e at the small pains to visit that noble
church during a sitting of the Commissary's Court, may ascertain for
himself that, notwithstanding our reverence for consecrated places, we
can still use them as chambers of justice. The court, of course, is a
spiritual court, but the great, perhaps the greater, part of the
business transacted at its sittings is of an essentially secular kind."

The nature of the business in the Court of Arches may be best shown by
the brief summary given in the report for three years--1827, 1828, and
1829. There were 21 matrimonial cases; 1 of defamation; 4 of brawling; 5
church-smiting; 1 church-rate; 1 legacy; 1 tithes; 4 correction. Of
these 17 were appeals from the courts, and 21 original suits.

The cases in the Court of Arches were often very trivial. "There was a
case," says Dr. Nicholls, "in which the cause had originally commenced
in the Archdeacon's Court at Totnes, and thence there had been an appeal
to the Court at Exeter, thence to the Arches, and thence to the
Delegates; after all, the issue having been simply, which of two persons
had the right of hanging his hat on a particular peg." The other is of a
sadder cast, and calculated to arouse a just indignation. Our authority
is Mr. T.W. Sweet (Report on Eccles. Courts), who states: "In one
instance, many years since, a suit was instituted which I thought
produced a great deal of inconvenience and distress. It was the case of
a person of the name of Russell, whose wife was supposed to have had her
character impugned at Yarmouth by a Mr. Bentham. He had no remedy at law
for the attack upon the lady's character, and a suit for defamation was
instituted in the Commons. It was supposed the suit would be attended
with very little expense, but I believe in the end it greatly
contributed to ruin the party who instituted it; I think he said his
proctor's bill would be L700. It went through several courts, and
ultimately, I believe (according to the decision or agreement), each
party paid his own costs." It appears from the evidence subsequently
given by the proctor, that he very humanely declined pressing him for
payment, and never was paid; and yet the case, through the continued
anxiety and loss of time incurred for six or seven years (for the suit
lasted that time), mainly contributed, it appears, to the party's ruin.

[Illustration: THE PREROGATIVE OFFICE, DOCTORS' COMMONS.]

As the law once stood, says a writer in Knight's "London," i