Es

age er

i

MPU >.

are eet ce semen

| i

' ¥ r 4 a

i

ple

86

THE EXAMINER.

A GREAT NATION'S LITTLE WARS.

We are going to war with Persia about Herat, An expedition has been fitted out at Bombay. the object of which is said to be a demonstration in the Persian Gulf. It is! stated that the Karrack is to be tuken—that Bushire is to be oceupied —: 1 we do not know “ what next.”

The announcement of this expodition has taken more people by surprise than it ought to have done. So far back as the 2ist of July, the President of the India Board declared, * from his place in Parliament,” that the conduct of Persia had compelled the Government of Great Britain to resort to coercive measures. ut it is too much to expect the English public to study closely a speech on the Indian Budget. | What is beyond the endurance of our represeutatives over- | night, is well-nigh certain to be skipped by the represented the next morning. Accordingly, when Mr. Vernon Smith | umnouneed, in substance, that we were going to war with | Persia, the statement passed unchallenged and unnoticed, | just as though it had been someting about a ryot, a zemindar, | or a “ferocious dooly.” But now that come from Bombay to the effect that an expedition has actually been fitted out, and that, at the date of the last advices, it was only waiting instructions from Kngland to steer at once for the Persian Gulf, we have begun to understand the importance of Mr. Vernon Smith's disregarded anvouncement, and to inquire what madness has impelled Ministers—or, as some iguorantly ask, the Kast India Com- pany—to plunge into so great a calamity as another Central- Asian war. Have we in no way profited by the past? Did we not expend blood and treasure enough in Afghacistan in the course of the last disastrous and disgraceful war ?

Nothing is more natural than that there should be an ex- ceedingly ill odour about the very name of an Afghan war. | Still although we spent, between the years 1X38 and 1842, some fifteen millions of money and some fifteen thousand lives, in a Vain attempt to secure the integzity of Herat by | consolidating the Afghan empire under a restored and Suddezye dynasty, that struggle has not been without its uses, It has | brushed away some mischievous errors.

; . island of

after these littoral operations,

intelligence has |

We may attempt again to keep the Persians out of Herat, but we shall never | again play the part of political chiffonners, and hunt mene) the dust and ashes of Loodhianah for a pensioned prince to “restore tothe throne of his ancestors.” We have still some pensioned Suddezye princes—small creatures, enjoying small stipends—held in no account by their paymasters, and continually quarrelling among themselves. But we should as soon think of picking up a stray Bourbon, and setting him on the throne of France, as of carrying one of these Shahzadahs, at the point of our bayonets, to Cabul or Candabar. We have learnt at least the wisdom of recog- nising the de facto rulers of the country, and leaving the Afghans to choose for themselves. Come what may, we shall never try our hands at king-making in Afghanistan again—that great cardinal error will not be committed anew. The last war was both a blander and a crime—not because we made a great effort to keep the Persians out of Herat, but because we plunged into the defiles of Central Asia after the siege of Herat had been raised, only to outrage the nationality of the Afghans. There were two means of erecting a barrier against Russo-Persian aggression, and we chose the more foolish and wicked of the two.

It was a “ grevious fault,” and “ greviously answered.” But out of that nettle, danger, we plucked the rose of's: fety. We know something now both of Afghanistan and the Afghans. It has cost us much; but experience is ever a high-priced article, and to be valued in proportion to its cost. The Persians are again at the gates, if not within the wa!ls, of Herat; but although Scinde and the Punjaub are now British provinees, and we have a frontier post at Peshawur, we do not hear that a single battalion of Bri.ish troops is to march upon Candabar or Cabu!. Our military movements are confined to a demonstration inthe Persian Gulf. Before we can do more than conjecture what diplomacy may be doing in other directions, we must wait, in all probability, until Parliament assembles, and until a blue-book is called for.

