I am happy to hear the latter part of this your opinion, and I adopt it. You further state, that we have " admitted that these modifications are not such as justly to excite the jealousy of Protestants, whether Presbyterians or members of the Established Church." We do admit this, and in my letter to you, I even stated that these rules afforded an opening for securing the co-operation of the Established Church; and I proposed to adopt them (with some slight amendments) as the basis of our agreement. But we found in the proceedings and reports of the Board, most cogent reasons for requiring security for the permanence and extension of those rules; for the commissioners not only held in their hands the power of withdrawing those indulgences in a summary manner, at any moment, from any individual school, but they had also prepared machinery for superseding those rules altogether. I am not bringing charges -I am stating facts from their own printed documents. Those indulgent rules were confined to schools not vested, which at present are three-fourths of their number; but in schools, towards the building of which they grant aid, and which are vested in them by deed, the old and abnoxious rules ("alterations of which," you justly say, "were rendered necessary by defects which experience has disclosed"), are bound upon the patrons under heavy penalties, and the new rules superseded. The commissioners, in their printed documents, state that it is their intention, whensoever they shall have sufficient funds, to build as many school-houses as shall be sufficient for their system. Accordingly as these schools shall be built, and when all shall have been built, and consequently all vested in them by deed, the other non-vested schools, and the new rules, will be altogether superseded, and amongst others the presbyterian schools.

Therefore, I required that the new rules which the commissioners themselves established, and of which her majesty's ministers now express their approval, should be extended to schools vested by deed, instead of the old rules, which her majesty's ministers so justly condemn. Their determination gradually and entirely to withdraw those modifications, is what "justly excites our jealousy," and not the modifications themselves.

These were the reasons which obliged us so closely to examine their proceedings, and so strongly to bring them under the attention of her majesty's government.

We printed our statement for the convenience of procuring the requisite number of copies. I had received the Lord Lieutenant's letter, repudiating, on the part of ministers, any negotiation, on the first of November last; our statement was not printed until towards the close of that month, on the last day of which I sent copies to the Lord Lieutenant and to Lord Eliot, and immediately afterwards to the Archbishop of Dublin. It was marked "not published," and I stated to his Excellency that I did not intend to publish it, "unless failure (which I did not anticipate) should oblige me."

One primary object of national education is the union of children of different persuasions in the same school; I have had many years' experience of the beneficial effects of employing protestants and Roman-catholics indiscriminately together. I have employed both together in great numbers, as well in some parts of Ireland, where protestants were the majority, as in others where Roman-catholics preponderated: I treated both in the same manner, and I have seen the blessed results of antipathies and prejudices being obliterated, and of mutual kindly feelings being substituted; I never knew of a quarrel taking place among them on religious grounds. If such harmony could be so easily produced among adults, simply by bringing them together, how much more easy would it be among children! This, also, I have had the pleasure of witnessing, in schools established and managed by myself.

The national system has hitherto failed in producing such united education. In the schools of Roman-catholic priests there are scarcely any protestants, and in the presbyterian schools, very few Roman-catholics; the clergy and

laity of the Established Church are the persons from whose exertions we have the best hope of seeing such united education extensively operating.

I am sorry to have so much occupied your time; I am not so presumptuous as to expect to make any change in the decision of government, twice given, nor do I expect any answer to this letter; but, in my own justification, I was anxious to avail myself of probably this last occasion of my having the privilege of addressing you upon this subject, to state the reasons which obliged me and the Archdeacon of Meath to submit to you our views of the proceedings of the Board of National Education.

I lament that her Majesty's ministers have thought fit to reject the co-operation of the most moderate portion of the clergy, whose number, by the granting of our most reasonable requests, would have been greatly increased. You have not only refused their co-operation, but you have refused to exercise any control over the Commissioners of National Education; you have established for the first time the principle of their making and altering their rules without the leave or consent of government; and you have given them absolute power over the management of the national funds for education.

