in which the attempt to balance conflicting principles is often rather a surrender of the right, than the dispensation of an equal justice. To Canning, however, is due the humane order of council on March 16, 1824, which forbade some of the more glaring cruelties of West Indian slavery. With the cause of catholic emancipation his name is closely identified, and he made great personal sacrifices in its behalf, although his conduct was sometimes more directed by considerations of policy than its recognized leaders could brook. There is no doubt, however, that through Canning's influence the catholic cause was accepted by many in high authority, who would have listened to no other teacher. The famous scene in the house of commons in 1823, must be quoted as characteristic. In his speech at Liverpool in 1820, he had suggested a liberal compromise. This was constantly quoted as an abandonment of the cause, and when he afterwards accepted office under an anticatholic premier, the two things were bitterly combined, although the question had been left an open one. Brougham, during one of his philippics, bitterly taunted him with "monstrous truckling." Canning at once interrupted the speaker with the words—"Sir, I rise to say that that is false." A dead silence followed. Canning being called to order, declared that no consideration should induce him to recall his words; but at last accepted the suggestion that Brougham's expressions were addressed to him in his political capacity. Brougham has since honourably declared that Canning was too disposed to act a "high, manly, and honourable part." It is curious to note that while he delivered Britain from the Holy Alliance abroad, he withstood reform at home; and that he upheld the rights of the catholics, while opposing those of the dissenters. Such inconsistencies may be attributed to peculiarities of mental constitution—to his political education—and especially to his overdriving the idea of balancing antagonistic principles, until it compelled him to pursue a path true in direction to neither. In financial policy he supported the enlightened measures of Huskisson. On February 17, 1827, Lord Liverpool, the premier, was seized with an apoplectic fit, and the public voice named Canning as the foremost man in Britain. The king hesitated, but a deputation of noblemen having threatened the withdrawal of their support from government should Canning become premier, his royal pride was touched, and he bestowed on him the seals of office. His old colleagues refused to assist the new minister, but he succeeded in organizing a powerful cabinet, with which he met parliament. May 1, 1827. But now, to this statesman of genius and sensitiveness, came the time of bitter trial. Sharp arrows, well-pointed for rankling in his proud heart, were flung from the hand of every foe. Those who did not see how a great mind can combine within itself varied elements of policy and power, and be really consistent in allegiance to master principles, although apparently inconsistent in practical applications as to outward detail; those who recognized no growth of policy—even as the demands of new-born hours have their individual characteristics, and require their own special treatment; partisans, those "hard taskmasters," who will not brook the following of any path but one, although there may be many roads to the same end; the sufferers from the statesman's wit, who could not forgive a joke for the sake of its genius; high and noble families, who resented the authority of one who had disturbed their accustomed relationships with the government—all joined their voices to swell the storm of personalities with which the premier was beset. Canning's power had often been manifested in bringing peaceful issues out of noisy antagonisms; but the contest now needed the body as well as the mind of a giant, and there was the seat of Canning's increasing weakness. At the close of the session he went for change of air to the duke of Devonshire's villa at Chiswick, occupying the very room in which Fox died. Some time previous he had attended the funeral of his great antagonist the duke of York, and caught his death-chill beside the open grave. On the evening of August 3, 1827, he was attacked by internal inflammation, and breathed his last on the morning of the 8th. He was buried in Westminster abbey, close to Pitt, and his widow was raised to the peerage. Thus solemn was the end of his premiership, after its few months of stormy controversy. The chill of death fell on him at the grave of his greatest opponent, and the chamber sacred to the memory of Fox witnessed the passing of Canning's life into the inevitable shadow; while friend and foe paused in their hot strife to confess that a great man had departed from the land.—L. L. P.
CANNING, Charles John, Earl Canning, the third and youngest, but only surviving son of George Canning, was born at Brompton in the suburbs of London, Dec. 14, 1812. He received his early education at Eton, and subsequently at Christ Church, Oxford, where he graduated B.A. in 1833, as a first class in "literæ humaniores." On a casual vacancy in the representation of Warwick in 1836, he was returned to parliament as a supporter of the opposition, headed at that time by the late Sir Robert Peel; but his stay in the lower house was of limited duration, inasmuch as, in the following year, the decease of his mother (who had been raised to the peerage on her husband's death in 1828) transferred him to the house of lords. On the formation of Sir Robert Peel's administration in 1841, he accepted the post of under-secretary of state for foreign affairs, which he held till March, 1846, when he was promoted to the chief commissionership of woods and forests. This appointment, however, he resigned in the following July, on the retirement of his party from office. On the formation of the Aberdeen ministry in 1852, he undertook the office of postmaster-general, which he held until 1855. Towards the close of 1855 the marquis of Dalhousie resigned the governor-generalship of India, and one of the last acts of Lord Aberdeen's government was to nominate Lord Canning as his successor. He reached the seat of government in February, 1856, and immediately set himself to work in earnest, promoting to the utmost of his ability the many social, political, educational, and military reforms, which had been commenced by his predecessor, and developing the internal resources of India by the extension of roads, railroads, and telegraphic communication between the most important cities and military stations. In May of the following year, after smouldering for several weeks, the terrible Indian mutiny broke out in the neighbourhood of Meerut and Delhi. The suddenness of the outbreak was enough to have paralyzed an ordinary mind; but the danger was met by the government of Lord Canning in a way which reflected the highest credit on himself and his subordinates. Instead of issuing threatening proclamations, which it would have been as impolitic as it was impossible to carry into effect. Lord Canning, with characteristic readiness, intercepted the British troops that happened to be on their way to China, ordered such regiments as could be spared to be sent up from Madras and Bombay, and appointed one of the Company's officers. Sir Patrick Grant, to the chief command. Disregarding the public excitement, and the popular outcry raised against him, he resisted the persuasion of those who would have urged him to adopt a bloodthirsty and vindictive course. He at once placed a curb upon the Indian press; and by the appointment of a Mahomedan to a high position, showed the feeling of the government towards such natives as remained faithful in their allegiance. He refused to allow to Europeans the unrestrained use of firearms, being unwilling to stigmatize the natives as a body. And when the mutiny was already far advanced, he issued his celebrated proclamation with respect to Oude, by which he nominally confiscated to the British crown the entire proprietary rights of the land, intending to apply it to individual instances, with such modifications as he might find to be necessary. This despatch was much criticised at the time, and was severely and publicly censured by Lord Ellenborough, the president of the board of control, who in consequence was obliged to resign his post in the administration of Lord Derby. Lord Canning held to his post throughout the period of the mutiny; and for his services at that crisis he was made an Earl and a G.C.B. He resigned in 1861, and returning home, died on the 17th of June, 1862. In 1835, Lord Canning married the eldest daughter of Lord Stuart de Rothesay.—E. W.
CANO, Alonzo. This eminent Spanish painter was born in 1600 at Grenada, and was the son of Miguel Cano, a distinguished architect. From the wide compass of his genius he has been surnamed the Michel Angelo of Spain, succeeding as he did in the triple profession of architect, sculptor, and painter. He was educated as an architect by his father, but the son soon outstripped the sire. He then studied sculpture, and with marked success. He next proceeded to Seville, and entered the school of painting of Pacheco, but afterwards became a pupil of Juan del Castillo. When little more than twenty years of age, he executed works for the public places of Seville that excited great admiration. At this time also he demonstrated his talent as a sculptor by several noble specimens, more especially his two colossal figures of "San Pedro" and "San Pablo," and also
