authors; but above all in the rudiments of religion, and the doctrine of the Thirty-nine Articles."

But, after all, if our universities are such dens of iniquity as "Rolla" describes, in which "true Dissenters" would not willingly "incur the anger of heaven by violating their conscience, or pollute their souls by breathing the atmosphere of such haunts," why this agitation for them to be made public? Surely every well-wisher of his kind would be anxious to circumscribe their evil influence as much as possible. Now, we are no apologists for any evils that may prevail at Oxford or Cambridge, for we deeply feel "How empty learning, and how vain is art, But as it mends the life and guides the heart;" but we believe that those evils are accidental, and not for a moment to be weighed against the advantages which these seats of learning afford. On this subject we would commend to "Rolla's" attention the following extract from a liberal but a somewhat unfriendly journal*:-"Where else is the training of the young carried on under influences so varied and harmonious, so well calculated to be truly educating of what is noblest and best in man? The youth of England are reared in them amidst living memorials, which present to the eye of the imagination, in undying freshness, the antiquity, the continuous life, and the greatness of their country. The dead and the living address the young together, and combine in moulding the characters and sentiments of successive generations. The splendor of the architecture, speaking with the voices of many ages; the munificence of founders, attesting the magnanimous liberality of England's ancestors; the solemn cloisters, the gothic halls, the venerable chapels, the intermixture

* "Edinburgh Review."

of different ages, the surviving fame of literary greatness, the union of subordination with independence in college life, inculcating the manly self-reliance with the love of order which honour the British people; the intermingling of the flower of its aristocracy with the scions of the great professions; the gentlemanly tone of social habits;-in a word, the spirit of religion with the spirit of antiquity and the spirit of modern life; where else can powers of influencing, so rich, so inspiriting, and so genial, be found, training up the young in a discipline worthy of a great and civilized people?"

Let it not be thought that Churchmen have anything to fear from the opening of the universities, or that they oppose this from any interested motive. On this great point it may be sufficient to adduce the evidence of the Rev. Henry Wall, one of the ablest gentlemen that appeared before the late commission, a Fellow of Baliol, Vicepresident of St. Alban's Hall, and Prælector of Logic. He says:-"I believe that Dissent has much more to fear than the Church has from a university education." And upon this the editor of the leading Dissenting newspaper, the British Banner, adds:"We cordially unite in faith with Mr. Wall relative to the results which Dissent has to fear from a university education. We believe that one of the surest methods of bringing over the influential portion of Dissent to the Established Church would be to open the universities."

Surely, Mr. Editor, this will be sufficient to convince your readers that the opposition to the opening of the universities is not from any mere principle of policy on the part of the members of the Church of England.

S. S.

of the growing importance of this reform, that, after a short agitation of a few months, it is recognized as worthy of discussion in your columns.

After due consideration of our opponent's article, we must confess we have found nothing sufficiently potent to modify our previous opinions on the subject; but, on the contrary, when we compared it with that of our ally T. U., it tended to confirm us in our opinion that, for the suppression of the drinking customs of this country, a prohibitory traffic law is imperatively necessary. Having arrived at this conclusion, it is but right we should justify it, which we will attempt to do by exposing what we believe to be the defective reasoning of J. G. R.

We are of opinion that he has tantamountly conceded to us the following:-the appalling extent of the evil of drunkenness, and the efficacy of the antidote administered by our American brethren; for he anticipates the production of the proofs by informing us that he wants no statistics of the former, nor does he wish to know the success attendant on the adoption of the latter; but what he desires "is a justification of the principles on which the law is founded; or, in other words, why the prudent and sensible man is to be deprived of the due use of a beverage, because his neighbour chooses to abuse it." As an objection against the principle on which the law is sought to be established, he commences by lamenting that we should, in the pursuit of truth, endeavour to promote it through the intermediation of the State, instead of relying on its innate power for its own advancement. We agree with him that truth is puissant enough to surmount all obstacles that may oppose its progress; but we opine that we are justified in furthering it by all legitimate means. Yet, according to the reasoning of J. G. R., men ought never to have enacted laws for the prevention or suppression of any species of crime, such as theft, murder, &c., but have allowed truth to assert its sovereign sway, without compelling man to observe laws which he sometimes finds to militate against the gratification of his passion. We expect he will see the fallacy of such reasoning, as it must be obvious that society is obliged to protect itself against such encroachments on its rights. We may cite as a very recent

