he found a willing instrument in a knight of Yorkshire, named Sir William Fulthorpe, a son, we think, of the judge of the last reign, but in no way himself connected with the law.

"Henry on reflection could not help approving his judge's boldness, and so far from withdrawing his confidence from him, seems to have been in the familiar habit of putting supposed cases for his opinion. According to a report in Plowden he demanded of the judge, if he saw one in his presence kill J. S., and another that was innocent indicted for it before him and found guilty of his death, what he would do in such a case?' And he answered that he would respite judgment, because he knew the party was innocent, and make further relation to his majesty to grant his pardon; and the king was well pleased that the law was so; but then he could not acquit him and give judgment of his own private knowledge."

Mr. Foss next enters on a very conclusive argument to prove that Shakspear and Lord Campbell are alike wrong in extending Gascoigne's dynasty as Chief Justice into the reign of Henry V. The poet makes the king re-invest the inflexible Chief Justice with the balance and the sword;" and Lord Campbell says he "can prove to demonstration that Sir W. Gascoigne actually filled the office of Chief Justice under Henry V." On the contrary, Mr. Foss shows that the demonstration in question cousists only in the mention of him as Chief Justice in the summons to parliament, dated the day after the accession of Henry, and before he could have been possibly superseded. In that very parliament, only six weeks afterwards, his place was filled by Sir William Hankford, whose name also occurs at the same time as presiding in the King's Bench in the Year Books. Hankford's appointment is dated moreover March 29, 1413, only eight days after the king's accession. On Sir W. Gascoigne's monument also he is styled "Nuper Capit. Justic. de banco Hen. nuper regis Angliæ quarti." There certainly therefore can be no doubt that Lord Campbell has fallen into one of those little oversights which occasionally blemish biographies. Henry V. was by no means a great-minded monarch, and took the earliest possible opportunity of resenting the indignity he had received when prince at the hands of this excellent and upright judge, who died 17th December, 1419, and was buried at Harewood, where his mutilated monument still remains.

We must find room for one more sketch.

"William de Courteneye, Bishop of Hereford and of London, Archbishop of Canterbury-Chancellor, 1381.-William de Courteneye was the grandson of Hugh de Courteneye, Earl of Devon, who was justice itinerant in the last reign. His father Hugh, the second Earl of that name, died in 1377, and his mother was Margaret, daughter of Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford, by Elizabeth,

daughter of Edward the First. William, the fourth son, was born at Exminster, near Exeter, about the year 1327. He pursued his studies at Oxford, where he took the degree of Doctor of Civil Law, and was afterwards Chancellor of that University. Educated for the priesthood, his connections soon procured him many rich benefices, among which were prebends in the three cathedrals of Exeter, Wells, and York. From the last he was elevated to the bishopric of Hereford, by papal provision, on August 17, 1369, and after presiding over that see for nearly six years, he was translated to London on Simon de Sudbury being removed to Canterbury.

"Among the favourers of Wickliffe, whose opinions at this time gained so much ground as to alarm the Church, was John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster; and when, towards the end of Edward's reign, Bishop Courteneye, in obedience to the Pope's mandate, summoned the reformer to be examined, the duke attended him to St. Paul's church, where the meeting was held. There some violent words passed between the duke and the bishop, which ended in an unseemly threat on the part of the former. The assembled people, who as yet cared little for the religious question, fancying their bishop in danger, prepared to defend him, and by their clamours compelled the duke, who was no favourite with them, to retire. The populace outside, excited by other reports to his disadvantage, joined in the outcry; and the ferment was not appeased till they had broken open the Marshalsea prison, ransacked the duke's house in the Savoy, and contemptuously dragged his arms through the streets.

"Bishop Courteneye was appointed Chancellor of England August 10th, 1381. On the 5th of the same month the bishop received the king's assent to his election as archbishop of Canterbury; the temporalities of which, however, were not restored to him till October 23rd.

