The Statesman.
London, England, 1812-11-12 00:00:00

THE STATESMAN.

ence the British Cabinet. Taxation has -advanced
with giant strides ; and becanso the people have been
docile under their burden, yo 3 calculated that
.ex.
treme taxation was likefy to Make all the people
tame, if not happy. The French people are, how-
ever, of a different temnerament. They rebrlled
against their Sovereign when their taxes amounted,
I on a ratio, to about forty shillings a-head : tEcetry
vhillings a-head will now cover the demand made
upon them ; and this beneficial change in their sys-
tern of taxation they attribute to BoNsextrrc.—
Then, were such a people likely to operate a counter-
! revolution ? The effect of such a• scheme has
beets tried, and has failed ?." Your Lordship's
measures are much more likely to bring about
a revolution in England, without designing it,
than a counter-revolution in France. Boundless
taxation is not relished theiv, and here it may not
always be the fashion to admire it. The people of
England will one day take it into their heads to cal-
f ciliate npo❑ the difference there is between the quan-
; turn of taxes paid in France, and in England ; and
if they do, the. event may be fatal to yoUr Lordship's
bed of runs, la • France the people pay one pound
per head, while in England ten pounds per head. are
annually extracted from their pockets. • This is a
frightful difference, my Lord, for the inhabitants of
Britain to contemplate upon ; a difference which
t may be pregnant with cruise:lt:ernes, which have
I never e: t ,red into your Lordship's
Therefore, my Lord, for the sake of your own peace
of mind, for the sac of your august Master, and for
I the sake of the internal repose of these kingdoms,
'suffer tae to prevail upon your Lordship to be more
jast, and to adopt new and better °pillions ; and you
will find that the generosity of the people of England
is not yet exhausted.

.•
attended the school. They set off together, and
were away about a fortnight. ;They then returned
as man and wife, and were received as such. Ano-
ther circumstance which corroborated the fact of the
marriage, the Learned Serjeant agreed, was to be
collected from the fact, that when the Defendant's
mother at one time left,Mr. Crew, he made a settle-
ment of an an laity upon her. The - Learned Ser-
jeant contended, however, that it was incumbent on
the DAndant, in such circumstances as these, the
Imother being under age at the 'time, to prove the
marriage by writing, or by proclamation of banns.,
Lord Er.r.rpreottounn asked, wijat evidence was
i there that the parties did not go to Scotland ? '
1 Mr. Serjeant LrNs—" The declaration of the wo-
man herself."

Lord F.t.r.r.xnonountt said, this might be a doubt-
ful case, but there being no new evidence to be ad.
E duced, if they were to send it back to the Jury,
they would send it in a state as doubtful as before.—
: Thirty years had,elapsed slime the period of the sup-
!, posed marriage ; this was a Isnig recognition of it,
and the circumstance of a voltintary annual pay meat
by Crew to his supposed wife, while they wore se-
parated,
was an additional recognition of a marriage
which could not fail to carry some weight along with •
it. It was to be observed, too, that there might
even hate been an iudi•Soluble celebration of the
marriage in England, if they could only be indoced
to give the scope of a few days more than the for
night during which the parties were allowed to Lave
-been absent, previous to the time. when they re-
turned as man and wife. All this was matter for

the Jury, and the Court must hnve something stronger
than what presented itself in this case'before it stsr.t.
'it back again. '!Tigre was no rule of law which
made it necessary to prove thJ marriage.—Rule
refused.

IDLE. V. THOR\TON.

