thing more to ruin the nation. The whole that is valuable to us, stands upon the old distinctions between the worthless and the deserving-between good and evil. Conduct like this cannot fail, if persisted in, of blasting public spirit of leading public functionaries to scorn honour and honesty -of corrupting public feeling-of blinding public judgment-and of producing everything that the worst enemy of the state would wish to wit

ness.

We are well aware that all this is to be ascribed to the new systems of Conciliation and Liberality. We wish from our souls that some member of the new trimming school would write a book to explain these systems, and to advocate them. The distinctions of which we have spoken are either just, or they are unjust; no sophistry or cant phrases can prove that they are both that black is both black and white in the same moment. If they be just, maintain them-if they be unjust, abolish them. If it make no difference whether men be honest or knavish, honourable or dishonourable, virtuous or vicious, loyal or seditious, tell us so in plain English; but do not say that the laws which have hitherto governed society ought to be observed, and then stigmatize us as bigots, because we treat those who violate them as offenders.

Looking at this merely as a matter of policy, we think it the worst that could be followed. The demagogues who acted so depraved a part during our late convulsions, are now deserted by the multitude; they are scorned by every one; they lie at the lowest point of contempt and helplessness; and it is this, and this alone, which keeps them peaceable. The courtesy and kindness which they receive from some of the Ministers cannot possibly have any other effect than to raise them again, to give them power, and to make them once more mischievous. Wilson was ruined, utterly ruined, and the Ministers have restored him to character and to influence. What are our lower orders to think when they see Waithman, Wilson, Hobhouse, Hume, &c., complimented by such men as Lord Liverpool and Mr Canning? They must believe that those persons are really upright, knowing, and worthy of being followed. As

VOL.

to the hope that these demagogues, în case of renewed troubles, would shew more forbearance towards the government than formerly, an idiot would not indulge it.

In so far as Conciliation is meant to destroy party spirit, it is levelled against the best interests of the state. Party spirit is the soul of public spirit; it is the guardian of the public weal. What the friends of the nation have to do, is to keep parties properly balanced, and to keep them under the guidance of proper leaders. The tremendous dangers through which we so lately passed, were brought upon us, not by the existence of party spirit, but by the base conduct of those who led the parties opposed to the government. The Whig heads slandered the King-they attacked royalty in the abstract-they waged war, not merely against the Ministers, but against the legislature, the aristocracy, the church, the magis tracy, and the whole of our political and social system; and while they did this, their coadjutors, the Radical chiefs, deluged the country with the most abominable calumnies and falsehoods to prove it. When the leaders thus applied every incitement to rebellion to their followers that could be applied, it was perfectly natural that these followers should become rebellious, and it is certain that this was the cause of their being so. Government at this moment, instead of Conciliating, ought to exert itself to the utmost to destroy, as public men and party leaders, all who then acted the demagogue-it ought to exert itself to the utmost to place the Opposition exclusively under the guidance of such men as the Marquis of Lansdown, Mr Calcraft, and Mr Baring. It may call the feeding and caressing of such people as Waithman, Wilson, Hobhouse, &c., when they are forsaken by all beside, Conciliation; but it will speedily find that this is something of a very different nature, or we are much mistaken.

Passing to other matters, it must give sincere grief to every friend of the country, to find that so many barristers have got into the House of Commons, and that they take so large a share in the transacting of public business. Of those who were only educated for the bar, and who forsook it for political life before they became immersed in practice, we do not speak; our words

apply only to the hacks-to such as Brougham, Denman, Williams, &c. We do not wish to cast groundless censure on any body of men; but we will say, because our words are amply justified by history, that barristers are disqualified, by their habits and occupations, for being members of the legislature. They are not, perhaps, worse by nature than other men, but they are apprenticed to, and they spend their lives in, that which must incapacitate them for discharging the duty of a Member of Parliament. Their regular calling is to say for hire anything that is put into their mouths, whether true or false, whether just or unjust; and we are very certain that, admitting exceptions, men in general cannot follow a calling like this, without having their principles corrupted.

