# History of the Anti-Corn Law League/Chapter14

CHAPTER XIV.
CHANGE OF ADMINISTRATION.
On Thursday, April 15th, a meeting was held in Manchester of delegates from the principal towns of the kingdom, for the purpose of considering the course of proceeding to be recommended to the meeting to be held in London, on the occasion of Mr. Villiers's motion being brought before the House of Commons. The resolutions passed were brought forward for confirmation at a public meeting, held in the evening in the Corn Exchange, attended by nearly two thousand members of the association
The chair was occupied by Mr. J. B. Smith, and on his right sat C. P. Villiers, M.P., H. Ashworth, E. Ashworth, G. W. Wood, M.P., Sir Thomas Potter, T. Milner Gibson, Richard Cobden, C. J. S. Walker, E. Armitage, Robert Gardner, Holland Hoole, W. Rawson, Thomas Harbottle, Joseph Brotherton, M.P., and R. H. Greg, M.P. Among the deputies were Sir Joshua Walmesley, H. P. Atkinson, and W. Duffy, from Liverpool; J. Higginbottom, Ashton; Peter Rylands, Warrington; John Bright, Rochdale; G. Barlow, N. Mellor, and T. Hall, Oldham; A. W. Paulton, Bolton; T. Cheetham, W. H. Sefton, Mr. Dudley, and Alderman Hollins, Stockport; M. Clayton and R. Milligan, Bradford and James Wilson, London.
Mr. James Wilson (afterwards of the Economist) moved: "That this meeting recommends to the Council of the ​National Anti-Corn-Law League, to invite, by circular, deputies from all the anti-corn-law associations in the kingdom to assemble in London, at the time when Mr. Villiers shall bring forward his annual motion on the subject of the Corn Laws." Mr. J. C. Dyer seconded the motion, and it was carried. Mr. John Bright, on his way towards that higher "level" which he and Mr. Cobden were soon to find, moved a resolution that members of Parliament should be waited upon, and invited to support Mr. Villiers on that occasion. He spoke effectively, but very briefly, on the misery occasioned by the Corn Laws. Mr. Cobden said only a few words at the close of the meeting. Gibson, their future able coadjutor, spoke, as representative of the London association, at some length, and with much point of argument and wit. The principal speech was Mr. Villiers's, who expressed his belief in success in Parliament, with a manly, spirited, and intelligent co-operation from without. He happily ridiculed some of the fallacies enunciated by the landowners, and, in reference to one of them, stated that Sir William Molesworth intended to move for a committee to ascertain what were the real relations between the price of food and the rate of wages. The Corn Laws, he said, were the great and flagrant deviation from the principle of legislating for the general good and not for particular interests. He said that he could not but hope, that many would now give their aid to the movement who had not yet taken any prominent part in it, and alluded particularly to ministers of religion for he could not conceive anything more immediately within the province of the disciples of Him, who said "feed my people," and that "the labourer is worthy of his hire," than to inculcate the charity of feeding the poor, by enabling them by honest industry to feed themselves. The Rev. S. Beardsall, seconded by the Rev. W. Mountford, moved the following resolution in accordance with Mr. Villiers's remarks: "That the constantly ​increasing physical sufferings of the labouring population, arising from the want of employment and the scarcity of food, are inimical to the progress of religion and morality ; and this meeting earnestly appeals to ministers of the gospel, and to philanthropists and Christians of every denomination, to lend their aid in the Effort to abolish the unjust tax upon the importation of the first necessaries of life—a tax which impiously thwarts the bounteous designs of Providence, who has prepared abundantly upon the face of the earth for the wants of all his creatures."
Carrying out the movement upon electoral boroughs, Mr. Cobden, Mr. George Wilson, and myself, were deputed to visit Wigan, where we were introduced to a numerous meeting of the electors, in the Commercial Hall, by Mr. J. S. Heron, one of the borough magistrates. Mr. Wilson gave a clear and distinct view of the mischievous operation of the Corn Law. I exposed the falsehood of the assertion that it had operated to the benefit of farmers or farm-labourers, and exhorted the electors that if any candidate offered himself who would not vote for its total and unconditional repeal, to tell him to go home and study political economy. Mr. Cobden argued for total repeal, and his familiar illustrations, home truths, and luminous expositions, brought rounds of applause at the conclusion of almost every sentence. He was followed by the Rev. Mr. Roaf, in an eloquent and argumentative speech, and a resolution was passed, that the electors present pledged themselves that they would support no candidate who would not vote for the total abolition of the Corn Laws.
