"Mr. Marriot: Have you got bail to be answerable for your appearance.

"Ben Hyam: Me have no friends except in de country.

"The Policeman confirmed the Turk's statement, and the latter having signed his deposition, was locked up, and afterwards was handcuffed and taken by the gaoler, with the female, to Kingston, the latter committed for the felony, and the former for want of sureties to appear to give evidence against her at the next Sessions."

If we did not know what Magistrates are made of, this would be incredible. What could the Turk know of allowance of expenses to witnesses? The man merely declined prosecuting, as every poor man would decline prosecuting, because while he is dangling in a Court, he is losing his footing in his business, if not losing the value of his time, which is his estate. As for the immorality of the Turk, which so moved Mr. Marriot's virtuous indignation, is he sure that it was immorality in a Turk? and, farther, if the poor Turk had been a person of respectability, i. e. an affluent man, would a word of censure have been uttered on the subject?—No, not even though he had been in Priest's orders. Greater pains have been taken to lay this poor Turk by the heels, than were taken some few years ago to secure a nasty Bishop. There was no rigorous anxiety, in that case, to make certain a prosecution. And this is the country in which it is, with impudent falsehood, said, that there is not one law for the rich and another for the poor! The effect of drawing upon a rich man's time for attendance to prosecute, is, at worst, an inconvenience which he may avoid by sacrificing the sum (seldom of magnitude) in which he is bound in recognizancesto the poor, the effect of drawing upon his time is drawing the bread from his hands. The remedy is obvious, but as it concerns not the rich, but the poor, it is not supplied-a public prosecutor.

A Sunday Paper having observed on the hardship of Ben Hyam's case, tells the following story, illustrative of the injuries which the law, in the pretended process of redress, heaps upon the plundered poor :

"A labouring man, who was the occupier of a cottage in Middlesex, detected a fellow in the act of carrying away one of his geese from the common. The thief was seized, carried before a magistrate (who will be known to many by the fees demanded), and committed for trial. The unpaid magistrate-or the magistrate's clerk, rather, in his name exacted from the labourer six shillings for fees. The value of the goose attempted to be stolen was only about four shillings-so that, at the outset, the administrator of the law deprived the poor man of two shillings more than the thief would have taken from him. But the sufferer was also bound over to prosecute; and, what with attendance before the clerk of the peace to get the bill of indictment framed,-before the Grand Jury to get the bill found, and waiting until the thief was tried, and to obtain costs, sixteen days of his time were expended. This was before the establishment of a second court. Each day to him was worth 6s.: but he was only allowed 3s. 6d., which barely paid his expenses in coming to town. His lowest loss was 3s. 6d. a day; so that the total loss, including the 6s. fees, which were not allowed back (and which, in truth, were illegally exacted), amounted to 31. 2s.-or the value of fifteen geese. The thief only attempted to take one goose-the law swept away more than his whole flock. Injuries of this kind are daily perpetrated; and the expense of justice is impunity to the depredators. It is only the rich, who have nothing to do, who can prosecute without inconvenience. A thief is usually a martyr for the sake of the others of his fraternity, to protect them in the commission of crime. A prosecutor is a victim to deter other honest people who are plundered, from prosecuting. The instances are not unfrequent where persons who have once prosecuted, abscond from redress when they have been robbed a second time."

It applauds the better system of justice pursued in the country of Ben Hyam, which, proverbial for barbarity as it is, is not more barbarous in judicial procedure than boasted England. In Turkey, according to Montesquieu, the Cadi hears both the plaintiff and defendant; orders both a drubbing on the spot: and there is an end of the matter. Ben Hyam would have found this, his country's custom, much more merciful than the committal to gaol, poor fellow! We read in the same print, that a labouring man has been fined six guineas for stealing six pheasant's eggs, the lowest penalty being a guinea an egg, and the Magistrates not having the power of abating it, though the prisoner should not be worth a guinea in the world, and the Bill of Rights emphatically declares, that

