After all this avowal of stupendous strength of argument, we are told in a subsequent paragraph, that say what we will of Mr. Pinkney's argument, he the author, never saw him yet--no never, pursue his argument steadily for ten minutes at a time. Then how can it be so overwhelming and convincing? Nothing lessens so much the force of argument as a perpetual aberration from the subject. Again; "God never meant him for an orator; he has no property of mind or body," &c. &c. Not to say any thing of the presumption and impiety of determining for God, I would ask what are the _bodily properties_ of an orator? This writer has not condescended to define them, although he dwells at large upon such as he thinks cast discredit upon Mr. Pinkney. It is scarcely necessary to observe that Demosthenes was ungraceful in figure and action; and that not only _orators_, but very wise and learned men, have been repulsive in their persons, their features, and their manners also. Though Cæsar and Cicero were exempt from defect in this respect, as far as I remember Demosthenes stuttered--Socrates was bald and flatnosed--Anthony a rough soldier--Lord Chatham's eloquence was forcible, but uniform and ungraceful--Fox was a fop of Bond street, and wore high heeled morocco shoes. Mr. Pinkney therefore may, without reproach, be a "_thick, stout man, with a red fat English face_," and Mr. Fox will keep him in countenance as a fashionable man. The facetious Peter Pindar has said, that Love hates your large fat lubberly fellows, Panting and blowing like a blacksmith's bellows; but I never heard that oratory did.