The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-11-19 00:00:00

CUURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Tavismtv, Nov. 18.

Sittings is Panto.
The Cali: r Jrsetse, immediately upon taking his west on the
Bench, ultimo:ell that he had received, as well as Mr. Justice Bur.
rough an ettenymons communication, respecting matters which it
aas at in:Tillie:lce to have inquired into; but that each inquiry
c. J not be instituted in the wanner suggested.
At one o'clock the Chief Justice proceeded to bluildball to hear
casts at Nisi PrMs.

_ _
ot.min V. COTTON.
The parties in this ease were both surveyors and the action was
brought for the recovery of 91. for work and labour done.
The won and daughter of the defendant were called to prove a
shonat d o.ade by the plaintiff, and also the week done; hut they
o^'.7 swore to his making one plan, and having been employed for
alx ears, for which he wsii plod N.
_ _

The Jury found fur the defendant.
ELLERS I. urronn.
nil was an action brought by the ptsintiff, a farmer near Roy,.
ton, to recover V. 10s. being the amount of lb fat turkeys alleged to
have been sent to the defendant, a poulterer residing in Leadenhall.
market, the day before Christmas ti.ty
Mr. Serges-t %%tut:HAW, in eery briefly stating the case to the
Jury, (wned, that he should prose die killing, the fattening, the
phieking, the picking and the packing of these turkeys, upon
which 11:: insisted the defendant had mad,. a very considerable pro-
iii It•:tan the delivery, he was entitled to a verdict fur the
A witness proved the packing the turkeys, and their being ad.
dressed to Mr. Upjohn, bradenhall Market.
Alma, a market porter, said, a fiat, containing tutkeys,
caul, up to the market fee Mr. Upjohn, and he pitched it cast Mr.
pjlim 's.
Pauas.emismined by Mr. Sergeant Wtr.nz..—l pitched it off to a
mac .r. eic situp, and I heard the man sing out • AU right." I
Would :lid know the man again. Porters are paid once a week for
the delieery of parcels.
Win. Baker said, he knows hlr. Upjohn's house, and Amos
called out to witness to ask where Mr. Upjohn lived—be had a par.
eel ; but I don't know about the delivery. 1 can't say if the shop
was open or shut at that time. Some of the shims were open.
Wm. lisle examined.—Attends the market every Wednesday,
and remembers acting tbe Mat in question at the shop of Mr
Uriohn.
Erosa.examinal.—This was six or seven weeks after Christmas,
Mr. Upjohn is a salesman, but witness could not say if
tt.e *Aiwa had or had not sent other flats to him.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE, for the defendant, contended, that the
plaintiff could not reenter upon the count stating gowls sold and
delivered, and none other appliedin this case. lie called
rearms% who Olepused, that the plaintiff employed Upjohn
to .e 1 his turkeys ; hut knew of no sale.
'Clie Con sr .grad with the Learned Sergeant, and the plain-
tit was non.uked. _

SHERIFF'S COURT, urn
WILDXSADAT, NOV. U.

