heaped-up hatred of the whole empire as to forbid the contempt natural to his wretched folly-was indeed a possibility not to be thought of, and a fact hard to be grappled with.-But having the advantage of afterjudgment, we do not think it was wise to act upon the idea, "the man must be mad." However great the relief to think so, we question whether the idea was ever really entertained by a very large majority. Either the persons who fired off pistols in the direction of Her Majesty's carriage, intended to aim at Her Majesty, or they did not. If they did, it was a treasonable attempt, and should have been punished accordingly. If they did not, what was their intention? To us the dilemma seems to be between the ferocity to which we have alluded, and-what, viewed correctly, is equally disgraceful and dangerous,— the most consummate impertinence. The latter is, perhaps, quite as much the English character as the former is the French. We believe, now the fact has actually happened, that we could pick up out of the streets plenty of ragamuffins, who, without a thought of personal injury, would pop off a pistol near Her Majesty, for the sake of being talked about, and kept comfortably for nothing all the rest of their lives, just as readily as a Parisian assassin would attempt the life of Louis Philippe, no matter at what risk to himself, or any other person against whom he had not the slightest ill-will. But how are we to stop this? A crime, three times repeated, is in much more danger of becoming fashionable (!) than it was at first. Our remedy would be what we should at first have suggested-a sound thrashing. Not a cat-o'-nine-tail three-hundred-lash flaying alive, but a good pickling at the cart's tail. Nothing cruel, but something he could smart under and remember afterwards. It would be all the better, if it gave him a nick-name-Pickled Bean,' for instance. From Newgate to Charing Cross, and back by Regent Street, Oxford Street, and Holborn,—would furnish a route that might in future histories receive the appropriate designation of Bean's Walk.' This, followed by transportation for life, with hard labour, might give us to hear the last of him or any like him. We really should like to see this experiment tried, and we are glad to see it recommended in the daily press. The offence is new: so should be the punishment. We all revolt at hanging, because we do not, we cannot believe that the life of her Majesty was seriously aimed at. We read that the slaves of a city in old time refused admittance to their masters on their successful return from battle. Their masters met them not with swords but with whips, and soon 'settled their business.' Such should be our part. Should this fool be found guilty, let him be dealt with according to his folly, and taught, by a lesson he will understand, not to trifle with the representative Majesty of the kingdom. We have now taken the means open to us, of expressing our abhorrence of the late attempts, and of adding our voice in behalf of means already suggested for preventing their recurrence. We have long trusted that our own University, chartered by Her Majesty herself, might obtain the privilege, enjoyed by our sister-universities, of approaching the throne. Anxious as we are that the sentiments of the body, which now if at any time we are representing, should not be unknown to Her Majesty, but should reach her more directly than through our humble instrumentality, we earnestly hope the period is not far distant, when we may be deemed not unworthy of so much favour. It is true that many are ready to ask, with reference to our University, and more especially to the College to which it is our pride to belong-"Can any good come out of Nazareth?" We are looked upon by many as the hive from which swarm all the wildest ideas in politics, religion, and indeed everything else. We certainly have members of every variety of religious belief, and we have studied very amicably with all. We are also perfectly aware that, amid considerable variety of political tenets, some of the most distinguished sons of our alma mater are advocates of democratic and republican principles. Yet we think we have learned, that high monarchical sentiments are not necessary adjuncts to personal respect or affection for the Sovereign, and that loyalty is not inseparably allied to a high title or a state religion. Harrington was the devoted servant of Charles the First: and VICTORIA, who gave us, not high title, nor an established religion, but a right to an honourable education irrespectively of either, will we trust have many abler subjects, but we are persuaded none more devoted, than the Members of the London University. ART. II.-CORN LAW AND CUSTOMS ACT. 1. SPEECH OF SIR R. PEEL IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 9, 1842. 2. SPEECH OF SIR R. PEEL IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 11, 1842. EIGHT years ago, in his speech on moving the second reading of the Poor Law Amendment Bill in the House of Lords, Lord Brougham took occasion to refer to an objection to the measure "as a thing framed by theorists and visionaries, and to sum up all in one word of vituperation, by political economists." After commenting on the self-complacent ignorance displayed in this objection, in a stream of eloquence, now turbidly whelming it in its whirlpool, now terribly creeping on, still, deep, dark and resistless, he derived "confidence from the reflection, that they had been helped by political economists, men who had devoted themselves to the study of that useful and practical science, and with them he cheerfully exposed himself, and not only with them, but with all the illustrious names of men then no more, and all the other illustrious men that happily still lived, and whom for that very reason he had forborne to mention, to the charge of being a speculator, a visionary, and a theorist." How strange it appears, such a defiance, and to such a people! For a man to assert, with an air of contrast, and with the full knowledge that the idea is ridiculous to half the persons who hear him, that he really has attempted to understand what they are all doing every day of their lives! A profession to understand something of the science of trade, ridiculous to a nation of shopkeepers! A nation certainly with a great tendency to pique itself upon the practical, considering that it is, even in its own eyes, the most gullible among men. A people so essentially theoretical, that no individual of it yet ever told an apothecary that he had a quick pulse, or a dull headach, or a hiccough, but must needs inform his consulting M. D. that he is labouring under an access of fever, that he suffers