no one shall be amerced beyond his means! Six guineas to a labourer, is nearly a quarter's earnings. Apply this proportion of punishment, for any offence (for we will not confine the comparison to a delinquency parallel to the stealing of an egg), suppose for the stealing of another man's wife or his daughter, to a person of the property of a Baring or a Rothschild, and how monstrous it would seem! yet it would be less severe in these cases, for superfluity can bear retrenchment, as Bentham observes, and a mere subsistence allows of none. The man of £50,000 per annum can obviously better spare £25,000, than the man of thirty pounds a year can spare six. The one deduction goes to luxuries, the other to bread. These people, whose minimum of fine is a guinea for an offence to which there is extraordinary temptation, live on potatoes, hard dumplings, i. e. flour and water, boiled with cabbage if they can get it, and for beverage, drink, what they elevate with the description of bread tea, commonly called toast and water, and do not taste meat once a week. Shame, shame, on the makers of such laws! All fines are unjust which are not proportioned to means, and fixing a minimum of fine is therefore a palpable injustice. But such laws are made without thoughtwe trust that the makers will not one day be punished without thought. They are exciting a bitterness of feeling in the working classes, which may have vent in a terrible retribution.

A CURIOSITY IN MALIGNITY.-The zeal of some persons in mischief is something wonderful. An apostle of prejudice-a preacher of illiberality, and exciter of ill-blood among nations, has been at the expense of procuring repeated insertion of the following advertisement in the different newspapers. On reading the first few lines, we prepared ourselves for a hair-dresser's puff, but it is not so it seems to proceed from a disinterested zeal for prejudice and nationa animosities:

"It is not an uncommon circumstance to hear the nobility and gentry lamenting the revolutionary spirit of the times, and the want of that union and good feeling which has so long existed between the higher and middling classes; but this would be no ways surprising if they were to recollect the partiality numbers of the aristocracy are in the habit of showing to foreigners in preference to their own countrymen, thereby creating a feeling of dissatisfaction where formerly none such existed; nor does the evil end here, as those very foreigners are in the habit of disseminating the most revolutionary doctrines, and taunting the English with the three (so called) glorious days in July and the Revolution in Belgium, telling them they have not sufficient enthusiasm to do the same. But it is far from being the wish of that class of the English people to enter into any such measures, being quite certain that any thing recommended by revolu tionary Frenchmen must be intended for the injury and destruction of this country. There is another subject well worthy of notice in conjunction with the above. Why should there exist a necessity for the emigration of a large portion of the useful members of the community to the Colonies at an enormous expense, whilst foreigners are encouraged to come here to prey on the vitals of the country? It is to be regretted that that useful engine, the press, which has done so much good, should not have taken this subject, and placed it in its proper light before the public."

t

The stupidity of this meddling person happily counteracts the malignity of his purpose.

OF DEVILS.-A theatrical critic observes, that "the spirits who obey the incantation of Medea, are the same identical devils who carry off Don Giovanni. This (he adds) is confounding mythology with a witness. The manager will perhaps say that the Estate' of Chambers and Co. does not leave him the means of keeping two sets of devils. These devils, moreover, are sadly in want of new suits of apparel; and withal manage their business most vilely." The writer concludes, that such bungling devils, with their resin, should be relegated to Sadler's Wells.

If the estate of Chambers and Co. has not left to the manager the means of keeping two sets of devils, it should have shown him the best of all examples of one set of devils, which it has kept in excellent practice, and with capital effect, instead of the awkward devils with their worn-out tails and broken claws; the harpies of the law, in appropriate costume, might be introduced for the tormenting handling of Giovanni. Imagine half a dozen gentlemen in wigs and gowns

flinging themselves on the libertine, and an attorney in sad suit, lashing him with a bill of costs longer than the list of his amours, and cramming him into his bag, and flinging him to the Chancery below. This would be a scene that would touch the feelings of the audience, for it would represent torments of which many have had experience; all, some opportunities of observing. Apropos-a motion has been made to the Court of Chancery to appoint a manager of the Sun-the Sun newspaper we mean-luckily, the other sun is a yard or two out of the reach of Chancery jurisdiction, or it would long since have been swallowed up in the Master's office;-should such an application succeed, the press may become subject to a curious administration, in the event of disputes among partners. Of course, a Chancellor's notions of a proper manager must depend upon his political opinions. A Lord Eldon would be apt to think Theodore Hook the most proper manager of the Times, and would give the Chronicle to Mr. Twiss. Lord Brougham, on the other hand, might see the fitness of giving the conduct of John Bull to Mr. Place, and the Standard to Colonel Jones.

