reply was not of a kind to elevate his reputation as a statesman. He said he would not so far alter long existing policy by withdrawing all protection to agriculture; that ministers could not negotiate with other countries, as they were not assured, in the then state of party feeling in the legislature, that their negociations would be confirmed, and that, whatever might be the opinion of the cotton manufacturers, he very much doubted whether other manufacturers would abandon protection to themselves in exchange for free trade in corn. On this latter point, I replied that at Macclesfield, where I had been on the previous week, the silk manufacturers and their workpeople had unanimously resolved to petition for the total repeal of the Corn Law, and had declared that if they had free trade in corn, they would ask for no protection to the silk manufacture. Mr. Ellison, of Dewsbury, and Mr. Holland Hoole, of Salford, proved that the Corn Law and the New Poor Law could not exist together; for, while bread was so high, and the price of labour was so low, the guardians could not refuse to give food to the able-bodied labourer who could not find employment. Joseph Sturge made a powerful appeal to the ministers, placing the whole question upon the eternal principles of justice and humanity, which, he said, were shamefully outraged by a tax on the food of the people. The conference, if such it could be called, where unpalateable truths were forced upon the attention of unwilling ears, was appropriately closed by some bold and really eloquent remarks from Mr. Cobden, who told the ministers that their decision would become a matter of history, and "would stamp their character as either representatives merely of class interests, or the promoters of an enlightened commercial policy."
They chose the former, and five years of further deep national distress, and symptoms of consequent danger were required to convince them, then out of office, that
