House of Lords Journal Volume 62: 12 March 1830

Die Veneris, 12 Martii 1830.

DOMINI tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Franklin & Gough v. La Touche et al:

Counsel were (according to Order) called in to be heard in the Cause wherein John Franklin and Richard Franklin Gough, otherwise Richard Franklin, are Appellants, and Robert La Touche, and others, are Respondents.

And Counsel having been heard for the Appellants; and Sir George Grey, offering himself to argue the Case for the Respondents Henrietta Gough and Maria Rylands, was heard to state the Reasons in support of such Application:

It was moved, "That that Part of the Report of the Appeal Committee made to the House on the 19th of March 1829, respecting the Petition of Henrietta Gough and Maria Rylands, praying their Lordships, "That they may be allowed to appear by One Counsel on the Hearing of the Cause without printing any separate Case," be now read."

The same was accordingly read by the Clerk, as follows:

"That the Committee had also considered the Petition of Henrietta Gough and Maria Rylands, Two of the Respondents in the Cause Franklin and another against La Touche and others, praying their Lordships that they may be allowed to appear by One Counsel on the Hearing of the Cause without printing any separate Case; and had heard the Petitioners Agent thereon, and also the Agent for the Appellants; and the Committee submit, That the Cause should proceed to be heard in the usual Course, and that the House, on the Hearing, can then best judge of the Propriety of hearing the Petitioners by separate Counsel; but the Committee further submit, That if the House should then consider it right that the Petitioners should be heard by separate Counsel, One Counsel only in addition to the usual Number should be heard for them, and that the Petitioners might be so heard without printing a separate Case."

And, on Consideration, the House refused the Application; and Counsel being heard for the other Respondents; the Counsel were directed to withdraw; and Consideration being had of what was offered on either Side in this Cause;

The following Order and Judgment was made:

After hearing Counsel this Day, upon the Petition and Appeal of John Franklin of the City of Dublin, and of Richard Franklin Gough, otherwise Richard Franklin, of the City of Limerick, which Appeal (upon the Death of Peter La Touche the elder, one of the Respondents thereto,) was by Order of this House of the 11th of March 1829 revived against Peter La Touche the younger and John David La Touche, as the Executors, and in the Place and Stead of the said Peter La Touche the elder, deceased; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, of the 25th of June 1825; and praying, "That the same might be reversed, and that the "Appellants might have the Relief prayed by their Petition of Appeal therein mentioned, and might have the Benefit thereof, or that they might have such Relief in the Premises as to their Lordships should seem meet;" as also upon the separate Answer of Robert Latouche, Peter Latouche the elder, John David Latouche, and Peter Latouche the younger; and also the separate Answer of Henrietta Gough Spinster and Maria Rylands Widow put in to the said Appeal; and due Consideration had of what was offered on either Side in this Cause:

Decree Affirmed.

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Petition and Appeal be, and is hereby dismissed this House, and that the Decree therein complained of, be, and the same is hereby Affirmed.

Sir A. Chichester v. M'Intyre.

After hearing Counsel, in Part, in the Cause wherein Sir Arthur Chichester Baronet is Appellant, and Charles M'Intyre is Respondent:

It is Ordered, That the further Hearing of the said Cause be put off to Monday next.

Bouchier et al. v. Dillon et al.

Ordered, That the Hearing of the Cause wherein William Bouchier, and others, are Appellants, and Susanna Dillon, and others, are Respondents, which stands appointed for this Day, be put off to Monday next.

Muskett'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 Joseph Salisbury Muskett Esquire with Mary Muskett his now Wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other Purposes;" and for hearing Counsel for and against the same; and for the Lords to be summoned;

Counsel were accordingly called in:

And Mr. Gurney and Mr. Kelly appearing as Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner; and Mr. David Pollock appearing as Counsel for Mrs. Muskett;

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

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

(By Counsel.) "Have you served Mrs. Muskett with a Copy of the Order of the House, and delivered to her an Office Copy of this Bill?"

"Yes."

"When did you do so?"

"On the 4th of March."

