But let us look at the bill itself, and supposing that it became law as it stands at present, what would be its effect upon the community? The reply of objectors is very well known: “It would enable a tyrannical majority in small places to prevent a poor man from getting a glass of beer, whilst it would not preclude the wealthy from keeping a stock of wine or spirits; and in large towns it would be altogether inoperative, as it has been in the United States.” Assuming these to be the real objections to the bill (which they are not), what do they amount to when they are dispassionately considered? Surely no one will deny that there is a great deal of drunkenness even in small towns and country places; and if it would be less difficult to suppress it in such places than in large towns, would it not be a very practical mode of proceeding to win the outworks of intemperance before storming the citadel? It might even at first increase the amount of drunkenness in towns, as it has done in Gothenburg, through the influx of visitors from the country, where no drink could be procured; but that would be a proof of its necessity and a tribute to its efficiency. Has the objection ever been urged against the closing of public-houses in towns at certain hours on Sundays that it compels a few sots to walk miles in search of drink into a neighbouring country parish, where the law is not carried into effect so rigorously on account of the absence of police supervision? But it would be a waste of time to protract the discussion. To pass a law is one thing, to enforce it rigidly is another; and it may be admitted once for all that it would be to a considerable extent evaded, as the Maine Law has been in America. But we have seen that hitherto, with one partial exception, namely, the limitation of the hours of sale, that has been the fate of all legislation against intemperance. Therefore in that respect the Act would be no worse than its predecessors, and it might be much more successful. On the other hand (still regarding the bill in its inchoate form), it would make the sale of intoxicating drink illegal; and as we are a law-abiding nation, a great many people would give up the trade, and a very considerable number who have hitherto thought it unnecessary to refrain from taking alcohol would feel it to be their duty to become partial or total abstainers. In other words, it would cease to be the fashion to drink and to invite others to do so: it would no longer be necessary for a man to imbibe liquor in order to get on in the world, as it is too frequently the case at present. As soon as the trade itself became illegal, it would, _as it is now conducted_, become very disreputable, and its open encouragement would cease. For it cannot be too frequently repeated that a very large number of respectable and influential men, who would consider it discreditable to keep a public-house themselves, do not hesitate to associate on terms of