House of Lords Journal Volume 62
14 July 1830

Sponsor

History of Parliament Trust

Publication

Pages

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 62: 14 July 1830', Journal of the House of Lords: volume 62: 1830, pp. 875-891. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=16390 Date accessed: 29 July 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Contents

Die Mercurii, 14 Julii 1830.
M. of Tweed dale takes the Oaths. Stevenson v. Rowand: Interlocutors Affirmed. Rowe v. The King, in Error, Defendant's Petition for an early Day, referred to Appeal Comee. Stage Coach Proprietors Bill, Petitions from Liverpool, & Publishers, &c. of London, against. Court of Session Bill, Petition of Society of Solicitors of Scotland, in favor of. Message to H.C. for Report on Holyhead & Liverpool Roads. Russell's Estate Bill read 2a & committed: Standing Order No. 94 dispensed with on it: Standing Orders Nos. 26 & 155 to be considered on it: Ld. Ellenborough & Ld. Ravensworth signify their Consent to the Bill. Cocculus Indicus, &c. Legislative Assembly (Canada) Bill: Diocesan Schools (Ireland) Bill: Witnesses Expences (Ireland) Bill: Beer & Cyder Duties Bill: Messages to H.C. that the Lords have agreed to the 4 preceding Bills. References to Acts Mistakes Bill. Law of Libel Bill. Appeals before Privy Council, Orders for Accounts respecting, discharged: Address for the same Accounts. Scott v. Paterson & M'Lellan: Thomson to enter into a Recog ee on it. Registrar at Madras Bill. Stage Coach Proprietors Bill reported: To be read 3a. Holyhead, &c. Roads Bill read 2a & committed: All Lords added to this Comee: Witnesses to attend the Com ee. Earl of Buchan's Petition claiming a Right to vote for Peers for Scotland, referred to Com ee for Privileges: Comee to meet thereon. Fisheries Bill: Militia Pay Bill: Messages to H.C. that the Lords have agreed to the 2 preceding Bills. Keble et al. v. Templer et al. et e con: Interlocutors in Original Appeal in part Reversed, &, in Cross Appeal, Affirmed, & Cause remitted. Morrison et al. v. Mitchell: Cause remitted, with a Direction. M'Gavin v. Stewart: Interlocutors Reversed, & Cause remitted, with a Direction. Court of Session Bill, Comee on: Order for hearing Counsel against it, discharged. Communications with Canada, Order for Address for, discharged. Doev. Vardill, in Error, Judges to attend. Address of H.C. respecting Sir J. Barrington further considered. Military Stores exported to India, & Sums paid by The East India Co. for Commercial Freight, Accounts of, Ordered. Adjourn.

Die Mercurii, 14 Julii 1830.

DOMINI tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

Ds. Lyndhurst, Cancellarius.
Epus. Roffen.
Vicecom. Melville.
Vicecom. Gordon.
Vicecom. Goderich.
Ds. De Clifford.
Ds. Clinton.
Ds. Clifton.
Ds. Teynham.
Ds. Stafford.
Ds. Colville of Culross.
Ds. Monson.
Ds. Mendip.
Ds. Selsey.
Ds. Dawnay.
Ds. Calthorpe.
Ds. Loftus.
Ds. Redesdale.
Ds. Ellenborough.
Ds. Mont Eagle.
Ds. Lauderdale.
Ds. Hill.
Ds. Meldrum.
Ds. Ross.
Ds. Ravensworth.
Ds. Bexley.
Ds. Wharncliffe.
Ds. Durham.
Ds. Wallace.
Ds. Wynford.
Comes Bathurst, Præses.
Comes Rosslyn, C. P. S.
Dux Beaufort.
Dux Leeds.
Dux Wellington.
March. Tweeddale.
March. Lansdowne.
March. Salisbury.
March. Bute.
March. Bristol.
March. Cleveland.
Comes Denbigh.
Comes Westmorland.
Comes Chesterfield.
Comes Carlisle.
Comes Shaftesbury.
Comes Abingdon.
Comes Plymouth.
Comes Ferrers.
Comes Dartmouth.
Comes Brooke & Warwick.
Comes Hardwicke.
Comes Mansfield.
Comes Malmesbury.
Comes Caledon.
Comes Lonsdale.
Comes Cathcart.
Comes Eldon.
Comes Stradbroke.
Comes Vane.
Comes Cawdor.

PRAYERS.

M. of Tweed dale takes the Oaths.

This Day George Marquess of Tweeddale took the Oaths, and also took and subscribed the Oath of Abjuration, pursuant to the Statutes.

Stevenson v. Rowand:

The House proceeded to take into further Consideration the Cause wherein Nathaniel Stevenson is Appellant, and Michael Rowand Esquire is Respondent:

And Consideration being had thereof;

The following Order and Judgment was made:

After hearing Counsel for the Appellant, on Tuesday the 16th Day of March last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Nathaniel Stevenson, Writer in Glasgow; complaining of Three Interlocutors of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the Second Division, of the 6th of July and 21st of December 1827, and the 2d of February 1828; and praying,"That the same might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Appellant might have such Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, should seem meet;" as also upon the Answer of Michael Rowand Esquire, Banker in Glasgow, put in to the said Appeal; and Counsel appearing for the Respondent in the said Appeal, the Counsel were directed to withdraw; and due Consideration had this Day of what was offered for the Appellant in this Cause:

Interlocutors 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 Interlocutors therein complained of, be, and the same are hereby Affirmed.

Rowe v. The King, in Error, Defendant's Petition for an early Day, referred to Appeal Comee.

Upon reading the Petition of The King, Defendant in a Writ of Error depending in this House, wherein Richard Radford Rowe is Plaintiff; praying their Lordships"to appoint an early Day for arguing the Errors assigned upon the said Writ of Error:"

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.

Stage Coach Proprietors Bill, Petitions from Liverpool, & Publishers, &c. of London, against.

Upon reading the Petition of the Tradesmen of Liverpool, in the County Palatine of Lancaster, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; taking notice of a Bill depending in this House, intituled,"An Act for the more effectual Protection of Mail Contractors, Stage Coach Proprietors and other common Carriers for Hire, against the Loss of or Injury to Parcels or Packages delivered to them for Conveyance or Custody, the Value and Contents of which shall not be declared to them by the Owners thereof;" and praying their Lordships,"That Mail and other Coach Proprietors may not be relieved from their present Responsibilities as common Carriers; or, in any Bill for their Relief, that the Public may be protected against unreasonable Charges, by a definite Rate of Allowance for the Carriage and Insurance of the safe Delivery of such Parcels and Packages:"

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

Upon reading the Petition of the Publishers and Booksellers resident in London, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; taking notice of the last-mentioned Bill, and praying their Lordships,"That the same may not pass into a Law as last amended, but that all such Parts thereof as extend its Provisions to Parcels or Packages containing Books, Maps and Engravings, may be struck out:"

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

Court of Session Bill, Petition of Society of Solicitors of Scotland, in favor of.

Upon reading the Petition of The Society of Solicitors before the Supreme Courts of Scotland, incorporated by Royal Charter, under their Common Seal; taking notice of a Bill depending in this House, intituled,"An Act for uniting the Benefits of Jury Trial in Civil Causes with the ordinary Jurisdiction of the Court of Session, and for making certain other Alterations and Reductions in the Judicial Establishments of Scotland;" and praying their Lordships"to pass the same, with or without Amendments, during the present Session of Parliament:"

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

Message to H.C. for Report on Holyhead & Liverpool Roads.

