of his good name," "to stab one's reputation:" stealing, stabbing and siandering being, it would seem, closely allied in guilt, and naturally associated in the mind.

Though these, sir, are my views of slander, I would not, on that account, have you imagine, that I stand here as the apologist of flattery. On the contrary, I am prepared, on every proper occasion, to condemn this latter vice in terms quite as severe as the most rigid moralist could either wish, or require.

Still, sir, that would not prove the justice of the comparison here instituted. Flattery is bad; slander is bad; but are they equally bad, or so nearly alike in power for mischief, as to warrant serious doubts about their comparative malignity? Certainly not.

In the flatterer, generally, you find no evil intent. His conduct exhibits weakness, rather than wickedness; weakness deplorable, indeed, but not altogether unamiable. In the slanderer, on the contrary, you may always detect the presence of malignant principle,-the pointed, premeditated purpose to work the ruin of character. Like the race whose wickedness brought destruction by the flood, "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually."*

Even in their mildest developments, these two characters differ immeasurably. There is a flattery, moving gently, and only by implication; there is a slander, moving secretly, and only by insinuation. The former is delicate, not venturing to appear in words. The latter is cunning, not daring to deal in direct accusa

* Genesis, ch. vi., v. 5.

tion. The one is cheerful, and hopes to win by the appearance of admiration. The other is grave, and calculates to succeed by an air of mystery. In the one, you see the semblance of deference and candor; in the other, you observe the look of shrewdness and watchful suspicion. The one bows, it may be, with simulated reverence; the other shrugs the shoulder, and labors to act out the villany which he has not the courage to utter.

But, sir, I feel that, in pursuing this comparison, I am, as it were, doing violence to reason: undertaking to force the application of a standard which is obviously illiberal and unjust. To me, the question seems not only far-fetched, but absurd. It is comparing mountains with mole-hills. It is asking whether the bite of a flea is more fatal than that of a mad dog; whether the mosquito infuses a poison more subtle and deadly than that of the rattlesnake; whether flakes of fleecy snow, gently falling on the traveller's head, are more terribly destructive than the weight and might of the irresistible avalanche.

It may be, sir, that I am mistaken in this view of the case. If so, I hope soon to be enlightened. But, with my present convictions, right or wrong, I can see nothing to dispute about. There is no debatable ground in the question; at least, so it seems to me, and, for that reason, I shall take my seat, and wait, as befits me, the issue of that light, whencesoever it may come, that is destined to confirm, or overthrow the conclusion I have reached.

SECOND SPEAKER.

Mr. President,-The gentleman to whom we have just listened, finds, it seems, no sufficient ground of comparison between slander and flattery. He wonders, why such a question should ever have been introduced, and seems really afraid, lest, by the formal discussion of it, our reputation, if not for sanity, at least for soundness of judgment, may be seriously impaired.

I do not, sir, I must say, share with him in his amiable solicitude, and, therefore, hope sincerely that this debate, which he so much deprecates, may, at least, prove equal to the task of removing all his painful forebodings.

I am far, sir, from thinking with him, that slander and flattery are divided by such immeasurable dissimilarity. With him, flattery wears many objectionable features; but, after all, she is not utterly vile. There is, he appears to think, something of fascination in her air, something of sweetness in her tones and modulations, nay, something even of benevolence in her disposition, which wonderfully atones for all her defects and delinquencies.

In slander, however, he finds nothing but evil; unmixed and unmitigated. It is to him what Polyphemus was to the terrified Trojans,

"Monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens."*

Now, sir, I am inclined to regard this view of the * A monster terrible, deformed, and huge.

case, as hasty; founded rather in first impressions and particular prejudices, than in any careful and profound analysis of the things themselves. Flattery seems, so to speak, to have struck his fancy. He, accordingly, views her only in the distance, and, as here, as else. where, "distance lends enchantment to the view," he is captivated with the semblance of excellence, or, at least, softened by the smiling, but deceptive aspect of truth and candor, which she wears.

But, sir, be not deceived. Bring this fair creature into nearer view. Take off her smooth disguises, and resolve all her plausibilities into plain matter of fact; then place her side by side with slander, and you will be astonished to find in these two characters, not only similarity, but absolute identity. Both originate in the spirit of deception. Alike in essence and in aim, they go forth, differing only in outward accidents and circumstances, deceiving, and to deceive continually.

It is idle, then, sir, to dwell upon the pleasing aspects of flattery, as constituting higher claims to innocence than those that may be urged in favor of slander. These seductive charms, rightly interpreted, are only so many withering blasts of testimony against her. Is the poison which is sweet less fatal than that which is bitter? Was the bite of the asp, though it worked by slow degrees, and gentle stupefaction, less fatal to Cleopatra, than would have been that of the more malignant adder, which advances by rapid steps and violent convulsions?

But again, sir, I say, be not deceived. If flattery is to be excused, or palliated on the ground of external appearances, I am for extending the same favor to

slander. It, also, has its fair side, its ingenuous air, its agreeable professions.

The slanderer is no novice in the arts of pretension. He covers his iniquity in the most judicious and skillful manner. If there be merit in a mask, he is fully equal to the flatterer in the ease and dexterity, with which he assumes and wears that article. He has the show of public virtue. He affects to believe what he affirms, and for the sake of others, he seems ready to risk the perils that ever belong to the exposer of vicious persons. His position is that of a friend warning us against danger. He often leads us to regard him as the best friend of virtue, because he appears to be the most fearless denouncer of vice. In short, he plays the hypocrite. But this is exactly what the flatterer is doing all the while; and, in this, if he excels the slanderer, he thereby only proves, that, for all the purposes of mischief, he is more facile and fertile in expedients.

I have thus, sir, I hope, shown you, that slander and flattery, so far from being utterly unlike, are really identical in essence, and alike, also, in some of their more important manifestations. If this be so, then is the question before us not liable to the critical objections, which have been started against it, then may we proceed, in the discussion, without serious apprehension about the safety of our reputation for judgment and discrimination.

Having disposed of the gentleman's cavils and arguments, as best I could, I beg leave to close my remarks by directing your attention to one peculiar trait of the flatterer, wherein he seems to me to surpass incompar ably every degree of enormity, of which the most will