It is easier in such eases to say what ought to be done than to surmise what is likely to be done. The eccentricities of statesmen baffle all attempts to fathom them. As a general rule, if one would gain credit for a political vaticination, it is the safest course to make up one’s mind what ought not (o be done, and to predict that it wé/ be done. Considering at how very small a cost, some eighteen or twenty years ago, we might have secured the good offices of Dost Mahomed Khan—then and now the Ameer of Cabal—and bearing in mind how little the advice of such men as Sir Henry Ellis and Sir John MeNeill was heeded, we can hardly venture to hope that the very obvious policy of supporting that chief with everything but troops will be resorted to at the present juncture. In 1837 Dost Mahomed wanted only money and arms to keep the Persians out of Herat. He wants money and arms now. Let him have them. He is heart and soul in the eause—he will strike vigorously when he has tie means. We need have no fear that he will not make good use of them. He has always been cager to arrest the advance of the Persians. When, twenty years ago, the Candahar Sirdars were willing to throw themselves into the arms of Mahomed Shah, he rebuked their want of loyalty and wisdom. Sir John MeNeill then thought that we might best secure in Afghanistan the bulwark of a strong and friendly Power, by placing Candahar and Herat under the government of Dost Mahomed, We have a much better reason now for such a course of policy than we had when the Heratees were vigor- ously defending their city, but we would abstain from al! interferenee beyond that of which we have spoken. A few Jaes of rupees, and a few thousand stand of arms, will enable | the Cabal Ameer to operate effectually to the westward. If, he retain permanent possession of Candahar, so much the | better; but be must not be suffered to extract from us any goarantee upon this score as the price of his alliance. It is more to his advantage than to ours to keep the Persians out | of Herat, and he will, therefore, have no just cause of com- | plaint if we are not disposed to interfere in the internal | affairs of Afghanistan ; whilst it is manifestly advantageous | to us to encumber ourselves as little as possible with promises | aud pledges, which might lead to embarrassments worse than | those which they were designed to avert.

If this modvrate and safe course of policy is pursued, we | liave uo fear for the result. Of the justice of striking a blow | at Persia, vo reasonable doubt ean be entertained by any one who is tolerably aequainted with the reeent conduct of that | dishonest State. We do not lay any stress on the * Mrs, | Hashim” affair. Doubtless, something may be said on both sides of that question. But the whole bearing of the Persian | Vourt has been, for some time past, disrespectful, if not insolent, and its eonduct has been practically hostile.

servants of the Company at Calcutta.

'<«¢ the baseless fabric of a vision.”

It has

| we can give no such guarantee. So the Persians continue to beleaguer, if not to occupy, Herat; and an expedition is waiting orders at Bombay, to sail for the Persian Gulf.

We do not disguise that this is a great misfortune, but we do not see how it could be averted. Even on the limited scale on which it is proposed to conduct these operations, it

‘is certain that they will cost a large sum of money—a sum

which India, at the present time, cannot well afford to pay. Of course, India will be compelled to pay it ; but it should

meeting them. The proprietary burden was felt and recognised by them, not only as odious to the tenantry, but ag an incubus ‘on thegeneral prosperity. They, therefore, determined on the adoption of the Land Purchase Bill. No other Government ‘had had the manliness to meet these circumstances, or to | undertake all the difficulties which the detail and experiment of such a measure presented. That this undertaking has met with the cordial and grateful co-operation of the tenantry, is

be understood that wars of this description are not made by | evinced by the nearly universal acquiescence of the people on the Kast India Company in Leadenhall-street, or by the 4. Worrell Extite — nay, entirely universal, except where tion, including much speculation and criticism on Bent am,

They originate in Cannon-row or in Downing-street. The Directors of the Kast India Company, as a body, knew nothing about the first war in Afghanistan until it was made; and we may safely predict that they will know nothing a until the subject is freely ventilated by tie publication of a

f

the promises of unprincipled deluders have led the tenant to expect that which they knew it was impossible he could ob-

bout the present | himself of the crisis, tolose proffered and manifest advantages, which, in consequence of this friendly counsel, are now lost

Parliamentary Blue Book. Of course we except the members| forever. The guilt of this will be on the heads of the de-

—three in number-—of what is called the Secret Committee, | ceivers, and the execrations, which are tho natural con- . . . . 1

who sign ministerially the mandates of the Board of Control. | . cuence, already greet their unprincipled ears. However,

| Meanwhile, if any odium attach to the war, the Company

will be condemned to bear it ; and whatever tie cost may be, the Company will be called upon to pay it. And then, with the usual justice which pursues that governing body, be declared that the authorities of Leadenhal]-street squander their finances upon unjust wars, instead of spending them upon great reproductive works.

