House of Lords Journal Volume 34
December 1774, 11-20

Sponsor

History of Parliament Trust

Publication

Year published

1767-1830

Pages

278-281

Annotate

Comment on this article
Double click anywhere on the text to add an annotation in-line

Citation Show another format:

'House of Lords Journal Volume 34: December 1774, 11-20', Journal of the House of Lords volume 34: 1774-1776 (1767-1830), pp. 278-281. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=113671 Date accessed: 02 September 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Contents

Die Jovis, 15o Decembris 1774.
Lords take the Oaths. Todor et Ux. against Snape et al. L. Beaulieu et Ux against D. Montagu et al. et e con. Bouchier and Denison, against Taylor. Kane against Hamilton. McLaine et al. against McLaine. Nicol against Verelst et al. Davie against Verelst et al. E. Selkirk against D. Hamilton et al. Maine et Ux. against Prittie et Ux. Ward against Hartpole. Westminster Bridge, Proceedings of Commissioners, delivered. Palmer to enter into Recognizance on Cope’s Appeal. Seton to enter into Recognizance on E. Selkirk’s Appeal. Sir John Eden et al against E. Bute et al. Causes put off. De Hahn takes the Oaths for his Naturalization. J’Anson to enter into Recognizance on Mayne’s et Ux. Appeal. Bury to enter into Recognizance on Bouchier and Denison’s Appeal. Adjourn. Die Lunæ, 19o Decembris 1774.
E Guilford takes the Oaths. De Hahn’s Nat. Bill. Griffiths against Martin. Writ of Error nonpross’d with Costs. Burke et al. Petition to receive Appeal though out of Time: Burke et al against Puxley et al. Spottiswoode to enter into Recognizance on McLame et ah Appeal. Wettstun to enter into Recognizance on Ward s Appeal. Conry to enter into Recognizance on Burke et al. Appeal. Writs of Error: Soldan against Easton: Layton et al against Walter. Buitenshaw and Wood against Good-title: Brown against Lackland; Taitt against Rice and Belson: Goodright against Harwood: Ross against Meggott et al. Indian Corn and Maize, Importation of, Bill. Adjourn.

Die Jovis, 15o Decembris 1774.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

Epus. Duresm. Dux Cumberland. Ds. Le Despencer.
Epus. Bristol. Ds. Apsley, Cancellarius. Ds. De Ferrars.
Epus. Meneven. Ds. Cathcart.
Epus. Roffen. Comes Gower, Præses. Ds. Bruce.
Dux Manchester. Ds. Hyde.
Dux Chandos. Ds. Lyttelton.
Dux Bridgewater. Ds. Boston.
March. Rockingham.
Comes Abercorn.
Comes Galloway.
Comes Bute.
Comes Effingham.
Viscount Weymouth.
Viscount Wentworth.

PRAYERS.

Lords take the Oaths.

The Lords following took the Oaths, and made and subscribed the Declaration, and also took and subscribed the Oath of Abjuration: pursuant to the Statutes.

John Earl of Bute.

Thomas Lord Bishop of Bristol.

George Lord De Ferrars.

Todor et Ux. against Snape et al.

The House being informed, “That Ann Snape and others, Respondents to the amended Appeal of Thomas Todor and Ann his Wife, had not put in their Answer to the said Appeal though duly served with the Order of this House for that Purpose.”

And thereupon an Affidavit of John Hatfield, of Newark upon Trent in the County of Nottingham, Gentleman, of the due Service of the said Order, being read.

Ordered, That the said Respondents do put in their Answer to the said Appeal, peremptorily, in a Week.

L. Beaulieu et Ux against D. Montagu et al. et e con.

The House being moved, “That a Day may be appointed for hearing the Cross Appeal, wherein Edward Lord Beaulieu and Isabella Lady Beaulieu are Appellants, and the Most Noble George Duke of Montagu and others are Respondents:”

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cross Appeal, by Counsel at the Bar, at the same Time with the Original Appeal, wherein the Most Noble George Duke of Montagu and others are Appellants, and Edward Lord Beaulieu and Isabella Lady Beaulieu are Respondents.

Bouchier and Denison, against Taylor.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of William Bouchier, of Penn in the County of Bucks, Doctor in Physic, and William Denison of the University of Oxford, Doctor in Divinity, complaining of a Decree or Order of the Court of Chancery of the 21st of July 1774; and praying, “That the same may be reversed or varied, or that the Appellants may have such other Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that George Taylor may be required to answer the said Appeal:”

It is Ordered, That the said George Taylor may have a Copy of the said Appeal, and do put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Thursday the 29th Day of this instant December.