What is there that the Court of Chancery will not affect to direct? from the combing and washing, and nail-paring of Long Wellesley's children, upwards, there is nothing of which it will not take the conduct-provided, of course, there be property. Nothing comes amiss to it that comes with funds for the costs of

suit.

LAWS FOR RICH AND POOR.-Mr. Hunt has much moved the mirth of the House of Commons by the proposal to punish peers who interfere in elections, by a fine of 10,000l. and imprisonment for one year. It is not very likely that the Lords would assent to this law; and the idea of it seems derived from the ingenious plan for catching birds, by putting salt on their tails. Much of the derision, however, with which the suggestion was received, was at the magnitude of the fine of 10,000l.; for people who think nothing of imposing penalties of one guinea, or five guineas, on the very poor, are struck by the enormity of levying one of 10,0001. on the rich, though in proportion to the rate of amercement of the poor, and means being considered, it is really a moderate sum.

"PICKPOCKETS AT THE OPENING OF PARLIAMENT.

"No less than seventeen pickpockets were brought up by the new police, before the magistrates of the Queen-square office, charged with picking pockets during the procession of his Majesty to the House of Lords. In some of the cases the aggrieved parties did not attend, and six were discharged; the remainder were committed for trial. A number of the police, it appeared, were on duty in coloured clothes, which system called forth some severe remarks from Mr. White, the magistrate."-Daily Paper.

No doubt of it. Magistrates habituated to the practice of the law, and possessed of its perverted maxims, are horrified at the idea of the apprehension of thieves by any short and informal process. They cannot see that the public interest requires the apprehension of offenders by the means most convenient to the end. It matters not to the public whether the pickpocket is laid hold of by a man in a blue, or a man in a brown coat, so that he is laid hold of. As it matters not to a farmer whether a fox is killed by a man in a red coat, or a man in a smock frock, except, indeed, inasmuch as the man in the red coat kills the fox after he has done as much mischief in the hour's chase as the fox would do in his whole life, and the man in the smock frock knocks the pest on the head instanter. But the magistrate and the squire are for fair play to the crafty thief, and cannot bear the thoughts of putting an end to him without a run. The magistrate has imbibed the lawyer's notions, which are as antagonist to the public interest, as the hunter's preservation of foxes for his sport is adverse to the farmer's economy. The lawyers have made the rules of law, and shaped the practice of law, and invented its maxims, and they all tend to the advantage of the thief. All the tenderness and care of the law is for criminals. The offender is not allowed to commit himself by the betrayal of truth in court; and when pursuing his occupation of plunder in the streets, he is not, without scandal to the magistrate, to be apprehended by officers whose costume does not put him on his guard, and warn him to escape.

IF THE LORDS REJECT THE REFORM BILL, WHAT WILL

FOLLOW?

Les privilèges passeront, mais le peuple est éternel.

"WILL the Lords reject the Bill?" This is the most common question upon the all-absorbing topic of Reform. Were the actions of men governed more by their reason and less by their passions, there would be little hesitation in concluding the negative. But this is not so; and the House of Lords itself exhibited a spectacle of insensate passion at the close of the last Parliament, hence the uncertainty. Instead of answering the question, or calculating the probabilities-which would be matter of curiosity rather than of usefulness-we will propound another question, which may tend to make the scale of reason preponderate.

"If the Lords reject the Bill, what will follow?"

There are some in that House, who in the desperate intoxication of their misjudged interests, self-conceit, and love of power, are inaccessible to facts, truths, and justice. But a dispassionate pause over the probable consequences of rejection-not to Reform or the people, but to that House itself-may have a salutary effect upon the sober prudence of the Lords spiritual and temporal in the mass. to be hoped their prudence may not be too late.

