The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-01-29 00:00:00

TITHE MEETING.

Yesterday, in pursuance of a requisition from the
Committee appointed to confer with the Special Com-
mittee of the Corporation of London on the subject of
Tithes, a General Meeting of the Inhabitants of the Pa-
rish (ISt. Giles, Without. Cripplegate, was held at the
Church. Mr. Same' Stevens, Churchwarden, in the
Chair. The object of the Meeting was, that the result
of the conference might be laid before the Parishioners,
and that a decision should be made thereupon.
The Churchwardens had thought proper to appoint
the Meeting to take place in the Quest Room, and in
this wish they were supported by the Members of the.
Select Vestry, who were in attendance, but it being put
to the vote, an adjournment to the church was carried by
a majority of 10 to 1.
Mr. WILLIAM Newat.t., as Chairman of the Commit-
tee, rose to state the substance of their proceedings with
the Committee of the Corporation. In conformity with
the principle laid down in the instructions, they men-
tioned that the part the Parish might take on the gene.
ral question must not have the effect of involving them
in any material expence. The reply was, that the ex•
pence wnnld be of no signification. He believed that
tbol. or 100/. would completely cover it. No law ex-
pence, were to be participated in, but merely an exercise
of the energies of the Parish, in co-operation with the
Corporation, would be reqnired for the purpose of pro-
curing a repeal of the obnoxious Act. He called upon
the Meeting not to stand neuter while their fellow citi-
lens were oppressed. It was the fear of some, that if
they made a stir in the matter, they would have to pay
the whole 21. 9d. in the pound, instead of the shilling
which they now paid, but he would say, that if they
were as qniet as lambs; the Ministers of the Gospel would
fleece them. What had those Ministers to do with
tithes? Under the Jewish dispensation those rights
were conceded to the Clergy; but why did those who
embraced the substituted doctrine of Christianity, so
tenaciomilyhold that part of the rejected system? The
principle on which the great body of the e:lergy acted
was indeed nuchristian and oppressive in the extreme.
and he trusted that the citizens of London would co-
operate in the effort to procure effectual legislative
interference.
Mr. Wm. STIITEMS said. °sea the objects of the meet-
inig was to ascertaioout of what fund any expences that
nitgbt he incurred should be disbursed. The meeting
were informed, that the expence arisingfrom the cooper-
ation Would be bur trilling, and it appeared to him, that as
it would be absind to think of a rate; a subscription
should be adopted.

