But they prefer, and if they must have something to stimulate, they wisely prefer, opium to alcohol-a milder to a stronger stimu lant. Deprive them of the drug, and they will as generally betake themselves to spirits. Drunkenness, with its greater evils, would take the place of opium smoking with its milder evils, in the Chinese provinces, as in the Mohammedan territories. To propose the suppression of the opium traffic is to substitute a trade in spirits, wines, and beer. This would, as facts prove, convert the comparatively sober Chinese and the Turk into drunkards like Englishmen. It is, however, a useless attempt to wage war with the universal desire in man to indulge in stimulants. But :The prohibitory duty is proposed, also, as a means of compensating the Indian financier for the loss of five millions annually. If the poppy flourished nowhere but in Bengal, the tax might answer the end proposed. It is, however, grown in large quantities in Turkey. It is extensively cultivated in the Mahratta states, which are not British territory; and in China itself,-in the provinces of Chekeang, Fukheen, Kwantung, Kweichow, Shangtung, and others equally unpronounceable. A prohibitory duty would be in favour of producers in China, Turkey, and the free states in India, and ruinous to British subjects. It would, in fact, be a law handing the production and sale over to foreigners. The untaxed article would drive the taxed article out of every market in the world. A valuable commodity in commerce, used either as a luxury or as a medicinal drug, would soon cease to be produced in Bengal. The agitators tell us, Cease to trade in opium, and for the loss in the revenue, compensate yourself by taxing the article as it is grown, and as it passes through the custom-house. But to tax the produc tion of the poppy, and the export of the drug, is to root the plant out of our Indian possessions altogether. The proposal, as we have shown, would in no way benefit the Chinese, who would be supplied from other quarters; and it would not compensate the loss to the Indian financier, for there would soon be no opium in Bengal to be taxed. But the proposal would benefit the foreign producer and trader in an article which, either as a luxury-if not abused, or as a medicinal drug, is a perfectly legitimate source of gain. The objection to the proposed remedy is so self-evident that no illustration is absolutely necessary. To show, however, that we are not imagining things improbable, we adduce an illustration from unquestionable facts. The East India Company opened the trade in the year 1815, when they established the monopoly. It may be noticed, in passing, that before 1767 opium was used in China, though in comparatively small quantities. The Company, however, ultimately monopolized the growth of the drug so far as the Bengal produce was concerned. They paid the cultivators £14 for the amount they sold in China and the Indian Islands, for a sum varying from £200 to £400. Their monopoly really enhanced the value of the drug, and to so great an extent, that the Americans ventured into the markets, and sold Turkey opium at a much cheaper rate. The monopolists, against whom there has been such a loud and continuous outcry, really accomplished the very object desired by their opponentsthey made the drug scarce in China by making it expensive. The free-trading Americans made it cheaper,-the very thing which our agitators against the monopoly would be the last to desire. In Malwah, and other Mahratta states, opium used to be sold at twenty-five per cent. below the Bengal drug. The Americans offered £60 and £70 for the Malwah opium, while the Company was paying for an inferior article only £14. The effect of the American competition in the market was the enhancement of the price in India, and its diminution in China. The quantity produced in India was increased seven-fold in five years, and the quality was so improved, that it fetched in China and the Indian islands £14 per cent. higher than the Company's opium. During thirty years the monopolists could not materially extend their traffic. The free-trading Americans raised the amount sold from 2,500 chests to 10,000 annually. The very charge of national dishonour is founded upon ignorance of the natural and opposite effects of monopoly and free trade. The supposed evil was really a benefit to China. The supposed remedy was no advantage to the Chinese, but a favour granted to foreigners. And the remedy for the loss accruing to the Indian financier would be ultimate and certain ruin to the revenue. much for zeal without discretion, and philanthropy without political economy ! POPPY. So Social Economy. ARE THE OPERATIONS OF TRADES' UNIONS BENEFICIAL TO WORKING MEN? AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-I. THE right of the working man to dispose of his labour with the greatest benefit to himself will not be disputed; and to enable him to exercise this right, Trades' Unions have been established. Great aims generally require corresponding modes of action. One man, standing alone, can do little in the advancement of his fellows; association, of some sort or other, must be brought around his effort, or the effect will be of small importance. The British and Social Science Associations, and the United Kingdom Alliance, are great in their effects, owing to the associative element in each. One link is of comparatively little value, but the entire chain will enable the stately ship to ride safely in the storm. The right of disposal being undisputed, the means to effect that disposal is the point at issue. There seems to be an unwise and bitterly antagonistic feeling on the part of masters towards those who strive, by legal actions, to protect their rights against encroachment. Justice, it seems to me, accords to masters the right of organization, and the same justice bestows a like privilege upon working men. If the accumu lator needs protection against the worker, so, in like manner, the worker requires protection against the accumulator. At first sight it would seem inevitable that antagonism must spring from this necessity; but this ill-feeling is a mistake, and is not a proper interpretation of the principle involved. It no more affects the right element in unions, than does the bloodshed and persecution exercised by sects toward each other affect the good and true in morality and religion. I fully understand the evil that would ensue were working men in a position to ride rough-shod over the claims of the employer; as strongly do I condemn the effort of employers to trample upon the rights of the employed. To suppose for an instant that masters and men can ever so far change places, as to allow the working man unjustly to dictate, is simply ridiculous. Our toiling millions are too well-informed ever to aim at