CHAPTER XCV.

BLACKWOOD'S

EDINBURGH MAGAZINE.

NO. CCCCVII. SEPTEMBER, 1849. VOL. LXVI.

CONTENTS.

THE SCOTTISH MARRIAGE AND REGISTRATION BILLS, 263

THE CAXTONS.--PART XVI. 277

AUTOBIOGRAPHY--CHATEAUBRIAND'S MEMOIRS, 292

THE GREEN HAND.--A "SHORT" YARN.--PART IV. 305

MORAL AND SOCIAL CONDITION OF WALES, 326

THE STRAYED REVELLER, 340

NEW LIGHT ON THE STORY OF LADY GRANGE, 347

THE ROYAL PROGRESS, 359

DIES BOREALES. NO. IV. CHRISTOPHER UNDER CANVASS, 363

EDINBURGH:

WILLIAM BLACKWOOD & SONS, 45, GEORGE STREET; AND 37, PATERNOSTER ROW,

LONDON.

_To whom all communications (post paid) must be addressed._

SOLD BY ALL THE BOOKSELLERS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.

PRINTED BY WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS, EDINBURGH.

BLACKWOOD'S

EDINBURGH MAGAZINE.

NO. CCCCVII. SEPTEMBER, 1849. VOL. LXVI.

THE SCOTTISH MARRIAGE AND REGISTRATION BILLS.

About two years ago, we found it necessary to draw the attention of

our readers to certain alterations which our Whig rulers, or at least

a section of them, proposed to make in the existing law of marriage,

as applicable to Scotland. We stated our views moderately, not

denying that in some points it might be possible to effect a salutary

change; but utterly deprecating the enforcement of a bill which was

so constructed as to uproot and destroy the ancient consuetudinal law

of the kingdom, to strike a heavy and malignant blow at morality and

religion, and which, moreover, was regarded by the people of Scotland

with feelings of unequivocal disgust. So widely spread was that feeling

amongst our countrymen, of every shade of political opinion and form

of religious faith, that we believed this ill-advised attempt, once

arrested in its progress, would be finally withdrawn. Popularity, it

was quite clear, could never be gained from persisting in a measure so

unpalatable to the whole community; nor had England, save in the matter

of Gretna-green marriages, any visible interest in the question. It is

just possible--for self-conceit will sometimes betray men into strange

extravagancies--that a few individual legislators had more confidence

in the soundness of their own opinions than in that of the opinions of

the nation; but, even if we should give them credit for such honest

convictions, it still remains a doubtful point how far individual

opinions should be allowed to override the national will. There may

be parliamentary as well as regal despotism; and we are much mistaken

if the people of Scotland are inclined to submit to the former yoke,

even at the hands of those who claim honour for their party on the

strength of traditionary denunciations of the latter. We think it is

pretty clear that no private member of parliament would have attempted

to carry through a bill, the provisions of which had been encountered

by such general opposition in Scotland. No ministry would have lent

its support to such a case of insolent coercion; and we confess we

cannot see why the crotchets, or even the convictions, of an official

are to be regarded with greater favour. In a matter purely Scottish,

it would, indeed, be gross despotism if any British cabinet should

employ its power and its interest to overwhelm the voice of Scotland,

as fairly enunciated by her representatives. That has not been done,

at least to the last unpardonable degree; yet, whilst grateful to Lord

John Russell for having, at the last moment, stopped the progress of

these bills, we may very fairly complain that earlier and more decided

steps were not taken by the premier for suppressing the zeal of his

subordinates. Surely he cannot have been kept in ignorance of the

discontent which has been excited by the introduction of these bills,

three several times, with the ministerial sanction, in both houses of

parliament? Had a bill as obnoxious to the feelings of the people of

England, as these avowedly are to the Scots, been once abandoned, it

never would have appeared again. No minister would have been so blind

to his duty, or at all events to his interest, as to have adopted the

repudiated bantling; since, by doing so, he would have inevitably

caused an opposition which could only terminate in his defeat, and

which, probably, might prove fatal to the existence of his cabinet. And

yet, in the case of these bills, we have seen three separate attempts

deliberately made and renewed--first in the House of Commons, and

afterwards in the House of Peers--to thrust upon Scotland measures

of which she has emphatically pronounced her dislike. No wonder if,

under such circumstances, when remonstrance is disregarded, and the

expression of popular opinion either misrepresented or suppressed, men

begin to question the prudence of an arrangement which confides the

chief conduct of Scottish affairs to a lawyer and judge-expectant,

whose functions are so multifarious as to interfere with their regular

discharge. No wonder if the desire of the Scottish nation to have a

separate and independent secretary of state, altogether unconnected

with the legal profession, is finding an audible voice at the

council-boards of the larger cities and towns. Of late years it has

been made a subject of general and just complaint, that the public

business of Scotland is postponed to everything else, huddled over with

indecent haste at untimeous hours, and often entirely frustrated for

the want of a parliamentary quorum. This arises from no indisposition,

on the part of the House of Commons, to do justice to the internal

affairs of the northern kingdom, but it is the natural result of

the system, which virtually leaves Scotland without an official

representative in the cabinet. Every one knows that Sir George Grey

is not only an able, but a most conscientious home-secretary; but, in

point of fact, he is home-secretary for England alone. It is impossible

to expect that, in addition to the enormous labour attendant upon the

English home administration, any man can adequately master the details

of Scottish business. The fundamental difference which exists in the

laws of the two countries would of itself prove an insurmountable

barrier to this; and consequently, like his predecessors, Sir

George Grey has no personal knowledge either of our wishes or our

requirements. He cannot, therefore, take that prominence in a Scottish

debate which his position would seem to require; and the duty which

ought to be performed by a member of the cabinet is usually intrusted

to a subordinate. In this way Scottish public business receives less

than its due share of attention, for the generality of members,

observing that cabinet ministers take little share in such discussions,

naturally enough attribute their silence to a certain degree of

indifference, and are careless about their own attendance. All this,

which involves not only scandal, but positive inconvenience, would

be cured, if a return were made to the older system, and a secretary

of state for Scotland numbered in the roll of the cabinet. The want

of such an arrangement is positively detrimental to the interests of

ministry; for, during the last session, they have assuredly gained

but few laurels from their northern legislation. Four or five bills,

purporting to be of great public importance, have been withdrawn, and

one only, which establishes a new office connected with the Court of

Session, has been graced by the royal assent. Among the lapsed bills

are those which form the subject of the present paper; but they have

not yet lost their vitality. On the contrary, we are led to infer that,

in the course of next session, they will again be introduced, in some

form or other, before parliament.

This mode of treatment is so unprecedented, that we cannot pass it

over in silence. It may not be unconstitutional, according to the

letter of the law; but if it be true, as we maintain it to be, that

the people of Scotland have already protested against these measures,

it does seem rather tyrannical that for the fourth time they should

be compelled to organise a resistance, and to make themselves heard

through petitions, lest the very absence of these should be held as

an intimation of passive acquiescence. This kind of reasoning has

actually been resorted to; and a very pregnant instance of it is to

be found in the reported speech of the Lord Advocate upon the third

reading of the Marriage Bill. "With respect to the dissenters in

Scotland, there was not a single petition from them against the bill;

_therefore they were to be taken as being in favour of it!_" This is a

notable _sequitur_. In the first place, it is quite a new doctrine to

maintain that because men do not organise meetings, or go out of their

way to petition parliament against any measure, they must therefore

be held as assenting. In the second place, it is rather a startling

thing to find that men are expected to petition in a religious rather

than in a social character. If this view be correct, no individual

Anabaptist has any right to express his political opinions unless he

petitions along with his congregation. No member of the Episcopal

Church ought to have a voice in a secular matter unless he goes along

with his diocesan. We are almost tempted to ask the question, whether

congregations in Scotland are to be regarded as mere political clubs,

or as associations for praise and worship? The town-councils of most

of the large towns of Scotland have petitioned against the bills--are

there no dissenters at any of those boards? One hundred and thirty

parishes have separately recorded their detestation of the bills,

not one parish has made the smallest demonstration in their favour,

yet, according to the logic of the Lord Advocate, those that are

silent must be held as acquiescing! It is remarkable, however, that

if these bills really tend to confer such inestimable boons upon the

people of Scotland, that stubborn race have been singularly reluctant

to acknowledge the extent of the benefit. Nay more, it is certainly

a most striking fact, that notwithstanding the religious divisions,

which are more numerous here than elsewhere, it has been impossible to

procure one isolated testimony, by an ecclesiastical body, in direct

support of these singularly unfortunate bills. Lord Campbell, in his

evidence given before the Committee of the House of Commons--of which

more anon--indicates an opinion that the clergy of the Established

Church of Scotland have been actuated in their unanimous and decided

Opposition to the Marriage Bill by the desire to preserve a monopoly

of celebrating formal marriages. If so, how is it that none of the

dissenting clergy, in whose favour this monopoly was to be broken

up, came forward in support of the measure? But the truth is, as we

shall presently show, that no such monopoly exists at all, save in

the imagination of the noble lord. By the law of Scotland, there is

no distinction in favour of any sect, and clergymen, of whatever

denomination they may be, have the right, and are in the daily

practice, of celebrating formal marriages.

