empire of Porcelain. Her picture is proof of her once existence, as a discovered coin of a reign; and who knows if, in the wonders that mutability is working, she may not again rise a revivified civilisation in that strange land a new Aphrodite out of the sea of its turbulence, when the Tartar dynasty shall have quietly withdrawn itself; for it is better he should escape than she should "catch a Tartar." My letter concluded with the best of conclusions, that civilisation is, was, and ever will be, Feminine Influence. You may not like my Chinese model; but you, who would rather fight for the honour and reputation of your great-grandmother, than like a Bounderby deny a mother, will scan the mystery, and see its perfection.

I was vexed to find nothing of this in Census No. 1. There all was of the penmanship of Big Busybody, prime secretary of Prince Humbug, and I felt some pleasure in rolling about my tub in contempt. But whether it was that the Prince Humbug and his secretary were weary or hungry, and retired, or were shoved for a while from their seats of authority by a more masterly hand, I find quite another spirit in about the middle of Report No. 2, wherein, in coincidence with our --that is, your and my view-the feminine element is justly brought out and duly weighed its value and importance established. The writer of this portion of the Census, wisely dissatisfied with the assumed causes of our progressive population-namely, the mechanical inventions, which have apparently found employment for the people ascribes it to the influence of the changes in the conjugal state of the people. He passes in review the period of our history extending from 1651 to 1751. "The population increased very slowly; and we find that, after the restoration of Charles II., such a general dissoluteness of manners was inaugurated as can now be scarcely understood; while shortly after 1751 the law of marriage-which, like the institution itself, had grown inconceivably loose, and had at the same time been greatly abused-was reformed." Puritanism had drawn the social bow with too strong a hand; the string had broken, and it had hastily flown back

in the opposite direction. Profligacy was a fashion. The writer is here unsparing, yet justifies his severity by authorities given in the notes.

"The light poets, the players, and the gay men and women on town, led crowds of votaries into the extreme opposite to Puritanism. Young people of both sexes were brought from the country to Whitehall, where, instead of hard lessons of elevated thought and patriotism—such as Lady Jane Grey and her contemporaries learnt from Plato-they masqued, they ogled,' sang, and danced, under the eye of the Mother of the Maids,' and the higher auspices of the Queen, the Queen-Dowager, and the Duchess of York, until, wounded or terrified, they flew into concealment, or as it was everywhere deemed, ridiculously married, and ingloriously discharged the duties of English wives and mothers. The sisters, daughters, and wives of the loyalest subjects, the greatest generals, the wisest statesmen, and the gravest judges, figured in the Paphian train, glittering and smiling as the troop of Boccaccio in the pages of Grammont, and on the walls of Hampton Court; but with advancing years shattered, patched, degraded, fading

as they are seen in the authentic memoirs of the age, and life-like portraits of Hogarth."

As Hogarth was not born till 1698, the tenth year of the reign of William and Mary, it is surely straining a point for the picturesque effect of portraiture, to introduce him as depicting, in the dramatis persona of his scenic works, the profligacies of the reign or the Beauties of the Court of Charles II. In the frigid Court of William and Mary, "vice lost its graces and charms;" but profligacy is not at once eradicated; and it would be strange indeed if there was not enough of it in practice of the then world of fashion to justify the satire of the moral painter. The "homely but not shining qualities which regulated the court of the "devout, chaste, and formal" Queen Anne, so designated by Lord Chesterfield, a writer very tolerant of old vices, were not suffered to have a permanent effect upon the manners of the people, by the succession of the two first Georges. Among all classes

"the institution of marriage was unsettled to its foundations."

The effect of this state of things upon families was most pernicious. The due ratio of increase of population was stayed. A gradual improvement in the morals of the people commenced after 1751. Lord Hardwicke's bill, in 1753, was "one of the first evident reforms in the law of marriage." Historians do not express the same sentiments upon the operation of this bill-some viewing it as a means to secure to the aristocracy fortunes by marriages, others as giving a greater respectability to marriage itself. It was at the time considered by its opponents as likely to affect the population of the country. The writer in the Report observes: Experience soon showed, that instead of stopping marriage, and the growth of population, the Act had the contrary effect, by depriving the marriage ceremony of disgraceful associations by making it not a mere verbal promise, but a life contract to be recorded, to be entered into with deliberation by persons in the enjoyment of their faculties, and to be kept inviolate till death." And here it is fair to remark, that probably no small share of the disrespect in which marriages were held, and the consequent dissoluteness, may be ascribed to the Puritans, who, before Charles's arrival, in 1653, had passed a bill for solemnising marriages by justices of peace. The removal of any part of the sanctity of marriage has a tendency to bring it into disrepute; it is better that it should be held even as some would say with a superstition, thau merely as a civil contract, which, like most other civil contracts, may be broken ad libitum by those who are willing to incur the penalties. Modern legislation has, however, in this respect, brought the ceremony of marriage down still lower than the Act of the Puritans, by reducing even the official diguity of performance, and authorising marriages at the public Register Offices. Where there is little distinct religious feeling or principle, there is a superstition akin to it. And there are few who do not receive or remember, with a sense of awe, the solemn words, "Whom God hath joined together, let no man put

