The Statesman.
London, England, 1814-05-05 00:00:00

THE STATESMAN

,terest of. the_CotnPany, exceeded Lord Wellesley.—
lie could wish to see a statue erected to the Noble
Lord within the walls of that Court, and he should
make a motion to that effect on a future day.
The Criatest.te expresiett his opinion that any
motion of that nature would he well received ; hut
the present was not the proper day to bring it for-
ward. lie then • proceeded to state,,that the Earl
of Buckinghamshire (whose pension was the neat
in the list) had requested that the subject might not
be brought forward. The last pension that had been
granted was to the late Lord Melvilleewho at his
death had left his affairs in a very embarrassed state ;
and whose son, having taken upon him the payment
of his father's debts, had been much distressed then,
in consequence of, an action that did so much honour
to his filial piety. Considering the eminent services'
rendered to the Company by Mr. Dundas, it might
be thought a well judged act of liberality to assist
his family ; and, perhaps, on a future .day, some
Gentleman might make a motion on the subject.—
A letter was thee ;cad from the Earl of Bucking-
hamshire, expressing_his warm approbation of the
contiuuance of the pension of Lord Wellesley, and
staling, that 20,0001. of the late Lord Melville's
debts remain'ed as yet unpaid ; and that, perhaps,
the Court of Proprietors might think proper to con-
' time the pension granted to the. late Lord, till that
sum should be discharged. For himself, he should
accept of no pension, while he was in office; and
wished that question to be discussed, only when he
should leave tha Board of Controul.
'1 Mr. K. JACKSON was of opinion, That the de-
-1 scemlauts of Lord Melville had a claim on the li-
berality of the Court, as it was in a great meat.
. sure by means of Lord Melville that the Company
Inow existed. .
Mr. Lowenes had two years ago proposed an ed.
, &lob' •to Marquis Weltesley's pension. Ile, asked,
' if Us brother (formerly - Sir Arthur Wellesley) had
' a pension ? -and beinransw!red in the negative, sig-
f niged his intention to fill up that gap ill the pension
[ list. He thought, the pension should be continued
I to the present fiord Melville till his father's debt
were paid; and he also proposed to Misite- an I
crease to .Mr. Ilastings awl Marquis. Weilletley, an
' hoped no Gentleman would take the
.nteksure out si
f his hands. _ .

General HUMS could sty nothing ton strong on
the subject of Lord Wellesley. The Noble Lord
had given him almost unlimited powers when he went
to besiege Seihripatam ; and had he not been in-
vested with such powers, Seringapatam could not
haie been taken.

Alderman A rntNs Paid, the question at present
was as to be letter of Lord Buckinghamshire ; and
moved, t!ertt the Court of Directors should take into
eonsiderniton thy part of the letter regarding the
,date Lori Melville, and report upon the same to the
Court of Proprietors. •
The motions after some observations on the part
of Me. fietaa;--"Mr. Twtss, and the •Depety.(litels..
man (Mr. J. latitas), was seconded by Mr. JACK-
SON.
Mr. LOWNDEII, Mr. R.. THORNTON/ Mr. WHlT-
gimp Ke.rmv:, and Mr. Irsarscrotry.airurged the
propriety et doing something do the timidly of a man
who had been so great a benefactor • *the Cimpany
as Lord Melville had been.
ft was then agreed tos that the motion on this
subject should originate withthe- Directors.
It was then resolved, that tilt letter of Lord Buck-
inghamshire should be printed.
The discussion of these resolutions was fixed for
this day three weeks.

THE NAVY.

their Lordships' opinlool Ail -to give universal- sa•-
tisfaction ; •and they are induced to Make this: mom.
munication to the fleet, because .they think that the.
exemplary good conduct .of. all the Petty
.04cers,
Seamen, and Marines, entitle them to every con-
fidence, and to this full and candid explanation of
their Lordships' intentions.
" Their Lordships cannot conclude, without ex-
pressing their hope, that the valour of his Majesty's
fleets and armies will speedily bring the American
contest to a conclusion honourable to the British
name, safe for British interests, and conducive to the
lasting repose of the civilised world.
" By command of their Lordships,
" J. W. UtOKER."

LAIW INTELLIGENCE.
•
• . • •
COURT 'OF CjiI4NCERY, MAT 4.
Before hts Bionoui riex-eit..ezecELLOa ,
There were two pletti.arigued, of ao Interest, 4ta.'
cept to the parties concerted.
The Lord Chancellor heard Appeal Causes la'the
House of Lords. . • • • t •

• I

MAY S.

