The National Register. — London, England, 1811-07-21 00:00:00

combatants fight with brooms, shovels, spits, and crutches, in a vt•ry striking manner. Turnips, cabbages, and carrots fly like hail. The martial accompaniments supply all the grandeur of theatrical war, and the glorious uproar and confusion are only terminated by the fall of the curtain. After the above general description, it is unnecessary for me to trespass on the reader's patience. The Tailors, a Tragedy for Warm Weather, is so well known, that to enter into any dis quisition on its merits would be useless (not to say impertinent); and it would be hardly worth while to go into the question of who was its author, at any great length, merely for the purpose of declaring at last, that though it might have been written by FooTE, or it might not, still it appeared clear that it had been written by somebody, but by whom nobody could poc - itively say. The After-piece, upon the whole, is amusing enough, and will probably please for some time. The idea of ridiculing the getting up of Blue Beard with horses, by getting up The Tailors with asses was a very good one. The manner in which it is con ducted is creditable to Mr. ARNOLD'S talents as a Manager. The songs he has introduced do no injury to the piece, any far ther than as they lengthen it out too much. In some instances it is but justice to say, they heighten it considerably, and convulse the house with laughter. The public are pleased at having a whimsical entertainment restored to them with new attractions, and Mr. ARNOLD deserves praise for having brought forward a piece of merit which had been long neglected, and there is cer tainly a promise of improvement in him as an author, seeing that a performance like this, though accompanied by much of bis writing, is not absolutely spoiled. G. THE NATIONAL REGISTER. LAW REPORTS. COURT OF SESbION, EDINBURGH. SIR FRA I IICIS EI7RDETT . t'. MR. SCOTT. Mr. Jeffery stated, that this was a very short and common ease on the part of his client, Sir Francis Burdett, who was suing Mr. Scott upon a bond for 50001. of borrowed money. That Mr. Scott had put in long and secial defences, every syl lable of which was denied by Sir F. Burdett; but besides this positive and general denial, Sir Francis objected to the relevancy of the defence. Sir F. Burdett positively denied that any trust, of any sort or kind, was ever reposed in Mr. Scott. That the defence against the present action was in substance as follows : A Lady, whose name it is unnecessary to mention, having been seduced by Sir Francis Burdett, became pregnant by him, and the rarties were reduced to a state of the greatest distress and embarrassment. It became the duty of Mr. Scott to pro tect this female and her child, and to obtain from Sir Francis some provision fur the latter, to be used as future exigencies might require, as it was then uncertain to whet extent a provi sion might be necessary. In spring, 1801, Sir Francis granted his bond, in the English form, to Mr. Scott, for the sum of 40,0001. cicfi asible upon payment of 20,0001. within 4ix months from the date thereof. It was understood that Mr. Scott was to use this bond according to his discretion, for the purpott already alluded to. Soon after the bond was granted, Sir F. agreed to pay to Mr. Scott the sum of 10,0e01. in part of the bond; but nett having the whole of that sum at his command, he paid 30001. only, and Mr. Scott indorsed the said payment of 500(1. upon the bond. Sir Francis, as well as the Lady, had apprc lieLded an immediate public disclosure and disgrace; but es this, very luckily for them, did not follow, Mr. Scott, ender the circumstances of the case, did not think it necessary to call upon Sir Francis for any further payments upon this bond. But be thought it proper to retain the bond in his custody ; and, to provide against any bad consequences that might happen in case of his own death, he made a will, ti? which he bequeathed the 50001. he had received from Sir Francis as a legacy to the chive! : and appointed as his executor, with the same power over Sir rancis's bond that he himself had, Charles Warren, Esq. Bar rister at Law, who was well acquainted with all the circum stances of the transaction. During the autumn of 1805, and the spring of 1806, Sir F. and Mr. Scott had some differences with respect to Sir Francis's bond, and the bond for 20,C001. waich Sir D. for reasons best known to himself, demanded hack front Mr. Scott; but Mr. Scott positively insisted upon retaining the seool. for the benefit of the said child. At this time, how ever, Sir Francis being uneasy that this bond for C. 0,00 1. was till out against him, reTtest4A that if Mr. Scat!, tm.ivr the cir - • cumqtances of the case, thought the r,ooo 1. already paid to he sufficient, the 20,0001. bond might be discharged. To this Mr. Scott not only agreed, but 'to satisfy Sir F. Burdett, executed a bond fur the money so paid by