Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 63, 1830-1831. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
Die Jovis, 3° Februarii 1831.
Macdonald v. Mackie & Co.
Lords take the Oaths.
This Day Washington Earl Ferrers, William Earl of Wicklow, and Robert Montgomery Lord Belhaven and Stenton, took the Oaths, and also took and subscribed the Oath of Abjuration, pursuant to the Statutes.
Clyne v. Sclater et al.
Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of David Clyne, Solicitor, Supreme Courts, Edinburgh; complaining of an Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary in Scotland, of the 9th of June 1830; and also of an Interlocutor of the Lords of Session there, of the Second Division, of the 11th of January 1831; and praying, "That the same may be reversed, varied or altered, so far as complained of, or that the Appellant may have such Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that Robert Sclater, Die Cutter in Edinburgh; Eagle Henderson Esquire, of Press; William Renton, Merchant in Edinburgh; Colonel Robert Anstruther, residing there; Messieurs James Porteous, Preacher of the Gospel; Robert Kinnear, Bookseller in Edinburgh; John Robertson, Wine and Spirit Merchant there, and James Laidlaw Mitchell, Writer to the Signet, Trustees nominated and appointed by the late John Garrioch, residing in Edinburgh, may be required to answer the said Appeal:"
It is Ordered, That the said Robert Sclater, and the several other Persons last named, may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and do put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Thursday the 3d Day of March next; and Service of this Order upon the said Respondents, or upon any One of their known Agents in the Court of Session in Scotland, shall be deemed good Service.
J. & E. Kibble v. Stevenson et al:
Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Misses Janet and Elizabeth Kibble, residing in Paisley, Daughters of the deceased James Kibble, of Whiteford; complaining of an Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary in Scotland, of the 11th of March 1829, in so far as it found Expences due; also of Two Interlocutors of the said Lord Ordinary, of the 11th July and 12th November 1829; and also of Three Interlocutors of the Lords of Session there, of the Second Division, adhering thereto, of the 21st May (signed 25th) and 18th December 1830, and of 15th January 1831, decerning for Expences; and praying, "That the same may be reversed, varied or altered, so far as complained of, 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 John Stevenson, Robert Stevenson, Janet Stevenson or M'Nair, and Robert M'Nair junior, her Husband, for his Interest, and Janet Johnston, may be required to answer the said Appeal:"
It is Ordered, That the said John Stevenson, and the several other Persons last named, may have a Copy of the said Appeal, and do put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Thursday the 3d Day of March next; and Service of this Order upon the said Respondents, or upon any One of their Procurators or Agents in the Court of Session in Scotland, shall be deemed good Service.
Dobie to enter into a Recogce on it.
The House being moved, "That Alexander Dobie of Palsgrave Place, Strand, in the County of Middlesex, Gentleman, may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for Misses Janet and Elizabeth Kibble, on account of their Appeal depending in this House, they residing in Scotland:"
Gf. on v. Mackinlay et al.
The House being informed, "That Archibald Mackinlay, and others, Respondents to the Appeal of William Downe Gillon Esquire, had not put in their Answer to the said Appeal, though duly served with the Order of this House for that Purpose:"
Dick v. Cuthbertson.
The House being informed, "That Donald Cuthbertson, Respondent to the Appeal of John Dick Esquire, had not put in his Answer to the said Appeal, though duly served with the Order of this House for that Purpose:"
Magistrates, &c.of Dundee et al. v. Kay & Morton.
The House being informed, "That Alexander Kay and John Morton, Respondents to the Appeal of the Magistrates and Town Council of the Royal Burgh of Dundee, and others, had not put in their Answer to the said Appeal, though duly served with the Order of this House for that Purpose:"
Cabbell et al. v. Brock.
The House being informed, "That James Brock, Respondent to the Appeal of William Burridge Cabbell, and others, had not put in his Answer to the said Appeal, though duly served with the Order of this House for that Purpose:"
Marquess of Headfort's Petition, claiming a Right to vote at Elections of Peers for Ireland, referred to Com ee for Privileges.
