66 TIMEHRI. 
clusion, I am decidedly of opinion that no powerful and 
successful competition can be established on our part, un- 
less a temporary bounty on both these articles, the produce 
of our colonies, is allowed in Great Britain ; and by the 
term “bounty,” I mean an extra price afforded to the 
planter over and above the market value, whether given 
in the shape of a differential duty, or in any other mode 
produétive of the same effeét. 
I am quite aware of the general unpopularity of boun- 
ties at the present day, and that the simple proposal of 
such a measure may, in some quarters, be scarcely tole- 
rated; but the investigation I have necessarily been led 
into, induces me to believe that this indiscriminate repro- 
bation of a once favourite policy, is only a reaétion of 
the public mind, disgusted at the frequent abuse and 
misapplication of bounties during the last century, which, 
rushing into the contrary extreme and denouncing all 
bounties as injurious, may be produétive of equally mis- 
chievous errors, for it seems difficult to conceive how any 
of our manufa&turing processes, at present so essential 
to our national existence, could ever have been created 
or supported in their early stages, without some great 
advantages conferred upon them over their rivals. Our 
cotton manufa€turers could never have commenced with 
a chance even of limited existence, if they had not been 
protefted against the competition of India by heavy 
duty on foreign cloths ; and even without this legislative 
aid a proximity to the home market and centre of con- 
sumption, gives to our produétions generally an immense 
pecuniary advantage over foreign competitors, with which 
few of them could dispense. If we possessed in the 
the colonies only this advantage—if the cotton fields of 
