gentleman was able both to walk and
preach on the same day. For this purpose a party proceeded to the
neighbourhood of the vicar's stables one Sunday, and watched the
proceedings of the coachman, whom they saw harness his horses, put them
to the carriage, go to the vicar's house, take him up, and drive him to
church, where he entered the pulpit, and preached his sermon. One day,
the following week, they attended Hatton Garden Police Office and applied
to Mr. Benett for a summons against the coachman. The magistrate, on
hearing the nature of the application, told them it was a doubtful case,
and the clerk suggested that if they laid their information the
magistrate might receive it, and decide on the legal merits of the case.
This was done, the summons was granted, and a day appointed for hearing
the case.

This took place on June 14, when John Wells, coachman to the vicar of
Islington, appeared to answer the complaint of Frederick Hill, a
tobacconist, for exercising his worldly calling on the Sabbath day.

John Hanbury, grocer, of 3, Pulteney Street, being sworn, stated that, on
Sunday, the 9th inst, about 1 o'clock, he saw the defendant, who is
coachman to the vicar of Islington, drive his coach to the Church of St.
Mary, Islington, where he took up the vicar and his lady, and drove them
to their residence in Barnsbury Park.

Mr. Benett: Are you sure it was the vicar?

Witness: I heard him preach.

John Jones, of Felix Terrace, Islington, corroborated this evidence.

Mr. Benett said, that the Act of Parliament laid down that no tradesman,
labourer, or other person shall exercise his worldly calling on the
Lord's day, it not being a work of necessity or charity. He would ask
whether it was not a work of necessity for the vicar to proceed to church
to preach. A dissenter might say it was not a work of necessity. The
coachman was not an artificer who was paid by the hour or the day, but he
was engaged by the year, or the quarter, and was not to be viewed in the
light of a grocer, or tradesman, who opened his shop for the sale of his
goods on the Sabbath day. After explaining the law upon the subject, he
said that he was of opinion that the defendant driving the vicar to
church on Sundays, to perform his religious duties, was an act of
necessity, and did not come within the meaning of the law, and he
dismissed the case.

The clergy did not seem to be much in favour with their flocks, for I
read in the _Annua