right and duty, privilege and obligation, benefit received and service owing. Especially is this true with the relationship of mother country and colony. If a policy be pursued by either purely selfish, and by consequence inimical to the interests of the other, that policy is by necessity inevitably suicidal, and must ultimate in the separation of those bonds which held the injured in slavish subjection to the tvrant policy. The cases of those nations mentioned by M. H. fully substantiate this point. The philological and ethnological remarks of M. H. are judicious and carefully expressed, and we regret that his dialectics are not equal to his didactic and professional observations. We should much prefer to see him in the historical professor's chair, than in that of a logician.

Our question is not what have past ages done, nor what was the effect of past policies or past legislation, whether imperial or colonial; but what is most desirable for the future in our own case, with all the advantages we possess of profiting by the failures and misdoings of the ignorant, the brutish, and tyrannical of bygone times. We contend that if right doing is a good in and to the individual by the multiplication of that unit into a nation, right doing is a good in and to the nation. Also, that if property, wealth, and territory is an individual good, proportionate to its right use, so national wealth and territory is a national good in like manner. Hence we perceive most conclusively that the only condition necessary to make many colonies a source of greatness, goodness, and happiness to themselves and the mother country is right and justice, the absence of selfishness, a true realization of mutuality of interest.

It may be all very well for the partisan to declaim against the strong and the vigorous-the hale and healthy spirits of our colonies being held firmly bound in swaddling bands of infancy long after they can walk erect as men; such may answer the purposes of partisans, but cannot serve the interests of humanity. The greatest happiness to the greatest number must ever be the policy of the British nation, and thus alone shall we secure so desirable an end, by giving permanence to the union of colony and home. As means to this end, it is necessary to deal with all matters affecting either with pure unselfishness: the colonist must remember the relationship and reciprocate the kindness he receives from home; the imperial policy must recognize the responsibility it has to protect its children, while giving the utmost freedom of local self-government. There must be no petty jealousy, but right cordial affection, a united emulation in loyalty and patriotism. Then confidence is given to the young, the strong, the enterprising, to venture across the trackless ocean and tread the wilderness as pioneers of civilization, to maintain the strong love of the Anglo-Saxon race for fatherland and mother country, while blessing the world with their energy of spirit, their noble endurance of toil, their glorious mental excellence, their integrity, and their probity. Were we not to

advocate the permanent unity of colonies and home, we should be traitors to our best interests, we should destroy the hope of humanity, the bright star of freedom would soon for ever set, and the enslaved nations of the world would lose all hope -sink in utter and hopeless despondency; tyranny would stalk unmasked over the earth, gloating over its victims, and the enslaved peoples would sigh and cry, The sun of our joy has set; we will die, and go to that rest where the wicked cease from troubling. Destroy the unity of colonies and mother country, and that fabled New Zealander will become a quick reality; the ruined arches of London Bridge will become a decided fact; the explorations of the remnants of our present wealth will become the storehouse to supply museums of curiosities for denizens at the antipodes; our stores of learning and science will be the subjects of learned and critical disquisitions in the literary circles of that new race; while some acute metaphysical or algebraic intellect may even doubt our existence or our records, and treat the Anglo-Saxon racethe British nation, its laws, its history, its science, its social habits and local customs-as mythical traditions, as untrue in fact, unhistoric in character, and unworthy of confidence by the intensely civilized and highly cultivated Australasians of the year of grace 3000. Think not, gentle reader, this is a flight of fancy; for depend upon it, should that time ever arrive, the inhabitants of the metropolis of this free and enlightened country will be classed, in the new zoology of that day, with bats and moles, when the scientific New Zealander has left his position on the ruins of London Bridge, and succeeded in digging into the Underground Railway, now a source of convenience and wealth to thousands.

We have used argument and satire. Judge, thoughtful man, if we be right or not. Our verdict is in your hands. We with confidence await your approving judgment. ADAM BEDE.

NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-IV.

THE adjective contained in the question now under discussion is of such importance, as to give the question a bearing very different from that which it would have possessed had this adjective been omitted. Had the question been, "Is the connection of the British colonies with the mother country desirable?" our reply would have been somewhat different from what it now is, because in their childhood the colonies need connection with their mother, and protection, guidance, and support from her, even as the infant needs to receive these from its parent.

But for a mother to keep her child in leading-strings, and be answerable for its expenses when it has reached its majority, would be highly injudicious, and would be injurious to both parent and child. Just so is the permanent connection of the British colonies with the mother country.

I. Such a connection would be injurious to Britain. It is not proper that the parent should be answerable for the expenses of a

child which has attained its majority. Such a parent would be unjustly burdened. In like manner would Britain be unjustly loaded, by having always to bear the support of her colonies to the extent to which she at present bears it. No preponderating benefits would accrue from the connection to recompense her for the outlay made. Already, even in ordinary times, Britain loses five or six millions annually by her colonies. The continuance of the connection between them and the mother country is defended on the ground of thereby finding an outlet for our manufactures and surplus population, and employment for our shipping. The colonies would, however, continue to buy of us, if the connection were dissolved. During the latter part of the period of the connection of the United States with Britain as its colonies, our exports to them were under £1,500,000; but before the present disastrous war broke out they were upwards of £10,000,000, without any expense on our part for defence or management. The rapid strides made by America since its independence are too notorious to need comment. With regard to the outlet which the colonies afford for our surplus population, Sir W. Molesworth some years ago said, "In the course of the last twenty years, 1,673,803 persons have emigrated from this country, of whom 825,564 went to the United States, 702,101 to the North American colonies, 127,188 to the Australian colonies, and 19,090 to other places." It appears, therefore, that one-half of our emigrants proceed to a part of the world which is not under our jurisdiction; and it is questionable whether our colonies are preferred by the other half in consequence of their connection with Britain. Large numbers of those who emigrated to Canada proceeded afterwards into the United States. With respect to shipping, doubtless as large a number of vessels would be employed as at present.

