Page:History of the Anti corn law league.pdf/37

Rh If we were to have a minister as our representative, a minister who was for progression was to be preferred, and such a man, after much private enquiry, it appeared to me that Thomson was. The choice seemed to be only between him and Loyd. I attended a private meeting at which he was formally proposed. Mr. J. C. Dyer strongly urged the propriety of opposing a reformer to one who had obviously adopted the doctrine of finality, and had only acquiesced in the Reform Bill when, without his support, it had become law. Mr. George Wilson, then a very young man (afterwards to distinguish himself in the Anti-Corn-Law struggle), already skilled, by taking part in local contests, in the systematic method of conducting elections, expressed his strong belief that two decided reformers could be returned for Manchester. Mr. George Hadfield, now Member of Parliament for Sheffield, a staunch reformer and dissenter, expressed his confidence in the same result; but lamented that the whole of the Manchester papers were against them, except one which was not with them. A laugh arose, for I was standing behind him, ready to give in my adherence, and to assure the meeting that all that I could do, as the editor of a paper and as an elector, by my pen and my voice, would be done to prevent a compromise of principle, always a dangerous example, and to send two free traders and reformers into the house. On the 6th of September, the following address from Mr. Thomson's committee appeared:—

Gentlemen,—Under the peculiar circumstances in which the Right Honourable C. Poulett Thompson is placed he cannot, with propriety, be called upon at present to issue any Address, or personally to offer himself as a Candidate for this Borough. His well-known public character, however, renders either of these proceedings unnecessary.

It must be evident to every merchant and manufacturer, that the trade of this great district, and, through it, even the national welfare