262 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1816. 



mended the prisoner, in the 

 strongest manner, to mercy. 



Mr. Baron Ricliards assured 

 them, in warm terms, that the 

 recommendation should not fail 

 to be attended to. 



I'he Court throughout the 

 wliole day was crowded to excess. 



Mrs. Giblett, who remained in 

 court duiing the trial, was con- 

 veyed out, in an almost helpless 

 state, after the Jury had retired 

 to consider the verdict. 



Arches-Court, Doctors' Com- 

 mons. — The OJfice of the Judge 

 ■promoted by Btackmore and Thorp 

 V. Brider — This was a criminal 

 pi'oceeding promoted ex ojjicio by 

 Messrs. Blackrnore and Thorp, 

 churclnvardens of- the parish of 

 Harting, Sussex, against Mr. 

 William Brider, an inhabitant of 

 that parish, for incest. The suit 

 was instituted by letters of re- 

 quest fnm the diocese of Chi- 

 chester, and the charge upon 

 which it was founded was the 

 marriage of the defendant with 

 Mary Walton, the daughter of his 

 deceased wife by Thomas \A'al ton, 

 her former liiisband. 



The evidence in support of the 

 prosecution consi-ted of copies of 

 the diirei'cnt registers necessary 

 to show the marriage coniplained 

 of, and the relationship of the 

 parties duly authenticated by pa- 

 role testimony J and their Cwha- 

 bitati'Mi was likewise fully spoken 

 to by sevei'al witnesses. 



jS'o apjiearance was given, nor 

 defence otfered, by the defendant. 



Sir Chiistopher Pobinson and 

 Dr. Swabey, for the piosecu- 

 tion, sliortly adveited to the 

 effect of the evidence, and sub- 

 jnitted that it fully established the 

 accusation preferred, and tliey 



therefore prayed the judgment of 

 the Court on the defendai t. 



Sir John NichoU expressed 

 himself fully satisfied with the 

 sufficiency of the evidence to sus- 

 tain the prosecution ; and he, 

 therefore, pronoui ced the "mar- 

 riage null and void under the 

 canon law, condemned the defen- 

 dant in costs, and enjoined him 

 the usual penance. 



Some obseivations were then 

 made as to the teims of the pe- 

 nance, and reference was n con- 

 sequence had to the cases of Clea- 

 ver V. Hide, and Cleaver v. Ride, 

 otherwiseW'ooldi idge, w hich w ere 

 similar proceedings, in 1790; 

 from \^hicii it aj peaied that the 

 penance performed in those cases 

 was to this efiect : — The offendmg 

 parties stood in white sheets at 

 the porch of the church during 

 the ringing of the last bell for 

 divine service on a Sunday, and 

 tnitil after the first lesson, asking 

 forgiveness of all pei"sons enier- 

 ing the church; they \vere then 

 led into the chuich, and placed in 

 a conspicuoi'S situation near the 

 mini^tv-r, where tlicy lemained 

 until the gospel of the day uas 

 said, when they repeated a sub- 

 missive acki'.owledgment of hav- 

 ing been guilty of the crime im- 

 puted to them, impldied tiie foi'- 

 giveness of v..(jd, promising not 

 to offend again, and entreated the 

 congregation to join with tlieni in 

 saxing tlie Lord's prayer, winch 

 was acc(;)dinglv done. 



Sir John Niciioli expressed 

 himself satisfifd of this penance 

 having been adojjted after due 

 reference to precedents ; and he, 

 therefore, felt himself bound in 

 the same tiianner to enjoin ii in 

 the present case. 



A similar proceeding was then 



heard 



