| 
| 
1843.] 
THE GARDENERS 
CHRONICLE. 
assuredly that church in the eye of conscience and of the 
law of conscience—that Church, while yet acting freely, 
and without coercion of the civil power, pledged itself 
before God and the world in its claim of right to renounce 
the Establishment rather than submit to those conditions 
which have since been imposed. It hasnow only redeemed 
its pledge, Itis the Church, properly speaking, which has 
Separated from the State. Assuredly this is not schism $ 
and those are the true and only schismatics, who by refusing 
to take the same step when duty required it, have thus, and 
thus only, caused the disruption of the Church. In like 
manner you will not be deluded by the supplicating cry, 
‘How can you quit the Church of your fathers?” The 
Church of your fathers is that Church which holds the 
principles that they held, which bears the testimony that 
they bore, and which is now suffering in the cause of that 
great truth for which they suffered. Where was the Church 
of your fathers during the 28 years of persecution which 
desolated the land two centuries ago? Was it where 
prelacy held sway, and where curates occupied the pulpits 
rom which the martyr ministers had been expelled? Or 
was it with the persecuted Covenanters on the waste heaths 
Or moorlands among the wild glens and mountain soli- 
tudes, with Welsh and Blackadder—with Cameron and 
Peden—with Cargill and Renwick? You cannot other- 
wise quit the Church of your fathers than by cleaving to 
the present establishment, which no longer retains the 
Principles for which your fathers bore their testimony, 
even unto death. You cannot otherwise remain members 
of the Church of your fathers than by adhering to those 
who are following their footsteps, renewing their testi- 
mony, and preparing like them, to encounter every kind 
and degree of suffering and danger in defence of the Re- 
deemer’s crown. One other plausible argument with 
which you may be addressed is the assertion that we 
Ought to follow the example of our fathers, who in all 
former struggles never left the Church till they were 
forcibly ejected. In answer to this, let it be observed 
that they were in circumstances totally different from 
those in which we are placed. During their days religious 
toleration, such as we enjoy, was unknown, ‘There was 
no such thing then as leaving the establishment, and 
having freedom to preach the gospel out of it. The claim 
of the civil power was that of a universal supremacy over 
the Church of Christ—supremacy in all causes, civil and 
ecclesiastical. Between such a claim and the leaving of 
the Establishment, had that been possible, there was no 
connexion. The one only step left to our forefathers was 
to resist the civil power inits interference with conscience, 
and take the consequences. Itis otherwise with us, who 
have a ground of freedom still left in the constitution 
without the pale of the Establishment. If still we remain 
in it, acquiescing in the unlawful conditions, of course we 
betray the sole sovereignty of Christ in His Church. If 
we remain in it resisting them, we not only, to all practical 
purposes, betray that gnty, but disk bly 
cling to the emoluments of the State, while we refuse 
compliance with the express conditions on which they are 
bestowed.” The address then goes on to remark upon 
matters more peculiarly of a doctrinal character, and con- 
cludes by exhorting their people in their religious duties, 
and calls upon them to labour zealously in rebuilding the 
walls of their prostrate Zion 
SPiscellancous. 
The Heart of St. Louis.—A few weeks ago, the work- 
Men employed on the restoration of the Sainte Chapelle, 
adjoining the Palais de Justice, in Paris, having discovered 
behind the high altar dedicated to St. Louis a leaden box, 
+ Duban, the architect, on being informed of the dis- 
covery, made it known to the Archbishop of Paris, who 
Sent his grand vicars to inspect what had been found. 
The box contained a heart, and with it a writing on parch- 
ment, on which it was recorded that the contents having 
during some repairs made in 1802 been found in another 
ie completely decayed by rust, it was again enveloped in 
wead, and re-deposited in the same spot. This document 
'8 signed by M. Camus, Archivist General of the king- 
dom, M. Terasse, Keeper of the Archives, and the Secre- 
ary of that office. As Moreri, the historian of France, 
qurms that the heart of St. Louis was carried to the Sainte 
prspelle, and placed hehind the high altar, it was expected 
We the investigation ordered by the Minister of Public 
erks would establish the remains thus found to be that 
Sacred relic. M. Letronne, however, the Keeper-General 
of the Archives of France, addressed on the 20th ult. a 
Memorial to the Minister in which, after citing and com- 
menting on all the authorities who had written on the sub- 
ae € comes to the conclusion that the heart of St. Louis, 
© died at Tunis, was not brought back to France, but 
Must form part of the relics deposited in the church of Mon- 
plenear Palermo ; and that even supposing it to have been 
Heesht back to France, it had not been deposited in the 
Sly Chapel. 
