The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 16.
THE PORTSMOUTH CAUSE.
After a short conversation, it was decided that the further
hearing of this case could not be proceeded in on Tuesday next,
as had been previously arranged.

CONTEMPT OF COURT.
FARQUHARSON V, BALFOUR. •
This was an application for the immediate committal of the
defendant, a West India merchant, to the Fleet* Prison, for
Contemt of Court, in neglecting to put in his answer to the
plaintiff's bill. He appeared in the custody of the messenger.
Mr. HART had been instructed by the defendant, early in
the present term, to make a motion, the object of which
would have been to have requested a reasonable delay, in
order that the defendant might have been enabled to put
in his answer. In consequence, however, of the pressure
of business, he had not been enabled to follow his instruc-
tions so promptly as he otherwise should have done. But
he would not have remained inactive, had he had the most
remote idea that the plaintiff would have thus enkrced
the process of the Court against his client. To his con-
cern and great surprise, however, the defendant vs yes-
terday brought up from his country seat in custody of this
messenger. Now it so happened that the defendant could
not put in his answer until certain documents necessary to it ar-
rived from the West Indies, and from peculiar contingencies
connected with their transmission, they could not possibly arrive
in this country before the ensuing March or April. For his
part he could not conceive what necessity there was for dragging
this Gentleman from the comforts of his family, to compel him
to prepare his answer in the Fleet. He hoped his Lordship
would think it right, from this statement, to resist an applica-
tion which he understood was about to be made for the de-
fendant's immediate committal.
Mr. AGAR held that the defendant had placed himself in
his present situation, solely by his determination not to put in
his answer so long as he could avoid it. This bill was filed to
redeem a very considerable property in the West Indies, and
the defendant had received the mortgage-money. It was filed
in January, 1819, and he had availed himself of all the indul-
gence and delays which the Court afforded. He had made
special motions, founded on the absence of the necessary docu-
ments, by which the cause had been in this manner driven over
from term to term for a period of four years. He had roise to
the West Indies purposely for these documents, and had re-
turned without them ; lie now made this a pretence for further
delay. He hoped his Lordship would not comply with the
present application ; for to prove that delay alone was the de-
fendant's object, he had already put in three insufficient
answers.
The LORD CupTCELLOR could not interfere ; for if the
former judgment of the Court were correct, this gentlemen
could not put in a sufficient answer. Interference in this case
would go to sanction a defiance of the authority of the Court
altogether. He should therefore dismiss the application with
costs ; for he thought in a matter where the bill had been-filed
in 1819, and the answer had not been obtained atthe latter end
of 1822. there was no claim to indulgence.
The application was then dismissed with costs.
This result being obtained,
11lr. PARKER (before the Vice-Chancellor) immediately
made a motion that Mr. Balfour be committed to the custody of
th-.lWarden of the Fleet Prison, for contempt of CoUrt.
Mr. HART here again urged the Court to grant a few days in-
dulgence, as it was really, he said, the defendant's object to put
in a satisfactory answer.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR had no power to grant time, un-
less by the consent of the plaintiff. This was the first instance
in his recollection of a similar request.
The defendant was accordingly committed.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 16,
CIIURCHER'S COLLEGE, PETERSFIELD.

TUE ATTORNEY-GENEUAL V. U. JOLIFFE, ESQ., AND

OTHERS.

