Let us act like men. Go to the publican, fully show him what the drink invariably produces, help him to find other employment if necessary; if he refuse to leave it, then let him know that his traffic shall be put down.

Shut the whisky shops; yes, but to what extent? We seek not to advance towards the goal of legitimate prohibition faster than society can follow us. We cannot make a tree grow ten or twenty feet in a day; if we try to raise it suddenly, it must be by pulling it out of the ground. Society we know will rise, but the growth, though much faster than in the ages that are past, will still be gradual. Our present demand is, that the poor shall have the privileges and advantages of the rich; which are, buying the best liquor at the wholesale rate, and drinking it at home. That the working classes may purchase at the wholesale rate, the public houses must be prevented selling less than a bottle of wine or spirits, or a gallon of malt liquors, and all liquor must be carried out of the shop, not a drop of it to be consumed on the premises. The advantages of this proposal to the poor are very great. 1st. It will be a saving of at least £200,000 a year, even supposing the present consumption not to be diminished. Every citizen must have seen on the evening before New Year's day, some hundreds of the working classes mobbing one of our wholesale spirit cellars famed for keeping good drink. Some of these wholesale dealers sell more than 500 bottles of whisky in a few hours; so many families, indeed, can one of them accommodate that 50 spirit shops would be amply sufficient for the whole city. The working classes would thus save the enormous rents of 1700 public houses, and the enormous retail profits of 1700 publicans, which would, as we have said, be not less than £200,000 per annum. 2nd. They would thus obtain a superior article. Speaking to a publican on the different qualities of whisky, and the profit off each, he said that private families bought the best whisky at 16s 6d per gallon, while common working men paid 20s for the worst; he also added, that "the rich knew the flavour of good whisky too well to be gulled, that there was no cheating them." From the 50 wholesale stores, which we deem quite abundance for the city, the poor could buy their bottle of good drink at the cheap rate. We do not believe that any alcoholic drink is good, the chemical constituents of alcohol being the same in all, and all being the brain poison. We use the term "good" in its usual application, meaning unadulterated whisky made from malt, not from raw grain.

We know what a dreadful uproar the publicans will set up at this proposal; whenever their craft and their profit are in danger, their shout will equal that heard in Ephesus of old. Among the Babel of sounds will be heard, "Liberty of the subject," "Justice to the poor," "Intolerable oppression,"

"Tyranny," "Teetotal despotism," "Britons never shall be slaves," "Freedom and whisky gang thegither," &c., &c., &c. Of course every one will know that their professed sympathy for the poor, means sympathy for their own pocket. They will tell us that the poor have not fine houses in which to sit and drink like the rich, but they will not inform us why the poor have such miserable dwellings. We have shown that if the vast majority of working men keep out of the public house, they may soon occupy a more comfortable home. Injustice to the poor, indeed; pray is it the Government that provides the rich with their fine dwellings? If the Government, with equal handed justice, license no house in which either class may sit and drink, only a man speaking from self-interest will hint at injustice to the poor. The Government does not provide spacious mansions for the rich to sit in and drink, nor shall it provide gin or whisky palaces for the poor-let each class drink at home. But then the rich have clubs; yes, and the rich have also carriages, and coast villas, and libraries, &c., for "money answereth all things.' Let the poor keep money in their purse then, and with it try to get what the rich have, but don't let them expect all from the Government. A few hotels and lodging houses might have a separate licence for drink, to be consumed on the premises only by travellers. Of course here again there would be even handed justice, rich and poor travellers alike would have access to the lodging houses.

There are many objections which will be started to this scheme, but as they will not stand a look, there is no need of taking any notice of them. One of them is, that if the poor when unwell cannot buy less than a bottle of spirits, they will be carried off by thousands for want of this sovereign medicine. When the poor take unwell at present during the night, after all the whisky shops are shut, pray what do they do, and how many deaths do we hear of in consequence of the remedy being out of reach? Let a neighbourhood contribute for a bottle, and give it in charge of some person in whose custody it will be safe, safe from personal use, and safe from the dry throats of the healthy who are only thirsty, and this so much desired medicine will thus at any moment be at hand for the really unwell. But, as we have said, it is not worth while to mention the hundred objections that will be raised by self-interest.

But is our proposal consistent with the principles of just legislation? Does it interfere with any right which the subjects of an enlightened Government should possess? First, let us inquire for what purpose man dwells in society, and what is the foundation principle upon which his every action in society can rest? Human beings dwell together in communities because it is the will of God, and accords with the nature of man-accords with his social instincts and his helplessness. If he were to live

alone, like a wild beast, or roving Arab of the desert, or like a hermit, he never could reach the same elevation of culture and enjoyment as in society. Life is too limited for one individual to master the 200 or more trades which are requisite in civilized life. This inability to do everything for himself to be farmer, baker, shepherd, flesher, mason, plasterer, joiner, slater, glazier, plumber, moulder, blacksmith, spinner, weaver, dyer, tailor, tanner, shoemaker, and other 200 tradesmen besides, compels man to associate with his fellows for mutual assistance and defence. The bond of union between one member of the community and another is, to give some benefit in exchange for a benefit received. The intention of the connection is, that it shall be beneficial to all. But that it may be of advantage to all, it is expressly understood that every individual is to contribute good, and receive good in return. Not a single member can plead for a right to do evil, to make others suffer wrong. God, the ordainer of human society, has strictly forbidden such a right.

"Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the ruler: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil," Rom. xiii. 3, 4.

