than any that proceeds from the laws. He may, unheard, and without appeal, have his fair fame blackened, the redhot iron placed on his forehead, and the sentence of proscription read over him in full Parliament.

One of these redoubtable people attempted the discomfiture and annihilation of Malachi in two Letters, which he published in the London Courier; these letters he has since put forth as a pamphlet. It is because he has thought the quibbling and conceit, which, in his own words, "might be excused in the columns of a newspaper, worth preserving in the more permanent shape of a pamphlet," that we notice them. Who the author of the pamphlet is, we have not the means of ascertaining; but his feeling towards Scotland, and his want of information touching England, abundantly prove that he is neither Scotsman nor Englishman. Report states him to be an official personage; and the credit which we give to this, is one reason why we take cognizance of his literary labours. To say what office he fills, is a matter wholly beyond our knowledge. In other times it might have been imagined, from his subject, that he filled some department in the Treasury; but in these days, when every man is thought to be the master of every calling save his own-when Ministers have declared that practical knowledge of a question perfectly unfits a man for giving an opinion on it—and when public interests are scrupulously managed according to the directions of those who, from habit and avocation, are likely to be the most ignorant of them-in such days, it may be safely assumed, from his subject, that he has no connexion whatever with the department of Government to which the regulation of the currency more especially belongs. It may, we surmise, be taken for granted, that he belongs to the Foreign Office, or the Colonial Office, or the Admiralty, or perhaps the Excise. If the question be put to us-Is he one of the Eldon party, the Canning party, the Grenville party, or any other of the thousand-and-one parties which compose the Ministry; or is he a person whose frame is of so extraordinary a kind, that a portion of it is found in every party-that his foot is stuck in one, his arm in another, his nose in a third, and so on, in such a way that which

ever of them may be tumbled out of office, he will still be found rivetted to the remainder? If such a question bę put to us, we must frankly own that we cannot answer it. We are, moreover, quite unable to decide whether his pamphlet is intended to serve an official friend, or to appease an official enemy: we suspect the latter.

As this pamphlet makes it manifest that there are official men who are exceedingly anxious to devote their attention to other matters than the duties which are imposed upon them by office, we cannot refrain from here heartily wishing that some of them would look at the prospects of the navy. From various changes and innovations that have lately been made, the merchant-navy is demonstrably in a declining state, and many things render it pretty certain that it will continue to decline very rapidly. How this is to operate on our naval power, forms a problem which unquestionably ought to be solved as soon as possible. From the doctrines put forth by Ministers, and repeated by the writer of this pamphlet, it is clear that the people of the Admiralty are utterly unfitted by their practical knowledge for attempting the solution; and, therefore, if the writer be connected with the Admiralty, we cannot ask him to notice the problem. But if he be not so connected-if he belong to any of the other offices we have named, or to the Irish Government, the Household, the Board of Green Cloth, &c.-let him give us a solution with all expedition, now that he has settled the question touching the currency of Scotland.

The first of his Letters relates principally to local matters, and we will leave it to the notice of any of our brother-contributors who may be better acquainted with such matters than we can pretend to be. We will confine our remarks to his second Letter on the Currency.

In the second paragraph of this letter, we find the following delectable words: "I fear that we differ as to the meaning of the word practical; I think I can see that by a practical view, you really mean a view narrowed to the present and momentary state of things, and excluding all considerations of what has passed elsewhere, and of what may at any future moment occur in Scotland itself; and this I take to be the great error of those who

call themselves practical men. They confine their observations to the local spot, and the present day. He who thinks of to-morrow they call a theo rist; if he looks to the next month, he is called a speculist; but if he attempts to legislate for a year or two in advance, he is deemed a perfect vision ary; or perhaps the most injurious term the wit of the practicals can devise-even a philosopher!"

This is remarkably brilliant-the inventive powers of the writer are evidently quite equal to those of Mr Huskisson. The latter gentleman's description of the " Theory" of the opponents of Free Trade did not in the least excel this description of practical views and practical men. We humbly propose that a column of granite be raised in the centre of the new square, which, according to report, is to displace Carlton Palace; and that the descriptions of both be engraven upon it, for the unspeakable edification of posterity. It would, we imagine, amidst other things, cause posterity to marvel greatly, that men, who could thus describe, should have been suffered to waste its patrimony.

