forest; and, what was worse, all the best kinds of | England, by admitting the wines of Portugal at a timber, fit for farm-buildings and other uses, had lower duty than those of Spain and France ;)—yet been taken away, having been carefully selected for exportation to Great Britain. So that, while the English are submitting to pay an enhanced price for timber inferior in quality to that of Norway, the majority of the colonists, for whom the sacrifice is made, feel no gratitude for the boon; on the contrary, they complain of a monopoly that enriches a few timber-merchants, at the expense of the more regular and steady progress of agriculture." it is the interest of a nation possessing colonies, to give a preference to their imports, not on their account, but in order to secure its own commercial independence. It may be compelled to make war against an independent state, with which it had previously maintained commercial relations; but (unless it should rebel) it can never be at war with its own colony. Such (as we have already seen) was the view with which the discriminating duties on Canada timber were established, (avowedly intended to be only temporary ;) and such, too, was the origin of the privilege given to Cape wine. Probably, too, the proposition of Sir Henry Parnell in 1813, to admit North American corn without duty, had a similar foundation; for the dread of commercial dependence was then at its height. That the theory of commercial independence, which has an attractive and patriotic look, should have gained credit during the violent disturbance of commerce produced by the wars of Napoleon-that people should have looked out for some apparently immovable spot in the midst of the earthquake caused by his reckless ambition-was not unnatural; but it was a singular delusion which led our government to suppose that this security was to be found in discriminating duties. If the timber-trade with the Baltic was interrupted by the closing of the Sound, Canada timber would spontaneously, without the aid of duties, be brought into our market. So, if all intercourse with the Continent was to be permanently broken off, (a supposition extravagantly improbable,) a natural demand for the Cape wines would be created in England. The protection which the parental solicitude of England has afforded to the timber trade of its colony, has therefore proved a barren gift, yielding a return of dissatisfaction rather than of gratitude. On the other hand, the mother country is necessarily a loser. A discriminating duty can never be advantageous to the country which establishes the discrimination. We can conceive no state of things, in which discriminating duties on colonial produce imported into England, can be advantageous to England. At the utmost, they may not be disadvantageous. For example, during the existence of slavery in our colonies, the means of producing sugar, at a moderate price, in our West India islands, may have been so great, and the competition so effectual, that the protection was inoperative; so that the price of sugar in the United Kingdom would perhaps not have been lower, if the competition of the foreign sugar had been let into our market upon equal terms. But cases of this sort are rare. In general, the discrimination either enhances the price, or (what is equivalent) causes the consumption of articles of an inferior quality. Of the first case, the present state of the The theory of commercial independence seems sugar-duties affords an example. For the sake of our to us fitted only for an Utopian state of things; for West Indian colonies, and the interests involved in a golden age of the world, when every country them, we now pay a considerably higher price for shall, of its own accord, produce all things. So sugar, than we should pay if the trade was open indis- strong are the motives to commercial interchange, criminately, at a moderate duty, with the whole and so steady the common interest in its maintenworld. Both the consumer and the revenue are ance, that no large nation has, so far as we are losers by the present scale of duties. The result aware, been unable, even in time of war, to carry of this system of self-sacrifice, is, (as M. Say has on foreign trade. Athens, indeed, near the time remarked,) that no countries in Europe buy their of the Peloponnesian war, was able, out of enmity sugar at so high a price as those which have sugar to the petty neighboring state of Megara-about as colonies! Those countries (as Italy) which have large as an English parish, or a French commune, none, obtain their sugar at the lowest cost. Of the to cut off its supplies, and to threaten it with forced consumption of articles of inferior quality, starvation. But it would be utterly impossible, the timber of Canada and the wines of the Cape even for a first rate naval power, to blockade all afford instances. We have imported, and still im- the ports of a large nation, and intercept all its port, large quantities of inferior deal from Canada, land communications. A thousand interests would simply because Canada is our colony. Permanent be at work to defeat the prohibition. The failure national detriment has resulted from this discrimin- of Napoleon's Continental System—which was ation of duties. The enormous number of buildings and public works which have been constructed in London, and the manufacturing and populous districts of the country, since the peace, have been deteriorated in value by the use of an inferior quality of timber, peculiarly liable to dry-rot. So, in consequence of the lower rate of duty, England annually imports more than 400,000 gallons of the extremely bad wine