no doubt,
feeling that the spirit of nationality was a little too exclusive. We
forgot to mention that neither Campbell nor his poem made their appearance,
which we regretted for several reasons, and also that the memory of Burns
was not drunk out of his punch-bowl. For this relique of the bard, a Jew
of the name of Isaac, gave 60_l_. in pledge, and begged the key to keep in
memory of the poet, when it was bought by its present possessor; and an
Irish gentleman, not long ago, sent a 300_l_. check for it, and threatened
Mr. Hastie with the law when he refused to give him up the punch-bowl."

"We are indebted to a friend for this very pleasant notice, and must, in
our predominent love of truth, say so. As far as the presence of numbers
could testify general affection for the memory of Burns and respect for
the Ettrick Shepherd, the meeting was most satisfactory; in every other
respect it was a failure."

Now let us turn to the _Court Journal_, which in its first column
decides the Burns' Dinner to have been "the most ill-conceived,
ill-concocted, ill-managed, and ill-attended affair of its kind that
ever flung disgrace and ridicule on the public hospitality of the most
inhospitable public on record." The advertised list of stewards is
described as "hoax the first." Their names were used as baits--their
presence being represented under the ominous forms of half-a-dozen
well-known illustrious unknowns, headed by two "enterprising"
booksellers! there being not a single distinguished writer present,
except Mr. Lockhart, and he evidently _cutting_ the whole affair,--so
far I mean as relates to taking any part in the (mis)management of it.
Nevertheless, I see by the Papers, that "all the leading characters of
the Metropolis were present! the poetical department of them being
represented by Lord Porchester, and the prose department by Lord Mahon."
Our Court visiter bears his lot with good humour: but, observes he "not
small must have been the contemptuous pity felt for me, by those
superior intelligences who, on my entering the Dinner Room, I found had
already secured their seats, probably by the only practical method--that
of taking possession of them overnight! And there is no denying the wit
of this proceeding, on the part of those who were in the secret, that
the repast was ordered for two hundred individuals, (nine-tenths of them
probably _Scotch_ individuals) and was to be partaken of by _four_
hundred." This proportion i