of the age, I will have nothing to do: to me they are as loathsome in one man or party as in another; my judg ment tells me that no man, no matter what his rank, reputation, name, and situation may be, can be a party to them without losing his character in the eyes of the honest and consistent. I fear I can only escape being contaminated with them, by standing aloof from all parties of public men.

Nevertheless, sir, I have a party. I belong to one which the proudest man that ever trod the proud soil of Old England might be proud of belonging to. I hold the principles which are held by the flower of my country, and by my country; therefore these constitute my party. In its name I now speak. Let not the heads or followers of personal party-the innovators -the turncoats-the men who hold one creed out of office and another in it-and those who are deaf to reason

and blind to demonstration, degrade me by voting in favour of my motion, for I crave not their support. I appeal only to those whose party is their country-who revere their laws and institutions-whose souls glow with the sacred flame of Old English integrity and honour-whose fame is unsoiled by guilty coalition and alliance

whose consistency is unimpeachedwho, disregarding opinion and theory, follow fact and experience-who are anxious to make, not this portion or that, but ALL their fellow-subjects prosperous and happy-and to whom the honour, greatness, and felicity of their country are as dear as the dearest of their personal possessions. To such men I appeal, in confidence that they will find in my appeal an irresistible summons to the discharge of the highest of their duties.

I therefore move, &c. &c.

THE GOLDEN FLEECE, entitled by its author a dramatic poem, is in three distinct Parts, or Plays (what is learnedly denominated a Trilogy) of which the first is a sort of prologue, or induction, to the other two, namely, “The Guest," in one act only, containing the arrival of the Fleece in Colchis, with the murder, in violation of the laws of hospitality, of the Greek, Phryxus, who brought it. The Second, "The Argonauts," in

four acts, contains so much of their celebrated expedition for its recovery, and satisfaction of this crime, as had its scene in Colchis, and the Third, in five acts, is, in name and subject, the usual tragedy of " Medea."

The spirited opening scene of The Guest shews the liveliness of conception with which our author transports himself and his reader into the place, and time of his action. The stage represents,

The victim bleeds.

moted his interests, when he had conclusive evidence before him, that what we had done had annihilated his property, or taken away his bread. The country traced the fruits of our conduct from interest to interest, and trade to trade; it found, from physical demonstration, that they were only injury and calamity; therefore it scoffed at our asseverations that we had been its benefactors. When we, sir, pronounced all who opposed us to be the slaves of prejudice and bigotry, the country saw that we believed in doctrines, in spite of every kind of refutation that we believed in these doctrines in utter contempt of glaring fact and decisive experiment-that to justify our adherence to these doctrines, we stifled investigation, refused inquiry, and asserted that beggary was prosperity, loss was gain, want was abundance, and misery was comfort; it saw this, and it knew that it was not our opponents, but oURSELVES, WHO WERE THE SLAVES OF PREJUDICE-WHO WERE THE BIGOTS. It saw that we were sacrificing its interests to prejudice and bigotry, surpassing all that human nature had ever previously displayed. Our nick-names and insults were cast upon a high-minded nation; they had their effect, and they gained us what we deserved.

When at last we were fairly beaten out of our assertions, that we were increasing prosperity and happiness, what did we do? We actually declared that we were intentionally producing distress and misery, in order that we might prevent them from visiting the country hereafter. Effectually silenced in respect of benefiting the present, we owned that, for the sake of the future, we were deliber ately causing much loss and suffering. We broadly confessed that our measures for a time would scatter, far and wide, destruction to property and bread; and we entrenched ourselves on the ground, that they would in time to come supply re-payment. A disgrace, sir, to my country should I be, if my cheeks were not crimsoned with shame by the repetition of the erying enormity. To intentionally cause loss and suffering—to intentionally destroy property, and the means of subsistence-to intentionally subject, not individuals, but vast classes, to practical confiscation and penuryto intentionally sacrifice the present

