sores

influences a brainless and heartless mob. Each of these individuals, from the old woman who lunged at him with an immense umbrella, to the smallest vermin-infested alleyhunting gamin, that poked fun and filth at "him wot starved the girl in the Temple," would have passed fifty Jane Wilbreds dying on a door-step of inanition, and covered with -and passed by on the other side. These are not the sons and daughters of charity! It was not the crime they persecuted; but a fellow-being, dragged forth into the ghastly lamp-light of a dreadful notoriety. It was not pity; but the spirit which hunts cats and destroys life. It was the wounded wolf torn by his fellows. In the journals of the 30th ultimo, read the account of the death of John Berknell, who died among respectable Christians, whose double duty it was to relieve him and then ask-whether, save in some of its filthier details of fantastic brutality, the case of Jane Wilbred may not easily find a silent parallel in England? This man's skeleton was viewed by a shuddering jury in the corner of a bare room. His anatomy was safe from rats in its shrivelled attenuation. Yet he died visibly amongst his fellows, and none aided him but one poor woman, who did not hunt Sloane, but who sold her sheet to buy a shirt to cover his nakedness. The parish surgeon attends him in his last moments and writes an illegible order, which the workhouse does not execute, and so the "bones" die and the jury pries into the starvation-tainted room, and the surgeon is blamed, and a shell ordered. We only wonder that the verdict was not "Died by the visitation of God!" The hand of Jane Wilbred will probably be asked in marriage by a speculative parish officer. All we can say is, may her torturers suffer what they deserve; but we detest a fashion even in retribution, and regret that the

blind Justice should hobble on more quickly when her steps are heralded by a flaunting notoriety.

THE MANCHESTER ATHENÆUM SOIREE.

ONE of these spasmodic contributions to the Rogues' March of England down the abyss of time, took place the other day-Richard Cobden showing his face from the chair without the burning blush of degradation which ought to have turned that dial of equivocation into the scarlet efflorescence of a broken-stalked peony. If we mistake not, this Soirée-(God help the name !)-is an anniversary of the same tea-drinking imbecility which a few years ago invited EUGENE SUE as its honoured and distinguished guest! Amidst its sickly festivities, its dancing, dramatic readings, tea and cakes-the bad taste of reading the part of Sir "Lucius O'Trigger," with an intended reference to Sir Thomas Hastings, was perpetrated, pace Cobden! It should be remembered, that "Sir Lucius," although ridiculous in his Irishisms and his amorous and fighting propensities, is still a man of honour and a gentleman-a character we lament to see becoming more singular in England-thanks to her sordid betrayers-daily. It should also be born in mind, that there are other impersonations which might have been read with advantage to the "moral Bobadils" of the day-such as "Mawworm," "Joseph Surface," and a few others. After Mr. Cobden had made his usual oration in praise of his doctrines and their besotted followers, he wound up with a compliment to the Times, at the expense of the Greek historian Thucydides, saying that one copy of the former was more esteemed in England and America than

the whole productions of the Greek historian! As Thucydides was celebrated for truth, we can understand the reason of Mr. Cobden's preference.

THE PROGRESS OF THE CHANCERY REFORM ASSOCIATION.

THE Times, which has been so remarkably silent as to the proceedings of this Society-only giving it a contemptible report upon one occasion, when it stated that the attendance at a public meeting of the Association was thinis about, we imagine, to elbow all other Chancery Reformers out of the way, and write a series of pompous denunciations against that which the British public, thoroughly awakened, will no longer bear. It will then, pointing to the defunct and sprawling dragon of ages, assert boldly that the Times is the sole champion of improvement and redresser of abuses, and that it killed Chancery single-handed. But no person who regards truth can deny, whatever the exact issue may be, that it is by the Chancery Reform Association alone that England has been first awakened and aroused, not only to a sense of her position with regard to the iniquity of her Equity Courts; but also to the now patent fact that she can and will alter or get rid of them. This, however, will not be done by the pretence of a Chancery Commission, which is an expensive blind to the public. It may be well to observe that the Times of yesterday, in its leading article of praise on the year past and trust in the year to come, uses as rough language towards the Court of Chancery as ever did the most violent sufferer, who, having lost all his

fortune and a great portion of his liberty by the accursed practices of Chancery, comes with the bitterness of experience to lend his trembling voice to its denunciation at a meeting of the Chancery Reform Association. We now come to one of the most ridiculous treatises, perhaps, ever indited by a puzzled artist of the pen, in making up an article in defence of an untenable position, and an unpopular cause. It is in the shape of a criticism in the Law Review, on the Pamphlets of the Chancery Reform Association. Now, this funny writer first desires, in the most friendly spirit, that no one will sneer at the Pamphlets or their authors, and then proceeds to say that it is all a grievous truth, and that he has not one word to urge in defence of the administration of our Equity Courts. He then gives the names of the Council of the Association, in order to sneer at them, and says he has never heard of the individuals composing it before, with the exception of Joseph Hume. So great is the confessed obscurity of the writer of this article, and so excessive his bad taste, that he makes this unnecessary observation, which has nothing to do with the subject. Yet the name of the Member for Birmingham, William Scholefield, is not altogether unknown, or that of James Wyld, M.P., or Richard Fox, M.P., or the Hon. Grantley F. Berkeley, M.P.,-even Effingham Wilson might have been heard of by him, if he live in England, which we are forced to doubt. The legal contributors to the Law Review reside, O ye unlearned men, who have not the honour to be solicitors, in the Hebrides, or, perhaps, Clement's Inn! Let us observe one thing here, which is, that every individual hitherto unknown to fame or to Brown, job Law Reviewer, but whose name is now found in the list of the Council of the Chancery Reform Asso

ciation, deserves some future credit at the hands of his fellow-countrymen but for that single circumstance.

Now then for the development of this writer's absurdity. Having first premised that it is all a true bill, and that Chancery is iniquitous and oppressive, he gets into a violent state of agitation. "Good heavens !" he exclaims, “what are they at? What will be the end of it? Here are unknown Brown, Jones, and Robinson, with respectable Joe Hume at their head, whom I, that is we, do know by name, getting up a pretty agitation. It will spread, sirs, it will spread! Chancery will be destroyed, and O Heavens ! NOT BY LAWYERS." This is the substance of the complaint of this Solon. "This iniquitous Chancery!" he says, "why did not we remedy it? But we did not. Therefore, all the injured, ay, and the discontented, the restless, the clever and unprincipled will attack it." There is a sweet, delicious naiveté about this writer, a charming simplicity and frankness, surely not nurtured in the purlieus of Chancery-lane, or Pump-court. He now lauds the "Law Amendment Society." This is the first we have heard of it. Who, we ask, in turn, are the members of its Council? It was founded, he tells us, seven years ago, not for vulgar clamour, but for calm discussion of legal abuses. In those seven years, what has it done? It has been looking for a REMEDY. The abuses and grievances, the reviewer tells us, are patent enough. God knows they are to the sufferers. But the Chancery Reform Association has given and still gives publicity to them, and this is what the hypocritical self-reforming upholders of the system do not like. Fancy Chancery reforming itself at its own pace! But no one is to be deceived by such mild nonsense. Next the innocent writer -we wish equity or iniquity may always have such a frank