Their voices like those of children young, Among beings of happiness and love. "Then they laid me down so lightsome and boon, In a veil that was like a beam of the moon, Or a ray of the morning, passing fair, There were seven times seven on either side, The fountain of light, that wells for ever. "But whither they bore me, and what befell, This is my resting-place at last. These flocks and fields they gave to me, And they crown'd me the Queen of Thessaly. I've no experience had of less Than perfectest, purest happiness; And now I tremble lest love's soft spell * "We have to remind such of our readers as are well acquainted with the poetry of the Ettrick Shepherd, that to feel the full power of his genius, we must go with him 'Beyond this visible diurnal sphere,' It is here, where Burns and walk through the shadowy world of the imagination. The airy beings, that to the impassioned soul was weakest, that he is most strong. of Burns seemed cold-bloodless-and unattractive-rise up in irresistible loveliness in their own silent domains, before the dreamy fancy of the gentle-hearted Shepherd. The still green beauty of the pastoral hills and vales where he passed his youth, inspired him with ever-brooding visions of fairy-land-till, as he lay musing in his lonely sheiling, the world of fantasy seemed, in the clear depths of his imagination, a lovelier reflection of that of nature-like the hills and heavens more softly shining in the Whenever he treats of fairy-land, his language insensibly water of his native lake. becomes, as it were, soft, wild, and aerial—we could almost think that we heard the voice of one of the fairy-folk. Still and serene images seem to rise up with the wild music of the versification—and the poet deludes us, for the time, into an unquestioning and satisfied belief in the existence of those green realms of bliss' of which he himself seems to be a native minstrel. "In this department of pure poetry, the Ettrick Shepherd has, among his own countrymen at least, no competitor. He is the poet laureate of the Court of Faëry— and we have only to hope he will at least sing an annual song as the tenure by which he holds his deserved honours."-Blackwood's Magazine, vol. iv. pp. 528, 9. HINTS TO THE TWO HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. In glancing at some of the leading features of the present Session, people of common sense might be tempted to address the two Houses of Parliament in the following manner : Your sentiments govern or neutralize those of the empire, and your decisions rule its interests. The vast and perilous power which you thus possess- -a power which, saying nothing of abuse, may be easily rendered ruinous in the upright use-will well justify the presumption we are about to be guilty of. On divers matters of the first public moment you have in the present Session promulgated, and acted upon, doctrines which we feel ourselves compelled to dissent from; and it is our object to state the grounds of our dissent, and call on you for additional argument and evidence. We shall restrict ourselves to matters which are of the highest permanent importance, and which, on every principle of national salvation, ought to be stripped of their controversial character. It is as much your interest as your duty to make them the subjects of honest discussion, and seek information respecting them in every quarter. You will not be suffered to proceed much farther on mere assertion and assumption; you must speedily either exchange them for fact and demonstration, or cease to form a legislature. When the motions respecting the distressed state of the community were brought before you, we shared in the general expectation that you would, like men of business, look at the divisions of the population separately for the purpose of discovering cause and remedy. Different bodies were obviously suffering from different evils, and of course the truth could only be ascertained by detailed examination. In common with the rest of our fellow-subjects, we were disappointed; you resorted to your wild generalities, and threw nearly the whole blame on the change of currency in respect of its effect in reducing prices. These matters are undeniable. 1. No change of currency had taken place in London, Manchester, Liverpool, and the whole of Scotland. 2. In the various counties the working classes, farmers, and landowners, were suffering severely from the lack of employment, bad wages, and heavy poor-rates, caused by excess of population. This excess has been for some years increasing, and according to your own reports, it originated in other things than the change of currency. 3. In many districts the farmers were suffering severely from the low price and unsaleable character of wool 4. Agricultural produce had been greatly depressed in price by large importations. 5. The influx of Irish labourers had operated to reduce wages, and create an excess of labour in agriculture and manufactures. 6. In many trades the working classes were distressed by low wages, caused by the low prices at which foreign goods could be imported. 7. The losses of the farmers from the causes we have mentioned necessarily reduced wages, and the quantity of employment amidst their labourers. 8. The distress of the working classes caused distress in trade, and reduced prices in both agriculture and manufactures. 9. While there was a great decline in the consumption of animal food, the supply of it from Ireland was increased; this of course distressed the grazing districts, and injured the farmers generally. 10. The shipping interest, the silk trade, the mining, and several other interests, were distressed by foreign competition; the ship-builders, ropemakers, sailmakers, &c., were distressed indirectly by the same cause, and directly by the liberty given to shipping to fit in foreign ports. 11. Some of the leading manufactures were bound to low prices by the protecting duties of foreign countries. 12. The distress of so large a part of the population necessarily distressed trade and manufactures generally, All this we say is undeniable; it has nothing to do with the change of currency. Yet you put it out of sight, and ascribed public suffering almost wholly to such change! Let us now contrast this with your conduct on other occasions. In the discussions which took place in late years on the Corn Laws, you regularly insisted that such laws governed the prices of corn. One part of you maintained that the old ones caused corn to be much dearer than it otherwise would be, and the other part maintained that a change would ruin the farmers by low prices. You asserted that corn was made dear by prohibition, and that it would be made cheap by admitting the foreigner into the market. The variations which had taken place in its value, you charged on variations in the supply; and the same was done by the Press. In the 88th Number of the Edinburgh Review, we find this statement. Owing partly to the unprecedented destruction of agricultural capital that had taken place during the low prices of 1814, 1815, and 1816, (these low prices had not been produced by the suppression of small notes,) partly to deficient harvests, and more than all to the