This was an information filed by his Majesty's Attornek.
General against the defendants, Hilton Joliffe, Thomas Samuel
Jolliffe, and Samuel Twyford, Esquires, the Rev. William
John Jolliffe, the Rev. Charles Edward Twyford, John Twy-
ford Jolliffe, Esquire, and the Rev. Thomas Robert Jolliffe,
Trustees of Churcher's College, Petersfield, praying the Court
to, remove them from their offices as Trustees, and that other
fit and proper persons, under the sanction of 'the Court, who
are resident in, or in the immediate neighbourhood of the
College and who are not the immediate relatives or connec-
tions of 2 the defendant Hilton Jolliffe, may be.appointed Trus-
tees in their stead ; and that the present Trustees may be com-
pelled to render an account ; and that the balance due from the
late William Jolliffe may be paid .with interest, and the
scholars may be hoarded and lodged within the College, ac-
cording to the founder's intention.
Mr. HEALD, in the absence of Mr. WETHERELL, having
mentioned the case, Mr. GLYNN opened-the pleadings. From
the information it appeared that in 1722 Richard Churcher, 'of
Petersfield, East India merchant, bequeathed 3,0001., Bank
Stock, for establishing a College in the Borough of Peters-
field, consisting of a master and ten or twelve boys; as the tttis-
tees should judge most convenient, according to the annual.in-
come ; the boys to betaken out of, and belonging to, the Borough
of Petersfield, of any age from 9 to 14, that were healthful boys,
and whose parents could give security to the trustees to oblige
their sons to be bound apprentices unto masters of ships that
made their voyages unto the Bast' Indies, after they had been
educated in the arts of writing, arithmetick, and the mathe-
maticks, chiefly that part as related to navigation, and after
they had had their diet, clothing, and tutorage free at the
bounty of the founder of this College, which was to be called
by the name of Churdlter's College; and, in order to purchase
an edifice capable of receiving a master and ten or twelve boys,
and that the trustees might be enabled to perfect the College,
and to give encouragement to the pupils whilst under tutorage,
or, when bound apprentices, and for convenient clothing, he
also gave 500/. for the erection of a proper edifice for the above
purpose, and appointed seven trustees to manage the college,
with powers to nominate their successors ; but to choose the
boys from the children of the townsmen only ; and he di-
rected that the 3,0001. Bank Stock should remain in that Com-
pany, never to be changed for other security, but upon the
greatest reason, and with the consent of all th‘ trustees : that
out of the annual income arising from this fund, 401. per an-
num shonld be paid half-yearly to the master, 101. per annum
for each boy's board, 40s: per annum for each boy's clothing,
namely, waistcoats and breeches of such colours as the trustees
please ; but the upper garment to be a blue gown, having
on each a badge of metal with the arms of the East India Com-
pany on it ; with the addition of shoes, stockings, shirts, and
blue caps ; and he directed that his silver tankard and his pic-
ture should remain as standards in the College for ever.
The design of the Founder was at first carried into complete
execution ; but in 1744, it was alleged, that the funds, from a '
change in the times, were inadequate, and that the Town's-
people would not send their children to sea, and, therefore, ftn.
Act of Parliament was obtained by the Trustees, to deviate
from the intention of the Founder and to enable them to bind
the boys to other trades than that of mariners, and to reduce the
number of scholars, ds long as they found the funds inadequate
for the support of the number directed to be maintained by the
Founder. Soon after this period, the offices of Trustees and
Treasurer fell entirely into the hands of Mr. Jolliffe's family, and
connexions. In 1802, 'Wm. Jolliffe, Esq. the father of the pre-
sent defendant, H. Jolliffe, and who was a trustee and the trea-
' surer of the College, (having succeeded his father,Jelin Jolliffe,
Esq.) died, leaving a balance to the amount of 1,6521. due to
the charity, anti which 'now remains unpaid, notwithstanding
there was an order given by the other trustees in 1803 to the
present defendant to pay into the College account the balance-
due from his late father to this charity. It also appears from
the information, that considerable sums of money had been
expended out of the College funds for a large additional school-
room, and that other alterations had been made for the nccom-
modation of the private boarders for some of the masters,
though for many years private boarders were not admitted.
The information also states that the defendants had neglect-
ed their duty by not improving the funds of the College, and
in not
.giving the foundation boys those advantages the
founder intended, and which the College income could afford ;
for it appears that the defendants, until the filing of this
information, were ignorant of the actual state and amount of
the College funds and indome, for in 1818-and, previously,
they only drew on the Accountant-General for about 2901.
a-year' when the income of the College Was above 5001. a-year ;
and that it likewise appears they suffered the sum of 1,5701. to
_ accumulate and remain unproductive in the Accountant-Gene-

