875. Here is confusion worse confounded, and did we not know that the oracle was deaf, we might propound a few questions with the view of getting at its meaning if it had any. How, for instance, can a man have either an acquired right, or a birthright, to make a beast of himself? The law prohibits both the beastliness of drunkenness, and all other beastly actions. Does the Times advocate the abolition of the law? Again, it sadly puzzles us to understand how any one has the right to practice wrong ? We fondly fancied that the doctrine of 'a Divine right to govern wrong,' had long since been placed in the limbo of oblivion: and we see no more truth in its application to common-men than to crowned monarchs. But then, mark the absurdity of the saving clause! How can a BORN-RIGHT interfere with the safety and morals of others? So long, says the Times: but what does it mean? How can my right to see, or hear, or walk, or think, or feel, at all interfere with the same rights in others, either sooner or later, either so long or so little ? Yet such is the jargon which Publicists palm upon the public hebetude and credulity,-words, mere empty words! In the same way, we hear a good deal of the Rights of Publicans' being invaded by a Maine Law! But are birth-rights annually renewable? Am I to ask a magistrate to license me a right? The fact is, Publicans have no rights, as publicans. 'Rights' appertain to the nature of man, and are inalienable for that very reason. Where he is, there are they also; and can no more interfere with the rights of others, than his existence can. And the exercise of the right is as sacred and perpetual as the right itself; and for a very simple reason (to parody the Oriental doxology) "Right is right-and wrong is wrong." But we have demonstrated, what indeed every day repeats, that the Traffic is wrong; and therefore no man has a right to carry it on: for no man has a right to do evil, not even that 'good' may come-much less a right to do evil for the mere convenience' of pleasure-seeking men. The difference between the Times and the Alliance is fundamental. We base our political principles on the moral nature of man, in Truth and Conscience; and their relation to the absolute Sovereignty of the Divine Law. "What is morally wrong cannot be politically right"'-nor even expedient. Men may dignify their narrow inductions, or half-views, with the names of Principles, Rights, and so forth-but their virtue and validity must still be tested by their fruits, by their fitness, or by their power for good. "In every place and in every age," ARMAND CARREL, "it is the popular necessities which have created "the conventions called principles, and principles have ever "been mute before necessities."* Of course, for the principle was false, or effete; it did not fit the HIGHER NECESSITY, the Law and Obligation of To-day-the law of progressive Humanity. Did the

* History of the Counter Revolution, p. 42.

says

Times mean 'liberty,' not right? In that view, it is still wrong: for nobody has a birth-liberty, either to debase himself into a beast, or to deal out a drink which debases others. The publican, it is true, has the privilege, and the licensed liberty, of contributing to degrade his country,-and "pity 'tis, 'tis true." We shall seek to create a moral and national NECESSITY for the abrogation of that unhappy licence; so that the Law which gave in ignorance, may take away in knowlege and wisdom, the pernicious privilege which embruteth the nation.

§ 76. The Times talks of the right of Society to deal with that which "directly interferes with comfort and morals." Herein the Times goes far beyond the Alliance. We do not seek to

legislate in that style. We only seek to be permitted to enjoy our own rights, including the right of protection from wrong. Many things disturb our comfort-many 'vices' antagonize morals; yet we do not demand laws for their suppression.* If the Times' contributors were every night to drink themselves drunk, in their own snug libraries, and we were to know it, we might regret the painful fact, but we should not therefore call in the aid of the Policeman. We do not even aim at making the world either 'sober' or 'moral' by Act of Parliament; we demand Protection for ourselves, and play for the faculties of Society, that those who will work out the high purposes of life, may not be hindered and burdened by those who will not. It is not the mere 'vice' we aim at; it is the terrible swarm of evils and hindrances within its womb it is not the 'immorality,' but that which is behind it. The Traffic is the Mater Malorum; and we destroy the mother to strangle the children. The brood is confessedly bad. + Can it be shown that the Dam herself has a right to live? However, the policy of the Times is different. Like Jason, it would sou the Dragon's teeth that have sprung up into armed and iron crimes for centuries; but, unlike Jason, it would not give them the coup de main !

