a letter was delivered to the latter from the mother of his intended bride, requesting five thousand dollars to be forwarded, for articles she had bought for her daughter. Even the most scheming and mercenary of our mammas would recoil from so barefaced a request, while our young ladies would indignantly decline to be thus decked out before marriage at the cost of their future husband. The laws of dowry and succession are as contrary to our notions as this practice, and will be better understood from the following,-it being premised that, on a marriage taking place, each of the parties has to declare the amount of his or her fortune :

The two sums are united, and whatever increase arises in their joint fortune (but not by inheritance) belongs in equal parts to each. that if both husband and wife brought equal sums, say 30,000 dollars each, and the united 60,000 dollars were increased by trade, speculation, or by parsimony to 100,000; on the death of one of them, 50,000 dollars would go immediately to the children of the defunct, or to the heirs; the said defunct being only able to bequeath two-fifths of whatever property she or he may die possessed of: the said property to be paid down, without waiting for the death of the survivor.

A man and wife living together may speculate upon joint account, and although the law enjoins that all gains shall belong to both, in equal parts, yet in case of failure, or bankruptcy, the creditor cannot touch the wife's share, and can only seize on the husband's property. Suppose that, on marriage, the united property amounted to 100,000 dollars, the husband may trade and speculate with the whole sum, and, if he has luck, may perhaps double the amount; in which case the wife would be entitled to half, or 100,000, for her own share; but suppose the picture reversed, and debts amount to 100,000 dollars, the creditors in that case can only touch the 50,000 of his own, and his wife's must be paid first; so that any dishonest speculator may, as is said, 'play upon velvet,' for he can always retire, and fall back on his wife's resources.

To an honest man, who confines his speculations and his liabilities to his own share of the joint income, this law may be a very good one, and no doubt is so, since it saves many a poor woman and family from total ruin and misery; although it is pretty evident that it throws out a great and certain temptation to any man who has a quiet laxity of conscience to say to himself, "Why should I not make use of all this money? I can, perhaps, make a large fortune; but, in case of the very worst, I cannot be ruined-I shall always have enough to live on with comfort."

In the law of succession to property, let us suppose that the testator has several children. He or she has the power to leave two-fifths of the property to the favourite; the other three-fifths being divided equally among the remainder. No legitimate child can be disinherited, except in two cases (as a lawyer informed me): the first one is, the case of a son or daughter being condemned by a court of law to any punishment called infamous; the second is that of a grown-up son

striking a parent; but no other conduct can empower a parent to disinherit a child.'-Pp. 119-121.

We must confine ourselves to one more extract, which we select from the notices furnished of the habits of the alligator, whose acquaintance our author frequently made. The reader will not fail to note the sagacity evinced in the former part of the following extract. Until the exercises of intellect in the brute creation are more profoundly studied, we shall fail to comprehend the philosophy of mind. We draw a hasty and indiscriminating line between instinct and reason-assigning the former to the brute creation, and the latter to man. Yet it is obvious that many of the acts of the lower animals involve the exercise of reason, and cannot possibly be understood without it. To remember, to combine, to apprehend a danger, and to devise means for its avoidance, are certainly amongst the attributes of intellect; and these are clearly visible in what our author here describes. Speaking of the river Guayaquil, he says,

The horses and cattle who feed near the banks of the river, have a perfect dread of going to drink, and an Indian told me it was curious to see them all go together to drink, about four o'clock in the afternoon. I pulled up in the ship's little "dingey," to an island where a great many cattle were feeding, and I saw the same thing that the Indian had described. The cattle and horses were all collected together close to the water's edge, and began to make a great noise; the horses neighing, and the horned cattle lowing. The part of the river close to the cattle was soon crowded with alligators, lying close in shore, with only the tips of their noses out of the water. The horses and cattle seemed to know by instinct that if all the alligators were close to them, there would be none a few hundred yards off, for they all at once separated, took a gallop off to some little distance, and swallowed a hasty drink. When an alligator is awaiting in deep water for cattle coming to drink, he always lies close to the beach, with only an inch or two of his nose above water. When the horse or cow stoops down to drink, he seizes him by the nose, and pulls him down, making use of the tremendous tail for stunning the animal.

