for this purpose was undertaken by Mr. M. Milnes, who, on the 24th of February, moved for leave to introduce it. The question, he observed, which had been repeatedly debated in that House, was one of public justice, and concerned the comfort of many of our fellow subjects. The existing law, which was called Lord Lyndhurst's Act," but was not really his, began in injustice, and had done nothing but injury, and he proposed a remedy in the form of a very simple Bill. He knew there were social objections to the measure; but these marriages did take place, and proved happy unions. though the law sometimes inflicted a heavy penalty upon the innocent children in the devolution of property.

Mr. Walpole did not oppose the introduction of the Bill; but he wished to guard himself against being supposed to assent to one or two propositions in the speech of Mr. Milnes, who had not, he said, given a fair representation of the existing law or its effects. He (Mr. Walpole) put his argument against this measure, on the ground that the last thing a nation ought to do was to alter the law of marriage known to the country, especially when it had been sanctioned for many centuries; and, if it were to be altered at all, he de: precated the alteration unless the Legislature took its stand upon some definite principle that would prevent it from extending the alteration much further, and he believed this was not possible.

clause exempting Scotland and Ireland from its operation, moved as an amendment a resolution, that any measure that would have the effect of placing the law of marriage with regard to the prohibited degrees on a different footing in different parts of the United Kingdom would be highly inconvenient. He suggested an obvious difficulty that might arise under a partial change of the existing law, and urged objections, social and moral, to any change.

Mr. Ker Seymer, without discussing the religious question, considered it a matter of great importance to place the law of the land in conformity with the law of the Church of England, which, as well as that of the Church of Scotland, regarded the marriages proposed to be legalized as contrary to the Word of God. The law of the land had always held these marriages to be illegal, and the argument in favour of an alteration of it derived from their frequency would be applicable to bigamy, which was equally frequent. The practice of foreign Protestant countries upon this, as well as other points, should be no guide to us.

Mr. Pease and Sir M. Peto supported the Bill: Mr. Lygon, opposing it, contended that the arguments urged by its advocates, would be equally valid in support of polygamy.

freedom of intercourse with a wife's sister: but he had found that in other countries, where the law was different from our own, the inconvenience was not seriously felt.

Mr. Whiteside reminded Mr. Denman that the highest legal authorities had pronounced against the proposed alteration of the law, and asked him whether he had considered how the present Bill, excluding Scotland and Ireland, would affect the inheritance of property. The information which Mr. Denman had received from Norway as to the effect in that country of the law now proposed did not satisfy him (Mr. Whiteside) that our law was founded upon mistake, and he referred Mr. Denman to the Sardinian marriage law, which, on the point in question, corresponded to our own.

Mr. Milnes having replied, the House divided, when there appeared,

however, being found consistent with each other, both of them received the sanction of the Legislature.

Another Act of this session, which deserves notice, was one passed for extending the advantages and improving the security of Savings' Banks. This measure was introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, under the title of the Post-Office Savings' Banks Bill. The scheme on which it was founded was that of making the offices and functionaries of the Post-Office instrumental to the purposes of the Savings' Banks, and thereby offering increased facilities and conveniences to depositors in the various localities of the country. Although the measure emanated from the Government, it was not regarded as a party question, but received support from both sides of the House of Commons. Some objections, indeed, of a practical kind were made, and inconveniences were predicted as likely to result from the mixed functions of post-office and bank One of the foremost opponents was Lord Monteagle in the House of Lords, who said that the measure amounted to a subversion of the present system, and the substitution of another of a very questionable character. No plan had been submitted of the future machinery to be created, and no estimate of the probable funds with which the department would be called on to deal. He strongly condemned the interference of the Government in local concerns, and the possible speculations of a Chancellor of the Exchequer with a capital of 40.000,000, which, with the knowledge he possessed,

would resemble gambling with loaded dice.

The Marquis of Clanricarde also anticipated that the measure would prove a failure, and urged that it would, in the meantime, increase the expense of the Post Office for the performance of duties for which that department was never intended. Lord Colchester, however, who had been Postmaster-General under Lord Derby's Government, supported the Bill; which, if carried out with success, he thought would be an excellent measure. The opinions of the most competent judges in both Houses were to the same effect, and the measure was passed into a law.

The subject of Public Education came under discussion on some occasions during this Session, in both Houses, chiefly with reference to the Report of the Royal Commission on National Education, which, after a protracted inquiry, was presented to Parliament in the early part of this year. The Report on the whole was much commended for the ability and research which it evinced; but certain observations contained in it with reference to Ragged Schools gave dissatisfaction in some quarters; and complaints on this head were formally brought by the Earl of Shaftesbury under the notice of the House of Lords. On the 13th May, the noble earl, in moving for the evidence on which the part of the Report of the Education Commission which related to Ragged Schools was founded, protested against the Report as untrue, unfair, and ungenerous, and trusted that some explanations would be given of the conclusions arrived at there

in. He proceeded "to examine" what he termed the inaccuracies of the Report, quoted statistics to show that the Ragged Schools were by no means so insignificant in numbers and in income as the Report had assumed, and repelled with some warmth the accusations of the Commissioners against the discipline and cleanliness of the schools-accusations which he stigmatized as a "gross libel." The Commissioners, he said, were decidedly wrong in asserting that the bulk of the scholars were the children of parents who could afford to pay for their education at the ordinary day-schools: and as to the proposal of the Report for separating the children from their families, in order to subject them to the discipline of the industrial schools, he asked whence would funds be forthcoming for that purpose; why parents should be exonerated from their duties towards their offspring; and why the indirect beneficial influence of the Ragged Schools, exercised through the children, should be denied to the parents themselves. In regard to the opinion of the Commissioners that better results would be obtained by clothing the children, so as to enable them to attend the ordinary schools, he was convinced that the clothes would find their way to the pawnbrokers, that and valuable funds would be so far uselessly wasted. The opinion of the Commissioners that no beneficial effects had been produced by Ragged Schools was amply refuted by the decrease in juvenile delinquency in London during the last five years, the returns showing in that period a decrease of no less than 2524 in

