I had, besides, occasion to remark, that this name was seldom appealed to, but by the ladies; and it did not appear in the first instance probable, that the gentlemen would leave them in exclusive possession of a mode of imprecation by which any thing was meant. These and other circumstances excited in my mind a great deal of speculation. I will not, however, trouble my readers with the many conclusions which I drew from them; since an event has occurred, which affords no indifferent evidence, that belief in a Saviour does _not_ form an article of Fashionable religion. The event to which I refer, is the publication of a Memoir of the late Lord Camelford. In this Memoir the author professes to acquaint the world with the last moments of a Fashionable young man who had received a mortal wound in an affair of honour. In perusing this extraordinary narrative, I was much surprised at finding, that neither the dying penitent (for such he is represented to have been) nor his spiritual confessor ever once mentioned the name of _Christ_. But when, on further attention, I found his Lordship expressing a hope, that his _own_ dying sufferings would expiate his sins, and placing his dependance upon the mercy of his _Creator_; {53} I had only to conclude, that the Divine was deterred from mentioning a name with which his office must have made him familiar, out of respect for that Fashionable creed from which it is excluded. There is some reason for supposing that these people believe in the immortality of the soul, the existence of an evil spirit, and a place of future torment. It must, at the same time, be acknowledged, that their ideas on each of these points are so loose and confused, that it is difficult to determine in what sense they apprehend them. In subscribing, for example, to the immortality of the soul, they give it a value which infinitely exceeds that of the corruptible body: the inference from this, in a fair train of reasoning, would be, that the care of the former is of infinitely more importance than that of the latter. And yet this is manifestly not the inference they draw: for the experience of every week proves, that if they give three hours to the soul, they think it too much; while they will give six days and nights to the body, and think it too little. This is, I confess, a part of their character, of which no satisfactory explanation has ever been given.