generation to the next-to do this on the pretext that it would be beneficial hereafter, formed such barbarous iniquity, as had never disgraced the most blind and savage government known to history. What could the landowner, manufacturer, farmer, or tradesman, think of us, when we were thus intentionally destroying his property, and placing him in danger of ruin? What could the mechanic, the artisan, or the labourer, think of us, when we were thus intentionally taking away the bread of himself and family? What could the country think of us, when we were so acting? When we even could not say confidently that our measures would produce future prosperity-when our great argument was, that we were causing loss and distress, to prevent loss and distressand when the most ignorant hind saw, that according to our own confession we were doing little more than bringing that upon the community, which we predicted would be brought upon it at some future time by other means

what could even charity itself say of our conduct? It was by good fortune almost miraculous, that we were called madmen, and escaped more op◄ probrious titles. Our pretext of future benefit, which we half abandoned, and half acted on, was ridiculed by all, because all saw it to be groundless. The landowner saw, that we were binding him to a rent which took away for ever a large part of his income, and the worth of his estate. The farmer saw, that we were binding him to prices which took away for ever a large part of his profits, and the value of his farming-stock. The shipowner saw, that we were binding him for ever to freights that were ruinous. The manufacturer saw, that we were binding him to prices which took away for ever a large part of his profits, and the worth of his stock in trade. The labouring classes saw, that we were taking away for ever a large part of their wages. The country saw, that we were annihilating for ever hundreds of millions of property and income. We declared, sir, that what we took, we took for ever; and in the same breath we protested that we took it in order that it might be restored with abundant interest: in the selfsame moment we held out hopes, and solemnly vowed they should never be realized; we gave pledges, and enact

ed laws to prevent their redemption. The avowed object of our measures formed a confession that our pretext was worthless. Had the country asserted far worse of us than that we did not know what we were doing that we had lost our reason, it might have produced evidence to give some colour to its assertions.

It had always previously been the enviable privilege and honourable characteristic of the House of Commons, to labour to increase prosperity and happiness, but not to destroy themto remove loss and suffering, but not to create them. Its measures were always intended to make the good of the moment better; and if they happened to have a contrary effect, it zealously and promptly applied a remedy. If any interest or trade languished, the House of Commons, almost without solicitation, laboured to restore it. If any class or portion of his Majesty's subjects were in distress, the House of Commons attended at once to their petitions, and spared no efforts to relieve them. In the House of Commons, the wronged knew they had a friend to redress their wrongs; and the suffering knew they had a benefactor to remove, or mitigate to the utmost, their sufferings. But what, sir, has been our conduct? When vast portions of the community complained to us by petition, that our measures would involve them in ruin, we treated them with contempt; when they afterwards assured us that their worst fears had been realized, and im plored us to inquire and to receive at their hands the most irrefragable proofs that we had plunged them into bank ruptcy and want, we treated them in a worse manner. A man who was then a Minister, but who, thank Heaven! is no longer one, heaped on them every species of insult and contumely; and we, to our eternal shame I speak it, imitated him. When the silk manufacturers, the ship-owners, and others, were thus treated-when their prayers for inquiry were refusedwhen their supplications, for us to examine their proofs, and deal with them only according to what they might prove, were scornfully rejected -when they were denied all opportunity of refuting the aspersions we cast upon them-and when their ef forts to obtain an impartial hearing only caused us to add to their loss and

