History of the Anti-Corn Law League/Chapter20
CHAPTER XX.
MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
On Thursday, February the 3rd, 1842, the Queen opened Parliament in person. Upon the previous Monday, the Duke of Buckingham had resigned his office in the ministry, and the protectionists, attributing the resignation to his knowledge of some forthcoming change in the Corn Laws, were in extreme alarm. The free traders anticipated no more than some miserable compromise, unworthy of acceptance. They did not even anticipate any acknowledgment of the existing distress, which, in the previous session, had been either totally denied by the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel, or attributed to temporary causes needing no legislative measure. It was seen, however, that the agitation of the League, and the proofs it had adduced of wide-spread and intense suffering, the result of a selfish, unjust, and cruel legislation, had not been without their effects. The Queen was permitted to acknowledge, "with deep regret, the continued distress in the manufacturing districts of the country," and that "the sufferings and privations which had resulted from it," had been "borne with exemplary patience and fortitude." Her Majesty was made to recommend to the consideration of both houses " the laws which affect the imports of corn, and other articles." This was more than the free traders expected in the speech. There was to be a change in the Corn Laws, and an alteration in the tariff, and intense curiosity was excited as to what those changes might be.
Nothing concerning the intentions of the ministers was elicited in the debates on the Address. It was moved in the Lords, by the Marquis of Abercorn, who hinted to the manufacturers that much of their prosperity depended upon the prosperity of agriculture. Lord Melbourne, who, in office, had said that it would be madness to think of total repeal, expressed himself as equally opposed to the sliding scale. Lord Brougham, for himself and Earl Spencer (who was absent), declared that the only way to deal with the Corn Laws was to get rid of them altogether. Earl Fitzwilliam drew from the Duke of Buckingham the admission that he had retired from the ministry because a measure was to be proposed that he could not sanction; but he did not say what that measure was to be. In the Commons Sir Robert Peel announced, that on the following Wednesday he would state what his intentions were. There was a week of intense curiosity to intervene. The Duke of Richmond had refused to allow his son, the Earl of March, to move the address, and the agriculturists were in great alarm. The thorough free traders were everywhere girding up their loins, believing that what displeased the Dukes of Buckingham and Richmond might still be a very wretched measure for the country.
The following is a list of the appointment of deputies from conferences and anti-corn-law associations, who met at the Crown and Anchor, on Tuesday, 8th February, all with instructions to entertain no proposal for any compromise, but to demand perfect freedom to import that food for the want of which her Majesty acknowledged that her people were enduring severe distress. The list contains all the appointments communicated to the Council in Manchester but it is necessarily defective, as great numbers of appointments had been announced to the Metropolitan Association only:—
ASHTON-UNDER-LYME.
Abel Buckley.
Alfred Bayner.
ACCRINGTON.
Rev. Henry Lings.
ANDOVER.
Rev. John Young.
James Baker.
BISHOPS STORTFORD.
William Chaplin.
BILSTON.
Rev. W. H. Bonner.
E. B. Lovell.
E. B. Dimmack.
BOLTON.
John Dean.
Henry Hollins.
Henry Ashworth.
Edmund Ashworth.
J. R. Barnes.
Thomas Cullen.
Robert Heywood.
C. S. Darbishire.
James Arrowsmith.
BRIDGENORTH.
Two Deputies
BRIGHTON.
Rev. J. Edwards.
BELPER.
William Brown.
BROMLEY, KENT.
John Churcher.
George Severting.
BRADFORD, WILTS.
John Foster.
BRAINTREE, ESSEX.
S. Courtauld.
BRADFORD.
H. Leah.
R. Milligan.
T. G. Clayton.
George Oxley.
William Murgatroyd.
M. Illingworth.
Titus Salt.
James Cousen.
Thomas Bennards,
BRIGHOUSE AND HIPPERHOLME.
John Crossley.
BURNLEY.
James Roberts.
John Holgate.
CHORLEY.
