The Express.
London, England, 1850-06-05 00:00:00

IRISH POOR LAWS.

Yr. P. FRENCirnme— i;;;;;e---

That it is the °Oneself tide limas that no perm pent gyetern br
the relief of the lame in Ireland cue be canoes out salely or beneficially
to reerimee or ratepeyers without a return to the principle of the
original pyre low of 103*, by the strict applicaron of in-door relief to
all close of paupers; that the system of appointment of ece-froardians
with unconstitutional powers of talation has pro•ed most °Weeks-
able, and should be forthwith abolished; that the present mem of
ado inote.ition of the poor law lakefront Is anneceasanly extravagant,
onset d to the diminished reoperate*/ the country, and trade sea.
eiderably to the dem malimationot the people; thee It Is unjust to
throw on one species of property, and that the most searing, the
mire solitaire of the poor in licLand.
He took it that the object of the poor laws, as well as theirin-
troduction, was to ameliorate the condition of the Irish poor.
It was the object of the government that the' amelioration
should be earned into effect by means of the slimmers of
Inland, and that no further claims should be made on Eng-
lish bounty by Irish inondiceney. (H•ar, hear.) Bet the
Irish Poor-law Bill, notwithstanding, had been a total
failure. (Hthr, hear) He (Mr. French) had opposed the
present Poor-law Bill ae certain to be useless in ordinary
years and iseurn-lent is years of pressure amongst the poor.
(Hear, beer.) He thought the question was now deserving
of the consideration of the home, beaus. of its ens/nitride.
The measure was introduced on the assurance of government
that the expenditure under it would not exceed
280,0001. per year ; yet in the last year the ex-
pen& ore amounted to something over 2,176,0001. (Hear.)
The rate of bursar, in the poor law charges was almost
incredible. It might be said that the chief cause of the
increase was the potato famine. Ee denied that that was
the fact. Independently of the parliamentary loan of
8,000,0001., about 1,000,0001. was subscribed towards the
support of the poor at the period of the famine ; and there-
fore it could not be contended that the increase was attri-
butable to that coupe. He did not wish to overturn the
present poor law system, but simply to render it prectimble
and beneficial. As regarded his resolution respecting
in-door relief, he would rest his case on the or inions of those
who were responsible for the administration of the law.
Why should a system which those parties admitted bad
swamped the industrious claws, and which would have
bore rejected in 1838, be now carried out in Ireland 1 The
Archbishop of Dublin had formerly declared that it
out- lour relief were administered the whole of Ireland would
be reduced to a state of pauperism, and be believed
that thatprediction was is a fair way for realisation. Mr,
oulatone mid that without a severe workhouse test be knew
not how tr., land of Ireland was to support the poor, and de-
clared it to be his opinion that if the barrier were once bract •
down a /hod of pauperism would overwhelm the country.
The hon. gentleman concluded by propoolner the reolutions.
Lord NAAS, in seconding the motion of the boo. mem-
ber for Roaeommon, said that he could not by any remarks
of his add much to the weight of the arguments which had
bees adduced in favour of these resolutions. Ile, however,
should express his conviction tkat the present state of the
working of the poor law in !felted the hon. mem
ber for Roscommon in the course which he was taking.
He thought that the house must consider that there
must be some modification of the present lase, unless they
wished to show the people of Ireland who wished for such
an alteration that they were desirous of throwing the lanes of
Ireland out of cultivation, and thus perpetuating the misery
and destPution of the people. (Hear. )

