of production will be the most effectual means of restoring a trade to a healthy condition. Thus far I entirely agree with the operatives, and disagree with those who contend that mere cheapness, if only we go low enough, will be sufficient to raise the consumption to a level with the productive capacity of our mills. with pro reduced It is argued by Mr. Greg, the able author of compared "Rectifications,' that it is the duty of operatives duction at engaged in the textile manufactures to reduce to the cost. utmost possible degree the cost of the commodities they produce, and that they are wrong in seeking to diminish the amount of commodities created by their labours. I cannot admit that the consumers of cotton goods—those at least who are in a position to pay a reasonable price for manufactured articles-however great their numbers, could take our goods in indefinite quantities. It will be admitted that cheapness stimulates consumption, especially among the poor but multitudinous populations within the tropics, who are supplied from the looms of Yorkshire and Lancashire. It is difficult, and indeed impossible, to set a limit to the quantity of goods which may ultimately be absorbed. But the growth in the demand must be gradual. When, therefore, by our excessive production, we overtake their wants, the markets are glutted, and the condition of the operatives, even though they work their hardest for mere subsistence wages, becomes once more as precarious as ever. It has been truly said by Mr. Mill that productive labour may render the nation poorer, if the wealth it produces that is to say the increase it makes in the stock of useful or agreeable things-is of a The short time question. kind not immediately wanted. I contend, therefore, that some curtailment of production is inevitable, whenever it is found that reductions of price afford no sufficient relief to an over-stocked market. In the prolonged altercations which arose in connection with the cotton trade last year, it was urged, on the part of the operatives, that if they submitted to a reduction of wage as a necessary sacrifice in an unprosperous state of trade, the manufacturers on their part should consent to work short time, the limitation of production being the only means of re-establishing remunerative prices for goods. To this suggestion it was replied by the manufacturers that production could not be curtailed without an augmentation of cost; that whether the mills were run full time or short time, in either case the fixed expenditure remained the same. The proposition of the operatives was accordingly rejected. The resumption, however, of full time, and the return of the operatives to their employment, soon led to an accumulation of stocks and a further depression in prices. Some mills ceased running. Other firms decided to run short time. Others went into liquidation. In an economical point of view, it may have been more advantageous that weak firms and illconstructed mills should be stopped, and that stronger and more perfectly equipped establishments should be employed to the full extent of their capacity; but if such a proposal had been advanced by the operatives, it would have been denounced in unmeasured terms by the masters' association. Since the termination of the strike at Blackburn and Burnley further reductions in wages have been insisted upon. sal to work at reduced I cannot dismiss the subject of strikes without a The refureference to the argument, on which Mr. Greg very fairly insists, that the sacrifices required from the operatives are, after all, very small as compared with the losses sustained by their employers. The workpeople were asked to forego six shillings out of an aggregate receipt of 31., the ordinary earnings of a family employed in cotton spinning in Lancashire. Their employers, on the other hand, had been losing from 50l. to 100l. a week for many months. men's de restricted tion. The recommendations urged by the operatives The workin favour of a policy of restricted production were mand for doubtless supported by very powerful arguments; producbut I hold that it is inexpedient and inconsistent on their part to concern themselves directly in questions relating to the financial administration, and the commercial situation, of the trades in which they are employed. As the Saturday Review' truly said, it may be a question whether prices can be reduced sufficiently to stimulate consumption and yet leave the operatives enough to live upon. But this is certain, that the only way in which employers and workpeople can themselves contribute to the resuscitation of trade is by cutting down the cost of production rigorously and in every item. The workman must fix his own standard of living. He is justified in refusing to accept wages which will not furnish him with the means of supporting himself and his family in that condition of comfort in which he desires that they should be maintained. Messrs. foreign competition. Let him, if he is in a sufficiently independent position, contend against a reduction in his standard of living, and change his employment; but when he proceeds to dictate a commercial policy to his employers, he goes beyond his proper sphere, and pronounces judgment upon a case which he has not fully heard. The course of trade must be watched in the countinghouse and on the exchange, and it belongs rather to the merchant, the manufacturer, and the broker, than to the operative spinner and weaver, to bargain for the sale of goods, and form a judgment as to the prospects of the market. The sound rule for the conduct of the workman must be to make as large earnings as he can in the actual condition of trade. In the case under consideration it would have been far more advantageous for the operatives to work full time at the reduced wages than to work short time at their full wages. In their latest circular Messrs. Ellison attribute the present crisis in great measure to foreign competition. Let us examine the facts upon which their opinion Messrs. Ellison and other authorities have often referred to the increased consumption of raw cotton. on the Continent, and in the United States and India, as evidence of a retrogression in the cotton manufacture in this country. The following is one of several tables which they have from time to time prepared and published in their valuable circulars: 1870-71 1,263,024,000 1,195,272,000 898,700,000 784,700,000 961,143,000 979,895,000 989,415,000 Total 9,852,711,000 9,838,911,000 7,143,066,000 7,112,516,000 The subjoined table has also been compiled by Messrs. Ellison. It shows the consumption of cotton in 1860, 1870-1, and 1877-8, in thousands of bales, of the uniform weight of 400 lbs. each. Having admitted that Great Britain held her ground pretty well between 1860 and 1871, they point to the subsequent increase of the consumption of cotton on the Continent and in the United States as a ground of apprehension for the future. tion no The Economist,' reviewing the Transactions of the ConsumpManchester Statistical Society for the year 1876-7, gauge of directs especial attention to the reasons urged by progress. Mr. Joseph Spencer why statistics of the mere weight of cotton consumed in the various producing |