The dissolution of the connection between Britain and her colonies, at a fitting season, would remove various causes of disaffection and irritation both at home and abroad. Children naturally dislike to be all their lives in a go-cart, even though a fond but silly mother may wish it, and such a mother unnecessarily vexes and burdens herself. Her child would go better without her leading-strings, and she would be freed from what chafes her, and benefits nobody.

II. The permanent connection of the colonies with the mother country is injurious to those colonies. It keeps them in swaddlingbands, when they are become capable of exercising the rights and privileges of manhood. By the existing connection they are cramped and confined. Their energies have not scope for development. They are in the condition of a child in its teens, which has never been allowed to use a knife and fork, nor to do other simple acts for itself, but has all done for it; whereas a child with average powers, thrown largely on its own resources, becomes thereby invigorated, educated, advantaged, and fitted for a further and greater exercise of abilities, which otherwise would have lain dormant, having nothing

to call them forth, and neither the possessor of them nor others being conscious of their existence. At present, our colonies cannot fully act for themselves, being more or less under the dictation of the mother country. But for this, our colonies would adapt themselves to the circumstances which are most to their interest; for on various accounts the form of government, the fiscal and other laws, the degree of power possessed by the bulk of the community, the kind of treaties and contracts made with other powers, and the species of relation maintained with those powers, which are suited to one people are not suited to another people. What is adapted to persons advanced in life is, in many cases, perfectly unsuitable for individuals who are just entering on their career. So what is beneficial for a nation long established and far advanced in the career of civilization, is often unsuitable and disadvantageous for a newly settled country, and vice versâ. Should the permanent connection of our colonies with the mother country be defended on the principle that to maintain their connection is but acting kindly towards them, we, on the other hand, maintain that such kindness is injurious to those to whom it is shown. It is vastly damaging to any individual, or to any people, to be always dependent on the help of another, and to be never called on to look out for themselves. It fosters a habit of leaning on others, which is death to all effort for self-improvement and advancement. It strikes us that, in this respect, there is an abuse connected with our Poor Laws. Many of the labouring class utterly discard all prudence and thrift, knowing that if any calamity befals them, they have a provision made for them by law. They thus become divested of all noble independence of feeling, of self-reliance, and of self-respect, and in too many instances discard industry and sobriety. Were they conscious that they have nothing but their own resources to look to, many would be stirred up to habits beneficial to themselves and to the nation at large. This constant leaning on the poor-rate is an effectual obstacle in the way of all noble and improving aspirations. Let a child use its legs as soon as it is able to do so, and it will be much more likely to walk alone than it will be if it is constantly nursed.

We have not the slightest doubt that our principal colonies, left to themselves, would soon become flourishing communities, and some of them great powers. Latent abilities, which are now kept under by the connection with Britain, would speedily show themselves. Under present circumstances they cannot. This will, we think, appear evident when we remember that our colonies are subjected to various restrictions that limit their capacity for improvement. Certain articles they can purchase only of Britain, or of its possessions. Jamaica cannot refine the sugar it grows, but must send it to England for refinement, and then buy it back again. Similar facts might be noted; and the conclusion to which we are constrained to come is, that neither for Britain nor for her colonies is it desirable that the connection between them should be permanent. S. S.

Social Economy.

ARE BANDS OF HOPE, AS AT PRESENT CONSTITUTED AND CONDUCTED, GENERALLY BENEFICIAL?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-II.

WHATEVER opinion may be entertained by ourselves or our readers on the teetotal question; whether we are prepared, with some, to contend that alcohol in every form and quantity is a poison, and as such always deleterious and pernicious, as well as unnecessary to the human system; or declare, with others, that it is in many cases food, and as such strengthens and invigorates the frame; or believe that total abstinence is a virtue, and therefore the duty of all; or argue, with others, that it can only be defended on the ground of general expediency, as tending to promote the public good; or, lastly, declare more boldly, with some, that moderation in the use of alcoholic drinks is a greater virtue than total abstinence from them, and that the total abstainer is a moral coward, who is afraid of himself, matters very little in the consideration of the subject under debate, and need not, therefore, be further enlarged upon. Whatever view of the question we may decide upon in our own minds, or whatever may be said for and of temperance, all must admit that intemperance is an evil, and a very prevalent one, producing vice and crime of every form and kind; and that, as exemplified in the British nation, it has become a national curse,—the cause of most of our crime and pauperism; that it diminishes the wealth and impoverishes the resources of the nation, and impairs the health and degrades the character of each of its victims. Such being the facts of the case, which all must admit, it would naturally follow that any organization, which has for its object the checking or suppression of this intemperance, could not but have a beneficial effect upon society, and be entitled to our approbation and support. Considering it as admitted by all, that the less intemperance in the country the better, and that it is for the benefit of society and of each individual member of it to check, prevent, or suppress this intemperance; and finding that Bands of Hope are constituted with this design, we are led to the conclusion that their influence on society must, as a general rule, be beneficial.

"Prevention is better than cure," is an oft-quoted proverb; and perhaps in no instance may it be better applied than in the consideration of the beneficial tendencies of Bands of Hope. The tippler, and even the confirmed drunkard, may, we admit, become sober and temperate, but it is only by total abstinence that they will ever do so; and even then the force of old habits is so strong, and the temptations to return to the old way so numerous and powerful, that it will be a very hard struggle for any to get the