Dangerous contained in the Book of Common Prayer, said in the same act "to have been completed by the aid of the Holy Ghost." (s. 1.) They can cite any member of the Church of England "for unrepealed not having his or their child baptised; for not coming to the Communion, or for any error in matters of religion or doctrine now allowed in the Church of England." (5th of Elizabeth, cap. 23, s. 12.) Act. 5 Eliz. Cap. 23. Terible powers of the Eccle siastical Courts, persons im They can compel the payment of tithes, church-rates, Easter offerings, mortuaries, and other demands. They can correct all manner of offences against the Ten Commandments, except the sixth and eighth, as well as "all excesses of all sorts of persons, as well of the clergy as the laity, whose reformation belongs to the Ecclesiastical Court." They can compel persons to become churchwardens, which, though an annual office, may, and often has, exposed individuals to suits in these courts that have spread over several years, and entailed upon them enormous expense and vexation. They can punish, by heavy costs aud (if not paid) imprisonThirty-four ment, persons guilty of defamation. Thirty-four persons, the prisoned by greater part being females, were imprisoned for non-payment Protestant of such costs between the 1st of January, 1827, and 31st of bishops December, 1829. without One person died in prison. trial by jury. THEIR ABUSES. They betray civil rights. For instance: no two matters are of greater importance to individuals or families than testamentary and matrimonial causes. They involve "purely questions of civil right between individuals in their lay character, and are neither spiritual nor affecting the Church Establishment." Yet, add the Commissioners, "in the course of our inquiry, we became early convinced of the impracticability of having judges duly qualified to administer in the diocesan courts the testaonght long mentary and matrimonial laws, which involve matters of such very high importance to the parties litigant and to the public." sisted upon Why, then, are such powers retained? An indignant nation ought long since to have replied to this question by demanding Ecclesiasti- their entire abolition. An indig nant nation since to have in the aboli tion of cal Courts. Incompe teney of They are replete with sinecures. The following are only specimens: The principal registrars of the Prerogative Court of Registrars Canterbury were appointed by the archbishop. Their incompetence was acknowledged by the deputy registrar. The gross amount of their receipts, in 1827, was £15,490. 14s. Id. of Prerogative Court of Canter bury. age, Chester years of age, as Registrar of the Court of Chester, income 4000 per anum. It appears that minors are frequently appointed to lucrative Bishop of offices. The registrar of the Court of Chester was so appointed appointed by his father, the bishop. At the time, the son was fourteen his son, 14 years of age, the receipts of whose office amounted to £4000 annually. The Bishop of Winchester, in 1837, appointed his relatives-a father and son-registrars. The son was a minor, of about twelve or thirteen years of and the emoluments in 1829 were £562. These and other offices are often given in reversion, and are regular matters of family arrangements, legal qualifications never forming any part of the consideration. All these lucrative appointments are sustained by fees. No one complains of professional men being paid. There is, however, an equitable and an exorbitant demand. Ecclesiastical jurisprudence is to be placed under the latter. Thus the fees to only three classes of officers are as follows:To the Judges of Courts in the two Provinces €14,271 18 To the Registrars of ditto 28,076 13 5 £58,199 18 0 Misdeeds of the Bishop of Win chester. Lucrative peculation. by Judges and Registrars of the Bishops' Courts. This does not include fees to advocates, surrogates, proctors, and others. These we have no means of ascertaining. Some idea may however be formed of the amount from the sources whence they arise. Thus probates and administrations yield a very large, if not indeed the largest, amount of income. An inequity of principle obtains in this department. It is this:The fees are regulated, not by the amount of labour performed for the living, but by the value of effects left by the dead. For a probate under £1000, the church would obtain in fees £6. 78. 6d; if it were under £8000, her profit would be £15. 6s. 4d., although no additional labour would be required. In the Consistory Court Consistory of London there is an increased inequity of charge. "For every petrato probate or administration granted to a Quaker, in addition to the injustice usual fee, 2s. 6d. Is this because some Quakers, when cited Quakers of into Doctors' Commons to say why they would not be sworn churchwardens, appeared in their own proper persons; and, like men of firm integrity, stated their conscientious objections, and were excused? Will they tamely submit to the wrong of paying more than others, simply because they are Quakers? Court per upon firm integrity. fees, &c., in the dioceses There are fees charged every parish at the visitations (con- Bishops' firmations) of the bishop. In the diocese of Norwich, "the fees paid by the churchwardens for every single parish" amount to of Norwich and Canter. bury. Unconstitu perpetrated by the Ecclesiasti Lichfield. Misdeeds and pecula tions in the 12s. 6d. each. There are 1041 parishes. The chancellor, registrars, proctors, and apparitors, secure to themselves £650. 128. 6d. at every such visitation. Nor is this all. The deputy registrar makes this note in the margin of his return :-"These were raised in 1784 from 28. tó 10s. ; and in 1813, from 108. to 12s. 6d. The latter was done under the express authority of the bishop, to my knowledge.-J. K." In the same diocese, at every consecration of a church or churchyard, the fees amount to £9. 188. 6d. In the Consistory Court of Canterbury, the Judge has, for every consecration, £5. 58., the Registrar £3. 3s., and the Apparitor £1. 