CHRONICLE. 



345 



be sent up in the course of the day, 

 from Mr. Giles, which he would 

 take into consideration and decide 

 upon on Friday. 



A petition was afterwards pre- 

 sented to his lordship. 



10. Court of Chancery — Nichol- 

 son V. Giles. — Mr. Blythe informed 

 his lordship, that Messrs. Giles and 

 Smith were in attendance, in con- 

 formity with the directions which 

 his lordship had given on the pre- 

 ceding day. 



The lord chancellor asked Mr. 

 Richards if he had any thing to offer 

 from the guardian of miss Nichol- 

 son. 



Mr. Richards replied in the ne- 

 gative, but observed, thatMr.Giles 

 had, in his affidavit, stated some- 

 thing respecting a letter to Mrs. 

 Wells, which required some further 

 explanation. 



The lord chancellor intimated his 

 intention of looking into that part 

 of the affidavit. With respect to 

 Mr. Smith, he should allow him to 

 be discharged, upon his undertak- 

 ing to come forward, if necessary, 

 upon any future occasion. — Mr. 

 Smith was of course then discharged. 



13. The new cut on the Union 

 Canal from Leicester toHarborough 

 (through Foxton) was opened this 

 day. Upwards of 10,000 persons 

 were present ; and a sumptuous en- 

 tertainment was given at the Angel 

 Inn in Harborough to about 180 

 gentlemen interested in the concern. 

 Thus have the Union Canal com- 

 pany, after a period of 1 5 years from 

 Its commencement, finished a work 

 of great public utility. Very few 

 canals, in the same distance have 

 had to encounter such difficulties in 

 the course of the undertaking. 

 Nearly 200 feet of lockage, a tun- 

 nel more than half a mile in length, 



two considerable aqueducts, other 

 large embankments, a large reservoir 

 and several hundred yards of very 

 deep cutting, have been completed. 



DECEMBER. 



11. Mr. Kempe v. the Rev. Mr. 

 Wicks, in the Court oj" Arches. — 

 This cause was instituted by Mr. 

 Kempe, a gentleman of Calvinistical 

 independence (the real doctrine, in 

 fact, of the Church of England), 

 against the rev. Mr. Wicks, rector 

 of a parish in Somersetshire, for re- 

 fusing to bury a child belonging to 

 two parishioners, on the ground of 

 the child having keen baptized by a 

 dissenting minister. It was contend- 

 ed, on thepartoftherev.Mr.Wicks, 

 that the administering of this sacra- 

 ment mustbe performed by a lawful 

 minister of the established Church 

 of England, otherwise such baptism 

 was to be considered as null and 

 void, both by the ancient and mo- 

 dern rubrics, canon law and various 

 other authorities, quoted by the 

 learned civilians on the subject. — 

 Sir John Nicholl, after hearing the 

 counsel on behalf of the promoter 

 of the suit, was of opinion (after 

 entering at considerable length into 

 the various authorities upon the 

 point in question ) , that the rev. Mr. 

 Wicks had mistaken the law, and 

 that it was his duty to have per- 

 formed the ceremony ; at the same 

 time recommending, as this suit 

 was not brought by Mr. Kempe 

 through any vindictive spirit, but 

 only for the purpose of determining 

 the right, and setting the question 

 at rest, that he would be satisfied 

 with correcting the error, and es- 

 tablishing the light, without pro- 

 ceedinjj any farther in the cause. 



Oxford 