We will refer in proof of this, not only to the history of all legislative assemblies that ever existed, since lawyers became a distinct portion of mankind, but to the history of our own Parliament to that of the existing House of Commons. Brougham is a man of great abilities and acquirements, and yet what is his parliamentary conduct? What are his speeches, with regard to truth, integrity, just views, and right feelings? When we hear him in the House of Commons, we hear nothing but the special pleader of a party-nothing but the counsel, who for this party will say anything or do anything, no matter what the consequences may be to the country. We can scarcely forbear exclaiming-what a noble statesman has been here ruined by the fraud and chicanery of the bar! Great as his powers are, a balance between the good and the evil that he has occasioned since he became a member of the legislature, might make us shudder. Denman would be still more mischievous than Brougham, were he not nearly destitute of talent. That the House has patience to listen to the interminable and violent speeches of this weak man, on all manner of subjects, amazes us, for these speeches are actually intolerable in a newspaper. As to Williams, we need only say, that the proceedings respecting the Lord Chancellor, and the "facts" that were cited to support the charges against him, would well justify a law for excluding practising barristers from Parliament for

ever. As to any use that barristers are of in the House of Commons, they are of comparatively none, as far as the country is concerned. We agree in a remark made by the late lamented Marquis of Londonderry, that they are disabled by their habits for taking correct views of great state questions. The debates on the Manchester meeting-on the charges against Lord Eldon-with regard to the introduction of the Queen's name into the Liturgyand on the case of Smith, abundantly prove that their party-spirit rendera them worse than useless in the discussion of mere legal matters. With regard to new laws, it is the principles of these laws which have to be debated, and barristers are incapable of debating them; and speaking merely of the drawing up of the laws, the acts that issue from the House generally testify, that they could not be more faulty than they are, if there were not a lawyer in it.

Passing on, the late Session increases the sorrow which has been so long felt, that eloquence should have fallen to so low a point in the House of Commons. The debates form the grand source to which the nation at large resorts for instruction in state matters, and they will now rarely supply such instruction. Compared with the debates of former times, they make us ashamed of our present statesmen. If Mr Canning had gone to India, weak as the Opposition is in speakers, it I would have driven the Ministers out of the House by superiority of oratory. Were Mr Canning to be abstracted from his side of the House, there is not at present a single individual in it capable of leading it; and if we except Mr Peel, there is scarcely a single young man on the Tory side, who shews any promise of ever becoming a commanding speaker. It frequently enough happens, that when truth and reason are on the side of Ministers, they are worsted in debate by their inferiority in point of eloquence. This proves against them a neglect of duty, as well as of interest, and we fear the time is not far distant, when they will bitterly deplore their negligence. Mr Peel does not appear to cultivate his capabilities, and he rather sinks than rises as an orator. We lament this deeply. He may, if he pleases, in a less space of time than ten years, become the most powerful man in the

empire; the nation reveres his character and conduct, and the mighty of the land are with him in principles: those who think as he thinks, are all powerful in the State, and they will continue to be so. But he will never become this, if he do not make himself a powerful orator. It has been said, that "Eloquence is the bridle with which a wise man rides that monster of the world, the people;" and, in spite of the contempt with which eloquence is spoken of by those to whom it is denied, we believe this to be strictly true. No Minister can carry the people along with him by his ability and virtues, if he cannot carry the House of Commons and the people along with him by his eloquence. Let Mr Peel reflect upon this, let him calculate how much Mr Canning owes to his eloquence, and let him labour without ceasing to make himself a powerful orator. We need not say, that we do not understand the term eloquence to mean florid froth and declamation, but such speeches as were delivered by Pitt, Burke, and Fox, and such as are delivered by Canning, and, when he will be honest, by Brougham.

