The letter ascribes to me a more intimate knowledge of the proceedings of the Cabinet than I have possessed or assumed; but the following passage will shew that I was not altogether ignorant of the disputes to which he refers, and that although not bearing directly upon the point which I was discussing, I thought it fair to refer to them. "It is certain, that, not between Mr Canning and Lord Castlereagh, who died in August 1822, but between Mr Canning and other members of the Cabinet, there was a difference of opinion as to the period of recognition; there is much reason for believing that the indisposition of those Ministers, which produced no inconsiderable asperity of feeling, was, in part, occasioned by the objections made to the recognition, by some of our continental allies, as tending to countenance revolt. But it was only a question of time; the principle was the same, and must have operated sooner or later." I have also said, that "the recognition was unquestionably accelerated by the exertions of Mr Canning; and that whatever merit belongs to the acknowledgment of these provinces, at the moment at which it occurred, may very fairly be claimed by Mr Canning."

Is there here any unfair suppression?

My observations with respect to Portugal are said " to labour under the same error which has been already pointed out. It is evidently thought all-sufficient to establish conformity in principle between the two Ministers, to shew that Mr Canning, in his dealings with Portugal, adhered to the non-interference principle -a position which Mr Stapleton, so far from denying, proves to be strictly true."+

The reader of my Review will readily perceive, that in my narrative of Mr Canning's proceedings with respect to Portugal, I do not controvert the statements or opinions of Mr Stapleton; and "the same error" is apparent here, as in other parts of the letter, in supposing that my article was solely or principally a review of " the political life." I wished to mention all the leading passages of

Mr Canning's administration, for which I had the materials, in order to shew, that in none of his measures or declarations could the evidence be found, of that emancipation of Europe from the trammels of despotism, which self-interest and ignorance had ascribed to him. The position which I controvert is always this, -" that England under Lord Castlereagh was a party assisting, if not contracting, to a league of sovereigns for the repression of liberal and po

popular institutions, under the name of the Holy Alliance; and that Mr Canning disconnected England from this alliance, and gave her powerful support to the cause of liberty in Europe."

The next attack is upon the consistency of my statements: "In page 408, it is asserted that 'the political opponents of Mr Canning, afterwards so forward in maintaining, perhaps in originating, for purposes of their own, the notion of a difference, saw none in the negotiations with France and Spain in 1822.' And then, three lines after, we find, 'It is true, that even at this early period, they (Mr Canning's opponents) attempted make a distinction between Mr Canning and his less liberal associates." "

to

If the whole passage had been given, its meaning and consistency would have been apparent; it might even have been enough, if the word attempted had been printed in italics; but let the passage be read only a few lines farther. "They applauded the warmth with which he breathed his wishes for the success of Spain, and the liberality of what he said of the cause of Spanish freedom; but they argued that in what he did, he imitated his predecessor."

All this is strictly true, perfectly consistent, and strikingly illustrative of the nature of the difference between Lord Castlereagh and Mr Canning. I have never denied that there might be some difference of sentiment, and consequently, of expression, with respect to the continental proceedings themselves; my position is, that there was no difference as to the conduct of England.

And I must again remind the reader, that the "irreconcilable variance of

† P. 37.

opinion" between England and the Allies, on the doctrine of interference, existed, and was declared by Lord Castlereagh, in 1820.*

The next head of attack furnishes, without any exception, the most outrageous instance of word-catching which I remember to have seen: if I were as fond of crimination as my commentator is, I might say, of wilful and disingenuous misrepresentation.

In two rather long passages, I had criticised a somewhat flighty passage, attributing to Mr Canning the conception and execution of a vast scheme for "soothing the exasperated feelings" of some unknown people, and advancing the cause of liberty in countries undescribed. I denied that Mr Canning indulged in these speculations, and observed, that if he had so speculated, "he must have been woefully disappointed;" I complained of the omission to name the countries in which these mighty works were done; and observed, that "the dispersion of the danger to arise from the confliction of discordant principles, or the collision of two parties, was a a legitimate object, in no way inconsistent with the policy of Lord Castlereagh. It is," I said, "an English object, very different from that of supporting the popular cause from a mere hatred of despotism. It was, moreover, an object avowed by Mr Canning, at the outset of his administration, - То restore

or maintain England's influence in Europe. To promote the interests of his own country, were no doubt also parts of Mr Canning's policy which it was scarcely necessary to set forth as peculiarly his."

