# History of the Anti-Corn Law League/Chapter13

CHAPTER XIII.
MOVEMENTS IN THE BOROUGHS.
On the 11th March a numerous meeting was held in the Manchester Town Hall, to consider the propriety of petitioning against the renewal of the Poor-Law Amendment Act. The speakers were principally conservatives, and some ultra-radicals were with them. I did not agree with them in their admiration of the old law, under which, in the agricultural districts, much tyranny was exercised, but I said then, with reference to the workhouse, I thought there might he some reason for doubting the propriety of giving relief to the able-bodied labourers in a country free from a heavy burden of taxation, and where there was a good demand for labour; but to talk of throwing a man on his own resources in a country where his very scanty earnings were taxed to the extent of one-fourth of the whole for the purposes of the government, and his bread to the extent of another fourth for the protection of the landowners, was absurd and wicked. The chairman said "We are not here to discuss the Corn Laws;" to which my reply was: "Nor am I but I am here to assert that to throw the working man entirely upon his own resources when government taxation and iniquitous monopolies take away one half of his earnings is a gross outrage."
At a meeting of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, held on the 12th March, Mr. J. B. Smith in the chair, a ​valuable report was presented from the directors "on the injurious effects of restriction on trade, and the necessity of immediate changes in our commercial policy, as proved by the report and evidence of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Import Duties, during the last session of Parliament." The report was ordered to be printed as a pamphlet, and its wide circulation did much to direct public attention to the important evidence given by official men, of long experience and sound judgment, as to the injurious workings of our restrictive commercial policy. In the subsequent discussion Mr. John Shuttleworth, after referring to the important evidence of Mr. M'Gregor upon the heavy duties imposed upon articles of import, and which would be greatly increased in consumption under moderate duties, said " There was another class of evils which originated not in the ignorance or incapacity of our legislators, but in their cupidity and selfishness. Amongst that class of evils was one which he was glad to see so forcibly dwelt on in the report, the Corn Laws, which presented the broadest and blackest features in the grievances of which they had to complain." Mr. John Brooks, who scarcely ever spoke without some observation which excited amusement by its humour, and afterthought by its truth, said, in reference to changes in trade, that the motion downwards was a tumble and all at once, but getting up again was a scramble, and a work of time and great difficulty. Mr. W. Read, at the request of the chairman, gave some particulars as to the adulterations of tobacco in consequence of the enormous duty, which amounted to 4s. per pound, while the manufactured article varied from 3s. 2d. to 2s. 3d., and some was sold by retail as low as 16d. a pound; Mr Stott, another tobacconist, frankly acknowledged that he could not afford to sell genuine tobacco, but was obliged to do as other people did. Mr. J. C. Dyer in the course of a very able speech exposed the absurdity of the assertion of the protectionists that a ​low price of food caused low wages; and Mr. Cobden was quite of opinion that the questions of free trade and the Corn Laws had made more progress during the last two years than they had during the whole seventy years after the publication of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations," and proceeded to give a history of the progress of the United States, and to argue the mutual advantages that would result from the establishment of free commercial intercourse between the producers of food there and the manufacturers, employers, and employed, of our own country.