You once more refer me and my clergy to the commissioners; but their former repulsive refusal to give any explanation does not hold out much encouragement to me to renew the attempt, and I fear that the new position in which they are placed will still more disincline the clergy from becoming suitors to the board.

It now only remains for me to report your answer to those by whom I was commissioned to make the application-the clergy of the diocese of Meath, and to a number of others, who were anxiously awaiting the result. I have the honour to be, Sir, your very faithful and obliged servant,

The Rt. Hon. Sir James Graham, Bart., Secretary of State for the Home Department.

EDWARD MEATH.

BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES.

We have received, amongst a variety of other parliamentary documents, the sixth annual report of the Registrar. General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages registered in England during the year 1842, in the shape of an enormous "blue-book" of some four or five inches in thickness. It is presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty.

From this voluminous mass of authentic and highly-important statistical information, which may, possibly, hereafter form the bass of legislativei measures affecting the interests of a vast portion of the people of this great country, and which contains matter that can hardly fail to be valuable to the physiological, if not interesting to the psychological, student, we have endeavoured to select such portions as seem most likely to convey the gist of the report in the limited compass by which we are at present circumscribed.

The number of marriages, births, and deaths registered in 1842, and in the three preceding years, was as follows:-1st, marriages, in 1839, 123,166; in 1840, 122,665; in 1841, 122,496; and in 1842, 118,825. The births and deaths were, respectively, as follows-viz., in 1839, 492,574, and 338,979; in 1840, 502,303, and 359,634; in 1841, 512,158, and 343,847; and in 1842, 517,739, and 349,519. Thus the excess of births over deaths was never less than 142,669, nor more than 168,311, annually, throughout the four years above mentioned.

The population in England was stated as amounting in July, 1841, to nearly 15,927,867-7,783,781 males, and 8,144,086 females. The mean annual rate of increase in the 10 years (1831 to 1841) was 1,334 per cent.; and the registrar has no other means of estimating the population in each year than

to assume that the numbers increase at an uniform rate in geometrical progression.

A table annexed to the report shows the number of buildings registered in England for the solemnization of matrimony up to the 30th of June, 1844, distinguishing the counties, and the numbers belonging to each religious persuasion. The total number of such buildings amounts to 2,232—viz., 186 for Presbyterians, 903 for Independents or Congregationalists, 539 for Baptists, 204 for Arminian Methodists, 69 for Calvinistic Methodists, 284 for Romanists, 5 for foreign churches, including the United Brethren or Moravians, the Lutherans, and the Swiss Protestants; and 42 miscellaneous. Since June, 1842, the increased anxiety to enjoy the pleasures of matrimonial life has caused 318 additional places to be registered for the purpose. The marriages registered in England in the year 1842 were 3,671 fewer than 1841, and 4,341 fewer than in 1839. As compared with 1841 the number of marriages, "not according to the rites of the established church," increased 653— showing that more Dissenters have availed themselves of the rights conceded to them by the Marriage Act of 1836. The marriages amongst Jews were 163; those of Jews the preceding year (113) had been considerably below the average of 144 annually-a number of marriages which implies the existence of about 18,700 Jews in England. There were 4,324 fewer marriages, "according to the rites of the established church" in 1842 than in 1841, the marriages by licence decreasing 5 per cent., and by bans 3 per cent. minors married in 1841 were 21,647; in 1842, 21,390, or about 1 per cent. less than the former number; whilst the diminution in the number of persons of full age married was 7,085 in 223,345, or 3 per cent.,-facts which seem to be favourable to the future well-being of the population, who must inevitably suffer, more or less, by an increased number of (too often improvident) marriages. In the south of England, the proportion of marriages to the population was either stationary or only slightly increased; while in other parts of the country, and in the metropolis, the marriages decreased. The inquiring reader will naturally be desirous of ascertaining the cause of the marked decrease of nuptial unions which took place in 1842. The Registrar-General thinks it a "fair inference" that this diminution was caused, at least in part, by the great depression of trade and stagnation of commerce then unhappily prevailing.

