The quarrel naturally excited a considerable sensation among the friends of both parties at the time. It was understood that his late majesty expressed his strong, and certainly his just disapprobation of the practice of settling minis terial disputes by sword or pistol, and the duke of Portland, as well as Mr. Canning and lord Castle reagh, resigned his official situa

tion.

But although Mr. Canning no longer formed a part of his majesty's government, he continued actively to discharge his duties as a member of the House of Commons. In the first session of 1810, Mr. Whitbread having moved certain resolutions inculpating the conduct of lord Chatham in the Walcheren expedition as unconstitutional, Mr. Canning proposed an amendment, which was carried, blaming the noble lord's conduct, but in .more moderate terms. He also supported sir Thomas Lethbridge's resolution, declaring that the celebrated letter which sir Francis Burdett had addressed to his constituents was a libel on the House of Commons. On Mr. Grattan's moving, on the 18th of May, 1810, the reference of the Catholic claims to the consideration of a committee of the whole House, Mr. Canning, opposed the adoption of the motion at that moment; no security or engagement having been offered on the part of the Catholics. One of his most splendid efforts was his speech on the 15th of June, 1810, in reply to Mr. Whitbread, who had been express ing very desponding sentiments with respect to Spain.

1

In the latter end of the year 1810, in consequence of the king's illness, parliament was suddenly

called together. In the debates which took place immediately, and again in the session which opened on the 15th January, 1811, on the Regency bill, Mr. Canning, while he generally supported government, endeavoured to diminish the restrictions which the bill imposed on the regent. The affairs of Spain and Portugal coming under discussion on the introduction of the army estimates, Mr. Canning, on the 4th of March, 1811, made another powerful and glowing address to the House, urging a determined perseverance in the course which had been adopted. When Mr. Horner presented the Report from the Bullion Committee, Mr. Canning expressed his entire concurrence in the Report; and took a part in the discussions which soon afterwards occurred on the state of the currency.

Immediately on the assassination of Mr. Perceval (11th of May, 1812), the remaining ministers were, of course, anxiously employed in considering how they might best supply the loss of their distinguished chief and leader. Lord Liverpool was, in the first instance, authorized by the prince Regent to apply to the marquis Wellesley and Mr. Canning. His lordship's overtures were, however, declined, principally on the ground: of the unaltered views professed. to be entertained by lord Liverpool: and his colleague lord Castlereagh respecting the question of conces sion to the Catholics. It is not im probable that the nature of the proposed ministerial arrangement, by which lord Liverpool was to become First Lord of the Treasury, and lord Castlereagh to retain the Secretaryship of Foreign Affairs

and the lead in the House of Commons, constituted another and, perhaps, greater difficulty. The marquis of Wellesley was afterwards empowered by the prince Regent to form an adminis tration, of which Mr. Canning was to be a member; but the noble marquis failed to accomplish his object; nor was another attempt by earl Moira more successful.

Soon after this failure, namely, on the 22nd of June, 1812, Mr. Canning moved a resolution, which was carried by a majority of 129; pledging the House to take the Catholic question into consideration early in the next session of parliament. Upon this occasion Mr. Canning again entered at great length on the consideration of this question.

Parliament having been dissolved, Mr. Canning offered himself as a candidate for the representation of Liverpool, and was elected. Mr. Canning stood, in all, four times for Liverpool, and was every time elected; but never without strong opposition. On the first occasion he had four antagonists, and his majority was 500; the numbers being for Mr. Canning, 1,631; for general Gascoyne (the second member), 1,532; for Mr. Brougham, 1,131; for Mr. Creevey, 1,068; and for general Tarleton 11. At the second election in 1814, very great exertions were made to throw Mr. Canning out; but he was returned after a struggle of three days, by the retirement of his opponent Mr. Leyland. The third election, of 1818, was distinguished by an extraordinary quantity of elec tioneering manœuvre, eighteen nominal candidates having been set up

on one side, and the other, in addition to the four real ones; the majority, however, of Mr. Canning, was greater than on any occasion before. The last election of 1820 was less warmly contested, his chief opponent being a gentleman of the name of Crompton, who obtained only 345 votes.

