smile-leap laughingly-ruinously vast-desolately grand-sullenly reposed-enormously upreared-prophetically wise-ravenously wilddazzlingly arrayed-beautifully pale-romantically vile-and a regiment of these and other extravagances, such as 'kingdoms are the agonies of thrones'"-enough to fill a lady's album. We will pay our friend Dugald an early visit. And perhaps Mr. Montgomery may see his dear name again in these papers. GABRIEL. NOTE. In the notes appended to the fifth volume of this gentleman's so-called poetry, he throws off a great deal of childish and puling choler against the critics. Bitterly alive to his own importance, language is too weak to express his horror of the Edinburgh and London Reviewers-whom he assails with all the weight of his thin and tiny periods. But the cat might as well attempt to tear away the lion's mane. Mr. M. argues that all the great critics who ridiculed his poetic pretensions were much mistaken; and the proof he adduces is that his books have sold. But he ought to be aware that a thing that is monstrous may become (for a short period) as popular as that which is beautiful. It is a curious frame-work, this mental mechanism of ours, and we have many principles to gratify. We do not grudge to pay a little to indulge the sentiment of curiosity and the feeling of the ludicrous and nothing can be so exquisitely ludicrous as a weak and bombastic attempt to unravel the soul-mysteries of the ruined archangel, and to give expression to his dark sublimities, in a language that is only fitted to describe a gaudy and discolored panorama for the amusement of children. pure When the critics said that Mr. M. was no poet, they were in the right-and more-they were discharging a sacred duty which all lovers of and undefiled poetry should gladly second and commend. The holy and the radiant muse of Britain is too gloriously apparelled to defile her shoulders with the few painted rags which he has offered for her covering. We defend the reviewers. LINES INSCRIBED ON COWPER'S WORKS. TO A LADY. THIS poet's lamp was kindled at the shrine, Celestial forms his various pencil drew Thou, like the poet, hast a graceful eye, Led by the poet, let us wander where In songs to God, and high seraphic praise, On sweet-toned harps,-the language of the soul! J. M. John Morier? afterwards in the Company's medical service PRINTED BY GEORGE RICHARDSON, 35, MILLER STREET. WHEN, in 1829, Sir Robert Peel introduced into Parliament the Catholic Emancipation Act, he concluded his speech with the following remarkable words:"I trust that by the means now proposed, the moral storm will be lulled into a calm, the waters of strife subside and the waves of discord be settled and composed. But if my expectations should be disappointed; if unhappily strife and contention should take place; if the differences existing between us do not arise from artificial distinctions and unequal privileges; if on the contrary, there be something in the character of the Roman Catholic religion not to be contented with a participation in equal privileges, or anything short of superiority; still I shall be content to make the trial. If the battle must be fought; if the contest cannot be averted; let the worst come to the worst; the battle shall be fought for other objects, the contest shall be on other ground; the struggle will be, not for equality of civil rights, but for the predominance of an intolerant religion. And I say we can fight the battle to greater advantage, if indeed these more gloomy predictions shall be realized, and our more favourable hopes shall not be verified, we can fight that battle against the predominance of an intolerant religion, more advantageously after this measure has passed than we could at present." Ten years have now passed since these words were uttered, and the events of each succeeding year have offered one unceasing tribute to the sagacity by which they were dictated. The language stands in marked contrast with that employed by the Whig advocates of the Catholic claims. They saw, or pretended to see, no danger. They predicted, as the result of the measure, peace to Ireland, stability to the British Constitution, and prosperity to the empire at large. They sketched a picture of such surpassing beauty, that some even of the opponents of the measure were, for the moment, disarmed of their hos tility. The Romanists themselves came forward with the most solemn assurances that language could convey, that an equality of civil rights was all they asked. They disowned in the strongest manner all intentions of interferring in the least degree with the religious Establishments of the country. They even pretended that a regard to their own interests would of itself be sufficient "to induce them to uphold the honors and temporalities of the Church of England," and scorned the idea of an alliance with the Dissenters, as individuals with whom they had no sentiment in common. But Sir Robert Peel, while he felt constrained to make the desired concession, did so with gloomy foreboding. He knew the character of the Papacy He had learnt from the page of History than an insatiable thirst for power is its most distinguishing characteristic. He was not prepared to place unlimited confidence in oaths which might be violated at pleasure. He received the solemn pledges of the Catholics with secret distrust, and, under the influence of these feelings, he uttered the prophetic words we have already quoted, and he has lived to see his predictions verified to the very letter. It has now been proved in a manner which nothing but the most determined party spirit can resist that the genius of the Papacy is such that nothing short of superiority can satisfy it. Instead of peace and prosperity, strife and desolation have resulted from the concessions already made. The granting of one demand has only given birth to another more extensive in its requirements; forbearance has been met by insult, kindness by ingratitude. But although every attempt to satisfy the Romanists has proved a grievous failure, we have at least tested, by our efforts, the character of their system. We have proved that the spirit of that system is unchanged and unchangeable; that the Popery we have admitted within the walls of the Senate House is esentially the same with that which formerly exacted servile homage from princes and shed the blood of those who dared to resist its tyranny, and that henceforward the contest in which we are called upon to put forth every energy we possess, is a contest for the maintenance of Protestant ascendancy; the battle we have to fight is " against the predominance of an intolerant religion.” This is the truth which must go forth through the length and breadth of our country. It must be sounded especially in the ears of those Protestants who favoured Catholic Emancipation under the impression that the question related only to a participation in equal civil privi. leges; who were actuated by a sincere desire to preserve and perpetuate the Protestant faith, and who are therefore bound by every principle of honor and consistency, to join us in the coming struggle, since that faith has been endangered by the concessions to which they were a party. They owe this to the men, by whose means the Emancipation Act was carried. Sir Robert Peel would never have yielded to the demand, however urgent it might have become, had he not placed the utmost confidence in the Protestants of the empire, and believed that they would rally round him in defence of their liberties and their faith, if subsequent events should prove (as indeed they have proved) that the Roman Catholics were contending, not for equal civil rights, but for temporal and spiritual superiority. We are aware that there are many who make light of our fears and who suggest, what they consider a very simple method of preventing the Catholics from ever re-gaining the ascendancy in our country. They tell us that we have only to dissolve the connection which subsists between the Church and the State, and the thing is done. But let us look at this a little. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the connection was dissolved; that all religious sects were placed, as far as the State is concerned, upon a footing of equality. How long would the Catholics remain satisfied with this equality? Just so long as it suited their purposes; till all their plans were matured; till they could command a majority in the Senate, and then they would restore the connection which, for selfish purposes, they had assisted to dissolve; the State would be made the slave of an arrogant Church and the Protestants who are now most clamorous in favour of their Catholic allies would be the first to feel the effects of their tyranny. Moreover, the individuals who suggest this simple and all-efficacious remedy, overlook an important fact. They forget that although the Protestant Churches of England and Scotland were separated from the State, there would still remain in the country a Church in connection with a State. The Queen of Britain might altogether withdraw herself, in her official capacity, from the Protestant Church, but the Pope would still retain his supremacy in the Catholic Church. The Protestant Church might renounce its temporal head, but the Catholic Church cannot. Hence, whatever course might be taken by Protestants in reference to the momentous question which now engrosses so much of the public attention, it would not effect, in the least degree, the character of the Papacy. That system of tyrannical iniquity would still have a temporal, as well as a spiritual, head. To the authority of the Pope, its advocates must pay an undivided, unlimited homage; and holding, as they do, that the occupant of St. Peter's throne is above all earthly authority, it is by no means difficult to see what would be the |