men ought to find peace and strength, or that they ever can do it, but only by going through the doubts, trustfully and with open eyes, to a faith fixed firm in clear convictions, whatever its final

content.

As for Keble, it is doubtful whether he ever got beyond this melancholy standpoint to the end of his days. With all that was beautiful and saintly in Keble's character, he was, in very much, most limited and unattractive. Mr. Mozley himself - a most partial witness - tells us that there was no getting on with Keble without entire agreement and submission. He very soon lost his temper in discussion, and raised the pettiest matters into tests of loyalty and orthodoxy. His sympathies were most one-sided. He was smothered in the embrace of a narrow-minded section of the aristocracy, and his whole thought was untrue to the actual state of things in the world. His attitude towards the scientific spirit of the time may be inferred from Mr. Mozley's story of how he once had an argument with Buckland on a coach-top, all the from Oxford to Winchester, in which he finally took his stand on the conceivability and indeed certainty of the Almighty having created all the fossils and other apparent outcomes of former existences in the six days of Creation. Rather an appalling lack of lucidity here, very truly! Mr. Mozley charitably urges that it must have been at the end of the journey, and only when he was hard pressed, that Keble would have delivered a dictum like this

way

and we sincerely hope so; but if this be indeed an exaggera tion, it is only an exaggeration of his habitual manner of viewing the relation of the Bible and tradition to religious and scientific truth. In the eyes of the Oxford men it was fatal to doubt; and if fatal to doubt, then, to use Mr. Mozley's words, "superfluous and indeed very foolish to inquire.”

Keble is undoubtedly to be looked upon as the flower of the Oxford movement for in Newman the movement moved beyond itself. Keble's theology, Keble's churchmanship, Keble's rectory and life and character, and the whole constitution of his mind, are the precise fulfillment of the Tractarian ideal. The intimate relation between his thought and character is striking. The character is certainly one of rare beauties; and let the thought have credit for all it can do. In that crowded and exciting time we think of no other whose life was so completely a mirror of his doctrine, and whose doctrine was so completely a mirror of his life, save only Arnold. And Arnold's life, no less pure and spir itual and fragrant than Keble's, was a life infinitely truer to the

actual state of things in the world, infinitely richer in practical aims, infinitely fuller of the heroic and inspiring, a life great in its faithfulness to the present and with the promise of the future. If the opposing tendencies in religious thought were to have their fate settled by the character of the two representatives, there is little doubt, we think, as to which has the more virtue in it, and the greater fitness for the work of the world.

"In the whole mass of the Tractarian literature," says Mr. Mozley, with his characteristic, blunt honesty,- for blunt honesty is his characteristic, however he sometimes strays, "there is very little biblical criticism - none, it has been said, besides Pusey's Minor Prophets' and Keble's metrical version of the Psalms - or social philosophy; no original views of duty, and not much to meet the great problems of the age, though a good deal to impede their solution." In contrast with this, we remember another passage. It is where Mr. Mozley is speaking of the hundreds of Arnold's "oracular utterances," chiefly upon political or social subjects, which were current at Oxford. They might be only what everybody knew or thought, but Arnold had made them his own by his vigor and terseness of expression. "What I remember

most," says Mr. Mozley, "is a prophecy that labor and capital would before long be in collision, and that the struggle would be severe and the issue doubtful. Having myself lived some years in a manufacturing town, I was sufficiently aware of the collision and the struggle, but what I seemed to learn from Arnold was that labor would meet with unexpected reinforcement from the philosopher, the philanthropist, and the statesman." It will not, we hope, be thought too presumptuous in us to say, what conviction compels us to say, that, if Mr. Mozley had steadily sought to possess himself of what it was that Arnold was thinking about, in this alone we believe he would have gained more practical and valuable wisdom than the whole series of "Tracts for the Times could impart, or all the discussions of Oriel common-room upon the Priesthood, the Succession, and the Real Presence, the Sarum usage, and the catenary curve.

Edwin D. Mead.

PROHIBITION IN KANSAS.

THIRTY years ago Kansas was a place to which Indians were sent to get them out of the way of civilization. When the KansasNebraska Bill became a law, May 30, 1854, there were not more than one hundred and fifty white persons within the territory. Nearly seven thousand times one hundred and fifty persons are now here, laying the foundations of the central State of the Union. The area of Kansas is greater than all of New England increased by a second Vermont and two additional Rhode Islands. Within these limits began the conflict with human slavery which was destined to go forward until the nation was forever freed from that curse. John Brown and others wiser than he doomed slavery in Kansas. Then Kansas sent one half of her able-bodied men to help put down the slaveholders' rebellion, and left upon battlefields mortally wounded a larger proportion of her soldiers than any other State in the Union. This youthful State is to-day the leader in another war. First of all the States she has written in her constitution a prohibition of the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage. Whether this be as wise as her early repudiation of slavery, and whether in this too she anticipates the destiny of the nation, we may leave to the future historian to decide. Even the constitution of Kansas, by its ineffectual prohibition of lotteries, warns us that reforms may fail despite constitutional assertions favorable to them. Yet without presuming to anticipate the verdict of history, and not being over-confident of the effects of a prohibition written in a constitution, we may, for the benefit of all who are discussing means of deliverance from the curse of rum, tell the story of the way that this growing State is taking, and set down the apparent results thus far achieved.