iIAiTER CABINET-3IAKERS AND THEIR JOUR-
NEVIIEN.
wi.virtwo DAVIS *ND *llOllllll.
This erne, wierh occupied upwards of five hours, excited an un-
common degree of intermit among the trade in general, and the
tor-t, during the investiration, was crowded to maw.
Mr. E. !Aura stated, that this was an action brought by a jour.
it. poem cabinet-maker against his employers, for work and labour
Sore, amounting to 171. 1111. The defendants, Messrs. Davis,
of LlartNihimew elope, having suffered judgment by default, now
appeared with Gamut, to dispute the plaititifl"a rate of charge, by
way of reduzeon of damages. Ile would observe, it was a painful
situation iii which the labourer was placed, to be obliged to go to
saw with his master, because the journeyman erns not only without
toads to impaart the expenses of a law suit, hut the master mann-
future, was in general of considerable opulence, and would most
likely, in an attonot like this, to reduce the rate of wages, be sup..
ported by jo.nt contribution of other manufactuims, for the
• iserpor of defeating the plaintiff's demand. Besides, the pre-
judices which attach to the individual reran that combination
at interests, would he raised against him in regain to future em-
ployment. ;Sow oc: would suppose, in that view of die cue, that
aliaut err; rek..sl would operate against a journeyman going to
law with h.. t ...ter the journeyman. at all events, must have
Parrot muter. The present defendants .ere per.
sans of c%:• t• ale and business, employing a great many
workmen. Ile se • •.1d say nothirg about the respectability of their
Maractsrs I.ut h.- would take the liberty of bringing to the recol-
lection the JI:Tv, a cane of public notoriety with respect to this
kale :,/„. another bowie of master cabinet-makers by
whom he 1,34 inp!n.rt, who had not only driven him to the
so:assity lirin7iine an action for the Trentry of the wages
itetaiued from Min, but also an action of tower for his tools,
wt.scb th. r Ivd r:fil,ll to deliver up to him ; thus not
talts-,!.. ir.:•• their own hands, in refusing him that soh.
me: ice which he had earned, but having determined by
done I**,• r.ra.iirm, that his future means of subsistence,
derpeof le, tools. the implements of his industry. should be
vs.l4.h•.d not.' hnii. 'het malt mean to may that such was the
pegging, CO, use th-t such was the oppressive disposition
sit lire pre., -rat (Ist:wiz:as towards the same plaintiff on this Wel-
aye. bat I, • LA ....ninth to erotic jealousy and suspicion in the
spode of Joey, lb-. the present defendates were actuated by
h.- same v,....; of kostilny towards him, arising from the recollee-
trmitt..t in.•lpresnnisly !voisght an action against his employers.
'slot Joey wood theietive width the motives of the defendants in
this. suliai with a greater ifegree of suspicion and j.silousy. Al-
-o..nii:l. servants in general were without the means of suing tear
master; fir leases, he soda not lay that such was the case here,
Lot 11.• Jury would give the plaintiff the benefit of the general in-
tatllOr, which VIA,, that such might in all probability be
to motives for the defendants resisting this honest demand
on we put of the pfsintiff The plaintiff's claim on this
occasion It Ai far piece work in making three mahogany pe.
&WA surentrards, anti either one or two 100 tables. Now it
hawainissi, that with the exception of one sideboard, the whole
or, mesa articlzs 1.. d been sold since they were manufactured,
aid If ware had been any objection to the quality of the work, the
Jury would moire eyirice that such objections were made at the
tous•the wadi was gong on, or what. it was eouiphated. But the
fact OM. wathicetton was made to the first, second, or even third
s.itebostd, wind the plaintiff wanted his money. its should call a

witness who was in the employ of the defendants as a Journeyman,
and who would prove, that having seen this last snide upon which
objections were set up, that the utmost extent of reduction that
could be made was five shilLnga, and to this the plaintiff readily as-
aerated. lint was it worth while that a journeyman should be put
to the expense of an action sgninst his employer, which would coot
him at least 201. merely to recover the additional five shillings?
His beamed Friend 3lr. l'utryn might dispute the plaintiff's de-
, utand. item by item, in order to strike offs halfpenny or a farthing
from each, which, even if the defendants should gain, after spend-
ing tall in law, would be but a poor satinfaction. What must hare
been the ions of time on the par: of the plaintiff; as well as ominous
rusts, since, even with this verdict in his favour to the full amount,
by extra nuts he could gain nothing but anxiety and loss of time in
going backwards and forwards to his Lawyer, in being forced to
come here fur the reduction or a few shillings? The question here
I was not whether the plaintiff should have five ur six pounds, but
whether lie should be reimbursed sonic pact of his rusts. It was a
contest not for gain between the parties, stnee both must lose ; but
if the defendants could cut down the present plaintiff's demand. he
would next attempt to cut down the fair reward of labour claimed
by other journeymen in the trade. The defendants, in basing let
judgment go by default. had admitted the plaintiff's right to re-
cover, and the only.question was, subject to what deductions.
James Barley, juurnevman cabinet-maker, examined by Mr.
Lawcs.—Wittiess has been journeyman and foreman in the trade
twenty-four years. Remembers plaintiff; with himself, being in
the employ of defendant,, who carry on an extensive business as
manufacturers for the trade. They do not sill, but make for other
master cabinet-makers. Plnintiff left the defendants employ
about April or May Inst. The that job charged in this demand
was for a 100 table, 2!. 12'. ; about this thefe was no disritte, but
I plaintiff having taken or 2s. made his demand 21. 10s. rbe next
jobs were three pedestal sideboards, the last of which wan objected
to b" Mr. Ihvis. Witness did not think it was executed quite so
welfas it ought to have been, and for which lie charged 41. Ills. 11d.
Thinks this would admit of a deduction of live or ten per cent.
Two days time, charged les., was admitted by Mr. Comyn as
coma.
Mr. Casey's—The Matter in dispute between us is the difference
betwixt 111. 71., which Ilan been paid by the defendants, and the
171. claimed by the plaintiff.
Wu:less—l believe 111. 7,- in the amount plaintiff received.
BuRCIIALL-1/id the plaintiff admit the receipt to you of
the.ll/. 75.?