which is made at the Cape, and which is used chiefly as a menstruum for the wine manufacturer. Little of it appears to be sold avowedly as Cape wine; it is chiefly passed off in an adulterated form, as Spanish or Portuguese. It may however be said, that although a country would lose by imposing a discrimination on imports from different foreign countries, (for example, *Lyell's Travels in North America, vol. ii., p. 224-6. Curs d'Economie Politique, tom. iii., p. 440. undermined from within and without, by licenses, by smuggling, by corruption, by connivance, by fraud-is a sufficient proof that the most despotic power, and the most unscrupulous use of it, are not able to close the avenues of foreign commerce. However, even if it were possible for a powerful country, in time of war, to interrupt the foreign trade of its enemy, it does not follow that commercial independence, based on a trade with distant colonies, would be of any value. Let us, for example, suppose the most unfavorable state of things with respect to the foreign trade of England; viz. a war with France and the United States at the same time. If, during these hostilities, England *See Aristoph. Acharn., 535. The Megarians complained, in the Congress at Sparta, that they had been excluded, not only from the market of Athens, but also from the harbors in the subject islands and territories. Thucyd. i., 67. could maintain her maritime ascendancy, she could | chances of war, are admitted to be evils; but it is secure the continuance of her foreign trade, either said that a compensation for them is found in the direct or indirect. The belligerent states would commercial facilities which the colony affords to the not be able to interrupt her commercial intercourse parent state. When, however, it is objected, that with other powers; nor, indeed, either directly or the mother country is a loser in regard to its trade, indirectly, with their own subjects. On the other and that it sacrifices its commercial interests to the hand, if England could not maintain her maritime colony; then it is answered, that in order to prepreeminence, and keep the seas open to her ves- serve the allegiance of a valuable colony, and to sels, she would be unable to carry on her trade cultivate the affections of our colonial subjects, we with her remote possessions, such as Canada, the must submit to disadvantages by which their trade West Indies, the Cape, Australia, and Hindostan. and industry are benefited. This species of logic A large country, such as France, or an extensive reminds us of the reasoning which is sometimes confederacy of contiguous states, as Germany, used to justify the common practice of "throwing may, to a certain extent, render itself independent good money after bad." A person is advised to of foreign trade, by the variety of its native pro- engage in some speculation on the ground that it ducts, and the power of preserving its internal will yield him a large profit. He makes the communications during war. But what is the attempt-invests his money in buildings and maworth of that commercial independence which as-chinery, and, instead of gaining, finds a large deficit. sumes the power of maintaining, in time of war, an unbroken intercourse with the most distant regions of the globe? Of what avail is it, that we are exempt from the bondage of European timber and wine, if we are to fetch the one from Canada, and the other from the Cape? The panacea for the evils of commercial slavery turns out, on examination, to be no remedy at all, but rather an aggravation of the calamity. His impulse is to sell all his stock at the best price he can obtain, to escape from the enterprise as speedily as possible, and thus to avoid all additional loss. But his advisers represent to him the value of his fixed capital, and the large sacrifices which he has made in order to engage in the undertaking, and they therefore urge him to raise more money in order to make a further attempt. He builds in order to gain; but when the enterprise has been attended with loss, he proceeds to spend more money upon an unpromising concern, because he has built expensive works. So we obtain colonies for the sake of their trade; and then make sacrifices in colonial trade in order to retain our colonies. But while we are attempting, by a system of discriminating duties, to provide against the interruption of commerce consequent upon war, do we not forget, that by this very system we are sowing the seeds of hostilities, and multiplying the chances of the occurrence of the evil which we seek to counteract? By establishing differential duties in If the preceding views are correct, it follows that favor of our colonies, we exclude from our ports a system of colonial protection, by means of disthe produce of foreign countries, or admit it on less criminating duties and concealed bounties, is unfavorable terms. Regulations of this sort, tending sound and impolitic; and that the notion of a coloto the discouragement of the industry and trade of nial custom's union is thoroughly impracticable. foreign countries, are naturally considered by them. Supposing protection to be afforded with respect as unjust and unfriendly. Such distinctions, therefore, engender feelings towards us of no amicable nature, and must rank among the causes which lead to war. At all events, a system of exclusion and discrimination, directed against foreign countries, cannot fail to prevent the formation of that community of interest and feeling, which naturally springs from unfettered commercial intercourse, conducted upon equal terms. It will, however, be said, that even if it should be apparent that