When a young couple had not money enough to pay for the share of the boat, the furnishing of the house, and the expenses of the wedding, they had what was called a penny-wedding. There was nothing royal or aristocratic in a penny-wedding, to which any one might come who chose to pay a shilling. The significance and rationale of the penny-wedding was this: “We are a couple of young people who think it better to marry than to do worse, and we deem it foolish and wicked to begin the world with debt. We therefore invite you, good neighbours, to amuse yourselves by dancing at our marriage, and, by paying as generously as may be convenient for the amusement, help us to begin the world with a fair chance of making both ends meet.” A common argument in favour of the penny-wedding was: the young man wants ten pounds of his share of the boat, and many persons gave their money who never went to the dances. The canvas for the penny-wedding took place among the carpenters, coopers, and sailors of the port; and employers, shopkeepers, ship-owners, and captains had generally a half-crown to spare for the young couple. The dinner at a penny-wedding consisted of abundance of meat and Scotch broth, served in broad pewter dishes. After dinner, the party adjourned to the links or downs, to dance “the shame dance;” and then they danced until they were tired. Known bad characters were inexorably excluded, decorum rigorously maintained, and “liberties” would have been indeed dangerous in a community in which every woman lived under the protection of a flag and at least half-a-score of hard fists. A severe critic of propriety would not probably have approved the amount of public kissing at a penny-wedding. Indeed, in this respect, Footdee resembled more the Court of the Neva than the Courts of the Thames or of the Seine; but in regard to the moral essentials of the problem of life, if there be a word of truth in court chronicles, the courtiers and courted of all the three royal rivers might have learned lessons from the Coast Folk of Footdee. CHIP. THE CONGRESSIONAL PRIZE-RING. The forcible mode in which debates are conducted in the parliament of the United States, and the personal encounters which sometimes follow them, are believed by the present generation, to be novelties and only recently brought to a culminating point by the Honourable Preston S. Brooks’s life-preserver, upon the head, face, eyes, and body of Senator Charles Sumner. This is a mistake. Fifty years ago, exciting debates often ended in a regular stand-up fight in the lobby of the House of Representatives. The combatants stripped, a ring was formed, bottle-holders appointed, and the battle fought and reported quite in the style of Moulsey Hurst and Bell’s Life in London.