gathered up! She returns home and says she has done her work. But the words she has spoken are registered in heaven, and it is a law of that kingdom, 'By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.'

We are too much in the habit of supposing that this 'waiting to be endued with power from on high,' applies only to those who are expected to fill high and influential positions; but in the Scripture narratives we are told that the apostles continued with one accord in prayer and supplication with the women.' Would that we could have known these holy women, and followed them through their future lives, and recorded their sayings and doings. Peter must have known them, for he speaks of men being 'won by the conversation of their wives.' Their children must have grown up to call them blessed, and have told of their mothers to succeeding generations, that they had 'opened their mouths with wisdom;' and neighbours on every side would proclaim that in their tongues was the law of kindness.' How they would have smiled at much that is written of 'woman's rights' at the present day, and have wondered how it could have come to pass, that woman had grown dissatisfied with the deep, holy, spiritual post assigned her by the Creator, of training the whole human race to carry out God's great purposes for the world-of influencing all around for good-or to walk in some path so lowly and self-denying that she is ever reminded of the words of the Master, I came not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me.' We repeat, we think these 'honourable women not a few' of the apostolic days who considered their work to be as high as Gabriel's, because 'doing the pleasure of the Lord,' would wonder at some of the things which are said and written in this nineteenth century on the 'rights of women' to ascend the world's platform, and there compete with men for some of its poor prizes.

The writer of the book which has called forth these observations, has certainly no sympathy with the ambition to which we have alluded. The following quotation, with which we will conclude, will show how she shares the faith and hope of those holy women of old, and is 'looking unto Jesus as the true preparation for carrying out every high and holy work:'

You feel discouraged in your work because you are not able to do anything well; and discouraged in yourself because you find that you often act from mixed and unworthy motives. My dear friend, I could readily take up this lamentation with you; but I know it would be wiser and more profitable for us both to accept in its fullest meaning the declaration of our Saviour, "Without Me ye can do nothing;" and then with the Psalmist say, "My soul wait thou only upon God, for my expectation is from Him." I have often found that to live in a confused

and

and hurried state of mind leaves a wide door open for the entrance of mixed motives and false arguments; and if our time be too fully occupied with other things to admit of our waiting upon the Lord, to renew our strength, and for the Comforter to bring freshly to our minds the words and works of our dear Master, it must needs be that we are both downhearted and very feeble. But "they who wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength." In this promise is our constant source of encouragement.

From your other remark I see that you have been taking a few steps on the road to "Doubting Castle;" that you fear if you do undertake any work which appears to be good and right for you to do, you shall not find in yourself the needful qualification to carry it out, and may break down in the middle or fail altogether. Do not be discouraged; unassisted human capacity never yet was equal to the performance of any good work, but do not shrink desparingly within the compass of your felt ability; use your talents diligently, and make the best preparation you can; and then be assured if your cause be the Lord's cause, He will let down ability upon you, and will furnish you with thoughts, words, and arguments when you want them, and give you a blessing beside. It is such a comfort to know when we are feeling empty and helpless that God can say unto the weak "be strong."

There is nothing like work to show us our own weakness; nothing like work to convince us of God's help; nothing like our most perfect work to convince us of our imperfection and to make the perfect, all-sufficient Saviour and the great salvation increasingly dear and important to us.'-Page 281.

ART. IV.-PARLIAMENT AND THE LIQUOR

TRAFFIC.

1. Theory of Legislation. By Jeremy Bentham. Translated from the French of Etienne Dumont, by R. Hildreth. London: Trübner and Co., 60, Paternoster Row. 1864. 2. Review of Speeches in the House of Commons, on Mr. Lawson's Permissive Prohibitory Liquor Bill; with full Report of Mr. Lawson's Speech on Moving the Second Reading of The Intoxicating Liquor Bill,' &c. Manchester: United Kingdom Alliance. London: Job Caudwell, 335, Strand.

3. The Last Two Speeches of the late Washington Wilks on behalf of the Permissive Prohibitory Liquor Bill, delivered in the Free Trade Hall, Manchester, May 23rd, 1864, and in Exeter Hall, London, June 6th, 1864. Manchester: United Kingdom Alliance.

THOUGH the pledges of Government to deal with the question of licensing the sale of intoxicating liquors, on some comprehensive, uniform, and efficient. system, have not been redeemed; the past session of Parliament has been fertile in discussions on various branches of the traffic, prolific in independent

The Malt Tax Debate.

247

independent proposals for abating some of its admitted evils, and even notable for the passing, and now successful operation, of one Government measure based upon a just and radically effective principle. A glance at these proposals and debates will open up a view of the parliamentary mind-a thing always worth the study of the sociologist, because a phenomenon of the utmost significance in regard to current and possible legislation; and while this review indicates the exact position occupied to-day, it will clearly point to the work to be done to-morrow, by the social reformers, whose toilsome but glorious mission is to plant in the public mind those truths which shall surely grow and ripen into the laws of the future.

First, there came before the Commons, on the 14th of April, 1864, like a bill a fortnight after the proper date, the proposal to remit the Malt Tax, in preference to reducing the Sugar Duty. The real motive, though of course disguised under many pretences, some of which misled the innocent farmerdom of the country, was the benefit of the great brewers, who, wiser than the temperance party, have taken good care to get a strong representation in the House. Six millions sterling were to be turned into their pockets, with little droppings, of course, into the tills of the tied houses and publicans; and the deficit was to be made up by the universal Sugar or Income Tax !