Glancing from these matters to the business that was transacted in the last Session, if we find in it something to censure, we likewise find in it something to applaud and rejoice over. "Reform," and "Catholic Emancipation," have been laid upon the shelf by their friends, although we have been so long told, that they were indispensable for saving the empire from ruin. The first is "laid by," because, now that treason is silent, no one will ask for it; and as to the second, its supporters have been constrained to confess, that the conduct of the Catholics themselves rendered it impossible to attempt to carry it. The Catholics have, in truth, lately fought gloriously for Protestantism. We were disbelieved and scoffed at; the Parliamentary emancipators protested that everything was false which was said against the Catholics. While we were looking around us, almost in vain, for support among our Protestant brethren, behold! the Catholic Association stood forward to testify to the truth of what we had uttered; and then, to our astonishment, Bishop Doyle volunteered his evidence in our favour; and then, to our utter amaze

ment, the Pope himself sent his rescript to silence all who might gainsay us. Who, after reading this letter of his holiness, will dare to say that Popery is changed, and that it will admit any Protestant into heaven?

It is a matter of rejoicing that these two topics-the two grand levers of disaffection and madness-are now powerless. How the causes which render them so act upon their friends, we need not describe.

Of the remission of taxes that was made we shall say nothing; but we will say something with regard to the remission that is contemplated. If we are plunged into war-and the political horizon is by no means a serene one-we shall in the first two or three years render our debt what it was when the last war closed; and we shall be again saddled with the whole of the taxes which have been remitted since that period. What we shall have to do afterwards can be foreseen by every one. Now, when this is the fact, when every class in the nation is in a state of prosperity, and when our present load of taxes sits lightly upon us, would it not be wise to speak more of a reduction of debt, and less of a repeal of taxes? We regard it to be indisputable-we are certain that to do our duty, to pay only common regard to our interests, we should raise the sinking fund to eight or ten millions before we repealed another penny of taxes. The chase of spurious popularity is, however, now the rage with all sides, and we must not, therefore, expect that any unpopular care will be taken of the public interests, however loudly it may be called for by wisdom.

We must, of course, say something of the principles of free trade, as they are called, when they are so loudly panegyrized by all parties. If these are to be practised to the extent which is threatened, they will very speedily prove themselves to be principles of ruin. They stand on a false foundation, They assume as their corner stone, that any country will at all times provide as much of any particular kind of labour as its population may call for; and this is refuted at the present moment by England, and more especially by Ireland. They assume, that what is the interest of one trade is the interest of all trades, and that what is the interest of one country is the interest of all countries. Their inevitable ten

Their

dency is to produce an equalization of profits and wages throughout the world; and as they cannot raise other nations to our level, they must sink us to the level of other nations. constant operation must be to reduce profits, to lower wages, to prevent the accumulation of capital, and thus they will act much more against consumption, and consequently trade, in one way, than they will act for them in another. Let us have a free trade in corn, which is so much clamoured for by some people, and which ought to be granted if the "principles of free trade" be just ones, and our farmers, their labourers, and tradesmen, must immediately sink to the state of the continental ones. They must eat, drink, and clothe themselves, as the continental ones do. What would be the consequences to our agricultural population, and what would be the effects on consumption? He must be a wretch who, for the sake of a little increase of trade, would inflict such horrible privations on so large a portion of his countrymen; and he must be a fool who can expect that increase of trade would flow from such privations. We care not who may say, that "we have grown rich and great in spite of our restrictions, and not through them;" we will answer, that it is refuted by common sense, and the whole of his tory. We will say, that the gigantic mass of capital which fills the nation was either rained upon us from the clouds, or it was extracted in the main from those restrictions with which our laws or the war surrounded us; and that we should not have been either rich or great, had it not been for this capital. We are the friends of good rents, good profits, and good wages; these are the grand sources of consumption, and consequently of labour and trade, and to these the "principles of free trade" are irreconcilably hostile.

These principles gave to the Bill for the repeal of the Usury Laws almost all the support it received. It was on the very point of being carried; and a bill more largely fraught with ruinous consequences was never introduced into Parliament. It was perfectly uncalled for-not a petition worth noticing was received in its favour; not a voice out of Parliament, bating two or three factious publications, asked for it ;-the case of the spendthrifts, who