Various indications had been given during the session of Parliament that ministers were unsafe in their position, and rumours began to arise of a dissolution being at hand and as it could not be believed that they would resort to that step without passing some measure that would secure them popular support, much speculation took place as to what would be the election "cry." It was anticipated that, ​as the anti-corn-law agitation was daily becoming more active and more formidable, the attempt would be made to obtain the support of the League to the tottering administration. Notwithstanding this expectation, the House of Commons seemed to be taken with surprise when, on the night of Friday, April 30th, Lord John Russell gave notice that on the 30th of May he should move, "That the house resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, to consider of the acts relating to the trade in corn." This announcement was received with vehement cheering from the opposition members, who regarded it as a confession that ministers felt the necessity of a new cry, followed by counter-cheering from the ministerial benches, the occupants desiring to have it understood that the movement would be a successful one. The subsequent excitement and confusion, indicated that neither party was so confident as the noisy demonstrations would seem to evince. The opposition obviously were afraid that good whig "political capital" would be made out of the step in advance, and the ministerialists, as obviously, were afraid that it came too late to secure the assistance of those who demanded total, immediate, and unconditional repeal. Perhaps the fear was greatest on the side of the opposition. They were enraged that the Melbourne ministry had taken a course by which they could recover a portion of their lost popularity. They had seen ministers damaging their reputation by half measures, brought forward only to be abandoned; they had seen, with exultation, the people holding aloof from men who had ceased to be regarded; with confidence they had calculated on a continuance of the same timid, and consequently estranging policy they had calculated on a few more instances of abandonment of the only principles which could give them a hold on public confidence; and they had thought that the pear was fast ripening, and that the time was rapidly approaching, when they should only have to extend the hand, and ​appropriate it to themselves. But ministers disappointed them. They had a good card left in the pack, and they played it; the mistake was, that they did not play the best. On the 7th of May, Lord John Russell declared his intention of proposing a fixed duty of 8s. per quarter on wheat, of 5s. on rye, of 4s. 6d. on barley, and of 3s. 4d. on oats.
The course followed by the Anti-Corn-Law League, on the intelligence that a change in the law was to be made a cabinet measure, was in accordance with all the previous measures of the body. It existed as the pledged opponent of any impost whatever on the people's bread. The council met at Manchester on Saturday, May 1st, and addressed letters to all the associations, urging them to redoubled exertions for the total repeal of the Corn Laws. A special and more numerous meeting, attended by a number of influential members from the surrounding towns, was held on the following Tuesday, when it was moved by Mr. John Bright, seconded by Mr. Alderman Kershaw: " That, under the more encouraging circumstances in which the question of the bread tax is now placed, it is highly expedient that redoubled efforts be made to obtain a full expression of public opinion, in condemnation of that unjust and inhuman enactment;" and "That, in order to carry into effect the foregoing resolution, a deputation shall be sent to Birmingham, Hull, Bristol, and Newcastle, and such other towns as the council think proper, in order to rouse the inhabitants to the absolute necessity of making increased exertions to forward petitions to the House of Commons at this important crisis of the great question of the repeal of the bread tax."
An address from the council of the League, signed by its chairman, Mr. George Wilson, was issued and widely distributed, urging the free traders throughout the kingdom to be up and doing, and recommending the demand ​for total repeal as the true policy of even those who might be more anxious to support ministers than to have completely free importation at once:—
"Ministers have announced their intention to seek to re-adjust the balance between a decreasing revenue and an increasing expenditure,tariff, as far as they can, to one constructed on the principle of taxing from revenue alone, not for protection. They have at the same time announced their intention of grappling with the by approximating our inevitable question of the bread tax. But they have kept the two questions separate. With the tariff they got to work at once. But with regard to the bread tax, they announce that a month hence they will invite the legislature to deliberate on what is to be done. They say to the country, as plain as words can speak, 'Tell us what you want, and what amount of support we can look for.'