Bir W. SOMERVILLE said that it was quite impcsaible
to deny the importance of the motion which had been
brought forward by the hon. inesaher for Roscommon • but
if the subject to which he bad called tl s attention of the
house was as important one, it was not a subject to which
that house had shown itself in any way indiffertnt—(hear)—
because i woul-1 be in he recollection of the bouts that during
last session a committee was appointed, which conducted its
labours for sever! months, and that there was not a
single one of the resolutions which formed the subject of the
bon. member's motion which did not receive the most smote
coosideration bears that committee ; and not only lid they
receive the moat ample consideration before that committee,
bat when a bill was introduced in•ci that house eatbAying
those very monitions, them stahjeets were a-sin fu ly tle•
bated, and the decision of the house sae pronounced upon
them. It was not his intention to follow Lie hon. fnend
through the history of the Eagli.h poor law; he would
more partieulssly confine himself to the rew'utions which
formed the substance of his motion, and the h-n ntleman
would permit him to my that the very important
question of out-door r. lief ftensed the vrinelpal subject of
his resolutions. The hon. member In Lis apt, eh had can-
didly admitted that he was *Wisely opposed to tau system of
poor laws in Ireland, and that be had always been opposed
to them. In that instance he seemed to duffer Ir MO the noble
lord who mended his motion. In with 'he expense of
out-door relief, the bon. radii:len forgot to tell them in
what way it was possible to preserve the lives of the people
without having recour-e to the adsainirra.,on of nut-door
relief. He (Sir W. Somerville) would •ska the opportunity
of saying that he himself was no very greet admirer of the
system of out-door relief, sad sassidered that it 'should not

M bad Madan 10. ism. wail. Ow promaro of tie scot
000ra as noddy ; bat ait sada sot moo WIMP it lOWA
be avoided is the adasitios whisk had lately *dad Inland.
Ho On rad a seras!ary of the amount ol la-door aad Dot.

May,
247,000; OA the 11th May, this pout 200:0087-40wiall
an increase of 32,000. The decrease on the total expendi-
I tyre of the quarter ending 81st Dectiniher,
_1849. was
122.0001.; for the quarter ending Much, 1860, Is was
197,0001. The whole increase of expenditure for • menthe
airtime Merck, 1860, was 319 4461. The expenses of the
poor law, as immured with the corresponding peeled of jut
year, were rapidly dintinieting. The sanitary ennaltiest of
the workhouses was very much Improved, and the avenge
week', cut of Releases's*e wag very mutt redwood. Far
the week ending 12th May, 1849, the coat wee la. lid., egg
it was may Is. in the serrespending week of 1860. He had
no doubt Mat the relief was the mom as it always was.
There had been a great dintiautimi of mortality in the
workhouses In 1849, it was 11.000. t; and in the conespend-
ins period of the present year, 6,000. His objection to the re-
solutions of his hon, friend was that he had terwetten to
inform the house in what way lie proposed to pro foe the
support of the poor of Ireland, in the aso of any such cala-
mity again befalliae the country. It was upon that point
that he justified the necessity of oat-door relief. A. to the M-
enus of the unions and the redaction of the sin of the elec.
total divisions, he thought it would be Warts wait until they
had an opportunity of seeing what result the changes were
likely to bring forth. They had every reason to hops, from
the prospects he had detailed to the house, from the ing
proved spirit which was visible in the adonsistration of the
pmr law, that the severity of the crisis was past. Hs hoped
the house would support him in retistiog the motion of his
hon. friend, and not vote for reeolutions which would have
no practical sired.

Colonel DUNNB said that the poor law had not
fulfilled any one of the objects which It bad in view.
The condition of the people of Ireland was infinitely
worse than it was before the poor law. It had pro
dared the evils It was intended to ears. The third
relation he thought was deserving the serious at-
tention of the house. It referred to the ruinous
sad extravagant ezpeass iocarred in Ireland in the adtainis
tratlon of the poor law. In the workhouses the establish
meat charges (700,0001.) were quite as great as the
sums actually expended in food. (Hear, hear.) Until that
nuisance was abated, there was no hope for as 'Stint ad
ministration of the poor laws is Ireland. (Hear, hear.)
The otter grievance which wee touched upon in the nosla-
lions wee the asides pressure of the rates on a certain de-
scription of property. The whole busthen of the rate was
thr..wn upon the actual landowner, while a:I mortgages and
ennui lea escaped. He should vote for all the
resolutions. He thought the first resolution was
absolutely necessary for the salvation of Ireland,
while he guarded himself window say denial of
the right of the really poor to relief. The principle of the
second resolution had been &twitted on all bands, and upon
the other two he bad sot the slightest doubt. . .