> Le 
Since the publication of this opinion, 
‘, Prevost, a deputy of the department of the Eure, 
88 addressed a long letter to the Monileur in reply to 
Be etronne’s argument, that the heart of that monarch 
it not been removed to France, and that if it had been, 
fan ould certainly have been inclosed in a box made of a 
Bier Precious metal than tin. M. Leprevost considers 
on ‘Ormer assertion as extremely hazardous, and resting 
a no well-established fact. ‘¢ As respects the argument 
wn from the paltry value of the box,” he says, “ an 
which has gained many partisans, we will begin 
. ing that the box in question was neither made of 
pees lead, but of tinned copper, and we will oppose to 
heart murele fact which appears to us conclusive. The 
who of a prince nearly coéval with the French monarch, 
Risk Certainly as great aking as St. Louis—I mean 
ard Coeur de Lion—was also inclosed in a metal box, 
which box, so fortunately discovered by my learned friend, 
M. Deville, and so shamefully abandoned ever since, in a 
corner of the Cathedral of Rouen, is not made of gold, 
gilt-silver, or silver, nor even of tinned copper ; itis made 
d 0 
‘olburn v. Whiting and Brown.—This was an action of libel, 
to which the defendants pleaded Not Guilty. The Solicitor- 
General stated the case. The plaintiff in this case carried on for 
years the business of a publisher: The defendants were the pub- 
lishers of the Aéias newspaper, and the attack which the plaintiff 
of the vilest of metals—lead,’’ A corresp fia 
daily paper suggests that the English Government should 
have claimed this reli¢ in return for the body of Napoleon. 
Another Shaksp dutograph. - Mackenzi 
has addressed a letter to the Morning Chronicle, stating 
that “‘ within the last few weeks there has turned up what, 
if authentic, must be by far the most valuable of all the 
Shakspere autographs. This is no less than the identical 
black letter copy of Holinshed’s Chronicles which was 
used by Shakspere, enriched with his manuscript notes, 
and§ above all, by his own autograph signature in full.’”’ 
It was purchased some weeks ago by Mr. Thomas Powell 
from Mr. Elkins, a bookseller in Lombard-street. 
antiquities of France.—The Paris papers state that 
there has just been discovered in the ground excavated 
for the Northern Railroad, between St. Leu d’Essevens 
and Montalaire, a girdle of solid gold, wrought to imitate 
accord, having a hook at each end. The weight of this 
object is 342 grammes, and the gold is valued at 880f. 
It was found within two feet and a-half of the surface, and 
no other article was discovered near it. M. Haubigant, 
member of the Council-General of the Oise, paid the 
workmen handsomely for giving it up to him, with a view 
to having it deposited either in the Museum of Beauvaise 
or the Bibliothéque Royale of Paris. It is supposed to 
belong to the Gaulish period, about the time of Cesar. 
a 
daw, 
Houss or Lorps.—(Commitleefor Privileges.) —The Committee 
on Tuesday last, after hearing Sir Harris Nicolas for the claimant, 
Unanimously resolve e motion of the Lord Chancellor, 
that the claim of Washington Shirley Ferrers to sit in the House 
of Peers as Earl Ferrers had been fully established. Ata previous 
sitting the Committee resolved that Mr. Tracy, the claimant of 
the Tracy Peerage, which has been in abeyance since 1797, had 
not made out his case. 
