# History of the Anti-Corn Law League/Chapter8

CHAPTER VIII.
DELEGATE MEETING IN LONDON.
London now again became the scene of action. On Monday, February 4th, the delegates appointed at the meetings held in the great manufacturing towns met at Brown's Hotel, with only Palace Yard between them and the House of Commons, whose proceedings they had come to watch. The following was the representation on this occasion:—Manchester: J. B. Smith, R. H. Greg, C. J. S. Walker, W. Rawson, and George Wilson. Bolton.: Edmund Ashworth and A. W. Paulton. Liverpool: Joshua Walmsley and J. Aikin. Glasgow: Alexander Johnstone and William Weir. Leeds: Edward Baines, jun., and Hamer Stanfield. Stockport: The Mayor, J. Slack, and the Town Clerk. Kendal: J. Edmondston, W. Wilson, and Alderman Isaac Wilson. Huddersfield: Brook and Shaw. Preston: Parker. Birmingham: Joseph Sturge, Bradford, and E. Edwards. London: Colonel Thompson, W. Weymouth, Dr. Bowring, and M. A. Taylor. The following gentlemen were also present:—C. P. Villiers, M.P. Mr. Thos. Thornely, M.P., and Mr. Ewart, late M.P. for Liverpool.
The resolutions passed at Manchester were approved and confirmed, and it was further resolved that Mr. Villiers should place a notice on the books, at the earliest day ​possible, with the view of promoting the object the delegates had in view. The delegates, increased in numbers, met again next morning, and passed a resolution, that, while they demanded a repeal of all restrictions on the importation of articles of subsistence, they were prepared to resign all claims to the protection of home manufacturers. They also resolved to meet from day to day during the discussions on the Corn Laws, and that Mr. Villiers should be invited to include in his motion that evidence be heard at the bar of the house. They then separated to attend the House of Commons at the to opening of the parliamentary session.
The Queen's speech made no allusion to the Corn Laws. Mr. E. Buller, the mover of the address in the Commons, admitted the impossibility of sustaining high prices by the existing laws. The seconder, Mr. George William Wood, President of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, in obedience to instructions received from his constituents at Kendal, stated the injurious effects to manufacturers and labourers produced by the exclusion of foreign corn; but, elated by the honour conferred upon him by ministers, he thought he could not well fulfil his mission without adverting to the usual topic of address movers—the prosperity of the country—and in doing so, struck at the then main argument for repeal. "There was something," said the London Examiner, "at once painful and ludicrous in the effect which this part of Mr. Wood's speech produced. The astonishment of the advocates of free trade in the house—the nervous anxiety of the delegates under the gallery—the whispered assurances of the sagacious that Wood was a deep fellow, and would wind it all round before he sat down'—the respectful attention of Sir Robert Peel—the startling applause of the country gentlemen—and the unconscious, earnest, and solemn complacency with which the orator himself continued, brick by brick, to demolish the foundations of the ​castle he was commissioned to garrison—made what play writers call 'a situation,' that would have been irresistibly droll, if the House of Commons were the Adelphi Theatre, and the Corn Laws a farce, instead of a question involving the interests of millions, and, perhaps, fraught with a fearful tragedy. Sir Robert Peel adroitly availed himself of Mr. Wood's statements. With cutting irony, he thanked the honourable member for Kendal for the very able speech he had delivered in favour of the existing system,and with all the art the art of the practised debater, expressed his hope that the house would pause before it acceded to any propositions which would have the effect of exchanging a law thus proved to be beneficial, and which would materially affect the agricultural interests of this country, having received from the President of the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester the account which had been given them of the stable and secure position of our commerce and manufactures!" This was availing himself, with a vengeance, of Mr. Wood's unfortunate affection for "prosperity" tables; but Mr. Villiers at once cut down both the prosperity statist and the Tamworth baronet, by proofs of the worthlessness of the alleged proofs of an improvement in trade. Mr. Brotherton had previously, in a plain and manly way, contradicted the statements made by Mr. Wood, and shown the mischievous operation of the Corn Laws in diminishing the demand for labour. Lord John Russell left it in doubt whether he leaned to Mr. Villiers or to Sir Robert Peel. He thought the subject of the Corn Laws deserved investigation. In the House of Lords, Lord Melbourne gave assurance that he was neither pledged to maintain nor to change the laws.