"At what House?"

"No. 34, Montagu Square."

"Is that the House of Mr. Gurney?"

"It is."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Thomas Moore Keith was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(By Counsel.) "Do you produce an examined Copy of an Extract from the Parish Books of the Parish of Burlingham, of the Marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Muskett?"

"I do."

The same was delivered in, and read as follows:

"No. 57.-Joseph Salisbury Muskett of the Parish of Intwood, Single Man, and Mary Jary of this Parish, Single Woman, were married in this Church by Licence, with Consent of Parents, this Seventeenth Day of March in the Year One thousand eight hundred and twelve, by me, John Cubitt, Min^r.

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

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

(By Counsel.) "Are you Sister to the Petitioner, Mr. Muskett?"

Yes, I am."

"Were you present at the Marriage?"

"Yes, I was."

"Was her Father present?"

"He was."

"Did he give her away?"

"Yes, he did."

"Was the Maiden Name of the Lady Jary?"

"Yes, it was."

"What Age was your Brother, Mr. Muskett, at that Time?"

"About Twenty-seven."

"Do you know what Age Miss Jary was?"

"Between Nineteen and Twenty."

"Did you visit them occasionally after their Marriage?"

"Yes, I did."

"Until their Separation?"

"Yes."

"Did that take place in the Year 1817?"

"It did."

"Had they any Children?"

"One, a Daughter."

"How old is she now?"

"Seventeen."

"On what Terms did they appear to you to live together, up to the Time of their Separation?"

"In the most affectionate Manner."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Charlotte Adams was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(By Counsel.) "Were you acquainted with Mr. and Mrs. Muskett?"

"Yes."

"Did you frequently visit them up to the Time of their Separation in 1817?"

"Up to within Five or Six Weeks."

"Upon what Terms did they appear to you to live together?"

"Always very happily."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Thomas Moore Keith was again called in; and further examined as follows:

(By Counsel.) "Do you produce the Marriage Settlement of Mr. Muskett?"

"I do."

"Are you the Attesting Witness to the Execution?"

"Yes."

"By whom?"

"By Joseph Muskett, Joseph Salisbury Muskett, and William Jary."

"Are those Mr. Joseph Muskett the Father of Mr. Joseph Salisbury Muskett the Husband, and Mr. Jary the Father?"

"Exactly so."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Elizabeth Yetts was again called in; and further examined as follows:

(By Counsel.) "Did you attest the Execution of that Instrument by Mrs. Muskett then Miss Jary?"

"Yes."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Rebecca Ewing was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(By Counsel.) "Did you live as Nursery Maid with Mr. and Mrs. Muskett at Intwood Hall?"

"Yes."

"How long did you live with them before their Separation?"

"Two Years and Three Quarters."

"Did you know Mr. Richard Hanbury Gurney?"

"Yes."

"Had he an Estate which adjoined Intwood Hall Estate?"

"Yes."

"His Estate was called Keswick?"

"Yes."

"Did he ever dine at your Master's House?"

"Once."

"Did he ever make any Calls at your Master's House when he was out?"

"Yes."

"On whom did he call?"

"On Mrs. Muskett."

"On any of those Occasions did she give you Directions as to coming, or not bringing the Child into the Room?"

"Once she did."

"What Directions did she give you?"

"She told me not to take the Child when Mr. Gurney was in the Room."

"How far is Intwood Hall from Norwich?"

"About Seven Miles."

"Did your Mistress go weekly to Norwich?"

"About Once in a Week."

"How did she go?"

"In the Pony Chaise."

"When you first went to her, did she go the Road by Keswick, or not?"

"She went the direct Road to Norwich."

"In the last Year, or the last Half Year, did she change her Road?"

"Yes."

"Which Road did she go then?"

"By Keswick."

"Was that further?"

"Yes."

"Did that go near the House of Mr. Gurney?"

"Yes, it did."

"For the last few Months did you observe, that when she went to Norwich you saw Mr. Gurney in your Way?"

"Yes, sometimes."

"How did he go?"

"On Horseback."