"The true view to take of the ministerial step of Friday evening is, that they are feeling their way, to learn what they can, and what they ought to do. Therefore, do we say, that they are the true friends of their country, who, between this time and the first of June, will exert themselves most strenuously to show ministers and the House of Commons what is the real wish of the people on the great question of the bread tax. Honesty now, and always is, the best policy. There must be no reserve; every man must tell frankly what he wants—the whole of what he wants. The man who, thinking, or professing to think, that the law which imposed the bread tax ought at once to be swept from the statute book, is as false to the government as to the cause, if he persuades those who wish for total and immediate repeal to ask for less. He bids them deceive government; he bids them tell government that fewer are prepared to back them in a total repeal than really are; he bids them tell government that a measure will give satisfaction which he knows will not. Asking for all we want, cannot weaken our cause in Parliament."
On Thursday evening, May 6th, an important meeting was held in the Music Hall, Liverpool, convened by placard on one day's notice by the Anti-Corn-Law Association of that great commercial town, and a deputation from the Council of the League were present, consisting of Messrs. Thomas Bazley, John Brooks, Richard Cobden, and John Bright. The immense room was filled to overflowing, and hundreds of persons were unable to gain admittance. Sir Joshua Walmsley was called to the chair. Mr. Bazley, ​who stated the objects of the League in visiting Liverpool, said they had no wish to dictate to the people of Liverpool, but seeing that it was a common interest, they came to plead for the assistance of the important community of that borough. Mr. Bright next addressed the meeting, and spoke with great earnestness on the subject, which he conscientiously believed to be the most important which could then occupy their attention. He showed that the Corn Law was passed to make corn and food dear, by making it scarce, and appealed to the common sense and the moral and religious feeling of the audience, if a law having this object could really be productive of good to this or any other community. It was a quarrel, not between manufacturers and farmers, but between the bread-eating millions and the few who wish to monopolize the soil, and every honest man should give a helping hand in the great and good cause. Mr. J. Brooks was next called upon, and, in a speech remarkable for its happy illustration, he showed how the commerce of Great Britain was suffering from the fetters monopoly fastened upon it. Mr. Cobden next came forward, and beginning at the beginning, he pointed out how the bread tax had originated, how it had worked, the ruin which it had produced, and the prospect which its continuance opened to the country. He most happily illustrated the miserable policy of the Corn Law, its injustice to the industrious classes, and its evident tendency to reduce the prosperity of the country. He pointed out how farmers, agricultural labourers, manufacturers, ans artisans, were alike despoiled of the fruits of their honest labour, for the purpose of affording protection to the least numerous class. A Mr. Dix wished to reply to what he deemed the fallacies of the League, and for half-an-hour he spoke the usual string of absurdities which persons wholly ignorant of the subject, or interested in the monopoly, are accustomed to bring forward. Mr. Cobden replied, and calling Mr. Dix to the front of the ​platform, asked him a simple question "Do you say that the bread tax is a just tax?" Mr. Dix attempted to evade the question; but Mr. Cobden repeated it, with the addition of—"Answer the question; yes or no ?" " Do you say the bread tax is a just tax?" Mr. Dix replied, "I do !"
It is impossible to describe the exclamation of abhorrence with which this declaration was received. The hisses, groans, and signs of disapprobation were absolutely deafening. Mr. Cobden then, in a most felicitous manner, cut the ground from under the friend of the bread tax, and for nearly an hour argued, in a most lucid and powerfu lmanner, against the horrible injustice of the bread tax. William Rathbone, Esq., moved the following resolution, and Lawrence Heyworth, Esq. seconded it:—"That this meeting, deeply sensible of the gross injustice as well as impolicy of the existing Corn Laws, pledge themselves to persevere in their exertions to their total repeal." C. Holland, Esq., moved a vote of thanks to the deputation of the League, and declared that the inhabitants of Liverpool were greatly indebted to them for their visit, and for their eloquent and unanswerable speeches. Mr. Alderman Shiel seconded the resolution; and both resolutions were carried by acclamation. A more enthusiastic meeting was never held in Liverpool, and calculated to tell powerfully on the Parliament and the country. Only one day's notice was given, and yet the immense room was crammed to the ceiling, whilst hundreds could not gain admittance, and the speeches of the gentlemen composing the deputation were received with continued cheering; proving the deep interest felt in that great port in the great question of repealing the bread tax.
