have occurred in this shape—a hundred on one side, and not one on the other! The fact itself, and the tone in which it is recorded, disclose what our philosopher would fain have concealed. We leave the moral conduct of Hume in the spotless state set forth by his own description of it, though we cannot forbear to remark that such language comes somewhat strangely from a gentleman who had been so fascinated with the manner of the Parisian fashionables under Louis XV., as to have thought of never leaving them. We believe, however, that in his case, the principal attraction of such society was its polish, and not its almost incredible licentiousness. We learn, that in one of those gay assemblies, Hume was induced to make his appearance in the character of a Sultan, placed on a sofa between two of the most beautiful women in Paris. It was his province to solicit the favours of these ladies, and it was theirs to act the part of fair ones who were not to be subdued, and in the dialogue, or rather trilogue, which lasted some quarter of an hour, the author of the Treatise of Human Nature, and of the History of England, acquitted himself, we are told, much to the edification of all who were present[3]. In these moments of relaxation, the philosopher was regarded as discovering his amiable sympathy with the ordinary feelings of humanity. It does not appear to have occurred to him, or to his flatterers, to consider the much stronger evidence of the want of such sympathy, which was afforded by his approval of the system of government which had so long spread its terrors and its wrongs over the length and breadth of that splendid, miserable country. Our limits will not allow of any reference to the particulars of the public dispute between Hume and Rousseau, and we therefore abstain from expressing any opinion respecting it. Footnote 3: ‘Mémoires et Correspondance de Madame d’Epinay.’ III., 284, 285.