, 1881-01-29

At the breakfast OF the British and For
eign School-teachers on Wednesday, Mr..
Nundella made a very interesting speech
in which he commented upon an assertion
made 10 the responding article OF the
Times on Christmas Day, that there 10 no
substantial difference for the better be-
tween the ordinary w%orkingman of 1880
and the ordinary workiDg-man of 1880, or
even 1880. Mr.. Mundells cited the late
Mr.. Chafles Knights picture OF London on
the Christmas Day Of 1924, with it's tram.
pant, i~nsolent, outrageous Drunkenness"
drunkenness such that ono decent woman
could, even in broad daylight. at the holi-
day seasons, dare to walk alone in the
Strand or Pail Mall. much less in the re-.
gions into which flowed all the filth of
the ad%jacent Seven Dials )" and contrast
ed that picture with what he had himself
observed on the Boxing Day of the present
year, when he had carefully watched
the crowds of respectable workiug-men
and their families, visiting the National
Gallery, the South Kensington Museum,
aud the Tower and be declared that there
was real and substantial progress, in both
the Z" mental and moral scale" 1t was in
itselt al improvement that there are now
100000 children under instruction in
England aud Wales, with an increase Of
200 900 during the last year only. No
doubt, that 10 an improvement, and a
very great one ; only, let US take care that
ten years hence. England is not saying, as
the United Estates appears to be saying
just now, that the moral side OF the school
system has broken down, ard that children
too often leave school worse than they
entered it. Mr.. Mundella is Just the man
to know where the danger lies, and to
help US to avoid it.
MIR. Chamberlain received a de putation from
the Birmingham Trades Council on the Sugar
Bountles question on Tuesday, and stated with
great force the reeolve Of the Government to
nave nothing to do in any case with the policy
OF imposing a cOuDtervailing duty, WHISTLER by
concert with other Powers or Otherwise. He
declared that the sugar Luuntits amounted to a
present oil so much money TO The PEOPLE Of this
country, and denied that the Government had
any light 10 refuse such q Present. That The
sugar bOuntleS am0un ut 10 a present uf money
10 sugar-consumerS, there is no doubt, bnt i, is
a mistake to suppose that all that money comes
out of the pockets Of the bounty giving coun-
t1les. So far ns the arti6ciaIly-lowered price
OF the bounty (oF one kind OF sugar beats town
the price Of other sugar otherwise grown, the
sugsr-ccrsumtrs of ibis country, OF course, re-
celve forced contributions from theee other pro-
duceIs. What the proportion Of these two ele-
ments may be We do mol know, but it is Ger.
tain that u good deal of the gain of our sugar
Consumers is extracted from the pockets Of.
Sugar-producerS who get no bounty. On the
whole, there presents from other countries are,
We suspect, very much like the money paid by
France to Germany to buy eff the Getmau in.
~vadrrs,-almost as hurtfuI to the receivers az
to The givers. They eerange the natural bal.
ance Of trade, and if a counterval ing duty had
no effect than that Of getting lid Of them, the
countervaiIing duty would do pure good. No
doubt, however, it probably would bavs other
effects, more or less injurious and Of these the
Government is the best judge. In theory,
however, the official assaults on the principle
OF a countetvailfng duty have been very weak
and mad, quate.