gether. The aristocracy had joined the outcry against the new Poor Law, and talked about the rights of the poor merely by way of throwing as they thought a tub to the whale, and drawing the attention of the people from looking at heavier grievances. And should this continue? Should not this great town exert its powers and say at once, "We will not have our trade shackled by your laws, made—not for the farmer as was pretended, not for the benefit of the country at large,—but exclusively to maintain high rents?" It was time to unite heart and hand on this question, and challenge the whole country to put their shoulder to the wheel, and get rid of a system alike offensive to the laws of God and man. This incitement to action was followed by loud cheering.
I then proposed the health of Colonel Thompson, whose writings in favour of reform had done much to procure an amendment of the representative system, and who, in addition to the instruction so well given in his Corn Law Catechism, "was then engaged in exposing every new landlord fallacy. The toast was received with loud applause. The next I gave was, "The health and happiness of the poor hand-loom weavers, who have set the example of petitioning for the repeal of the Corn Laws." I said, "I could not but regret that the merchants and manufacturers of Manchester should have been so long supine under a system which threatened to deprive us of a great portion of our commerce, and that their Chamber of Commerce had been so long inert under it. However, an example had been set them by the HAND-LOOM WEAVERS, during the late inquiry into their condition, when a number of them met, and came to the conclusion that whatever might be attempted for their relief (and amongst the systems proposed was the constitution of a board of masters and men to settle disputes about prices, as in France), no benefit could reach them without a repeal of the Corn Laws. These men, who were so reduced that they could not buy