"I admit," says the Lord Advocate, "that the clergymen of Scotland are

generally against this measure; but surely the house will think that,

by this time, the third year of the discussion of this bill, these

reverend gentlemen ought to have come forward with some substantial

grounds for their opposition." We must fairly confess our inability

to fathom the meaning of this remark. Two hundred and twenty-five

petitions against this bill have emanated from the Established

Church--at almost every meeting of presbytery and synod, the matter has

been fully and thoroughly discussed--the moral and political objections

to its enactment have been over and over again brought forward--yet

still, in the eyes of the learned lord, there is a want of "substantial

grounds." It is not enough, therefore, to say that a measure is

unnecessary, immoral, and impolitic--it is not enough to assign reasons

why these opinions are entertained, and to repeat them year after year.

Something more must be done, according to this remarkably liberal view,

before it becomes the duty of the legislature to give any weight to

the general remonstrance--something "substantial" is required, but no

intelligible definition has been vouchsafed of that substantiality.

Nor does the following sentence by any means tend to sharpen the edge

of our apprehension. "If they (the clergy) meant to say that they

came here to assert that they had the power or right to supersede

the interference of the legislature, they would put forward a right

in them much greater than the Church of Rome asserted, because they

took their right to interfere in reference to the rules of marriage,

on the ground that it was a sacrament, which carried with it a degree

of plausibility; and they required no witness to their marriage, or

proof of the marriage, beyond that of the parish priest who performed

the ceremony." Now, if any kind of meaning whatever is to be extracted

from this sentence, it must be taken as an inuendo that the Church of

Scotland, in petitioning against the bill, is directly or occultly

preferring some ecclesiastical claim to interfere in the celebration

of regular public marriages. The Church of Scotland asserts no claim

of the kind, nor has it ever been so much as hinted that such a right

was inherent in that body. The church does not seek to interfere with

the legislature. It neither has, nor claims ecclesiastical dominion

or preference in the matter of marriage. As a Christian communion and

a Christian church, it has entreated parliament not to pass a measure

which, justly or not, it considers as hurtful to the moral character

of the people, and in doing so, it has been actuated by no motive save

a due regard to its high and holy functions. If such considerations

as these are not sufficient to justify the right of petitioning, it

is difficult to understand why that right should be exercised at all.

Must a pounds-shillings-and-pence interest be established, before

the Church of Scotland can be allowed to approach the legislature on

such a question? In our mind, the absence of all pecuniary interest,

and the utter abnegation of any kind of ecclesiastical monopoly, are

the strongest reasons why the opinion of the Church of Scotland, in a

matter such as this, should be listened to with reverence and respect.

Having thus disposed of the church, though in a manner, we should

think, scarcely satisfactory to himself, and not at all to his

auditory, the Lord Advocate summarily remarks of the petitions

against the bill, that "as proof to be relied on of a general feeling

throughout Scotland, they were worthless and insignificant." It may be

useful for intending petitioners to know what sort of demonstration

they must be prepared to make, if they wish their remonstrances against

any government measure to pass the limits of worthlessness. It is

always advantageous to learn what is the last definition of the true

_vox populi_, in order that there be no mistake or misinterpretation of

its extent. We turn to the admirable speech of Mr M'Neill, the learned

Dean of Faculty, and we find the following analysis of the extent of

the lay opposition:--

"An opportunity had been afforded to the counties of Scotland

to take the measure into consideration at their annual

meetings on the 30th April. They had done so, and, with very

few exceptions, had petitioned against this measure; and

of those that had not actually petitioned this year, some

had petitioned last year; and some had contented themselves

this year with reiterating, in resolutions passed at public

meetings, their continued dissatisfaction with the measure.

The county which he had the honour to represent (Argyleshire)

had not sent up a petition; but they had, at a public meeting,

passed resolutions, temperately, yet firmly expressed, in

reference both to the Marriage and the Registration Bills.

No county, he believed, had passed resolutions in favour of

this bill. So much for the counties. Next as to the burghs.

The burghs comprehended about one-third of the population of

Scotland. There was an institution recognised by law called the

Convention of Royal Burghs, and which consisted of delegates

from all the burghs in Scotland, who assembled once a-year or

oftener in Edinburgh, and deliberated on matters affecting

their interests. At the convention of 1849, the matter of these

bills was taken into consideration. They were disapproved of,

and a petition against them was voted unanimously. Thus you

had all, or nearly all, the counties petitioning, and you

had the assembled delegates from all the burghs petitioning.

Then there were separate petitions from the popularly elected

town-councils of most of the large towns in Scotland. The

town-councils of Edinburgh, of Dundee, of Perth, of Greenock,

of Leith, of Inverness, of Stirling, of Kilmarnock, of St

Andrews, of Haddington, and many others, had petitioned against

this bill. There was also another body of persons, popularly

elected to a great extent, and who had a very material

interest in the probable effects of this measure, especially

with a knowledge of the fearful extent of bastardy in some

parts of England--he meant the parochial boards of populous

parishes. Petitions against this measure had been presented

from the parochial boards of many of the most populous parishes

in Scotland--the parochial board of the city parishes of

Edinburgh--of the great suburban parish of St Cuthberts--of

the city of Glasgow--of the great suburban parish of the

Barony--of the parishes of Dundee, Paisley, Greenock, Leith,

Port-Glasgow, Campbelton, and several others."

Such is the demonstration which the Lord Advocate of Scotland, without

any counter display of opinion to back him, ventures to characterise as

worthless and insignificant! Counties, burghs, town-councils, parochial

boards, presbyteries, and General Assembly, which also represents

the opinion of the universities, all combine to denounce the hated

measure; still their remonstrance is to be cast aside as worthless and

insignificant, and as in no way representing the feeling of the people

of Scotland! A more extraordinary statement, we venture to say, was

never made within the walls of the House of Commons; but the premier

very properly refused to homologate its extravagance, and withdrew the

bill on account, as he expressly said, of the opinion that had been

expressed in the house regarding the sentiments of the Scottish people.

Indeed, as Lord Aberdeen afterwards remarked, had the bill not been

withdrawn, "representative government would become a farce; for the

whole kingdom of Scotland was universally against it."

Some of our readers may naturally wonder why so much perseverance

should be shown in this reiterated attempt to force an obnoxious bill

upon the acceptance of the nation. It is, to say the least of it,

an unusual thing to find a professing physician so clamorously and

importunately insisting upon his right to practise on the person of a

patient, who vehemently denies the existence of any bodily ailment. It

is true, that we are accustomed to hear crotchety people crying up the

efficacy of their peculiar remedies, and we admit the right even of

Paracelsus to dilate upon the value of his drugs. But the case becomes

widely different when the empiric requires that, _nolens volens_,

you shall swallow them. Such, however, for the last three sessions,

has been the conduct of the promoters of this bill; and as it is now

plain beyond all dispute that nobody wanted it, this sudden rage for

legislation becomes proportionally wonderful. Hitherto we have rather

complained of the apathy than of the over-zeal of our representatives.

Sometimes we have grumbled at their want of spirit for not watching

more closely over our immediate interests, and in not protesting

more loudly against the injustice of that neglect to which Scottish

charities, foundations, and institutions are consigned, whilst a very

different mode of treatment is adopted by government upon the other

side of the Irish Channel. But we have seldom had reason to deprecate

an excess of legislative activity, and it therefore becomes matter of

curiosity to discover the motives for the present fit.

We must premise that the Scottish Marriage and Registration Bills are

indissolubly linked together. The object of the Registration Bill

is to secure a perfect record of all births, marriages, and deaths;

and no reasonable objection can be taken to this upon the score of

principle. It is admitted on all hands that our registers are at

present defective--that is, they are not sufficiently minute to satisfy

the cravings of the scrupulous statist. To have a perfect record is

unquestionably desirable: the main objection to the scheme lies in the

expense with which it must be attended. It is not our present purpose

to examine the details of this bill, which we have nevertheless perused

with much attention. We shall therefore merely remark that it seems to

us quite possible to realise the same results with a far less expensive

machinery. The present bill would create not only a well-salaried staff

of officials in Edinburgh, but registrars in every county and town,

whose services would fall to be defrayed by local assessment; and we

need hardly say that, under present circumstances, the imposition of

any new burden, especially in the shape of direct taxation, would be

felt as an especial grievance. There is no prospect of relief from

the income and property tax, though Sir Robert Peel gave the country

a direct assurance that the measure was merely proposed to supply a

temporary deficiency. It is now quite clear that neither the right

hon. baronet, nor his successors, will ever attempt to redeem that

dishonoured pledge. The poor-rates are increasing in Scotland at a

frightful ratio, and are already so high as, in the opinion of many,

to constitute an intolerable burden. It is now evident that, in a very

short while, the inexpediency of the new system will be submitted to

a serious review, or at least that some such attempt will be made.