The Mayor of Manchester (Mr. W. Nield), in compliance with a requisition very numerously signed, had called a public meeting to be held in the Town Hall, on Friday, March 19th. The chartists—rather perhaps men professing to be chartists—had the walls covered with placards, not issued until the evening before the day of meeting,asking, "Why do these liberal manufacturers bawl so lustily for the repeal of the Corn Laws," and answering, "because, with the reduced price of corn, they will be enabled to reduce the wages of the working men, in order that they may compete with foreigners who live upon potatoes." To support this landlord fallacy, strangely and suspiciously re-echoed from Manchester, the working men were urged to "go in thousands" and "expose the cantting hypocrites." In obedience to this call, a crowd of who were persons, recognised as belonging to the class "physical-force" of chartists, assembled considerably before the time appointed, who, the moment the doors were open, rushed into the hall, and on the motion of Mr. Elijah Dixon, seconded by Mr. E. Nightingale, resolved that the Rev. Mr. Scholefield should take the chair. The Mayor arriving immediately afterwards took the chair as a matter of course, and great confusion ensued. The mayor persisted firmly in keeping his place, and Mr. Scholefield having a chair placed for him on the reporters table, also ​had the semblance of being chairman. With this double security for order Mr. Cobden addressed the meeting, and at once boldly grappled with the question which had been raised by the placards, and successfully demolished other fallacies put forth by the monopolists, demonstrating that the working classes had a deeper interest in the repeal of the Corn Laws than any other portion of the community. The Rev. W. M'Kerrow followed, and eloquently urged opposition to a tax upon the food of the people as a religious duty. The honour of leading the opposition was not confided to a townsman, but to Mr. M'Douall, a noted chartist lecturer, from Bury or its neighbourhood, who, while he acknowleged the Corn Law to be an evil, was lavish in his abuse of those who were labouring to procure its repeal, attributing their zeal to their desire to keep up "the hellish factory system," and to pull down the wages of the working men. He moved a resolution in favour of the charter. Several other noted chartists, some of them men who at any time would rather talk than work, having spoken in the same strain, Mr. Cobden rose very quietly to reply. He said the first and every successive speaker had denounced the Corn Law as unjust. Now, if he found an injustice anywhere, common sense told him to endeavour to put it down. What was the argument of his opponents? "Why no," said they, "if you put an end to this evil something else unjust will arise, and unless you will give a guarantee that nothing else unjust shall arise, we will not allow this to be put down." The resolution which had been proposed, condemnatory of the Corn Laws, was then put by the two chairman, the Mayor declaring that it was lost, and Mr. Scholefield that it was carried. The original resolution was then put and carried so decisively, that when the "contrary" was put, not a single hand was held up. Amongst the ministers of the gospel who were present, but prevented by the turn of the proceedings from ​taking a part, were the Revs. Dr. Halley, F. Beardsall, J. L. Poore, J. Gwyther, and J. Birt.
A special meeting of the Town Council, of Manchester, was held on Wednesday, March 17th, to take the import duties into consideration. The speakers were Mr. John Shuttleworth, Mr. Thomas Hopkins, Mr. J. P. Westhead,Mr. Cobden, myself, and Mr. John Spencer, and a petition was agreed to in favour of a tariff in agreement with liberal principles of commercial policy. On Wednesday, March 31st, another special meeting of the council was held, at, which Mr. Cobden brought forward a motion for the adoption of a petition praying for the repeal of the Corn and Provision Laws. He prefaced his speech by avowing his belief that the question was as much a local one as that of poor's rate, police rate, or any other local import, and that there were few in Manchester who were in favour of the law as it then stood, the only difference of opinion being as to the change which should be sought. On that point he was the last person who ought to dogmatize, for when, five or six years back, he published his "England, Ireland, and America," he had stated that he had no more objection to a small fixed duty on corn than to a fixed duty on coffee or sugar, but some gentleman in London, a stranger to him but a friend to truth, wrote to him, drawing his attention to the difference that existed between levying a duty on an article grown at home, and one of foreign production only, and a little inquiry satisfied him that he was entirely wrong. Mr. Cobden went on to argue that a duty on corn pressed most heavily on the classes that were least able to bear it; that for every shilling of duty on corn imported, there was a shilling paid, and previously paid, to the grower in this country for his sole benefit; that every argument in favour of protecting the home growth of corn would Equally apply to the home growth of cotton in hot-houses that it would be better for farmers to have the duty on corn abolished at once than ​reduced gradually, because he could come to a fresh arrangement with his landlord at once, instead of having to make one every year during the process of reduction; and that there would be no "sudden inundation" of foreign corn under free trade, as the additional supply would scarcely ever exceed a fourth of the whole consumption. On these grounds he advocated the total and immediate repeal of the Corn Laws; and he would exhort those who had any fears as to the result to satisfy their minds as to what was strictly just in the case, and, having done so, to leave the consequences to the God of justice. Mr. John Mayson argued for repeal as a moral duty, and stated his belief that it would contribute greatly to the physical benefit and the moral advancement of the industrial classes. Mr. George Wilson denied that the agriculturists bore any burthen in which the other classes of the community did not bear their full share, and read some statements proving that the agricultural labourers were in a wretched condition notwithstanding the protection, which it was said was for their benefit. Mr. George Chappell having advocated gradual repeal for the sake of farmers, I spoke at some length in favour of its being immediate, were it only for the benefit of farmers themselves, who were deprived by the Corn Laws of any outlet for the employment of their sons. The farmer could not make a provision for his family unless he sent them out to engage in commercial pursuits, and if commerce continued in its depressed state, the farmers in England and Scotland would soon be reduced, like the same class in Ireland, to a state of destitution and beggary. Mr. Alderman Brooks said that the simple question was what was right, and that being ascertained, it should be gone for at once. Mr. Alderman Callender thought that every law should be for the benefit, not of the few but of the many and, therefore, was for the repeal of one which was selfishness personified. Mr. S. Stocks said that while there was much cry about ​the vested interests of the landowners, the interests of the poor man, whose earnings were from five to fifteen shillings a week, should not be left out of consideration. The resolutions in favour of total repeal were passed unanimously.
