Laws, they were not so unjust and inconsistent as to ask any protection for manufactures."
Mr. Tootall said that without intending to give any offence he must say that Mr. Smith had given his assent to the petition, provided that a few sentences were added to show that they did not ask for protection to manufactures. Mr. Smith again said that his objection was to the prayer of the petition. Mr. S. Fletcher thought that it was hopeless to draw a document that would suit the views of every individual. The President said he had understood make such alterations as were in that he was allowed to accordance with the sentiments of the directors, and that he had done so and he deeply regretted that Mr. Smith had not stated his objections. Mr. Smith replied that "he had expressed his opinion that they might embody in their address their wish to give up all protection on manufactures, and thus anticipate the objections of the agriculturists."
The President's rejoinder was that Mr. Smith certainly did express his wish that the manufacturers would abandon all protection, but, added he, "I did not know that all the members would coincide with it, I did not know, for instance, if it would be thought expedient to give up the 20 per cent, now exacted on hosiery." Mr. J. C. Dyer followed in a short and pithy speech, embracing the general principles of free trade, and urging the members to take a lead in calling a public meeting on the subject.
Mr. Cobden then addressed the meeting in his quiet and argumentative manner, in a short speech, abounding in familiar but" forcible illustration. In reference to the protection of farmers he said: "In a country, such as this, where a boundless extent of capital was yielding only three or four per cent., it was folly to suppose that by any artificial means any trade could long be made to pay more than an average rate of profit. The effect of all such restrictions would only be to narrow the field of industry, and thus, in the end, to injure instead of benefiting the parties
