attended, have, on the whole, been productive of personal inconvenience, and pecuniary loss to the claimants, together over-weighing their share of gain from the rights recovered. There is no doubt, that conscientious motives often induce ecclesiastical persons both to advance and to persist in prosecuting claims on behalf of the Church, which private considerations would incline them to forego or relinquish. We consider that the Church would be benefitted by the removal of this species of snare.

The rule we have referred to, by its operation, has brought upon tithes a reproach which does not necessarily belong to them, and from which they ought to be rescued.

The principles upon which long enjoyment is held to be conclusive evidence of right, apply to this species of property as fully as any other; and where the tithes are claimed by a lay impropriator, or by a corporation aggregate, whether temporal or spiritual, there seems no reason why the enactments which we have recommended respecting land, should not be extended to them. With respect to the claims of the clergy generally, however, a different course must be pursued. Prescription must be governed by peculiar rules as to property'extra commercium,' held by a succession of tenants for life, who are liable to want the information as to their rights, which other owners may be considered to possess, who are peculiarly liable to want the pecuniary means of enforcing those rights. This property is held, too, on a species of trust for the public, and the trust is left to the protection of individuals who have but a partial interest in enforcing its performance, and yet (unlike other trustees) must bear personally the whole expense and risk of the requisite proceedings. It is a consideration, moreover, not to be overlooked, that the individuals are liable to be influenced by many motives, operating either constantly or for a long period, to deter them from demanding, and especially from hostilely prosecuting their rights.

Several of the Bishops to whom questions on the subject had been addressed seem adverse to the notion of a statute of limitation to the claims of the church, and various expedients are suggested for obviating the necessity of it, and, among others, a commission for ascertaining the present rights of churches, and trying the solidity of moduses, is strongly enforced by some of their Lordships. To this, however, the Commissioners decidedly object, on the ground-First, that it would have the effect of raising up many claims which otherwise would never have been heard of: and, Secondly, that the decisions would be unsatisfactory; and, upon the whole, they finally arrive at the conclusion, that the rights of the Church in respect to the validity of moduses, compositions, rent, and the possession of glebe lands, shall be bound by quiet possession for a period of 50 years, with two incumbencies, and three years of a third.*

TRIALS.

PRIVY COUNCIL.- -HINDO0 SUTTEES.

A VERY numerous meeting of the Lords of his Majesty's Privy Council was held at the Council Office, June 23rd. Their Lordships assembled for the

The bill now passed adopts, it is said, nearly the principle here laid down, except that sixty are substituted for fifty years, and that all claims must be set on foot within one year of the passing of the Act. It has been impossible to get the Act yet, but the importance of the matter will justify the Editor in calling the attention of the Clergy to it, without loss of time, even if the account just given to him should not be correct. The exact terms of the Act shall be given in next Number.

purpose of hearing the arguments of counsel in the matter of a petition presented by a vast number of Hindoos, complaining of the suppression of Suttees by the Governor General of India, Lord William Bentinck.

Dr. Lushington, Mr. Drinkwater, and Mr. M'Dougal appeared in support of the petition, and the Solicitor-General, Sir C. Wetherell, Sir E. B. Sugden, Mr. Sergeant Spankie, and two junior counsel, were retained against it.

Dr. LUSHINGTON opened the case in a speech of great length and much eloquence. He said that this was a petition of a vast number of the most respectable Hindoos in rank and property in Bengal; and it complained of an order enforced by the Governor and Council, in which they were prevented from exercising one of the most sacred of their religious rites. It had been the practice for ages immemorial, for the widows of Hindoos to sacrifice themselves on the deaths of their husbands, either by being burnt on the funeral pile, or, as was practised in some parts of India, by being buried alive. Now he (Dr. L.) should contend that it was not sufficient to say that this rite was disgusting and inhuman; it was to them a matter of sacred faith; they believed that it propitiated the deities they worshipped, and would effect the salvation of their families. The order of which the petitioners complained not only altogether abrogated this religious ceremony, but it went even further-it converted what the Hindoos felt to be the most sacred of their religious observances into a crime severely punishable by law. Lord William Bentinck had himself acknowledged that this measure was a violation of the established rights of the nation-rights which he (Dr. L.) was prepared to prove had been admitted in innumerable instances. The principal question for their Lordships' consideration, however, was, by what test they should judge whether this practice ought or ought not to be disturbed; and in the first place he must remark, that they ought not, and could not make that test the doctrines or the practice of Christianity. He would rather say, that the subject ought to be considered as a question between two independent nations, differing in their religious faiths, but who had entered into a mutual compact not to molest, or in any way interfere with the observances of their several religious rites. Indeed, that was, in his opinion, the exact situation in which the great body of the Hindoos and the British Government stood; and if that were so, then he could produce innumerable authorities from the most able lawyers to prove that in administering justice to those whose religion is tolerated, regard must be had to the practice and observances enjoined by their religion. There was one case in particular, which was decided about forty years ago by Lord Stowell. A Jew applied for a divorce, and that illustrious judge admitted that his judgment must be guided by the laws and practices of the Hebrew nation, and he consequently consulted the best authorities. The ground for the application was, that the marriage had not been solemnized in that manner that the Jewish law made imperative. Lord Stowell found that the presence of two witnesses who were undefiled, that is, who were not murderers or idolaters, and who had not since sunrise "stirred the fire or snuffed the candles," was indispensable. Now, it was proved that one of the two witnesses who were present on the occasion had "stirred the fire," and, consequently, the husband obtained his divorce. It was scarcely possible to conceive a harder case, but so important did it appear to that excellent Judge to administer the law, as long established custom had prescribed, that he did not venture to depart from it. But he would ask, where, if this attack upon the religious rites of the Hindoos is to be sustained, where would it end? It was painful-it was disgusting-it was every thing that his learned friends might call it, to witness the immolation of females; but was it not to a Christian even more painful and more disgusting to see the idolatry which prevailed in the eastern empire? Idolatry was high treason to the majesty of God. Where then, he again asked, would they stop? Some future Government might determine to abolish the native religion altogether, and make them all Christians. It was mere mockery to