kV S. CRAW FORD opposed the first rccolution on the
ground that any spaces of poor laws which excluded out.
door relief would be a mockery and delusion on the people.
(Hear, hear.) The other two Fellation. wore not so
°Nevi alibi', but the character of the first was sufficient to
induce hen to vote against them all.
Mr. P. SCROPH opposed the motion. During the opera-
tion of an excessive erste= of in-door relief thillorkhouses
were not half sufficient to receive the pc.ple, and they
(lied in thousands atter having been refused admission.
In order to render the workhouses a 'efficient test, tee
dietcries had been reduced to the stervstion point, until the
death. had increaavd from 17 to 40 a week in some of the
workhouse.. He opposed any reargetieca which would have
the effect of aboli-hiag po n-law relief in Ireland.
Sir L. O'BRIEN snought the sc cries told of the sufferings
of the Irish poor in Clare and Castlebar were very much
exaggerated.
Mr. O'PLAHERTY defended the character of the Ito.
man catholic presto for integrity, and gale a general went
to the resolution..

Sir L O'BRIEN disclaimed any intention of costing im-
putation upon the Roman cs,holic clergy generally.
The house divided—
For the resolutions

A/ain't them 9O-2.5
RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT BILL.

The report on this bill was brought up, and two new
clauses heel, g reference to Scotland aided, the discussion of
the amended bill being postp ined by consent until the third
reading.

ENGLISH AND IRISH UNIVERSITIES.

The adjourned debate on tbis subject woe Its;ttie; post-
poned
TENEMENTS RECOVERY (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of the iec .ai readinc of this
Mr. P. SCROPE rem mastrated against post rg to the pre-
sent conjuncture a measure designed to facilitate the process
of ejectment is Imland. He moved as on ansendmeut t►at
Me bill be read • mooed time that day sin months.
Mr. O'FLAHERTY opposed the measure as being ill-
timed.

HATCHEL also con•i.lrred the bill unnecessary, as
the Irish law already offered sufficiently ready means for
dispnweseing tenants of their holcings at the aid of the
landlirds

A mierellantous easated, in whi.h Mr. Monad',
Mr. Memilt,.s. 04. Dann*, Lord Naas, Mr. Roche, Mr.
Grogan. Mr. Badltir, Mr. Bt. Garry'', and Mr. Napier took
pert. Ultimately Mr. Frame's declined to persevere with
bit aerator* against the opposition tow offered to it, and
the antetrinent being agreed to the bill was lee.

PROCESS AND PRACTICE (IRELAND) BILL.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL moved that the holm go
into canalise on this bill.

Mr. NAPtit and bilt. SADLEIR O&jreted, and hoped, as
the bill was only cereulat, d that morning, that further time
would be given for it. consideration.
Toe ATTORNEY-GENERAL roped the bon, and
learned genie's= (Mr. S.illeir) would not persist in op-
posing the motion. The bill was designed to rem-dy an
accidental omission.

Ttse house then went into cosasnittee on the W.
Claus* 1 was agreed to.
Oa clause 2 being proposed,
Mr. NAPIER moved its admission.
After a suggestion frost Mr. SADLEIR, the low
divided—

For the clause
Ageinet it
Oa clause 3 being proposed,
kr. NAPIIIR said that as the bill now stood, it would in-
flict great injustice on creditors end plaintiff., and he would
move a clause which would nullity all these ci
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL wished the hon, gentle-
man would not oppose the bill in its present stage.
The clause was agreed to. and went throned committee.
The house then resumed, the report w..s received, and the
bill was read a third time and paned.
The boas* adjourned at half-past see o'clock.

Ehc erisvegis.

OUTGOING
omtlio for Lisboa. Spain, mad Gibraltar will bo made
Joao 7.
noilo he &NM North Americo sad the United
*ill ha mai op oa the inroalag of hoar 7.
mils yid Ilandlles, to the ileditarnialaa, Unit,
tad* HoorlLoag, to., will be made ap oa
-f Arai 7.
__ _

/ad laths Hails, excluding Bermuda, Harannah,
Honduras, New Orleans, and Mexico, and including
• Madeira, St. Joande-Niearagus, New Granada,'
4 Pent, will be made up en the evening of June 11.
_ mane ter Gibraltar, Yalta, Oman, the ionises Islands,
-eirypt, Orytota, !beta, tad Chilli, "Mei Southampton, will
be made up ea the moraine of JAD.
Te• MMUS for bladed., the Bra sad Buenos Ayres, will
as made up ea the evening of Jai/ 4.

WATIII AT LONDON ItILTDOIL
T.• Dam-12Anass. 11%. 1141 k.
T.• Dam
14 11%.

