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

“ The distinctions of the article of bread-corn, in regard to and comparison with every other article of trade, are obvious, under the two considerations of its being indispensable for subsistence 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 must rest, and the successful trade thereof, in competition : with other nations, mult ultimately depend.

“ From these confiderations of highest import to the comfort and very life of our people, and security to the exigencits of (the) state, may be juftly and wisely 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 contradistinction to the general principles of free trade."

Our author fully establishes his position, 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 concessions to his adverfary, and that the principle of his reafoning might be extended, in a certain degree, to other obvjects of commercial speculation. To paper in particular, from woeful experience we know it might. That article in the course of eighteen months, has experienced a rise of 33 per cent, principally owing to a monopolizing combination of the most opulent ftationers ; one of whom has even boasted, that by the additional rise on paper (of five shillings a ream) in consequence of the double duty juit imposed, he shall clear forty thousand pounding which could not be done without a llock in hand worth upwards of two hundred and twenty thousand pounds! And yet we are to be insulted with the miserable nonsente, of comparing monopoly with witchcraft. If the Governinent do not speedily interfere to check the abominable spirit of monopoly which is so gencrally prevalent, the ruin of the country will be the inevitable, and not very remote, consequence.

IS.

Observations on the Publication of Walter Bord, Esg. M. P!!! By Sir Francis Baring, Bart. 8vo. Pp. 32.

Sewell. London. Isor. SIR Francis Baring is a very moderate, liberal, candid, and curious affailavt of Mr. Bord. Indeed, the worthy. Baronet ap. pe!rs to have fo large a portion of philanthropy in his borom, that the bare idea of doing any thing fo unpolite as contradicting another writer [:ems to ihock him. • It is with great reluctance that I attempt to contro ert the opinion of any person, and particularly that of Mr. Boyd.” Yet, we inuit contess, that, for a writer of fuch timidity and forbearance, he fpeaks somewhat plainly. Ex. Gr. "I am inclined to think thai, after considering 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 superabundance of paper, to answer the purpose of a circulating medium." Now, most affuredly, if this were the case, if Mr. B. really thought one thing and said another, he would be the most deteftable hypocrite that ever sought to mislead and delude the public; because if his ability had been adequate to ensure sucoess to his attempt, the mischief he must have pro-, duced would have set 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 supports 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 such tremendous consequences.

No; I remember well what passed at that time, and that he would have considered 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 recolle&tions are intolerable !

Sir Francis treats with sovereign contempt the prepofterous idea that the encreased emission of bank notes Thould have produced the contrary effels of raising the price of provisions and of stock! And he, indeed, dines, and supports his denial with arguments and facts, that it could produce any of the consequences which Mr. Boyd has imputed 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 consumption. His reasoning on this point appears to be cqually pertinent and conclusive.

“Let us try it by a case in point, and a case which applies to ihe whole of the queilion-I mean the price of wheat, and let us suppose that it fells in the market for 150s. and that thie Exchange is 10 per cent. againit us ; from the price of 1508. deduct the difference of exchange 155. 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 3os. the Farmers in Effex, Kent, &c. would fell iheir wheat for instead of 150s, and what is mire, 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 tle price of 1505. when the Hamburgh Exchange is at 305. If he car.not 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 gift of December, 1800, he observes that, tince his letter was written, the Exchange in Hamburgh had fallen from 31s. 101. 10 295. 10d. which he considers as an addisional proof of what he has advanced. In that case he muft

I

1355.

admit that when the exchange rises, it must produce a comparatively favourable effect. On the 2d of January, 1807, the course on Hamburgh is printed 298. 8d. a difference of very near 7 per cento and yet we do not perceive the flightest effect it has produced in lowering the price of provisions, or other commodities grown and confuined in Great Britain, and affords a moft unequivocal correct answer to the whole of his argument with regard to the foreign Exchanges."

Mr. Boyd has, for several days past, caused a new edition of his pamphlet to be advertised in the papers ; with additions professing to contain an answer to all the objections which have been urged againit it. We have waited till the last moment, in the hope of be. ing able to give some account of this new edition in our present Number; but, whether or no it has been purposely delayed, in order to rescue it from animadversion for one month at least, we know not ; but it has not yet appeared. We therefore shall postpone our reply to some comments in an insolent letter, which was inserted in a Morn. ing Paper, on our review of Mr. Boyd's pamphlet, which we ftand pledged to notice, until we have an opportunity of confidering ihat letter, and the new pamphlet--links of the fame chain together,

A Letter to a Nobleman on the proposed Repeal of the Penal Laws.

which now remain in force against the Irish Roman Catholics. From Charles Butler, Esq. of Lincoln's Inn. 8vo. Pp. 16. Coghlan. 1801. MR. BUTLER being a rigid Catholic himself picads, of course, the cause of Catholi, emancipation, with equal zeal and feeling. But he certainly has not exercised his usual judgement in the dogmatical manner in which he here talks-for he does not condescend to renfon of the Coronation Oath, the only point in his short pamphlet worthy. of notice. He roundly asserts ihat the repeal of the Penal Statutes now in force against the Irish Catholics, by which they would be eligible to seats in both Houses of Parliament, and to all places of

“ does not, in any respect, interfere with the correnation oath.". But, notwithstanding the confidence with which this dictum is advanced, and which, after what has recently passed, cannot be deemed very decorous, it is wholly unsupported by reason

trust and power,

or fact.