Other burdens are by no means decreasing, whilst the general wealth and

prosperity of the country has, within the last three years, received a

violent check. It is, therefore, not in the least surprising, if men

hesitate to accept the proffered boon of a perfect registry at the

price of a new assessment. Isolated cases of inconvenience which have

occurred, from the want of such a register, may no doubt be pointed

out; but, upon the whole, there is no general grievance, since the

means of effective registration are at present open to all who choose

to avail themselves of it. The present bill proposes to do nothing

more than to substitute imperative for voluntary registration: its

provisions are not only costly, but in some respects they are highly

penal, and therefore, for a double reason, it is regarded with general

dislike. Men do not like to be taxed for the alteration of a privilege

which is already sufficiently within their power; and they are jealous

of exposing themselves to fines, for omitting to do that which is no

duty at all, except it is made so by the force of statute. They do

not see any weight or shadow of reason in the argument, that Scotland

must necessarily have a registration act, because England has already

submitted herself to such a measure. On the contrary, they are not fond

of uniformity, because, under that pretext, many inroads have of late

years been made upon laws and institutions which hitherto have worked

well, and against which, intrinsically, it was impossible to bring

any tangible ground of complaint. Nor is it without some reason that

they view with jealousy that endless multiplication of offices which

the Whigs seem determined to effect. No doubt it is convenient for a

political leader to extend the sphere of his patronage; but the public

have, at the present time, too many stringent motives for economy,

to acquiesce in the creation of a new staff as the indispensable

consequence of every ministerial bill. They do not want to be visited

by a fresh flight of locusts, whose period of occupation is to be

everlasting, whenever it is thought expedient to make some change

in the form and not the essence of our institutions. And therefore

it is that the Registration, apart altogether from its connexion

with the Marriage Bill, has been regarded as a measure not strictly

objectionable in principle, but exceedingly ill-timed, inconvenient,

and unlikely to produce any results commensurate with the cost which it

must entail.

We believe that the above is a fair statement of the public feeling

with regard to the Registration Bill; but, notwithstanding all these

objections, it might very possibly have been carried had it stood

alone. The ministerial phalanx in the House of Commons would probably

have regarded the advantages of uniformity as a thorough answer to the

arguments which might be adduced on the other side; and English members

might naturally have been slow to discover any valid objections to

the extension of a system already in full operation within their own

domestic bounds. But the promoters of the bill had, at the very outset,

to encounter a difficulty of no ordinary weight and magnitude. That

difficulty arose from the peculiar position of the law of Scotland with

regard to marriage. There could be no mistake about births and death,

for these are distinct contingencies; but how to register marriages,

which required no legal formality at all, save consent, to render them

binding, was indeed a puzzle, which even the wisest of the innovators

could not pretend to solve. There stood the law as it had done for

ages; not demanding any ceremony to render the deliberate consent of

contracting parties binding; shielding the weaker sex against the

machinations of fraud, and interposing an effectual barrier to the

designs of the unscrupulous seducer. There it stood, so merciful in its

provisions that it left open a door to reparation and repentance, and

did not render it imperative that the birthright of the child should be

irretrievably sacrificed on account of the error of the parents. At the

same time, that law drew, or rather established, a wide distinction

in point of character between regular and irregular marriages. It

had wrought so upon the people that instances of the latter were of

comparatively rare occurrence, except, perhaps, upon the Border, which

was crossed by English parties, less scrupulous in their feelings of

decorum. Irregular marriages were discountenanced by the church, not by

the establishment only, but by every religious body; and, to constitute

a regular marriage, publication of the banns was required. No complaint

had been heard from Scotland against the law; on the contrary, it was

considered, both by jurists and by the people, as equitable in its

principle, and less liable than that of other nations to abuse in the

mode of its operation.

The existence of this law effectually interfered with the establishment

of such a system of registration as was contemplated by the reforming

Whigs. So long as it stood intact, their efforts in behalf of

uniformity, additional taxation, and increased patronage, were

hopeless; and no alternative remained save the desperate one of

deliberately smiting down the law. It was not difficult for men so

purposed and inspired to find out defects in the marriage law, for

never yet was law framed by human wisdom in which some defect could

not be detected. It was, first of all, urged, that the state of the

Scottish law gave undue encouragement to the contract of Gretna-green

marriages by fugitive English couples. The answer to that was

obvious--Pass a law prohibiting such marriages until, by residence,

English parties have obtained a Scottish domicile. That would at once

have obviated any such ground of complaint, and such a measure actually

was introduced to parliament by Lord Brougham in 1835, but never was

carried through. Next, the whole fabric of the law was assailed.

The facilities given to the contraction of irregular marriages were

denounced as barbarous and disgraceful to any civilised country. Old

cases were raked up to show the uncertainty of the law itself, and the

difficulty of ascertaining who were and who were not married persons.

According to one noble and learned authority, the time of the House of

Peers, while sitting in its judicial capacity, was grievously occupied

in considering cases which arose out of the anomalous condition of

the Scottish law with regard to marriage; and yet, upon referring

to an official return, it appeared very plainly that, for the last

seventeen or eighteen years, only six cases of declarator of marriage

or legitimacy had been brought before that august tribunal, and that

of these six, three had no connexion with the subject-matter of the

proposed bill! Lord Brougham, who entertains strong opinions on the

subject, felt himself compelled to admit, in evidence, that most of

the hypothetical abuses which might take place under the existing

system, did not, in practice, occur amongst natives and residenters in

Scotland. Lord Brougham is to this extent a Malthusian, that he thinks

minors ought to be, in some way or other, protected against the danger

of an over-hasty marriage. His lordship's sympathies are strongly

enlisted in behalf of the youthful aristocracy, more especially of

the male sex; and he seems to regard Scotland as an infinitely more

dangerous place of residence for a young man of rank and fortune than

Paris or Vienna. In the latter places, the morals may be sapped, but

personal liberty is preserved; in the former, the heir-expectant is not

safe, for at any moment he is liable to be trapped like vermin. The

red-haired daughters of the Gael, thinks Lord Brougham, are ever on the

watch for the capture of some plump and unsuspecting squire. Penniless

lads and younger sons may be insured at a reasonable rate against the

occurrence of the matrimonial calamity, but wary indeed must be the

eldest son who can escape the _perfervidum ingenium Scotarum_. This

is, no doubt, an amusing picture, and the leading idea might be worked

out to great advantage in a novel or a farce; but, unfortunately, it

is not drawn from the usual occurrences of life. Isolated cases of

hasty marriages may, no doubt, have taken place, but our memory does

not supply us with a single instance of a clandestine marriage having

been contracted under such circumstances as the above. In Scotland, a

stranger may, for the base purposes of seduction, pledge his solemn

faith to a woman, and so obtain possession of her person. If he does

so, the law most justly interferes to prevent him resiling from his

contract, and declares that he is as completely bound by the simple

interchange of consenting vows, as though he had solicited and received

the more formal benediction of the priest. Will any man gravely

maintain that in such a case the tenor of the law is hurtful to morals,

or prejudicial to the interests of society? Even if the woman should

happen to be of inferior rank in life to the intending seducer, is she

on that account to be consigned to shame, and the man permitted to

violate his engagement, and escape the consequences of his dastardly

fraud? In England, it is notorious to every one, and the daily press

teems with instances, that seduction under promise of marriage is a

crime of ordinary occurrence. We call it a crime, for though it may not

be so branded by statute, seduction under promise of marriage is as

foul an act as can well be perpetrated by man. In Scotland, seduction

under such circumstances is next to impossible. The Scottish people

are not without their vices, but seduction is not one of these; and we

firmly believe that the existing law of marriage has operated here as

an effectual check to that license which is far too common in England.

Would it be wise, then, to remove that check, when no flagrant abuse,

no common deviation even from social distinctions, can be urged against

it? If seduction does not prevail in Scotland, still less do hasty and

unequal marriages. Lord Brougham is constrained to admit that it is

most unusual for Scottish heirs, or persons possessed of large estates,

or the heirs to high honours, to contract irregular marriages when in

a state of minority. The law, in the opinion of Lord Brougham, may be

theoretically bad, but its very badness raises a protection against

its own mischiefs--it ceases, in fact, to do any harm, because the

consequences which it entails are clearly and generally understood.

We confess that, according to our apprehension, a law which is

theoretically bad, but practically innocuous, is decidedly preferable

to one which may satisfy theorists, but which, when we come to apply

it, is productive of actual evil. It requires no great stretch of legal

ingenuity to point out possible imperfections in the best law that ever

was devised by the wit of man. That is precisely what the advocates of

the present measure have attempted to do with the established marriage

law of Scotland; but when they are asked to specify the practical evils

resulting from it, they are utterly driven to the wall, and forced to

take refuge under the convenient cover of vague and random generalities.

It is said that, under the operation of the present law, persons

in Scotland may be left in doubt whether they are married or not.

This is next thing to an entire fallacy, for though there have been

instances of women claiming the married status in consequence of

a habit-and-repute connexion, without distinct acknowledgment of

matrimony, such cases are remarkably rare, and never can occur save

under most peculiar circumstances. The distinction between concubinage

and matrimony is quite as well established in Scotland as elsewhere.

Nothing short of absolute public recognition, so open and avowed

that there can be no doubt whatever of the position of the parties,

can supply the place of that formal expressed consent which is the

proper foundation of matrimony. If the consent once has been given,

if the parties have seriously accepted each other for spouses, or if

a promise has been given, _subsequente copulâ_, there is an undoubted

marriage, and the parties themselves cannot be ignorant of their mutual

relationship. It is, however, quite true that proof may be wanting.

