All this is very natural; but is it the language of common sense? That is the question. Protection finds that certain goods which alone are bought, or in predominating quantities, in the English markets are of foreign make. It finds further that the English factories must be reduced or given up altogether. It then declares that this is wrong, that it cannot be suffered that English industries should be annihilated by foreign competitors, and then it imposes a tax on the foreign articles on their entrance into England, whereby they are made dearer than the English, and so the English ones are bought by the English people. The crucial question at once arises: Why should the question ever arise in buying and selling-where were the goods made? This question must be directly and categorically answered; the answer must be distinctly given without evasion. Common sense absolutely declares that it can find no reason for such a question. Common sense affirms that to make the place of their production, their nationality, a consideration affecting their sale in the market is a theory-nothing less, a doctrine brought from without, a principle utterly unconnected with trade. Some authority, derived from common sense, Protection must assign for this regard for the nationality of the articles bought, or it is out of court. As a naked assertion it merits no notice from any

one.

And what is the counter view of Free Trade? It says that every buyer, from the very nature itself of trade, of exchanging, possesses a perfect liberty, is entirely free to buy any goods he chooses in the market, and upon any terms he chooses; if the liberty is interfered with it asserts that this interference cannot and does not come from the nature of trade, but from considerations derived from a thoroughly distinct source. It affirms that a buyer has nothing else to consider in purchasing but the quality and the price of the goods before him, and is free to make his choice without external restraint. Trade it declares to be nothing else whatever but an exchange of goods of equal value: that is its only function. It may be that considerations derived from morals, politics, as in war, or other independent source, may call upon the State to interfere with its course; and trade cannot say No to such control. But it does call for such a reason: and so, again, it asks of Protection, What right have you on grounds of trade-and that is the only one you profess to stand upon-to interfere with my trading liberty out of regard to the place where the goods are made? You must answer that in terms. But this is what Protection has never done.

But it might appeal to Humanity. Would Free Trade wish to see so many worthy fellow-countrymen brought to starvation? On this point the answer is twofold. There is first the case when the industry has never been yet set up. Upon that Free Trade speaks clearly and decidedly. The rule of conduct is that on which households have been worked since the world began the women to do the needle-work, the men to lift the weights. By that method there is more good service done and more weights carried than by any other: greater results in return for the food and wages. So it is with nations. Let each produce those goods for which it has the greatest aptitude: the goods

made will be more and better, and-which lies in the essence of aľ’ trading-there will be the same employment for the populations with greater results. If silks can be more cheaply produced in France, ever; with only equal quality, England would be as great a fool to manufac ture silks as to make clarets. Let France make the silks, and that part of the English people which would have made silks will now manufacture those English goods with which the silks will be bought. Thus more silks and more cotton cloth will be made in the two countries taken together, and equal employment, and subsequently more, provided for each country. If the Frenchmen sell silk to England, they must buy an equal amount of cotton or other goods: for England cannot buy unless she sells to an equal value. I may be allowed to quote a passage written elsewhere:

"The truth stands out in clear sunshine. Free Trade cannot and does not injure domestic industry. Under Free Trade foreign countries give in every case as much employment to English workmen and capitalists as if nothing had been bought abroad. English goods of the same value must be purchased by the foreigner, or the trade comes to an end. There must be an equal amount of English goods made and sent away, or England will never obtain the foreign commodities. Free Trade never does harm to the country which practises it, and that mighty fact alone kills Protection. Let those who are backsliding into Protection be asked for a categorical answer to this question :-Can and will the foreigner give away his goods without insisting on receiving back, directly or indirectly, an equal quantity of that country's goods? Let the question be pushed home-and all talk about injury to domestic indus try must cease."-Chapters on Practical Political Economy, p. 307.

