BHO

House of Lords Journal Volume 62: 28 April 1830

Pages 247-257

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.

Citation:

Table of contents

Die Mercurii, 28 Aprilis 1830.

DOMINI tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

Archiep. Cantuar.
Ds. Lyndhurst,
Cancellarius.
Epus. Londinen.
Epus. Oxon.
Ds. Teynham.
Ds. Gower.
Ds. Hay.
Ds. King.
Ds. Monson.
Ds. Rolle.
Ds. Bolton.
Ds. Carbery.
Ds. Dunalley.
Ds. Arden.
Ds. Ker.
Ds. Penshurst.
Ds. Wynford.
fComes Rosslyn. C. P. S.
Dux Beaufort.
Dux Dorset.
March. Bute.
Comes Shaftesbury.
Comes Stanhope.
Comes Hardwicke.
Comes Mansfield.
Comes Malmesbury.
Comes Limerick.
Comes Nelson.
Comes Bradford.
Vicecom. Arbuthnott.
Vicecom. Lorton.
Vicecom. Granville.

PRAYERS.

The Lord Wynford sat Speaker by virtue of a former Commission.

Sir A. I. Cochrane v. Dr. Ramsay.

After hearing Counsel fully in the Cause wherein The Honorable Sir Alexander Inglis Cochrane is Appellant, and Doctor David Ramsay is Respondent:

It is Ordered, That the further Consideration of the said Cause be put off 'till To-morrow.

M'Gavin v. Stewart: Same v. same.

Ordered, That the Hearing of the Two Causes wherein James M'Gavin is Appellant, and James Stewart is Respondent, which stands appointed for this Day, be put off 'till To-morrow.

Morrison et al. v. Mitchell.

Ordered, That the Cause wherein John Morrison, and others, are Appellants, and James Mitchell is Respondent, be heard by Counsel at the Bar To-morrow.

Wallis's Divorce Bill.

The Order of the Day being read for the Second Reading of the Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the Marriage of Thomas Wallis Esquire with Charlotte Augusta Amelia his now Wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other Purposes therein mentioned," and for hearing Counsel for and against the same; and for the Lords to be summoned;

Counsel were accordingly called in;

And Mr. Adam and Mr. Wood appearing as Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner, and no Counsel appearing for Mrs. Wallis;

Mr. Adam was heard to open the Allegations of the Bill.

Then William Read King Esquire was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(Mr. Wood.) "Have you served any Copy of this Bill on Mrs. Wallis?"

"Yes. On Saturday the 3d of April now instant, I served Mrs. Wallis with an examined Copy of the Bill, which I had previously compared with the original Bill in the Parliament Office on the preceding Day; and I served her at the same Time with a Copy of the Order of this House for the Second Reading."

"You can also speak as to the Amount of Damages which were received?"

"Yes. I received of the Defendant's Agents £2,000, the Amount of Damages awarded, together with the Costs; which in January last, having received them the preceding Month, I paid over to Mr. Wallis, or to his Banker for his Use."

"When you served a Copy of this Bill and a Copy of the Order of the House on Mrs. Wallis, where was she?"

"In Lodgings, at No. 34, Park Place, in the Regent's Park."

"With whom was she living?"

"I saw her in company with her Mother, Lady Bolton; no other Person was there."

"What did she say?"

"She made no particular Observation, except asking what it was; and I explained to her what it was."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Henry Hoskins was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(Mr. Wood.) "Do you produce an Office Copy of the Judgement of the Court of King's Bench in the Action by Mr. Wallis against Mr. Birkett?"

"I do."

"Have you examined that Copy with the Original?"

"I have."

"Do you find them to correspond?"

"I do."

"The same was delivered in and read; being an Office Copy of a Record of a Judgement in the Court of King's Bench, in Michaelmas Term, in the Ninth Year of the Reign of His present Majesty, in an Action by Thomas Wallis Esquire against Charles James Nelson Birkett for Trespass, Assault and Criminal Conversation with Charlotte Augusta Amelia the Wife of the said Thomas Wallis, for £2,000 Damages, besides Costs of Suit.

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then John Chadborn was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(Mr. Wood.) "Do you produce a Copy of the Register of Marriage between Mr. and Mrs. Wallis?"

"I do."

"Have you compared that with the Original?"

"I have."

"Do you find it to correspond?"

"I do."

"Where were they married?"

"In the Church of St. Mary-le-bone, in the County of Middlesex."

The same was delivered in, and read as follows:

"[Page 57.]

"Marriages solemnized in the Parish of St. Mary-lebone, in the County of Middlesex, in the Year One thousand eight hundred and sixteen.

"Thomas Wallis of this Parish, Bachelor, and Charlotte Augusta Amelia Bolton of this Parish, Spinster, were married in this Church, by Banns, this Thirtieth Day of March in the Year One thousand eight hundred and sixteen.

"By me, William Mead, Curate.

This Marriage was solemnized between us Thomas Wallis Charlotte Augusta Amelia Bolton.
the Presence of. C. Bolton. Wm. Holmes. Henrietta Davies. Elizabeth Holmes."

"No. 171."

"You were acquainted with Mr. and Mrs. Wallis?"

"I was."

"Intimately?"

"Intimately?"

"For how long a Time?"

"Four or Five Years, I should think, before the Elopement."

"What Observation did you make on the Manner in which Mr. and Mrs. Wallis lived together?"

"They always appeared to me to live remarkably happily. Mr. Wallis appeared to me a very kind and attentive Husband."

"Up to what Period?"

"Up to the Time of the Elopement; and he even bought a Carriage only a few Days before her Elopement, for the Purpose of travelling upon the Continent. I was present on the Occasion."

(By a Lord.) "Are you a Married Man?"

"Yes."

"Did your Wife visit there?"

"Yes; she has dined there once or twice; and Mr. and Mrs. Wallis have dined at my House two or three Times. I was Mr. Wallis's Solicitor."

"The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then William Holmes Esquire was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(Mr. Adam.) "Are you acquainted with Mr. Wallis?"

"Intimately."

"How long have you known him intimately?"

"Four-and-twenty Years."

"Did you know Miss Bolton, the present Mrs. Wallis?"

"I had the Honor of giving her away in Marriage. I first introduced Mr. Wallis to her."

"Did you continue to keep up your Acquaintance with Mr. and Mrs. Wallis after their Marriage?"

"A considerable Time."

"On what Terms did they appear to live together?"

"Nothing could appear more affectionate."

"How often did you see them?"

"After they left London I did not see so much of them; but after the Marriage, while they continued in London, for Four Years after the Marriage, I was on Terms of Intimacy with them."

"During that Time they lived on Terms of Affection together?"

"Yes, certainly."

(By a Lord.) "What is your Situation in Life?"

"I am a Navy Agent."

"The Witness was directed to withdraw.

"Then The Reverend William Bushell was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(Mr. Adam.) "I believe you are the Clergyman of the Church of Newent, in Gloucestershire?"