'Witness-I'es.
ernsit.examitied by Mr. COW T It.— Is not the plaintiff a member
of 'Society of journe! men rahinet.makers?
Mr. Lasers—l do not think that is material.
Mr. rums sr—lt is most material, and I insist on having it put.
U'itncss— I ham seen blot there.
Mr. t, v s—Corne, Sir. don't ran know that he is, and arc
not you also. a member of that Society'
Witness—l believe he it, but I don't know it; lam a member
only for time protectimm Cr my nails.
Mr. Co MY Is not Mr. Wall, who sits there. attorney for the
journeymen cabinet-makers` Soriets ?
I4'onesa—.l do not know that; I will say he is not attorney for
the Society, at a Society.
•
Mr. COM TN—Then 11110 I. the attorney fur them ?
Witnegl--1 do not know t bat he is the attorney fur anybody
that applies to him to conduct a cause.
Mr. Concw—Do not all the journeymen bringing actions
against tier employers imply to him?
Witnam—Yes, conceiving him to be a skilful ninn.
Mr. Comm—Who employs Mr. Wail as the attorney in this
action?

—Witness--Mr. Fleming.
Mr. Cost•tr—At his own expense?
‘Vitnesa—l do not know; I have never heard either Mr. Wall
or plaintiff ray that he is the attorney who supports journeymen
cabinet-makers against their employers, oc that he supports the
cause now brought here.
Witness proceeded—The items in plaintiff's accounts are very
nun,erous. There are sometimesdisputts lon we= the journeymen
and their masters respecting the prices. (Witness here explained
the different items of piece-work which formed the various charges
in the plaintiff's bill, and which it would be too tedious to enume-
rate.)
This witness's testimony, which went through almost every item
of the account, only varied the plaintiff's demand a few shillings in
reduction, witness stating that the proposed bill was regulated by
the " Union Price-Book,'. which formed the standard rates of pay.
ment for piece-work between the journeymen cabinet-makers and
' their employers, as had been mutually agreed upon.
Mr. Costae, for the defendants, addressed the Jury at consider-
able length. The amount of plaintiff's charge, he said, being only
a few pound*, it was of no moment to the defendants ; and it was
not for the sake of the few trifling deductions sought to be made in
this ease that they had thought of employing Counsel ; but that
this plaintiff, confederated with others belonging to the society of
journeymen cabinet-makers had attempted to extort a higher rate
of payment for piece-work ;him had been established throughout
the trade. The cause of the defendants suffering judgment by de-
fault was their knowing that they would incur *heavier expense by
defending, even if they obtained a verdict, than by merely disput-
ing the plaintiff's demand on the ground of excess; for although
the society of journeymen found money fog this action. yet, in case
of plaintiff's failure, the defendants would have to look for the costs
only from the plaintiff himself, who was not in circumstances to
pay them. It was far from a spirit of persecution towards the
plaintiff as his Learned Friend had represented, but .to cut
down exorbitant charges in other journeymen, that they reilistitlttie
plaintiff's demand althoh it was tree that his Learned Friend,
who, above all things, hated to go to law himself, would sooner pay
an inipositinn than litigate the Matter.
Mr. LAwts lintertuitting)-1 beg you will not publish that of
me.

Mr. ('oMYY ssid he believed his Learned Friend was not singu-
lar, for he knew many persons who would rather submit to an ex-
tortionate charge than have litigation. But it was otherwise here,
since nothing wan more likely to agitate disputes in this trade than
to have one rate of payment set up by d.c journeymen and another
by tiloir masters. The grievance here was, that the plaintiff* had
delivered at different dines three several bills, contaiumg charges
which he now consented to reduce; and it was In consequence
of the esceNs, which plaintiff now in part admitted, that the defend-
ants had been induced to resist his demand; and he now came here,
as to a competent tribunal, to say what the plaintiff was justly,
fairly, and lienestly to receive ; for it was of the utmost importance
to the whole trade that there should be one regulated price. The
Learned f:c ntleman divided his case into three pointat—lest. That
the plaintiff's demand was exorbitant; .tidy. That certain detlue-
tions ought to be made • and Silly. That the last sideboard made
by the plaintiff was so Wally executed that the defendants could not
sell it without a loss.

