tion, after an experience of its results for more than a quarter of a century, is acquiesced in by both political parties as beneficial to the people. .. The law is executed as easily and as well as any other of our criminal laws. I do not think the people of Maine would, for any consideration, go back to the old policy of license.'

Impressed by all this weight of evidence and by the satisfactory results which had arisen from the inhabitants of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario having been permitted, for some time past, to prohibit any licensing for the sale of drink in districts where the inhabitants were opposed to such sale, the Dominion Parliament, by a unanimous vote last May, passed what is called The Canada Temperance Act, 1878.' By this Act those on the Parliamentary register in counties and cities are entitled, after taking preliminary steps, to vote whether they wish to have license or no license within the said counties or cities for the next three years, a bare majority deciding the point. Already we hear of counties and cities by large majorities outlawing' the traffic for the specified time. Provision is made in the Act for a return to the paths of license, by means of a popular vote, if, at the end of three years, the inhabitants find that they are in any way suffering from the absence of public-houses.

I am inclined to think that the English people will, before very long, demand for themselves the same freedom, or local option, as it is called, which is already enjoyed by their Canadian brethren. It has been recommended by the report of the Committee of Convocation above alluded to. They said they were of opinion that 'a legal power of restraining the issue or renewal of licenses should be placed in the hands of the persons most deeply interested and affected-namely, the inhabitants themselves--who are entitled to protection from the injurious consequences of the present system.' The importance of this suggestion was strongly pressed on the attention of the archbishops and bishops by a memorial which was ultimately signed by about 14,000 of the clergy of the Church of England, the Bishop of Peterborough at the same time expressing his 'deep and hearty concurrence in the object of the memorialists.'

A measure drawn on these lines would seem to make very little alteration in existing licensing arrangements, and would, at the same time, afford an opportunity to districts to try a system which has uniformly been found beneficial where it has been tried. Such a measure would imply no want of confidence in magistrates or any local authorities. It would not require the constitution of fresh corporate or official bodies, would not encumber the statute book with any new crimes or penalties, but would simply give a legal power to the inhabitants to state to the magistrates or any licensing authority whether they wished to have places for the sale of drink licensed in their neighbourhood or not. They can indeed express their wishes on that point now, but the magistrates are not bound to

regard them, as they would be, and no doubt would be glad to be, under such a measure as the resolution I have quoted sketches out. At first sight one would think that such legislation as this would be welcome both to Conservatives and to Liberals. I was present at a meeting to celebrate the completion of a portion of a small suburb of London, comprising 8,000 people and 1,200 houses, among which there is not a single public-house. The Prime Minister was there and said: The experiment which you have made has succeeded, and therefore can hardly be called an experiment; but in its success are involved the triumph of moral virtues and the elevation of the great body of the people.'

Surely a conservatism of what is good should not shrink from allowing other communities to make a similar experiment and to win a similar triumph of moral virtues. As to the Liberals, how they can possibly agitate warmly for entrusting all rural ratepayers with the power of choosing between two Parliamentary candidates, and yet not allow them to choose whether they will have a public-house set up among them or not, is one of those numerous things which quite pass my comprehension. Whether either or both of the great political parties in the State will soon trust their fellow-countrymen sufficiently to leave this matter to their own decision, it is impossible to say. I suppose it will depend on the strength of the agitation out of doors. The period of aggravated distress through which the nation is now passing will stimulate thought as to the causes of the misery, and thought will soon bring the conviction that while 130,000,000l. or 140,000,000l. is being spent annually on an injurious luxury like alcohol, even though exceptional circumstances may give a revival to our trade, there can be no security for permanent prosperity.

I think the 14,000 clergymen are right, politically and morally. They repeat the prayer many times every Sunday, 'Lead us not into temptation,' and it can hardly be consistent with an honest sympathy with that petition to maintain an enormous Government system for tempting the weak and the poor to courses which ruin them for the benefit of the strong and the rich. If the plan which their recommendation suggests be tried and fail, even then no harm will be done, but rather good, for one source of controversy will be finally laid at rest; while, on the other hand, if it succeed in checking our national drunkenness and misery, no words can describe the worth of the public benefit which will have been attained. Here, then, is my very humble contribution towards an attempt to solve the great 'drink difficulty.'

