expenditure. No man can be rich for himself alone.
As water finds its level, money will descend
from the heights of society where it is stored, to
give some share of blessing to the lowest of
the low. There cannot be a greater blunder
than the supposition that it is the interest
of England to have poor neighbours, and that
by the previous accumulation of resources
we are able to draw all the wealth from less
fortunate countries. It is England's interest, on
the contrary, to have prosperous neighbours,
who, with many superfluities on their hands, will
be able to purchase what we have to offer; and
it is the poor, far more than the rich, countries,
that profit by the freedom of trade. If England
were a poor country with few advantages, she
could desire nothing better than to have a rich
friend at hand with many advantages. Our natural
advantages are so few that we waste our strength
for nought, in attempting to produce a certain
article, say wine. If France, through her
natural advantages, is able to supply the wine
better at half the price which it would cost us to
produce it in this country, we share in the
natural advantages enjoyed by France. So, if
we can, by our unlimited supply of coal and iron,
produce machinery, or cotton goods, or woollen
clothes, much cheaper than the Frenchman, it
is a positive benefit to him, apart from all
questions of reciprocity. The point on which
Protectionists dwell, is the fact that in such a
case we should undersell the French manufactuers.
The French manufacturers of, let us
say, cotton goods, are limited in number, whereas
the French people who require those goods are
almost unlimited. The benefit we should confer
on the French people by selling them our
calicoes and prints, would be spread over a vast
multitude, while the damage we should do to
the French manufacturer would be confined to
comparatively a few. It is these few who cry
out, because they suffer severely, while, on
the other hand, the millions do not shout
the other way with sufficient loudness,
because the positive gain to each is small in
comparison.

It does not come within the scope of this
periodical to handle vexed political questions,
and to touch upon the details of the commercial
treaty which the French Emperor has
negotiated with the English Government. But who
that keeps most aloof from politics is not
interested in the good fortune of his friends, and in
any measure that is likely to make those who
have been friends before, faster friends than
ever? We have prospered in this country by
the freedom of our trade assisting our natural
energy, and we are glad to think that France
also is likely to prosper by following in our
footsteps. As hitherto France has been the
stronghold of protection on the Continent, it is
to be hoped that all Europe will mark the
example, and reap the benefit of the change. It
will be a strange result if war be repressed
among civilised nations, not by the precepts of
mercy and the commands of the moral law, but
by the necessities of trade and the attractions of
material gain. For nearly two thousand years
the blessed Sermon on the Mount has been before
the world, and nations have set it at nought whenever
they thought that it stood in the way of
their material interests. An effort is now being
made, which, if fairly carried out, will go far to
make these material interests coincide with the
obligations of moral law, and thus far tend to
make war an impossibility. It used to be said,
"If you wish to make men prosperous and
happy, make them good—begin with their
morals." It is now said, "If you wish to
make men good and happy, make them comfortable
—begin with their material prosperity."
Both are right, and both are wrong. We must
begin at both ends. We shall beat our swords
into ploughshares and our spears into pruning-
hooks, all the sooner, if, to assist our sentimental
dislike of swords and spears, we feel that we
have the utmost need of ploughshares and
pruning-hooks—that it is more profitable to war
with nature than with nations—that it is better
to shed the blood of the grape, than of our fellow-
creatures.

OUR EYE-WITNESS AT A FRIENDLY
LEAD.

SOME weeks ago, a gentleman—whose position
as the owner of a factory in the neighbourhood
of Bethnal-green had made him acquainted with
certain customs obtaining among those in his
employ—this gentleman, a stranger to your Eye-
witness, but kindly anxious to direct his attention
tion to a condition of affairs well worthy of
notice, forwarded to him a card, of which a
copy is subjoined.

Your Eye-witness will pass over certain
preliminary matters connected with his undertaking,
and will merely state that he set off alone on
the evening of the 28th of January for Bethnal-
green, Hare-street, the White Horse, and the
Friendly Lead.

If your Eye-witness were brought for a few