rat's
,Office, from 1306 to 1819, after this information'was filed,
when bran &der of the Court it was invested in the Public
Funds.
It also appears, that in 1784 a Clergyman, Mr. Cookson,
had been put into the possession of College, and allowed to
reside in itfor about 13. years, and to receive the salary of 401.
a-year, as the -Master of the College, though contrary to the
founder's will, and that during this period the name at a Lay-
man, Mr. Steele, was entered and kept on the College-book
as the actual master, though he quitted the school .and the
town in 1786, having been allowed the salarrfor the two first
years of that period. It also appears from the information,
that the defendants had admitted boys on the charity, who
were not, as required by the founder, children of the townsmen
of Petersfield, and that the boys were not now boarded at the
College, -but obliged, to live out, whilst the present school-
master had been allowed to take in private boarders, to whom
every accommodation was giVen, without any benefit or ad-
-vantage whatever to the College, or the objeets of the Foun-
der's bounty; and that during\ the appointment of some of the
defendants as Trustees, whilst Mr. Cookson'and !Mr. Trim-
mings were Masters of the College, it had beezlg.t. out in lodg-
ings•for the benefit of the Illasters-...ingoam6iifttalecs to Ladies
who kept bOardin'g schools for girls, and even to some of the
' Trustees themselves who had taken. up their residences there.
It is also alleged by the relators, that if the annual cash ba-
lances in the hands of the. late treasurer, William Jolliffe, Esq.
and the defendant, H. Jolliffe' had been regularly invested,
the funds of this charity would have been greatly augmented ;
and it was further stated., that none,'of the defendants, since
their appointments, had ever attended any examination of the
scholars, and that the funds of . the College were sufficient to
board; clothe, and educate the boys, and execute all the inten-
tions of the benevolent founder.
Mr. E. SliffutOw then reaclthe answers of the defendants to
the information. Mr. Hilton Jolliffe there made a declaration,
which, if true (the Learned.Couniel said), 'was highly credit-
able to him. He stated that his father did not leave him suffi-
cient assets to pay his debts; 'nevertheless be . (Hilton JoUiffe)
was willing to.pay any allowance that the Court might find to
be due from his father to the Charity. The answer. of the
Trustee denied generally any wilful mismanagement of tic
funds, and declared that they had never admitted, with their
knowledge, any but- the sons of tpwnsmen. They declared
that the funds the Institution.were inadequate to carry into
effect the intention of the founder, and that the saint number
of scholars could not be boarded as heretofore. Thti salary for
the master was so small, that, no competent person could be ~
found who would undertake for it to instruct the boys.
master of skill had therefore been permitted to take in private
boarders, in order to make up a competency ; and the College
boys had greatly benefited , by the change, in their education.
The Tnisteess admitted having refused to chew Mr. Atche,son -
and the other relators, who were inhabitants of the town, their
accounts, as they conceived they *ere not bound to hew them,
unless upon an order front the Court.
The VICE-CHANCE L L OR said he would hear the arguments
. upon the cause on 'Monday. Ire thought it necessary, how-
ever, to state,' that he' could only enter into an' inquiry as to
the conduct of „the present trustees, anti not as to any former
management. It would be of much importance that it should
be shewn whether'the father of 'the present defendant, Hilton
JollitFe did or did not leave a sufficiency to pay the balance
due from him to the charity. It was a serious charge against
the defendant, H. Jolliffee that lie had, as treasurer, omitted to
' hand over the proyerty in. his hands- as executor to the charity.
It would also be important to show whether the funds really
were or were not sufficient to fulfil_ all the intentions of the
testator', He did not consider that 'the circumstance of allow-
ing the introduction of borders was sufficient to disqualify ;.the
trustees, if it were proved that the other scholars had not been
injured by it. 'His Honour directed the.particular attention of
the parties to these points.