The

Upon an average of the four years 1839-42 there was one marriage annually to every 130 persons living-64 males and 66 females. The proportion of marriages varied in the 11 divisions, from 1 in 102 in the metropolis, and 1 in 120 in the N.W. division, to 1 in 149 in the S.E. division. In the extra metropolitan districts of Surrey and Middlesex the marriages were to the population as 1 to 206, and 1 to 212; in Essex and Herts as 1 to 154, and 1 to 168; in the East Riding of Yorkshire (with the city of York) as 1 to 108; and in Lancashire, as 1 to 115.

The number of marriages in 1842 throughout the districts of England was 118,825, and the total number of re-marriages, 26,198, of which 15,619 were widowers, and 10,579 widows. The proportion per cent. of persons who had been married before was 11.02, or 1 in 9.07.

The marriages of 1842 were most numerous in the June and December quarters, but the ordinary distribution over the seasons was a little disturbed by the decrease having fallen on the June and September quarters, when less marriages by 4,612 were celebrated than in the corresponding quarters of 1841; whilst the sum of the marriages in the March and December quarters was 941 more than in 1841.

The number of marriages in Scotland and Ireland cannot be stated, no returns having been published respecting those parts of the united kingdom. Turning to the account of births, it is found that 2,024,774 births and 1,391,979 deaths were registered in 1839-1842, whence it follows that the

excess of births registered in four years amounted to 632,795. The mean annual number of births was 506,194; of deaths, 347,995; and the annual addition to the population registered was on an average 158,199. The number of births registered in 1842 was 517,739; of deaths, 349,519, and the excess of births over deaths, 168,220. At the rate of increase which prevailed in 1831-1841, the population would be, 16,033,752 on New Year's day, 1842, and 16,247,641 on New Year's day, 1843; so that the increase would be 213,889 in the year 1842. The births registered to 100 females living, in the four years 1839-42, were, 6.211, 6.250, 6.289, and 6.273, making, upon an average, 6.256 per cent., or nearly 1 in 16 annually. The increase in the number of births registered was less than the estimated increase of the population. The frequency of birth was greatest in Lancashire and Cheshire (8.559 per cent.), and least in the South-eastern division (2.887 per cent.)

The number of illegitimate children registered in 1842 amounted to 34,796, which is 14,757, or 74 per cent. more than in the numbers given by Mr. Rickman's return of 1830; the population having increased only 17 per cent. in the 12 years. This difference is ascribed, amongst other causes, to an actual increase in the proportion of illegitimate children during the operation of that important change in the Poor Laws which threw the charge of maintaining their illegitimate offspring upon the mothers. But to whatever cause the increase may be attributed, the relative numbers of legitimate and illegitimate births and baptisms returned in 1830 and 1842 show in the latter year a relative, as well as an absolute, excess of illegitimate children. In 1830 the proportion was 5.0 per cent., or one bastard in every 20 births; in 1842, it was 6.7, or one bastard in every 15.

Cumberland, Notts, Lancashire, Herefordshire, Norfolk, and Cheshire are the counties in which the greatest proportion of bastards are born; whilst Middlesex, Cornwall, Surrey, Devon, Monmouthshire, and Warwickshire are at the bottom of the list, and had not more than 330 bastards born to 100,000 females living, nor more than 5.2 per cent. illegitimate of 100 children born alive. In the counties of Hereford and Cumberland, 10.6 and 11.4 per cent. of the children are born bastards; in Devon and Cornwall, only 5.1 and 4.2 per cent. are born out of wedlock.

The registrar-general refutes the assertion made by one of the latest writers relative to the excessive number of early and improvident marriages which take place in Ireland, by quoting the details of the Irish census of 1841, from which it appears that of 1,643,704 men, aged 17 to 46, only 690,086 were married; and that of 689,829 aged 17 and under 26 years, 633,753 were unmarried.

