Page:History of the Anti corn law league.pdf/166

which a beneficent Providence has prepared for all mankind, but which are wickedly intercepted by the legislation of the selfish landowners. We rejoice, moreover, in that second evening's demonstration, as affording the most cogent proof that could be given of the capacity of of all persons present to exercise, with benefit to themselves and to the community, the elective franchise, unjustly withheld by tory obstruction and whig finality."

The delegates did not leave Manchester without deliberate conference on the means of promoting their great object. Mr. Villiers having agreed to bring forward a motion on the Corn Laws, on the 26th March, it was resolved that the various associations throughout the kingdom, now greatly increased in number, and animated with great zeal and determination of purpose, should be invited to send delegates to meet in London previous to that day, and that each should come prepared with statements as to the actual condition of the people in his own locality, as proof of the necessity of the instant repeal of a law which had involved the country in deep and constantly increasing distress. The delegates re-assembled in London, on Tuesday, March 24th, and deputations were appointed to wait upon Lord Melbourne, Lord John Russell, and upon influential members of Parliament, to represent to them the state of the country, and especially of the working classes, and to urge them to support Mr. Villiers' motion, intended to be brought forward on that day week. On Friday the delegates, more than two hundred in number, were received by Lord Melbourne at the Colonial Office, in Downing-street. Amongst them were ten or twelve individuals who annually expended in wages upwards of one million sterling. Mr. John B. Smith, the chairman of the delegates, opened the business by laying before his lordship a forcible statement of the injurious operation of the Corn Laws upon the industrial population, and their effect in increasing the poor rate. Mr. Cobden then called his attention to the difference of protective duties and duties levied solely for revenue, and reiterated the recorded reso-