known, and well answered by the fact that the $11,000 subscription had in a few days swelled to £20,000. I subjoin a few of the bellowings and bleatings of two more of the newspapers in the interest of the monopolists. The straw had begun to rustle.
From the Yorkshire Gazette:—
"We are not disposed to overlook the danger in which the landed interest of this country is placed by this fearful confederacy; and we would hint, that unless there is more zeal and more energy displayed by those who are more immediately interested in British agriculture, the time may come when resistance will be in vain, and we shall see British industry laid prostrate by the machinations of selfish and avaricious manufacturers."
From the Gloucestershire Chronicle:—
"What are the conservatives doing? Nothing. The contrast between the two parties is most striking. The conservatives seem steeped in criminal apathy. In vain do we and our fellow labourers of the conservative press sound the alarms; in vain do we point to the actions, the objects of the League. There is no evidence of any response. It is not that men are insensible to the existence of danger, although they greatly underrate the greatness of the ultimate danger. It is that men are indolent-satisfied with Sir Robert Peel's present large majority listless as the satiated Indian over his hardly-gained spoils of the chase. That the operations of the league are magnified on paper, to serve an obvious end, is likely enough; but there is no longer room for doubt that they are a most formidable and mischievous body."
I conclude the notice of movement during the year 1843. by quoting the following from The League, of Dec. 30th:—
"Last year the men of mark for ample wealth or high rank, who associated themselves with the League, or who became publicly pledged to its principle, were very few indeed. The scruples which kept them aloof have been removed. The example of Mr. Jones Loyd has had its effect on the capitalists. Earl Fitzwilliam has strengthened the impression previously made by Lord Radpor. And the late avowal of Farl Spencer shows that even the notion of an Anti-Corn-Law Cabinet is not so utterly preposterous and chimerical as some had represented.
"And if, last year, the distinguished few were yet holding back, neither had the numerous classes given more than a fraction of that