The Sun.
London, England, 1825-06-21 00:00:00

PA itl4l AA! 14:A l ,

HOUSE OF LORDS, Mosnxy; JtivE 20.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE presented a petition from
Brodie, who had' been engaged in preparing the jourriais of the
House, praying for remuneration.
Mr. EItoGDEN and others from the. Commons brought up
the Excise Duties Bill, the Judges' Salaries AugMentation
Bill, and several other Bills.
Lord NACRE brought up the report of the Committee On
the Equitable Loan Bill.

COURT OF CH kNCERY:.
Earl GROSVENOR presented a petition from a- Mr. Gun-
nell (its we understood), complaining that Itched heeli kept out
of an annuity bequeathed to him by the Duke of Queensberry,
and had received no interest upon it. /It understood that a
commission had been appointed to investigate the delays of the
Court. of Chancery, and he hoped its report woe:TOO eatis-
faction. He should not enter into the question whether thtise
delays went occasioned by the system of the CoUrt, or by the
conduct of the persons connected with it. The subject, how-
ever, was one well worth the attention of Parliament.
The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to say a word or two
with reference to the subject of that petition. The late DUke
of Queensberry had left very great property, but in a very Con-
fused and embarrassed state; and before annuities could be
it was necessary to see that there was a principal to peiY,
them. With regard to the complaint of no interest ha`ving been
paid, that was the consequence of a rule of law. Actions had
been brought in the Court of Session, in' Scotland, respecting
the property of the late Duke of Queensberry ; and after that
Court had decided, appeals were brought to that House, and
it was not until after judgment had been given on those appeals
that the Court of Chancery could come to any determination
respecting the annuities. With respect to this question of the
annuities, he must, however, be allowed to say, that more had
been done in hastening a decision than any Court of Chancery
had ever before ventured to do; but as to the payment of in-
terest, that was out of the power of the Court, and the law
must be altered before any suitor could obtain such an object.
He must also observe, that the ablest man who ever sat in that
Court had never been able to find his way to 'an alteration of
the law respecting annuities. lie had only to add, that if one
cause for a century past could More than another be referred
to, this Queensberry cause Was the one in which the conduct
of the Court had been the most praise Worthy.
Earl GROSVENOR thought it remarkable enough that
this case, which the Noble and Learned Lord regarded as the
most favourable for the Court of Chancery, had been standing
for ten years without a decision. He thought it very hard
that persons kept out of their many for that time should receive
no interest.
Lord RE DESDA LE observed, the Noble Lord was wrong
if he expected any thing to he done relative to the subject of this
petition from the Commission which had been appointed, for
that Commission could not alter the law. As to the delay, how
could the Noble Lord say that there was any blame in the Court
delaying to pay bequests when the testator's property Was in a
state of embarrassment. lie would assert, that whatever delay
took place, was owing more to the Solicitors who practised in
the Court than any thing else, and yet they were the greatest
clamourers. This, he thought it right to say, in justice to the
Noble and Learned Lord ; and that the fact was as he had
stated, was clearly made out to his mind by the evidence before
the Commission, of which he was a Member.
Earl GROSVENOR did not mean to say that the Commis-
sioners could alter the law; but they were bound to investigate
the whole practice of the Court, and to lay their opinion on this
as well as on other points before Parliament.
Lord REDESDALE again repeated, that the Noble Lord
was quite wrong if he supposed that the Commission could have
any thing to do with the allowing or disallowing interest.—
That was a point settled by law, and could only be altered by
an Act of Parliament, to obtain which the Noble Lord might,
if he thought tit, introduce a Bill.
Earl GROSVENOR had heard that the persons who had
undertaken the investigation of the practice of the Court of
Chancery were not precisely those who ought to have been ap-
pointed for that task. He could wish that the Commission
were more efficient.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE observed, that if the rule of
Court had been altered, and interest paid on the annuities, the
claimants would now only have to coin slain of receiving so
much less of the principal. The Cast' Wald not be otherwise in
the embarrassed state of the property.
The LORD CHANCELLOR declared, that he thought it
but very natural that a person who had been left an annuity
should wish to receive interest for the time that payment had
been withheld, but that was a question which the law had
settled otherwise. The Noble and Learned Nord then
repeated what he had betbre said respecting the embar-
rassed state of the Queensterry property, and the necessity
under whitsk the Court of Chancery was to delay deciding on
the annuities until the law proueedings in Scotland were
over, and judgment had been given on the appeals made
to that House. He again observed that the Court had done
more for the suitors in this particular case than in any other
within his recollection. He must take the liberty of saying,
that there had been much clamour and calumny on the subject
of proceedings in Chancery—not by persons who meant ill, but
by persons who did not well consider the consequences of what
they talked about. If any of their Lordships thought the rule
of law with respect to the non-payment of interest wrong, they
might propose to alter it ; but his answer to any proposition of
that kind would be, that he thought the rule right. It was
impossible to know whether a person was entitled to interest
or not when it was not ascertained whether he could be
paid the principal. Much had been said about common
law and common law lawyers, but if there was any lawyer
who would say that this country could go on without a Court
of the nature of the Court of, Chancery, he would say ,that
their Lordships might us well expect to send him to the Old
Bailey, and put him to death. • The Noble Earl who had
presented the petition ought at least to do him some justice, for
in two instances in which that Noble Earl had been brought
into Chancery, he had sent him out of Court again as quickly
as possible.—The petition was laid on the table.
The Marquis of HASTINGS referred to the prints which he
expected to have been laid on the table ; but as they were not
ready, he would not move the second reading of his Bill until
they were before their Lordships.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
MR. REVRICK.

