was perfectly uncalled-for. Well; what followed? Mr. Blewitt
rose in wrath to reply, when the house called out, "Spoke, spoke!" and
Blewitt was muzzled; the moral of which is simply this--you ask a
question in the house, and the individual addressed has a right to
insult you, you having no power of rejoinder, under the etiquette of
"spoke." Any flippancy may overturn a man at this rate; and the words
"loud laughter," printed in italics in the _Chronicle_, is sure to
renew the emotion at every breakfast table the morning after.

Now I am sorry for Blewitt, and think he was badly treated.

A NUT FOR "LAW REFORM."

[Illustration]

Of all the institutions of England there is scarcely one more lauded,
and more misunderstood, than trial by jury. At first blush, nothing
can seem fairer and less objectionable than the unbiassed decision of
twelve honest men, sworn to do justice. They hear patiently the
evidence on both sides; and in addition to the light derivable from
their own intelligence, they have the directing charge of the judge,
who tells them wherein the question for their decision lies, what are
the circumstances of which they are to take cognizance, and by what
features of the case their verdict is to be guided. Yet look at the
working of this much-boasted privilege. One jury brings in a verdict
so contrary to all reason and justice, that they are sent back to
reconsider it by the judge; another, more refractory still, won't come
to any decision at all, and get carted to the verge of the county for
their pains; and a third, improving on all former modes of proceeding,
has adopted a newer and certainly most impartial manner of deciding a
legal question. "Court of Common Pleas, London, July 6.--The Chief
Justice (Tindal) asked the ground of objection, and ten of the jurymen
answered that in the last case one of their colleagues had suggested
that the verdict should be decided by tossing up!" Here is certainly a
very important suggestion, and one which, recognising justice as a
blind goddess, is strictly in conformity with the impersonation.
Nothing could possibly be farther removed from the dangers of undue
influence than decisions obtained in this manner. Not only are all the
prejudices and party bearings of individual jurors avoided, but an
honest and manly oblivion of all the evidence which might bias men if
left to the guidance of their poor and erring faculties, is thus
secured. It is human to err, say