Curran owned truly, at the Prince of Wales' table, that he had been raised from the condition of a peasant only by the bar. All these great men must have been excluded by the regulations now about to be imposed, and doomed to inferior stations in life, where their talents would have been useless. Two other striking instances of the injustice of these restrictions might be afforded in the cases of Sir James Mackintosh and Sir Samuel Romily, both of whom it is known commenced their professional career with no fortune of four hundred pounds a year. The Benchers legislate in their secret chamber, over their wine, and give no reason for what they enact; but they may perhaps be taught the impolicy of agitating a question, which, being brought before Parliament, may lead to a further inquiry into the fitness of leaving such powers in their hands as they now even possess, and as they have acquired-nobody knows how.

Law-Suit about a Surname.

[This is translated from the French. It first appeared in the Paris Constitutionel. The translation was made for the Boston Daily Advertiser.]

A law-suit about a sur-name! Ridiculous enough, and yet not the less true, that the Royal Court of Nismes was so occupied through four solemn sittings, which were attended by a numerous and respectable auditory. The parties concerned were of the highest rank of society. There we saw a Prince of the Church, the Cardinal de la Fare, with the two Marquises, his brothers, who had cited before the court the two Marquises, Cabot de la Fare, one a knight of St. Louis, and formerly Chef d'Escadron, in the Light Cavalry; the other decorated with honors at Wagram and Dresden, and having also gained the rank of Chef 'dEscadron at the point of the sword. Of what, then did the Archbishop of Sens, and Auxerr complain? What did this Prelate require? He charged them with having usurped his name to make a surname for themselves. He charged them with having unduly taken the title of Marquis. He called on them to renounce both the title and the surname, and for the future to style themselves Cabot merely. What said the defendants? That they took the surname of de la Fare, in pursuance of an acquisition made in 1719 by their family, of an estate belonging to them, which descended with all its honorary and seignorial rights, that in so doing, they had followed an immemorial custom, that they had been Marquises quite as long as the Messieurs de la Fare; they had enjoyed both the title and the surname for a great number of years, without either being questioned; and that they had used them in a great number of public proceedings.

It was not one of the least remarkable features of this case, to hear the anti-feudal and even highly constitutional language used by the counsel for the Cardinal de la Fare; Our adversaries,'

said M. Bechard, 'pretend to hold the name of La Fare as a feudal surname! We leave them to defend property against usurpation, the law against abuse, constitutional principles against the decrepid pretensions of the old system. How many gentlemen peasants are there then whose nobility arises from the possession of a morsel of ground, or the remains of a ruined mansion. many noble citizens are there whose titles were probably lost in the revolutionary disorders? Public irony does ample justice to their fallen vanity. Let us leave to the descendants of our ancient nobility, stripped as they have been of so many other benefits by our civil troubles, let us leave them that wreck of their last splendor, the lustre they owe to their name.'

How

This cause gave a fine opportunity, no doubt, for satirical eloquence; let us see whether Mr. Cremieux, who was counsel for the defendants, turned it to their advantage. His biting sarcasms more than once excited the laughter of the auditory. A Prince of the Church,' exclaimed the orator, 'a Grandee of the State, the Cardinal de la Fare, the Archbishop of Sens and Auxerre, Primate of the Gauls and of Germany, Duke and Peer of France, awakes all at once from a long slumber; he directs his noble looks to the extremities of his kingdom; from the interior of a palace of our kings, where he dwells, he perceives at the bottom of the province a peaceful family, whose audacity has led them to assume the surname of La Fare! In the circle of the immense horizon, he sees a speck which annoys him: it is the maker's cottage which offends the proud vanity of the Prince; it must fall. Yes, the same hand which at the conclave puts into the sacred urn the inspired suffrage which gives a Pope urbi et orbi (to the city and to the world), this hand writes and signs a declaration, that the Cardinal is our chief, and also our adversary. At the sight of such a plaintiff in such a cause, have I not the right to exclaim, Vanitas vanitatum, et omnia vanitas!—(Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.) We have smiled,' continued the counsel, 'in thinking that the Primate of the Gauls and of Germany should be critical upon feudality: we were rejoiced to hear the Cardinal de la Fare render such brilliant homage to our constitutional charter. But why these complaints in favor of ancient families? Of what has the Prelate been despoiled in our troubles, who appears here to-day with so many titles, and whose splendor is supported by accumulated allowances from the state, which exceed 100,000 francs (£4000 sterling), when we ourselves receive a pension of 1200 francs (£ 48 sterling) for wounds which compelled us to leave the service of our country? Again, have not those that reproach us done the very same thing themselves? Look at our adversaries: they used to be La Fare Latour, and La Fare Tornal, they now are La Fare Allais, and La Fare Venejean. In earlier days your family had for its surname Bringuier;

at a later period you took the surname of La Fare, deriving it from an estate where your ancestors dwelt, if you be really descended from the ancient La Fares, which is very doubtful. On this estate was a castle, which was crowned by high towers, called whares or fares, because, each being surmounted by a light, they serve as guides to navigators; you have them in your arms, and your motto is, "Lux nostris, hostibus ignis," (light for our friends, fire for our enemies.) It was for this surname you gave up that of Bringuier.'