colonial protection is detrimental to the mother country, yet it ought to be maintained for the sake of the colony. The colony, it will be argued, is an integral part of the empire; it is a possession of the British crown; its inhabitants are our fellow-subjects; and it is our duty, not less than our policy, to show favor to its interests, and to strengthen its allegiance, by according preferences to its trade. The parental relation of the mother country to the colony, furnishes, according to this view, a ground why the more powerful state should make sacrifices of a commercial nature, for promoting the interests of the dependent community. This reasoning, however, obviously proceeds in a vicious circle, and returns upon itself. It is first proved, that the possession of colonies is advantageous to a country on account of the encouragement and extension which they give to its trade. The expenses of civil government, and of military and naval protection, and the increased *"Is it wise for you to set up (?) this line of distinction between yourselves and your fellow-countrymen in Canada?" Lord Stanley, Speech on Canada Corn-law, 19th May, 1843, (69 Hansard, p. 598.) to an article of colonial produce, not grown in the mother country, (for example, sugar or coffee :) then, as we have shown, the mother country is almost necessarily a loser. No real reciprocity exists, even if the system of excluding foreign produce is adopted on both sides; for one market is larger than the other. The advantages which the monopoly of the market of the mother country offers to the colony, are far greater than those which the monopoly of the colonial market offers to the mother country. At present, however, even this semblance of reciprocity does not exist, so far as this country is concerned; for England no longer limits her colonies to her own produce. She has abandoned her restrictions on the colonies, though she upholds the privileges to colonial goods by which she suffers. If there is no reciprocity, neither is there any community of interests. Wherever the article is exclusively of colonial growth, the colony and the mother country have avowedly separate interests. The colony sells and the mother country buys. It is the interest of the mother country to buy in the cheapest market, but she is excluded from the cheapest market by her own discriminating duties, and confined to the produce of her own colony. If the article is produced both in the mother country and the colony, and protecting duties common to the produce of both countries are imposed, (as in the case of Canada corn,) then the protection bring the producers of both countries within the rests on a different ground. An attempt is made to same circle of protection, and to consider them, for this purpose, as members of one community. It is, to a certain extent, an endeavor to create a colo- | tariff; certainly "fruit, raw, and not otherwise nial Zollverein. If, however, anybody will con- enumerated," is subject to the same duty of five sider the principles of the German Zollverein, and per cent. ad valorem, whether imported from a forapply them consistently to our colonial empire, he eign country or a British possession. will speedily discover the dissimilarity of the cases, and the impossibility of success; he will, we think, soon convince himself that it is necessary to regard the colonies as separate, though not independent communities, for custom-house purposes; and to abandon the idea of bringing them within a system of import duties common to themselves and the mother country. For fiscal purposes, the colonies ought to be as foreign countries, with which a perfectly free trade prevails. Each colony has its own tariff, and raises its own revenue of customs, which it applies to the exigencies o its own service. The mother country can watch over these various tariffs; it can prevent the exclusion of its own commodities by prohibitions and discriminating duties, and can secure an uninterrupted free-trade with its colonies. On the other hand, it ought to permit its colonies to trade freely with all the world, and to open its own ports at fair revenue duties to all colonial products; but without giving them an undue preference, detrimental to its own interests, by discriminating duties. If the attempt to establish a colonial customs union were made consistently, it would lead to far more extensive consequences than those which our present legislation has sanctioned; and would inflict upon the people of England far more serious privations and losses than the system of colonial protection has hitherto produced. The principle of colonial protection has been applied capriciously and irregularly. There are several important articles which we might obtain from our colonies, but which are not subject to discriminating duties. For example, there is a protection for colonial sugar and coffee, but not for colonial tobacco or cotton. There is, moreover, the utmost variety in the amount of protection afforded; the duties vary from an approach to equality up to ten or twelve times the amount. At times no object seems too small for the microscopic vision of the colonial protector. Thus, there is a protection of 2d. per lb. upon colonial anchovies. Upon oranges there is no discrimination; but colonial marmalade enjoys a protection of 5d per lb. The importer of colonial tapioca and sago is left by our tariff to bear the full brunt of the foreign competition in these articles; but we have not been regardless of colonial interests in the item of arrow-root, which is protected by a discrimination of 4s. per lb. Our differential duties have in some cases been fixed