172

no degree whatever invalidate the danger of future competition,as established by their own evidence.

“ But leaving the consistency of the manufacturers to be ex-plained by themselves, it was necessary that he should explainhis own. He was a friend to the Irish propositions, and he wasan enemy to the commercial treaty. Where was the consistencyof conduct ? clearly in this, that France and Ireland stand invery different relations to this country. He was a friend to theIrish propositions, not from a full persuasion that the arrange-ments which they held out would not in many instances haveinterfered with the manufacturing interest of Great Britain ; butfrom a conviction that the wealth, strength, dignity, and conse-quence of Ireland would primarily or ultimately be the wealth,strength, dignity, and consequence of Great Britain . He was anenemy to this treaty, from a full persuasion that it would inmany instances interfere with the manufacturing interests of Great Britain , and from a conviction that the wealth of France was thepoverty of Britain , its strength our weakness, its dignity our dis-grace. Aggrandize Ireland even at your own risk, still it is theempire which is made rich and powerful; aggrandize France atthe risk of your disadvantage, and you accelerate the ruin of theempire.

“ The most favourable argument for the treaty (though it wasan argument of little force when compared with the unfavour-able political tendency of the treaty) was the probability of ourtrade being greatly extended, and this probability was thought tobe converted into a certainty by the acquiescence of the manu-facturers. He did not mean to question the judgment of themanufacturers ; it was far superior to his own. He did not mean