To give even the briefest report of the meetings which were held in various parts of the kingdom at this period would fill a volume. I find in my paper of May 15th, the following illustration of the manner in which men were bracing themselves up for the coming contest:—"Two ​members of the League were deputed last Thursday to visit Ashton-under-Lyne, Stalybridge, Dukinfield, Godley, and Hyde, to obtain subscriptions towards its object—the total repeal of the Corn Law. They had not one refusal from whig or tory, men of all political parties expressing their warmest wishes for the utter destruction of the monopoly. In that one day, in that comparatively narrow district, the deputation received subscriptions to the amount of £1,650." The same district made much heavier contributions afterwards when much wider operations made them necessary; but a contribution of 1,650 in one day, when ministers were promising an eight shilling duty, in the belief that it would be satisfactory to the Leaguers, and when their supporters were everywhere earnestly recommending a prompt acceptance of the offered concession, and designating as "impracticables all who did not thankfully declare for the compromise, pretty strongly proved that ministers had been too late with their onward movement.
The Whig Budget of 1841, though falling short of the requirements of justice in the matter of a great necessity of life, and of the immediate wants of a people reduced to great depth of distress, was a bold approach to the principles of a liberal commercial policy, the benefits of which had been elicited by the Import Duties Committee. The financial accounts for the year showed a heavy deficit which it was proposed to make good, not by the levying of new taxes, but, by lessening duties which burdened commerce, and diminished consumption. The duties on the importation of corn, in lieu of the sliding scale, would have made a considerable addition to the revenue. The protectionists set themselves determinedly against this modification of the old law, most unwisely, for duties productive to the exchequer would have been retentively held by every successive administration. On sugar, prohibition was to be exchanged for protection ; the produce of Cuba and Brazil was to be admitted to such competition with the ​sugar of our colonies as a differential duty to the extent of 50 per cent, would permit, and it was calculated that the gain to the revenue would be about 800,000. The protection of Canadian timber against Baltic was to be reduced from four hundred to a hundred and fifty per cent. "This budget," says the British Quarterly Review (No. II.), "was a measure presenting, many glaring faults and deficiencies, falling far short of the mark of justice and sound policy, but, with all its faults, it deserved to be characterised as the boldest, wisest, and best principled commercial and fiscal reform ever proposed by a British ministry. It had the transcendant merit of seeking to increase revenue by lessening taxation, to enrich the treasury by adding to the comforts of the people. Curious was the combination and interchange of sympathies on the part of the frightened and irritated monopolists. Canadian timber-merchants were scandalized at the possibility of Jamaica coffee being sweetened with Cuba sugar. Landlords were beside themselves with indignation at the meditated attack on lumberers, and West Indians were wild in the cause of dear wheat and crazy old ships."
A debate of eight nights was terminated on the 18th May. Lord Sandon had moved a resolution against the ministerial proposal to admit slave-grown sugar, and it was carried by a majority of 36, the numbers being 317 for, and 281 against it. The discussion embraced the whole question of free trade. Throughout the whole of it, and in the division with which it terminated, the conservatives and protectionists showed the folly that had repeatedly excluded them from office, when whig blundering seemed to open the door for their admission. They spoke and they voted against all amendment of our prohibitive and deeply injurious commercial policy, and Sir Robert Peel, so far from standing forth as a statesman fitted to lead and direct his party, exhibited himself as one humble enough to obey their behests. His declaration in favour of a sliding ​scale with all its uncertainty and attendant speculation and derangement of the currency, gave strong proof that he was opposed to ministers in the narrow spirit of partizanship, or that, if he had the ambition to rule on broader principles, he was willing, in the meantime, to follow in the wake of men infinitely below him in understanding. Lord John Russell, who has often great tact in availing himself of the blunders of his opponents, exhibited himself in favourable contrast to his able rival, and while advocating only a compromise between conflicting interests, gave utterance to doctrines in which the principles of entirely free trade were involved. The conclusion of his speech was what might have been expected had he, instead of only lessening the grievous burthen of an impoverishing tax, been proposing its immediate abolition—and for ever!
