Page:History of the Anti corn law league.pdf/253

but so multifarious and withal so benign in its results,—why is it thus retarded? Pardon me, if I say it is because we see, or think we see, a busy, bungling hand, a cruel and clumsy hand, put on this delicate machinery,to retard its movements and to frustrate its purpose. We believe this, men, brethren, and fathers, or our convention here this day is but a nullity and a farce."

Mr. Adkins was followed by the venerable and Rev. Dr. Pye Smith, who delivered an address replete with the deepest religious sympathy for the suffering poor, and evincing a knowledge of the subject to be discussed which proved that he, at least, had not been an idle or unobservant spectator of the body and soul destroying effects of the food monopoly. He disclaimed, on the part of his brethren, any pretension to make laws or regulations, or any desire to bind the consciences of their fellow Christians, or to command their practice. "But while," said he, "we disavow unfounded assumptions, we advance a claim, but of a very different kind; we elevate another kind of authority—the claim of reason and love, the authority of 'the righteous Lord, who loveth righteousness' and whose servants we are, not for our own aggrandisement, but for the universal good of mankind." In reference to the Corn Laws, he said:—

"They had their origin in the night of ignorant and barbarous ages when men were trampled down by absurd and wicked monopolies and other usages, the outbreaks and badges of that insolent feudal tyranny which oppressed both nations and princes; and thus the human mind was abased to a low pitch of degradation : education and mental culture were extremely rare, knowledge and improvement had only a very slow and limited diffusion, and men in general were accustomed to respect no argument but that of brute force. He contended that the doctrine and practice of free trade was in harmony with the essential principle and the benevolent design of the gospel. In answer to the objection, that it was not befitting in ministers of religion to give opinions or advice on politics, he entered his determined protest. What are politics, he demanded, but the knowledge and practice of the claims of right and the obligations of duty which belong to men as members of society? Is not this knowledge and practice an essential part of morality ? And is there, can there be, any religion without morality? As teachers of religion,