all, perhaps, I may have hopes of you. And yet you are still most unlearned in the matter; for don't you see that nous autres are not merely the best, but the exclusive judges of what does not belong to us, by being the sole arbiters of what does. Ask a vulgar (the very vulgarest man), what is vulgarity-he will take care to tell you it cannot be himself. Those only can know it— or, at least, those know it best-who are farthest removed from it;-so that after all, what you intended is the reverse of a compliment. I quite feel for your mistake."

What she really felt I don't exactly know, but, for myself, I felt this was a palpable hit, and in some confusion owned it.

"Well," said she, "you will do better next time; only take notice that this is another proof of the danger of attempting compliments. And now for our subject, upon which, however, as we have settled that we can tell what vulgarity is, we shall not have so much trouble in determining what it is not. But, may I ask what you say it is? That is, who are, in your opinion, the vulgar?

66

"To answer generally," said I, "I suppose the lower orders; the common people, called vulgus, whence the word; and hence what the common people generally are, the uneducated-the gens de la halle-the mob."

“ In

my view of the question," answered Lady

Hungerford," this definition will not do; though, as a generic explanation, it is, I suppose, accurate. But although if vulgus (which I know is translated by you scholars, common people) stands for vulgar, vulgar and the common people must be the same; still it will not, as I feel it, mean those hateful persons who really form the vulgar; for, in my sense of vulgarity, it is always taken with an adverse meaning; and in that bad sense the common people are not identified with it, for they are neither exclusively nor necessarily disgusting."

"But being, as you allow, the vulgar, is not that a paradox ?" asked I.

"You think so, I see; and I will therefore endeavour to explain myself; for I am clear that to be one of the common people does not necessarily carry along with it that offensiveness which always so shocks us, and which is by no means confined to the lower orders, merely as such; neither, as such, does it necessarily belong to them, though generically (and only generically) the name implies it."

"I see your ladyship," said I, "is determined to treat this deep subject as it deserves, most philosophically and most profoundly. I assure you I am quite alive to the ingenuity of this distinction."

"All that I mean," continued the lady, “is, that we are not shocked with what only appears in its natural colours, and pursues its natural course, remaining always in its appropriate place. It is

when, without necessity, it leaves its proper place from choice, and forces itself where it ought not to be, that it becomes disgusting. Of this the fable of the ass who (respectable in his stable, but jealous of the lap-dog) forced his way into the drawingroom, and was punished for it, is an apt illustration. So we hate not a scavenger's or a marketwoman's manners, while in their necessary occupations, but if we copied them in our saloons, who could fail to be shocked ?"

66

Nothing can be more correct,” said I, admiring her precision, and anxious to see how she would work out her inference.

"Well then," she observed, "the mere phrase, 'the vulgar' meaning, in its general signification, only the most numerous part of the community-does not, of necessity, imply the same thing as the relative term vulgarity, which always means something revolting."

66

Charmingly logical," I exclaimed," and yet, I fear, the manners of the lower orders have always in them something revolting."

66

"I have not found it so," replied she, mildly;

provided they do not seek to make themselves higher than they are; then, indeed, they become offensive, ridiculous, and disgusting, like Monsieur l'ane in the fable I have just now quoted. When they do not do this, but are content with their stations, they are too respectable to excite any notion

derogatory to that equality with us in the eye of our common Creator, which the most spoilt child of dignity and fashion, who ventures to think of what he is made of, must feel as well as themselves."

I cannot say how I honoured my delightful preceptress for this unaffected display of her just, as well as refined mind, especially when she went on

"From their greater numbers, it is true, the common people, being the poorer classes, the chief of their time must be taken up in endeavouring to live. They cannot have the same facilities for education or polish that belong to the rich. But on that very account, the want of them cannot be attributed to them as a crime, or even a fault. We allow for the necessity of the case; we expect what we find; and we do not feel disappointed or disgusted when we find it. Who is shocked to see a beggar ill-clothed; or even a chimney-sweeper begrimed with soot; or the manners of servants while in the servants' hall? But if masters, having the power of choice, prefer dirt to cleanliness, or ape their servants' manners, then indeed we sicken, and avoid them as vulgar, in the hateful sense of the term."

66

Perfectly clear," said I, delighted to see such an apologist for the many in such an ornament of the few.

"It follows, then," continued she," that what you denominate vulgar, is not what I mean when I say I hate vulgarity."

"though

"I am quite convinced," observed I; I would beg the favour, that what you have said about choice might be a little more explained."

"What I mean," said Lady Hungerford, "is when a person has a power to prefer one set of habits to another, and is not confined by his lot to the particular set he has chosen, yet chooses (as many do) to degrade himself by adopting the manners, and sometimes even the appearance, of those below him. To be dirty, whether in person or mind, is vulgar; but only if you have a choice in it, that is, if you have the power to be otherwise if you please, and refuse to be so. If forced to it from poverty, and not inclined to it from disposition, I should say you were only to be pitied, not that you were vulgar. If a duke had the taste to dress, and live, and haunt pot-houses, like a hackney-coachman, I should say he was vulgar; not so the hackneycoachman himself.”

"Clear as day," exclaimed I, and again I could not help admiring the sense and tact of this engaging as well as superior woman.

"The result is," continued she, "that vulgarity is what I have called it, a relative not an abstract term. It by no means belongs exclusively to the lower orders, or even to particular classes, except by comparison. It is rather the characteristic of individuals, and as such may belong to the high as well as the low; and hence the well-known phrase