missing, and the existing MS. commences with the 6th verse of the 25th chapter of St. Matthew. There is no regular division of words, and the punctuation is, to a great extent, arbitrary, and there are neither accents nor aspirates. It exhibits traces of varieties of penmanship, as though it had been transcribed by different hands, and it is the opinion of eminent critics that it was copied from several manuscripts, each containing a portion of the original text.

"Next to the Codex Alexandrinus is the Codex Vaticanus, which has been in the Library of the Vatican since the middle of the fifteenth century. It contains the Old and the New Testaments; but after the 9th chapter of Hebrews, the rest of the books have been added at a somewhat later date.

"Tischendorf assigns the Codex Vaticanus to a period earlier than St. Jerome; that is, earlier than the latter part of the fourth century.

"The fourth in order, which I shall notice, is the Codex Ephrem, in what used to be called the Royal or Imperial Library of Paris. It is a palimpsest; and contains fragments of the Septuagint and of every part of the New Testament. In the twelfth century the original writing was effaced, and some Greek writings of Ephrem Syrus were put over it. It was brought from the East to Florence at the beginning of the sixteenth century, and was carried to Paris by Catherine de Medici, famous, or rather infamous, for the Massacre of St. Bartholomew."

With this quotation we must take leave of Mr. Forsyth's lecture. We can only say that the Benchers of the Inner Temple have set an excellent example in reviving this plan of occasional lectures, and that they have been exceedingly fortunate in inducing their learned treasurer to treat of a subject of which he is so entirely master.

VIII.-LEGISLATION ON THE SALE OF
LIQUOR.*

HE law regarding the sale of intoxicating liquors has a great many reformers. There are, in the first place, those philanthropists to whom the problem how to enforce sobriety

* The various Bills which have been introduced into Parliament during the Session are as follow:-Permissive Prohibitory Liquor Bill (Sir Wilfred Lawson); Spirituous Liquors (Retail) Bill (Sir H. SelwinIbbetson); Sale of Liquors on Sunday Bill (Mr. Birley); Intoxicating Liquors (Amendment) Bill (Sir R. Anstruther); Intoxicating Liquors (Licensing) Bill [H. L.] (The Earl of Kimberley).

is the philosophers' stone of the day, which, when discovered, is to turn the nineteenth century into a golden era. About the particular nostrum to be used the philanthropists disagree almost as much as the alchemists, except that the thing is to be done by suppressing the trade in liquor. There are, besides, other reformers who, agreeing in the desirability of sobriety, are sceptical as to the philosophers' stone, but who think, nevertheless, that the law under which intoxicating liquors are retailed might be very much improved. Classified according to their objects, the reformers are of two kinds: the advocates of suppression, either total or partial, and the advocates of regulation; while some reformers declare for both suppression and regulation at the same time.

With regard to the means by which these objects are to be carried out, no reformer, however extreme in his desire for suppression, has as yet been bold enough to propose making it felony to drink small beer," in the opposite sense to Jack Cade's famous proclamation. The recognised mode of suppression is to authorize the ratepayers to get rid of all the publichouses in their district by a sort of local statute, passed by means of a plebiscite. This machinery is intelligible enough as a means to an end, so long as it is confined in its application to suppression, for which it was originally intended. But some of those reformers who desire both to suppress and to regulate at the same time unfortunately propose to adapt to both purposes a machinery which is only fitted for suppression. Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson, though a reformer of that class, does not make this mistake. His suppression, or rather repression, is done by a distinct legislative enactment. Public-houses are not to be more numerous for the future than one for every three hundred inhabitants, and their regulation is to be in the hands of the magistrates. But Sir Robert Anstruther this year, and Mr. Bruce last year, in declaring both for regulation and local suppression, adopted the machinery of the Permissive Bill, which is applicable to suppression alone. For the regulation of the sale of liquor by a system of licences, a judicial machinery, which can inquire into facts and weigh arguments, is absolutely necessary. The forcible suppression of drinking, on the other hand, if it is to be carried out at all, must be carried out by a legislative Act.

About Mr. Bruce's original plan of combining regulation with suppression, by allowing the ratepayers to adjudicate on the granting of a licence to a particular house, the less said now the better, as he has in the new Bill prepared by him, and introduced by Lord Kimberley into the House of Lords, entirely recanted the opinions he originally held on the licensing question. The licensing board suggested by another Bill to be elected by the ratepayers, with plenary powers both of

suppression and regulation, continues in a milder form the Home Secretary's abandoned error. The result of such an election would be an amphibious authority: legislative, as being the representative of the locality; and judicial, as being small enough to hear and consult, but possessing no other judicial quality. If the Lord Chancellor were to propose to make the House of Commons the Supreme Court of Appeal in the country, he would only be capping the scheme in Sir Robert Anstruther's Bill of an elective board for the granting of licences.

This consideration, however, though it disposes of one of the many measures before Parliament-backed up as it is by the National Association for Amending the Liquor Laws, and a long array of bishops, ecclesiastical authorities of all kinds, and other familiar names-is only on the fringe of a difficult question. Are the two objects referred to both proper objects for the Legislature to pursue? The object of suppression has its most unequivocal exponent in the Permissive Bill, which, however well meant, is a bad measure of the worst kind. It is a sumptuary law, and a sumptuary law for one parish and not for the next, and a sumptuary law for the poor and not for the rich. Relieved of its worst characteristics, it is total abstinence enforced throughout the country by Act of Parliament. If a Bill were introduced enacting that after a certain date any person drinking intoxicating liquor should be liable to penalties, or that any person making or introducing into the country intoxicating liquor should be punishable, which would be the Permissive Bill reduced to an intelligible principle, the proposal would have very few supporters. Yet if the principle that a man may dictate to his neighbour what he is to drink be admitted at all, it is much more reasonable that the majority should lay down the rule uniformly for the whole country, than that one parish should be allowed to adopt it, and the next reject it.

