The literary remains of J. S. H. ... edited ... by J. G. Nichols, etc

Front matter

J.X Mitchell. deliSsi. J.Jirvten. sclSSo.. /^^^?^^^z^^/ Published V-J-B-Nictiols & Son.i35L. THE LITERARY REMAINS OF JOHN STOCKDALE HARDY, FELLOW OF THE SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES, SOMETIME REGISTRAR OF THE ARCHDEACONRY COURTS OF LEICESTER. EDITED, IN PURSUANCE OF HIS WILL, BY JOHN GOUGH NICHOLS, F.S.A. WESTMINSTER : JOHN BOWYER NICHOLS AND SON. 1852. In the Will of John Stockdale Hardy, Esquire, dated 24th May, 1847, is contained as follows : — " I give and bequeath all my Literary Memoranda and Manuscripts to my friend John Gough Nichols, of Parliament Street, in the City of Westminster, Esquire, with a request that he will look them over and publish such of them as he thinks proper to be collected, together with the pamphlets I have already published, and collect them and the said pamphlets into a volume, such volume to be entitled, ' The Remains of John Stockdale Hardy, F.S.A. sometime Registrar of the Archdeaconry Courts of Leicester.' Of this publication I of course wish him to act as the Editor.

I particularly wish the said John Gough Nichols to attend my funeral, And I give and bequeath to him the sum of _=6150 to defray the expense of the above-mentioned publication, and the sum of <j£200 as a personal legacy and a mark of my esteem for him. I wish such of the articles which I communicated to the ' Gentleman's Magazine ' as he may deem fitting to be reprinted in the aforesaid volume. I began to correspond in that publication in the year 1809, and the first article I wrote appeared in the Magazine for the month of August in that year." CONTENTS. Introductory Memoir ...... viii Essays relative to Ecclesiastical Law : Letter to a Country Surrogate, containing a Summary of the Laws relating to Marriage Licences, and Suggestions, &c. . 3 Letter to the Earl of Eldon, on the Marriage Act Amendment Bill, 1822 ....... 24 Letter to Lord Stowell, on the Marriage Act Amendment Bill, 1823 47* On the Proposed Removal of Diocesan Registries, 1834 . . 47 Observations on the Ecclesiastical Courts Consolidation Bill, 1836 58* Observations on the Jurisdictions of the Vicars General, Officials Principal, and Commissaries of Bishops, and upon those of Archdeacons and their Officials . . . .58 Memoir on the Offices of Commissary and Official of the Archdeaconry of Leicester . . . . . .79 Historical Account of the Proctors of the Court of the Archdeaconry of Leicester . . . . .87 Essays and Speeches on Political Questions and Public Business : On the Law of Libel, 1811 . . . . .107 A series of Letters addressed to a Friend upon the Roman Catholic Question.

By Britannieus. 1820 .... 112 Letter on the Roman Catholic Marriage Bill, 1823 . .186 Speech and Petition against the Roman Catholic Claims, 1825 . 189 1828 . 196 Essays on the Poor Law-s, and the Framework-Knitters' Relief Society. 1819 or 1820 . . . . .204 Speech on Mr. Scarlett's Poor Laws Bill, 1821 . . .214 Letter on Home Distress and on Slavery, 1826 . . . 218 Letter on proposed alteration of the Poor Laws, 1834 . . 220 Letter on the Poor Laws Amendment Bill, 1849 . . . CONTENTS. VI Essays and Speeches, Sic.— continued. Speech on the plan for Watching and Lighting the town of Leicester in 1822 233 Reports relative to the Erection of St. George's Church, Leicester 237 Exposition of the motto, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity . 243 Biographical Essays : Character of the Very Rev. R. B. Nickolls, LL.B. Dean of Middleham, and Rector of Stoney Stanton, Leicestershire . . 255 Memoir of the Ven.

