politically speaking, be speedily pounded to atoms. Here and in the United States the tendency is decidedly towards a more and more comprehensive individualism; but it is very doubtful whether, in several instances, Mr. Fawcett has not given us somewhat "too much of a good thing." His opposition, for example, to Mr. Mundella's Factory Acts Amendment Bill, limiting the labor of women in factories to nine hours, was, to say the least, an attitude of doubtful wisdom. If women could protect themselves from oppressive toil, then, of course, Mr. Fawcett was right; if the evidence was the other way, then he was wrong. The question is one of evidence solely; and I for one am of opinion that Mr. Fawcett's judgment was not in accordance with the evidence. He was willing—nay, has exerted himself manfully—to extend the benefits of factory legislation to the children of agricultural laborers, on the ground that they could not help themselves. How much better off were the majority of those for whose benefit the Nine Hours Bill was introduced? In reality hardly any.
Again: with respect to the licensing question, Mr. Fawcett's position has somewhat too much of the non possumus about it. The problem is one, doubtless, of very great difficulty; and certainly the Permissive Bill was a crude attempt to deal with it. But to tell us that local option is as objectionable as the Permissive Bill, or even more so, is to affirm one of two things,—either that the present licensing system is perfect and inviolable, or that free trade in liquor is the true remedy for the monstrous evils of intemperance to which society is on all hands admitted to be a prey. If no remedy is the true remedy, then we ought to know it.
