Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 62, 1830. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
Die Lunæ, 22 Martii 1830.
Lady M. Montgomerie & Sir C. Lamb v. Rundell & Co. et al.
The joint and separate Answers of John Bridge, Edmund Haller Rundell and Thomas Bigge, of Ludgate Hill, London, Jewellers, surviving Partners of the Firm of Rundell, Bridge and Rundell; Richard Gillow, surviving Partner of the late Firm of George and Richard Gillow of Oxford Street, Marylebone, in the County of Middlesex, Upholsterers; Thomas Maltby of the City of London, Merchant; William Barclay of Leicester Square, London, Wax-bleacher; and Matthew Hollogan of London; all Creditors of the deceased Archibald Lord Montgomerie, to the Petition and Appeal of The Right Honorable Lady Mary Montgomerie and Sir Charles Lamb of Beauport Baronet, her Husband, for his Interest, was this Day brought in.
Sir A. Chichester v. M'Intyre:
After hearing Counsel, as well on Friday the 12th as on Monday the 15th Days of this instant March, upon the Petition and Appeal of Sir Arthur Chichester Baronet, of Castle Cary, in the County of Donegall; complaining of Three Decrees of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, of the 14th of July and 19th of November 1824, and the 2d of December 1825; and praying, "That the same may be reversed; and either that the Plaintiff's Bill may be dismissed, or that it be referred to the Master to settle the Amount of the Rent, having regard to the Fact of the Plaintiff being bound at his own Expence to put the Premises into good substantial Order, Condition and Repair;" as also upon the Answer of Charles M'Intyre put in to the said Appeal; and due Consideration had this Day of what was offered on either Side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Decrees complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same are hereby Reversed: And it is further Ordered, That the Respondent's Bill in the said Court of Chancery in Ireland be dismissed by the said Court.
Bouchier et al. v. Dillon et al.
Willis et Ux. v. Sir G. A. Robinson et al.
After hearing Counsel, in Part, in the Cause wherein John Walpole Willis Esquire and Lady Mary Isabelle his Wife are Appellants, and Sir George Abercrombie Robinson Baronet, and others, are Respondents:
M. of Westmeath v. M. of Salisbury et al.
Ordered, That the further Hearing of the Cause wherein George Thomas John Marquess of Westmeath is Appellant, and James Marquess of Salisbury, and others, are Respondents, which stands appointed for this Day, be put off to Friday next.
Scotch Spirits, Petition from West Lothian against additional Duty on.
Upon reading the Petition of the Farmers of the County of West Lothian, Scotland, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships "not to impose any additional Duties on Spirits manufactured in Scotland:"
East India, &c. Trade, Petitions for throwing open, referred to East India Com ee: (Wigan:)
Upon reading the Petition of the Merchants, Manufacturers and other Inhabitants of the Borough of Wigan, in the County of Lancaster, and of the immediate Neighbourhood thereof, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying, "That such Measures may be adopted as to their Lordships shall seem meet and just for the immediate Modification of the existing Restrictions, and for the final Abolition of the exclusive Privileges of The East India Company, on the Expiration of their Charter:"
Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to the Select Committee appointed to enquire into the present State of the Affairs of The East India Company, and into the Trade between Great Britain, the East Indies and China.
Incorporations of Lanark:
Upon reading the Petition of the Provost, Magistrates, Town Council and Deacons of Incorporations of the Royal Burgh of Lanark, under their Common Seal; praying their Lordships, "That at the earliest Period allowed by Law such Measures may be adopted as shall secure to all His Majesty's Subjects in the United Kingdom a Free Trade to all the Countries situated to the Eastward of the Cape of Good Hope, and the Liberty of proceeding to and residing in those Countries, under such Regulations as to their Lordships may seem proper and consistent with the good Government, Tranquillity and Safety of the British Possessions in the East Indies:"
Incorporation of Weavers of Glasgow.
Upon reading the Petition of the Incorporation of Weavers of the City of Glasgow, under their Common Seal; praying their Lordships, "That such salutary and efficient Measures may be adopted as will remove the present Restrictions, and secure to the Inhabitants of this Country a Free Trade to the East, as well as such Right of Residence there as may be deemed just and proper:"
Gainsburgh & East Retford Road Bill.
With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for more effectually repairing and improving the Road from the West End of Gainsburgh Bridge to East Retford and to Gringleyon-the-Hill, in the County of Nottingham;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.