It is

One striking circumstance cannot have escaped their observation, however removed from the sphere in which popular opinion expresses itself. It is this amid all the variety and uncertainty of speculation which prevail respecting the future vote of that House, no one doubts the success of Reform no one supposes that the negative of the Lords could do more than embarrass or retard its progress; no one fears for the people or their rights; but many look with friendly regret, some with a secret joy, to the probable effect upon the constitutional authority, and estimation of the House of

Peers.

It will be well for the Lords if they reflect in time upon the great power, moral and physical, against which they would array themselves, and the force which they are able to wield in opposition to it. They possess, it is true, a great constitutional power as one branch of the legislature; but their negative is a weapon which, if indiscreetly used, instead of doing execution upon the adverse party, may recoil fatally upon themselves. Let them not shut their eyes to the change in the circumstances of time,-above all, in public opinion and popular intelligence. "That great noun of multitude, the Boroughbroker," noble and ignoble, spiritual and temporal, has so long exercised, and has stolen so insidiously into the usurpation of, the essentail powers of government, legislative and executive, that a vicious. prescription is at last supposed to consecrate wrong into right, and an audacious cry of spoliation is set up when the commonalty of the realm simply demand that their first and most sacred right, the House of Commons, should be restored to them. But a great "change has come over the spirit" of the times.

There is no country in which established usage so long survives its

* Grattan-Letter to the Citizens of Dublin.

Aug. 1831.-VOL. XXXII. NO. CXXVIII.

H

real value, and holds the shield of its protection over abuses, as England. "The wisdom of our ancestors" has been employed as a talisman by the interested to delude the ignorant, and resist reason, ever since, and most probably before, the days of Sir Thomas More. The words of that enlightened and amiable philosopher in his Utopia would seem to be of yesterday. In England, his Utopian traveller says, he found every proposal for improvement met with the remark, "such things pleased our ancestors, and it were well for us if we could but match them,—as if (he continues) it should be a mischief that any were wiser than his forefathers." This talisman has at last been stripped of its charm. The phrase is become so hackneyed and detested from being palpably misused, that it has passed into a by-word.

Public opinion never before presented itself so formidably in the undivided unity of its force; there was always, hitherto, some pretence of public danger, or appeal to prejudice, which gave the means of creating a diversion against innovation and in favour of abuse. Vague and absurd alarms for the safety of the House of Hanover, from the opposite extremes of Jacobitism and democracy, were urged against Parliamentary Reform in the time of Chatham and Wilkes, and even of Pitt and Flood. The French revolution supplied the new and more fearful phantom of Jacobinism, with infidelity on the one side and republicanism on the other, threatening to level the constitution in church and state. Those distempered ebullitions among the lower classes, which are inevitable when distress prevails and the nation is free, have more recently been made use of to perpetuate the alarm of popular licence, to throw suspicion and odium upon the cause of Reform, and even to enact some of the vilest laws that have stained the statute-book. The religious prejudices of the people against the Dissenters on the one hand and the Catholics on the other, have been artfully fomented as means of dividing and distracting the public mind.

All these auxiliaries of corrupt jobbing and borough-oligarchy have passed away. He who now proclaimed the approach of Jacobinism would be heard with about as much attention as if he cried fire in a deluge. By a happy revolution of opinion,-not on the part of the Government-not on the part of the Commons House of Parliament,-but on the part of the people, it is now a resolved principle, and fixed as fate, that the safe way to guard against popular licence is to bestow popular liberty, and that Reform is the best preventive of revolution; in short, necessary to supersede that last resource. As to the religious fears and prejudices of the people, they are entombed with the Test and Corporation Acts and the Penal Laws. The people of England demand Reform as one man, with the unity and energy of a faction, and the strength and right of a nation. They demand not any encroachment upon the prerogatives of the Crown, or the coordinate and coequal attributes of the hereditary branch of the legislature, but simply the parliamentary constitution of the realm, according to its acknowledged principles and the laws of the land; that, as the one House is constituted by hereditary succession, or the prerogative of the Crown, so the other should be constituted by the free choice of the people.