sessing costs under clauses 74 and 75 upon the clerk of the peace, who will require in some cases, as it seems to us, a separate Court for that purpose. But a more difficult question will be, by what process such costs are to be recovered? Reference is made to "the manner in which any penalties or forfeitures are by this act recoverable;" that is to say, "by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of the of fender or person liable or ordered to pay the same respectively." But how can you distrain upon a parish, the party really liable, and spoken of as such in this Bill? Touch the goods of either guardians or overseers, and they will maintain an action of trespass. In present practice there is no recovering the costs of an appeal ordered by a Court of Quarter Sessions, but the overseers may be proceeded against by indictment for not obeying the order. As the guardians are hereafter to decide upon removals and the trial of appeals, they ought to stand in the shoes of the unlucky overseers in case of failure. We may take this opportunity of stating, that the Bill is by no means sufficiently explicit as to the duties intended to be transferred to the guardians, and those to be retained in the overseers. the framers of this Bill aware that it is now a moot point under Gilbert's Act, whether parish indentures should be signed by the guardians or the overseers?

Are

The principal mischief done by the House of Commons to the original bill, is contained in the new bastardy clauses, which will go very near to preserve the present practice, or at all events the full effect of it. The woman will retain the same power of victimizing the reputed father, and therefore the same power of extorting money or compelling a marriage; she will therefore retain the same motives to incontinence, and continue to be, as now, in many cases, the corruptor. On the other hand, when the proposal comes from the man, it will not have that colouring of mere selfishness, which his exemption from the consequences would give it, but come recommended, as usual, by the prospect that if anything happens he will be a sharer in the calamity. As little change, therefore, of a salutary tendency, will have been effected in the bastardy as in the settlement law.

We proceed to a brief consideration of the new and remark

able machinery to which it is proposed to submit the future administration of the Poor Laws. The first point of difficulty and danger in the working will be, the appointment of the Central Board of Commissioners. The government, however desirous to give the act a fair trial, will be placed in a dilemma in the first instance, between the selection of persons in whom the country will be disposed to feel confidence, and the selection of persons most fit to discharge the duties of the office. The two objects of choice ought to be identical, no doubt; but we very much doubt if it is actually the case, and a grand mistake may be committed by a weak judgment in the choice of these alternatives. So far as the two Houses of Parliament are concerned, they will have admitted in passing this bill, that those principles of improvement which are set forth by the Commissioners in their Report, and which it is proposed of course should be the groundwork of the new "rules, orders and regulations," are correct and sound. We assert this on the ground that the discovery of such salutary principles, and thé design of giving them general application, are the whole foundation upon which the erection of this new authority rests. The ministers therefore will be careful not to place in such appointments persons whom they do not fully know to be possessed of such sound views and principles as will have received the approbation and sanction of both Houses of Parliament.

With regard to the extent of the powers to be exercised by these functionaries, we cannot see the least cause for alarm, provided they be properly chosen; inasmuch as we cannot conceive any personal motives by which they might be influenced to abuse such powers to the disadvantage of the community; nor will they do so, in our apprehension, except through ignorance, indolence, rashness, timidity, or general incapacity and indiscretion. Our only doubt regarding the efficiency of this bill is, whether the powers entrusted will be sufficient to contend against the mass of blind prejudice and selfish interest which will be arrayed in support of the present maladministration.

There is one amendment introduced by the House of Commons, which may have the effect of embarrassing the commis

sioners almost in the outset of their difficult career, and of clogging their exertions with a mass of business utterly indefinite and incalculable, to which certainly they ought not to be exposed. It is enacted, that, on the 1st of June 1835, all relief to able-bodied persons in the employment of individuals shall cease, and that all relief given to such persons, without setting them on work, shall after that period be disallowed: "Provided always, that in case at any time or times after the said 1st day of June 1835, the overseers or guardians of any parish or union shall deem it advisable that relief should be given to any able-bodied person, or class of able-bodied persons, or his or their family, who at the time of applying for such relief shall be wholly or partially in the employment of any person or persons, it shall be lawful for such overseers or guardians to make a statement and report to the said commissioners, of the special circumstances which in their judgment render such relief expedient, and thereupon it shall be lawful for the said commissioners, if they think fit, to permit such overseer or guardian, for such time and on such conditions as the said commissioners shall think it advisable, to give relief to such able-bodied persons, or class of able-bodied persons, or his or their family, although such persons or class of persons may at the time be wholly or partially employed as aforesaid."

