Page images
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[merged small][table]


Mb. Editor,—Gratified by your account of organs, as tending to their improvement, it may be wished that some of your correspondents would account for the continuance of such stops as the cornet, sexquialteral, twelfth, mixture, or, as sometimes called, furniture. They perhapu were useful, before the reed stops were invented, to give brilliancy to single notes, but now are no longer necessary for that purpose, but are certainly mischievous when a cord is struck, as mixing it with strange discords. Let any person write down the common chord of C on a three ranked cornet, and he will find G, H, B and D, among the notes produced; the common chord of £, and that of G, being struck at the same time. If the cornet alone is in action, the dullest ear will be annoyed. In the full organ the discord is not immediately sensible, though reinforced by the sexquialteral, &c. but nevertheless, it exists and injures the harmony.

Why not, to take St. Margaret's organ, add social and dulciana, and for the compound stops, substitute the hautboy and bassoon, and the cremona?

In the choir organ, for the mixture, substitute the hautboy or voix humaine, and in the swell for the cornet, substitute the cremona.



Augustine On The Interpretation Of Scripture.(Found in a Copy of Archbishop Usher's Body of Divinity.)—St. Augustin's directions about the interpretation of the Scriptures, in his booke concerning the Christian Doctrine, Tom. VI .lib. iii, ch. 16. If the saying or speech be forbiding that which is either unlawfull, or wicked, or commanding that which is either profitable or beneficiall, it is not figurative. But if it seeme to command an unlawfull or wicked thing to be done, or to forbid what is profitable or beneficiall, it is to be taken figuratively, and not according to the litterall meaning. It is said, "Except you shall eate the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you;" here there seems an unlawfull or a wished thing to be commanded. It is, therefore, a figurative speech, commanding the communion of the passion and suffering of our Lord in the sacrament, in the sweet and profitable participation thereof, in memoriall that his flesh was crucifyed and wounded for us.



Easier Term, 1827.

Bennet V. Apperley, Clerk *

A Role had been obtained calling writ of levari facias in this cause, and

upon the Bishop of Hereford to shew why he should not give precedence to

cause why he should make a return, the sequestration issued upon that writ

stating what he had levied under the before the sequestration issued by him

• It Is not necessary that a writ of sequestration should be published before the return-day of the levari facias, upon which it is founded; or that a copy of it should be affixed on the churchdoor, where that is not the usual mode of publication in the diocese where the benefice sequestered is situate.

VOl. XVII. NO. v. s s

in a cause of W. Devereux v. Apperley.

It appeared by the affidavits that on the 15th of August, 1826, the defendant gave the plaintiff a warrant of attorney to confess judgment for 1400/. and upwards. On the 17th of August judgment was entered up, and on the same day a writ of fi.fa. was issued, directed to the sheriff of Hereford, and returnable on Monday next after the morrow of All Souls. The sheriff returned nulla bona, but certified that the defendant was a beneficed clerk, viz. rector of the rectory of Stoke Lacy, and vicar of the vicarage of OclePritchard, both in his bailiwick, and within the diocese of the Bishop of Hereford. On the 7th of November,

1826, the plaintiff caused to be issued a writ of levari facias de bonis ccclesiasticis, directed to the Bishop of Hereford, and returnable on Monday next after eight days of the Purification. This writ was delivered at the registry office of the bishop on the 8th of November, for the purpose of having sequestrations issued immediately, but none were in fact issued until the 26th of December, when they were issued directed to the plaintiff's attornery, who, on the 7th of January,

1827, caused them to be read in the parish-churches of the rectory and vicarage before mentioned, and at the church doors; and on the same day caused copies to be fixed on the church doors. On the 3rd of October, 1826, the defendant gave a warrant of attorney to W. Devereux for 1400/., upon which judgment was entered up on the 26th of the same month, and a writ of ft. fa. was issued, directed to the sheriff of Hereford, returnable on the 6th of November. This writ was delivered to the sheriff on the 5th of November, who on that day returned nulla bona, and certified that defendant was a beneficed clerk, &c. On the 6th of November a writ of levari fucius was issued at the suit of Devereux, returnable on Wednesday next after the morrow of Saint Martin, and delivered at the registry office of the bishop of Hereford on the 7th of November. At the latter end of November writs of sequestration issued at the instance of Devereux, directed to one Evans, who on the 3d of December caused the

same to be read in the parish-churches of Stoke Lacy and Ocle-Pritchard, and at the church doors; but no copies were fixed on the doors. Evans under these sequestrations obtained possession of the profits of the livings. It was not usual in the diocese of Hereford, to publish sequestrations in any other way than by reading them in the church and at the door. The warrant of attorney given to Devereux was not stamped when this rule was obtained, but before cause was shewn a proper stamp had been put upon it.

Campbell una. Ilulroyd shewed cause. — The Court will not take notice of the time when the warrant of attorney was stamped; the ground for the motion therefore fails. Then, as to the other points, it appears that the writs of sequestration issued at the instance of Devereux, and were actually published long before the issuing of those granted to the plaintiff, and in the manner always followed in the diocese of Hereford. It may be objected that this was after the return day of the levari facias, and therefore void; but the case of Marsh v. Fawcett shews that the sequestration continues in force after the levari facias is returnable.

Follet contra.—In the execution of the writ of levari facias, the bishop is precisely in the same situation as a sheriff in executing a writ of fi. fa. All his authority is derived from the writ The sequestration issued by the bishop is in the nature of a warrant, giving authority to the person named as sequestrator to seize and take the profits of the benefice. It is nothing more than a mode of executing the writ of kvari facias, for the bishop cannot return sequestrari feci: his return must be levari feci, and the sequestration is of no avail until executed by publication, in like manner as the warrant is unavailing until execution by seizure; and in the one case the seizure, in the other the publication, must be before the return day of the writ. In Doe v. Bluck, it was held, that a sequestration was of no avail until publication; and in Legassicke v. the Bishop of Exeter, it was held, that if the sequestration is published before the levari facias is returnable, it suffices, and will continue in force until

« PreviousContinue »