a complete flood of temperance literature, and at the present time its income is said to have reached £20,000 a year for the support of the effort to carry through parliament measures which it had in view nearly a quarter of a century ago. One result of their contemplated work has partly been achieved, since the sale of liquor on Sundays has been greatly restricted; but we may have to touch on this subject later on. When Sir Wilfrid Lawson, the member for Carlisle, succeeded the late Sir Walter Trevelyan as president of the Alliance, preparations were made for what is sometimes called a parliamentary campaign; and the result was that in 1864 the so-called "Permissive Bill" was introduced to the House of Commons, its original provisions having to some extent been founded on the liquor law which Neal Dow, Mayor of Portland, the capital of Maine, in the United States, had introduced there in 1851. As early as 1853, at a great meeting of the Alliance, the following propositions were adopted, and they became the basis of the representations by which the bill was afterwards supported:--

"1. That it is neither right nor politic for the state to afford legal protection and sanction to any traffic or system that tends to increase crime, to waste the national resources, to corrupt the social habits, and to destroy the health and lives of the people.

"2. That the traffic in intoxicating liquors as common beverages is inimical to the true interests of individuals, and destructive to the order and welfare of society, and ought therefore to be prohibited.

"3. That the history and results of all past legislation in regard to the liquor traffic abundantly prove that it is impossible satisfactorily to limit or regulate a system so essentially mischievous in its tendencies.

"4. That no considerations of private gain or public revenue can justify the upholding of a system so utterly wrong in principle, suicidal in policy, and disastrous in results as the traffic in intoxicating liquors.

"5. That the legislative prohibition of the liquor traffic is perfectly compatible with rational liberty, and with all the claims of justice and legitimate commerce.

151

"6. That the legislative suppression of the liquor traffic would be highly conducive to the development of a progressive civilization.

"7. That, rising above class, sectarian, or party considerations, all good citizens should combine to procure an enactment prohibiting the sale of intoxicating beverages, as affording the most efficient aid in removing the appalling evils of intemperance."

The methods adopted by this body to promulgate its principles and promote its objects were:-1. Lectures and public meetings. 2. Essays, tracts, placards, hand-bills, and periodical publications, including a weekly organ, the Alliance News (price 1d.). 3. Petitions and memorials to parliament, to government, to local authorities, and to religious bodies. 4. House-to-house canvasses to ascertain the opinions of heads of families and other adult members. 5. Conference of electors, ministers of religion, Sunday-school teachers, the medical profession, and other important bodies.

At a meeting convened at Manchester by 400 clergymen and other ministers of religion -the circular convening the conference having received the written sanction of 11,000 such ministers- a declaration was adopted saying: "We, the undersigned ministers of the gospel, are convinced by personal observation, within our own sphere, and authentic testimony from beyond it, that the traffic in intoxicating liquors as drink for man is the immediate cause of most of the crime and pauperism, and much of the disease and insanity, that afflict the land; that everywhere, and in proportion to its prevalence, it deteriorates the moral character of the people, and is the chief outward obstruction to the progress of the gospel; that these are not its accidental attendants, but its natural fruits; that the benefit, if any, is very small in comparison with the bane; that all schemes of regulation and restriction, however good so far as they go, fall short of the nation's need and the nation's duty; and that, therefore, on the obvious principle of destroying the evil which cannot be controlled, the wisest course for those who fear God and regard man is to encourage legitimate efforts for the entire suppression of the trade, by the power of the

national will, and through the force of a legislative enactment." This declaration received the adhesion in writing of upwards of 3000 ministers of religion.

During the years 1858 and 1859 a system of house-to-house canvass was adopted in numerous localities in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, the result of which was declared to be as follows:-Favourable to the permissive prohibitory liquor law, 147,821; neutral, 32,140; opposed, 11,894.

At the annual council meeting of the Alliance in October, 1857, a draft of suggestions for a permissive prohibitory liquor law was adopted, and put into extensive circulation. At the council meeting in 1863 it was confirmed, and in the session that followed a bill founded on it was submitted to the House of Commons. The preamble of the bill set forth that, "Whereas the 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, let it be therefore enacted," &c.