instance of this kind of legislation, the suppression of gambling houses, which had become such pests, that on public attention being called to them they were closed by that compulsion of which J. G. R. has such horror. We would ask our opponent why the whole community should suffer to such a fearful extent, because the prudent and sensible man loves his beverage? We certainly pay dearly for his gratification. But J. G. R. is mistaken; we do not deprive him of his beverage by the Maine Law; it simply prohibits the traffic in intoxicating drinks. Now, we cannot comprehend why legislation should be refused here, seeing that it is necessary for our protection against the ever recurring evils resulting from it; especially as our Government enacts statutes for the suppression of kindred though minor evils. Strong drink has been denounced by all the judges of the present day, as the great parent of crime. Well may a writer in "Blackwood" exclaim,-"Wine, wine! whose praises are clamorously rung round the festive board, and whose virtues supply the song with brilliant thoughts and ardent syllables; what need of eloquence and verse to sound thy fame, whilst murder and seduction bear ghastly witness to thy potency! Is there a greater crime than these? Name it, and drunkenness shall claim it for a child."

J. G. R. next infers from the objection propounded-that truth should not be promoted by State aid-that those who think in opposition to himself must be influenced by error, and tainted with prejudice and bigotry; and then commences an attack on them for forming themselves into a society called the "Alliance for the Suppression of Intoxicating Drinks." Now, although our question does not embrace the opinions of any society or class of men, he devotes a great portion of his space to a review of the "Alliance" and its object; and though we are not bound to notice the new matter thus introduced into the discussion, as some may advocate the affirmative of this question, and disapprove of the declaration of the "Alliance," we do not hesitate to vindicate it from his animadversions, and predict that the object of his vituperation will be the means of achieving victory in the coming strife. He thinks the term "intoxicating drinks" improper, as they do not become intoxicating till they have been improperly used. So

that, if a number of men associated together for the purpose of cleansing dirty houses, he would stigmatize them as bigots for giving their object its proper appellation, as he might reply, that houses do not become dirty until they have been improperly used. He then proceeds,-" Well, this society, for want of means more successful than those employed when known as the Temperance Society, and anxious for something novel, and at the same time ultra, made choice of the 'Maine Liquor Law,' as being likely to compel submission, conviction being now to them a matter of indifference." He after wards charges them with having resolved to "shut up" discussion. J. G. R. labours under some great misapprehension here, as they hope to attain their object by discussion, and always challenge it; and as to compelling submission, this is equally incorrect, as before they can obtain the law, it must be sanctioned by a majority of the people, who must, in the first place, be awakened to a sense of the benefits of this law, and then vote for it from conviction, certainly not from compulsion. The "Alliance" is next ridiculed as seeking to suppress drunkenness in public that it may flourish in private. J. G. R.'s philosophy cannot comprehend the utility of suppressing the traffic, if we permit the, private manufacture. But this is easily explained. The advocates of this law know that the traffic is chiefly instrumental in the production of crime, as the numerous temptations now held out in divers forms,-gin palaces, music saloons, &c.,—almost preclude the possibility of temperance amongst the lower classes; especially those of social dispositions. Now, if this cause were removed, it is expected the consumption of spirituous liquors would decrease, which expectation finds confirmatory evidence in America. It is not probable that every family would turn their houses into small distilleries. But even the few who, imme- | diately after the passing of the law, might do this, would, in all likelihood, gradually succumb to the force of public opinion, which would gather strength from the beneficial results that would be brought