In justification of this and similar schemes there seems to be a vague idea current that popular control, as it is called, may be justified on the ground that the householders in the neighbourhood of a proposed public-house ought to know whether a public-house is wanted; and if they decide against it, there is no hardship on the publican, because his trade would not have succeeded. Assuming that the ordinary selfacting principle of demand and supply does not apply to the case, the size of the proposed districts gives no countenance to the justification. No doubt a public-house, however respectably conducted, is not generally considered a pleasant neighbour, and it might be reasonable enough to allow the householders within a hundred yards of the site of a proposed licensed house to have some voice in the granting of a licence.

But this is no justification of a proposal which would give power to a householder four or five miles from a public-house to decide whether it should be closed or not.

Of the proposal to proportion the number of licences to the number of the population, Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson must now be considered the chief supporter. Mr. Bruce, whose Bill of last year allowed one house to fifteen hundred inhabitants, has in this respect also undergone a change of opinion, and abandoned suppression. Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson would allow one house to three hundred inhabitants, a proportion too small to seriously reduce the temptations to drink, and large enough to produce all the evils of monopoly. If paternal legislation is to be the order of the day, let the principle be carried out fearlessly and thoroughly. If the United Kingdom Alliance can persuade the world that it is best for us that intoxicating liquors should be put out of our reach, let every shop in the kingdom be closed. If one shop for every two thousand persons is not too much for weak human nature, let that shop be kept by the State. But to mingle political economy and paternal legislation in a judicious compromise is to make sure of the evils of both, and the good things of neither.

It is not wonderful that Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson's Bill should be a favourite with the licensed victuallers. The creation of a monopoly is sure to find favour at least with the proposed monopolists. It is probable that the measure of Mr. Birley, who proposes the total closing of public-houses on Sundays, may also be not unpalatable to some of them for less selfish reasons. Mr. Birley's Bill is not open to the criticisms as to form which have been bestowed on the other measures. It is not permissive or local, and it may be supported on a very intelligible principle. Few respectable publicans would object to closing their houses on Sunday if their rivals in the trade were obliged to do so too. Intoxicating liquors are a commodity which may be bought on Saturday for consumption on Sunday almost as well as on Sunday itself. Neither the trader nor the consumer would be substantially injured, and the potboy and the barmaid would get a holiday. So far all goes well. But public-houses are not merely shops, but clubs, and there lies the real difficulty. Of course, they are easily distinguishable from clubs. In the club proper, every member is in a certain sense a proprietor, and no one is interested in the undue consumption of liquor. But where is the working man to spend his Sunday if the public-house is closed against him? If Mr. Birley's Bill contained a clause compelling the opening of public museums, picture-galleries, and other such places on Sundays, it would be more plain that his measure was based on sound considerations of public policy, and was not intended to drive the working man to church, where it is not desirable

that men should be driven. Even then the Bill would be open to the insuperable objection that it is a law for the poor and not for the rich. It will be time enough to think of suppressing Sunday trading in liquor when working men's clubs are to be found throughout the country, and are thoroughly appreciated by the working man.

The Government Licensing Bill of 1872 is a very unambitious Bill after its forerunner of last Session. The ratepayer altogether disappears, and suppression is abandoned, while no attempt is made to codify the law into one enactment. The most useful part of the Bill, as it originally stood, related to the appointment of inspectors, which was to be compulsory, and not permissive-the pest of modern legislation. It is much to be regretted that this clause should have disappeared from the Bill, being rejected by a majority of 17 in a House of 89. The appointment of public-house inspectors has thus received a check in favour of the publican, and the teetotallers do not care enough for it to make an effort to restore it to the Bill. The clause being only in the interest of the general public is unfortunately not likely to have many very ardent supporters. Adulteration, however, is firmly treated, though to compel an occasional analysis of the liquor in every house would be a more effective check upon the evil. In the main particular of granting licences the Government Bill differs from all the others, and it is difficult to see how Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson, who, adopting the well-known metaphor of Macaulay, professed to see his child in the gipsy camp, can recognise it except by some such strawberry-mark as the clauses providing for the registration of licences. Both measures aim at producing uniformity in the exercise of the magistrates' jurisdiction. Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson would make the discretion more defined than at present. Mr. Bruce would secure uniformity by requiring every license to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, as well as by a committee of magistrates for each county. The idea of confirmation by the Secretary of State is borrowed from the Suspensory Act of last year, which is said to have worked satisfactorily. It is remarkable that at a time when there are schemes before the public for relieving the Secretary of State of the appellate jurisdiction which the exercise of the prerogative of mercy gives him, a Government Bill should propose to confer on him a very similar jurisdiction with regard to another matter. All the arguments of the impropriety of an informal tribunal, and the unsatisfactory evidence of memorials urged against the Home Secretary's power in criminal cases, apply to the present proposal with greater force, because he will have here no judge who knows the facts to assist him. If a central control of licences is necessary, a stipendiary magistrate, like Sir Thomas