"No; of Tiberton. I am resident at Newent."

"Do you know Mr. and Mrs. Wallis who lived at Tiberton?"

"Very well."

"How many Years have you known them?"

"Above Five Years."

"Were you in the habit of dining at the House?"

"Frequently."

"Were they in the habit of dining with you?"

"Mr. Wallis sometimes. My Wife being an Invalid, I am not in the habit of receiving much Company."

"You are not in the habit of receiving much Company at your House?"

"No."

"Up to what Time has this visiting taken place? Do you remember the Day of Mrs. Wallis's leaving?"

"To the Month of October Twelvemonth."

"On what Terms of Affection, or otherwise, did they appear to live together?"

"They always appeared to live in a most affectionate and comfortable Manner."

"Were they in the habit of attending your Church?"

"Regularly."

"Did they take the Sacrament together?"

"Frequently."

(By a Lord.) "Did you ever see any Instance of Want of Attention on his Part?"

"Not the slightest."

"Or any Impropriety of Conduct on hers?"

"Not the least."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Sarah Rose was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(Mr. Wood.) "Have you lived in the Family of Mr. and Mrs. Wallis?"

"Yes."

"From what Time 'till what Time?"

"From the 15th of April 1822 to the 14th of October 1826."

"Did you leave Mr. Wallis's Service in the Year 1826?"

"Yes, I did."

"Did you enter it again?"

"No."

"How many Years is it since you left the Service?"

"A Year and Six Months."

"Do you recollect the Elopement of Mrs. Wallis with Mr. Birkett?"

"Yes."

"Were you living in the Service of Mr. Wallis at that Time?"

"Yes; I was Six Years and a Half in the Family."

"Then it must have been 1828 that you left. Do you recollect Mr. and Mrs. Wallis becoming acquainted with a Major and Mrs. Goldsmith?"

"Yes."

"Where was this?"

"At Aberystwith."

"In what Year? How many Years before the Elopement?"

"The same Year as the Elopement; about Six Months before the Elopement in August."

"Have you ever been with Mr. and Mrs. Wallis at any Time when Mr. Birkett has been staying with the Family?"

"Yes, I have."

"When did Mr. Birkett first come to stay in the Family; how many Years before the Elopement?"

"Two Years."

"Did he come to visit the Family?"

"He came to visit the Family from the Acquaintance of Major and Mrs. Goldsmith, from Aberystwith. In their Way to Cheltenham, Major and Mrs. Goldsmith came on their Way to visit Mr. Wallis at Tiberton; they went from thence to Cheltenham, and there I saw Mr. Birkett and Mrs. Logan's Family; he was there with his Mother."

"Where did you first see Mr. Birkett?"

"I saw him first at Cheltenham."

"At what Time; how long before the Elopement?"

"Very nearly Two Years."

"Then you were mistaken in saying that Mr. and Mrs. Wallis became acquainted with Mr. and Mrs. Goldsmith only Six Months before the Elopement?"

"Yes; that was a Mistake."

"How long before the Elopement was the first Acquaintance?"

"I believe nearly Two Years. He was visiting Major and Mrs. Goldsmith at Cheltenham."

"Did Mr. Birkett at any Time pay Mr. Wallis a Visit?"

"Yes, he did."

"Where?"

"At Tiberton Court."

"Did he come in company with any other Person?"

"He came in company with his Mother and Sisters, and Major and Mrs. Goldsmith."

"How long was it before the Elopement?"

"It was nearly Two Years. That was the first Visit."

"Did you observe any thing at that Time in the Conduct of Mr. Birkett towards Mr. or Mrs. Wallis?"

"Not any thing at all. He was then a total Stranger to them."

"Did he pay any other Visit afterwards to Mr. and Mrs. Wallis?"

"Not 'till the Year following, in May."

"In the Year following in May he paid them a further Visit?"

"Yes."

"Did he then come in company with any other Person?"

"No."

"Did you observe any thing on that second Visit in particular in the Conduct of Mr. Birkett towards Mrs. Wallis?"

"Not any thing."

"Or in the Conduct of Mrs. Wallis towards him?"

"No."

"Were they ever left alone together?"

"No; not that I know of."

"Did they ride out together?"

"Not alone."

"Did Mr. Birkett afterwards pay any other Visit to Mr. Wallis?"

"Not in the same Year. In October he came with his Brother-in-Law, The Marquis of Lavallette."

"Was that at the Time of the Shooting Season?"

"Yes, it was."

"Did you observe any thing that then took place between Mr. Birkett and Mrs. Wallis?"

"Not at all."

"Did you observe that they ever rode alone or were left alone together?"

"Not at all."

"Did Mr. Birkett pay any further Visit after those Three Visits to Mr. and Mrs. Wallis?"

"No."

"When did you again see Mr. Birkett after the third Visit?"

"I did not see him after the third Visit; the third Visit she eloped with him; I saw him at Cheltenham."

"At what Time did you see him at Cheltenham?"

"In October from the 8th to the 13th; when Mr. Wallis went away, the 13th, I left Cheltenham and came Home to Tiberton."

"In what Year was that?"

"In 1828."

"You left Cheltenham on the 13th of October?"

"Yes."

"During this Period, between the 8th and 13th, had you remarked any thing particular in the Conduct of Mr. Birkett or Mrs. Wallis?"

"No."

"Had you observed them ride alone, or were they left alone?"

"No; not any thing at all."

"Having lived so long in the Family, can you tell us on what general Terms Mr. and Mrs. Wallis appeared to live together?"

"Very happily, from what I saw."

"Had you every Opportunity of seeing them?"

"Every Opportunity."

"Do you know whether Mr. Wallis was about to leave Tiberton in 1828?"

"Yes; he was going Abroad."

"Whose Wish was it that they should go Abroad?"

"I do not know."

"You were Mrs. Wallis's own Maid?"

"I was."

"Did you ever hear her complain in any respect of Mr. Wallis's Conduct towards her?"

"Not at all."

"When Mr. Wallis left Tiberton did he take a House at Cheltenham?"

"He did."

"Previously to his going Abroad?"

"Yes."

"Did Mr. Wallis on any Occasion leave Cheltenham for Tiberton during his Residence there?"

"He went to the Quarter Sessions at Newent on Monday the 13th."

"Do you remember, on any Occasion, Mr. Wallis's being unwell at Tiberton during the Time the Family were staying at Cheltenham?"

"Yes."

"Do you recollect any thing particular happening on that Occasion?"

"Mrs. Wallis and I went from Cheltenham to Tiberton to see Mr. Wallis at the Time he was ill, and took him back again to Cheltenham with us the next Day."

"Did she shew much Concern for his Illness?"

"Very much."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then James Sharp was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(Mr. Adam.) "You lived in the Family of Mr. and Mrs. Wallis, did you not?"

"I have lived with their Family."

