exert some influence upon the nations so indulging, whether that influence be good or bad. Who will say that tobacco has no portion in the formation of the German character? Yet the subtle and profound Germans exhibit no extraordinary evidence in their national character of the baneful influences on their moral and social development, by their indulgence in this habit. Compare with them the Turks and Chinese, and let the balance be shown in favour of the most elevated in the ranks of civilization. Yet the most deficient must claim the influence of other equally potent circumstances in extenuation, for neither opium nor tobacco moulds the entire national character, it is only one of many influences. Let the Papuan stand beside the Chinaman and the Turk, and in spite of opium, the Papuan standard will exhibit a woeful short-coming. The waters of the great Amazon river must exert some influence on the currents of the Atlantic, but none will venture to assert that therefore the influx of such a body of water, vast in itself, but small in comparison to the whole, is the cause of the gulf stream. The drinking of tea will bear just such a relation to the currents in the life of nations who indulge in that luxury, but who will declare that the Chinese soldiers fly from the points of the British bayonets, or are expert in the carving of ivory balls, because they indulge in a beverage admired by other old ladies who can neither run nor carve. Neither because certain Javanese or Malays, under the influence of an over dose of opium, will “run amok,” or other Arabs, intoxicated with “haschish,” have made the name of assassin to become an object of dread, is it to be concluded hence that all men who indulge in the use of either of these narcotics will be dangerous members of society, or that they will rush into the jaws of death without a shudder at the sight of his fangs? Is it because the Scot loves whisky that he is generally so cautious and shrewd in his business transactions as to win himself a name? Is it because the Cockney imbibes sundry deep potations of London porter or gin, that the enterprise and commerce of those great citizens of the world have become the envy of surrounding nations? Or is it because the Russian persisted in his love of raw turnip and sour quass, that the Malakoff and Sebastopol passed into the hands of the frog-eating Frenchman, and the beef-eating Englishman? May we not impute to beef and tobacco, gin and opium, porter and hemp, results infinitely in advance of their power?