nature and extent as those of the earthquake there in Dec. 1809.

Our serious readers will doubtless make their own reflections on these phænomena. We perceive our dependence on the great Ruler of the world, in whose hand is our breath, and all our ways. The elements, the seasons, the heat and cold, the rain and the hail, lightning and earthquake, are all under his Controul, and may be rendered dreadful instruments of his anger, when he arises to correct the children of men. Let it be our great concern to know Christ the glorious Saviour, and to be found in him; to be in a state of reconciliation to the Supreme; and then we have nothing to fear. At all events, in all disasters, It shall be well with the righteous.'

Provincial Intelligence.

TRIAL OF MR. KENT. [Concluded from p. 482.] MR. GLEED. May it please your Lordship, and you Gentlemen of the Jury, The question which you are now to try, appears to me to be one of the greatest importance; not from any difficulty in the construction of the Act of Parliament, not from any fear that I can entertain of the result of your verdict, but it arises from the unprincipled boldness of the attempt which is now made, to enforce the Provisions of a statute grown almost obsolete by the general consent of mankind (though still disgracing the leaves of our StatuteBook); and, to apply the words of it, by construction and inference, to solemn acts of religious exercise not within its contemplation. may also add, that the consequences of your verdict will be felt throughout the empire. It will not affect any particular sect or body of Christians, either Calvinists, or Wesleyan Methodists, or Protestant Dissenters, or Churchmen; but every man, of every persuasion, who calls himself a Christian, and dares to act as one; every man who, in the presence of his family, his neighbours, and his

friends, humbly offers himself to God in social prayer.

The real question is this:- Whether any subject of this realm can offer up an extempore prayer to the Almighty, or any prayer not included in the Book of Common Prayer, in the presence of five of his fellow-subjects, without incurrring a penalty of £20?

[The nature of the Apperd was then stated, and the CONVICTION before the Magistrates, on which it was grounded; as also the words of the Act, which we inserted in our Maga zine for August, p. 304.]

The material question for our consideration is, What was meant by the words to preach or teach, and to what description of persons the words to teach and to preach were applicable ?

In the year 1662, the Bill of Uniformity passed; which Bill required the unqualified assent of all persons to one form of public prayers, the administration of the sacraments, and other rites of the Church of England. It may appear to you, and so it appeared to those who lived afterwards, extremely strange that ever a Bill of this description could have passed, which was to restrain the consciences of men, and to say what they shall not, or what they shall profess, and believe and preach; but so it was; and I will tell you what was the consequence of that Act so passing:- It was this: "That immediately on the passing of the Act, two thousand beneficed clergymen, finding that they could not yield to the Bill of Uniformity, which imposed such restrictions upon their consciences, gave up their benefices. -Two thousand of the clergy in one day relinquished their cures ; and, to the astonishment of the Court, sacrificed their prospects and preferments in life to their religious scruples. The Court was amazed and confounded at such an event; and it has continued a subject of astonishment and praise from that period to the present.

The Conventicle Act, upon which this Information is founded, passed in the year 1670. In that year there were at least two thousand

persons, and a great many others, who had relinquished their preferments; therefore the words to teach and to preach, were a designation of a particular description of persons, who were considered as entitled to act in the great office of minister. This conclusion is still more evident from the following words: That if the said preacher or teacher, so convicted, be a stranger, and his name and habitation not known, or is fled, &c. the said justices are empowered to levy the same upon the goods and chattels of any such persons who shall be present at the same conventicle.' This evidently shews that at the time of this Act passing, it meant to designate a particular man; a person invested with the sacred office of a preacher, or a teacher, superintending over the interests of a congregation.

you,

Gentlemen, This explanation will appear still more conclusive, by sonsidering the words of the 1st William and Mary, cap. 18, sect. 8. As it has been already stated to the legislature of this country began to be ashamed of ever publishing so intolerant a law; and, therefore, as the statute of Charles was passed for the purpose of imposing penalties, the statute of William and Mary was passed for the purpose of exempting their Majesties' Protestant subjects from them. The heads of the 8th section are as follow:-That no person dissenting from the Church of England, in holy orders,' &c. nor any preacher or teacher' of any Congregation of Dissenting Protestants, who shall make and subscribe, &c. and take the oaths, &c. shall be liable to the penalties of the 22d Charles II. for or by reason of such persons preaching at any meeting for the exercise of religion.