"Did you know the Person of Mr. Birkett when you lived in the Family of Mr. and Mrs. Wallis?"

"Yes, I did."

"Do you remember his being at Cheltenham in October 1828?"

"Yes."

"Do you know whether he had a Carriage of his own?"

"Yes."

"What sort of a Carriage?"

"A Green Carriage with a Top to close occasionally, with a Crest of a Wheatsheaf upon it."

"Was there any thing particular about the Carriage, so that it would attract Attention at all?"

"No."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Richard Hughes was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(Mr. Adam) "Were you a Postboy at the George Hotel in Cheltenham in the Month of October 1828?"

"Yes."

"Did you know Mr. Birkett then?"

"I did."

"Where did his Carriage stand?"

"At the George Hotel."

"What sort of a Carriage was it?"

"A Green Body, a Half Barouche Body, with a Wheatsheaf for a Crest."

"A Carriage you knew well?"

"Yes."

"Do you remember at any Time in the Month of October being ordered with Post Horses and Mr. Birkett's Carriage to go any where?"

"Yes."

"Do you recollect the Day?"

"On the 14th."

"What Day of the Week was it; does your Memory serve you?"

"I cannot say."

"Where did you go to take up?"

"To No. 4, Regent Gardens."

"Was that Mr. Birkett's House?"

"Yes."

"Whom did you take up there?"

"I took up the Servant and Mr. Birkett."

"Where did the Servant go?"

"On the Dickey in the Fore-part, and Mr. Birkett Inside."

"What Road did you go?"

"On the Evesham Road."

"Is that the first Stage to Leamington?"

"Yes."

"How far did you go upon that Road before you stopped?"

"About a Quarter of a Mile."

"What happened to make you stop?"

"There was a Lady on the Road when we got about Two hundred Yards beyond the new Church in Cheltenham; when we got up to the Lady, he says, Pull up."

"Who said that?"

"Mr. Birkett."

"What did you do upon that?"

"He got out of the Carriage and went across the Road to the Lady. I was as far from her as I am from you."

"Did you hear what passed between Mr. Birkett and the Lady?"

"I did not; there were a few Words passed."

"Did you see what the Lady did, how she behaved herself?"

"Yes; she seemed very well and satisfied."

"You did not hear him say any thing to her?"

"No."

"Did you see him do any thing to her?"

"When we pulled up he got out and crossed the Road to her, and they had a few Words."

"Did you see whether he did any thing to her?"

"Yes."

"What did he do; did he use his Arm in any way?"

"No; he got out of the Carriage, and took her by the Arm; and she turned round, and she said she could not go, or she could not leave."

"Then you did hear something pass?"

"Yes."

"Was she crying at that Time?"

"She seemed to wipe away Tears from her Eyes."

"Had she a Handkerchief in her Hand?"

"Yes."

"What did Mr. Birkett do to her at the Time?"

"He catched hold of her Hand, and kissed her once or twice."

"Did you hear what Mr. Birkett said to her?"

"I did not."

"Recollect yourself. When she said, "I cannot go; I cannot leave," did you hear Mr. Birkett say any thing in reply to that?"

"Not at that Time."

"Tell us all that passed?"

"Soon after he catched her by the Hand, and kissed her once or twice, and said, "My dear, step into the Carriage, we have got no Time to delay;" then he handed her into the Carriage, and got in after her himself."

"What happened then?"

"The Servant shut the Door, and I was ordered to make the best of my Way to Evesham."

"Did you know the Lady then?"

"I did not at the Time."

"You knew the Gentleman?"

"Yes."

"Where did you drive to?"

"To Evesham."

"What became of the Carriage?"

"It went on to Alcester, with a Pair of Post Horses; he ordered a Pair of Horses for Worcester."

"Was this Lady sitting in the Carriage with him at that Time?"

"She was."

"When he ordered a Pair of Horses for Worcester, did you say any thing?"

"I said, "Sir, you make a Mistake in the Stage; you mean Alcester instead of Worcester."

"What did Mr. Birkett say then?"

"He said, "'Tis no Difference; Worcester." Then he went on along the Way of Evesham, and turned away for Leamington, instead of Worcester."

"What was the Stage to Leamington?"

"Ten Miles."

"What was the first Stage to Leamington?"

"Alcester."

"When Mr. Birkett ordered the Horses to Worcester, you said, "You mean Alcester;" he said "No; Worcester;" and ordered the Horses for Worcester, but drove to Alcester?"

"Yes."

"How far did you go, the Carriage go, towards Worcester?"

"Only over the Bridge; about Two hundred Yards."

"When the Lady was at Evesham, did you observe her?"

"No, I did not."

"You did not look into the Carriage?"

"No."

"Who drove them from Evesham?"

"I do not know the Man's Name."

(By a Lord.) "Did you know the Person of this Lady?"

"No, I did not."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Edward Hewitt was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(Mr. Adam.) Were you a Post Boy at the Red Horse Inn at Stratford in the Month of October 1828?"

"Yes."

"Do you remember, on the 14th of October 1828, a Green Carriage, with a Lady and Gentleman, coming to your Inn?"

"Yes."

"Was there any thing on the Carriage you knew it by?"

"Yes."

"What was it?"

"A Wheatsheaf."

"For a Crest?"

"Yes."

"With a Lady and Gentleman in it?"

"Yes."

"Was there any Servant?"

"One Man-servant."

"What sort of a Carriage was it?"

"An open Carriage."

"Had it a Head?"

"Yes."

"Was there a Dickey?"

"Yes; a Dickey behind."

"Where was the Servant?"

"He was on the Dickey; the Dickey was in front, I recollect."

"Where was the Servant?"

"On the Dickey."

"Where did you drive them to?"

"To Leamington."

"Where did you drive them to there?"

"I drove them up the Street; and he told me to drive slowly up the Street, and see if I saw any Lodgings to let."

"What sort of a Day was it, in point of Weather?"

"A very nice Day."

"Was the Carriage closed or open?"

"Closed."

"Could any Person see them, in consequence of the Carriage being closed, as they passed up the Street?"

"No."

"Did you stop where there were Lodgings?"

"I stopped at No. 14, in Union Parade."

"Was there any Ticket up in the Window to shew there were Lodgings?"

"Yes."

"Do you know whose House it was?"

"It belonged to Mr. Woodhouse."

"Did you make Observation, on your Way, how the Gentleman and Lady behaved to each other?"

"No. I did not know there was a Lady in the Carriage 'till I got to Leamington; he then took her out, after he had taken the Lodgings."

"Did he go out first?"

"Yes."

"Did he go into the House?"

"Yes; and took the Lodgings."

"You were not present when he took the Lodgings?"

"No."

"He came back, and the Lady got out, and went in?"

"Yes."

"Did you take out the Luggage?"

"Yes."

"Where did you take the Carriage to?"

"To the Regent Hotel."

"Did you make any Observation as to the Way in which the Gentleman and Lady behaved to each other at any Time?"

