means contraction of employment for the workpeople, it is the worst possible thing for them. I have seen a good deal of many countries, and I am quite convinced of this, that the only chance of our maintaining our supremacy is, that we should do that which we have done in the past, namely, make our goods as many, as cheap, and as durable as possible, and try to undersell all foreign countries in what we may call the neutral markets of the world; that is, the countries which do not manufacture for themselves. There are still quite enough of them to maintain our trade, and we may still live, if we can occupy them and beat the protectionists. We shall have to look sharp to do even this. The Americans have not yet very seriously rivalled us in foreign markets, but they have begun to do it to a small extent; and we shall not keep them out unless we can undersell them, and undersell them without deteriorating the quality of British goods. We must produce good articles in enormous quantities, and cheaper than anyone else, if we are to remain ahead of the rest of the world.

THE DRINK QUESTION.

Of all the questions affecting the low-Teuton countries I think none is really so important as the drink question, and I paid a good deal of attention to it when I was in America. I was not in Maine, and did not go into the well-worn question of the Maine Liquor Law; but I noticed the ordinary practice in the States through which I travelled, and found it pretty uniform.

The first thing that I noticed in travelling was the remarkable feature in the American meals, that people drink no alcoholic liquors at all; it seems to be contrary to their habits, and I may almost say to good morals and good manners, to do so-in public at least. In a great American hotel, where you meet hundreds of people, you will probably not see one who takes anything stronger than tea and coffee with his meals; or if you do he is a foreigner. They drink a great deal of milk and such innocent things, but neither beer, nor wine, nor spirits. Wine is very dear, and that may be one reason why it is not seen.

I know it is said, 'Ah, that is all very well, but the men go and drink afterwards at the bars.' Some of them do so, but I am bound to say that I was exceedingly surprised to find how little frequented these bars are. If you want first-class American drinks you must go to the cafés on the Boulevards of Paris-for you won't get them in America. That is my experience. In some parts of the country it is a common form of civility to invite a friend or a stranger to take a drink' and to treat him at the bar; and there are some men's evening parties at which wine is introduced, but one does not see much of this kind of thing.

Among the people at large the public and evident drinking is, I think, less than with us, and if a good deal is consumed it is done in a more decent kind of way. I have not been able to compare the statistics exactly with respect to the amount of drink consumed. A great deal of whisky, no doubt, is

drunk; but the revenue derived from alcoholic liquors is not so large as in this country, and it cer tainly is the case that one sees much less drunkenness. I am told that this is very much due to the climate. People say that whereas in Scotland some Scotchmen with strong constitutions drink a good deal of whisky all their lives and die in their beds at eighty-not many of them, I believe-a man cannot possibly do that kind of thing in America. He would be killed in a very short time. Thus neces sity begets a certain moderation. I am told that there is nowhere in America the state of things said to prevail in some English places, where a large proportion of some classes are so drunk upon a Sunday that they take Monday to recover, and don't return to work till Tuesday. However, I hope that is an exaggeration. There is a Sunday-closing law almost everywhere, with no exception for bond fide travellers or anyone else. It is more or less strictly observed by the natives, and certainly a stranger can get nothing. I was myself reformed in consequence in a very fortunate manner. I used to think a little whisky-and-water good to make me sleep; but not being able to get it on Sundays, and finding that I slept quite as well, I did without it on other days too, to my great benefit.

I fear the drink question is not one which can be very effectually dealt with by law in the present state of feeling. We must always have greater reliance upon moral and social means. One result of what I have seen and experienced in America is to make me

believe that it is much better to go in for total abstinence than temperance. It seems to me that drink is like gambling, it is very easy to abstain altogether; abstinence does no harm, and very soon one does not feel the want of it. But if you drink in moderation it is like gambling in moderation-you are very apt to go on. Some people are not much tempted to excess, but some constitutions are tempted, and they do go on to excess. The Americans have found out this, and no doubt it is for this reason that it has become so much the practice of the better classes among them to abstain altogether. I must say, then, that my advice to those in this country who are sincerely anxious to cure their less restrained fellow-countrymen of bad habits is, that they should rather show an example of abstinence than simply preach temperance to their neighbours and try to curtail the public-houses. People never do have very much influence who do not practise what they preach. My strong belief is that if the well-to-do classes, the moral, religious, and evangelical classes, were to banish wine from their tables and take to milk, they might with much greater advantage and effect try to put down the public-houses of the poorer classes. Then, as regards legislation on the subject, a man who becomes convinced of that which he had believed before becomes very thoroughly convinced indeed, and that is pretty much the case with me on this drink question. I have been always inclined to suspect that the matter should be dealt with in a way which has not many advocates in this country, and I

have been agreeably surprised to find that in America the practice is actually that to which my own opinion inclined. I believe that it is a very great mistake to deal with the matter simply by limiting the num ber of public-houses, because the result is to create a monopoly and vested interest in those public-houses which remain. I should say that in this matter there has been a kind of alliance between those who serve God and those who serve Mammon-between the good people who wish to put down publichouses and the public-house keepers who do not wish any more houses to compete with them. Thus the worshippers of God and the worshippers of Mammon, being united, have been so strong that they have carried everything before them, and the result is that a great monopoly interest has been created. Now, I entirely admit that in rural places where there never has been a public-house it is a very great evil that one should be set up, and that there should be some local power of veto on it; but, on the other hand, I believe that if you have half a dozen public-houses in a street, no reason exists why two or three more should not be allowed, if, in the way of free trade, they are established. On the contrary, it is the existence of a valuable monopoly on the part of the restricted number of houses which makes practically impossible any public action whatever-whether the prohibition of sales, the Gothenburg system, or anything else. I think the first step towards any great measure of reform is to make the trade free, paradox as that may seem; for when you have abolished monopolies