Ordered, That a Message be sent to the House of Commons, to request that they will be pleased to communicate to this House,"A Copy of a Report made from the Select Committee appointed by that House on the Holyhead and Liverpool Roads."

Russell's Estate Bill read 2a & committed:

The Order of the Day being read for the Second Reading of the Bill, intituled,"An Act to effect an Exchange of Part of the Estates in the County of Durham devised by the Will and Codicil of William Russell Esquire, deceased, for Part of the Estates comprised in the Settlement made in pursuance of the Articles upon the Marriage of The Most Honorable Charles William Vane Marquess of Londonderry with The Most Honorable Frances Anne Vane Marchioness of Londonderry;"

The said Bill was accordingly read a Second Time.

Standing Order No. 94 dispensed with on it:

The House (according to Order) proceeded to take into Consideration the Motion made Yesterday,"That the Standing Order No. 94, directing that no Committee shall sit upon any Private Bill until Ten Days after the Second Reading thereof, may be so far dispensed with as relates to the last-mentioned Bill:"

And Consideration being had thereof accordingly;

Ordered, That the said Standing Order be dispensed with on the said Bill.

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

V. Melville.
V. Gordon.
V. Goderich.
L. Bp. Rochester.
L. De Clifford.
L. Clinton.
L. Clifton.
L. Teynham.
L. Stafford.
L. Colville of Culross.
L. Monson.
L. Mendip.
L. Selsey.
L. Dawnay.
L. Calthorpe.
L. Loftus.
L. Redesdale.
L. Ellenborough.
L. Mont Eagle.
L. Lauderdale.
L. Hill.
L. Meldrum.
L. Ross.
L. Ravensworth.
L. Bexley.
L. Wharncliffe.
L. Durham.
L. Wallace.
L. Wynford.
L. President.
L. Privy Seal.
D. Beaufort.
D. Leeds.
D. Wellington.
M. Tweeddale.
M. Lansdowne.
M. Salisbury.
M. Bute.
M. Bristol.
M. Cleveland.
E. Denbigh.
E. Westmorland.
E. Chesterfield.
E. Carlisle.
E. Shaftesbury.
E. Abingdon.
E. Plymouth.
E. Ferrers.
E. Dartmouth.
E. Brooke & Warwick.
E. Hardwicke.
E. Mansfield.
E. Malmesbury.
E. Caledon.
E. Lonsdale.
E. Cathcart.
E. Eldon.
E. Stradbroke.
E. Vane.
E. Cawdor.

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

Standing Orders Nos. 26 & 155 to be considered on it:

Ordered, That the Standing Orders Nos. 26 and 155, relative to Bills not being read or proceeded in Twice the same Day, be taken into Consideration on Friday next, in order to their being dispensed with on the last-mentioned Bill; and that the Lords be summoned.

Ld. Ellenborough & Ld. Ravensworth signify their Consent to the Bill.

The Lord Ellenborough and The Lord Ravensworth, in their Places, signified their Consent to the last-mentioned Bill.

Cocculus Indicus, &c.

Ordered, That there be laid before this House,"An Account of the Quantity of Cocculus Indicus, Quassia and Quash, that has paid Duty, and imported into the Ports of Great Britain, for the last Ten Years; specifying each Year, and the Amount of Duty paid thereon."

Legislative Assembly (Canada) Bill:

The Order of the Day being read for the Third Reading of the Bill, intituled,"An Act to amend so much of an Act of the Thirty-first Year of His late Majesty, for making more effectual Provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec;"

The said Bill was accordingly read the Third Time.

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

It was resolved in the Affirmative.

Diocesan Schools (Ireland) Bill:

The Order of the Day being read for the Third Reading of the Bill, intituled,"An Act to amend an Act of the Fifty-third Year of King George the Third, for the Appointment of Commissioners for the Regulation of the several Endowed Schools of public and private Foundation in Ireland;"

The said Bill was accordingly read the Third Time.

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

It was resolved in the Affirmative.

Witnesses Expences (Ireland) Bill:

The Order of the Day being read for the Third Reading of the Bill, intituled,"An Act to explain and amend an Act of the Fifty-fifth Year of King George the Third, for the Payment of Costs and Charges to Prosecutors and Witnesses in Cases of Felony in Ireland;"

The said Bill was accordingly read the Third Time.

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

It was resolved in the Affirmative.

Beer & Cyder Duties Bill:

The Order of the Day being read for the Third Reading of the Bill, intituled,"An Act to repeal certain of the Duties on Cyder in the United Kingdom, and on Beer and Ale in Great Britain, and to make other Provisions in relation thereto;"

The said Bill was accordingly read the Third Time.

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

It was resolved in the Affirmative.

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

And Messages were, severally, sent to the House of Commons, by Sir Giffin Wilson and Mr. Eden;

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

References to Acts Mistakes Bill.

Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, intituled,"An Act for correcting mistaken References to Acts of His late Majesty in Acts passed during the present Session of Parliament."

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 Friday next.

Law of Libel Bill.

Ordered, That the Bill, intituled,"An Act to repeal so much of an Act of the Sixtieth Year of His late Majesty King George the Third, for the more effectual Prevention and Punishment of Blasphemous and Seditious Libels, as relates to the Sentence of Banishment for the Second Offence; and to provide some further Remedy against the Abuse of publishing Libels," be read a Second Time on Friday next.

Appeals before Privy Council, Orders for Accounts respecting, discharged:

It was moved,"That the Orders made Yesterday,"That there be laid before this House,"An Account of the Number of Appeals, with the Names of the Parties, lodged at the Privy Council Office, from the Settlements in the East Indies, in each Year, from 1798 to the present Time:"

"Also,"An Account of the Number of these Appeals in which Judgment has been given, in each Year, from the Year 1798 to the present Time:"

"Also,"An Account of the Number of Appeals, with the Names of the Parties, from all our Settlements beyond Sea, (except those from the East Indies,) lodged at the Privy Council Office, in each Year, from the Year 1819 to the present Time:"

"Also,"An Account of the Number of Appeals, with Names of Parties, entered for hearing, in each Year, during the same Period:"

"And also,"An Account of the Number of Appeals, with the Names of the Parties, decided in each Year by The King in Council, during the same Period," be now read.

The same were accordingly read by the Clerk.

Ordered, That the said Orders be discharged.

Address for the same Accounts.

Ordered, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, to request that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to order that there be laid before this House, An Account of the Number of Appeals, with the Names of the Parties, lodged at the Privy Council Office, from the Settlements in the East Indies, in each Year, from 1798 to the present Time:"

Also,"An Account of the Number of these Appeals in which Judgment has been given, in each Year, from the Year 1798 to the present Time:"

Also,"An Account of the Number of Appeals, with the Names of the Parties, from all our Settlements beyond Sea, (except those from the East Indies,) lodged at the Privy Council Office, in each Year, from the Year 1819 to the present Time:"

Also,"An Account of the Number of Appeals, with Names of Parties, entered for hearing, in each Year, during the same Period:"

And also,"An Account of the Number of Appeals, with the Names of the Parties, decided in each Year by The King in Council, during the same Period."

Ordered, That the said Address be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

Scott v. Paterson & M'Lellan:

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of William Scott Esquire, of Tiviot Bank, Writer to the Signet, only surviving Trustee appointed by a post-nuptial Contract of Marriage and Deed of Trust entered into between John Chalmers, some Time Butcher in Alloa, afterwards in Edinburgh, and Margaret Newland his Wife, now deceased; complaining of Two Orders or Judgments of the Jury Court in Scotland, of the 16th of February and 2d of July 1830; and praying,"That the same may be reversed, varied or altered, 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 George Paterson, Builder in Edinburgh, and James M'Lellan, Merchant there, may be required to answer the said Appeal:"

It is Ordered, That the said George Paterson and James M'Lellan may have a Copy of the said Appeal, and do put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the 11th Day of August next; and Service of this Order upon the said Respondents, or upon any one of their Procurators, Counsel or Agents, in the Court of Session in Scotland, shall be deemed good Service.

