Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

not have that unlimited application, which this theoretical writer pretended to give them; and, more efpecially, that they are wholly inapplicable to the trade of corn, which, being an article of pri mary necefity, must be purchased, let the price be what it will.

"The diftinctions of the article of bread-corn, in regard to and comparifon with every other article of trade, are obvious, under the two confiderations of its being indifpenfable for fubfiftence to the people generally, and in a commercial view, further, as a material on the price and value of which that of any (every) manufacture whitever muft reft, and the fuccefsful trade thereof, in competition with other nations, muft ultimately depend.

"From thefe confiderations of highest import to the comfort and very life of our people, and fecurity to the exigencies of (the) ftate, may be justly and wifely taken a distinction in the conduct of our. market, for the article of bread-corn, by holding over it the arm of regulation and controul, in contradiftinction to the general principles of free trade."

Our author fully establishes his pofition, and overthrows the vain theory of the celebrated writer whom he attacks, as far as it affects the corn trade; but we think that he makes too great conceffions to his adverfary, and that the principle of his reafoning might be extended, in a certain degree, to other objects of commercial fpeculation. To paper in particular, from woeful experience we know it might. That article in the courfe of eighteen months, has experienced a rife of 33 per cent, principally owing to a monopolizing combination of the moft opulent ftationers; one of whom has even boasted, that by the additional rife on paper (of five shillings a ream) in confequence of the double duty juft impofed, he fhall clear forty thousand pounds, which could not be done without a flock in hand worth upwards of two hundred and twenty thousand pounds! And yet we are to be infulted with the miferable nonfenfe, of comparing monopoly with witchcraft. If the Government do not speedily interfere to check the abominable fpirit of monopoly which is fo gencrally prevalent, the ruin of the country will be the inevitable, and not very remote, confequence.

Obfervations on the Publication of Walter Boyd, Efq. M. P!!! By Sir Francis Baring, Bart. 8vo. Pr. 32. IS. Sewell.

London. Sor.

SIR Francis Baring is a very moderate, liberal, candid, and cutious affailant of Mr. Boyd. Indeed, the worthy Baronet appears to have fo large a portion of philanthropy in his bofom, that the bare idea of doing any thing fo unpolite as contradicting another writer f:ems to thock him. It is with great reluctance that I attempt to contro ert the opinion of any perfon, and particularly that of Mr. BOYD." Yet, we muit confefs, that, for a writer of fuch timidity and forbearance, he fpeaks fomewhat plainly. Ex. Gr. "I am inclined to think that, after confidering the whole of the publication

maturely

maturely, and combining its various parts, Mr. Boyd is himself of opinion, that there is rather a want than a fuperabundance of paper, to answer the purpofe of a circulating medium." Now, moft affuredly, if this were the cafe, if Mr. B. really thought one thing and faid another, he would be the most deteftable hypocrite that ever fought to mislead and delude the public; because if his ability had been adequate to enfure fuccefs to his attempt, the mischief he must have pro-, duced would have fet all calculation at defiance. But, though we entertain no very high opinion of Mr. Boyd, we certainly cannot believe him capable of an act so atrocious as that which Sir Francis Baring here imputes to him.

Sir Francis further fupports his charge by obferving that if Mr. Boyd's notable plan for a new bank, in 1796, had been adopted, he (Mr. B.) would not have been fatisfied with the additional circulation of paper to which he now attributes fuch tremendous confequences. "No; I remember well what paffed at that time, and that he would have confidered fifteen millions and a half of paper as very inadequate to furnish a circulating medium for the country." Really, Sir Francis, you are too unpolite, these recollections are intolerable!

Sir Francis treats with fovereign contempt the preposterous idea that the encreased emiffion of bank notes fhould have produced the contrary effects of raifing the price of provifions and of stock! And he, indeed, denies, and fupports his denial with arguments and facts, that it could produce any of the confequences which Mr. Boyd has imputed to it. to it. The fall of foreign exchanges, Sir F. concludes, can only operate upon the exported produce and manufacture of the country and not on the internal confumption. His reasoning on this point appears to be equally pertinent and conclufive.

