“But there was another class—from their numbers a very important class—and if they took (as they might fairly do) the well or ill doing of that class as an indication of the prosperity or otherwise of the country generally, it was indeed a _most_ important class—he meant the labouring class. They were promised that free trade was to bring within their reach comforts and luxuries which they had not even dreamt of. How was it now with them? Take first the agricultural labourer. A short time ago he was earning 9s. or 10s., or in some counties 12s. a-week; his wife could earn 5s. or 6s., and his boy (if he had one eleven or twelve years of age) about the same. Now numbers are without employment at all; numbers can obtain only occasional employment; and those who are in constant work must be satisfied with 7s. or 8s., and in some places with not more than 6s. a-week, and with little or no aid from their wives and families. With other labourers the case is no better—their employment is becoming more and more scarce; the effects of an unfair competition are reducing the means of giving employment; and those who are suffering from such effects are accordingly lessening the number of their labourers, and reducing their establishments. Thus, scarcity of employment, combined with reduction of wages, is the blessing which free trade brings to the labourer. And so it must be; for what is the real principle of free trade but the unfair encouragement of the foreigner at the expense of the British labourer, the taking away employment from the labourers of our own country, and the giving that employment to the foreigner?”