"When he was announced, what did your Mistress do?"

"Get out of the Pony Chaise."

"Did she walk?"

"And walk on the Footpath."

"What did Mr. Gurney do?"

"Get off his Horse, and walk by her Side."

"How far did they use to walk together?"

"'Till they nearly reached Norwich; then she got into the Pony Chaise again, and he mounted his Horse again."

"Then they parted?"

"Yes."

"Were you, on any Occasion, in the Market Place of Norwich, when you saw Mr. Gurney?"

"Yes."

"What was he doing when you first saw him?"

"Speaking to a Gentleman."

"On your Mistress's Approach to him, what did he do?"

"He left the Gentleman."

"What did your Mistress do?"

"She walked away from me, and the Gentleman followed her."

"Do you mean Mr. Gurney?"

"Yes."

"How soon did you see your Mistress again?"

"In about Two Hours again."

"Then you went Home with her?"

"Yes."

"Did your Mistress use to walk out with you and the Child?"

"Yes."

"For the last few Months before the Separation, did she use to meet with any Person in those Walks?"

"With Mr. Gurney."

"Did they use to walk together?"

"Yes."

"Where?"

"In the Lane adjoining his Plantations."

"Is that a Road of great public Resort, or a private Lane?"

"A private Lane."

"What length of Time did they use to walk together?"

"Sometimes an Hour, or an Hour and a Half, or Two Hours."

"On any Occasions, did they quit the Lane and go into the Plantations?"

"Yes."

"On how many Occasions?"

"Twice."

"Did you go with them, or follow them?"

"Once I did."

"How long was this before the Separation?"

"It was in the Course of the last Six Months."

"In the Course of the Summer of 1817?"

"Yes."

"On the One Occasion on which you went into the Plantation, did Mr. Gurney and Mrs. Muskett remain with you, or did they separate themselves from you?"

"They separated themselves from me."

"Where did they go to?"

"Into a Straw Hut."

"When they were in that Straw Hut, could you see them?"

"No."

"Was there a Seat in that Straw Hut?"

"Yes."

"A long Seat?"

"Yes."

"How long were they in that Straw Hut, out of your Sight?"

"About Half an Hour."

"When they came back again, did you observe any thing respecting your Mistress; how did her Countenance look?"

"She looked warm."

"Did you observe any thing respecting her Bonnet?"

"Yes, it was bent down in front."

"Did you tell her of it?"

"Yes."

"What did she do?"

"She straightened it directly."

"Did you then go Home, you and she?"

"Yes."

"In the Month of October, do you remember there being a good deal of Confusion in the House about some Discovery your Master was supposed to have made?"

"Yes."

"Did he send for Mr. and Mrs. Jary?"

"Yes."

"For her Father?"

"Yes."

"And for his Attorney?"

"Yes."

"And for Mr. Fellowes, a Magistrate?"

"Yes."

"Did your Master or your Mistress go to Bed that Night?"

"No."

"Was there a good deal of Agitation on something supposed to have passed?"

"Yes."

"After they had all met, you were examined, were you not?"

"Yes."

"In the Result, what became of Mrs. Muskett; did your Mistress remain there, or go to her Father's?"

"She went to her Father's."

"Has she ever returned to her Husband's House, to your Knowledge, since?"

"Not to my Knowledge."

"Upon any Occasions when you were walking out with her, and you met with Mr. Gurney, did she give you any Hint about not coming too near her?"

"Yes ; she told me not to creep so under her Nose."

"After that, did you keep at a greater Distance?"

"Yes, I did."

"When they came out of the Straw Hut-you have told me about her Dress-did you observe any thing about Mr. Gurney's Dress?"

"Yes, there was a little Dirt on the Back of his Coat."

"You were examined at the Trial at Thetford, that took place in the Spring of 1818?"

"Yes."

"And you were examined again on the Trial which took place Two Months ago?"

"Yes."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Mr. Gurney stated, "That he had the Father of Mrs. Muskett in attendance, who attended the Enquiry in the House of Mr. Muskett in 1817, if their Lordships felt it necessary to call for his Evidence."

