Lucinian mysteries of lying-in hospitals? Mr. William
Barker _was_ born, or he had never been. There is a son--there was a
father. There is an effect--there was a cause. Surely this is
sufficient information for the most Fatima-like curiosity; and, if it be
not, we regret our inability to supply any further evidence on the point.
Can there be a more satisfactory, or more strictly parliamentary course?
Impossible.

We at once avow a similar inability to record at what precise period, or
by what particular process, this gentleman's patronymic, of William
Barker, became corrupted into 'Bill Boorker.' Mr. Barker acquired a high
standing, and no inconsiderable reputation, among the members of that
profession to which he more peculiarly devoted his energies; and to them
he was generally known, either by the familiar appellation of 'Bill
Boorker,' or the flattering designation of 'Aggerawatin Bill,' the latter
being a playful and expressive _sobriquet_, illustrative of Mr. Barker's
great talent in 'aggerawatin' and rendering wild such subjects of her
Majesty as are conveyed from place to place, through the instrumentality
of omnibuses. Of the early life of Mr. Barker little is known, and even
that little is involved in considerable doubt and obscurity. A want of
application, a restlessness of purpose, a thirsting after porter, a love
of all that is roving and cadger-like in nature, shared in common with
many other great geniuses, appear to have been his leading
characteristics. The busy hum of a parochial free-school, and the shady
repose of a county gaol, were alike inefficacious in producing the
slightest alteration in Mr. Barker's disposition. His feverish
attachment to change and variety nothing could repress; his native daring
no punishment could subdue.

If Mr. Barker can be fairly said to have had any weakness in his earlier
years, it was an amiable one--love; love in its most comprehensive
form--a love of ladies, liquids, and pocket-handkerchiefs. It was no
selfish feeling; it was not confined to his own possessions, which but
too many men regard with exclusive complacency. No; it was a nobler
love--a general principle. It extended itself with equal force to the
property of other people.

There is something very affecting in this. It is still more affecting to
know, that such philanthropy is but imperfectly rewarded. Bow-street,
Newgate, and Millbank, are a poor return for general benevolence,
evincing