Abraham Turner.
John Hodgkinson.
COLCHESTER.
James Hurnard.
COLNE.
Thomas Smith.
CAMDEN TOWN.
Rev. H. S. Leatom.
Thomas Moore.
J. S. Deed.
Rev. T.W. Grittins.
Rev.—Effingham.
CHESHAM.
Rev. D. Thomas.
William Biggs.
CONGLETON.
John Johnson.
CARLISLE.
John Dixon.
T. T. Railtou.
J. Steel.
J. Ross.
J. Carrick
G. Saul.
J. Lowthian.
Joseph Ferguson.
J D. Carr.
T. Sheffield.
E. Castle.
R. Cowen.
George Thompson.
DENTON AND HAUGHTON.
William Wilson.
John Bowler.
DEVIZES.
Rev. J. S. Bunce.
George Wesley.
DONCASTER.
E. Lankester, M.D.
DUNFERMLINE.
D. Dervur.
Charles Arthur.
James Aytoun.
DUMBARTON.
James Stirling.
DUNDEE.
Edward Baxter.
D. Baxter.
G. W. Baxter.
EBLEY ASSOCIATION.
Rev. B. Parsons.
James Lewis.
EBLEY CHAPEL.
Rev. B. Parsons.
Philip Oadley.
EDINBURGH ASSOCIATION.
D. M'Laren.
John Dunlop.
William Dunlop.
Edward Cruickshank.
James Aytoun.
FROME.
Mr. Ferme.
FAIRFORD, GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
William Thomas.
FORFAR.
Rev. J.Y. Strachan.
Rev. Mr. Lowe.
GLOUCESTER.
Rev.W. Rodway.
Samuel Bowley.
GLASGOW.
Alexander Johnson
Walter Buchannan.
James Lumsden.
GREAT TORRINGTON.
S. Westell.
HALSHAW MOOR.
J. Lord.
R. Lord.
G. Barnes.
T. Barnes.
HEBDEN BRIDGE.
John Riley.
Jamas Hodgson.
Thomas Sutclifie.
HOLYWELL.
Rev. Ellis Hughes.
HONITON.
Rev.W.Wright.
HUDDERSFIELD.
William Brook.
Frederick Swann.
Joseph Batley.
William Williams.
John Robinson.
Josiah Conder.
HALIFAX.
Jonathan Ackroyd.
William Morris.
ILKESTON.
Rev. D. Davies.
Rev. J. Peggs.
Joseph Bailey.
LEEDS.
H. C. Marshall.
H. Stansfield,
LEEK.
Joseph Surr
LEICESTER.
Rev. T. Stevenson.
John Noble.
S. Hull.
Rev. S. Wrigg.
Alfred Tebbut.
Rev. Joseph Goadby.
John Harvey.
John Tyers.
C. Inchley.
T. P. Hall.
W. Biggs.
R. Harris.
W. Parker.
LINKFIELD STREET.
Thomas Dodd.
LONGTON.
Rev. H. Atley.
Thomas Scott.
MAYBOLE.
John M. Thomson.
MANCHESTER.
Sir Thomas Potter.
George Wilson.
John Brooks.
Robert Hyde Greg.
William Rawson.
Thomas Bazley, jun.
William Evans.
Archibald Prentice.
J. C. Dyer.
James Kershaw.
W. R. Callender.
W. Bickham.
William Besley.
T. Harbottle.
Robert Stewart.
Edward Watkin.
Samuel Lees.
T. B. Potter.
Holland Hoole.
Thomas Ashton.
Daniel Lee.
L. Rostron.
H. Rawson.
E. Armitage.
Rev. J. W. Massie.
Rev. W. Mc.Kerrow.
Rev. Daniel Hearne.
Edward Evans.
George Hadfield.
George Horsefield.
W. B. Watkins.
James Chadwick.
MANSFIELD.
Henry Hollins.
Rev. C. W. Robberds.
MITCHAM.
Samuel Makepeace.
