-(hear, hear)--and not

professors of Christianity-that stood in the way of this causethose who had fallen victims to the use of intoxicating drinks. Mr. (now Sir ROBERT) BRISCO moved the following resolution :"That it has been abundantly demonstrated before this Convention, that the manufac ture and common sale of intoxicating beverages are the occasion of innumerable social, moral, and political evils of a most appalling character, subversive of public order and antagonistic to national progress; and that, therefore, the citizen, the magistrate, the legislator, and all who exercise authority or public influence in the State, should combine to put forth their most strenuous and persistent efforts to repress and abolish, either by permissive or other legislation, an inveterate agency of eril so great in magnitude, and productive of burdens and calamities so inevitable and intolerable.'

This resolution was a splendid proposition to bring before any public meeting, and he for one could not believe that any Christian country, like England, could dissent from such noble, liberal, and moral sentiments as were embodied therein. There was one part of the resolution to which he wished to call particular attention. That part affected every individual, because it called for individual exertion. If a man would look within himself and say, "Upon my individual interest, upon my individual exertion, this great cause, this noble question, hinges," how soon would the difficulties be removed! (Cheers.) Let all ponder the subject well in their hearts. Upon all sides they would find some wretched family ruined by intoxicating drinks, and they might well say, "There is a type of England's curse. It behoves me, if I have energy or honesty of purpose, to use all possible means to remove from this bleeding land that curse which blights all efforts for good." The resolution called upon persons in all stations of life, and of all creeds, in this kingdom, to swamp individual and personal feeling, and unite together as one man to carry out the resolutions of the Convention. How could that be done? They were told there was a great political question that would strip them into shreds. Well, what did the Radical ask for? That blessings might be conferred on all mankind. How? By extending the franchise to the people. What more did this Convention ask for? They said that a Permissive Bill for every locality should be passed. He was a Tory; but he would be a disgrace to his politics if he did not merge every political feeling in order to support this Temperance movement, which was the beginning, the middle, and the end of all political improvement. (Cheers.) Was he justified in doing so? ("Yes.") Decidedly he was, because, let them call him what they liked-Tory, Conservative, or anything-he was trying to bring the greatest amount of good in his power to his fellow-creatures. (Cheers.) Therefore he called upon every politician, by whatever name he was known, to swamp his political feelings for the purpose of achieving the objects of the Temperance cause, the foundation stone of our strength, our happiness, and our liberties. He hoped the resolution would be seconded by some good Radical, or some politician of the opposite party. (Loud cheers.)

The PRESIDENT:-I am going to call upon a gentleman to second the resolution. I hope he is a good Radical. I do not know. (Laughter.)

The Rev. W. CAINE, M.A., of Manchester:-In reference to the remark of Mr. Lawson, I may say that I wish to destroy every evil from the root-that is radical reformno matter whether in Church or State. (Laughter.) I have been asked to second this resolution, because I always make short speeches, except when I am addressing drinking clergymen-(laughter)-and to them I always speak as long as they will let me. (Laughter.) The resolution calls upon every citizen to do his utmost to remove drunkenness. The word "citizen" makes me mention to you a fact in connection with the distress in Lancashire, which has been referred to in the paper of my honourable friend, Sir William A'Beckett. The distress in Manchester has done Teetotalism a vast amount of good. The Board of Guardians showed, a short time ago, that they are feeling anxious about their pockets, though they do not care about the bodies and souls of the victims of the Liquor-Traffic. The Guardians, a few weeks ago, passed three resolutions, and the third resolution is one I am exceedingly anxious to bring before Teetotalers. It was resolved unanimously by the Board-"That from police returns, as well as from information received from other reliable sources, it is certain that there has of late been a great increase of drunkenness in Manchester. That this Board most earnestly asks for the active co-operation of every ratepayer, as well as every well-disposed person, not only in discouraging this bad habit, but by giving to the officers of this board information of any person or persons in receipt of relief who may be guilty of such a practice." Now you see how they fear for their own pockets. On the 20th August, I made a short address to the licensing magistrates, and read to them this resolution of the Board of Guardians, and I earnestly appealed to them on the ground that they came within the description of “ well-disposed persons," and had the

greatest power to diminish drunkenness by removing the facilities for drunkenness. This resolution calls upon all persons of public influence in the State to do their utmost in abolishing the Liquor-Traffic. Now, there are no men in this kingdom who have so much influence as public ministers of religion, and to them this resolution especially speaks with a voice of thunder. It has been said that where there is a house-visiting clergyman, there is a church-going people. So I may say that where there is an earnest Teetotal clergyman there is a Teetotal congregation. (Cheers.) I have great pleasure in seconding the resolution.