The Conventicle Act, and the Toleration Act, therefore, never intended to punish, or exempt from punishment, those persons who met in social prayer, or who read and explained the holy Scriptures; but a well-known description of persons superintending the interests of a congregation dissenting from

the Church of England, in holy orders, &c.

The Appellant, therefore, Wm. Kent, not being a preacher or a teacher of a congregation, cannot be subject to the penalty inflicted on him. But in what sense does my learned friend use the words Teacher or Preacher? Does he use them as synonimous terms, or as distinct terms, because the words of the Act are teacher or preacher.'-If they are distinct terms, then there is a penalty inflicted on every person who is a teacher; and there is a distinct penalty inflicted on every person who is a preacher; and it is one of the rules of law, that where a particular offence is charged, it must be stated accurately. You are not to state that a man committed one offence, or another offence,for in that case, the conclusion drawn from the evidence would be uncertain, and the judgment erroneous.

The information must be supported by the evidence, and the judgment must be supported by both;-but it appears from this record, that the evidence is at variance with the information, the conclusion therefore is uncertain, and the judgment therefore erroneous, and must be corrected by your verdict on this appeal.

The true construction of the Act is this: If any five persons, or more, assemble together, under pretence of an exercise of religion, in other manner than according to the Liturgy and practice of the Church of England, such assembly shall be denominated a Conventicles then if any person, being a preacher or teacher of a congregation, and who has not complied with the provisions of the Toleration Act, shall take upon himself to preach or teach in such Convențicle, he shall forfeit the sum of £20.

We will now proceed to examine the evidence on this record ;-'And thereupon Lawrence Belcher and Margaret Partridge, two credible witnesses, did depose and say, That on Sunday, Oct. 21, 1810, they heard the said William Kent teach and pray in a certain meeting, or conventicle, where above five per

sons were present.' Without intending offence to any one, I take upon myself to assert, that this evidence is incredible. I assert that it could not be the evidence submitted to the magistrate. No two persons ever related the same facts, word for word the same; it is quite impossible they could have delivered their testimony in the language here returned. The evidence is a repetition of the information, with this exception, that it substitutes the word pray for to preach. The information is, That he did teach or preach; the evidence is, That he did teach and pray. The witnesses should have sworn to facts, not to the law; which facts should have been specifically set forth, in order that the court might judge whether they constituted an offence within the act of parliament. The evidence only amounts to this: That the Defendant is guilty. But guilty of what? —of Praying!

Now, Gentlemen, suffer me to ask you, what evidence the reverend informer has produced before you to-day in support of his charge. The charge is, that the appellant did preach or teach. The evidence is, that the appellant was in the act of prayer. What is prayer? It is not preaching, it is not teaching: though the prayers of some good men, are more apt to express the mind of God to the people, than the petitions of the people to God. Preaching or teaching, is communication of knowledge or information by man to his fellow-creatures. Prayer is a blessed communion with God himself; a fellowship with the Father, through faith in his Son. The act of prayer is, when a man commits himself to God, either in petition, in confession, or in praise. The nature of the charge is, that he preached, or that he taught; what say the witnesses? Have you any evidence of that fact? The first witness, as evidence of his teaching or preaching, says, He said he cared for neither man or Devil. That is the evidence. Is that teaching? Is it preaching? I need not argue this point;-but this is the miserable

evidence on which you are to sanetion the judgment of a justice out of court, and confirm a conviction which is to inflict the penalty of £20.