Joseph Barton.
Joseph Booth.
John Marchant.
James West.
Morys Bolt.
Philip Purcell.
Jeremiah Harding.
Robert Williams.
MOTTRAM.
Richard Matley.
NORTHWICH.
John Thompson, and a Wesleyan.
NOTTINGHAM.
Rev. James Edwards.
William Vickers.
J. Heard
J. Dunn.
NEW BASFOHD, NOTTS
William Sisling.
Richard Boikin.
John W. Barton
Isaac Atkin.
PRESCOT.
C. E. Rawlins.
POOLE.
Rev. Samuel Bulgin.
QUEENSHEAD.
John Foster.
READING.
F. P. Everett.
A. Perry, M.D.
ROCHDALE.
John Petrie.
John Bright.
John Hoyle.
Edward Briggs.
RASTRICK.
J. T. Clay.
William Helm.
—Armitage.
SHEFFIELD.
Edward Smith.
William Ibbotson.
SMETHWICKE.
Rev. D. A. Owen.
STROUD.
Rev. John Burder.
Rev. Benjamin Parsons.Mr. Martin.
J. C. Symons, Esq.
Philip Cadby.
James Lewis.
William T. Paris.
STOUBRIDGE.
Mr. Hughes.
TODMORDEN.
Rev. R. Wolfenden.
Mr. Peter Ormerod.
UXBBIDGE.
Rev. J. G. Stamper.
John Pearman.
J G. Taylor.
Two others.
WATFORD.
S. Salter.
Joseph Rogers.
Edmund Hull.
WALTHAMSTOW.
William Pymar.
WEST HAM.
Mr. Ashdown.
Mr. Elwall.
Mr. Homan.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Coles.
Mr. Hodierne.
Mr. Grice.
Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Sutton.
Mr. Clarke.
WARRINGTON.
W. Crossfield.
Rev. F. Bishop.
WEST BROMWICH.
J. Spittle.
Rev. William Stokes.
WIGAN.
Rev. William Roaf.
Rev. Wiliam Marshall.
Mr. Acton.
WORCESTER.
Rev. James Ward.
WESTBUBY, WILTS.
R. Overbury.
J. Wilkins.
WOODBBIDGE, SUFFOLK.
Rev. John Smith.
John Street.
The deputies from the country were joined by a considerable number from the metropolitan districts. Nearly six hundred persons were present, all determined, as it proved, to accept of no compromise. We, of the deputation from the north, entertained some fear, that, amongst the numerous deputies from newly formed associations in London and its neighbourhood, there might be some disposed to sacrifice future entire freedom to present concession as promised by the whigs and expected from the tories. We were soon convinced that our fear was groundless. Mr. Ashworth, of Bolton, had moved the appointment of a finance committee. In seconding the motion the Rev. T. Spencer, of Bath, a poor-law guardian, declared his firm conviction that the new poor law ought not to have been enforced without the repeal of the Corn Law. I followed, and having stated the successful result of the Bazaar at Manchester, as a proof that the League would be heartily supported, I said that the contest between the two parties in Parliament, who recognised no other party, either there or out of doors, would only be whether Lord John's fixed duty, or Sir Eobert's modified slide, should be adopted, while the just demand was that there should be no duty at all; and that the country by the determined front it might assume, should tell both factions that nothing short of an entire abolition of the obnoxious laws would be satisfactory. The burst of cheers that followed gave unequivocal proof that nothing was farther from the mind of the assembled deputies than any compromise with either of the two old political parties that claimed the right to rule. The chairman, Mr. Duncan Mc.Laren, of Edinburgh, announced that his instructions from his constituents, were to demand the full measure of justice, and again the enthusiastic and prolonged cheers showed, that if any one came there with the slightest idea of compromise, he would find no responding voice in that assembly. Mr. John Bright, from that time forward standing forward amongst the first of the leaders in the movement, made a speech full of power and. effect. His motion was to pledge the deputies never to swerve from their purpose, nor relax in their efforts, until the total repeal of the Corn Laws was accomplished, and he enforced it with so much argument, and so energetic and fervid an eloquence, that at the close of his spirit-stirring address the whole assembly rose and testified their approbation by loud and long-continued hurrahs. The Rev. Dr. Pye Smith followed in a different