In the Arches Court, on Monday, the case of Mary

Woolfrey came on before Sir Herbert Jenner- In the Arches Court, on Monday, the case of Mary Woolfrey came on before Sir Herbert Jenner-

The suit was brought by letters of request from the Vicar-General of the Bishop of Winchester. The articles alleged, that by the laws, customs, and usages of the realm, it is forbidden to erect in the churchyard of any parish a tomb or headstone, or other monument, without the consent of the Rector or Vicar, or without a faculty fur the purpose; and that it is by the 211d Article of the Church of England, agreed upon in 1562, declared that the Boorish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardon, and other things therein mentioned, is "a fiord thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God ; " that any person erecting, or causing to be erected, in the churchyard of any parish, any monument, without such consent or faculty, ought to be peremptorily monished im- mediately to remove the satire; and further, that if such monument con- tain any inscription contrary to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, and to the Articles of the said Church, the person or persons so offending ought not ouly to be peremptorily monished im- mediately to remove the same, but also duly corrected and punished accord- ing to law ; that the defendant, notwithstanding, did erect a tomb or headstone in the churchyard of Carishrooke, to the memory of her husband, without the consent of the vicar and without a faculty, and that upon such tomb or head- stone were contained, amongst other, the two following inscriptions—" Pray for the soul of J. Woolfrey ;" and " It is a holy and wholesortie thought to pray for the dead ;" both which inscriptions were contrary to the doctrine and disci• pline of the Church of England, and to the Articles, Canons, and Constitutions thereof, and particularly to the 9.2d Article; that due notice had been given to the defendant to remove the stone, but she had refused, or neglected to do so, and that the same still remains, to the great scandal and offence of the pa- rishioners and others. The prayer is, that the defendant be decreed and mo- nished to remove the stone, and be canonically corrected and punished, and con- demned in the costs.

Dr. Addlims, for the defendant, entered into a long argument, and quoted many authorities, to prove that prayers for the dead were neither unscriptural nor contrary to the doctrine or practice of the Church of England, nor necessarily connected with the Popish doctrine of pur. gatory. The Queen's Advocate spoke on the other side, and moved the Court to issue a " peremptory monition " for the removal of the monument. The judgment of the Court was postponed.

In the Court of Queen's Bench, on Saturday, it was decided that a rate, made by the Middlesex Magistrates on the parish of St. George's Hanover Square, for the purpose of building the Hanwell Lunatic Asylum, was bad in law. The expense should have been defrayed by- special county-rates. This decision materially curtails the rating powers. of the Middlesex Bench, and will be a protection to Metropolitan parishes against their irresponsible authority.

On Thursday, Lord Denman passed sentence on two persons, Wal ters and Sullivan, convicted of a conspiracy to obtain by fraud a diploma of the Royal College of Surgeons, in order to enable Mansell, a third party, who bad been held to bail but did not appear, to practise as a surgeon. Walters, who had been imprisoned ten months and lost his business, was sentenced to three months' additional confinement, and Sullivan to six months.

Mr. D'Israeli appeared to receive sentence for the libel on Mr. Austin, the barrister ; judgment having gone by default. The Attor- ney-General spoke in aggravation, and Mr. D'Israeli in mitigation of punishment. The defendant's speech was mild and respectful, yet not abject in tone. He put strongly to the Court the circumstances of

irritation under which the libellous letter was written. Taking a newspaper report as correct, confirmed as it was by parties who were present, he believed that Mr. Austin i bad charged him with bribery, and subsequent refusal to fulfil the promises he had given to obtain votes. But as it appeared that he was mistaken,—that Mr. Austin had not used the language imputed to him,—Mr. D'Israeli felt pain and mortification that be should have wounded the feelings of an honour. able, learned, and respectable mall, who had not attempted to injure him. He had instructed his counsel to make what he supposed would have been a sufficient apology. He touched with good humour on the power of the Bar, whose hostility he had provoked ; and quoted a pas- sage from Lord Brougham's account of the duties of an advocate to his client, (delivered in Queen Caroline's ease) to show that, accord- ing to the highest forensic authority, there was nothing—not even high treason—which the former ought to shrink from when the interests of his client required the sacrifice or the crime ! In conclusion, said Mr. D'Israeli- " As to my offence against the law, I throw myself on your Lordship's' mercy ; as to my offence against the individual, I have made him that repara- tion which a gentleman should under the circumstances cheerfully proffer, and with which a gentleman should, in any opinion, be cheerfully content. I make this, my Lords, not to avoid the consequences of my conduct; for, right or wrong, good or bad, these consequences I am ever prepared to encounter ; but because 1 am anxious to soothe the feelings which I have unjustly injured, and evince my respect to the suggestions of the Bench. But as to my offence against the Bar, I do with the utmost confidence appeal to your Lordships, however you may disapprove of my opinions—however objectionable, however offensive, even however odious they may be to you—that you will not permit me to be arraigned for one offence and punished for another. In a word, my Lords, it is to the Bench I look with confidence to shield me from the vengeance of an irri- tated and powerful profession."

The Attorney-General intimated, that the apology Mr. D'Israeli now made, in connexion with the instructions given to his counsel, was a sufficient reparation ; and the prayer for judgment was therefore withdrawn.

