that nine-tenths of the men of business are with them, touching this system.

When I look, sir, at the prodigious power of this party, and then turn to those who take the lead as its representatives in Parliament, I am amazed. It practically selects the Ministry; the Ministers in the Lower House profess to belong to it, and yet they are almost all Whigs in origin and present opinions. With regard to the Catholic Question, three of the four more influential ones are flatly opposed to it; and with regard to the new system, they are all flatly opposed to it. The old Tories, sir, whatever they may be in creed, must be consummate simpletons in action. This state of things seems to be perfectly miraculous.

On the one side, therefore, you have the Ministers, the Whigs, and the Burdettites; and on the other, you have the great mass of the community. Those who have hitherto been the leaders of parties, with their dependents and thick-and-thin admirers, form a separate party, and the nation forms another. Parliament is about unanimous in applauding, and the country is about unanimous in condemning, the new system of Ministers; yet you can have no change of Ministry, or system.

I say not all this, sir, from regard to names, or abstract doctrines. I care not what a man's party denomination or abstract opinion may be, provided he do no public mischief. I speak not thus of your Ministers, because they have einbraced particular principles, but because their practice of these principles threatens the empire with ruin. It is the DEEDS which the opinions produce that I quarrel with.

Let us now, sir, turn to your general interests. Your Ministers lately inspired you with a marvellous passion for Free Trade-you who have so long been an enthusiastic admirer of restriction and monopoly. Such outrageous reversals of opinion are disgraceful. What, sir, is the Free Trade that you have been so madly worshipping? Have you obtained new markets? Have restrictions, which obviously crippled your trade, been removed, and has this trade been extended? Your slandered Restrictive System was formed, not to restrict your trade, but to make it more free; its restrictions were intended to operate

exclusively on the trade of other nations, that yours might have the greatest possible share of freedom. Every new restriction, sir, was added for the sole purpose of giving additional freedom to your trade. Was it proved, that this system produced the reverse of what it was intended to produce, and that it gave to your trade, not freedom, but bondage? The unexampled prosperity which your trade enjoyed when this system received its death-blow, will answer the question. The freedom of your trade was always believed by your traders to flow from this system, until it was attacked by inexperienced theorists.

Now, my dear Friend, what is the Free Trade that you have gained in exchange for the Free Trade that the Restrictive System gave you? The restrictions that prevented other nations from injuring your trade are abolished; your trade, sir, is opened to the traders of other countries, while you are as much restricted from trading with other countries as ever. A vast portion of your silk weavers are prohibited from following their own, or any other calling, and this is Free Trade-a large number of your shipowners are prohibited from employing their ships in your commerce, and this is Free Trade-your manufacturers are prohibited from selling at home, and in your colonies, a large portion of the manufactures they have been accustomed to sell, and this is Free Trade-Ireland is prohibited from selling a large part of the butter, provisions, linens, &c. that she has been accustomed to sell, and this is Free Trade-a large portion of your home and colonial trade is taken from you, and this is Free Trade-profits and wages are beat down to the lowest point, and this is Free Trade-the trade of other nations is made free, and your own is placed in fetters; a large part of your trade is taken from you, and given to foreigners; you are prohibited from manufacturing and producing, that foreigners may manufacture and produce, and this is Free Trade!

Sir, you were mad-you were utterly bereft of your senses-when you mistook the new system for one of Free Trade. What am I to think of the Ministers who gulled you into the madness?

I, sir, am a friend of Free Trade, but it is of Free Trade for Britain; I

am an enemy to restrictions on trade, but it is ONLY to restrictions on the trade of this empire. Because I am thus, I am inveterately hostile to what is called the new system of Free Trade. I have the choice before me, whether I will support a prohibitory system that merely prohibits foreigners from injuring your trade, or one that is to prohibit you from selling your manufactures, retaining your commerce, and cultivating your soil, and I cannot hesitate. In your sober days, you taught me to call a spade, a spade; and I will adhere to your lessons. So long as I have breath, sir, I will call that, not Free Trade, but Destructive Prohibition, which, for the benefit of foreigners, prohibits immense numbers of my countrymen from following their respective trades and occupations.

