These Armenian letters are apparently written in humble imitation of the Persian, but greatly inferior to them; they are calculated solely for the meridian of Ireland, and contain little else besides a few severe strictures on the politics and government of that kingdom, with a particular account of the late divisions there, and the persons chiefly concerned in them. As these are topics, which, however well treated, would scarce afford our readers any entertainment, an extract from this part of the performance would be unnecessary. The affairs of England are, however, now and then, introduced, and treated in these letters with the same freedom as those of Ireland. The following characters of two or three of our most celebrated orators are not ill drawn. “When I was last in England,” says our Armenian, “curiosity led me to hear the Judicial, Parliamentary, and Ecclesiastical eloquence of that kingdom, in all which there are men very eminent. Among the foremost was a native of North Britain; he excelled in order and ornament, yet his ornaments were never studied, they flowed from his matter, and with such ease, that, though no man could speak more elegantly, it seemed that he could not speak less so. He was quick in distinguishing, of memory so tenacious that he could range the testimonies of thirty persons in different cells, and immediately call them forth with the same ease as if he took them from paper. As a judicial speaker, he seemed but little inferior in subtlety and elegance to the celebrated Greeks; in decency he was superior; in his narrations plain; in ranging his arguments, concealing his weakness, and displaying his strength, he had no rival; he concluded always strongly, sometimes with his best argument; with a short and weighty enumeration, when many arguments had been lightly dispersed through his oration; he could mix raillery, but seemed to avoid it, and hasten to serious arguments, as if he blamed himself for using others. His voice was clear and musical, to some it was too acute.” “Charles Townshend, a young man, was at the same time in Parliamentary debate nervous, copious, and vehement; in order not most exact, but in sentiment strong, in expression animated; his figures were glaring, and his illustrations grand; a tide of matter and words bore his hearers with him, even when he digressed; and though there was something in his eloquence which calm judgment might prune, there was nothing which a warmed audience would not admire.” “There is an Ecclesiastic,[89] who was Preacher to an Academy of Law, whom I have heard with delight. He was grave, dignified, and elegant; his subjects, whether of things human or divine, he treated with becoming majesty. Thou hast seen him, Aza; he is a great and a good man, and true eloquence comes from such only; look through all experience, virtue produces eloquence, and adversity calls forth virtue.” B.