"No; I asked the Servant whether they had not been lately married, and he said they had."

"What should lead you to put any Question to the Servant?"

"They seemed like young People, very accommodating to one another."

"Was their Behaviour such as to make you ask the Servant whether they had been lately married?"

"Yes."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Edwin Woodhouse was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(Mr. Wood.) "You live on the Union Parade, Leamington, do you not?"

"Yes."

"Were you living there in October 1828?"

"Yes."

"Do you recollect, at any Time in that Month, a Lady and Gentleman taking Lodgings, and when, at your House?"

"On Tuesday the 14th of October."

"Did you see them alone?"

"I did not."

"Did you ever see their Travelling Carriage?"

"I did."

"What Description of Carriage was it?"

"An open Travelling Carriage, with a Green Body, and a Wheatsheaf as a Crest."

"Did you see them go out in it?"

"Yes, I did, once or twice."

(By a Lord.) "Were they long in your House?"

"They wished to take it by the Day, but they could not have it for less than a Week."

"How long did they stay?"

"From the Tuesday to the Saturday."

(By Counsel.) "Can you describe what Number of Rooms were occupied by this Lady and Gentleman?"

"They took a Floor, consisting of Drawing and Dining Room."

"What Bed-rooms?"

"A Bed-room for themselves, and One for the Servant, and a Dressing-room."

"In what Part of the House?"

"On the Second Floor."

"How many Beds were there in each Room?"

"One in each."

"Did you observe the Bed in either of the Rooms?"

"I did, on the last Day."

"Did you see any thing remarkable?"

"It was very evident that Two Parties had slept in it.

I went into the Room, supposing they had left."

"Could those Two Persons have slept anywhere but in that Bed?"

"I think it impossible; there was no other Bed made up, but where the Maid-servant slept."

"Did they live together as Man and Wife?"

"Yes."

"By what Name did they go?"

"Mr. and Mrs. Vernon."

"Did they address one another by that Name?"

"They called one another "My dear."

"Were their Names on their Trunks?"

"There was a Box on which there was the Name Birkett; B, k and tt were very evident."

"Did you see a Letter?"

"I saw a Letter directed Mrs. Wallis, 3, Cambray Place, Cheltenham."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Elizabeth Woodhouse was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(Mr. Wood.) "You are the Wife of Mr. Edwin Woodhouse?"

"Yes."

"Do you recollect any Lady and Gentleman coming to your House in the Month of October 1828?"

"Yes."

"How did they arrive?"

"In a Carriage."

"What sort of Carriage?"

"A dark Green Carriage."

"Was there any thing remarkable upon it?"

"A Crest upon it; a Wheatsheaf."

"What Rooms did this Lady and Gentleman take?"

"A Dining-room, a Drawing-room, and Two Bedrooms, and a Dressing-room."

"How many Beds were there in each Bed-room?"

"One."

(By a Lord.) "For whom was the second Bedroom?"

"Their Servant."

"Do you know where they slept?"

"In the back Bed-room?"

"Did you ever see them in Bed?"

"No."

(Mr. Wood.) "Did you ever observe the Bed?"

"Yes; I went into the Room before it was made."

"What Appearance had it?"

"It had the Appearance of Two Persons sleeping in it."

"Were there any Clothes in the Room?"

"Yes; Woman's Clothes."

"Did you examine any Clothes in particular?"

"Yes; I saw a Pair of Stockings."

"Did you see any Name upon them?"

"A. Wallis."

"Were there any other Lodgers in the House?"

"No."

"Could they have slept anywhere else but in this Bed?"

"No."

(By a Lord.) "Did they appear to you to be living together as Man and Wife?"

"Yes."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then John Chadborn was again called in, and further examined as follows:

(Mr. Adam.) "Do you know that Sarah Pinfold was the Maid of the last Witness?"

"Yes."

"Have you seen her lately?"

"I saw her on Saturday Week; she was then in Bed, and had been confined only a Day or two."

"In consequence of any Instructions you received from Mr. Wallis, did you go to Leamington at any Time after Mrs. Wallis had left her Husband's House?"

"I went to Leamington on the 18th of October."

"Whom did you take?"

"Marsh, a Police Officer of Gloucester."

"Did you see any body else there; did you see the Witness Hewitt?"

"Immediately after my Arrival at Leamington I met Hewitt the Post Boy; I saw him there."

(By a Lord.) "Were you directed to these Lodgings?"

"Yes; Hewitt the Post Boy was out looking for them."

"Did you see the Gentleman and Lady in a Carriage that had for a Crest a Wheatsheaf?"

"Yes."

"Whom did the Lady turn out to be?"

"Mrs. Wallis."

"Whom did the Gentleman appear to be?"

"Mr. Birkett. I took her from the Carriage, and brought her to Gloucester to her Mother, Lady Bolton."

"What became of Mr. Birkett?"

"Mr. Birkett ran off; there was a great Crowd. I understood he went to his Lodgings, and went away that Night."

"Had you seen Mr. Birkett before?"

"I had seen him at the Gloucester Races in 1826."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Edward Hewitt was again called in, and further examined as follows:

(Mr. Adam.) "Were you present with Mr. Chadborn in Leamington when Mr. Chadborn stopped a Carriage with any Lady and Gentleman in it?"

"Yes."

"What Lady and Gentleman were those; had you ever seen them before?"

"Yes; I saw them on the 17th and 18th."

"Where had you seen them on the 17th and 18th?"

"At Leamington. I saw them come out of their Lodgings, and go in."

"What Lodgings?"

"On the Parade."

"The same Lodgings you have spoken to before?"

"Yes."

"Were the Lady and Gentleman you saw in this Carriage on the 18th the same Lady and Gentleman you drove to Mr. Woodhouse's Lodgings on the 14th?"

"Yes."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Mr. Adam stated, "That he did not feel it necessary to trouble their Lordships with further Evidence; but that the Petitioner was in Attendance, in case their Lordships desired to put any Questions to him."

The Counsel were directed to withdraw.

Then the said Bill was read a Second Time.

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Ordered, That the House be put into a Committee upon the said Bill To-morrow.

The House was adjourned during Pleasure.

The House was resumed by The Lord Chancellor.

Criminal Laws, Petition from Wisbech for Alteration of.

Upon reading the Petition of the Merchants, Bankers, and other Inhabitants of the Town of Wisbech, in the Isle of Ely, in the County of Cambridge, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships, "That, both for the better Protection of Property and the invariable Prosecution and adequate Punishment of the heinous Offence of Forgery, the Penalty of Death may be commuted in such Manner as may appear to the Legislature best adapted to effect these important Ends:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the Table.

Labourers Wages, Petition from Gloucestershire respecting.