Upon reading the Petition of Thomas Marquess of Headfort, Earl of Bective, Viscount and Baron Headfort of that Part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland called Ireland; setting forth, "That the Petitioner's Father Thomas, late Marquess of Headfort, Knight of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, &c. deceased, took his Seat in the late Parliament of Ireland as Earl of Bective on the 9th Day of January 1798, and sate and voted therein; and that on the 29th Day of December 1800 he was advanced to the Dignity of Marquess of Headfort by His Majesty's Royal Letters Patent, and was subsequently elected to sit and vote in the Parliament of the United Kingdom as one of the Representative Temporal Peers of Ireland: That the Petitioner's said late Father departed this Life on or about the 23d Day of October 1829, leaving the Petitioner his eldest Son and Heir, who thereupon succeeded to the Honours of the Peerage above recited; in virtue whereof he claims the Right to vote at Elections of Temporal Peers of Ireland to sit in the Parliament of the United Kingdom;" and therefore praying, "That such his Right to vote may be admitted and recognized by their Lordships:"
Faussett v. Carpenter, Defendant's Petition to lodge his Case, referred to Appeal Com ee.
Upon reading the Petition of Michael Carpenter, Lessee of James Palmer Esquire and others, Defendant in a Writ of Error depending in this House, wherein Charles Faussett is Plaintiff; praying their Lordships, "That he may now be at liberty to lay the Prints of his Case on the Table of the House:"
It is Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to the Committee appointed to consider of the Cases 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 W. Rae v. Ld. Dundas et al. Appellant's Petition to lodge his Case, referred to Appeal Com ee.
Upon reading the Petition of Sir William Rae Baronet, Appellant in a Case depending in this House, to which Lawrence Lord Dundas, and others, are Respondents; praying their Lordships, "That he may be allowed to lodge his printed Cases within such Time as their Lordships shall be pleased to prescribe:"
Sir C. Cockerell et al. v. Cholmeley, Respondent's Petition to lodge his Case, referred to Appeal Com ee.
Upon reading the Petition of Francis Cholmeley, Respondent in a Cause depending in this House, to which Sir Charles Cockerell Baronet, and others, are Appellants; praying their Lordships, "That he may be allowed to lay his printed Case before the House, and that he may appear by Counsel on the Hearing of the said Appeal:"
Megget & Roy v. Douglas, Respondent's Petition to receive his Case, referred to Appeal Com ee.
Upon reading the Petition of Alexander Douglas, Respondent in a Cause depending in this House, to which Thomas Megget and James Roy are Appellants; praying their Lordships, "That his printed Case may now be received:"
Baird v. Ross, Appellant's Petition for Time for his Case, referred to Appeal Com ee.
Upon reading the Petition of William Baird, Appellant in a Cause depending in this House, to which Robert Ross is Respondent; praying, "That their Lordships will be pleased to grant him One Month's further Time to lodge his Case:"
M. of Donegall v. Houlditch et al. Respondents Petition for Payment of Costs, referred to Appeal Com ee.
Upon reading the Petition of Edward Houlditch, and others, Respondents in a Cause lately depending in this House, to which George Augustus Marquess of Donegall was Appellant; setting forth, "That the said Appellant, on or about the 10th Day of May 1830, presented his Petition of Appeal to their Lordships, setting forth, that the Petitioners, residing in London, out of the Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, filed their Bill in that Court on the 8th of December 1828, against the Appellant, praying, amongst other Things, that they, and other the Creditors of the Appellant claiming to be intitled under a certain Trust Deed in the Bill mentioned, might be decreed to have the full Benefit of several Suits and Proceedings, Decrees, Orders and Reports alleged to have been had in the High Court of Chancery in England, the Particulars of which were fully set forth in the Bill; and that such several Decrees and Orders might be enforced and carried into Execution so far as necessary; and that a proper Person might be appointed Receiver of the Rents and Profits of the Hereditaments comprised in the Trust Deed; and that the Appellant might be restrained by Injunction from receiving, or interfering in the Receipt, of such Rents and Profits: That on the 9th of July 1829 the Appellant filed his Answer to the Bill, relying (amongst other Things) upon his Absence out of England when such Decrees and Proceedings were had in the English Suits, and that he was not bound thereby, and setting forth divers Particulars in which the Appellant was advised that the Decrees and Proceedings were erroneous, unjust, irregular, and such as a Court of Equity ought not to carry into Execution: That the