'I never read any remark in natural history about the use the alligator makes of his tail; but I assure the reader, who may be fond of that science, that I am correct, having seen it myself three times. When the animal that an alligator seizes is stunned, he is dragged to the bottom of the river and drowned. The teeth of an alligator could not bite off a child's finger, but could tear large strips of flesh from a bull. I watched an alligator at work one day, on the bank of a river in Central America; and, although I knew a good deal of the animal's habits, was surprised at the way he was devouring a large calf, that had been drowned by a flood. I saw him tear large strips of flesh that must have weighed seven or eight pounds each, with his claws and teeth, and then bolt the morsel, without much chewing.

I have watched the habits of the alligator for a long time, and believe that any man with ordinary presence of mind, and with a good hunting-sword, without fire-arms, is a match for the beast.

6

Much has been said and written concerning the impenetrability of the alligator's armour, and also about the crocodile's. Now, never having fired at a crocodile, I cannot give an opinion; but, having sent. some hundred balls into alligators, I can fairly judge of their defences, and I must say that those defences are not so impenetrable as some very late authors have described. No doubt, if a ball is fired at a large alligator, and hits him on the back, but in a very slanting direction, the said ball would glance off, without doing the animal the slightest injury. Yet, still, I am certain that an iron cast ball fired out of a fullcharged musket, at twenty or thirty yards' distance, and hitting a large alligator at right angles, in the centre of the back, which is the strongest part, would not only penetrate the armour of his back, but go out at the belly. A leaden ball would flatten if fired at the back, but that is not the place to fire at an alligator. If a rifle ball (which must be of lead, on account of the rifle grooves) is well aimed, it penetrates quite easily.

It is not a certainty to hit an alligator in the eye (when moving) with a single ball, at only thirty yards; but if a man cannot hit him in the lower part of the neck at a much greater distance, he had better abandon his rifle and take to other shooting, with a smooth bore and small shot.

The lower part of the side of the neck is the best place to be aimed at rather under the centre of the neck, as the scales get smaller and thinner as they approach the throat, and yield to a stout thrust from spear or sword. A great quantity of blood issues from any wound on that spot, and soon destroys the beast. I remember once shooting an alligator on the north uninhabited coast of the lake Nicaragua, under peculiar circumstances. I saw him watching a small herd of deer that were feeding about two hundred yards off. Two or three times he crept up the bank, and went twenty or thirty yards towards them, but as often did he return, plunge his body in the lake, and, resting his head on the low bank, remain gazing on the deer. I was in a canoe about forty yards off, but perfectly hidden, and I was doubtful whether to fire at the deer or the alligator.

Two hundred yards is too much for the best Purdey rifle for a certainty, and so the muzzle was turned on to the alligator's neck, and the ball hit him just in the proper place. After a struggle he was quite dead, and on my going up to him I found that the ball had gone out on the other side, and yet the beast was of a tremendous size.'-Pp.

212-215.

Our space is exhausted, and we must therefore refer such of our readers as desire further acquaintance with Mr. Byam to his volume, which is one of the most entertaining, and withal instructive, that has for some time come under our notice.

ART. X.-1. Public General Statutes of the Realm, 13 and 14 Vict. 2. Hansard's Parliamentary Debate, 1850.