The delegates met on the following day, at their smaller house of parliament, right across Palace Yard, and expressed themselves in most indignant terms at the statements of Mr. Wood, most of which were successfully and remorselessly demolished by Mr. Smith, Mr. H. Ashworth, ​Mr. Greg, and others. At the Friday's meeting it was announced that Lord Melbourne would receive a deputation from the delegates next day—their object being to inform him that the condition of the country was very different from what Mr. Wood represented it to be. On Saturday the chairman reported what had been said to Lord Melbourne on the condition of the country, and a number of members further broke down the statements of Mr. Wood, and the conclusions therefrom adduced by Sir Robert Peel. Mr. Wood was present, and endeavoured to convince the delegates, that, notwithstanding what he had said, he was as anxious for repeal as any of them were. At Monday's and Wednesday's meetings, further arid ample proof was given of the injury inflicted by a restrictive commercial policy; and reports of the proceedings appearing in most of the London papers, did much to promote free trade opinions in the metropolis. Men in "the house" might sneer at the parliament "over the way," but the opinions of the greater assemblage were fated to fall before those of the smaller.
In a week from the Tuesday on which Mr.Wood made his unfortunate speech, the constituency of Kendal, of which he was the representative, and the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester, of which he was the president, had spoken out very plainly. On the Saturday, a public meeting was held in Kendal, and resolutions were passed, strongly condemnatory of his conduct. The following Monday was the day appointed for the annual election of directors of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. Mr. John Edward Taylor, of the Guardian newspaper, moved, and Mr. William Read seconded the following list agreed upon by the directors:—
John Anderson. W. Atkinson. Alexander Bannerman. Samuel Fletcher. William Harter. Thomas Bazley, jun. Richard Birley. William Gibb. J. C. Prescott. George Sandars. Leo Schuster. John Smith. ​F. R. Hodgson. Henry Houldsworth. James Murray. James Atherton. Robert Gladstone. John Mc.Vicar. William Neild. Henry Newbery. J. B. Smith. Henry Tootall. Thomas Townend. Geo. Wm. Wood, M.P
Mr. J. C. Dyer, after stating his desire that the directors should fully represent the opinion of the members upon the great question of free trade, and his opinion that the speech made by Mr. Wood should not appear to have any sanction from that body, moved another list, from which the names marked above in italics were omitted, and the following substituted:—
Robert Hyde Greg. Richard Cobden. Benjamin Pearson. Holland Hoole. Henry McConnell. Joseph Smith. James Burt. Richard Roberts. James Kershaw. John Cheetham. John Lloyd. J. C. Dyer. Henry Ashworth. W. R. Callender. Andrew Bannerman.
Most of the gentlemen proposed to be substituted for the others named, were members of the Anti-Corn-Law Association. Mr. Edmund Ashworth seconded the amendment. Mr. Gibb objected to Mr. Dyer's list, as formed exclusively of persons of one line of politics or of commercial policy. Mr. Dyer denied that in its formation any reference was made to politics, the only object being to secure a directory favourable to the repeal of the Corn Laws. Mr. Bead protested, with great warmth, against a choice for one specific purpose. Mr. Cobden was far from wishing the chamber to be actuated by political motives. He wished it to be less subservient than it had been to the government for the time being, and to instruct and compel government to do what the interests of the country required. Mr. J. E. Taylor said that Mr. Wood had spoken in the commons as an individual, not as the president of that chamber. He knew, he said, that Mr. Wood, though in favour of total repeal, would, like himself and Mr. Newbery, be contented to take a small duty for a time. The meeting, however, was not disposed to elect ​directors inclined to any compromise, and the amendmentwas carried, according to the Guardian's account, by " a considerable majority," while the Manchester Times' report says, only about twenty hands out of more than a hundred and twenty were held up against it."