Viscount Doneraile returned a Peer for Ireland.
The House being informed, "That John Lee, from the Deputy Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, attended with the Writs and Returns for electing a Temporal Peer of Ireland in the room of Thomas Marquis of Headfort, deceased, with the Certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland annexed to them;"
He was called in; and being sworn and examined, acquainted their Lordships, "That he received the same from the said Deputy Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, and that they were now in the same Condition as when he received them;" and then, delivering the same at the Bar,
"In pursuance of an Act passed in the Fortieth Year of the Reign of His late Majesty King George the Third, entitled, "An Act to regulate the Mode by which the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons, to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom on the Part of Ireland, shall be summoned and returned to the said Parliament;" I do hereby certify, That the several Writs hereunto annexed for electing a Temporal Peer in the room of the late Thomas Marquis of Headfort, deceased, did issue from this Office to the Peers therein severally named, and that the said Peers did severally make the Returns thereto which to the said Writs are respectively annexed; And I further certify, That it appears from the said Writs and Returns that The Right Honorable Hayes Viscount Doneraile has been chosen unanimously to be the Peer to sit and vote on the Part of Ireland in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, in the room of the said Thomas Marquis of Headfort: All which I attest this Fifteenth Day of March One thousand eight hundred and thirty.
Longtown Roads Bill:
Kingston, &c. Inclosure Bill:
Messages to H.C. that the Lords have agreed to the 2 preceding Bills.
Ardglass Harbour Bill.
Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to enable the Commissioners of the Harbour of Ardglass, in the County of Down, to make Contracts for Works, and to borrow Money for the Improvement of the said Harbour."
Proceedings on East India Judicature Act.
The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House, "That the Clerk Assistant had prepared and laid upon the Table, A List of the Names of all the Lords who have delivered in Lists, in pursuance of the Directions of an Act passed in the 26th Year of His late Majesty's Reign, for the further Regulation of the Trial of Persons accused of certain Offences committed in the East Indies, and for other Purposes therein mentioned."
New Chappel Road Bill.
Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for more effectually repairing and maintaining the Road from New Chappel, in the County of Surrey, to Ditcheling Bost Hills, in the County of Sussex, and from thence to the Town of Brighthelmston, in the same County; and also for making and maintaining a Branch of Road from the Town of Ditcheling to Clayton, in the County of Sussex."
Annandale Peerage, Claimant's Petition to resume Consideration, & to lodge an additional Case.
Upon reading the Petition of John James Hope Johnstone of Annandale, Esquire, claiming the Titles, Honours and Dignities of Earl of Annandale and Hartfell, Viscount Annan and Lord Johnstone; setting forth, "That in the Matter of the Petitioner's Claim to the said Dignities, which His Majesty was graciously pleased to refer to the Consideration of this Most Honorable House, and their Lordships to the Committee of Privileges, their Lordships, after receiving Evidence of the Petitioner's Pedigree and Descent from the original Patentee, and hearing Counsel for him and for the Crown, were pleased to make the following Order:
"The Earl of Shaftesbury reported from the Lords Committees for Privileges, to whom it was referred to consider of the Petition of John James Hope Johnstone Esquire, of Annandale, eldest Son of the Marriage between the deceased Lady Ann Hope Johnstone, the eldest Daughter of James Hope Johnstone, late Earl of Hopetoun, deceased, and Sir William Johnstone Hope, Rear Admiral of His Majesty's Navy and Knight Commander of The Most Honorable Military Order of the Bath, and His Majesty's Reference thereof to this House; "That the Committee had met, and had considered the Petition to them referred, and had come to the following Resolution; (viz t.)
"Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Committee, That the Consideration of this Petition be adjourned, and that the Petitioner be required to lay before the House Information, whether there is any Person capable of claiming as Heir Male of James Johnstone, created Lord Johnstone of Lochwood, in 1633, and Earl of Hartfell, Lord Johnstone of Lochwood, Moffatdale and Evandale, in 1643; and whether James his Son, created Earl of Annandale and Hartfell, Viscount of Annan, and Lord Johnstone of Lochwood, Lochmaben, Moffatdale and Evandale, in 1662, had any Daughters or Daughter; and whether such Daughters or Daughter (if any) had any Issue Male; and whether there is any Heir Male of the Body of the Lady Henrietta, Daughter of William, first Marquis of Annandale, who married Charles Earl of Hopetoun, and was Great Great Grandmother of the Claimant; and, if there are any such Persons, that Notice be given of this Claim to such Persons respectively, and that they be respectively at liberty to attend this House on the Claim of the Petitioner."
