effect. This argument was adduced by those who opposed the resignation of Mr. Le Pelley, and though it is unquestionable, as a general rule, that every man is bound to observe every engagement to which he has sworn, yet exceptions may exist, and we consider the present case to be one. To arrive at sound conclusions we must view the subject as a whole, and therefore not lose sight of the fact, that a jurat, once elected, is compelled to accept the office, however repugnant it may be to his feelings, under pain of imprisonment. Such a system we hesitate not to affirm is pure despotism, an invasion of individual liberty and an assault on individual conscience. What is pleaded in its justification? Custom: it is a rule established in the bailiwick: it was binding on our ancestors, and it must continue to be obligatory on the remotest posterity. Now we contend that the custom is both absurd and tyrannical, and is "more honoured in the breach than the observance." On what principle of justice can a community compel any one of its members to bind himself by an oath to discharge for life a duty that his conscience may repudiate? It is one thing to impose an oath obligatory on the individual who willingly accepts an office, but we protest against the doctrine of compulsory appeals to Heaven, which lower the moral feelings of a judge at the very moment he is forced reluctantly on the bench. Suppose the case of a strictly conscientious gentleman being elected to the office of jurat, who, knowing himself utterly incompetent to adjudicate on questions of law, the principles of which he had never studied, declines to serve. He is then told, that he must accept one of two alternatives, either a seat on the bench, or a lodging in the gaol. Suppose him to reply to this mandate in the following terms: "I feel myself incompetent; I dread committing injustice, by giving erroneous sentences; I shudder at the thought of being compelled to give judgment in cases of life and death; but protesting, as I do, against this tyrannical custom, which not only deprives me of my personal liberty, but trenches also on my conscience, I feel resistance useless, and I submit to your despotic power." Now let a year or two elapse, when the same jurat shall demand his discharge, and shape his petition in the following words: "My peace of mind is destroyed; conscience smites me day and night; owing to my ignorance of the first principles of law, I have committed numerous acts of injustice; I have been compelled to use my own discretion on subjects with which I was wholly unacquainted; I have found, in the privacy of my home, that I have set up my poor opinion against that of the first judges in France and England, and being unable to grasp the whole argument presented by plaintiffs or defendants, I have frequently mistaken a part for a whole, destroyed the peace of families, ruined the widow, and beggared the orphan. I can no longer continue in office; I am aware of the oath I took when your tyranny forced me on the bench; I feel no compunction in liberating myself from the obligations of that oath, for the sin does not consist in breaking it, but

in having taken it. It is my duty rather to correct, than to persevere in, error, and I, therefore, now demand to resign an office, to the due discharge of which experience has proved me to be incompetent."

Now, in the event of such a petition being presented, two considerations immediately arise; first, the duty that the people owe to the petitioner himself; secondly, the duty that the people owe to themselves. The people are bound to respect the religious scruples and the conscience of the petitioner, and on that ground alone he is fully entitled to his discharge; and in reference to the best interests of the community themselves, common prudence admonishes them to release the petitioner from an office for which he declares himself to be unqualified. So much for that part of the argument which resisted Mr. Le Pelley's resignation, on the ground of his having sworn to continue a jurat for life.

The opponents also contended that Mr. Le Pelley ought to have his petition rejected on the score of expediency, because his fifteen years servitude had taught him the duties of a jurat. We are far from undervaluing the advantages of experience, but we think this argument a bitter satire on the whole scheme of electing judges. We contend that no man ought to be elevated to the bench, who is not fully qualified before he takes his seat. It is a curiosity in our legal system that, while the advocates are not allowed to practice before they have studied in France and received a certificate, the judges may be taken at a moment's notice from a counting-house. If the subject were not of too serious a complexion to provoke laughter, who could refrain from smiling at the admission, implied in the argument of expediency, that the judges learn their duties after they have been elected. This lets us into the secret why Terrien, Domat, Ferrière, Pothier, and the English judges and jurisconsults, are, on occasions, so unceremoniously treated, and why such a tremendous latitude of interpretation hinges on those magical words "Dans le cas actuel." This is the true cause why principles are so frequently adapted to facts, instead of facts being invariably governed by principles. We cannot, therefore, admit that Mr. Le Pelley's experience was any bar to his resignation, but rather, that the whole argument, if it proves anything, proves incontestably that the present mode of electing judges is vicious in the extreme.