The Rev. Mr. DUNSTAN said he had been engaged in the Temperance cause during the last thirty years. At the commencement of his efforts in support of Temperance, the cause was regarded as utopian, but the present meeting was a proof that perseverance would do great things. He was convinced that, if the Convention persevered, it would accomplish its object. How had the mighty coral rocks in the bosom of the deep been formed? By insects invisible to the naked eye. Those rocks were a proof of the mighty results of perseverance. Our own planet, small as it was, had an effect in deflecting the course of the sun. Let this Convention, then, persevere, and at last it would compel the Legislature to deflect from its present vicious course of countenancing the Liquor-Traffic. (Cheers.)

Mr. HAUGHTON stated that one of the effects of an act passed years ago to prevent distillation in Ireland at a time of famine, was, that that country exported in one year to England £500,000 worth of oats more than in previous years; and, in return, Ireland with that money, purchased more of the manufactures of England than she had been previously accustomed to do.

A MINISTER said that, although he was a Radical, he would rather vote for a Conservative who would support the Permissive Bill, than for a Radical who would not. (Cheers.)

The Rev. C. GARRETT, of Preston, with reference to some remarks on the opposition of clergymen to the movement, said Temperance people must have patience with such clergymen who were fossils, and would by-and-by be removed as curiosities to the Crystal Palace. (Laughter.) The Relief Committee in Preston had passed a resolution that no person should receive relief who purchased intoxicating drinks. (Cheers.) It was well that it should be understood by those Temperance friends who contributed towards the relief of the distress in Lancashire that care would be taken against any of their money going into the pockets of those who bought or sold strong drink. If any contributions were forwarded to him in the shape of stamps or otherwise, for the relief of distress in Preston, he should take care to put it in the hands of a distressed Teetotaler. (Cheers.)

Mr. GEORGE SMART, of Brighton, urged the expediency of forwarding the movement by writing letters or paragraphs to the public press.

M. G. H. FEA said he had been a member of the Alliance from its formation. He advocated its principles every day in the week, and very often twice on Sunday. (A laugh.) There was one question of great importance to which no allusion had been made in any of the very interesting papers which had been read. The question was this-What did the United Kingdom Alliance propose to do with the vested interests of those engaged in the Liquor-Traffic? (Oh!) He knew "Oh!" would be exclaimed when he put that question, but would Mr. Oh please to remember that, when the abominable traffic in human flesh and blood was destroyed, England paid for the vested interests of those who were engaged in that traffic. (A Voice: We are wiser now.)

Mr. POPE: The answer I have to give to that question is, that the Alliance does not propose to have anything to do with vested interests. It will be time enough to discuss this question when the publicans are brought to their knees, asking for terms of compromise. (Cheers.)

The resolution was unanimously adopted.

DIVISION II.-(LOWER ROOM.)

President:

C. J. DARBYSHIRE, Esq., J.P., Rivington.

Hon. Secretaries:

Dr. PHILIP P. CARPENTER, Manchester.
J. NOBLE, Jun., Esq., London.

The first paper, by the Dean of CARLISLE, was entitled "Legislation on the LiquorTraffic, suggested by the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1834." It was read by the Rev. Canon JENKINS.

A paper "On the Comparative Working of Prohibitory and License Laws, and of Practical Free Trade in Liquor, in different parts of North America," by PHILIP P. CARPENTER, B.A., Ph.D., was next read by that gentleman.

Judge HEEMSKERK, member of the States-General of the Netherlands, read a valuable paper on "The Laws of Holland relating to the Liquor-Traffic."-Discussion then followed.