Petitioners having applied to the Court of Chancery in Ireland for a Receiver over the Appellant's Estates, grounded on the Answer of the Appellant, and Affidavits, an Order was made, on or about the 28th of November 1829, by The Lord High Chancellor of Ireland, refusing such Application: That the Appellant, on or about the 28th of April last, filed his Cross Bill against the Petitioners, (the Plaintiffs in the Original Suit,) impeaching the Securities of which the Petitioners claim to have been bonâ fide Purchasers, and of which it is the Object of the Original Suit to enforce Payment, and charging therein that the Securities were originally obtained by Fraud, and without Consideration, or in Consideration of Gambling Debts, and charging that the Petitioners, the Plaintiffs in the Original Cause, had full Notice and Knowledge thereof before they purchased or procured Assignments of the Securities, and as Evidence thereof setting out Copies of and Extracts from Letters written by John Houlditch, One of the Petitioners in the Original Cause, to his Brothers, Edward and James Houlditch, the Petitioners, who are also Plaintiffs in the Original Cause; and the Appellant by his said Cross Bill prayed a Discovery of the several Matters contained therein, to the end that he might be the better enabled to defend himself in the Original Suit; and that in the mean time and until (the Petitioners) the Plaintiffs in the Original Suit made such Discovery, they should be restrained from further proceeding in the Original Suit; and that the Appellant's Bill might be taken as a Cross Bill of Discovery, and in aid of the Appellant's Defence against the Original Bill, and for the Purpose of putting in Issue the several Documents and Facts therein stated: That on the Day following the Day on which the Cross Bill was filed, namely, on the 29th of April last, the Plaintiffs in the Original Cause served the peremptory Rule for Publication, which, according to the Practice of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, would have intitled them to pass Publication on the 7th of May: That no Subpona to hear Judgment having been served upon the Appellant, the Original Cause could not have been set down for hearing before the 12th of June, being the Second Day of Trinity Term, according to the General Order of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, bearing Date the 16th of November 1813: That the Appellant having been advised that it was essential to the Defence of his just Rights in the Original Suit to enforce an Answer to his Cross Bill, caused Notice to be served on the 28th of April of an Application to the Court of Chancery in Ireland, intitled in both the Original and Cross Causes, that further Proceedings be stayed in the Original Cause (save as to the Examination of Witnesses) until after the Defendants in the second Cause should have fully answered the Cross Bill: That the Application was grounded on the Pleadings and Proceedings in the Original Cause; the Bill in the second Cause; a Certificate of Counsel, that he had read the Cross Bill, and that he considered it necessary for the Attainment of Justice; an Affidavit of the Appellant, that the Cross Bill was not for the Purpose of Delay, but for the Attainment of Justice; and an Affidavit of the Appellant's Solicitor to the same Effect, and explaining the Causes of the Delay in filing the Cross Bill, and stating that the Cross Bill was absolutely necessary for doing Justice between the Parties, and that he was convinced, from the Documents in his Possession, and which had been put in Issue by the Cross Bill, that the Appellant had a good Defence against the Demands of the Petitioners, the Plaintiffs in the Original Cause: That by an Order of The Lord Chancellor of Ireland, bearing Date the 4th Day of May, the Motion of the Appellant was refused; and that shortly after presenting the Petition of Appeal the Petitioners put in their Answers: That on or about the 27th Day of May 1830 the Appellant presented another Petition to their Lordships, stating to the Effect before mentioned, and alledging, that notwithstanding the Appeal the Petitioners were proceeding in the Original Cause, and were intending to bring it to a Hearing before they put in their Answer to the Cross Bill, whereby great Injustice would be done to the Appellant; and praying that their Lordships would appoint an early Day for the hearing of the Appeal, and that in the mean time the Petitioners might be restrained from proceeding in the Original Suit, save as to the Examination of Witnesses: That the last-mentioned Petition was referred to the Appeal Committee, and came on to be heard on the 10th Day of June, when the Committee ordered that the Petition should stand over for a Fortnight, the Petitioners, the Defendants to the Cross Bill, undertaking to file their Answer to that Bill within a Fortnight: That at the Expiration of a Fortnight, no Answer having been filed by the Petitioners to the Cross Bill, and the Rule to pass