The term philosopher assuredly was not devised by the "practicals." Those who are at present called philosophers, selected the title for themselves, and wore it long before it was applied to them by other people. They have for years constantly called their dogmas philosophy, and honoured each other with the name of philosopher. Mr Canning very lately boasted in Parliament, that Ministers were applying philosophy to public affairs. There is no pleasing these philosophers. This saying-I am a philoso pher; yes, I am a wonderful philosopher; but I will knock you down if you call me one!-is mighty foolish. Either let these persons refrain from giving themselves names, or let them deal more charitably with those who call them by the names which they give themselves.

And now we will ask, against whom has the term philosophers been used in the way of reproach? Against Ricardo, Bentham, and their disciplesagainst the writers of the Edinburgh and Westminster Reviews-against men who attacked the Church, Christianity in the gross, the aristocracy, and everything valuable in the empire-against the champions of infiVOL. XIX.

delity and republicanism against those who were for many years denounced by Ministers and their scribes as seditious visionaries-as enemies of religion and the monarchy. Ministers never incurred any derision as philosophers until they adopted certain of the principles and schemes of these men, and threw their shield over them. It is a most ominous thing to see members of the government fighting the battles of these persons against their old supporters, and crying them up as the only people in the nation, save themselves, who possess any talent and wisdom. What we are doomed to see next, we cannot conjecture. Perhaps-if human nature can descend to anything so thoroughly despicable-we shall see the old Quarterly Reviewers put forth pamphlets to refute the principles which they have so long inculcated, and to defend the fame and creed of the Edinburgh and Westminster Reviewers.

There is nothing more extraordinary in these extraordinary times than the attacks which Ministers think good to make upon practical men. The opinion of such men has always hitherto been highly valued by our rulers, and that of mere theorists has been valued as lightly. The line of distinction has even been carefully drawn between practical statesmen and theoretic ones; and the nation has been constantly taught to give its confidence exclusively to the former. It has always been the standing maxim of Parliament to regard only practical views, and listen only to practical men. One great reason why Mr Fox enjoyed so little of public confidence was, he was held to be a theoretic statesman; and one great reason why Mr Pitt enjoyed so much of such confidence was, he was held to be a practical statesman. For many years one of the leading distinctions between the Tories and the Whigs has been, the former have cried up practical opinions and measures, and the latter theoretic ones. No men have declaimed more in favour of practical men and things than the present Ministers; and they have long resisted the doctrines and schemes of their opponents, principally on the ground that these were not practical ones. Yet now these very Ministers profess to hold practical men in sovereign contempt. Mr Pitt was thought by some to look too much at expediency; and 4 G

certain of our present rulers who pro fess to idolize him, look only at abstract doctrine, and disregard expediency altogether. That the Ministry and Parliament should thus have abandoned the old and settled maxims of the country, is incomprehensible-that they should thus be eulogising the Benthams and M'Cullochs, and scoff ing at men of experience, is a scandal to the whole community.

Suppose a man were to say to Mr Canning, "My life has been spent in my study, but I have read that in books and newspapers, and have formed opinions, which render me far better qualified than yourself to fill the Foreign Office"-what would be Mr Canning's reply? He would hugely vituperate the stupidity of the theorist. Yet, when such a man tells Mr Canning and his colleagues that he understands agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, much better than the most experienced agriculturists, merchants, and manufacturers, they believe him. Genuine political economy consists of facts and nothing else; its reasonings, as well as data, must be naked facts. These facts must be drawn from real life; they must be taken from the actual farm yard, counting-house, bank, shop, mansion, and cottage; they must be gathered from the actual habits and opinions of all classes of society. A single falsehood would often be sufficient to vitiate the whole system. Such political economy must not only consist solely of facts, but it must comprehend ALL the facts of every question; the omission of a single one would often render its rules ruinous, Yet Ministers represent the opinions of experienced men touching their respective callings to be worthy only of derision; and they listen only to those who are utterly destitute of practical knowledge, who proceed on false assumptions, and who are strangers to the leading facts of most questions.