4

“ His Majesiy,” says Mr. B. “[wears to maintain the protestant reformed religion established by law:" this could only mean the pro. teftant reformed religion, as, from time to time, under the legislation of Parliament, it should be the church establishinent of the country, As to the constitutional interpretation of the clause, it would be ab. furd in the extreme, unconftitutional, and perhaps even treasonable, to contend that the expreflion in question precludes his Majesty from concurring with both Houses of Parliament in any legitlative act whatsoever. Even.f it did preclude him from such a concurrence,

a

it would be no objection to his repealing the laws in question, 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 tempo, tal or fpiritual rights and privileges. After all, it may be enquired

. what system of cafuistry made it lawful for his Majesty to affènt 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 assent to the repeal of the small proportion of those laws yet remain. ing unrepealed; or that made it lawful for him to fanctíon a partial repeal of the Test Act in 1782, and makes it unlawful for him to sanction a total repeal of it in 1801; But all this discussion is supet. Anous: · The coronation dath was fixed in Ireland by the first of William and Mary ; at that time Roman Catholic peers had theit seats, and voted in the House of Lords; Roman Catholic commoners were eligible to the House of Comtrions, and all civil and military offices were operi 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 bnly refer to the system of lăw which was in force when the a&; which prescribed it; was paffed; but the Irish laws, meant to be repealed, are fubfequerit to that act; to those laws, therefore, or to any similar laws; the coronation oath cannot be referred."

Here, again; Mr. B. is strong in assertion but weak in argument. No one denies the power of his Majesty to concur in any act of Parliament whatever ; but how far he could coricur in an act which wold admit Popish Peers into a Protestant Parliament, without a violation of his coronation oath, is another question: Mr. B. indeed, tells us, in a very dictatorial manner; that such a measure “ would not interfere with the legal establishment of the Church." His Majesty, however; it seems, thiriks 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 Constitution, at least, would be immédiately destroyed ;-thinking, as they do, they would not be true to themfelves, if they did not labour to destroy it, and it surely would be little short of an act of political madness to admit men inito Parlia: ment whose ascendancy would, avowedly; be attended with such fatal consequences. The inquiry which Mr. Bi makes telative or 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 understanding really put such a queftion feriously? Any schoolboy would fupply the following answer to it-His Majesty consented to the repeal of those statutes because he wished to extend every practicable indulgence to his Romilh subjects, and because he thought they might be repealed without endangering the Established Religion of his kingdom, and, therefore, confiftently with his corontation Oathr;--and he now refuses to repeal the small proportion of those laws yet re. maining unrepealed," because he feels, in common with the majority of his protestant subjects, that they cannot be repealed without ene dangering the Church Establishment, and, consequently, not without xo, XXXII. VUL, VIII,

& violation of his coronation oath. Is there any cafuiftry, any im. sconsistency in this? Oh! buto-exclaims Mr. Butler, most triumphantly all this discussion is superfluous.” Well, then, to please

~" him, we will wave all further discusion on this head, for the present, though we shall certainly enter much at large into it hereafter, and sartend to his decisive argument, that renders all other argumenta nugatory and yain.

“ The coronation oath can only refer to the system of law which was in force when the act which prescribed it was passed." Indeed! and is it true, then, that when his Majesty swears to maintain the protestant 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 such as it was fixty or seventy years before ? By parity of reafoning, and with equal justice, we may be next told, that his Ma. jefty bearing the title of Defender of ihe Faith is not bound to defend the faith such as it was when he came to the throne, but such 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 con. ferred on Henry the Eighth by the Pope? Miserable fophiftry ! un. werthy a man of Mr. Butler's sense and talents. Is not Mr. B. aware ţhat he has, in this very paffage, supplied, us with a very Arong argument against himself? After the revolution the Irish Cám tholics were allowed to enjoy all the moft important of the privileges which they now claim ; but they were only suffered to enjoy them for a very short time : the Legiflature deemed it necessary to deprive them of those rights. Is it not, then, fair to infer, from this hif. torical fact, that their admission to feats in Parliament, and to places of trust and power in the State, was proved, by the best of all iefts, that of experience, to be incompatible with the safety of the Conítitution in Church and State? Never, surely, was an argument fo triumphantly urged, fo weak and inconclusive ! . We much fear that the Romanifts will, by mistaken zeal, deprive those who have the most friendly disposition towards them, and we profess ourselves to be of the number) of the means of defending them against their moft inveterate enemies. And, certain we are, they will injure the cause which they wish to promote. We could urge many more strong arguments against M. Butler's positions, but we have said Puliicient to thew their fallacy. We entertain a high respect for the author, but none for his letter. We would much rather see an enlargement of his Horæ Biblicæ, than an extension of his correspondence with a nobleman.

a

DIVINITY.

& Sermon preached at Chrif Church, Newgate Street,

before the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor, the Aldera nen, and Governers of the Royal Hospitals of the City of Lon. don, on St, Maukow's Day, Friday, the 21 of September, 1798. By the Rev. Arthur William Trollope, M. A. Vicar of Vgley, Essex. 40, Pr. 24. London,

THE

2