strain, enlisting the Christian sympathies of his auditory in the sufferings of the poor. And then came Mr.Timothy Falvey, a silk weaver, of Macclesfield, who had been engaged as a lecturer, whose natural eloquence on behalf of the deeply wronged of his own order, showed that-the hitherto inarticulate groanings of the oppressed multitude were now to find fit and forcible utterance. Daniel O'Connell followed the Macclesfield silk weaver. All sorts of talent were there—every diversity of power. The meeting was assured by the great agitator that its agitation was certain of success if continued with intensity, energy, and singleness of purpose. Mr. John Brooks, of Manchester, followed O'Connell in a speech scarcely less effective. The chairman, before the close of the meeting, stated that an interview had been sought with Sir Robert Peel, and he was hourly expecting his reply. Sir Robert, however, was too cautious to comply with the request. The following are the notes that passed on the occasion:—
"Sir,—As chairman of a preliminary meeting of deputies from associations and religious congregations from various parts of the kingdom, I am directed to request that you will favour the deputation with an interview on the subject of the repeal of the Corn Laws, if at all consistent with your convenience, previous to the announcement of the intentions of the government in Parliament, on Wednesday next.—I have the honour to be, Sir, yours,
"The Right Hon. Sir Robert Peel, Bart., &c."
"Sir,—I am directed by Sir R. Peel to acknowledge the receipt of your note of Feb. 7, requesting, on behalf of a deputation from associations and religious congregations from various parts of the kingdom, an interview with Sir Robert Peel, on the subject of the repeal of the Corn and Provision Laws, previous to the announcement of the government on Wednesday next. Sir Robert Peel desires me to express his regret that it is not in his power, on account of the pre-engagements into which he has entered, to make the appointment which you desire.—I am Sir, your obedient servant,
"John Brooks, Esq."
"W.H. StevensonThe meeting of the deputies on Wednesday was a highly interesting one. Mr. Laurence Heyworth put the question of repeal as a simple one of justice, and the Rev. Mr. Cairns, of Paisley, produced a powerful impression by his account of the state of that dreadfully suffering town, and by his eloquent denunciations of the impiety of intercepting the gifts which Providence had bestowed for the benefit of man. The Rev. Mr. Burder, of Stroud, followed in the same strain; and several other speakers combined statistical details and impressive argument with great effect. As the meeting proceeded the feeling grew stronger and stronger at the refusal of the minister to hear an exposition of the condition of the people, and when Mr. Boultbee, of Birmingham, seconded by Mr Wilkinson, of Exeter, proposed that the deputies should proceed in a body to the House of Commons, there was an evident demonstration that Peel's refusal was considered as adding insult to injury. The Rev. J. W. Massie enforced the recommendation with impassioned and rousing energy, answered by a burst of enthusiasm, and the proposal was unanimously assented to, the whole body, which, although many had left, not anticipating such a movement, numbered about 500, proceeded two and two, arm in arm, along the Strand and down Parliament-street to the House, attracting much curiosity during their course. My companion in this progression was a worthy north country knight of rather cautious whig politics, but who strongly participated in the feeling of indignation at the long denial of justice to the suffering people. I told him that in coming from an interview with Jeremy Bentham, eleven years before, I had seen William the Fourth pass down that street to dissolve a Parliament which refused to pass the Reform Bill, and expressed my belief that the people would now, as they did then, overturn