— 61 5- fes OF THE DAY.

LOYALTY AND LOGIC. Tom loyalty comes on well. The Whig boys, who have been clamming for their examination in March, have used such diligence, that they already translate at once into correct High-Tory any thing that comes before them—not longer tamely, like tyros, but with spiritand idiomatic freedom. This quarter they got into PITT, and at present are, it seems, "defending themselves by de- fending the Sovereign." A difficult bit, this last, to do into the vernacular ; but it is worth the pains. What makes it hard is the antithetical use of the words "themselves" and "the Sovereign ;" words which, if we mistake not, are in the new tongue synonymous. We prefer to read "defending themselves, that is defending the Sovereign." We have a right to speak on the subject, having taken uncommon pains ourselves to master the difficulties of this language.

For instance—What is loyalty ? Loyalty is the state of being faithful to one's MEsnota i uss. What s treason ? Treason con- sists in the "compassing or imagining" his retirement from office. We trust this is correct ?

The Ministers, then are "defending themselves by defending their Sovereign," or "defending their Sovereign by defending them-

selves," or " defending themselves that is their by :" it is aZ one.

"Thus each is both, and all, and so Neither cloth any thing to the other owe."

" L'etat—c'est moi" was a moderately bold figure, but for the .sublime of impudence ever commend us to the Whigs. " The Queen—that's us!" • With respect to the use of her Majesty's name, which we lately submitted might, like all good things, possibly be overdone, the

Globe of Monday last begs leave to assure us that that trick, far

from being exhausted, is inexhaustible. We, however, at the Bathe time ventured to hint that the thing was also possibly a little

infamous, seeing that pure old Whigs, whenever the same shift was

resorted to by their political opponents, were wont to swear hor- rible," denouncing it always as an unconstitutional abomination.

To this scruple of ours the Globe replies with a laxity of logic that

has Astonished us in so great a dialectician,—for our readers need not be reminded how cunning in logic-fence our contemporary is ;

specimens have frequently been given in our columns, showing an adroitness in the use of words—something of a scholastic dexterity in wielding the lighter weapons of argument—that any senior wrangler must envy.. The syllogism chiefly in use is that well- known one—

If the Whigs serve to keep out the Tories, there's no doubt we ought 'to support them gratefully.

The Whigs do serve, &c.

There is no doubt; &c.

Whereof for the present we say nothing. But for the reply to our scruple touching the abuse of her Majesty's name, this we must say, that the Professor of Logic has not met it with his usual skill. He says— "if the principles of Pitt and his successors had been right, there would have been nothing wrong in defending their Sovereign [still "deflecting" when attacked for giving his countenance to those principles." But then, the Professor would argue, their principles were not right ; ergo, they were wrong in " defending ' their Sovereign : and, e contra, our principles are right, and, ergo, we are not wrong, &c. Here, with all submission, it appears to us that the Professor is not felicitous—has tumbled even, if we mistake not, on a quite silly syllogism. Is there not, for the first, a most mendicant beg- ging of questions—savouring of poverty in argument ? Whether Tory principles, or Whig principles, or what other principles, (for we hope there are others) are "right "—is not this the very matter about which the country unfortunately is divided ? Our Ministers have a perfect right, indeed, to make converts, if they can, to their political principles—whatever those may be—and even to engage pro- fessors of' logic (Regius professors) to expound them to the vulgar ; and there can be no doubt that such Regius professors have a per- fect right to postulate and to predicate in behalf of the gracious founders of their endowments : but neither, we conceive, have any right to act as if this question of' principle were decided. What should we say if the Queen's counsel at Monmouth should pro- ceed, pendente life, to hang FROST—saying that, though it would be very wrong of course were there any chance of his proving his in- nocence, yet they were satisfied of his guilt—so it was all right ! When the Tories, being in office, made a corrupt use of the Sove- reign's name to aid them in the establishment of' their power, the Whigs raised a terrible cry of the "Constitution in danger." Now that the latter are in office, they do precisely the same thing them- selves : but then, the comfort is, that, like Sir Peter Teazle, it seems, "What's very singular, they're always in the right!" To all murmurs of dissatisfaction one gets no other answer : the Tories, unfortunately, were in the wrong—that makes the difference ; they (the Whigs) are in the right—are always in the right. So much for mendicant arguments that beg questions. As for " defending the Sovereign," we know nothing about this expression, except that it seems to serve well enough to cover the abuse we complained of—being, we suppose, an elegant translation into the new language of our too Radical English. We' for our parts so desire that the Sovereign should be well defended; that we should be glad to see her even defended better than we fear she ever can, be by those who .do not hesitate to avow that they Consider her defence Merged in their own. The same persons, it is likely, who thus identify her safety with their.salary, will be of opinion that they .never serve their enuntry so well as when they are 'helping themselves to something : SG will every fresh job come. to be held for a 'new element of strength in the state—as 'it has been, in filet, from the first, and, we suppose, "ever will be—Whig.. gery without end!" But we need not remind the readers of the Spectator that we never said any thing about—much less against—" defending the. Sovereign '." a duty so indisputable, that every man John must do it by a fundamental law. We did not object to " defending," but to degrading the Sovereign : against the "age of chivalry" we urged nothing—we only objected to hearing her Majesty's name cried up and down the streets like fish : it was not the cheap defence of nations" we demurred to—it was the dear one, the one that costs us the unexplored amount of Whig jobs, that saddles Us with all the GREYS and all the ELLIOTS, and, in still ever devising some new " arrangement" that is to add to the tranquillity of this empire by perpetuating the official impunity of the Whigs, calls us evermore to applaud—and pay. The Globe, which bespeaks toleration for all the worst deeds of a profligate Ministry on this never-failing ground—that they

serve to "keep out the Tories," finds nothing contradictory in ex- cusing those very deeds, at other times, by insisting that the Tories used 'to net just in the same manner themselves. Now, thou in- consequent Regius Professor ! we bet thee half the value of thy endowment, there is here a most notable flaw in the concatenation of thy propositions—that thy major and thy minor terms keep not any terms—that thy premises and thy conclusions do no more cohere

than the waistcoat of a WETHERELL with the drooping garment it %woes in vain—than the Baouolism of to-day with the Baouonsm of to-morrow, the professions of a Whig-Radical with his vote, or that bell which rang you to the Ballot with (jou know) the other bell.

" We may be told that the Sovereign's name should not be brought in at all. Be it so ; hut cdl parties hare assumed that licence."

And the writer proceeds to show bow common it was for Mi- nisters of the Crown in times past to coin the Sovereign's name into a base currency to purchase a still baser support. Therefore

(such is the argument) no one has any business to complain if our Whig masters (" the Reform party ', 1) do likewise. Surely unto this Professor of Logic there shall come to pass nothing less than impalement on the horns of his own dilemma. Mark now how a plain argument in the modes tulleas of hypothetical syllogisms shall put him down.

If Whigs are better than Tories, it must be that they act differently from Tories.

But we have their own affidavit that what they are doing is exactly what Tories used to do.

Ergo, Whigs are not better than Tories.

There ; we flatter ourselves that tosses the Professor entirely into the air—a mortal dilemma in modus Miens if ever there was one ! Unhappy Professor I be shall no longer predicate.