It was not possible, sir, for the country to be kept in ignorance of this conduct, or to be restrained from judging of it. It saw that we opposed assertions to facts, and that our reply to the offer of proofs was a volley of slanders. It heard us dared in vain by our victims to the test of inquiry; it beheld us sneak away from the combat, when we were threatened with overpowering evidence. When we deliberately charged the petitioners with falsehood and bad motive, and then silenced them with our power as they challenged us to the proof, it found in this sufficient to convict ourselves of falsehood and bad motive. In our obstinate refusal to inquire into the fruits of our own measures, and to receive evidence that these measures had operated injuriously, it found testimony that we knew they would not bear investigation. In our admission that inquiry would be useless, because we could not grant relief without departing from a system, it perceived a confession that we could not refute the petitioners, and that we were determined to sacrifice everything to a system which we knew to be producing the most baleful conse quences. We re-echoed the delusive dogmas and fallacious statements of the Minister, only to convince it, that our object was, not its weal, but the Minister's protection; and that to save him, we would plunge it into ruin. Within these walls we were triumphant, because we were careful to make ourselves the sole witnesses and judges; but in the Supreme Court without, the judge found evidence and confession against us without any thing to counterpoise them, and the decision was accordingly. The country found that we were not a House of Commons to protect it from the injurious measures of the Executive-to listen to its petitions-to redress its wrongs -to relieve its distresses-and to watch over and foster its prosperity and happiness; therefore it found that we were the reverse of that House of Commons, which the Constitution intended to create.

Up to the present moment we have

continued to act in this manner. How have we dealt with the petitions which in every session have been poured upon us from large portions of the community, complaining of bitter suffering, and imploring from us re lief? Have we instituted inquiry? No. Have we ever attempted to mitigate the distress of the petitioners? No. Has the existence of the distress been problematical? No, it has been wholly above doubt. Have we been destitute of the means of relieving it ? No, we have possessed them in abundance. We have received the petitions, and without calling for evidence to refute a single allegation, or asking a question as to our means of granting what they prayed for, we have been silent, or we have contented ourselves with saying-We know you to be distressed, but you are mistaken touching the causes, and we can do nothing for you. We have acted as though our duty extended only to the creation of public misery, without having any thing to do with the removal of it. Never before, sir, in the history of civilized England was such conduct displayed by the House of Commons. Never before, in the history of civilized England, did the House of Commons see immense numbers of the community involved in suffering, without toiling heartily aud incessantly, with out exhausting inquiry and effort, however fruitlessly, to administer a remedy. And how have we employed ourselves while these petitions have been flowing upon us? In perfecting cur measures of public evil-in promoting visionary experiments calculated only to increase the suffering in threatening laws with destruction, and thereby filling the land with apprehension and embarrassment-in devising gimcrack changes and experiments-in vilifying the laws and systems yet spared by our innovations-in boasting of our own transcendent talents and wisdom-and in covering all who have called our conduct in question with slanders.

Such proceedings, sir, could only have one effect on the opinion of the country. If in the gallop of our abolitions, we could have abolished the laws of nature and the maxims of common reason, we might perhaps have persuaded it, that we were, what we called ourselves; but this we could not accomplish.. We have therefore

placed before it our dazzling character of ourselves to no purpose; we have poured our own eulogy into its ears in vain; it has rejected our new rules of judgment for the ancient one, of judging of the tree by its fruits; and in consequence it has arrived at the conclusion, that we are the reverse of what we describe ourselves to be.

All things have conspired against us, to sink us in public estimation. It has unfortunately happened that while we have dilated on our surpassing ability, we have furnished the most incontestable proofs of our destitution of ability. The country knew the best of the leaders in our proceedings to be scarcely second-rates, and it found in their speeches evidence of gross incapacity. This was bad enough, but it was nothing to what follows. Men among us who were utterly unknown, and who displayed the most rare assemblage of disqualifications conceivable, actually undertook to re-model or abolish laws of the greatest complexity and the most sweeping operation. Nothing could have been more admirably calculated for covering us with public derision. Worse yet remains. Our beardless striplings-beings not yet released from boyhood-youngsters just entering on their senatorial apprenticeship, to whom experience was utterly unknown, whose knowledge was barely