His lordship's peroration was about as good as one of the small tracts of the League—almost as good as Mathew Henry's commentary upon the text, "There is corn in Egypt." He here gave an indication that defeat that night was not to prevent his bringing on the motion with regard to the Corn Law of which he had given notice. All doubt upon that point was removed on the following Thursday night. The house was in a state of great excitement, the tories being driven almost to madness because the whigs did not consider the union of monopolists a sufficient reason for leaving office before they had brought their plans fully before the house. Lord Darlington, to be relieved from painful suspense, put the question to Lord John Russell when he meant to bring forward his motion, to which his lordship quietly replied, "On Friday, the fourth of June." It was understood that, besides having a discussion on the Corn Law then, ministers would bring forward the whole tariff, and that, if defeated, they would dissolve Parliament, and "appeal to the country"—appeal, however, being only to an electoral body in which his lordship, unfortunately for his new position, by his own avowal, had sought to give the preponderating influence to the landed interest.
During the protracted debate in the House of Commons, the ministerial defeat being anticipated, and when the defeat had been incurred, numerous meetings were held all over the country, and, generally, the principle recognised was the entire repeal of import duties on corn and provisions, with a reference to the ministerial measure as an instalment to be accepted without any compromise of the demand for full measures of justice. The town ​council met at Manchester, on the 17th, at which Mr. Cobden said he was glad to see fresh concessions to the cause of free trade, though they did not go so far as he did, and they might be regarded as pioneers to clear the road from many obstructions, and leave it more open for those who went the length of total repeal. On Tuesday, an excessively crowded meeting was held in the Town Hall, convened on the requisition of 1,360 firms and individuals, and presided over by the mayor. At a tea party in the evening, held in the Corn Exchange, which was attended by nearly eight hundred persons, amongst them many ladies, sixty of whom presided at the tea tables, there was much sound exposition of principle, and most painful details of the wretched condition of the people. The principal speakers were, Mr. J. B. Smith, Mr. L. Heyworth, of Liverpool, the Rev. Mr. Mc.Kerrow, the Rev. Daniel Hearne, Mr. Alderman Brooks, the Rev. J. W. Massie, who had done good service to the cause of free trade in Perth, and had recently been appointed minister of an independent chapel in Salford, Mr. T. M. Gibson, soon to be one of the members for Manchester. Mr. Geo. Thompson, who spoke as eloquently in attacking the landowners' monopoly as he had, in former years, when denouncing slavery, and about last, by none considered as any thing near the least, Mr. Cobden, who, in the course of one of those plain but telling speeches, for which people now called, whether he intended to address them or not, said: "Beginning myself without one shilling besides what I derived from my own industry, I have pushed my way along but I declare it, as my firm conviction, that had I been left to commence my career at the present day, such is the state of trade, I could not have a chance of rising. Let the young men who fill our warehouses think of this, and they will see the deep interest they have in this matter." He concluded by appealing, amidst great cheering, to Mr. Thompson, to give such a portion of his time ​as he could spare from the emancipation of a hundred millions of his fellow men in India, to the emancipation of his fellow countrymen from the effects of a depressing monopoly at home.
The Chamber of Commerce followed, and, at a meeting held on Thursday, the 20th of May, resolved: "That this meeting has learned with deep regret the decision of the House of Commons on Lord Sandon's motion—a decision which, in the opinion of this chamber, places in extreme jeopardy the largest foreign market for our cotton goods, the loss of which, at a period when our capitalists and operatives are suffering under an unparalleled depression of trade, would be fraught "with the most ruinous consequences to the surrounding community."