deserve neither relief nor compassion, formed the chief ground on which it was craved; and the Usury Laws were working far more lightly than usual upon the community. Every one who has any practical knowledge of society knows, that in this country, putting the great capitalists out of sight, almost every man who begins business, begins it, in a greater or smaller degree, with borrowed money. The farmer, the mechanic, the tradesman, the manufacturer, the smaller merchant,-nearly the whole of these begin the world with less or more of borrowed capital. Every one who has any practical knowledge of business, knows that scarcely any borrower can afford to pay above five per cent interest. The proprietor of land can seldom pay above three per cent; if the farmer borrow much, five per cent ruins him; and five per cent is, in general, the utmost that trade, on the average, will pay for borrowed money. Why, then, are the Usury Laws, which limit the rate of interest to five per cent, to be repealed? Will the repeal raise rents and profits, and thus enable borrowers to pay greater interest? Serjeant Onslow himself dare not say so. He dare not say that borrowers, in general, can even afford to pay five per cent, and still he wishes to destroy their chief security against being called upon for more.

As to the assertion, that lenders and borrowers meet upon equal ground, it is so glaringly false, that its being made astonishes us. The lender, with government securities and banks at his elbow, acts from choice, the borrower from necessity; the former may lend or not at his pleasure, the latter must have money to save him from heavy loss, perhaps from ruin ;—the one gains reputation by calling competitors around him for his money; the other blasts his credit if he make it publicly known that he wants to borrow. A trader is not, and never will be, able to borrow for a term of years upon his personal security; after the first twelve months, he is liable to be called upon at any time for repayment, and the moment he receives the money he fastens it in business, and cannot perhaps repay it for several years without sustaining grievous injury. If the laws against usury were repealed, the lender would take advantage of the borrower's inability to pay, and would

sponge from him one per cent, and then another, of additional interest, until he ruined him. As to real securities, it would be impossible to obtain money on mortgage for a term of years, except at ruinous interest, and it would be ruinous to take it on any other condition on mortgage than for a term of years. A borrower cannot raise rents or profits in proportion to any rise of interest, and yet people speak of interest being at the rate of eight or ten per cent, as though this could be done, and as though such interest could be safely paid. Were the repeal to take place, it would operate in the most partial manner possible. Men would have to pay interest, not in proportion to their ability, but in proportion to their want of it. Rich men-men who could do either with or without borrowing-would be able to borrow at a very low rate of interest; but men of small capital-men who could not commence business, or who could not get forward in business, without borrowing-would only be able to borrow at a rate of interest destructively high. The rich would thus obtain a monopoly of the money-market, of the profits of trade, and of trade itself, against the middling classes. Much of this would take place during peace, and in war, a state as natural to us as peace, the consequences would be fearful. We are confident, that if the usury laws had not existed during the latter part of the last war, the interest of money in the country would have been pushed up to ten per cent, and we need not say what the effects would have been on the national debt, on taxation, and, ultimately, on both borrowers and lenders. When the expense of borrowing money is at all times great when the disclosures which it calls for on the part of the borrower are of the most delicate and dangerous nature when the money, on being received, is sunk in trade, and cannot be taken out

for some years without subjecting the borrower to great inconvenience and loss-and when rents and profits will not rise and fall with the fluctuations of the money-market, nothing could be more erroneous even in mere theory, than to cause borrowers to be perpetually liable to be called upon for any increase of interest that lenders might ask for.

The great capitalists, as a matter of interest, must support the learned Sergeant; but we trust, that all men of business below them throughout the country will meet his bill in the next Session with petitions against it; and we hope, that Government will re-consider the matter-will feel some compassion for the gigantic mass of small and middling traders, and will prevent the moneyed interest from setting its foot upon all the other interests of the state.

The fact is, the innovators, who are now so industriously at work among us, are either mere theorists, or they are the tools of mere theorists. Human nature-the actual condition and conduct of mankind-ought to form the foundation of the calculations of our political economists, and yet these either do not notice them, or they assume them to be what they are not.* As, however, the worst species of innovators have been defeated and silenced, we hope that those who are now in the fashion will be deserted before they produce much calamity. The new company bubbles have been pretty well pricked; the free trade bubbles will, we trust, before long, be treated in the same way; and we anticipate with some confidence, that ignorance, error, romance, and conceit, will ere long be put down by experience, practical knowledge of men and things, wisdom and patriotism. With this we abruptly conclude our observations.

Y. Y. Y.