EXJPARTE WATSON THE MATTER OF WATSON:

NELSON, AND co.
This was an application on the part of the children
of the deceased Thomas Wright Watson, for liberty
to prove a debt of 47,0001. under a commission
awarded against their mother and two Gentlemen of
the name of Nelson, the quondam partners of their
father, with whom the mother entered into partner-
ship after the father's death, embarking as her share
in that concern not only her own four-ninths of her
hisbancl's capital, but the five-ninths belonging to the
children also. _ _

Mr. HART and Mr. Stmowetr. being heard for the
Petitioners, and
Sir S. ROMILLY and Mr. CULLEN on the part 'sir
the Assignees,
... The Lotto CHANCELLOR was of opinion that here
there was a clear misapplication of a trust fund. e
Administratris in applying •the money belougin g
the children in the way she had done, had committe
a breach of trust, and, the other persons, her partne
received it with full knowledge of the fact. That the
money:had previously been embarked in the concern
made no difference. If there was so covenant that
it should remain in it was as much a breach of duty
and a breach of trust as if she had placed it there ;
and the other partners had equally knowledge of the!
fact. • His Lordship had no doubt at all, if it would I
have been more for the benefit of the children, to
have gone against the separate estate of the mother,
that the circumstances of the case would have entitled
them to do so., But it did not follow, because they
would have had, a right to go against her separate
estate, that they had not a right to come in as credi- ,
tors under this joint coMmission. Ms Lordship was
•vtalienoticaLopiniou they were so entitled: and 1i ;ow:

'that the proof should be in:t& by the eldest
SOD, who was of age, on Account of the children, in
proportion to their respective ititerests.

COURT OF KiNCEs BENCH, 1114 y 1.

liali:Aaaorr applied for a Rule to show cause
why a writ,lin the nature of a vim warranto, should
not issue, calling on George Pouson to show
cause by what right he had exercised the office of
Mayor of Aberistwith. He made this application in
order to obtain a good Mayor for Aberistwith, and
he did it under the following circumstances :—lry the
Charter of Aberistwith, it was regulated that
.no
person•under the age of 21 .should be qiialified
serve the office of Mayor ; Ail also, that the elec-
tion should take place within less than one month
after Michaelmas-day. His affidavit state, that at
the time Mr. Pouson Was elected, he was not 21 years
of age ; and also, that the election did not takeplace
till the 28th of October,and therefore was not in time.
—Rule granted.

REX V. STANDON.

Thls was a case reserved for the opinion of the
Court by the Sessions; who confirmed an order of
removal of the mother of Joseph Farmer, who,
having agreed for the purchase of a piece of land for
651. applied to his father for an advance of 201.
which he made upon conditions not reduced to wri•
tang, that the son should build a house thine, and
out of love and affection, permit the father and mo-
ther to reside in it for their lives, and the life of the
survivor, provided they should not dispose of it, or
admit any other persons to live with them. The land
was conveyed to the son ; and when the house was
built, the father and mother entered upon it : the fa.
(her died, and the mother lived there till she was re-
moved. The question was, whether she had gained a

settlement? I
Mr. l'Evatv and Mr. supported the order of!
Sessions; and Mr. PULLER, and Mr. PE.tat opposed
it. On the 4th section of the Stat. of Frauds, 29
C. 2. c. 3, the cases in 8 T. R. 3. 1 Vern, 368, and
2 Verns) 455, were. cited ; and on the other points,
2 Ath. 14. 2T. R. 577, 16 East, 127 Patten v.
Cook, 1 Sch. and Lef. Bur. S. C. 386. Cold. 416,
Bott. 493 pl. 511. S. C. 3 T. B. 231. Bur: S. C. 785,
6 T. R. 554, and 4 Ares. jun. 491.
,
Lord ELLENBOROUGII said, it was perfectly clear ,
that the pauper had no estate either at law or-in i
equity ; but merely a license to reside for life, .irre-
vocable on the performance of certain conditions :
and the question had been rightly stated by the
Learned Counsel who supported the order of Sessions, .
as, whether a right to go into equity to compel a spe-
cific performance could confer a settlement, and
whether the Court of King's Bench would impose on
Courts of Quarter Sessions the consideration of the
nicest questions of equity. In this case, all a Court
of Equity would probably do, would be to grant an
injunction against the son's ejecting, the mother, as
long as she complied with the condations of the
li-
cense tq reside. 'lute Learned Counsel, on the other
'side, had likened this parole agreement to the grantor
an estate fur life, with a proviso for avoiding it upon
assigning over or letting in others ; but was there
ever an estate for life without power to admit in.
mates? Here there was no covenant or written agree-
ment : in a deed, the conditions of an estate for life
might be declared ; but the question .was, whether
the Court would construe • a proio agreement to be
such a deed ? Was there ever a grant so cut down
and weakened as tids • grant enjoi4sig the Holies
of solitude ? . ' ' • . ‘•. •••
.

Ira r.-vtaciti.c XIIII [Plana 4 11111,111
be lured Filed that the cases hutifgal
bolding weans itatuovab 114 whir' bac,.
of the, ?alai! required the A 4 iftellihmtant. At
any rate; the :court must see that the line to th'tt
equitable eitate k clear.—Order of Sessious
gelid!

•
*lms".d'•
rer ffs. fit
intthillihigth of '
atiohable tistmes