minutes, after which he coolly restored the
knife to its place.

The decoration of one altar, or rather
shrine, at this funeral, was very curious.
The entire platform and shrine were covered
with flowers, and animals cut out of the skins
of fruit; often the fruit itself was used as an
ornament. One Indian lizard was particularly
conspicuous, and might have been
greeted as a brother by any bona-fide lizard
travelling that way. It was formed of tlie
skin of a water-melon, and the peculiar
yellow streaks on the rind served to make
the deception perfect. The railing around
the shrine was composed of many hundreds
of small pint decanters, placed mouth to
mouth (one standing inverted on the other),
and arranged in rows, the top being bound
with a graceful wreath of flowers.

THE BEST MAN.

Passing, the other evening, along a street
which offered a short cut to a spot we wished
to reach, we happened to look up a narrow
court, and saw a fight. There was probably
nothing remarkable in the mere fact of a
fight occurring in that spot. Indeed, the
calm indifference with which a majority of
the bystanders looked on, conveyed the idea
that fights were rather the rule than the
exception there. We ventured to inquire of a
bystander what it was all about.

The individual whom we addressed
apparently connected with the costermongering
interest) seemed rather surprised at our
question. On our repeating it, he informed
us—smiling at our simplicity—that there
was no quarrel in the business at all; but,
the combatants were, and had ever been, the
best of friends. The present contest was
simply to decide the question as to which of
the two was the best man.

We have already confessed our ignorance
of pugilistic technicalities, and therefore do
not mind running the risk of being laughed
at by admitting that this explanation seemed
a strange one. The term "best," try it whatever
way we would, could not be brought to
suggest to our mind any other meaning than
the superlative of "good," and how the
greater or lesser goodnese of two men could
be decided thus, by fisticuffs, we were not
able to conceive. The stronger man we
thought might be thus proved, or the more
ruffianly man, but how "the best"?

"How preposterously illogical!" we
exclaimed, turning disgusted from the scene.
"The idea of making knock-down blows a test
of excellence! Judging of man's virtues or
goodness by the power with which they use
their fists! Well may we talk of the necessity
of education."

Can there be anything more absurd? Yes,
when my Lord This, and the Right Honouable
Captain That, get up a fight between
themselves, simply to decide which is the
better man. For what is it when my lord
seeks to prove his honour by discharging
pistols at the gallant captain—what is it when
the gallant captain endeavours to convince the
world of his integrity by blowing out his
lordship's brains, but a fight to prove which
is the better man? The gentleman is no
less logical in his proceeding than the
costermonger; the only difference being, that the
gentleman's tribunal is sometimes a more
dangerous one to appeal to than the
costermonger's.

A pistol-bullet through the head of him
who has traduced your moral character; at
any rate, it silences him on the subject for
the future. So, in like manner, if the injured
party falls, you may be sure all recollection
of the injury is completely blotted out from
his mind. But a sound thrashing settles a
disputed point of rival excellence almost as
finally. The costermonger who is hopelessly
defeated grants the superior merit of his
adversary, and ever afterwards acknowledges
him as the better man.

True is it that the victorious pugilist may
be a brutal husband, a more brutal father;
a drunkard, a blasphemer, bad as a citizen,
dishonest as a man—but he has gained the
fight! His adversary may be his opposite
in everything; and, until now, may have been
thought a pattern to his neighbours; but
then he got his head broken. No one denies
his virtues; but the other is the better man.
And so the slanderer, the betrayer, the
seducer, has managed by superior skill to
shoot the man he wronged. Well, he has
given satisfaction. His honour is secured.
He is the better man.

So lately as until the beginning of this
very nineteenth century of ours, it was
the law that questions affecting men's
characters or property might be decided by
hard blows. Before the passing of the Act,
Fifty-ninth of George the Third, chapter
forty-six, in the year of Grace one thousand
eight hundred and nineteen, was it
not written in the statute-book of England
that any man might prove his innocence of
crimes alleged against him, might establish
his right to a disputed property, by fighting
his accuser in the criminal, or his opponent
in a civil action?—in other words, proving
him (the accused or sued) the "better man."
Yes; even within the lifetime of the present
generation, Trial by Battle, as the legal mode
of testing a man's character or probity by
fighting was denominated, remained a
portion of the English law.

In the year eighteen hundred and eighteen,
—as we mentioned in a recent article on
Duelling—Abraham Thornton, charged with
the murder of a young lady named Mary
Ashford, astonished everybody, and somewhat
puzzled his judges by refusing to submit his
case to be tried by a jury, and by availing
himself of the long-since disused, and almost
forgotten law which allowed him, instead, to