Publication having nearly expired, the Appellant made a second Application to The Lord Chancellor of Ireland to stay Proceedings in the Original Suit until the Answer of the Petitioners to the Cross Bill should be filed; and his Lordship was pleased to order that Publication should be enlarged until Ten Days after such Answer should be filed: That the said Petition also stated, that in consequence of such last-mentioned Order it had become unnecessary for the Petitioner to prosecute his Appeal against the Order of the 4th Day of May, inasmuch as The Lord Chancellor of Ireland had by his last Order in Effect rescinded his Order of the 4th Day of May; and the Appellant prayed that he might be at liberty to withdraw his Appeal without Costs: That such Petition was referred to the Appeal Committee, and came on to be heard on the 7th Day of October last, and their Lordships, on Report, ordered that the Appellant should be at liberty to withdraw his Appeal, on Payment of reasonable Costs to the Petitioners: That the Agents of the Appellant and of the Petitioners having differed as to the Amount of the Costs, they agreed to refer the Matter to William Courtenay Esquire, their Lordships Clerk Assistant, (who had previously offered to settle such Costs in case the Agents differed,) to fix the Amount of Costs to be paid by the Appellant to the Petitioners, and he has since fixed the Sum of Fifty Pounds as proper to be paid to the Petitioners: That several Applications having been made by the Petitioners Agent to the Appellant's Agents, for the Payment of the said Sum of Fifty Pounds, he, on the 15th Day of January instant, received from them a Letter, stating that they had that Morning received a Letter from Messieurs Macartney, (who reside in Ireland, and are the Appellant's Solicitors there,) positively directing the Appeal to be prosecuted, and that of course they the said Agents had no Alternative but Compliance; and the Order for Leave to withdraw the Appeal, after Payment of Fifty Pounds Costs, could not be acted upon: That the Petitioners are advised that the Appellant's Agents, by consenting to the before-mentioned Reference to the said William Courtenay, did in fact agree to pay such Sum as he should determine to be proper to be paid for the Petitioners Costs;" and therefore praying, "That their Lordships will be pleased to order that the said Appellant may within a Fortnight pay to the Petitioners, not only the said Sum of Fifty Pounds, but also the Costs of the present Application and all other Proceedings consequent thereon:"
Sir J. Colquhoun v. Colquhoun, Petition to revive Appeal, referred to Appeal Com ee.
Upon reading the Petition of Robert Gilmour Colquhoun Esquire, Son of the deceased Robert Colquhoun Esquire, late Respondent in a Cause depending in this House, to which Sir James Colquhoun Baronet is Appellant, and of Mrs. Harriet Farrer or Colquhoun, and William Blair of Blair, Esquire, Executors of the said Robert Colquhoun; praying their Lordships "to order that the Petitioners may have Leave to appear as Respondents to the said Appeal, and lodge a printed Case in their own Names:"
M. of Westmeath v. M. of Salisbury et al. Petitions of the Respondents, The Marchss of Westmeath & H.W.Wood, for their Costs.
Upon reading the Petition of Emily Ann Bennett Elizabeth Marchioness of Westmeath, One of the Respondents in a Cause depending in this House, to which George Thomas John Marquess of Westmeath is Appellant, and James Marquess of Salisbury, and others, are Respondents; setting forth, "That the Petitioner hath been put to very heavy Costs in and about the Appeal now pending before their Lordships, and in which, as it has been intimated in their Lordships House, their Lordships are about to give their final Judgment, the further Consideration thereof having been adjourned to the first Day after the Christmas Recess: That the Petitioner hath been living wholly separate and apart from the above-named Appellant, her Husband, from the Month of August 1819, and that during more than Eleven Years past she has never received from the said Appellant any Sum whatever for her Maintenance or otherwise: That such Separation was occasioned by the gross Cruelty of the Appellant towards the Petitioner, and that it took place in the first instance with the Sanction and Consent of the said Appellant, testified by his executing the Two Deeds which are the Subject of the present Appeal; and that the Propriety and Necessity of such Separation has been confirmed by the final and irrevocable Decision of the Ecclesiastical Court, in the Manner stated by the Petitioner in former Petitions addressed by her to their Lordships in that Behalf; but the Petitioner nevertheless remains wholly without Provision, in such State of Separation from her Husband, either by Means of the Allowance stipulated by the Appellant to be paid to her under the said Deeds, or by Means of Alimony to be decreed to her by the said Ecclesiastical Court; and that the Petitioner possesses no