such a false position. Trades' Unions, in the main, seek protection under the guidance of legality and justice: and it were well to bear this in mind; for if driven from so fair a stand point, one cannot tell what would be the next move. Tyranny and oppression have oftentimes driven men to desperation. A general effort towards associated industry might bring tyrannical employers, confiding too much upon capital, to regret their mistaken views of justice. Whatever is right must, sooner or later, permanently affect mankind for good. When we consider the many difficulties and trials against which working men have to contend in the "battle of life," we feel convinced that associative influence is necessary for their wellbeing. The principle of union, it seems to us, is in comparative infancy, so far as trades are concerned. When lamenting the effects occasioned by strikes, we should remember that the present generation of working men are very different from those that will follow. As the present educational influences bear fruit in the future, so will working men be capable of understanding the great principles upon which alone capital and labour can work with mutual ease. Small benefits accrue, in the actual present, to the toilers who dare insist upon their claims upon justice and humanity; but every firm stand now made upon right breaks up so much hitherto undisturbed soil; and the men of the future, enjoying their meed of justice, will bless the heroes of the present, who nobly sacrifice their bread in the cause of justice. Who can predict the mighty change that will be wrought in the working men of twenty years hence, by the mighty press of the present? We hold, then, that for the future great benefits may be predicted from the unions of the present. Suffering and hardship are the common lot of those who herald into the world a true principle hitherto withheld or untaught. The accoucheur of truth is often a martyr. "But truth shall conquer at the last, As round and round we run; But we contend that, at the present time, many benefits accrue to working men from Trades' Unions. 1. Mutual sympathy is educed. The struggle in London has called forth sacrifices in the provinces: in order that the weekly pittance turned aside from our metropolitan brothers may be less missed, humble toilers of all trades and callings have manfully stood forward, contributing their mites, awaiting in eager, warm-hearted expectation the issue of that great struggle. 5. Progress is indicated in the conduct of the unionists. Formerly rioting and wanton destruction formed part of the strike; now, although the comparatively innocent were cruelly thrown upon the world, in order the more effectually to extinguish the organization, still humble, trustful submission was shown by these glorious martyrs, who quietly turned from their workshops on the "lock-out" Saturday night, not even assembling in groups outside to converse upon their prospects; and thus possibly afford the police the (by some wished for) oppportunity of a rough "move on," to preface an open disturbance. We cannot too highly commend the solid manhood of those who thus acted: their unimpeachable demeanour has added no small lustre to the climax of the struggle, wherein legal opinion is declared to be favourable towards the principles upon which most unions are based. 3. Self-reliance, "man's true interest," has been evoked. The curious bearing of our Government, respecting this question, has occasioned some surprise. "Consistent non-intervention" seems an unequal line of policy, when we reflect that the struggle, as a whole, is between wealthy and educated versus comparatively poor and ignorant. Such a course of conduct would be condemned in any individual having the power, who would quietly witness an encounter between a skilful duellist and one wholly unacquainted with the practice of arms. Yet after all, this course, though calculated to alienate the sympathies of the toiler from the Government, turns him back upon his own resources, and he will perhaps reflect that his aim must be to win power by all just means; and possessing this, it will in the main rest with himself whether a paternal or an unfeeling House of Commons shall legislate upon his surroundings; whether right shall not be represented rather than monetary power and class interests. Let the toilers of our country pay scrutinizing attention to political and social questions; let them act upon the principles they conscientiously feel to be right; and ere long they will be enabled to look upon the Government as a sympathizing adviser and teacher, rather than a cold, stultified spectator, fawning upon and flattering stale class prejudices, rather than studying to strengthen the sense of justice in those for whom they profess to act. Sir G. C. Lewis lately told us that the ministry were 66 not unconcerned spectators" of the strike and its ramifications. How magnanimous! A question involving some of the highest principles of "peace and good-will" amongst men, upon which our rulers are "not unconcerned"! but decide to "leave both parties to adjust their differences according to the natural law of supply and demand." Why not at once say, "We could interfere, counsel, and advise; we could teach the humbler section in this dispute political and social knowledge; but struggle on as you best can; let your ignorance force you in painful discipline; let your poverty compel you to yield, whether right or wrong. But experience which is forced upon our working men will, I trust, evoke stern and unflinching self-reliance, and excite in them deeper interest in all political and social questions, and thus permanently and effectually benefit and elevate humanity. With such issue in prospect, I have no hesitation in concluding that the "operations of Trades' Unions" are "beneficial to working men.' Your most grave belly was deliberate, Not rash like his accusers, and thus answered,- Of the whole body. But if you do remember, I send it through the rivers of your blood, Even to the court, the heart,-the seat o' the brain, The strongest nerves, and small inferior veins, From me receive that natural competency Whereby they live; and though that all at once M. A. X. You, my good friends," (this says the belly, mark me)- See what I do deliver out to each, Yet I can make my audit up, that all From me do back receive the flour of all, And leave me but the bran."-SHAKESPEARE. THE Commencement of another year again introduces us to our friends with new hopes and new aspirations. The kind companionship of ten years has created many bonds of attachment, uniting the British Controversialists, both readers and writers, more intimately by the ties of truth and affection than is usual in these days of periodical literature. Our aim has been to attain truth, and to com |