with a minuteness of adaptation to circumstances, which would, no doubt, command our admiration, if we understood the grounds of the distinction; but which does not at once explain itself to the casual observer. For example, there is no protection for colonial dried apples; but colonial raw apples are favored by a discrimination of 4d. per bushel. The duty on colonial tin-ore is half the duty on foreign tinore; but for tin manufactures there is no discrimination. Cattle and meat are, under the tariff of this session, to be imported without duty; but colonial poultry, alive or dead, still retains over foreign poultry the advantage of a double differential duty. The same measure likewise extends this benefit to colonial "cucumbers preserved in salt." We regret, however, to be unable to discover that fresh cucumbers, or even melons, the produce of our colonies, have any preference in our Fortunately, it has never been attempted to apply the principle of colonial protection systematically to our tariff; or to confine the consumption of these islands to the produce of our colonies for all articles which can be grown in them. Almost all the discriminations have been established with a view to the interests of some particular colony. Even in last session, when Mr. Hutt moved in the house of commons a resolution for extending the Canadian scale of corn-duties to the Australian colonies, the motion was resisted by ministers, upon the ground that the concession had been made with reference to the special circumstances of Canada.* It may be added, too, that the rule of the customs' law with respect to manufactures, destroys to a great extent the principle of excluding foreign produce under a discriminating duty. Thus, American wheat imported into Canada cannot be imported into England as Canadian wheat. But American wheat imported into Canada, and there ground into flour, can be imported into England as Canadian flour, and thus obtain the advantage of the low duty. The truth is, that if the corn-law of 1842 had been maintained, a principle had already been introduced, which, if consistently pursued, ought to have permitted all the corn of Danzig and Odessa to have been ground into flour in Heligoland and Gibraltar, and imported into England at a nominal duty. It is fortunate for this country that the system of colonial protection has not been driven to its utmost possible limits; and that the consumer in the mother country has not been consistently sacrificed to the colonial producer. But, although the principle has not been applied universally, it has been established in many extensive branches of import, and under the existing protection vested interests have been created which would suffer by a change of law. For example, the wine establishments of the Cape, and the sawmills of Canada, would, to a great extent, be abandoned if the inequality of duties on which their artificial life depends was removed. And however little advantage it may have been to Canada, for example, that its capital should be diverted from the cultivation and improvement of the soil, to cutting timber, and the lumber-trade; yet as the investment has been made, and the buildings and machinery erected, the owners of that property would undoubtedly now endure a loss, if the protection was suddenly withdrawn. Accordingly, the legislative assembly of Canada, in their recent address to the crown, speak of "the happiness and prosperity of the people of this colony, advancing in steady and successful progression under that moderate system of protection of her staple productions, grain and lumber, which her majesty and the imperial parliament have hitherto graciously secured them;" and they intimate a loyal fear, that "should the inhabitants of Canada, from the withdrawal of all protection to their staple products, find that they cannot successfully compete with their neighbors of the United States in the only market open to them, they will naturally and of necessity begin to doubt whether remaining *On the inconsistency of not extending the same prindebate on Mr. Hutt's motion 8th May, 1845. -Hansard ciple to other colonies, see Lord Howick's speech in the vol. 80, p. 333. a portion of the British empire will be of that para- | She ought to assume no preference in the markets mount advantage which they have hitherto found it to be." In cases where a purely artificial branch of production has been created by fiscal legislation, the cessation of which is demanded by the general welfare, it would be harsh and unjust to make a sudden change, without any regard for the interests which have been called into being by the act of the government. A striking instance of an artificial industry of this kind, created by protecting duties, (not indeed in favor of colonies, but against them,) is afforded by the beet-root sugar of France. After the existence of this manufacture for some years, under the shelter of protective duties, it was found that the loss to the revenue, and the high price to the public, were no longer tolerable, and it was decided to put an end to the system. It was first proposed to give a compensation of forty million francs to the growers of beet-root, and to prohibit the home manufacture; but it was ultimately thought preferable to adopt a gradual change, and to raise the duty on home-made sugar by annual increments, until it reaches the duty on colonial sugar. This transition began in August, 1844, and the change will be complete in August, 1848. A similar choice of means presents itself for the extinction of the more important of our colonial protections. We might either give compensation to the vested