Means adequate to the Payment of such Costs as she has been compelled to incur in this Appeal and in the Proceedings connected therewith, whilst in the mean time the said Appellant has not only received a Sum of about Seven hundred Pounds, the Arrears of Interest due upon the Petitioner's Fortune, accrued due prior to the Death of the Petitioner's Father, the late Marquess of Salisbury, but has also, since that Period, been in constant Receipt of the surplus Interest thereon, after paying the Petitioner's Pin Money, being between Two hundred Pounds and Three hundred Pounds per Annum, which for Seven or Eight Years amounts to a Sum of nearly Two thousand Pounds; and she submits to their Lordships, that according to the Rules observed in Courts of ordinary Jurisdiction, the Appellant, by whom the Proceedings before their Lordships were instituted, and who has failed in establishing the Grounds upon which he disputed the Decision of the Court below, ought, for these Reasons, if they were the only ones, to pay all the Costs which he has occasioned to the Petitioner in the Matter of this Appeal: That the Petitioner has good Reason to believe that the said Appeal, and the said Proceedings connected therewith, and all the other numerous and harassing Suits into which she has been dragged by the Appellant, and the Particulars of which are before their Lordships, have been instituted solely with a view to exhaust the Petitioner, and in the Hope that she would at length be unable to defend herself against them; and particularly that the present Appeal, and the Suit out of which it arises, were severally brought with such view, because the Petitioner shews their Lordships that the said Appellant commenced a Suit by filing a Bill in the Court of Chancery in this Country, in the Year 1819, in very nearly the same Terms and upon the same Grounds as those adopted by him in the present Suit; in which former Suit he impeached the Validity of the said Deeds of Separation, and prayed that they might be declared to be void, and delivered up to him to be cancelled: That the then Lord Chancellor, The Right Honorable The Earl of Eldon, in May 1821, decided in the said former Cause, that if the said Deeds were void on the Ground of Policy (as the Appellant alledged they were) they must be void at Law as well as in Equity, and that there was no Reason why that Question should not be tried at Law; and his Lordship expressly said, "The Parties may therefore try the Question in such Manner as they may be advised, with Liberty to apply:" That the Appellant never thought fit so to try the Question; and that the Bill in the said former Suit was dismissed in May 1822, with Costs, which Costs the Appellant has paid no Part of to this Day: That the Appellant, however, persisted in suing the Petitioner in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Restitution of his conjugal Rights, wherein such Final Decree as aforesaid hath been pronounced, and the Petitioner thereby separated from the Bed, Board and mutual Cohabitation of the said Appellant; but that the Costs of the said last-mentioned Suit, amounting to upwards of One thousand seven hundred Pounds, still remain due and unpaid by the Appellant, and the Petitioner is uncertain whether she shall ever be able to obtain Payment thereof: That the Suit out of which the present Appeal arises was wholly unnecessary, and that the Petitioner ought not to have been put to defend the same; and the Petitioner submits, that it is evident such Suit could only be instituted for the Purpose of harassing her by expensive Litigation, which the Appellant hoped she would be unable to sustain, because the former Suit being for the same Object, and the Means of effecting that Object by a Trial at Law being open to the Appellant in the same Suit, it could, for no other Reason than that suggested by the Petitioner, have been necessary or expedient for the Appellant to commence the present Suit, and still less necessary or expedient to appeal against the Decree, which is virtually the same Decision as that pronounced upon the same Matter nearly Ten Years ago by Lord Eldon: That as well therefore because the present Suit and Appeal were severally unnecessary, as for the other Reasons by the Petitioner therein-before and by her said former Petition now on their Lordships Table, whereto the Petitioner craves Leave to refer, alleged, and particularly because the Petitioner was driven to the Necessity of opposing the Appellant's Proceedings by reason of his having left her wholly without any Provision for her Maintenance, and of his endeavouring to annul the Engagement into which he had entered to provide such Maintenance, and because the said Appellant, as the Petitioner's Husband, is the Person, as she submits, properly and legally liable, and who ought therefore to pay the same, the Petitioner submits that she is justly and lawfully entitled to be paid all the Costs incurred by her in the Matter of this Appeal;" and therefore praying their Lordships, "That, taking all the Circumstances of the Case into Consideration, and particularly considering the Costs and Expences to which she has been already exposed by the Appellant's Proceedings, the Amount of Costs now due to her from the said Appellant, the Payment of which she is unable to enforce, the Needlessness of this Appeal, and the Suit from which it springs, and the Obligation the Petitioner was under to appear upon the same, their Lordships will be pleased, in pronouncing their Judgment upon the said Appeal, to direct the Payment by the said Appellant to the Petitioner of such Costs as she has incurred in and about the same:"
