ev. Mr. Snodgrass, who was observed to
smile in a very unbecoming manner at some parts of the Doctor's account
of his reception at St. Paul's. Indeed, it was apparently with the
utmost difficulty that the young clergyman could restrain himself from
giving liberty to his risible faculties. It is really surprising how
differently the same thing affects different people. "The Doctor and
Mrs. Pringle giving a guinea at the door of St. Paul's for the poor need
not make folk laugh," said Mrs. Glibbans; "for is it not written, that
whosoever giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord?" "True, my dear
madam," replied Mr. Snodgrass, "but the Lord to whom our friends in this
case gave their money is the Lord Bishop of London; all the collection
made at the doors of St. Paul's Cathedral is, I understand, a perquisite
of the Bishop's." In this the reverend gentleman was not very correctly
informed, for, in the first place, it is not a collection, but an
exaction; and, in the second place, it is only sanctioned by the Bishop,
who allows the inferior clergy to share the gains among themselves. Mrs.
Glibbans, however, on hearing his explanation, exclaimed, "Gude be about
us!" and pushing back her chair with a bounce, streaking down her gown at
the same time with both her hands, added, "No wonder that a judgment is
upon the land, when we hear of money-changers in the temple." Miss Mally
Glencairn, to appease her gathering wrath and holy indignation, said
facetiously, "Na, na, Mrs. Glibbans, ye forget, there was nae changing of
money there. The man took the whole guineas. But not to make a
controversy on the subject, Mr. Snodgrass will now let us hear what
Andrew Pringle, 'my son,' has said to him":--And the reverend gentleman
read the following letter with due circumspection, and in his best
manner:--

LETTER X

_Andrew Pringle_, _Esq._, _to the Reverend Charles Snodgrass_

MY DEAR FRIEND--I have heard it alleged, as the observation of a great
traveller, that the manners of the higher classes of society throughout
Christendom are so much alike, that national peculiarities among them are
scarcely perceptible. This is not correct; the differences between those
of London and Edinburgh are to me very striking. It is not that they
talk and perform the little etiquettes of social intercourse differently;
for, in these respects, they are apparently as similar as it is possible
for imitation to make them; but the di