Thomson to enter into a Recog ee on it.

The House being moved,"That William Gibson Thomson of Old Palace Yard, Westminster, Gentleman, may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for William Scott Esquire, on account of his Appeal depending in this House, he residing in Scotland:"

It is Ordered, That the said William Gibson Thomson may enter into a Recognizance for the said Appellant, as desired.

Registrar at Madras Bill.

Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, intituled,"An Act for the Relief of the Sufferers by the Insolvency of Gilbert Ricketts Esquire, formerly Registrar of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Madras."

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 Friday next.

Stage Coach Proprietors Bill reported:

The Earl of Shaftesbury (according to Order) reported the Amendments made by the Committee of the Whole House to the Bill, intituled,"An Act for the more effectual Protection of Mail Contractors, Stage Coach Proprietors and other common Carriers for Hire, against the Loss of or Injury to Parcels or Packages delivered to them for Conveyance or Custody, the Value and Contents of which shall not be declared to them by the Owners thereof."

The said Amendments were read by the Clerk as follow; (viz t.)

"Pr. 1. L. 11. Leave out ("such")

"L. 23. Leave out ("the") and insert ("their")

"Pr. 3. L. 37. After ("in") insert ("legible Characters in some public and conspicuous Part of")

Then the First and Second Amendments made by the Committee to the said Bill, being read a Second Time, were severally agreed to by the House.

Then the following Amendment was made by the House to the said Bill:

Pr. 2. L. 28. Leave out ("Books")

Then the Third and last Amendment made by the Committee to the said Bill, being read a Second Time, was agreed to by the House.

To be read 3a.

Ordered, That the said Bill be read the Third Time on Friday next.

Holyhead, &c. Roads Bill read 2a & committed:

The Order of the Day being read for the Second Reading of the Bill, intituled,"An Act to alter and amend several Acts for the Improvement of the Roads from London to Holyhead, and from London to Liverpool; and for the further Improvement of the said Roads;" and for the Lords to be summoned;

It was moved,"That the said Bill be now read a Second Time."

Which being objected to;

It was moved"to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Six Months")

After short Debate;

The Question was put,"Whether the Word ("now") shall stand Part of the Motion?"

It was resolved in the Affirmative.

Then the said Bill was read a Second Time.

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

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

All Lords added to this Comee:

Ordered, That all the Lords who have been or shall be present this Session, and are not named of the Committee to whom the last-mentioned Bill stands committed, be added thereto.

Witnesses to attend the Com ee.

Ordered, That James M'Adam, I S Story Esquire, and D Stables Esquire, do attend on Friday next, in order to their being examined as Witnesses before the Committee to whom the said Bill stands committed.

Earl of Buchan's Petition claiming a Right to vote for Peers for Scotland, referred to Com ee for Privileges:

Upon reading the Petition of Henry David Earl of Buchan, setting forth,"That David Steuart Earl of Buchan having departed this Life on or about the 18th Day of April 1829, without Issue, the Petitioner, who is the eldest Son of the late Honorable Henry Erskine, the immediate younger Brother of the said deceased Earl, succeeded to the Title and Honors of Buchan: That by the Resolution of their Lordships House, of Date 3d May 1822, it was resolved, That no Person, upon the Decease of any Peer or Peeress of Scotland, other than the Son, Grandson or other lineal Descendant, or the Brother of such Peer, or the Son, Grandson or other lineal Descendant of such Peeress, shall be admitted to vote at the Election of the Sixteen Peers to be chosen to sit and vote in The House of Lords of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as Representatives of the Peerage of Scotland, or at the Election of any One or more of such Peers to supply any Vacancy or Vacancies by Death or otherwise, until, on Claim made on behalf of such Person, his Right of voting at such Election or Elections shall have been admitted by The House of Lords: The Petitioner is desirous to have his Right to vote at the Election of Peers in Scotland recognized, and is ready to adduce Evidence in support of such Right;" and therefore praying their Lordships"to allow him to adduce Evidence in support of his Right to vote at the Elections of Peers in Scotland, and thereafter to admit and declare his Right of voting accordingly:"

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

Comee to meet thereon.

Ordered, That the Committee for Privileges do meet to consider of the said Petition on Friday next, at Half past Eleven o'Clock.

Fisheries Bill:

Hodie 3a vice lecta est Billa, intituled,"An Act to revive, continue and amend several Acts relating to the Fisheries."

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

It was resolved in the Affirmative.

Militia Pay Bill:

Hodie 3a vice lecta est Billa, intituled,"An Act to defray the Charge of the Pay, Clothing and contingent and other Expences of the Disembodied Militia in Great Britain and Ireland; and to grant Allowances, in certain Cases, to Subaltern Officers, Adjutants, Paymasters, Quartermasters, Surgeons, Assistant Surgeons, Surgeons Mates, and Serjeant Majors of the Militia, until the Twenty-fifth Day of June One thousand eight hundred and thirty-one."

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 the former Messengers;

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

Keble et al. v. Templer et al. et e con:

The House proceeded to take into further Consideration the Cause wherein Page Keble Esquire, and others, are Appellants, and The Reverend Henry George Templer, and others, are Respondents, et e contra:

And Consideration being had thereof;

The following Order and Judgment was made:

After hearing Counsel, as well on Friday the 18th as on Monday the 21st Days of June last, upon the Original Petition and Appeal of Page Keble Esquire, a Lunatic, of James Fergusson Saunders Esquire, of the City of London, Committee appointed to the said Page Keble by The Lord High Chancellor of England, and of Robert Rattray, Writer to the Signet, Mandatory for Mr. Saunders; complaining of Three Interlocutors of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the 31st of May (signed 2d of June) 1825, of 1st June 1827 and of 23d (signed 27th) November 1827; also of an Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary there, of 20th December 1827; and also of Two Interlocutors of the said Lords of Session, of 28th February and 11th June 1828; and praying,"That the same might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Appellants might have such other Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, should seem meet;" and likewise upon the Cross Appeal of The Reverend George Henry Templer, Vicar of Shapwick, in Somersetshire, and John Fleming, late of The Honorable East India Company's Service on the Bengal Establishment, Doctor of Physic, now residing in London, surviving and acting Trustees and Executors of the deceased Thomas Graham Esquire, of Kinross, and of Sir James Montgomery of Stanhope, Baronet, their Factor and Commissioner; complaining of Three Interlocutors of the Lord Ordinary in Scotland, of the 4th of July and 12th of November 1822, and the 15th of January 1823; and also of Two Interlocutors of the Lords of Session there, of the Second Division, of the 26th (signed 27th) November 1823 and the 23d (signed 27th) November 1827; in so far as they decide against the Petitioners, and find that the Petitioners are not entitled to a Deduction of the Property Tax of such Interest as fell due between the Years 1808 and 1813, in Terms of the Interlocutor of the Court of Session of the 8th of March 1816; and praying,"That the same might be reversed, varied or altered, so far as complained of, or that the Appellants might have such Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, should seem meet;" as also upon the Answer of The Reverend Henry George Templer, Vicar of Shapwick, in Somersetshire, and John Fleming, late of The Honorable East India Company's Service, now residing in London, surviving and acting Trustees and Executors of the deceased Thomas Graham Esquire, of Kinross, and Sir James Montgomery of Stanhope, Baronet, their Factor and Commissioner, put in to the said Original Appeal; and also the Answer of Page Keble Esquire, a Lunatic, James Ferguson Saunders Esquire, of the City of London, his Committee appointed by The Lord High Chancellor of England, and Robert Rattray, Writer to the Signet, Mandatory of the said Mr. Saunders in Scotland, put in to the said Cross Appeal; and due Consideration had, as well on Wednesday last as this Day, of what was offered on both Sides in these Causes:

Interlocutors in Original Appeal in part Reversed, &, in Cross Appeal, Affirmed, & Cause remitted.