"Walsingham declares that he was dignified with a cardinal's hat, but the doubts of others seem to be supported by the absence of all notice of the fact in the epitaph inscribed on his gravestone in Maidstone church. This edifice he had entirely rebuilt, and had restored the church of Mepham, besides many liberal donations, amongst others to the church of Exminster, his native town.

"He died at his palace at Maidstone on July 31st, 1396, and was buried in the church there, in compliance with his testamentary injunctions, which declared that he did not think himself worthy of a resting place in his cathedral church.

Four pages

The sketches of reigns are somewhat laconic. and a half suffice for Richard III., and the mention of all judicial functionaries therein. Certainly not much could be said: and as the book proceeds to later times we shall have ampler details in a richer field.

ART. IV.-CRIMINAL CHILDREN.

CHOOLS for these poor outcasts have been often suggested instead of prisons. It has been thought that the ethics of Christianity should extend our philanthropy even to the most depraved and hopeless classes, and that our sympathies, usually alive enough to all respectable misfortune, are never so fitly applied as when they follow guilt to its dens, and deal with debasement. The appliances of benevolence are high and noble in proportion as its objects are low and vile. The highest province of education, for instance, is to teach and train and reclaim our young thieves and paupers; and the lowest, to school genteel youth. These are notions which twenty years ago would not have been tolerated in intellectual circles. The sentimental humanities of the last half century would have been much shocked at such "extraordinary notions." They have been less peculiar of late, and it has been found out that the said sentimental humanities and genteel benevolences, though they have provided schools and soup kitchens for honeysuckle cottagers, have allowed heaps of vice and filth, physical and moral, to culminate among us, which it will take a very different kind of charity to get rid of.

Miss Carpenter, Mr. Davenport Hill, Lord Lyttleton, Mr. Hubback, Mr. M'Gregor, Mr. Sydney Turner, Mr. D. Power, Sir John Pakington, Rev. Mr. Osborne, and one or two likeminded people in this respect, got up a conference at Birmingham, last December, to consider how to establish some reformatory and industrial schools for criminal children.

This conference was very cheeringly attended; good folks came from all quarters, and there was a muster of earnest sympathies from north, south, east and west. Here are some names to prove it:

Lord Lyttelton, Hagley; Sir John Pakington, M.P., M. D. Hill, Esq., C. B. Adderley, Esq., M. P., R. Monckton Milnes, Esq. M.P., W. Scholefield, Esq., M.P., D. Power, Recorder of Ipswich; W. Rathbone, Liverpool; George Holt, R. V. Yates, R. E. Harvey, and Joseph Hubback, Honorary Secretary of the Industrial Schools, Liverpool; George Edmonds, Clerk of the Peace, Birmingham; W. W. Whitmore, Dudmaston Hall, Bridgnorth; Joseph Sturge, Alderman Martineau, Rev. G. S. Bull, Rev. S. Gedge, and R. K. Douglas, Birmingham; J. Fletcher, Inspector of Schools; Rev. F. Bishop, Minister of the Liverpool Domestic Mission; C. H. Bracebridge, Atherstone Hall; Rev. T. Carter, Chaplain to the Liverpool Gaol; Rev. E. Chap

man, Honorary Secretary of the Bristol Ragged School; Rev. J. Clay, Chaplain of the Preston Gaol; Rev. J. Field, Chaplain of the Berkshire Gaol, Reading; W. Locke, Ragged School Union, London; Rev. R. L. Carpenter; J. W. Nutt, Honorary Secretary of the York Industrial Ragged School; Rev. W. Č. Osborne, Chaplain of the Bath Gaol; Rev. H. T. Powell, Chaplain of the Warwick County Asylum; Jelinger C. Symons, Barrister, Inspector of Schools; John Taylor, Manchester; Alexander Thomson, Banchory, Aberdeen; Rev. Sydney Turner, Chaplain of the Philanthropic Farm School; Barwick Baker, of Harkwick Court, Gloucestershire; G. Bengough, Gloucestershire; J. M'Gregor, Ragged School Union, London; Rev. J. Reader, Charles Jenner, Edinburgh; Thomas Reynolds, Bristol; H. Grant, Bristol; T. Osler, Clifton; Rev. W. Grier, Stourbridge; W. Morgan, W. Potter, Minister to the Poor, Church of the Saviour, Birmingham; and J. Corder, Clerk to the Guardians, Birmingham. Several ladies were also present, among them being the Hon. Miss Murray, and Miss M. Carpenter, author of that excellent work on "Reformatory Schools."