The following witnesses were called to reduce the plaintiffs rate
of payment :
Thomas Barrett, master cabinet-maker, was one of those em-
ployed in compiling the " Union Price Blink," which was to pre-
vent impositions and disputes. Witness here referred to several
items of Plaintiffs demand, which he averred contrary to the wit-
ness for the plaintiff; were considerably over the rates established
by that book.
Isaac Kilvington, master cabinet-maker, also reduced the items
of plaintiffs demand by. the " Union Rail; Book." which be said
be had the honour of assisting the last witness in compiling.
James Thaneley, foreman to Messrs. Toplis, of St. Paul's
Church-yard. concurred with former witnesses as to deductions.
Several other witnesses were called for defendants, who reduced
the plaintiff's demand to somewhere about U. instead of Gl. balance
due as claimed by the plaintiff.
Mr. Cox ex again addressed the Jury to the credibility of
evidence.

Mr. LIME% replied.
Mr. BURCH•LL haring warned np the evidence. the Jury,
after a 'beet deliberation, found for the plaintiff—Damages—Five
Pounds.

IMPORTANT DECISION
OF THE St. ANDREWS (woLsoax) TITHE QUESTION.

Yesterday being the day named for the final delivery of the
filagistrates' opinions on this momentous question, llatton.garden
office was thronged at an early hour by the more respectable pan
of the parishioners.
Mr. Sergeant Se o ,W. L. ROGERS, and A. S. Lsiwn, Esqrs.
took then limn ou the llench at eleven o'clock; and Mr. Griffiths
and Mr. Taylor, veiny clerks, soon after appeared, the former on
behalf of the Rector (lir. Itarsfortl.) _

Mr. 3lerewether, who conducted the Rev. fientleman's ease on
the former discussion, did not attend ; neither was It understood
that he should c for every argument having been exhausted as to
the merits of the point, the parties consented to abide the decision
of the Magistrates, and merely came forward to hear that decision
nsad..e.

Mr. HARMER attended on behalf of the parishioners.
At a quarter before twelve o'clock,
Mr. Sergeant 24.1.11.0)1 commenced by saying, that the time was
now arrived when he and his colleagues were called upon to deliver
judgment on a question of great magnitude and importance--a
question which was involved in great obscurity and doubt. It was
a question in regard to a certain tithe claimed by the Rector of Sr.
Andrew's pariah, 11 album, the payment of which was now disputed
by an iadividstal named Wasp. When this question was lately dis.
cussed. an objection was taken by the defendant's solicitor to the
Magistrates' jurisdiction. and authorities were then cited in sup.
port of that objection, which left him (the Learned Sergeant) in
great doubt whether be, ea one of the Magistrates, was qualified to
decide tiaercon. Ilowever, baring at great labour waded through
various sources of information. to ascertain the validity of that ob-
jection, lie was inclined to think that it could nut be sustained ;
though be would have gladly availed himself of any technicality
which could have shielded him from the responsibility attaching to
the judgment he was called upon to give on so great a quei-
don. The wonis of the Statute under which this objection was
taken, were, " according to the rights, prescriptions, usages," Ike.;
which, in fact, might be shortly resolved into these words, namely,
" accrirding to law," and that therefore the Magistrates were a
proper forum to decide thereon. This being disposed of, the
earnest Sergeant observed, that the first thing to be considered
was the movie of the claim. The claim set up by the Rev. incum-
bent was that of a ammunition for personal tithe, put indirectly on
the house, bat in fact payable by the person properly, as the occu-
pant of such baths c. !The Learned Sergeant here explained what
personal tithe consists an, namely, the tenth of a man's clear gains
in trade it by the labour of hire hands, fie.] The case set op by
the (warned Gentleman who conducted the application, might be
divided into two grounds for consideration :—First, whether this
claim be recognised according to the principles of the common law
of the load ; and the sccood ground was, in what way that slaitu

THE BRITISH PRESS.