Cobden was now beginning to be recognised as one of the most prominent leaders, out of Parliament, of the free-trade movement; and the free traders were now saying how desirable it was that he should be sent to represent their principles in the House of Commons. This was not acceptable to the old whig party. He was an unsafe man, they said; a man of ultra opinions could effect no good in the legislature; however popular he might be out of doors, it required a different kind of talent to make any impression in Parliament; he would soon find his level there. The usual reply to such talk was: "Yes he will find his level there, but it will be a higher level than he now stands upon—a higher level than nine-tenths of the members of the present House of Commons stand upon. He is not the mob orator. He is the same man in the stormy public meeting, as he is in the Town Council, the Chamber of Commerce, or the Conference of Delegates, where men of the highest intelligence are gathered together from all parts of the kingdom. He has every quality required for Parliament except rhetorical oratory, and, even on that point, his speaking, now that men look more for reason than florid rhetoric, will be found quite as effective as the best orator in the house."
It will be seen by the brief sketches I have given of discussions on the Corn Law, that while landlord fallacies were acutely examined and remorselessly demolished, the simple question was frequently put, "Is it just?" And the religious element was as often manifested as the politico-economical, and another question often asked was, "Is it right that man's law should intercept in its transit the food which God has provided for all his creatures?" ​I thought that the Bible might as well be quoted as the "Wealth of Nations," and wrote the following, which, as one of the short tracts of the League, was widely circulated:
"THERE IS CORN IN EGYPT."
"We read in the earliest authentic record that has come down to modern times, that about nineteen hundred years before the Christian era, a Chaldean, having taken up his residence in Canaan, was exposed, along with all the people by whom he was surrounded, to a grievous famine. Being in possession of wealth he was not compelled to remain and starve, but enabled to remove into Egypt, which was not suffering under the same infliction; and we are told that Abram, for that was the name of the chief, 'went down to sojourn there,' there being abundance of corn in the annually irrigated valleys of the Nile. The Rev. Mathew Henry, of Chester, writing, about a hundred and forty years ago, a commentary upon the ancient record of these facts, says of this temporary migration of Abram: 'See how wisely God provides that there should be plenty in one place, when there was scarcity in another, that, as members of the great body' (the great family of mankind) 'we may not say to one another, 'I have no need of you.'
"How well the old Chester divine anticipated the most enlightened of political economists! It needed no elaborate process of reasoning to convince him that the abundance or super abundance in one quarter of the earth should go to mitigate the wants which were suffered in another, for he knew, that, in the general providence of God, there never was, and never would be, an insufficient supply of food for mankind. He knew that there never was a famine over all the earth at one time—that there never was a famine in one country without a corresponding increase of production in another; and, regarding all men as alike the objects of the Creator's care, he saw that the balance was easily and simply to be had by exchange. His religion told him that men ought thus to depend upon each other, and he regarded the mutual dependence as a proof of the wisdom of God, lest man, in his pride, should say to his brother, 'I have no need of thee.' Had Mathew Henry lived till now, how would he have been astonished at the doctrine that a whole community had better be reduced to starvation, than that, at any time, they should depend on their neighbours for a supply of food!
