successful ecclesiastics. The
folly of alienating Catholic sympathies, during our great struggle, by
maintaining the old disabilities, is brought out with equal skill by the
apologue in the 'Plymley Letters' of the orthodox captain of a frigate
in a dangerous action, securing twenty or thirty of his crew, who
happened to be Papists, under a Protestant guard; reminding his sailors,
in a bitter harangue, that they are of different religions; exhorting
the Episcopal gunner to distrust the Presbyterian quartermaster; rushing
through blood and brains to examine his men in the Thirty-nine Articles,
and forbidding anyone to spunge or ram who has not taken the sacrament
according to the rites of the Church of England. It is quite another
question whether Smith really penetrates to the bottom of the dispute;
but the only fault to be found with his statement of the case, as he saw
it, is that it makes it rather too clear. The arguments are never all on
one side in any political question, and the writer who sees absolutely
no difficulty, suggests to a wary reader that he is ignoring something
relevant. Still, this is hardly an objection to a popular advocate, and
it is fair to add that Smith's logic is not more admirable than the
hearty generosity of his sympathy with the oppressed Catholic. The
appeal to cowardice is lost in the appeal to true philanthropic
sentiment.

With all his merits, there is a less favourable side to Smith's
advocacy. When he was condemned as being too worldly and facetious for a
priest, it was easy to retort that humour is not of necessity
irreligious. It might be added that in his writings it is strictly
subservient to solid argument. In a London party he might throw the
reins upon the neck of his fancy and go on playing with a ludicrous
image till his audience felt the agony of laughter to be really painful.
In his writings he aims almost as straight at his mark as Swift, and is
never diverted by the spirit of pure fun. The humour always illuminates
well-strung logic. But the scandal was not quite groundless. When he
directs his powers against sheer obstruction and antiquated
prejudice--against abuses in prisons, or the game-laws, or education--we
can have no fault to find; nor is it fair to condemn a reviewer because
in all these questions he is a follower rather than a leader. It is
enough if he knows a good cause when he sees it, and does his best to
back up reformers in the press, though hardly a w