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5.

AFTER the signal rejection of the Bishop of Lox-
DON's bill by the House of Lord., it would not be
worth while to pursue the discussion it has given,
rise to further, were it rot for two statements in the
bishop's speech : first, that he meant to persevere, if
defeated. in his purpose; secondly, that he propos( d
his Episcopal of Jimmy only as 'an imperfect
substitute for a Synod. Bishop BLOMPIELD, there-
fore, intends to become an ecclesiastical agitator in
his old age; and the ultimate object of his agitation
is to give, or, as he would say, to restore to the church
synodical action.
It is thus by degrees that the real design of the
episcopacy is disalesed. It may be summed up in
two words—more power. The assumption on which
more power is sought, is theoretically that the
church is independent. Now therein lies the great
mistake of Bishop BLOMPIELD and his friends. The
church of England is not an independent, but a
state church: it has no status, as an established
church, save that which the law has given ; and
the law has, as a fundamental condition of the
existence of this state church, placed the sovereige in
supremacy over it. The supremacy of the sove-
reign is, in its turn, limited and restricted by law ; it
cannot be exercised to alter or vary the doctrines, or
to take away the property of the church. But it is the
foundation of the church of England ; and any
attempt to give the church freedom of action irre-
spective of the sovereign, is to inverse the porition in
which the law has placed the sovereign and the
church, and on which the church received the pro-
perty she now enjoys.
The consequence of such a change would he, to use
Lord LANSDOWNE'S expressive lingusge, most "peril-
ous." Only conceive a gnat and wellthy, and
powerful body like the church, acting in its
sphere, supported by two rich universities, in-
dependently of both QUEEN and parliament ; now
regulating and determining doctrine, then interfering
with education, now engegi din correcting this her. sy,
then occupied in settling that form. Why, such a
body, so engaged, and divided whilst so occupied
into two great and irreconcileable par:its,
would quickly become such • nuisance as to
eq ui re summary abatement. And, when abated,
where would be the church of England ? A church
cannot go through an ordeal of this sort, and come
out of it as if nothing had occurred ; it would emer,e
with a loss of that laity in which, and not in its
wealth, its real greatness consists.

To an infallible church, such powers as the Bishop
of LoNDON seeks are indispensable ; if she emu)•
decide on questions of heresy, and on matters of form,
irraspectively of all state control, the delusion of kfal-
libility is, of course, destroyed. And the v‘ry essence of
a voluntary church is that it shall contain complete
placers of self-government and of discipline. But
the church of England is ither an infallible nor a
voluntary church. On the cmtrary, it is the form of
pul;lic worship which the state has, de ming it
the nearest approach to divine truth and apostolic
practice, established in England ; and it it be com-
plained that the state hes not given the pcwers
which an infallible, or a voluntary church pmsesses,
the reply is, that by restricting such authority, the
state they. by took security for the church of Eng.
land's fulfilling the intention of its cstablishma rt.