The whole object of the first article, (in No. XV.,) and a great part of the second, (in No. XVI.,) were employed in proving that Lord Castlereagh maintained the honour of England; but, because, in the passage cited, in mentioning it as the object equally of Lord Castlereagh and Mr Canning, to preserve and strengthen England's influence, I coupled the word "restore" with

" maintain," I am told that I have no right to deny, that Mr Canning retrieved the honour of his country! I might observe, that not a word concerning honour, lost or retrieved, is to be found in the passage triumphantly quoted. But it is more important to remind the reader of the whole context, which clearly shews the object to be the assertion and commendation of the common policy of the two Ministers.

One only point of controversy remains. It is observed, that Lord Castlereagh, in the circular of 1821, expressed a hope that the difference of sentiment between England and her Allies, would make no alteration in the harmony of the alliance; "Mr Canning, when adverting to a similar difference of principle, observed that he would persevere in refusing, 'even though a dissolution of the alliance should be the consequence of his refusal." "+

In both

It is asked, whether I choose to call this a variation in mode only. I answer, certainly yes; nor could I find a more striking illustration of my "favourite” position. cases, the English Minister was invited to take a measure inconsistent with his sense of the duty and interest of England; in both, the Minister refused: nor is there the slightest ground for believing that the one would not have been quite as steadfast in his refusal as the other. But the one, habituated to a very courteous diplomacy, and treating with associates and friends, accompanied his refusal with soft words of regret, and hope that there might be no less of friendship between them. The other goes at once to the point, to which, notwithstanding all his courtesies, the first must have come at last, if resisted; and declares peremptorily and sternly, I will rather quarrel with you than acquiesce in your demand. Every man will prefer the one style or the other according to his own feeling and temper; but the results are similar.

I have now examined, I believe, every one of the observations of the Letter-writer, affecting the statements or arguments of my two reviews; and I trust that the main positions which I have maintained remain unshaken. Not one of these positions is unfavourable to Mr Canning, of whom my commentator styles himself the friend. I have denied to him no praise, except such as involved either a censure upon his predecessor or a deviation from his own recorded principles.

The object of my reviews was, to defend all Ministers, from Mr Pitt to Mr Canning inclusive, from the attacks of Whigs and Republicans; to defend Lord Castlereagh in particular against the additional hostility of Mr Canning's exclusive friends; and to display Mr Canning as the steady and consistent friend of Conservative principles at home, and the upholder of English interests, and those alone, in foreign countries.

The defence of Lord Castlereagh necessarily occupied a great share of my work; because Whigs, Republicans, and the exclusive Canningites, all joined against him. I know not, that in conducting this defence, I have said one word derogatory to Mr Canning. If any such can be found, I apologise for it to his widow, not to his present champion.

I had nearly finished my observations on the New Monthly, when I met with an attack upon the same reviews, in a new and rival publication-the Metropolitan.* Will you allow me to make your Magazine the channel of my answer to this gentleman also ?

It is not for me to account for the adoption of my articles by the Editor of the Foreign Quarterly Review. I suspect that, in the "fair and enlightened spirit" which is justly ascribed to him, he saw the propriety of discussing the questions which I raised, and judged that I treated them fairly. Our acquaintance began with these articles; I trust, in spite of the Metropolitan, that it will not end with them.

Much of what I would say on the accusation of depreciating Mr Canning, has been anticipated.