We believe that books may be found which profess to contain the most ample and infallible rules for the making of boots. If Mr Huskisson, in his passion for theory, should take it into his head that he could from these books make himself a pair of boots as well as the most experienced boot-maker, he would find, before he could set a single stitch, that the learned author had omitted to give various points of instruction essential for enabling

him to commence. If, by consulting any boot-maker's apprentice, he could get over this difficulty, he would find at every step, not only that the writers had neglected to give divers of the most important rules of the art, but that they had written from legs and feet wholly different from those of Mr Huskisson. The Right Honourable Gentleman would discover, on the completion of his labours, that he had got a pair of most unsightly and imperfect boots, which he could not wear without laming himself. So in the ef forts of himself and his colleagues to make new boots for the state from the directions of theoretic men, they will at last perceive that their teachers have been strangers to the more important mysteries of the art, that they have calculated from false data, that they have omitted to give instructions the most essential, and that by following these teachers, they have made the state a cripple for ever.

The writer of the pamphlet, from what he says touching to-morrow, and a year or two in advance, is evilently one of THE TALENTS-one of the soarers-one who imagines that he can wing his way above the clouds that hide from us futurity. We doubt not that he is a most cunning fortune-teller-that he can prophesy with as much accuracy as any card-inspired sibyl in the kingdom. As he assumes that one of the leading distinctions between the practicals and the philosophers is the former are destitute of foresight, and the latter shine in it prodigiously, let us inquire into the truth of this assumption.

Both sides in the last two years have been somewhat profuse in putting forth predictions. The practicals looked at to-morrow-they glanced at a year or two in advance, and their predictions have been fulfilled to the letter. The

philosophers did the same-Mr Huskisson and Mr Robinson predicted largely touching the brilliant prospects of the Silk Trade, the mighty increase that trade in general was on the point of receiving, and the vast benefits that were about to drop upon the nation from the new and liberal system; their predictions have been decisively refuted. Mr Huskisson, a few weeks ago, predicted, that by this time public distress would cease; this distress is at present widening and deepening, instead of showing symptoms of termi

nation. The philosophers are just as remarkable for foresight as the Edinburgh Reviewers were during the war; the reverse of what they foretell regularly happens; if they predict that to-morrow will be a cloudless day, the rain is sure to fall in torrents.

The writer states to Malachi-"You have fallen into a mishap, one of the most unlucky that could occur to a practical man; namely, a complete mistake as to the matter of fact on which you propose to lecture." Now, what was this matter of fact? Malachi assumed, that a law was about to be passed for prohibiting the circulation of small notes in Scotland; and was he in error? No, he was led by the uncertainty and the reports which then prevailed, to expect that the law would take effect somewhat earlier than it is intended to do; and this constitutes his mighty mistake; a mistake which scarcely touched at all the "matter of fact" on which he proposed" to lecture." He opposed him self, not to the time at which the law was to come into operation, but to the law itself, without reference to such time; and, of course, any error in respect of the time left his reasoning unimpeached. In truth, whatever time may be fixed, the law will in reality begin to operate as soon as it is passed. This is proved by what has taken place in England.

Malachi admits the mistake, in a postscript to the letter containing it; in which postscript he says-" If it is the absolute and irrevocable determination that the bill is to be extended to us, the sooner the great penalty is inflicted the better." His assailant states-" This postscript so alters the state of the case-so answers all the charges of hasty resolutions, violent changes, and precipitate attempts at assimilation, that I only wonder that, instead of adding such an explanation, you did not throw the letter itself into the fire."

Malachi's charges, as the world knows, applied solely to the passing of the law. His postscript stated, that if it should pass, it would be better for it to begin to operate immediately; and that, in truth, it would begin to operate im mediately. If it be passed at all, it will be passed about as soon as any one expected that is, in the present. session. In the face of all this, the writer broadly insinuates, that he ob

jects, not to the making of the law, but to the time of its coming into operation. Almost immediately afterwards he says "Let me observe upon your indignation, that there should be any legislation at all on the subject of Scot tish bank-notes!"

Paltry, pettifogging quibbling, and misrepresentation of a similar character, pervade the whole of the Letters. The writer scarcely ever meets Malachi in a manly manner on the merits of the case, but his study is to gain a verdict by the discovery of petty flaws and trifling technical informalities.