1s. The increase of churches under the Church Building Acts, the consequent increased number of licences, and other instruments, have swelled the amount of fees to a very great extent. Then, again, the fees for marriage licences yield an immense revenue. The principle by which the charge is regulated may be gathered from one instance, stated by a witness:"The general fee" to the clerical surrogate "is from half-aguinea to a guinea, some regard being had to the distance that they themselves may be resident from Norwich." He was asked, "Why is a difference made?-the surrogate does not travel? No; but it is considered that the parties would have to travel if it was not for the surrogate." If we come to fees for conducting causes, we find singular tional acts illustrations in every diocese of the oppression these courts constantly occasion. In that of Lichfield, for instance, one person cal Court of was pronounced in contempt "for not having performed penance and paid taxed costs;" these amounted to £37. 88. 11d.; but all the money even this fiery trial could extort from the unhappy defendant was £2. 8s. 11d. In the diocese of Ely the fees for "public penance are 3s. 4d. ;" "for private penance 13s. 4d.;" "for every commutation of penance, at the will of the judge, the office-fee is £1. 18." In the Consistory Court of St. David's, one such suit spread over more than two years, and the bill of the Proctor was £64. 12s. 6d., but from which even their own Registrar took off, in taxation, £31. 1s. 8d. In a similar case in the same court, the costs were £34.0s. 4d., from which £3.14s. 4d. were deducted on taxation, but the costs of that very taxation amounted to £2. 6s. 4d.; the defendant, therefore gained only £1. 88. The poor are the chief sufferers. Fees are also charged for a great variety of matters. For instance: "Confirming forty-five church-rates" (Bristol diocese), the fees were £5.98.4d. In the Consistory Court of Hereford, a fee of 3s. 6d. is charged St. David's, Hereford, and Peterborough. by the Apparitor of each parish for every form of prayer, proclamation, &c., issued by royal authority. Other dioceses charge more or less. The Consistory Court of Peterborough makes a charge "for every licence to practice surgery or midwifery, for the judge, 6s. 8d., and the registrar, 6s. 8d." These are only illustrations of the extent to which demands may be made for intermeddling with almost every civil matter. Another abuse remains to be considered. It is the qualification, or rather the non-qualification, of the greater part of the judges. Of these, with deputies and surrogates, there are nearly fifty in the whole kingdom; but of these thirty-eight have had no legal education; the greater part of them are clergymen, whose examination before the commission, or whose written returns to their inquiries, incontestibly demonstrate their total unfitness for the office they sustain. Such is a brief outline of the evil we seek to remove. Our reasons may be few, but we apprehend they are cogent. THEIR EXTINCTION Bishops' and hurtful would emancipate a Protestant country from one of the most powerful and hurtful Popish institutions; remove a present The scandal from English jurisprudence; and take from the Church Courts are of England a well-merited odium. Episcopacy could exist powerful independently of Ecclesiastical Courts. It obtained in this Popish incountry, several centuries prior to their establishment, and would, stitutions. if relieved from the unhappy excrescence, rise or fall by its own merits. The assembly emphatically state, that with Episcopacy, as such, they have nothing to do. But they do as distinctly and emphatically protest against any order of ecclesiastics being armed with judicial authority in matters civil and religious, affecting the entire community. Their extinction would afford relief both to the rich and the poor, from an amount of wrong, of which persons unacquainted with the full working of the system have no adequate idea. The facts we have adduced are sufficient illustrations of the public injury sustained. These facts are wholly free from exaggeration or colouring. They are, for the most part, supplied by a report, signed and sealed by the late Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of London and Durham, and three other diocesans, and several of the most distinguished common law judges and civilians. By transferring their civil jurisdiction (especially testamentary 331 and matrimonial) to Courts of Common Law, to which they legitimately belong, secular rights would be governed by more equitable rules,-be conducted at a less expense,-conduce to greater security both to property and morals, and establish one uniform system of executive justice in the country. Those powers, which interfere with the free exercise of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, we propose should be wholly and at once abolished. (To be continued.) Terriblo cruelties by Sid Pasha, ATROCITIES PERPETRATED BY THE VICEROY OF EGYPT. STATE OF EGYPT. ALEXANDRIA, February 22nd. SAID PASHA, the Viceroy, has returned to Alexandria, and is as busily engaged as ever in reforming and drilling his troops. The poor Bedouins have been suffering great cruelties at his perpetrated hands, all those his Highness succeeds in catching are chained in couples, and cast into the vilest and most nauscous prisons. Last week, during several days, about 3,000 of these poor men were brought down to Alexandria, and on the way many of them died from the excessive cruelties they had undergone, the living were not separated from the dead, as the man in charge had to account for the whole number, and they were thus taken to the galleys. Egypt, under Saïd Pasha, is governed with the same despotic sway as when under the dominion of the Pharoahs, and to speak of the Government of Egypt is to speak of the character of Saïd Pasha, who is exclusively his own prime minister, his own council, his own commander-in-chief, and even his own engineer.-Times, 3rd March, 1856. Earl of TORTURE IN INDIA. HOUSE OF LORDS, April 14, 1856. THE Earl of Albemarle, having presented a petition from Albemarle certain inhabitants of the Presidency of Madras, complaining against tor- of the infliction of torture by the officers of Government ture in India. |