The bill went on to provide that, on application of any district, the votes of the ratepayers shall be taken as to the propriety of adopting the provisions of the act; but that a majority of at least two-thirds of the votes shall be necessary in order to decide that question in the affirmative. The act itself would, when once adopted in any district, prohibit within that district all traffic in intoxicating liquor for common purposes.

The first reading of the bill, though strongly opposed, was carried by a large majority. The second reading was defeated by a large majority, but forty members voted and paired off in favour of it, a much larger number than had been expected by its promoters. Petitions in favour of the bill were sent in, bearing upwards of 482,000 signatures.

A large number of people, who were not prepared to go the full length of the Permissive Bill, felt that something needed to be done to reduce the immense amount of pauperism and crime which were distinctly traceable to drinking habits acquired by frequenting public-houses. Others were of opinion that the principle of local control which the Permissive Bill embodied was the only one calculated to contend with the gigantic evils which the liquor traffic was producing, and were willing that the bill should be read a second time, in the hope that amendments would be introduced in committee which would modify its too extreme features. The only distinct counter-plan suggested, however, was that of Mr. Bright, who, while approving the bill, stated what he thought would be a wiser way of dealing with the great distemper which it sought to remedy.

"You can make no change," he said, "from where you are, unless you intrust to the municipal council or some committee of the municipal council in the various boroughs the power of determining the number of licenses for the sale of wine, spirits, or beer. . . . I should not have brought such a question as this before the house, and I am not so sanguine of the result of these changes as what I may call the temperance party in the house. I have not that faith in any act of the legis lature. I believe in the effect of the instruction of the people, and of the improvement that is gradually taking place among them. I think that drunkenness is not on the increase, but rather is declining; and I hope, whether the law be altered or not, we shall find our working-classes becoming more and more sober than in past times. But as I have on many occasions been before the public favouring the efforts of the advocates of temperance, I have felt bound to state the reasons why I cannot give my vote in favour of this bill, and to suggest what the house might do by way of giving to the people, through their municipal council, control over this question. By doing this you might promote temperance among the people, and at the same time avoid a great and manifest injustice to thousands of persons now engaged in the trade, whose property would be

rendered uncertain, if not altogether destroyed, if the bill should receive the sanction of the house."

Two measures very advantageous to the working-classes were adopted in the course of 1864. The first, proposed by Lord Derby, provided that in every railway leading into the metropolis provision should be made for the accommodation of the working-classes by cheap trains. This proposal was made mainly on the ground that the railways to which it applied had destroyed a large number of the habitations of the labouring classes, compelling them to reside at greater distances than before from the places at which they worked. Lord Derby contended that it was only just that these railways should compensate the people thus disturbed by affording them increased facilities for going to and returning from their work. The measure was accepted by the government, and was the first step in a system which has been very useful to those for whose benefit it was adopted, and a source of profit to the railway companies themselves, who have since found it to their interest greatly to extend the principle on which this important enactment was based. The other boon granted to the working-classes was an act for applying to several other trades the regulations which already protected women and children working in factories.

Though at the close of 1863 England was not implicated in the disturbances which were brewing abroad, there was a feeling of uncertainty on the part of the government, with respect to the attitude that might be assumed by other powers in relation to the struggle which the Poles were making to regain their national liberty, and the hostilities which were threatened by Prussia against Denmark on account of the Schleswig-Holstein question.

