we must next discuss whether the judgment is sound or not in the case of the liquor-traffic.

We have just seen that the evidence as to the evil that flows from it, is overwhelming, and comes from sources whose natural bias cannot be questioned-but does it therefore follow that the traffic should be stopped? Ought not the community to consider the large minority which, notwithstanding all these offences, desires the perpetuation of the sale of liquor in their midst, in view of the fact that the said minority wishes to use the liquor as a beverage? It is the popular instinctive sympathy with this wish of the minority that the Bishop of Peterborough embodied in his famous apophthegm, "Better England free, than England sober."

Vainly do Alliance advocates point out that the restriction of "liberty of purchase" can only take place by the will of the people. Instinct again returns to the charge, pleading for the poor minority.

No doubt the fact that the Bill as submitted to Parliament speaks of a Two-thirds vote as needful, has directed increased attention to "the poor minority of one-third. If the Bill had spoken in the usual way of the adoption of the Act by the vote of the ratepayers (i.e., "owners and occupiers," in the language of the Bill), although that would have meant its adoption by a bare majority-yet inasmuch as this is the usual vote in this country," the poor minority" would have been less prominently brought to our notice.

After all it is needful to recollect that both Sir Wilfrid Lawson and the United Kingdom Alliance only claim our assent to the preamble of the Bill, which is as follows:

"Whereas the common sale of intoxicating liquors is a fruitful source of crime, immorality, pauperism, disease, insanity, and premature death, whereby not only the individuals who give way to drinking habits are plunged into misery, but

grievous wrong is done to the persons and property of Her Majesty's subjects at large, and the public rates and taxes are greatly augmented; and whereas it is right and expedient to confer upon the ratepayers of cities, boroughs, parishes, and townships, the power to prohibit such common sale as aforesaid. Be it therefore enacted, &c."

This, it will be seen, makes no mention of a two-thirds or any other specific majority. Sir W. Lawson has always stated that the details of the Bill he was content to leave to be discussed and determined in Committee.

In considering therefore the "Indirect bearing of the Permissive Bill on Individual Liberty," it is only fair to confine our attention to the bearing of the preamble, and ignore all questions of two-thirds and onethird, &c. Still, the question of minorities having been raised, it becomes absolutely needful to discuss it. No one, we presume, will challenge the position that, where all the inhabitants of a parish are united in the judgment that they wish to have no house for the sale of liquor among them, no one should be at liberty to compel them to open one. As J. H. Newman says in his "Apologia," "Securus judicat orbis terrarum."

Equally we apprehend no one will say that if all were united in judgment, a stranger should be permitted to come among them and open such a house; and probably, also, in a similar case, it will be granted that no one of themselves should be allowed, having changed his mind, to open a house for such a purpose.

If there are some so extreme in their judgments, as that even in these circumstances they would refuse to the all but absolute will of the community, the liberty to prohibit the sale of liquor, these are so few that we will not tarry to argue it with them. The popular judgment is all that we are seeking to convince, and as far as it is concerned we may say: It seems we

can all grant that there are circumstances under which the will of the minority ought not to rule. Now, if this be so, all that remains is that the House of Commons should in Committee fix what majority should bear rule in the matter. This is a question of detail, not of principle. The very fact that in one of the Clauses Sir W. Lawson names a two-thirds majority, shows that the preamble is not intended to mean that a simple majority of "owners and occupiers" should have the power.

Sir Charles Buxton, the brewer, who may in some sense be called the father of this preamble, suggested in the North British Review, in 1855, that the majority should consist of "five-sixths of the ratepayers.

It is a question fairly open to consideration whether, in a parish containing 999 owners and occupiers of property, 500 should be a sufficient vote against 499; or whether, as Sir W. Lawson proposes, it should require 666 as against 333; or, as Sir C. Buxton suggests, 833 to 166. Certainly Sir W. Lawson's proposal that 2 to 1 should carry the day, does seem very moderate indeed.

But now we must needs take note that the very admission that the proportion of the minority to be allowed to outweigh the will of the majority, is a question open to discussion, is sufficient for the purpose of our main argument; which is, that where any question of limiting the liberty of the individual arises, it must rest with the State, and with the State absolutely, to determine whether the limitation in question shall be made or not.

This one thesis covers the whole ground of the action of the United Kingdom Alliance. Its attitude

*See Sir C. Buxton's book, How to Stop Drunkenness, p. 51; published in 1864. London: S. W. Partridge & Co.

rests upon the principle that the State must be supreme; that it can never be right for the State to withhold its hand on behalf of a minority, when the State is once convinced that it is for the welfare of the community that it should act.

The agitation carried on by the United Kingdom Alliance is directed to this one end, to convince the Nation, and through it, and in it, the State, that the common sale of intoxicating liquors is inconsistent with the general welfare.

We maintain that that is a perfectly legitimate object for the United Kingdom Alliance to pursue; and that, whenever the conviction, thus laboured for, has been attained, there is no true philosophy, moral or economical, that has a right to say to the State, "Refrain from acting on your conviction."

EDWARD PEARSON.

THE THOMPSONS OF COMPTON.

IN the Friend obituary of Eighth Month, 1877, appeared a brief notice of the decease, at very advanced ages, of the two surviving brothers of this estimable family, who, during three generations, resided at the village of Nether Compton, in the county of Dorset, and where for nearly a century they exerted a widespread influence for good amongst the population around them, as well as upon the religious Society of which, since its rise in 1652, the family have been attached and valuable members.

"Seventh Month 25th, 1877.-At No. 9, Brunswick Place, Southampton, Edward Thompson, in his 91st year.

"Seventh Month 27th.-At Hitchin, John Thompson, only surviving brother of the above in his 80th year. They were lovely and pleasant in their lives, and in death they were not divided.""

In offering a few reminiscences of these two valued Friends, and of their worthy predecessors, we desire to show forth the practical influence of genuine Christian principles in the ordinary every-day duties of life, and to show how much may be accomplished (without being endowed with any special genius or talent) by consistent Friends who are concerned in steadily upholding everything that is useful and beneficial in the localities in which they reside.

Their grandfather, Jonah, son of Isaac and Hannah Thompson,* of Penrith, was, at fourteen years of age,

Isaac Thompson, of Penrith, and formerly High Sheriff for the County of Cumberland, married, in 1695, Hannah, grand