It is our wish to deal with this gentleman more tenderly than he is disposed to deal with Mr. Canning; but we do not hesitate to assure him, that to use his own figure, neither Achilles in petticoats, nor Mr. Canning in the gown of a doctor of divinity, or, we might add, any thing else in nature, could make half so ridiculous a figure as does the author of "The Grand Vizier Unmasked," from page 6 to page 13 of his pamphlet.

In the eighth page we were somewhat startled to find, that a statesman need not, after all, be a divine; but before we had recovered from our astonishment at this admission, having read to the end of the sentence, we perceived that the author had changed his mind again, and resolved that he must be one at all events; and, moreover, one of no ordinary attainments. "He should be able," says he, "to distinguish clearly between scripture truths and papal heresies." What, we would ask him, does he think has agitated the Christian world for so many centuries, and divided the Protestant and Catholic churches, except this very question? "What are scripture truths, and what are papal heresies?" It is the mainspring of the dispute between the two churches-it is the alpha and omega of those innumerable theological differences which all the learning of all the doctors has not yet decided; and yet this is the moderate degree of knowlege which, according to the Protestant Tory, a statesman who need be no divine should have at his fingers' ends!!!

But of all Mr. Canning's errors, his wit and ridicule appear to be the most unpardonable in the eyes of this writer. No wonder: none so much dislike jokes as those who cannot make them; and one perusal of the pamphlet before us is sufficiently convincing that the author was never very likely to be guilty of that offence, although he does, at page 46, deprecate his own pleasantry, which was the first intimation we received that he had intended to be pleasant before.

It is difficult to be serious in treating this class of his objections; the soreness occasioned to him by Mr. Canning's ridicule is so natural, and the cause of it so apparent, as to deserve nothing more than a smile. "A man, who employs raillery on serious subjects, cannot be a good churchman;" that is his position. As well might he have said, a dexterous archer cannot be a churchwarden. He may or he may not; and to our simple apprehension there is about as much connexion between the conclusion and the premises in one case as the other.

Raillery was the weapon used most formidably and most frequently by Massillon, and many other French divines, most conspicuous for their eloquence and their piety. Our own history affords instances of a similar kind; and what is a remarkable fact,

several of the most popular preachers of the present day are noted for the extraordinary and happy effect which they produce by means of that powerful instrument.

How many instances are there of men and women, distinguished alike for rank, piety, and every virtue which can adorn human kind, exhibiting, even on the brink of eternity, as awful a situation, one would imagine, as to be advocating the Catholic cause in the House of Commons-a gaiety of mind very rarely displayed on so serious an occasion; the annals of our own country afford well-known examples of this fact.

Does any man in his senses soberly believe, that because Sir Thomas More joked on the scaffold, or because Mr. Canning jokes in the House of Commons in discussing the Catholic Question, that either of those distinguished individuals deserves on that account the imputation of having proved himself an unsound churchman? We surrender the whole benefit to be derived from More's creed.

What, then, do these examples prove? Not that men who act thus are less sincere in their opinions than others—not that they are less devoted to their faith-but, simply, that being endowed with a more fertile imagination and a more playful fancy, they are not confined by those trammels which bind persons of ordinary genius, but are enabled to enliven the most trying moments, or to illustrate the most ungrateful subjects by the light of their wit.

Thus have we disposed of the first charge brought against Mr. Canning, viz. Catholic Advocacy.

The desultory manner in which that charge has been made, spread as it is over the whole pamphlet, has made it difficult for us to reduce it to an intelligible form; to the best of our ability, however, we have done so; and will now recapitulate the three heads under which the accusations have appeared to us most readily to range themselves, and the substance of our reply to each.

First. That Mr. Canning is unfit for the situation of Premier, because he has swerved from the principles of Mr. Pitt, and is not a devoted champion of the Protestant Church, or in other words, an enemy to Catholic Emancipation; Mr. Pitt being, according to the author, the perfection of an English Prime Minister.

In reply, we have stated, that Mr. Pitt himself having been favorable to the Catholic Claims, and having gone out of office in 1801 because he failed to procure Catholic Emancipation, the author is reduced to the dilemma of either unsaying all he has said in praise of Mr. Pitt, or retracting the opinion that the Prime Minister of this country ought to be an enemy to Catholic Emancipation.

Secondly. That setting the authority of Mr. Pitt aside, opposition to the Catholic Claims ought to be a main ingredient in the character of an English Prime Minister.

We have shown that this, so far from being a general rule dogmatically to be laid down, is a point on which the country has long been, and is now divided, and that opinions are pretty equally balanced on both sides; that as a leading principle, to be addressed to the nation at large, it is therefore palpably absurd, although by the party of the Protestant Tory it will no doubt be adopted.

Thirdly. That the manner in which Mr. Canning has advo cated the Catholic cause is incompetent and unbecoming.

Our answer is, that the charge of incompetence coming from an adversary is the greatest praise he can bestow; and that wit and raillery have in all times been, and constantly are, applied to the most serious subjects, and used on the most solemn occasions by sound and good churchmen, eminent for their piety and learning. We now pass on to the second charge brought against Mr. Canning, viz. his Political Inconsistency.

POLITICAL INCONSISTENCY.

We have always understood that a judgment of the political principles of men is to be dated from their first appearance in public life. Whatever may have been the prepossession of their early days; from whomsoever they may have received "their first political lessons;" or to whomsoever they may have "unbosomed themselves" in private, candor and justice will estimate their actions by what they do when once they have stepped on the stage.

