mots had been preserved; and their effect on his listeners depended more on the manner of delivery than on the matter.  That they were improvised and unpremeditated is another important consideration.  It is quite unfair to compare them, as Warburton does, with the hebdomadal trash of ‘Punch,’ though perhaps they would stand the comparison pretty well.  It is one thing to force wit with plenty of time to invent and meditate it—­another to have so much wit within you that you can bring it out on any occasion; one thing to compose a good fancy for money—­another to utter it only when it flashes through the brain.

But it matters little what we in the present day may think of Selwyn’s wit, for conversation is spoiled by bottling, and should be drawn fresh when wanted.  Selwyn’s companions—­all men of wit, more or less, affirmed him to be the most amusing man of his day, and that was all the part he had to play.  No real wit ever hopes to talk for posterity; and written wit is of a very different character to the more sparkling, if less solid, creations of a moment.

We have seen Selwyn in many points of view, not all very creditable to him; first, expelled from Oxford for blasphemy; next, a professed gambler and the associate of men who led fashion in those days, it is true, but then it was very bad fashion; then as a lover of hangmen, a wit and a lounger.  There is reason to believe that Selwyn, though less openly reprobate than many of his associates, was, in his quiet way, just as bad as any of them, if we except the Duke of Queensberry, his intimate friend, or the disgusting ‘Franciscans’ of Medmenham Abbey, of whom, though not the founder, nor even a member, he was, in a manner, the suggester in his blasphemy.

But Selwyn’s real character is only seen in profile in all these accounts.  He had at the bottom of such vice, to which his position, and the fashion of the day introduced him, a far better heart than any of his contemporaries, and in some respects a kind of simplicity which was endearing.  He was neither knave nor fool.  He was not a voluptuary, like his friend the duke; nor a continued drunkard, like many other ’fine gentlemen’ with whom he mixed; nor a cheat, though a gambler; nor a sceptic, like his friend Walpole; nor a blasphemer, like the Medmenham set, though he had once parodied profanely a sacred rite; nor was he steeped in debt, as Fox was; nor does he appear to have been a practised seducer, as too many of his acquaintance were.  Not that these negative qualities are to his praise; but if we look at the age and the society around him, we must, at least, admit that Selwyn was not one of the worst of that wicked set.