it 

 
 \
 
 CORN LAWS & CLERGY: 
 
 A LErrER TO 
 
 THE RIGHT HON. HENRY LORD BROUGHAM, 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. T. W. JENKYN, D. D., London. 
 
 " Deum prfficepta secuti 
 Venimus hue, lapsis quaBsitum oracula rebus," 
 
 YlRGIL. 
 
 MY LORD, 
 
 When, on Feb. 8, you presented to the House of Lords 
 a Petition against the Corn Laws from the Conference of Pastors and 
 others assembled in Edinburgh, the Morning Chronicle reports you as 
 saying that you " did not consider the Corn Laws a religious question at 
 all, nor a moral question at all, otherwise than by a remote and strained 
 construction — nor did you see any reason why a conference of Dissent- 
 ing Ministers, or members of dissenting bodies, should be holden upon 
 this question any more than upon any other important secular question." 
 Subsequent ^0 the utterance of these pointed remarks by your Lord- 
 ship, the conduct of dissenting ministers was blamed in the House of 
 Commons, in no measured terms, by Mr. Milnes, Mr. Maixwauing, 
 and even by Mr. Magaul4Y. And, more recently, the cpprobrium has 
 been revived and extended in the pages of the Quarterly Review.'^ The 
 importance attached to this last indication of splenetic hostility, does not 
 arise frouj.the justice_and_ foxce _of the Avriter's reasoning, thc_Hroderation 
 and benevolence of his spirit, his enlightened philanthropy, or his emi- 
 nent talent. Adventitious circumstances and meretricious claims, have 
 given the libellous production evanescent and undeserved celebrity. The 
 appearance of such an article at this time, of such length, written in such 
 
 * Every one recollects mth disgust that wholesale and ureverent assemblage of C t5 
 dissenting ministers, ajid one Anglican clergyman, at Manchester, about the time of the 
 general election, with the scarcely-concealed object of making the religion they pro- 
 fessed the cloak of faction and the tool of mischief. The mode m which this strange 
 synod was brought together is highly chai'acteristic. The miction of their language and 
 the feiTcncy of tlieu- zeal would have led one to suppose that then- meeting was the 
 result of a spontaneous and conscientious impulse, or at least, the suggestion of one of 
 their own rei-e/-e«rfboilj-, acting under such an impulse. Nothing like it. (?) In tlje 
 summer of 1811 the League obtained — we laiow not on what terms — the services of a 
 Mr. George Thompson, the same, we believe, who occasionally agitates at tlie India 
 House, and who recentlv appeai-ed as a candidate at Southampton. Mr. Thompson 
 soon took a prorainent part in the affah-s of the League : and one of his first essays 
 seems to have been the planning of tliis clerical Conference. On the 8th July he ad. 
 dressed a circular to all the ministers of Manchester and its vicinity, suggesting the 
 propriety and advantage of a general religious movement, by means of a convention of 
 ministers from all parts of the kingdom. Twenty-eight ministers met, who implicitly
 
 a tone, in the leading literaiy Journal of a party, dominant in her Ma- 
 jesty's counsels at the present crisis — possessing undoubted wealth and 
 great power of confederacy and co-operation, is the chief apolog}' I have 
 to offer for associating its taunts and insults with your Lordship's remarks 
 on the same subject. My Lord, the Dissenting Ministers have had 
 much for which they have to thank you, — and they have also had 
 some things for which they have to forgive you ; but since they 
 have forgiven you, your opinions and sentiments have still much 
 weight with many of them. Your Lordship's opinion, so authori- 
 tatively expressed, was calculated to injure their reputation in two 
 ways : first, by reflecting dishonour on their interference in behalf 
 of the poor, as being officious and secular; and, secondly, by en- 
 couraging the clergy and ministers who kept aloof from the ques- 
 tion, in their connivance at the oppression of the poor, and in the 
 opprobrium which they cast on the movements of their more active 
 brethren. This has induced me to offer, not an apology for my 
 my brethren, for they^ need it not; but a defence of their principles, mo- 
 tives, and measures, in relerence to the food of the poor ; and also to 
 assert that they have been perfectly right in discussing the Corn Laws in 
 their aspect on morals and religion. 
 
