ABSTRACT
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 poors 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 felt he was the last person who ought to dogmatize, for when, five or six years back, he published his iC 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 growTer 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
MANCHESTER TOWN COUNCIL. 195
reduced gradually, because he could come to a fresh arrangement with his landlord at once, instead of haying 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
196 COBDEN AS M.P.
