should not be asked to take his chances of getting paid according to the fluctuations of the Covent Garden auctions. It would be interesting to know how this problem has been worked out in Spain. The methods in vogue there might be adopted or improved upon. The best plan would probably be to establish an English Company ad hoc, which would undertake the distribution of improved seed, and perhaps, working in co-operation with the Consorzi Agrari, establish model fruit and vegetable farms. An equally important function would be to provide local agents for collecting, buying and shipping the produce. The capital involved need not be large, as the turnover would be rapid, assuming that the sales in England were for cash payment and that the proceeds could be remitted within ten days or less, in the case of goods going overland, or within a month for those going by sea.

Whatever may be done with regard to production and collection, the conveyance to England is a separate question that demands the most serious consideration. There are, of course, two possible means of transfer: by railway, or by sea, either of which may be used exclusively, or the one as complementary to the other. Some experts declare themselves unhesitatingly in favour of sea-borne traffic, but they seem to overlook some of the essential factors of the problem-for instance, the advantages of the Channel Ferry, which will certainly be running before long-and assume that in the future, as in the past, goods will be unloaded from trucks at Boulogne, put on to the Channel steamer, and reloaded on fresh trucks at Folkestone-all which involves much time and labour, as well as the use of stout packing-cases in order to reduce to a minimum the damage done by rough handling. These disadvantages are not involved in the sea-passage. But this argument ceases to be

effective if we assume the establishment of the Channel Ferry. Compare the conditions of the two systems as they will then be. Going by sea, the stuff will be collected and put on truck at an inland station; it will then be railed down to Palermo, Naples or Leghorn; there it will be unloaded on the wharf, put on the steamer for London, Liverpool or Bristol, where it will be again unloaded, and either put on to lorry for the

local market or loaded into trucks for transference to inland towns. That is, the stuff must be man-handled at the collecting station, at the port of departure, at the port of arrival. On the other hand, goods sent overland will be put on to trucks at the collecting station and not touched again till they are delivered at, say, London, Birmingham or Leeds.

For convenience of handling, the advantages of the overland route are incontestable. It is no less obvious that the saving in time is also very great; and this is advantageous both as facilitating the delivery of the goods in prime condition and as diminishing considerably the capital needed. To do the same amount of business when turning over your capital every ten days involves a far smaller amount than if the turnover is monthly.

As to the relative cost of the two routes there are no adequate data for a positive conclusion. It may, however, be pointed out that, in 1913, the freight for fruit from Foggia to England-a distance of 1795 kilometres -was 1048 lire per 10-ton truck. The freight from Reggio to Vienna-a distance of 1851 kilometres-was 652 lire, only 62 of the English rate. There is here ample room for adjustments. In comparing the real costs of the two routes, allowance must be made for the saving in freight and cost of packing by the use of the lighter and cheaper cases that would suit the overland transit, and also by the possibility of putting much of the less delicate stuff-oranges, lemons, potatoes, onions, etc.-on to trucks without any packing at all.

Some authorities who advocate the sea route assume that refrigerating apparatus would be unnecessary either for sea or land transit. It is difficult to agree with them. For the more delicate stuff, at any rate, refrigerating apparatus is essential, and for the rest a great advantage. It makes a huge difference to the flavour of fruit, even of oranges, whether it is picked when only partially ripe and hard enough to stand high temperatures and rough usage, or is sold as if picked in a neighbouring orchard. Of course, for such fruit as figs and strawberries, and even cherries and plums, this consideration has even greater weight.

It is not irrelevant to mention that some years ago an American syndicate proposed to establish a line of

It was

refrigerating trucks from Italy to England. thought that these trucks, or the upper parts of them, might for crossing the Channel be lifted by cranes from rail to steamer. The proposal broke down partly because Covent Garden declared that there was no demand for more fruit than that already imported-an assertion falsified by the enormous increase in that trade which has been made since that time-partly because the Italian Railways refused to allow American-built trucks to be used, a condition which was regarded as essential by the promoters of the scheme.