It is Declared, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the Respondents are not entitled to a Deduction, as at the 10th of November 1813, of One Year's Interest of the Consolidated Amount of the Debt, at the Rate of Twelve per Cent. as Part of the Charge of Remittance of such Consolidated Amount of Debt to Great Britain: And it is therefore Ordered and Adjudged, That so much of the Interlocutors complained of in the said Original Appeal as are inconsistent with the above Declaration, be, and the same are hereby Reversed: And it is further Ordered and Adjudged, That the said Cross Appeal be, and is hereby dismissed this House, and that the Interlocutors therein complained of, be, and the same are hereby Affirmed: And it is further Ordered, That the Cause be remitted back to the Court of Session in Scotland, to do therein as may be just, and consistent with the said Declaration and this Judgment.

Morrison et al. v. Mitchell:

The House proceeded to take into further Consideration the Cause wherein John Morrison, and others, are Appellants, and James Mitchell is Respondent:

And Consideration being had thereof;

The following Order and Judgment was made:

After hearing Counsel, as well on Monday the 14th as on Wednesday the 16th Days of June last, upon the Petition and Appeal of John Morrison, residing in Grangemouth, Peter Sinclair, residing there, and John Gibb, residing there; complaining of Two Interlocutors of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the Second Division, of the 7th (signed the 11th) of July and the 20th of November 1827; and praying,"That the same might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Appellants might have such Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, should seem meet;" as also upon the Answer of James Mitchell, put in to the said Appeal; and due Consideration had this Day of what was offered on either Side in this Cause; and inasmuch as a Question has been raised at the Bar of this House, respecting the Jurisdiction exercised by the Court of Session in this Matter, which does not appear to have been discussed or considered in that Court:

Cause remitted, with a Direction.

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the Cause be remitted back to the Second Division of the Court of Session, to consider, and state their Opinion whether that Court has by the Law of Scotland any Jurisdiction, upon a Bill of Advocation, to find a Defender liable in Penalties under the Acts in the Pleadings in the said Cause mentioned, or either of them, such Defender not being convicted before a Justice or Justices of the Peace; and the said Second Division of the Court is hereby required to take the Opinion of the Judges of the other Division of the Court, and of the permanent Lord Ordinaries, upon this Question.

M'Gavin v. Stewart:

The House proceeded to take into further Consideration the Cause wherein James M'Gavin is Appellant, and James Stewart is Respondent:

And Consideration being had thereof;

The following Order and Judgment was made:

After hearing Counsel, as well on Thursday the 29th Day of April last as on Tuesday the 6th Day of this instant July, upon the Petition and Appeal of James M'Gavin, Accomptant in Paisley, Trustee on the Sequestrated Estates of John Stewart and Company, Merchants and Manufacturers there; complaining of Eight Interlocutors of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the First Division, of the 10th of December 1824, the 1st of February 1825, the 25th of May and 23d of June 1826, the 3d of July and 12th of December 1827, the 14th of February and the 13th (signed 15th) of May 1828; and praying,"That the same might be reviewed, varied or altered, so far as complained of, or that the Appellant might have such Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, should seem meet;" as also upon the Answer of James Stewart, lately Manufacturer and Merchant, now Distiller, in Paisley, put in to the said Appeal; and due Consideration had this Day of what was offered on either Side in this Cause:

Interlocutors Reversed, & Cause remitted, with a Direction.

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the Interlocutors complained of in the said Appeal be, and the same are hereby Reversed: And it is further Ordered, That the Cause be remitted back to the Court of Session in Scotland, with Directions to submit the Question of Facts to a Special Jury; and that it be an Instruction to the Jury Court to examine the Parties vivâ voce before them.

Court of Session Bill, Comee on:

The Order of the Day being read for the House to be put into a Committee upon the Bill, intituled,"An Act for uniting the Benefits of Jury Trial in Civil Causes with the ordinary Jurisdiction of the Court of Session, and for making certain other Alterations and Reductions in the Judicial Establishments of Scotland;" and for the Lords to be summoned; and for hearing Counsel on the Petition of The Incorporated Society of Solicitors practising before the Commissary or Consistorial Court of Scotland, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships,"That they may be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents, and Witnesses, against such Parts of the said Bill as affect their Interests;"

Order for hearing Counsel against it, discharged.

It was moved,"That so much of the said Order as relates to hearing Counsel on the last-mentioned Petition be discharged."

The Question was put thereupon?

It was resolved in the Affirmative.

Then the House was adjourned during Pleasure, and put into a Committee upon the said Bill.

After some Time, the House was resumed:

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

Ordered, That the said Bill, as amended, be printed.

Communications with Canada, Order for Address for, discharged.

It was moved,"That the Order made on Friday last, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, to request that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to order that there be laid before this House,"Copies or Extracts of any Communications between the Colonial Office and the Governors of Upper and Lower Canada, in pursuance of the Recommendations of the Canada Committee," be now read."

The same was accordingly read by the Clerk;

Ordered, That the said Order be discharged.

Doev. Vardill, in Error, Judges to attend.

Ordered, That the Cause wherein John Doe, on the Demise of John Birtwhistle, is Plaintiff, and Agnes Vardill is Defendant, be taken into further Consideration on Friday next at One o'Clock; and that the Judges do then attend.

Address of H.C. respecting Sir J. Barrington further considered.

The Order of the Day being read for taking into further Consideration the Address communicated by the Commons at the Conference on the 25th Day of May last, for the Removal of Sir Jonah Barrington from the Office of Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland; and for hearing the said Sir Jonah Barrington, by himself or his Counsel, against any Charge to be brought against him; and for the Lords to be summoned;

The Counsel and Sir Jonah Barrington were called in.

Sir Jonah Barrington stated,"That feeling his State of Health to disable him from conducting his own Defence, and also that it might be desirable to appear by Counsel, in consequence of the Excitation to which a Person was subjected in the conducting of his own Case, he begged to retire, leaving his Case in the Hands of his Counsel, Mr. Grady."

Sir Jonah Barrington withdrew:

And Mr. Grady, by Leave of the House, appeared as Counsel on his Behalf.

Daniel Pineau was again called in, and cross-examined by Mr. Grady as follows:

"How long have you been Registrar of the Admiralty Court in Ireland?"

"I was acquainted with the Office in January 1805."

"Besides your Situation as Registrar, have you not practised as an Attorney since that Period?"

"I have."

"What is your yearly Salary as Registrar?"

"None."

"The Amount of your Income, as well as I recollect from your Evidence before the Commissioners of Inquiry in Ireland, was about £200 a Year, was not it?"

"Between that and £300."

"That was the utmost of your Income resulting from your Situation as Registrar?"

"I estimate it so; and I believe it to be so."

"Do not you keep, and have you not since the Period of your Appointment kept, your Office, as connected with the Situation of Registrar of the Admiralty, in your own private House?"

"I have."

"And in a private Apartment, I believe, of your House, you also have kept the Admiralty Books, from that Period?"