' had been supported by the evidence. Now, in regard to the fieet,
it was necessary to consider how far tithes were recoverable its cum.
mon law. According to the most ancient authorities, there appeared
to have been three different species; the first of which was termed
pardial tithes, the second parental tithes, and the last went called
mixed tithes. As to the first, it was entirely out of the question in
the present case; because peadial tithea, or tithes gun-quid oritur
er "'reedits, were not recognised in the continuo law of the land;
and as to speaking of it co.nposition fur personal tithes? it was an
absurdity to think of such a thing—because one man might choose
to give twice as much as another. If it were a tube on land, then
the produce of that land must be shown, and there ere instances
where proprietors of ground hare even suffered it to go uncultivated
in order to deprive the minister of his tithe; if, then, that land be
laid under bock and mortar, it cannot bear fruit, and certainly is
no longer liable to the payment of that tithe. In order then to
remedy that defect, which went to deprive the clergy of great part
of their income, more particularly in the vicinity of large cities
and corporate towns, the payment of personal tithe was suggested.
Now (said Mr. Sergeant Seßon), by common law, founded on eccle-
siastical law, as tithes were considered recoverable, of course the
mode of recovery was defined, and how was it settled in regard to
personal tithe? St. Augustine and other ancient writers of high
celebrity say, that the Ordinary possessed a power of bringing the
parties before him, and obliging them to swear what were the clear
gains of their labour : such was the law as it then stood, and so it
continued until the reign of King Henry I I. when to do away
the frequent perjuries which this mode of collecting the tithe was
calculated to promote, it was deemed advisable to adopt some other
means for ensuring a sufficient maintenance for the clergy, spleeree
passed, under the Lord Chancellor's seal, which subjected bonen
to a yearly payment of 2s. itd. in the pound, agreeable to the rent
they paid; and so it remained until the time of Charles 1I.; but
after the great fire in London, which took away some entire pm
tithes, another alteration took place, not only as to pradial tithes,
but as to personal tithe s—[ The Learned Sergeant here read an ex-
tract from the 2d and 3d of Edward VI. providing for the recovery
of priedial tithes, whereby, in default of payment, an action at
conimon law could be brought for treble the amount of the sum
claimed, if the origin of such tithe could be established for forty
years previous to the enactment of this Statute.]—?'his Act became
necessary, as at that period (when the religious houses were abo.
fished) great part of the church property came into the bands of
the laity, and until then they had no common law remedy. In the
7th section of the same Act, peneonal tithes are also considered,
and the same provision in regard to their subtraction was made as
in respect of ;medial tithes, with this addition, that a distinct spe-
cification was inserted, that they should be claimed from " the same
kind of persons and in the mane places" as demanded forty years
before. As the only remedy known previous to this Act was that
of conscience, by compelling the person to swear what were his
clear gains, the temptation to perjury was so strong, that it was
deemed expedient to abolish altogether this compulsory oath, by
which the recovery of personal tithes experienced a amiplete death-
blow; so that (with the exception named), they must be considered
as defunct, and nothing but the omnipotence of an Act of Par-
liament could revive them. If the question then rested on the va-
lidity of personal tithe, it should be traced to the moment of time
specified in this Act, which passed in 1513, and it being necessary
to show the existence of the enint for forty years preceding, it
brings it back sec far as 15011. On this broad ground, the Learned
Sergeant contended, that every case laid down in the law !woke,
alien judgment had been given In favour of the claim, it was sup.
ported on the principle of tracing the existence of tithes to the
period required. The Learned Sergeant then stated that through
some chatine! a pamphlet on the subject of tithes had came into
his hands. written by the celebrated Dr. I'rideaux, Dean of Nor-
wlch, and published in the year 1706. and lie 1.31 r. Ser.
went Sellon), felt proud to be supported in his own views on those
points by so excellent an authority. In this pamphlet he found a
very novel, and no less important circumstance, related by the
Learned Doctor. A dispute had arisen in the city of Norwich,
relative to a money payment claimed by the clergy; the Mayor
and Commonalty on the part of the Laity, and the Bishop and
other Members of the Hierarchy, met for its diacussion, and being
unable to conic to any amicable understanding, the matter was re-
ferred to no less a personage than hi, Majesty, King Charles I.
who awarded the sum of 9tl. lid the pound on each house, but
in consequence of the subsequent establishment of the Common-
wealth, and other memorable events that immediately followed,
this award was not then acted upon. However, Dr. Prideaux,
when Dean of Norwich, interested himself in the concerns of the
clergy, who were at that time much oppressed, and in the course
of his researches, found this very sward, which had been laid up
in the archives f the place, and hitherto unnoticed. But though
such arguments might be adduced in favour of a poundage
or composition, yet they did not apply to the general prin-
ciple, because they only refer to particular cities or towns. and
under peculiar circumstances. The Learned Sergeant proceeded to
notice l'rideaux's coincidence with his views on the subject of per-
sonal tithes, and then read the following extracts. Speaking of the
original mode of recovering personal tithe.' Prideaux continues—
" So it was till the 2d and 3el of Edward VI. cap.. 13, which took
away the oath, as It was calculated to promote petjuries ; the pay.
meat was still to be continued, but as no way was left to discover,
but on the admission of the parties, the remedy was taken away,
and from that time, front want thereof, they could not be recovered,
po one having since had the conscience to pay them. Thus pet-
sont,l fitters hove ceased in this Lunt, and the Church has lost that
much of its revenue ...hereby ministers were to be maintained in
towns and cities, wherein there is 1110,12 need of them." The Doc-
