'We feel highly gratified to find the Gaol destitute of Inmates-· 'a circumstance attributable, in a very great measure, we believe, 'to the suppression of the sale of intoxicating liquors.' Everywhere the law is popular, in proportion as it is carried out."

Professor PEASE, of Burlington University, says :— "There is a very great diminution in the use of liquors by the students. We have not had, for a year past, any rowdyism."

§ 154. Nor must we forget the last of the New England States that has adopted the Prohibitory Law-New Hampshire-which has been so long the 'grog-shop' for the 'thirsty souls' of the bordering States.

In March, 1856, the Journal announces that "the Law works admirably in all parts of the State. Pauperism and Crime are almost unknown."

In June, Rev. E. W. JACKSON, writes :-"The Law is accomplishing all that the most sanguine of us expected."

R. R. BROWN, hotel-keeper at CARTHAGE, New York, says that by abolishing the liquor bar, he is brought in contact with a better class of customers, and all the duties and associations of his business are improved to a degree which affords him a four-fold compensation for the unprofitable profits' which arose from vending 'the drink of the drunkard.'

The Tribune, INDIANA, publishes the following, in April, 1856. Committed to Penitentiary, 5 months preceding June, 1855, when the law went into effect, 83. Committed during 7 months after, 51-a reduction of 50 per cent. Since the law was annulled by the Court, drinking and gambling have held carnival. The annual Report of the Indiana Hospital for the Insane, out of 910 cases, assigns 59 cases as follows:-Intemperance 28; Dissipation 9; Abuse from Drunken husbands, 15; Mania a potu, 7. Each inmate, says the Indianopolis Gazette, costs $125 a year: so that, for the storage and care of this one item of the Rumsellers' harvest, we pay $6125 annually.

IOWA. From this young, but rapidly rising State, a letter from the State's Attorney, says :

“The Prohibitory Law in this State is doing considerable good. It works well. If vigorously carried out it will effect more than all the moral-reform lectures that can be mustered into the service."

Under a knowledge of such facts as we have detailed, can we wonder at the recent expression of the Rev. JOHN D. LAWYER, chaplain to the New York State Prison, at Auburn ?—“Give us the Maine-Law, and in five years Auburn Prison is no more.

How striking is the remark of the Canadian Commission, Messrs URE and FAREWELL, after their tour through New England and New York:-"We saw more drinking in the City "Hotel, in Hamilton, in the space of seven minutes, one morning "before eight o'clock, than we had seen in all our perambula"tions through the seven States."

III.

§ 155. In Oriental countries, where, from the peculiar genius of the people, the laws of Religion and of the State have, to a great extent, been incorporated together, we find the principle of Prohibition has been enforced for thousands of years with complete success. Illustrations of this fact may be found elsewhere.* Above a century ago, the amiable and reflective Hindoos protested against the Traffic being carried by Europeans into their country, in opposition to their religious and civil institutions; as, more recently, the Chinese have protested against the kindred Traffic in Opium. But, alas! the government of Mammon has ever a terrible deafness of heart. We have lying before us, of the date of 1851, a Memorial addressed to the Governor and President in Council, at Bombay, from the inhabitants of the DECCAN,-Sirdars, gentry, bankers, agriculturists, and various castes and classes,-which humbly showeth :

"1st. That the use of strong liquors is utterly condemned by the Religion of this country, and that all Traffic in them was by Native Governments PROHIBITED-and intemperance consequently unknown.

"2nd. That the Manufacture and the Sale of such liquors was regarded as fit only for persons of the most degraded caste; and those were obliged to engage in it in an underhand manner—a state of things that tended greatly to public order.

"3rd. That the original motive for licensing the sale of Spirit by the present Government was no doubt to discourage their use, by rendering them dear: but the popular inclination to evil being too strong to find a check in such a measure, intemperance had begun extensively to prevail.