from bile, or, to say the least, that he is troubled with a spasmodic action of the diaphragm. A people that had serious doubts upon the matter, when Murphy told them that yesterday had been wet, but opened all their mouths to hear that to-morrow would be fine. And they could give such scientific reasons for the thing too! Yet was Lord Brougham no Quixote. He fought with no windmill, but a real veritable giant. It required no little nerve and boldness, in the year 1834, to avow in his place in Parliament that he had been assisted by the Economists, and was glad that he had been so assisted. But this could never last. If that the art and practic part of life a nation of shopkeepers could scarcely fail, sooner or later, of becoming a nation of economists. The climacteric has ended, and it proves so. Seven years have passed away: the eighth has scarcely begun, when the minister, without apology, without distrust, quietly lays down the leading principles of the science:* and this in the face of a people, com * Sir Robert Peel's anti-reciprocity declarations will be fresh in the minds of our readers. Nothing more explicit could be desired. paratively few of whom oppose the extent to which he has applied them; very many wish that he had carried them still farther. The first principles of political economy, however much the conclusions which necessarily result from them may have been misapprehended, are not so recondite or so offensive, but that most persons will readily accord their assent to them. It is matter of consciousness, that our desires far outrun our means of satisfying them: that what we earnestly desire, and cannot have spontaneously, we are willing to make some sacrifice to obtain. In these two principles we have the origin of barter. It is a fact, too, which a short investigation teaches, that different persons have different sorts of capacity, and that different portions of the earth possess facilities for peculiar kinds of production. Our desires, also, are so far beyond our means of gratification, that we always wish to obtain the greatest possible advantage at the least possible sacrifice. This, it is obvious, can only be effected, by obtaining from each individual that commodity which he has peculiar advantages for furnishing to us, and parting with our own products wherever they will be most highly valued. In these few general principles, then, though stated without any pretension to strict philosophical accuracy, is developed the full system of FREE TRADE, as resulting from the natural constitution of man, and the situation in which he is placed on this globe. When all this is reversed,-when man's wants and powers are equal; when the earth presents no variety of soil or climate; then it will not be condescension to notice that phrase of omnipotent weakness -“the artificial state of society." Until then, we are satisfied with the foundation of our science, in the principles and condition of man's nature. In direct variance with these principles, has been our commercial policy. That policy is a natural monster. It is a propagating hybrid between the old mercantile and agricultural systems. It derives its prohibitions from the first, and from the second its dogma, that the land is the only source of production. Dissociated from their natural affinities, their strange union has produced no less strange progeny. Here import duties upon the raw material, there prohibitions of export on the finished article, and, above all, that "monster of fiscal legislation reserved for the corn trade," the duty which "increases as the value of the article diminishes," and "diminishes as the value of the article increases," the sliding scale. "The people," to adopt cheerfully the sarcasm of the late Mr. Sadler, "the people of England will never be able to trade to the satisfaction of their rulers." As traders, there is no nook of the world that we do not seek to embrace within our sphere. Quæ caret ora cruore nostro?' may be asked as proudly by the English merchant, as it was with shame and sorrow by the Roman lyrist. Yet wherever our commerce would raise its head, it is bowed down by the fetters of our policy. So prohibitory are our customs duties, that all the articles of import which produce revenue are about 200 in number out of 1150. The effect of this policy may be easily imagined, and, could we now enter at length upon it, would not be difficult to place in a very strong light before our readers. It may, however, seem natural enough, that a people should at length be distressed, whose supplies are year by year restricted; and many will not be slow to attribute to our commercial policy, the increase of our population at a slower ratio than heretofore, yet suffering under distress more universal and profound than in similar circumstances has before existed in this country. Yet, while we acknowledge grave cause for alarm, we do not despair. We cannot yield to the despondency of some, who fear that the persevering violation of the natural laws of trade has produced an incurable disease in the body politic. They fear for their consumptive patient the healthful gales of spring. Our trust is far otherwise. We should regard what we have witnessed rather as a slip or a crack in the pyramid; it is not, we would fain believe, crumbling down on its sapped foundations. We yet hope to see the powerful interests arrayed against us, fighting on our side, and with increased vigour. Let us now consider the measures of the minister. His is indeed no easy task. To restore a failing revenue, is at no time easy. To cover past deficiency, and provide for future increase, at a time of universal distress, might make many pause. We would not load our pages with the details of a single kind of the proofs of this distress, that for no short time have been before the public. It is enough to remind our readers, that on whatever kind of proof they may be disposed to place most reliance, as evidencing distress deep-rooted and widely spread, whether streets tenantless, insolvent firms, wholesale or retail, labourers employed, half employed, or unemployed, increased poor-rates and general subscriptions for the poor, at length provision riots, and all through the story, full hospitals, full gaols, and full burial grounds-one answer comes from all. Weakened by no enemy, wasted by no internal strife, we wait till we have reached the height of power and heaped together a load of riches, and starve ourselves to death. In this condition of our affairs, we deeply lament the course pursued by the Ministry, partly because so little weight is attributed to what is in our opinion its principal cause, and still more, because so little is |