tor then, in treating of the remedies for such losses to the Clergy,
tiles on to say, " that nothing bat an Act of Parliament can be
effectual ;" at the !tame time he adds, " but to provide an Act of
Parliament for Norwich only, was a plaster too narrow for the
sore ; what is the case here is also the case of most all the cities and
larger towns of the realm, for in all of them. 143 well as in Nor-
wich. no tithes have been subtracted since the 2d and 3el of Ed-
ward VI. In London and Coventry, where there were ancient
compositions for those tithes, settled upon the rents of houses, lour
Van. that statute, these compositions, I acknowledge, have still
remained ; and in Coventry 20. in the pound on rent is given by
the 4th and sth of Philip and Mary ; and at Ipswich, by another
Act. 13th Elizabeth, 31agiatrates are empowered to lay an annual
tax for the maintenance of NI inisters, which, if duly executed, would
then effect who' is needful. But, in all the rest of those cities and
large towns of the realm, and also hi all the parishes of London
which are without the ancient likrties of that City, nenhing has
been left for the maintenance of God's Ministers, and sup-
port of his work among them, but what every man shall
think fit to contribute thereto ; and although this, in the
out-parishes of London, by reason of the vast number of inhabit.
ants, may amount to what ha considerable, yet in all the
other cities and corporate towns of the kingdom, where bli-
nisters have nothing else to depend on, it fell short of a suffi-
ciency, so that where they have moat labour they are worst paid,
and the consequence usually is, that their churches are worse paid
than any other in the kingdom." It is not to be presumed, UM-
tinued the Learned Sergeant, that this opinion of Prideaux
amounts to certainty; though in the absence of better proof, the
the opinion of such an enlightened Divine, when contending toe
the rights of the Clergy, ia well entitled to attention. The
beamed Sergeant then observed, that the next point fur considerm
'thin was, how far cases of this kind had been supported by com-
mon law • and here he made a distinction between the recovery of
pro-dial and that of personal tithes; se in the nuttier, the law seemed
to recognise a presumptive right of claim, though not in the latter;
land in those casts where the right was contested, though the pre-
sumptive claim was acknowledged, it was still considered necessery
to state the groundwuwk or origin of that claim. After enuaterating.a
number of eases in illustration of this position, he referred to one, in
which Justice Bayley and Justice Hoiroyd gave it as their opinion,
that the averment %lipoid beset forth in die declarutiim, even though
the presumptive right was not questioned. " Then," observed the
',weed Sergeant, " how much nowt necessary is it, in a cane
such as this, one of personal tithe, where the presumptive right is
questioned, that the origin of it should be traced as fur back as the
Eriod defined, viz. forty years before the statute in the reign of
dward VI." flaying now taken a general view of the main
qu,stion of right, the Learned Sergeant proceeded to comment on
the evidence, and the first question that offered itself for considera-
tion was the books themselves, which were now produced in sup-
port of the claim, as establishing the point of ancient custom. lie
had taken great pains to examine these authorities, and had traced
back fur a period of nearly 120 years, taking the names of four per-
sons or at least the successive occupants of four house' situate
betwixt Southampton-buildings and Chancery-lane, one of which
Mr. Wasp, the party now onumoned, occupies.) There appeared
certainly proof of payments being made front those !mows up to
the year 1066, but then there appeared no mention of than for
23 years rnore, books of which were exhibited; yet he could probe.
hly account for that circumstance by supposing that those very
houses were not built until about the •year IGO, and there was no
dc.abt that the ground they then stood on was alluded to in the
older books, wider the denomination of garden houses, it be-
ing then called Southampton-garden ; and therefore there
' was no evidence to shrew that the period, under which those
houses would be liable to tithe, was sufficiently old to war-
rant its subtraction under the Act of l'alward VI.; use, taking them
to the most distant period, it tell the short of what was required by
that Act. And then, again, admitting that there was such a thing
as a composition fur personal tithe*, that might stand good with re.
gaol to a single individual, though certainly not with regard to a
whole parish ; and, if there was such a coniposition, where is the
roof for it ? la there no bond, no deed, DO engagement enteral
into between the parties? No; but there are the Rector's books,
atia what du these books import? How are they set out? %Vitae is
their title? Quarterage !look for Tithe and then follovoi three
columns—" Name—Parson—Clerk." If this was a book fur tithes,
what brings 31r. Ch';k there? %l'as the clerk in holy orders, and
quatilial to subtract tithe ? No; but it is quite clear that those solute
were paid as Easter offerings, which we are told again by another
writer on the subject were paid quarterly, or if not, were made at the
Feast of Easter, and thence called Easter offerings. In some places in
those books, the aarne had been set dowel, without any sum affixed,
and in others it was inserted, but no payment made, which goes to
prove that the right was not distinctly telt, or some former ineuni-
ban would certainly have enforced it; and then itgain, a number
of names follow, as inhabitants of the same house, to all of which the
sum of 2d. is annexed, which were, no doubt, the Easter gift of
those several inmates, being at the rate of ail. a head, if over the
ego of sixteen years, a case is support of which is given in Wood's
Tithe Cases (that of Carthue and Edwards), where the defendant
was ordered to pay the suin of 2d. a head fur all the inmates of his
household. Now, in fact, all the modern parishes, according to
that standard, are paying at least ten times more than they
ought to do; and he rejoiced in that circumstance, because the
Clergy deserved to be fairly and liberally provided fur. The
!Wanted Sergeant again alluded to that observation of 14r. l'rie
&aux. wiser.: be my:, that, in consequence of the abolition of
pentane! tithes. no other nteans of support were left to the Clergy
bar 'And trery nias tbOught lit to contribute; anti these contri.

