They had expected rapid success. Instead, they found that leadership had passed out of their hands and that success was remote. They had talked vaguely about physical force, but shrank from associating with the men who were really determined to use it. They therefore pleaded business reasons for not attending the Convention (which, it is true, was likely to take up far more time than they could spare without deserting their business altogether, as Cobden did) and at a favourable opportunity withdrew altogether from a movement whose course filled them with apprehension. Collins manfully defended them against their enemies in the Convention, some of whom had apparently been stirring up opposition to Douglas, Salt, and Hadley in Birmingham itself. The consequence was that the Chartist cause in that city fell into the hands of a reckless and unscrupulous crew, a fact which later turned out very disastrously.[1]
On April 9 the Convention plunged into a discussion upon the right of the people to possess arms. R. J. Richardson of Manchester, who had a taste for antiquarian research, introduced the question in an interminable oration loaded with citations of every conceivable description. He moved for a committee to inquire into the existing state of the law upon the subject. The debate which followed reached the very climax of futility, and exhibited a hopeless division amongst the delegates. Sankey, who had distinguished himself at the Crown and Anchor by his bold words, now betrayed a strong disposition to eat them. Amid the fog of discussion the practical good sense of the Scotsman, Halley, sounds strangely welcome. What, he wanted to know, was the practical value of the resolution? Were they going to prepare for a campaign? Had they a large enough following in the country? To these questions no answer was vouchsafed, for none could be given. Nobody knew why the discussion was opened, and only half a dozen moderates like Halley, and two or three firebrands like Harney, had courage to commit themselves to any definite views at all. This debate especially deserved the censure passed by the London Dispatch that the Convention was more concerned to show how clever it was than to further the cause with good suggestions and sound measures.[2] The discussion ended in a declaration of the Convention's opinion that it was lawful to possess arms. It had the effect of encouraging the collection of arms in various parts of the
