I am quite satisfied, that there are as many _sorts_ of men as there are of dogs. Swift was a man, and so is Walter the base. But is the _sort_ the same? It cannot be _education_ alone that makes the amazing difference that we see. Besides, we see men of the very same rank and riches and education, differing as widely as the pointer does from the pug. The name, _man_, is common to all the sorts, and hence arises very great mischief. What confusion must there be in rural affairs, if there were no names whereby to distinguish hounds, greyhounds, pointers, spaniels, terriers, and sheep dogs, from each other! And, what pretty work, if, without regard to the _sorts_ of dogs, men were to attempt to _employ them_! Yet, this is done in the case of _men_! A man is always _a man_; and, without the least regard as to the _sort_, they are promiscuously placed in all kinds of situations. Now, if Mr. Brougham, Doctors Birkbeck, Macculloch and Black, and that profound personage, Lord John Russell, will, in their forth-coming "London University," teach us how to divide men _into sorts_, instead of teaching us to "augment the capital of the nation," by making paper-money, they will render us a real service. That will be _feelosofy_ worth attending to. What would be said of the 'Squire who should take a fox-hound out to find partridges for him to shoot at? Yet, would this be _more_ absurd than to set a man to law-making who was manifestly formed for the express purpose of sweeping the streets or digging out sewers? _Farnham, Surrey, Thursday, Oct. 27th._