sufficient to enable them to find their way to our doors, and in whom it was an unpardonable fault to think that they were capable of forming an opinion-these, sir, forgetting that they had every thing to learn, thrust themselves forward as teachers; and excelled us all in oracular dogma and noisy declamation-in scoffing at the wisdom of the greatest men of former times, and covering the sufferers who petitioned us, with insult and calumny. It is one of the most loathsome things in nature, to hear one of these striplings, in a voice which has scarcely divested itself of the treble tone of childhood, reviling laws and institutions, the operation of which is wholly above his comprehension; and advo cating changes to throw the affairs of a great empire into confusion, when it is impossible for him to understand their nature and tendency. The country felt inexpressible disgust, when it saw that its injuries flowed mainly from the vociferous ignorance and

riotous imbecility of senatorial infants. Then, to crown all, our proceedings were the most rapturously applauded by such of us as had through life distinguished ourselves by holding absurd and dangerous opinions; and they were dissented from by such of us as had always been honoured by the country for experience, prudence, wisdom, integrity, and patriotism.

In pointing out, sir, thus freely our errors and faults, I must not spare some of those who had the chief share in leading us into them. I mean the more prominent members of the executive, who belonged to this House. Regularly acknowledged as at least a part of our leaders, and officially invested with the duty of watching over and promoting the public weal in all things; it is natural for us to look up to them to a certain extent as guides, without compromising our independence. They proclaimed that attachment to our laws and institutions was not merely erroneous, but disgraceful; and it was impossible for any of us to avow such attachment, without drawing upon ourselves their ridicule and calumny. We could not object to change and innovation, without being treated by them as criminals; and we could not laud change and innovation without being overwhelmed with their panegyrics. They thus by intimidation on the one hand, and seduction on the other, insensibly led us to act as we have done. They caused us to pronounce the whole system of the country erroneous; and they incited us to rival each other in attempts to pull this system to pieces. It was from their encouragement that our incapable members so outrageously mistook their own powers, as to think themselves qualified to abolish old laws and frame new ones; and that our young members made such a barbarous display of folly and culpability. And it was from their example that we acted in so unconstitutional a manner to those who petitioned us for redress and relief.

I plead this conduct, sir, in the Ministers, not to justify, but to explain in some degree our own. We are not sent here to obey or imitate them; our duties are of a widely dif ferent description; but nevertheless, while human nature remains unchanged, we shall always, no matter how pure our own motives may be, VOL. XXIV.

be largely influenced by them. Speaking of them as Members of this House, I trust for its sake that they will never again act in a similar manner.

This relates to the fruits which our conduct has yielded to ourselves; it is sufficient to prove that for our own sake inquiry is imperiously necessary. I will now turn to what our conduct has yielded to the community.

The late Minister, sir,'asserts that no evils have been produced by our abo→ lition of the Navigation Laws. On what evidence does he make the as sertion? Simply and solely on the tonnage entries inwards and outwards. Does this evidence establish all that is required?

No, it is utterly silent respecting the essentials of the subject. If we be satisfied with it, we must be deservedly ridiculed, as being ignorant of our duty, and only competent to plunge the empire into ruin. To know what the Abolition has yielded, we must know what effect it has had on the capital, freights, and profits, of the shipowners, and on the number of ships and seamen possessed by the community. Here is the pith of the question. If we, sir, by the abolition, have annihilated a large part of the shipowner's property, and compelled him to accept freights which subject him to constant loss, we have done→→→→ no matter what the tonnage entries may be a fatal deed to our country. In this I advance a truth, which no man, in this House or out of it, can question. If we have done this, we have demonstrably wasted a vast amount of national wealth already; and we have subjected the wealth and naval power of the nation to a constant decrease. A losing trade may be carried on for a shorter or longer time, according as its annual losses are greater or smaller; but nothing can be more certain, than that it must be ultimately destroyed.

This applies to the community at large. We will now look at that part of it which is more directly and seriously interested in the matter. If we, by the abolition, which no publie necessity called for, have destroyed a large part of the shipowner's property, taken away his profits, and surrounded him with almost inevitable ruin, and if we have taken away the bread of numbers of seamen, and ground down the remainder to wages which not only strip them of many comforts

T