Appendix

. No. I.— CASE. A chancellor of a diocese, wishing to conform as strictly as possible to the last Marriage Act, drew up an order that no licences in blank should be delivered out to the surro gates in the country, but that the affidavits in blank should only be sent to them by the registrar, and that upon an application being made to any of such surrogates for a licence the surrogate should fill up the affidavit and swear the party, and forthwith transmit the affidavit to the registrar, who, immediately upon the receipt thereof (should there be no caveat entered against it), should fill up the licence and transmit it to the surrogate. Before the above order is issued, your opinion is requested, First, whether, in case the practice of issuing licences in blank to surrogates were retained (it having subsisted for nearly time immemorial in the above diocese), in case any error should be committed by the surrogates in granting such marriage licence, or in case it should turn out that a caveat had been properly entered pursuant to 4 Geo. IV. c. 76, s. 1 1, and the parties should marry pursuant to the licence, and before the registrar could apprise the surrogate of the caveat, any action for damages or other proceedings would lie against the chancellor of the diocese (supposing him to be aware that licences were issued in blank), or against the regis trar or his deputy?

OPINION. I am of opinion that the chancellor has acted perfectly right in prohibiting the issue of licences in blank. Sir Joseph Jekyll, a most eminent judge, declared in Herbert's case (3 P. W. p. 118) his opinion that such licences were void. I think, if the practice of issuing the licences in blank continues, and any mischievous consequences arise, the chancellor who allowed of such practice would be respon sible. Whether an action would lie against him depends so entirely on the injury any party might receive in a particular case, that I cannot answer that question generally. I am of opinion that the chancellor might be prosecuted in the eccle siastical courts for breach of duty, and I am inclined to think that, in certain cases, he might be indicted. (Signed) Stephen Lushington. Cromer, Oct. 17, 1825.

No. II. Circular Letter of Dr. Arnold, Chancellor of the Diocese of Worcester. Doctors' Commons, 7th Nov. 1823. Sir, Considering that the New Marriage Act of the 4th Geo. IV. c. 76, s. 11, enacts, that if any caveat be entered against the grant of any licence for a marriage, with the forms there specified, no licence shall issue till reference has been made to the judge, and a certificate obtained from him, or till the caveat be withdrawn ; and that such caveat can be entered only in the registry ; and that if surrogates were to grant licences without communication with the registry, then, notwithstanding a caveat were entered, a licence might 1836. be obtained by application to a surrogate residing at a distance from the registry, he not being apprised of the caveat, and so the effect intended by the Legislature to be given to the caveat might be defeated ; I think that, for the future, a surrogate, on application being made for a licence, should, in the first instance, only take the affidavit of the party, according to the form lately sent from the vicar-general's office, and that the same should be transmitted to the re gistry ; and then, if no caveat has been entered, the licence should issue from thence ; and I will be obliged to you to carry this suggestion on my part into effect : and upon any caveat being entered be pleased to follow the directions of sec. 1 1 of the Act with respect to it.

I am, &c. J. H. Arnold. To the Deputy Registrar of the Diocese of Worcester. No. III. Extract of a Letter addressed to J. S. Hardy, Esq. by the Rev. Richard Maunsell, Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Limerick. Castle Island, co. Kerry, April 13th, 1836. " The diocese of Ardfert and Aghadoe is united with that of Limerick. The bishop resides entirely and constantly in the city of Limerick. His lordship appoints a vicar-general for Ardfert and Aghadoe, and if he does not reside he appoints a surrogate. Alexander Hamilton, Esq. LL.D., a distinguished civilian, is the present vicar-general, and re sides in Dublin. His surrogate, and the sole acting official of this diocese, is a constant resident in Tralee, the county 74* ON THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. town, where he holds his court, and performs all the duties of his office.

It is not the practice in this diocese, nor I be lieve in any diocese in Ireland, to issue licences in blank- Here the licence is prepared and filled up by the registrar, in which are introduced the names, station, and residence of the parties, and then brought to the surrogate, who adminis ters the oath, and makes every possible necessary inquiry. (Signed) Rd. Maunsell." OBSERVATIONS Upon the Jurisdictions of the Vicars General, Officials Principal, and Commissaries of Bishops, and upon those of Archdeacons and their Officials. [Published in 1848.] Considerable misconception having prevailed with respect to the jurisdictions of the Vicars General, Officials Principal, and Commissaries of Bishops, and of those of Archdeacons and their Officials, the following brief observations upon the subject may possibly be of some service.

