blown down, and three persons who had
taken shelter in them killed on the spot.
At Pontoise, out of sixty-six parishes,
forty lost every crop, and the rest half,
two-thirds, or three-quarters. This storm,
though not very destructive to human life,
had more of the suddenness and irresistible
violence of a tropical hurricane about it
than any other on record.

One or two scientific facts about hurricanes
should not be overlooked. It is a
singular fact that, though they rage with
the greatest fury in the torrid zone, they
never touch nor cross the equator. In the
polar regions they are entirely unknown.
A hurricane first observed at the Windward
Islands in October, 1858, spread almost or
quite to the shores of Europe. Hurricanes
are always preceded by an aërial wave that
gives notice through the barometer of the
coming danger. English and American
savans, tracking these storms for three
thousand miles, have proved them to be
progressive and rotatory. Their progress
varies from four to forty-four miles an hour;
but their rotatory movement is greater near
the centre than in the outer whirls. The
hurricanes of the South Indian oceans are
estimated to range from one hundred and
eighty to six hundred miles in diameter.
The most established theory of the origin of
these storms is that certain winds set in
motion by some mysterious agency
towards the poles experience an opposition
from inert masses of air they meet in their
course, as well as from opposing trade winds,
and so are spun by the conflict into whirls.
It is to be hoped that in time the telegraph,
by its swift warnings, will disarm hurricanes,
and render them almost entirely
powerless.

ROTTEN HUSTINGS.

In the autumn of last year the columns
of the newspapers were filled, day after
day, with reports of the evidence taken
before certain Commissioners appointed to
inquire into the existence of corrupt
practices in certain boroughs. Two, at least,
of the edifying histories that were at that
time disclosed are well worth consideration,
now that the facts are presented clearly
and concisely. The reports of the
Beverley and Bridgwater Commissioners
disclose so remarkable a state of things, and
those towns hold so infamously
distinguished a place in the annals of bribery,
that it would be a pity to allow the deeds
done in them to remain unchronicled. Let
us see what the Commissioners have to
tell us about the first of these very rotten
boroughs.

Beverley, the capital of the East Riding
of Yorkshire, has had considerable
experience in the profitable business of electing
members of parliament. Its electoral
privileges date from as remote a period as
the twenty-third year of the reign of
Edward the First, and ever since the fifteenth
year of Queen Elizabeth this favoured
spot has returned two members. At the
date of the last election, which took
place in 1868, and was the immediate
cause of the visit of the Commissioners,
the population numbered some twelve
thousand, and the registered electors two
thousand one hundred and one. Before
the passing of the last Reform Bill, in 1867,
the constituency was only some eleven
hundred strong. Of this body about eight
hundred were notoriously open to bribery
and corrupt influences. Of this eight
hundred, some three hundred were free
lances, without political principles or
prejudices one way or the other; half the
remaining five hundred were determined to
be paid, whenever money was going (and
money always was going at Beverley elections),
by the candidate whose political
views they favoured, if possible; if not,
then by his opponent. If the money came
from a candidate of their own colour it was
not considered a bribe; if it came from
the other side it was called a bribe, but that
circumstance made very little difference.

Two-thirds of the gentlemen of Beverley
who recorded their votes in the elections of
1857, 1859, 1860, and 1865, received (so
think the Commissioners) bribes in some
shape or other. In 1854, owing to
accidental causes, there was actually a pure
election in Beverley: a circumstance, no
doubt, productive of great discontent among
the inhabitants. The next election, which
took place in March, 1857, was, however,
conducted on strictly corrupt principles,
and was followed by the unseating of one
of the successful candidates, on the ground
of want of qualification; thus securing for
the borough a fresh election without the
annoyance of inconvenient questions as to
bribery, on the part of a Committee of the
House of Commons. This second 1857
election took place in August, and from it
may be said to date the history of the palmy
days of Beverley bribing. And it was on
this occasion that the master spirit who
has ever since ruled over political Beverley
came to the front. The candidates were
Major Edwards, who polled five hundred