"Let us try it by a cafe in point, and a cafe which applies to the whole of the queilion-I mean the price of wheat, and let us fuppofe that it fells in the market for 150s. and that the Exchange is 10 per cent. against us; from the price of 150s. deduct the difference of exchange 15s. If the exchange were equal to bullion, it would be 1355. So far Mr. Boyd i, right with regard to wheat imported from abroad; but it remains for him to prove that, if the exchange on Hamburgh was 335. inftead of 30s. the Farmers in Effex, Kent, &c. would fell their wheat for 1355. inftead of 150s. and what is more, he ought to prove that when the exchange on Hainburgh is at 335. the Effex farmer would get as much by the price of 1355. as he would by tl e price of 150s. when the Hamburgh Exchange is at 30s. If he cannot prove this, he must admit that the foreign Exchanges have no influence or effect upon the price of corn grown in this country.

"Perhaps Mr. Boyd is not aware in what manner his own quotations and his own arguments may return against him by the delay of a few days. In the introduction, dated the 31st of December, 1800, he obferves that, lince his letter was written, the Exchange in Hamburgh had fallen from 31s. 10d. to 29s. 10d. which he confiders as an additional proof of what he has advanced. In that cafe he must

admit

admit that when the exchange rifes, it must produce a comparatively favourable effect. On the 2d of January, 1801, the courfe on Hamburgh is printed 29s. 8d. a difference of very near 7 per cent. and yet we do not perceive the flighteft effect it has produced in lowering the price of provifions, or other commodities grown and confumed in Great Britain, and affords a moft unequivocal correct anfwer to the whole of his argument with regard to the foreign Exchanges."

Mr. Boyd has, for feveral days paft, caused a new edition of his pamphlet to be advertifed in the papers; with additions profeffing to contain an anfwer to all the objections which have been urged against it. We have waited till the last moment, in the hope of being able to give fome account of this new edition in our prefent Number; but, whether or no it has been purpofely delayed, in order to rescue it from animadverfion for one month at leaft, we know not; but it has not yet appeared. We therefore fhall poftpone our reply to fome comments in an infolent letter, which was inferted in a Morning Paper, on our review of Mr. Boyd's pamphlet, which we ftand pledged to notice, until we have an opportunity of confidering that letter, and the new pamphlet--links of the fame chaintogether.

A Letter to a Nobleman on the propofed Repeal of the Penal Laws which now remain in force against the Irish Roman Catholics. From Charles Butler, Efq. of Lincoln's Inn. 8vo. Pp. 16. Coghlan. 1801.

MR. BUTLER being a rigid Catholic himself pleads, of course, the caufe of Catholic emancipation, with equal zeal and feeling. But he certainly has not exercifed his ufual judgement in the dogmatical manner in which he here talks--for he does not condescend to reason→→→ of the Coronation Oath, the only point in his fhort pamphlet worthy, of notice. He roundly afferts that the repeal of the Penal Statutes now in force against the Irish Catholics, by which they would be eligible to feats in both Houses of Parliament, and to all places of truft and power, "does not, in any refpect, interfere with the correnation oath." But, notwithstanding the confidence with which this dictum is advanced, and which, after what has recently paffed, cannot be deemed very decorous, it is wholly unfupported by reafon or fact.

"His Majefty," fays Mr. B. "fwears to maintain the proteftant reformed religion eftablished by law :" this could only mean the proteftant reformed religion, as, from time to time, under the legislation of Parliament, it fhould be the church establishment of the country. As to the conftitutional interpretation of the claufe,-it would be ab. furd in the extreme, unconftitutional, and perhaps even treasonable, to contend that the expreffion in queftion precludes his Majefty from concurring with both Houfes of Parliament in any legillative act whatsoever. Even. fit did preclude him from fuch a concurrence,

[ocr errors]

it would be no objection to his repealing the laws in queftion, as the repeal of them will not interfere with the legal establishment of the Church; with any part of the hierarchy, or with any of its tempotal or fpiritual rights and privileges. After all, it may be enquired what fyftem of cafuiftry made it lawful for his Majefty to affent to the repeal of the large proportion of penal laws; repealed by the acts of 1778, 1782, and 1793, and now makes it unlawful for him to affent to the repeal of the fmall proportion of thofe laws yet remaining unrepealed; or that made it lawful for him to fanction a partial repeal of the Test Act in 1782, and makes it unlawful for him to fanction a total repeal of it in 1801; But all this difcuffion is fuper. fluous. The coronation dath was fixed in Ireland by the first of William and Mary; at that time Roman Catholic peers had their feats, and voted in the Houfe of Lords; Roman Catholic commoners were eligible to the Houfe of Comtrions; and all civil and military offices were open to Roman Catholics; they were deprived of these rights by the acts of the third and fourth of William and Mary, and the first and second of Queen Anne. Now the coronation oath can only refer to the fyftem of law which was in force when the act; which prefcribed it, was paffed; but the Irish laws, meant to be repealed, are fubfequent to that act; to thofe laws; therefore, or to any fimilar laws; the coronation oath cannot be referred.”

