a very credible supposition-the husbands of wives who keep lodging-houses, and who insist upon their husbands absenting themselves from home during the hours devoted to 'ridding up' the said houses? Or are they men who believe that their vocation in life would have been that of a judge or a barrister, and who feel a melancholy pleasure in contemplating what they might have been, had Fortune smiled more kindly upon their birth?

There are four legal terms in the year, each of which is of about three weeks' duration, and during every day in term-time the three courts of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer sit 'in banc'-by this it is meant that the judges of each court sit together, and decide purely legal questions. If, upon the other hand, a matter of fact, as distinguished from a matter of law, has to be tried, one judge sits in another court, and disposes of it with the assistance of a jury. jury. Let me illustrate this distinction by an example. Suppose that I take a through-ticket, issued to me by the Great Loamshire Railway Company, from Queen's Cross to Hawestown; and suppose that it is necessary for me to change carriages at Hitchindale Junction, and be conveyed therefrom to my destination by the Little Loamshire Railway Company;

suppose, further, that in this second stage of my journey an accident occurs to my train, whereby I am injured. Of course I bring my action at the next Loamshire assizes against the Great Loamshire Railway Company; and the question of fact to be decided at the trial by the jury is, whether the accident occurred by the negligence of the servants of the Little Loamshire Railway Company? A sympathetic jury of my fellow-countrymen of course come to the conclusion that the Company's servants were in fault, and award me three thousand pounds by way of damages.

My joy at winning the trial would have been great had it not been for the fact, that the judge who presided at the trial at the Loamshire assizes ' reserved leave' (to quote the words of the 'Times' report) 'to the defendants to move to enter the verdict for them, upon the ground that the accident having occurred upon the Little Loamshire Railway Company's line, the plaintiff ought to have brought his action against that Company, and not against the Great Loamshire Railway Company.' Of course my case is, that I made my contract with the Great Loamshire Railway Company to be carried from Queen's Cross to Hawestown, and that I have nothing to do with the circumstance of the accident having happened upon the Little

Loamshire Railway Company's system. Here, however, as my reader will, I trust, see, is a legal point raised, which, according to the practice of our courts, would have to be decided by the judges sitting together in banc.

As we enter the Court of Queen's Bench, let me suppose that the counsel for the Great Loamshire Railway Company, Mr. Hardhead, Q.C., is moving to enter the verdict which was recorded in my favour, for the defendants pursuant to leave reserved, &c. Look well, my reader, at Mr. Hardhead, for although he is small in stature, although his voice is weak, although he is racked at the present moment by his hereditary enemy the gout, yet observe how superbly the little man argues his case; mark with what readiness he cites every case which can be found in the Law Reports bearing upon the point at issue, with what matchless lucidity he exhibits the exact differences in the points decided in each of these cases, and with what unfailing quickness he meets and combats any objections which may be made by the judges to his arguments. Right well, too, does he know how to snub a weak judge, who may worry him by making futile objections to his arguments, or an ignorant one, who is not up-as he ought to be-in his 'leading cases.' For example, you observe,

that small dark judge, who is seated on the extreme left of the Lord Chief-Justice, suddenly leans forward, and sputters out: I think, Mr. Hardhead, you will find that the case of Brown v. the Great Pontypool Canal Company is distinctly against your present contention.'

'And I think,' rejoins Mr. Hardhead, as quick as lightning, 'that your Lordship will find that Brown v. the Great Pontypool Canal Company was overruled by the Exchequer Chamber in Jones v. the Little Pudlington Steam-ship Company.' Whereupon, the little judge, blushing up to the roots of his wig, retires crushed into his corner; and if you look very closely at the corners of the Chief-Justice's mouth, I think that you will see lurking there a sternly-repressed smile of enjoyment at the discomfiture of the little judge, between whom and the Lord Chief-Justice it is well known that there is little love lost.

So the battle rages, Hardhead, Q.C., fighting gallantly on to the end; and when, at the close of a lengthened argument-'the details of which,' to-morrow's 'Morning Muffin' will tell you, 'were of no interest to the general public'-the Lord Chief-Justice says: 'Take a rule, Mr. Hardhead,' you feel that you have witnessed a great intellectual feat, and you wonder more and more at the

clearness and strength of the mind which dwells in Mr. Hardhead's frail body.

.

Although, as I have just said, the Morning Muffin' will to-morrow tell its readers that the argument to which we have been listening was entirely without interest to the general public, it will devote two columns of its space to a report of a trial for breach of promise of marriage, which is now going on in the little dingy room known as the Bail Court, and in which, during term-time, one of the judges of the Court of Queen's Bench sits to dispose of what are known as 'common jury cases.' Let us enter this Bail Court, though I promise you we shall not stay long, for see, the court is crowded from floor to ceiling with a dense mass of those greasy ill-dressed men, upon whose social position I ventured a few minutes ago to speculate. They are listening breathlessly, you observe, to the Milesian oratory of Mr. Serjeant Rory O'Moore, who is depicting, in burning words, the wrongs undergone by 'me fare cleent'-a young milliner who had become engaged to a man of five-andforty, and had been 'thraitorously' rejected by him. Presently, the plaintiff is called; and, when, upon being asked, in cross-examination, whether she did not think the defendant very ugly, she replies to the interrogating counsel: 'No, not half