in error, and that these societies still exist, and prosecute their enterprise with their former energy; and will do so after the "Maine Law" has been passed; for its most most sanguine promoters cannot expect that drunkenness will immediately be extirpated by it. After our friend's premature elegy on the Total Abstinence societies, he once more turns his attention to the real subject, by saying that England and America cannot be fairly compared. He denies the capacity of the Americans to legislate upon such an important question as the "Maine Law," as they have shown, within the last few years, a great hankering after anything novel. This is rather a serious charge to bring against our transatlantic brethren, whose country is one of the most flourishing and efficiently governed in the world, and it is one of which they have reason to be proud, when it is allowed on all hands that their firmness and perseverance generally secure success to the greatest and most perilous undertakings. But if they are whimsical, as he supposes, we can affirm that their whimsicality often takes them to the "safe side of the hedge." He reminds us "that the liquor traffic was originally introduced amongst small and uncivilized portions of the States-chiefly Indians-who did not understand the nature and properties of strong drinks; and so far as they are concerned, the prohibition would be salutary. In other cases, however, we contend that it is unfair, irrational, and despotic." Any force his objection possessed, that truth should not be promoted by State aid, is now invalidated by this admission, as he justifies the use of what he formerly repudiated. If just amongst the half civilized states, why not amongst civilized nations? Surely J. G. R. does not consider that strong drinks are essential to the progress of civilization! Let us contemplate civilized nations, and see what advantage is taken by them of their superior knowledge over their less fortunate neighbours, the uncivilized. In England-a civilized country-why are efforts being made to eradicate the drinking customs of society? In civilized America, why has the law been agitated for and passed by several of the civilized States? Certainly not on account of any distinction that can be shown to have been made in the use of the liquor; for if we imagine the worst

amongst the uncivilized, we may realize it at home amongst ourselves. What retards our civilization so much as the deteriorating effects of intoxicating drinks? We see little reason to saddle upon civilization, as its concomitant, that which is so inimical to its progress. It is a singular anomaly that a so-called barbarous people should take the initiative in promulgating laws which may ultimately rule the world, and this to remedy an evil introduced to them by ourselves, as one of the blessings of civilization!

Again, J. G. R. returns to the charge on the unfortunate "Alliance," by adducing parallels said to be made use of by them to justify their aggression on the liberty of the subject-which he designates as "alike amusing and instructing," viz., "if it is legal to punish the publishers of obscene publications," or "provide sewerage for the streets, it is proper and just to adopt the 'Maine Law.' But, before these comparisons can be allowed, it must be shown that there is no nutritious principle in intoxicating drinks, but that they invariably produce injurious effects." The only difference between these things can be but in degree. In fact, some people of strong minds may peruse obscene publications without being contaminated, and at the same time derive information, whereas, in the majority of cases, many would be demoralized; and to preserve the majority we prohibit the sale. In the case of sewerage, if the minority were partially benefited by its absence, is it probable that, to satisfy their squeamishness, the majority would permit them to be so? The comparisons produced to show the inapplicability of the foregoing have, we think, nothing whatever analogous. He inquires why vegetarians do not agitate for the suppression of the breeding of oxen, sheep, &c.? In the first place, there is no proof that flesh-eating is so detrimental to society as the drinking of ardent liquors, nor that it entails the same insatiable craving; but, on the contrary, may be discontinued when demonstrated to be mischievous, without resorting to such a law as this, which, as T. U. says, ought only to be enacted in extreme cases. Why should not the Bible Society apply for the destruction of infidelity, by punishing those who professedly encourage it?" We do not interfere with man's right to think for himself; but if by the sale of

66

infidel publications our population was demoralized, and such injuries inflicted on the community equalled those caused by the sale of drinks, then it might be time to agitate for the suppression of the traffic. Morality may exist irrespective of Christianity, and infidel opinions do not necessarily annul our duties to each other in the social state. Why, as Mr. Hume justly asked, should not all the gold, silver, &c., be seized and declared as illegal property, because it gives rise to theft, robbery, and murder?" We will give the reply made by the "Alliance" to this. The use of these articles "has no casual relation to the crime of theft, and therefore the disuse of such utensils would not destroy the propensity to steal; but simply divert to other objects. Now, the use of the stimulant is the one sole, physical, necessary, and universal cause of the drunkard's appetite." J. G. R. next inquires " why the Bible should not be condemned as an heretical work, because it is frequently made the authority for the worst of purposes?" We wonder he does not inquire why Governments should not be subverted, because they sometimes make bad laws! The subjects thus referred to do not exemplify our reasons for aggression in any way; but, to use his own words, they are "alike amusing and instructing."