[POR THE EXAMINER. ] THE HOLY FIFTEEN.

Come listen, ye folks, whilst I tell you of all

Who assemble in conclave at Gallipot Hall ;

First and foremost the famed constitutional lawyer,

sy common acclaim, rules supreme the ‘lop Sawyer. Were Solon or Minos, Justinian or Pitt,

Allowed in this far-famed assembly to sit;

Were Plato, Demosthenes, Cicero there,

They must bow in confusion at sight of the chair.

Then hide your diminish’d heads, ye Coles’s and Swabeys, Ye Hensleys, Youngs, Warburtons, you are but babies ; Pretend not to rule o’er an ignorant people ;

Compared with this chief, you’re as moles to a steeple. ‘Then there's he who goes backwards, yet still will engage To reach in due time to the end of the stage. . There is ‘* Watt-do-you-call-him,’’ who, greedy of pelf, Has left the old stand and set up for himself,

With visage like Solon, yet radiant with fire,

No three may compare with big Jemmy Goliar.

For everything prompt, and learned each text on,

Is Jemmy the lesser, the son of a sexton.

Then comes the Philologist, skilled to indite

For children and women who ne’er learned to write : He’s the lad a few yards of petition to carry,

In hands so long practised it cannot miscarry. There's he, of deep learning, who vends Polyglott, The Bibliomaniac, the sage W—t—tt. Then the dread of young calves, old wethers and lambs, Renown'd for the cure of pig’s shoulders and hams, ‘The illustrious George, once a slayer of oxen,

But late an attendant freights, cargoes, and docks on: Ever ready to second the motion of H—th,

When too drunk for the charge is the Drawer of Teeth. There's a Cobler far-famed, an out-and-out Snarler, Dad sits in the kitchen, and he in the parlour. Nor must be forgotten the Tanner of Leather, Who stieks fast to the Union in fair and foul weather: He wisely withdrew from the Tewn Corporation, Saw breakers ahead, so escaped profanation. Then there’s he who of yore might have lent out his types, But they’ve long been converted to "baccie and pipes ; In chair editorial no more can he sit, Bat he still bas for sale some small remnant of wit, And should not the faith of the Assembly diminish, Will engage, ere he’s paid, all their business to finish. Two Innkeepers zealous, but still rather crawley, The one’s ycleped B—g—ll, the other's called M—l—y. And the last, yet not least, who can cure all our ills, The namesake of him of Hygeian Pills. In short the assemblage, from every profession, Of patriots and statesmen, surpass all expression. There are lawyers and dentists, and venders of drugs, 'Teetotallers solid, and drainers of mugs ; There are keepers of taverns and venders of grog, Some who drink by the sly, some who go the whole hog ; But one trade is still missing, as I’m a free thinker, “Tis the one that’s most wanted, a thorough state tinker. Then hide your diminish’d heads, ye Coles’s and Swabeys, Ye Hensleys, Youngs, Warburtons, all such are babies, Nor longer shall rule o’er an ignorant people, Compared to the chief, they’re as moles to a steeple.

Che Examiner.

CHARLOTTETOWN, P, E. lL, DECEMBER 8&8, 1856.

“THE LAND QUESTION.”