I.(III.NDES.V. DITNCOMBF..
Mr. ST trAnT moved for an injunction against the defendant,
who is a bookseller, to restrain him front pirating the copyright
of the plaintiff in the songs, cliclusseA.&-e. of the popular dra-
matic entertainment called Gov Nein- zu LZlrdon'. These son,s•
were written by a Mr. Moncrieff, who sold and assigned the
Copyright in them to Mr: liowndts (the plaintiff) a bookseller
in Bow.streat,. Covent-garden. .The..plaintiff had published
thespsongs, and" derived great profit from the piiblication :, but
the defendant had lately published a cheap edition of them, and
thereby infringed the copyright of the plaintiff', and injured the
sale of his publication. " This application fok an injunction was
therefore necessary-to protect the' property of theplaintifi' in
these songs.
• ,
Mr. SPENCE, for the defendant, insisted that the ease was
of' sucli a nature that the Court 'could not grant an injuction.
He produced an affidavit, in which it was sworn that Mr. Elli-
ston, of Drury-lane Theatre, had declared that the copyright
of these Songs belonged to him.
Mr. ST vAryr produced an affidavit by the plaintiftand Mr.
Moncrieff of the truth of the facts of his case, and: called upon
the defendant to state whether the . copyright had ever been
assigned to Mr. Elliston.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said he- cnild not grant an in-
junction in this case, unless the affidavit of 'the defendant was
satisfactorily answered. lie therefore directed the case to stand
over till Friday next,• that there might be tune to file
daiita in reply.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 16.
THE KING V. BIRCH, RICE, WALKER, SEAN, AND OTIIRS.
[Further 'Particulars.]
This was an indictment for a riot. The defendants had suf-
fered judgment to go by default, and were this day brought up
to receive the judgment of the Court. }Wm the affidavits put
in on the part of the prosecution it appeared that there exists
amongst tne ribband weavers of 'Coventry, of which body the
defendants were worthy members, a' combination, or associa-
tion, for regulating the prices at which the journeymen were
to be remunerated. This society had funds, and one of its
rules was, that any journeyman -.who should presume to work
for less wages than fixed by the society, or any master who
should be known to pay lower wages, should be liable to the
folloWing penalty, namely, to be placed on an ass, with his
face towards the animal's tail, and in this degrading situation
to be.paraded through all the principal streets of the town. A
journeyman named Amos Carver had presumed to work under
price, and became the object of the association's vengeance.
' He was taken per force from his residence, placed in the pre-
scribed position on the animal, and carried through all the
streets of Coventry, accompanied by a numerous rabble ; and,
as it appeared, the defendants were the parties actively em-
ployed in carrying the whole ceremony into effect. They had •
since made their peace with Carver by giving him ,61., but the
prosecutor had persisted in the prosecution.
The facts being established by the, affidavits, the prisoners'
Counsel addressed the Court in mitigation, and the SOLICI-
T 0 R.GENE RAL in aggravation.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY proceeded to pronounce the judgment
of the Court, and in doing so commented in strong terms on the
mischievous tendency of these combinations, all of which were
illegal. He reminded the defendants, that had Carver received
any personal hurt of which he had died within the year, they
would every one of them have. been liable to be tried for mur-
der. As to their having made compensation to Carver, that
might be satisfactory to the individual ; but public peace was
public property, and Carver could have no power, to stop the
prosecntion, which had been very .roperly persisted in. /The
Court had taken all the favourable circumstances of the case into
their consideration, and' given the defendants the advantage
, of them—namely, that .since the transacting' now under inves•
tigation, the association had not attempted to repeat the impro-
per conduct here. complained of. The defendants had also suf-
fered judgment to go by default, and some of them had already
, suffered several months' imprisonment. The judgment of the
Court, therefore, was, that each of the defendants should pay a
fine of 201.'t0 the 'King, and enter into securities for five years,
themselves in 401. and two sureties in '2Ol. each ; that nine of
them should be imprisoned nine months; two seven months ;
and dne six months, 'in Warwick-castle ; and that they should
be further imprisoned till security was found and fine paid.

• COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 16.
CODE NAPOLEON. .
CLOTIPET M4CARTHY.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a.Gentleman re-
siding in the island of Mauritius, to recover from the defendant,
who had held the office of Deputy Paymaster-General of the
British forces in that Island, the sum of 5.0001. being the value
of a house occupied by. the defendant, and while in his tenancy,
dekroyed by fire. The action was founded on ajudgment given
against the defendant in the Supreme Court of that Island; find-
ing him liable for the loss by the 173 d Article of the Code-Napo-
leon (the existing law there), by which it was declared that the
tenant of a house destroyed by fire should be liable for the value
of that house, unlesslie could spew that the fire had arisen from

public enemies, or unavoidable accident. The cause was tried
en London, before Lord Chief Justice Dallas and a Special
Jury, when the plaintiff recovered a.verdict for the full amount
of his damages, subject-to a point reserved as to a variance be-
twine the foreign judgment stated in the declaration, and that
proved in evidence.
Mr. Serjeant LENS had, on.a former day in this term, moved
for a rule to eet aside, the verdict, according to the reservation
at the trial, when
The Co tlßVintimated that the party intending to move had
not complied with the rule of this Court, by furnishing the
Chief Justice with notice of his intention.
Mr. Serjeant LENS assured the Court that the point was im-
portant in its nature, on which
The CEZEF JUSTICE promised to look into the case; and
if he thought that justice required the suspension of the rule, it
should be done. On this day he expressed his opinion, that
the justice of the case had been satisfied by the verdict; and
the party must therefOre take the consequence of his own ne-
gligence. No blame was imputable to the defendant for his
conduct ;sand it was highly probable that . the Government, on
examining into ti7e circumstances of the case,,might reimburse
the loss he had suffered.
. .