"In obedience to this Order the Petitioner, and those who act for him, have, by every Means in their Power, and by causing Advertisements containing the Substance of the Order to be inserted in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes, and in the Newspapers in the greatest Circulation throughout the United Kingdom, called upon all to give Information, and attend to their Interests; but the Petitioner has not been able to discover that there is any Person capable of claiming as Heir Male of James Johnstone, created Lord Johnstone in 1633, and Earl of Hartfell in 1643: The Petitioner, however, thinks it proper to mention, that in the Course of his Enquiries on this Head he found, from their Lordships Journals, that in the Year 1793 a Petition was presented to His Majesty, on behalf of Sir James Johnstone of Westerhall, Baronet, stating himself to be the nearest Heir Male of George, the last Marquis of Annandale, as descended from one Mathew Johnstone, said to be second Son of Adam Johnstone, who was the Head of the Family or Clan of the Johnstones in the Middle of the Fourteenth Century, from whose eldest Son John the Persons ennobled in the Seventeenth Century were descended: This Petition was referred by His Majesty to their Lordships House, but the Claim was never prosecuted: Whether the Case was delivered the Petitioner does not know, but he has seen a Copy of one prepared for the Claimant, and from the Evidence of the Pedigree proposed to be submitted in support of the Claim, the Petitioner thinks himself warranted in saying that it was incurably defective, and that Incident forms no Exception to what is above stated: He has however given Notice of his own Claim, and of their Lordships Order, to the Agents and Solicitors of Sir Frederick George Johnstone Baronet, the Heir Male and Representative of the said Sir James Johnstone, and delivered to them a Copy of this Petition: It appears that James, created Earl of Annandale and Hartfell in 1662, had Three Daughters; but the Petitioner, after the same Enquiries and Advertisements as in the former Case, has not been able to discover that any Heir Male of the Bodies of any of the said Daughters exists: John, now Earl of Hopetoun, being the Heir Male of the Body of the Lady Henrietta, his Great Grandmother, who was the Daughter of William, first Marquis of Annandale, who married Charles Earl of Hopetoun, the Petitioner caused a Copy of their Lordships said Order to be delivered to his Lordship, who has acknowledged the Receipt of it: Having thus done his utmost to procure the Information required by their Lordships, the Petitioner humbly prays, That their Lordships will be pleased to resume the Consideration of his Claim, and do therein what may appear to them, in their great Wisdom, to be just and right; and that their Lordships will permit the Petitioner to lodge an additional Case, furnishing Copies thereof to His Majesty's Counsel:"
Sir W. G. Cumming's et al. Petition to change Reference to the Judges.
Upon reading the Petition of Sir William Gordon Gordon Cumming of Gordonstown, Baronet, and other Heirs of Entail of the said Estate; praying, "That their Lordships will be pleased to order that their Petition for Leave to bring in a Bill, presented to the House on Friday the 12th of this instant March, may be referred to Lord Craigie in the Place and Stead of Lord Glenlee, the said Lord Glenlee being absent from Edinburgh, and having stated, that on the Ground of Relationship to the Parties interested, he would wish to decline acting as a Judge upon this Occasion:"
It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby referred to Lord Craigie in Scotland, and Lord Newton in Scotland, who are forthwith to summon all Parties before them who may be concerned in the Bill, and, after hearing all the Parties and perusing the Bill, are to report to the House the State of the Case, with their Opinion thereupon, under their Hands, and are to sign the said Bill.
Bp. London's Petition referred to Judges.
It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby referred to Mr. Baron Garrow and Mr. Baron Vaughan, who are forthwith to summon all Parties concerned in the Bill, and, after hearing them, are to report to the House the State of the Case, with their Opinion thereupon, under their Hands, and whether all Parties, who may be concerned in the Consequences of the Bill, have signed the Petition; and also, that the Judges, having perused the Bill, do sign the same.
Beale's et al. Petition referred to Judges.
