Page:History of the Anti corn law league.pdf/234

218 where, after a few words from Sir Thomas Potter, the great multitude quietly dispersed.

Mr. Charles Wilkins did not again subject himself to the probability of being again refused a hearing. Dr. Sleigh had more of courage or of pertinacity, or of fidelity to his employers. On Wednesday, the 9th of June, he gave a lecture, in the Corn Exchange, to an audience admitted by ticket, which bound them to be obedient to the chairman, and not to interrupt the speaker. His main arguments were, that we had always had Corn Laws that the products of agriculture greatly exceeded the products of manufactures; that agriculture employed more hands than manufactures; that the manufactures of New England, although there was abundance of corn there, were not thriving; that foreigners were not disposed to take our goods that, if the Corn Laws were repealed, all protection to manufactures would have to be abolished, and if they were, our manufacturers could not stand the competition six months that a low price of corn would cause low wages; with a long string of other fifty-times-refuted fallacies. The audience felt insulted by the nonsense addressed to them; but their principal manifestation of disapproval was loud and contemptuous laughter. This was met by lusty shouts from a band of hot-headed tories and another of physical-force chartists and at last the lecturer, out of breath, out of temper, and long out of argument, was obliged to desist; first, however, throwing out a challenge to the anti-corn-law party, to appoint a representative to discuss the question with him in public.

The glove thrown down was picked up by Mr. Finnigan,a hand-loom weaver, on behalf of the Operative Anti-Corn Law Association. Dr. Sleigh would rather have had the credit of contending with one of the League leaders, but he could not well refuse to meet any one who chose to accept the public challenge. On Monday, the 14th of June, the affair " came off" in the Corn Exchange. The