Kane against Hamilton.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Joseph Kane Esquire, complaining of a Decretal Order of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, of the 5th Day of May 1774; and praying, “That the same may be reversed, or that the Appellant may have such other Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that the Reverend Nicholas Hamilton may be required to answer the said Appeal:”

It is Ordered, That the said Reverend Nicholas Hamilton may have a Copy of the said Appeal, and do put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Thursday the 19th Day of January next; and Service of this Order upon the Attorney or Agent for the said Respondent, in the said Court of Exchequer in Ireland, shall be deemed good Service.

McLaine et al. against McLaine.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of John McLaine Esquire of Lochbuy, and his Trustees, complaining of Two Interlocutors of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the 1st of March and 6th of July 1770; and praying, “That the same may be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Appellant may have such other Relief in the Premises as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that Gillian McLaine may be required to answer the said Appeal:”

It is Ordered, That the said Gillian McLaine may have a Copy of the said Appeal, and do put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Thursday the 12th Day of January next; and Service of this Order upon the known Counsel or Agents of the said Respondent in the said Court of Session in Scotland, shall be deemed good Service.

Nicol against Verelst et al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of James Nicol Esquire, complaining of an Order of the Court of Chancery, of the 23d of February 1774; and praying, “That the same may be reversed, or that the Appellant may have such other Relief in the Premises as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that Harry Verelst, Richard Smith, Alexander Campbell, Claude Russell, Thomas Kelsall, Charles Floyer, Richard Becher, and James Alexander, Esquires, may be required to answer the said Appeal:”

It is Ordered, That the said Harry Verelst Esquire, and the said 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 29th Day of this instant December.

Davie against Verelst et al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Thomas Davie Esquire, complaining of an Order of the Court of Chancery of the 23d of February 1774; and praying, “That the same may be reversed, or that the Appellant may have such other Relief in the Premises as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem just; and that Harry Verelst, Richard Smith, Alexander Campbell, Claude Russell, Thomas Kelsall, Charles Floyer, Richard Belcher, and James Alexander, Esquires, may be required to answer the said Appeal:”

It is Ordered, That the said Harry Verelst Esquire, and the said 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 29th Day of this instant December.

E. Selkirk against D. Hamilton et al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Dunbar Earl of Selkirk, complaining of Two Interlocutors of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the 9th of December 1762, and 19th of July 1769; and praying, “That the same may be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Appellant may have such other Relief in the Premises as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that Douglas now Duke of Hamilton and Brandon, (formerly Lord Douglas Hamilton), for himself and as Heir or Representative of the deceased George James Duke of Hamilton and Brandon, his Brother; Archibald Douglas of Douglas, Esquire. Lord Archibald Hamilton, Lord Spencer Hamilton, James and Hamiltons, Sons of Lord Ann Hamilton, the Heirs or Representatives of John Earl of Hyndford, now deceased; Sir Hugh Dalrymple of North Berwick, Baronet, Sir Robert Menzies of Weem, Baronet, the Heirs or Representatives of John Swinton of that Ilk, Esquire; and the Heirs or Representatives of the deceased Margaret Duchess of Douglas, may be required to answer the said Appeal:”

It is ordered, That the said Douglas now Duke of Hamilton and Brandon, and the said 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 12th Day of January next; and Service of this Order upon the said Respondents, or upon any of their known Agents or Procurators, in the said Court of Session in Scotland, shall be deemed good Service.

Maine et Ux. against Prittie et Ux.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of John Maine Esquire, and the Right Honourable Hester Countess of Charleville his Wife, complaining of Part of a Decree of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, of the 16th of May 1768; and also of Part of another Decree of the said Court, of the 1st of July 1774; and praying, “That the same may be reversed or varied, or that the Appellants may have such other Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that Henry Prittie the younger, Esquire, and Catherine his Wife, may be required to answer the said Appeal:”

It is Ordered, That the said Henry Prittie the younger, Esquire, and Catherine his Wife, 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 19th Day of January next; and Service of this Order upon the Counsel, Agent, Solicitor, or Six Clerk of the said Respondents, in the said Court of Chancery in Ireland, shall be deemed good Service.

Ward against Hartpole.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Nicholas Ward Esquire, Administrator of all and singular the Goods and Chattels, Rights and Credits, which were of Vere Ward Gentleman, his late Father, deceased, complaining of a Decree of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, of the 25th of February 1774; and praying, “That the same may be reversed or varied, or that the Appellant may hare such other Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that Robert Hartpole Esquire may be required to answer the said Appeal:”

It is Ordered, That the said Robert Hartpole Esquire may have a Copy of the said Appeal, and do put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Thursday the 19th Day of January next; and Service of this Order upon the said Respondent, or upon his Agents or Solicitors, in the said Court of Chancery in Ireland, shall be deemed good Service.

Westminster Bridge, Proceedings of Commissioners, delivered.

The House being informed, “That Mr. Seddon, from the Commissioners of Westminster Bridge, attended:”

He was called in, and delivered at the Bar, pursuant to Acts of Parliament.

