represented, conveys no imperfect image of a late Lord Mayor, at the time of the riots in _London_. In this last instance, indeed, I ought to have observed that _Hogarth_ meant to satirize, not to imitate, the painters of _Holland_ and _Flanders_. But I forbear to dwell any longer on such disgusting circumstances; begging leave only to ask, whether the canvas of _Teniers_ exhibits nastier objects than those of the woman cracking a louse between her nails in the fourth plate of the _Harlot's Progress_; a _Scotch_ bag-piper catching another in his neck while he is performing at the Election feast; _Aurora_ doing the same kind office for a _Syren_ or _Nereid_, in the _Strollers_, &c.; the old toothless _French_ beldams, slobbering (_Venus_ forbid we should call it kissing) each other in the comic print entitled _Noon_; the chamber-pot emptied on the Free Mason's head, in the _Rejoicing Night_; or the _Lilliputians_ giving a clyster to _Gulliver_? In some of these instances, however, the humour may compensate for the indelicacy, which is rarely the case with such _Dutch_ pictures as have justly incurred the censure of Mr. _Walpole_. Let us now try how far some of the compositions of _Hogarth_ have befriended the cause of modesty. In the _Harlot's Progress_, Plate VI. we meet with a hand by no means busied in manner suitable to the purity of its owner's function. _Hogarth_ indeed, in three different works, has delineated three clergymen; the one as a drunkard; the second as a glutton; and the third as a whoremaster, who (I borrow _Rouquet's_ words) "est plus occupé de sa voisine que de son vin, qu'il repand par une distraction qu'elle lui cause." He who, in the eyes of the vulgar, would degrade our professors of religion, deserves few thanks from society. In the _Rake's Progress_, Plate the last, how is the hand of the ideal potentate employed, while he is gazing with no very modest aspect on a couple of young women who pass before his cell numbered 55? and to what particular object are the eyes of the said females supposed to be directed?[45] Nay, in what pursuit is the grenadier engaged who stands with his face toward the wall in Plate 9. of _Industry and Idleness_? May we address another question to the reader? Is the "_smile_ of _Socrates_," or the "_benevolence_ of the designer," very distinguishable in the half dozen last instances? It has been observed indeed by physiognomists, that the _smile_ of the real _Socrates_ resembled the _grin_ of a _satyr_; and perhaps a few of the particulars here alluded to, as well as the prints entitled BEFORE and AFTER, ought to be considered as a _benevolence_ to speculative old maids, or misses not yet enfranchised from a boarding school. Had this truly sensible critic, and elegant writer, been content to observe, that such gross circumstances as form the chief subject of _Flemish_ pictures, are only incidental and subordinate in those of our artist, the remark might have escaped reprehension.