For many years the above was the watchword of discussion — the text of newspaper articles and tavern politics. To de- fine its meaning or its application was always difficult, and we cannot recollect to have seen it intelligibly explained. Messrs. Cooper and Co. used it to establish the escheat clamour, which to them was a stalking-horse to ride into the Assembly, until the old hack was foundered and fell down, and the riders were precipitated into their kindred mire. Indeed their interpre- tation of the shiboleth, though it referred to an imposture

and an impossibility, had still something rather more definite

| than some others ; nor could it be much wondered at so long

as starving men were made to believe that they could get land for nothing, that they found followers amongst the desperate, who, against hope, and in defiance of common sense, will still abide a promised issue. But the escheators were not the only parties who talked of ‘* the Land Question,”’ and others there were who took up the watchword, in answer to the challenge of the political sentinel, in whose mouth or in whose ears it was vor et preterca nihil —a name and nothing more ; but the far larger part had a conceit that the ‘* Land Question ”’ was really a substantive thing —that some enormous change was impending to alter the relations between landlord and tenant, and thongh they knew not what, yet imagined that there really existed a hidden meaning and a future result. Parties of all sorts haye used it ~ Tories found it convenient to pre- serve it in their vocabulary for the hustings, and Liberals were equally profuse in promising its adjustment. In fact it was used from habit, although it had no more entity than Well, escheators, whether

made overtures, offensive to Great Britain, to other European sincere or insincere, have been forced to acknowledge whgt

States; and it has sedulously endeavoured to foment bitter- ness against us among the rude Mahomedans of Central Asia, by representing us as the evemies of their national faith. Ewen our alliance with Turkey has been turned aguinst us, and cevasion has becn sought to declare the Sultan's recent Firman, and the religious hberty which it grants to his subjects, to be the growth of his dangerous connexion with the infidels of Great Britain. But the substantive eause of the present movement is the direst infraction of an

engagement entered into by Persia with the British Govern- |

ment in 1553—an enyayement not to violate the independence of Herat. This Persia bas now done; and she has refused, upen Fewoustyance, to withdraw ber troops from the Afghan froutier, All the answer she is disposed to return is that, if the Knglish will compel or induce Dost Mahomed to retire

from Candahar, Persia will withdeaw from Herat. Of course, | Majesty's Representative “have not shrunk from the task of

‘they have long known, that the Legislature of P. E. Island ‘had no more power to escheat proprietary lands than they had | to make the grass grow which covered their surface, Then, ‘driven from their main position, they began, for the sake of | carrying on the illusion, to talk of Courts of Enquiry into ‘titles. It could do noharm— 0 no, none at all; but it could | unsettle every man’s mind — it could interfere with the pro- (ject of buying proprietary estates, and so it might jeopardize | the Government which had the manliness to confront the old outstanding difficulty.

Ts there no such thing asa ‘ Land Question ?’’ — is there ‘no difficulty to be solved ?—no amelioration to be effected ?

Yes, there are all these things, and the present advisers of Her

‘

let that pass; it cannot be recalled. In the meantime, as is wel! known, the tenants on Lord Selkirk’s estate — willing to

it will | seize on the auspicious moment, and justly appreciating the

advantages in prospect — have petitioned his Lordship to step in and disappoint the Land jobbers, and sell to the Govern- ment, in order that they too may become freeholders on easy terms; whilst, we are informed by a correspondent, that those on Lots 63 and 64— (we believe the property of the lion. Samuel Cunard) — have expressed a desire, too, that the settlement of the ** Land Question ’’ may include them. To carry out all the just wishes of the people of the Island, it requires a firm hand and a determined Government. That this movement may not be a partial operation, but extend its effeets over the whole land — bestowing on all its inhabitants the relief which they pant for, and that without injustice — the Government which has survived the first difficulty will not scruple to imperil its own existence by demanding from the Ifouse of Assembly the means of emancipating the whole land. Unwilling as we know many members will be to ac- quiesce in the measure which the Government are prepared to submit to them, we yet venture to believe that none will be found so fool-hardy as to resist a whole people in this matter.