While lessons were thus given to professed free traders, there was a teacher amongst the farmers to tell them that their interests were not promoted by the Corn Laws. At the invitation of Mr. John Childs, the author of "Corn Law Catechism" visited Bungay, where he addressed an audience of real farmers. Rumours were afloat throughout the locality that he would not be heard, and some of the most brutal of the farmers had boasted loudly of what they would do, if he presumed to instruct them. The threateners went, flushed and prepared for action, but they found that preparations had been made to secure Colonel Thompson a fair hearing, and many who had to obstruct the proceedings come away convinced that, whatever advantage landowners might derive from the Corn Laws, farmers received none. The gallant Colonel proceeded to Ipswich, where he had a large audience of agriculturists, whom he addressed with great effect. This was the first movement on an agricultural county. The gallant old soldier saw the advantage of carrying the war into the enemy's country, and he set an example that was followed, most effectively, at a later period of the agitation.
On Monday, February 8th, after the presentation of a number of petitions against the Corn Laws, Mr. Villiers moved that they be referred to a committee of the whole house, and that evidence be heard at the bar. The motion was negatived without a division. On Tuesday, the 19th, Mr. Villiers; after presenting a vast number of additional petitions, brought forward his motion: "That J. B. Smith, Robert Hyde Greg, and others, be heard at the bar of this house, by their witnesses, agents, or counsel, in support of ​the allegations of their petition, presented to the house on the 15th instant, complaining of the operations of the Corn Laws."His speech," says Miss Martineau, "was a statement of singular force and clearness, and the occasion was destined to great celebrity." Mr. Strutt, in seconding the motion, said that his constituents, the silk manufacturers of Derby, had in their petitions declared that they wanted no protection for their own trade if the trade in corn were set free. Sir Francis Burdett, who, when Corn Law of 1815 was passed, had said that the measure would not affect the interests of the working classes, because if it raised the price of corn their wages also would rise, objected to the waste of time the inquiry would occasion. Mr. Mark Philips thought that one who had been a great advocate of public rights should be the last to allege the waste of time when the interests of the great majority of the people were at stake. Mr. C. P. Thomson, his colleague, one of the administration, strongly advocated the inquiry demanded. Lord Stanley could find little better than a stale and offensive joke with which to oppose a motion so much concerning the interests of his constituents. Mr. Brotherton made a manly reply to his lordship. Lord Howick thought the house was ripe for discussion without inquiry. Lord John Russell was of the same opinion and Sir Robert Peel, stating his belief that the repeal of the Corn Laws would be grossly unjust to the agriculturists, who had to bear heavy peculiar burthens, said he was prepared to give a decided negative to the motion. The House of Commons, in March, 1851, debated eight nights on the motion for the second reading of a bill to prevent Vicars Apostolic calling themselves bishops; in February, 1839, the House of Commons thought one night enough for the discussion of a question affecting the vital interests of millions. The votes for the motion were 172; against it, 361;—and this in a house in which the whigs, professedly the friends of free trade, had yet a ​preponderating majority. We have not time to inquire, said the majority. No time to inquire, said the Lords on Monday; but on Wednesday they "did not sit." No time to inquire,said the Commons on Tuesday but meeting at four o'clock on Wednesday, they adjourned at six. The following Lancashire and Cheshire members voted for inquiry:
P. Ainsworth J. Brocklehurst. J. Brotherton. William Fielden. John Fielden. Sir P. H. Hesketh. John Fenton. John Fort. Charles Hindley. Swynfen Jervis. General Johnson. Henry Marlsand. Mark Phillips. C. Standish. F.S. Stanley. C. P. Thomson. George Wilbraham.
The following voted against the motion
W. Boiling. J.Blackburne. C. Cresswell. W. T. Egerton. Sir P. Egerton. T. Greene. T. Grimsditch. Viscount Sandon. E. J. Stanley. Lord Stanley. Bootle Wilbraham.
The cabinet ministers in favour of the motion were:—Sir J. C. Hobhouse, Lord Morpeth, and C. P. Thomson. On the opposite side were:—Mr. T. S. Rice (now Lord Monteagle), Lord Palmerston, and Lord John Russell.
