36 The Corn Laws. [Juvy, 
_ Phe manufacturer is here: we owe our wealth, our strength, our safety, 
in great part, ‘to his exertions. England was independent—vietorious— 
when she had no manufacturers. . Doubtless ; and so she was when she: 
had no gunpowder. Does any man think that she would remain sonow?) 
Such persons may also believe that her span of territory would be able 
almost to command the world ; without those swarms of noisy, pestilent 
knaves crammed together in her black and smoky towns, who can make’ 
money (if work be given to them) to-day; and be made soldiers of—if 
their. “services are wanted for such a purpose—to-morrow. { 935 ove 
Our claim here, let it be understood fully, is made for the right of 
the -working, the journeyman manufacturer. The master trader, ‘like 
every other capitalist, wants no assistance to take care of himself. >In 
fact we have no question that the machinery which the desire of thuse 
traders still to make money keeps bringing into action, may be carried 
too far, and is carried too far; and, when carried too far, goes to pro¢ 
duce great misery to the population of a country. The power of machi+ 
nery gives’ to the masters’ description of capital—money—too heavy ‘an 
advantage over the workman’s description of capital—labour. Men now 
draw carts upon the road, the work of beasts; while machines do the 
work of men in our manufactories ; this, obviously, is not as it should 
be. It does seem clear that these tremendous powers, held by the ma- 
nufacturing capitalists, tend to give their description of property an 
advantage over that cf the agriculturists; but yet it may be doubted 
how far any laws directed against machinery at home would do more 
than destroy our trade by giving foreigners the advantage of us; and in 
the mean time—no matter which property is uppermost—the labourer 
(who has no jot of interest in the question) must five. rg 
‘Therefore, as we must assume that the agriculturists of England have 
no’ divine right” for the sale of their corn and cattle, but can onl 
keep the home market closed upon the plea that they will dy of those 
to whom they se//, it seems clear that, whether more men are ernployed, 
or more machines, the agriculturists can have no claim to sell food to any 
greater quantity of pone a aaah labour than that which their own 
wants, in necessaries and conveniencies, require. We use the word 
“require” here, in contradistinction from “ employ,” because labowr 
required and employment given are things, in their effect, very different. 
‘“Woik wanted,” is carpenter's work from the carpenter, or weaver's 
from the weaver—work which the workman is regularly accustomed to, 
and ‘which will yield him and his family a competent livelihood. 
«Employment given” may be such work as the party employed’ is 
hardly treated in being put to; such as drawing water-carts, sweeping 
‘streets, or breaking stones, for six-pence a-day upon the road. Then, 
whatever may be the wealth of the land-owners of a country, they can 
never want more than a given amount of labour (not agricultural )}—up'to 
‘that point the corn-grower and the manufacturer are, practically, upon 
even terms. When we get beyond the question of reasonable need, and 
‘eome to supply those who feed us with pure /uxuries, then the field for 
“eur manufactory is greatly widened, but the sale of our produce becomes 
Jess’ secure :—fancy will operate against us ; caprice, and the changeof\a 
“fashion, or the taste for a foreign article, will throw fifty or sixty: thou- 
sand men out of employ in an hour. But the thing:does not stop here. 
“Even luxury has its limits. “Let the increase of machinery or'ef popula- 
tion ‘Ina country once cause a systematic manufacture of ‘these articles 