The working classes of Manchester were eager to join in this movement. A great number of active-minded men amongst them believing, in spite of the often and loudly reiterated assertions of the bread-taxers' hirelings to the contrary, that the great majority of their own order were fully convinced that the operation of the Corn Law was to lower their wages while it raised the price of their food, originated a requisition to the mayor to call an open-air meeting, where an opportunity might be given them to testify their abhorrence of the starvation–creating monopoly. In three days it received five thousand three hundred and ninety signatures, a fact of itself sufficiently demonstrative that they were very far from being indifferent to the question. The mayor returned a respectful answer, approving of the object of the meeting, but officially declining to call it, on the ground that he had already called and presided over one in the Town Hall for the same purpose. A meeting of the requisitionists was called, and upwards of two thousand of their number met, and resolved that a meeting should be held in Stephenson Square, that Mr. Cobden should be requested to preside, and that the various trades and temperance societies ​should be invited to form a grand procession previous to the meeting.
The demonstration was announced to take place on Wednesday, the 2nd of June. Two years before, a meeting, held in the Corn Exchange to receive the report of the anti-corn-law delegates to London, had been invaded by a rude and violent rabble; many meetings had been disturbed in a similar manner, no matter what their object was, by men professing chartism; and O'Connor, in his Northern Star, had issued his mandate to convert all meetings into demonstrations for the charter. The requisition for the Manchester meeting of the working classes—a meeting which would show that they did not sympathise with the physical-force chartists—was considered to be dangerous to the power assumed by those enemies to free discussion. So soon as the announcement appeared, the disturbers were at work. Bills in great profusion were posted on the walls, not only of Manchester, but of Bolton and other large towns, calling on the chartists to congregate in their "countless thousands," and put down the "humbug clap-trap of the League;" a formidable list was given of chartist leaders, who were to come from Huddersfield and other places to take part in the proceedings; Mr C. Wilkiris, the barrister, was reported to have presented a cheque at Messrs. Jones, Loyd, and Co.'s, drawn by the Duke of Buckingham for £150, and it was believed that this sum was to help the war of opposition; and hustings were put up during the night of Tuesday, closely adjoining those which had been erected by the requisitionists, in order that the hirelings, by having a place of their own to speak from, might throw the meeting into confusion and, by the mouth of their own chairman, announce a glorious victory over the "base whigs," who asked for the liberty of exchanging the products of their labour for food. The thinking working men of Manchester were roused by these preparations for disturbance. They thought this was a ​tyranny even worse than that which was attempted in vain by the "six acts" of Castlereagh, which had been passed expressly to prevent free discussion; and it was easy to see that sooner than permit this newly-assumed power of obstruction, force would be met by force, and the yellers and howlers subjected to a process of summary ejectment. From twenty different parts of the town there marched a band of at least a thousand men, each preceded by banners, bearing appropriate inscriptions. The congregated twenty thousand nearly filled the square. The chartists had previously surrounded the platform with their flags, which prevented a view being obtained of the speakers. One of a large size, inscribed "Down with the Whigs," especially obstructed the sight, and the chartists refusing to remove it to the outside, where the free-trade flags were ranged, an attempt was made to pull it down, or remove it. Sticks had been provided to aid in its defence, and were lustily laid on the heads of those who made the attempt, and the latter being unarmed, it seemed at first as if the bludgeons of the hundreds would prevail over the will of the thousands, but in the short conflict of a minute, the offending flags were seized and torn into ribbons, and the flag staffs, broken into short lengths, became formidable weapons, and in another minute the physical force men fled from the power which they had foolishly roused, each to consider, at the outside of the meeting, on the truth of the saying, that he had tried a game which others could play at. The platform was principally occupied by plain working men, representative of the requisitionists, and by gentlemen invited from the League and from the Young Men's Association, among whom were Sir Thomas Potter, and Messrs. Richard Cobden, Wm. Eawson, John Brooks, C. J. S. Walker, and Edward Watkin. With them stood Dr. Sleigh and Mr. Charles Wilkins, the barrister, sent by the Central Society for the Protection of Agriculture. Mr. Cobden being called to the chair, begged a fair hearing ​to all the speakers. Mr. E. Watkin moved a resolution, "That, in the opinion of this meeting, the bread tax is impolitic, injurious, and unjust." It was seconded by Mr. E. Daly.