The Counsel were informed, "That that did not appear to be necessary."

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

(By Counsel.) "Are you Groom to Mr. Jary, the "Father of Mrs. Muskett?"

"Yes."

"How long have you been in Mr. Jary's Service?"

"Two and twenty Years."

"Since the Time of Mrs. Muskett leaving her Husband's House in 1817, did she remain at her Father's House until last October?"

"Yes."

"How far is Mr. Jary's from Intwood Hall?"

"About Thirteen Miles."

"She had been the whole of that Time at her Father's House?"

"Yes."

"She has never returned to Mr. Muskett?"

"No."

"Has Mr. Gurney visited at Mr. Jary's House for some Years past?"

"Yes."

"Has he sometimes slept there?"

"Yes ; sometimes he has dined there, and gone away in the Evening."

"Has he ever ridden out with Mrs. Muskett?"

"Yes."

"Did they appear to be on Terms of great Intimacy?"

"No ; on very good Terms."

"Did you use to carry Letters between them?"

"Yes."

"From one to the other?"

"Yes."

"And Answers?"

"Yes."

"Where did you take the Letters to Mr. Gurney to ?"

"To the Bank at Norwich."

"Mr. Gurney is a Partner in that Bank?"

"Yes."

"Was your taking those Letters known to any of the Family besides yourself?"

"No."

"Were you desired to keep this Secret?"

"Yes."

"In the Month of October last, did Mrs. Muskett send you with a Letter to Mr. Gurney?"

"Yes."

"What Appearance did she exhibit at the Time she gave you that Letter ?"

"Uncomfortable."

"Did she appear in a distressed State?"

"Yes, she appeared uncomfortable."

"Did you deliver the Letter to Mr. Gurney?"

"Yes."

"Did he give you any Message?"

"He gave me a Letter."

"Did he state to you at that Time any thing respecting her ; what he should do?"

"Yes ; he asked me how she did, and I told him that she appeared very uncomfortable ; and he said he knew all about it, for she was with Child by him, and it was his Wish that he should take her away."

"How soon after that did she leave her Father's House?"

"About Seven or Eight Days ; or something of that."

"Did she go with the Knowledge of the Family, or privately?"

"She went away without any Knowledge of the Family."

"Did she go away in the Night, without the Family knowing when she went?"

"Yes."

"Have you since known where she went to?"

"No."

"Have you seen her since?"

"Yes."

"When did you next see her ?"

"When I came to London."

"Where did you see her?"

"In Montagu Square."

"When was that; was it in December?"

"Yes, I think it was."

"When you came up about a Trial ?"

"Yes."

"With whom was she living in Montagu Square?"

"With Mr. Gurney."

"Did they live in Montagu Square as Man and Wife?"

"That I do not know."

"Has she lived there ever since ?"

"Yes."

"You have told me she was at her Father's House, and never returned to her Husband ; did Mr. Muskett ever come to Mr. Jary's after she went to live there?"

"No, never."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

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

(By Counsel.) "Were you Coachman to Mrs. Gurney, the Mother of Mr. Gurney?"

"Yes."

"Do you know Mr. Gurney?"

"Very well."

"Did you go, by his Desire, in October last, to Mr. Jary's?"

"Yes."

"Did he tell you what you were to do ?"

"Yes."

"What did he say ?"

"He told me he wanted me to go and take Mrs. MusKett from Burlingham."

"Mr. Jary lives at Burlingham ?"

"Yes."

"Did you go?"

"Yes."

"With him ?"

"Yes."

"Did you bring Mrs. Muskett away ?"

"Yes."

"At what Time of Night ?"

"At Twelve o'Clock."

"Where did you then carry her to ?"

"I brought her within a Mile of Norwich."

"Where did she go then ?"

"There was a Pair of Horses to hang on to the Carriage, and they set off for Long Stratton."

"Is that the first Stage towards London from Norwich?"

"Yes."

"Mrs. Muskett and Mr. Gurney together?"

"Yes."

