to be peremptorily monished immediately to remove the same; and further, that if such monument contain any inscription contrary to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, and to the articles of the said church, the person or persons so offending ought not only to be peremptorily monished immediately to remove the same, but also duly corrected and punished according to law; that the defendant, notwithstanding, did erect a tomb or headstone in the churchyard of Carisbrooke, to the memory of her husband, without the consent of the vicar, and without a faculty, and that upon such tomb or headstone were contained, amongst other, the two following inscriptions-"Pray for the soul of J. Woolfrey;" and "It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead;" both which inscriptions were contrary to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, and to the articles, canons, and constitutions thereof, and particularly to the 22nd article; that due notice had been given to the defendant to remove the stone, but she had refused, or neglected to do so, and that the same still remain to the great scandal and offence of the parishioners and others. The prayer that the defendant be decreed and monished to remove the stone, and be canonically corrected and punished, and condemned in the costs.

Dr. Addams, for the defendant, entered into a long argument, and quoted many authorities, to prove that prayers for the dead were neither unscriptural nor contrary to the doctrine or practice of the Church of England, nor necessarily connected with the Popish doctrine of purgatory. The Queen's Ad

vocate spoke on he other side, and moved the court to issue a "peremptory monition" for the removal of the monument.

On the 12th December following Sir Herbert Jenner gave judg ment. He commenced by stating the nature of the offence charged against Mrs. Woolfrey, namely, the having erected a tombstone with an inscription described in the citation as "contrary to the articles, canons, and constitutions, and to the doctrines and discipline of the Church of England." The first question was, whether the inscription was perfectly described; in other words, was the inscription itself proper or improper? The promoter of the suit was bound to prove its illegality; and he would say that the minister of the parish was the proper person to promote the suit in cases where the interference of the Court was required to prevent churchyards from being made instruments of propagating doctrines opposed to those of the Church of England. It appeared to him, that the whole question turned upon the point, whether praying for the dead was necessarily connected with the Romish doctrine of purgatory, so as to make them inseparable. It was the doctrine of Purgatory that the Articles of the Church denounced; and beyond the Articles the court could not go. It was necessary, therefore, to enquire what was the Romish doctrine of purgatory. The judge then went into a learned history of the origin and progress of the doctrine, and he came to the conclusion, that it was not introduced till the year 593, whilst the practice of praying for the dead prevailed at a much earlier period. He quoted the works of Jeremy Taylor, the

formula of Henry the Eighth, the Book of Common Prayer, promulgated by Edward the Sixth, and other documents, to prove that prayers for the dead had been duly authorised by the Protestant Church of England. There could, therefore, be no doubt that pray. ers for the dead were not considered as part of the Romish doctrine of Purgatory, by the fathers of the English Reformed Church. It was, however, against that doctrine that the 22nd Article chiefly relied on, was directed. It was urged that the 35th Article, which set forth certain homilies as containing good and wholesome doctrine, was decisive against prayers for the dead; for the Homily No. 7, it was alleged, designated such prayers as erroneous. But though erroneous, they were not denounced as unlawful; and on this head also he was of opinion, that there had been no violation of the Articles of the Church of England. It was again maintained, that the words" It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead," were not those used in the English version of Maccabees: but then, he considered the main point to be, not whether they were according to the Romish or Protestant version, but whether they were consistent with the latter, and not opposed to the doctrine of the Church. The citation was also defective: it ought to have stated that the tombstone was erected without the consent of the Vicar; and the defendant might have been prepared with an answer to what was a distinct and separate offence. The citation was insufficient to raise that point. On this last head, therefore, the articles were also inadmissible, and must be dismissed with costs.

22.-IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-Case of Libel.The Attorney-General showed cause against a rule for a criminal information, obtained by the Marquess of Blandford against the publisher of the Satirist newspaper. The Marchioness of Blandford and her children were also parties to the application on which the rule was granted. The complaint against the newspaper was for the publication of a libel impugning the legality of the marriage of Lord Blandford, and the legitimacy of his children by that marriage. The libel alleged that the Marquess of Blandford, in 1817, married Miss Susan Adelaide Law, a young lady of seventeen, residing with her father and mother in Seymour Place Bryanstone Square; that he had a daughter by her; and took the mother and his child to Scotland, where Miss Law was introduced to the present Marquess of Breadalbane, Sir William Elliot, and Sir Tyrr whitt Jones, as his wife; that subsequently Lord Blandford married the daughter of the Earl of Galloway, and had children by herthe present Earl of Sunderland, and others, who were illegitimate. The affidavit of Lord Blandford, on which the rule for the criminal information was obtained, denied that there had been any marriage with Miss Law; though the parties had lived together, and 4001. a year had been paid to the lady as an allowance. Sir William Elliot and the Marquess of Breadalbane also made affidavits, that Miss Law had not been introduced to them as the lawful wife of Lord Blandford. Sir T. Jones was not in a condition to make an affidavit. The Attorney-general, for the defendant, produced an affidavit