"4th. The number of liquor shops is rapidly augmenting, and with the increased use of spirits, the disgrace attached to intoxication becomes less and less, and a once powerful moral restraint is removed. The people suffer in body and mind,-their families go to ruin,-they fall from caste and become reprobates, and their increasing misery is manifest.

"5th. Government should certainly take measures to check a vice so detrimental to Society, and so hostile to Religion-abandon its monopoly, and renounce the revenue derived from this source.

"6th. Let Government settle it by law, that no native be permitted to open a liquor-shop under severe penalties. In this way, the general_welfare of the community will be placed on its former happy footing, and one great cause of penury removed.

"7th. Finally, as the evil is on the increase, an immediate remedy can be applied more easily than at any future period, since, with the spread of intemperance, immorality and irreligion will naturally become more prevalent. And your," etc.

Here we have facts and principles clearly stated, in harmony with our own. The Times, in its review of the Alliance First Report, sneered at a reference to the principle of Prohibition as sanctioned by some barbarous African tribes, and by several rulers in the Islands of Polynesia. If we wondered at anything in the Times, we should wonder why it did not, at the same

* 'Ancient Teetotalism, Works of Dr Lees. Vol. ii. pp. 1-16.

time, sneer at sobriety itself as a 'Barbarian Virtue',—repudiate together the prohibition of drink and 'dice', on the ground of their having been long since prohibited by Mohamet-and denounce the Government of this country for prohibiting the sale of liquor at the Australian diggings, at the Crimean camp, and to the natives of New Zealand! For our part, we are humiliated at the spectacle of Pagan populations, by millions, illustrating the superiority of their Temperance to the professed Christians that dwell amongst them-as well as their superiority to our nation at home. We quite concur in the language of Lord HERVEY, in 1743, that " we may be sent with justice to learn from the rude and ignorant Indians, the first elements of civil wisdom"-(p. 84.)

cases

§ 156. But even among British peoples and British legislation prohibition has been received with favor, and in some adopted. It would be unreasonable to expect that the fervor of enthusiasm which has pervaded the American States, should be altogether unable to vivify the cold and lethargic population on the other side of the American boundary.

In CANADA the agitation on behalf of the Maine Law has been carried on with varying success, but with substantial progress. After long effort, the temperance men of this province succeeded in turning the attention of their legislature to the traffic in strong drink, and, as a result, a prohibitory law was adopted in 1855, by their legislative assembly, the vote being 51 to 29.

On its further passage the bill was obstructed in every way, and at last was thrown over on a technical objection taken to some omission of the forms of the House. This, instead of discouraging, increased the ardor of the friends of the bill, and their exertions were redoubled. Petitions were poured in during the next session. The petitions presented in favor of the law were signed by 108,417, in proportion to every 4388 who signed against it. The petitions against the law emanated from the large cities and from those localities in which the influence of the traffic might be expected to be most powerful. Such an expression of public opinion could not be disregarded by the legislature of the province, and though the faith of some, who had undertaken to pilot the bill through the storms of the opposition, was shaken by the temporary disaster in Maine, and they deserted the helm at the most critical moment-the measure being again stranded in consequence-it was yet felt that indifference to the claims of popular feeling could no longer be assumed.

Special committees of enquiry were appointed_by_ both the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council. Both committees reported the results of their investigation. That appointed by the Legislative Council recommended a licence law similar to that which replaced prohibition in Maine-a law which, defective in itself, would yet be an immense step in advance of any at present existing in Canada.

The Assembly committee, however, repudiated all such jejune and unsatisfactory conclusions, and report in favor of downright prohibition, declaring that ". no legislative reform has been demanded with such unanimity."

It would appear that Upper Canada is retarded somewhat in this matter by the influence and weight of the lower division.

But though a Maine Law has not yet been adopted by its legislature many landmarks have been erected to mark the progress which has been made. In 1853 the principles of the Maine Law were applied to localities in which public works were in progress, no licence being granted "to sell, barter, or dispose of any kind of intoxicating liquor within a distance of three miles of any public works declared to be in progress."