Vick-CHANCELLOR’s Court.— (Before Sir L. Shadwell.)— 
(Burehnail and Others v. Mitchell and Others.)—Mr. Bethel and 
Mr. Phillips applied to the Court on behalf of the plaintiffs for an 
injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents, and work- 
en, from mowing down, selling, or in any way interfering with 
or disposing of the crop of hay now standing tipon a certain 
piece of land, situate amidst certain other pieces or parcels of 
land known as Southfield and Burgess’s Meadows, in the parish 
of St. Mary’s, in the borough of Leicester, and which piece of 
land had been allotted by the commissioners appointed under the 
provisions of a private and local act of Parliament (the 44th 
George III.), for the benefit of the resident freemen and free- 
men’s widows of the borough of Leicester, in lieu of their former 
rights of common of pasture over all these said pieces and parcels 
of land which they had previously enjoyed immemorially. The 
piece of land in question in this suit is identical with that which 
constituted the subject-matter in dispute in the case of ‘* Astell 
and Others v. Mitchell and Others,” a full statement of the details 
of which, together with the Vice-Chancellor’s judgment upon 
the construction to be given to the act in question, so far as it 
governed the respective rights of the litigant parties, was given 
in our Paper of last Saturday, The defendants in this suit are 
the same as those in the former suit, being a majority of the 
deputies appointed under the act of Parliament in question, to 
janage and regulate the enjoyment by the freemen and their 
lows of this piece of land so allotted to them. In the former 
suit the chief question at issue between the parties was, whether 
he defendants in the suit, the deputies, had power under the act 
to divide this allotment into garden-plots among the freemen 
and their widows, an object much desired and warmly supported 
by the suffrages of the great majority of the freemen and their 
widows, The Vice-Chancellor, on that occasion, was of opinion, 
upon a minute, critical, and Jegal construction of the act, that 
the deputies had not the power to turn this land into garden- 
plots, or to make use of it for any purpose which would render it 
unfit for pasturage. The plaintiffs in the present suit were not 
parties to the former suit ; but, as they claimed to have an interest 
in the enjoyment of this piece of allotted land, they filed this bill, 
and now applied for this injunction, to restrain the defendants 
from mowing down or selling the crop of hay now standing on 
the piece of land in question, notwithstanding that it was con- 
ceded to the defendants, at the period of the former decision, 
that they might be at liberty to cut down the standing crop of 
hay now on the land, without infringing the terms of the injunc- 
tion granted and continued by the Court against them in that 
case. The Vice-Chancellor, in the present instance, without 
g on counsel for the defendants to make a single observa- 
tion in opposition to this application, at once refused the motion 
costs. 
Court oF QugeEN’s Bencn.—The Queen v. Stowell.—This was 
another of the many cases that have recently come before the 
Court on the question of venue. It was an indictment found in 
the Central Criminal Court, and charged the defendant with 
having endeavoured to dissuade one Esther Harley from giving 
evidence on another indictment against two persons, named 
John Williams and John Wakeling. The indictment 
words ‘Central Criminal Court” in the margi 
Having stated the nature of the objection, 
din this indictment, 
would h r any case tried at the 
Criminal Court; but the objection arose in consequence of the 
case being removed into this court. The venue was material as 
showing the place from which the jurymen were to be summoned, 
Here the case, In consequence of the certiorari, was tried in this 
court by a Middlesex jury; but it did not appear on the face of 
the indictment, that that jury had been properly summoned, or 
that the court had jurisdiction in the matter. Evenin theindict- 
ments preferred in the Central Criminal Court, it would be pro- 
per to insert a place applicable to the allegation of the act which 
constituted the offence, alleging that place to be within the juris- 
diction of that court; but it was absolutely necessary that such 
i should exist in cases of indictments 
" 0 Appeared in their paper. The plaintiff was in the 
habit of inserting advertisements in the Atlas newspaper, and in 
the course of a single year they had amounted to 70/. He had 
reason to think that his advertisements there were not pi 
ductive to him, and they descended, therefore, to 40/._ The pro- 
prietors of the Ad/as had a communication with the plaintiff on 
the subject, and said they came to offer the olive-branch or the 
tomahawk. In an article in the paper of the 4th of March, 1943, 
Ainsworth’s Magazine and Colburn’s New Monthly Magazine were 
contrasted with each other, The articie began by referring to 
he opinion of Swift, that there was no honour among book- 
sellers, though there might be among thieves. This the writers 
said they did not believe, though the following might furnish an 
instance of the truth of the opinion. ‘They then referred to the 
publication by the plaintiff in Colburn’s New Monthly Magazine, 
of certain articles on the subject of the life of the late Mr. 
Elliston. 