The Ilome Government has been applied to, and no re- luctance in the absence of a final answer seems to exist to affording an Imperial guarantee for a loan of money to effect this benevolent purpose ; and we, indeed, believe the day is not far distant when, excepting the resident proprietors, there will none remain. Here is a consummation which none but the present Government can bring to pass. To them belongs the credit of bringing about a steady and progressive improve- ment in all the yaried interests, social and political, of the different classes of our community. It is not because there ean or should be the slightest fear of all the capital and all the interest being returned, without loss to the Colony of a simgle farthing; but, we further assert, that even if a large sum were absorbed at the end of the time designed to elapse before all the prices for which land shall be sold, have reached the Treasury — it still would be the duty of all benevolent men, well-wishers of their Island home, and of all persons calling themselves statesmen, or guardians of the public peace, and desirous to witness public and individual pros- perity,—-in short, of all philanthropists, —to provide cheerfully for any contingent deficiency, in order that ‘* the Land Question’? may be forever settled. Here then is the solution of ** the Land Question ’? —solved by the people’s true friends, the existing Government. No one can deny that the undertaking in the outset was a bold and determined step, and that the danger attached to it was great to those who embraced the enterprise — disregarding its consequenees to themselves, so that they might extinguish proprietary estates, and distribute thein without injustice amongst the tenants on terms perhaps little or not at ali differing from those which might now be obtained, if the expensive process of escheat at the time when it was practicable had taken place — the land been reinvested in the Crown, and retailed téthe tenants

as oceupiers.

——t+aooe +

We were afraid the Order of the Sons of Temperance in this Island had become extinet—we have heard so little of it lately—until we read in Haszard’s Gczette the other day a notice of the Grand Sessional Meeting, at which the usual interchange of courtesies took place, and the customary ad- dresses agreed to. We find that ‘‘Brother’’ Arbuckle’s duties as travelling agent haye for some time been suspended, owing to illness ; but now we are happy to learn, the ‘“‘Brother’’ being quite convalescent, he will resume “‘ the duties of his mission,”’ i. e., the hopeless task of spreading the delusion of the Maine Law, combined with a most vigorous propagation of the doctrines of that other equally popular movement, the Unholy Alliance. We haveconsiderable respect for ‘‘ Brother” Aah for with all his nonsense about the Maine Law, he has a good understratum of fun and pleasantry, which makes one forget, what we have charity enough to think he does not believe himself—his crude theories about cold water. Now, having such respect for the worthy agent, we are willing to assist him, as far as possible, in performing the duties of one part of his ‘‘ mission,’’ and knowing that the arguments against the Maine Law, which he has hitherto had to combat, have been worn quite threadbare, we here present him with a few weighty reasons—contained in an admirably written article of a late No. of the London Saturday Review —why British subjects should not adopt so arbitrary, tyrannical and impracticable a law as that which forms the subject of much of ‘‘Brother’’ Arbuckle’s eloquence, and which even Maine itself—its birth-place—has had the good sense to repudiate. The zealous Brother will find the arguments of the Saturday Review to be excellent texts for original sermons, which will of course be quite a rarity to his hearers; and if he succeeds in answering any of them satisfactorily, he will well deserve the poor pay which he is said to receive for his ser- vices, and keep fresh and verdant the appreciation in which he is held by his numerous admirers, among whom we beg to be remembered as one.

THE MAINE LIQUOR LAW.

Dr. F. R. Lees has gained a prize of one hundred guineas from the ‘* United Kingdom Alliance, to procure the legisla- tive suppression of traffic in all intoxicating liquors,’’ for an essay upon the objects of the Society, which bas been forwarded to us with a printed request that it may be reviewed. The essay was written between the 5th and the 29th of September, 1855 ; and as it contains 317 closely printed pages, it is, as might have been expected, very ill written. Dr. Lees says that he knows this as well as ‘‘ the crities.”’ “It is,’’ he continues, ‘‘our pleasure to anticipate and prevent the needless labour by saying— Perfectly true gentlemen, we could have written a better essay if we had had more time, and we could have had more time if we had had more money.’ ”’

He adds that he ‘‘ knows the stereotyped jokes about prize essays, and that the old platitudes may be revived because con-

ene,

venient.’’ We know neither the jokes nor the platitudes, but | we do know the stale expedient of apologizing for a slovenly performance by avowing its clumsiness—as if the absence of art or of care could besupplied by the presence of an unusual allowance of impudence. An ill-written book, is an ill-written book, whether the author admits it or not, and in this cage ‘the badness of the composition is peculiarly vexatious, as it entails upon a reviewer, anxious to discharge his critical duties fairly, the necessity of reading through a thick volume which might, with a little trouble, have been com pressed into athin pamphlet. In the true style of a provincial prize essayist, Dr. Lees begins with many pages about the province of legisla-