The desire to be present during the debate, and to decide on ulterior measures should Mr. Villiers' motion be defeated, added considerably to the number of delegates. On the following morning there was a numerous attendance at Brown's Hotel, including many of the most prominent of the free traders in the metropolis. Many who had hoped that inquiry would not have been denied, loudly expressed their indignation. Others, who had not anticipated the success of the motion, and had seen before them a long contest, were nevertheless excited by the contempt with which the house had treated their petitions, and formed fresh resolution to persevere into the end.
"Among the hopeful speakers," says Miss Martineau, "was Richard Cobden. There was no cause for despondency, he said, because the house over the way refused to hear them. They were the representatives of three ​millions of the people—they were the evidence that the great towns had banded themselves together, and their alliance would be a Hanseatic League against the feudal Corn-Law plunderers. The castles which crowned the rocks along the Rhine, the Danube, and the Elbe, had once been the stronghold of feudal oppressors, but they had been dismantled by a League; and they now only adorned the landscape as picturesque memorials of the past, while the people below had lost all fear of plunder, and tilled their vineyards in peace A public dinner at one of the theatres was offered to the delegates but they were leaving town.—They made no secret of why they were leaving town,—it was to meet again at Manchester. The upholders of the Corn Laws were quite at ease when they no longer saw the train of delegates going down to the house. Yet there were not wanting voices of warning which told them that the matter was not over. While one register of the time tells, with easy satisfaction that the vote of the Commons had the effect of putting the question to rest, and no more was heard of it during the remainder of the session, another is found giving warning, that the departure of the delegates was like the breaking up of a Mahratta camp—the war was not over, but only the mode of attack was about to be changed. There was no secrecy about the new mode of attack. The delegates had offered to instruct the house; the house had refused to be instructed. The house must be instructed and the way now contemplated was the grandest and most unexceptionable and effectual—it was to be by instructing the nation. The delegates were to meet again at Manchester in a fortnight, to devise their measure of general instruction; which, in its seven years' operation, approached more nearly to a genuine national education than any scheme elsewhere at work. By the Anti-Corn-Law League the people at large were better trained to thought and its communication, to the recognition of principles, the obtaining of facts, and the ​application of the same faculties and the same interest to their public as to their private affairs, than by any methods of intellectual development yet tried under the name of education."
The landowners were not all convinced that the day of reckoning was to be long postponed. On Tuesday February 26th, a number of them mustered in Willis's Booms, under the designation of "The Central Agricultural Society;" the Earl of Tankerville in the chair, supported by the Earl of Mountcashell, the Earl of Euston, and a host of baronets and members of Parliament. Amongst the speakers were, the Chairman, Mr. Montgomery Martin, Mr. Christopher, M.P., Mr. Ormsby Gore, M.P., Mr. Cayley, M.P., and Mr. Alnutt. Their main arguments were, that we had a heavy national debt, that one concession would lead to another, that the agitators were incendiaries and speculators, that farm labourers liked to have wheat at 80s. or 100s., for then they got good wages, and that farmers paid poor rates. Such were the fallacies and falsehoods uttered, and such the fallacies and falsehoods to be printed and circulated throughout the country. A more effectual mode of combating the agitators was resorted to. It was to disturb their meetings by sending upon them some newly found allies of the aristocracy and the soilowners. They knew that they could effect nothing under fair discussion, and the plan was, if possible, to prevent any discussion.