It is easy to exaggerate the importance of any difference there may be in the transport costs by the two rival routes. If the Reggio-Vienna rates be taken as a basis, fruit travelling overland would be charged 3 penny per pound. It is unlikely that the oversea transit, weighted with its many handlings, would come to less than half that, probably it would be considerably more ; and the difference of 15 of a penny or less would have but little bearing on the sale cost in England of any except the cheapest produce. Whatever is done, it must be done on a large scale, not by individual growers or a small group trying to open up the market on their own account. Such attempts have been made and have failed. The difficulty of collecting information and the expenses of arranging for sales, etc., were too great to be borne by the man trading on a small scale.

To sum up, it seems clear that the English market is capable of absorbing a far larger amount of Italian agricultural produce than it has taken in the past; that the importance of this trade, both politically and commercially, is great; that the organisation of it on proper lines is a large and complicated undertaking which should be taken up by a company with competent financial resources and able and willing to put the Italian side of the business into the hands of competent men.

Besides the problems of the collection of produce in Italy and its conveyance to our market, there is the third question-that of its sale; and this is by no means the least important. It is almost axiomatic that in even such a well-organised trade as that of cotton goods the sale is a more arduous matter than the manufacture. How much more so is this the case in such a chaotic

industry as the fruit market! The cost of getting cotton goods from the manufacturer to the consumer represents perhaps 50 per cent. of the value. In the case of fruit it is more like 500 per cent. It is a curious trade. The one maxim that seems to be accepted by all dealers, from the Covent Garden ring to the Kensington greengrocer, is that prices should be kept up by a restriction of consumption. Fruit must be looked on as a luxury for the few, not as a universal article of diet.

A successful development of the Italian fruit trade must depend on a reversal of this practice. When fruit and vegetables are offered at a price which the cost of production and carriage would justify, an incalculable increase in consumption may be anticipated. The total Austro-German import, large as it is, would not mean more than about a quarter of a pound per day for each inhabitant of the United Kingdom. It is certain that such a modification of our present diet would be advantageous from a sanitary point of view, and well within. the purchasing power of the population. The problem is how to get the stuff presented to the purchaser at a price that would be acceptable to him, and would leave a reasonable profit to the producer and to the necessary intermediaries. The parasitic middleman must be eliminated. This is the primary condition of any adequate development of the trade. And such a development, it may be said with confidence, would not only be of commercial advantage to both countries, but would knit closer, in time of peace, the political ties which, under the influence of common aims, have united them in time of war.

E. STRACHAN MORGAN.

Art. 4.-A SCIENTIFIC DECISION ON ALCOHOL.

Alcohol: its action on the Human Organism. Report of a Committee appointed by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), Nov. 1916. With Preface by Lord D'Abernon. H.M. Stationery Office, 1918.

THE question respecting the action and use of alcoholic liquors has recently been placed on a new foundation by the delivery of a scientific verdict which is final so far as it goes. Hitherto the discussion has consisted mainly in the exchange of contradictory allegations with more or less scientific support. Sir Victor Horsley and Miss Mary Sturge, for instance, publish a book with a formidable scientific apparatus, maintaining that alcohol is always deleterious in its effect. The argument, however, does not convince the scientific world; and great medical authorities like Sir J. Crichton-Browne publish on the other side vigorous assertions of 'What we owe to Alcohol.' An ordinary man who wishes for practical advice in the matter could only conclude that science cannot really help him, and that he must be content with the broad and rough guidance of experience. But at last, at the instance of the Central Control Board of the Liquor Traffic, a jury of eminent representatives of medical and mental science was impanelled about two years ago,

'to consider the conditions affecting the physiological action of alcohol, and more particularly the effects on health and industrial efficiency produced by the consumption of beverages of various alcoholic strengths, with special reference to the recent Orders of the Control Board, and further to plan out and direct such investigations as may appear desirable with a view to obtaining more exact data on this and cognate questions.'

Lord D'Abernon, Chairman of the Central Control Board, became Chairman of this Committee; and eight men of eminence in Medcial Science and Mental Philosophy were joined with him. Their names are given in a note

*The Members of the Committee were as follows: Lord D'Abernon, G.C.M.G. (Chairman), Chairman of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic); Sir George Newman, K.C.B., M.D. (Vice-Chairman), Principal Medical Officer to the Board of Education, and Member of the Central