and enlivened the table not lefs by the perfume, than by the monaftic anecdotes which occafionally accompanied its introduction.

Few companies, it is prefumed, would have wifhed to have loft Mr. Walpole's converfation in the filence of cards. Yet he fometimes played; and his goodness. impofed it on him as a duty to pass an evening at whift with the old Duke of Montrofe, who was blind, but contrived (by what means I forget) to manage his game.

The portrait prefixed, after M'Ardell's private print from Sir Joshua Reynolds 1757, represents Mr. Walpole in the prime of life, and must have been very like, as ftrong traces of refemblance remained, particularly about the eyes. There are other prints by Reading and Parifot; not to mention a portrait by Eckardt, a drawing by Mr. Dance, a recent print by Barlow, and another pretty exact reprefentation of his old age, in the collection of his works.

WA L

WALPOLIAN A.

Bernis and Fleury.

CARDINAL de Bernis, when only an Abbé, folicited Cardinal Fleury, then four-score, for fome preferment. Fleury told him fairly, he should never have any thing in his time: Bernis replied, "Monfeigneur j'attendrai"

Countess of Coventry.

Towards the clofe of the reign of George the Second, the beautiful Countefs of Coventry talking to him on fhows, and thinking only of the figure the herself fhould make in a proceffion, told him, the fight fhe wifhed moft to fee

was a coronation.

The

*

My Lord, I fhall wäit.

The Clerical Gown.

Mr. Suckling, a clergyman of Norfolk, having a quarrel with a neighbouring gentleman, who infulted him, and at laft told him, "Doctor, your gown is your protection;" replied, "It may be mine, but it fhall not be your's;" pulled it off, and thrashed the aggreffor.

Patriotifm of Wilkes.

Depend upon it, my dear Sir, that Wilkes was in the pay of France, during the Wilkes and liberty days. Calling one day on the French minifter, I obferved a book on his table, with Wilkes's name in the first leaf. This led to a conversation, which convinced me. Other circumstances, too long and minute to be repeated, ftrengthened, if neceffary, that conviction. I am as fure of it, as of any fact I know.

Wilkes at first cringed to Lord Bute The embaffy to Conftantinople was the object of his ambition. It was refufed-and you know what followed.

Bute's Miniftry.

Lord Bute was my fchoolfellow.

He was

a man of taste and science, and I do believe his intentions were good. He wifhed to blend and unite all parties. The tories were willing to come in for a fare of power, after having been fo long excluded-but the whigs were not willing to grant that fhare. Power is an

intoxicating draught; the more a man has, the more he defires.

Lady Wortley Montague.

The letters of Lady Wortley Montague are genuine, I have feen the originals, among which are fome far fuperior to thofe in print. But fome of them were very immodeft. When the publication was about to take place, Lord Bute, who had married her daughter, fent for the editor, and offered one hundred pounds to fupprefs, them. The man took the money, promised and published.

Lady Wortley Montague was a playfellow of mine when both were children, She was always a dirty little thing. This habit continued with her. When at Florence, the Grand Duke gave her apartments in his palace. 'One room fufficed for every thing. When she went away, the ftench was fo ftrong, that they were obliged to fumigate the chamber with vinegar for a week.

Pope gave her the Homer he had ufed in tranflating. I have got it: it is a fmall edition by Wetstein. Here it is. She wrote that little poem in the blank leaves.

Conjugal Affection.

A French gentleman, being married a second time, was often lamenting his firft wife, before his fecond, who one day faid to him, "Monfieur, je vous affure qu'il n'y a perfonne qui la regrette plus que moi*""

Conju

*“I affure, you, Sir, no one regrets her more than I."

T

Conjugal Wit.

Another French lady wrote this letter to her hufband. "" Je vous écris, parceque je n'ai rien à faire: je finis, parceque je n'ai rien a direţ.”

Monks and Friars.

What you fay is perfectly juft. Some degree of learning is neceffary even to compose a novel. How many modern writers confound monks and friars! Yet they were almost as different as laymen and priests. Monachifm was an old institution for laymen. The friars, freres, or brothers, were firft inftituted in the thirteenth century, in order, by their preaching, to oppofe the lollards. They united pricfthood with monachifm; but while the monks were chiefly confined to their refpective houses, the friars were wandering about as preachers and confeffors. This gave great offence to the fecular clergy, who were thus deprived of profits and inheritances. Hence the fatyric and impure figures of friars and nuns, in our old churches. Do you remember any example of retaliation? I fuppofe there were fimilar libels on the secular clergy in the chapels of friaries now abolished*.

Mr.

"I write to you, because I have nothing to do; I end my letter, because I have nothing to say.'

* Grofs errors of this kind appear in the writings of Mrs. RADCLIFFE, and Mr. LEWIS. "The Monk of the latter, both in his book and play, being in fact a friar, a being of a very different defcription. EDIT.