The voluntary jurisdiction of a bishop is either exercised by himself or by his vicar-general ; a bishop is bound to appoint an official principal for matters of contentious jurisdiction,* but with respect to voluntary jurisdiction, it is said, he may either retain it, or grant out such portions of it as he thinks proper to a vicar-general ; -funiversally however, as I believe, the practice runs, to appoint both a vicar-general and an official principal. The jurisdiction of a bishop extends, generally speaking, at all times, over his entire diocese, and this is * Gibs. 986. f I Stillingfleet, 330. usually exercised by his vicar-general and official principal. A commissary of a bishop (except in cases of probates of wills and administrations of the personal effects of persons dying within the commissariate or archdeaconry, and in which cases, should his patent be sufficiently extensive, grants of probates or administrations are valid for any personal property within the diocese left by de ceased parties,)* only exercises jurisdiction within the limits prescribed to him ; but both the vicar general and official principal of the diocese, and the commissary of the commissariate or archdea conry, usualty (at least as far as their patents ex tend, or unless some special circumstances inter fere) possess the authority of the bishop, the former throughout the entire diocese, the latter within the commissariate or archdeaconry, inasmuch as they hold commissions for the exercise of such authority directly from the bishop.

With respect to archdeacons, their jurisdictions appear to stand upon a very different footing. Sir John Nicholl, in the case of Parham v. Tem plar,-f~ said, " that archdeacons may have * their peculiars, and in that case are not bound by the stat. 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12 " (which regulates appeals). X "This statute," the learned judge ob- * The King v. Yonge, D.D., 5 Maule & Selwyn, 119. t 3 Phill. 243. X The object of this statute was principally the prevention of appeals to Rome ; and under it, and the stat. 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19, it is provided, that in all cases ecclesiastical the final decision shall served, " applies to the ordinary cases of archdeacons, presiding in jurisdictions where they are subject to the superior jurisdiction of the bishop, and not to cases of peculiars ; " and in the same case of Parham v. Templar,* the learned judge said, " There is a third description of peculiars which are still subject to the bishop's visitation, and, being so, are still liable to his superintendence and juris diction."

Wood, in his " Institute," mentions these : he says, " There the bishop visits at his first and at his triennial visitations : here the appeal lies from the peculiar to the diocesan, but the right of appeal and the right of visitation seem almost necessarily to go together ; and in a case that has been quoted in argument,-^ Lord Chief Justice Holt said, that there were three sorts of peculiars, the first, royal peculiars, where the appeal is di rected to the king ; the second, peculiars having exempt jurisdictions, such as that of a dean and chapter ; and the third, where the jurisdiction is not exempt, but under the control of the diocesan." With respect to the last description of peculiars, in the case of Beare and Biles v. Jacob,;}; in which the question arose, whether the jurisdiction of the be of the king's authority ; that the first appeal (if it began in his court), in every such cause, shall lie from the sentence of the archdeacon to his diocesan, from his diocesan to the archbishop of the province, and from the archbishop to the king. * Phill. 246. + Johnson v. Lee, Skinner's Reports, 589.

X 2 Haggard, pp 262, 263. sub-dean of Sarum was co-ordinate with that of the bishop of Sarum, or only subordinate, Sir John Nicholl said, " The instrument of the appointment of the sub-dean has been exhibited, and is merely subordinate and archidiaconal: the bishop visits and inhibits : during his visitation, the sub-dean's jurisdiction is wholly suspended, and is merged in, and exercised by, the bishop, as in ordinary arch deaconries." In general, the jurisdiction of an archdeacon is founded on immemorial custom, and is subordinate to that of the bishop : such jurisdiction vests in the archdeacon by virtue of his collation to, and his taking possession of, the dignity ; hence, there is no necessity for any commission to be granted bv the bishop delegating to the archdeacon any authority ; he becomes invested with the authority by virtue of his office, and not by any instrument of delegation from the bishop ; and some archdeacons whose archdeaconries were formerly connected with bishoprics of the old foundation, exercise a far more ancient jurisdiction than the bishops presiding in the dioceses with which such archdeacons are now associated.

A bishop, upon the confirmation of his election by the archbishop of the province, and previous to his consecration, becomes possessed of spiritual jurisdiction ;* but the bishop receives no delegated authority from the archbishop, and the latter does not, in obey ing the royal mandate for the confirmation of the * Gibs. 114. dean and chapter's election of the bishop, lose his right of visiting the diocese — of inquiring into the conduct of the bishop, clergy, and others resident therein — of punishing the bishop, if guilty of irregularities or crimes — or of exercising, by his vicar-general, his concurrent jurisdiction of granting licences for marriage throughout the province. The bishop also takes an oath, at his consecration, of canonical obedience to the archbishop and the metropolitical church of the province ;* and during the vacancy of a see all ecclesiastical jurisdiction, until the confirmation of the new bishop, generally vests in the archbishop,^ much in the same manner as would the jurisdiction of an archdeacon, acting without an official, on his death or resignation, vest in the bishop of the diocese, where no special commissary of the archdeaconry had been appointed by the diocesan.

