iversally held to be full of pollution;
and, finally, to _profane_ a motion of nature. Such was the language.

But we guess what is passing in the reader's mind. He thinks that all this
proves the _prandium_ to have been a meal of little account; and in very
many cases absolutely unknown. But still he thinks all this might happen to
the English dinner--_that_ might be neglected; supper might be generally
preferred; and, nevertheless, dinner would be as truly entitled to the name
of dinner as before. Many a student neglects his dinner; enthusiasm in any
pursuit must often have extinguished appetite for all of us. Many a time
and oft did this happen to Sir Isaac Newton. Evidence is on record, that
such a deponent at eight o'clock, A.M., found Sir Isaac with one stocking
on, one off; at two, said deponent called him to dinner. Being interrogated
whether Sir Isaac had pulled on the _minus_ stocking, or gartered the
_plus_ stocking, witness replied that he had not. Being asked if Sir Isaac
came to dinner, replied that he did not. Being again asked, "At sunset, did
you look in on Sir Isaac?" Witness replied, "I did." "And now, upon your
conscience, sir, by the virtue of your oath, in what state were the
stockings?" _Ans. "In statu quo ante bellum_." It seems Sir Isaac had
fought through that whole battle of a long day, so trying a campaign to
many people--be had traversed that whole sandy Zaarah, without calling, or
needing to call at one of those fountains, stages, or _mansiones_,[7] by
which (according to our former explanation) Providence has relieved the
continuity of arid soil, which else disfigures that long dreary level. This
happens to all; but was dinner not dinner, and did supper become dinner,
because Sir Isaac Newton ate nothing at the first, and threw the whole
day's support upon the last? No, you will say, a rule is not defeated by
one casual deviation, nor by one person's constant deviation. Everybody
else was still dining at two, though Sir Isaac might not; and Sir Isaac
himself on most days no more deferred his dinner beyond two, than he sate
with one stocking off. But what if everybody, Sir Isaac included, had
deferred his substantial meal until night, and taken a slight refection
only at two? The question put does really represent the very case which has
happened with us in England. In 1700, a large part of London took a meal
at two, P.M., and another at seven or eight, P.M. In 1839, a large part
of London is