Upon reading the Petition of the Master Manufacturers and Operatives in the Woollen Trade, in the County of Gloucester, and others, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships, "That the Laws may be made more effectual for the Prevention of the Practice of paying Wages to Workmen by Truck instead of Money, by increased Penalties and more comprehensive Enactments, which shall include both direct and collusive Payments to Workmen either in Goods by Way of Truck, or at Shops in which the Master Manufacturer is either directly or indirectly interested:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the Table.

East India, &c. Trade, Petitions from Merchant Venturers, Bristol, & Stoke & Fenton, for opening, referred to East India Com ee.

Upon reading the Petition of The Master, Wardens and Commonalty of Merchant Venturers of the City of Bristol, under their Common Seal; praying their Lordships, "That all Monopoly of the Trade of this United Kingdom with India, the Indian Archipelago and China may be abolished; and that British Subjects may be placed in a Situation, in respect to their Intercourse with those Countries, at least upon a Footing of Equality with the Subjects of all other Kingdoms and States:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the Table.

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.

Upon reading the Petition of the Manufacturers, Tradesmen and other Inhabitants of Stoke and Fenton, in the Staffordshire Potteries, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships "to take into Consideration the Advantages which would be derived from the Opening of the Trade to India and China; and to secure for the Petitioners the Enjoyment of those Rights and Benefits to which they feel themselves entitled in common with the rest of His Majesty's Subjects:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the Table.

Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to the lastmentioned Committee.

Malt Duty, Petition from South Erpingham for Repeal of.

Upon reading the Petition of the several Persons whose Names are thereunto subscribed, being Owners and Occupiers of Lands, and Inhabitants of the Hundred of South Erpingham, in the County of Norfolk; complaining of the great Distress which pervades all Parts of this Hundred; and praying their Lordships "to repeal the Tax upon Malt:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the Table.

Climbing Boys in cleaning Chimnies, Petitions against employing: (Burslem, &c:) Lane-end & Lane-Delph: Hanley & Shelton:

Upon reading the Petition of the Inhabitants of Burslem, Longport, Cobridge and Tunstal, in the Staffordshire Potteries, whose Names are thereunto subscribed:

Also, Upon reading the Petition of the Inhabitants of Lane-end and Lane-Delph, in the Staffordshire Potteries, whose Names are thereunto subscribed:

Also, Upon reading the Petition of the Inhabitants of Hanley and Shelton, in the Staffordshire Potteries, whose Names are thereunto subscribed:

Stoke upon Trent.

And also, Upon reading the Petition of the Inhabitants of Stoke upon Trent, Penkull and Fenton, in the Staffordshire Potteries, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; severally praying their Lordships, "That they will interpose their Authority to prevent the further Sacrifice of Human Life in the unhealthy and dangerous Work of sweeping Chimneys; and that, in order thereto, the Employment of Climbing Boys may be prohibited by Law:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petitions do lie on the Table.

Lords summoned.

Ordered, That all the Lords be summoned to attend the Service of the House To-morrow.

Four per Cents. Bill:

Hodie 3a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for transferring certain Annuities of Four Pounds per Centum per Annum into Annuities of Three Pounds and Ten Shillings or Five Pounds per Centum per Annum."

The Question was put, "Whether this Bill shall pass?"

It was resolved in the Affirmative.

Haymarket Removal Bill:

Hodie 3a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for removing the Market at present held for the Sale of Hay and Straw from the Haymarket; and for establishing Markets for the Sale of Hay, Straw and other Articles in York Square, Clarence Gardens and Cumberland Market, in the Parish of Saint Pancras in the County of Middlesex."

The Question was put, "Whether this Bill shall pass?"

It was resolved in the Affirmative.

Wistow Inclosure Bill:

Hodie 3a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for inclosing Lands in the Parish of Wistow, in the County of Huntingdon, and for extinguishing the Tithes in the said Parish."

The Question was put, "Whether this Bill shall pass?"

It was resolved in the Affirmative.

Berwick Light Dues Bill:

Hodie 3a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for relieving in certain Cases Vessels entering or sailing from the Port of Berwick-upon-Tweed from the Duties leviable under Two Acts passed in the Forty-sixth and Fifty-fourth Years of His late Majesty's Reign, relating to the Northern Lighthouses."

The Question was put, "Whether this Bill shall pass?"

It was resolved in the Affirmative.

Messages to H.C. that the Lords have agreed to the 4 preceding Bills.

And Messages were, severally, sent to the House of Commons, by Mr. Cross and Mr. Trower;

To acquaint them, That the Lords have agreed to the said Bills, without any Amendment.

Arle, &c. Inclosure Bill.

Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for inclosing Lands in the Tithings of Arle and Arleston otherwise Allstone, in the Parish of Cheltenham, in the County of Gloucester, and for discharging from Tithes Lands in the said Tithings."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords following:

L. Bp. London.
L. Bp. Oxford.
L. Teynham.
L. Gower.
L. Hay.
L. King.
L. Monson.
L. Rolle.
L. Bolton.
L. Carbery.
L. Dunalley.
L. Arden.
L. Ker.
L. Penshurst.
L. Wynford.
L. Abp. Canterbury.
L. Privy Seal.
D. Beaufort.
D. Dorset.
M. Bute.
E. Shaftesbury.
E. Stanhope.
E. Hardwicke.
E. Mansfield.
E. Malmesbury.
E. Limerick.
E. Nelson.
E. Bradford.
V. Arbuthnott.
V. Lorton.
V. Granville.

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet Tomorrow, at Ten o'Clock in the Forenoon, in the Prince's Lodgings, near the House of Peers; and to adjourn as they please.

Leonard Stanley Inclosure Bill.

Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for inclosing Lands in the Parishes of Stanley Saint Leonards otherwise Leonard Stanley, and Eastington, or one them, in the County of Gloucester, and for discharging from Tithes Lands in the said Parish of Stanley Saint Leonards otherwise Leonard Stanley."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords Committees aforenamed:

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet on the same Day, at the same Place; and to adjourn as they please.

Bp. London's Estate Bill.

Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for enabling the Bishop of London to grant Building Leases of certain Estates belonging to the said See."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords Committees aforenamed:

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet on Tuesday the 11th of May next, at the usual Time and Place; and to adjourn as they please.

Evelyn's Estate Bill.

Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for authorizing the granting of Building and other Leases of Freehold Ground and Hereditaments late the Property of Dame Mary Evelyn deceased, in the Parishes of Saint Paul and Saint Nicholas Deptford, in the County of Kent."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords Committees aforenamed:

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet on the same Day, at the same Place; and to adjourn as they please.

Marshall's Estate Bill.

Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to enable the Trustees under the Marriage Settlement of Bouchier Marshall Clerk, deceased, and Elizabeth his Wife, also deceased, to effect a Sale of the Advowson of the Church of Bow otherwise Nymet Tracy, in the County of Devon."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords Committees aforenamed:

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet on Wednesday the 12th of May next, at the usual Time and Place; and to adjourn as they please.

Warriner's Estate Bill.

Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for vesting Estates, of which Gifford Warriner Esquire, a Lunatic, is Tenant in Tail, in Trustees for Sale, and also for effecting a Partition of certain Parts thereof, and for granting Leases."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords Committees aforenamed:

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet on the same Day, at the same Place; and to adjourn as they please.

Sir W. P. Campbell's Estate Bill.

Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to enable Sir William Purves Hume Campbell of Marchmont, Baronet, and the Heirs of Entail of the Lands and Barony of Greenlaw, in the County of Berwick, to grant Feus of Parts of the said Lands and Barony; and for other Purposes therein mentioned."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords Committees aforenamed:

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet on Thursday the 13th of May next, at the usual Time and Place; and to adjourn as they please.

Rawlings's Estate Bill.

Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for vesting the legal Estate in certain Estates late of Mrs. Ann Budgen, formerly vested in Elizabeth Pedder deceased in Mortgage, in Edward Rawlings, the present Mortgagee and Trustee of the Equity of Redemption thereof."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords Committees aforenamed:

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet on the same Day, at the same Place; and to adjourn as they please.

Sir W. G. Cumming's Estate Bill.

Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for selling the Entailed Estates of Gordonstown and others, in the Counties of Elgin and Banff, belonging to Sir William Gordon Gordon Cumming Baronet, or so much thereof as may be necessary, and to apply the Price arising therefrom in the Payment of the Debts affecting or that may be made to affect the said Lands and Estates."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords Committees aforenamed:

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet on Friday the 14th of May next, at the usual Time and Place; and to adjourn as they please.

Hay's Estate Bill.

Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for establishing and carrying into Execution the Trusts created by the last Will and Testament of John Gwyn, late of the City of Londonderry, Merchant, deceased; and for incorporating the Trustees therein named, for the better and more effectual Execution of the Charities appointed by said Will; and for other Purposes."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords Committees aforenamed:

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet on the same Day, at the same Place; and to adjourn as they please.

Welsh Iron & Mining Co's Estate Bill.

Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for dissolving a certain Partnership Company known by the Name of "The Welsh Iron and Coal Mining Company;" and for enabling the Directors and Trustees thereof to dispose of the Estate and Effects of the Concern, and divide the Surplus, after Payment of Debts and Expences, amongst the Shareholders of the Capital Stock therein; and for other Purposes."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords Committees aforenamed:

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet on Monday the 17th of May next, at the usual Time and Place; and to adjourn as they please.

Burns & Grier v. Stewart.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of John Burns of West Machan and Robert Grier in Raploch, Tacksmen of the Raploch Collieries; complaining of Four Interlocutors of the Lords Ordinary in Scotland, of the 10th February, 12th May and 7th December 1824, and 22d January 1825, in so far as the Charge complained of was not thereby simpliciter suspended; also of Two Interlocutors of the Lord Ordinary, of 12th December 1828 and 3d December 1829; and also of an Interlocutor of the Lords of Session there, of the First Division, of the 5th of March 1830; and praying, "That the same may be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Appellants may have such Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that Duncan Stewart, Writer in Edinburgh, may be required to answer the said Appeal:"

It is Ordered, That the said Duncan Stewart may have a Copy of the said Appeal, and do put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the 26th Day of May next; and Service of this Order upon the said Respondent, or upon any one of his known Agents in the Court of Session in Scotland, shall be deemed good Service.

Hamerton's Divorce Bill.

Ordered, That the Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the Marriage of William Medows Hamerton Esquire with Isabella Frances his now Wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other Purposes;" be taken into further Consideration To-morrow, and that the Lords be summoned.

Dillon v. Sir W. Parker, Petition to revive on Part of Respondent, referred to Appeal Com ee.

Upon reading the Petition of Sir Hyde Parker Baronet, only Brother and Heir at Law of Sir William Parker Baronet deceased, late Respondent in a Cause depending in this House, to which John Joseph Dillon Esquire is Appellant; setting forth, "That on the 20th Day of April instant the said Respondent Sir William Parker departed this Life, leaving the Petitioner his only Brother and Heir at Law, and also next Tenant in Tail, under the Will of the Testator Sir Henry John Parker Baronet, of the Estates in question in the said Suit in the Court below and in this Appeal, and of which he is now in Possession: That by the Death of the Petitioner's said Brother, the late Respondent, the Proceedings in the said Appeal are become abated;" and therefore praying, "That their Lordships will be pleased to order that the said Appeal may stand revived in the Name of the Petitioner, (the now Tenant in Tail of the Estates in question,) as Respondent in the Place and Stead of his Brother the late Respondent; and that the Petitioner may have the same Benefit of the said Appeal as his said Brother would or might have had if still living:"

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.

East Retford Election Bill, Witnesses to attend.

Ordered, That George Worsley, Robert Appleby, Stephen Lawrence, John Uttley, Robert Whatmough, John Hoult, William Cookson, John Crooks, Thomas Butler, John Baker, Broxholme Slaney, Thomas Slaney, Benjamin Scott, William Brown junior, Thomas Leake, John Richardson, Thomas Giles, Thomas Clark, Samuel Brown, Joseph Raynor, Matthew Wass, William Wakefield, John Linegar, John Banks and John Drake, do attend this House forthwith, in order to their being examined as Witnesses upon the Second Reading of the Bill, intituled, "An Act to prevent Bribery and Corruption in the Election of Burgesses to serve in Parliament for the Borough of East Retford."

D'Oyly's Divorce Bill.

The House (according to Order) was adjourned during Pleasure, and put into a Committee upon the Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the Marriage of John Hadley D'Oyly Esquire with Charlotte his now Wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other Purposes."

After some Time, the House was resumed:

And The Earl of Shaftesbury reported from the Committee, "That they had gone through the Bill, and made some Amendments thereto, which he was ready to report, when the House will please to receive the same."

Ordered, That the said Report be received To-morrow.

Petition of Baron of Rokeby, claiming a Right to vote for Peers for Ireland, referred to Com ee for Privileges.