restraints on importation, the prices of 1817, 1818, and 1819, were oppressively high. But mark the effects of this increase of price-fresh capital was applied to the land; and this increase of tillage, conspiring with favourable seasons, again sunk prices to such a degree, that they fell in October 1822 so low as 38s. 1d., the average of that year being only 43s.3d.!" These sentiments were your own, with this exception, that you ascribed the low prices of 1821 and 1822 to the excessive importations which took place before the closing of the ports in 1819. And what is your conduct at present? When you speak of prices in detail, you virtually deny that they have been in any material degree affected by the change of currency. When you speak of the low prices of wool, do you charge them on this change? No. When you treat on the pauperism and distress of the southern and midland counties, do you make this change responsible for them? No. Do you blame it for bringing the Irish labourers into the country, who, as you assert, form such a powerful source of general bad wages and pauperism? No. When you look at the distress of the shipping interest, or of the silk trade, or of the lead and copper miners, or of the cotton weavers, or of the producers of kelp, or of any portion of the community, do you say it has been produced by the change in question? No. Do you assert this change to be the cause why the manufacturers are bound to such low prices in foreign markets? No. Thus, when you framed the present Corn Law, you declared that it, by its effect on supply, would govern the prices of corn; you now declare that it cannot affect prices, and that they are governed by the currency. When you look at prices and public suffering in the aggregate, you ascribe them to one cause; but when you look at them in detail, you deny operation to this cause, and ascribe them to others wholly different! If this monstrous inconsistency affected your own reputation only, we should be silent respecting it; but it bears vitally on the interests of the empire. It is utterly impossible for you to legislate correctly on the property and bread of the community, if you be ignorant of the things which govern price. The latter is either regulated by the currency, or it is not; we call on you, in the name of the country, to decide the question. We will now offer a few remarks in reference to your decision. A large part of you, in speaking of the high prices of corn in 1817 and 1818, and the low ones in 1821 and 1822, ascribe them wholly to the currency. Would not the bad crops in the former years, the excessive importations on an abundant crop which they caused, and the very great increase of imports from Ireland in the latter years, affect prices? If they would, what are we to think of those legislators who put them wholly out of the question? You speak of a metallic standard of value, as though the relative value of commodities to it, could not vary; you assert that with it the prices of commodities must be always low. We have no alternative but to disbelieve you, or history altogether. Is the price of wheat governed by this standard, or by the seasons? Are wages governed by it, or by the supply of labour, and the quantity of employment? We put the question in regard to every commodity. What is the reply given by history and the nature of things? It is, that it is utterly impossible for the standard of value to govern prices, and that they must vary about as much with a metallic, as with a paper one. In illustration, we give the average price of wheat at Dantzic during four periods of ten years each. From 1780 to 1789 it was 33s. 10d. 1790 to 1799 43s. 8d. 60s. Od. 55s. 4d. 1800 to 1809 1810 to 1819 We may add, that the price generally varied much yearly. Were the variations caused by changes in the standard of value? No; they flowed from causes wholly independent of it. You charge the high prices of the war on a depreciation of the currency. The history of the last two years and the present one abundantly proves, that if the supply of foreign corn were as small, and the demand of government, and means of consumption of the working classes, were as great, as they were during the war, corn would be now fully as dear with a metallic currency as it then was with a paper one. Let labour be as much in demand, and as free from foreign competition, as it was during the war, and wages will be as high as they then were. Place imported commodities in the war circumstances, and they will rise to the war prices. This will be the case if the price of gold remain what it is. What is the outrageous absurdity which you here fall into? You in reality maintain, that, with a gold currency, short crops and inability to procure supplies from abroad cannot make corn dear-an inadequate supply of labour, and freedom from foreign competition, cannot make wages high-and short supply, expensive transit, scarcity, and high wages, cannot make general commodities dear! The high price of gold during the war was caused, as every intelligent man knows, by other things than the high prices of commodities. It arose partly from the great general demand for gold created by the war, and partly in respect of this country, from the circumstances produced by the war, which rendered a great export of gold necessary, and an equal import impossible. Yet you practically assert, that the price of gold cannot be affected by a great demand, a constant export, and inability to import; and can only be raised by the high prices of commodities! If you admit the contrary, you overturn your beautiful currency theory. If you admit that short supply and scarcity can produce high prices independently of the currency, you cannot deny that they produced such prices during the war. If you admit that gold can be made dear by a great demand, necessary export and short supply, independently of the prices of commodities, you cannot deny that its high price during the war flowed from them. If you make these admissions, you own that the paper currency, during the war, was not the cause of high prices, and was not depreciated. You say that a contraction of the currency must cause not only a momentary, but a permanent fall of prices, because the property of the country must be represented by the currency, and therefore the value of the one must fall with the amount of the other. In this you virtually maintain, that the quantity of property cannot be affected by variations in the amount of money-that production will be the same in quantity, whether prices be profitable or losing ones-that a diminution of capital cannot diminish production. If you own the contrary, you must own that the currency can be increased or reduced without permanently affecting prices. Let us suppose that, by small notes, two millions are added to the currency, and that half the sum is lent to the farmers. How will the farmers employ it? Granting that, in the first instance, they use it to keep their produce from market, and thereby raise prices, this, as you declare, must raise their profits, and incite them to force their old land with manure, and take additional land into culture. What must follow? An increase in the quantity of pro |