Several successive kings made no distinction between him who killed a buck, made to be killed, and him who killed his brother man, although at one time there was this distinction, the killer of the game died without benefit of clergy, or the game either, which latter was probably of more consequence to the hungry serf than the mummery of the priest over his grave; and the mankiller could have his crime commuted by a fine of a few shillings paid to the lord of the estate where the deed was committed. Thousands of hungry serfs had their eyes put out, their legs chopped off, their arms torn from their bodies, for taking small game which ran at large over the island.

Any man in the kingdom could be summoned to attend on the chase, and have his property confiscated if he did not attend. He might have a good excuse for staying away; his wife might be dying, and he wish to hear her last request, and then close her eyes in death's sleep; but what cared the king for any such operation until it was likely to be performed on himself?

Old John of Salisbury, who was quite apt to have "a mind of his own," and a free tongue withal, had no very exalted opinion of this Game Code. He says: "what is more extraordinary is, that it is often made by law criminal to set traps or snares for birds, to allure them by springes and pipes, or use any craft to take; and offenders are punished by forfeiture of goods, loss of limbs, and

even death. One would suppose that the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea were common to all; but they belong to the crown, and are claimed by the forest laws wherever they fly. Hands off! keep clear! lest you incur the guilt of high treason and fall into the clutches of the hunters. The swains are driven from their fields, while the beasts of the forest have a liberty of 'roving,' and the farmer's meadows are taken from him to increase their pasture. The new-sown grounds are taken from the farmer, the pastures from the grazier and shepherd, the beehives are turned away from the flowery bank and the very bees are hardly allowed their natural liberty." This sounds very like Chartism! A man must be made of strange stuff to read of such outrages on his race without indignation. But what have we in these times to do, some one will ask, with the game laws of the Norman Conqueror? Much every way. Humanity has been affected by them much, as stocks are on 'Change by failures. Think for a moment what would have been the condition of the race in this age had they never been crushed under the wheels of despotism! How much loftier would have been its elevation in intellect, science and religion! And how much more valuable would existence have been to every man. He would have commenced life under fairer auspices. He would have called to his aid the genius of millions who had enlarged the bounds of science, and made the world better and brighter. He would have been saved the fruitless experiment and endless blundering that have cost the happiness of whole generations. The hoof of oppression has trampled out in its ruthless stampings many a Milton and Newton and Bacon and Shakspeare that would have lighted up the ages through which man has made his dark pilgrimage. In wandering by fancy over this wilderness he has travelled, where the wrecks of humanity have been strewed, we can adopt the touching lines of Grey,

"Some village Hampden, that with dauntless breast
The little tyrant of his fields withstood;
Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest,

Some Cromwell, guiltless of his country's blood."

Power has hitherto "shut the gates of mercy on mankind,"-this is its History.

THE CRIMINAL CODE of England, which remained in force even till our own times, was probably the most bloody that ever obtained in any nation, savage or civilized. Holinshed states that no less than seventy-two thousand persons died by the hands of executioners during the reign of Henry VIII. Sir William Blackstone mentions it as one of the most melancholy facts in the world's history, that "among the variety of actions men are daily liable to commit, no less than one hundred and sixty have been declared by act of Parliament to be felonies without benefit of clergy; or in other words, to be worthy of instant death."

What language can convey to the mind of a modern so striking a picture of the estimate the aristocracy of England have always placed upon man, as is found on the statute book (Geo. I. С. 22, and 31, Geo. II, C. 42,) where the punishment of death is to be inflicted on the man who shall break down the mound of a fish pond, whereby any fish shall escape, or cut down a cherry-tree in an orchard! One such inhuman law is as good as a hundred, to show the spirit of English legislation in past ages. What must have been the tyranny of power, or the condition of its victims, when to steal a loaf of bread, or a bit of meat, worth twelve pence, even though the wretch might be starving with his wife and children, condemned him to death!

THE POOR LAWS. - Much has been said on all sides, of the "English Poor Laws," -" Poor Laws, indeed," said the Irish orator, "they are rightly named," for it seems to be the opinion of very many persons well qualified to decide, that although they have been sustained ostensibly for the benefit of the poor, they have been to them a great curse; that in all their forms and variations they have only been a complicated machine of despotism, As my views of this subject may not correspond with the opinions of many other persons, lest I should be thought singular, I refer the reader to a number of papers on the Corn Laws, in the Edinburgh Review, and particularly to an able article in the October No. of that Journal for 1841, in which will be found a full confirmation of my views and statements.

The writer of this paper, which appeared in October, 1841, does not hesitate to say, in speaking of the origin of these laws: "We believe that the English Poor Laws originated in selfishness, ignorance and pride; we are convinced that their origin was an attempt substantially to restore the expiring system of slavery." And on the supposition that they were designed by their founders to effect benevolent designs, the writer says, "they have in scarcely a single instance attained their objects, and in most cases have produced effects precisely opposite to the intentions of their framers; that they have aggravated whatever they were intended to diminish, and produced whatever they were intended to prevent."

I have often noticed high commendations of the Poor Laws in American publications of established character, and from statesmen of some fame. Such commendations would probably have been withheld had the truth been known.

It appears that this benevolent legislation, so far from ameliorating the condition of the English poor, robbed them of what little liberty the iniquitous laws had hitherto spared them.