And maybe it wasn’t mesilf that jist died then outright wid the laffin’, to behold the little chap when he found out that it wasn’t the widdy at all at all that he had had hould of all the time, but only Sir Pathrick O’Grandison. The ould divil himself niver behild sich a long face as he pet an! As for Sir Pathrick O’Grandison, Barronitt, it wasn’t for the likes of his riverence to be afther the minding of a thrifle of a mistake. Ye may jist say, though (for it’s God’s thruth), that afore I left hould of the flipper of the spalpeen (which was not till afther her leddyship’s futman had kicked us both down the stairs), I giv’d it such a nate little broth of a squaze as made it all up into raspberry jam. “Woully wou,” says he, “pully wou,” says he—“Cot tam!” And that’s jist the thruth of the rason why he wears his lift hand in a sling. BON-BON. Quand un bon vin meuble mon estomac, Je suis plus savant que Balzac— Plus sage que Pibrac; Mon bras seul faisant l’attaque De la nation Cossaque, La mettroit au sac; De Charon je passerois le lac, En dormant dans son bac; J’irois au fier Eac, Sans que mon coeur fit tic ni tac, Présenter du tabac. —_French Vaudeville_ That Pierre Bon-Bon was a _restaurateur_ of uncommon qualifications, no man who, during the reign of——, frequented the little Câfé in the cul-de-sac Le Febre at Rouen, will, I imagine, feel himself at liberty to dispute. That Pierre Bon-Bon was, in an equal degree, skilled in the philosophy of that period is, I presume, still more especially undeniable. His _patés à la fois_ were beyond doubt immaculate; but what pen can do justice to his essays _sur la Nature_—his thoughts _sur l’Ame_—his observations _sur l’Esprit?_ If his _omelettes_—if his _fricandeaux_ were inestimable, what _littérateur_ of that day would not have given twice as much for an “_Idée de Bon-Bon_” as for all the trash of “_Idées_” of all the rest of the _savants?_ Bon-Bon had ransacked libraries which no other man had ransacked—had more than any other would have entertained a notion of reading—had understood more than any other would have conceived the possibility of understanding; and although, while he flourished, there were not wanting some authors at Rouen to assert “that his _dicta_ evinced neither the purity of the Academy, nor the depth of the Lyceum”—although, mark me, his doctrines were by no means very generally comprehended, still it did not follow that they were difficult of comprehension. It was, I think, on account of their self-evidency that many persons were led to consider them abstruse. It is to Bon-Bon—but let this go no farther—it is to Bon-Bon that