The eircumstences oat of ebieh the olden originated are
shortly these. The defendant 111 inateral daughter of the late
Dr. hl•Neil of Steeensten. Ste retired widths, teother alt
shoat eight or aloe years age; whale in iesselsoft or
her motiter's death, she went home to but father, wham*.
ire stntnef health reoltdred veremititog Mendes. Ilhe
7-olitinuettoffte tit dikes
The pursuer (plaintiff) became early bequainted with the de
tenant) sad having got introdeeed is hei tither, be was
occasionally emplopri by him in the management of his
affairs, end became* set of inmate in the home. By being
sometimes *seal to the old Deetimmin, in asthma mule he
gradually acquired his tonedenee; and le the year ISM he
was intrusted to carry itstreethass to Dr. Whlell's event, re-
lative to the preparation of a letterman In the defeedaut's
favour. By that deed the Dr. disposed to her the whole of
his property.betitable and moveable,whieh yielded animus'
income or 10001. This unexpected acquisition removed every
stain which illegitimacy attached to the defendant, and
I elevated her to rank and importance. There was little
doubt that the pursuer suddenly felt a violent affection
for her person as the mean of acquiringthe command of
her propery. His addresses, however, were rejected,
as the defendant had plighted her faith to Mr. Jolly,
serge" her present husband. He was lot easllr
checked, however, and io May 1816, be renewed his
pretensions with increased ardour. Again he was re-
pulsed ; but this second defeat had the effect, not of
repressing, but of irritating him, and making him more
resolute in the accomplishment of his object. He Very
soon *hewed that he had no scruple about resorting to
any means that might serve him: for one evening in
May, the 23d, after Dr. M'Neil had gone to bed, be
came to the house and begged her to accompany him to
bee father's agent with whom he said be bad business
to transact. The defendant consented to go. When
they reached Edinburgh it was late, and the pursuer
pretended that the agent would not receive them at ouch
an hour. Ceder pretence of going to a house where
they might get some refreshment, he carried the de-
fendant to Uarrobber's close, and having got her to the
(net of the stair where Mr. Robertson, of the Leith
Wynd Chapel, lived, he insisted that she should go to
Robertson's house with him. Upon her expressing
anger at this attempt, he spoke to her in such passionate
and desperate language, as to intimidate her into &com-
pliance with his request. Up then they went; and Mr.
Robertson, on being thews a certificate of the procla-
matika of banns, performed the marriage Ceremony in
the presence of his wife and daughter. After the union,
the persuer accompanied his trembling spouse to her
fstber's house, about a mile distant, where he passed
the night, hut whether he seposed in the nuptial bed
or not has not been fully brought out in evidence. It
is positively maintained by the defendant that he did
not insist on the privileges of a husband.
Notwithstanding this transaction, Mr. Jolly openly •
continued add , and their immediate marriage br
came the wore advis dale to guard against the claims of ",
his rival. In two or three weeks thereafter, the de-
fendant and Mr. Jolly were married by one of the Mi-
nisters of Leith, with the usual formality and solemnity.
The pursuer knew of the marriage, but offered no in-
terruption. He accepted gloves on the occasion—was
present at the wedding feast—and visited the pair at
divers times. Things went on li.linonionsly enough
between the two husbands till the death of Dr. M.Neill
determined the pursuer to revive his rights; and in or-
der to render them effrctull, he raised an action of dr
caseation of marriage before the Consistorial Court at
Edinburgh. etiling Mrs. Jolly as defendant—narrating
thak .. in the month of May ISI6, the parties were re-
gularly married by the Rev. Joseph Robertson, Minis-
.ter of the Chapel in Leith yn.4 ; now' theta;
.which, the said Mary Black,. or Mary lilac'
casting oil the fear of God, and' forgetting
anti Christian dtry, and rooting made at I
into. said marriage with the partner, now fl
knowledge her manage, or to cohabit with
husband." The libel then concludes for dr

marriage, &a.
The defendant, in replying to ilits•

tending. of all
lads 111'Neil,
her natural
her entering
refasee to ac.
h hit. her. •
•
leclerafroa of
, denied that
.;•
. 4 .