interests, (which, with respect to the Canada sawmills, and the Cape wine establishments, would undoubtedly be an advantageous bargain for the public;) or we might make the abolition gradual, and thus afford time for the withdrawal of capital invested in the protected industries, and for the adaptation of the colonial interests to the altered state of the law. The following is, in a few words, a summary of the principles upon which the relation of England to her colonies-especially with reference to her colonial trade-ought, in our opinion, to be regulated. It should be constantly borne in mind, that each colony is a separate and distinct community, occupying a territory distant from England, though politically dependant upon the imperial government Owing to this separateness and remoteness, its local and subordinate government ought to be conducted as much in accordance with the opinions and wishes of the inhabitants as is compatible with the condition of political dependence, and the maintenance of the supremacy of the British crown. For the expenses of its military and naval defence, England must not expect any direct compensation. Nor ought she to subject the trade of the colony to any restrictions for her own exclusive advantage. of the colony, and should rest contented with the establishment of a perfectly free trade on both sides. She ought to permit her colony to trade freely with all the world, and open her own ports to its products. But, on the other hand, she ought not to sacrifice her own interests, by levying at home discriminating duties for the supposed benefit of the colony;-a system of fiscal privilege which excludes cheaper and better foreign goods from her own markets, and gives just offence to foreign nations. DISEASE OCCASIONED BY LUCIFERS. DR. BALFOUR, in the Northern Journal of Medicine, describes the occurrence of necrosis in the jaw-bones, caused by continued exposure to the fumes of phosphorus, in persons employed in lucifer manufactories. The dipping the pieces of wood in the phosphoric mixture, and the drying the matches afterwards, it appears, are carried on in an ill-ventilated room, where the girls are who are employed in the factories, and who pass from twelve to thirteen hours daily in these rooms, exposed to excessive heat, and the fumes given off by the phosphorus which is used. In each manufactory from three to four pounds of phosphorus are daily employed in the production of from one to two millions of matches, the mere drying of which must give no inconsiderable quantity of phosphoric fumes, to which also must be added the quantity of metaphosphoric acid produced by the burning of sundry parcels, which, in spite of care, is no infrequent occurrence. It would seem that continued exposure to the phosphoric fumes for a length of years is requisite to produce the disease, as no cases were observed at Vienna until the manufactories had been at work upwards of eleven years. Scrofulous subjects suffer most, and in them the disease is most fatal. Almost all the girls employed have the gums more or less affected, and at their junction with the teeth, a red ulcerated line, like that produced by mercurial salivation, is apparent. When the individual is robust, and the necrosis confined to a small portion of the bone, exfoliation takes place, and a gradual cure follows; but where there exists any tendency to scrofula, phthisis becomes developed, and the patient sinks under the combination. To counteract, as far as possible, this distressing malady, the Austrian government has, with praiseworthy alacrity, ordained the observance of the following precautions:-1st, That the matches must not be permitted to be dried in the workroom, and, * Address of 12th May, 1846. In his answer to this if possible, this must take place in one situated address, Mr. Gladstone says-"Her majesty's government conceive that the protective principle cannot with above it; 2d, that every second hour the girls be justice be described as the universal basis, either of the obliged to wash their mouths well with acidulated general connexion between the United Kingdom and its water; and 3d, that they be sent out twice a-day colonies, or even of their commercial connexion."-De- to take their meals, and get some fresh air. These spatch to Lord Catheart, 3d June, 1846. (House of Lords, sessional paper, No. 169.) By the protective principle, is precautions are ordained on the recommendation of here meant the principle of protecting colonial indus- a medical commission; precautions which, with try at the expense of the mother country. Not only is the addition of frequent washing, and exposure of Mr. Gladstone's proposition undeniably true; but (if he the cloths to air and sunshine, might be beneficialhad been looking merely to historical truth) he might ly adopted in many of our large factories, where have added, that the generally received maxim with re-metallic and other fumes are continually being less spect to colonial trade was formerly the very reverseviz., that the industry of the mother country was to be or more inhaled by the work-people.-Chambers' protected at the expense of the colony. Journal. From Chambers' Journal, WHITE AND BROWN BREAD.