abolish the lesser evil, while idolatry was not only protected but encouraged. Rajah Rammohun Roy was present during the whole sitting.*

June 20. The Lords of the Privy Council sat to-day for the purpose of hearing further arguments on this appeal.

Mr. DRINKWATER concluded his arguments in behalf of the appellants, following DR. LUSHINGTON.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL contended, on behalf of the respondents, that, by the various Acts of Parliament which had been passed, the right of the Supreme Government in India to make such regulations had been repeatedly recognised. He admitted the right of our Indian subjects to toleration to the utmost extent in matters of religious faith, and also in the conduct which might result from that faith, except when that conduct interfered with the just rights of the Government, and with the necessary protection which ought always to be given to life, limb, and property. He remarked that the Indian laws had not been fairly stated by his Learned Friends on the other side; that they had not gone to the text of the old writers as men (?); but they had brought forward the text of three, who could only be considered in the light of commentators. In the old writers, they found that there was no direct injunction on the Hindoo widow to cast herself into the same funeral pile with her husband, but merely a permission; whereas, there was a direct injunction in the Hindoo law against slaying a priest, although guilty of the most atrocious crimes, an injunction which our Government had thought proper to disregard, which disregard had not caused any murmurs amongst the natives; but, on the contrary, had been attended with the most beneficial results. The Learned Gentleman then cited Mr. Locke, in support of the view which he took of the just limits of religious toleration. After remarking, that, even according to Hindoo superstition, the sacrifice must be voluntary in order to be productive of benefit, he contended that from the manner in which women were brought up in India, their entire dependence on others, the circumstance that they were never mistresses of their own actions, the early period at which the concremation was to take place after the death of the husband, and the fact that the near relatives of the deceased were materially interested in the occurrence of the sacrifice; under all these circumstances, it was almost impossible that the immolation could be voluntary; some were sacrificed even at so early an age as five years, and the majority at nine or ten, when it was impossible that the minds of the victims could be matured; in proof of which, he could state the striking fact, that female life frequently endured in that country to 80 or 90 years. After expatiating on the cruelties and barbarities practised on these occasions, he implored their Lordships to put a stop to the performance of the rite, which was as inconsistent with fair religious toleration as it was with sound government, justice, and morality.

Dr. Lushington, in the course of his address, quoted several passages from the Hindoo sacred writings, and, among others, what follows:

"She who follows her husband to another world shall dwell in a region of joy for so many years as there are hairs on the human body, or thirty-five millions.

"The woman who follows her husband to the pile expiates the sins of three generations on the paternal and maternal side of that family to which she was given while a virgin.

"Even though the man had slain a priest, or returned evil for good, or killed an intimate friend, the woman expiates those crimes; this has been declared by Angiras.

No other effectual duty is known for virtuous women, at any time after the death of their lords, except casting themselves into the same fire.

"As long as a woman, in her successive transmigrations, shall decline burning herself like a faithful wife, on the same fire with her deceased lord, so long shall she be not exempted from springing again to life in the body of some female animal."

Mr. Sergeant SPANKIB followed. Not having concluded at the rising of the Court, the case was adjourned till Saturday.

Saturday, July 7.-The Privy Council sat again in this case. Mr. Sergeant Spankie having concluded on the respondent's case, Dr. Lushington replied. He recapitulated his arguments, and expressed a fear that if the Government confirmed the Order in Council, it would be productive of most serious disturbances. The Hindoos had hitherto remained quiet, but it was only in the expectation of redress. Their Lordships took time to consider.

The report of the Lords of the Privy Council, in reference to the above-mentioned rite, was recently taken into consideration by the King in Council, and it was ordered that the Petition be dismissed.

Kent Summer Assizes, August 3rd

NISI PRIUS.

MORRELL v. WINCHESTER.