Space will not allow us to do more than reply to the objections of J. G. R.; but we fully rely on the strength of the position taken up by T. U. For the dispassionate enunciation of his views he deserves the earnest thanks of all, and especially so when we remember that those who hold such views are often ridiculed as fanatics, caricatured as bigots, and branded as persons misled by jaundiced prejudice.

In reviewing what has been urged against us, we believe we were justified in our assertion that no good reason had been shown why we should change our opinions. The objections are too trifling to be weighed in the balance against the great and lasting benefits to be derived from this law. Education will go on, elevating and refining the ignorant masses,-unshackling the fetters that bind their souls. Intemperance,—the fosterer of crime and pauperism, condemned by the legislatural enactment of a prohibitory law, will vacate its throne, and the signal will thus be given for the

--

once

AT no period of which we are cognizant could the discussion of this question have been more opportune than the present, inasmuch as it is eminently calculated to accelerate the conviction-settlement of two of the most important subjects which engage the attention of the thinking portion of the community, viz., the duty of governments, and the rights of individuals. At a time when there exists such a diversity of opinion on matters which command attention, from the fact of their having the increased happiness of man in view, the discussion of such subjects is most important. Existing, as we do, in the first phase of intellectual manhood and individual opinionism, such debates as this are absolutely necessary to direct the current of thought, and prevent it from assuming a form that would be as detrimental to the interests of humanity as those from which these subsequent modifications take their origin. Nothing tends more to encourage accurate habits of thinking among the people than thorough discussion. Nothing so surely indicates national prosperity as right thinking, for it is the forerunner of right acting; and well-being follows as a natural consequence. It is by discussions that men are enabled to uplift the veil of darkness and ignorance, and exhibit hydraheaded prejudice in her hideous deformity. It is to discussions that men who have been persecuted and maligned for opinion's sake look hopefully to bring about the time when man to his own self" shall be "true;" and therefore not "false to any man. Thorough and impartial discussion will effectuate this; and therefore we hailed with gladness the intimation of the discussion of the above question, and more especially as we are convinced that, in this age of half-truth, free inquiry must be made the antidote to that individual dogmatism which is the natural product of a mental revolution, which has been preceded by a long reign of intellectual despotism that has lethargized and enthralled human consciousness, until the breaking of the chain threatens to come with such force that it shall destroy the forger.

In offering a few remarks upon this question, it behoves us to be careful lest our

desire, to see a great moral reform effected, should be so worked upon by appeals to our heart, that the judgment should be led to assent to propositions which the morning's reflections would show to be extremely fallacious. Temperate from principle, we deeply regret the amount of drunkenness which prevails, and the amount of crime and wretchedness thus caused, and would work unceasingly to remove these evils; but to the proposition to invoke the legislature to pass an act which would place a degrading dietic restraint on the whole people for the liquid-gluttony of a portion, we emphatically dissent, and will try to give our reasons for that dissent. But in order to be as concise as possible, we will try to establish, first, that such enactment as that proposed is not within the province of government. 2ndly, That it is based upon an unwarrantable assumption. And, 3rdly, that the practical carrying out of such a proposition would ultimately be productive of more evil than good.

Theoretically, the British government is republican. Whatever may now be its constitutional aspect, it is almost universally acknowledged that this was its original nature; and the number of proofs, which are every day advanced in attestation of that remark, render argumentation on the point unnecessary. Republican governments recognize the sovereignty of the individual, inasmuch as it is by that very recognition that the term is prevented from becoming a misnomer. When individuals are thus recognized as part and parcel of the State, and are consulted as to the best means of governing it, it becomes a moral compact, and must be adhered to morally. Whenever any subject violates any of the recognized laws, the government, in justice to the community, takes means to punish such violation, though the said punishment lessens the amount of liberty originally possessed. This is not an infringement of the subject's right, because the form of government presupposes that, having taken a part in the making of the law he has knowingly broken, he will not, as a reasonable being, object to the forfeiture of a portion of his individual rights, when his own misdeeds have been the cause