It is possible to conceive cases in which the contract cannot be

legally established, and in which the actual wife may be defrauded

of her conjugal rights. But granting all this, why should the whole

character of marriage be changed on account of possible cases of

deficient evidence? For if this bill were to pass into law, consent

must necessarily cease to be the principal element of marriage. No

marriage could be contracted at all unless parties went either before

the priest or the registrar; and the fact of the mutual contract would

be ignored without the addition of the imposed formality. Upon this

point the commentary of Mr M'Neill seems to us peculiarly lucid and

quite irresistible in its conclusions.

"The law of Scotland being now as heretofore, that consent,

given in the way he had described, makes marriage--that it

is, in the language of Archbishop Cranmer, 'beyond all doubt

_ipsum matrimonium_'--the present bill says that henceforth

it shall not make marriage, whatever may have followed upon

it, unless the consent is given in presence of a clergyman, or

by signing the register. It does not say that all marriages

must be celebrated in presence of a clergyman; but, professing

to recognise the principle that consent, though not given in

presence of a clergyman, may constitute marriage, it says that

the consent shall be of non-avail whatever may have followed

upon it, unless it was given in the particular form of signing

the register, and can be there pointed out. No matter how

deliberately the consent may have been interchanged, and how

completely susceptible of proof. No matter although the parties

may have lived all their lives as man and wife--may have so

published themselves to the world every day, by acts a thousand

times more public than any entry in a register can possibly

be--by a course of life more clearly indicating deliberate and

continued purpose than a single entry in a register can do. All

that shall not avail them or their families; they are to be

denied the rights and privileges of legitimacy unless they can

point to their names in the journal kept by the registrar. To

borrow the language of a high authority, relied upon in support

of the bill, 'It may be according to the law of Scotland that

it is a complete marriage, and so it may be by the law of

God; but if the woman is put to prove that marriage after the

birth of children, of that she is or may be without proof.'

_That which, by the law of Scotland and by the law of God, is

a marriage, the people of Scotland wish to be allowed to prove

by all the evidence of which it is susceptible._ They do not

wish that parties should be allowed to escape from such solemn

obligations undertaken towards each other, to their offspring,

and to society. They are unwilling that any man should be

enabled, with the confidence of perfect impunity, to impose

upon an unsuspecting community, by wearing a mask of pretended

matrimony, behind which is concealed the reality of vice. I do

not wonder that the people of Scotland have no liking to this

measure. There may occasionally be cases in which the proof

of marriage is attended with difficulty; and so there may be

with regard to any matter of fact whatever. So there may be

in regard to the fact of marriage under the proposed bill,

even where the marriage has been celebrated in the most solemn

manner in presence of a clergyman. Occasional difficulty of

proof is not a satisfactory or adequate reason for so great a

change in the law. Certainty is desirable in all transactions,

and is especially desirable in regard to marriage; and the

means of preserving evidence of such contracts is also

desirable; but although these objects are desirable, they

should not be prized so highly, or pursued so exclusively, as

to endanger other advantages not less valuable."

We think it is impossible for any one to peruse the foregoing

extract from the speech of the Dean of Faculty, without being

forcibly impressed by the soundness and strength of his argument.

He is not contending against registration; he simply demands that

through no pedantic desire for uniformity or precision, shall the

general principle of the law of Scotland regarding marriage be

virtually repealed. We are indeed surprised to find a lawyer of great

professional reputation attributing to the established clergy of the

Church of Scotland a desire to arrogate to themselves the functions

of the Church of Rome, whilst, in the same breath, he asks the

legislature to constitute itself into an ecclesiastical court, and to

enact new preliminaries, without the observance of which there shall

henceforward be no marriage at all. If the old principle of the law is

to be abandoned, if consent is no longer to be held as sufficient for

the contraction of a marriage, but if some further ceremony or means

of publication are thought to be essential, we have no hesitation in

saying that we would infinitely prefer the proscription and annulment

of all marriages which are not performed _in facie ecclesiæ_, with

the previous proclamation of the banns, to a hybrid measure such as

this, which neither declares marriage to be the proper subject of

ecclesiastical function, nor permits it to remain a civil contract

which may be established and proved by any mode of evidence within the

reach of either of the parties. If marriage is not a sacrament, but a

civil contract, why take it out of the operation of the common law? Why

make it null without the observance of certain civil ceremonies, unless

it is intended virtually to confer upon the legislature regulating

powers which have been claimed by none of the reformed churches,

and which, when arrogated by that of Rome, have been bitterly and

universally opposed?

Another objection to our present law of marriage has been frequently

urged, and great use has been made of it to prejudice the minds

of English members in favour of the proposed alteration. We have

already shown that there is in reality no doubt of what constitutes

a Scottish marriage; that parties so contracting know very well what

they are about, and are fully sensible of the true nature of their

obligations. If any doubt should by possibility exist, it can be set

at rest by a simple form of process--a form, however, which is never

resorted to, unless there has been gross intention to deceive on the

one part, or a most unusual degree of imprudence on the other. But it

is said that the possible existence of a private marriage may entail

the most cruel of all injuries upon innocent parties--that it is easy

for a man who has already contracted a private marriage, to present

himself in the character of an unfettered suitor, and to enter into a

second matrimonial engagement, which may be, at any moment, shamefully

terminated by the appearance of the first wife. No ordinary amount

of rhetoric has been expended in depicting the terrible consequences

of such a state of things; the misery of the deceived wife, and the

wrongs of the defrauded children, have, in their turn, been employed as

arguments against the existing marriage law of Scotland.

This is a most unfair mode of reasoning. Unless it can be shown,

which we maintain it cannot, that the law of Scotland, with regard

to matrimony, is so loose that a party may really be married without

knowing it, the argument utterly fails. Without distinct matrimonial

consent there is no marriage, and no one surely can be ignorant of

his own intention and act upon an occasion of that kind. He may try

to suppress proofs, but for all that he is married, and if, during

the lifetime of the other party, he shall contract a second marriage,

he has committed bigamy, and is guilty of a criminal offence. Lord

Campbell, in his evidence, admits that the marriage law of Scotland

has been perfectly well ascertained upon most points--that there can

be no doubt what is, and what is not, a marriage; but that the real

difficulty consists in getting at the facts. Armed with this testimony,

we may fairly conclude that unintentional bigamy is impossible; but

that bigamy, when it takes place, is the deliberate act of a party.

Bigamy is beyond all dispute a crime of a heinous nature. Its

consequences are so obviously calamitous, that no power of oratory can

make them appear greater than they are; and we should rejoice to see

any legislative measure introduced which could render its perpetration

impossible. But, unfortunately, the eradication of bigamy, like that

of every other crime, is beyond the power of statute. It may perhaps

be lessened by decreasing facilities, or by augmenting its punishment,

but we cannot see how it is to be prevented altogether by any effort of

human ingenuity. But if the marriage law of Scotland is to be assailed

upon this ground, it is incumbent upon its opponents to show that it

really tends to promote bigamy. If the wrongs so pathetically deplored

have a real existence, let us be made aware of that fact, and we shall

all of us be ready to lend our assistance towards the remedy. No paltry

scruples shall stand in the way of such a reformation, and we shall

willingly pay even for registration, if it can be made the means of

averting an actual social calamity.

But here again we find, on examination, that we are dealing with a pure

hypothesis. We are told of horrible private injuries that may occur

under the operation of a law which has been in force for centuries:

we ask for instances of those injuries; and, as in the former case,

it turns out that they have no existence save in the imagination of

the promoters of the new bills. If the present law of Scotland has a

tendency to promote bigamy, surely by this time it would have been

extremely fruitful in its results. On the contrary, we are told by

Lord Campbell that the Scots are a very virtuous people; and certainly,

in so far as bigamy is concerned, no one will venture to contradict

that opinion. One case, it appears, has occurred, in which a man of

high rank, having previously contracted a private marriage under

peculiar circumstances, married a second time, and that union was

found to be illegal. The case is a notorious one in the books and in

the records of society, and it occurred forty years ago. "About forty

years ago," said the Dean of Faculty, "a gentleman of high position in

society, so far forgot for the time what was worthy of, and due to that

position in point of honour, and truth, and observance of the law, as

to marry a lady in England, while he had a wife living in Scotland--and

so he might have done if he had had a wife living in France or Holland.

In short, he committed bigamy. And this one case of bigamy, forty years

ago, without even an allegation of any similar case since that time,

is brought forward at the present day, as a reason for now altering

the law of Scotland in regard to the constitution of marriage." The

individual in question lived and died in exile, and the case is never

quoted without expressions of deep reprobation. It is the only one

of the kind which can be brought forward; and surely it cannot be

taken as any ground for altering the established law of the country.

But does registration prevent bigamy? Unfortunately it is shown by

numerous instances in England that it does not. In that country,

registration is already established, but, notwithstanding registration,

bigamy is infinitely more prevalent there than in Scotland. It is,

indeed, impossible by any means of legislation to prevent imposition,

fraud, and crime, if men are determined to commit them. Registration

at Manchester will not hinder a heartless villain from committing

deliberate bigamy in London. The thing is done every day, and will be

done in spite of all the efforts of law-makers. Why, then, make the law

of Scotland conformable to that of England, since, under the operation

of the latter, the very grievance complained of flourishes fourfold? We

pause for a reply, and are likely to pause long before we receive any

answer which can be accepted as at all satisfactory.

