The Sun.
London, England, 1838-03-05 00:00:00

MARYLEBONE ELECTION.

Ass
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
Sta,--On Saturday evening I took occasion to call your
attention and that of the public to the apathy and indifference
of which the Liberals of the Borough of St. Marylebone were
guilty, in the recent contest which has so disgracefully termi-
nated. It will be my intention, in the short letter I now take
the liberty of addressing to you, to make one or two remarks
on the manner in which Lord Teignmeuth's Committee con-
ducted themselves, and to offer a caution to some of the
electors of that influential borough which, if acted upon, will
in all human probability, be productive of incalculable benefit
to them : and not only to them, but to all who are actuated by
that pure and noble principle—their country's love.
It will be admitted on all hands, that the Committee of the
Noble Lord worked day and night for the accomplishment of
their object ; every elector, without one exception, was can-
vassed, and flattered, and every inducement that human in-
genuity could devise, or to which mortal tongue could have re-
course, held out in the solicitatioa of his vote. The greatest
courtesy was paid to every elector before the polling com-
menced, and when a person presented himself at the booth, to
tender his vote for his Lordship, several noblemen and gentle-
men who were in attendance addressed him thus :—" We beg
to thank you most respectfully for your vote in favour of Lord
Teignmouth." Now these things, all will readily acknow-
ledge, are mere clap-traps ; but they have great weight. We
all know how readily we are captivated by any appearance of
kindness and attention shown to ourselves, even if it is only ap-
pearance. To these shifts, so necessary during an election,
the Liberals did not resort. Of the Tory party, in respect to
the electors, they fell miserably short.
One word of caution to the electors, more especially to those
in the humbler walks of life. It is rumoured in the borough
that some of the tax-gatherers were bribed not to press the
poorer portion of the voters, until the expiration of the time
allowed by the Act. Many not giving the subject a thought,
did not inconvenience themselves in paying their taxes,
until the Collector became troublesome. When the re-
port of an approaching election became prevalent, they
turned their thoughts to the affair, and then they
perceived how successfully they had been deceived. Ido not
insinuate that such a course of conduct was adopted by the
Noble Lord, or any one connected with him ; but any person
who has common powers of discrcrimination, will clearly see
that such might easily be the case, especially if the collector
is favourably inclined to the Conservative candidate. Such
being the cast, it becomes the bounden duty of the poorer
electors to guard well their liberties against the crafty machi-
nations of their insidious foe. If they repose in imaginary se-
curity, and indulge in a mis-placed confidence, it is not, it
cannot be, the fault of 'the Liberal party if all their privileges
and all the comforts they now enjoy, and which they have
fought so nobly and perseveringly to obtain, be now wrested
from them. To each one of them I say, and I say respectfully,
but boldly, " Think on these things."
I am, Sir, your's, very respectfully,
Monday Morning. H. J. P.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY.)
The Lord CHANCELLOR, Lord DACRE, and Lord DE SAUMAREZ, at
In the House of Lords today to hear Scotch Appeals.

DUNLOP V. L•MBRIIT.
The arguments in this part heard appeal were resumed, but had hot
concluded when our Reporter left.

ROLLS' COURT-(THIS DAY.)

PC/ULTRA V. *TOTEM).
This bill was filed for the specific performance of an agreement, but
during the opening of the pleadings the parties came to an arrangement
that a decree should be made for a specific performance, on the follow-
ing terms :—The plaintiff to pay the defendant 2071., and defendant
receiving rents up to Lady-day, 1838; the estate to be conveyed to
plaintiff by defendant on payment of 207/. and the grant of the right of
sporting on the estate to be made to the defendant and his nephew,—No
costs on either side.

