Let us examine the other side of the question. There are numbers of men to be found, who are not only ignorant of all the arts and sciences, but by nature totally incapable of acquiring them-whose perceptions are to the last degree dull-who cannot write twenty connected lines on any plain subject in the humblest prose-who can hardly discriminate between blank verse and rhyme, or between a drawing and an engraving-and some of whom can neither read nor write-and who nevertheless in all the affairs of the world, display so much of that valuable quality, sense, as not only seldomer never to render themselves ridiculous, but to pass through the world with esteem and respect.

Duelling.

THE great increase of the practice of duelling has very justly excited considerable indignation in the public mind, and called forth the interference of some of our legislatures, and other public bodies of men, in the hope, may it not be vain! of arresting its further progress. Society ought to frown down the perpetrators of this outrage upon all laws, human and divine. Among the victims to the perverted idea of honour, which is the parent of duelling, may be enumerated some of the most valuable men this country has produced. It is not long since, there were accounts in a single gazette of three duels, two of them fatal.

The reader will doubtless learn with horror, that in the reign of Henry IV of France, which extended to twenty-one years, no less than four thousand persons were murdered in France in this summary mode. So predominant was the rage for duelling at that era, that a gentleman who had never fought a duel, was but lightly esteemed in the fashionable world.. And the horrible infatuation extended so far, that he who had killed three, or four, or five, was in much higher reputation, than he who had only killed one or two.

Extravagance in attire.

MARGARET of Navarre, who was married to Philip II of Spain, was so passionately fond of variety of dress, that she never wore a suit of clothes more than once. When she took them off at night, she presented them to some of her attendants. Her cheapest dress cost her from three to four hundred crowns.

Fashion.

Of the despotism of fashion, I have never met with a stronger instance than the following. Madame de Fontanges, mistress to Louis XIV, invented a sort of head-dress that was of the most towering

height, and encumbered with some of the most extravagant ornaments. It spread at court like wildfire, and in a few days had gained a complete victory over all its competitors. Louis, as every one acquainted with his history knows, was a most absolute prince, and generally his will or wish was the sovereign law of the land. But this fashion set him at defiance: for though he expressed an extreme de gree of dislike to it, the ladies retained it for a considerable time, and it was not finally expelled till the countess of Shaftesbury, the lady of the English ambassador, ridiculed it so successfully, that it was obliged to take flight. Louis was very considerably mortified, that after having completely baffled him, it was defeated by a foreign lady.

Tenacity of the vital principle.

Our surprise is very frequently excited by the most extraordinary escapes of individuals from frightful dangers, and the most tremendous accidents. There are men to be met with, each of whom has undergone as much corporal injury as has sufficed to hurry half a dozen, or a dozen others, to "that country from whose bourne no traveller returns." There is at present in Lexington, Kentucky, a most remarkable instance of this kind. John R. Shaw, a well-digger, besides having experienced a great number of other accidents and misfortunes, has been four times blown up and miserably mangled in blasting rocks in the line of his profession. He has actually lost one eye, four fingers, one thumb, and seven toes. I annex an extract from the statement published by Dr. Fishback, of the fourth accident, to convey an idea to the reader of the lamentable havoc that was made upon him. "The skull was fractured upon the frontal bone, a little to the right of its middle, and just below the edge of the hair. In consequence of a very considerable depression, it became necessary to trepan the part, by which a great number of small pieces of bone were taken out, and the depression entirely removed. The bone forming the wall of the external corner of the left eye, was likewise broken, which was also removed. His right shin bone was very much shattered. The left arm was fractured in one place, with the loss of two fingers, and the rest very much bruised. His right arm was broken in two places, one just above the wrist, and the other at the elbow, with a considerable injury of the hand. The skin upon the breast and stomach was very much bruised and cut; from which I inferred he was leaning over the blast. His mouth, nose, skin of the face, eyes and head, were exceedingly wounded. Having several years before lost the use of his right eye, but little hopes remained, should he recover, of his ever enjoying the advantage of sight again, as the surface of the remaining eye was considerably bruised and torn by a number of small pieces of stone. In addition to the above, his face was enormously swelled, and covered with blood,

gunpowder, and dirt, so that it was utterly impossible to recognize the lineaments of John R. Shaw."

It must be agreeable information to the reader to state that this mangled object has quite recovered, and still follows his profession. He has lately written and published his life and adventures, wherein are to be found many extraordinary and interesting events and hairbreadth escapes.

A single defect.

I lately read a grand description of a most superb and magnificent theatre, which is decorated in the highest style of elegance and splendor. There is, however, a small drawback upon its advantages, which is, that owing to its immense size, and some error in the construction of it, a very considerable proportion of the persons in it cannot by any means hear the performers.

Legal forms.

Lord Kaimes, in his very interesting work, entitled "Sketches of the History of Man," (which, by the way, deserves to be much oftener perused that it has been of late years) informs us of two capital convictions having been set aside in England in consequence of very small errors in the indictments. In one case, murdravit was used instead of murderavit; in the other feloniter for felonice.

