194 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1817. 



a nount of the penalties, or in all 

 events for twelve months, which 

 was the period within which the 

 statute required the action to be 

 brought. Witnesses were then 

 called to prove the case. 



Mrs. Margarete Johnstone de- 

 posed as follows : — I resided at 

 the parish of Sutton on the 2d of 

 April, 1815. I attended the church 

 every Sunday from that day to the 

 first Sunday in April, 1816. I 

 know the person of Sir Montague 

 Burgoyne, and during all that pe- 

 riod I never saw him come to 

 church. I am quite sure I at- 

 tended church every Sunday. I 

 sometimes saw Sir Montague on 

 horseback. In cross-examination 

 she said she was servant to Dr. 

 Free, and had been so for four 

 years. 



John Northfield, parish-clerk of 

 Sutton, corroborated the testimony 

 of the last witness. He saw Sir 

 Montague come to church in 

 April, 1816. He sometimes saw 

 him coursing during the year 

 1815. 



Mr. Jamesson here closed his 

 case. 



Mr. Sergeant Blosset said, if 

 this was the plaintiff's case, his 

 client was •ntitled to a verdict, as 

 no evidence had been offered of 

 Sir Montague Burgoyne living in 

 the parish of Sutton. 



Mr. Baron Graham, however, 

 considered this to be a mere over- 

 sight, and recalling the witnesses, 

 they proved the fact alluded to. 



Mr. Sergeant Blossett now ad- 

 dressed the jury on the part of the 

 defendant. He said, that how- 

 ever unwilling he might be to 

 trespass on the Court by any very 

 extended observations on this case, 

 yet he could not help remarking, 



that the assertion made by Dr. 

 Free, that he had stood forward 

 as the champion of the Church of 

 England and of the clergy, was 

 not borne out by the facts. When 

 a reverend gentleu)an came for- 

 ward into a Court of Justice in 

 his canonicals, and in the charac- 

 ter of an informer, to support a 

 qui tarn action upon a statute 

 which, although unrepealed, had 

 been in disuse for upwards of one 

 hundred and fifty years, he rather 

 apprehended he would not be 

 liailed by those whose interests he 

 professed to represent, as a person 

 likely to reflect much credit upon 

 their sacred chaiacter. That such 

 conduct was consistent with the 

 true spirit of the Christian reli- 

 gion, he believed no man of libe- 

 ral feelings would allow. With 

 regard to the statute on which this 

 action was brought, he was will- 

 ing to admit that it remained un- 

 repealed ; but, at the same time, 

 it was proper to remark, that it 

 oiiginated in causes of a political 

 nature, and was by no means ap- 

 plicable to times like the present. 

 Its operations weie meant only to 

 apply to Roman Catholics and Dis- 

 senters, at a period when the 

 Church of England might beconsi- 

 dered as in danger. The principles 

 of toleration which had since been 

 disseminated, however, and the 

 firm foundation upon which the 

 Church of England had been esta- 

 blished, were such, that no man 

 possessing the slightest claims to j 

 liberality would venture to put ! 

 the construction upon the statute ) 

 which it had received from the i 

 reverend plaintiff in this case. 

 Without entering on the construc- 

 tion of the statute, however, hei 

 should be enabled to meet the 



plaintiff) 