From this foundation principle of society we deduce these three inferences. 1st. That it is the duty of every member of an enlightened community to apply himself to some trade, business, or profession which conduces to the good of his fellowmen, which good is to be judged of by its ultimate consequences upon society. 2nd. That in none of his actions, pleasures, or recreations is he to interfere with public interests, is he in the slightest to injure or diminish the property, virtue, or happiness of others. The Christian standard is, that the whole life course, both in business and enjoyments, be conducive to the benefit of others as well as to personal advantage or gratification; but the selfishness of human nature forbids this ideal being obtained, and civil law must be content with the absence of evil inflicted. 3rd. That no member has a right to follow any course of conduct, or indulge in practices which tend to make him a burden upon society, or unfit him to perform at all times the duties of citizenship. If he assume such a right he violates the foundation principle, which is, that he contribute good alone.

We can now proceed to try whether our proposal be just or unjust. It is twofold; 1st. To close 1700 of the 1750 public houses in Glasgow. 2nd. To restrict rich and poor alike to drinking only at home, unless when on a journey, and not to permit intoxicating liquors to be sold in less than specified wholesale quantities. And, first, as regards the publican, is it unjust to him? He cannot affirm he has a civil right to sell intoxicating

liquors without the consent of Government, and a licence being had. He is only a public servant, appointed for a certain time (the duration of his licence) to serve the community. As soon as Government determines his services are no longer required, there is no injustice in his dismissal. No servant or contractor, when his engagement is at an end, complains if it be not renewed, why then should the publican? Every day contractors have to sell off their horses, waggons, engines, &c., &c., when their contract is at an end;-in like manner let the publican roup off his stock.

1st.

But is our proposal unjust to the citizens at large? To this question these two truths are a complete and final answer. No man has a civil right to get drunk. 2d. The public houses are the cause of very great evils to society, to those who never enter them, as well as to their customers-to the innocent, as well as to the guilty.

1st. No man has a civil right to get drunk. Drunkenness is a sin against God, against the sinner's own constitution, and a crime against the state. Why is it a crime against the state? Because every subject is expected, by all due care, to preserve himself in a fit condition to perform all the duties of citizenship. If one subject has a right to get drunk, all have the same right; and if all were to use the supposed right, as too many do, who in the community would be ready and able to defend the country from foreign invasion, from internal tumult, from daily emergencies as fires in great cities, from the very many duties which a state justly demands of its subjects? All the subjects in the empire have a right to be intoxicated if one has, but universal drunkenness is incompatible with the safety of the state, therefore no subject has a civil right to get drunk. We will immediately see that a wise and just government will prevent, as it were, the possibility of this danger to the state occurring by proper suppressive measures.

Still farther, a man when intoxicated does not contribute good to society, but he voluntarily has made himself a burden on society, it requiring to take care of him while in a drunken state. But no man has a right, by his own act, to be burdensome to society, for this is opposed to the contract which binds one member of the state to another. If a man lived alone in the back woods of America, he would be in a state of natural freedom. He could then do whatever he pleased, whether it was right or wrong; but he alone would then suffer all the evil consequences of his misconduct. If he got drunk, he could lie in the wilderness in all the delight of unfettered natural liberty. He could repose undisturbed in a pool of water, for there would be no policeman to annoy him with the shelter of a station; he could become the prey of wild beasts, for there would be no human law, nor subjects of the law, to interfere with their natural

liberty any more than with his; he could stumble and break a leg, but no one would curtail his freedom by placing him in an infirmary. His hut might be on fire, and it would have liberty to blaze away, &c. A man then, under natural liberty, bears all evil consequences himself; when under civil freedom he has no right to roll the consequences upon others; but evil consequences affecting society do follow drunkenness, therefore no man has a right to get drunk.

2d. The public houses are the cause of great evils to society, to those who never enter them, as well as to their customers— to the innocent, as well as to the guilty. The returns from the Ruin Investment prove this. How shall society defend itself from these evils? Only by preventive measures. We have seen that the foundation principle is, that all the members of the community contribute good, and refrain from inflicting evil. Men must sternly be kept to the contract. That legislature alone is worthy of the name of government, which sees that the contract is kept; which is a terror to evil-doers, which effectually restrains the natural lawlessness of man, by prohibiting all the means, occasions, or causes, of public calamity. The highest civil liberty to which man can attain in this world, is freedom from injury to his person, virtue, property, or happiness, arising from the unrestrained conduct of his fellowmen. Therefore, that government is the freest and best which has most restrictive laws, which gives full scope to the performance of all good, and pulls up all evil by the roots before it has time to grow. The tendency of all modern legislation is in this direction. We will take a few illustrations from our new Police Act

(1st.) Section 158, Clause 4.-" Every Person who publicly offers for Sale or Distribution, or exhibits to public View any profane, indecent, or obscene Book, Paper, Print, Drawing, Painting, or Representation, or writes or draws any indecent or obscene Word, Figure, or Representation on any Wall, Fence, or Building, or sings or recites any profane or obscene Song or Ballad, or uses any profane, indecent, or obscene language, shall be liable to a Penalty of Five Pounds, or alternatively, without Penalty, to Imprisonment for Thirty Days."

(2d.) Section 158, Clause 19.-" Every Person who raises or lowers, or causes to be raised or lowered, any Article to or from any Building, by means of a Chain or Rope, and who does not sufficiently secure such Article, and provide and use Means for safely guiding the same, and for protecting the Public against the Risk of injury, shall be liable to a Penalty of Forty Shillings, or in Default of Payment, to Imprisonment for Fourteen Days."

This 158th Section also prohibits the risk of injury to the public from the negligence of carters or drivers of carriages; from allowing any vicious dog to be at large; from not having a sufficient fence to prevent persons falling into any Area, Pit, or Sewer; from recklessly driving cattle; from fixing a flower pot in an upper window without sufficiently guarding the same against being blown or thrown down; from slate, brick, wood,