In the case of The Churchwardens of St. John's, Margate X (being a faculty case), against the Pa rishioners of the same, Sir William Scott, the then official to the archdeacon of Canterbury, said, that " the archdeacon of Canterbury, by ancient composition with the archbishop, exercised his episcopal jurisdiction in a great part of that diocese ;" and so Lyndwood§ says, "but, besides these, archdeacons have likewise their officials to exercise their ecclesiastical jurisdiction in certain parts of * Form of Consecration. f God. 39, 42. Ayl. Parer. 125. + 1 Consistory Reports, 198. § Part 16. § Part 16. the diocese, having acquired jurisdiction from their bishops, either by an express composition or grant, or else by prescription and length of usage, time out of mind." In the case of Prankhard v. Deacle,* it was urged by Dr. Lushington and Dr. Addams, in argument, that " there are many arch deacons who enjoy a peculiar jurisdiction."

In the case of Robinson v. Godsalve,-f upon motion for a prohibition to stay a suit in the Bishop's Court, upon suggestion that a party lived within a peculiar archdeaconry, it was resolved by the Court that, " where the archdeacon hath a peculiar jurisdiction, he is totally exempt from the power of the bishop, and the bishop cannot enter there and hold court ; and in such case, if the party who lives within the peculiar be sued in the Bishop's Court, a prohibition shall be granted, for the statute intends that no suit shall be per saltum ; but, if the archdeacon hath not a peculiar, then the bishop and he have concurrent jurisdiction, and the party may commence his suit, either in the Archdeacon's Court or the Bishop's, and he hath election to choose which he pleaseth, and, if he commence in the Bishop's Court, no prohibition shall be granted ; for, if it should, it would confine the Bishop's Court to hear nothing but appeals, and render it incapable of having any causes originally commenced there."

The law makes a wide distinction between * 1 Haggard, 175. f Lord Raymond, 123. ordinary and delegated power ; ordinary power supposeth a person to act in his own right, and not by a deputation from another, which no chancellor or official doth pretend to ;* the former acting under a commission granted by a bishop, the latter under one granted by an archdeacon, for the latter can, generally speaking, delegate to an official the jurisdiction conferred upon him by his collation, and his taking possession of the dignity, in the same manner as a bishop can his episcopal jurisdiction, to a vicar-general, official principal, or commissary ; thus an archdeacon is an ordinary, and is recognised as such by the books of common law. -J- In cases where a bishop has a concurrent jurisdiction with an archdeacon, where he visits the archdeaconry and inhibits the archdeacon from the exercise of jurisdiction during his primary and triennial visitations, the appeal from any decision of the Archdeacon's Court would, under the statute of the 24 Hen.

VIII. c. 12, lie to the Consistorial Court of the diocese, but except an appeal was brought, notwithstanding the concurrency of jurisdiction of the bishop with the archdeacon, the official principal could not inter fere, unless where, in consequence of the vacancy of an archdeaconry during the progress of a suit, the aid of the Consistory Court of the diocese was invoked ;}. Even where a bishop has powers of visitation and inhibition within an archdeaconry, * Stillingfleet, 330. t Gibs. 970. \ Prankard v. Deacle, 1 Hagg. 189. E a question may arise, whether he could sustain a general concurrency of jurisdiction in a case where an ancient, special, and valid composition or agreement to the contrary could be brought forward, or an immemorial custom adverse to such concurrency of jurisdiction (from which such composition or agreement would be presumed) be established.

Dr. Swabey, in argument in the before mentioned case of Parham v. Templar, said, " I take the jurisdiction of the dean and chapter to be derived from the bishop ; then, if there is no composition or custom, the right of the bishop remains."* Stillingfleet is to the same effect.-f- Dr. Phillimore, in the same case, said, " It is not intended to deny that in general the appeal lies from the archdeacon to the bishop, or that it can only be taken from the bishop by composition or custom "X In most particulars the jurisdictions of bishops, of their vicars -general, and officials principal, of their commissaries for commissariates or archdeaconries, and of archdeacons and their officials, are regulated, as to their extent and power, according to the special usages and customs which govern the dioceses to which they are attached.