Upon reading the Petition of Henry Widman Wood Esquire, One of the Respondents in the last-mentioned Cause; setting forth, "That the Petitioner, together with William Sheldon Esquire, now deceased, and The Most Honorable James William Brownlow Cecil Marquess of Salisbury, and The Honorable and Reverend Gerald Valerian Wellesley Doctor of Divinity, were respectively made Parties by the Appellant to the Suit out of which this Appeal arises, under the following Circumstances;- That the said William Sheldon deceased, the before-named Marquess of Salisbury, and The Honorable and Reverend Gerald Valerian Wellesley, together with the several other Persons therein mentioned, were respectively appointed by the said Appellant, under the Deed of the 17th Day of December 1817, Trustees of the several Terms which the Appellant by the same Deed covenanted with the said William Sheldon to create, for the Purpose as well of securing to the Appellant's Wife, The Marchioness of Westmeath, from whom he had been then shortly before about to separate, such Provision for her Maintenance as is therein mentioned, as of settling his the said Appellant's Estates in Tail on the Issue of the Marriage, and of providing Portions for the younger Children thereof: That the Petitioner and the said Marquess of Salisbury are the Trustees of the other Deed executed by the said Appellant, and bearing Date the 30th Day of May 1818, whereby the Appellant undertook to provide a separate Maintenance of One thousand three hundred Pounds for his said Wife, between whom and the said Appellant a Separation had then taken place, to which Two several Deeds, proved in Evidence before their Lordships, the Petitioner craves Leave to refer: That the Petitioner, together with the said William Sheldon deceased, as Trustees as aforesaid, being so made Parties by the said Appellant to the said Suit, it became incumbent upon them to appear thereon, which they accordingly did; and that the Decree pronounced in the said Suit declared that the said Deed of the 17th of December 1817, so far as the said Marchioness of Westmeath, or her Trustees, sought any Benefit under the same, should be declared to be null and void, but without Prejudice to the Rights or Claims of Lady Rosa Nugent thereunder; and further Ordered, that as to the Remainder of the said Suit the Appellant's Bill in the said Cause should be retained for Twelve Months, and that all the Parties to the said Suit should be at liberty to proceed at Law as they might be advised: That the Object of the Appellant in bringing this Suit, as stated by himself and by his Counsel at the Bar of this House, was, first, to dispute the Reservation of such Rights as under the first-mentioned Deed might belong to Lady Rosa Nugent, the only Child of the Marriage between the Appellant and his said Wife, and who, if deprived of the Provision intended to be made by the said Deed, will be left without any Provision whatever; and, secondly, to prevent the Opportunity given by the said Decree to the Petitioner, as Trustee under the said last-mentioned Deed, from trying the Validity thereof in the Manner suggested by the said Decree: That the Petitioner and the said William Sheldon deceased presented no Cross Petition of Appeal; but the Petitioner submits, that it became the Duty of the said William Sheldon deceased, as one of such Trustees under the said first-mentioned Deed, and the Petitioner, under the said second-mentioned Deed, to oppose the Attempt of the Appellnat to reverse the said Decree; and that they are apprised, by the Opinion already pronounced in their Lordships House, that it is their Lordships Intention to give their final Judgment on the said Appeal, the further Consideration thereof having been adjourned to the first Day after the Christmas Recess: That the said William Sheldon departed this Life on or about the Day of November last, having previously appeared, conjointly with the Petitioner, as such Trustees as aforesaid in the Matter of this Appeal, and they have incurred considerable Costs therein;" and therefore praying, "That their Lordships will be pleased to order the Payment to him of such Costs as he and the said William Sheldon deceased have been put to in the due Discharge of their said Office of Trustees as aforesaid, in the Matter of this Appeal:"
Ld. Sinclair's Petition referred to Judges in Scotland.