Decided as is our opinion of the propriety of accepting the resignation of Mr. Le Pelley, we nevertheless entirely acquiesce in the judicious remark of our talented contemporary of The Comet, that the subject ought to have been referred to the States of Election, and not to the States of Deliberation. For the information of our English readers, it may be observed, that the States of Election comprehend one hundred and seventy-four members, consisting of the following functionaries : the bailiff, twelve jurats, and the king's attorney general; the eight rectors of the ten parishes (the Vale being united with St. Sampson's,

and the Forest being consolidated with Torteval); the two constables in each parish; the twelve douzainiers in each parish, excepting the town parish, called St. Peter's-Port, wherein there are twenty, and the Vale which has sixteen. Now all the jurats are elected by this body of one hundred and seventy-four voters, on which account they are called the States of Election, and they constitute the supreme local tribunal of the bailiwick. Their suffrages placed Mr. Le Pelley on the bench, and their suffrages alone ought to have released him. His contract was made with them, and surely they ought to have been consulted on this occasion, instead of which their prerogatives has been usurped by an inferior tribunal. "This is an anomaly," says the editor of The Comet, "which we cannot comprehend." Pray, does he know any one that can? He thus proceeds: Surely if the constitution of this country has willed it that one hundred and seventy-four voters are necessary to represent the whole community, and that that number should vote in the election of a jurat by the same rule, only those that have the power to appoint should have the privilege of undoing their own act and deed, without being subjected to a small fractional part of their own body." The absurdity is glaring enough; but, unfortunately, it has its parallel in the practice of appealing to the court of jurats to give validity by their private ordinance to all decrees agreed upon by the States, thus making the authority of the bailiff and twelve jurats superior to that of the whole country.

66

The next proposition contained in the Billet d'État related to a dispute between James Priaulx, esq., proprietor of the island of Lihou, and the inhabitants of Guernsey in general, as to the nature and extent of the public right to dry sea-weed on that island. Our English readers will appreciate the importance of this question, when they are told, that the agricultural prosperity of the bailiwick depends almost entirely on seaweed, which is universally used as manure, and which a bounteous Providence has liberally bestowed on these coasts. An action had been brought by the constables of St. Peter's-in-the-Wood, the Forest, and Torteval, (parishes most contiguous to Lihou,) against Mr. Priaulx, and as the case was of national importance, it was proposed and carried that the States should intervene in the cause, thus making the representatives of the people joint defendants with the above-named constables. That this is a public question, we admit; but here again we encounter another anomaly, for the States of one hundred and seventy-four members are compelled to defend an action at law by the order of the States of thirty-two members. Surely this condition of things both requires and admits of amendment, for it not only militates against common justice, but directly violates the ancient constitution of the country, which we will take an early opportunity of proving by documentary evidence.

The third proposition was based on a petition for the grant of £500 to erect a new church at the Bouët, and signed by the bishop of Winchester, the dean of Guernsey, William Brock, of Brockhurst, George Hounsom, and John Hubert, esqrs. It was carried, by a majority of three, that £200 should be advanced, there being sixteen for, and thirteen against, the measure. The dean of Guernsey, by virtue of his sacerdotal office, and Mr. Hubert, in his capacity of jurat, two of the petitioners, were in the majority; but we are decidedly of opinion that they had no legal or constitutional right to vote at all on the subject, as they were interested parties. It also appears that the constable of St. Peter's-Port was instructed by his douzaine to give a conditional vote, instead of which he

gave an absolute one. Had the constable strictly obeyed his constituents, and the two petitioners abstained from voting, this unwarrantable proposition would have been lost. Mr. Retilley made an excellent speech on this occasion, and successfully refuted every argument and every statement adduced by the chief orator of the petitioners, the rev. Thomas Brock. He clearly showed that the Bouët district, instead of being, as pretended, densely populated, only contained three hundred and fifty people, who had erected a methodist chapel for themselves out of their own funds : and when the rev. Thomas Brock stated that he meant by the Bouët district to include a sweep of three miles, (and it would have shown just as much regard for descriptive nomenclature had he included the whole island,) Mr. Retilley produced the population returns of 1828, and reduced the numbers from two thousand to twelve hundred, the sweep, and all outside the sweep, included. He further remarked, that not one single person resident in the Bouët had signed the petition, so that no necessity for any new church was apparent. He easily disposed of the attempt to create a precedent from Torteval church, which was the parochial church, and towards its erection the inhabitants themselves had voluntarily subscribed five shillings per quarter, or one fourth of their revenue, whereas the people of the Bouët had not advanced one farthing, and for the best of all reasons, because they had built Wesley chapel, and did not require a church of England temple.