Under the Scottish law, it is admitted that there is far less

seduction, and far less bigamy, than under the English law, which is

here propounded as the model. And having come to this conclusion--which

is not ours only, but that of the witnesses examined in favour of the

bill, all evidence against it having been refused--what need have we of

saying anything further? Surely there is enough on the merits of the

question to explain and justify the unanimous opposition which has been

given to the Marriage Bill by men of every shade of opinion throughout

Scotland, without exposing them to the imputation either of obstinacy

or caprice: indeed we are distinctly of opinion that the promoters of

the bill have laid themselves palpably open to the very charges which

they rashly bring against their opponents.

We cannot, however, take leave of the subject, without making a few

remarks upon the evidence of a noble and learned lord, who was kind

enough to take charge of this bill during its passage through the

upper house. Lord Campbell is not a Scottish peer, nor, strictly

speaking, a Scottish lawyer, though he is in the habit of attending

pretty regularly at the hearing of Scottish appeals. But he is of

Scottish extraction; he has sat in the House of Commons as member for

Edinburgh, and he ought therefore to be tolerably well conversant with

the state of the law. Now we presume it will be generally admitted,

that any person who undertakes to show that an amendment of the law is

necessary, ought, in the first place, to be perfectly cognisant of the

state of the law as it exists. That amount of knowledge we hold to be

indispensably necessary for a reformer, since he must needs establish

the superiority of his novel scheme, by contrasting its advantages

with the deficiencies of the prevalent system. But in reading over the

evidence of Lord Campbell, as given before the Committee of the House

of Commons, a very painful suspicion must arise in every mind, that the

learned peer is anything but conversant with the Scottish marriage law:

nay, that upon many important particulars he utterly misunderstands

its nature. Take for example the following sentence:--

"With regard to this bill which has been introduced, I am

very much surprised and mortified to find the grounds upon

which it has been opposed; for it has been opposed on the

ground that it introduces clandestine marriages into Scotland.

I think, with deference to those who may have a contrary

opinion, that its direct tendency, as well as its object, is

to prevent clandestine marriages. I may likewise observe, that

I am very sorry--being the son of a clergyman of the Church

of Scotland--to find that it is opposed, and I believe very

violently opposed, by the clergy of the Established Church of

Scotland. I think that they proceed upon false grounds; _and I

am afraid_, although I would say nothing at all disrespectful

of a body for whom I feel nothing but respect and affection,

_that they are a little influenced by the notion, that a

marriage by a clergyman who is not of the Established Church,

is hereafter to be put upon the same footing with a marriage

celebrated by a clergyman of the Established Church_: but I

should be glad if they would consider, that they are placed

nearly in the same situation as the clergy of the Church of

England, who, without the smallest scruple or repining, have

submitted to it, because a marriage before a Baptist minister,

or before a Unitarian minister, is just as valid now as if

celebrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury; and I should trust

that, upon consideration, they would be of opinion that their

dignity is not at all compromised, and that their opposition to

it may subside."

We can conceive the amazement with which a minister of the Established

Church, could he have been present at the deliberations of the select

committee, must have listened to the reasons so calmly assigned for

his opposition, and that of his brethren, to the progress of the

present bill! Never for a moment could it have crossed his mind, that a

marriage celebrated by him was of more value in the eye of the law than

that which had received the benediction of a dissenter; and yet here

was a distinct assumption that he was in possession of some privilege,

of which, up to that hour, he had been entirely ignorant. "At present,"

continued Lord Campbell, "a marriage by a dissenting clergyman, I

rather think, is not strictly regular!" Here a hint was interposed from

the chair to the following effect:--"He cannot marry without banns; he

is subject to punishment if he marries without banns?" But the hint,

though dexterously given, fell dead on the ear of the ex-chancellor of

Ireland. He proceeded deliberately to lay down the law,--"There are

statutes forbidding marriages unless by clergymen of the Established

Church."

This is, to say the least of it, a singular instance of delusion. No

such statutes are in force; they have long been repealed; and every

clergyman is free to perform the ceremony of marriage, whatever be

his denomination, provided he receives a certificate of the regular

proclamation of the banns. So that Lord Campbell, if he again girds

himself to the task, must be prepared to account on some more

intelligible grounds for the opposition which his father's brethren

have uniformly given to this bill. But, to do him justice, Lord

Campbell does not stand alone in error with regard to the present

requirements for the celebration of a regular marriage. Unless there is

a grievous error in the reported debate before us, the Lord Advocate

of Scotland is not quite so conversant with statute law as might be

expected from a gentleman of his undoubted eminence. Whilst advocating

a system which is to entail the inevitable payment of a fee to the

registrar, he at the same time considers the fee which is presently

exigible for proclaiming the banns a grievance. "He was astonished to

hear the honourable baronet opposite (Sir George Clerk) state that it

was the first time he had heard it considered a grievance, that persons

could not marry without proclamation of banns in the parish church,

by the payment of a large fee to the precentor or other officer of

the church. That had always been considered a very great grievance

by the dissenting body throughout Scotland, so far as he understood.

The members of the Episcopal communion were, however, saved from that

grievance, because they were in possession of an act of parliament,

which provided that the proclamation of banns made in their own chapel

was sufficient to authorise a clergyman to solemnise the marriage." We

should like very much indeed to know what act of parliament gives any

such dispensation from parochial proclamation to the Episcopalians.

Certain we are that the statute 10 Anne, cap. 7, confers no such

privilege; for though it _allows_ proclamation of banns to be made in

an Episcopal chapel, it at the same time enjoins, under a penalty, that

proclamation shall also be made "in the churches to which they belong

as parishioners by virtue of their residence;" and accordingly, in

practice, no Episcopalian marriage is ever celebrated without previous

proclamation of the banns in the parish church. We do not attribute

much importance to this error, though it is calculated to mislead

those who are not conversant with the law and practice of Scotland. We

were rather impressed, on reading the debate, with the circumstance,

that the old system of proclaiming by banns in the parish church was

denounced, and we therefore directed our attention the more closely to

the provisions of the bill, in order to discover the exact nature of

the new method by which it was to be superseded. The bill is singularly

ill-drawn and worded; but we comprehend it sufficiently to see that,

had it passed into law, regular marriages could have been contracted

under its sanction without any difficulty, and with no publicity at all.

The bill declares that henceforward marriage shall be contracted in

Scotland in one of the following modes, and not otherwise:--1st, By

solemnisation in presence of a clergyman; or, 2d, by registration, the

parties proposing so to marry appearing "in presence of the registrar,

and there and then signing, before witnesses, the entry of their

marriage in the register."

It is evident, however, that without some precaution for publicity,

the registrar's office would be as much a temple of Hymen as the

blacksmith's forge at Gretna-green, and accordingly, previous to

registration--that is, legal marriage--residence for fourteen days was

required; and, besides that, a written notice to the registrar, with

the names and designations of the parties, seven days previous to the

fated entry. A copy of such notice was to be affixed upon the door of

the parish church for one Sunday, and this was to be the whole of the

publication. Notwithstanding this, if the registrar chose to take the

risk of a penalty, and allow the parties to sign the register without

their having proved their residence or given notice of their intention,

the marriage was, nevertheless, to be valid and effectual.

Worse regulations, we are bound to say, never were invented. Why select

the church door? Why post up the names amidst lists of candidates

for registration, notices of roups, and advertisements of the sale

of cattle? Is not the present mode of announcing the names _within_

the church more decent than the other, and likely to attract greater

notice? But the whole thing is a juggle. The bill gives ample facility

for evasion, should that be contemplated; for it is easy to divine

that, with the whole proof in his own hand, and no check whatever

placed upon him, no registrar would be hard-hearted enough to refuse

dispensing with the preliminaries in any case where the amorous

couple were ready and willing to remunerate him for the risk of his

complaisance.

So much for marriage by registration, which, instead of throwing any

obstacle in the way of ill-advised or hasty unions, would, in effect,

have a direct tendency to increase them. But the case is absolutely

worse when we approach the other form of marriage, which was to

supersede that solemnity which is at present in every case preceded by

the formal proclamation of banns. The provisions of the bill were as

follows:--

No clergymen could solemnise a marriage, unless,

1st. Both or one parties should have been resident for fourteen

days within the parish in which the marriage was to take place;

_or_,

2d. In some other parish in Scotland: the certificate in both

cases to be granted by the Registrar; _or_,

3d. Unless both or one of the parties had been for a fortnight

a member or members of the congregation resorting to the church

or chapel in which the clergyman solemnising the marriage

usually officiates; _or_,

4th. Unless they had similarly attended _some other place of

worship_; the same to be certified by the minister of such

congregation; _or_,

5th. Unless they could produce the registrar's certificate of a

week's notice; _or_

6th. Unless they had been regularly proclaimed by banns.