§ 77. And now for the Magisterial disciple. Is he prepared to cash his own words-to abide by his own Bill of Rights? Has every man a right to go into any house of recreation and do

The man who cannot distinguish between vice and crime is incompetent to discuss social problems. Most crimes are vices, but all vices are not crimes: Crime is limited to social sins-i. e. offences against the requirements of social life

+ The Times of July 30, 1855, says:-" We do not attempt to question the countless evils of Intemperance, or the advantage of endeavoring to suppress so productive a source of crime.' But what is the productive source of Intemperance? Instead of getting rid of the source-it recommends counteraction. "And why," asks Canon STOWELL, "should there be counteraction? Why give public-houses to draw men into them? Why not give just a sufficiency for the common transaction of business and necessary entertainment of travellers? And, for my part, I believe they would do just as well with good tea, coffee, and ginger-beer, and would not be losers if they had not spirituous liquors at all. But whether we are prepared to do what other countries have done, or not, we ought to be prepared to move in the right direction, and there ought to issue forth a cry from the whole country for the suppression of beer-houses during the next session of parliament."

66

as he pleases? Have we a right to go into a London Hell, and amuse ourself with hazard, or rouge et noir? Have we a right to go into 'the village curse' to-morrow forenoon (being Sunday), and enjoy ourselves over a glass of gin or pale ale? This, to be sure, is not our way of enjoying ourselves-but if it were, would the law which the 'honorable' and 'worshipful' gentleman is sworn to execute (but which at the Publicans' dinner he certainly mis-represents),-would that law, we ask, whereof he talks so wordily, sustain us in so doing? His own advice, again, is just as much a limitation and contradiction of his doctrine of 'rights,' as the law itself. First, every man is to be allowed to enjoy himself in his own way;" but second, he is by-and-bye to have a stop put to his own way by the Publican, who then assumes to be judge of the wants of his customers, and ends with dictating when they shall be gratified again! Now, it seems clear, that if the Public Servant has a right to dictate to the Public Customers "when they have had enough,"-the Public itself has a still more imperious right of dictation, both over the servant that it authorizes to sell, and the Members of its own body that it permits to purchase-under conditions. The right of interference is part and parcel of the Licence Law already extant-the degree of interference is a question of utility and of efficiency which may be soon settled.

§ 78. The law, then, has interfered with the Traffic; and, in a variety of ways, sets bounds to its activity, because it is evil. Like a dangerous ox, it must not be trusted at large, and nowhere without its legal-muzzle and its sworn-keepers. In all these respects it shows itself to be a trade without a parallel. Has the object of interference, then, been accomplished? Have the bitter waters been made sweet? Has it ceased to people the poor-house with paupers, to fill our streets with disorder, and disgrace our towns with riot? Has it lost its power of polluting women and depraving men; of feeding the hospital and crowding the gaol? In what material respect has the Licence System answered its avowed purposes? If it has done so, why these Parliamentary Committees and Reports, session after session, and year after year? If it has not answered its end, why object to the introduction of another legal system that will?

§ 79. The Times tells us to rely on many agencies in opera"tion which were denied to former ages. We have more schools, "more churches, more education, and a greater diffusion of "religious feeling. Cannot we avail ourselves of these means of "morul suasion." Now, we cannot, for the life of us, understand why the Times doesn't teach the government, for the same reason, to annul all law, and disband all police, and avail itself of moral suasion ?—if it credits its own leaders. We are accustomed to believe that we require both law and logic; both the policeman and the preceptor; and that we have little enough when done. Is it not so? Yet why should we leave "the countless evils of