THE plaintiff holds the tithes of the parish of Hawkhurst, under the Dean and Chapter of Oxford. In the year 1818, in order to avoid disputes and litigation, an agreement was made between the lessee and many of the tithe contributors, by which 17. an acre for wheat, and 21. an acre for hops, and an indemnification for rates, &c., was to be paid in lieu of tithe. The defendant is a holder of considerable property at Hawkhurst, liable to tithe. The composition for the tithe due for this property was 367. 12s. 6d., which had been regularly paid for some time, but had for some time also remained unpaid, and the action brought by the plaintiff was to recover the arrears due for seven years ending Lady-day, 1830, amounting to between 2001. and 3007. To support his claim, evidence was produced to prove the agreement for the composition, and the payment of it under the agreement.

For the defence it was insisted, that under the 9th of George IV., the plaintiff could not recover; that the evidence did not prove a continuing agreement; that the original instrument had been altered, and that it amounted to nothing more than to pay a reasonable composition for the current year; that notice had been given that the agreement would not be considered as a continuing contract, and that it was the duty of the plaintiff to have given the defendant notice "to set out" his tithes. This had not been done, for if it had, and a refusal had ensued, an action would have laid for such refusal; but such action must have been brought within six years; that period had elapsed, and the present action on the agreement had been resorted to, in consequence of the plaintiff having neglected to avail himself of his proper remedy.

The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up, gave it as his opinion that the act above referred to was not applicable to the present case.

Verdict for the plaintiff; damages, 1317.

Devon and Exeter Lammas Assizes, August 1st.

NISI PRIUS.

MITCHELL V. JENKINS.

THIS was an action brought by Mr. Mitchell, a farmer, against the Rev. Mr. Jenkins, the vicar of Sidmouth, for a false and malicious arrest. Mr Sergeant Wilde (with whom was Mr. Follett) opened the case by stating that the plaintiff was a farmer, who, with the rest of the farmers in the parish, had entered into a composition with the rector, the defendant, for the payment of the tithe by a composition of so much in the pound on the rent. Subsequently to the agreement, a reduction took place in the rent, and some dis

pute had occurred with respect to the sum due to the defendant under the altered circumstances. Plaintiff had, after the dispute took place, sold the defendant a lot of sheep, and purchased a quantity of seed for him, so that he had a set-off against the defendant. The rector after this, on the plaintiff refusing to pay the large amount demanded for the composition of tithe, arrested him for the whole amount of the debt, without allowing the set-off, but had instructed the sheriff's officer who arrested him to allow the set-off if he agreed to settle the affair by paying the amount claimed ;-if he would agree to pay the amount of composition, defendant would allow the set-off, but if he would not agree to these terms, the arrest was to proceed. Plaintiff was accordingly arrested, and gave bail, but subsequently the defendant withdrew the action for arrest, and paid the costs. The arrest was a most improper and illegal act, and the plaintiff was therefore entitled to obtain damages for that excessive arrest. Two witnesses were called, who proved the circumstances of the tithe composition debt, the arrest of the plaintiff, and the subsequent withdrawal of the action, paying the costs, &c. Mr. Sergeant Coleridge (with whom was Mr. Bere) addressed the jury on the part of the defendant; he observed that the learned counsel for the plaintiff had endeavoured to raise an unjust prejudice in their minds, and had made a most groundless insinuation of perjury against his client, and if he could think them capable of suffering any prejudice to prevail with them, on the fact and justice of the case, he should tremble for the verdict which they would return. The learned Serjeant then commented at considerable length on the circumstances of the case, and contended that as his client had acted under the direction of his legal adviser, and the moment he had discovered his mistake, had done all he could to remedy it, it was impossible the charge of malice, which was the only ground upon which the action could be maintained, could be made out. He relied, with the utmost confidence, upon the issue of the verdict. There were no witnesses called for the defence, and the learned Judge summed up, in the course of which he stated that it was his duty to tell the jury that the action was maintainable, and that it was his opinion that their verdict must be for the plaintiff, with some damages, the amount of which it would be for them to consider, but he thought they ought to be very moderate. With respect to the charge of perjury or malice against the defendant, whatever might be their verdict, Mr. Jenkins would go out of Court entirely free from any such imputation.

Verdict for the plaintiff ;-damages, 201.

DOCUMENTS.

COPY OF ARTICLES OF INQUIRY ISSUED TO EVERY INCUMBENT. Ecclesiastical Revenues Commission Office, 44, Parliament Street, August 1832.

THE Commissioners appointed by his Majesty, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal, to inquire, amongst other things, into the Revenues of all Ecclesiastical Benefices, Donatives, Perpetual Curacies, and Chapelries, desire the .of..

...

to make a full and particular Statement in reply to each of the subjoined Articles of Inquiry, and to transmit the Articles of Inquiry, and the statements in reply, to the Commissioners, on or before the 15th day of November next, addressed "To the Under Secretary of State, Home Office, London," adding in the corner, "Ecclesiastical Revenues Commission."

The Commissioners have adopted this mode of seeking the information which they are directed by his Majesty to obtain, relying on the disposition of all