Page:History of the Anti corn law league - Volume 2.pdf/113

 duty is desirable for the present." Mr. Selmes seconded it. On a division, the original motion, for a total and immediate repeal, was carried almost unanimously.

On the following Saturday, Mr. Bright and Mr. Moore visited Huntingdon, where great pains had been taken to get up an opposition to their object. After Mr. Bright's address, Mr. J. Rust, a banker of Huntingdon, moved:

"That while the present charges on land remain, the home growers of corn cannot compete with the foreign grower without a protecting duty." Mr. R. R. R. Moore followed in a lengthened and eloquent address in favour of a total and immediate repeal, amid much opposition from the pro-corn-law party, and loud cheers from a portion of the meeting. He concluded by moving the following amendment: - That in the opinion of this meeting, the Com Law and every other law which protects one class at the expense of other classes, must prove injurious to the national prosperity, and, therefore, all monopolies, whether passed with the object of benefiting the agricultural, colonial, or manufacturing interests, ought to be immediately abolished." Captain Duberley, a landed proprietor in the counties of Huntingdon and Cambridge, seconded the amendment in a long speech. Mr. Day (a legal gentleman, highly respected by the Whig party at Huntingdon) then rose and spoke at great length in favour of the original resolution, and the influence of this gentleman being thrown into the scale of the pro-corn-law party, was supposed to have been the moving cause of their subsequent equivocal success, A division was taken at the conclusion of this gentleman's speech upon Mr. Moore's amendment, which the chairman declared was negatived by the meeting. It is right to say, that this decision was protected against by the anti-corn-law party, who strenuously insisted that the victory was on their side.

This very equivocal victory was counterbalanced by unequivocal proof of division amongst the landowners in