by his own negligence, he ventured to make some remarks, such as “he did not know why his master should not have his share as well as another gentleman, etc. etc.” which proved so highly disagreeable to the feelings of the great man who administered this highly important office, that he immediately went and complained to the still greater man who had invested him with it.  This august personage not only feelingly participated in the insult which had been offered his faithful domestic, but also vowed that he should have the most ample satisfaction.  He accordingly ordered the complainant to send the offending party into his presence on the following morning; strictly enjoining him before hand, to take especial care that he should remain ignorant of the chastisement which was in petto for him.  The next morning when the poor fellow came as usual for his master’s quota of milk, he was told by the great man whom he had the day before unwittingly offended, that the governor desired to speak to him.  Wondering that so distinguished a personage should even know that so humble a being as himself was in existence, and at a loss to conjecture what could be his gracious will and pleasure, he was ushered trembling into his dread presence.  In an instant his alarms were quieted.  The governor told him with a condescending smile, that as the chief constable’s house was in his way home, he had merely sent for him to be the bearer of a letter to that person, from a desire to spare his dragoon the trouble of carrying it.  The poor fellow, of course, delivered the letter with all haste, little imagining what were its contents.  When the chief constable perused it, he ordered out the triangles; the poor wretch was instantly tied up to them, and in a stupor of surprise and consternation underwent the punishment, (whether twenty-five or fifty lashes I am not sure) which was ordered to be given him, without any explanation till after its infliction, of the reasons why he received it.  Was not this a refinement of cruelty worthy the most atrocious monster of antiquity?]

[** When I wrote this part of the present work the person to whom it has reference was living; and the only alteration which I have made in it since his death, has been the necessary changes in the tenses of the verbs.  My assertions have been scrupulously regulated by truth; but I am still aware that they might have been pronounced libellous in a court of justice; and I have been advised by some of my friends to cancel them, on the ground that the recollection of injuries should not be prolonged beyond the grave.  The applicability, however, of this principle to private resentments is not more evident, than its inapplicability to public.  The tomb which ought to be the goal of the one, is the starting-post of the other.  It is the legitimate province, nay, more, one of the most sacred duties of the annalist to speak of public characters after their deaths, with that severity of reprobation or of praise, to which their conduct