Upon reading the Petition of Charles Carre Lord Sinclair, for himself and as Administrator in Law for his infant Children, Charles Saint Clair, Ellen Saint Clair, John Saint Clair and Jane Elizabeth Saint Clair, Heirs under the Entail therein-after mentioned, and of The Honorable James Saint Clair, the eldest Son of the said Charles Carre Lord Sinclair, also an Heir under the said Entail; 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 The Lord President of the Court of Session, in Scotland, and Lord Moncreiff, 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.
Assessed Taxes, Paper respecting, delivered.
He was called in; and delivered at the Bar, pursuant to the Directions of an Act of Parliament, "Copies of all Cases which have been stated and signed by Commissioners acting in the Execution of the Acts relating to the Assessed Taxes, subsequent to the 4th of November last, being the Date of a like Return made under the Directions of the same Act in the present Session of Parliament."
Slavery, Petitions from Denbigh & Portsoy for Abolition of.
Upon reading the Petition of the Members and Congregations of Welsh Calvinistic Methodists in the Town of Denbigh, and its Vicinity, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships "to take the Subject of Slavery in the British West India Colonies into their serious and early Consideration, and adopt such Measures as may seem most effectual for the total Abolition of a System so cruel, unjust and unmerciful, and which is likewise contrary to the Welfare of the Slaves, the Safety of the Colonists, and the Interest and Honor of the Nation:"
Upon reading the Petition of the Inhabitants of the Royal Burgh of Barony of Portsoy, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships, "That there may be no undue Delay in bestowing the Boon of Emancipation upon their Fellow Subjects, the Slaves in the West Indian Colonies; and that in the mean time, by the Interposition of the high Authority of Parliament, every thing possible may be done for ameliorating the Condition of the Slaves, and extending amongst them the Blessings of Education; and that their Lordships will pass such Enactments as shall have the Effect of soon raising Eight hundred thousand of their Fellow Subjects, who are now suffering under a most unrighteous Bondage, to the full Possession of those Privileges of Freedom to which they, as well as we, have a Birthright Title, and thus to annihilate a System of injurious Treatment towards Fellow Creatures and Fellow Subjects, which, while it lasts, will be the foulest Blot upon the British Name:"
Provisions at Greenwich Hospital, Account of Prices, delivered.
Sums paid to Russia under Treaty of 1815:
And also, "An Account of all Sums paid by The Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury to the Agents of the Russian Government, by virtue of the Treaty of 19th May 1815, concluded between Great Britain, Russia and the Netherlands."
Russian Dutch Loan:
Also, "An Account of all Pensions granted out of the Civil List of Scotland from the 20th Day of June 1829 to the 20th Day of June 1830, specifying the Names of the Persons to whom the same were granted, made up by the Barons of Exchequer in Scotland:"
Compensation to Macers of Court of Session & Commissary Clerks of Lanarkshire & Edinburgh.
Proceedings, East India Judicature Act.
The Earl of Shaftesbury reported from the Lords Committees appointed to examine the Lists laid upon the Table on the 23d of December last, pursuant to the Directions of an Act made in the 26th Year of His late Majesty King George the Third, for the further Regulation of the Trial of Persons accused of certain Offences committed in the East Indies, and for other Purposes therein mentioned; and to report to the House the Titles of such Lords as shall appear upon Ten such Lists; "That the Committee had met, and examined the said Lists; and that the Titles of the following Lords are the only Titles that appear upon Ten Lists:
Then it was moved, "That the Clause in the said Act directing that the Names of such Persons who shall appear to hold or to have held any of the Offices or Employments therein specified shall be struck out of the said List, be now read."
Galway Elective Franchise, Petition of Chamber of Commerce, Galway, for Extension of.
A Petition of the Chamber of Commerce of Galway, praying, "That their Lordships will be pleased to equalize Civil Rights in Galway, by extending to the Roman Catholic Mercantile and Trading Classes the Elective Franchise, in as full and ample a Manner as the same is now enjoyed by Protestants," was presented and read.
Coals imported into Ireland, Petition from Belfast for Repeal of Duty on.