by Miss-Law; who stated that the marriage ceremony between herself and the Marquess of Blandford had been performed by a person whom Lord Blandford represented as a clergyman, and his own brother, at her father's house; that she subsequently discovered that the pretended clergyman was an officer in the army; and that Lord Blandford having been taxed with the fraud, promised to take her to Scotland, where, by publicly acknowledging her as his wife, she would become so legally. The parties in the mean while had been living together as Captain and Mrs. Lawson, in Manchester Street, Manchester Square; and Miss Law had a child four months old when she went to Scotland, escorted, as far as Boroughbridge, by Colonel James Stuart, Lord Blandford's uncle, and the present Earl of Galloway, then Lord Garlies. At Boroughbridge she met Lord Blandford, who went with her to Carlisle; and then she proceeded alone to Edinburgh, where lodgings had been taken for her by Sir William Elliott. The Marquess joined her in Edinburgh; and they lived together as Captain and Mrs. Lawson. Soon afterwards returned to London, and was directed by the Marquess to take a furnished house; but this she refused to do, when she heard of the intended marriage with Lord Galloway's daughter, which afterwards took place; but she received an allowance of 400l. a-year through the Duchess of Marlborough, which sum had been recently cut down to 2001. Five years after her separation from the Marquess, that person made overtures for the renewal of the connexion; which he on reflection thought proper to withdraw. These

were the chief facts stated by Miss Law. The defendant swore, that he had no malicious intent, and believed that the statements he published were true.

Sir William Follett, in support of the rule, contended, that the prosecutor's affidavit had not been met; and that no proof was given of the legality of the marriage in 1817, which all the parties must have known to be a farce-at least if Miss Law was deceived, her father and mother could not have been; but there was no affidavits from them. As to the acknowledgment of the marriage in Scotland, there were affidavits from Sir William Elliot and the Marquess of Breadalbane that Miss Law was not received as the Marchioness of Blandford; and Sir William Elliot said, that he took the lodgings in Edinburgh for Mrs. Lawson alone, not for Captain and Mrs. Lawson. Miss Law had not been married, to be sure, since her connexion with Lord Blandford had terminated, but she had had a family of children. The defendant's justification had failed in essential points.

Mr. Richards, on behalf of the Marchioness of Blandford and her children, pressed the Court to make the rule absolute.

Lord Denman consulted with the other Judges, and then delivered the decision of the Court as follows:

"This is an application of a serious and interesting nature, both as regards the parties affected by it and as it relates to the principles on which we ought to admi nister justice with respect to criminal informations. I have not the least difficulty in saying, that if Lord Blandford alone had applied for this rule, I would never, for

one, have consented to make it absolute; for, upon his own statement, a strong imputation is conveyed on his own conduct towards a respectable young lady. Her statements are certainly of a nature to create suspicion; but that some contrivances were resorted to, I have no doubt whatever, and I do not think that we should be justified in pronouncing them to be perjured. But Lord Blandford is not the only person to be considered his wife and family complain of a libel which attacks them in their dearest interests and most tender feelings, and distinctly puts forward a series of imputations, with respect to which, I agree with the learned counsel who have supported the rule, that there is

nothing in the affidavits on either side to show that such imputations are well founded. The Marquess of Blandford himself swears, that there was no marriage either in England or Scotland; and I do not find anything which, in fact, impeaches that statement. Considering, therefore, the interests of the individuals I have mentioned, and the importance of warning those who are disposed to traffic with character in this way, that they cannot be allowed to do so with impunity, I think we are justified in saying, notwithstanding the misconduct of Lord Blandford, that Lady Blandford, the Earl of Sunderland, and the rest of the issue of this marriage, are entitled to have this rule made absolute."

"MY LORD,-The interruption occasioned to the progress of the public business of the present Session of Parliament by the melancholy event of the demise of his late Majesty, renders it necessary for me to address you without delay, as to the course which it is proposed to adopt with reference to existing affairs in Lower Canada. Her Majesty's Government feel, that in the prospect of an early dissolution of Parliament, it is impossible, consistently with a due regard to the public interest, to proceed during the present Session with several important measures already under the consideration of Parliament, but still in an incomplete state; and no less so to introduce any new measure, the immediate necessity for which is not so urgent as to render even a temporary postponement impracticable. Under these circumstances, it has been determined not to submit to Parliament

during the present Session, the bill to which I referred in my despatch of the 22nd ultimo, and which was to have been founded on the resolutions of both Houses of Parliament on the affairs of Lower Canada. While postponing measures of great public interest and importance connected with the affairs of this country, her Majesty's Government cannot but think, that it would be unadvisable to adopt a different course with regard to a measure affecting the privileges of the legislature of Lower Canada. Much as they have always lamented the necessity of adopting such a measure under any circumstances, they would, at the present moment, feel a peculiar reluctance in resorting to it, as they would deeply regret, that one of the first legislative acts of the reign of her most gracious Majesty should carry even the semblance of an ungracious spirit towards the representatives of her Majesty's loyal and faithful subjects in that province. At the same time, her Majesty's Government have not overlooked the necessity of