On the following Thursday (Feb. 28th) the Manchester Anti-Corn-Law Association met in the Corn Exchange, to receive a report from the delegates who had been in London. It might have been supposed that the meeting of members of a particular association, held to receive the report of its representatives, would not have been intruded upon by men who were neither of the body nor invited; but it was soon seen that a number of noisy vagabonds had been brought there for the express purpose of ​disturbing the proceedings. Several members had addressed the meeting, when a person, who has since repented of the course he then took, demanded the right of speaking before a working man named Moore, and because the chairman decided in favour of Moore speaking, proposed to place in the chair one whom he called "honest Pat Murphy,"a potato-wheeler in Shudehill, who, whatever his honesty might be, was not very cleanly, and very far from being sober. The scene that followed was unexampled in Manchester, and almost baffled description. Upon the proposer calling out, will you take the chair, "Pat Murphy?" one drunken and very dirty fellow mounted the table, his clogs making deep indentations on its surface, and bruising the reporters hands which were in his way, began to insult every body who asked him to get off, and replied to one who asked him to desist " D——n thy e'en, if theau spakes to me aw'll put me clogs i' thy chops." The proposer then moved that Pat Murphy take the chair, and cried "Come on Pat." The man was then pushed or dragged over the heads of the people, amidst great noise and confusion, and took his place before Mr. Thomas Harbottle, the chairman. The conclusion of the scene is thus reported:—
"Proposer: 'Gentlemen, three cheers for Stephens'—the cheers were given. 'Three groans for Archibald Prentice'—and the groans were given. Mr. Prentice expressed his thanks for the compliment. 'Gentlemen, three cheers for the National Convention.' (Cheers.) 'Three cheers for Oastler.'(Cheers.) 'Hand up the chair for Pat Murphy.' Some fellows here seized chairs which were in various parts of the room, and threw them at the heads of the persons who stood on the stage. The consequence was that a scene of riot and confusion ensued, several gentlemen being severely hurt by the ruffians, who smashed the forms and glasses of the lamps. The respectable persons of the meeting, with the chairman, then quitted the room, and left it in the possession of the ringleader, who congratulated the meeting upon having done his bidding, and his party, who, we are informed, passed a vote of thanks to the delegates to the National Convention by way of amendment to the original motion."
​The business could not have been better done had the Central Agricultural Society paid for the doing. It was seen how easy it was for two or three hundred persons, out of a meeting of two thousand, by noise and clamour, and resort to brute force, to drive away all the peaceably inclined and respectable; and it was to prevent the recurrence of such tumult and violence that future meetings were confined to members of the association, whose numbers increased so much that it became ultimately necessary to build a hall capable of holding eight thousand persons and even then there were men who designated the assemblages therein held as "hole and corner" meetings!
On Tuesday, 4th March, the members of the Manchester Anti-Corn-Law Association admitted by ticket, in order that physical-force men might not again interrupt their proceedings, assembled in the Corn Exchange, which was filled on the occasion. On the motion of Mr. Alderman Kershaw, Mr. Harbottle was called to the chair, who said that since the disgraceful outrage at the previous meeting, the Association had received the adhesion of numerous trades, in Manchester, anxious to show that they did not sanction the opposition then offered to its principles. Mr, Cobden, speaking in atone of indignation, which gave effect to every word he uttered, gave evidence of the power that lay in him, so strikingly manifested in his subsequent energetic and long continued labours. He said:—
"There is nothing I like so much as free discussion, and settling the truth by the test of reason and argument. I shall never flinch from meeting any man, or any body of men, who, as reasonable beings, are disposed to take up the advocacy of the Corn Laws.(Cheers.) But I must protest, in the name of the working classes of Manchester, against the conduct of men who will prevent all discussion upon this important question (hear, hear), and I will venture to say, in the name of the men of this town, great body of the intelligent, hardworking, respectable that they are as deeply disgusted, and feel themselves as much ​disgraced, if they can be disgraced by the conduct of others, as we do, at the men who, in their name, feloniously broke in upon this room, which we had paid for, and violently took possession of property which we were pledged to preserve or to pay for; and then, having driven out those who had paid for the use of the room, took upon themselves to
Mr. Cobden went on to show that the question was emphatically the poor man's question, for it was not wine or luxuries that we wished to have in exchange for our manufactures, but food—the food of the working classes. He asked if ever these classes were prosperous when food was not cheap, and concluded a speech, which produced a great effect upon the working men present, by saying,"We take our stand upon a fixed principle ; we say we will have no duty; we will have a total, immediate, and unconditional repeal.; We shall go forward in our cause, not turning out of our way to molest others, whatever their object may be, but claiming the right to ourselves, as free citizens, to meet and discuss these questions at all times. And we call for the co-operation of all the honest, hard-working men of this town, to go with us to fight this great battle manfully, and to the end; and whenever they see on our banners one word about compromise or accepting a fixed duty, then we tell the people, who always stuck to, principle, to abandon us from that moment." Mr. Absalom Watkins, Mr. John Brooks, some working men and ​myself addressed the meeting, and the resolutions of thanks, and of recommendation that the movement should no longer be sectional but national were passed, without opposition, except from a small band of men who had made some effort to disturb the meeting, but were unsuccessful.