-UNFERMENTED BREAD. adapted, with the greatest ease, to all habits and all constitutions.' principal article of food for his men, was made of Mr. Smith, in his late remarkable work on Fruits and Farinacea as the food of man, gives some illusSEVERAL years ago, we threw out the surmise trations of this doctrine." Bulk," he says, "is that the separation of the white from the brown nearly as necessary to the articles of diet as the parts of wheat grain was likely to be baneful to nutrient principle. They should be so managed health. We proceeded upon theoretical grounds, that one will be in proportion to the other. Too believing that Providence must have contemplated highly nutritive diet is probably as fatal to the proour using the entire grain, and not a portion only, longation of life and health, as that which contains selected by means of a nicely-arranged machinery. an insufficient quantity of nourishment. It is a It struck us forcibly, that to go on, for a long matter of common remark among old whalemen, course of years, thus using a kind of food different that, during their long voyages, the coarser their "I have followed from what nature designed, could not fail to be bread, the better their health. attended with bad consequences. We have since the seas for thirty-five years," said an intelligent learned that our views have some recognized sup- sea captain to Mr. Graham," and have been in port in science. almost every part of the globe; and have always The following paragraph from a recent pamphlet will at once serve to keep the sub- found that the coarsest pilot-bread, which contained ject alive in the minds of our readers, and explain a considerable portion of bran, is decidedly the the actual grounds on which the separation of flour healthiest for my men." "I am convinced from is detrimental:-"The general belief," says the my own experience," says another captain, "that writer, "is, that bread made with the finest flour is bread made of the unbolted wheat meal is far more the best, and that whiteness is the proof of its wholesome than that made from the best superfine quality; but both these opinions are popular errors. flour-the latter always tending to produce consti The whiteness may be, and generally is, communi-pation." Captain Dexter of the ship Isis, belongcated by alum, to the injury of the consumer; and ing to Providence, arrived from China in Decemit is known by men of science that the bread of un-ber, 1804. He had been about 190 days on the refined flour will sustain life, while that made with passage. The sea-bread, which constituted the the refined will not. Keep a man on brown bread and water, and he will live and enjoy good health; give him white bread and water only, and he will gradually sicken and die. The meal of which the first is made contains all the ingredients necessary to the composition of nourishment of the various structure composing our bodies. Some of these ingredients are removed by the miller in his efforts to please the public; so that fine flour, instead of being better than the meal, is the least nourishing; and, to make the case worse, it is also the most difficult of digestion. The loss is, therefore, in all respects a waste; and it seems desirable that the admirers of white bread (but especially the poor) should be made acquainted with these truths, and brought to inquire whether they do not purchase at too dear a rate the privilege of indulging in the use of it. The unwise preference given so universally to white bread, led to the pernicious practice of mixing alum with the flour, and this again to all sorts of adulterations and impositions; for it enabled bakers, who were so disposed, by adding more and more alum, to make bread made from the flour of an inferior grain look like the best or most costly, or to dispose of it accordingly; at once defrauding the purchaser, and tampering with his health. Among the matters removed by the miller are the larger saline substances, which are indispensable to the growth of the bones and teeth, and are required, although in a less degree, for daily repair. Brown bread should, therefore, be given to nurses, and to the young or the growing, and should be preferred by all, of whatever age, whose bones show a tendeney to bend, or who have weak teeth. It is believed that brown bread will generally be found the best by all persons having sluggish bowels, and stomachs equal to the digestion of the bran. But with some it will disagree; for it is too exciting to irritable bowels, and is dissolved with difficulty in some stomachs. When this happens, the bran should be removed, either wholly or in part; and by such means the bread may be "The bread was The primary object of the pamphlet already quoted, is to explain a mode of making bread without the use of yeast, the raising process being accomplished by carbonate of soda and muriatic acid. The formula recommended for bread made of wheat meal (that is, the flour of entire grain) is "Bread wheat meal 3 pounds avoirdupois, bicarbonate of soda, in powder, 4 drachms troy, hydrochloric acid 5 fluid drachms and 25 minims or drops, water 30 fluid ounces, and salt 3 of an ounce troy. made in this manner," says the writer, " contains nothing but flour, common salt, and water. It has an agreeable natural taste, keeps much longer than common bread, is more digestible, and much less disposed to turn acid. Common bread, like everything that has been fermented, ferments easily again, to the great discomfort of many stomachs; and not only so, but as "a little leaven leavens the whole lump," it communicates a similar action to all the food in contact with it. Unfermented bread being free from this defect, is beneficial to those who suffer from headache, acidity, flatulence, eructations, a sense of sinking at the pit of the stomach, or pain after meals, and to all who are subject to gout or gravel. It is also useful in may affections of the skin. These remarks apply to both varieties of the bread, but especially to the brown. which is further invaluable to all who are liable to constipation from torpidity of the colon, or large |