But irrespective of these party abuses, it is only right to admit there is a conscientious reluctance on the part of a few statesmen and private individuals to interfere with what they consider the liberty of the subject to get drunk when and where he pleases; and there are some who consider that it would be a truly “liberal” policy to allow free trade in drink, so far as to remove all restrictions from the sale, excepting (and here lies the difficulty) such as are necessary for the prevention of crime. As to the “liberal” policy, we are quite at a loss to comprehend it. As we understand the fiscal policy of the Liberals, it has been to remove _all_ obstructions to free trade in those necessaries or luxuries of life which are either produced in or imported into this country, and therefore the mere extension of facilities for the sale of drink is not worth a thought. Such politicians as we have referred to, if they wish to be consistent, ought to agitate for the repeal of all imposts on intoxicating drink, which now swell the revenue, so much to the satisfaction of our Chancellors of the Exchequer, and which save them such a deal of trouble and anxiety. The fact is, that the Liberal party has a more important platform even than free trade, and that is “Reform” in its most comprehensive sense, and no reform can be accomplished without great inconvenience to individuals. One of the chief articles of food consumed by the poor in every part of the three kingdoms is bacon; and yet when pigstyes became a nuisance in our towns, as “tippling-shops” are pronounced to be in some of the United States, they were mercilessly suppressed, notwithstanding that in so doing the authorities interfered with “the liberty of the subject.” And although a glass of beer is a legitimate indulgence, for it is by no means a necessary of life, yet if in any particular neighbourhood it is found that the existence of gin-palaces has become a public nuisance, and that those places lead to breaches of the law, or to such neglect of social duties on the part of a large number of individuals as to cast unnecessary burdens upon the whole community, it is anything but a “liberal policy” to foster them, or in any way to provide for their continued existence.