The Sun.
London, England, 1826-11-04 00:00:00

Ing it unjust that he shoal(' be tt sufferer by any mis-
understanding with them`'--that he thought .so too,
and was therefore disposed to agree to what he con-
sidered only a just settlement—that having omitted to
recall the order to Mr.O'BRIEN, the sale was arranged,
by its being taken for the Greek Government at 13
discount, (the price of the Scrip in the market being
15i to 15 discount,)—that, however, he then wrote
a letter on the 29th July, 1824, to Mr. O'BRIEN, to
say, " that though he was willing to make a sacrifice
of 1,3001. yet, as he had been compelled to do so by
the conduct of the Greek Deputies, he considered
that it would be only just to allow it to go to the Greek
Government at par." That the Stock was sold, and
he received the sum he had paid, deducting the 1,3001.
That from this time (July) to the end of November,
nothing further was done, although, whenever the sub-
ject was mentioned, he did not hesitate to express a
very decided opinion that he had suffered this loss
most unjustly through the means of the Deputies, and
that no dependence was to be placed on their word or
writing—that at the end of November the offer of the
Deputies being renewed, he accepted it, viewing it as
a matter of right rather than of favour ; the more so
as the Greek Stock bad risen to about par.—That on
the 16th December he received the said sum of 1,300/.
with 541. interest thereon, for the time he had been
out of the money—and that now the Honourable
Member is willing to submit the matter to two impar-
tial ioersons, and that if they think he ought to refund
the 1,3001. with interest thereon, up to the present
time, he will do so ! !

We believe we have thus given a faithful analysis of
Mr. HUME'S own statement of the whole transaction,
and at present we shall only add, that we believe the
Hon. Gentleman could not find Iwo men in the whole
kingdom who would not declare that he ought to
refund every farthing which be thus received from the
Greek Deputies.

In the present stage of the charge upon which Mr.
JoitN WILK s, Jun., was brought up before the LORD
MAYOR yesterday, we shall abstain from making any
observations. The Honourable Member's progress in
public notoriety has been brilliant, 'but it may be
short-lived.

A contemporary Journal, in its number of yester-
day, has published a letter signed signed " A Bar-
rister of 30 years standing," and addressed to Lord
REDESDALE, on the subject of what the Jour-
nal in question calls " Masked Legislation," or the prac-
tice of inserting in Acts of Parliament covert expres-
sions, to obtain indirectly the same power which di-
rectly the Legislature would not grant. be instance
quoted is the new Annuity Act, 3 Geo. IV. c. 02.,
which is said by its crafty
,wording, to overthrow
legal decisions of several years standing. Although we
are fully aware that the reprehensible and disgraceful
practice here alluded to, is an every day practice whilst
the Legislature is sitting, we are sorry to be obliged to
add, that the example quoted by the Barrister of 30
years standing does not fit, for the Act in question
does not overthrow any legal decisions whatever, fur-
ther than is usually the case where an old law is re-
pealed, and a new one made ; and if, therefore, the
objection raised on this ground to the Act in question,
is of any validity at all, it would cease to forbid any
further repeal of any old law, however impolitic, or
however unjust. This Barrister also says, that the
Act in question was founded on falsehood, because
the recital stating that doubts were entertained whe-
ther it were necessary that the Christian names of wit-
nesses should be inserted at length in the Memorials,
was not true, inasmuch as no such doubts did
exist. To show that such doubts did not exist, the
Barrister then quotes the case of Cheek v. Jefferies,
in which the Court:held, without argument, that such
additions 'were necessary. Now, we ask this Bar-
rister, whether the fact that the Court was called upon
to decide the case above quoted, does not prove that
such doubts did exist prior to that case ? The Act
only says, that doubts have been entertained, and then
because the Legislature deemed the decision of the
Court not consistent with justice, although supported
by law, it proceeds to remove the law on which the
decision was founded, and then to declare how such
leases shall be dealt with in future. , The Barrister is
therefore wrong in his argument at every point ; so
wrong as to proclaim himself the defeated granter of
an annuity, and either no Barrister at all, or one who
has paid hut little attention to his legal studies. Not
only is the Barrister wrong in Ins argument, he is
wrong in his facts; the Act was not smuggled through
either House of Parliament • it was the Bill of the
present Master of the Rolls, brought in by him,
passed on his advocacy, and we believe, we may add,
originated with him. The Bill, indeed, did not even
pass sub silentio ; a debate or two arose upon it, and
so careful was the author of the Bill to prevent any
unjust operation of his new law, that clauses were added
expressly saving all eases then pending before any
Court of competent jurisdiction; but very rightly and
properly protecting annuities already existing, unless
proceedings were taken to set them aside on or be-
fore the 31st May, 1822. We beg leave to add, for
the information of this Barrister, that the Act he
quotes is the 3d Geo. IV. c. 92. not the sth as he
supposes. This practice of making legislative enact-
ments, is in truth, one of rare occurrence in what are
called public Bills, but in private Bills is universally
adopted ; and numberless are the conferences which
take place between counsel and the solicitors of a
Bill, as to the best way of cheating the penetration of
those persons who have taken upon themselves the
task of looking into drafts of private Acts submitted
to the consideration of each branch of the Legisla'
Lto be learned in framing
u re
these
; jobs, is
of the human brain for for-
warding,
s that of wrapping up obnoxious
Powers in equivocal
expressions; and so successfully
iiiingdeeneidous the chief art
has the art beau followed, that the practisers of it have
always succeeded in lulling the most watchful vigi-
lance. In this manner powers have been granted to
a little unto of jobbers, at once hostile to the inte-
rests of '
the district where they are put in force, and
opposed to every principle of the British Constitution,
posters which were a ministry to ask for them, would