Two Books, containing,

“A State of the Proceedings of the Commissioners for building Westminster Bridge, from the 23d Day of February 1774 to the 6th Day of December following, inclusive.”

“Accounts of the Treasurer to the Commissioners for building Westminster Bridge, from the 5th Day of January 1774 to the 10th Day of October following; together with a Rent Roll, and an Account of Bridge Rents received from the 5th July 1773 to the 5th July 1774.”

And then he withdrew.

And the Titles thereof being read by the Clerk.

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

Palmer to enter into Recognizance on Cope’s Appeal.

The House being moved, “That John Palmer of Lincoln’s Inn, in the County of Middlesex, Esquire, may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for Arthur Cope Esquire, on Account of his Appeal depending in this House, he residing in Ireland.”

It is Ordered, That the said John Palmer may enter into a Recognizance for the said Appellant, as desired.

Seton to enter into Recognizance on E. Selkirk’s Appeal.

The House being moved, “That John Seton Gentleman, may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for Dunbar Earl of Selkirk, on Account of his Appeal depending in this House, he residing in Scotland.”

It is Ordered, That the said John Seton may enter into a Recognizance for the said Appellant, as desired.

Sir John Eden et al against E. Bute et al.

Ordered, That the Hearing of the Cause wherein Sir John Eden Baronet and others are Appellants, and the Right Honourable John Earl of Bute and others are Respondents, which stands appointed for To-morrow, be put off to Wednesday next.

Causes put off.

Ordered, That the Hearing of the Cause wherein Sir John Eden Baronet and others are Appellants, and the Right Honourable John Earl of Bute and others are Respondents, which stands appointed for To-morrow, be put off to Wednesday next; and that the Rest of the Causes be removed in Course.

De Hahn takes the Oaths for his Naturalization.

George Ernst de Hahn, took the Oaths appointed, in order to his Naturalization.

Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, “An Act for naturalizing George Ernst de Hahn.”

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

Ld. President. L. Bp. Durham. L. Le Despencer.
D. Manchester. L. Bp. Bristol. L. De Ferrars.
D. Chandos. L. Bp. St. Davids. L. Cathcart.
D. Bridgewater. L. Bp. Rochester. L. Bruce.
M. Rockingham. L. Hyde.
E. Abercorn. L. Lyttelton.
E. Galloway. L. Boston.
E. Bute.
E. Effingham.
V. Weymouth.
V. Wentworth.

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.

J’Anson to enter into Recognizance on Mayne’s et Ux. Appeal.

The House being moved, “That William J’Anson of Bedford Row, London, Esquire, may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for John Mame Esquire, and the Right Honourable Hester Countess of Charleville his Wife, on Account of their Appeal depending in this House, they residing in the Country:”

It is Ordered, That the said William J’Anson may enter into a Recognizance for the said Appellants, as desired.

Bury to enter into Recognizance on Bouchier and Denison’s Appeal.

The House being moved, “That Thomas Irwin Bury of The Inner Temple, London, Gentleman, may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for William Bouchier, Doctor in Physic, and William Denison, Doctor in Divinity, on Account of their Appeal depending in this House, they residing in the Country:”

It is Ordered, That the said Thomas Irwin Bury may enter into a Recognizance for the said Appellants, as desired.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Lunæ, decimum nonum diem instantis Decembris hora undecima Auroæ, Dominis sic decernentibus.

Die Lunæ, 19o Decembris 1774.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales praesentes fuerunt:

Epus. Meneven. Ds. Apsley, Cancellarius. Ds. Cathcart.
Comes Gower, Præses.
Ds. Manfield. Ds. Boston.
Dux Ancaster. Magnus Camerarius.
Comes Abercorn.
Comes Galloway.
Come Guilford.
Viscount Falmouth.

PRAYERS.

E Guilford takes the Oaths.

This Day Francis Earl of Guilford took the Oaths, and made and subscribed the Declaration, and also took and subscribed the Oath of Abjuration, pursuant to the Statutes.

De Hahn’s Nat. Bill.

The Lord Boston reported from the Lords Committees, to whom the Bill, intituled, “An Act for naturalizing George Ernst de Hahn,” 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.”

Ordered, That the said Bill be engrossed.

Griffiths against Martin.

Upon reading the Petition of Fleming Martin Esquire, Defendant in a Writ of Error depending in this House, wherein Charles Griffiths is Plaintiff; setting forth, “That the same is brought merely for Delay;” and therefore praying, “That the said Writ of Error may be nonpros’d with such Costs as to their Lordships shall seem meet, the Agent for the Plaintiff in Error having signed the said Petition, as consenting thereto:”

Writ of Error nonpross’d with Costs.