Reform of Parliament, Petitions in favor of: (Felton:)
Upon reading the Petition of the Inhabitants of the Parish of Felton, in the County of Northumberland, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying, "That their Lordships will afford their early and most serious Attention to the present State of the Representation of the People, which is notoriously defective and unjust, since many Towns long since fallen into Decay, and some even without Inhabitants, send Members to Parliament, while large, wealthy and thickly-peopled Places have no Representatives in the House of Commons, and will apply such Remedy as in their Wisdom they may deem fit; and will also take into their Consideration the enormous Expence and corrupt Influence attending Elections; and that their Lordships will adopt the Plan of voting by Ballot, as the best Means of preventing so injurious and demoralizing a System:"
Upon reading the Petition of the Inhabitants of the County of the Town of Carrickfergus, in that Part of the United Kingdom called Ireland, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships "to introduce such Measures as may restore to the People that Constitutional Weight in the Legislature which is the only Bulwark of Public Liberty in these Realms; and, in particular, that by the Adoption of the Vote by Ballot, and Triennial Parliaments, their Lordships will secure the Purity of Election, and the Fidelity of Representatives in the Discharge of their momentous Duties:"
Upon reading the Petition of the Inhabitants of Bishop Auckland and its Vicinity, in the County of Durham, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying, "That their Lordships will afford their early and serious Attention to the following Grievances: the defective State of the Representation of the People in the Commons House of Parliament; the partial Distribution of the Elective Franchise; the enormous Expence and corrupt Influence attending Elections; and the long Duration of Parliaments; and that their Lordships will apply such Remedy as they may deem most fitting, and such as will satisfy the loudly and repeatedly expressed Desires of the People:"
Upon reading the Petition of the Heritors and Proprietors of Lands and Tenements in the Parish of Cardross, County of Dumbarton, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying, "That their Lordships will adopt such an Extension of the Elective Franchise as will remove the admitted Evils of the present System of Election in Counties and in Burghs, and render the Representatives to be in future elected by the People of Scotland really, as well as nominally, responsible to their Constituents:"
Provost, &c. of Dingwall:
Upon reading the Petition of The Provost, Resident Magistrates and Town Council of the Royal Burgh of Dingwall, under their Common Seal; praying their Lordships "to take into their Consideration the present Mode of electing Representatives to serve in Parliament, and also the Mode of electing the Magistrates and Town Councillors in Royal Burghs in Scotland, and to apply such a Remedy to this great Constitutional Evil as may seem meet:"
Incorporation of Weavers, Glasgow:
Upon reading the Petition of the Deacon, Collector, Masters and Members of the Incorporation of Weavers in Glasgow, under their Common Seal; praying their Lordships "to grant full, fair and free Representation of the People in the Commons House of Parliament, and to effect Retrenchment in the Public Expenditure to the greatest possible Extent:"
A Petition of the Noblemen, Freeholders, Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Supply of the County of Dumbarton, in a General County Meeting assembled, was presented and read; praying their Lordships "to adopt such an effective Measure of Reform as will remedy the Evil of the respectable Classes of the Community not being represented in Parliament, and to secure an Extension of the Elective Franchise in Scotland."
Upon reading the Petition of the Burgesses, Proprietors and Inhabitants of the Royal Burgh of Inverary, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying, "That their Lordships will make such Alteration in the present Burgh System of Scotland as shall afford those interested in their Prosperity, a Voice in the Election of their Magistrates, and consequent Control over the Burgh Funds; and further to make such general Reform as shall be most for the Welfare and Happiness of the Country:"
Provost, &c. of Paisley:
Upon reading the Petition of The Provost, Baillies and Council of the Burgh of Paisley, in Common Council assembled, under their Common Seal; praying their Lordships "for any Parliamentary Reform, which, by extending the Elective Franchise, shall diffuse more equal Political Rights among His Majesty's Subjects, and which at the same Time shall be calculated to preserve inviolate the just Balance and Stability of our invaluable Constitution:"
Upon reading the Petition of the Owners and Occupiers of Land, and others, in the North Division of the Lathe of Aylesford, in the County of Kent, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships "to take immediate Steps for the Attainment of such a Reform in the Commons House of Parliament as shall secure to the Nation a full, free and equal Representation, as the only Means of alleviating the Distress and allaying the Dissatisfaction which now so unhappily prevail over the United Kingdom, of reviving our Industry, and restoring our National Tranquillity:"