Upon reading the Petition of Matthew Baron of Rokeby, of Armagh, in the County of Armagh, in that Part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland called Ireland; setting forth, "That The Most Reverend Father in God Richard Robinson, Doctor in Divinity, Archbishop of Armagh, Primate and Metropolitan of all Ireland, was, by Letters Patent bearing Date at Dublin the 26th Day of February in the Seventeenth Year of the Reign of His late Majesty King George the Third, created Baron of Rokeby, of Armagh, in the County of Armagh, to hold the said Dignity to him and the Heirs Male of his Body, and in default of such Issue, then to Mathew Robinson of West Layton, in the North Riding of the County of York, Esquire, and the Heirs Male of his Body: That the said Richard Archbishop of Armagh and Baron of Rokeby departed this Life on or about the 10th Day of October 1794, unmarried and without Issue: That the said Mathew Robinson, unto whom and to the Heirs Male of whose Body the said Dignity was as aforesaid limited in default of Heirs Male of the Body of the said Richard First Baron of Rokeby, departed this Life in or about the Month of October 1778, and in the Lifetime of the said Richard, having had Issue by Elizabeth his Wife, formerly Elizabeth Drake, Three Sons; that is to say, Matthew Robinson, Thomas Robinson and Morris Robinson, and other Children: That upon the Decease of the said Richard Archbishop of Armagh and Baron of Rokeby, the said Dignity devolved upon the said Matthew Robinson, (who had assumed the Surname of Morris in addition to and after that of Robinson,) the eldest Son and Heir Male of the said Mathew Robinson: That the said Matthew Second Baron of Rokeby departed this Life on or about the 30th Day of November 1800, unmarried and without Issue: That the said Thomas Robinson, the Second Son of the said Matthew Robinson, and next Brother unto the said Matthew Second Baron of Rokeby, departed this Life in or about the Month of December 1747, unmarried and without Issue: That the said Morris Robinson, the Third Son of the said Matthew Robinson, and next Brother to the said Thomas, departed this Life in or about the Month of October 1777, in the Lifetime of his elder Brother, the said Matthew Second Baron of Rokeby, leaving Issue by Jane his Wife, formerly Jane Greenland, Two Sons; that is to say, Morris Robinson and the Petitioner: That upon the Death of the said Matthew Second Baron of Rokeby as aforesaid, the said Dignity devolved unto the said Morris Robinson, the elder Brother of the Petitioner, who thereupon became the Third Baron of Rokeby; and he the said Morris dying unmarried and without Issue on or about the 19th Day of April 1829, the said Dignity hath devolved unto the Petitioner, as Heir Male of the Body of Mathew Robinson of West Layton aforesaid, Esquire, and in virtue of the Limitations in the aforesaid Letters Patent: That the Petitioner was authorized by His late Majesty's Royal Licence, bearing Date the 3d Day of June 1776, to take and use the Name of Montagu only: That being seized of the said Dignity of Baron of Rokeby, the Petitioner claims in virtue thereof a Right to vote at Elections of Peers of Ireland, to sit in the Parliament of the United Kingdom"; and therefore praying their Lordships, "That his said Right may be admitted:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to the Lords Committees for Privileges, to consider and report.

Sir T. M. Wilson's Estate Bill, Petition against:

Upon reading the Petition of Robert Ward, Tenant on the Court Roll of divers Customary or Copyhold Lands, Tenements and Hereditaments lying within and holden of the Manor of Hampstead, in the County of Middlesex; taking notice of a Bill depending in this House, intituled, "An Act to enable Sir Thomas Mary on Wilson Baronet, and other Persons successively entitled under the Will and Codicils of the late Sir Thomas Maryon Wilson Baronet, to grant Building Leases of his Estate in the County of Middlesex, Part of the Estates devised by the said Will and Codicils; and for other Purposes relating thereto;" and praying their Lordships, "That the same may not pass into a Law:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the Table.

Bill to be read 2 a.

Ordered, That the said Bill be read a Second Time on Wednesday next.

Sir W. P. Campbell's Estate Bill, Copy of, referred to Judges in Ireland to take a Consent.

Ordered, That a printed Copy of the Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable Sir William Purves Hume Campbell of Marchmont, Baronet, and the Heirs of Entail of the Lands and Barony of Greenlaw, in the County of Berwick, to grant Feus of Parts of the said Lands and Barony; and for other Purposes therein mentioned;" attested by the Clerk of the Parliaments, be, and the same is hereby referred to Mr. Baron Smith, in Ireland, and Mr. Baron Pennefather, in Ireland, who are forthwith to summon Major William Renny at Mount Panther Clough, in Ireland, and to take his Consent to the said Bill, as One of the Guardians of Andrew Wauchope, Son of the deceased John Wauchope, late of The East India Company's Civil Service; and thereafter to report to the House, under their Hands, whether the said Major William Renny has appeared before them the said Mr. Baron Smith and Mr. Baron Pennefather, and consented to the same as such Guardian; and that the said Mr. Baron Smith and Mr. Baron Pennefather do sign the said printed Copy of the said Bill.

Graliame v. Jolly.

The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed for hearing the Cause wherein Francis Grahame Esquire is Appellant, and Stewart Jolly is Respondent:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel at the Bar, on the first vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed.

Suits in Equity Bill.

It was moved, "That the Order made Yesterday, "That the Bill, intituled, "An Act for further facilitating the Administration of Justice in Suits and other Proceedings in Equity," be read the Third Time on Friday next; and that the Lords be summoned;" be now read."

The same was accordingly read by the Clerk.

Ordered, That the said Order be discharged.

Ordered, That the said Bill be read the Third Time on Tuesday next; and that the Lords be summoned.

Drummond's Petition claiming the

The Earl of Shaftesbury (by His Majesty's Command) presented to the House A Petition of Thomas Drummond of Biddick, in the County of Durham, to His Majesty; praying, "That His Majesty will be graciously pleased to declare the Titles and Dignities of Earl of Perth, Lord Drummond, Stobhall and Montefex, to belong to the Petitioner;" together with His Majesty's Reference thereof to this House.

Which Petition and Reference were read by the Clerk, and are as follow; (viz t.)

"To The King's Most Excellent Majesty.

"The Petition of Thomas Drummond of Biddick, in the County of Durham, lineal and nearest lawful Heir Male to the Title and Dignity of Earl of Perth, in the Kingdom of Scotland.

"Humbly sheweth,

"That the Family of Drummond is one of the most ancient and illustrious in Scotland: It was nobilitated in 1487, when Sir John Drummond of Drummond was, by His Majesty King James 3d, created Lord Drummond, and sat in the Parliament of Scotland accordingly as a Peer of that Realm: His Descendant and Heir Male, James the Fourth Lord Drummond, was on the 4th Day of March 1605 created, by King James 6th, (1st of England,) Earl of Perth, Lord Drummond and Stobhall, with Limitation of those Titles to his Heirs Male whatsoever: He died shortly afterwards, viz. in 1611, without Issue Male, and was succeeded, conformably to the aforesaid Limitation of the Honours, by his only Brother John, who thereupon became the Second Earl of Perth, &c.: He died in 1662, leaving James his eldest Son, the next and Third Earl, who deceased in 1675, and was succeeded by James his eldest Son, the Fourth Earl, a Person who, in his Time, was very prominent in the Affairs of State, and was constituted Justice General and High Chancellor of Scotland.

"That this Nobleman, James Fourth Earl of Perth, on the 11th of October 1687 executed a Settlement and strict Entail of his Estate, and soon after, viz. on the 17th November, (1687,) a Charter of Novo Damus was granted to his Son, The Lord Drummond, in Terms of the aforesaid Entail, whereby the Estate, together with the Family Titles, were again limited by another Patent, or Charter of Novo Damus, dated the 7th December 1687, which Charter conferred on him the Titles of Earl of Perth, Lord Drummond, Stobhall and Montefex, and confirmed the Honours and Estates aforesaid to the Earl, "and his eldest lawful Son, and his Heirs Male; whom failing, to the Earl's other Issue Male procreated or to be procreated; whom failing, to the Earl's Brother German John Earl of Melfort, and his Heirs Male; whom failing, to the Heirs Male of John the Second Earl of Perth."