The League delegates met in the rooms of the Manchester Association on the following Thursday (March 7th), and thence adjourned to the Corn Exchange, where a numerous meeting was assembled. The following delegates were present:—Manchester: The Mayor (Sir Thomas Potter), Alderman Callender, Alderman Cobden, E. H. Greg, H. Hoole, Alderman Kershaw, Wm. Rawson, S. Robinson, C. J. S. Walker, George Wilson. Leeds: E. Baines, jun., Thomas Plint, James Garth Marshall, Peter Fairbairn, John Wilkinson, John Massey, H. Stanfield. Halifax: James Houtson, Jon. Ackroyd, John Gledhill, Samuel Smith, James Clarkson, John Baldwin, W. Barraclough. Lancaster: The Mayor (J. Armstrong), T. H. Higgin. London: P. A. Taylor,———Young. Preston:———Addison. Glasgow: Todd, William Weir, Alex. Johnstone, W. Craig, John Pennant. Birmingham Jos. Sturge, W. Boultbee,———Edwards. Bradford W. Byles,———Priestnal, Miles Illingworth. Bolton: The Mayor, A. W. Paulton, H. Ashworth, E. Ashworth. Burnley G. Barnes, John Sellars. St. Pancras: James Foraby, John Newberry. Leicester: Kempson. Dundee: Kinloch of Kinloch, D. Baxter. Nottingham :Messrs. Close and Bean. Edinburgh: John Whigham, Hon. E. Murray. Huddersfield David Shaw, William Williams, Frederick Schwann, Thomas Starke, Joseph Batley. Hull: Colonel Thompson. Sowerby Bridgfe James Fielding. Kendal : Alderman Wilson. Warrington Thomas Eskrigge, John Rylands. Derby:———Johnson.Wigan: J.S Heron. Liverpool: Charles Holland, A. T. Atkinson,———Baxter,———Wood.
In the absence of Mr. J. B. Smith, Mr. E. H. Greg was ​called to the chair. The speaking was mainly on the means of influencing members of the House of Commons, members of the and especially of administration who, returned by large constituencies, might receive instructions from their supporters. I copy the resolutions which were passed, to show the spirit with which the delegates met their first defeat:—
"Moved by Mr. Young, of Mary-le-bone; seconded by Mr. Johnstone, of Glasgow, supported by Mr. Edmonds, of Birmingham:—
"That the refusal to hear evidence against the Corn and Provision Laws, in the manner best calculated to expose their pernicious tendency, thus virtually closing the door of Parliament against the manufacturing and commercial population, is calculated to impair the confidence of the nation in the wisdom and justice of the legislature. Evidence collected from all parts of the kingdom, by the delegates, since their last meeting in Manchester, proves, beyond their former knowledge, that these laws are exercising a most pernicious influence upon manufacturing and commercial industry; whilst, at the same time, without benefiting the landowner, they are shown to operate most injuriously upon the interest of the cultivators of the soil, and especially upon that numerous class the distressed agricultural labourers."
"Moved by Mr. Marshall, of Leeds; seconded by Mr. Sturge of Birmingham, supported by Mr. Flint, of Leeds, and Mr. Taylor, of London:—
"That, whilst the thanks of the country are due to those members of the House of Commons who supported the prayer of the delegates, this meeting has seen, with regret and astonishment, among their opponents the names of certain of the people's representatives who have always been esteemed inimical to every species of monopoly and mis-government. Whilst calling on their fellow-countrymen to suspend their opinion of those legislators until they shall have recorded their votes upon the substantive motion, shortly to be submitted to the House of Commons, the delegates earnestly hope that, on that occasion, every friend of freedom will be found advocating the right of the people to procure the first necessaries of life, in exchange for the! produce of labour, in the cheapest markets in the world."
