344 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1809. 



state any thing which he might 

 think would be for his advantage, 

 his lordship would hear him on 

 Thursda}'. 



On Thursday, Mr. Richards call- 

 ed the attention of his lordship to 

 the above case. He recapitulated 

 the circumstances which have been 

 already laid before the public, and 

 recommended that the young lady 

 should be placed under proper pro- 

 tection ; as she had repeatedly de- 

 clared her intention of running off, 

 if she could get an opportunity. 



Mr. Blythe, as counsel for Mr. 

 Giles, stated that he had much to 

 offer in extenuation of his conduct ; 

 but that he refrained, from consi- 

 derations of delicacy to the family 

 of the lady. He stated the contri- 

 tion of Mr. Giles for what had pass- 

 ed, and his readiness to submit to 

 any terms which it might be his 

 lordship's pleasure to impose. As 

 to the conduct of Mr. Smith, the 

 brother comedian, who had assist- 

 ed in the elopement, and had lent 

 money towards carrying it into ex- 

 ecution, he had an affidavit from 

 him, stating his utter ignorance at 

 the time of the lady's being a ward 

 in chancery. He read this affidavit, 

 and also another from Mr, Fry, 

 . Mr. Giles'ssolicitor, in extenuation. 

 The learned gentleman then stat- 

 ed, that Mr. Giles was without 

 friends, and without any means of 

 subsistence; so that his utter ruin 

 was certain in case of confine- 

 ment. 



The lord chancellor said, that he 

 would defer his decision until Fri- 

 day; but could not avoid now re- 

 marking upon the impropriety of 

 the clergyman's conduct who'had 

 published the banns. He did not 

 wish to impute any wilful impro- 

 priety to the gentleman who had 



acted upon this occasion ; but an 

 error he was certainly guilty of. 

 His lordship now deemed it neces- 

 sary to lay down the law precisely 

 for the guidance, of those who might 

 be hereafter concerned in such cir- 

 cumstances. He understood that 

 clergymen frequently published 

 banns, upon their being handed up 

 to them, after the first and second 

 lesson. The law, however, allowed 

 no such power. By the act of 

 parliament for the regulation of 

 marriages, the baDns should be 

 made known to the clergyman at 

 least seven days before their pub- 

 lication, together with the christian 

 and surname of the parties, the pa- 

 rish in which they resided, together 

 with their respective residences, and 

 how long they had occupied them. 

 It was the duty of the clergyman, 

 after the first notice, to go to the 

 house to which he was directed, and 

 make inquiries there as to the cor- 

 rectness of the facts. If on such 

 inquiry he was deceived, then he 

 certainly was not to blame; but if 

 he neglected to make such inquiry, 

 he was subject not only to heavy 

 ecclesiastical censures, but to pu- 

 nishments of another description. 

 Ignorance, on the part of the cler- 

 gyman, would not avail him as an 

 excuse. He cited the strictness of 

 lord Thurlow in the case of Dr. 

 Markham, and recollected himself 

 a cause, in which the absurd excuse 

 of the officiating clergyman was 

 very near subjecting him to a most 

 severe prosecution. The clergy- 

 man said he had given the strictest 

 orders to his curate ; the curate had 

 given the same orders to his clerk; 

 ihe clerk to his wife; and so they 

 accounted and thought to apologize 

 for the dereliction of their duty. ■ 

 His lordship advised a petition to 



be 



1 



