nothing less than the fattest venison and the finest turtle. As the Duke,
too, is _rather_ a light weight, we should be glad if he would condescend
to take a Paisley weaver or two in the scale with him, to make his
subscription of eatables the more worthy of acceptance. All the members of
the present Cabinet would of course be weighed against loaves and fishes
(on the present occasion we would accept nothing under the very finest
wheaten bread and the very best of turbot), whilst a LAURIE, who has
worked such a reform in cut-throats, should be weighed out to his ward in
the most select stickings of beef.

All we propose to ourselves in these our weekly essays is, to give brief
suggestions for the better government of the world, and for the bringing
about the millennium, which--when we are given away _gratis_ in the
streets--may be considered to have arrived. Hence, we cannot follow put
through all its natural ramifications the benevolent proposition here laid
down. We trust, however, we have done enough. It is not necessary that we
should particularise all public men, tying them to be weighed against
specific viands: no, our readers will at once recognise the existence of
the parties, and at once acknowledge their fittest offerings. It may
happen that a peer might very properly be weighed against shin of beef,
and a Christian bishop be popped in the scale against a sack of
perriwinkles; it remains, however, with LONDONDERRY or EXETER to be
weighed if they will against golden pheasants and birds of paradise.

We are perfectly aware that if many of the elect of the land were to weigh
themselves against merely the things they are worth, that a great deal of
the food subscribed would be unfit to be eaten even by the poor. We should
have rats, dogs, snakes, bats, and all other unclean animals; but in
levying the parties to weigh themselves at their own valuation, the poor
may be certain to "sup in the Apollo." On this principle we should have