An officer from the Court of King's Bench brought up a
copy of the affidavit of John Drakard, containing a letter of
Mr. Kenrick, in pursuance of an Order of the House.
COMPLAINT OP MISREPRESENTATION.
Mr. BANKES, jun., said that he had seen some observa-
tions upon his conduct in the Committee upon the Hull
Ducks Bill in the Morning Herald newspaper, which were
entirely false and calumnious When he first saw them, he
intended to have moved that the printer be called to the
bar ; but not wishing to create any vindictive feeling, he
merely wished to say, that each of the three accusations con-
tained in the paper was grosily false. It was first said, that he
had never attended the Committee before, which was grossly
false; secondly, that he never heard a word of the evidence,
which was also false ; and thirdly, that he had come down to
the Committee with the sweepings of another Committee, and
led the decision, which was the third falsehood. He did not
go down to the Committee so attended, nor did he know when
he entered that he should ' have even foUnd a seconder. He
had acted in obedience to instructions from his constituents, and
if an opportunity were allowed •him, he should be prepared to
justify the course he had taken'apon principle.
A Message from the Lords was brought by two of the judges,
announcing their Lordships' assent to Duchess of Kent and
the Duke of Cumberland's Annuity Bill.
BERKS AND HANTS JUNCTION CANAL.
Mr. CHAS. MINIMS brought up the report of the Com•
mittee on the lierks and Hants Junction Canal Bill, which
stated that it was inexpedient.to go further into the considera-
tion of the Bill Jurist the present Session.
Mr. JONES remonstrated upon the delay of this Bill, and
complained of some of the votes which had been given in fa-
vour of the retain. Ile hoped that the Hon. Member for Corfe
Castle (Mr. Bankes) was not influenced in the rote he last gave
in the Committee by hearsay only.
Mr. BANKES insisted that_ he had been often in attendance
on the Cerninittee when the Hon. Menibe, who spoke last was,
not. and had seen enough to convinde hint that they could not
go further into the merits of . the Bill during the present Ses-
sions. His' 6-yin objection to the Bill was, that the landed in-
ter'st through whose land this Canal was to be cut were to 'a
man against it.
Mr. MONCK. principally attributed the delay to the course

• • • •.
taken by, the promoters of the Bill. The 4ecisicin watt, hew.
ever, not upon the merits,.but upo'n the impos.siklity
ing to a conclusion in the present Sessioh..' • • •-•
Mr. IVAllERLY.cencurred in the propriety bf. thelEpOrt,
which was n,,t upon the merits, but upon time. •••••
Mr. LSTCOURT said a few words respecting Abgi part
which he had taken in the Committee.
Mr. C. 1)(3 ND tS said, that from the ratement
to him, it appeared so far from. the landholders beineagiinet
the measure, the majority was in favour of it.
gr. CA,LeitA FT Was credibly. informed that the interests
of 11 out of 12 miles of the canal were against it. • -
Mr. C. DUNDAS denied that evidence to that eff-ect bad
been given before the Committee.
Mr. CA LCRAFT said that that *as besause the merits were
not follly,gune into.
Mr. BANKES said, that when the Committee went furtgar
into the case, they would see how that stood.
Sir C. iII:SE believed that the oppositian to the Bill -wax
not so general its some • lionourable Gentlemen seemed to
think.

The SPEAKER wished to address the House in explana-
tion of two points, which, though introduced into the considera-
tion of the present Bill, equally applied to every other-Mil of
the sante nature. It was supposed by some Gentlemen that the
law of Parliament disqualified Members front voting upon
Private Bills in which they had a direct interest. - lie wish-
ed to state that it was not the law, but the usage of -Pots-.
Merit, which painted out that disqualification. The role,
however, was--,at least Its he found it, and .he examined
with accuracy—that only parties were . disqualified who bad
an interest in favour of a particular measure.; those were not
who had an adverse interest. Now he submitted to thelllgose
whether. in considering this subject of Private Bills, such a
distinction ought to be sirawn.—(llear, hear.!)—The second
point was as to the admissibility of witnesses to bills respecting
which they had been also petitioners. He thought it very dit-
ficult to say how far a subscribing. petitioner ought to be dis-
qualified.as a witness. if.. knew the supposed analogy on
which the disqualification was founded, .but he also knew how
easily, by force, or fraud, or trick, a man might-be entrapped
into the situation of a petitioner, tar the -very purpose of creat-
ing his incompetency to be a witness, although he might be in
a situation to give the beSt evidence upon the business. The
better way Would, he thought, be to receive the evidence of a
party so situated, subject, of course, to his degree of credibility
from the nature of his personal interest: He threw out these
suggestions for the consideration oldie House.—(bear !)
The report was then received, and a.grece.l.to. • -
Ale. ESTCOURT gave notice, that early in next session he
would move for various accounts of the Commissioners of tie
Navigation of the Thames, and of other rivers tributary to the
Thames.. .