the resisting powers. Upon the arrival of the deputies at St. Stephens, they stopped on each side of the door opening into the lobby of the house, and application was made by the chairman for admission into the lobby, of at least a portion of the deputation. This, however, was flatly refused. The most urgent entreaty was used by many, but without the slightest effect, and the delegates were most rudely hustled by the police as they stood upon the pavement opposite the house, striving to speak to their representatives as they entered. While they stood there all the members who passed in were saluted with the cries of "total repeal" and "cheap food." It was a striking sight to observe the real representatives of the productive classes from every part of the kingdom, country and town, waiting outside of what ought to have been the people's house imploring justice for the suffering millions. Finding that their applications for admission were treated with as little ceremony as their request for an interview with the Premier had been, the delegates drew off from the doors of the house and congregated in Palace Yard, where I briefly addressed them thus: "The doors of the very lobby of the house are closed against us by order of those in power. It is impossible for us to get in to speak to the members as they pass. The Corn Laws were passed under the protection of the bayonet, and its supporters now ensconce themselves under the truncheons of the police. But the time is fast coming when the voice of the people will be heard, and their oppressors will quail before it. Let us give three hearty cheers for the cause of free trade." The cheers were given with a voice that might be heard within the house. It was a strange scene of excitement amongst sober-minded persons—an indication of the stronger and more dangerous excitement of the masses, if not counteracted by a confident hope that the League would ultimately prevail. The delegates proceeded up Parliament-street. Just at Privy Gardens they met Sir R. Peel proceeding in his carriage to the house. He seemed to think at first that they were going to cheer him, but when he heard the angry shouts of "No Corn Law;" "Down with the monopoly;" "Give bread and labour," he leaned back in his carriage, grave and pale. When he lay on his death bed, after according the full measure of justice, I thought with some compunction of that scene; but that expression of disapprobation might not be without its effect in hastening the change in his opinions and course. When he met those men that day he had matured his intention to prepare a modified measure which he knew they would regard as a mockery, unless he believed that their declaration for broad principles was one by which they did not mean to abide.
On that same Wednesday, Messrs. E. H. Greg, W. Rawson, J. Bright, J. Brooks, J. Dixon, and W. Evans, deputed by the conference, had an interview with Lord John Russell. They stated their deliberate conviction that no less a measure of relief than that of total repeal would ever satisfy the country, or restore its prosperity; and exposed the fallacy of a fixed duty, and urged its relinquishment on his lordship. But years of intense suffering on the part of the people had not yet convinced him; he gave respectful attention to the statements of the deputation, but gave them no reason to believe that they had effected any change in his opinion. He had made up his mind to abide by a fixed duty, which the repealers were now in the way of designating "a fixed injustice." He very probably thought they would give in their adhesion to him on that evening. Peel's expected modification recognised higher duties, with all the uncertainty of the slide. Miss Martineau says:—"The whigs were delighted to find, that the minister had failed to come up to their own point of an 8s. fixed duty." It is, perhaps, too much to say that they were delighted; but no doubt visions of return to office flitted before them.