But what says the second witness? When I came into the room, I saw this man in the act of kneeling. I went round, and had no longer an opportunity of seeing him: from something coming between us, I had no opportunity of judging of his act. Yet you, upon this evidence, are called upon, on your oaths, to pronounce that he, because he was kneeling, was either teaching or preaching. Before a man can be convicted of an offence, the evidence in support of it ought to be clear, and not to depend on inference; and yet this witness, being called to prove that the appellant either taught or preached, What says she? In the succesion of many sentences, she heard two words, the one was Damn,' and the other was Curiosity-which words cannot be explained without the context. From the word damn' alone, or the word curiosity' alone, are you to say that he was there as a teacher and a preacher within the description of this act?

Gentlemen, when this evidence is examined, it is too ridiculous for observation; and I am sorry to say that any man, more particularly one who, from his sacred office, must be in the constant habit of exhorting his family and his congre gation to prayer, should by this information and evidence, be ringing the alarm bell from one extremity of the empire to the other; --but I rely on your sounder judgment to correct the sentence of this record, because I know that you cannot upon this evidence convict the defendant of preaching or teaching,

But the evidence is, That he prayed contrary to the manner prescribed by the Act of Parliament, or the Liturgy. Does my friend mean to argue, that no man can offer himself to Heaven unless he has a prayer-book in his pocket? or address the Deity in other language than that prayer-book points out to him? What! will my learned friend say, that if I was attending

the bed of my dying friend, without a prayer-book in my pocket, and was offering up my prayers and intercessions for him, by his particular request, when he was leaving this world for another, I should subject myself to the penalty of 20.because my dying friend asked me to join with him in prayer to God? and yet, that is the dilemma to which he is reduced, if you cannot address God in any language but that of the Common Prayer-book! Good God! is it to be endured, that, if in the company of your family, your friends, your children, your relations, or others most dear to you, you should in health or in sickness, in prosperity or in misfortune, in company with them, offer up any praise or thanksgiving to God, praising him for mercies received, or evils averted, --that you immediately subject yourself to the penalty of this Act?-that you are to close your mouth in sifence and solitude, and that you are to be forced to separate yourself at once from your Saviour and your God ?.

Gentlemen, Freally ought to apologize to you and to the Court for the length of time I have occupied. The importance of the question must be my apology;-I do not stand here as the advocate of any one man, belonging to any one sect, but I stand here as the advocate of the people of England. stand here as your advocate, sitting there as jurymen during the discussion of this cause, and for your -children after you.

I

6

We come now, gentlemen, to the point which appears to me to be the gist of the whole business, and upon which I am extremely unable to give you such advice as I should wish to offer to a jury, that is the construction of the words teach' or preach.' — The impression upon my mind is, that if a man reads in the midst of a congregation an address to the Supreme Being, which they repeat fully in their minds and in their hearts, to which they say Amen, it is impossible in my mind to conceive that that man does not teach that congregation.

The Jury then consulted together for about a quarter of an hour.

Bailiff-The Jury say they have made up their minds as to the verdict; but that the Foreman refuses to give it.

Earl of Radnor. They cannot have agreed if the Foreman refuses to give it. In that case they may withdraw, if they wish it. Have you agreed with your fellows.

Foreman of the Jury.-Yes.

Earl of Radnor.-Then why will not you give the verdict?-Ask the jury in the regular way, whether they have agreed.

Mr. Budd (Clerk of the Peace). -Gentlemen of the Jury,-Are you agreed in your verdict?

Foreman of the Jury.-Yes.

Mr. Budd. Is the defendant guilty, or not guilty?

Foreman of the Jury.-Guilty of Teaching or Preaching *.

Mr. Gleed. You will record the verdict.

Earl of Radnor-Do you do any thing upon this?

Mr. Gleed.-Yes; I must troubla your Lordship.-My Lord, the Jary having returned this verdict, it certainly is no part of my daly or in