But many deny that trade is always an exchange of goods of equal value, and they appeal, as proving the truth of their denial, to the immense excess often exhibited of imports into England over her exports. Want of space forbids a detailed examination of this assertion here; but a few remarks will suffice to show its inaccuracy. Those who take their stand on the wide discrepancy between imports and exports, as being a phenomenon of pure trade, must hold that the difference in value is made up by a remittance of money; they cannot suppose that foreign countries make a present to England of the excess of commodities imported into her harbours. But they fail to perceive that this remittance of money conclusively proves the truth they attack. It establishes equilibrium: large imports are balanced by small exports plus money. Only that England should send a perpetual stream of money away, ever flowing, never ceasing, is an inconceivable absurdity; and where could she get that money from, that gold, but from foreigners buying her goods? The excess of imports into England is very easily explained upon a different principle. Those imports in excess are not trade at all; they are payments of debts, nothing else. Immense sums are annually due to England for interest on loans lent to foreign nations and colonies, and for profits accruing on huge investments abroad, whether in foreign securities or agriculture or commerce. These are not exchanges of goods for goods, of buying and selling, but goods sent to pay debts due to England. Reciprocity can derive no help from this inequality between imports and exports to support its cause.

Here common sense now puts the critical inquiry-Who pays the

sumers.

Protection duty imposed on the foreign_goods, or else the increased price for the English-made articles realised by the aid of the duty? The English buyers-Protection is compelled to answer-the English conSo then, continues common sense, the action of Protection is simply to impose a tax on the people of England for the support of a certain number of persons who otherwise could not obtain a livelihood from the business they are carrying on. 'This is a Poor Rate, pure and simple.

There remains the second case-when an industry has been developed under Protection, and would come to an end under Free Trade. This is a practical problem to be left to the statesman. That business ought not to be maintained by Protection: it has no right to tax the country permanently for its support. The transition period will be painful-it is for the statesman to deal with it. Only one remark may be added. Not a few trades have been expected to be cleared away when the prop of Protection has been removed, and yet have sustained themselves manfully in the free air of heaven. The silk trade of England is an instance of this kind.

A few words will suffice on Reciprocity, for it is a distinct proposal to impose Protection. But this proposal has an absurdity which is peculiarly its own. Reciprocity is demanded as a counterblow to Protection practised against England by foreign countries. France, it is said, adopts Protection against England, let England retort by enacting Protection against France. But, ludicrously enough, Protection is not said by the advocates of Reciprocity to be a wise policy: on the contrary, it is virtually admitted that it is not capable of defence. Thus, under the pleasant sound of a pretty word, the cry becomesLet us do ourselves harm, because it will harm the Frenchmen also. Let a tax be laid upon the people of England, because it will do harm to French trade; and this imposition of a tax on the English people, this diminution of English trade with France, are gravely proposed as correctives for a commercial depression, for a distressing stagnation of trade. Wonderful, indeed, is such an idea. To demand Protection on the ground that it is a policy good in itself, and capable of being defended, is a reasonable issue, meriting discussion: but to recommend that a bad thing should be done, because it would be bad also for our competitors, is a policy hard indeed to characterise. To do ourselves good is not pretended: harm for harm, blow for blow, to our own additional hurt, is all that is thought of.

But, in truth, there is a capital blunder involved in the cry for Reciprocity, of which those who utter it do not seem to be conscious. They confound into one two acts which have no connection whatever with each other. England repealed the protective duty on French silks; she thereby relieved herself of a tax, and created more wealth and a larger trade. France protects her cotton factories against the English, thereby bringing two losses on herself-a diminution of trade, and the still severer one of supporting a portion of her population at the expense of the whole French people. Therefore, Reciprocity exclaims-Since France refuses to buy our cottons we will not buy her

silks. But what connection have cottons with silks? None. The question who should make silks for England was settled by England on its own merits. It was clearly the true policy for England to buy cheap and not dear silks. So ends that matter; England pursued the rational course. What France does in the matter of cottons does not touch the English decision about silks in any way._ England suffers a diminution of trade by the lack of intelligence of the French on silks, and that is all. Why should she injure herself by silks because the French injure her by cottons? Reciprocity has for its sole intelligible principle: Let us do some harm to the French. Perhaps a less costly method of hurting her might be found than by altering our excellent regulations about the supply of silks for our wants.

