The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-02 00:00:00

tion applied to a clerk high in the Treasury, begging
him to send down a couple of gentlemen to canvas
the electors, as Tayleure, one of the then mem-
bers, had made up his mind to resign, and Tynte,
the other, held his seat on a very precarious te-
nure ; and that that Treasury Clerk applied to Sir
Charles Manners Sutton, Men Speaker of the House
of Commons, who immediately selected a Mr. J. Broad-
wood, and a Lieutenant F. M. Martyn, of the 2d Life
Guards, as fit persons for canvassing Bridgwater on
Tory•principles. This Sir Charles Manners 'Sutton
did, when the Duke of Wellington was discharging all
the duties of the three Secretaries of State, and at least
thirty-two days before the dissolution of the House of
Commons of which he was Speaker. Was this con-
' duct—we will not say decent or decorous—honour-
able or honest ? Was it for him, of all men, during
the prorogation of Parliament, when he was more
particularly bound to watch over the interests of
those whom he represented, not Merely to plot
the dissolution of Parliament, but to become
as it were, a general election-agent for the Tories ?
What ties, after this, are to be deemed binding ? A
Speaker, during a prorogation, busily employed in ma-
naging the elections for a new Parliament ! The ties
between him and the House are not dissolved ; and
yet, unmindful of them, he is recruiting for a new
House ! We doubt whether the annals of Parlia-
tnent furnish an instance of conduct equally indelicate
and discreditable. Were the Reformers to choose
this man a second time, they would deservedly be the
objects of universal scorn. No ; the Reformers cannot
so far stultify themselves I A press of matter compels
us reluctantly to dismiss Sir Charles Manners Sutton
for the present ; but as the subject is any thing but
exhausted, we shall resume it to-morrow.—Morning
Chronicle.

COURT OF CHANCERY.

FIELDER V. SMITH.

This case was very fully argued to-day before the LORD
CHANCELLOR, upon the point whether it was a proper one
for an appeal to this Court as a Court of Equity, by Mr.
WAKEFIELD upon the part of the plaintiff, and Mr. JACOBS
for the defendant. The LORD CHANCELLOR decided that
the case was one in which there was no ground for an
appeal.

ARRANGEMENT OF BUSINESS.
A motion, partly heard on a former day, praying a dis-
covery of papers from the Fishmongers' Company was then
about to be proceeded with.
Mr. COOPER had personally no objection to the motion
going on, but as this was the day on which the junior Bar
claimed to have their motions heard, he protested against
the hearing of this cause being established as a precedent.
The LORD CHANCELLOR admitted there was reason for
this, as the day was undoubtedly the peculiar property• of
the junior Bar. His Lordship thought, however, that this
was a good opportunity to mention his intention of sitting
on the Thursday, Friday, and Saturday of the week after
nest (that is, the three days before the first Seal), for the
purpose of hearing motions. His Lordship added, that he
was the better able to do this, because he had now reduced
the appeals set down before him, to the number of five, in-
cluding in these the Attorney-General v. Shore, and the
matter of Lord Skelmersdale. In this state of the busi-
ness, too, it was also his intention to devote two days, in-
stead of one, in succeeding weeks, for the purpose of hear-
ing motions, there being, as he understood, some accumula-
tion, which it was expedient to get rid He hoped this
arrangement would prove satisfactory to the Bar.
Mr. COOPER, on the part of the Bar, expressed himself
perfectly satisfied. The arrangement would obviate every
inconvenience.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

DONOVAN V. DONOVAN.

• _
The testator, James Donovan, a very wealthy merchant,
of Dublin, lately deceased, bequeathed the residue of his
personal estate to his second son James. By a codicil he
bequeathed five thousand pounds to his grandson Henry,
the eldest son of the testator's eldest son Alexander, and
five hundred pounds a piece to each of the children of his
daughter, Mrs. Braddell. By a second codicil, he gave one
thousand pounds to his grandson, James Tertius, the son
of James. His third codicil recited that his property had
greatly increased, and by it he gave thirty thousand pounds
to his son James, and divided the residue between his sons
Alexander and James, and then occurred the passage of
this eodicil upon which the question in the cause turned :
" I hereby give to each of my grandchildren alive at my
death the full sum of one thousand pounds sterling, with
one thousand pounds already bequeathed by my codicil to
my grandson, James Tertius Donovan, that is, two thousand
pounds to James Tertius Donovan, and one thousand pounds
to each of my other grandchildren, the children of my se-
cond son James, the interest thereon to be applied to their
education, the principal to be paid to them at the age of
twenty-one, or sooner, with their father's consent and ap-
probation." A fourth codicil, principally relating to his
grandson Henry, recited that the testator had " by his will,'
bequeathed to him the sum of six thousand pounds. The
question was, whether only the children of James, or all the
grandchildren of the testator by all his children, were en-
titled to one thousand pounds each under the words of the
third codicil.
Mr. ROLFE, in support of the former construction, con-
tended that some previous inquiries were necessary con-
cerning the state of the testatsr's family and assets.
His HONOUR was far from saying the construction of the
third codicil was clear. But the last codicil appeared to
him to put a construction upon the bequest in favour of all
the grandchildren. Upon the whole, therefore, his Honour
declared that all the grandchildren of the testator were en-
titled to a bequest of 1,0001. each.

ROLLS' COURT.