began gambling. A quarrel ensued. One whips
off his wig and tosses it in the face of another.
There is a rush to the swords that have been
hung upon the wall. There is a riot of swords,
a swift stinging thrust, and one poor lad reels
against the wainscot, his hand to his side. The
waiters rush up with fresh lights, and find
that one of the gentlemen in the blue parlour
has been run through in the scuffle, and is
already past the help of surgeon. The murders,
also, were innumerable that arose from passionate
men in a moment of frenzy, of malice, envy,
hatred, or jealousy, suddenly resorting to the
deadly weapons carried at their sides.

A noxious and ridiculous custom has
already attained the age of sixty years. Need I
say I allude to the swallow-tailed coat and the
evening dress suit? Was ever such a grim,
ugly, undertaker's costume ever devised? But
no! it was not devised by any one; it grew by
degrees into a custom. No one introduced it,
no one invented it, it is merely the old George
the Third coat sloped away until no front is
left, and then dyed black. In the Walpole days
who would have dreamed of abolishing colour:
a thing that all humanity delights in, or limiting
the material of dress coats to cloth? The
modish people who went then to masquerades,
and to Ranelagh, and the Pantheon, wore silk
and velvet coats, maroon, cinnamon colour, claret,
olive green, and such hues, and their waistcoats
were silver laced or tambour worked. I do not
say these garments should be revived; but I do
say that in right of their cheerful contrasts and
varieties of hues, the people who wore them
were in better taste than we, their self-satisfied
descendants, are.

"What use are the swallow tails? Are they
beautiful? Do they help us to steer ourselves?
They render the coat lighter and less in the way
when we are dancing, or when we are in a crowd,
and that is the most that can be said for them.
Black, too, is good for the complexion, and
wears well; it levels us all to one broad even
class, and admits of no vulgar assertion of
wealth or rank.

     THE CRUISE OF THE ALABAMA.

TOWARDS the close of the last century, when
the United States were young, and their friend
France was at war with England, a treaty
between the French and American republics was
made to include a clause that forbade the
enemies of France to fit out privateers in American
ports. The French interpreted this as their
own right in such ports to fit out, arm, and man
privateers for harassing the commerce of
England, then at peace with the United States. The
American government denied the assumed right,
and demanded at Paris the recal of M. Genet,
the representative of France in the United
States, by whom it was being not only asserted
but acted upon. He was fitting out and arming
vessels, providing commissions for them, and
enlisting American citizens for land and sea
service. A message to Congress from
Washington procured at the same time the passing
of the first Foreign Enlistment Act of America.
This act made it high misdemeanour, with a
penalty of fine and imprisonment, to be
"knowingly concerned in the furnishing, fitting out,
or arming" of any vessel with intent that it
shall be employed by any foreign prince, or
state, colony, district, or people, for aggression,
against any other prince, or state, &c., with
whom the United States were at peace. It
became high misdemeanour, also, with a fine
of a thousand instead of ten thousand dollars,
and a penalty of one year's instead of three
years' imprisonment, for any person within the
limits of the United States to augment the
force of an armed vessel belonging to a state at
war with any other state that was at peace with
the Americans. The act further provided the
collectors of customs with authority " to detain
any vessel manifestly built for warlike purposes,
of which the cargo shall principally consist of arms
and munitions of war, when the number of men
shipped on board, or other circumstances, shall
render it probable" that such vessel is meant to
cruise or commit hostilities upon any people
with whom the United States are at peace, until
the decision of the President be had thereon, or
a bond given. Such was the first American
Foreign Enlistment Act of seventeen 'ninety- four,
so far as it concerned the fitting out of
privateers. Its provisions were incorporated in
the new act of eighteen 'eighteen, and our own
Foreign Enlistment Act of a year later nearly
corresponds with it.

Our English act, like the American, was
passed when occasion called for it. In eighteen
'seventeen the people of England sympathised
with the revolt of the Spanish colonies in South
America against their mother country. Spain
complained that material aid against her was
sent openly by British subjects; transports were
chartered to carry ammunition, ships of war were
prepared in our ports, not only did English
officers go out, but organised regiments of men
were formed and despatched. The English
government forbade by proclamation the
despatch of supplies to either belligerent. But it
was doubted whether our existing laws
applied to unrecognised governments, and whether
British subjects aiding Spanish colonists were
liable to penalty under the statute law. To
insert a clause in the old act disposing of this
doubt, and to remit the old common law penalty
of death for enlisting in foreign service without
license (a penalty that prevented juries from
convicting), the Foreign Enlistment Act now in
force with us was passed in the year eighteen
'nineteen. Its seventh section is to the effect
that if any person in any part of his Majesty's
dominions, here or beyond the seas, shall without
royal license " equip, furnish, fit out, or
arm," or procure to be dittoed, or shall
knowingly aid, assist, or be concerned in the dittoing
of any vessel to be employed by any sort of
people, or real or assumed government, against
any other ditto at peace with England, "as a