Page images
PDF
EPUB

Facts! The Bishop might as well say, 'It is sufficient to reassert the facts that I am right and you are wrong.' What does he mean? That these are accepted facts which no one disputes? He must know that the Jews interpret those books differently, that every jurist out of England interprets those books differently, that a Reverend Canon of the Church of England has done, and many others, I believe, do so. He must know that there is an order in the Old Testament to a brother to raise up issue from his deceased brother's widow, showing a difference between relationship by blood and affinity. He must know that men of the highest ability find in the Old Testament a permission by implication for these marriages. Facts! Really, with all respect for the Right Reverend Prelate, it is idle to call his opinions facts.' Oddly enough, the Bishop, though he thinks it unnecessary to go into the theological argument, and having stated his facts,' proceeds to say, 'It is on this last point that the whole subject at present really turns.' But taking the facts to be as he says, it is still a question what nearness of kin is within the prohibition.

[ocr errors]

I urged that it was impossible that a benevolent Lawgiver would convey a command by a metaphor instead of by plain words, when the command was to prohibit a thing opposed neither by reason nor instinct. There is no answer to that. The Bishop does indeed say that there was an unprovoked attack on the 'moral character of metaphor.' I do not know what the moral character of metaphor' means; but it is, again I must say it, not true that I in any way attacked the metaphor relied on. On the contrary, I spoke of it most respectfully as a strong and forcible expression, only denying that it could be true, not as a metaphor, but a statement of fact. I never said that 'metaphor and fiction were synonymous terms,' or anything like it. The Bishop says, 'We are told that it is our duty to follow the colonies in their legislation on this subject.' Again I am compelled to repeat, I did not say so. I said it was desirable if we could to have the same laws on the subject as they had. I expressly said that that argument could not affect those who thought there was a religious prohibition of these marriages. I say, then, that no answer has been given to the arguments to show that no religious consideration exists to justify this mischievous law.

4. I urged that though, where a man admitted a Divine command existed, it might be reasonable to compel him to obey it, yet it was not reasonable, when he denied the command, that he should be bound because others thought it existed-I instanced the doctrine of the Trinity, transubstantiation, and other matters, as to which people, in days when theologians ruled, were tortured and burned by those with whom they did not agree that liberty of conscience and conduct were now allowed, and I asked what justification was there for forbidding those who thought these marriages lawful from

contracting them? The Jews say these marriages are lawful. They were burned formerly for their religious opinions, which included this. They are not now. They are allowed their opinions. Why not on this as far as theological opinions are concerned? And if the Jews, why not Christians who think as they do? There is no answer to this. The Bishop may say, none was deserved. Perhaps. But that may be said of a good argument when you cannot answer it as well as of a bad one.

5. I said there was no reason of a social character against these marriages. The only thing in the nature of an argument to the contrary in the Bishop's paper is this:

The question is often asked, May I not marry my sister-in-law? The real question is whether I may have a 'sister-in-law' at all. If the law which forbids us to marry is abolished, in what does the relation of sister between us consist? 'Thenceforward she is no more to her sister's husband than any other female friend, but an acquaintance to him,' two sets of kindred in one home.

Oh, dear, all the people in the colonies have lost their sisters-inlaw, and cannot have any fresh ones. Two sets of kindred in one home! Why there might be three or more if he had had a second or third wife. What an argument! The husband is supposed to say or think, 'If my wife dies I can marry her sister, therefore she is not my sister, therefore I do not care for her.' How is one to deal with this reasoning shall I call it? If the wife had a female cousin, she, I suppose, would be a cousin-in-law. If the husband were prohibited marrying her after his wife's death, would he love her more? The Right Reverend Prelate is very fond of these sisters-in-law.' He heads his paper 'Sisters-in-law.' It has perhaps not occurred to him that they are sisters in law, not in fact. And let it not be said that is to make law and fact inconsistent. They are not; they are different, not contradictory. Again, in French this fine argument would fail him. Would not a belle-saur continue a belle-sœur if the man might marry her? The cognata in Italian? In German meines Weibes Schwester?

The Bishop says that if this alteration in the law is made, all impediments from affinity logically must be given up. I say no; whether theologically that consequence logically follows, I know not. But I say social considerations forbid all marriages of affinity in the ascending and descending line, e.g. marriage with a stepdaughter or stepmother. Nor, if the present practical evil were got rid of, can I see how others could complain, as the Bishop says they reasonably would, of 'intolerable wrong' and being a victim of senseless tyranny' because an intolerable wrong and senseless tyranny had been removed as to some. The Bishop says the argument has more of policy than honesty in it. It is politic certainly, when you have to deal with objectors some of whom are wholly unreasonable, to excite their unreasonableness as little as possible, and

it is perfectly honest, for there is no concealment and no untruth in it. The Bishop very clearly understands it.

The Bishop says:

The Church of England would be sorely aggrieved if her clergy were even allowed to celebrate in her churches unions which for centuries her courts, her canons, and her prayer books have declared unlawful.