‘Humboldt, Dr. Arnold, and the Westminter Reviewmalpot which is meant to prove the self-evident truth, that there are, or may be, trades which it would be wise to suppress by law.

| tain ; and so induced him, by making no preparation, to avail | In an equally characteristic manner, we are treated to a whole:

| wilderness of facts which establish, beyond a doubt, the |indisputable truths that drunkenness is a very bad thing—

—that legislation, up to the present time, bas not put it down —and that much evil of every description goes on at public houses. The concluding chapter contains a sketch of the history of the Maine Law in the different States of the Union ; and the whole essay asserts, re-asserts, insinuates, and protests, in a thousand shapes, and for a thousand reasons, that a law ought to be made as soon as possible for the suppression of aj}. traflic in spirituous liquors. It is hard to answer, point by point, an argument of this blundering length and confused character. Even Lord Stanley’s conscientious and painstaking industry would probably break down under the task. Bug though we cannot follow Dr. Lees through all his facts-and figures, we can, we think, give him, in a succinct form, the reasons which lead us to differ entirely from his conclusions.

Though drunkenness is an enormous evil, it is pa, though difficult, to exaggerate its bad effects; and Dr. Lees has, we think, accomplished this feat. Scotland is a more drunken and more prosperous country than [reland—England would surely stand a comparison with Naples, in all re except the relative sobriety of the two nations—and notwith- tenain r the total abstinence principles of Mahometaniem, we should doubt whether the Turks and Egyptians were better off, on an average, than Europeans. For reasons of whiely these are a specimen, we are inclined to believe that national sobriety and national prosperity are by no means convertible’ terms. Though the evils of drunkenness admit of being exaggerated, and are in fact exaggerated by the advocates of the Maine Law, they are no doubt so great that any plausible scheme for their removal deserves serious attention. The proposal to declare the trade in intoxieating drinks illegal is advocated by its partisans as being the only one sufhciently comprehensive to face an eyil so enormous. But Dr. Lees at ieast entirely fails to appreciate the difficulties which would make the enactment of such a measure im this country totally impossible, or, if possible, most dangerous.

