The Sun.
London, England, 1823-02-10 00:00:00

MKT).

-On suntifty, the 2d inst,, atiloln St. Al4win's, near Fitirford,
Glotteestershoi,:, flencrtd Lister, late Colonel_ of the ath Regt.
and Govomor of‘Lamittard-fort, in his Otltil-Year•
On Friday, the 7st mit:, at his house, 'at Hendon, William
. . On the filth inst. at DaWfish, Devonshire, James Drowne ,
E3th or Brighton.
lesterday morning, at his father's house, Hannuersroith,
Jonathan Skelton Esq., of Trinity-hall, Cambridge, LL..
At Dawlish, Skelton,
B
Devonshire, on the 6th Instant, James Browne,
Esq.., of Brighton.


POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

TITHES IN THE CITY OF LONDON.
•• • ,
MANSION- OpsE.—un Saturday 'the important.
quistion relating to the obligation upon the citizens of London
to pay 2s. 9d. in the pound Upon their rentals, to the iinproprie-
tor; of livings, came on before the Lord Mayor. His Lordship
was attended by the Recorder, the Common Serjeant, and the
City :Solicitor.
Dr. Owen, Rector of St. Olave, Hart-street, the plaintiff'
-upon this occasion, was attended by Mr. Law, who supported
the Doctor's claim of tithe upon the 37th Henry VIII. against
Mr. Abbott, of Mary.lane.

The defendant did not appear; but Mr; Saunders, the Soli-
eitor for the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, againstthe claim',
of the Clergy, stated that Mr. Abbott was absent, not from any
disrespect towards his Lordship, but because he considered the',
ease out of his-Lordship's jurisdiction. Several Gentlemen who
seemed deeply interested in the question were present ;.and the-
subject underwent a very minute investigation.
Mr. LAW, before he commenced his argument, proved by the
evidence of a marshalman that the summons to attend had been
issued upon Mr. Abbott ; and by the evidence of a collector,
that Mr. Abbott paid the rent of 2031. per annum for his house
in the parish of St. Olave, Hart-street. . .
It was suggested by the COM-MON SETiJEANT, that Mr.
Law should confine his observations to the qnestion of the
enrolment of the Decree in the 37th of Henry VIII.; all the
other difficulties in the case being censidered as surmounted.
.Mr. Law then addressed the -Lord Mayor; and after argue
ing the question at some length, concluded' by calling on his
Lordship to undertake the responsibility of deciding on the
question ; and declaring that no circumstance should prevent
him from. doing his dety, however strongly the performance of
that duty might operate in rendering him unpopular.
The HeconoEtt said, that the question, whether or not the
Lord Mayor had jurisdiction in this case, depended on the single
fact 4440 the enrolment of the decree in the Court of Chancery.
If there was no eilrohnent, there' was no jurisdiction. The
whole history of the authority certainly led him to the inference,
that no such fact had taken place. In the very next reign to
that in which the decree was made, the enrolment was doubted,
a strong evidence, of its non-existence. In the case of Hallam v.
Adams, which had been referred tows-confirmatory of the fact,
of enrolment, the verdict was a verdict between individuals, and
not one by which the rest of the public were to be bound ; not,
like the decisiorn of a Bench of Judges upon ,a pOint of law,
applicable to all cases of the kind, but likely to We, contradicted
by subsequent determinations from. other Juries, and of no
weight whatever against the probabilities which manifested
themselves on the present question. Why was not the award
or a copy of the enrolment produced, if, it was in existence ?--
There was no account of its loss. The award was in fact, lie
supposed, given to the Bishop of London for security, and he
Omitted to have it enrolled in due time. The extreme zeal of
the Lord Chancellor of that day for the Catholic religion was
well known, and it was probable that he lodged the award for
greater security in the hands 4the Bishop of London, a person
also of violent religious feeling? at such 'a period of turbulence,
and that the omission was matter of policy rather than of
neglect. He considered the Lord Mayor therefore bound to
act as if the decree was not enrolled. The only way, in his
opinion, to attain a perfect .(.Ijudication on the question was by
remitting it to the Udine 0i" Chancery, where it would receive
the benefit of the deepest consideration from the highest walla-
;hive living. .It was with as much regard towards the respect-
:Ole individual, who was plaintiff in this ease, as towards those
whom he was called upon to assist with his advice, that he re-
commended the Lord Mayor to decline all interference.
The.Coet MON St:llJ EANT followed in the same line of ear-
gunient. lie contended flint the' verdict of the Jury, in the
case of Hallam v. Adams, proved nothing, as nothing was more
common than contradictory verdicts • and such a decision *a:l,of
no weight in comparison with the absence of a document which
every one allowed to be indispensable. The decree, although it
appeared to form part of the Act itself, never appeared at in
connection with it until the reign of Elizabeth; and why the de-
cree then appeared in that poenionethere then waano posaibility
of eseertaininee. Had it been enrolled? If it was, where was •
the record ? There was no such thing to be found in the Court
of Chaneery. ;Ile was aware, that, by prescription, allowauces
to considerable extent were made he favour of ancient slam.
ments which were not to be found; but the proof in this case
amounted to a denial of the fact contended for. If. the decree
had been enrolled, why, in the very next reign, had the enrol-
ment been called in question With respect to the authorities
so judiciously cited, he would say, that he had no reason to sup.
pose that until lately the question had been duly investigated,
and the rolls looked into. As for the motive the clergy might
have for omitting the enrolinent, there, was a very strong one,
in the intention they possibly had of waiting for a more sate
find temperate season, when they would have an opportunity
of claiming the higher, demand which the former Act entitled
them to. The decree being rendered: invalid by the importune
omission, it was a curious literary faet, and one which deserved
some consideration, with reference to this case, that Dr. Walton
stated, hi a pamphlet written (we believe Mr. Denman said)
in the reign of the Ist Charles, that the clergy were too wise
to let 'the decree be enrolled, as they only waned for an op-
portunity of demanding more under the Operative Act. But
the Lord Mayor wag net to consider, in deciding on this ques-
tion, whether the ekrgy- were- entitled to more or less than
the sum they contended for. If the Jury that tried the case
of Hallatn and Mame had had befbre them the body of facts
which were now known to the public., they would have given
a different verdict. His Lordship's objection to decide would
have no effect upon the que4tion. The Lord Chaticeller had
net-merely an appellant jurisdiction ; he had an original juris-
diction, too, aril to him the case might be most, proptrly re-
ferred. '
• it was here stated; that Alderman Bridges had given an or-
der against the present defendant for the payment of tithes in
that Alderinan'S Mayoralty.
Alderman BRIM; r,s said, that if he hail done so, be must
have been convinced at the time that he was completely jus-
tified.

The LORD MAYOR said, he had given the utmost attention.
to all the arguments on this important question, and was quite.
prepared to give judgment. It would be unnecessary for him
to attempt to vindicate the conduct of the, Clergy, who had, it
was'evident, done all in their power to save the pockets of their
parishioners. It appeared to him, upon being applied to in
this-case for an order, a very strong measure, id send a person
to prison upon the • authority of a doubtful instrument ; and
as the Act directed him to consult Counsel, he had done so,
and was willing tek state that if his opinion on the question dif-
feted from theirs, he would concede to theM. He did not con-
sider himself at all bound by tiny former decision; and cer.
thinly looked upon the question of the. enrolment :with a great
degree of Suspicion. Ilia Lordship then enumerated the strong
features of objection, and coil-eluded by stating that he declined
to act upon the decree, and subMitted the question to a higher
tribune'.
COMM ITTAL TWENT%'-ONE SaiIUGOLERS FOR