The Attorney-General showed cause against a rule for a criminal information, obtained by the Marquis of Blandford against the pub-

lisher of the Satirist newspaper. The Marchioness of Blandford and her children were also patties to the application on which the rule was granted. The complaint against the newspaper was for the publication of a libel impugning the legality of the marriage of Lord Blandford, and the legitimacy of his children by that marriage. The libel alleged that the Marquis of Blandford, in 1817, married Miss Susan Adelaide Law, a young lady of seventeen, residing with her father and mother in Seymour Place, Bryanstone Square ; that he had a daughter by her; and took the mother and his child to Scotland, where Miss Law was introduced to the present Marquis of Breadalbane, Sir William Elliot, and Sir Tyrrwhitt Jones, as his wife ; that subsequently Lord Bland- ford married the daughter of the Earl of Galloway, and had children by her—the present Earl of Sunderland, and others, who were illvgiti mute. The affidavit of Lord Blandford, on which the rule for the criminal information was obtained, denied that there had been any mar. riage with Miss Law ; though the parties had lived together, and 4001. a year had been paid to the lady as an allowance. Sir William Elliot and the Marquis of Breadalbane also made affidavits, that Miss Law had not been introduced to them as the lawful wife of Lord Blandford. Sir 'I'. Jones was not in a condition to make an affidavit. The Attor- ney-General, for the defendant, produced an affidavit by Miss Law ; who stated that the marriage ceremony between herself and the Mar- quis of Blandford had been performed by a person whom Lord Bland-. ford represented as a clergyman, and his own brother, at her father's house ; that she subsequently discovered that the pretended clergyman was an officer in the Army ; rind that Lord Blandford having been taxed with the fraud, promised to take her to Scotland, where, by publicly acknowledging her as his wife, she would become so legally. The parties in the mean while had been living together as Captain and Mrs. Lawson, in :Manchester Street, Manchester Square; and Miss Law had a child four months old when she went to Scotland, escorted, as far as Buroughbridge, by Colonel James Stuart, Lord Blandford's uncle, and the present Eurl of Galloway, then Lord Garlies. At Boroughbridge she met Lord Blandford, who went with her to Carlisle; and then she proceeded alone to Edinburgh, where lodgings had been taken for her by Sir Williurn Elliott. f he Marquis joined her in Edinburgh ; and they lived together as Captain and Mrs. Lawson.

He soon afterwards returned to London, and was directed by the Mar- quis to take a furnished house ; but this she refused to do, when she heard of the intended marriage with Lord Galloway's daughter, which afterwards took place; but she received an allowance of 4001. a year through the Dutchess of Marlborough, which sum had been recently cut down to 200/. Five years atter her separation from the Mar- quis, that person made overtures for the renewal of the connexion ; which be on reflection thought proper to withdraw. These were the chief facts stated by Miss Law. The defendant swore that he had no malicious intent, and believed that the statements he published were true.

Sir William Follett, in support of the rule, contended that the pro-

secutor's affidavit bad not been met; and that no proof was given of the legality of the marriage in 1817, which all the parties must have known to be a force—at least if Miss Law was deceived, her father and mother could not have been ; but there were no affidavits from them. As to the acknowledgment of the marriage in Scotland, there were affidavits from Sir William Elliot and the :Marquis of Breadalbane that Miss Law was not received as the !Marchioness of Blandford ; and Sir William Elliot said that he took the lodgings in Edinburgh for Mrs. Lawson alone, not for Captain and Mrs. Lawson. Miss Law had not been married, to be sure, since her connexion with Lord Blandford had terminated, but she had had a family of children. That was Lord Blandford's statement, and the " woman " had not contradicted it. The defendant's justification had failed in essential points.

Mr. Richards, on behalf of the Marchioness of Blandford and her children, pressed the Court to make the rule absolute, Lord Denman consulted with the other Judges, and then delivered the decision of the Court-

" This is an application of a serious and interesting nature, hoth'as regards on which we ought to

the parties affected by it and as relates to the principles

administer justice with respect to criminal informations. 1 have n44 the least difficulty in saying, that if Lord Blandford alone had applied for this rule, I would never, for one, have consented to make it absolute; for, upon his own statement, a strong imputation is conveyed on his own conduct towards a re- spectable young lady. tier statements are certainly of a nature to create suspi- mon ; but that some centrivances were resorted to, I have no doubt whatever, and I do not think that we should be justified in pronouncing them to be per- jured. But Lord Blandford is not the only person to be considered : his wife and family complain of a libel which attacks them in their dearest interests and most tender feelings, and distinctly puts forward a series of imputations, with respect to which, I agree with the learned counsel who have supported the rule that there is nothing in the affidavits on either side to show that such impute. tions are well founded. The Marquis of Blandfurd himself swears that there was no marriage either in England or Scotland ; and I do not find any thing which, in fact, impeaches that statement. Considering, thetefore, the interests of the individuals I have mentioned, and the importance of warning those who are disposed to traffic with character in this way, that they cannot he allowed to do so with impunity, I think we are justified in saying, notwithstanding the misconduct of Lord Blandford, that Lady Blandford, the Earl of Sunderland, and the rest of the issue of this marriage, are entitled to have this rule made absolute." In the Bail Court, on Wednesday, Sir William Follett obtained a rule to show cause why the verdict of the Coroner's Jury, by which a deodand of 1,5001. was levied on the steamer Victoria, should not be quashed, the case having been already brought into the Court of Queen's Bench by a writ of certiorari. The grounds upon which he moved were—first, that the death of deceased was caused by the burst- ing of the boiler, and not by any fault or defect in the engine, us alleged in the verdict of the Jury ; and, secondly, that several of the jurors had attached their initials only to the verdict, and not their names in full,— which was contrary to law, as had already been decided in cases of a similar nature. The rule was granted.