For example, had the Episcopal Board of Heresy
adecceted by Bt-hop BLOMFIKLD been called into
existence, it is more than probable that clergymen
holdifmer low views of baptismal regeneration would
have been declared by it incapable of holding bene-
fices. But the highest legal tribunal has decided that
the state never intended that such views of that doc-
trine should be fatal to the enjoyment of church bere•
dam Here, then, we should have the church de feat-
irg the very object for which the state called her into
legal existence, and for which the state transferred to
her the endowments of the papal church.
Tr e law has decided that persons of Mr. GORDAII.O
opinions are entitled to hold livirgs in the church.
Assume, again, that the Board of Heresy had declared
these opinions to be contrary to the articles of the
church—how would oath a state of things be recon-
ciled ? Would the state or the church have to give
way ? If the former, the church might go on narrow-
ing the interpretation of her article' until she had
driven out of her fold a large, perhane the larger,
proportion of bath clergy and laity. In each a case,
could the state tolerate the possession of the church's
property by the remaining minority ? If the church
had to give way, alter deciding authoritatively and
dogmatically against such opinions, the spectacle
would be exhibited of the church submitting to see
heresy taught in its benefices.
So that by increasing the power of the church,
either the authority of the state and the supremacy of
the sovereign will be destroyed ; or the character of
the church will be irretrievably damnified.
But is it fitting that a church should remain in the
bonds of the state? That is a question which it is
now too late for the church of England to discuss.
Either it must remain in those bonds, if it have to
continue as a state church, or it can .nly be released
therefrom by ceasing to be a state church. But, on
adopting the latter alternative, it mast, of course,
resign the temporalities made over to it by
the state. For the state, in assigning to
the church the property it now enjoys, meant,
as legal tribunals have solemnly decided, to
place it in what are calied bonds; and the condition
of emancipation must, therefore, be the renunciation of
the property. This, it will be recollected, was the
course taken by the high church party across the
Tweed a few years ago. When the state would not
relax tho bonds in which the church of Scotland was
holden, that parry gave up all connexion with the
state, resigned the state's property, and became r.
voluntary church ; but not the lees a church
because of their voluntary union. And now may be
seen in Edinburgh a church in full possession of
synodical action, such as the Bishop of LONDON (Lai-
&rat, s for the church of England. Merely to gain this
freedom of action' that church abandoned the state.
Wh e the Bishop of LONDON wants, on the one
hand, to enjoy all the benefits of state connexion,
and, on the other hand, to possess all the power and
authority of an infallible or a voluntary church ; a
combination quite incompatible with the principles on
which an endowed rational church reposes in
ouch a church can exist only here es a compromise,
the church resigning to the state some of the freedom
it would otherwise enjoy; and the state (riving to the
church a position it could not otherwise claim or
obtain. Now, hitherto, the state has fulfilled in a
most exemplary and generous manner the obligations
it contracted with the church ; but hitherto the
church has neglected the contract she made with the
state, viz., to afford the community ample religious in-
' struction ; and now when this neglect can no longer
be safely continued, the church begins to complain of
the other rendition of her existence, viz., restricted
freedom of action.

This disturbance of such fundamental questions the
Bishop of LONDON will fled, if it be persevered in, a
losing game for tho church of England. In its own
especial sphere the state has given the Church occu-
pation, Bishop BLOMPIELO may rely on it, which
noels shits faculties, without raising controversies
that affect its very existence.

MR. CHARLES HANN KENNEDY, Professor of Law
at Queen's College, Birmingham, hu lately addressed
a Letter to the LORD CHANCELLOR on what ho calls
" Circuit Leaps: a ;" and though the combination'
or associations, or clubs, thua characterised, are not
so formidable an affair as the Solemn Le wife. and
Covenant, or so well known as the late Anti-Curn
Law League, they appear, if not to be founded upon,

at all events to involve in some of their practical re-
sults, the principles of a very close monopoly.
Every English circuit has, oar readers know, •
Bar, which atteeds the Quzza's judges, and conduc s
the forensic business of the Civil and Criminal
Courts at the Assizes. This Bar is composed
of such common law barristers u choose to adopt the
part;eular circuit; and the motives which sway their
selection are, of course, personal connection, abuad-
anus of haziness on the oiscnit, deficiency of ability, or
room for additional competition. Tbese bars neither
teem legal corporations nor have my legal status; and
possessing neither, they have no legal right of admis-
sion, expulsion, or of discipline. The "been°e of such
legal features has, however, been supplied by social
arrangements.
Each bar has in the circuit towns, its " mess; " to
the social and convivial advantage' of which a
formal admission is necessary, as to a club in
town, and breaches of its regulations render the
offender liable to censure, penalties, and expulsion.
Practically, it is indispensable to a barrister going
circuit that he be a member of this " Bar Mess ;" for,
though you may travel circuit without belonging to
it, you will do so u a " pariah i" you will be discounte-
nanced by your brother barristers; ignored by the
judges in their dinner arrangements; restricted to
old single-handed briefs, even if the effect of such
treatment by your fellows or attornies be not to
deprive you of any brief to hold. The importance of
belonging to the "Bar Mess" is, therefore, very
great; and its practical power very large.
As, in Lord BROUGHAM'S style of speech and
writing, there are parentheses within the bellies of
parentheses, to within assize circuits there are ses-
sions circuits, which have again their "Meese'," and
affect in their smaller orbits similar powers. Ste-
glens bars are generally composed of the very junior
members of the assize bars; it is usual to require ad-
miesion at the greater mess as a qualification for the
smaller one; and, in their turn, it is usual for the
assize mess to tcke cognisance of any serious breath
of decorum, discipline, or profes-ional etiquette brought
before its " grand courts" from a sessions mess. The
importance of a circuit bar mess is thus considerably
augmented.

