No. 199.] 363 



■which such important branches of trade should — let us consider the 

 reason : 



In the case of cotton and iron manufactured goods we stand thus: — 



We do not nearly supply, by home manufactures, what printed 

 cottons we want. 



And we supply only a small part of the fine u-on and steel manu- 

 factures required. 



A few mterestmg questions arise : 



How can we remedy this ? 



How can we produce enough 1 



How can we compete with England 1 



England has already the market. 



A large capital invested. 



A manufacturing population working at low wages j poor, and there- 

 fore always willing to work at reduced prices, 



This country has to make its market, has small capital difRised. 



A manufacturing population in easy circumstances, and working 

 for reasonable remuneration. 



It is the concentration of capital, and the misery of the meGhanical 

 classes, which enables cheap goods to be produced in England. 



Now, God forbid we should ever come to the same pitch of con- 

 centration of capital into a single hand, and an accompanying desti- 

 tution of the manufacturing workmen. 



The ultimate good of manufactures to a country is the employment 

 and fair remuneration of all engaged, not the enrichment of one indi- 

 vidual ; and looking at it in this point of view, it would be more ad- 

 vantageous to us to raise and foster our manufactures by placing a 

 protective duty on imported manufactures, than that our social condi- 

 tion should descend to anything like the condition of Birmingham and 

 Manchester, of Sheffield or Swansea. 



Those who oppose protective duties, do so on the ground of phi- 

 lanthropy, asserting, that such only benefit a few manufacturers, and 

 that it is an act of injustice to the_ community to deprive them of the 