•
ALDLIISEY V. ALDERSET.
The bill in this case was filed by Mr. Samuel Aldersey, against the
representatives of a gentleman of the same name; and the object of it
was to have a sum of 12,0001., bequeathed by the will of the defend-
ant's testator, applied according to the trusts of the will, in payirje certain debts charged on the estates of the plaintiff
It appeared from the opening of Mr. PEMBERTON, who was counsel
for the plaintiff; that in the year 1772, an estate at Aldersy, in Chester,
was subject to certain mortgages to the amount of 4,7001., and subject
to those mortgages. The Rev. Samuel Aldersey, of Aldersey, and
Robert Aldersey, of the Inner Temple, London, the son of Samuel
Aldersley, were seized of such estates. On the 28ah November, 1775,
Samuel and Robert Aldersey executed a joint bond to secure the 5251.
and interest, which was also a charge on the estate. Samuel
Aldersey died in October, 1803, and Robert Aldersey died
in November, 1802, without issue, whereupon Samuel Aldersey, the
father of the plaintiff, became tenant for life in possession. He died
in August, 1803, when the plaintiff became tenant for live In pos.ses-
sion of those estates. The bond for 5251., granted by Samuel and
Robert, was paid off by the plaintiff and the mortgage for 4,700/., still
remains a charge on the estate. The plaintiff has remained from 1803
to the present time in possession of these estates, as tenant tbr
life. In the course of that time, lie was under the necessity of
borrowing considerable suers, and a relative, Mr. Daniel Aldersey, who
lived in Chester, who seems to have been a wealthy bachelor, regarding
this gentleman as the head of his family, made many inquiries with re-
spect to the state of his circumstances, and the debts which it was sup-
posed he had contracted, and which were likely to affect his estates. tie
was informed by the agent of the plaintiffthat the amount of his engage-
ments were not less than 12,0001. Mr. D. Aldersey expressed anxiety to,
have them relieved, and on the 22d Jan., 1821, he made his will, thee
object of which was, first, to provide for his two brothers, al so
bachelors, and upon their death, without issue, then so to limit, e,
estates, that 12,0001. of his personal estate should be applied i n .re-
lieving the present plaintiff from the incumbrances to whi,„th his
estates were or might be subject. Daniel Aldersey died on the 26th
January, 1821, and his representatives estimated the assets co pay the
120,00/. The testator's brother having died without issue, 'ate 12,000/,
became applicable accordidg to the trusts of the will. It, appeared that
solicitors in that part of the country acted AS money, scriveners, and
clients placed money in their hands to be lent oat on their behalf.
Messrs. Brook and Lee, who carry on business at. Whltchurch, appear
to have been:the gentlemen through:whose clients the plaintifFborrowed a
considerable sum of money— 8,6211. In 1822 Mr. Aldersley was desirous of
borrowing a further sum of 1,1001., and application was made to Messrs.
Brook and Lee for that purpose. But they 'mount alarmed at dot-
way in which Mr. Aldersey was going on, and thought they could n.c.O,
safely permit the 8,625/. to remain any longer unsecured. The plain..
tiff agreed to charge that sum, together with the 1,5001. on his estates.
and in April, 1822, deeds were executed for that purpose.
Mr. BARBER and Mr. RICHARDS also appeared for the pb.intiii.
Mr. TINNIT appeared for the infant heir, and had no objection ID
the 4,7001. and 5251. being paid off.
Mr. KINDERBLEY, for the representatives of Daniel Aldersey, the
testator under whose will the question arose, submitted whether, under
the circumstances of the case, there were any mortgages or encum-
brances on the estate to which the 12,0001. was applicable. The
Learned Counsel contended, first, that the testator meant to discharge
the encumbrances only that existed at the time of his death, and, secondly
that supposing the debts were not so limited, then that the alleged mort-
gage or incumbrances were not such as came within the testator's
meaning.
Mr. PEMBERTON replied.

Lord LANGDALE thought the debts came within the meaning oe the
clauCe in the will, although as the debts amounted to more than 1'2,0001.,
there might be a considerable question raised between the rzmditors.
His Lordship directed an inquiry as to who were the incumbra /leers, and
ordered the 12,0001. to be paid into Court; the costs to be yaid out of
the testator's assets.