"I have not exactly in a private Apartment. I kept the Admiralty Books in my public Office, which was in my Front Parlour, when I lived at No. 1, St. Stephen's Green; and in my Back Parlour since I have removed from that Office."

(By a Lord.)"Was that Office Part of your private Residence?"

"It was."

(Mr. Grady.)"I apprehend it was Part of your Duty, as Registrar, to keep correct Rule Books of the several Orders and Rules made by the Judge?"

"It was."

"Of course, I presume, you did so?"

"I did so."

"I apprehend it was the Course of the Office of the Admiralty, as it is the Course of the Office of the Prerogative Court, that no original Rules or Entries of Orders or Acts of the Court shall be made or entered by any other Person than yourself, or a Deputy Proctor acting for you?"

"Precisely so."

"I take for granted then, that, in respect of the Two Cases to which your Evidence is applied, namely, the Case of the Nancy and the Case of the Redstrand Derelict, you kept those Orders and made those Rules regularly?"

"I did."

"Was it possible for any Person in your Office, or acting under you, to introduce or to rescind or to alter any of those original Rules so taken down and entered by you?"

"As little as possible as in any other Office I know of."

"There were, I believe, since the Time you became Proctor, upwards of Six respectable Gentlemen, Surrogates, who acted in that Character, who are all dead?"

"There were, I dare say, the Number you mention."

"I might begin with Robinson, Dr. Duigenan, Dr. Vavasour, Dr. Ridgeway?"

"None of those acted."

"There were also, in your Office in the Admiralty Department, several respectable Officers and Registrars who are dead, and Proctors who are dead?"

"Yes."

"And I believe, with the Exception of one Gentleman, a Mr. Richardson, now King's Proctor in that Court, they are all dead?"

"I am afraid it is too true; they are all dead."

"I need not tell you, of course, that if those Persons had been living it would have been competent to them to give a good deal of Information upon that Office. Allow me to ask you, whether you have not been examined pretty much at length upon this Subject, before the Inquiry now proceeding before their Lordships, by the Commissioners of Inquiry in Ireland?"

"I was."

"You were also examined pretty much at length upon the Subject Matter of Inquiry by the Select Committee of the House of Commons?"

"I had the Honour of being so examined."

"During the Course of those several Examinations, did you produce before the Commissioners or before the Select Committee any of those original Rule Books or Books of the Court?"

"I produced before them the original Orders that I produced before the Select Committee. I produced those Orders, and I believe they are upon the Table of their Lordships House. I was going to add, with respect to the Books, I do not recollect that I was called upon to produce any of those Books, either by the Select Committee or by the Commissioners of Inquiry, save one Book, which is upon their Lordships Table; which is a Book commencing in 1805, and when it ends I am not prepared to say."

"Your Recollection is, that you produced one Book?"

"I did."

"Was it at the Instance of the Select Committee that you took those Proceedings, or at your own Suggestion?"

"It was at my own Suggestion, thinking it was the best Evidence that I could lay before the Committee."

"I take for granted you did that with a view to furnishing the Select Committee with the best legal Evidence you could, touching the Subject Matter of Inquiry. Did that Book, when you so produced it, contain all the Entries connected with that Subject?"

"I believe it did, but I am not certain; it contained down to 1807, and I am not certain but that it contained 1808; the Book is on the Table, and will speak more accurately upon that Subject than I possibly can from my Memory; the Book commenced in 1805."

"I apprise you that that Book, to which you allude as produced before the Select Committee, does commence in 1805, and ends in December 1809; you must be aware that the Transaction of the Case respecting the Redstrand, the material Orders, are only to be found in the Book of 1810?"

"Certainly."

"Then you did not produce the Book of 1810 before the Select Committee?"

"I did not."

"Nor did you suggest to the Select Committee the Expediency of producing any original Book to fortify your Evidence, or any Order you had produced touching the Redstrand?"

"I did not, for I thought the Documents I produced were so irresistibly strong that it did not require any other Evidence to make them plain and clear."

"Then I take for granted, that, when you suggested the Expediency of producing the Book which did not contain the Redstrand, you felt that the Orders and Evidence you had given touching the Nancy were not so irresistibly strong, which made it necessary to produce that Book touching the Nancy?"

"Oh no; I did not feel that. I felt that it was quite necessary to bring that relating to the Nancy; for there, in the Entry, there was much more in the Nancy; there was very little in the Redstrand, in comparison with the Nancy. The Documents I produced to the Commissioners of Inquiry in the Redstrand Derelict were quite Demonstration of the Result that they made their Report to; and I did not therefore think, when I was coming over, that any other Document was necessary to elicit the Redstrand. I thought it had been sufficiently clearly proved; and that those Documents I had been examined to, and had produced before the Commissioners of Inquiry in Ireland, were quite sufficient to bring with me, for the Purpose of being examined before the Committee of The Honourable the House of Commons. If I had thought more necessary, probably I might have brought the Book with me of 1810; the next Book."

"Then you had the Rule Book in your Possession during the Period of your Examination before the Commissioners of Inquiry and before the Select Committee?"

"I had."

"Did I understand you rightly, that you did not think it necessary, or that it did not occur to you, in fact, to produce it?"

"To the Select Committee?"

"Or to the Commissioners of Inquiry?"

"The Commissioners of Inquiry never asked me for it. I rather think, but I cannot say positively, that I had the Book of 1810 with me in London when I brought the Book of 1809. I was only asked to produce the Book of 1805 before the Select Committee; but I rather think that I had the other Book, now that I recollect, in my Portmanteau, but that I was not asked for it. I am not sure upon that."

"If I did not mistake you, I think you said, a while ago, that it was at your Suggestion the Book was produced; at your own Suggestion; did you not say so?"

"What I meant was, that it was brought from Ireland at my own Suggestion."

"Which was?"

"The Book of 1805."

"I thought you said, just this Moment, that you were not asked for it by the Select Committee; that you were not required by the Committee to bring any Book but the one you produced to them?"

"I mean, to produce it to them upon their Table."

"Did you not say, a while ago, that it was at your own Suggestion it was brought up, and not at the Desire of the Committee?"

"I meant by that that it was my own Suggestion to bring it from Ireland."

"From Ireland to the Committee? You suggested that you had a Rule Book of Importance connected with the Nancy, which was in Ireland, and that it would be expedient to produce that Book before the Committee; am I to understand that?"

"No; that was not exactly the Case. I was asked by the Gentlemen of the Committee for the Decree in the Nancy in 1807; and I was asked whether I had the Rule Book with me, and then I produced it, having it in my Trunk."

"Never mind the Trunk; have the goodness to see whether that, which is one of the Books brought by the Gentleman from Ireland, is the Book; how is it indorsed?"

"This Book is indorsed"Admiralty Rule Book, January 1805 to January 1811."

"Have the goodness to hand me that Book without further Inquiry; in whose Handwriting is this Indorsement?"

"In mine."

"Then this of course must comprehend Entries relating to the Redstrand?"

"Yes."

"Am I to understand that this Book, which you did not produce, you had in your Portmanteau?"

"That is not the Book I have been talking of; the Book I wish to see is a Book commencing in 1805; the Entry I have mentioned a while ago is in 1809." (Another Book was handed to the Witness.)"This is the Book."

"This cannot contain Entries concerning the Redstrand; the Transaction of the Redstrand was in 1810?"

"This is the Book I had the Honour to present to the Select Committee of the House of Commons; that other Book which you have handed to me is a Copy."

"Are you sure it is a Copy of it?"

"You have not shewn me the Book, but if I see it I will tell you."