A few words in conclusion. What means must be adopted for bringing the commercial depression to an end? Reverse the practice which caused it. Over-consume no longer, but increase the production of wealth by every possible effort. You will not, of course, produce goods whose cost of production no buyers can be found to repay; but attract buyers by making that cost as small as you can. If this prac tice is carried out along the whole line of manufacturing, the means of buying will be enlarged; and more buying and a return of prosperity will be accomplished. Let capitalists and labourers join in a hearty determination to make every exertion to produce largely and cheaply. And let them save. Let luxurious consumption, excessive drinking, and all other waste be put aside; and let capital be vigorously accumulated. And let not the dangers of foreign competition be forgotten by a nation whose greatness-nay, the existence of a large part of her population-depend on her being able to sell her products over the breadth of the whole earth. Finally, let the manufacturers and workmen listen to the questions put to them by Mr. C. O. Shepard, United States Consul at Bradford, in his admirable Report to the Assistant Secretary of State at Washington:-

"1. Can and will England's artisans live as cheaply as their competitors? 2. Will they accept the same wages? 3. Will they give more labour for the wages? 4. Will all classes live within their means? 5. Will young people be content to commence life where their fathers began instead of where they left off? 6. Will English manufacturers keep pace with the wants and advancement of the age? 7. Will they encourage and adopt new scientific and labour-saving improvements? 8. Will they stimulate, foster and disseminate both general and technical education?"

More solemn, more all-important words were never addressed to any people. "Should a negative answer be returned to these queries, the three consequences which must quickly and inevitably follow," are told by Mr. Shepard. "Further dejection in business, as compared with which the present will seem but moderate depression. Greatly increased suffering and destitution. An emigration such, perhaps, as has never been known."*

BONAMY PRICE, in Contemporary Review.

* Some valuable suggestions of remedies in detail will be found in the able Paper on the Depression of Trade, read by David Chadwick, Esq., M.P., at the Social Science Congress at Cheltenham, October, 1878.

ALCOHOL: ITS ACTION AND USES.*

The numbers of the Contemporary Review to which I have referred at the head of this article, contain, as is well known to most readers of periodical literature, a series of papers by physicians of eminence on the action and uses of alcohol. The subject is one of such great present interest, that they appear to have attracted a considerable amount of attention, but it may be doubted whether the general reader has gained anything very definite from their perusal. Not only do they differ greatly in intrinsic merit, but they deal with such different aspects of a very wide question, and manifest such divergence of opinion on points of detail, that it may not be easy to discern the substantial agreement which exists between them. Indeed, if they suggest anything on first reading, it is rather to confirm the popular notion of the disagreements of doctors, than to suggest any practical rules for men's guidance.

I shall endeavour, in the following pages, to collect, not merely from these papers but from the very abundant medical literature on the subject, what is certain and established as to the action of alcohol, and the practical results of our knowledge of the subject.

And here I am met at the onset with a radical objection. One of the ablest of these essayists-Mr. Brudenell Carter-has expressed a very common feeling when he says that "the claims of chemistry and physiology, in the actual state of those branches of inquiry, to regulate our habits in conformity with their fleeting hypotheses, are as ludicrous as anything that Swift imagined in the University of Laputa."

Now I could conceive that this objection might come from one who had not kept pace with the progress of these sciences; but it is difficult to understand how it can be raised by such an accomplished member of our profession-one who in this very article has shown that he is well aware of the substantial advance they have made of late years. No doubt, unfounded theories are every day put forward by the numerous students of physiology and chemistry, as will always be the case with any science which attracts many ardent workers. But through the whole, there has been a steady progress and deepening of one knowledge of the laws which regulate living beings; one hypothesis has succeeded another-vere profectus, non mutatio-because each has in turn been supplanted by one capable of explaining the increasing accumulation of facts. At any rate, in this particular case, there seems to be no need for Mr. Carter's caution. The latest teachings of science as to the action of alcohol are in perfect harmony with *The Contemporary Review for November and December, 1878, and January, 1879. London: Strahan and Co,