In

the number of offenders. corroboration of these returns, Lord Shaftesbury quoted the opinions of Mr. Leigh, of Worship Street, and of the Rev. S. Warleigh, late chaplain of Parkhurst Prison, testifying to an improved moral tone in the youthful population since the establishment of Ragged Schools and Reformatories, and he contended that it was neither just nor fair in the Commissioners to ignore the fair inferences to be drawn from such facts. He wound up his argument on this subject, by showing how thrift and frugality had been encour aged among the poor, and how their children had been enabled to obtain an honest living, by the humane and persevering efforts of the promoters of these schools. All this, however, had been lost sight of by the Commissioners, who in an inaccurate and incorrect report had brought "vile accusations" against men who had sacrificed their own comforts for the good of their humbler brethren.

66

The Duke of Newcastle, having denied that there was one word in the Report which could be construed into an accusation against Ragged Schools, and having congratulated Lord Shaftesbury that he had brought this subject before the House in a less grandiose style" than he had used at Exeter Hall, vindidicated the Commissioners from the charges of misrepresentation and malignity, feeling convinced that they had exhibited the greatest impartiality in regard to every scheme brought before them, without putting forth any such claim to infallibility as the noble earl had

done. He then detailed what steps the Commissioners had taken to carry out their objects, and how the statistics in the Report were obtained, and observed that if there were any inaccuracy in the number of Ragged Schools the secretary of the Ragged School Union was alone responsible for such inaccuracy, and that any fault on this head must attach to the body with which Lord Shaftesbury was connected. He next proceeded to state the ground on which the Commissioners had come to the conclusion that "Ragged Schools in which industrial instruction was not given were not proper subjects for public assistance"viz., that it would be detrimental to the other schools of the country-and contended that the class of children at present in Ragged Schools would be more advantageously placed either in ordinary schools, reformatories, industrial schools, or in the pauper schools of the country. The Commissioners had dealt in their Report with schools of a higher class, and had made similar recommendations to those which they offered with regard to Ragged Schools. The noble duke quoted from the reports of police superintendents and assistant-commissioners who had investigated the educational condition of the metropolis, to show that Ragged Schools were principally taken advantage of by a class which did not so much need their assistance, and he put it to their lordships whether he had not shown the accusations of the noble earl to be unfounded. He defied Lord Shaftesbury to point out a single word in the Report implying that Ragged Schools had done no

good; what the Report stated was that Ragged Schools ought not to be looked on as a permanent system of national education, and that consequently they should not be recommended for a public grant.

Earl Granville expressed his hope that, as the papers referred to had been already presented to the House, no division would be called for on this question; and after a few words in reply from Lord Shaftesbury, the discussion terminated.

A more general debate on the conclusions of the Education Commissioners took place in the House of Commons on the 11th of July, the subject being introduced by Sir John Pakington, who called attention to the Report with the view of learning, as he stated, to what extent Her Majesty's Government intended to adopt its recommendations. He recapitulated the views and the arguments he had urged upon the House in former years on the subject of national education, in relation to the number of the uneducated, the want of schools, the early age at which children left the schools, the necessity of local agency, and of a larger amount of public aid, and he read extracts from the Report, which, he said, supported and in some respects adopted identically, those views. He gave a summary of the conclusions at which the Commissioners had arrived, and of their recommendations. They said that, whatever might be the merits of the present system, it was not adapted to spread education so widely as was required. Among their recommendations they included local inspection and control, and

a local rate. He drew the attention of the House to the position in which this question stood with reference to public grants, which there was a disposition on the part of the Government to discourage, and he complained of the denial of aid to Ragged Schools, a class greatly needing such assistance, and especially deserving it. It was proposed, he remarked, in the Estimates, to vote 100,000l. for the improvement of science and art, out of which sum prizes awarded to youths of the higher classes were paid, while 15,000 schools were languishing for want of succour. The general character of the Report justified him, he thought, in saying with confidence that the present system could not meet the requirements of the nation. He did not, however, press the Government to make any definite announcement of their intention, considering the voluminous and complicated nature of the Report, but he hoped that the subject would receive their anxious attention, and that at no distant date they would be prepared to legislate upon it.

Mr. Henley cordially concurred in recommending this valuable Report to the consideration of the Government. There was much in it which seemed to give some sanction to the views of Sir J. Pakington in favour of secular education. At the same time, the Commissioners admitted the excellence of the present system as regarded religious teaching. He drew conclusions from the Report different from those of Sir John, remarking that it was clear that a great discordance of opinion had prevailed among the Commissioners. In specifying the con