asunder;" and the evil suggestion, in the contrary case, is ready enough— Whom man joins man may put asunder, and if man only, it little matters what man. Parties may assume that privilege to themselves. It is hard to see how the Church of England can, at any after time, by their other official acts, recognise such marriages. What is to be said of the monition or warning, that "so many as are coupled together otherwise than God's word doth allow, are not joined together by God, neither is their matrimony lawful?"

"Since the Act (of 1753) came into operation, the registers of marriage have been preserved in England, and show an increase from 50,972 in the year 1756 to 63,310 in 1764 "The rage of marrying is very prevalent," writes Lord Chesterfield in the latter year; and again in 1767, "in short, the matrimonial frenzy seems to rage at present, and is epidemical." After many fluctuations, the marriages rose to seventy, eighty, ninety, and a hundred thousand annually; and in the Census year (1851) to a hundred and fifty-four thousand two hundred and six. Fourteen millions were added to the population. The matrimonial "frenzy " which amused Lord Chesterfield was rife in the reign of our Third George. You will not be surprised, Eusebius, to learn, that to George III., his queen, and the example of his court, is ascribed by this writer in the Census the change for the better in the morals and manners of the people. Family sanctities were established. The home influence of the virtuous mother was felt throughout the land. That purity was restored which had been nearly lost in the moral degradation of women of previous licentious times. It is with a grateful pleasure, Eusebius, as one born during that moral reign, and thankful for that love of a mother which was its law and rule, and my individual happiness, that I make the following extract:—

"Of the political course of George III. and Queen Charlotte opinions necessarily still differ; but the truth of the testimony to the Queen's private virtues will be universally admitted." (Here follows extract from Lord Mahon's History of Eng

husbands, and parted by shaking hands over a tombstone, as an act of dissolution of the marriage, under cover of the words "till death us do part."

This subject of marriage, of which you will see ample details in the Report, I have dwelt upon to this length because it is the very fountain-head of that feminine influence convertible into a national civilisation. From this arises the institution of the "Family" wherein maternity is enthroned, and home dignified by duties and responsibilities, and all the ties of love and the charities that civilise and grace life are engendered. These homes nestled and neighboured throughout the country, each an epitome of the kingdom which as a whole they constitute, maintain—and may they ever maintain-the best character of our race.

Whilst we are reading the heartstirring accounts of our victories, and are justly proud of the blood, sinew, and spirit of our race, it is of no small interest to see how that stock of manliness is likely to be maintained. You will be glad to find, Eusebius, that we can still and may for ages contend gloriously with the enemy "in the gate," ay, not only in our

own

gates," but in any enemy's gates. "The males at the soldier's age of 20 to 40 amounted to 1,966,664 in 1821, and to 3,193,496 in 1851. The increase on the thirty years is equivalent in number to a vast army of more than twelve hundred thousand men (1,226,832)."

How few of us, Eusebius, would wish the realisation of the superfluous compliment, "May you live for ever." For my own part, I do not think it pleasant to have prophetic statistics thrust before you like the physicians in the Bath Guide.

The doctors are counting how long I shall live; I hope the detail given on such heads will benefit insurance companies, for whom they seem to have been manufactured: I may be allowed to doubt if the idle curiosity will be of other advantage. If, however, you have any ardent desire for longevity, and like the gossips would keep a crow to see if it be true that it lives to a hundred, it may be some satisfaction to you to know your chances.

"In Great Britain more than half a million of the inhabitants (596,030) have passed the barrier of threescore years and ten ;' more than a hundred and twenty-nine thousand have passed the Psalmist's limit of fourscore years; and 100,000 the years which the last of Plato's climacteric square numbers expressed (9 times 9-81); nearly ten thousand (9847) have lived 90 years or more; a band of 2038 aged pilgrims have been wandering ninety-five years and more on the unended journey; and 319 say that they have witnessed more than a hundred revolutions of the seasons." Are you so satisfied with Plato's ultimatum, and is it so congenial to your " pleasing hope and fond desire," that you will clap your hands and say "Plato, thou reasonest well"? But if you should live to record the age of the old crow, I do not see why you should be pigeon-holed as an old wandering beggar, pathetically called a pilgrim on a weary journey. Far better that old age or death, kindly and amiably visiting, should find you in your easy-chair, resigned and cheerful, and sensible of and sensitive to all the charities of life. As some check to any supposed "pleasing hope and fond desire," you must be told that "twothirds of the centenarians are women," verifying the distich,

"The age of man is threescore years and ten, But that of an old woman nobody knows when."