Let me implore you, my dear sir, in the name of your starving manufacturing classes, to lay down your books, divest yourself of your philosophy, and examine, with your wonted good sense, the wretched dogmas by which you have been bewildered. It is said that these dogmas are true in the abstract, but I deny it; my conviction is, that many of what are called" abstract truths" in political economy are gross falsehoods, and are capable of decisive arithmetical refutation. My conviction is, that if Free Trade were universally established, it could not endure for twelve months. But, placing this wholly out of sight, you were told that a law, which gave a monopoly of the market of this empire to your manufacturers, was a restriction on your trade. In the name of common sense, sir, how could you believe it? While the Free Trade people railed against monopoly, they still expressed a hope that you would retain the monopoly of your market while they declared the prohibition of foreign manufactures to be an evil, they confessed that the importation of such manufactures would be a far greater evil; and while they abolished the prohibition in law, they proclaimed it to be their ardent desire that it should continue in effect. Are you not, sir, ashamed of being deluded by such people, and of consenting to the destruction of that, which, on their own showing, was essential for your prosperity?

Then, sir, you adopted the new sys

tem for liberality's sake; you called it a wise one because it was a liberal one. You forged fetters for your trade, under the idea that you were giving it freedom, and then you swaggered of your feat as a marvellous specimen of liberality. The Ministers of this great empire made changes in the laws which shook its whole trading system to the centre, on the ground of libe rality. Their speeches gave me the heart-ache, when they thus appealed from your understanding to your generosity-when they made such changes, not on the score of public need and public benefit, of wisdom and expediency, but on that of liberality. They knew your weak part, sir-they knew you to be a man fond of trade, but generous and benevolent-and shame upon them for taking advantage of it! You have, sir, been liberal, no doubt, but your liberality has been that of the dishonest spendthrift. You have given away not income, but capital: you have given away what you had no right to give; you have but a lifeinterest in your estate, and yet you have squandered away a portion of this estate for ever: you have been liberal by robbing your children-by giving away the food of the hungry and the clothes of the naked.

Then, sir, certain of your Ministers told you, that the new liberal system was necessary, in order to harmonize your laws and institutions with the improved condition of intellect and knowledge; and that innovations ought to be voluntarily made, in order to avert compulsory ones. Now, my worthy friend, where am I to look for the intellect and knowledge of the age? If I take the new liberal system for my guide, it leads me to Bentham, Ricardo, and their disciples-to the Economists and Philosophers. I deny that these men represent the talent and knowledge of the age. I have reason to believe, that the greater portion of existing English, Scottish, and Irish writers, who are the most distinguished for talents and acquirements, dissent from them, and hold the new system to be one of incapacity and ignorance. When, therefore, at least half the talents and knowledge of the age, in conjunction with the mass of the intelligent and reflecting classes, is opposed to this system, I deny that it is called for by the talents and knowledge of the age.

I protest, sir, against changing and innovating upon mere opinion; I maintain, that truth and wisdom are not matters of mere opinion; and that the opinion of a whole nation cannot alter them in nature and operation. I care not what great names may recommend a change; I assert, that no change ought to be made, unless conclusive PROOFS show that pub lic good calls for it. I cannot believe, that what Ministers are applying to your laws and systems is philosophy, although they give it the name. If what are called your legal and constitutional maxims-the principles which form the basis of your laws and constitution-and the speeches and writings of your most eminent lawgivers of former times, be not philosophy, there never was, and never will be, any philosophy in the world. I think that many of the changes that have been made were forbidden by philo sophy.

As to the doctrine, that innovations ought to be made voluntarily, to avert compulsory ones, I deem it mighty foolish. The clamour that had so long been set up for changes was dying away when your Ministers began to innovate, and, had it not been for them, it would have ceased some time ago. This clamour was directed, in a very trifling degree, against the condemned laws and systems; the whole community was perfectly satisfied with them, if we except a dozen or two of Philosophers. Your Ministers have kept alive this clamour-they have strengthened those who raised it-the changes that it called for are yet unmade-and the innovations that have been resolved on are exactly calculated to bring upon us compulsory ones. I dissent wholly from the principle of innovating to avert innovation, and esteem it to be a destructive one. To proceed upon it, is to treat you not only as a fool, which I fear you at present are, but as, what you never were, a coward.