ARCHES' • COURT, Nov. 16.
CONTEMPT OF COURT.
On the sitting of the Court this morning, a memorial was
read, directed to Sir Jokier neon'. (Dean of the Arches),
from a Lady named Barlee, at present confined in the jail of
IpSwich. It stated that the memorialist had been a prisoner
since June, 1821, in pursuance of an order of the Court,
consequent on a monition, directing her to return to her
husband, for the Pon-compliance with which- she had been
declared in contempt of Court. She declared that it was
impossible she could return, because she did not know where
her husband resided, he having no fixed residence; and,
that, in consequence of the treatment she had received, she
found it impossible to live with him. In- the year 1815, a
mutual separation had taken place, but she was subsequently
seized, and imprisoned by him, and had afterward sworn
the peace againSt him. She had been living separate from
him' previous ,to the institution of the suit against her._
She bad been et considerable heiress, but since her confine-
ment her husband did not allow her any maintenance, and she
had merely the common gaol allowance. At the time of her
imprisonment she had been labouring under a liver complaint,
which'had been since materially increased, and she feared her
continuance in that place would prove fatal, and she therefore
prayed the merciful interposition of the Court.
• This Memorial was accompanied with the recommendation
of the Sheriff; and several or the Magistrates of the county of
Suffolk, stating that the petition was fully entitled to the consi-
deration of the Court.
Sir J. Nicola. said that this Memorial, together with
the recommendation of the Sheriff and Magistrates of Suffolk,
had given the Court an opportunity of publicly noticing the
case of this unhapyy woman, and of informing those who
were interested in her behalf, that, whilst the judge of this
Court fully commiserated her condition, yet be had pot the
power to afford relief in the manner claimed. Mrs. Barlee had
been imprisoned for contempt, and an erroneous opinion seemed
'to prevail that contempt must be shown to the Court itself, and
that the party might be released by. the Court. This was a
great error. A contempt of Court' meant a refusal to perform
some act which was in justice due to the other party—such as,
refusal to put in an answer or to pay wits, and the releace was
at the discretion of the other party. Persons married were
compelled to lite together; and if either withdrew without a
proper and lawful cause, he or she might be compelled to re-
turn. Cruelty, for instance, or the infidelity of one of the par-
ties would lee A lawful cause. But quelay and manifest danger
Must be distinctly proved. The Come could' not eneter into dis-
putes about property, or listen to vain' and ill-founded alarms.
It was-not sufficient to make a., charge of cruelty—it must be
substantiated by evidence. In . this case Mrs. Berke had
whthdrawn from her husband, and a suit had been instituted
by him to compel her to return. She had pleaded cruelty, and
sufficient time was allowed her to adduce her evidence, but no
evidence was adduced. The Court was then compelled to
close the cause, and order her return. A monition tq that
effect had been issued, which, not being obeyed, the Court was
repeatedly urged by the husband to pronounce Mrs. Barlee in
contempt. Several letterS had been, very improperly, •ad-
dressed to the Judge of this Court and others by this lady,
complaining of the treatment of her husband and the con-
conduct of the law agents, and accusing them of a con-
spiracy 'to deprive her of her property. The Judge could not
act upon these letters in a matter pending before him, but they
did indiCate such aberrations of mind as to induce Min to
throw out a suggestion to the friends of the woman to
examine whether any acts of insanity could be proved ;
far insane persons, not being responsible for their conduct, could
snot be guilty of contempt, No evidence of this kind was ad-
duced, and, after several applications' the Count, carrying its
forbearance to its full length, could no longer resist the applica-
tion of the husband to pronounce Mre. Bailee in contempt. The
imprisonment had taken place. under the authority of the tem-
poral jurisdiction, nor could the Court now interfere, except on
compliance with the monition, and unless it could be proved
,that she was in a state of mind whiCh rendered her in-
competent either to obey or disobey, the Court could take no
step. Here, perhaps, the Court might stop, having stated
that redress was not within its power. What he should
add might be considered extra-judicial, and as aiming
from an individual. But he felt it his duty to make these
obServatione publicly. In' the first place, he should address
(himself to the, consideration of the husband. This unhappy
woman, 'during.an imprisonment of a year and a half, had been
suffering considerably both in body and mind. What was the
object of the husband ? not to obtain the corMbrt of her society
-=not to defend his own charaCter, for his wife not having
produced any evidence in support of her charges, he must
be presumed innocent, and he would do well to consider
whether he should not consent to her release. 'With respect
to the wife, " the Court would recommend to her friends and
legal advisers, to consider, whether, if Mrs. Barlee be in
sound mind, she could not lie prevailed on to return to her
husband, on his pointing out his bane fide residence. If, she
were perfectly sane, and not obstinate, she might be assured
she could return with perfect safety, and a guarantee for her
security might be obtained. If after her return, her husband
shOuld be guilty of cruelty, then she would be justified in
withdrawing, and instituting a new suit of separation. But
if she found tier alarms were unfounded, then she would see
just grounds for remaining. If on the other hand, she was la-
bouring under mental deltieion, on that circumstance her friends
might ground an application for her release, and the husband
'would have it in his power to contravene the fact. His next
suggestion was to the Sheriff and Magistrates, who had acted so
humanely in' forwarding'their recommendations, and he was in-
duced to make this suggestion partly from the memorial, and
partly from a letter addressed to himself personally by the un-
happy woman. These gentlemen, and all who heard him, must
be aware that this woman was not in the prison of this Court.
She was under the authority and protection of the Sheriff and
County Magistrates. The letter be had received from her stated
that she had been deprived of clothes and food ; that the Magi-
strates had acted on the statements of the other side; that
she was confined to the common gaol allowance ; that the
grOsieSt abuses were going forward in the gaol ; that her hus-
band' was barbOured by the gaoler ; that she was kept in
close confinement, 'and in order to prevent her from getting
air at the window, a pistol was fired up at it on Christmas-
day ; that although she was an heiress, she was compelled
to beg for food, which 'was a precarious subsistence; her
person and property were not protected; that justice had al-
ways been denied her; that her duty to God and to herself
farbade her returning to her hueband to be murdered ; and
that it would have been mercy to have put her to death rather
than have subjected her to legal torture. She further stated
that she had been six weeks ' without shoes, and she called
upon him, as a Member .of Parliament, to visit the gaol, as
no femele should ever be treated in the manner she had been.
Now this letter might all have been dictated by delusion, but
still it was important that the matter should be investigated,by
the Sheriff. All that she should.be subjected to was simple con-
finement within the jail, and no hardship or severity should be
resorted to to compel her to comply with the monition. If the
jailer had harboured her. husband, it would be well for the
Sheriff and Magistrates to consider whether their interference
would net be necessary. Haying said. thus much, he had only
to hope that these observations would find their way to the pu-
de§ correctly. It was notin the power of the Court to grant the_
prayer of the present memorial.
SAN-DER v. DAVIS, CLERIC.
This was a criminal suit promoted against the defendant,
who is licensed curate of the parish of Charlton, and of two
chapels, in the county of Oxford, for immoral and indecent
conduct. The allegation on the plaintiff's part charged, that

