nothing more than a mere declaration by her as
to the age of her son made at a time when there
was no motive on her part to misrepresent his
age."

We mentioned as one of the requisites of
registration that the child should have a name.
It may happen, however, that the parents in the
interval between registration and baptism wish
to change this name, and, if this be the case,
the law will afford them facilities for so doing.
The baptismal name, however, once given, will
be from henceforth conclusive as to the child's
identity, and the courts (woful sceptics are the
courts) will require a vast amount of evidence to
prove the contrary.

We are tempted to introduce a fragment of
black letter law upon this subject, which may be
of some interest.

In olden times the baptismal name was not
unalterable, the bishop having power in certain
cases to confer a new name at confirmation.
"This was done," says Lord Coke, "in the case
of Sir Francis Gawdie, late chief justice of the
Common Pleas, whose name of baptism was
Thomas, and his name of confirmation Francis;
and that name of 'Francis, by the advice of all
the judges, in Anno 36 Hen. VIII., he did
beare and after used in all his purchases and
grants.'"

It appears that in the old confirmation service
the bishop addressed each candidate by name,
and thus had an opportunity of conferring a new
name when requested to do so; but as this
custom, since the last revision of the Prayer-
book, has been discontinued, it is doubtful
whether they now possess the power.

From some MS. notes, however, in an old
Prayer-book in the possession of Mr. Maskell,
the learned author of Monumenta Ritualia
Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ, it appears that the Bishop
of Lincoln, on the 21st December, 1807,
confirmed a lad in Henry the Seventh's Chapel,
"who on that occasion was to change his Christian
name; and accordingly the sponsors who
presented him delivered to the bishop a certificate,
which his lordship signed, to notify that
he had confirmed such a person by such a name,
and did order the parish minister then present
to register the person in the parish books in
that name;" and it is added, "This was done
by the opinion under hand of Sir Edward
Northey and Lord Chief Justice Holt."

Without further disclosure, however, of the
unpleasant interior of our pill, we may say that
this precedent is not likely to be acted upon in
our day: the more especially as the rule appears
to apply only when the child has had an improper
(as, for instance, a blasphemous) name given
him in baptism—an event we hope altogether
improbable now.

Having satisfactorily succeeded in registering
and naming our illustrative man, the law now
becomes solicitous as to his health, and, as a
preliminary consideration, suggests that he
should be vaccinated. For this purpose it
requires that he should be taken by his parents
within three months of his birth to medical
practitioner, and if the vaccination should not
"take" (as certain writers in the Times would
have us believe it will not), the reason of its not
succeeding, and why it is inadvisable to proceed
with it at that time, is to be sent to the registrar.
This certificate is to be renewed every two
months until a successful result is obtained.

Then the law, under ordinary circumstances,
has done with our illustrative man for a time.
It may not, however, of necessity be called upon
to interfere in his education. If, for instance,
John Blank's parents should quarrel, and agree to
live separate, then it will not allow him to be
entirely deprived of his mother's care; for,
notwithstanding the natural rights of the paternal
to the custody of the child, the Court of Chancery
is empowered to decree that the maternal
shall have the sole care of him until he is seven
years of age, and after that time that she shall
have proper access to him.

Moreover, if the conduct of both the paternal
and maternal be so bad that it would not be
good for him to be brought up by them, he may
be given over to a stranger for the purposes of
education. Once more, supposing that one or
both of the parents of our illustrative man
were to die, then the law would interfere in
determining in what religion he is to be
brought up.

It may possibly be in the recollection of our
readers that a case of this description arose out
of the late Crimean campaign. One Race, a
sergeant of marines, had the misfortune to be
killed, leaving a widow, who was a Roman Catholic,
and two children, a boy and girl. The gallant
sergeant, not having been blessed with much
worldly gear, these children were charitably
placed by the commissioners of the Patriotic
Fund at two Protestant schools, the boy in
Dorsetshire, and the girl in Hampshire. They
had both been baptised as Protestants, but
during the lifetime of the sergeant had been
brought up by their mother in the Roman
Catholic faith.

After the children had been resident for some
time at their respective schools, the mother
removed the boy, and was proceeding to do the
like with the girl, when Miss Race rebelled. "I
believe," she said, "that I should be disobliging
God by returning to my mother to be brought
up a Roman Catholic." And the commissioners
accordingly refused to allow her to be removed.
Nothing daunted by this refusal, and endowed,
it may be, with somewhat of the departed
sergeant's spirit, the mother applied to the Court
of Queen's Bench for a habeas corpus.

The matter, however, was not to end here.
Friends of the child, who were anxious to see
her Protestant, applied to the Court of
Chancery for an injunction to restrain the mother
from interfering with the religious education of
her daughter; and this injunction was granted.
Finally, Vice-Chancellor Kinderley, to settle the
question, decided that the child should be
brought up in the religious persuasion of the
father, and, to the best of this deponent's
knowledge and belief, this was done.