sion was base: having determined to get rid of her, he smuggled her out of his own house to her sister's, under pretence that change of air would recover her ; and continued to amuse the poor creature with fresh promises and protestations, till, without provocation, and without notice or apology, he married another woman, young enough to be his daughter, and who, I hope, will manifest her affection by furnishing him with a pair of horns, sufficient to defend himself against the sheriff when he comes to levy the money upon this verdict.

By this marriage, the poor woman is abandoned to poverty and disgrace; cut off from the society of her relations and friends; and shut out from every prospect of a future settlement in life suitable to her education and her birth; for having neither beauty nor youth to recommend her, she could have no pre→ tensions but in that good conduct and discretion which, by trusting to the honour of the Defendant, she has forfeited and lost.

On all these circumstances, no doubt the Jury calculated the damages, and how can your Lordship unravel or impeach the calculation? They are not like the items in a tradesman's account, or the entries in a banker's book; it is,

For loss of character, so much ;

For loss of health, so much;

For loss of the society and protection of relations and friends, so much ;

And for the loss of a settlement for life, so much.

2

How is the Court to audit this account, so as to say, that, in every possible state of it, the Jury has done wrong?-How, my Lord, are my observations, weak as they are as proceeding from me, but strong as supported by the subject, to be answered ?-only by ridicule which the facts do not furnish, and at which even folly, when coupled with humanity or justice, cannot smile. We are, besides, not in a theatre, but in a Court of Law; and when Judges are to draw grave conclusions from facts, which not being under re-examination, cannot be distorted by observation, they will hardly be turned aside from justice by a jest,

I, therefore, claim for the Plaintiff the damages which the Jury gave her under these directions from your Lordship, "That they were so entirely within THEIR province, that you would not lead their judgments by a single observation."

The Rule for a new trial was DISCHARGED.

THE

CASE

OF THE

BISHOP OF BANGOR

AND OTHERS;

INDICTED FOR A RIOT AND AN ASSAULT.

TRIED AT SHREWSBURY ASSIZES,
ON THE 26TH of July, 1796.

THE exemplary morals and decorum which have so long, to the honour of this country, distinguished the high dignitaries of her national church, bestowed upon the trial of the Right Reverend Prelate, who was the principal object of it, an extraordinary degree of curiosity and interest. Indeed, from a perusal of the whole proceedings, we cannot help thinking, that the Prosecutor might perhaps have been influenced by the expectation that any compromise would have been preferred by the Defendant and his friends, to even a public discussion of such an extraordinary accusation as that of a riot and assault by an English Bishop, assisted by other clergymen of his diocese, within the very precincts of his own cathedral. The Reverend Prelate, however, was not to be intimidated.-He pleaded Not

Guilty to the Indictment, and received the clear des quittal of a Jury of his countrymen.

The Indictment was preferred against the Lord Bishop of Bangor, the Rev. Dr. Owen, the Rev. John Roberts, the Rev. John Williams, and Thomas Jones, Gent.; and was prosecuted by Samuel Grindley, the Deputy Registrar of the Bishop's Consistorial Court.

The Indictment charged that Samuel Grindley, the Prosecutor, was Deputy Registrar of the Consistorial Court of the Bishopric of Bangor, and that being such, he had of right the occupation of the Registrar's office adjoining to the cathedral; that the Bishop and the other Defendants, intending to disturb the Prosecutor in the execution of his office, and to trouble the peace of the King, unlawfully entered into the office, and stayed there for an hour, against the will of the Prosecutor; and it further charged, that they made a disturbance there against the King's peace, and assaulted Grindley, so being Registrar, with intent to expel him from the office.

The Indictment was originally preferred in the Court of Great Sessions, in Wales, where the offence was charged to have been committed, but for a more impartial hearing was removed into the Court of King's Bench, and sent down for trial in the next adjoining county, before a Special Jury, at Shrewsbury, where Mr. Adam and Mr. Erskine attended on special retainers; the former as Counsel for the Prosecution, and the latter for the Bishop and the other Defendants.

In the pursuit of our plan, to preserve some remark