Mr. SAMUEL POPE said it seemed to him that two more important and philosophical papers than those of Dr. Carpenter and Judge Heemskerk had not been read. In them statements were made by competent observers respecting two peoples in very different social conditions. The scope of the argument displayed by the learned Judge, compared with the experience of Dr. Carpenter, in America, seemed to strike at the root of the difficulty. They saw the difference of law and of lawobservers among an orderly, quiet, commercial people, and among the bustling, active, law-disregarding people of the United States of America. The observations of Dr. Carpenter were perfectly impartial-the result of a tour undertaken simply to arrive at the truth; and they indicated, as nearly as possible, the real position of the Prohibition in America. One part of the paper is very important-that in which he draws a distinction between our own people and the people of the United States. I have always endeavoured to protest against the people of this country being led to suppose that American legislation, or the experience of American legislators, were any authority or guide for us. It strikes me that one of the particular difficulties which those Abstainers who do not unite with us have stumbled over has been, without using the word offensively, an influence of American institutions, and their essential difference from our own. No greater service can be rendered to public men in this country, politicians or Temperance men, than to let them understand the essential differences between national institutions and the effect of them on the people of various countries. It is exceedingly important that we should take this great truth with us from the Convention-that, whatever the news be from America, it really has nothing to do with general arguments, which may be as sound as possible, or with probable results that may accrue to us, which may be as beneficial as they are unfortunate elsewhere. You have only to look at two or three circumstances affecting law in America, to see at once a distinction which is of itself a radical defect in American law-making. Such has been the effect of popular politics upon the constitutions of the respective States, that a majority of them have fallen into the mistake of having the judiciary power elected by the people. You have there, in fact, a bench of judges who, instead of being independent of the people, and therefore able to administer the law without fear or favour, are elected for short periods by the people. You thus have an Administration of a most anomalous character. You have law passed by the authorities, and you have administrative power elected for the purpose of the maladministration of every law passed. That is, of course, a fatal defect. In a discussion which took place about the constitutionality of the law of New York, American constitutional lawyers said that the only cure was in the election of men who would enforce the law. We, accustomed to look

at the judiciary power as stable, not arbitrary, independent of the popular will and of the power of the Crown, cannot comprehend the state of things existing in the United States; and therefor it appears that we, as politicians or lawyers, would never be justified in regarding American experience as anything but as an encouragement, showing what can be done under the most disadvantageous circumstances. It is unfair to taunt Americans with a want of success. It seems to me that ignorance of American institutions prevails in politics as much as in Temperance. We should not hear the talk we do about the present disastrous war being, or not being, the result of democratic institutions, if the nature of them and their actual bearings were thoroughly understood. It is unfair that we should charge on them shortcomings which we in Europe are responsible for. Why is it that New York is such a difficulty, and Boston such a law-defying community, but for the simple fact that the scum of England which has gone to the United States, has settled down into the social mud of those cities? The really valuable portion of European emigration goes into the West, founds new communities, establishes new cities, and gives rise to enormous industry; but a vast proportion of the emigration never passes beyond Boston, Albany, or New York, where it forms the putrifying understratum of the social community, constantly sending its pestilential exhalations over the whole country. If you look, on the other hand, at the picture sketched by Judge Heemskerk, what cause it gives us for encouragement! Here we have, without meaning any offence, a slow-moving people, not rapid in its modes of thought or the adop tion of particular measures, given to commercial pursuits, a steady-going commercial people, that have been the rivals of the commercial nations of Europe for a long time; a people whose character is very much symbolised by their rivers-slow, but bearing on their bosoms the wealth and prosperity of the community-and who do not take up things from mere enthusiasm, but smoke their pipes for a long time before making changes in their laws. You may depend upon it there are good jurists among them; and when we find one of the most eminent amongst them coming here to detail the circumstances which have led to legislation, involving principles for which we are battling in the Permissive Bill, it seems to me that all question as to its feasibility and constitutional character is at once set at rest. When we are met hereafter with the objection, "You cannot point to any precedent for your Bill, you cannot point to any constitutional country which adopts such legislation "-we can put our finger on the paper of Judge Heemskerk, and say that, not by the populace only, but in the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, as a great constitutional question, it is now being discussed whether, as the law stands there, it is not equivalent, in all its particulars, to that which we seek. As I gather the position of matters, this has been established by one decision, and is contended by competent jurists to be the existing state of the law, inasmuch as licenses granted by Government are subject to a sort of municipal revision, and it resides with the municipal authority to decide whether a license or patent shall operate within its jurisdiction. If the municipalities have the power to say that a license shall or shall not run within their districts, it is in all practical effect the power we seek. (Applause.)

Mr. J. HAUGHTON expressed the intense pleasure with which he had listened to the three papers read, and was only apprehensive that the sensitiveness of our American friends might be touched by the criticisms upon their institutions. Dr. Carpenter expressed decided opinions against free trade in liquors, and gave it as his opinion that restrictions are useful. He was of opinion we must either go for entire Prohibition or free trade. He could not understand on what principle of logic or common sense we can go for the continuance of restrictive measures. The Traffic is so utterly dangerous, so ruinous to the morality, happiness, and prosperity of the people, that no sensible nation should allow it to exist at all.