" The Chairman then asked if any body wished to propose an amendment. "Dr. Sleigh: Yes; I do. " A person named Bairstow, a chartist, also expressed a similar intent. " The Chairman I am applied to by two parties to move amendments ; neither of these gentlemen are inhabitants of Manchester, but I have no objection that they should be heard, if it be your pleasure.(Cheers, and loud cries of No, no.') One of them is Mr. Bairstow; the other is Dr. Sleigh. I will first submit to your decision whether you will hear Mr. Bairstow, the delegate from Yorkshire.
" The meeting instantly, amidst loud cries of 'who sent him here,' decided that he should not be heard. " The Chairman, addressing Dr. Sleigh : Shall I now put it to the meeting whether it will hear you ? " Dr. Sleigh : No ; I wish you to call upon them to hear me, as I have been invited. "A chartist named Connor here said that he was an inhabitant of Manchester and wished to propose an amendment, but he was saluted by a volley of groans and hisses which were continued for several minutes when he retired."
It had been a resolution amongst the O'Connor chartists,acted upon on numerous occasions, that the advocates of free trade should not be permitted a hearing. The natural consequence of this tyranny was, that they were refused a hearing in their turn; and the determination amongst the working men in Manchester, nearly all radical themselves, was the stronger from the belief, that these men were not present from any love to the charter, but as the hirelings of the protectionists. On the intercession of the Rev. Mr. Hearne, Dr. Sleigh was heard, and patiently, until he declared his opinion that the Corn Law was not the cause of distress, when such a storm of disapprobation arose as to furnish him an excuse for retiring. He handed, however, an amendment to the chairman, to the effect that it would be unfair in the meeting to pass ​resolutions condemnatory of the Corn Laws without giving him a hearing. Mr. Charles Wilkins claimed to be heard as seconder, but as it was known that he had gone, supposed to be paid by the protectionists, to oppose the election of a free trader for Walsall, and as it was believed that the Duke of Buckingham had paid him £150 to play the game of obstruction in Manchester, the meeting instantly decided that he should not be heard. Several working men then addressed the meeting, and a petition, praying for the total and immediate abolition of the Corn Law, was carried all but unanimously.
A procession was now formed, at the front of which were Sir Thomas Potter, Messrs. C. J. S. Walker, George Wilson, H. Rawson, Samuel Lees, James Howie, and a number of other gentlemen, on horseback. Near the front, but on foot, were Messrs. Richard Cobden, William Rawson, James Kershaw, W. Evans, and other well-known friends of the anti-corn-law cause. The long line of flags and banners, principally with devices and inscriptions on a pure white ground, produced a most imposing effect as they waved in the rays of a brilliant sun. "The total and immediate repeal of the Corn Laws," was the predominant inscription, almost every separate district having selected it as the leading motto. Among others were seen "Down with the infamous bread tax," "No fixed duty," " No sliding scale," " God is with us," " "Equal rights," "No monopoly," "Villiers, the friend of the people." There were also a number of loaves carried on poles, exhibiting the relative proportions of the English, Polish, and the American loaf. Market-street presented one dense mass of spectators, loudly cheering as the procession passed, and the windows were crowded with ladies. On passing the rooms of the League, in Newall's Buildings, from the windows of which large banners were waving, each district division gave three hearty cheers. The various bodies congregated in St. Ann's Square, ​where, after a few words from Sir Thomas Potter, the great multitude quietly dispersed.