He meets Malachi's "indignation that there should be any legislation at all on the subject of Scottish banknotes," by observing, that the act of 1765, for putting down all bank-notes in Scotland under twenty shillings, was the first legislative interference that he can discover with the paper currency of the three parts of the United Kingdom; that Scotland, instead of being dragged at the tail of England, was the first to introduce these innovations; and that there was no English influence to prompt this act, but that it was introduced by the Lord Advocate Miller, and five other Scottish gentlemen of weight and consideration, at the instance, and on the recommendation, of some of the principal Scottish bankers.

And this, forsooth, is to refute the worthy Malachi! The latter maintains, that interference with the currency of Scotland is at present wholly uncalled for-that it will operate most mischievously-that Scotland ought not to have pernicious measures forced upon it by England against its wishes

that changes in the local concerns of Scotland ought to originate with Scotsmen, and to be sanctioned by the Scottish people;—and this is the triumphant answer!

The writer states, that the reasons adduced by Malachi against the contemplated change, would have been equally applicable to the change produced by the act of 1765. In his judgment, therefore, the exchanges have no more influence over gold than over silver; and it will be as easy to keep Scotland plentifully supplied with sovereigns as with shillings.

With regard to the Article of the Treaty of Union, on which he dilates so triumphantly, there can be no question that the proposed change con

cerns private right quite as much as public right. It concerns the private right of Scotland as a distinct division of the empire, and it deeply af fects the private and pecuniary interest of the whole Scottish people. The new law is altogether different from one against crime, or any other law of a purely public character. Whether we look at individuals or corporate bodies, it assuredly concerns most nearly private right, and it as certainly is not made for the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland." Malachi never argued that it does not concern public right, public policy, nor civil government," as the writer boldly asserts; he knew, that any law which concerns private right, must concern public right in some way or other likewise; he merely argued, that it concerns very nearly private right. If the construction put upon the Article by this writer is to be adopted by the government, the article is perfectly worthless, for public right and public policy could always be pleaded for every change of law whatever. If members of the government define private rights in this manner, it is high time for the British people to inquire whether they possess any private rights of any kind.

It is therefore the author of the pamphlet―maintaining, as in effect he does, that what concerns public right cannot concern private right who has fallen into an absurdity, and not Malachi.

The author argues, that certain provisions of the Treaty of Union prove, "that the framers of the Union admitted, and established, both in law and policy, the principle of assimila

tion."

Well, who denies this principle? Certainly not Malachi; he merely protests against its improper application. He distinctly admits that changes may be made in the laws of Scotland, and that improvements may be borrowed from England; all he contends for is, that these changes and improvements may be such as the peculiar circumstances of Scotland call for. He merely opposes himself to unnecessary assimilation-to theoretic assimilation-to such assimilation as is likely to do grievous injury to Scotland, without benefiting England. The writer next says, he has shown, "that when, in process of time, a deviation from a similarity of currency

took place in Scotland, the Imperial Parliament of 1765 stepped in to remove the most prominent difference." In a preceding page he told us, that the Act of 1765 was not prompted by English interest, and that it was introduced by Scottish gentlemen at the instance of Scottish bankers: but now he wishes to make it appear that the "Imperial Parliament stepped in," in utter disregard of Scottish feelings and interests.

We must now look at his answers to the objections raised by Malachi to the assimilation of currency.

He admits the increased and increasing prosperity of Scotland, and that "the paper currency may have afforded the capital by which much of this good may have been operated." He admits likewise, that, during the suspension of cash-payments in England and Ireland, advances in prosperity, similar in their nature, though different perhaps in their degree, have been made by these countries respectively."

When it is thus confessed, that a paper currency, for nearly one hundred and twenty years in Scotland, and nearly thirty years in England and Ireland, has yielded such invaluable benefits, plain, practical people may think it odd that any attempt should be made to change such a currency. At any rate, they will be sure that the attempt ought only to be made upon the most weighty and unanswerable reasons.

The writer says, "Such a system is specious, and even splendid, but is it solid? In England, we think not-nay, we think that experience has proved that it is not." He represents, that notwithstanding the great bene fits which have obviously been derived from a paper currency, "it has been› thought right, and with an almost universal approbation, to return—even at considerable expense and inconvenience to a metallic currency in England." He says, farther, "We (in England) are anxious to exchange for the solidity of a metallic foundation, the airy and precarious pinnacles into which a paper currency had enabled us to raise our commercial fabric."

The unanimity in England is thisalthough but little public opposition has been offered to it-nine-tenths of the people of England have been constantly, and still are, decidedly oppo