even from the dark times which are past, that the course of human events has been more determined, on the whole, by great principles, by great emotions, by feeling, by enthu siasm, than by selfish calculations, or by selfish men ... In the grandest epochs of history, what was it which won the victory? What were the mighty, all-prevailing powers? Not political management-not self-interest-not the lower principles of human nature-but the principles of freedom and religion, moral power, moral enthusiasm, and the Divine aspiration of the human soul. Great thoughts and great emotions have a place in human history, and the future is to be more determined by these than the past." It is not for peddling politicians to put limits to the 'possibilities' of social development, or bounds to the issues of human enthusiasm. The plumb-line of a common mind is too short for the great deeps of Humanity: much less can it traverse the space between the 'extremes' of Providence The interval between the ancient and the modern Briton would have appeared as impossible an extreme, if predicted, as our genial Utopia appears to the frigid genius of the Member for Montrose. What then? The inspiration and enthusiasm which are now directed against the most tremendous enginery of social Obstruction and Calamity which the world has ever known, as it springs from strong and living hearts, will find its echo and response in the common heart of the People. The obstruction shall be overthrown-the curse shall be removed. will free play be given to those thousand elevating and benign, but impeded agencies, which 'wait' the advent of our Law for the efficient commencement of their work. Then comes the statelier EDEN back to men; Then reign the world's great bridals, chaste and calm; So May these things be! is at least the Author's fervent prayer. PRINCIPLES OF THE United Kingdom Alliance for the Suppression of the Liquor Traffic. DECLARATION OF GENERAL COUNCIL; Unanimously adopted at its first aggregate meeting, on the occasion of the inauguration of the movement in Manchester, on the 26th of October 1853: I. That it is neither right nor politic for the State to afford legal protection and sanction to any Traffic or system that tends to increase crime, to waste the national resources, to corrupt the social habits, and to destroy the health and lives of the people. II.—That the Traffic in Intoxicating Liquors, as common beverages, is inimical to the true interests of individuals, and destructive of the order and welfare of society, and ought therefore to be prohibited. III.—That the history and results of all past Legislation, in regard to the Liquor Traffic, abundantly prove that it is impossible, satisfactorily, to limit or regulate a system so essentially mischievous in its tendencies. IV. That no consideration of private gain or public revenue, can justify the upholding of a system so utterly wrong in principle, suicidal in policy, and disastrous in results, as the Traffic in Intoxicating Liquor. V. That the Legislative Prohibition of the Liquor Traffic is perfectly compatible with rational liberty, and with all the claims of justice and legitimate commerce. VI. That the Legislative Suppression of the Liquor Traffic would be highly conducive to the development of a progressive civilization. VII.-That, rising above class, sectarian, or party considerations, all good citizens should combine to procure an enactment, prohibiting the sale of Intoxicating Beverages, as affording most efficient aid in removing the appalling evil of Intemperance. Signed on behalf of the Council, WALTER C. TREVELYAN, Bart., President. Athenæum, Manchester. AN ARGUMENT FOR PROHIBITION. CHAPTER I. "THAT IT IS NEITHER RIGHT NOR POLITIC FOR THE STATE TO AFFORD LEGAL PROTECTION AND SANCTION TO ANY TRAFFIC OR SYSTEM THAT TENDS TO INCREASE CRIME, TO WASTE THE NATIONAL RESOURCES, TO CORRUPT THE SOCIAL HABITS, AND TO DESTROY THE HEALTH AND LIVES OF THE PEOPLE." §1. Common-sense would be apt to regard this proposition somewhat in the light of a truism. To prevent such sequences, and afford play for the free development of true liberty, seem to be the express aim and sole justification of Government. The best State would be one in which each and every man did, not only that which was right in his own eyes, but right and best in itself. In the infancy of the world, however, such a state is simply impossible. Ignorance, defect, and, above all, impulse fostered by custom, and fed by mistaken laws and systems, combine to contravene this Utopia, and to postpone its realization to the far distant future. A stern necessity commands that the weak, the wise, and the good shall become jurally associated as a State, prohibiting certain actions and restricting others, not simply to preserve the rights and the good that are, but as the means of realizing a Social State that is theoretically better. Doubtless, in the development of the Idea of a State, absurd as well as mischievous blunders have been committed. Government,—which we speak of as the organ and executive of the People,—has, at one time, attempted too much, and, at another, too little. Just like the individuals whose aggregate character and intelligence it represented, it has done the things it ought not, and left undone the things it ought to have done. Notably it has licensed and legally sanctioned the Traffic in Strong Liquors, which it ought to have prohibited as the fountain of three-fourths of the social corruptions and crimes for the prevention of which all prohibitory statutes are professedly in force. From the records of History-difficult as it may be to extricate a positive, universal principle of law-our negative proposition stands clearly out. The professed object of every combination called SOCIETY, in contradistinction to various forms of Tyranny, has been the protection of rights, person, and property, as the essential condition of social progress. This implies, first, the right to resist the injurious actions of the selfish or ignorant, and the wilful B aggressions of the wicked; and, second, the right to enforce whatever else is necessary as a means to this end, and to the developing of