pointing out with no unsparing hand redeeming virtues; and it cannot
certainly be said, in this instance, that the good has been 'interred
with the bones' of the personages herein described, although the evil
men do, 'will live after them.'

But whilst a biographer is bound to give the fair as well as the dark
side of his subject, he has still to remember that biography is a trust,
and that it should not be an eulogium. It is his duty to reflect that in
many instances it must be regarded even as a warning.

The moral conclusions of these lives of 'Wits and Beaux' are, it is
admitted, just: vice is censured; folly rebuked; ungentlemanly conduct,
even in a beau of the highest polish, exposed; irreligion finds no
toleration under gentle names--heartlessness no palliation from its
being the way of the world. There is here no separate code allowed for
men who live in the world, and for those who live out of it. The task of
pourtraying such characters as the 'Wits and Beaux of Society' is a
responsible one, and does not involve the mere attempt to amuse, or the
mere desire to abuse, but requires truth and discrimination; as
embracing just or unjust views of such characters, it may do much harm
or much good. Nevertheless, in spite of these obvious considerations
there do exist worthy persons, even in the present day, so unreasonable
as to take offence at the revival of old stories anent their defunct
grandfathers, though those very stories were circulated by accredited
writers employed by the families themselves. Some individuals are
scandalized when a man who was habitually drunk, is called a drunkard;
and ears polite cannot bear the application of plain names to well-known
delinquencies.

There is something foolish, but respectably foolish, in this wish to