the defendant was guilty of habital drunkenness, of using pre-
fane and obscene language on various occasions, of gross in-
decorum in the performance of his clerical duties, and alSo of
conniving at and openly wittnessing the adultery of his wife..
In one of the articles it was stated, that the consequence of his
ill character and behaviour, had been to bring scandal on the
church, and to induce many of its zealous members to fre-
quent in preference the meeting houses of dissenters in that
neighbourhood. -
PIIILLIMORE read several of the affidavits, and sub-
mitted that the charges were clearly and fully established.
The defendant appeared neither in person nor by counsel.—
His Proctor, however, consented that the evidence should be
taken as read.
Dr. ADAM was heard chiefly on the point respecting the
original authority of the Court, that being the Court of the Arch-
bishop, -but which, he maintained, was not excluded by the
canon from a complete jurisdiction over such offences as were
in this case imputed to the defendant.
• Sir Jorm Nrcom., as Dean of the Arches, then pronounced
hiS opinion on the case submitted to him. The Court of Arches
had, beyond all doubt, the power of suspending clergymen
-from their office and functions, upon evidence of great miscon-
duct, although this power was not to be so employed as to
amount in fact to a right of privation. -lt was to the credit
of the church that so few classeS were to be found, in which the
infliction of punishment had been necessary. Taking, how-
ever, the case of Dixon_ and Harrison for his guide, he did
think himself bound to visit this defendant with a sentence of
suspension. That, to be sure, was a case of great enormity,
though extenuated in a considerable degree ba the circumstance
of a partial derangement of mind. The defendant was there
suspended from all ecclesiastical functions for the period of two
years ; at the end of which he was restored, on producing the
certificates of two other clergymen, as to his recent propriety of
conduct. With this case before him and looking at the nature
of the eleventh article, he apprehended that be should shrink
from his duty if he were to suspend this person for a less period
than three years, which he' now did ; and, at the same time,
directed, that before restoration to his office, he must produce
testimonials of his 'intermediate good behaviour from three
clergymen.
A copy of the sentence was ordered to be sent to the Consis-
scut Court of the Bishop of Oxford.
In the case of Hodgson and the Rev. T. Schultz, such addi-
tional articles as referred to the years 1818, 1820, and 1821,
were admitted, and others which carried hack the criminal
charge to the year 1816, and introduced collateral circum-
stances, were rejected.
Arthur Gifford, -a shoemaker, was enjoined to do penance,
and pay the costs of a suit promoted against him for defamation.

COMMERCIAL INTELLIGENCE.

.amig/MWM•••

The following letter has been received by the
Chairman of the Ship Owneis' Society :

Admiralty Office, Nov. 15, 1822.
Sin—My Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty having
received several representations as to. the inconvenience which
the maritime trade of the country might suffer, if the law pro-
hibiting merchant vessels from using any of the colours appro-
priated to his-Majesty's ships were to be strictly enforced, with-.
out the allowance of a reasonable time formakiug the necessary
arrangements for altering the signals now in use amongst mer-
chant vessels, their Lordship* have been, in consequence, pleased.
to sign a warrant which they trust will obviate any present in-
convenience, and will allow full time to the ship-owners to sub-
stitute other colours in lieu of pendants and the union jack.
The use of the jack as a signal for a pilot wa.i already autho-
rised by their Lordships' wan-ant of the IGth of September last;
but in order to hring the whole subject into one view, their
Lordships have thought fit to repeat their permission in the new
warrant, which will appear in the Gazette of to-morrow night,
and of which I now enclose you a copy.
I am, Sir, your very obedient servant,
(Signed) J. W. CROKER.
j. W. Buckle, Esq. Mark-lane.

