U of artisans in London, with the very successful result of securing constant tenants and having a dividend of five per cent. The good effected is far more than appears by the immediate benefit derived by the working population ; for if, aa now anpears to be the case, it is once demonstrated that such enterprise will remunerate, capital will soon find us way into them, and the wretched habitations m which our industrials a U °J i? d g e . d J wIU be superseded. lUt6reßting ’ aud * ix > « to be hoped, satisfactory meeting of the Christian Lvideuce Society has just been held. It was presided over by the Bishop of Loudon, V nrt n preseut the Archbishop of V h i e B J 6h t°, P of G1 °acester and Bristol, the L arl of Harrowby,. &c. Proceeding were commenced by the Bishop of London, who said—" There could be so doubt that infidelity was prevalent from the highest to tue lowest. The tone of general literature, and the circumstance that masses of the people never attended any place of worship whatever, attested the sad tact. .... r ihe peculiarity of infidelity at the present day was the multitude of forms in which it appears. In our own time we had originated that most destructive system of criticism which people judged or pretended to todg? ot all religious works by what was called the ‘verifying faculty. ’ .. . . M q{ the ejections to Christianity admitted of an answer, and even if all of them could not S met the very fact that some of the more specious of them were shown to be false would hj Tha r rV ng °* wa vering minds.” ° f T? rk ‘ who followed, vhe snirfr n d ßharethe that Ibatid Li l n recent, yeare had tnoi!? d dnnmi( » b ed. He feared that would never be the case. In the two lead. ®*» countries of Europe—France and Qer. m.my infidelity in its various forms was, pmhaps, more tbaq ever

had been before. He granted there was r change of tone in scepticism, but it was not on that account any the less dangerous ” The tenor of the general proceedings may be inferred from the two eloquent passage? I have quoted- and it is pleasing to be in formed by the report that the work of thf Society had been carried on during the p ;st year with eminent success. And yet, whilst no one can call in question the perfect dia interested ness manifested by the speeches of the reverend Bishops, it is difficult to avoid some doubt as to their judiciousness. Was it wise to admit, even by implication, that ' Christianity had anything to fear from the use of the “ verifying faculty ?” Would not a wiser course have been to proclaim that above all things it seeks impartial, calm investigation? What was the necessity, moreover, for admitting that all the objections to Christianity will not be met. But to my mind the most fatally injurious admission was that regarding the universal spread of infidelity. In a state of society like that of the present day, where “nothing succeeds like success,” gratuitously to acknowledge failure is to court and ensure defeat. Some years ago there was painted a most striking picture of Her Maj«ity the Queen presenting a Bible t® an Eastern Prince. He had asked to be told the secret of England’s greatness, and as an answer the Queen presented him with that volume. I well remember the enthusiasm evoked by the incident, and it was felt that the course adopted by Her Majesty expressed the true facta of the case. Similarly, when the Sultan visited England, being struck with our wonderful ccmmt,reial and material prosperity, which he instinctively connected with the national religion, ho exclaimed, ** I will not only protect Christians I will protect Christianity. ” It will immediately be seen what powerful arguments these two incidents would become in skilful hands. What more attractive plea could be used in support of divine truth than that it ministered to our material well-being ? But all this possible vantage ground is abandoned by the position Liken up by the Bishops 1 have quoted. The fact of our material prosperity cannot be denied ; neither is it possible to question the enormous increase of it in late years. If these ministers of religion, especially those occupying such dignified positions as bishops, proclaim the simultaneous and universal spread of infidelity, the unthinking many may be led to connect the two facts together, and imagine one as resulting from the other. And if they once get indoctrinated with the idea that the same habits of mind which lead to sceptism 01 infidelity are also conducive to worldly success , and prosperity, ministers of religion may find that an antagonist has arisen, against whom their most strenuous efforts are vain.