 adopted the suggestion of theii- lay-brother ; and accordingly the Dissenting Convoca- 
 tion was siunmoned by the more than-royal \^^^t of Mr. George Thompson to meet in 
 Manchester for the despatch of business ui the week between the loth and 22nd August 
 The Conference met — but not for the despatch of business — their irregular proceed- 
 ings and impotent conclusion were too ridiculous to be mischievous, and had the single 
 merit of bringing the hj^jocrites or fanatics who composed it to their proper level in 
 public estimation. About the same time ninety dissenting ministers in Glasgow signed 
 a petition, which seems to us ejusdem farince as the Manchester programme just quoted 
 — showing — * 
 
 ' That, although they heartily coincide with their fellow-subjects in reprobating the 
 Corn Laws, fi-om their iiiinous effects on the industry and prosperity of the British 
 people, they feel persuaded that the chief aspect in which'it becomes them, as Chiistians 
 and as Christian ministers, to regai-d these impositions, is their flaijranl wickedness in 
 the si(/ht (if Alinif/hfi/ God, to whose Holy Word they are opposed, ^"ith tlie benevolent 
 arrangements of whose pro\idence tliey are at war, and whose just displeasure, if per- 
 sisted in, they cannot fail to draw down. 
 
 ' That yoin- jjetitioners beseech your honourable house to reflect whether, in the siffht 
 of ajiiat (tod, the legislature can have the right to prevent the poor from obtaining 
 bread at the clu'a|)est market to whidi they have access ; wliether it is rigliteous to tax 
 tlip poor and working classes in the midst "of privation and suffering, to the extent of 
 millions aniuially,liyan artiiical dearth of thenecessaries oflife ; tidicthcr they arc prepared 
 lo answer lu the Jndye of all for the straits and sv[f(:rin(i, as wcU as the pei-jjlexity and 
 discontent, and other evils, moral as well as physical, which these laws unavoidably 
 genei-ate. 
 
 'And that on those gi-otnids your petitioners imjdorc your honourable house, in the 
 name of the country, in tlie name of hmnanity and justice, above all, in the sacred name 
 qfrelif/ion, and of God ever blessed, to abolish" these unrighteous laws, with the least pos- 
 sible delay. ' 
 
 In the same spirit Anti-Corn-Law sermons — distinctively so called — became almost as 
 <'ommon as Anti-Com-I>aw lectures. And wo regret to be obliged to say that the ex- 
 tracts of tliose sermons published by the lycague appear to us to be, like the Manchester 
 summons and Scotch petition, a compound of hypocrital cant and rabid faction. To 
 tliose reverend persons wlio think themselves entitled to catechise others, we think we 
 may be permitted to retort one of their own questions — ' Wliether they are prepared to 
 answer to the great Judge of all for the straits and the sufferings ' of the hunckeds of 
 deluded men, and the tliousands of mnocent wives and cliikb-en — tlie imprisoned — the 
 banislied — or the ruined victims of tliis Anti-Com-Law Agitation ' — Quarterly Review, 
 December, ]8i2,— Page, 2.5.5-6.
 
 1 am surprised that your Lordship should say that this is not a moral 
 question ; for a high authority in the philosophy of our nature has said 
 that, for one class of men to enrich themselves at the expense of others, 
 is \yorse than any injury that can he named. Your Lordship will re- 
 member the sentiments of Cicero on this subject, — " Detrahere aliquid 
 alteri et hominem hominis incommodo suum augere commodum, magis 
 €st contra naturam, quam mors quara pauperlas, quam dolor, quam 
 csetera, qua possunt aut corpori accidere, aut rebus externis." 
 
 Against a wrong so flagitious, is it a wonder that the men who are 
 commissioned to preach the gosjjel to the poor, should lift up their voice I* 
 Your Lordship will allow that Christian pastors may be the best judges 
 of what is religious and what is not ; just as it might be conceded that 
 senators may be the best judges of what is constitutional. Acting on 
 this principle, these religious pastors have considered the Corn question 
 as a religious one, because they saw its influence on religion among their 
 flocks. 
 
 If any pastors can be found who have agitated this question, purely to 
 annoy the Tokies, or to support the Whigs, as political parties in the 
 state, — to them my defence does not extend ; they deserve all that has 
 been said against them. On the other hand, the pastors who have met 
 in conference as religious men, wdio regarded the question in its religious 
 aspect, and discussed it in a religious spirit, and for religious purposes — 
 these men had the warrant, the sanction and the authority, of the sacred 
 BOOK wdiich they expound. 
 
 This is the point which I have to prove to your Lordship:* I'hen, my 
 Lord, we will go " to the law and the testimony," to learn whether this 
 movement of Dissenting Pastors, in discussing the Corn question, be 
 consistent with " pure and undefiled religion." 
 