The house and gallery were crowded. Below the bar was seen a number of distinguished strangers, amongst whom was the Duke of Cambridge. Peel rose to speak at five o'clock, and deep silence instantly prevailed. The minister had not his usual confident manner. "He was uneasy and nervous," says Miss Martineau, " and there was no argument in his speech." He admitted the distress and deplored it in, but said that he could not attribute it, any degree, to the operation of the Corn Laws. His hearers wondered what would follow. There was "a combination of causes acting concurrently," which had produced the distress. There had been too much facility of credit in 1837 and 1838; an interruption of our amicable relations with China; monetary affairs in the United States had lessened the demand for our manufactures; and over-production at home. The question he said was not what was the price of bread, but what was the command over it. The consumption of food in Prussia was in England; the consumption of sugar in France was less than it was in England wages; were less on the continent than they was less than it were in England; there was distress in England, but still England consumed more than other countries on the continent. A total repeal of the Corn Laws, he said, would add agricultural to manufacturing distress. It would be well to be independent of foreign countries for bread. "What is coming?" thought the listening free traders. He did not mean an absolute independence. There should be a supply when there was a scarcity. He wished to have the price of wheat to oscillate between 54s. and 58s. He thought the agriculturists ought not to expect more. He would have a return of averages from an increased number of places, and he would reduce the scale of duties. The highest duty at that time was 38s. 8d. he would reduce it to 20s. Here was a change! The 38 feet 8 inches wall of exclusion was to be pulled down till it was only 20 feet high! The whigs exchanged significant glances. Sir Robert proceeded to read his new scale. When wheat was at 51s. the duty should be 20s. at 52s. and under 55s., 18s.; at 55s. and under 56s., 17s.; and for each shilling of rise of price there should be a diminution of duty, till at 65s. there should be a duty of 7s. Then from 66s. to 69s. the duty should be 6s. and then a reduction of one shilling of duty for every shilling of rise until at 73s. to 74s. the duty should be one shilling. The dead silence which prevailed while Sir Robert was reading his scale was followed, when he had concluded, by derisive laughter on the opposition benches, and a loud buz of conversation on both sides of the house, which did not quite subside during the remainder of the speech. He avowed that when wheat was under 51s. his intention was to give the agriculturists that "effectual protection" to which he thought they were entitled on account of the burthens they exclusively bore. We shall hear more of those " exclusive burthens" by and bye. There was no debate. Lord John Russell only asked a question about the mode of taking the averages. Mr. Cobden satisfied himself with denouncing the measure as an insult to a suffering people—a people whose patience had been extolled by the right honourable baronet—and a people whose patience deserved a very different treatment from the landed aristocracy, and from the cabinet, which was the instrument of that aristocracy.
As soon as Sir Robert Peel's plan had been proposed, such of the deputies as had remained in the lobbies and gallery of the house adjourned to Brown's Hotel, where they found a number of their colleagues assembled, and several resolutions were prepared to be submitted to the next morning's meeting, in order that no time might be lost in putting the country in possession of their opinions. On the Thursday morning all the deputies, numbering more than 700, were in their places, and, on the proposition of Mr. Mc.Laren, Mr. P. A. Taylor, of London, was called to the chair. Endeavours had been made to convince some of them, that, as the protectionists would be certain to support Peel's measure, not as satisfactory to them but as the best they could obtain under the circumstances, it would be well to give a favourable consideration to the moderate fixed duty, which would be supported by the whigs; but these representations either had no effect, or if listened to with favour, had not encouraged any one to oppose himself to the general determination to accept of no compromise. The following resolutions, proposed by the author of "The Corn-Law Catechism," seconded by Mr. Harner Stansfield, of Leeds, were passed unanimously:
"That, in the opinion of this meeting, the measure announced by her Majesty's government on the subject of the Corn Laws, so far from holding out the slightest prospect of any relief of the distress of the country, is an insult to a patient and suffering people; and the deputies view such a proposal as an indication that the landed aristocracy of this country are destitute of all sympathy for the poor, and are resolved, if permitted by an outraged people, to persist in a course of selfish policy, which will involve the destruction of every interest in the country."
"That the deputies now present, having further deliberately considered the proposition of her Majesty's government on the subject of Corn Laws, this evening announced in the House of Commons, deem it their duty on their own behalf, and in the name of their constituents, to record their emphatic condemnation of it, and their solemn protest against it, as a total denial of the just demands of the people of this country, and as evincing a determination to perpetuate an oppressive, an unrighteous system, together with all the essential evils resulting from the operation of the existing Corn Laws."
"That the anti-corn-law associations throughout the United Kingdom, and all other friends to an immediate and total abolition of all duties and restrictions upon the necessary food of the people, are earnestly requested to take measures for expressing, without delay, in every constitutional manner, their hostility to the proposed measure of her Majesty's government, and their fixed and unalterable determination not to relax in their exertions until a measure of complete justice is obtained, and to consent to no compromise of the sacred principle upon which the agitation for the abolition of the Corn Law is based."
