TO THE EDITOR, Sir, — I would desire to see Home con* tiuuity and fixdeuets of principle amongsb the religioaa bodies on the question of drink. How clergymen are allowed to perambulate through the cotiDtry and givev c utterance to vague and sensational aspects of a trade, bad enoagh 'a all conscience, nnder some control, withoob csnsare from the bodies they repreienb Is a puzzle. In the year 1841, the We a* leyan Conference passed three resolution! as follows : (1) That nofermfnted wine should not be used at the Lord's sapper. (2) That Wesleyan Ch«pala should nob be ased for temperance meetings. (3) Thab no preacher ehoo'd publicly ndvo* ci'e taetotaliam in another circuit with* oub the conaenb of its superintendent minister. In the year 1871 * Bill pro-* pared by the Church of England Tern* perance Society waa Introdaoed into the House of Commons. This Bill em« bodied the prinoiplss conaintad In tha evidence of Canon Ellison before tba Lords' Committee, three of which were : ' That the liqaor traffic cannot prop«rly be prohibited '; * that it la the dotj of the State to regulate and control it'; and ' that as the liquor traffic must neces sarily be a monopoly the Suto ehonld sea that the license to sell should be disposed of for its fair trade value. ' In 1899 tb* Bishop of Chmtchurch aad the Wesleyan ministers combine to seoure prohlbi ion by formulating i no-license crusade, and more, wa see meetings of the clergy of other churches, and they are told to instruct th*ir flocka to vote for no-licente. Sine* when has it became a doty for clergymen to domineer over the consciences of their members ? Surtly men who join tha church are capable of determining their duty without a papil kind of interference, nited only for application to children and people of small Intelligence. --I am, etc., Protestant.