Such is the species of hotch-potch, which it was seriously proposed to

substitute, instead of the present clear, simple, cheap, and decent

mode of celebrating regular marriages; and it is not at all surprising

that hardly one native of Scotland could be found to raise his voice

in favour of such an enormity. So far from publicity being obtained

or increased, it would have afforded the most ample facilities for

the celebration of marriage without the slightest warning given to

the friends of either party. In reality, this pretended mode of

marriage _in facie ecclesiæ_, would have been far more objectionable

than the simple method of registration; for, in the latter case, the

registrar, if he did his duty, was bound to give some kind of notice;

in the former, none whatever was required by the clergyman. What is

a member of a congregation? Abounding as Scotland is in sects, we

apprehend that any one who pays for a sitting in any place of worship

is entitled to that denomination. For ten shillings, or five shillings,

or half-a-crown, a seat may be readily purchased in some place of

worship; and if any one held that seat for a fortnight, he was to be

entitled, according to this bill, to ask the officiating minister

to marry him, without any further process whatever. If it should,

however, be held, that no one is a member of a congregation unless

he is in full communion, all difficulty could have been got over, by

resorting to the fourth method. The member of the Established Church

had simply to ask from his minister a certificate of his membership,

and, armed with that, he might be legally married anywhere, and by

any kind of clergyman, without the slightest notice to the public! We

confess that, when we arrived at this portion of the provisions of

the bill, we could scarcely credit the testimony of our eyesight. We

have heard it proclaimed, over and over again, by those who supported

the measure, that its principal aim was to put an end to hasty and

ill-advised marriages; and on perusing the evidence, we found Lord

Brougham most clamorous against the facilities given by the present law

of Scotland for tying the nuptial knot, without due warning afforded

to parents, more especially when young noblemen were concerned. We

look to the remedy, and we find that, without the assistance of the

registrar, marriages might, under the provisions of this bill, have

been contracted before a clergyman, at a minute's notice, without any

banns at all, and no formality, beyond payment of seat-rent for a

single fortnight in any chapel, or a certificate to the same effect!

A proposal more preposterous than this--more irreconcilable with

decency--more injurious to the interests of society and of religion, it

is really impossible to conceive; and if the language which has been

used regarding it throughout Scotland has been generally temperate, we

apprehend that the temperance has been entirely owing to a somewhat

inaccurate estimate of the full extent of its provisions. It is, in

our judgment, emphatically a bad bill; and we trust that after this,

its third defeat, it will never again be permitted to appear in either

house of parliament. Our representatives have done no more than their

duty in giving it their most strenuous opposition; and, though a few

individuals may mourn over the frustrated hopes, occasioned by the

ruthless blight of a crop of expected offices, they can look for no

sympathy from the people. We can assure Lord John Russell, that he

never acted more wisely than in refusing to force through the final

stages such unpalatable bills as these; and we hope that, in future,

he will give the Scottish people credit for understanding their own

affairs, and not suffer their deliberate and expressed opinion to be

treated with undeserved contempt, simply because it may be possible, by

"making a house," to swamp the suffrages of their representatives.

THE CAXTONS.--PART XVI.

CHAPTER XCV.

The stage-scene has dropped. Settle yourselves, my good audience;

chat each with his neighbour. Dear madam in the boxes, take up your

opera-glass and look about you. Treat Tom and pretty Sal to some of

those fine oranges, O thou happy-looking mother in the two-shilling

gallery! Yes, brave 'prentice boys, in the tier above, the cat-call

by all means! And you, "most potent, grave, and reverend seigneurs,"

in the front row of the pit--practised critics and steady old

play-goers--who shake your heads at new actors and play-wrights, and,

true to the creed of your youth, (for the which all honour to you!)

firmly believe that we are shorter by the head than those giants our

grandfathers--laugh or scold as you will, while the drop-scene still

shuts out the stage. It is just that you should all amuse yourselves in

your own way, O spectators! for the interval is long. All the actors

have to change their dresses; all the scene-shifters are at work,

sliding the "sides" of a new world into their grooves; and, in high

disdain of all unity of time as of place, you will see in the playbills

that there is a great demand on your belief. You are called upon to

suppose that we are older by five years than when you last saw us "fret

our hour upon the stage." Five years! the author tells us especially to

humour the belief by letting the drop-scene linger longer than usual

between the lamps and the stage.

Play up, O ye fiddles and kettle-drums! the time is elapsed. Stop

that cat-call, young gentleman!--heads down in the pit there! Now the

flourish is over--the scene draws up:--look before.

A bright, clear, transparent atmosphere--bright as that of the East,

but vigorous and bracing as the air of the North; a broad and fair

river, rolling through wide grassy plains; yonder, far in the distance,

stretch away vast forests of evergreen, and gentle slopes break the

line of the cloudless horizon; see the pastures, Arcadian with sheep in

hundreds and thousands--Thyrsis and Menalcas would have had hard labour

to count them, and small time, I fear, for singing songs about Daphne.

But, alas! Daphnes are rare; no nymphs with garlands and crooks trip

over those pastures.

Turn your eyes to the right, nearer the river; just parted by a low

fence from the thirty acres or so that are farmed for amusement

or convenience, not for profit--_that_ comes from the sheep,--you

catch a glimpse of a garden. Look not so scornfully at the primitive

horticulture; such gardens are rare in the Bush. I doubt if the stately

King of the Peak ever more rejoiced in the famous conservatory, through

which you may drive in your carriage, than do the sons of the Bush in

the herbs and blossoms which taste and breathe of the old fatherland.

Go on, and behold the palace of the patriarchs--it is of wood, I grant

you, but the house we build with our own hands is always a palace. Did

you ever build one when you were a boy? And the lords of that palace

are lords of the land, almost as far as you can see, and of those

numberless flocks; and, better still, of a health which an antediluvian

might have envied, and of nerves so seasoned with horse-breaking,

cattle-driving, fighting with wild blacks--chases from them and after

them, for life and for death--that if any passion vex the breast of

those kings of the Bushland, fear at least is erased from the list.

See, here and there through the landscape, rude huts like the

masters'--wild spirits and fierce dwell within. But they are tamed into

order by plenty and hope; by the hand open but firm, by the eye keen

but just.

Now, out from those woods, over those green rolling plains,

harum-scarum, helter-skelter, long hair flying wild, and all bearded as

a Turk or a pard, comes a rider you recognise. The rider dismounts, and

another old acquaintance turns from a shepherd, with whom he has been

conversing on matters that never plagued Thyrsis and Menalcas, whose

sheep seem to have been innocent of foot-rot and scab, and accosts the

horseman.

PISISTRATUS.--My dear Guy, where on earth have you been?

GUY (_producing a book from his pocket with great

triumph_.)--There! Dr Johnson's _Lives of the Poets_. I could not get

the squatter to let me have _Kenilworth_, though I offered him three

sheep for it. Dull old fellow, that Dr Johnson, I suspect; so much the

better, the book will last all the longer. And here's a Sydney paper

too, only two months old! (_Guy takes a short pipe or dodeen from his

hat, in the band of which it had been stuck, fills and lights it._)

PISISTRATUS.--You must have ridden thirty miles at the least.

To think of _your_ turning book-hunter, Guy!

GUY BOLDING, (_philosophically_.)--Ay, one don't know the

worth of a thing till one has lost it. No sneers at me, old fellow;

you, too, declared that you were bothered out of your life by those

books, till you found how long the evenings were without them. Then,

the first new book we got--an old volume of the _Spectator!_--such fun!

PISISTRATUS.--Very true. The brown cow has calved in your

absence. Do you know, Guy, I think we shall have no scab in the fold

this year? If so, there will be a rare sum to lay by! Things look up

with us now, Guy.

GUY BOLDING.--Yes; very different from the first two years.

You drew a long face then. How wise you were, to insist on our learning

experience at another man's station before we hazarded our own capital!

But, by Jove! those sheep, at first, were enough to plague a man out of

his wits! What with the wild dogs, just as the sheep had been washed

and ready to shear; then that cursed scabby sheep of Joe Timmes's, that

we caught rubbing his sides so complacently against our unsuspecting

poor ewes. I wonder we did not run away. But "_Patientia fit_,"--what

is that line in Horace? Never mind now. "It is a long lane that has no

turning" does just as well as anything in Horace, and Virgil to boot. I

say, has not Vivian been here?

PISISTRATUS.--No; but he will be sure to come to-day.

GUY BOLDING.--He has much the best berth of it. Horse-breeding

and cattle-feeding; galloping after those wild devils; lost in a forest

of horns; beasts lowing, scampering, goring, tearing off like mad

buffaloes; horses galloping up hill, down hill, over rocks, stones, and

timber; whips cracking, men shouting--your neck all but broken; a great

bull making at you full rush. Such fun! Sheep are dull things to look

at after a bull-hunt and a cattle-feast.

PISISTRATUS.--Every man to his taste in the Bush. One may make

one's money more easily and safely, with more adventure and sport,

in the bucolic department. But one makes larger profit and quicker

fortune, with good luck and good care, in the pastoral--and our object,

I take it, is to get back to England as soon as we can.

GUY BOLDING.--Humph! I should be content to live and die in

the Bush--nothing like it, if women were not so scarce. To think of the

redundant spinster population at home, and not a spinster here to be

seen within thirty miles, save Bet Goggins, indeed--and she has only

one eye! But to return to Vivian--why should it be our object, more

than his, to get back to England as soon as we can?