It is Ordered, That the Petitioner do forthwith enter a Nonpros. on the said Writ of Error, as desired; and that the Record be remitted to the Court of King’s Bench, to the End Execution may be had upon the Judgement given by that Court, as if no such Writ of Error had been brought into this House: And further, That the Plaintiff in Error do pay, or cause to be paid, to the Defendant in Error, the Sum of Twenty Pounds, for his Costs by reason of the Delay of the Execution of the said Judgement.

Burke et al. Petition to receive Appeal though out of Time:

Upon reading the Petition of John Burke Esquire, and Margaret his Wife, and others; setting forth, “That a Decree was pronounced by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland against the Petitioners, on the 7th Day of December 1770; and also Two Orders were pronounced by the said Lord Chancellor on the 29th of July last: That the Petitioners intending to present their Appeal to their Lordships from the above Decree and Two Orders, employed a Person to bring over the Papers in this Cause, but he, having been detained by contrary Winds, did not arrive in London until the 15th of this instant December. That the Petitioners Agent, as soon as he received the same, prepared his Appeal, and got it settled by Counsel with all possible Dispatch; but by reason of the Delay of the Messenger, the same could not be presented within the Time limited by their Lordships Standing Order for receiving Appeals;” and therefore praying, “Their Lordships, for the Reasons aforesaid, to receive their said Appeal, not with standing the Time limited by their Lordships Standing Order for receiving Appeals is expired:”

It is Ordered, That the Petitioners be at Liberty to present their said Appeal as desired.

Burke et al against Puxley et al.

Accordingly, upon reading the Petition and Appeal of John Burke Esquire and Margaret his Wife, Theobald Burke Esquire Son and Heir Apparent of the said John Burke, Helen Burke and Mary Burke Two of the surviving Daughters of the said John Burke, and Elinor Burke Mother of the said John Burke, complaining of a Decree of the Court of Chancery in Ireland of the 7th of December 1770, and also of Two Orders of the said Court of the 29th of June 1774; and praying, That the fame may be revered or varied, or that the Appellants may have such other Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that Mary Puxley, Henry Puxley, and Patrick O’Brien, may be required to answer the said Appeal:”

It is Ordered, That the said Mary Puxley, Henry Puxley, and Patrick O’Brien, may have a Copy of the said Appeal, and do put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Monday the 23d Day of January next; and Service of this Order upon the said Respondents, or upon their Agents, Solicitors, or Six Clerks, in the said Court of Chancery in Ireland, shall be deemed good Service.

Spottiswoode to enter into Recognizance on McLame et ah Appeal.

The House being moved, That John Spottiswoode, of Northumberland Street, Gentleman, may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for John M’Laine Enquire and others, on Account of their Appeal depending in this House, they living in Scotland:”

It is Ordered, That the said John Spottiswoode may enter into a Recognizance for the said Appellants, as desired.

Wettstun to enter into Recognizance on Ward s Appeal.

The House being moved, “That John Lewis Wettftun of Swithirns Lane, London, Gentleman, may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for Nicholas Ward Enquire, on Account of his Appeal depending in this House, he residing in Ireland:”

It is Ordered, That the said John Lewis Wettftun may enter into a Recognizance for the said Appellant, as desired.

Conry to enter into Recognizance on Burke et al. Appeal.

The House being moved, “That John Conry of the City of Dublin, Gentleman, may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for John Burke Enquire, and Margaret his Wife, and others, on Account of their Appeal depending in this House, they residing in Ireland:

It is Ordered, That the said John Conry may enter into a Recognizance for the said Appellants, as desired.

Writs of Error:

The Lord Mansfield, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench, in the usual Manner, delivered in at the Table Seven Writs of Error:

In the First of which,

Soldan against Easton:

Francis Soldan is Plaintiff, and John Easton is Defendant.

In the Second,

Layton et al against Walter.

Andrew Layton and others are Plaintiffs, and Abraham Walter is Defendant.

In the Third,

Buitenshaw and Wood against Good-title:

Henry Burtenshow Gentleman and William Wood are Plaintiffs, and James Goodtitle is Defendant.

In the Fourth,

Brown against Lackland;

George Brown is Plaintiff, and Joseph Lackland is Defendant.

In the Fifth,

Taitt against Rice and Belson:

William Taitt is Plaintiff, and Richard Rice and Richard Belson are Defendants,

In the Sixth,

Goodright against Harwood:

Nathan Goodright is Plaintiff, and Frances Harwood is Defendant.

In the Seventh,

Ross against Meggott et al.

Isaac Ross is Plaintiff, and John Smith Meggott and others are Defendants.

Indian Corn and Maize, Importation of, Bill.

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

With a Bill, intituled, “An Act to allow the Importation of Indian Corn and Maize, under certain Restrictions,” to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

The said Bill was read the First Time;

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Mercurii, vicesimum primum diem instantis Decembris, hora undecima Aurora Dominis sic decernentibus.