"That, to the end that every available support may be given to Mr. Villiers, in his intended resolution for the total and immediate repeal of the Corn and Provision Laws, the deputies recommend that all petitions be forwarded immediately for presentation, and that any protests or resolutions calculated to sustain the deputation in the approaching contests may be forwarded to the office of the Metropolitan Anti-Corn-Law Association, 448, Strand, London."
"That it is desirable that these resolutions be immediately published in the provincial papers, and that the committees of anti-corn-law associations be requested to take measures to effect that object."
A memorial to the Queen was also agreed to, expressing utter want of confidence in her Majesty's advisers, or in any ministers who would not propose the repeal of the Corn Laws. On Friday, Saturday, and Monday, meetings of the conference were held; and then the members separated, each, in his own locality, to aid in the agitation which had been renewed with increased intensity. In hundreds of places, the free traders had not waited to read the reports of the spirit-stirring speeches delivered in the conference, their own parliament, or the resolutions recommendatory of the course to be pursued, but had met simultaneously, and declared their determination never to rest satisfied until every shred of the poverty-creating law should be destroyed. Within a few hours of the arrival, in Manchester, on Thursday morning, of the papers containing Sir Robert Peel's plan, a numerous meeting of the Anti-Corn-Law Association was held, Mr. George Wilson in the chair, in which the chairman, Mr. Thomas Bazley, Mr. Alderman Callender, Mr. Grave, Mr. T. B. Potter, Mr. Robert Gardner, Mr. Absalom Watkin, Mr. Andrew Hall, Mr. James Howie, Mr. F. Warren, Mr. George Hadfield, Mr. William Shuttleworth, and others denounced the ministers' new scale of duties as an insult to the community. In the evening, short as was the notice, and although the admission was a shilling, the proceeds to go to the Bazaar fund, a meeting was held in the Theatre, attended by upwards of 2,000 persons, Mr. Wilson in the chair, at which resolutions of determined perseverance in demand for total repeal were passed by acclamation.
Following these manifestations, came the London newspapers, with reports of the proceedings of the conference, the which gave a further impulse to the agitation. A requisition to the mayor, (William Nield, Esq.,) signed by upwards of a thousand merchants, manufacturers, and others, was presented, and a meeting was held in the Town Hall, on Tuesday, February 15th, Mr. Thomas Bazley in the chair, but it was found that the large room would not hold one half of those who crowded for admittance, and after the resolutions which had been prepared were read, it was agreed to adjourn the meeting to Stevenson Square. The people then left the Hall, and to the number of at least 5,000, moved in procession through St. Ann's Square, Market-street, and Oldham-street, to the appointed place of meeting, increasing as they went until number exceeded 7,000, and almost filled the square. After several energetic speeches, the meeting was again adjourned till the following Monday evening, that again, if occasion required, there might be a further demonstration of opinion upon the new scheme. In the evening, in the Town Hall, Salford, a crowded meeting was held, at which spirited resolutions in opposition to the measures were passed. A meeting of the Young Men's Anti-Monopoly Association was held, on Wednesday evening, in the Athenaeum, with the same result. On Thursday, the Chamber of Commerce met, and after a spirited exposition of Sir Robert Peel's plan, passed a series of resolutions, that no proposition could be entertained which had not for its basis an entire repeal of all duties on the importation of food. Crowded meetings were also held at Stockport, Rochdale, Warrington, Wigan, and other towns in the district. I find the following in my paper, of February 19th, introductory of reports of these meetings: "The present week has been one of such general excitement, that we do not recollect its parallel for many years and, though we have more space to devote to news than any other weekly paper in the town, it would be impossible to give more than a sketch of the proceedings at the different public meetings, on the subject of the ministerial proposition." Similar excitement prevailed in every manufacturing district of the kingdom, greatly tending to reconcile the agriculturists to the proposed change. They began to think that a 20s. protection when wheat was at 50s. was, after all, a thing not to be rejected. If they did not take that, they might have worse.