those of the Fair, any one with a taste for a tumult may gratify it at the smallest possible cost, by forcing
his way to the platform when a particular train is full, and knocking down any number of policemen who
would have him wait quietly for its successor. Another magistrate (to be sure, this was an Alderman,
Mr. Wire) commuted to a small fine a very stern sentence of imprisonment which he had felt it his duty
to pass, because "he was unwilling to allow the prisoner's sister, who was expected to arrive in town, and
who was a perfect stranger in London, to meet with no protector by confining her brother." A third
magistrate (Mr. Tyrwhitt) lately announced from the bench his belief that the courage and manliness of our
army and navy are solely referable to the good old custom of flogging; but, in proceeding to offer himself
with the marks of the cat 'o 'nine tails upon him as additional proof and example of the excellence of
a custom from which, he tells us, he had never flinched as a boy, "knowing he had deserved it," the worthy
justice somewhat heedlessly exposed his doctrine to a test which it would probably be more just than civil to
apply to it. A fourth magistrate (Mr. Jardine), after severely lecturing a Welch justice of peace for scandalous
misbehaviour and a gross assault, fined him forty shillings. A fifth (Mr. Beadon), after as bitterly
condemning a yet worse assault of a very different kind, visited it with a punishment yet more inadequate.
And a sixth (Mr. D'Eyncourt) showed how aptly he could fall into the ways of his more experienced
brethren of the police bench, by taking the occasion of one of his earliest sittings after his appointment,
to dismiss with a mere pecuniary fine a case of the most atrocious character (which he had just before very
properly resolved to send to Newgate), "in consequence," as he remarked, "of the earnest appeal from the
prosecutrix, and also in consideration of the two principal witnesses residing at such distances as Birmingham
and Norfolk."

It will be observed, as an almost invariable rule with police magistrates, that the most violent severity of
speech, and the most incomprehensible mildness of purpose, go curiously hand in hand. Goldsmith's
gentleman in black, who abuses everybody whom he means to relieve, and denounces with an excess of
sham anger what he knows he has not the real courage to resist, is the type they most commonly follow.
In justice to another section of the magistracy, however, let us say that this rule is not universal. For solid,
unmitigated harshness, unrelieved by the faintest glimmering of mildness of any kind, commend us to a
bench of country justices, with a luckless agricultural tramper before them. It is a very few days since
Sir Edward Filmer, and his brother magistrates of Kent, fined a wretched fellow ten shillings, with costs to the
amount of seventeen shillings more, for the theft of two cabbages worth something less than four farthings.

NARRATIVE OF PARLIAMENT AND
POLITICS.

IN the HOUSE OF LORDS on Monday, July 28, on the
consideration of the report upon the Smithfield Market
Removal Bill, Earl GRANVILLE moved the omission of
certain clauses giving the corporation of London
compensation for being deprived of the tolls.—A division
took place upon this subject, when the proposition of
the noble earl was carried by a majority of 44; the
numbers in its favour being 59, whilst those opposed to
it were only 15.

On Tuesday the 29th, the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption
Bill was read a third time, and passed.—The Earl
of ABERDEEN, however, protested against the measure;
which was also opposed by Lord Stuart de Decies, Lord
Nelson, the Marquis of Sligo, and Lord Gage. The
Bishop of OXFORD spoke at great length in support of
the bill, which he held to be necessary in order to repel
the recent Papal Aggression, though he was dissatisfied
with some of its provisions.—The Duke of ARGYLE
defended the bill from the objections made to it by the
Bishop of Oxford.—An amendment proposed by Lord
MONTEAGLE was withdrawn previous to the bill being
passed.

On Wednesday the 30th, the report on the Charitable
Trusts Bill was brought up, and several bills were
forwarded a stage.

On Thursday the 31st, the Stock in Trade Bill was
read a third time and passed, after some observations
from the Earl of MALMSBURY, complaining of the
parochial burdens being by this bill thrown entirely on
real property, and a promise on the part of Earl Grey
that a measure embracing the whole subject of parochial
assessment was now ready, and would be brought
forward at the earliest opportunity.

The Lord CHANCELLOR, in moving the second reading
of the Court of Chancery Bill, explained its various
provisions, and stated that it had the assent of Lords
Lyndhurst and Brougham. He also took occasion to
deny the impression which generally prevailed, that no
attempt had been made to improve the administration
of justice in the Courts of Chancery, and recited at some
length the various orders which Lords Eldon, Lyndhurst,
Brougham, and Cottenham had made as to the practice
of the court—The Earl of ABERDEEN said the extent
of Lord Lyndhurst's approbation was, that it was a very
small step in the right direction. He took that
opportunity of calling attention to the unsatisfactory state of
the arrangements respecting the hearing of Scotch
appeals, which presented the anomaly of the principles
of the Scottish law being administered by judges who
had not made that system of jurisdiction their early
study.—Lord Cranworth and the Lord Chancellor
admitted the theoretical anomaly, but contended that
the practice worked well.

On the second reading of the Medical Charities
(Ireland) Bill, a discussion arose respecting the delay in
carrying out the provisions of the act for stopping
intramural interments in the metropolis, when the Earl of
SHAFTSBURY entered into explanations to show that
the cause of the delay did not exist in the Board of
Health, but was rather to be attributed to the dilatory
proceedings of the government.—Lord WHARNCLIFFE
called attention to the question of ventilation in mines,
in relation to an act for the appointment of inspectors
passed last year; and on his motion some returns on.
the subject were ordered.

On Friday, August 1, Earl TALBOT, in moving for
certain returns relating to the Admiralty Regulations for
the Promotion of Officers in the Navy, censured the system
recently adopted for compelling the retirement of naval
officers.—Earl GREY, in agreeing to the returns,
defended the Admiralty regulations, and censured the
noble earl for "the unconstitutional practice" of
canvassing appointments made by the crown.

The royal assent was given to a number of bills, among
which was the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.

On Monday, August 4, Lord HARRINGTON moved for
certain papers connected with the Court of Chancery,
introducing his motion with a speech on the necessity
of chancery reform.—The Lord CHANCELLOR
refused to give the returns, because they were too
voluminous and would be of no use to the house.
He said that no less than 540 orders had been
made for the relief of the suitors, and that they
had very much diminished the delays and the fees in
the pursuit of justice.—Lord HARRINGTON: The speech
of the Lord Chancellor is most unsatisfactory. He
promised me the papers yesterday.—The Lord CHANCELLOR:
No.—Lord HARRINGTON: I say distinctly that he did
promise, and to-day he refuses them. He refuses even
to give the names of Lord Eldon's law reform
committee. He boasts of the 540 orders, law reform orders
issued by five Lord Chancellors; but two good orders
would have reformed the Court of Chancery, viz., firstly,
an order to do away with fee-gathering; and, secondly,