Dr. FIGG made some remarks respecting drunkenness as an extenuating plea for crime.

Mr. PETER SINCLAIR, of Edinburgh, wanted it to be borne in mind that in Boston eighty out of every one hundred of the liquor-shops were kept by our own countrymen. Why should we reproach America for what came from our own country? Many persons in the States doubted whether läger beer was intoxicating. With the exception of this beer, intoxicating drinks were not obtainable in hundreds of the towns of New England. We must take care not to confound New England with the whole of the United States. In New England alone had the experiment of prohibitive legislation been tried fairly; and there, he maintained, the law was as well carried out as any other law in the United States. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. POPE said, in reply to a question, that the national judges of the United States were not elected by the people, but appointed by the Government; it was the State and district judges who were elected, and it was to them he had been alluding, because they administered the State laws.

The Rev. Dr. GROSVENOR, of New York, said that all the States did not elect their judges, and the constitution of each provided for their appointment. The national judiciary was as fixed and stable as that of Great Britain, and in several States the State judiciary was also permanent. Americans were not quite so sensitive as some English friends imagine in regard to being criticised on questions of morals-he would say nothing of politics. In the names of the respectable people of the State of New York and of the New England States, he bade God-speed to every Temperance Reformer and Society in England. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. Boocock, Temperance Missionary, of Birmingham, said no one who could see what free trade in liquors was in some of the States of America would desire to have free trade in them in this country. In New York the trade was all but a free trade, and there was more crime there than in all the New England States put together.

Mr. FRAZER, of Nova Scotia, said that Halifax was perhaps as drunken a spot as is to be found anywhere, and this he attributed to the British army and navy. In other parts of Nova Scotia the people are as sober as they are anywhere. The general result of the Temperance movement had been, throughout the province, except in two or three small towns, and in Halifax, which had a law of its own, that grand juries did not recommend licenses, and justices could not grant them.

The Rev. F. BISHOP said that the general deductions in the most valuable paper of Dr. Carpenter very much corresponded with his own observations and experience in the States a few years back.

Dr. MACCULLOCH moved

"That, considering the importance of the report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons of 1834, a reprint of it in a cheap form would be appreciated by the Temperance public and others, and would probably be extensively circulated."

Dr. F. R. LEES seconded the resolution, which was agreed to.

Mr. DAVID LEWIS, of Edinburgh, read his paper on "The History of Temperance Legislative Agitation in Scotland," which will be found in the Historical Section. Mr. THOMAS BEGGS, F.S.S., read a paper, entitled "The Policy and Prospects of the Permissive Bill Agitation."

For want of time the following papers did not get read, but were received by the Section for publication :

"A Brief Plea for Permissive Prohibition."-By CHARLES TUPPER, D.D., Novia Scotia. "Prospects of the Permissive Bill Movement in Scotland."-By ROBERT COURT, Glasgow. [Will be found in the Historical Section.]

"Precedents in Favour of Prohibition."-By WILLIAM SAUNDERS, Plymouth. "Prohibition Politics; or, how to Prepare for the Hustings."-By THOMAS RICHARDSON, B.A., Bagshot.

The following is the substance of the last paper:

How to prepare for the Hustings.

The Alliance has for nine years held on its way, influencing and creating public opinion by the various agencies of a well-sustained agitation. Its members, however, must regard the past as nothing, but press on with dauntless determination to secure their great object. They must lay themselves out for the final conflict at the hustings. As a preparation for which I suggest the following:

1. The formation of a band of pledged Prohibitionist voters, resolutely determined to carry out their views at the hustings, irrespective of party considerations, unless in peculiar circumstances.

2. The selection by this band of a leader or leaders, who shall represent them on all occasions, wait on candidates, or bring forward others.

3. The formation of a club of intending Prohibitionist candidates, whose annual contributions should form a fund for defraying the expenses of parliamentary contests, the members taking their turns by lot. It may be objected that voters will not be pledged; that they will not consent to tie their own hands previous to the contest, and resign the luxury of voting as they please. Now, what do we in reality ask a voter to resign? Is it the liberty to vote against Prohibition? Well, he does not want that liberty. Is it the liberty to enjoy confusion of counsel and indecision at the last moment? He does not want that liberty. Is it the liberty to differ from his brother Prohibitionist and nullify his vote? Again, he does not want that liberty. On the other hand, what does he gain? What he most wants, the certainty that his vote will be used against the Liquor-Traffic with treble the power it would have possessed as an isolated and unpledged vote.