him, with the interest accumu lated on it, amounting in the whole to 57501. which was depo sited in the hands of Mr. Warren, as Mr. Scott's obligation tor the money to Sir Francis, and to be delivered to Sir Francis in case the child should die. But it' the child should be alive at the end of the five years, then Sir Francis was to discharge Mr. Scott's bond in the same manner that Mr. Scott was to dis charge Sir Francis's bond. Both bonds were accordingly depo sited in the hands of Mr. Warren; but it would appear that Sir Franais was successful in getting from Mr. Warren this bond even before the expiry of the five years, during which time Mr. Warren was to retain it in his custody; and although the child is yet alive, and Mr. Scott is hound to keep the money received from Sir Faancis, for the benefit of the said chili, Sir Francis has thought proper to institute the present action for payment of the bond; in doing which, be seems to have totally forgotten every circumstance relating to the transaction, its meaning and object, anti the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties at entering into it. The defence against the present action„ therefore, is, that Mr. Scott is not liable to pay the contents of the said bond; and that lie ought to be assuilzied with full expences. Mr. Ja a lPry stated, that the whole of the. defence was false and calumnious; that Sir Francis denied that he ever had a child except by his own wife; and that he had only read the defence, merely to argue against the relevancy of it ill point of law. Mr. Scott (in the absence of his Counsel) said, that although Sir Francis Burdett had come forward with a positive denial of every syllable of these defences, yet it was in Mr. Scott's power to prove the falsehood of this denial, under Sir Francis Burdett's own hand, and by a variety of evidence which he insisted upon being allowed to adduce, that he might be able to keep himself right and safe in this infamous business. The Jude (Lord M DOWLIN a), aftar a hearing of consi !a rable lengt allowed Mr. Scott to give in a condescendence of what he oliered to prove, and Sir Francis Burdett to answer it. GUILDFORD SESSIONS. At these Sessions, on Thursday, was heard the appeal of Mr. George Farquharson, against a rate made for the relief of the poor of the parish oeChrist Church, Surrey ; and the ground of appeal was, that the rate did not include the Rev. Rowland Hill, in respect of the Chapel, commonly called Mr. Rowland Bill's Chapel. Mr. Richard Hoppey stated, that be was Steward of the Sur rey Chapel. Mr. Hill principally officiated, when he was in town. He had seen him numbers of times in the Vestry. The Chapel-house, cominunicating with the Chapel, was occupied by Mr. Hill. The witness said, that part of his occupation was to receive money at the door regularly. Ile received for many guinea seats. !'here were about five hundred ti.. kets distaihuted annually, each admitting two persons. The seats in the galle ries were is. 6d. per quarter, with the exception of the front seats, which were Ss. Last quarter there were distributed from eiht to nine hundred tickets, at Is. 6d. and somewhat more than one hundred and forty at 3s. Strangers of decent appear ance, who came to the Chapel, were accommodated with seas w Amu paying , but if they repea ed their visits, they were ex pected to subscribe. The income of the Chapel, which passed through his hands, was about 8001. a year, of which 2tol. a year was appropriated to the ordinary expences of the Chapel. the residue he paid over to Mi. Wehla r, the treasurer. He said the Chapel was managed by twelve trustees, of whom Mr. Hill was one. Mr. Webber, of Clap Lam, was a trustee, as was Mr. Nield, of St. Paul's Church-yard. The witness had acted with them as trustees, and always attended to receive their directions, but he had never seen any trust deed. Mr. Sproileie, also Counsel for the appellant, made a most elo. quent address. Nothing was farther from his intention, than to say any thing offensive or disrespectful to the Rev. Gentler:an whose Chapel was the subject of discussion. Ile believed that no man ever performed the functions of his ministry with greater • success than tint Rev. Gentleman. The question was not whe ther his Chapel should be conducted on the laudable principle of preaching the Gospel to the poor, at the expence of the rich; on the contrary, if Mr. Hill was enabled by his eloquence to attract a numerous and wealthy congregation, he gave him cre dit for his exertions; what he maintained was, that whatever way these profits were ultimately employed, they ought in their transit to be Ippropriatea to the relief of the parochial poor, die same as profits detived from other sources. This we • a great Institutian of a spiritual nature, but producing considerable l'1%)• fits from physical causes ; and i:i the opinion of many, tkose Folits' lll 4h l . be devoted to very laudable kurpoaosi. Tharilie