the case prior to 1746, and as is still the case in the
affairs of Ireland.

NARRATIVE OF LAW AND CRIME.

An Improvement in the Means for the Detection of
Crime has been introduced by Mr. Gardener, governor
of the Bristol City and County Gaol. The descriptions
in the "Hue and Cry," &c., of notorious prisoners in
custody, with the view of learning their antecedents,
&c., having been found most defective in practice,
Mr. Gardener has introduced the system of taking
multiplied copies of daguerreotype likenesses of notorious
offenders in custody, which, with written descriptions of
the prisoners, are forwarded to the principal gaols and
police-stations in the kingdom. As daguerreotype
likenesses of the most accurate character can be now taken
on paper, the only expense is the trifling cost of the
apparatus. The first likenesses taken in the gaol by
this process were those of a notorious burglar, an utterer
of forged Bank of England notes, and a female criminal
suspected of having been long "wanted" in other parts
of the kingdom, and they were despatched to various
gaols, &c., in the northern and midland districts.

The Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into
the Law of Divorce have issued their first Report. In
its conclusion they thus sum up the alterations in the
law which they recommend:—"That the distinction
between divorce à mensâ et thoro and divorce à vinculo
matrimonii shall still be maintained. That the grounds
for divorce à mensâ et thoro shall be conjugal infidelity
and gross cruelty. That wilful desertion shall also be a
ground for divorce à mensâ et thoro, or else shall entitle
the abandoned wife to obtain from her husband a proper
maintenance by way of alimony. That divorces à mensâ
et thoro may be obtained by the wife for the above-
mentioned causes, as well as by the husband. That
divorces à vinculo shall be allowed for adultery, and for
adultery only. That divorces à vinculo shall only be
granted on the suit of the husband, and not (as a general
rule) on the suit of the wife. That the wife, however,
may also apply for a divorce à vinculo in cases of
aggravated enormity, such as incest or bigamy. That
recrimination, connivance, and condonation shall, if proved,
be deemed and treated as bars to the suit. That
recrimination shall include any of the grounds for which
divorces may be obtained à mensâ et thoro. That the
existing mode of obtaining a divorce à vinculo shall no
longer be continued. That a verdict at law, and an
ecclesiastical sentence, shall not be considered as
preliminary conditions which must be complied with before
it can be obtained. That a new tribunal shall be
constituted to try all questions of divorce. That all
matrimonial questions also, which are now determined in
the ecclesiastical courts, shall be transferred to the same
tribunal. That this tribunal shall consist of a Vice-
Chancellor, a Common Law Judge, and a Judge of the
Ecclesiastical Courts. That the party who seeks a
divorce, whether it be a divorce à mensâ et thoro or
divorce à vinculo matrimonii, shall pledge his belief to
the truth of the case, and that there is no collusion
between himself and his wife. That the evidence shall
be oral, and taken down in the presence of the parties.
That in general the process, practice, and pleading shall
conform to the process, practice, and pleading of the
Court of Chancery, as recently improved, with such
additions as may be beneficially derived from the
ecclesiastical system. That the rules of evidence shall be
the same as those which prevail in the temporal courts in
the kingdom. That the judges shall have the power of
examining the parties, and also of ordering any witnesses
to be produced, who, in their opinion, may throw light
on the question. That the court shall be entrusted with
a large discretion in prescribing whether any and what
provision shall be made to the wife, in adjusting the
rights which she and her husband may respectively
have in each other's property, and in providing for the
guardianship and maintenance of the children. That
there shall he only one appeal from a decree of the
court, and that the appeal shall be carried to the House
of Lords.

Important trials have taken place at Edinburgh; a
number of officers of the North British Railway
Company having been indicted for culpable homicide in
having Caused by Misconduct a Fatal Railway Collision.
On the evening of the 8th October, an irregular goods-
train was despatched from the Edinburgh terminus to
Portobello, three miles distant, with orders to deposit
two sets of empty waggons on sidings at that station,
and to leave the body of the train, consisting of trucks
loaded with pig-iron, at Leith Junction, a quarter of a
mile nearer Edinburgh. In violation of the rules of
the Company, this train was despatched within fifteen
minutes of the starting of the regular evening mail-
train to Berwick and London, which leaves Edinburgh
at 5.55. This goods-train, which would appear to have
left Edinburgh about 5.45, reached Portobello in eight
or ten minutes. It "shunted" the empty waggons into
two sidings at the furthest end of Portobello station;
and, leaving the pig-iron trucks on the down-line at the
station, directly in the way of the mail-train, the engine
proceeded along the up-line, passed the station, with the
object of taking the crossing at the other end of the
trucks, and taking them up the down-line to Leith
Junction,—thus running directly to meet the mail-train.
While the goods-engine was taking the last crossing,
the mail-train, which was three minutes late, came in
sight; and, as it was not to stop at Portobello, it was
advancing with great speed. The engine backed to the
trucks, but it had scarcely begun to move them when a
collision took place. The tender of the goods-engine
was overturned upon it, and the mail-train engine was
rampant upon the heap. The guard of the goods-train,
who was fastening the pilot-engine to the trucks, was
killed on the spot, and the driver and stoker of the
mail-train, as also some of the passengers, suffered
severely from the concussion. The first persons tried
were M'Donald, the driver of the goods-engine, and
Wilson, the station-master at Portobello. Hogarth, a
porter, had been included in the charge, but he was
acquitted, and appeared as a witness. The prisoners
were accused of culpable homicide, and culpable neglect
of duty. The main ground for the charge against the
station-master was, that he occupied himself in weighing
two carts when he knew that a goods-train had arrived
and that the mail was due in ten minutes: when he
came upon the platform, it was too late to prevent the
collision, though he made efforts by signals to stop the
mail. It was proved that the driver was directed by the
deceased guard to do what he did; but then, the driver
was responsible if he pursued a dangerous course. Mr.
Rowbotham, general manager, explained the system upon
which the line was worked. He said:—"A goods or luggage
train is not allowed to depart fifteen minutes before
a mail-train; and it is the duty of a station-master, if it
arrives within fifteen minutes, not to allow it to proceed.
It was the duty of the engine-man of the goods-train to
have removed his goods-train before the mail-train was
due. Three or five minutes previously would have been
enough. To have done so sooner, might have rather
impeded than promoted the safety of the line. The
goods-engine had a certain work to do, and if it could
do its work within the time that night, it would rather
have promoted the safety of the line than obstructed it.
Being at the station thirteen minutes before the mail-
train, it was not the engine-man's duty to take his train
immediately off the line, for the work would then have
to be done after the mail-train had passed. Although
by the rules the goods engine-man is instructed to have
the line cleared fifteen minutes before the expected
arrival of a passenger-train, there are some of the rules
we should not expect to be so strictly enforced in the
case of a pilot or jobbing engine, and especially in cases
of emergency. I think this was a case of emergency."
The counsel for the prisoners endeavoured to throw the
blame on the driver of the mail-train for not stopping
on observing the signals. In charging the jury, the
Lord Justice Clerk animadverted on the evidence of the
manager:—"The testimony of Mr. Rowbotham showed
how dreadful was the result of that carelessness which
such lax notions on the part of superior officers on
railways encourage. It showed how heavy is the
responsibility of superior officers who would take on
themselves to support such views as to the duty of their
inferiors. It is by the propagation of such notions,
by railway superiors sanctioning such lax and such