We have pledged ourselves not to introduce religious discussion into this Magazine, and we intend on all occasions to fulfil our engagement with the public: but we may without impropriety ask, how long is this vote of the States to remain suspended? for unless the remaining funds be subscribed, of course the whole plan must fall to the ground, and it never could have been intended that this money should be locked up, perhaps for many years, before the enterprise shall be totally abandoned. We think that some period should be limited, say three months, at the expiration of which, unless the whole be forthcoming, the vote of the States should be rescinded. The necessity for this restriction is the more urgent, as the five trustees hold irresponsible power, and were one of them to die, the four survivors are authorized to elect his successor, and this junta can appoint any clergyman they may choose to name, while the public, who have paid their money towards the erection of the church, have no right whatever of interference. This is in truth a revival of the principle of rotten boroughs, and, if adhered to, will strongly operate to deter many from subscribing. We shall make but one more remark on this subject, to wit, that all grants for public money ought to be submitted to the States of Election, and not to the inferior States of Deliberation, for when burthens are thrown on the people, they ought in justice to be sanctioned by the whole body of their representatives, and not by a fractional section.

The next subject for decision grew out of an application from the Horticultural Society, for the States to grant them the small sum of twenty-one pounds per annum to distribute in prizes to those cottagers who reared the finest flowers and vegetables. As the States have already granted an annuity of thirty pounds to the Agricultural Society, which is laid out in præmiums for improving the breed of horned cattle, the president proposed to grant sixty pounds per annum to these united societies, the same to be divided in equal portions and to be applied to their respective departments on a plan hereafter to be arranged. In the

principle of this measure we trust that all parties will concur; but whether the two societies should be distinct or united will depend on the terms of their association, on which we must suspend our opinion, till the plan contemplated is reduced into writing and laid before the public.

The fifth proposition related to the high roads, a sum of £1,700 being demanded to pay off arrears due to their formation, and to complete others now in course of operation. This was granted after some judicious remarks made by Mr. Retilley, as to the mode in which the financial reports have hitherto been drawn up. We are decidedly of opinion that no lumped accounts ought ever to be received, and that every supervisor or treasurer should exhibit a detailed balance sheet before he resigns his office. We have not space at present to enter fully into this subject, but we ask for information on one item-the proceeds of the lottery: Pray do these appear in Barbet's Almanack? to which pseudo-official document Mr. Collings referred Mr. Retilley!! Our rulers may rest assured that Mr. Retilley spoke the sense of the public, who will no longer pay a clerk a high salary, and be put off with an Almanack instead of an official balance sheet. The bank of England are bound to publish the state of their affairs every quarter, showing the amount of their issues and their available assets, and the people of Guernsey are wanting to themselves, if they do not insist on the same publicity.

The sixth proposition related to a payment of £300 to the coasts committee, which was granted without discussion, though Mr. Guille put forth a somewhat novel argument on the art of road-making, insisting that in some cases soft materials were preferable to hard, gneiss to granite, and gravel to stone. Our knowledge of mineralogy is too limited to deny the accuracy of these apparently paradoxical conclusions; and it is certainly to be regretted that the particular cases were not specified, and some facts adduced to illustrate so curious an argument.

The seventh proposition was for another sum of £300 for improving the harbour of Rocquaine, which was also granted.

The last article of the Billet referred to the nomination of three new directors for Elizabeth College, when Mr. Daniel Moullin, Mr. Frederick Price, and Mr. Hardy were chosen, to the exclusion of Mr. J. S. Brock and Mr. John Harvey, who were also proposed. We regret that the two last gentlemen were not elected in conjunction with Mr. Price, for the present state of that establishment requires the vigilant superintendence of active men of business, who have mixed largely with the world, and acquired practical experience. It has sunk in public estimation, and will continue to sink, unless a more efficient system be established. We shall take an early opportunity of examining the past and present system and the future prospects of this costly institution, in the prosperity of which we take a lively interest.

TUPPER'S FAMILY RECORDS Would have been noticed in this number, but the space intended for that Review has been necessarily occupied by the Remarks on the Billet d'Etat. It will, however, appear in our February number.

S. BARBET, PRINTER, NEW-STREET.