 First — It is perfectly religious and holy that pastors should oflicially 
 take a lively interest in the supplies of the poor. 
 
 On this subject I will appeal to a passage which your liOrdship once 
 quoted with a felicity of apjilication which will long be remembered. It 
 is, John xii. 6. " This he said, not that he cared for the poor." This keen 
 reflection on the flagitious and hypocritical character of Judas, implies 
 that " care for the po;)r " was a consistent, honourable, and oflicial cha- 
 racteristic of the whole college of the Apostles. I believe that this in- 
 ference will so fully approve itself to your Lordship's judgment, that I 
 will not spend another word upon it. 
 
 Secondly — It is perfectly religious and holy that a Christian Church, 
 AS SUCH, should assemble together to express their complaint and dis- 
 pleasure, when they see their poor suffering from want and oppression. 
 
 For this we have authority and example in Acts vi. I. "And in those 
 days, when the number of the disciples was nmltijdied, there arose a mur- 
 muring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were 
 necrlected in the daily ministrations, &c." At this time the church in 
 Jerusalem had all things in common, and the peojjle had a fund large 
 enough for the supply of all; but there was aristocratical partiality in the 
 distribution of it — the Jerusalem Jews regarding their connexions as 
 more worthy of relief, than the relations of the Hellenistic Jews. This 
 matter the early Christians regarded as a church ailiiir, and they treated 
 it as a religious business. It was as religious jieople that they met to en- 
 quire into it, to discuss it, to report on it, and to redress it.
 
 If it be objected that they carried the question to the Apostles only, 
 and not to the Sanhedrim, I might reply thit this objection comes with 
 bad grace from the advocates of Church and State, who first send Chris- 
 tian pastors to a House of Lords, and then make it irreligious to ask 
 these spiritual barons and Christian senators to attend to the wants of the 
 poor. All, however, that I wish your Lordship to concede to this passage 
 is, that it was not irreligious, or unecclesiasiical, for the Christian Church 
 at Jerusalem, to meet, as such, to represent the grievances of the poor to 
 those who had authority over the matter, and to request those persons to 
 redress them. 
 
 I believe, my Lord, that the churches who sent delegates to jSTanches- 
 ter, Edinburgh, Carnarvon, &c. and the pastors who attended the con- 
 ferences at tliese places, or vcho have subsequently exerted the same in- 
 fluence in other places, and the religious men who met them on those 
 occasions, acted in the very spirit of this early and apostolic church. — 
 This meeting in Jerusalem, like that in ^Manchester, &c. was occasioned 
 by the •' murmuring" of the poor and their advocates. jNow, my Lord, 
 the Apostles did attend to this murmuring, they did enquire into its 
 causes, and, like lionest men, they recommended measures to remove it. 
 The dissenting ministers have done nothing more — nothing else. 
 
 Thirdly — It is perfectly religious that the Ministers of Christ should 
 meet to enquire how the poor are to be supplied with bread. 
 
 On this subject, I beg to submit to your Lordship two passages of 
 holy writ, '^'he first, I hope, will not be thought too long for quotation. 
 It is. Matt. xv. 32-34. " Then Jesus called his disciples unto huB, and 
 said,' I have compassion on the muUitude, because they continue v.'ith me 
 now three days, and have nothing to eat : and I will not send them away 
 fasting, lest 'ihey faint in the way. And his disciples say unto him, — 
 Whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness to fill such a 
 multitude'" — oi', as it is read in Mark viii. 4. " Whence can a man satisfy 
 these men with bread," — " and Jesus saith unto tbem, Hoiv many loaves 
 
 have ye ?" i i • 
 
 Here, my Lord, we have a spectacle full of lively interest—the multi- 
 tude having nothhig to eat— the disciples summoned by their Lord to 
 consider the physical wants of the multitude— the investigation taking 
 place " whence 'these could be satisfied with bread," — and, when the dis- 
 ciples were on the eve of giving up the enquiry in despair, their Lord 
 plying them to examine the subject more ^ minutely, and asking them 
 " how many loaves they had ?" 
 