Let me conclude by relating what occurred at a meeting in one of our Northern counties. It was a species of temperance meeting. Three excellent clergymen spoke. They harped on the elastic and indefinite word moderation,' condemning intemperance, but setting

up Timothy as their model man morally and constitutionally, lauding and magnifying sobriety, but commending the temperate consumption of alcohol. When they had concluded, an elderly farmer rose and said: 'I've heard that kind of talk for the last forty years, and I can't see that people are a bit more sober now than when it commenced. It reminds me of what I once saw take place at a retreat for imbeciles. It is the custom there, after the patients have been in residence for a certain time, to put them to a kind of test to see whether they are fit to leave the asylum or not. They are taken to a trough full of water with a small pipe continually running into it and supplying it. They are given a ladle and told to empty it. Those who have not regained their senses keep ladling away, while the water flows in as fast as they ladle out, but them as isn't idiots stop the tap.'

VOL. V.-No. 25.

EE

WILFRID LAWSON.

ARTISTIC COPYRIGHT.

THE following arguments upon the question raised by the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners who sat to report and advise on the state of the Copyright laws, were originally embodied in a letter to Sir Coutts Lindsay. He, at the solicitation of the general body of the artistic profession, not members of the Royal Academy, convened a meeting at the Grosvenor Gallery on the evening of the 1st of February, to consider what step should be taken to prevent the terms of the Report from injuriously affecting the prospects of English Art. I was not able to attend the debate, and my letter was too late to serve the purpose of expressing my views. Since then I have read many articles on the subject which tend to make me recognise more and more the gravity of the danger which threatens the highest aims of our profession; and I feel with increased force that no artist of experience, with conscience to recognise his responsibility to future generations, dare fail to protest in some form against the incorporation in an Act of Parliament of the terms suggested by the Royal Commissioners. I feel, too, that there remains much to be said of a kind that could only be suggested by one who has had years of personal observation, of too intimate a character to be used in the memorial presented by a public institution like the Royal Academy, or in the resolutions of a public gathering like that at the Grosvenor Gallery; otherwise I would certainly avoid the appearance of challenging comparison with the able authors who have written on both sides of this question, which can now scarcely be canvassed without raising more than professional comment, so wide has the interest grown.

If the interests of the artisans themselves were not coincident with those of the Art, I recognise that there should be no hesitation in sacrificing the advantages of the workers to that of the work; but, in truth, without a due protection of the artist's claims to the reward which he has patiently earned by the sweat of his face, I hold that the good of the community itself, of the purchaser of modern works of art, of the print publisher, of the engraver, and indeed also of the nation and of the age, will be altogether lost. For the highest excellence in Art is necessarily of gradual development, requiring great outlay on the part of the artist, as he progresses in his aims. He is obliged, for instance, to incur heavy expense for spacious studios with good

light; for purchase of instruments, tools, easels, and other working furniture; for books, casts, engravings, draperies; for the hiring of models to paint from, and of servants to prepare his work; for frames, &c., to guard his sketches and drawings. I think, too, we may insist, as quite exceptional in its degree, upon the need of travel, and the providing of other opportunities for cultivating the taste of the never finished student, and for extending his knowledge of the Art of earlier days and other nations, and increasing his store of observation of Nature. Indeed, in the need of money to conduct the studies of his profession, the artist is more taxed than any young man devoted to other pursuits; so that, without due payment for his earlier productions, no great-minded worker can do his highest tasks.

These are no bare theoretic conclusions. Thirty-five years of travail in Art, with attentive observation of the careers of my fellowstudents, have convinced me that a certain degree of freedom from anxiety for mundane wants, in the long intervals elapsing between the completion of important and saleable works, is imperative for true success; that the reverse condition of life, long continued, brings failure inevitable. And since poetic Art is costly in its production, while low Art (by which I intend mere prosaic exercise of skill in imitation) is very cheap both as to time and money, it is obviously the duty of the State, anxious to foster national taste, to avoid putting hindrances in the way of the acquisition of means needful to the creation. of noble works in Art, and indeed to watch, in all ways, that strivers in the earnest contest should not be left under the temptation of becoming half-hearted-of succumbing, in part or in whole, to the enemies in the field. Nor should they be deprived of weapons which their valour has won, with which alone they can act as good soldiers in the fight, which-I trust, it is needless to argue here is as serious and loyal a battle as any that the cultivated sons of men have to engage in.

I venture now to declare, not only that the lesser degree of protection which artists would have under the proposed new form of the Copyright law, would be an injury to Art, but also that the present habits of thought about Art, and the law of 1862, make the degree of facility for practising altogether inadequate. In short, the discouragements to good Art are so great, that it is a wonder any men persevere in the attempt to lead and elevate public taste; that they do not early get led out of the true way; and, instead, follow the golden but devious paths of the uncultured crowd.

It may be said that certain men, notwithstanding the obstacles to success in great Art pointed out above, have surmounted all difficulties in the end; and this is true-but at what cost has this been ? At the squandering of much of the best years of their life in comparatively mechanical work, done to get the money for daily wants which they would have already gained had they been fairly paid;