Mr. Charles Wilkins did not again subject himself to the probability of being again refused a hearing. Dr. Sleigh had more of courage or of pertinacity, or of fidelity to his employers. On Wednesday, the 9th of June, he gave a lecture, in the Corn Exchange, to an audience admitted by ticket, which bound them to be obedient to the chairman, and not to interrupt the speaker. His main arguments were, that we had always had Corn Laws that the products of agriculture greatly exceeded the products of manufactures; that agriculture employed more hands than manufactures; that the manufactures of New England, although there was abundance of corn there, were not thriving; that foreigners were not disposed to take our goods that, if the Corn Laws were repealed, all protection to manufactures would have to be abolished, and if they were, our manufacturers could not stand the competition six months that a low price of corn would cause low wages; with a long string of other fifty-times-refuted fallacies. The audience felt insulted by the nonsense addressed to them; but their principal manifestation of disapproval was loud and contemptuous laughter. This was met by lusty shouts from a band of hot-headed tories and another of physical-force chartists and at last the lecturer, out of breath, out of temper, and long out of argument, was obliged to desist; first, however, throwing out a challenge to the anti-corn-law party, to appoint a representative to discuss the question with him in public.
The glove thrown down was picked up by Mr. Finnigan,a hand-loom weaver, on behalf of the Operative Anti-Corn Law Association. Dr. Sleigh would rather have had the credit of contending with one of the League leaders, but he could not well refuse to meet any one who chose to accept the public challenge. On Monday, the 14th of June, the affair " came off" in the Corn Exchange. The ​Anti-Bread-Tax Circular gives the following account of the combat:—
On Monday, June 21st, the farmers in Craven, who came to attend the fortnightly Skipton sheep and cattle market, found the walls placarded with a notice, that "A Farmer's Son" would address them on the manner in which their interests were affected by the Corn Laws. Great interest was excited to ascertain who the farmer's son was, and whether he was for or against the landowners' monopoly. After the Market Place was nearly cleared, Mr. William Metcalf (now of Manchester), Mr. J, Dewhurst, Mr. Heelis (steward to the Earl of Thanet), and other gentlemen of Skipton, appeared on a balcony, in front of the Town Hall, and Mr. Metcalf introduced to a meeting of 1,000 or 1,200 persons, his friend, Mr. Prentice, of Manchester, whose father and ancestors had been farmers on one estate for three hundred years, and requested for him an attentive hearing, on a subject which deeply affected the interests of all engaged in agriculture. Thus introduced, I was about to address the meeting, but had to pause while a drove of cattle passed to the south. I took advantage of this incident, by asking where all the cattle and sheep were going to; and a person in the crowd having called out that some were on their way to Manchester, and some to the manufacturing towns in the West Riding, I began by showing how closely the interests of producers and consumers were connected. I said that in coming from Manchester, a distance of forty- two miles, I had scarcely seen half a dozen of corn fields. There was scarcely, in all that distance, enough of corn to feed their poultry. Up to Colne, the whole of the land was required to supply the population with milk and butter; and round ​Skipton it was entirely devoted to the raising of sheep and cattle for the Manchester market. The Craven farmer was in fact a purchaser of corn as much as the manufacturers of Manchester, Burnley, and Blackburn were. Having thus obtained the ear of an audience, most of whom expected to hear the Corn Law defended, I went on to show that its repeal was not so much to make bread cheap, but that employment might be given, which would enable the now starving multitudes to purchase not only bread, but milk, butter, cheese, beef, and mutton, the produce upon which farmers had the best profit. I was listened to throughout with great attention, by an audience which seemed pleased to hear the question discussed without any mixture of political bitterness. When I had finished, a person from the crowd asked why the manufacturers asked for protection to themselves, when they refused it to the famers? I replied that the farmer really had no protection, for if a permanent rise of prices could be effected it was followed by a rise of rents. The manufacturers required no protection, and the Anti-Corn-Law League and the Manchester Chamber of Commerce had declared that they wanted none, and that if they could have corn in exchange for their goods, the landlords and farmers might buy goods wherever they pleased. Another person asked if the landowners should not have protection to the amount of the taxes which fell on them exclusively? I denied that any fell on them exclusively, except the land tax, for which landowners had an ample equivalent in their exemption from taxes on the transmission of property, on auction duties, on farm horses, and on the insurance of agricultural produce. A third question was, "Did not the manufacturers wish to have cheap corn, in order to reduce wages?" To which I replied, that if they did, they took a strange way for labour, to effect their object, for the increased demand consequent on the opening of new markets, would necessarily raise wages.