 ISIy Lord, this very question, " how many loaves have ye ?" is the one 
 which now agitates the United King lom. It was a question ])ut directly 
 to the Apostles ; — they were to give it an answer — they were expected to 
 ascertain this fact,— and the whole multitude were intent to know what 
 answer the Apostles would give. Their Master's sympathies were inte- 
 rested in the case of " multitudes having nothing to eat," for he knew 
 that such destitution would make these multitudes wretched, and would 
 prevent them from attending on his benevolent ministrations. He there- 
 fore called his disciples to him — to make them acquainted with his feel- 
 in'rs on the subject, — to direct their minds to it as worthy of their atten- 
 tiJ'n, — and to encourage them to imitate his tender and philanthropic 
 spirit. These Apostles never thouglit of replying that, this was a ques- 
 tion of political economy— that as religious men they would not enter-
 
 tain it — and that it did not come fairly within the sphere of their office ; 
 for this would have implied that their Lord was irreligious in putting to 
 them the question " How many loaves have ye ?" 
 
 iNIy Lord, had the author of the Christian religion traversed Lancashire 
 and Renfrewshire in the present day, instead of Judea 1800 years ago, 
 and seen a " multitude having nothing to eat," would his interposition 
 have heen thought a degradation of his high character ? or would the 
 sentiments which he has expressed in this narrative he branded as irre- 
 ligious, and unworthy of his holy mission ? No. Shall the servants, 
 then, ])rofess to have more roligion than their JNIaster had ? He had 
 compassion on the multitudes having nothing to eat. He called a meet- 
 ing of the disciples to enquire into this destitution. Accordingly, the 
 apostles did meet, and they proposed the very question which has been 
 discussed by servants of the same Master, whether at Manchester, Edin- 
 burgh, or elsewhere. And in doing so, have they dishonoured their 
 office as presbyters, together with apostles and primitive pastors, who are 
 required to feed the flock of God, and who, not for filthy lucre, but of a 
 ready mind, are expected to manifest the same spirit, as ensamples to the 
 flock, rather than as lords of God's heritage ? " Whence can a man 
 satisfy these men with bread ?" is still a question becoming ministers of 
 religion. 
 
 To the objection that the disciples brought this question to their Lord, 
 and not to the Roman Governor, I reply at once, granted. All that I 
 claim as wari'anted by this passage is this — that there was nothing irre- 
 ligious, nothing unapostolic, nothing unworthy of their holy office, in 
 coming, as a body, to enquire upon this subject, how this poor multitude 
 was to be supplied with food. To this question they came in their official 
 capacity — for it was as being his officers, and ministers, that Christ had 
 bid them to enquire how many loaves they had. 
 
 Y\e can imagine, my Lord, amid all this destitution, and under 
 the summons of his Master, some disciple presenting himself to demur to 
 such a question — to assert that it was not a religious question — that it 
 belonged to the Hisfh Priest and Sanhedrim — that the discussion of it 
 was only sinking their office amid the squabbles of the multitude. Can 
 your Lordship think of any disciple capable of this — except one, and 
 that, Judas the Traitor ? We can imagine another disciple cheerfully 
 obeviug his Lord's summons, and rendering himself active and forward 
 in pushing the enquiry, but frowned upon and blamed by the sanctimo- 
 nious Iscariot ; but to such a disciple, the smile of bis Master would be 
 more than a sufficient compensation. 
 
 Did the disciples take the question to their Lord ? So have done the 
 pastors in ^lanchester and Edinburgh, in London and throughout the 
 whole country, who have exhibited the liveliest interest in the question, — 
 they took it to the throne of tlieir God, and then returned among their 
 flocks to circulate their Lord's question, " How many loaves bave ye ? 
 
 The other argument that I shall bring to establish my third position is 
 Acts vi. 2. "Then the twelve called llie multitude of the disciples unto 
 them, and said. It is not reason that we should leave the word of God 
 and serve tables, liOok ye out therefore seven men, &c." 
 
 I have already quoted the fust verse of this chapter to prove that a 
 Christian church may meet, as a religious body, to represent the griev- 
 ances of the poor. I now introduce the second verse to prove, that the
 
 ministers of Christ may meet to enquire how the poor are supplied. In 
 the instance before us, the apostles met, in their ministerial and apostoli- 
 cal office, to deliberate on the best way of redressing the complaints of 
 the poor : and all that I claim for this passage is, that, for Christian pas- 
 tors to meet for considering the wants of the poor, is not irreligious, or 
 unministerial. The apostles saw, that to meet the exigencies of this case, 
 there was no need that they should give up their ministry. They were 
 not to turn corn merchants to furnish the actual supply of food, or be- 
 come mercantile clerks to take account of the distribution. No, my Lord, 
 all that they were called to do, and all that they did, was, to deliberate on 
 the wants of the poor, and to suggest the best measures for immediate 
 relief. My Lord, did the pastors who met at Manchester, Edinburgh, 
 Carnarvon, &c. attempt to do anything beside this ? Did they give up 
 their Bibles for Corn Law Reports ? No, — they kept to their subject, to 
 their duty, and to their office — "care for the poor. " 
 