It is only a little more than five years since this question of constitutional prohibition was presented to the people by the action of the governor approving the bill which had passed both houses of the legislature. It is not yet three years since the law made in pursuance of the amendment went into force. Much time was necessarily consumed in test cases brought first to determine whether the amendment had been legally adopted, then to discover how far certain provisions of the law would be sustained by the courts, so that prohibition has not yet had more than two years to test its worth by actual experiment. Add the fact that for more

than a year a man opposed to prohibition has been the governor of the State, and it need not surprise us if the results up to this hour are not the total abolition of the liquor traffic.

Such success as has been attained has been reached through the political parties that exist for other ends than temperance, if for this end also. The temperance people of Kansas have never yet organized in a separate party. There have been one or two futile efforts, but they were such conspicuous failures as to discourage further attempts. In the year 1873 Hon. D. C. Haskell was nominated for governor of the State by a temperance convention which met at Leavenworth; but he at once declined on the ground that the cause of temperance would be hindered by a third party. A similar body nominated John P. St. John in 1876, and he declined for the same reason. The results justify the wisdom of these leaders in temperance reform.

The present position of the State on the liquor question is the outcome of many and persistent efforts for the suppression of intemperance. The most notable of these before the ever-memorable campaign which secured the adoption of prohibition was the so-called "Murphy Movement" of the winter of 1877-78. Thousands signed pledges to abstain from all intoxicating liquors as a beverage. Very many persons thus bound themselves who felt no fear that they would ever become drunkards, but surrendered their own liberty to aid weak brothers. Some towns then closed up their saloons and have kept them closed ever since. Yet in that winter's work little was said about closing the saloons. The chief aim was to induce the drunkard to leave his cups. It was insisted that such liquor laws as existed should be rigidly enforced; but no debate between license and prohibition was even tolerated. The speakers commonly urged that the first thing to do was to unite all temperance men against the use of liquor as a beverage; that the discussion of the best methods of restraining or abolishing the traffic might be left to a later hour.

When the Republican party, which is always victorious in Kansas, held its convention in the fall of 1878 for the nomination of State officers, the delegates came up from districts that had been thoroughly canvassed and deeply moved by temperance orators, yet the question of prohibition was not before that convention and St. John secured its nomination only as a compromise candidate, the great mass of the convention being divided hopelessly between two other candidates. So far was the Republican party from planning a prohibition campaign that St. John was early warned

that his temperance speeches made while he was a candidate for governor would cost him votes. The returns showed that the party was not intensely in love with temperance. St. John was elected, but by a majority much less than that given to the other candidates on the same ticket. Yet in his first message to the legislature he, who has since been named the apostle of prohibition, urged only such a modification of the existing local-option law as should make its provisions applicable to the whole State. Personally he was in favor of prohibition, yet was not willing to risk the loss of all restraint of the liquor traffic in a vain attempt to abolish it. In this the governor fairly reflected the temper of the more thoughtful men among the prohibitionists in the State at that time.

The legislature from which the accidental temperance governor asked local option gave to the people the question of constitutional prohibition. The prohibitory amendment in its present form was written by Hon. N. C. McFarland, now land commissioner at Washington. It was introduced into the senate during the debate on a strong local-option law. The debate extended through the month of February without agreement. At length the opponents of temperance legislation proposed to the temperance men to substitute for the local-option bill, on which they could not agree, the bill for constitutional prohibition. Of course this was done only to dispose of the entire question. The record shows that all senators present voted to submit this question to the people. The history of the hour shows that both sides regarded the movement as a defeat of temperance legislation. It required a call of the house and a night session to get the measure through the legislature. Senators who had voted for it were said to have become alarmed when they feared that it would pass the house, and to have worked energetically to defeat its passage. The governor, who had not recommended this policy, heartily welcomed it; and temperance men throughout the State seized the opportunity so unexpectedly presented to try the temper of the people on this question of prohibition. Even some who doubted the outcome threw themselves earnestly into the debate, lest the failure should in any measure be attributable to their negligence.

Among the many blessings of Kansas must be reckoned her freedom from legislatures every other year. After the adjourn ment of the legislature of 1879 there were nearly two years in which to discuss the proposed amendment before the people with no fear of hostile legislation in the interval. The time was well