The proportion of married women in Ireland, at the age of 16 to 46, was 45.48 per cent.; and in the absence of the information relative to the English population, which the late census has not furnished, it may be assumed for the moment that the proportion of married women in England aged 15 to 45 is also 45.48; it may be greater, but it is not at all likely to be less. Upon this assumption, of 3,811,654 English women, aged 15 to 45, in 1841, about 1,733,576 must have been married; leaving 2,078,078 widows and spinsters, who with the married women, were the mothers of the children born in 1842. The registrar observes, however, that neither the returns of illegitimacy nor the criminal returns can be taken as tests of the state of morals.

On the subject of bastardy, and the law lately passed on that subject, the report states that the mortality amongst bastards is, as in other countries, no doubt greatly above the average; for without any crime of his own, the illegitimate child is often exposed to dangers, hardships, and ignominy from his infancy, the law declaring him to be filius nullius. But to this important branch of the report, upon which interesting statistical information from various European countries is brought to bear, we shall endeavour to recur on a future occasion.

(To be continued.)

LAW.

ARCHES COURT, TUESDAY, FEB. 18.

THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY HOMER AND BLOOMER AGAINST

JONES.

THIS was a question as to the admissibility of the articles in a proceeding against a clergyman for incontinence. The bishop of the diocese had, under the Church Discipline Act, issued a commission of inquiry, and the commissioners had reported that there was primâ facie ground for proceedings, upon which the case was sent by letters of request to this court.

Dr. Addams, on behalf of the party proceeded against, objected to the articles that one of them imputed an offence committed in another diocese, which rendered that article inadmissible at least, and might extend to the whole, since the proceeding was founded entirely upon the report of the commissioners, who might have been mainly influenced by that particular charge. Dr. Phillimore, for the promoter, contended, that there was nothing in the Act which prohibited the court from entertaining the charges relating to both dioceses. In the case of a clerk holding no preferment, the Act provided that the bishop of the diocese in which the offence was committed should proceed; but there was nothing to show that if a clerk holding preferment in one diocese committed an offence in another, he might not be proceeded against by his own bishop.

The Court.-Then he may be proceeded against twice for the same offence, for the bishop in whose diocese the offence is committed may proceed.

Dr. Addams. And if the offence be committed at Paris, there could be no proceeding at all under the Act.

Sir H. Jenner Fust.-The bishop in whose diocese the offence is committed by a clerk holding preferment in another diocese, may issue a commission of inquiry, and if the commissioners report that there is prima facie ground, the bishop of the diocese in which the party holds preferment is to proceed. In this case, the inquiry of the commissioners, and consequently the articles founded upon their report, must be limited to the diocese in which the party holds preferment; and this court is confined by the letters of request from the bishop of that diocese, who can only proceed in respect to acts of immorality within his own diocese. The article pleading an offence without the diocese in which the party holds preferment must, therefore, be rejected.

BLUCK AGAINST RACKHAM.

This was an appeal from the Consistorial Court of Norwich, in a proceeding against the Rev. John Bluck, Rector of Walsoken, in that county and diocese, by Mr. Matthew Rackham, (a party duly authorised,) under the Act 1 and 2 Vict. c. 106, an Act for making better provision for the residence of the clergy, for being absent from his benefice for more than three months and less than six, whereby he had forfeited (under the 32nd section of the statute) one-third of the annual value of his benefice, which annual value was pleaded to be at least 1100l. The Judge of the Court below, held that the allegation had been proved, and the forfeiture incurred.

Dr. Curteis, (with whom was Dr. H. Nicholl) for the appellant, argued that the proceeding had been altogether erroneous, inasmuch as it should have been under the Church Discipline Act, (3 and 4 Vict. c. 86,) if that objection were overruled, the proceeding had been vitiated by errors in carrying it on; and, lastly, the proof of non-residence was insufficient. This was a criminal proceeding to punish Mr. Bluck for an ecclesiastical offence, and according to the doctrine of Lord Denman, in the Dean of York's case, the proceeding should be under the Church Discipline Act. It was probable that the framers of this