“ Ellistoniana” ought at all events not to have been pub- 
lished, in proof of which he inserted a letter, purporting to 
come from Mr. Charles Elliston, a son of the deceased, in 
which it was said that many of the anecdotes were false, and 
some of them were of a gross character, and that he and 
his family protested against their publication. In another 
article in the Aflas, the editors of that paper, affecting to 
ridicule a system of puffing, which they described as re- 
sorted to by some unworthy rsons, charged the plaintiff 
with practising it, and distinctly alleged that he used the 
on publications might be made, and however severe they were, 
the writers of them would not be responsible. ut, at the same 
would have the same legal rigltto protection as any other person. 
The learned Counsel then called Mr. Shoberl, as a witness, who 
id, Tam on the establishment of Mr. Colburn, as one of his 
literary assistants. [ remember Mr. S. Whiting coming to Mr. 
Colburn’s. In the middle of his visit he applied iur Mr. Colburn’s 
advertisements in the Af/as. He mentioned that they had been 
withdrawn, and he applied for books for review, to be sent as 
before. I told him that f wou!d make known to Mr. Colburn his 
application. I did so. Plaintiff refused it.—Cross-examined— 
fe and Times of Frederick the Great” was publisied 
with Mr. Campbell’s name as editor. 
of it, Id 
public by that description. I do not know what 
I know th 
but there is nothing deceptive in them, 
department. I do not see that any fair little announcement of a 
book should be called a puffer.—The Solicitor-General objected 
to this style of question,—Mr. Thesiger contended that the 
question was most important. ‘The inquiry here was, whether 
there was not a sysiem of puffing, and whether tue article 
complained of was more than a criticism on a practice which, 
for the benefit of the public, ought to be put down.—Lord 
Denman thought that the {question was, whether there was 
a libel or not, but not whether it was so in respect of any 
particular party connected with any particular person. i 
Moncrieff was then.called, and proved that he was the writer of 
“Ellistoniana” in Colburn’s Magazine. Mr. Thesiger then 
Jury for the defendants. He denied that there 
was anything here that could properly be called an attack upon 
private character. The defendants had no private motive influ- 
encing their conduct. If persons assumed the office of public 
journalists—if they affected to guide public taste, and to afford 
to the public the proper means of forming a correct judgment, 
—they were not merely entitled, they were bound to show in 
what way that judgment was covertly endeavoured to be influ- 
enced, He had himself been wholly ignorant of the manner of 
puffing—so ingenious but so deceptive—which this article in the 
defendant’s paper had denounced; he had always believed that 
the recommendations of a work, which he saw first in one peri- 
Odical and then in another, were so many expressions of dif- 
ferent voices honestly and faithfully expressing the opinions of 
various individuals. It seemed that he was in this quite mis. 
taken—that, in fact, they all proceeded from the same person, 
were puffed from one publication to another, till they had com- 
pleted what was called the round of the papers, apd had suc- 
ceeded in inducing simple-minded persons, like himself, to believe 
that the voices of all the critics were unanimous in favour of 
the work which appeared to be criticised. No one could donbt 
that the system was a most improper one—no one could doubt 
that, if it deceived persons for a time, it must bring discredit on 
literature itself, and was therefore a system which deserved 
reprobation. The defendants had done no more than reprobate 
it, and in doing so they had ony pointed out an instance in 
which, as it seemed to them, the system haa been unfairly 
carried. into practice. In what they had done they had not 
transgressed the bounds within which, for the public benefit, 
the law allowed them to write without restrain’ be 
and of magazines, was, to a certain extent, public property. The 
case of Sir John Carr authorised fair criticism on his publica. 
tions, and if he puffed them by insidious means, justified the 
exposure of the puffing. The pul f 
was nota public property on which every one might prey ; but 
it was something on which every critic might, for public reasons, 
and in a fair way, freely animadvert. hese defendants had 
done no more; they had not touched the private character of the 
plaintiff; they had done no more than they were warranted in 
doing, and they looked to the jury with confidence tor a verdict 
Denman summed up the case. 
and proper mode of criticism, and would think that they ought 
allowed great liberty in exercising it. tt that had not 
been done here. Th ci 
eS ee eee Ney RENTON See TS PMO TNE PY TORRONE PRUNE DT SS RENT TE 
