IRON HORSE 85

underlined the change. What cotton, in other words Lancashire
needed, England could no longer deny.

That which cotton needed it asked for. Even in adversity
Lancashire was wont to speak out its mind: and Lancashire
with brass in its pocket spoke it very loud. And what was in
its vigorous mind—in that, that is to say, of its many capitalists
great and small—was the wish to make more and ever more
money. Everything that stood in the way of its doing so was
bad: everything that hastened the process, even by a day, was
good.

What Lancashire needed most was to import and export more
cotton. Any policy that tended, for whatever reason, to check
its imports of raw cotton was opposed to its interests. For
centuries the policy of England had been based on the protection
of the industry on which the health, social well-being and safety
of the bulk of its people depended—agriculture. But to Lanca-
shire the corn-laws which afforded this protection were an
impediment and an affront. By restricting imports, they re-
stricted the growth of the industries which manufactured for
export. They blocked the channel of expanding profits for
Lancashire.

What Manchester thought to-day, it was said, England
would think to-morrow. As the power of Lancashire grew, a
nation-wide campaign was begun for the abolition of the corn-
laws. It* enlisted the services of two cotton-spinners of genius,
both of whom entered Parliament, Richard Cobden and John
Bright. They and the sturdy middle-class voters whose interests
they so brilliantly championed held that the proper organisation
of human society was one in which Britain devoted herself to
the production of manufactured goods, and the rest of mankind
supplied her with food and raw materials in exchange. The
cheaper the latter, the cheaper and therefore the larger the
quantity of goods sold. In this view, the maintenance of duties
on foreign corn was a form of national insanity. For they
restricted the foreign sales of Lancashire cotton. They could
only be explained by the .power of monopoly possessed by a few
effete and reactionary landowners.

The case for the repeal of the corn laws -received new strength

from the misery of the industrial proletariat and the rural

worker caused by industrial change. Both, confronted by the

refusal of the authorities to relieve their sufferings, felt a sense

E.S. G