 I need not to prove to your Lordship that this movement at Jerusalem 
 was, to all intents and purposes, a religious one ; for the Church met as 
 a congregation of faithful men, both members and ministers, to deliber- 
 ate on the greivances of the poor — they appointed to attend to this affair 
 the most eminently religious men in the Church, some of whom, if not 
 all, were able preachers of the word of God ; they designated them to their 
 work by the most religious acts of praver and imposition of hands ; and 
 the result of this attention of the Church to the relief of the poor was a 
 great religious prosperity, so that the word of God increased, and the 
 number oT the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem gi'eatly. 
 
 The reason why the Apostles would not leave the word of God to 
 serve tables, was, not that attending to the supplies of the poor was irre- 
 ligious and unministerial, but that, as their office was of a missionary 
 character, and as they had no settled charge to require their constant 
 residence, it was not right that they should give up their apostolical 
 travels and ministrations for the mere sake of superintending the distri- 
 butions amongst the poor of the churches which they had gathered. 
 Had the men who had the management of the common fund acted 
 honestly towards the poor of all classes, the Christian Church and the 
 Apostles would not have interfered at all in the matter ; but when these 
 men neglected their duty and oppressed the poor, the early Christians 
 and the Apostles shewed that they could, without sinking their i*eligious 
 character, call these men to account, and appoint more honest men to 
 watch over the interests of the poor. My Lord, the churches who sent 
 their pastors to Manchester, Edinburgh, &c., and the pastors who as- 
 sembled together at the Conferences held at those places, on the supplies 
 of the poor, have acted precisely on these very principles. 
 
 Will it be objected that this case is not in point, because the Church 
 and the Apostles at Jerusalem did not meet on laws for the sale of 
 corn ? Most certainly, my Lord, tlicy did not meet to discuss Corn 
 laws, and that for the best reason in the world, namely, that no such 
 laws were then in existence. There was, however, a kind of " common 
 law," understood among the managers of the distribution themselves, ac- 
 cording to which all their measures were in favour of one class, the Pal- 
 estinian widows. This law was at once annulled by the appointment of 
 Hellenistic distributors. Had there been a law of the Sanhedrim on 
 tliis subject, and bearing hard on the poor, I believe that the Apostles
 
 would have remonstrated against it. This, T shall endeavour to shew to 
 your Lordship in my next position. 
 
 Fourthly. — It is perfectly religious that Christian pastors should 
 express their abhorrence, and proclaim their denunciation, of all laws and 
 measures which rob and oppress the poor. 
 
 Such a course of conduct is warranted by the examples of botli our 
 Lord and his Apostles. Let us hear the language of our Lord. Luke 
 xi. 46, " Woe unlo you also, ye I^awyers, for ye lade men with bur- 
 thens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burthens 
 with one of your fingers." Your Lordship knows that these lawyers 
 were not the attornies and solicitors of our country, but they were the 
 authors of the laws — the men who imposed and " laded these burthens 
 upon others." Such oppressive laws, whether they refer to religion, — to 
 liberty, — to burdens on trade and labours of industry, or taxes on food, 
 are to be denounced bv all honest men : and asrainst such laws " no man 
 spake like this Man." The burthens laded on others by these lawyers 
 were class laws, for they themselves did not touch them with one of their 
 fingers, either to bear them or to remove them. In our liord's loud con- 
 demnation of these grievous burthens, and in his symj)athy with suffer- 
 ing and oppressed humanity, there is nothing unworthy of his exalted 
 character — nothing inconsistent with his religion as the cause of "peace 
 on earth and good-will towards men." 
 
 As a specimen of the manner in which the Apostles felt on all mea- 
 sures, whether legal or illegal, for oppressing the poor, I will cite James 
 v., 1-6. " Your gold and silver is cankered, and the rust of them shall 
 be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. — liehold 
 the hire of your labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of 
 you kept back by fraud, crieth : and the cries of them which have reaped 
 are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth," &c. &c. 
 