And in 1855, though defeated on the 'Maine' question, a new 'Municipal Act' enabled County Councils to free their districts from the traffic by their own ordinance.

Already this power has been put into force, and notwithstanding that, as we have stated, Upper Canada has shown more favor to prohibition, Lower Canada has, in nine County Councils, determined "to prevent, so far as in their power, the traffic in intoxicating liquors within their limits.”

"There is no question," said Lord ELGIN, on his return to England from his Governor-Generalship of Canada, "on which I look with more interest than on the question of the Maine Law."

§ 157. In NOVA SCOTIA a Prohibitory liquor bill is steadily demanded from the legislature. In 1855 such a bill was introduced and carried through the House of Assembly, the second reading being passed by a vote of 29 to 19, the third without a division.

In the Legislative Council the measure was quietly shelved, by an order that the Bill, instead of passing, be printed and circulated. Thus the bill was, to use the language of the Nova Scotian press, "committed once more to the care of the country." There it will revive, no doubt, like a giant refreshed with sleep, and will come back again with redoubled potency, and with victory on its crest.

In PRINCE EDWARD'S ISLAND, also, a Maine Law has been defeated only by narrow majorities.

§ 158. In NEW BRUNSWICK Prohibition has still further developed itself.

In consequence of the vigorous agitation kept up by the Temperance men of the province in 1853, a law was adopted which prohibited the sale of spirits, but allowed the licence for other intoxicants. As might be expected, from the considerations laid down in this essay, a measure so partial failed in obtaining a satisfactory result, and it was repealed in 1854. From the first, this measure had been unsatisfactory to the friends of prohibition-it was an insidious triumph-and it was hoped by the

liquor interest, that its expected failure might retard the coming struggle.

But it was not so. The failure of the law of 1853 did not disgust the people of New Brunswick with legislation, but it made them resolved that their future legislation should be sound. At the next election a strong Temperance house was returned, and the most earnest and zealous of that party became members of the government. Mr S. L. TILLEY-who was an official member of the United Kingdom Alliance, and one of the recognized leaders of the movement in New Brunswick, became provincial chief secretary,

Nothing could be more emphatic than the decision of public opinion at this election. There could be no doubt as to the course which would be taken by the Legislature.

Accordingly, in 1855, a law was passed "totally prohibiting the manufacture, sale, and importation of all intoxicating drinks." This law was declared to go into operation on January 1st, 1856, and in the mean time the bill was sent to this country for ratification by the Home Government. The bill was accompanied by a despatch, containing 39 elaborate paragraphs intended to dissuade the Government in England from recommending Her Majesty to sanction the measure.

In the mean time, also, every device which could be suggested to the opponents of the bill was adopted, in order to conduce to the same end. But in vain. The bill was referred to a committee of the Privy Council, and upon their report ordered to go into effect and operation as fixed and declared.

This roused the determined ire of the opponents of the measure. Every effort was made to defeat the operation of the law. Mobs were organized, and disturbances attempted, but the efforts of the trade only stimulated the enthusiasm of the upholders of the bill. Mass meetings, in favor of prohibition, were held with triumphant success, and energetic steps were taken to enforce the law. During the first 20 days of January, 1856, notwithstanding all difficulties, the intemperance of the city of St John was reduced 80 per cent.

The Houses of Legislature were next attempted. A motion to dissolve the House and appeal to the people, while excited, under the struggle of baffled appetite, was negatived by an emphatic vote of 29 to 11, and the law sustained. At last a willing hand was found to deal a blow at the law. The LieutenantGovernor, by no means satisfied with the checks and restraints of constitutional authority, and preferring the easy path of irresponsible government, had never pleasantly or cordially acted with his governmental council. He saw in the excited state of public feeling an opportunity to get rid of them, and to supply their places with more subservient politicians. He urged them to resign. They declined, having the confidence of the House. He insisted on a dissolution. They declined to take the respon