Upon reading the Petition of Mary Beale of Reigate, in the County of Surrey, Widow; John Jackson of the same Place, Gentleman, and Bet otherwise Bett otherwise Elizabeth, his Wife; Henry Hopkins of the same Place, Gentleman, and Elizabeth his Wife; John Martin of Croydon, in the same County, Gentlemen, and Mary his Wife; and William Clutton of Hartswood, in the Parish of Buckland, in the said County of Surrey, Esquire; praying Leave to bring in a Bill for the Purposes in the said Petition mentioned:
It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby referred to Mr. Justice Littledale and Mr. Justice Gaselee, who are forthwith to summon all Parties concerned in the Bill, and, after hearing them, are to report to the House the State of the Case, with their Opinion thereupon, under their Hands, and whether all Parties, who may be concerned in the Consequences of the Bill, have signed the Petition; and also, that the Judges, having perused the Bill, do sign the same.
Slane Peerage, Fleming's Petition respecting, referred to Com ee for Privileges on the Claim.
Upon reading the Petition of Henry Fleming of the City of Dublin; setting forth, "That the Petitioner's eldest Brother, James Fleming Esquire, on the 14th of April 1827, presented a Petition to His Majesty, claiming the ancient Dignity of Lord Baron of Slane in the Kingdom of Ireland, as Heir Male of the ancient Barons of Slane; which Petition was referred to the then Attorney General of England, to consider and report thereon: That the said Petitioner attended several Times during the Course of last Year upon Sir Charles Wetherall, and produced before him the various Proofs in support of his said Claim: That before each such Attendance, regular Notice was given to George Bryan Esquire, who had preferred a Petition claiming the said ancient Dignity as a Barony in Fee; and that the Agents and Counsel of the said George Bryan attended each Meeting before the said Attorney General, on behalf of their said Client: That being aware the said Attorney General would require some Time to form his Opinion upon a Case so novel to the English Peers, which required a minute Investigation into so many ancient Records, and which involved such important Consequences to the Constitution of the Peerage of Ireland, the Petitioner's said Brother took advantage of the Interval to go to France upon important Family Affairs, and from whence he is not yet returned: That the Petitioner has heard, and believes, that the said George Bryan, taking advantage of the Absence of the Petitioner's said Brother, and apprehensive of an unfavourable Report from the said Sir Charles Wetherall, before whom the Statements and Proofs of the Two Parties had been fully and fairly laid, and argued by their respective Counsel, has thought proper, without waiting for the Report of the said Sir Charles Wetherall, to carry the Case before the present Attorney General, Sir James Scarlett Knight, without giving Notice of any such Intention or Proceeding to the opposing Claimant (the Petitioner's said Brother), and has obtained, upon an ex-parte and unopposed Statement, a Report in his Favour from the said Sir James Scarlett; which Report, as the Petitioner is informed, has been referred by the Crown to their Lordships, and by their Lordships to the Committee of Privileges: That the said Report contains various Statements and Assertions, many of which, as their Lordships when the Case shall be fairly investigated, the Petitioner submits, will perceive, are utterly at variance with Public Records and Acts of the Parliaments of Ireland, and which Statements the Petitioner is convinced would not have been sanctioned by the said Sir James Scarlett if he had been made acquainted therewith, and had an Opportunity of hearing both Parties upon the Subject: That the said George Bryan in his last Petition to the Crown, which is now before their Lordships, asserts (Case, p. 25.), that the Petitioner's said Brother "founding his Claim on a Ground altogether new and unprecedented, that there are Peerages in Ireland originating previously to the Introduction of either Writs of Summons or Patents, which have always descended to the Heirs Male, and that this Peerage of Slane is one of them; thus alleging a new Point of Law, involving the Rights and Privileges of the ancient Peers of the Realm, and the Laws affecting the same:" That for the Incorrectness of the said Allegation, that such Ground is "new and unprecedented," so far as the Peerage of Ireland is concerned, the Petitioner begs to refer their Lordships to the Report of the Lords Commissioners respecting the Right of the Heir Male of the Family of Decourcy to the Barony of Kinsale, and to the Confirmation of that Report by King Charles 1st, in Council, dated on the 9th of May 1627, and also to the unanimous Decision of the House of Lords of Ireland, of the 4th of October 1721, upon the Petition of Gerald Lord Baron of Kinsale, who had, in the said Petition, claimed