a true civilization. Under the first head, we may range, not only laws against felony, but against filth; laws against lotteries, betting-houses, and obscene exhibitions ;-under the second head, we may cite the institution of private property in land, the consequent prohibitions of trespass, the laws of marriage, the making of drains, and the compulsory levy of taxation. It must be evident, then, that any State which licenses a System tending to crime, improvidence, and disease, not merely lends the prestige and authority of its incorporated virtue to that which is evil, but frustrates the purpose of its own existence-in fine, perpetrates social suicide, and commits a kind of political felo de se. St Paul represents the Law as a terror to evil-doers and a praise to them that do-well"; the Licensed traffic inverts this maxim, so that the Law virtually becomes "a temptation to evil-doing, and a terror and burden to them that do well." 66 Theorists of various grades may be found, who will dispute, not only the general conception of Law which we lay down, but the application of an approximate view of the sphere and duties of Government to the subject of the Liquor-traffic. It seems right, therefore, that we should at starting notice, however briefly, some of the theories of Social Law, by way of clearing the path for the consideration of our chief topic-the actual consequences of the Traffic itself, and the practical remedy for its fruitful evils. We desire to show that the best conception of Government includes the right and the duty of repressing socially injurious TRADES, whenever such trades materially interfere with the social and moral advancement of the community.* §2. We confess to a strong leaning towards the great practical test or index of BENTHAM, one of the profoundest writers on Jurisprudence to which this country has given birth. "The sole object of Government ought to be the greatest happiness of the greatest possible number of the community. * Observe,Trades,' which implies a public relation, and not simply a private or domestic one. The latter may be beyond the province of Government, but not the former. This difference is acknowledged in every civilized community. Law does not deal with private play in the domestic circle, but with the Trade, the House, and the instruments of Public Gambling. Law makes no inquisition into the pleasures of the licentious man, indulging in obscene pictures upon his parlour wall, or reading immoral books in his private study-but it puts its ban upon the public Trade in such things, declares the public exposure and sale of them to be a nuisance and a crime, and authorizes their public destruction. In all these directions the Law is not seeking to create public virtue, but to PREVENT PUBLIC CORRUPTION. The same distinction is claimed by the advocates of a prohibitory Liquor law. They have nothing to do with private vice as such, or with private opinions as to the virtue or the innocency of the actions prohibited, but simply with the consequences. If these are costly and corrupting, a wise people will do what is needful to prevent them: will rank the actions themselves amongst the crimes which are 'mala quia prohibita,' and attach penalties to their commission just as much as if they were classed amongst crimes which are 'mala in se.' "The care of providing for enjoyments ought to be left almost entirely to each individual; the principal function of government being to protect him from sufferings. "It fulfils this office by creating rights, which it confers upon individuals rights of personal security; rights of protection for honor; rights of property; rights of receiving assistance in case of need. To these rights correspond offences of all classes. The law cannot create rights, without creating the corresponding obligations. It cannot create rights and obligations without creating offences. It can neither command nor prohibit, without restraining the liberty of individuals. "The citizen, therefore, cannot acquire any right without the sacrifice of a part of his liberty. Even under a bad government, there is no proportion between the sacrifice and the acquisition. Governments approach to perfection in proportion as the acquisition is greater and the sacrifice is less. "Security has many branches: it is necessary that one branch of security should give way to another. For example, Liberty, which is one branch of security, ought to yield to general security, since it is not possible to make any laws but at the expense of liberty. "The proposition, although almost self-evident, that every law is contrary to liberty, is not generally recognized. On the contrary, the Zealots of Liberty, more ardent than enlightened, have made a conscience of combating it. And how have they done it ? They speak a language that belongs to no one: they say, Liberty consists in the power of doing everything which does not hurt another. But is this the ordinary meaning of this word? The liberty of doing evil, is it not liberty? If it is not liberty, what is it then? and what word should we make use of in speaking of it? Do we not say that liberty should be taken away from fools and wicked persons, because they abuse it? According to this definition, an officer of justice would not have liberty to punish a thief, unless he was sure such punishment would not hurt such thief!"* The liberty of sale and purchase of strong drink, is not absolute even now. It is limited as to persons, place, and time. But where is the acquisition to compensate for these various actual restrictions? Is it to be found in the burden of poor-rates, the misery of general demoralization, and the dangers to which we are exposed by the prevalence of crime? The Alliance' asks for the sacrifice of a partial liberty and a mere convenience, in order to realize the grandest national acquisition-for the adoption of one effective law which shall dispense with the need of fifty other ineffective laws. BENTHAM, who teaches thus wisely that "All government is only a tissue of sacrifices, also teaches that Punishment is itself an evil, although * Principles of the Civil Code. Works, i. p. 301, et seq. 22 |