"Moved by Mr. Cobden, of Manchester; seconded by Mr. Holland, of Liverpool, supported by Mr. Weir, of Glasgow:—
"That the statesmen who undertake to administer the offices of this commercial empire, ought to bring to the responsible task, not only a ​comprehensive knowledge of its interests, but also a decision of character adequate to the due application of their principles on all great emergencies. The repeal of the Corn and Provision Laws being a measure admitted, not only by its advocates, but by its opponents, to be of the most vital importance to the empire, cannot, with justice or safety, be made an open question by any administration. This meeting, nevertheless, behold with regret, that, upon the late division on Mr. Villiers' motion, the Queen's ministry declared their neutrality, as a cabinet, upon this great national question, thereby abandoning the exercise of one of its most important functions."
"Moved by Mr. Kinloch, of Dundee; seconded by the Mayor of Manchester, supported by the Hon. J. E. Murray, of Edinburgh:—
"That the delegates, having learned that on Tuesday evening Mr. Villiers brings on a motion in the House of Commons, for a committee of the whole house on the subject of the Corn Laws, do forthwith adjourn to London, and that the first meeting take place at Brown's Hotel, Palace Yard, at eleven o'clock on Tuesday morning the 12th instant."
"Moved by Mr. Whigham, of Edinburgh; seconded by Mr. Ackroyd, of Halifax, supported by Colonel Thompson:—
"That the delegates having, since their separation in London, received full powers from their constituents, to adopt whatever measures they may deem advisable for obtaining the total repeal of the Corn and Provision Laws, determined, as the surest means of effecting the good object, to promote, by every means in their power, a union of those great communities represented on this occasion; and they appeal to the co-operation of every class and calling in the country to aid them in throwing off, by an united and national effort, the the most pernicious tax ever imposed by a legislature."
The censure, contained in these resolutions, on the neutrality of the administration, gave offence to a number of persons who professed free-trade principles, but would rather have their assertion delayed until gentlemen in office felt themselves disposed to make political capital of them. The delegates, however, disregarding these outside murmurings, met in increased strength in London at the time appointed, and having called Mr. J. B. Smith to the chair, the resolutions passed at their meeting in Manchester were read and confirmed. Amongst the speakers was ​Daniel O'Connell, who met the allegation that the high price of food raised the wages of labour, by stating that the very reverse was the case in Ireland, where the euthanasia of the Corn Laws was a halfpenny an hour, or sixpence a-day, to the agricultural labourer. Dr. Bowring, as one of the evidence committee, said that statements given in by various members of the delegation, showed that the danger was even more imminent than it had been before represented.
On the same day (March 12th) Mr. Villiers moved in the House of Commons, that it should resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, to take into consideration the Act 9, Geo. IV., regulating the importation of foreign corn, and a debate ensued which extended over five sittings. The speakers in favour of the motion were: C. P. Villiers, Sir George Strickland, C. P. Thomson, Sir W. Molesworth, Mr. Grote, Mr. Clay, Joseph Hume, Mark Philips, Mr Hobhouse, Mr. Joseph Brotherton, John Fielden, Daniel O'Connell, and Mr. Denniston. The speakers against the motion were: Mr. Cayley, Sir Edward Knatchbull, Mr. Christopher, the Earl of Darlington, Mr. Wodehouse, Lord Howick, Colonel Wood, Mr. Handley, Sir R. Peel, S. O'Brien, Sir John Tyrrell, Mr. Bennett,. Viscount Sandon, Mr. Harvey, and Mr. Wood. On the division the numbers were:—
| For the motion | 195 |
| Against it | 342 |
On February 18th there was a majority of 189, that the petitioners against the Corn Laws should not be allowed to prove the truth of their allegations. On the 19th March there was a majority of 147 against taking the operations of the Corn Law into consideration. Something more was required to induce honourable members to consider, and something more still to come to honest action.