the bane of eating and drinking in England; but the existence of monotony
shows that the English really do not care very much about dining
considered as a fine art. When they do care, they cover their interest
in the matter decently, with the veil of humorous affectation. They
cannot spontaneously and sincerely make a business of it, as the French
do in all good faith. Even if they had a genius for dining, we doubt if
a critic is right in thinking they should dine at six o'clock or seven at
latest. Whether in the country or in town, the business or amusement of
the day claims more time. Sportsmen, for example, in early autumn could
not possibly return home by six very frequently, and in summer six
o'clock may be so sultry an hour that the thought of food is intolerable.
Still, it must be admitted that the unawakened state of the
market-gardener and the condition of English soups are matters deserving
serious consideration.



AMERICAN HUMOUR.


One of the most popular of American humorists has elicited from a member
of an English audience, who did not quite hear him lecture, a remark of
an amusing sort. The aggrieved listener proclaimed that he "had a right
to hear." This was one of the turbulent people who should read Mazzini,
and learn that man has no rights worth mentioning--only duties, one of
which is to hold his tongue in season. If Mr. Bret Harte's words did not
reach all his audience, his writings at least have come home to most
English readers. They suggest a consideration of the many points of
difference which distinguish American from English humour. The Americans
are of our own stock, yet in their treatment of the ludicrous how unlike