While Mr. Philip Martindale and Miss Sampson were sitting on the same sofa, and Miss Sampson was waving her plumes and showing her teeth, and laughing aloud at Mr. Philip's wit, there were standing near the same sofa two young gentlemen, in very fashionable attire, who seemed to be on very good terms with themselves and with each other. They also took the liberty of talking wittily and laughing loudly. Thereat Mr. Philip felt himself rather annoyed, and hinted his dislike by most awful frowns and withering looks. But his frowns were not dreaded, and his looks were not interpreted as he had designed them. He therefore took the liberty of muttering, almost aloud, a short sentence in which the word "puppy" was clearly audible, accompanying that word with a look of interpretation towards one of the young gentlemen, so that there could be no mistake as to its intended application. This led to some angry words between the parties, at which Miss Sampson would have gone into hysterics, but she did not know how, and the supper-hour was very near at hand, and she was particularly desirous of seeing how well the arrangements had been made. It therefore suited her better to retire from the scene of contest, which she did, but not without casting a look of disapprobation on the young gentleman who was in angry talk with Philip Martindale. In spite of this look, cards were exchanged. The Hon. Philip Martindale scowled at his adversary's card without reading it, and put it hastily into his pocket. The name was printed in the old English character called black letter, and was not very legible; and the place of abode was so diminutively done, that it also was not very distinct. Mr. Martindale's name was on such a large space, and in such a small letter, that the agitated young gentleman did not distinctly apprehend it. The parties therefore were mutually pledged to unknown antagonists. This is a matter in which also the legislature should interfere. People talk about the voluminous nature of our statute-books, forsooth. Nonsense! they are not half large or numerous enough. There is room and necessity for hundreds and thousands of new laws. And if duelling cannot be prevented, it might at least be regulated, and a shooting-license regularly taken out every year; and the licenses only granted to persons of a certain rank, and property, and age. Say, for instance, that none under fifteen years shall be allowed a license; that livery servants, apprentices, clerks in counting-houses, coach and waggon offices, hairdressers, and tailors who use the thimble in person, should be considered as unqualified persons. This would render duelling more select and respectable. But let that pass.