Where would England have been now, but for the energy, enterprise, and public spirit of our manufacturers? Could agriculture have supported the continuous increase of population? Is it not more probable that this country would have become overrun by beggars,--or that property would have been assailed and the constitution upset, as was the case in France,--but for the extensive and remunerative employment afforded to the labouring classes in the manufacturing districts? The steam engine has indeed proved the safety-valve of England. It enabled the kingdom to hold its ground firmly during the continental wars; and but for it, and the industries which it has established, England would probably by this time have sunk to the condition of a third or fourth-rate power. It is true, the great manufacturers have become wealthy. But it would certainly have been singular if, with their industry, energy, and powers of organization, they had become poor! Men of the stamp of the Strutts, Ashworths, Marshalls, and others, do not work for wealth merely, though wealth comes to them. They have not become great because they were rich, but they have become rich because they were great. Accumulations of wealth are the result of exceptional industry, organization, and thrift, rather than of exceptional gain. Adam Smith has said: "It seldom happens that great fortunes are made by any one regularly-established and well-known branch of business, but in consequence of a long life of industry, frugality, and attention."