amusement to the house of commons. Mr. Bankes seemed to fear the suspicion of being gained by the minister's eloquence. He, however, before and since, has often allowed himself to be won by a very inferior strain of ministerial oratory, when recommended by bigoted principles or some ignoble cause. The address was carried, with only four dissentients, on the 12th of December; and on the 25th, the first detachment of British troops were anchored in the Tagus. On the 13th, parliament adjourned over to the 8th of February. The expedition to Portugal decisively and almost immediately effected its purpose. The treachery and dissimulation of Ferdinand gave way to his fears. The French government at the same time recalled from Madrid the diplomatic agent of its intrigues; and both the independence and the constitution of Portugal were for the time delivered. But the effect of the armament fell far short of the sensation produced by the British minister's speech. In spite of the penal prohibitions with which despotism surrounds itself on the Continent against the English press, the speech found its way into Spain and Italy, and alarmed to consternation tyranny and its abettors at Paris, Madrid, and Vienna. From that moment the heart and hope of liberal Europe were embarked in the ministry of Mr. Canning. At home the prospects of his administration were also flattering. The internal state of the country was, on the whole, favourable. The national re sources began to rally. Capital and credit were once more in a state of promising if not complete activity. The workman obtained employment and wages adequate to his subsistence. The duke of York died of dropsy, after an illness of some weeks, and much suffering, on the 5th of January, 1827. Standing in the relation of heir presumptive to the throne; obstinately and obtusely fortified against all concession to the Catholics; serving as a ready and authoritative medium for toryism and intolerance to reach, unobserved, the royal ear; his death had a great influence upon the state of parties, and was especially favourable to the ascendant of Mr. Canning. He, some weeks only before he died, and when his illness had already commenced, strenuously urged the king to render the government uniform and anti-Catholic; in other words, to dismiss Mr. Canning: and, had he recovered, Mr. Canning must have ceased to be foreign minister, or the duke to be commander-inchief.* The duke of York was not without personal good qualities, which scarcely deserved the name of private virtues, and were overclouded by his private vices. He was constant in his friendships; - but who were his friends and associates? Were they persons distinguished in the state, in literature, in science, in art, or even in his own profession of arms? Were they not the companions and sharers of his dissipations and prodigalities? He did not - * Speech of Mr. Canning. — Supplementary volume of Mr. Stapleton. exact from his associates subserviency or form; but it was notorious that, from the meanness of his capacity, or the vulgarity of his tastes, he descended very low before he found himself at his own social level. His services to the army as commander-inchief were beyond all measure over-rated. Easy access, diligence, a mechanical regularity of system, which seldom yielded to solicitation, and never discerned merit; an unenvying, perhaps unscrupulous, willingness to act upon the advice and appropriate the measures of others more able and informed than himself; these were his chief merits at the Horseguards. But, it will be said, he had an uncompromising, conscientious fidelity to his public principles; - this amounts to no more than that his bigotry was honest and unenlightened. His death, perhaps, was opportune; his non-accession fortunate for the peace of the country and the stability of his family on the throne. Alike incapable of fear and foresight, he would have risked the integrity of the United Kingdom, rather than concede the Catholic claims; and the whole monarchy, rather than sanction reform. It would be easy to suggest a parallel, and not always to his advantage, between the constitution of his mind and of that of James duke of York, afterwards James II., whose obstinate bigotry forced the nation to choose between their liberties and his deposition from the throne. Parliament re-assembled on the 8th of February.> The first important question brought under discussion was that of the corn laws. This subject, which the ministers had pledged themselves to bring forward immediately on the meeting of parliament, was delayed in consequence of successive illnesses of Mr. Canning and lord Liverpool. It was submitted by Mr. Canning in committee on the 1st of March. After a speech of great length and perspicuity of detail, he proposed a scale of the average prices of the various kinds of grain within the kingdom, at which, upon the payment of a specified scale of duties, foreign grain should be admissible into the market. The debate upon the question was protracted and desultory. There were almost as many theories as speakers. Ministers took the medium price of wheat at 60s.; the landed interest would have it higher; the manufacturing, lower; and others would operate upon the currency, not upon corn. After several debates, the ministerial measure passed the house of commons by large majorities. Sir Francis Burdett was charged with the petition and claims of the Irish Catholics. Circumstances appeared favourable to the question: the death of the duke of York; the absence and illness of lord Liverpool; the increasing influence of Mr. Canning; the organised force, union, and determination of the whole Catholic population of Ireland; the support of emancipation, and apprehended danger from its denial expressed by the leading Irish Protestants; - all augured well for the success of the petitioners. But the tone and attitude of the Catholics exasperated the prejudices rather than appealed to the justice or the prudence of the English people; the table of the house of commons was loaded with anti-Catholic petitions; and aft two nights' discussion, the resolution proposed by sir Francis Burdett was rejected by a majority of four. The only circumstance which distinguished this debate was a slight collision between the master of the rolls and Mr. Canning. Sir John Copley represented the religious intolerance, the odium theologicum, — of the university of Cambridge, and thought it meet to argue the Catholic question in a congenial spirit. He accordingly drew, not upon his own opinions and resources, but upon a party pamphlet, curious for the absence of truth, charity, and manners, and addressed to Mr. Canning by a great clerical gladiator of the day in the arena of pamphleteering. The speech of the master of the rolls, occupied chiefly with the question of securities, which was not then before the house, and directed chiefly against Mr. Canning, was irrelevant, disingenuous, and unfriendly. He borrowed not only the reasoning, but the temper and personalities, of the theologian. Mr. Canning, after disposing of the argument and the attack, vindicated himself ironically for his not having concerted securities with the pope, by reading a grave law opinion signed R. Gifford and J. S. Copley, the king's attorney and solicitor, denouncing against him (Mr. Canning) the penalties of præmunire if he answered a complimentary note which his holiness, on his election, had addressed to the king. The master of the rolls, as if still inspired by the pamphlet, rose twice, to say that the opinion was private, and the disclosure a breach of confidence. Mr. Canning maintained that it was official, and he had therefore a right to use it, more especially |