Has her Prayer Book so declared? I thought not. Her canons have never with their ipso facto excommunications been received by the laity.

One word of a personal character. The Bishop speaks of Lord Bramwell's sneer at priests.' I never sneered at them, I should think it unbecoming to do so. I said that, like the rest of mankind, they loved power neither more nor less. Is that a sneer? Is it untrue? The Bishop says he should not look for illustration of the use of metaphor in any case to writing from Lord Bramwell's pen. Why he should make this personal remark I know not. It does not advance his argument nor meet mine. But he is right. He would not find it. I am flattered by his knowledge of my style.

The Bishop has twice spoken of a quiet life. 'It (the proposed change in the law) will be but the beginning of troubles to those whose chief anxiety is to lead a quiet life.' 'I am very anxious that the lovers of a quiet life, for whose happiness I am much concerned, should open their eyes to the prospect before them.' Is quiet the great object of life? The Bishop is a successor of the Apostles. Does he think they have set him the example of leading a quiet life, or does he think they held something more precious? Let me advise the Bishop if he wishes for a quiet life to keep silent and quiet on the subject of this cruel, mischievous, and unjustifiable law which he has tried to defend.

BRAMWELL.

SCHOOLS AS PRISONS AND PRISONS AS

SCHOOLS.

A ROYAL COMMISSION was issued in 1882 for inquiry into the operation, management, control, inspection, financial arrangements, and condition generally, of reformatory and industrial schools; and to report what amendments are expedient in order to render such institutions more efficient.

The inquiry was an elaborate one, extending over two years, and the Commissioners made a circuit of the three kingdoms in its pursuit.

A very full report, and summary of recommendations, were presented to Parliament in 1883, signed by all the fourteen colleagues, with a few additional memoranda from some of them; all of them being men who had taken a large part in legislation or administration connected with the subject. In the mass of evidence may be found the opinions of every kind of authority.

Unfortunately the deadlock in Parliament has hitherto prevented any benefit from all this labour accruing to the nation.

We may hope this incubus on legislative action will be soon cleared away by the force of general impatience, and it may be of public service, therefore, before Parliament meets again, to call attention to this very important subject, and put its consideration forward amongst the agenda for the approaching session.

The idea in which the legislature, more than thirty years ago, undertook to carry out on a national scale what had been already begun by private philanthropy for the education of children rescued from neglect and crime, was that both moral obligation and public interest demand that a mass of the youth of this country should not. be allowed to grow up without any decent home-care or guardianship, or training for honest employment.

Children convicted of crime are under the general criminal law; but a distinction is recognised, both as to responsibility and punishment, of the several degrees of age and of discretion; and even where infancy has arrived at full liability, guilt is measured by the individual character, capacity, or apparent malice and wilfulness of the young culprit.

But the homelessness of many children convicted of crime, and the exposure to inevitable crime by total neglect of many others, led to special legislation for such cases. Whatever punishment any crime required for deterrence from its repetition, and for public example, at all events a home was needed for children, and education due to childhood. Private charity led the way, and by success and beneficence, roused public opinion to compel the State to assume nationally the wanting parental care, and supply completely the necessary tutelage of home and school.

[ocr errors]

The first private institution for this purpose in this country was set on foot in the last century as a group of cottage homes in the then village of Hackney, 'for boys and girls who by neglect, or by bad company, had fallen into crime.' In 1849 this institution was moved to Redhill in Surrey, and it there took the character and name of a Farm School,' in imitation of the Colonie Agricole' which was founded by De Metz at Mettrai in Normandy. Other like institutions were set up by private benevolence, both in this country and abroad, before our legislature made its first essay in so great a national enterprise; and the first essay in legislation showed how little the work was generally understood.

A juvenile prison' was established at Parkhurst in the Isle of Wight, where boy-criminals, who between the ages of eight and eighteen had been sentenced to transportation, might be dealt with apart, though not very differently, from adult criminals. They were kept in separate confinement for five or six months, and then transported to Western Australia. Mr. Rogers, inspector of reformatories, gave evidence before the Commissioners of the total failure of this attempt at penal education, which was speedily abandoned, as it deserved.

In 1851 a large and influential conference was held in Birmingham to consider how the State might undertake a fitter treatment of what they most truly called the dangerous class of youthful criminals. Their recommendation was coldly met by the Home Secretary, who thought public opinion was not ripe for effectual legislation on the subject, but he referred the question to a select committee.

In 1853 I drafted a Bill, and it is with the deepest interest I can now refer to correspondence about it, which I have preserved, with such men as Lord Brougham, Mr. Davenport Hill, Mr. Cobden, Joseph Sturge, and others. Lord Palmerston, then Home Secretary, warmly took in hand my draft, and had it recast as a Government measure. It passed, with little debate in either House, as 'The Youthful Offenders Act of 1854.' It is significant of the slow development of ideas on the subject that the Lord Chancellor, Cranworth, in introducing this Bill to the Lords, warned them that the objection might be taken to it, that if they gave a person a

« PreviousContinue »