There were some forty or fifty besides. This gathering and the spirit of earnestness were very gratifying, but as to active business they did not do much. There was a vast deal of speechmaking, and a wonderful deal of time wasted in long statements of how necessary it was to deal with the criminal juveniles, and how much might be done to reclaim them. All of which every man and woman in the conference knew right well before they came there. In fact it was their knowledge of it that brought them. The thing which was wanted was scarcely begun, namely, how to set about the remedy, and what it should be. If there be one set of facts more thoroughly established than another in the minds of all people who have given the subject consideration, it is this:

1. That the juvenile offenders are a very numerous and abominably neglected class.

2. That they are reclaimable.

3. That prison punishments make them worse.

4. That we should train and reclaim them in reformatory establishments adapted to their case.

Starting with these assumptions as postulates, and things which it is puerile and a great loss of time to keep on saying and proving, inasmuch as nobody denies them, let us gather from the mass of speeches at Birmingham some few fragments on the discussible and questionable points of the subject.

Mr. Hill, in a most eloquent speech, said:

"Then let society enforce the claim on the parent, not so much for pecuniary indemnification-although that is by no means unimportant -as to vindicate a great principle, that of preventing any man from obtaining a benefit out of his own wrong-doing. I would, therefore, leave no stone unturned to extract from him the maintenance of that child whom he has brought into existence. Thus much is enough to show that while the treatment of adults is subject to the great contrariety of opinion to which I have adverted, the treatment of juvenile prisoners is, with a wonderful degree of unanimity, settled as to what it ought to be."

This is a great point, and cannot be too steadfastly borne in view. Mulet the parent if you want to check the criminality of the child. Put the saddle on the right horse.

"The classes in question are divided into two great and important branches those who are living in ignorance, vice, or neglect, but who have not come under the animadversion of the law, and have not yet received any sentence from its ministers. These form the unconvicted branch. The other branch is composed of those who, for whatever offence, and before whatever tribunal, have come under the grasp of the law. Let me begin by stating our views with regard to the first branch-the unconvicted. Now, we propose that our schools -evidence respecting the utility of which will be laid before you in abundance, which are specially adapted to the wants of this classshould be put, as far as may be, on the same footing as what are called National Schools and British Schools, and other schools of a kindred character, to which, under certain conditions, grants are made of public money. In order to obtain aid for schools adapted to this first branch, it is not necessary that any change should be made in the law as it stands. All that will be required is, that the Committee of Education shall see fit to change their regulations, which at the present moment exclude that very important class of schools from obtaining assistance, or assistance to any great extent. Now, the main conditions upon which the Government, by the Committee of Education, grants assistance, are that the masters and the pupil teachers in those schools to which aid is given, shall be competent to undergo certain examinations, and thus obtain what I shall call, identifying small things with great, a diploma that they are competent to impart certain specified branches of knowledge-certainly a very reasonable demand in respect of the schools for the offspring of the honest and respectable classes of society. Now, the fact is that these two classes cannot be brought into connection in schools. It is a curious circumstance that the objection does not come so much from the higher class as from the lower. The children of that lower class will not place themselves in a position to be looked down upon, as they call it. Their love of education and training is not strong enough to overcome this objection; and you cannot persuade them to enter the National Schools."

*

*

*

*