I

- 1

. .
any bad noteljeted whist, imuid-be hold to mutilates
marrhilla 141 Mt 'Lobed-1m oatrepped, by dueit to se.
comps.y.tbe earner to Illeberboa's stair—that there he
Dad sunaead her with wialettand threateninit lietsagel
mantel. Wketa at het. feighteseti into compliances she
was led almost lusamibleinto Mr. Robertson's house.
who, on remittag thaw, hurried over the ma
.•
ceremony whitest 'skill her a question, without in .
rubor:aeon. Without latertaining. that her appearaue
'waif'', umliwiioroed, and Tidiest receiving any ex-
Ptsoi.p. or ANOlMilimi of ooaseat ; that no menhirs*
had followed—and that the pauper, by Lis .own acts,
had vertually icloamoledgmther marriage with Jolly.
. Mete mum' averntaots fumed the ground workof.a
rolautiamtsproolt and after a keen and animated die.
ru•sion in the Commissary Court, their Lordship repo,
dieted theoseenal matriage, end found that thopogasor
21111rItee wee the burred husband of the deft/m(244er—
Afoot* thisistipsent sappeal.was taken to the Court
'Of Saito*. the omits of which same to be discussed to
rriey in the Gott divides *flee luau House. The argu-
.monts of the parties may he discovered from the opinionl
of the Judges, a brief outline of which we think. it• au
•otosaost to e)ve.
,-, . .
settosonsi ta
before the
it
Cit:un bad acme
"edotoubbet rs
shipe ;
of this cue
lii=liewamil of the evidence these had vanished.
itd
atial evidence foe the pursuer hod camisole
. I W4W4h• had now recourse to the abstract 'Ott;
of late,groulded on the mummery of a celebtatioe..'ate)
lurid* the a, is, mu there au_y_marriage ? . Woe them
l
u tree ,a u guides cont ? Did the defender aerostat,
i accept o the • pursuer as her husbaid ? He, thought
"tklue ottYtts weld not be established by the mock cell.;
htlilea et Robertson's. It took place at an untinay
•beatet;the sight; no respectable witness was present .f.
be—
.end,tcommony was hurried over in an indecent ago.
',iodides& touter by a prefeued manufacturer of mar-
, Iles hte, bee since been bviishad for his illegal prac•
it
;t e The defeatist was intimidated to go to Robertson's
4`alle Y. the Puilme& meow, of assassinating Mr.
-JanY'Aind theumnioglit deem her father's settlements,
•whiclo were in his poseumpo. and when the partite
.. returned to Dr..Mltleill's hones, the pursuer, instead of
. Insletiog ea the Iwivilegoe of a husband, slunk into his
•solititty bed. This fact was proved by the evidence of
. tits housekeeper, aid, the pursuer's subsequent conduct
?film totally et vatiasoo with tire idea of marriage. He bad
no hesitation in stating, that the attempt to establish a
• marriage was criminal:end ahourd.
Lord .60maat concurred in opinion with Lord Her-
meld, liicami4B.that by the taw of Scotland, consomme
non toneneiteelabcit nsafrimmismi ; that the consent
guest pm polo* and deliberate, whether the marriage
toolottimee (Orkeie eeelmia, or otherwise. The erre-
mentors& a mere eirilorder, istrodated by positive lam,
and did not infringe on this essential requisite. The
consent,
.see; must be mutual, al exchanged • without
free or (read. Weto these principles borne out by the
facts oft premint emir Wu Ct not rather a vile scheme
te
t e wheel her into his criminol objects. For these reasons
he did po think the celebration worths jot, because
there was u evidence of that free and full content
wieich the I w imperatively required. Besides, there
la
• *as no regular proclametion of banns. The certificate
protean: to Robertson was dated the 21st of Alay, Ind
the marriage took place 'on the 284. The dictum °film
law was. that the banns should be proclaimed, in the pa-
rishes w e parties tee*, these three consecutive
Sundays, was not tiqu here. two Joys wear
. 4.tertened !unseen the &tinting of the Certifiouto and
toe marriage. The defender was not accessary MI this
fratidulent decree—she could not prevent the pursuer
•Ti'oni prolog to the Sestina Clerk, who will give a certi-
trout to say person for a few shillings. It was, for the
moat et regular proclamatiou that bestowal the marriage
as clandestine, and wee. on that mecums, subject to all
the exceptions.which the law points against that mode
of union. Upon the whole, his Lordship entirely coin-
ci led with his Learned Brother's opinion.
Lord Grimes was clearly of opinion that the marriage
' between the pursuer and defender was regular and mast
lite onstai nett. lftbe contrary doctrine were to be held,
the marriages which taken place in Scot;
lend for half a watery • might be annulled.
- ilere the permits wee, of mature age—the defender was
kyears of age. sod the pursuer somewhat older. Both
new whit they were about; still no 'objection was
made.--Tbe defender, as appears from the proof, silently
acquiesced=-made no struggle on the occasion, and ex.
pressed not one word of dissent. There was, however,
one difficulty which had not been stated by their Lord.
• ships, and that was, the conduct of the pursuer in allow.
ing the defender's marriage with Jolly—a conduct base
and depraved in the highest degree; It was just as bad.
• in the eye of morality and religion, as if h' had married
• il•srcond wife himself while the first was in being. This
v./Anhui appromal was sufficient to bar the pursuer from
' insisting in his suit.
Lerd Sue:cote made a few remarks in approbation of
thr coarse proposed by Lord Gillies.
l'he Loam PILVIIIIMNT also concurred in the views of
Lords Surcoth and (dillies, and thought further evidence
necessary before a jam estimate could be made of the
whole features 'tribe case.
The decision of the Court was—remitting back the
whole cause to the Commissioners, with instructions to
adduce further proof on the various parts of the case.