The Report gives the examples of longevity, Thomas Parr and Henry Jenkins. Parr lived 152 years, niue months-Henry Jenkins 169 years. Let me, Eusebius, for your comfort, present you with others. Thomas Carn died January 28, 1588, aged 207 years,-parish register, St Leonard's, Shoreditch. And from the year 1759 to 1780 died 48 persons, the youngest aged 130-eldest 175; also in 1797, a mulatto in Frederick Town, N. A., said to be 180. Very numerous examples are to be met with, in Kirby's Wonderful and Eccentric Magazine, vol. v., among which will be found a true Darby and Joan couple, Hungarians, John Rovel and Sarah his wife. John is spoken of as in his 172d year, and Sarah in her 184th. "Their children," adds the account, "two sons and two daughters, are yet alive; the young

est son is 116 years of age. Dated August 25, 1725." You will smile at the simplicity of the compiler in the Report, in dealing in truisms. As "it can rarely, if ever, happen, that a husband and wife die in the same instant of time," and, in consequence, that "it may be assumed that, practically, every marriage is dissolved by the death of the husband or wife separately;" that if man and wife were universally of the same age, and lived out together the whole cycle of life, "there would be neither widowers nor widows in the world." That it is not so moves very unnecessarily the tender bowels of the writer's compassion-for besides the "descending the vale of years," and such other funereal expressions, he breaks out into a strain of lamentation, which makes page xl. resemble the scroll of Ezekiel, in which " was written lamentation, and mourning, and woe." He writes like an undertaker, whose lugubrious looks and utterances have a prospect beyond the assumed grief. I should suppose from this expression of very superfluous sorrow, that the penman had an eye to a new employment in the statistics-of-woe line, from the Sanitary Commission, while he winds up his threnody with a catalogue of the "ills that flesh is heir to." "The existence of 382,969 widowers, and 795,590 widows, some of tender age, in every class of society and in every part of the country, who have been left-as well as their companions that have been taken-by fever, consumption, cholera, and the cloud of diseases that at present surround mankind-stand like sad monuments of our mortality, of our ignorance, negligence, and disobedience of the laws of nature; and as memorials, at the same time, we may hope, of the sufferings from which the people may be delivered by sanitary discoveries and observances." This ungrammatical (for what is the nominative to stand?") and maudlin passage is a puff direct of the Sanitary Commission. It is like the outpouring, after the inpouring of that spirit which creates a crying inebriation. It will remind you, Eusebius, of the lady who was seen to wipe her eyes after dinner, who, when asked what she was crying for, replied with sobs, "It is

the anniversary of the death of poor, dear Queen Elizabeth." If the writer be a married man, and fears death, you will see, however, upon a second look at the passage, and statistic details elsewhere, that there may be some cause for this lamentation. You will note, Eusebius, that whereas one of the two forming every married couple must be taken before the other, the husband is generally the one to go.

For, seeing that there are only 382,969 widowers and 795,590 widows, more than double the number of widowers, the married man needs a pretty stiff tumbler at the moment of such a contemplation, to give his heart any decent hope and comfort. I remember once this comfort was actually felt by one who had, as he doubtless thought, escaped his natural fate. Upon an attempt to sympathise with him upon the death o his wife, he quickly replied, in a selfgratulating tone-" Yes-but it might have been much worse, you know I might have been taken myself." The calculations prophesy a worse condition than that of Sinbad in his connubial prosperity: he was to survive his wife at least a few hours.

These statistics may be useful in answering the purpose of Matrimonial Register Offices; for they notify in what localities widows may have the best chance of finding fresh husbandsand widowers, wives. You will think it the result of a deep philosophy, that this hidden truth is discovered in the Report "The number of widows who are every year left depends on the mortality of the husbands;" but as much abstruse truth, in the shape of matter of fact, may require explanation, it is thus given-"Where the rate of mortality among husbands is doubled, the number who become widows (in italics) is also doubled." Lest this should not be clear enough, and clearness is the very virtue of statistic writing, know that-" Any diminution in the mortality of men will therefore diminish the relative number of widows." Neither bachelors nor old maids (I hate, Eusebius, the ill-nature of the world that makes me write reluctantly the latter) will have reason to congratulate themselves, "fancy free" as they may now be from the cares and troubles of married