The third is of another kind, but to the same effect:  That the legal quays are too confined, and there is not sufficient accommodation for the landing and shipping of cargoes.  And the fourth and last is still different:  they describe the avenues to the legal quays (which, little more than a century since, the great fire of London opened and dilated beyond the measure of our then circumstances) to be now “incommodious, and much too narrow for the great concourse of carts and other carriages usually passing and repassing therein.”  Thus our trade has grown too big for the ancient limits of Art and Nature.  Our streets, our lanes, our shores, the river itself, which has so long been our pride, are impeded and obstructed and choked up by our riches.  They are, like our shops, “bursting with opulence.”  To these misfortunes, to these distresses and grievances alone, we are told, it is to be imputed that still more of our capital has not been pushed into the channel of our commerce, to roll back in its reflux still more abundant capital, and fructify the national treasury in its course.  Indeed, my dear Sir, when I have before my eyes this consentient testimony of the corporation of the city of London, the West India merchants, and all the other merchants who promoted the other plans, struggling and contending which of them shall be permitted to lay out their money in consonance with their testimony, I cannot turn aside to examine what one or two violent petitions, tumultuously voted by real or pretended liverymen of London, may have said of the utter destruction and annihilation of trade.

This opens a subject on which every true lover of his country, and, at this crisis, every friend to the liberties of Europe, and of social order in every country, must dwell and expatiate with delight.  I mean to wind up all my proofs of our astonishing and almost incredible prosperity with the valuable information given to the Secret Committee of the Lords by the Inspector-General.  And here I am happy that I can administer an antidote to all despondence from the same dispensary from which the first dose of poison was supposed to have come.  The report of that committee is generally believed to have derived much benefit from the labors of the same noble lord who was said, as the author of the pamphlet of 1795, to have led the way in teaching us to place all our hope on that very experiment which he afterwards declared in his place to have been from the beginning utterly without hope.  We have now his authority to say, that, as far as our resources were concerned, the experiment was equally without necessity.