The present writer charges me with " denying the merit of Mr Can

ning as to those points on which his fame has been heretofore supposed to rest with the greatest security." It is assumed, that what I deny to Mr Canning is unquestionably meritorious. In my opinion, which may be erroneous, but which is as much entitled to respect as those of my opponents, that from which I vindicate this eminent statesman, is inconsistency, impolicy, and imprudence. I say that he pursued the interests of England; the supposition, backed, if you please, by " the public voice of Europe," represents him as having madly intended, and in contradiction to his sentiments repeatedly promulgated, to engage England in the private quarrels of every European state.

It is difficult to answer accusations so desultory and so vague as those of the Metropolitan. Mr Stapleton had said, that Mr Canning was of opinion that we ought not to have a minister at Verona. Without disputing the accuracy of the statement, I thought it fair and " satisfactory" to inform the reader, on Mr Canning's authority, that the minister who was there, nothing to lower the character of England. For this I am once more reminded of the " large and statesmanlike" question which I had before me, and reproached with " narrowness," because, in the course of a large discussion, I mentioned a small point. If I had turned the great question upon this small point, I might have been justly reproved; but I did no such thing. However, I gave an opportunity to this gentleman, as to his coadjutor, to talk of greatness, and express contempt for narrow intellects!

Then come "weakness of argument, want of accurate knowledge, sophistry!" I only wish that this writer had accommodated his style to my narrow understanding, and had condescended to point out the instances on which he grounds these serious imputations, and had "set me right" as to some of "the facts" which I am said to misrepresent.

I scarcely know whether seriously to advert to the passage follo following, not being quite certain whether it be lively wit or dull error. In the New

But the most whimsical of all the accusations now follows. I presume that, young or old, I have pretty clearly described myself as a Tory, and yet I am gravely reproved for putting forward the well-known opposition of Mr Canning to Parliamentary Reform, and for mentioning that there was a division among the Whigs as to the junction with Mr Canning in 1827. It is "inexcusable, to excite heart-burning among those who have rallied round the reform question, with a generous oblivion of the past."

Now attend to the true state of the case. In my narrative of the proceedings of the statesman whose monarchical principles I have endeavoured to exhibit, in the consistency and force which belong to them, I necessarily mentioned, to the immortal praise of his sincerity and his influence, that he compelled the Whigs, who eagerly joined him, to follow his lead on the great question of reform. Could I fairly relate this fact, without acknowledging that some of the leading Whigs, members of the present Cabinet, would not join Mr Canning, upon these terms ? I can say, with truth, that I had no such motive as that which is imputed, but I should not have been ashamed of it, if it had happened to occur to me. Why I, who am convinced from the bottom of my soul, as Mr Canning was before me, that "reform" will destroy the Monarchy and the Peerage, should hesitate at sowing dissensions among the advocates of that measure, or at exposing the inconsistency of some of them, it is beyond my narrow capacity to understand!

The allusion to the military pseudo-historian, is also too mysterious for my intellect. The commander superseded, is now one of the new Whig Peers, very high in the army. Between him and the present Marquis of Londonderry, there was not, and could not be, any question of command.

One more explanation, on a per

sonal matter. The anecdote con cerning the "complimentary letter," was related upon my own personal knowledge. I was concerned in the " observation;" and the letter was shewn to me by Mr Canning.

Having cleared away, so far as their own confusedness permitted, the preliminary observations of this censorious critic, I come to the only point on which, in Scottish phrase, he condescends upon particulars. Here, I shall treat him with more candour than he deserves.

I am accused of two errors, evincing "a gross ignorance of facts," with respect to the communication made by Mr Canning to Mr Rush, in 1823, concerning the South American colonies of Spain. First, in describing that communication as "proposing concerted measures for the eventual recognition;" and secondly, in stating that the overture fell to the ground for "want of powers in the American." The recognition, it is said, by the United States, had already taken place; what Mr Canning proposed was, "to resist the Holy Alliance, in certain contingencies, by arms."

Now, I must first observe, that all that I have said as to this overture is taken from Mr Stapleton. I intended to relate the facts, which were new to me, from "the political life."