"The wrongs of Poland" was no new phrase. Subscriptions for the distressed Poles-balls, concerts, conversaziones, for the purpose of relieving the sufferings of Polish exiles, had been familiar announcements years before; but it now appeared as though Poland itself

153

was to be extinguished, its people either exterminated by slaughter or denationalized by the slower processes of torture, imprisonment, or exile. The plan adopted by Russia was, to order a conscription among the Poles for the purpose of recruiting the Russian army, or, as Lord Napier said, "to make a clean sweep of the revolutionary youth of Poland; to shut up the most energetic and dangerous spirits in the restraints of the Russian army; to kidnap the opposition and carry it off to Siberia or the Caucasus." But the Russian attempt was not confined to suppression or to the deportation of those persons who were known or even suspected to be revolutionary. Warsaw was placed under the control of soldiers and police agents. The houses, of which they had made a list, were surrounded, the men in them seized and carried off for military service. For those who were absent the parents were taken as guarantees for their return. On the first night of this inquisition 2500 men were taken away, and insults and wanton cruelties were inflicted. It was evident to the unhappy Poles that a reign of terror was approaching, and next day thousands of persons took to flight and prepared for resistance. In the previous year the Russian soldiers had fired on the people at Warsaw,and had committed ferocious cruelties. The Polish women, even ladies of high rank, had long worn mourning, had entirely given up dancing, and attended few public amusements, much to the mortification of the Russian military officers and civilians, who had ever found Warsaw a gay city, and Polish society brilliant and accomplished. The Russians resented the silent demonstration, many of them may have deplored the causes of it, but there was no longer any hesitation on the part of the government of the Grandduke Constantine. The barbarous ferocity which was said to underlie the grand air of Nicholas and his progenitors seemed to remain. In a short time out of 184,000 persons only 683 were left to carry on the trade of the country; 14,000 men and women had been crowded into one dungeon at Warsaw, Count Zamoyski, for presenting a petition couched in the most respectful language, had been banished. Barracks and fortresses had been

converted into political prisons-there seemed to be no limit to Russian fury against those who dared even to whisper the words liberty and justice. It was Mr. Pope Hennessey who brought the affairs of Poland before the House of Commons, that is to say he opened the debate on the subject in a speech which found an echo throughout England. Public indignation was aroused, not here alone, but in France, and even in Austria, by the atrocities of the Russians. Only Prussia appeared to follow the policy of sticking to her former allegiance to the Russian autocracy, and expressed approval by beginning to persecute the people of her own Polish provinces in a methodical manner. In our own parliament there were no uncertain denunciations of the course pursued at Warsaw. Prominent speakers on both sides of the house joined in the condemnation; but, except for the moral effect these declarations might have upon Russia, no step could be taken by the house itself, and it was left for the government to see what could be done in the way of remonstrance. This was not considered satisfactory by those people outside who were naturally burning with anger at the intelligence that continued to come from Poland, where all the provinces were roused to what, after all, must be a hopeless insurrection, in which the nation might be exterminated, but could never hope to secure ultimate victory against the overwhelming forces of Russia. A great meeting was called at the Guildhall in the city of London, where much earnest enthusiasm was exhibited, but the question of entering upon a war with Russia, even if we again had France for an ally, could not be reasonably entertained even by the enthusiasts. In such an event Russia would have had time to crush and utterly annihilate the people on whose behalf we interfered, before we could reach the scene of strife. Already the Poles were fighting desperately, and though an organized resistance had been made in various parts of Russian Poland, directed by a central committee sitting at Warsaw, Langiewicz, the general who had been fighting at the head of the national forces as "Dictator," was unable to maintain the unequal contest. The skirmishes, in which regiments of starving

and hunted insurgents vanquished isolated bodies of their foes, only wore out the “liberators" and reduced their numbers, without leading to any permanent achievement on the side of freedom.

Earl Russell, however, wrote with commendable firmness to our minister at St. Petersburg, saying, that as a party to the treaty of 1815, Great Britain was entitled to express its opinions on the events then taking place. He went on to ask “why the emperor, whose benevolence was generally and cheerfully acknowledged, did not put an end to the bloody conflict, by proclaiming mercifully an immediate and unconditional amnesty to his revolted Polish subjects, and at the same time announce his intention to replace without delay his kingdom of Poland in possession of the political and civil privileges which were granted to it by the Emperor Alexander I. in execution of the stipulation of that treaty? If this were done, a national diet and a national administration would in all probability content the Poles, and satisfy European opinion."

