an epoch when a member of parliament was chosen who had no expectations but from honour, no views but from sentiment.
I need not add that Mr. Gloss carried his election; for notwithstanding this florid speech, which was indeed novel → enough, he had bought the borough, and the gentleman who contested the election was only a nominal antagonist, set up to save appearances.
This point being carried, the person of Mr. Gloss was sacred, and his creditors might go whoop for their money. Exasperated with this treatment, his vis a vis was stopt in the street, and executions served in his house. But this was as useless as the rest; all his property was made over to Mr. Standfast, for money lent. And now we see Mr. Gloss without an inch of land he could call his own, nearly forty thousand pounds in debt, with a house and an equipage made over for safety to another, a parliament

man, a popular speaker, almost the leader of a party, and making large strides, with the principles we have seen, towards a responsible and lucrative place under government: for the treasurership of the navy he was determined to have.
As he really began to boast, and not without reason, of his influence, he thought he could not attack Sir Sidney in a more vulnerable place than his ancient house, which, from a long train of collateral argument, he proved to be older than the baronet himself had suspected.
I shall not go into the minutiae of this arrangement, which must not only be dry, but uninteresting to the reader, who, I dare say, would bate a little in the article of birth to such as made up the deficiency in honour—but only say that Mr. Gloss made it out very clearly that Sir Sidney was the only living issue of the family who held the honour of the first English baronetcy, and offered to make a motion in the house, which he should support with many powerful arguments, that his majesty be advised to grant to Sir Sidney Walter Roebuck, and his heirs for ever, an exclusive patent of baronetcy, under the title of baronet in chief, to be considered as an honour between that of a common baronet and a baron, in like manner as a marquis is considered between

an earl and a duke, and the precedent to be quoted, as an illustration of the argument, was to be, that as there was but one real marquis—which was the case at that time—so there should be but one chief baronet.
The baronet certainly listened to the proposal, and turned it a