"You have indorsed this, in your own Handwriting, "Rule Book?"

"I have."

"From January 1805 to January 1811?"

"Yes, it is so; just so."

"Does it contain Entries?"

"It does."

"Could this have been got at from the Period you mean, this in 1805, by any of your Clerks, to have made any Alterations or Changes?"

"Oh no."

"Am I to presume, or otherwise, that the Entries in this Book now produced, and indorsed by yourself, are correct Entries?"

"Certainly; that Book, if I saw it a little more, but I am sure I may very safely say, is a Copy of the other Book, and some additional Matters which are in an additional Book. I will explain the Matter; the original Books of the Court of Admiralty, from the Commencement of it in 1747, I thought it prudent and proper to have a fair Copy made of them all, and I believe that is a Part of the fair Copy of the whole; but that Book, from 1805 to 1809, is the original Admiralty Rule Book of the Court; that in your Hand is only a Copy."

"Though you now state this to be a Copy, you have indorsed it in your own Hand as the original Book; it is described,"Admiralty Rule Book, from January 1805 to January 1811." When did you make this Copy?"

"Several Years ago."

"What do you call several Years ago; Forty Years, or Twenty?"

"No, neither Forty nor Twenty Years; probably Ten. I believe I commenced about Eight or Nine Years ago this Copy of the whole Admiralty Rule Books."

"I talk of this Book, indorsed by you, and marked Letter A.; was that begun only Eight or Nine Years ago?"

"Those Copies were commenced by my Clerks about Eight or Nine Years ago."

"Where is your Clerk?"

"He is in Dublin."

"Was there any Part of this written in your Hand?"

"There is Part of it written in my Hand."

"I find, from the Commencement of this to Page 146, the Entries, as I am instructed, are in your Handwriting?"

"So they are."

"Can you fail to say when it was that you, in your own Handwriting, made those Entries?"

"I did not make those Entries; I copied them about Five or Six Years ago."

"I thought you said a short while ago, Eight or Nine Years ago?"

"The Books were commenced Eight or Nine Years ago; a fair Copy of the Admiralty Books from 1747."

"I am talking now of the Book before their Lordships; when was this Copy, as you call it, commencing in 1805, first made by you?"

"As well as I can recollect, about Five, or Six, or Seven Years ago."

"Might it be Eight, or Ten, or Twelve, or Fifteen Years ago?"

"It might be Eight or Nine."

"Might it be Eleven or Twelve?"

"No, certainly not."

"It could not be more than Ten?"

"No."

"Give me Leave to ask you where did you get this Book; where did you buy it?"

"I bought that Book, as well as I recollect, of Draper, in Crompton Court."

"Perhaps you can recollect, from this Book, when particularly it was that you bought it?"

"I could, I dare say. Mr. Draper, by looking at the Book, can tell that."

"Look at the Book, and tell me when it was that you bought it?"

The Witness referred to the Book.

"It is in very small Print, and I cannot read it."

"We will take it to be about Ten, if you please; you purchased that Book yourself?"

"I purchased that Book myself, with many others of the same kind, from Mr. Draper, and for the same Purpose."

"How do you account, in an Office kept so as I am sure it is by you, a very respectable Gentleman, for a great Number of Leaves happening to be torn out of that Book?"

"That is very easily accounted for."

"Have the goodness to look at that; there is a Space left which would have been filled up by Fourteen or Fifteen Leaves of Paper."

"Yes; this is a Copy of the Rule Books, from the Entries in the Year 1805."

"How do you account for those Leaves being torn out of that Book; you perceive the vacant Space which has contained Leaves must have been filled up by a good Number of Leaves?"

"Certainly; that was filled up also."

"Being only a Copy?"

"This Book I began myself as a Copy of the other Books, and I went on with it from the 24th of September 1806; further, on copying from the original Book, and in the copying of it, I did not copy it so correctly, and I blotted it, and had Accidents of that kind."

"I do not impute that to you?"

"And then I tore out this Sheet; it was not fair."

"Not fair?"

"It was not fairly written, and did not look like the other; and I desired my Clerk to commence copying from the 24th of September 1806, and he has commenced, and the Word is-"

"The Catchword"of," I think?"

"And that a Commission to examine Witnesses on the Part of," and so forth. There are no Leaves torn out which could be now of any Service whatsoever."

"I do not ask you that?"

"This is fair."

"Of course it is all fair; I do not ask you that; only can you account for their being torn out; you desired your Clerk to tear them out, you say?"

"No; I tore them out myself, and desired the Clerk to go on."

"Who is the Clerk?"

"Samuel Stephens."

"Is he living with you now in Dublin?"

"He has been living with me Twenty-five Years."

"A very confidential Clerk?"

"Very much so."

"The fittest Man in the World to confide such a Matter to?"

"There is nothing confidential in it."

"You wished the Thing to appear perfectly fair, and therefore you tore out the Leaves; how many might there be?"

"I cannot recollect how many."

"I should like to have your Opinion upon it?"

"You have seen the Book."

"I wish to have your Opinion?"

"Eight or Nine, I think."

(By a Lord.)"Are they all torn out in the same Part of the Book?"

"They were torn out of the Book."

"Are they all torn out at one Part of the Book, or at several?"

"At one Part of the Book."

"From what Date?"

"From the 24th of September 1806."

"Have you any Copy of the Entries that were so torn out?"

"This is a Copy of the original Book, but the original Book is there."

(Mr. Grady.)"The Original I will come to, and it is very original. Did you, as you are no doubt very regular in your Entries, make any Observation or Entry in any and what Book respecting the Number of Leaves which you had so torn out, and respecting the Entries which had been made in those Leaves?"

"No, I did not; the Reason was, that it was unnecessary, for the original Book remained perfect; and I swear that no Leaf was taken out of the original Book."

"I take for granted, from your Situation as Registrar, and your being a Professional Man, you are a very clear-sighted Man; now look at some of the Leaves in the Commencement of this Book; look at the Water Mark, and you will see this Book appears to be made in the Year 1825; indulge yourself with clear Spectacles, if they will serve you."

The Witness inspected the Book.

"Will you be kind enough to show me that?"

(By a Lord.)"Was the Book to which you are referring bound up as it now is when your Clerk began copying?"

"Yes; it was bound up when he began copying it."

"Just as it is now?"

"There were some additional Pages added to it."

"This is only One of the Volumes?"

"Just so."

"How many Volumes are there?"

"There are several of them; but there are several Leaves added to this, in order to bring down the Book - to bring in more than there could be in the original Book as I bought it; in order to bring down the Book, and to include in One Volume to the Year 1810."

(Mr. Grady.)"Then the additional Leaves, I take for granted, which you say you affixed to that Book after you had purchased it, must have been Leaves comprehending the Orders respecting the Redstrand?"

"Oh no; the additional Leaves were in order to complete the Book down to the Year 1810, and of course that must have included some of the Orders of the Redstrand."

"Did you produce any Book of any kind, original or copy, to the Commissioners of Inquiry, or the Select Committee, including the Orders in relation to the Redstrand?"

"I was not asked, nor did I produce them."

"Have the goodness to shew me that which you call the original Book from whence you took this Copy?"

"I believe it is here; it is the Book to 1809."

A Book was shown to the Witness.

"Is that it?"

"This is the original Book from which I took that, and so far as down to the 29th of December 1809; the next original Book to this, I do not know whether it has been brought over or not so far as down to the Year 1809; it was from this Book that that Book out of which the Leaves are taken was copied; and that in fact is only a Copy; this is the Rule Book of the Court."