To suppress a branch of commerce is a measure which can only be justified in those extreme cases in which the object of the prohibition is an evil universally acknowledged as such. The catalogue of prohibited trades is very soon exhausted. The cultivation of tobaceo is prohibited for a conclusiye financial reason. The trade in immoral books and prints is forbidden because no one doubts its pernicious character. But, on the other hand, though the Legislature professes its Christian character in the strongest manner—though it expends and sanctions the expenditure of many millions of money every year for the purpose of extending Christianity— though it has even made the publication and sale of blas- phemous libels a crime—-it abstains, and we think wisely, from putting the law in force against dealers in them. Tt virtually tolerates the traffic, because some publications pf that class do in good faith advocate the views which they mgfin- tain, and a very sinall difference in-opiuion as to the charsicter of any action is enough to make it an improper subject for legal punishment or prohibition. Where such a difference of opinion exists, the law loses its moral force over those who deny its policy ; and if they are subjected to the legal penalties of disobedience, nothing will prevent them from considering themselves as martyrs, or at any rate, as victims of oppression, Dr. Lees’ proposal is singularly open to this objection. It eallg upon us to adopt as the basis of legislation a crotchet peculiar to an insignificant minority. Substantially, his proposal is that we should interdict the use of spirituous liquors to all bi. the very rich; for to those who cannot afford to im their own account, a prohibition of the trade isequivate t to # probibition of the commodity. Such an interdict can omy be defended on the ground that the use of intoxicating drinks is malum in se. Now, however true that opinion may be, it 16 the opinion of but a small fraction of the population, and a4 such cannot possibly be made the basis of legislation. qe The ground which we have indicated is simple and straight- forward, bat it is one which Dr. Lees is anxious to avor— probably because it exposes his cause to the consequence whieh we have pointed out. As he would put the case, the prohibition of the liquor trade is a sacrifice which the law ought to impose upon the sober for the sake of the intemperate. He does his hest to separate the question of prohibition from the question of total abstinence, and maintains that the first may be properly and consistently adyocated by those who do not approve of the second. ‘This argument appears to us to be not only bad in principle, but to set at defiance all the special facts of the case. To make a sacrifice is one thing—to enforce a sacrifice by law upon a very large minority (to take the view most favourable to the Maine Law) is quite another thing ; but this is what Dr. Lees and the Alliance wish for. The conduct of a legislator and that of a private individual in such a case must be regu- lated by totally different principles. St. Paul would eat no meat so long asthe world stood, lest he should make his brother to offend ; but he carefully avoids laying down a general rule that no Christians should eat meat lest weak brothers should be offended. Wise legislation takes into account the interests and prejudices of all et, even those of the sober and well- conducted; and though it might be praiseworthy in those classes to deny themselves luxuries or comforts which habit has almost made necessaries, out of regard to their weak brethren, it would be very harsh in the Legislature to foree them to do so. ‘To contend that intoxicating drinks and poison stand exactly on the same footing, is one of those puerile exagge~ rations which injure any cause. At the very outside, drunkards are a not an inconsiderable minority of the population, whilst those who drink beer or wine are an overwhelming majority. It would probably be an enormous exaggeration to say that a quarter of those who drink intoxicating liquors sustain any other injury from them than that which, in the opinion of teetotallers, is inseparable even from their temperate con- sumption ; and even on that enormus and extravagant estimate, the proposed law would force three people to a painfal sacrifice, in order to confer a doubtful benefit on the fourth. But if the general principles upon which the Maine Law is advocated are unsound, their application to the particular case of England is still more absurd. An English Maine Law would be—and, what is of still more importance, would appear to be—an invasion, by therich, of the pleasures of the poor. The public house and the beer shop would be shut up, but the wealthy and the clubs would import their own wine. The tap would cease to run, but the cellar would be inviolable. It may be a eT sad fact, but it is incontestably true, tiatthe public-house is the poor man’s favourite, too often his only, recreation. To deprive him ofthis would be the immediate and palpable effect of the law ; and an effect more harsh and more cruel it would be hard to conceive. To force a crude and unpopular theory upon vast masses of people—to deprive them of a favourite, even if it be a pernicious indulgence—to treat grown-up men like overgrown babies, are a few of the methods which Dr. Lees and his friends recommend as likely to conciliate the different classes of society. Whateyer may be the possibilities of legislation in an American Republic, such measures a8 prohibition of the liquor trade are out of the question 1» a 2ountry like England. ‘To abstain from extreme and ¥ ‘oe remedies for social evils is part of the price we have to pay of our enormous wealth, for the vast and complicated texture English society, and for the weight which is aliowed to t interests and prejudices of all ranks and classes. Legis has its bounds everywhere, bat they are sooner reach ue England than anywhere else. Society with us is too big to a governed except in the broadest way, and for ends the u universally recognised. There are numberless eu - might be prevented by law in smaller States, but wh 4 only be remedied by private enterprise im England, drunkenness is, we believe, amongst the number.

Of course a philanthropist like Dr, Lees 38 quite ae troubling himself about any such matter as the + , revenue. A Maine Law, he says, would make the ; sober. Sobriety would increase the national wealth, channels of taxation would be changed, whilst the su

jects of

that it causes a large proportion of the misery of the country,

—

>

Boescws aaso mee «+

ti

Eve dar stip Ink the per in f ates pla rec mei the kn¢ like the s bee unt che whi disi ah gre: pab aga a tu pres cou tak hibi regi pres the som sym men poss ene the Int Mai teet beer witl caus pub! the | H

chai Pop cont invi cons fron alm of I whe excu mint resu e£o0rre grea Reev man and diseo too, quite objec men was | to de quite of th to ge of o futur Adm becar feron reckc appri dan it we to ch 8ce1ns from ill to that unab) Th sent : had meeti credit