This is capable of easy demonstration. A duty of 21s. 8d. is levied on every eight bushels of malt. This, on the average, makes four barrels of beer, which equals one hundred and forty-four gallons, or five hundred and seventy-six quarts. (Table-beer, under a certain percentage of alcohol, is free.) This is less than one halfpenny per quart. Beer is drunk by retail by the glass, gill, or pint. Now, as it is clear that the publican will not return more than the fraction saved, and could not practically return even the exact farthing upon the pint, he and the brewer (as when the old Beer Tax was remitted) pocket the difference of cost. The country, of course, has the six millions to make up.

But the pretences were very different. First: Malt feeds cattle faster and better than barley. If the tax, therefore, be remitted, beef will be cheaper, if not beer; an increased demand will be originated for malt, and therefore for barley; and the price will rise, and the farmers will be enriched.' Mr. Gladstone outflanked this attack by conceding the remission of the tax on malt used for cattle, taking the guarantee that the malt should be spoilt for brewing purposes by being mixed with linseed. The fallacy of the

cry,

cry, however, was clearly refuted as long ago as 1846, by the experiments of the late Professor R. D. Thomson, performed at the instigation of Sir Robert Peel.* The result of a three months' experiment on two bullocks is thus stated :-The malt-fed beast soon reached its maximum, while the barleyfed bullock went on increasing in weight until it gained 53 lbs. over its rival. These trials,' says Professor Thomson, leave no doubt that barley is superior to malt, weight for weight, as far as fattening bullocks is concerned.' Another experiment was made on two Ayrshire cows, in respect to the production of milk and butter. 'In a brown cow,' says Dr. Thomson, 100lbs. of barley produced as much effect as 131lbs. of malt; in a white cow, 100lbs. of barley were equivalent to 119lbs. of malt. The largest amount of butter was afforded in the brown cow by crushed barley; with both animals malt is lowest in the scale. Not only was the solid matter in the milk lessened, but its quality was deteriorated.' It appears from the Times, that at the very period of this debate, when so much nonsense was being talked, a Cumberland brewer was performing an experiment almost equally conclusive against the malt. When it is recollected that malt is sprouted barley-barley which has been forced back from its perfection and ripening by an artificial process-the wonder will be that any sane persons could ever have imagined any other result. As this explodes this delusion, it will be seen that neither the demand for barley nor the price increases. Even if that were to be the case, from some possible increase in drinking cheaper beer, the foreign supply would soon reduce the price to the old level, leaving only increased drinking, pauperism, crime, and taxes, as the legacy of such unwise legislation.

Second: Cheaper beer for the working man.' The late Mr. Ker Seymer boasted in the House, that if they were bad logicians, they were good politicians. On this occasion, the eulogizers of beer did not shine in either character. The working men, they said, had only adulterated and poisoned beer, and the beershops were condemned without mercy for retailing this horrible stuff.' Yet, said they, 'Beer is a

* See Dr. Lees's Article, 'Farmers' Feeding Fallacies,' in 'Truthseeker,' for 1846, vol. ii., p. 321.

On the 9th of April last eight Irish heifers, as nearly equal in quality, size, and weight as it was possible to find them, were fastened up in the premises of Mr. Wyndham, brewer, Cockermouth, to fatten. Four of these were fed upon barley, and four upon equal measures of malt. The result, at the end of thirteen weeks, was in favour of barley by 30lbs. upon the four, which sold for £6. 10s. more money than those fed upon malt. The owner lost 5s. per head by the experiment. Times.

necessary

The Cheap Beer Cry.

249

necessary of life' ! Either then, by this logic, poison is a necessary of life, or the 'pure home-brewed' is necessary to a peasantry that have lived a generation without it!

In the progress of the debate one gallant colonel pleaded for the remission of the tax, on the ground that 'the labourer would be enabled to drink the natural drink of every Englishman.' But the climax of confusion was capped by Mr. Cobbett (the son of a wiser father), who became a kind of medical adviser to the House, and, in proof of the virtue of beer, told a story about a man who, as shown on the post mortem, had not a sufficiency of food in his stomach!' He further testified, that the beer sold in the country parts of Sussex, Surrey, and Kent, was very bad, for he had walked' that circuit; and 'those who lived in the country know that nothing was more destructive to the labouring man than the habits of going to the public-house, and this was the consequence of the tax upon malt!'

How the levy of a fraction of a farthing per pint on beer can drive men to the public-house, where they pay more than that; or how the sale of dear, bad beer there can prevent them from brewing good beer' at home; or how they can be injured by the 'house' while they are benefited by the 'beer' we leave Mr. Cobbett to explain.

On behalf of three millions of teetotallers, a few manly, plain words fell from the lips of Sir Francis Crossley. He had himself been an abstainer for twelve years, and he knew that hundreds and thousands of working men in the country were abstainers, who could stand as much, or rather more work than those who drank beer. No doubt beer was pleasant when men were accustomed to it, but to talk of its being 'a necessary of life' was mere moonshine. For every one man killed by taking too little beer, there were ten killed by taking too much. The working classes had made the discovery that for healthy persons alcoholic drinks were not a necessary of life.'

Even Mr. Cobden seems to have become troubled with this agricultural fallacy, for he declared that there was not the smallest danger of the agricultural labourer, with his limited wages and general habits, becoming intemperate on cheap beer.' How then did the Beer Bill effect so much mischief? And how shall we explain the actual intemperance of counties where the peasantry have access to cheap beer and cider? In many counties this last article is iniquitously made a part of their wages, and with the worst results.

Temperance reformers may draw one lesson from this debate, at the least-namely, that the confused ideas of their repre

sentatives