M. Injalric, the King's Advocate, who next addressed the court, shewed an equal degree of acuteness, in speaking of the mania of surnames and noble distinctions, and of talent, in discussing the considerations connected with this trial; as well as great independence in his conclusions. Though they were unfavorable to the Archbishop, we are sure his eminence could not hear the concluding words of the advocate without deep emotion: "There is no law that compels us to judge this case; and there is, on the contrary, a custom of eight centuries in favor of the Messrs. Cabot. It is difficult to make one's way through the cases of those who have used, or abused, as it may be, the silence of the law; and in this doubtful state of things, I am called on to make a victim of a respectable and aged man, and on the brink of his tomb-to plunge a poinard in his breast; I am called on to take away from him a name he has borne with honor, under which he is known, he has served, and he has done the most important deeds of his long career. In so doing I shall, I may say, tear from his breast the cross of St. Louis, which in that name he received; I shall carry despair into a heart devoted to the august family of our king: I should tarnish and disgrace him and his. Neither the honorable wounds of his son, Camille, nor the cordon of officer of the Legion of Honor which decorates him, nothing shall prevent me; and his two brothers, one a Lieutenant Colonel of the Guard, and the other a Captain, I shall see forced perhaps to quit their corps, or prove by their sword that they are not unworthy of the name they bear. I shall even reach him who was the companion of his Majesty in exile (M. de Bruges.) I shall even reach that General, brave in every battle, wise in every counsel, and always forward to support in the tribune the unfortunate who called for his aid, (Gen. Brun de Villeret, who is married to a daughter of the Cabot family,) and I shall listen to no considerations in carrying into effect I know not what law which has never yet been executed, and which is not capable of application to any case. Ah, no! I shall not; for the Messieurs de la Fare will not have it done themselves. Their noble heart denies what their mouth demands.'

The Court, in agreement with the King's Advocate, confirmed the judgment of the Great Tribunal, and decided that the Mes

sieurs Cabot had the right to call themselves Marquises of Cabot de la Fare, without, however, having the power to sign or call themselves by the surname of La Fare, whether alone or preceded by the title of Marquis, unless the name of Cabot was used before it.

Ought we to be sorry that the Messieurs de la Fare have lost their cause? Ought we to congratulate the Messieurs Cabot for having gained it? Neither one nor the other, we must laugh heartily; that is all.

Legislative Decrees of Divorce.

The subject of divorce is, in some states, under the jurisdiction of the legislature, in others within that of the judicial tribunals. An application for divorce necessarily involves one of two questions; first, whether the marriage was void ab initio, or, second, whether one of the parties has by violating the contract forfeited all benefit under it. Both of these questions are strictly of judicial jurisdiction. When, therefore, a legislative body undertakes to decree a divorce, it acts in the capacity of a judicial court, for otherwise there would be two objections to any such proceeding by such body in the United States, the first being general, and of force in all countries, the second arising on the constitution of the United States; for it is contrary to the first principles of legislation, to legislate on private controversies in individual cases, for the will of the supreme power being previously declared, is a rule of conduct; but to determine the penalty of an act after it has been done, or to legislate in respect to past facts is a characteristic of an arbitrary government; and the constitution of the United States accordingly prohibits any law of a state in violation of contracts, or any ex post facto law, and if we consider a legislature, therefore, as enacting and not adjudicating in cases of divorce, this provision of the constitution is violated. The legislatures must therefore be considered rather as judicial tribunals in the exercise of this branch of their jurisdiction. And the question very naturally arises whether they are the best organized courts for the discussion and decision of questions arising on this particular species of contract. In our abstract of the legislation of North Carolina, in the Jurist for October last, our readers will recollect a long list of decrees of divorce. The same subject makes a conspicuous figure in some other of the States. Governor Shultze, of Pennsylvania, presses this subject upon the consideration of the legislature of that state, in his message of November last, in the following terms:

'Application for divorces to the legislature become every year more numerous, and of necessity consume, in the investigation of the concerns of individuals, a large portion of that time which

might profitably be bestowed on the business of the public. In some cases it is feared that application is made to the legislature and acted upon without sufficient evidence that the party complained against has been duly notified of the application intended. Could not all the ends of justice likely to be attained by the granting of divorces, be more certainly attained if the jurisdiction of our courts were more extended over them, and the causes of divorce more fully defined than at present?'

Summary process against tenants to compel a surrender of the demised premises at the expiration of the term.-In the same message of Governor Shultze, to which we have already referred, he recommends a provision in relation to landlord and tenant, as follows:

'If I am not much misinformed as to the operation of the laws which now regulate the relations between landlords and tenants, they loudly call for the benefits of revision and consolidation. This is more especially the case in our cities and large towns, where a large proportion of the houses are rented. I recommend in an especial manner, that a prompt and cheap remedy be devised by which tenants shall be compelled to surrender up possession, when required so to do, at the end of the period for which the premises shall have been demised. The act of the 25th of March, 1825, which was intended to remedy this evil in the city and county of Philadelphia, is complained of as almost wholly inoperative, as the tenant must voluntarily have removed from the premises before the landlord can have a writ of possession issued. How far the peculiar powers vested in landlords for the securing of their rent is founded in justice, or derived from the ancient laws of England, and adopted without sufficient examination, is a matter not unworthy to occupy a portion of the time of the general assembly.'

Tax on Law Suits. We regret exceedingly to meet with the following passage in the same message of Governor Shultze, to which we have alluded above.

"The importance of giving publicity with as little delay as possible to the decisions of the supreme court, is sufficiently obvious. It seems to be considered that the profits to be derived from the publication of reports of decisions, will hardly compensate for the labor and expense to be incurred in preparing and publishing them. I would therefore recommend that provisions be made by law for the employment of a reporter. By a small tax on writs of error, which could not operate oppressively on any one, a fund might be provided for the payment of the reporter."

It seems to be enough to subject the parties to the costs of their