PISISTRATUS.--Not more, certainly. But you saw that an

excitement more stirring than that we find in the sheep had become

necessary to him. You know he was growing dull and dejected; the cattle

station was to be sold a bargain. And then the Durham bulls, and the

Yorkshire horses, which Mr Trevanion sent you and me out as presents,

were so tempting, I thought we might fairly add one speculation to

another; and since one of us must superintend the bucolics, and two of

us were required for the pastorals, I think Vivian was the best of us

three to intrust with the first; and, certainly, it has succeeded as

yet.

GUY.--Why, yes, Vivian is quite in his element--always in

action, and always in command. Let him be first in everything, and

there is not a finer fellow, nor a better tempered--present company

excepted. Hark! the dogs, the crack of the whip; there he is. And now,

I suppose, we may go to dinner.

_Enter_ VIVIAN.

His frame has grown more athletic; his eye, more steadfast and less

restless, looks you full in the face. His smile is more open; but

there is a melancholy in his expression, almost approaching to gloom.

His dress is the same as that of Pisistratus and Guy--white vest and

trowsers; loose neckcloth, rather gay in colour; broad cabbage-leaf

hat; his mustache and beard are trimmed with more care than ours. He

has a large whip in his hand, and a gun slung across his shoulders.

Greetings are exchanged; mutual inquiries as to cattle and sheep,

and the last horses despatched to the Indian market. Guy shows the

_Lives of the Poets_; Vivian asks if it is possible to get the _Life

of Clive_, or _Napoleon_, or a copy of _Plutarch_. Guy shakes his

head--says, if a _Robinson Crusoe_ will do as well, he has seen one in

a very tattered state, but in too great request to be had a bargain.

The party turn into the hut. Miserable animals are bachelors in all

countries; but most miserable in Bushland. A man does not know what

a helpmate of the soft sex is in the Old World, where women seem a

matter of course. But in the Bush, a wife is literally bone of your

bone, flesh of your flesh--your better half, your ministering angel,

your Eve of the Eden--in short, all that poets have sung, or young

orators say at public dinners, when called upon to give the toast of

"The Ladies." Alas! we are three bachelors, but we are better off

than bachelors often are in the Bush. For the wife of the shepherd I

took from Cumberland does me and Bolding the honour to live in our

hut, and make things tidy and comfortable. She has had a couple of

children since we have been in the Bush; a wing has been added to the

hut for that increase of family. The children, I daresay, one might

have thought a sad nuisance in England; but I declare that, surrounded

as one is by great bearded men, from sunrise to sunset, there is

something humanising, musical, and Christian-like, in the very squall

of the baby. There it goes--bless it! As for my other companions from

Cumberland, Miles Square, the most aspiring of all, has long left me,

and is superintendent to a great sheep-owner some two hundred miles

off. The Will-o'-the-Wisp is consigned to the cattle station, where

he is Vivian's head man, finding time now and then to indulge his old

poaching propensities at the expense of parrots, black cockatoos,

pigeons, and kangaroos. The shepherd remains with us, and does not

seem, honest fellow, to care to better himself; he has a feeling of

clanship, which keeps down the ambition common in Australia. And his

wife--such a treasure! I assure you, the sight of her smooth, smiling

woman's face, when we return home at nightfall, and the very flow

of her gown, as she turns the "dampers"[1] in the ashes, and fills

the teapot, have in them something holy and angelical. How lucky our

Cumberland swain is not jealous! Not that there is any cause, enviable

dog though he be; but where Desdemonas are so scarce, if you could but

guess how green-eyed their Othellos generally are! Excellent husbands,

it is true--none better; but you had better think twice before you

attempt to play the Cassio in Bushland! There, however, she is, dear

creature!--rattling among knives and forks, smoothing the tablecloth,

setting on the salt-beef, and that rare luxury of pickles, (the last

pot in our store), and the produce of our garden and poultry-yard,

which few Bushmen can boast of--and the dampers, and a pot of tea

to each banqueter; no wine, beer, nor spirits--those are only for

shearing-time. We have just said grace, (a fashion retained from the

holy mother country), when, bless my soul! what a clatter without,

what a tramping of feet, what a barking of dogs! Some guests have

arrived. They are always welcome in Bushland! Perhaps a cattle-buyer in

search of Vivian; perhaps that cursed squatter, whose sheep are always

migrating to ours. Never mind, a hearty welcome to all--friend or foe.

The door opens; one, two, three, strangers. More plates and knives;

draw your stools; just in time. First eat, then--what news?

Just as the strangers sit down, a voice is heard at the door--

"You will take particular care of this horse, young man: walk him

about a little; wash his back with salt and water. Just unbuckle the

saddle-bags; give them to me. Oh! safe enough, I daresay--but papers of

consequence. The prosperity of the colony depends on these papers. What

would become of you all if any accident happened to them, I shudder to

think."

And here, attired in a twill shooting-jacket, budding with gilt

buttons, impressed with a well-remembered device; a cabbage-leaf hat

shading a face rarely seen in the Bush--a face smooth as razor could

make it: neat, trim, respectable-looking as ever--his arm full of

saddle-bags, and his nostrils gently distended, inhaling the steam of

the banquet, walks in--Uncle Jack.

PISISTRATUS, (_leaping up_.)--Is it possible! _You_, in

Australia--you in the Bush!

Uncle Jack, not recognising Pisistratus in the tall, bearded man who

is making a plunge at him, recedes in alarm, exclaiming--"Who are

you?--never saw you before, sir! I suppose you'll say next that _I owe

you something_!"

PISISTRATUS.--Uncle Jack!

UNCLE JACK, (_dropping his saddle-bags_.)--Nephew!--Heaven be

praised. Come to my arms!

They embrace; mutual introductions to the company--Mr Vivian, Mr

Bolding, on the one side--Major MacBlarney, Mr Bullion, Mr Emanuel

Speck on the other. Major MacBlarney is a fine portly man, with a

slight Dublin brogue, who squeezes your hand as he would a sponge. Mr

Bullion--reserved and haughty--wears green spectacles, and gives you a

forefinger. Mr Emanuel Speck--unusually smart for the Bush, with a blue

satin stock, and one of those blouses common in Germany, with elaborate

hems, and pockets enough for Briareus to have put all his hands into at

once--is thin, civil, and stoops--bows, smiles, and sits down to dinner

again, with the air of a man accustomed to attend to the main chance.

UNCLE JACK, (_his mouth full of beef_.)--Famous beef!--breed

it yourself, eh? Slow work that cattle-feeding! (_Empties the rest of

the pickle-jar into his plate._) Must learn to go ahead in the new

world--railway times these! We can put him up to a thing or two--eh,

Bullion? (_Whispering me_,)--Great capitalist that Bullion! LOOK AT

HIM!

MR BULLION, (_gravely_.)--A thing or two! If he has

capital--you have said it, Mr Tibbets. (_Looks round for the

pickles--the green spectacles remain fixed upon Uncle Jack's plate._)

UNCLE JACK.--All that this colony wants is a few men like us,

with capital and spirit. Instead of paying paupers to emigrate, they

should pay rich men to come--eh, Speck?

While Uncle Jack turns to Mr Speck, Mr Bullion fixes his fork in a

pickled onion in Jack's plate, and transfers it to his own--observing,

not as incidentally to the onion, but to truth in general--"A man,

gentlemen, in this country, has only to keep his eyes on the look-out,

and seize on the first advantage!--resources are incalculable!"

Uncle Jack, returning to the plate and missing the onion, forestalls

Mr Speck in seizing the last potato--observing also, and in the same

philosophical and generalising spirit as Mr Bullion--"The great thing

in this country is to be always beforehand: discovery and invention,

promptitude and decision!--that's your go. 'Pon my life, one picks up

sad vulgar sayings among the natives here!--'that's your go!' shocking!

What would your poor father say? How is he--good Austin? Well?--that's

right: and my dear sister? Ah, that damnable Peck!--still harping

on the _Anti-Capitalist_, eh? But I'll make it up to you all now.

Gentlemen, charge your glasses--a bumper-toast"----

MR SPECK, (_in an affected tone_.)--I respond to the sentiment

in a flowing cap. Glasses are not forthcoming.

UNCLE JACK.--A bumper-toast to the health of the future

millionnaire, whom I present to you in my nephew and sole

heir--Pisistratus Caxton, Esq. Yes, gentlemen, I here publicly

announce to you that this gentleman will be the inheritor of all my

wealth--freehold, leasehold, agricultural, and mineral; and when I am

in the cold grave--(_takes out his pocket-handkerchief_)--and nothing

remains of poor John Tibbets, look upon that gentleman, and say, "John

Tibbets lives again!"

MR SPECK, (_chauntingly_.)--

"Let the bumper toast go round."

GUY BOLDING.--Hip, hip, hurrah!--three times three! What fun!

Order is restored; dinner-things are cleared; each gentleman lights his

pipe.

VIVIAN.--What news from England?

MR BULLION.--As to the funds, sir?

MR SPECK.--I suppose you mean, rather, as to the railways:

great fortunes will be made there, sir; but still I think that our

speculations here will--

VIVIAN.--I beg pardon for interrupting you, sir; but I

thought, in the last papers, that there seemed something hostile in the

temper of the French. No chance of a war?