intemperance, and so productive a source of crime," to the hope of being diminished 50 or 100 years hence, if we can extinguish them to-day by "the absolutism of a Maine Law"? Is it not in that way that we actually do try to get rid of crime? Did the Times not advocate the shutting up of Betting-houses? The question, however, is one of right, and not of time, or of education. Education, and the other agencies, have their own positive work to do, and should not be expended in mere negative, and as facts prove, inadequate counteraction. Our question, therefore, returns-Is the Licence system effectual? and if not, shall we not try a system that is ?-Moreover, the Panaceas of the Times have all been tried long ago, and all have failed. In Sweden, in America, in Germany, we have had more education, more recreation, more religious training, than we are likely to have (without a Maine Law) for the next century in Britain; and yet crime springing from drinking, and disease, and pauperism, all came up in due course; nay, grew intolerable. And why? The Times sees only half the truth, when it talks of education and religion counteracting intemperance-it fails to see the reverse of the medal-That intemperance counteracts education and religion, and has the best of the battle. Well says Canon STOWELL :-"It is not enough to say 'Educate, Christianize, Moralise the people, and 'then they will not drink. Give them Sunday recreation, and a 'variety of sources of pleasure; give them Parks, Mechanics' 'Institutions, Lyceums, and Athenæums; these are the counter'actions to drunkenness.' I ask, have they proved so? Have they much abated drunkenness? Have we reason to expect that they will? Where we have one mechanics' institution, church, or chapel, we have some thirty beerhouses, alehouses, or dramshops. And, after all, knowing what man is knowing the corruption of our nature-knowing how difficult it is to withstand temptation,-what right have we to expect that moral machinery will counteract all these fatal incentives to intoxication?

§ 80. From the nature of the case, and the fact of the law, we deduce the inference that no man has a right to buy, or to sell, intoxicating liquors. Rights are absolute, either in nature or society; but the privilege of sale and purchase is conditional. It is, therefore, only the abstract theorist, carried away by a moral yet melancholy monomania, or inflated by the conceit of a new philosophy, contradicted alike by the sense and the instinct of the race, who has the logical right of objecting to this argument; and his particular view we disposed of at starting. Necessitas non habet legem. For instance, a man may justify the pulling down the house of another, provided it be done to prevent the spreading of a dangerous fire. But what flames were ever so dangerous and destructive as those of the Traffic in fiery Alcohol'? Necessity is the highest law of the occasion-so to speak, the Divine prerogative,-which has no law above it. From necessity, then, which is MORAL UTILITY, we undertake to deduce

the right of interference with the liquor traffic, to the extent of prohibition.

After the year 1724, the Spaniards prohibited the introduction of brandy into Chili, because, says RAYNAL, "the natives had become excessively fond of them, and, when intoxicated, used to take up arms, massacre all the Spaniards they met with, and ravage the country near their dwellings." What man, out of Bedlam, and always excepting the theorists, would dispute the prudence and the right, or deny the duty, of proscribing the dangerous thing?

The Rev. Mr ANDREWS, in his account of the Mohawks of Georgia, thus describes the effect of spirits upon them :-"They grow quite mad-burn their own little huts-murder their wives and children, or one another,-so that their wives are forced to hide their guns and hatchets, and themselves too, for fear of mischief." The Settlers in that province, therefore, interdicted, by an express Act, the introduction of any kind of strong waters. They who should deny the wisdom of such a measure, would be about as mad as the Mohawks themselves.

And have we not amongst ourselves at all times-more in number than many nations of Mohawks, and constituting our 'dangerous classes'-persons who are literally rendered criminal or mad with whisky and other strong drinks? It is, therefore, not a violation of right, but a call of duty, to do all we can to put strong liquors beyond their reach. This, at least, we have the right to do; unless they have the right to make themselves mad and mischievous, and to claim our help in the process.

§81. Let us take a necessity of another kind; not involving violence to the body, but danger to its health, and risk of life. Some epidemic is in the city; and we have it, upon the evidence of our own observation, or the authority of a medical board, made probable that a certain kind of food, or certain shops and trades, constitute the nidus of the pestilence, and give a fearfully increased potency to its ravages? What is to be done? Is the municipal safety to wait upon the period when, by education or otherwise, you shall have produced a unanimous conviction upon the people concerned in these habits and trades,- -a thing not very likely to be done, or at all events, not to be readily achieved? Is the disease, in the meanwhile, to go on affecting the general tone of health, and striking down our sons and daughters-the innocent with the guilty? But such is the Traffic precisely-such the drinking of alcoholic drinks anywhere such its fatal power in aggravating disease and disposing to infection.

History of the Indies. London, 1788. Vol. iv. p. 209. We are glad to learn that this law still prevails to a great extent. It is referred to thus, in Wilkes' United States Exploring Expedition: There is an admirable regulation of the Chilian Government,-that of not permitting liquors to be brought within a league of any mine, under a severe penalty, which is strictly enforced."—i. 74.

+ Vide Pinkerton's Voyages. xii. p. 415.