What did Russia care about European opinion, while Prussia supported her by the stimulating flattery of imitation? It is true that the Polish peasantry were relieved from some of the oppressions which the landed proprietors had formerly exercised, but this relief, which had made part of the policy of the emperor on his coming to the throne, only seemed to identify Poland with Russia, at a time when ruthless tyranny was being exercised for the same object.

France had remonstrated with as little effect, and in May (1863) so obvious was the intention to force an amalgamation of the Poles with Russia, that the Polish central committee conducting the insurrection rejected the amnesty that was offered them, on conditions evidently intended to promote this object.

In Prussia Count Bismarck had begun a new career, and had made haste to assert that the Prussian government differed from that of England, inasmuch as the ministry was not that of the parliament but of the king. The corollary of this was soon apparent, for a month or so afterwards the king, replying to

an address from the Chamber of Deputies, stated that as the ministry had his entire confidence, he intended to carry on the government without a parliament. The assembly of deputies was then dissolved, a proceeding which, it was said, called forth the remonstrances of the crown prince.

The note sent to Lord Napier, our representative at St. Petersburg, naming the points which should be observed towards Poland, in accordance with the treaty of 1815, was drawn up by our government, concurrently with France and Austria. To this Prince Gortschakoff replied, in the usual Russian manner: first, that if Earl Russell knew what was really taking place, he would know that the insurrection was crushed-that the peasantry and the trades'-people were opposed to it; that the insurgents were only endeavouring to raise a diplomatic intervention in the hope of armed interference; and finally, that nothing would be accepted by the emperor, but for the insurgents to lay down their arms unconditionally and submit to his majesty's clemency. They had had a long experience of what might be expected from Russian clemency, and the insurrection went on till it became hopeless, and then once more Poland fainted, and the Russian clemency came in by forbidding the women of Warsaw to wear mourning for those who had fallen in the struggle.

The attitude of Austria in supporting remonstrances to the Russian government against the oppression of the Poles was, perhaps, suggestive of the shadows that precede coming events. It should be remembered that at the time of the Crimean war Austria showed the same desire to secure an agreement with England and France in view of the subserviency of Prussia to the Czar Nicholas and the probable results of an alliance between the cousins. Assuredly Austria assumed a very different policy in relation to the Polish question to that which she adopted towards Italy. The Poles in Galicia probably had to thank the Austrian jealousy of Russia and distrust of Prussia for the comparatively impartial conduct of the power which had previously had so dark a reputation among oppressed nations.

155

The Emperor of the French was no more inclined than the English government to go to war with Russia for the problematic relief of Poland. At that moment Napoleon III. had his hands pretty well full of an enterprise upon which he had entered with an almost reckless determination to achieve some startling effects and show how far the arms and influence of France might reach under imperial guidance.

In 1861, after a long series of revolutions and disturbances, some sort of government had been temporarily established in Mexico by the election of Juarez as president of the Mexican Republic. But Juarez was regarded as an usurper, the country was still in disorder, the struggles of the various factions continued, and the new government, like most of its predecessors, was uncertain, while the action which it took to establish its authority consisted rather of threats against personal safety and property than efforts to protect either. At all events so little were the rights of Europeans respected that it was judged advisable for a convention to be entered into between Great Britain, France, and Spain, to demand from the authorities in Mexico more efficient protection as well as a fulfilment of the obligations that had been contracted. The convention signed in London provided that a sufficient force should be sent to seize upon the Mexican fortresses on the coast and to uphold the demands made, but that neither power should make use of the expedition for acquiring territory or other advantage, that the people of Mexico should not be interfered with in their right to elect what government they pleased, that each of the powers concerned should be represented by a commissioner, and that though any delay might prevent the accomplishment of the purpose of the convention-the claims of the United States of America to be also represented on the convention should be regarded, and an "identic" of the agreement should be despatched to that government for its acceptance. The United States government, however, wisely refused to join the convention. The expedition consisted of 6000 men sent by France and Spain, while our contribution was