"The religious political economist—for religion teaches true wisdom by the shortest possible process—goes on to say: 'God's providence took care that there should be a supply in Egypt, and Abram's prudence made use of the opportunity; for we tempt God, and do not trust him, if, ​in the time of distress, we use not the meant he has graciously provided for our preservation. We must not expect useless miracles.'
"If a multitude of starving people were on one side of a brook, and on the other there was an abundance of corn for which there was no consumer, would it not be a tempting and a mistrusting of God, who had provided that superfluity, if they did not use the means he had graciously provided for their preservation—if they did not take of such things as they could spare, and give them in exchange for that for the lack of which they were on the brink of starvation? It would be the height of presumption and profanity if they looked for useless miracles—if they stood listlessly still and expected manna to be rained down from heaven, while before them lay the produce of an abundant harvest, and all that they had to do was to cross the brook and make an amicable bargain for a share?
"About two hundred years after the Chaldean chief had sought supply in Egypt, in the time of a descendant of his, who had arrived at the rank of a great prince, another famine afflicted the land, and he, like his ancestor, sought for relief from the abundance of a more fortunate country. We find it recorded 'that, when Jacob saw that there was corn in Egypt he said unto his sons: Why do you look one upon another? Behold, I have heard that there is corn in Egypt; get you gone down thither, and buy for us from them, that we may live and not die.' Upon this passage, full as it is of instruction to us, who live three thousand five hundred years after the event, and yet have framed laws to prevent the abundance of one country from relieving the distresses of another, the enlightened commentator—enlightened by the very spirit of the—old record says:—
"'Thus Providence orders it that one place should be a succour and supply to another, for we are all brethren. The Egyptians, the seed of accursed Ham, have plenty, when God's blessed Israel want. Thus God, in dispensing common favours, often crosses hands. Jacob saw that there was corn in Egypt; he saw the corn that his neighbours had bought there and brought home. It is a spur to exertion to see where supplies are to be had, and to see others supplied. He reproved his sons for delaying to provide corn for their families. He said, 'Why do you look one upon another ?' Note, when we are in trouble and want, it is folly for us to stand looking one upon another; that is, to stand desponding and despairing as if there was no hope, no help; to stand disputing, either which shall have the honour of going first, or the safety of coming last; to stand deliberating and debating what we shall do, and doing nothing. Let it never be said, 'we left that to be done to-morrow which we could as well have done to-day.' Jacob quickened them to go to Egypt.'Get you down thither.' Masters of families must ​not only pray for daily bread for their families, and food convenient, but must lay themselves out with care and industry to provide it.'
"Again, 'the famine was sore in the land,' and again the patriarch sent his sons to bring home food; but doubting whether money alone could purchase what was so much needed, he said to them: 'Take of the best fruits of the land in your vessels, a little balm, and a little honey, spices and myrrh, nuts and almonds.' And again does the Christian commentator, out of that right religious sentiment which so often leads to right judgment on the most complex questions, utter sound principles of political economy: He sent a present of such things as the land afforded, balm and honey, spices and myrrh, nuts and almonds, the commodities that Canaan exported. Providence dispenses its gifts variously. Some countries produce one commodity, others another, that commerce may be preserved. Honey and spices will never make up for the want of bread corn. The famine was sore in Canaan, and yet they had balm and myrrh. We may live well enough on plain food without dainties, but we cannot live upon dainties without plain food. Let us thank God that that which is most needful and useful is generally most cheap and common.' Yes, generally, for in the goodness of God there is abundance of corn and provisions upon the earth for the use of all his creatures, if they were freely exchanged; but our laws permit the importation of 'dainties'—the spices, the balm, the myrrh, the nuts and the almonds—for the use of the law makers, while, for their sole benefit, 'plain food,' the food of the multitude is rigorously excluded till there is a famine as sore in the land as that which afflicted Canaan.