"Have you since been in London?"

"Yes."

"Have you been at Mr. Gurney's House?"

"Yes."

"Where is it?"

"No. 34, Montagu Square."

"Have you seen Mrs. Muskett there?"

"Yes."

"Does she live there with him?"

"Yes."

"As Man and Wife?"

"Yes."

"Does she act as the Mistress of the House?"

"Yes."

(By a Lord.)" You are the Coachman, you say?"

"Yes."

The Witness was directed to Withdraw.

The George Springall was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(By Counsel.) "Are you Servant to Mr. Richard Hanbury Gurney?"

"Yes, I am."

"Did you accompany Mr. Gurney and Mrs. Muskett to London in the Month of October last?"

"Yes, I did."

"To what House in London did they first come?"

"To the Hanover Hotel, in Hanover Square."

"How long did they remain at the Hanover Hotel?"

"About a Fortnight."

"Did they pass as Man and Wife?"

"Yes, they did."

"Did you attend upon your Master?"

"Yes."

"Had they only One Bed?"

"There was only One Bed in the Apartments; there were Three Rooms, but only One Bed-room."

"Did they occupy that Bed-room?"

"Yes."

"Did you attend your Master to the Bed-room?"

"I did."

"Did you attend and undress him there, while she was in the Dressing-room?"

"Not every Evening; but in the Morning I used to attend him in the Bed-room, and Mrs. Muskett went into the Dressing-room, which was through the Bedroom, and her Servant attended her there."

"After they had been some Time at the Hanover Hotel, did they remove to Montagu Square?"

"Yes, they did."

"Have they lived there ever since?"

"Yes."

"Have you lived there with them?"

"Yes."

"Have they lived there together as Man and Wife ever since?"

"Yes, they have."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Charlotte Lucy Holding was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(By Counsel.) "Are you the Proprietress of the Hanover Hotel?"

"Yes."

"Do you recollect a Gentleman and Lady by the Name of Gurney coming to the Hotel in October last?"

"Yes."

"Did they go under the Name of Mr. and Mrs. Gurney?"

"Yes."

"Was there a Servant named Springall with them?"

"Yes."

"How long did they remain?"

"From the 14th to the 26th."

"What Apartments did they occupy?"

"A Dining-room, Bed-room, and Dressing-room; a long Suite."

"Was there more than One Bed?"

"Not in the Bed-room."

"Did they remain together as Man and Wife occupying those Rooms while they were there?"

"Yes."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

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

(By Counsel.)" Are you the Chambermaid at the Hanover Hotel?"

"Yes."

"Do you remember Mr. and Mrs. Gurney being there in October last?"

"Yes, I do."

"Did you make the Bed?"

"Yes, I did."

"Was there but One Bed in the Apartments they occupied?"

"Only One."

"They remained there for several Days as Man and Wife?"

"Yes, they did."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Harriett Gaze was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(By Counsel.) "Did you come up to the Hanover Hotel after Mr. Gurney and Mrs. Muskett had come there?"

"Yes."

"Did you attend on Mrs. Muskett while she remained there?"

"Yes."

"Had Mr. Gurney and Mrs. Muskett any more than One Bed?"

"No."

"Have they lived together from that Time to this, as Man and Wife?"

"Yes."

"In the Month of January was she delivered of a Child?"

"In December."

"A Female Child?"

"Yes."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

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

(By Counsel.) "Are you an Attorney?"

"Yes."

"Were you instructed by Mr. Muskett to commence an Action for Criminal Conversation against Mr. Gurney?"

"As Agent for Messieurs Sewell and Blake of Norwich, we were instructed to do so."

"Did you recover Damages in that Action?"

"Yes."

"The Damages were £2,000, and the Costs £248 10s. were they not?"

"Yes."

"Have you received those Damages and Costs since the Judgment was obtained?"

"Yes, I have."

(By a Lord.) "From whom?"

"From Mr. Gurney's Agent."

"Have you paid them over?"

"I have paid them over to Mr. Muskett."

(By Counsel.) "Do you also produce the Judgment in 1818 ?"