Three or four years since, an attrocious ruffian, of the name of Donnelly, was, on the clearest evidence, convicted at Carlisle in this state, of having murdered his wife with almost every possble circumstance of the most hideous barbarity. To enter into the frightful detail would cost too much to the feelings of a reader of sensibility. After conviction, his counsel moved to have the verdict set aside on various grounds, among which one was an error in the verdict of the grand jury. In that document it was stated that they found the bill on their oaths and affirmations, whereas there was but one of them affirmed. I am happy to be able to add that the court overruled the objections, and did not allow the odious malefactor to elude the stern requisitions of distributive justice. He was deservedly offeredly up, on the gallows, a victim to the violated laws of humanity.

Pay what thou owest.

When I see a husband spending his money and his time in taverns, and forsaking his wife and his family, I say, Pay what thou owest. When I see a wife intent almost solely upon dress, abandoning her domestic concerns to destruction, while she is parading through the

streets to exhibit her divine person and elegant accomplishments, I say, Pay what thou owest.

When I see a father or mother neglecting the education of their children, and suffering them to run wild in the streets, in the high road to perdition, without the smallest effort to rescue them by parental authority, I say, Pay what thou owest.

When I see a child who has been tenderly brought up by fond and doating parents, treating them with disrespect and inattention, perhaps with cruelty, in their old age, I say, in the most emphatical manner, Pay what thou owest.

When I see a man giving large and expensive entertainments; living in a style of princely extravagance, regardless of the ruinous consequences to his fortune; and, at the same time, putting off the payment of tradesmen's bills, under the most frivolous pretences, I am ready to cry out, in a voice of thunder, Pay what thou owest.

Conversation-Spirit of Contradiction.

So much of the most valuable enjoyments of rational beings depends upon conversation, that it may be worth while to devote a little attention to the subject.

who

It is to be regretted that some vices and imperfections which, at first blush, do not appear of much consequence, as effectually, in many instances, mar our happiness, as crimes of no small magnitude. It would be sufficient illustration of this idea, to state, that I may be rendered as miserable by a gross outrage offered me by a rude man, violates my feelings extremely, as by the loss I sustain from a person who takes an undue advantage of me, or who tricks me fraudulently out of my property. But it is not with a view to this point that I have laid down the position. For the present, I confine myself entirely to the almost universal, but highly reprehensible, custom of wanton and petulant contradiction in conversation, which so frequently engenders strife, animosity, revenge, and not unfrequently bloodshed.

In company, when a fact is stated, or an opinion offered, it almost always happens, that a certain portion of the hearers, instead of reflecting whether they may not, without impropriety, or a violation of veracity, assent to the opinion, or admit the fact, torture their imaginations to find out any improbability in the latter, or exception to the former. The first is by far the most unjustifiable; and, if the fact be stated on the authority of the narrator, is a violation of the fundamental rules of decency and politeness, amounting absolutely to a declaration that the speaker lies. This procedure is so truly shocking, that no person who has the smallest pretensions to the character of a gentleman, will be guilty of it. Of those accustomed to act thus, I say with Horace :

"Hi nigri sunt: hos, tu, Romane, caveto."

On the subject of opinions advanced, the case is somewhat different. Contradiction here is not by any means so offensive or ungentlemanly. But even in this case much impropriety of conduct and gross errors prevail. There are many persons, highly estimable in every other point of view, who, when a position is advanced, which is perfectly correct, in nineteen cases out of twenty, overlook the nineteen cases which, according to all the rules of politeness, not only admit, but imperiously demand assent. They advance the solitary exception, and on that hazard a flat and unqualified contradiction. The speaker is reduced to the very unpleasant alternative of either abandoning in silence the ground he has taken, and thus yielding an easy triumph to his ungentlemanly opponent, or else of entering into a long and tedious argument to support his opinion. If he adopt the latter plan, it produces a similar effort on the opposite side. The consequence is too frequently irritation and anger between the parties. And thus is too often banished the harmony of the whole circle.

It is unnecessary to state how diametrically opposite this is to the character and conduct of a gentleman. I venture to assert that urbanity requires us frequently to pass over in silence opinions which we have reason to believe entirely erroneous: for if we are to contradict every thing we hear advanced in company, which we disbelieve, it destroys the chief pleasure of social intercourse, and changes conversation into disputation and contention. I would not, however, be understood to mean, that we should pretend assent, when our convictions would be in hostility with our words. This would be simulation and deception, and on the man who should practise it, would affix the stamp of degradation.

To the rule laid down in the preceding paragraph, there will be many opposed. They will assert that our "silence gives assent ;" that it is disingenuous not to controvert error wherever we meet it; and advance various other reasons somewhat plausible. I am, however, firmly convinced of the propriety of the rule, and of the advantages that would result from the general observance of it. But whatever may be the diversity of sentiment respecting that, there cannot, among rational or polite people, be any on the subject of another rule, which I strongly recommend to the observance of those who honour my lucubrations with a perusal, and that is, never, on any account, to controvert a position which is substantially correct, merely because they can imagine an exception to it; nor to express a doubt of a fact because it is improbable. I believe that this rule cannot, in any instance, be violated without a departure from those rules that ought to regulate the conduct of a gentleman.