It surely cannot be prudent or practicable to fix upon three persons the cognizance of all the individual cases of exception to the general rule, which might be set up by all the overseers in the kingdom unwilling to enforce it. If the general rule be considered too sweeping to be enforced at once through the whole country, it would surely be better to leave it to gradual introduction by the commissioners themselves, subject, afterwards, to temporary and local suspension at their discretion. It must not be forgotten, however, that no law has ever yet been passed distinctly and directly sanctioning the kind of allowance here contemplated, and that the mischievous practice which it is here proposed to give the commissioners the power of sanctioning is generally considered as opposed to law.

Clause) enacts, that the rules, orders, and regulations of the Commissioners shall be removable by certiorari

only into the Court of King's Bench, with the intention, probably, that their legality should be questionable only there. The Commissioners, however, will depend, for the enforcement of their rules, orders, and regulations, upon the justices of peace, who are empowered to convict summarily of disobedience &c. Upon such occasions it is presumed, that the legality of the regulations disobeyed will be a question for the magistrate to entertain, especially as the control given to the Commissioners over the administration of the Poor Laws, is accompanied with these words of modification, "according to existing laws, or such laws as shall be at the time existing." These words were introduced in the House of Commons, at the instance and suggestion, if we remember, of Sir James Scarlett, and they appear to have no effect or drift whatever, unless, perhaps, the above construction might be fastened on them. It would certainly be desirable (if necessary) to use express words, withdrawing the question of legality from the consideration of the magistrate, and confining his adjudication to the fact of disobedience and the amount of the penalty.

We have not space to enter into a minute examination of the details of this Bill, but many of the minor provisions appear to us likely to involve great difficulties in practice. If any important alterations occur in the Lords, we shall probably have the opportunity of noticing them very briefly before the time of our publication.

量

A

ART. VIII.-FORENSIC ELOQUENCE OF AMERICA.-WEBSTER'S SPEECHES.

Speeches and Forensic Arguments.

By Daniel Webster.

Boston. 1830.

We know not how this work has escaped our attention so long, as it presents us with the very opportunity we have been anxiously watching for,—an opportunity of giving a fair specimen of the Forensic Eloquence of America. We have already laid under contribution the bar of every other country in which the mode of administering justice affords free scope to this description of oratory; and the bar of the United States will certainly not object to Mr. Webster's appearing on such an occasion as their representative. Unless both public fame and private information speak false, he has enjoyed "an extent of practice, a degree of success, in the profession of the law, rarely equalled in any age or country," and (no rare occurrence in America) has amply sustained as a debater in congress, and generally as a public speaker, the high celebrity he had won for himself in the courts.

His Forensic Arguments, strictly so called, are of a comparatively dry character, and, like all chains of reasonings, incapable of being estimated by parts. We therefore pass on at once to a forensic speech replete with interest, in which almost all Mr. Webster's peculiar powers had full scope for displaying themselves. It is entitled an "Argument on the Trial of John F. Knapp for the murder of Joseph White, Esq., of Salem, in the county of Essex, Massachusetts." The following is a brief outline of the case.

Mr. White, a highly respectable and wealthy citizen of Salem, about eighty years of age, was found on the morning of the 7th of April 1830, murdered in his bed, under such circumstances as to create a strong sensation in that town and throughout the community.

Richard Crowninshield, George Crowninshield, Joseph J. Knapp, and John F. Knapp, were a few weeks after arrested on a charge of having perpetrated the murder, and committed for trial. Joseph J. Knapp soon afterwards, under the promise of