Star.
London, England, 1824-10-25 00:00:00

DRURY-LANE THEATRE.

This elegant Theatre opened for the season on Satur-
day evening, with the Opera of the May a loge of Figaro.
The Howe has not undergcne any alteration in its in•
terior during the recess, nor indeed was any necessary,
as in point of elegance of decoration and convenience,
it was complete.
After our national anthem had been twice executed,
for it was encored, the curtain drew up for the Opera,
and presented us s itli a new debutante in the person of
Miss CRADDON, in the character of &sauna. This Lady;
who is from the Dublin Theatre, where she was a great
favourite, is in figure somewhat petite, with intelligent
and expressive features. Her voice, though not very
powerful, is sweet; her intonations correct, and she.
displayed considerable taste and judgment. Her de-
poi tment was easy and genteel, and in the lighter parts
,of the Opera she displayed considerable vivacity.—
Her style of singing has evidently been formed with
great care, and her science is considerable. She was
most favourably received—was encored in almost every
song—and cannot fail of proving a great acquisition to
the vocal strength of this Theatre. The Countess Ai-
m a viva was personated by Miss POVEY, who sung very
sweetly, and was encored in the Letter duet with Miss
GRADDOW. HA RLEY was amu..ing in Figaro, and Miss
Coarry was a vivacious Cherubino.

A new Ballet was performed by the pupils of M..
Hum.ll4. Great talent was displayed by the children
of all ages, in the various styles of serious and grotesque
dancing ; and one little creature, apparently about five
or six years old, convulsed the House with laughter by
her attempts in a grand pas seul, and in a pas de deux,
with an iafant still younger than herself. The House
was well attended.

MieHAtiMAS iESSNAVS, 1824.

ilOlll TAX DURHAM COUNTY ADVYRTISER, OCT. 18.
EASTER OFFERINGS.

This was a case in which Peter Watson was the ap-
pellant, and the Rev. William Nesfield respondent; and
wss an appeal against a Magistrate's order for the pay-
inent of Easter Offerings.
Mr. COOkSON opened tha case, and addressed the
Bench at considerable length. He said he could easily
see why Peter Watson had resisted the claim ; he was a
sod of Knight Errant. a Crusader against Easter
Offerings, and travelled all over the country to
raise *1 opposition to the payment of them. His
exertions were not solely confined to the parish of
Chester-le•Street ; but he was• in fact, an itinerant,
who went from place to place, assembling multi-
tudes of people, and persuading them that Easter
Offerings were an undue and an unlawful exaction.
Ile (Mr. Cookson) knew this from a circumstance that
had occurred in a part of the country with *inch he is
intimately connected, viz. N:rrth Durham ; where the
appellant had promulgated to the inhabitants, that he
IA got Mr. Brougham's opinion on the subject, and
which was against the legality of all Easter Offerings.
lie (Mr. C.) was, however, happy to say, that another
person, who was interested on the opposite side of the
question, had actually got the opinion of that great
lawyer on it, and he stated that Easter Offerings were
due and payable of common right! The origin of
Easter Offerings could not be satisfactorily traced, but
their being due of common right was of course sufficient.
He would now come to the township of Chester-le-
Street. Mr. Ncsfield claimed 15. Bd. ft om Peter Watson,
for two year? Easter Offerings. Mr. Nesfield is the
incumbent of Chester-le•Street, and of course entitled
to the payment now demanded of Peter Watson
These Offerings were paid to different individuals, and
in different places in different manners. They would
know that the fist step of Henry VIII. when he began
his Reformation, and dissolved all the monasteries, the
funds of which, by this measure, came into his posses.
sion, was ro grant them to lay persons, and that, under
certain grants from him, not only great Tithes, but abo
small Tithes, Oblations, and Easter Offerings, became
the property of Lay Improptiators. Mr. Nesfield
bad been the incumbent of Chester•le-Street for 30
years, and had always claimed and received those
Easter Offerings by commun right and common
usage, of every house in that township, with the
exception of two, the Deanery and Garden House,
as it was a maxim in law Ecclesia, Ecclesice
deciwas non solvit."—(•l•he church does not pay
tithes to the church.) The sum demanded on the part
of Mr. Nesfield was ic:Tence ; now, if a liberal and
affluent individual chose to say, " Your demand is ten-
pence, there is a pound note," that would not alter the
custom ;—that was a present, a gt atitication ; but it
would not alter the practice. Ile should call before
them a number of witnesses, to shew the uniformity of
the custom : the first would be the Parish Clerk, who
wcti!;l ten them, horn the earliest period of his recol-
lection, their ancient usage and custom. He also had
other witnesses; and he could produce books also to
drew, that they had-.been uniformly collected for a
longer period ; but it would perhaps only involve the
case in greater mystery than it need be. He then called
their 'attention to an Act, the 7th and 8!h of William 111.
chap. 6, an Act for the more effectual recovery of
small Tithes. If Mr. Watson's witnesses can contradict
tlre.fegality of Easter Offerings, for Gon's sake let us
?are an end put to them, at least in the township of
Chester-le-Street.