It is obvious that a barrister having once made
choice of any particular circuit, is likely to adhere to
it: for it is only by slow degrees that a connexion
is formed or briefs obtained ; the few brieflesa half
years on one circuit would on its cinange, in all pro-
bability, have to be repeated on resyt to another ;
and as leaders drop off or give up circuit, the juniors
of standing and reputation naturally occupy their
vacant pima. There are, consequently, strong mo-
tives for fidelity to a circuit once chosen. And prsc-
tically, the installers of change of circuit have been
PO rare as to have raised a strong professional preju-
di‘e against any such fickleress.
This prejudica is so strong as on, at least, somc
circuits, to have led to a rule that barristers of stand-
ing, on change of circuit, shall rot be permitted to
join the liar Vitus of the new circuit ; and, as the
coryquences of exclusion theref,om are so serious,
it is against this rule on the M.dlat.d Circuit that Mr.
KENNIiDY has addressed the Lortir CHANCELLOR.

Mr. KENNF.DY is a gentleman of some years stand-
ing at the bar. He originally went the Home Ci.-
cuit ; but, though a man of high Cambridge honour.,
he attended it, tie frankly states, "without faeces..."
lie %‘as lately, it seems, appoin•ed Profesaor of Law
at Queen's College, Birmingham, the duties of which
office compelied him to 1. ale London, and take up
hie residence there. Naturally enough, he then re-
solved on practising on the Midland Circuit, and b ,gan
to attend the Fessions of the town. Hit att.ndanco
however quickly gives rise tod;sputes and toannoyance.
Tnrse, Mr. KENNEDY RIM tt have sought to allay
by gaining admission to the C rcuit Mess; and he
scc rdingly consulted Mr. iII'MFREY, the Queen's
Counsel, who " declared to me," says Mr. KENNEDY,
"in private that I outht to be admitted, and pro-
milea atrenuonsly to support me." On application,
however, admission was unanimously refused Mr.
KENNEDY. Why, Mr. Iit3IFNEY explains in the
following letter :

Warwick, Tuesday morn'ag.
My dear 84,-1 am sorry to say that the circuit last night
determined, by an unanimous resolution, that you could
not be permitted enjoin us. Ifnu will see, by what I have
sal I. th.t I eon-erred in the opinion thus pronounced. Mr.
Whitehurst, the leader, hriugh• before us a resolution of
our own, delib-rattly adnpted, by which Mr. Davison, now
of that Welsh circuit, but w o pry .sad t change to ours,
wee, from his length of standing at the bar. and his having
for several yeses been a member of another circuit, held to
be inadmissible. Wnen I saw you at Coventry, I was not
aware of this case, but it was so exactly in point, that it was
impossible for us not to be gov:rned by it. I am, my dear
sir, vary truly yours, L. C. IitIIFREY.—C. R. Kennedy,
E q.

Now, though there were substantial differences be-
tween Mr. DAVISON'S case thus cited, as famine an
irn fraeable precedent, and his own, such as that Mr.
KENNEDY bad abandoned London practice, resided
permanently in the country, and hid been brought to
Bamingham as the law professor of its college, he
disclaims any right to set up his own as an excepticnal
case; but denounces the system under which such
exclusion can occur, and, on general principles, we
concur in his view of the question.
It is, in the fir.t piece, to be remarked, that to be
successful on circuit admissior.s to the bar, Mess
is almost indispensable ; barristers may, con-
sequently, be said to be compelled to join it. But,
in the second place, those who already belong to it
have a pecuniary interest in excluding men likely to
partioipate in circuit business. True, they always
admit inexperienced and untried competitors; but
here on the Midland Circuit they exclude men of
capacity, experience, and reputation. In other words,
they take in those of whom they have no fear, and
keep out those of whom they have reason to have any
apprehension. A physician of the highest eminence
may, if he please, leave Saville-row and settle at
Gravesend without let or molestation ; a solicitor of the
largest practice may shed Lincoln's-inn and re-assume
professional life at Margate without the smallest
hindrance; but a banister, briefness in one circuit,
is not to be permitted to woo fortune on another.
This, we think, is unjust to individuals.
But it is mere : it is hurtful to the public ; for it
limits the field whence professional aid is to be
chosen ; it restricts a profession on circuit which is
at beet a monopoly elsewhere ; and ouch limitation it
accomplishes and effects by means indirect and delu-
' sive ; for under the guise of dinner arrangement, the
Bar Mess inhibits banisters from practice in parti-
cular districts. Monopolies by law were bad enough,
but they were at least based on the assumption,
however false, that the whole community was bene-
fited by them. But monopolies by social associa-
tions are quite intolerable; for they spring from mere
selfishness and jealousy, unaccompanied by any such
delusion, ungarnished by any such pretence.