"This, which you have described by your own Memorandum and by your Indorsement as the Admiralty Rule Book, you now say is only a Copy?"

"I copied it myself."

"It is not described as a Copy, but is represented as the Rule Book?"

"The Word"Copy" is not in it."

"Is the Word"Copy" in your own Handwriting?"

"No; and I apprehend that the Indorsement is in fact a Copy of this."

"You apprehend that?"

"I believe it is."

"Are you quite sure?"

"I believe I can say that it is."

"Will you swear that that Book which you have produced is a Copy of it?"

"Yes, I will; it is intended to be a Copy of it."

"You have not been able by your Sight to discover the Water Mark, but perhaps in the Morning when you are more clear sighted, you will be able?"

"I am quite as clear sighted now as I shall be at any Time."

"Can you discover it?"

"I will refer. In what Part shall I find it?"

"In almost every Part of it."

"I think the Water Mark of this is 1821. There are a great many of 1821."

"Look at the End of the Book, and you will see Water Marks of 1819 in the additional Pages?"

"Yes, there are."

"So that that Book is a Medley of different Years making; composed of Paper made in different Years?"

"It is not composed; it is copied."

"Is it not made up?"

"It is copied."

"I refer to the Paper?"

"I say that is additional Matter to it."

"You said there were a Number of Leaves added after you had purchased the Book?"

"Yes, I did, in order to bring the Book down; that there might be in the One Volume all from 1805 to 1811."

"In order to make it correspond with the Indorsement, you added this; was that so?"

"No; the Indorsement was after the Book had been copied."

"After you had copied that Book, and added a Number of Leaves which were not in the Book when you originally purchased it, you have represented it by your Indorsement as a Book containing the Admiralty Rules from 1805 to 1811?"

"Exactly so."

(By a Lord.)"Do you mean to say you added Leaves to the Book after you originally purchased the Book?"

"Yes."

"Did you undo the Binding for that Purpose?"

"No; they are manifestly added to it, in order to bring down the Book to contain from 1805 to 1811."

(Mr. Grady.)"I suppose it was you who joined them together with your own Hand?"

"It was."

"And you sewed them up with your own Hand?"

"I did."

"And you sewed them in such a Manner that the World might see and know what your Intention was, merely to add the Leaves to the Book after you purchased it?"

"No; I did not do it with any other Object than that there should be in that Book all from 1805 to 1811."

"Show me that Book again; it appears to me you have imitated the Book Binder's Binding of the original Book as neatly and dexterously as any Professional Gentleman can wish to do it?"

"No; I think it is very clumsily done."

"If it had been better done and more cleverly the Discovery might not have been made. Now at what Period was it you added these last Twenty-eight Leaves?"

"I cannot recollect exactly; but it was after the first Part of the Book had been written that I added them to it."

"Look in the Place where you have added those Leaves; do not you find broken Leaves, or a Space there where Leaves have been torn out?"

"Yes; I think there were some Leaves there."

"Perhaps you can tell when it was those Leaves were torn out?"

"Indeed, I cannot exactly say when those Leaves were torn out; they must have been torn out at the Time those were put in."

"Why should the Leaves be torn out to make Room for putting that Addition, when you might have introduced the Addition in the torn-out Leaves?"

"There are only very few torn out; there were not enough."

"Perhaps there were not enough torn out to answer the Purposes of your Insertion, and therefore you added the new?"

"To answer the Purpose of the Copy."

"As you have been so much in the tearing Way, give me Leave to ask you how many Leaves were torn out?"

"I told you."

"How many?"

"Is it in this Part here?"

"In the Part where you superadded that notable Workmanship with the Twenty-eight Leaves."

"I think there were very few Leaves torn out."

"Were there Ten, Twelve, Twenty or Thirty?"

"Not Twenty or Thirty, or Ten or Twelve."

"How are you enabled, from the View of that Book, to swear that there were not more than Twelve; and that there might not have been Thirty or Forty, before they were torn out, from the very End of the Book?"

"I see the original Book was nearly exhausted before the Additions were put in."

"I do not mean to put any Question that is unfair to you; but have the kindness, for their Lordships sake, to answer the Question at once. You say you think there were no more than Twelve torn out?"

"Not so many."

"You find that those Leaves so torn out were torn out from the very End of the Book, and before you added the Number of Leaves you have inartificially sewed together?"

"Yes."

"How are you enabled, at this Distance of Time, to swear there were only Twelve, or whether there were not Thirty, Forty or Fifty Leaves torn out?"

"Because it is manifest, from the Book, that there could be very few; any body who looks at it will see there were very few; and that is my Recollection."

"Is it by the Water Mark you discover, or by the Binding you discover, that there were but very few Leaves torn out; does that appear in any Manner from the Book?"

"I think it does manifestly appear from the Book."

"Look at the Book which you call the original?"

"I have now the original Book in my Hand."

"Have the goodness to turn to the Order of the 8th of May 1806, which you gave in Evidence Yesterday?"

"I have it now before me; it is creased down."

"You are so clear sighted you can see that?"

"It is creased down."

"Have the goodness to look at that; it is a particular Order, an Order of great Importance in the Cause respecting the Nancy. Hold that up to the Light, and see whether you do not discover palpable Erasures in that Order?"

"I discover palpable Erasures in this Order."

"Have the kindness to tell me by whom were those Erasures made?"

"By Sir Jonah Barrington."

"He made them?"

"He did."

"In your Presence?"

"In my Presence, in my Office."

(By a Lord.)"In your Presence?"

"In my Presence."

(Mr. Grady.)"When?"

"A very little Time after the Order bears Date."

"That is after the Order of 1806?"

"After the Order of 1806; a very little Time after that Order, Sir Jonah Barrington made this Erasure that appears on the Face of this Book."

(By a Lord.)"How do you mean that he made the Erasure; was something taken out, and something substituted?"

"There has been nothing added; the Order originally ran this Way: I will read the Commencement of the Order, in order that it may be understood:"Ordered by the Judge in his Chambers, that Daniel Pineau, the Registrar, do forthwith lodge in the Bank of Messrs. Latouche and Co. the Sum of £200," (there is a Blank there,)"the Proceeds now in his Name in this Cause, the same to be lodged in the Name of" -"in the Name of" is out-"in the Name and to the Credit of the Judge, subject to the Order of the Judge." The Words"in the Name of and to the Credit of the Judge" were observed upon strongly with Indignation by Mr. John Hawkins, the Proctor for the Owners in this Cause; and when I told Sir Jonah Barrington that Circumstance, that Mr. Hawkins said it was the most extraordinary Order that he ever saw, then the Judge called to me, and said,"Have you entered that Order in the Book?"-"I have.""Shew me the Book?"- "There it is;" and with his own Hand he erased with a Penknife those Words. This Order, as copied in this Book in my Handwriting originally, was a precise verbatim et literatim Copy of the original Order, all in the Handwriting of Sir Jonah Barrington; which original Order in the Handwriting of Sir Jonah Barrington is on your Lordships Table."

"I am aware of that, and I asked you as to that before; but you will answer this Question shortly; you say that was erased in your Presence after the Order was made in 1806?"

"Yes."

"Did you ever mention that Fact before the Commissioners of Inquiry or before the Select Committee?"

"I mentioned it before the Commissioners of Inquiry, to the best of my Recollection and Belief."

"You have read the Evidence, have you not, before the Commissioners of Inquiry?"

"Yes; and they have not mentioned that, I admit."

"They did not mention that?"

"I suppose they did not think it a very material Matter; and perhaps they thought it leaning too heavily on Sir Jonah, and in Tenderness to him, in my Opinion, they omitted it."