In the case of Parham v. Templar,1^ Sir John Nicholl, speaking of the court of a dean and chapter, which he considered as exempt from the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese, said, " There may indeed have been specially and * 3 Phill. 231. J 3 Phill. 237. f Ecclesiastical Cases, 346. § 3 Phill. 249. originally reserved to the bishop some particular acts, such as granting probate to the wills of persons of higher degree, and the granting of licences, and certainly, as far as these exceptions go, the peculiar does not exclude the bishop. But if the peculiar has the hearing of causes, as well ad instantiam partis as ex officio, and is exempted from visitation, it should seem in common pro priety that the superior is not the bishop, but the metropolitan." With respect to probates of wills, administrations of the effects of intestates, marriage licences, &c. a bishop cannot interfere, even where there is a concurrency of jurisdiction, if parties choose to resort to an archdeacon authorised to issue such documents to obtain them,* nor can they be granted by the official of an archdeacon in the name of a bishop.

Upon this point Dr. Lushington, in a case stated for his opinion, and which is hereafter referred to, wrote as follows : — " The surrogates of the officials of archdeacons do not derive any authority from the archbishops or bishops, and consequently cannot, in my opinion, grant licences in the name of the bishop." Another great distinction between a bishop and an archdeacon is this : the former is bound to appoint an official principal for the exercise of contentious jurisdiction, whereas the latter is not bound to * Some archdeacons have not the power of granting probates, &c. while others can grant marriage licences and not probates and administrations, and some cannot issue anv of these documents. F appoint an official, inasmuch as he is expressly recognised as an ecclesiastical judge by the 128th canon of 1603.

This canon relates to the " Quality of Surrogates," and I give that portion of it affect ing the present subject :— " No chancellor, com missary, archdeacon, official, or any other person exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction, shall at any time substitute in their absence any to keep any Court for them, except he be a grave minister and a graduate, or a licenced public preacher, and a beneficed man near the place where the Courts are kept, or a Bachelor of Law, or a Master of Arts, at the least, who hath some skill in the civil and ecclesiastical law," &c. Wood, too, in his "Common Law,"* says, the judge of the Arch deacon's Court (where he doth not preside himself), is called the official. In the case of Prankard v. Deacle, quoted before, the citation is given in Dr. Haggard's Reports,-^ and it runs in the name of the Archdeacon of the archdeaconry of Wells ; and in a case from the archdeaconry of Leicester, in the year 1812, having reference to the appointment of surrogates by the then Archdeacon of Leicester, in which the late Lord Chief Baron Richards and Dr Swabey were consulted, they gave opinions in which an archdeacon was treated as an ecclesiastical judge under the canon of 1603, and therefore capable of appointing surrogates.

I have been rather more particular on this point * Wood's Com. Law, b. 4, c. 1. t 1 Hagg. 169. than 1 otherwise should have been, as I am aware it has been contended that an archdeacon is bound to appoint an official, and cannot personally pre side as a judge. A bishop, according to the Common Law, cannot be a judge in his own con sistory, except in some particular cases.* Previous to the recent changes in dioceses, the archdeacons of Leicester, Buckingham, Bedford, and Huntingdon were collated to their respective archdeaconries by the bishops of Lincoln, and installed by the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral Church of Lincoln; they exercised jurisdiction in testamentary matters, in granting administrations of the personal estates of intestates, and licences for marriage ; they also possessed general ecclesiastical jurisdiction (with some few exceptions) throughout these archdeaconries.

Mr. Swan, the Registrar of the Diocese of Lincoln, in his " Prac tical Treatise on the Jurisdiction of the Ecclesias tical Courts relating to Probates and Administra tions," says, " They," the archdeacons within the diocese of Lincoln, " exercise testamentary jurisdiction, but it is not known whether they have derived it by composition or usage only ; it is, however, inhibited for three months once in three years, and in the same manner as that of the com missaries, and is subordinate to the Bishop." -f- That the peculiar or jurisdiction, whichever it * Ayl. Parer. 161, and vide Dr. R. Phillimore's Burn's Ecc. Law, vol. 1, p. 293, and the 122nd canon of 1603. t Swan's Treatise, 71. may be termed, of an archdeacon, although sub ordinate to, is still separate from the bishop's, is clear.