that ancient Dignity as a Barony by Prescription; and in Proof that such Rule of Male Descent is not confined to the Barony of Kinsale, the Petitioner begs to refer their Lordships to a Fact which, from its Notoriety, may easily be investigated; namely, that of the Twelve ancient Irish Baronies which were in existence at the Accession of King Henry the Seventh, and of all of which the precise Date and Origin are unknown, for no Patents of their Creation can now be discovered, not one has, in any Instance, from that Period to the present, ever been inherited by a Female: That in order to subvert the Usage and Law of Ireland, as declared and established by this uniform Rule, and to elude and obviate the numerous Precedents of these ancient Dignities having passed over the Heirs General, and having descended exclusively to the Heirs Male, the said George Bryan has had recourse to the new and unprecedented Expedient of sub-dividing an ancient Barony which had descended in uniform and uninterrupted Succession, from the most remote Period, through the Male Line of its original Possessor, into Four separate and distinct Baronies, of various Dates, but all now existing, as he alleges, simultaneously: That in order to support this extraordinary Position, the Report asserts that "a Peerage was created in Thomas Lord Slane, by a Summons to his sitting in Parliament in 1585, (supposing him to have so sat,)" Report, p. 45, although the same Report acknowledges that he "was the Third Baron in the List of the Parliament then summoned," p. 32, which, in a Body most jealous of their respective Precedency, was considerably above the Baron of Trimleston, created by Patent in the Reign of Edward the Fourth: That in order to give some Colour to this new Creation of an old Peerage, the Report states that the Predecessors of the said Thomas, who it is obliged to acknowledge sat as Peers in preceding Parliaments, were not stiled Lords Slane, but Lords Le Fleming, as appears from the following Extract from the Report; "that he (Baldwin Le Fleming) was succeeded by his Son Sir Simon Fleming, Lord Le Fleming, who sat in Parliament in the Reign of King Edward the Third, and he by his Son Sir Thomas Fleming, Third Lord Le Fleming, who sat in Parliament in the Reign of King Henry the Fourth, and was succeeded by his Son Sir Christopher Fleming, Fourth Lord Le Fleming, who sat in Parliament in the Reign of King Henry the Sixth, and was succeeded by his Grandson Christopher, Fifth Lord Le Fleming, Son of John, who died in his Father's Life-time, who sat in Parliament in the Reign of King Henry the Sixth, and who dying unmarried, his Two Sisters Anne and Amy became his Co-heiresses, between whom the Peerage of Le Fleming went into and is still in Abeyance among their Heirs, there being many Descendants of both now in existence: That the Manor or Barony of Slane being settled on the Heirs Male, and held of the Lords of Meath in Fee Tail, went to David Fleming, Uncle of the Half Blood to the Fifth and last Christopher Lord Le Fleming, which David was summoned to and sat in the Parliament of King Edward the Fourth by the Title of Lord David Fleming, Baron of Slane, and thus became a Peer by a new Writ of Creation;" Report, p. 29: But the Petitioner humbly submits, that the whole of these Statements are contradicted, and the Theory upon which they are built overturned, by the Words of the following Act of Parliament, Second Edward the Fourth; "Item, at the Supplication of Robert Preston Knight, Lord of Gormanstown, that as formerly in a Parliament held at Drogheda, and after that at Dublin, and there finished, before the very high and puissant Prince Richard Duke of York, then being Lieutenant of Ireland, the Friday next after the Feast of Saint Blaise ( ), the 38th Year of the Reign of Henry the Sixth, late King of England, at the Supplication of the said Sir Robert, it was ordained by the Authority of the said Parliament, that he and his Heirs ought to have and enjoy such Place of sitting in Parliament and Great Councils as his Father and his Grandfather had and enjoyed; and whereas it is truly known to divers Persons of Honor in this Land, as well as to Us, that there were contained in a Schedule annexed to a Bill introduced by the said Lord Robert into the said Parliament, and are written hereafter, that Christopher Preston Knight, Father to the said Robert, sate in Parliaments and Great Councils above Lord Christopher Fleming, Baron of Slane, and Christopher Preston, Grandfather to the said Robert, sate above Lord Thomas Fleming, then Baron of Slane, and Lord Robert Preston, Great Grandfather to the said Robert, sate above Lord Simon Fleming, then Baron of Slane, and so it is that Lord David Fleming Knight, now Baron of Slane, absents himself from the Parliaments and Great Councils, et cetera:" From this Document it appears that the alleged Two and distinct Dignities of Lord Le Fleming and Lord Slane were identically the same