By espousing these doctrines of your Ministers, sir, you have shown inconsistency that is actually astounding. You maintained a long and terrible war to put down the doctrines of the Philosophers. In this war you fought like a hero; you risked existence, and everything else, to protect your system from innovation, and expel that from the world which you now call

philosophy. Yet now, when you have conquered every foe, you offer yourself as a slave to those whom you fought against-when you have rendered the mock philosophy the scorn of the world, you call upon the world to embrace it when you have the philosophers, whom you have so long called the curse of the universe, in your power, you select them as teachers-the principles that you have bled at every pore to maintain, you renounce as soon as you have freed them of enemies. What, sir, can I call you but a madman? To what can I ascribe conduct like this, save to the wildest phrenzy?

Look, sir, at the consequences already. Almost every interest that you have is suffering, and your system, as a whole, is threatened with ruin. It is equally astonishing and afflicting, to see the combination of deadly enemies which your folly has arrayed against all the great sources of your riches, tranquillity, and happiness.

Glance first at your Colonies. The trade with these, sir, was your own by law and right, and I need not dilate on its magnitude and importance. It was not, however, liberal(let this polluted word be for ever expunged from your language)-in you to monopolize this trade, and therefore you surrendered this monopoly without any equivalent. What has followed? Other nations are supplying these colonies with manufactured and other goods, by means of their own vessels. Your West India merchants expect henceforward to ship comparatively nothing to the West India islands. A great number of manufacturers, artisans, and husbandry labourers, who have hitherto been employed to prepare goods for these colonies, are reduced to starvation. Your new colonial system has given a stab to your trade,-it has consequently injured your revenue,—and it has deprived of employment a considerable portion of your capital and industry. No power upon earth, sir, shall convince me that philosophy and Political Economy sanction a system that has yielded such consequences.

This, my worthy sir, is bad enough, but it is not sufficient to content your liberality. To give away part of the trade of your Colonies is nothing; you must do your utmost to rid yourselt of this trade altogether. Government

has determined on abolishing slavery in the most valuable of these colonies as soon as practicable, and it has in reality commenced the great and perilous work. You are too liberal, sir, to let this satisfy you. While you pretend that nothing more ought to be done than Government has undertaken to do, you raise a tremendous clamour against slavery, and overwhelm Parliament with petitions for its abolition, just as though steps were taking to render it perpetual. In this you display not more madness than wickedness. You are arraying the servant against the master-exciting the slaves to rebellion and massacreexasperating the colonies against you -and rendering the ruin of the colonies almost inevitable. You are bring ing the masters to bankruptcy, and the slaves to misery; and you are annihilating to the utmost point possible your trade with these colonies, and the bonds that make them your own. In doing all this without an object, you resort to the darkest guilt. In the sacred name of religion, you circulate the most atrocious falsehoods and calumnies ; you blast the fair fame of the good, and take away the bread of the innocent; you trample upon right and justice; you slander, rob, and oppress. Liberality may sanction such conduct, but Christianity abhors it. Villains, sir, have been known to do such things for the sake of lucre or revenge, but you do it with the certainty that you can reap nothing from it save loss and suffering.

I am aware, sir, that you have been incited to this by certain of your religious teachers. I have seen, that clergymen of the church, as well as methodists, Unitarians, and other dissenting ministers, have taken a leading part in the meetings to declain against slavery. Against this interference of religious teachers in political matters, I solemnly protest in the name of religion. Whether slavery be or be not inconsistent with Christianity, is no longer a matter of dispute. If ministers of religion maintain that it is, Government and Parliament say nothing to the contrary, and all are agreed that it shall be abolished. I repeat all are agreed that slavery shall be abolished. What right, then, have your ministers of religion to interfere with the question? Is it for them to dictate the time and manner?

Are they to make and unmake laws— to regulate property-to govern the relations of society-and to be your ministers of state and legislators?→→ Whence have they drawn their know→ ledge of the West Indies, and what has qualified them to sit in judgment on this complex and momentous political question? The question is now a purely political one, and they have no more right to intermeddle with it, than they would have to intermeddle with one of war or taxation. If you tolerate them in this conduct, they will soon attempt to take the lead in all your great party questions, and they will soon bring you to ruin.