If the author has correctly stated the overture, it is clear that Mr Canning did not consider the recognition by the United States as a past event. Hestated "the question of recognition to be one of time, and of circumstances," and proposed that if this was also the view of the American Government, it should be mutually confided, and declared. And I am enabled to add that Mr Canning, comparing the date of his subsequent conference with Prince Polignac, October 1823, with the speech of the American President in the December following, boasted, if I may use the expression, of having anticipated the United States.

But, on re-perusing the communication to Mr Rush, I perceive that I made my abstract of it too short; and that I ought to have mentioned, further, its 5th head, " that England could not see any part of the colonies transferred to any other power with indifference." I freely confess that as Mr Stapleton had laid no stress upon this, and it was not followed up, I did not sufficiently regard it.

The endeavour to secure the cooperation of the great maritime power of the other hemisphere, in the resistance to any attempt that might be made to aggrandize France out of the Spanish colonies, was a commendable instance of judicious foresight. And although there was perhaps at no time any great probability of the attempt being made by France-and Mr Canning very soon brought her explicitly to disclaim the intention* -it was impossible that this free communication with the United States should not greatly conciliate that jealous government.

Thus far, then, I admit that having mentioned this communication at all -though not bearing in any way upon my discussion-I should have done better to explain it more fully.

But I am wrong, too, it is said, in stating that the matter "fell to the ground;" because, says the Metropolitan, it occasioned much discussion in America, between Mr Monroe and Mr Jefferson, and indirectly gave rise to letters from Mr Brougham to Dr Parr, and so forth! What says Mr Stapleton ? "Mr Canning found that in the delay which must intervene before Mr Rush could procure specific powers, the progress of events might have rendered any such proceeding nugatory, and the being engaged in a communication with the United States, in which a considerable time would have been consumed before it would have been possible to have arrived at a conclusive understanding with them, would have embarrassed any other mode of proclaiming our views, which circumstances might have rendered it expedient to adopt. Mr Canning therefore allowed the matter to drop."

If

I have gone too far in assuming, that a matter allowed to drop, did fall to the ground, I can only plead that I was misled by a certain story of an apple.

The subsequent remarks of the Metropolitan upon this subject, are chiefly directed against Mr Stapleton, who is accused of having exposed his patron to "unmitigated ridicule" by his alleged misrepresentations. Mr

Stapleton is well able to defend himself, if he should think the attack formidable. I have no concern but with the attacks on my own article. I had denied that "the recognition placed England in any different position, in respect of the rest of Europe, from that in which she stood while the Holy Alliance was recent, and in full force." "Here," says the Metropolitan, "is only once more the strange misconception as to the real causes of Mr Canning's agency in this matter. The The recognition, as it is called, did not take place until 1825, after the Holy Alliance had fallen to pieces. There was nothing offensive in that act, nor was any principle of policy involved in it. It was to the principles acted upon in 1823 that Mr Canning himself went back, and to which his friends must look in seeking to justify his lofty pretensions." Reference is then made to the famous declaration (made in 1826) as to "Spain and the Indies." ." " And does the critic in the Foreign Quarterly mean to deny, that his conduct on that occasion placed England in a different position in respect of the rest of Europe, from that which she occupied when enacting a busy part at Congresses? What! no difference when she travels across the Atlantic to rear up a counter alliance against those very powers by whose side she recently sat!"

It may perhaps be the opinion of the reader that all this new speculation of the Metropolitan is not worthy of the space which I have given to it; still, I must observe, that it would destroy all the argument that has been raised by Mr Stapleton and the writer in the New Monthly upon the difference in the Cabinet concerning the recognition in 1825; and all the merit which has been allowed to Mr Canning for his successful struggle to produce that recognition, and the great result ascribed to it.

It ascribes that merit simply and solely to the communication to the American minister, about which there is no evidence of any controversy in the Cabinet.

It places Mr Canning's merit upon a transaction, in which, it is clearly proved, he did not persevere; but of