Here, again, Mr. B. is ftrong in affertion but weak in argument. No one denies the power of his Majefty to concur in any act of Par liament whatever; but how far he could concur in an act which wold admit Popish Peers into a Proteftant Parliament, without a violation of his coronation oath, is another question: Mr. B. indeed, tells us, in a very dictatorial manner, that fuch a measure "would not interfere with the legal establishment of the Church." His Majefty, however, it seems, thinks otherwise; and we heartily concur in opinion with him. Nobody appears to doubt, that, if the Catholic peers were ever to acquire an afcendancy in the House, our Ecclefiaftical Conftitution, at leaft, would be immediately deftroyed;-thinking, as they do, they would not be true to themfelves, if they did not labour to deftroy it; and it furely would be little short of an act of political madness to admit men into Parlia ment whose afcendancy would, avowedly, be attended with such fatal confequences. The inquiry which Mr. B. makes relative “to the repeal of the large proportion of penal laws," had been made before by a writer in one of the newspapers. But can a man of his underftanding really put fuch a queftion feriously? Any schoolboy would fupply the following anfwer to it-His Majefty confented to the repeal of thofe ftatutes because he wished to extend every practicable indulgence to his Romish subjects, and because he thought they might be repealed without endangering the Established Religion of his kingdom, and, therefore, confiftently with his coronation oath ;-and he now refuses to repeal the "mall proportion of thofe laws yet remaining unrepealed," because he feels, in common with the majority of his proteftant fubjects, that they cannot be repealed without endangering the Church Eftablishment, and, confequently, not without

Fo. XXXII. VOL. VIII.

a violation

violation of his coronation oath. Is there any cafuiftry, any in confiftency in this? Oh! but-exclaims Mr. Butler, most triumphantly" all this difcuffion is fuperfluous." Well, then, to please him, we will wave all farther difcuffion on this head, for the prefent, though we fhall certainly enter much at large into it hereafter, and attend to his decifive argument, that renders all other arguments nugatory and vain. "The coronation oath can only refer to the fyftem of law which was in force when the act which prefcribed it was paffed." Indeed! and is it true, then, that when his Majefty fwears to maintain the proteftant reformed religion as established by law, he is not to maintain it such as it was at the time when he took the oath, but fuch as it was fixty or feventy years before? By parity of reafoning, and with equal justice, we may be next told, that his Majefty bearing the title of Defender of the Faith is not bound to defend the faith fuch as it was when he came to the throne, but fuch as it was at the time when the title was first given; and, of course, that he is bound to defend the Popish faith, because the title was conferred on Henry the Eighth by the Pope? Miferable fophiftry! unworthy a man of Mr. Butler's sense and talents. Is not Mr. B. aware that he has, in this very paffage, fupplied us with a very Arong argument against himself? After the revolution the Irish Ca tholics were allowed to enjoy all the most important of the privileges which they now claim; but they were only fuffered to enjoy them for a very fhort time: the Legiflature deemed it necessary to deprive them of those rights. Is it not, then, fair to infer, from this hiftorical fact, that their admiffion to feats in Parliament, and to places of truft and power in the State, was proved, by the best of all tefts, that of experience, to be incompatible with the fafety of the Constitution in Church and State? Never, furely, was an argument fo triumphantly urged, fo weak and inconclufive!

2. We much fear that the Romanists will, by mistaken zeal, deprive those who have the most friendly difpofition towards them, (and we profefs ourselves to be of the number) of the means of defending them against their most inveterate enemies. And, certain we are, they will injure the caufe which they wish to promote. We could urge many more strong arguments against Mr. Butler's pofitions, but we have faid fufficient to fhew their fallacy. We entertain a high refpect for the author, but none for his letter. We would much rather fee an enlargement of his Hora Biblice, than an extenfion of his correfpondence with a nobleman.

DIVINITY.

A Sermon preached at Christ Church, Newgate Street before the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor, the Alder men, and Governors of the Royal Hospitals of the City of Lon don, on St, Matthew's Day, Friday, the 21 of September, 1798. By the Rev. Arthur William Trollope, M. A. Vicar of Ugley, Effex. 4to. Pr. 24. London..

[ocr errors]

THE

« ZurückWeiter »