Barony; that so far from the said David having been created a new Peer by a Summons to and a Sitting in Parliament, he absolutely refused to sit in the Parliament, because he erroneously conceived that the Precedency assigned to him in it was one Step below that enjoyed by his Predecessors; that so far from the Peerage of Christopher having fallen into Abeyance between his said Co-heiresses, it had devolved upon his Uncle and next Heir Male, David, and consequently that so far from the assumed Sitting of David in a Parliament of Edward the Fourth having created a new Barony of Slane, and the supposed Sitting of Thomas, under which the said George Bryan claims, having created another and still newer Barony of Slane in 1585, they both only inherited the ancient Barony of Slane, with the Rights, Priviledges and Precedency attached to it: That even Baldwyn Le Fleming, Mr. Bryan's alleged First Lord Le Fleming, is, in a King's Letter on a Memorandum Roll of the 33d Edward the Third, now remaining of Record in the Chief Remembrancer's Office in Dublin, stiled "Baldwynus Fleming, Dominus de Slane:" That their Lordships have often decided that the Claimant of a Barony in Fee must prove himself to be the right Heir of the Person first ennobled; but that it appears from Mr. Bryan's own shewing, that, even supposing the Barony of Slane to be, as he alleges, a Barony in Fee, he can have no possible Claim thereto, he not being the right Heir of any one of these various ancient Barons of Slane whom he erroneously stiles Lords Le Fleming, as not only the Descendants of Anne and Amy above mentioned, the Sisters and Co-heiresses of Christopher Lord Slane, must be proved to be extinct, (which he asserts they are not,) but also the Three Sisters and Co-heiresses of Thomas Fleming Lord Slane, who died in 1471, and Catherine and Elinor, the Two Sisters and Co-heiresses of James Lord Slane, who died in 1577, before Mr. Bryan, who claims under a supposed Creation of a Peerage by a supposed Sitting in Parliament of Thomas the Sixteenth Baron of Slane, 1585, would have the least Shadow of Right to the Barony of Slane: Lastly, That the Petitioner begs leave to observe that the Report assumes throughout as an acknowledged Fact a Position which has never been proved, namely, that a Writ of Summons to the Parliament of Ireland, addressed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, or his Deputy, in the King's Name, to a Commoner, had the Effect of creating a Peerage, unless a Privy Seal Letter, or some Act under the King's Sign Manual, previously and specially authorized such Creation: That the Petitioner therefore humbly prays, That their Lordships will not adjudge the Barony of Slane to the said Claimant, Mr. Bryan, until he has fully and clearly proved that, according to the Usage and Law of Ireland, he is entitled to it; and that their Lordships will afford such Time as to their Lordships shall seem meet, until the Petitioner's said Brother, who is at present at Angoulême in France, and altogether ignorant of the Steps that have been thus taken, and to whom the Petitioner has written to inform him of the Fact, shall return, and have an Opportunity of proving at the Bar of their Lordships House the Truth of the Allegations contained in this Petition:"
It is Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to the Committee for Privileges, to whom the Petition of George Bryan of Jenkinstown, in the County of Kilkenny, Esquire, to His Majesty, praying, "That his Claim to the Barony of Slane may be referred to the House of Peers to report whether the said Title be or be not a Barony in Fee, by Writ of Summons, descendible to Heirs General, and whether the same is or is not now in Abeyance between Edward Lord Dunsany and the Petitioner," together with His Majesty's Reference thereof to this House, and the Report of the Attorney General thereunto annexed, stands referred.
Distress of the Country, Petitions from the Holderness Agricultural Society, & County of Nottingham, respecting.
Upon reading the Petition of the President, Vice President and Members of the Holderness Agricultural Society, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships "to take into their serious Consideration the distressed Condition of the Agricultural and other productive Classes, and give such Aid and Relief as to their Lordships shall seem meet:"
Upon reading the Petition of the Owners and Occupiers of Land in the County of Nottingham, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying, "That the earliest and most serious Attention of their Lordships may be applied to the devising some effectual Relief for the general Distress:"
Shrewsbury & Holyhead Road, Papers respecting, delivered.
"General Statement of the Income and Expenditure of the Shrewsbury and Holyhead Road, between 1st of February 1829 and 1st of February 1830; together with the Engineer's Report on the State of the Road."
Bridge & Co. et al. v. Lady M. Montgomerie & Sir C. Lamb.