The canon law makes a distinction between an archdeacon-general who had no archdeaconry distinctly limited to him, and him who had ; with respect to the former, it says, " sed tanquam viearius fungitur vice Episcopi universaliter," and such archdeacon doth represent the bishop ;* otherwise it is in him who hath a distinct limitation of his archdeaconry, for then he hath a jurisdiction separate from the bishop, which, where it is by custom, may be prescribed for.-f- Lord Chief Justice Hale, too, in his " History of the Common Law," says, " Every bishop, by his election and confirmation, even before consecration, hath ecclesiastical jurisdiction annexed to his office, as judex ordinarius within his diocese ; and divers abbots anciently, and most archdeacons at this day, by usage have had the like jurisdiction within certain limits and precincts.";}; Godolphin, speaking of archdeaconries, says, some are by prescription, some by law, and some by covenants In the case of Walker v. Sir John Lambe,|| in a matter relative to the commissary ship and officialty of the archdeaconry of Leices- * Constit.

Othonis de Offic. Archidiac. f Gloss, in ver. Visitant, diet. Const. Otho, and vide Dr. R. Phillimore's Edit. Burn's Ecclesiastical Law, vol. i. p. 96 b. J Hale's History of the Common Law, L. 27. § Godolphin, p. 61. || Jones's Reports, 8 Caroli, Banco Regis, and Godolphin, p. 30. ter, temp. Charles I. it was held by the Court that the jurisdictions of both bishops and archdeacons were derived from the Crown by usage and pre scription. In the case of Woodward and Fox,* it was said by the justices of the Common Pleas, " That, although it might be supposed originally that the jurisdiction within the diocese was lodged in the bishop, yet the Archdeacon's Court had, time out of mind, been settled as a distinct Court, and that the stat. 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12, takes notice of the Consistory Court, which is the bishop's, and of the Archdeacon's Court, from which there lies an appeal to the bishop's." The separate nature of an archdeacon's jurisdiction from that of a bishop, although subordinate, and where the archdeaconry was subject to the visitation and inhibition of the bishop, was strik ingly exemplified in the case of the Marriage Act of 1822,-f when those archdeacons who had there tofore the power of granting licences for marriage were most suddenly deprived of it, and all such documents were issued in the names of the arch bishops or bishops, their vicars-general, or com missaries, until an alteration in the law took place in the early part of the year 1823, which restored the power of granting licences for marriage to the archdeacons and to those ordinaries (other than bishops) who had exercised such power previous to the Act of 18224 The clause which was con- * 2 Ventr. p. 269.

Blackstone's Com. vol. i. p. 383. t 3 Geo. IV. c. 75. J 4 Geo. IV. c. 17 t 4 Geo. IV. c. 17, s. 1. sidered as having taken away the right of archdeacons and ordinaries, other than the archbishops or bishops, to issue licences, and as having con fined such right to the archbishops and bishops, was the 14th sec. of the Act 3 Geo. IV. c. 75, and ran as under : " And be it further enacted, that no person shall, from and after the passing of this Act, be deemed authorised by law to grant any licence for the solemnization of any marriage, except the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, according to the rights now vested in them respectively, and except the several other bishops within their respective dioceses, for the marriage of persons, one of whom shall be resident at the time within the diocese of the bishop in whose name such licence shall be granted, such residence to be proved in manner hereinbefore directed ; and such archbishops and bishops shall make such orders and regulations for the observance of their respective officers, within their respective jurisdictions, as they shall deem necessary for the more effectual performance of the duties of their several officers within the true intent and meaning of this Act, and if any such officer shall not duly observe all such orders and regulations, such officer shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, being thereof duly convicted, shall be subject to punishment as guilty of a misdemeanor."

Now had an archdeacon been considered as an officer of a bishop, or as exercising the same authority as a bishop in granting licences for marriage, his jurisdiction, whether only subordinate to that of the bishop, or co-ordinate, would not have been treated as annihilated ; in either case it was re garded as a completely separate jurisdiction from that of the diocesan. The following questions were submitted to Dr. Lushington as to the construction to be put upon the 1 4th section of the above men tioned Act, and the replies stated underneath were given : — Question. " Whether the surrogates appointed by the officials of the Archdeacons of the archdeaconries within the diocese of Lincoln (and not appointed by the Chancellor and Vicar-general of the dio cese) can grant licences in the name of the Bishop, under the new Act ?