The Sun.
London, England, 1826-05-01 00:00:00

ZqEETING OF THE PRIVY. COUNCIL.

On Saturday the Lords of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy
Council assembled at the Council Office, Whitehall; to hoar French
Appeals against the decision of the. Commissioners appointed to
investigate the claims of British subjents.„
Their Lordships assemblcsi at halfrptist ten o'clock. . There were
present the Earl of ILirrowhy,- as., the Lard President'; Lord
Stowell, Lord Colchester, Lord Bexleyy and the Master of the
Rolls. Sir. John Nicholl was prevented from giving his attend-
ance, in consentience of having received a severe injury from being
thrown frani his horse, on Friday, in St. James's Park.
The Earl,of Ilarrowby, after be had opened the Court, retired
to attend a meeting of the Cabinet Ministers at the Earl of Liver-
pool's' house, at ,the breaking up .of which, at half past twelve
o'clock, the Noble. Earl resumed his seat the Board.
The .first Appeal was the case of, 44 Younghusband," which
occupied hut a short time.

The next Appeal was " Mrs.. Duffield and others," which oc—
cupied the remainder of the day.
Mr. Fonblanque and Mr. Carr were heard for the appellants ;
and the King's Advocate and Mr. Tyndal, in opposition.
It appeared that Mrs. Duffield, and other English women, six
in number, had emigrated from England to France, and became
proprietors of a Monastery in Paris, which 'was known by the
name of the blue-eyed Nunnery, where Nuns were received, and
Mrs. Duffield was elected Abbess, by 'the other inhabitants of the
place, which had been established as a nunnery for about 200
years, sanctioned by the King of France and the Pope Alexander.
At the time of the Revolution, in the year 17901 all Monasteries
and similar religious establishments were abolished, which in-
cluded that of Mrs. Duffield.

On the 10th October, 1793, a decree was issued, confiscating
all British property, which included these premises.
In the month of November, 1705, the property was restored,
and in the year.l9oo it was again confiscated.
During all these years, after the abolition, of the Convents,
Monasteries, gint Mrs. Duffield and other females connected, were
alldwed to pursue the profisision of teaching young females; and,
in purstring this course, it was contended that they had forfeited
their character! as British subjects, and therefore had a good claim
for the restoration of their confiscated property, which consisted
of a hOuse, a church, and gardens.
Her claim was opposed on various grounds, viz. that she had
become a French subject ; that she had embarked her money in
un illegal establishuvnt, which could not be considered. secular;
their Lordships' decision. was urged in the case of Douay College as
being against this ; and the only capacity she could claim was as
a lay subject. It was also_ urged against Mrs. Duffield, . that she
claimed for herself the three survivors out the seven, and also
for tin, administrators of the deceased partners, without its appear-
ing by what authority she.' did so.
Mr. Foliblanyue adinitted and regretted the informality, but
urged the equitable claim upon ,their Lordships, and trusted that
if they shonid think the inforn4tYnta)i that, they would at least
award the portion of Mrs. Dojo .!*►tuljviat}a Haim.
At half-past two, Counsel wry, Ordered to withdraw. Their
Lordships continued in privatelleliberation till half-peet fonr O'clock,
but did not make their decision known.