In October, 1814, Mr. Canning was appointed Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the prince Regent of Portugal. He accordingly repaired to Lisbon, where he resided until the downfall of Buonaparte at Waterloo. After that event Mr. Canning resigned his situation and went to the South of France, for the health of some of his family, which was, in fact, the real motive for his going abroad at all. There he remained until the middle of the summer of 1816, when he returned to England, and, on the death of the earl of Buckinghamshire, he was appointed President of the Board of Control.

Early in the Spring of 1820 Mr. Canning lost his son, Mr. George Charles Canning, in the 19th year of his age, who had for a considerable time been in a declining state. This was a severe stroke to the father, who recorded his sense of the calamity in some pathetic lines inscribed on an ele gant monument in the new burying ground at Kensington.

When the message relative to the late queen was presented to the House, on the 7th of June, 1820, Mr. Canning, while he denied that the inquiry into her majesty's conduct had been forced on by ministers, who, on the contrary, had done every thing in their power to avert it, allowed

that much mischief must be the result. "Towards the illustrious personage who is the object of this investigation," observed Mr. Canning, "I feel an unaltered regard and affection. If there had been any injustice meditated towards her, no consideration on earth should have induced me to be a party to it, or to stand where I now stand. It is but due to those with whom I act, to say, that all that has been done by government with respect to her Majesty, has been done in the spirit of honour, candour, justice, and feeling. Having dis charged my duty in making these observations, I hope I may, without any dereliction of it, indulge my private feelings, by abstaining as much as possible from taking any part in the future stages of these proceedings,"

Soon after, Mr. Canning resigned the Presidency of the Board of Control, and went abroad for a few weeks.

In a letter addressed by sir Francis Burdett, on the 4th of April, 1821, to the Chairman of a dinner of parliamentary reformers, the hon, baronet mentioned Mr. Canning as the natural" champion of a system, by the hocus pocus tricks of which he and his family

got so much of the public money. At that time sir Francis was in confinement in the King's-bench. Immediately on his liberation, Mr. Canning wrote to the hon. baronet, requiring an explanation of the obnoxious expressions. Sir Francis Burdett in his answer disclaimed any intention of giving personal offence to Mr. Canning, and the latter declared himself satisfied.

On the recall of the marquis of Hastings, Mr. Canning was nominated Governor-general of India. He accordingly made all his atrangements for leaving the country, and went down to Liver pool to take leave of his friends and constituents in that town. While Mr. Canning was on this valedictory visit, the marquis of Londonderry put an end to his own' existence on the 12th of August, 1822.

On the 16th of September, 1822, Mr. Canning was appointed Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

We do not enter into any details of his conduct in that office. His elevation to the post of prime minister, and his death are recorded in our history for the present year.

Of the earlier part of Mr. Gifford's life we shall say nothing, but shall only refer to the preface to his translation of Juvenal, which was first published in the year 1802.

Of some strictures on the translation, which appeared in the

Critical Review, Mr. Gifford pub lished an "Examination," in 1803, and a 56 Supplement to that Examination in 1804." A second edition of the Juvenal was pub lished in 1806.

When Mr. Gifford published his

Translation of Juvenal, he had already acquired great celebrity as the author of "The Baviad" and "The Mæviad;" although in his autobiography he does not notice those successful productions of his muse. The former satire was pub lished in 1794,

The next object of Mr. Gifford's satiric muse was Wolcott, better known by his assumed name of Peter Pindar. Mr. Gifford, whowell knew the man, his history, and his habits, sent against him one of his sharpest arrows, in the form of an epistle, Wolcott, though a lampooner of others, could not bear to be satir ized himself; and, stung to the soul by this attack, determined upon revenge. Instead, however, of applying in the first place to his most powerful weapon, "the grey goose quill," he assumed the argumentum baculinum, and sallied forth in quest of his adversary. Watching his opportunity, and seeing Mr. Gifford enter the shop of Mr. Wright, the bookseller, in Piccadilly, now Hatchard's, he rushed in after him, and aimed a blow at Mr. Gifford's head, with a cudgel which he had provided for the occasion. Fortunately, a gentleman standing by, saw the movement in time to seize the arm of the enraged poet, who was then bundled out into the street, and rolled in the mud, to the great amusement of the gathered crowd. Nothing further took place at that time, but the disappointed satirist went home and penned one of his worst pieces, which he published with the title of "A Cut at a Cobbler." As, however, there was more passion than either poetry or wit in this performance, the only laugh which it provoked was against its author. About this time, Mr. Gifford entered into a warfare of much