but iotia froth bring generally :i.l at that festival, devised the ap-
pellation of Easier offerings.
.11r„ fiuirrlTtl begged to cnrrect the Learned Sergeant TA to
the opinion be had funned on the union of tithe and Easter
tug in the brwilts produced. There were a vast number of books
fur Easter offerings alone, which had been separated from the
Tithe-balks merely to prevent confusion.
Itlr. Sergeant Sr.i.i.of; said, that if it was presumed that the
produNton of those books, which he hail not seen. could off. et his
I opinion on the absolute merits of the question, he would readily
postpone his decision t but, from the view he had already taken on
the broad principle tot right, he certainly must eventually oome to
the fume conclusion, and say, that the Reverend Plaintiff having
failed in carrying back the existence of a right to claim to the periol
required by law, that he (tor one) must say, that it had not been
suMeimitly supported.
111 r. Bout: Hs followed, and stated, that af.er the very lucid view
taken (lithe cow in nil its bearings by_his colleague (the I,carned
Sergeant), he felt it unnecessary to offer any further observation,
and perfectly coinciding in those views, and resting his judgment on
the saute point of law, namely, the non-existence of right, under the
statute of Edward VI., he must conic to the same conclusion, that
the claim had not been sustained.
111 r. LA I No then said, that he, as one of the Magistrates, felt it
a duty which he owed to himself, as also to the Rector of the
Parish, to dissent from the jutigrnent given by his worthy col-
leagues: for the payments having been traced so far back as 108
years, without any interruption, was, in his mind, a sufficient
proof of the justness of the claim.
A respectable Parishioner then stepped forward, and begged to
express the thanks of the Parish to the Bench, for the patient at-
tention which hair been given to the question in all its stages.
Mr. Sergeant Se Leo's acknowledged their polite expressions,
but observed, that public justice called for such attention, and
that neither he nor (he might sayl his Brother Magistrates, could
feel themselves entitled to any praise for the mere performance of
their duty.

POLICE.