COLLISION AND DESTRUCTION Ole TWO VESSELS.—
A collision, involving the loos of at least a dozen lives, and
which took place off that part of the coot known as Black-
balls, has just been reported at Seatiam. Tho Harriet
Emma, Mr. Lund* master, belonging to and bound for
Wisbeach, left Sunderland barbiur on Wednesday last.
She proceeded out to ma as usual, and early in the morn-
ing of the followieg day the weather thickened to a fog,
the wind setting iu rather strong from the N. and N.N.E.
She was about wearing off en a starboard tack, when a
large schooner, apparently heavily laden, painted black,
with the bust of a female for figure-head, was seen
beating towards her, and before there was time
to wear off they MOO is fearful contact with
each other. On the vessels striking, Mr. Lundie, the
muter of the Harriet Emma, with his mate and ap-
prentice, clambered on board the schooner, leaving the
two survivors behind in their own ship. It was soon dia.
covered that the schooner was rapidly filling, and ere they
could misfit means apparently of preserving themselves, she
foundered with every soul on board, bee own crew and the
three, including Mr Lundie of the Harriet Emma. The
two men left on board the latter va ssel met with a more
fortunate fate. Finding she was settling down they enee-
gatically set to work in getting the boat which stood on the
deck clear, red having launched her, they got from the
wreck just before she lurched and went down also. After
being buffeted about in the open boat some time, they were
picked up by the Prince Albert, of Jersey, and landed neer
Hartlepool. The number who perished is thought to be
about a dozen, and none of the bodis a have been recovered.
PUNISHMENT OF DEATH BY BURNINO.—Some of
your readers will be surprised to learn that, within the
memory of witnesses still alive, a woman was burnt to death,
under sentence of the judge of assize, for the murder of her
husband. This crime—petty treason—was formerly punished
wi.h fire and faggot ; and the rep. al of the law is mentioned
by Lord Campbell in a note to his life of one of our recent
chancellors, hut 1 have not his work to refer to. The pat
to which this woman was bound stood, till recently, in •
field adjoining Winchester. She was condemned to be
burnt at the stake ; and a marine, hie paramour, and an
aceomplice in the murder, was condemned to he hanged.
A gentleman lately deceased told me the circumstances
minutely. I thick that he had been at the trial, but I
know that he was at the execution, and saw the wretched
woman fixed to the stake, fire put to the faggots, and her
body burnt. But I know two pm na still alive who were
present at her ezeoution.—Notes and (Maria.

Ferilia;fsi7,—;p:b—fi'w«itaiirifieii; iiiiicTiiiaTikiiii
na
1448. Ie the lest-wantt aid week there were 61;01; p: •p 7:: jam
wee relieved nod.r the efIlL clay" of whereas ' • . The owl
wsltickso *As ftw,al7 prow. ekke. eta,
wrip,e93. Illitier the ewitiow, • Tim ma
k Selsdhl. the 120. 6f mts .069 Milos, lad
wise reehhearli relief, , while 01104 of
week of 1860 sale 102 '2iliived The wo
be Vita etf1088." relibvareb weekbenee. :46.•, u•
elieepe •lii 12th moky, 1849, er IV miy.2360. , di... for I
wee 666, and the total cost of out- rill f for the chili, end l
seem labeled; showed a diesinntion of 14, . n. mum The well
of in-deor relief showed a very -alight htersese. -Os the. ligyvt, C•
Ilth May, 1849, the amiable yrdoor secommidagi?, 7, bs mad. al