I, sir, reverence a Christian minister of any denomination, so long as he confines himself to the duties of his office. But his office is too sacred and exalted to be allied with any other; he cannot be at the same moment a teacher of religion and a teacher of politics, the champion of the Christian virtues, and the instigator of party rancour and discord. If he attempt the unholy union, the religious minister is at once lost in the fanatical politician. Abundant proofs of the truth of this have been furnished by the late meetings. Many of these religious teachers made statements in their harangues touching the condition of the slaves and the conduct of the masters, that were grossly falsethese grossly false statements were cal culated to blast the character of the Colonists as a body, and hold them up to the world as monsters, to delude and inflame the ignorant, and to carry party fury to the highest point pos sible. Various of these harangues struck boldly at the most sacred legal and constitutional rights, and they have powerfully contributed to bring colonial property to its present ruinous condition. Some of your pulpits have even been polluted by these scandalous enormities. Am I to be told that these things are sanctioned by the Christian religion? No, sir! There is not a system of heathenism in the universe that would not denounce them as unpardonable. Am I to be told that the Holy Scriptures permit teachers of religion to lie and slander to delude and inflame to spread discord and animosity-to array man against his brother-to tyrannize and oppress to destroy both rights and property-to plunge families by thou

sands into beggary and misery and to bring the most grievous ills on the empire? In charity, sir, to these misguided men, I will not give the answer that the question calls for. When I look at all this, and reflect upon the gigantic injuries which have been inflicted on religion by the conduct of these men, I could weep for the sake of religion. When I see a cler gyman or dissenting minister perch ed on the hustings, and proclaiming, "I would grant compensation-I would refuse compensation-I would do this, and I would do that," in the spirit of the eastern despot, and the honesty of the highwayman, I could weep for the sake of my country.

You must, my dear sir, drive back these religious teachers to their duties, instead of being led by them in politics. You must employ them in stemming the alarming spread of infidelity and vice amidst your lower classes, visiting the sick, relieving the dis tressed, and doing what the New Testament commands them to do, instead of making them political leaders-or they will ruin both religion and your self.

Then again, sir, you have been duped by the Anti-Slavery Society. This society is under the management of lawyers-furious political lawyers -lawyers who were leaders in the guilty factions that so long convulsed the country. These lawyers are banded together to effect a stupendous change which involves the lives, fortunes, employment, and bread, of vast numbers of British subjects-the peace and preservation of a most important part of the British dominions-and some of the most important interests of the British empire. To compass their object, they make speeches, and circulate writings of the most unjust, inflammatory, and unwarrantable character. You have indeed, sir, lost your old English shrewdness and sagacity your old English love of truth, right honesty, and justice-your old English hatred of imposture-your old English scorn for quacks and mountebanks-when you have suffered a society like this to delude you. I blush, sir, for your degradation; the most bungling of jugglers can make you his prey; if a man have liar written on his face, you believe him, and you hold up your pockets for every knave to rob you. May Heaven in its mercy tem

per the bitterness of my cup, so far as to preserve me from becoming a Phi losopher!

Then, sir, your Ministers have not done their duty to you in the question. They saw that you were some what warm and boisterous in the busi ness, and they were afraid of offending you. While they agreed with you in opinion, they kept back a great number of plain truths that they ought to have told you. I cannot bear this trimming, yielding, compromising sys tem that they have fallen into. If they had known you, sir, as well as I do, they would not have been afraid of your anger. You are choleric, Mr Bull; but that which is judged of by your choler in the first moment, is finally decided upon by your reason in the second. A little wholesome contradiction will bring the blood into your cheeks, and give you a twelve hours' fit of sulkiness; but those who offer it will afterwards gain from it in your opinion. Your ministers, sir, in their speeches, ought to have given you a true account of the actual condition of the slaves-they ought to have vindicated the Colonists-they ought to have denounced your deluders, and shown how much you had been imposed on-they ought to have placed before you the immense value of your Colonies, and explained to you how much you were injuring yourself by your conduct and they ought to have told you plainly, that although they admitted the justice of abolition, and were determined to carry it into effect as rapidly as possible, it still was their duty to say that it was matter of doubt whether it would not render the Colo nies worthless, and cause a terrible loss to your wealth and power. They ought, sir, to have laid before you every FACT and every probable coNSEQUENCE; and they ought not to have been sparing in calm and plain remonstrance. Instead of this, they chimed in with you, and were content to suffer you to injure grievously both yourself and the Colonists, rather than risk your displeasure.

I cannot approve of this conduct in your Ministers. I think that English ministers should never cease to be English gentlemen, and that they ought to be something more than the instru ments of public opinion. When they knew that you were ignorant of the question-that you were deluded and