COPY OF WARRANT ENCLOSED BY THE • COMMISSIONERS
FOR EXECUTING THE OFFICE OF LORD HIGH ADMIRAL.
OF THE UNITED 'KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND
IRELAND, S.C. &c.
Whereas, by his Majesty's Royal Proclamation bearing date
the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and one,
and by "divers statutes now in force, his Majesty's subjects are
prohibited from hoisting, carrying, or wearing in any of their
ships or vemels, his Majesty's jack, commonly called the union
jack, or any pendants, or such colours as are usually worn by
his Majesty's ships, without particular warrant for their so
doing, from his Ms jest or his High Admiral of Great Britain,
or the Commissioners for executing the office of High Admiral
for the time'being.
And whereas, it has been represented to us that the union jack,
hoisted at the top-mast head (or fore-top-mast head of vessels
liming more than one mast), is a general and well Understood
signal for a pilot, which it would be inexpedient at present to
alter.
187 c do, therefore, by virtue of the power and authority vested
in us, hereby warrant and authorize all his Majesty's subjects
to hoist the union jack at the top-mast head of their ships or
vessels, where there is but one mast, or at the fore-top-mast
head where there are more than one mast, as a signal for a
pilot, but strictly prohibiting the wearing or hoisting the said
jack for any other purpose whatsoever, or longer than is neces-
sary for procuring a pilot.
And whereas, the proper flags, which by the said proclama-
tion the ships and vessels of his Majesty's subjects are autho-
rised to wear, are not sufficient to enable them to make signals
without the addition of some other colours ; we do further war-
rant and authorise all his Majesty's subjects to hoist on board
their ships and vessels, by way of signal only, any colours (ex-
cept pendants and the union jack), provided such colours shall
not be hoisted in the place where similar colours are usually
worn in his Majesty's ships and vessels.
And whereas, it has been represented to us that certainsignals
have been heretofore established and agreed upon, and are now
in use amongst his Majesty's subjects, wherein pendants and
the union jack are employed, and that it would be inexpedient
to prohibit the use of the said signals until reasonable time for
substituting softie other description of colours in lieu of the
pendants and union jack be allowed.
We do further warrant and authorize all his Majesty's sub-
jects to hoist and use, for signals-only, pendants and the union
jack until the Ist of January, 1824, and no longer ; upon and
after which day no pendant is, under any pretence whatsoever,
to be hoisted in the ships or vessels of any of his Majesty's sub,
jects, nor the union jack, except only as before provided, as the
signal of a pilot.
Given under our hands and the seal of the office of Admiralty,
this 15th day of November, 1822.
(Signed) . MELVILLE.
WM. JOHNSTONE HOPE.
By command of their Lordships;
(Signed)

J. W. CROKER.

ELECTION OF A POPE.—It is laid that an Arch-
duke of AUSTRIA, who is one of the present Cardinals, Wit
be the next Rope. There are four different modes of electing
the Supreme Pontiff; by inspiration, by compromise, by scru-
tiny, and by access. An election by inspiration is effacted..by
several of the Cardinals calling aloud, as by a sudden impulse,
the name of the person whom they wish to raise to the pontifical
dignity. This method of resorting to the pretext of supernatural
aid is seldom relied on, except when all human means have failed
of success. It is called an election by compromise, when
the Cardinals, not being able to determine on a proper
person, agree to submit the choice of a Pontiff to one or
more of their own body, nominated for that purpose. In choos-
ing a Pope by scrutiny, the Cardinals each write their own name
with that of the person whom they wish to recommend, on abil-
let or ticket ; which they afterwards place, with many ct.re.monies
and genuflexions, in a large and highly ornamented chalice on
the altar of the chapel in which, they assemble. The ticketi
are then taken out by an officer appointed from their own body
for that purpose, and the number is carefully compared with
that of the persons present; after which if it appear that any
one of the Cardinals has two-thirds of the votes in his favOur.,
he is declared to be canonically elected Pope. When, hey-
ever, after repeated trials, this does not occur, a new proceed-
ing takes place, which is called election by access, in which:
any Cardinal may accede to the vote of another by an alt4a-
. tion of his ticket in a prescribed form. When, by these
means, the choice of a Pontiff is effected, the tickets are
prudently committed to the flames, to prevent all preteXt for
further inquiry.