Mr. WILKINSON then proceeded to call Wm. Pybus,
vho said lie had been palish clerk of Chester-le Street
thirty years. He became a resident in the parish on the
Ist of January, 1781. On the Easter Monday in that
year he was called upon by Matthias Walker, the agent
of the then Curate (the Rev. John Nelson), to pay the
Easter Offerings. He demanded the sum of tenpence,
and the witness not understanding the meaning of it,
requested an explanation. He was told sispehce was
paid for an offering hen—one penny for smoke or reek
money, and three hal/pence each for himself and wife,
as communicants above the age of 16 years, and which
he was informed was due from every occupier of a
house or tenement in the parish. Ten years after (in
1791), he was employed by the Rev. Wm. Nesfielil, to
collect the Easter Dues, and Walker's son went round
the parish with him to shew him; they called at every
house in Chester-le-Street, with the exception of two, the
Deanery and the Garden-house, which Walker told him
they never called at. During the whole 10 years before he
began to collect the Easter Dues he regularly paid ;hem.
Ever since his appointment as collector, he had uni-
formly received the dues, with the exception of the two
houses already mentioned, and a few other instances
where the poverty of the parties prevented an applica-
tten being made. Where a house is let into tenements,
every lankily pays the same. Witness knows Peter
Vratson, and either him or his wife, he cannot precisely
recollect which, paid him tenpence for Easter Offerings
in the year 1818, Which was the first time his name was
entered in the books. He has been a resident in Cites-
ter-:e-Street, ever since. In 1819 he refused to pay them.
A book was they produced which contained the names
of those who paid Easter Dues in 1711.
Thomasin Robson, a canny, tidy-looking old woinati,
aged 85 years, who had lived about 70 years in Chester-
le-Street ; George Brown, aged 79; Robert Kay, aged
77 ; and Robert Wardropper, who had all lived in
Chester-le-Street for almost all their lives, deposed to
Eas:er Dues having been uniformly collected there.
Mr. Losn, on the part, of the Appellant, then pro-
ceeded to address the Jury. It was the duty of his
learned friend (Mr. Cookson) to have proved more satis-
factorily than he had done, Mr. Nesfield's claitia to those
Easter Offerings; the only way in which he had at-
tempted to shew it was custom. His claim does
not appear in any other form than by usage. His Learned
Friend had stated the practice was uniform ; but bow
had he proved it ?. In some places, he told them, they
were paid to the Rectors, in others to the Vicars, and
in others to the Lay Impropriators. Mr. Cookson had
called Mr. Pybus, the parish clerk, who produced an
old book, to do what? why, to thew that Easter Of-
ferings were due. Why, who ever denied it ? I admit
that they are due; but the question is, to whom are
they due ?—and he thought some stronger proof of tke
legality of Mr. Nesfield's claim shriuld be produced be-
fore the Court could allow it. He would call no wit-
nesses, but left his case in the hands of Bib Bench.

The Bench conferred, and it was unanimously de-
cided that the Magistrates' conviction he coital med.
Tile Rev. WM. NesFtELD and Mr. Pia WAtsoN were
i,oth in Court ; the* ful flier oii the-Bench, but he recited;
's did all the other Clerical Magistrates before the
Court derided on the quenion.