"Yes."

"There was a Verdict for the Defendant in that Case ?"

"Yes; I have examined them both with the Original Roll."

"The same were delivered in and read ; the first being an Office Copy of a Record of a Judgment in the Court of King's Bench, in Hilary Term in the Fifty-eighth Year of the Reign of King George the Third, in an Action by Joseph Salisbury Muskett against Richard Hanbury Gurney, for Trespass, Assault and Criminal Conversation with Mary the Wife of the said Joseph Salisbury Muskett, against the said Joseph Salisbury Muskett, with Costs of Suit; and the second being an Office Copy of a Record of a Judgment in the same Court, in Michaelmas Term in the Tenth Year of the Reign of His present Majesty, in an Action between the said Parties on the same Account, for £2,000, besides Costs of Suit.

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Mr. Gurney stated, "That he had closed the Case in proof of the Preamble of the Bill, and that the Petitioner was in attendance, in case their Lordships should desire to propose any Questions to him."

Mr. David Pollock declined to make any Observations on the Evidence.

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 on Monday next.

Hamerton's Divorce Bill, Witnesses to attend.

Ordered, That Joseph Fowler, Ann Hatton, Ann Haines, Michael O'Brien, William Burrows, Sarah Bright, William Maine, Thomas Hiam, Alexander Allan, Rowland Paul and William Pitt do attend this House on Wednesday next, in order to their being examined as Witnesses upon the Second Reading of 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."

Sir W. Cumming's et al. Petition referred to Judges in Scotland.

Upon reading the Petition of Sir William Gordon Gordon Cumming Baronet, Heir of Entail in Possession of the Lands and Barony of Gordonstown and others, for himself, and as Guardian or Administrator at Law for his Children, Infants under Age, and of the other Persons whose Names are thereunto subscribed, Heirs of Entail of the said Estates; 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 Lord Glenlee, in Scotland, and Lord Newton, in Scotland, who are forthwith to summon all Parties before them, who may be concerned in the Bill, and, after hearing all the Parties, and perusing the Bill, are to report to the House the State of the Case, with their Opinion thereupon, under their Hands, and are to sign the said Bill.

Ld. Provost of Edinburgh et al. v. Mac Donald, Respondent's Petition to receive his Case, referred to Appeal Com ee.

Upon reading the Petition of Major William Mac Donald, Respondent in a Cause depending in this House, to which The Lord Provost of the City of Edinburgh, and others, are Appellants; praying their Lordships, "That his printed Case may be received:"

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.

Rose v. Macleod, Appellant's Petition for further Time for his Case, referred to the Appeal Com ee.

Upon reading the Petition of Hugh Rose Esquire, Appellant in a Cause depending in this House, to which Donald Macleod and his Factor loco Tutoris are Respondents; praying, "That their Lordships will be pleased to allow the Petitioner Two Months, from the 15th Day of April, for lodging his printed Case:"

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.

Gardiner v. Simmons, Leave to present Appeal.

Upon reading the Petition of William Spells Gardiner, containing the same Allegations as a Petition of the said William Spells Gardiner, by George Sharp his Agent, presented to the House on the 22d Day of February last; praying, "That their Lordships will be pleased to receive the Petitioner's said Petition of Appeal, the Agents for Stephen Simmons, the Respondent thereto, consenting:"

It is Ordered, That the said Appeal be received, as desired.

Dillon v. Sir W. Parker, Appellant's Petition to postpone the Hearing, referred to Appeal Com ee.

Upon reading the Petition of John Joseph Dillon Esquire, Appellant in a Cause depending in this House, to which Sir William Parker Baronet is Respondent; praying their Lordships, "That the Hearing of this Appeal may be further postponed to Monday the 29th Day of March instant:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to the Committee appointed to consider of the Causes in which Prints of the Appellants and Respondents Cases, now depending in this House in Matters of Appeals and Writs of Error, have not been delivered, pursuant to the Standing Orders of this House.

Sir J. Montgomery et al. v. Maxwell.

