626 Affairs in General. [Dec. 
perly ; because, from their numbers and periodical recurrence, they had 
come to be regarded with contempt, and had in fact often scarcely pro- 
duced enough to pay the expence of printing, and machinery of clerks 
and commissioners. But why should there be a substitute? For a national 
purpose, let, we repeat, the national purse be opened. Keen-sighted, as 
some love to represent the clergy, we verily believe them the blindest of 
the blind;—they always pursue a favourite object through thick 
and thin—they never look beyond their noses—and never see how offen- 
sive is their interference in political matters, and especially, how invidious 
is any fresh attempt to raise money, be the object what it will, in which 
they are the agents. The means by which they are, for the most part, 
supported, is odious, however groundless the odium ; and they should, 
above all men, be cautious of stirring up unfavourable feelings ;—their 
usefulness depends entirely upon the respect in which they are held by 
those about them. Otherwise, as one of themselves once well said—they 
are doing and undoing—killing and curing—doing good with one hand, 
and mischief with the other. 
Turning from the Churches to the Courts, we were at once amused 
and annoyed, by a case, Daniel against Robinson, the other day, in the 
Exchequer Court. The defendant had married the plaintiff’s daughter 
without his consent, and, as the plaintiff alleged, illegally. The young 
lady died soon after the marriage, and the father sued for her trinkets, on 
the plea, that the marriage being illegal, the property could not vest in 
the husband. The plaintiff’s ultimate object was to establish the illega- 
lity of the marriage ; and at the last Gloucester assizes he obtained a 
verdict. In the Exchequer, the defendant has moved for a new trial, on 
three several grounds, all of them of considerable weight, which shews 
how carefully matters are settled at Nisi Prius—first, that the marriage 
was valid, for the main objection to its validity was the mis-spelling of the 
lady’s name, Daniels instead of Daniel; and it was proved on the trial, 
that the members of his own family could not agree on this point ; and even 
the brother of the lady, who was present at the marriage, and witnessed in 
the register, added the s, as well as herself. The second ground was the 
misdirection of the judge, for he had begged the jury to observe the 
parties were not residing in the parish where the banns were published— 
whereas, it is expressly provided by the last marriage act, that such non- 
residence shall not impeach the marriage. But the third ground is, :if 
not the strongest, at least the most whimsical, and, in a graver view, the 
most abominable. The jury could not agree on their verdict, when one of 
them recollecting a case where the jury was said to have tossed for a 
verdict, proposed to do the same ; but the rest, more squeamish, rejected 
the proposal with some indignation—till at last, another of them, more 
ingenious than his brethren, and sharpened by the prospect of eight and 
forty hours confinement—for the next day was Sunday—suggested drawing 
lots, by two slips of paper, a long one and a short one. This being a 
mode of solution which none of them had heard censured, like tossing, 
was gladly embraced, and a verdict was returned accordingly. A new 
trial was granted, and the verdict will of course be set aside. 
But that is all that will be done—no attempt will be made to guard 
against such abuses. We record this case to be remembered hereafter ; 
for the day of reformation must come. Generally gross cases of this 
kind are. quoted as old stories, as if they were good things to tell, and 
people of course question the truth of them; but here is one which 