 The men represented here were the " rich men " who wished to con- 
 centrate all wealth in their own class, who thereby grasped all power 
 into their own hands, and then abused both to oppress the labourer. It 
 does not matter to the argument whether the hire was kept back by op- 
 pressive contracts for the lowest sum, by reducing wages to keep up their 
 own station and expenses, by preventing the industrious from making 
 othei' contracts where their labour would be belter paid, or by refusing or 
 abridging the payment when the work was done; whether by restricting 
 the demand for labour and lessening their hire, by limiting the supply of 
 food, so as raise its price above their wages ; by tlirowing obstructions in 
 the way of distant commerce, which would otherwise bring supplies of 
 food and to increase their hire ; in every such case it would be a fraud, 
 iniquitous, and oppressive, and therefore to be denounced. Now, James 
 wrote these "words that burn," as an Apostle, as the Pastor of the 
 Church, and yet no one thinks of charging him with irreligion. In like 
 manner the christian pastor is within the precincts of his ofiice when he 
 preaches against oppressiou, — when writing a pastoral letter against it, — 
 when addressing an audience on its enormities, and when warning op- 
 pressors of their sin against God. In denouncing, therefore, oppressive 
 laws, as such, and in defending the claims of the labourer to justice, there 
 is nothing irreligous or unholy. 
 
 Fifthly. — It is highly irreligious either to oppress the poor, or to 
 allow oppression to continue, under the plea that we arc too religious
 
 8 
 
 III III 
 AA 000 564 032 1 
 
 and devout, or that our ofSoe is loo sacred to allow us to interfere for the 
 oppresed and the starving. 
 
 My Lord, there is no hypocrisy branded, by the Xew Testament, with 
 greater infamy, than a canting profession of sympathy with the pour 
 while onr hands clinch on our means to relieve them. I shall again quote 
 the authority of the Bishop of Jerusalem : James ii., 14-16. "What 
 doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have 
 not works ? can faith save him ? If a brother and sister be naked and 
 destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them,Depai-t in peace, 
 be warmed and filled ; notwithstanding ye give them not those things 
 which are needful for the body ; what doth it profit ? " The religion of 
 the Bible does not consist in creeds and articles — it is not something too 
 ethereal to be applied to men's business and bosoms, — something too 
 sentimental and ulatonic to be reduced to everv-dav life. Xo, mv liord, 
 this is sanctimoniousness and not religion. True religion is practical, 
 and mingles with men's wants and troubles — it attempts to produce and 
 eflfect all the good which it desires. The sanctimoniousness which usurps 
 the name of religion is " faith without works " dead, putrid, and offen- 
 sive to God and man. 
 
 This official sanctimoniousness is condemned in the severest terms by 
 the Author of Christianity, His sentiments are recorded for our in- 
 struction in Matt, sxiii. 14. " Woe unto yon. Scribes and Pharisees, 
 hypocrites; for ye devour widows' houses, and roR a pretexce make 
 loni^j prayers; therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation," My 
 Lord, this is enough. If we oppres^the poor or connive at their op- 
 pression, or remain silent till their oppressors shall i-elax their measures ; 
 and if we act thus on the pretence that we are too devotional, too spiritu- 
 ally-minded, and that our ofhce as pastor is too elevated, too dignified, 
 and too holv, to attend to the devouring of widows' houses, and the 
 withholding of breiid from the cottages of the poor, our Lord ranks us 
 with Scribes and Pharisees, and disowns us as hypocrites, and that be- 
 cause we represent his religion as being less applicable to all the wants 
 of common life, than he intended it. 
 
 My Lord, I have done. I honour the motives of my brethren in 
 agitating the question of Corn Laws, and approve of the measures which 
 they have generallv adopted. I am happy to inform your Lordship that the 
 Congregational Board ofMinisteis inLondon resolved in the proper time 
 to recommend all the churches under their care, to petition the Legislature 
 against the Laws relating to Food : and, I trust, every church in the 
 united kingdom will, with one voice, demand their immediate repeal. 
 As I have no wish to shrink from the opprobrium cast on the names of 
 my brethren, and as in this letter I have made use of your Lordship's 
 name, I take the liberty of introducing my own, by subscribing myself. 
 Your Lordship's hun)ble Servant, 
 
 THOMAS W. JEXKYX. 
 LoNDOx, Dec.24, IS42. 
 
 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL ANTI-CORN-LAW LEAGUE, 
 NEWALL'S BUILDINGS, MANCHESTER. 
 
 PKIMED DY JAMES LOV.XDES, DEAXSGATE, AND LOWER KING-STREET, M.VXCHESTER.