Ordered, That the Order made Yesterday, "That the Hearing of the Cause wherein Sir James Montgomery Baronet, and others, are Appellants, and Mackill Maxwell is Respondent, which stands appointed for Friday the 26th of this instant March, be put off till after the Recess at Easter," be discharged.

East India, &c. Trade, Petitions for throwing open, referred to East India Com ee: Provost, &c. of Dumbarton:

Upon reading the Petition of The Provost, Bailies, Dean of Guild, Treasurer and Councillors of the Royal Burgh of Dumbarton, under their Common Seal; praying, "That their Lordships will, at the Period now fixed by Law, establish the Intercourse of the United Kingdom with the Countries to the East of the Cape of Good Hope on such a Footing of Freedom and Security as will effectually and greatly increase the Wealth and add to the Property of British Subjects at Home and Abroad; to institute such Enquiry into the Subject as may appear proper; and to remove and abolish every Condition and Restriction on the Trade to those Countries, and the Residence of British-born Subjects there, as may not be absolutely necessary for the Security and Tranquillity of the British Possessions in India."

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.

Burslem;

Upon reading the Petition of the Manufacturers, Tradesmen, and other Inhabitants of Burslem in the Staffordshire Potteries, whose Names are thereunto subscribed:

Chamber of Commerce, &c. Staffordshire Potteries:

And also, Upon reading the Petition of the Chamber of Commerce and of other Manufacturers in the Staffordshire Potteries; severally praying their Lordships "not to renew the Charter of The East India Company at its approaching Termination, except on Conditions that shall open the Trade to China and India to all Classes of His Majesty's Subjects without Impediment or Restriction; and to secure for them 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 Petitions do lie on the Table.

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

Greenock:

Upon reading the Petition of the Persons whose Names are thereunto subscribed, Merchants, Ship Owners, Tradesmen and others, Inhabitants of the Town of Greenock; praying their Lordships, "That, at the Expiry of the existing Charter of The East India Company, the

"Restrictions on the Trade and Colonization of India may be removed, and the oppressive Monopoly of the Trade with China entirely abolished:"

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

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

Bury.

Upon reading the Petition of the Merchants, Manufacturers, Householders and other Inhabitants of Bury and its Vicinity, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships, "That Notice may be given at the earliest Period allowed by Law for the Termination of the Charter of The East India Company on the 11th Day of April 1834, and that thereafter the Petitioners, and all other of His Majesty's Subjects, may be admitted to a free and unshackled Settlement in India, and to a full and unrestricted Participation in the Trade to India, China, and all other Countries of the East:"

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

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

Leave to Sir E. H. East to attend East India Com ee.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Sir Alexander Grant and others, as follows; (viz ^t.)

"My Lords,

"The Commons have directed me to acquaint your Lordships, That they have given Leave to Sir Edward Hyde East Baronet, a Member of their House, to attend your Lordships, in order to his being examined as a Witness before the Select Committee appointed by your Lordships 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, as desired by your Lordships in your Message of Friday last, if he thinks fit."

Glossary to 5th Report of H. C. on Affairs of The East India Co. Communicated, & referred to East India Com ee.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Sir Alexander Grant and others, as follows; (viz ^t.)

"My Lords,

"The Commons have directed me to communicate to your Lordships the Glossary to the Fifth Report from the Select Committee appointed by them to enquire into the present State of the Affairs of The East India Company; which Report was made on the 28th Day of July 1812, and was communicated to your Lordships, but the Glossary was not then annexed to the Report."

Ordered, That the said Paper do lie on the Table.

Ordered, That the said Paper be printed.

Ordered, That the said Paper 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.

Salford Improvement Bill.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Lord Stanley and others;

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for better cleansing, lighting, watching, regulating and improving the Town of Salford, in the County Palatine of Lancaster;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Kirkby & Pinxton Road Bill.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Admiral Sotheron and others;

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for repairing and improving the Road from the Nottingham and Mansfield Turnpike Road, through Kirkby and Pinxton, to Carter Lane, and to the Colliery near Pinxton Green, in the Counties of Nottingham and Derby;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Watling Street Road Bill.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Mr. Corbett and others;

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for more effectually improving and maintaining the Wellington District of Watling Street Road, in the County of Salop;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

The said Three Bills were, severally, read the First Time.