THE House of Commons once on a time, as Lord Bacon relates, having sat a long time and done in effect nothing, Mr. Popham, the Speaker, meeting Queen Elizabeth, was asked what had passed in the lower House? To the royal question, Mr. Speaker sententiously replied- If it please your majesty, seven weeks! Our august parliament hath enlarged the rule; for though the bulky tomes which stand for our text forbid a literal construction of the moral, we cannot see that in respect of productive labour, the thirteenth of Victoria is much in advance of any year of good queen Bess. In naming the first characteristic of the legislative year lately departed, albeit the latest addition to the statute book is of that bulk which fable ascribes to civic dignity, and senatorial eloquence may be measured by the mile, this is the most that can be said for the delegated wisdom presently disporting itself on the Caledonian hills-it sat in St. Stephen's for five and twenty weeks. But in the comparison, let us be just to our stout old ancestors. If they quailed at times under the fiery temper of the virago queen, they never failed to assert the rights of the commonalty against the arbitary encroachments of the royal prerogative. Can as much be said for the enlightened legislators of this century? If we have no iron-willed Tudor to overawe and deter timid knights and bashful burgesses, from spending too much time in long speeches and in devising new laws and statutes to the neglect of the supplies, it must nevertheless be confessed that the people have gained little by the constitutional changes which have come over or affected their lawgivers and rulers. We have exchanged the arbitrary encroachments of a sovereign for the lawless tyranny of six hundred and fifty-six irresponsible crotchet dealers.

No thoughtful person who devotes attention to the history and character of English legislation during the last few yearsnot the hasty gossiping regard of newspaper perusal, but by calm critical reading in the statute books, can fail to be painfully convinced of the fact, that our law-making is year by year growing worse-more unprincipled in substance- cruder in form. It is losing all character of science and art-for science and art imply a knowledge of first principles; the master science which it should be, is degraded into the vulgar labour, as profitless as unskilful labour is and always must be, of mere statute accumulation. We have become habituated to a system of legis

lation, by hap-hazard, puzzling analysis to discover a wholesome or constitutional principle, and in its result is as injurious to material interests, as it is to the political morals of the community. A recent writer, who has given some charming pictures of Eastern life, relates a curious anecdote of Mohammed Ali, the much lauded practical reformer. An Italian adventurer having announced the discovery of a perpetual motion which would give rest to all the buffaloes and oxen of Egypt, our great reformer took this magician of science under his immediate patronage. A huge machine which was to be set in motion by a bucket of water, and was to go on moving for ever, was forthwith erected at vast cost and great profit to ruler and schemer. The day of trial came, when, lo, the wheel which was to move all the world, and give rest to the Egyptian buffaloes, took half a turn and sank into as quiet a repose as a Whig conscience. The story of Mohammed's machine is much like the principle of our modern legislation, only that the results of the latter are very much more disastrous. Is there a charlatan adventurer in search of fortune, or a nostrummonger thirsty for notoriety, with a plausible scheme, he is sure to find some echo in the houses of congregated wisdom, to be developed in time like Mr. Blake's echo; and poor John Bull pays his money and discovers his mistake, when the wheel will no longer move. It all comes from hasty, inconsiderate legislation,' says a practical philosopher, and the world murmurs 'hasty legislation,' proving sincerity by cheering on hasty legislators to the top of speed. But no man summoned by Fate to enact Deucalion to the universe-no man nor woman either, entrusted with a mission, has deigned to inquire the cause of haste; at least history is silent thereupon. There is, however, one consolation, amidst much to excite lamentation, that we are getting nearer and nearer a popular start in search of the real politic practical philosophies.

The popular standard of legislative perfectability, if we might trust platform men and leading journalists, who follow the eccentricities of opinion, seems now a days to be quantity, not quality. In the last days of the departed session, a very popular member complained that they could only boast of 58 bills, achieved by 1,041 hours of talk, against 89 bills and 982 hours' in the more prolific and less loquacious sederunts of 1849. In the few days that remained of the session, the House manfully pulled up the lee-way, and despite some merciless slaughter of the innocents, fully sustained its reputation for speed. We propose, in strict consistency with the character of our theme, to take a hasty review of the principal events of the session. Between seventy and eighty bills of a public character have survived the session, and now claim our respect as laws. Of the