Deeds, not words-facts, not rumors, will guide the decision of impartial observers. Our opponent labors to insinuate that Mr. Canning set out as a Whig; unfortunately for him, however, he set out as a Tory, and, as the author himself acknowleges, "made his debut in the House of Commons in January 1794, as a partisan of Mr. Pitt." "The Whigs," says he, "he loved, but the Tories he loved still better." Does he mean this as censure? For our part, we are happy to believe it true; we do believe it to be true, and greater praise to one whose mind inclines to Tory principles we never heard. Would that the same could be said of every Tory, and vice versâ, of every Whig! Would that those names could be wiped out, and obliterated altogether! that the absurd and worn-out prejudices which seek still to mark those parties as distinct and irreconcilable factions, would at length give way to a better feeling. Well did Sir Francis Burdett observe in the House, not long since, that he was neither one nor the other; and when this writer, quoting from Mr. Moore, charges Mr. Canning with "bidding fair to change the nature of

Toryism altogether," we do not believe that he could have bestowed on him a more sound and honorable praise. Mr. Canning therefore, friendly to the Tories, and friendly to the Whigs also, that is, guided by measures and not men, by things and not nick-names, joined Mr. Pitt's administration in 1794. Possibly he did not agree with all the measures of his colleagues, as Lord Eldon, the Duke of Wellington, and Mr. Peel, for so many years did not with theirs; perhaps he might have wished to associate with him in the cabinet some gentlemen from the other side of the House we do not know that it was so, but this we know, that coinciding as he did with the main and leading principles of Mr. Pitt's policy, he was perfectly justified, as a man of honorable ambition and spotless integrity, to apply his great talents to the service of the state.

But we perfectly understand, and will now endeavor to explain the indignation which this conduct of Mr. Canning has excited in the mind of our author.

In the days of our forefathers two great political parties divided the state-one was called the Whigs, the other the Tories; their principles were diametrically opposed to each other; the gradual reform and religious toleration of the former, were met by the high-church notions and "wisdom of our ancestors" of the latter; they were like two hostile armies drawn up in battle-array, deaf to reason or compromise, and knowing no decision but the sword: so clearly was the line of demarcation drawn between them, that no doubt could exist of their separate possessions or respective partisans; and none dared appear on the great theatre of political warfare, except in the uniform of one or the other of these two belligerent powers. Jealousy, distrust, and uncompromising enmity to the opposite faction, were instilled into the minds of the rising generation with the same fervor of sincerity, and the same honesty of purpose, as are said to have actuated Lord Nelson in his instructions to a young midshipman ;-when explaining the rudiments of his profession, he charged him, above all things, to hate a Frenchman as he did the devil.

L

14

Ab

Such were the feelings of the Whigs and Tories towards each other in days of yore. But time, which mitigates all things, gradually abated the rivalry of these hostile clans; their onsets became less furious and less frequent, and an armistice was at length tacitly agreed on between them; the line of separation then by degrees wore away, and, as the violence of faction yielded to a calmer judgment, men began to inquire what the indissoluble bond of union was which cemented their respective parties so closely together, and what the hopeless cause of discord which separated each so far from the other: it was soon discovered that no such bond and no such cause existed. The principles of each

side, when they came to be temperately considered, exhibited not only many shades of distinction in themselves, but even broad lines of difference, and the opinions of the more moderate on both, were found to approximate pretty nearly to each other. When this light broke on the minds of the combatants they determined no longer to keep the field; silently, therefore, they disbanded their armies, and returned to the more peaceful occupations of civil life, where, mingling in the arena of the senate-house, they insensibly forgot their former animosities, and have, of late years, retained little more than the names which distinguished them in the hour of their strife. Still, as might be expected, there were a few who inherited the animosities of their ancestors, and in the author of "The Grand Vizier Unmasked" we recognise a true disciple of that warlike school. With him, a man who is not a Whig, must be a Tory; and he who sees some good on both sides, is worse than either—a shuffler, a plebeian, a statesman of fortune, a political adventurer.

We trust we have now satisfactorily explained the cause of the violent hostility of this writer towards Mr. Canning, for having ventured to think, that even amongst the Whigs all was not evil. The fact that he thought so from his first entrance into public life we willingly admit; and a fact more honorable to him, save his now acting on that opinion, we would not desire to record. So conclusive, however, of inconsistency is this circumstance with our author, that he fondly imagines he has settled that point in the short space of four pages, by the mere detail of the fact. Let any one read from page 12, beginning at "Is he, we proceed to ask, a consistent statesman ?" down to page 17, where the author triumphantly exclaims, "Such, be it known to the people of this country, is Mr. Canning's political consistency," and say whether the whole of the charge does not rest on this, that he is neither a violent Tory nor a violent Whig.

The truth is, that this Protestant Tory, like some others whom we could mention, is florishing in the wrong century: some hundred years back, when the armies were in the field, he would doubtless have met the due reward of his merit. His sincerity is of course beyond suspicion; his zeal no man can doubt, and we really believe, that in those days he might have figured as generalissimo of the Tory forces; we can only hope, that in the enjoyment of that dignity, he would have wielded the sword with rather more skill than he now does the pen. It might be supposed, that after the above-mentioned "Io triumphe"-"Such, be it known to the people of this country, is Mr. Canning's political consistency!!!" the author, having decided the matter so entirely to his own satisfaction, would either have rested from his labors to enjoy the sweets of victory, or at least would have entered on