MAJOR MACBLARNEY.--Is it the wars you'd be after, young

gintleman? If me interest at the Horse Guards can avail you, bedad!

you'd make a proud man of Major MacBlarney.

MR BULLION, (_authoritatively_.)--No, sir, we won't have

a war: the capitalists of Europe and Australia won't have it. The

Rothschilds, and a few others that shall be nameless, have only got to

do _this_, sir--(_Mr Bullion buttons up his pockets_)--and we'll do it

too; and then what becomes of your war, sir? (_Mr Bullion snaps his

pipe in the vehemence with which he brings his hand on the table, turns

round the green spectacles, and takes up Mr Speck's pipe, which that

gentlemen had laid aside in an unguarded moment._)

VIVIAN.--But the campaign in India?

MAJOR MACBLARNEY.--Oh!--and if its the Ingees you'd--

BULLION, (_refilling Speck's pipe from Guy Bolding's exclusive

tobacco-pouch, and interrupting the Major_.)--India--that's another

matter: I don't object to that! War there--rather good for the money

market than otherwise!

VIVIAN.--What news there, then?

BULLION.--Don't know--haven't got India stock.

MR SPECK.--Nor I either. The day for India is over: this is

our India now. (_Misses his tobacco-pipe; sees it in Bullion's mouth,

and stares aghast!--NB.--The pipe is not a clay_ dodeen, _but a small

meerschaum--irreplaceable in Bushland._)

PISISTRATUS.--Well, uncle, but I am at a loss to understand

what new scheme you have in hand. Something benevolent, I am

sure--something for your fellow-creatures--for philanthropy and mankind?

MR BULLION, (_starting_.)--Why, young man, are you as green as

all that?

PISISTRATUS.--I, sir--no--Heaven forbid! But my--(_Uncle

Jack holds up his forefinger imploringly, and spills his tea over the

pantaloons of his nephew!_)

Pisistratus, wroth at the effect of the tea, and therefore obdurate

to the sign of the forefinger, continues rapidly, "But my uncle

_is!_--some grand national-imperial-colonial-anti-monopoly"--

UNCLE JACK.--Pooh! Pooh! What a droll boy it is!

MR BULLION, (_solemnly_.)--With these notions, which not even

in jest should be fathered on my respectable and intelligent friend

here--(_Uncle Jack bows_)--I am afraid you will never get on in the

world, Mr Caxton. I don't think our speculations will suit _you_! It is

growing late, gentlemen: we must push on.

UNCLE JACK, (_jumping up_.)--And I have so much to say to the

dear boy. Excuse us: you know the feelings of an uncle! (_Takes my arm,

and leads me out of the hut._)

UNCLE JACK, (_as soon as we are in the air_.)--You'll ruin

us--you, me, and your father and mother. Yes! What do you think I work

and slave myself for but for you and yours?--Ruin us all, I say, if

you talk in that way before Bullion! His heart is as hard as the Bank

of England's--and quite right he is, too. Fellow-creatures!--stuff! I

have renounced that delusion--the generous follies of my youth! I begin

at last to live for myself--that is, for self and relatives! I shall

succeed this time, you'll see!

PISISTRATUS.--Indeed, uncle, I hope so sincerely; and to do

you justice, there is always something very clever in your ideas--only

they don't--

UNCLE JACK, (_interrupting me with a groan_.)--The fortunes

that other men have gained by my ideas!-- shocking to think of!

What!--and shall I be reproached if I live no longer for such a set of

thieving, greedy, ungrateful knaves? No--no! Number one shall be my

maxim; and I'll make you a Croesus, my boy--I will.

Pisistratus, after grateful acknowledgments for all prospective

benefits, inquires how long Jack has been in Australia; what brought

him into the colony; and what are his present views. Learns, to his

astonishment, that Uncle Jack has been four years in the colony;

that he sailed the year after Pisistratus--induced, he says, by that

illustrious example, and by some mysterious agency or commission,

which he will not explain, emanating either from the Colonial Office,

or an Emigration Company. Uncle Jack has been thriving wonderfully

since he abandoned his fellow-creatures. His first speculation, on

arriving at the colony, was in buying some houses in Sydney, which (by

those fluctuations in prices common to the extremes of the colonial

mind--which is one while skipping up the rainbow with Hope, and at

another plunging into Acherontian abysses with Despair) he bought

excessively cheap, and sold excessively dear. But his grand experiment

has been in connexion with the infant settlement of Adelaide, of which

he considers himself one of the first founders; and as, in the rush of

emigration which poured to that favoured establishment in the earlier

years of its existence,--rolling on its tide all manner of credulous

and inexperienced adventurers,--vast sums were lost, so, of those

sums, certain fragments and pickings were easily griped and gathered

up by a man of Uncle Jack's readiness and dexterity. Uncle Jack had

contrived to procure excellent letters of introduction to the colonial

grandees: he got into close connexion with some of the principal

parties seeking to establish a monopoly of land, (which has since

been in great measure effected by raising the price, and excluding

the small fry of petty capitalists;) and effectually imposed on them,

as a man with a vast knowledge of public business--in the confidence

of great men at home--considerable influence with the English press,

&c., &c. And no discredit to their discernment, for Jack, when he

pleased, had a way with him that was almost irresistible. In this

manner he contrived to associate himself and his earnings with men

really of large capital, and long practical experience in the best mode

by which that capital might be employed. He was thus admitted into a

partnership (so far as his means, went) with Mr Bullion, who was one

of the largest sheep-owners and landholders in the colony, though,

having many other nests to feather, that gentleman resided in state

at Sydney, and left his runs and stations to the care of overseers

and superintendents. But land-jobbing was Jack's special delight; and

an ingenious German having lately declared that the neighbourhood of

Adelaide betrayed the existence of those mineral treasures which have

since been brought to day, Mr Tibbets had persuaded Bullion and the

other gentlemen now accompanying him, to undertake the land journey

from Sidney to Adelaide, privily and quietly, to ascertain the truth of

the German's report, which was at present very little believed. If the

ground failed of mines, Uncle Jack's account convinced his associates

that mines quite as profitable might be found in the pockets of the raw

adventurers, who were ready to buy one year at the dearest market, and

driven to sell the next at the cheapest.

"But," concluded Uncle Jack, with a sly look, and giving me a poke in

the ribs, "I've had to do with mines before now, and know what they

are. I'll let nobody but you into my pet scheme: you shall go shares if

you like. The scheme is as plain as a problem in Euclid,--if the German

is right, and there are mines, why, the mines will be worked. Then

miners must be employed; but miners must eat, drink, and spend their

money. The thing is to get _that_ money. Do you take?"

PISISTRATUS.--Not at all!

UNCLE JACK, (_majestically._)--A Great Grog and Store Depôt!

The miners want grog and stores, come to your depôt; you take their

money; Q.E.D! Shares--eh, you dog? Cribs, as we said at school. Put in

a paltry thousand or two, and you shall go halves.

PISISTRATUS, (_vehemently_.)--Not for all the mines of Potosi.

UNCLE JACK, (_good humouredly_.)--Well, it shan't be

the worse for you. I shan't alter my will, in spite of your want

of confidence. Your young friend,--that Mr Vivian, I think you

call him--intelligent-looking fellow, sharper than the other, I

guess,--would _he_ like a share?

PISISTRATUS.--In the grog depôt? You had better ask him!

UNCLE JACK.--What! you pretend to be aristocratic in the Bush!

Too good. Ha, ha!--they're calling to me--we must be off.

PISISTRATUS.--I will ride with you a few miles. What say you,

Vivian? and you, Guy?--

As the whole party now joined us.

Guy prefers basking in the sun, and reading the _Lives of the Poets_.

Vivian assents; we accompany the party till sunset. Major MacBlarney

prodigalises his offers of service in every conceivable department

of life, and winds up with an assurance that, if we want anything in

those departments connected with engineering--such as mining, mapping,

surveying, &c.--he will serve us, bedad, for nothing, or next to it. We

suspect Major MacBlarney to be a civil engineer, suffering under the

innocent hallucination that he has been in the army.

Mr Specks lets out to me, in a confidential whisper, that Mr Bullion

is monstrous rich, and has made his fortune from small beginnings, by

never letting a good thing go. I think of Uncle Jack's pickled onion,

and Mr Speck's meerschaum, and perceive, with respectful admiration,

that Mr Bullion acts uniformly on one grand system. Ten minutes

afterwards, Mr Bullion observes, in a tone equally confidential, that

Mr Speck, though so smiling and civil, is as sharp as a needle; and

that if I want any shares in the new speculation, or indeed in any

other, I had better come at once to Bullion, who would not deceive me

for my weight in gold. "Not," added Bullion, "that I have anything to

say against Speck. He is well enough to do in the world--a warm man,

sir; and when a man is really warm, I am the last person to think of

his little faults, and turn on him the cold shoulder."

"Adieu!" said Uncle Jack, once more pulling out his

pocket-handkerchief; "my love to all at home." And, sinking his voice

into a whisper, "If ever you think better of the grog and store depôt,

nephew, you'll find an uncle's heart in this bosom!"