Upon reading the Petition and Cross Appeal of John Bridge, Edmund Waller Rundell and Thomas Bigge, of Ludgate Hill, London, Jewellers, surviving Partners of the Firm of Rundell, Bridge and Rundell; Richard Gillow, surviving Partner of the late Firm of George and Richard Gillow of Oxford Street, Mary-le-bone, in the County of Middlesex, Upholsterers; Thomas Maltby of the City of London, Merchant; William Barclay of Leicester Square, London, Wax Bleacher; and Matthew Hollogan of London; all Creditors of the deceased Archibald Lord Montgomerie; complaining of an Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary in Scotland, of the 25th of February 1829, in so far as his Lordship found the Petitioners only entitled to the Expences incurred by them from and since the 13th May 1825, being the Date of the Interlocutor of the Court of Session applying their Lordships Judgment, and not to the whole Expences incurred by them since the Commencement of the Cause; and also of an Interlocutor of the Lords of Session there, of the First Division, of the 12th (signed the 14th) of January 1830, in so far as their Lordships thereby recal the whole of the Proceedings respecting Expences in the Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary, and find no Expences due to the Petitioners; and praying, "That the same may be reversed, varied or amended, so far as complained of, or that the Appellants may have such other Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that The Right Honorable Lady Mary Montgomerie and Sir Charles Lamb of Beauport, Baronet, her Husband, may be required to answer the said Appeal:"
It is Ordered, That the said Lady Mary Montgomerie and Sir Charles Lamb may have a Copy of the said Appeal, and do put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Monday the 19th Day of April next; and Service of this Order upon the said Respondents, or any of their known Counsel or Agents in the Court of Session in Scotland, shall be deemed good Service.
Bulkley v. Wilford, Appellant's Petition to present Appeal, referred to Appeal Com ee.
Upon reading the Petition of George Wilford Bulkley of Symond's Inn, Chancery Lane, London, Gentleman; setting forth, "That on the 3d Day of July last the Petitioner's Motion for a new Trial of the Issue directed by the High Court of Chancery in the Cause Wilford against Bulkley, by Appointment, came on for Hearing before The Lord Chancellor, when, after considerable Argument, the Motion was refused: That on the 15th Day of the said Month of July the said Cause was heard upon further Directions, and a Decree pronounced: That shortly after the Public Offices of the Court of Chancery closed for the Vacation, and the Petitioner was not able to procure his Minutes of the Decree until Michaelmas Term last, when, in consequence of the Solicitors for Plaintiff and Defendant not agreeing upon the Terms, the same, on Motion to The Lord Chancellor, were finally settled by him: That the Petitioner was unable to obtain his Copy of the Decree in sufficient Time to enable his Counsel to draw his Petition of Appeal to their Lordships, so as to file the same within the Time prescribed by the Standing Orders of their Lordships: That the Time for the Petitioner filing his Petition of Appeal expired on Monday the 15th Instant: That the Petitioner is now prepared to file his Petition of Appeal;" and therefore praying, "That their Lordships will be pleased to order that the Petitioner's Petition of Appeal to this House may be filed as of the present Session:"
It is Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to the Committee appointed to consider of the Causes in which Prints of the Appellants and Respondents Cases, now depending in this House in Matters of Appeals and Writs of Error, have not been delivered, pursuant to the Standing Orders of this House.
Sir J. Montgomery et al. v. M. of Queensberry, & Selkrig.
The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed for hearing the Cause wherein Sir James Montgomery Baronet, and others, are Appellants, and Charles Marquess of Queensberry and Charles Selkrig are Respondents:"
M'Gavin v. Stewart.
Upon reading the Petition of James M'Gavin, Appellant in a Cause depending in this House, and of James Stewart, Respondent thereto; praying their Lordships, That this Appeal, being the Second on their Lordships List between the Parties, may be permitted to stand over until after the Hearing and Decision by their Lordships of the First Appeal, or that their Lordships will make such other Order as to their Lordships shall seem just:"
Glamorganshire Canal Co. v. Blakemore, in Error.
The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed for hearing Counsel to argue the Errors assigned upon the Writ of Error wherein the Glamorganshire Canal Company are Plaintiffs, and Richard Blakemore is Defendant:"
Pearson et al. v. Stephen et al.
Suits in Equity Bill presented.
Letters from The East India Co. to The Governors in India, Ordered.
Ordered, That there be laid before this House "Copy of a Letter from the Court of Directors of The East India Company to The Governor General in Council at Fort William in Bengal, in the Territorial Finance Department, dated 10th March 1830:"