"That by another Charter, dated 13th July 1688, confirmatory of the previous Provisions and Destinations of the Perth Honours and Estates, there was contained a Prohibition to alter the Course of Succession, sell, alienate or dispose of the Lands, a Prohibition to commit Treason, with divers other irritant and resolutive Clauses, to protect the Honours and Estates from Forfeiture or Eviction.

"That the said James Fourth Earl of Perth died in 1716, leaving James his eldest Son and Heir, entitled to be the Fifth Earl, who died shortly after his Father, viz. in 1717, leaving James his eldest Son and Heir, the Sixth Earl.

"That the said James the Sixth Earl, who was reported to have died of his Wounds received in the Battle of Culloden in 1745, did not so die at the Time propagated, but lived in Obscurity, and resided at Biddick, in the County of Durham, where he deceased in June 1782, and was buried on the 12th of the same Month, at the Chapel of Penshaw, in the Parish of Houghtonle-Spring: He married in England, and had Issue James his eldest Son and Heir, who died in 1823, leaving Thomas Drummond, Your Majesty's Petitioner, his eldest Son and Heir: That whatever Circumstances hitherto predominated to restrain Your Petitioner, or his Father, from laying Claim to their Family Inheritance, having now, as it is considered, ceased, Your Petitioner is advised, that whether in the Character of Heir Male, lineal and immediate, of James Fourth Earl of Perth; or as Heir Male collateral to John Earl of Melfort, the Remainder Man in the Patent or Charter of 1687 before-mentioned; or as Heir Male of Line and Provision to John the Second Earl of Perth, the ultimate Remainder Man in the said Patent or Charter; he is now the nearest and lawful Heir Male entitled to the Succession of the Titles and Dignities of Earl of Perth, Lord Drummond, Stobhall and Montefex.

"Wherefore Your Petitioner humbly prays, That Your Majesty will be graciously pleased to declare the said Titles and Dignities to belong to Your Petitioner; or that Your Majesty will be graciously pleased to refer this Petition to the House of Lords, that Your Petitioner may prove before their Lordships his Descent, and Right to the same accordingly.

"And Your Majesty's Petitioner will ever pray, &c. &c. &c.

"Thomas Drummond."

27th March 1830.

Whitehall, 15th April 1830.

"His Majesty, being moved upon this Petition, is graciously pleased to refer the same to The Right Honorable The House of Peers to examine the Allegations thereof, as to what relates to the Petitioner's Title therein mentioned, and to inform His Majesty how the same shall appear to their Lordships."

"Rob. Peel."

Ordered, That the said Petition, with His Majesty's Reference thereof to this House, be referred to the Consideration of the Lords Committees for Privileges; whose Lordships, having considered thereof, and heard such Persons concerning the same as they shall think fit, are to report their Opinion thereupon to the House.

Redcross Road Bill.

The Earl of Shaftesbury reported from the Lords Committees, to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act for maintaining the Road from Haverhill, in the County of Suffolk, to Redcross in the Parish of Great Shelford, in the County of Cambridge," was committed; "That they had considered the said Bill, and examined the Allegations thereof, which were found to be true; and that the Committee had gone through the Bill, and directed him to report the same to the House, without any Amendment."

Acle & Yarmouth Road Bill.

The Earl of Shaftesbury made the like Report from the Lords Committees, to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act for making a Turnpike Road from the Bridge over the River Bure at Great Yarmouth to Acle, (with certain Branches therefrom,) all in the County of Norfolk," was committed.

8th Report from Appeal Com ee.

The Earl of Shaftesbury reported from the Lords Committees 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; and to report to the House; and to whom were referred certain Petitions in the following Causes; Humphrys against Pratt; Mackenzie against Gilchrist; Russell and others against The Earl of Breadalbane; Duffy against Orr and others; The Mayor, Sheriffs, Free Burgesses and Commonalty of Galway against His Majesty's Attorney General for Ireland; and Freeman and others against Fairlie and others; "That the Committee had met, and considered the Defendant's Petition in the Writ of Error Humphrys against Pratt, and the Respondents Petitions in the Causes Mackenzie against Gilchrist, and Russell and others against The Earl of Breadalbane, severally praying their Lordships for Leave to deposit their printed Cases; and had heard the Agents thereon, and the Committee are of Opinion, That the Petitioners may respectively be allowed now to deliver in their printed Cases: That the Committee had also considered the Petition of Robert Orr and John Duffy, Two of the Respondents in the Cause Duffy against Orr and others, praying their Lordships that they may be allowed Six Weeks further Time, from the 14th of April instant, to lodge their respective Cases; and had heard the Agents thereon, and the Committee are of Opinion, That the Petitioners may be allowed Six Weeks further Time, from the said 14th of this instant April, to deliver in their respective printed Cases: That the Committee had also considered the Appellant's Petition in the last-mentioned Cause, praying their Lordships That he may be allowed One Month's further Time, from the 14th Day of April instant, to lodge his Case, or such other Time as may be granted to the said Respondents Robert Orr and John Duffy, and further, that he may be allowed to amend his Petition of Appeal by striking out the Name of Patrick Byrne as a Respondent thereto; and had heard the Agents thereon, and the Committee are of Opinion, That the Petitioner may be allowed Six Weeks further Time, from the said 14th of this instant April, to deliver in his printed Case, and that he may be at liberty to amend his said Petition of Appeal by striking out the Name of Patrick Byrne as a Respondent thereto, if he should so think fit: That the Committee had also considered the Respondent's Petition in the Cause The Mayor, Sheriffs, Free Burgesses and Commonalty of Galway against His Majesty's Attorney General for Ireland, praying their Lordships to allow him Two Months Time to deliver his Cases; and had heard the Respondent's Agent thereon, and the Committee are of Opinion, That the Petitioner may be allowed Two Months further Time to deliver in his printed Case: And that the Committee had also considered the Petition of the Appellants in the Cause Freeman and others against Fairlie and others, praying their Lordships that the Time for printing their Cases may be further enlarged until such Time as Charlotte Oldham, and William Smith and Wife shall have prosecuted their Suit with Effect, and be regularly before their Lordships, or that their Lordships will be pleased to make such other Order in the Premises as shall be just; and had heard the Agents thereon, and the Committee are of Opinion, That the Time for printing and delivering the Appellants Case may be enlarged, subject to any Application which may be made to the House on the Part of the Respondents, stating that they are in a State to proceed with the Appeal."

Which Report, being read by the Clerk, was agreed to by the House; and Ordered accordingly.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Jovis, vicesimum nonum diem instantis Aprilis, hora decima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.