Report of Com ee of the General Penitentiary, delivered.

The House being informed, "That Mr. Auld, from the General Penitentiary at Millbank, attended;"

He was called in; and delivered at the Bar, pursuant to the Directions of an Act of Parliament,

"Report of the Committee of the General Penitentiary at Millbank."

And then he withdrew.

And the Title thereof being read by the Clerk; Ordered, That the said Report do lie on the Table.

Market Harborough Roads Bill:

Hodie 3^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for more effectually repairing and improving the Roads from Market Harborough to Loughborough, and from Filling Gate to the Melton Mowbray Turnpike Road, in the County of Leicester."

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

It was resolved in the Affirmative.

Thirsk Roads Bill:

Hodie 3^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for repairing certain Turnpike Roads leading to and from Thirsk, in the County of York."

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 2 preceding Bills.

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

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

Coals carried Coastwise, Petition from Cardiff for Repeal of Duty on, referred to Com ee on the Coal Trade.

Upon reading the Petition of the Inhabitants of the Town and Neighbourhood of Cardiff interested in the Coal and Shipping Trades, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships "to repeal the Duties on Sea-borne Coal:"

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 take into Consideration the State of the Coal Trade in the United Kingdom, together with the Duties of all Descriptions and Charges affecting the same, as well in the Port of London as in the several other Ports of the United Kingdom.

East India, &c. Trade, Petition of Merchts of London for Extension of, referred to East India Com ee.

Upon reading the Petition of the Merchants, Agents and others connected with the Trade of the East Indies, and resident in London, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying, "That their Lordships will adopt such Measures as may afford greater Facilities for the Extension of the Trade with India and China, promote its general Prosperity, and conduce to the Improvement and Welfare of the vast Population of the British Territories in the East."

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.

3d 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 was referred a Petition in the Cause Willis and another against Sir George Abercrombie Robinson Baronet and others; "That the Committee had met, and considered the Petition of George Thomas Lyon Bowes, commonly called Lord Glammis, One of the Respondents in the Cause Willis and another against Sir George Abercrombie Robinson Baronet and others, praying their Lordships to order that the said Petition and Appeal may be set down and heard at an early Day in this present Session of Parliament; and had heard the Respondents Agents thereon; and the Committee are of Opinion, under the Circumstances of the Case, That the said Cause should be appointed to be heard on Monday next."

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

Willis et Ux. v. Sir G. A. Robinson et al.

Ordered, That the Cause wherein John Walpole Willis Esquire, and Lady Mary Isabelle his Wife, are Appellants, and Sir George Abercrombie Robinson Baronet, and others, are Respondents, be heard by Counsel at the Bar on Monday next.

East India Com ee, Witnesses to attend.

Ordered, That Sir Thomas Strange, Sir Henry Strachey, and Sir Alexander Johnston do attend this House on Monday next, to be sworn, in order to their being examined as Witnesses before 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.

Horsham & Guildford Roads Bill.

Hodie 2 a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for more effectually repairing and improving the Road from Horsham to the Road leading to Guildford at Aldford Cross Ways, with Two Branches therefrom, and for making and maintaining a new Branch of Road to communicate therewith, all in the Counties of Sussex and Surrey."

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

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

Bridport Road Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for better repairing the Second District of Turnpike Roads leading to and from the Town of Bridport in the County of Dorset; and for making and maintaining several Branch Roads to communicate with the same."

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.

Transfer of Aids Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for appropriating certain Sums to the Service of the Year One thousand eight hundred and thirty."

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 on Monday next.

Exchequer Bills (£12000,000) Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for raising the Sum of Twelve Millions by Exchequer Bills, for the Service of the Year One thousand eight hundred and thirty."

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 on Monday next.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Lunæ, decimum quintum diem instantis Martii, horâ decimâ Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.