The Soucivua-G UNF.RAL moved for a rule to spew
cause why the nonsuit in this case should not be set
aside, and a new trial be granted. It was,an ao.t ion
on a contract for delivery, for a quantity of tallow.
.IThe contraet was as follows :—" Idle, Brothers, and
Co. bought of Stephen, Thornton, Brothers, and
ICo. (mentioning the quantity of tallow) on arrival.
11f the tallow did not arrive on or before the 31st of
December, then the bargain to be void. The tallow
HAT-MARKET TIILATRE.—MORRIS V. COLMAN.
to be taken at the King's landing-scales, Ex Catha-
This case 'came before his Lordship on exception; rina, Ivers, Master." The. Defendants did import
to the Master's Report, tiled by the Defendant, and by the Catharine, a sufficient quantity of tallow to ,
sni•porqd by Sir
.SANarar, Ronir.t.y and Mr. Baer- enable him to fulfil his contract. The vessel, how-
The grounds of the exceptions were, that the Be- ever, by stress of weather, was driven into the liar- ;)
fendant, Mr. Colman, who was originally sole hour of Montrose, in Scotland, and instead of !
owner of this Theatre, and had sold one-fourth part bringing up the tallow to London, and delivering it
thereof .to Mr. Morris, the Plaintiff; 'and another to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants took it to Leith,andt
fourth part to Mr. Witistoti, the S!age-manager ; and ' sold it there. That, he contended, bad occurred,
to Mr. Tahourdin, in equal shams or moieties, re- ' which bound the Defendants to fulfil their contract.
serviug to himself one moiety or half of the whole I The tallow had arrived, and the contract bound them
concern. There was a deed b tweed the parties., 'to deliver it, . .
enacting that no share should be sold without a pre- I
Lord Ei.r.vrnonoucn said be had been, of Opinion
Terence being given to the original proprietor,
with
on the trial, and he was so still, that the parties 1
one month's time to consider the proposal, before contemplated thearrival of the tallow in London ;
any stranger should be produced. Mr. Morris •.
if not, why specify that it was to he taken from the I
bought the share of Mr. Tahourdin, without such
King's landing-scales. The Defendants, et all eventiO
previous notice as the deed required being given to
should have brought themselves• within the .equity of ,
the other proprietors; and under the objection to ,
the ease, and have offered' to bring up the tallow.'
this sale the exceptions were taken to the terms of
1 frpin Montrose to Londont at their own expellee.—
the deed lately prepared by the Master, by virtue i .
Rule refused.
of the decree of this Court, for adjusting all matters I •
in difference between the parties. The Defeedatit I STEMLESS v. PIERE ELEZEE. -
contended, that although he was willing that the ! Mr. PARK moved for a rule to sinew cause why the
Plaintiff should take any pecuniary share of the verdict for the Plaintiff in this case should not be set
profits of the Theatre, by purchase, with his con-
!aside, and re nonsuit entered. It was art action on a
sent, yet he did not mean or consent that he should :' bill of exchange for 3001. and the Ihf..inflant had
take any further orsreater power in voting or carry. , pleaded bankruptcy.
ing on the concerns. After a long discussion, his i
It appearing, however, that the Comnlistion had
Lordship desired the further arguments in this Case
been taken out against the D.:fendant, in the nem^ of
i
'o stand adjourned to a future day. :p
Vincent Tallishon, and not in that of Piere Elezee,
the -.Nil, found for the Plaintiff. He now moved for a
new trial, on an affidavit, disclosing a number of
material facts. In the first place, it was a standine

L<IIV ISTELLNENCE.

MENTOR..

COURT OF Cif ANC—RY, Nov. 11.

•
pen.
t
wr,g,
ithiut
lt 03
I,s t,
r.r% ta
this
• tht
led
•
sines
Luc.
Crud
s tia
it MI.
ui ed..
ier ha
!cord_ '
lined
raoo. •
ye uo
' your
‘.7,..
e
fast
lucra
udge,
dig.
rule
3y a....
, said,
'era:de
.min;
's pre.
lid th.s
wit.
lailitiif
aid
it (Ni-
ls but
,
e
(the
to tz,
toads
wi.es
coot.
turd a
J
3rstatd
Of his'
mls.
that as
Should
ft, r a
'N. set
.
r come
woelll
er.01....
p: 1113
e
((nears
it was