greater moment. A number of men of brilliant talents and high connection, at the head of whom was Mr. Canning, having determined to establish a weekly paper, for the purpose of exposing to de served ridicule and indignation the political agitators by whom the country was then inundated, had engaged as editor a Dr. Grant, well known as a writer in the reviews and other periodical works of that perod. A few days before the in tended publication of the first num ber of "The Anti-jacobin" (which was the name given to the new paper), Dr. Grant, being taken seriously ill, sent for Mr. Wright the bookseller, who was to be the publisher of it, told him of his utter inability to discharge the arduous and responsible duties of editor, and requested that he would communicate the circumstance to some of the individuals by whom the undertaking had been projected. Mr. Wright accordingly waited upon Mr. Charles Long (now Lord Farnborough), and informed him of what had occurred. Mr. Long asked Mr. Wright, if he knew any one who was competent to the office. Mr. Wright mentioned Mr. Gifford's name, and was immediately commissioned to make Mr. Gifford the offer, which that gentleman accepted without hesitation. The first number appeared on the 20th of November, 1797, and the publication continued until the 9th of July, 1798. Some of the ablest articles in this celebrated journal were written by Mr. Gifford. A corner of the paper was expressly reserved for the "misrepresentations” and “lies" of the opposition papers; and these misrepresentations and lies it was especially Mr. Gifford's province to detect and expose.

Mr. Gifford's connexion with the Anti-jacobin naturally led to a very agreeable intimacy with a number of men of rank and distinction, among whom were Mr. Canning, Mr. Freere, Mr. Charles Long (now Lord Farnborough), Mr. Jenkinson (the present Earl of Liverpool), Lord Mornington (now Marquis Wellesley), Lord Clare, Mr. Pitt, &c. With one or other of these eminent individuals Mr. Gifford dined twice or thrice a week; and at these festive meetings many of the most exquisite papers in the Anti-jacobin were concocted. The value of Mr. Gifford's powerful assistance was acknowledged by every one; but of all governments on the face of the globe, that of England has invariably exhibited the most prudish delicacy of finance in the recompense of literary exertion.

The

ministerial recollection of Mr. Gifford's services was by no means a signal exception to the rule, although he obtained the Paymastership of the Band of Gentlemen Pensioners. At a subsequent period he was made a double commissioner of the lottery.

In the notes to his Juvenal, Mr. Gifford had displayed an extensive acquaintance with the early English poets; and, throughout his life, he prosecuted at his leisure hours that interesting study. In 1805, he published an edition of the Plays of Massinger, in four volumes; and in 1816, the Works of Ben Jonson, in nine volumes. Since his death, the Dramatic Works of Ford, in two volumes, which he left in a complete state for publication, have appeared; and they will soon be followed by the Works of Shirley, in six volumes. At one period of his life, Mr. Gifford contemplated an

edition of Shakspeare, in which it was his intention to abridge the cumbrous and superfluous notes of the Variorum Shakspeare; and to expose the blunders and fanciful new readings of all the previous editors and commentators. For such an undertaking no man could have been better qualified.

It was as the editor of "The Quarterly Review" that Mr. Gifford was most generally known. On its establishment in 1809, he was in a happy hour for the proprietor and for the public, appointed to conduct it; and it remained under his direction until about two years before his decease. Of the unwearied industry, exten sive knowledge, varied talent, correct judgment, and sound principle, exhibited by Mr. Gifford in the management of this excellent and popular publication, during the long course of between fifteen and sixteen years, it is wholly unneces sary to speak. It must be acknowledged, that at times his pen was at least sufficiently severe; but it merits observation, that none of the various parties, poetical, religious, or political, that occasionally felt the castigation bestowed upon their productions in the Quarterly Review, ever ventured to recriminate, by attacking the moral character of the editor. Even Lord Byron, who alternately praised and abused most of his contemporaries, professed great respect for Mr. Gifford, lauded the purity of his principles, and courted his friendship.

He disliked incurring an obligation which might in any degree shackle the expression of his free opinion. Agreeably to this, he laid down a rule, from which he never departed that every writer in the Quarterly should receive