"You are of Opinion that the Commissioners of Inquiry appointed by His Majesty to examine into Proceedings touching Courts of Justice were so tenderly disposed and inclined to Sir Jonah Barrington that they omitted that most important Piece of Evidence which you gave, touching Fraud committed by a Judge in erasing from original Books kept by the Registrar; is that your Answer?"

"That is the whole Motive I can see for their omitting it, provided I mentioned it to them."

"Then it is possible you did not?"

"It is possible I did not; but I think, according to the best of my Recollection and Belief, I did mention it to them."

"Will you swear positively you did?"

"I cannot."

"Will you swear positively that you ever mentioned it to the Select Committee? You were examined at full Length for many Days?"

"I was."

"Did you ever, upon your Oath, mention it there?"

"I did not."

"Although the Circumstance of Erasures having been made by Sir Jonah Barrington so long ago as the Year 1806 was so strongly impressed upon your Memory as for you to be able to point out the Words that were in it, yet you cannot recollect what must have occurred within these Two or Three Years, respecting your Examination before the Commissioners of Inquiry, and before the Select Committee?"

"I cannot recollect whether I stated that, but I can perfectly recollect the Enormity of the Offence of Sir Jonah Barrington altering it; that made a strong Impression upon my Mind."

"When you copied that other Book, which you say was a true Copy, did you copy it as it is there?"

"I am not certain whether I did."

"You have a Recollection of what occurred in the Year 1806 respecting a particular Order made in May 1806; have you no Recollection respecting the same Order copied Eight or Nine Years ago?"

"I cannot recollect whether I copied that as it is, or whether I filled up the Words or not; I probably did not fill up the Words; but the Book will speak for itself."

"In the Copy there is no Erasure, but original Words. Look at the Copy." (The Copy was handed to the Witness.)

"The Copy in the Book is in these Words:"It is ordered by the Judge, that Daniel Pineau, the Registrar, do forthwith lodge in the Bank of Messrs. Latouche and Co. the Sum of £200, out of Proceeds now in his Hands in this Cause, the same to be lodged in the Name of and subject to the Order of the Judge, the same to be vested in Government and other productive Securities." This is the Copy of the Order as Sir Jonah Barrington wrote it; and I judged it better to make this correct. I did not choose to alter what Sir Jonah Barrington had done; but in making the Copy I did make it, as I think I was justified, after the original Order that Sir Jonah Barrington actually made."

"Then that is not a Copy of the Book which you produced?"

"If you compare this with Sir Jonah Barrington's Handwriting, it is an exact Copy of that he wrote."

"That which you have now read from that which you call a Copy is not a Copy of that now in the Book?"

"It is a Copy, filling up what was erased before."

"Then it is not a Copy of it?"

"So far it is not a Copy; but it is virtually and substantially a Copy of the original one of Sir Jonah Barrington."

"You find by that Book, which you call a Copy, and which you say you correctly filled up according to the Order, these Words,"out of the Proceeds," do not you?"

"Yes."

"That is correct?"

"Yes, it is."

"In the one which you call the original the Words "out of" are omitted, are they not?"

"I do not know that."

"Look at that which you call the original again." (It was shown to the Witness.)

"I have the original Book now before me."

"Did not you say, that in that Part which had been erased the Words"out of" appear to have been erased?"

"Yes."

"Those Words appear to have been introduced in the Copy of the Book, do not they?"

"I must see the Copy."

"You said just now, the Words which were erased you introduced into the Copy you made, in order to make it correct?"

"I made the Copy correct from Sir Jonah Barrington's Order."

"Was not it most beneficial to Sir Jonah Barrington, if he had an Object, that the Order should stand in such a Manner as that it would appear that you had Proceeds in your Hands out of which you might have paid that Money; was not that his Interest?"

"It was his Interest."

"Why then should he have erased the Words"out of" and let it appear from the Book that you had only Proceeds amounting to a particular Sum; will you account for that?"

"If I had Sir Jonah Barrington's Order I should be able to explain it." (The same was handed to the Witness.)"The Word may have been mistaken. Sir Jonah Barrington's Order is this:"It is ordered by the Judge, that Daniel Pineau, the Registrar, do forthwith lodge in the Bank of Messrs. Latouche and Co. the Sum of £200 out of" - they have been rubbed out -"the Proceeds in the Cause, the same to be lodged in the Name of." The Words"in the Name of" are struck out by the Judge, and the Words"out of" are struck out by the Judge."

"When he erased in the Book, which you say he did, he also erased the Order?"

"Those Blanks in the Order were erased by Sir Jonah Barrington."

"In your Presence?"

"Yes."

"I suppose at the same Time that the Order in the original Book was erased?"

"This was the Copy, you know, of this Order; this was made first by the Judge in his Chambers; then it was copied in this Book by me. When the Judge found those objectionable Parts, of in his Name and to his Credit, were objected to by the Proctor for the Owners, he then erased out those Words where the Blanks are there."

(By a Lord.)"What did you do with the original Order?"

"I kept it."

"Did you make any Alteration at the Time in the original Order?"

"No, I did not."

"Were not those Words struck out of the original Order?"

"Those Words"out of," and so on, were in the original Order; and when I copied the original Order I put in"in the Name of"; and he erased those Words, that Hawkins might not see those Words in the Book."

"There is no Alteration in the Original?"

"No; I had it in my Possession; God knows whether I might have kept it or I might not."

(Mr. Grady.)"And you had the Possession of the original Book also?"

"Yes."

"Might not you as well say that any Man in the Community, that your own Clerk, or some Person about you, might as well have made the Erasure; you know the Erasure does not exhibit any particular Mark by whom made; any one might have made it; that must depend upon your Credit?"

"That depends upon my Credit."

"If it depends upon your Credit, let me ask you, was not it of advantage to Sir Jonah Barrington to make it appear that you had Proceeds out of which that Sum could be paid?"

"Yes, it was; and so the Order as it remains is. Proceeds means the Proceeds in my Hands."

"When those Words were omitted, the Order would appear, to pay the Proceeds, and not out of them?"

"Yes."

"Would not that import evidently that you had a certain specific Sum out of which that Payment was to arise, and that the Payment was not to be made of a certain Sum?"

"The Word"out of" was erased; I cannot tell what the Motive of his erasing it was; but the Order will be Sense without those Words. But the Words"in the Name of" were in his Writing."

"You seem to have laid a very great Stress upon this Erasure; and you have a perfect Recollection what it was originally; you seem to speak very much of the great Enormity of this Crime, as it must be, on the Part of a Judge, to erase an Order made; and yet you cannot tell what Purpose it could answer to Sir Jonah to erase these Words?"

"The Purpose it answered Sir Jonah was, to prevent John Hawkins, who was Proctor, from seeing that improper Order upon the Book, and taking a Copy of it."

"You have said already that you could not and cannot tell what could have been the Object of Sir Jonah Barrington in erasing those Words"out of." If you cannot tell what the Motive was, how did it happen that the Enormity of the Offence made such an Impression upon your Mind, when you cannot tell why he did so?"

"Why he did what?"

"Why he erased the Words"out of?"

"I cannot tell, except that I suppose he thought it was Sense without it."

"I see now, he made it to alter the Sense?"

"The Words"out of," and"to be lodged in the Name of," he struck out."

"You think it was to make it Sense; there is no Enormity in making it good Sense?"

"No; but there was Enormity in taking out the other. You asked me my Reason for not mentioning it to the Select Committee of The Honourable The House of Commons."

"No, I did not; I merely asked you whether you did mention it. I did not mean to ask your Reasons, or you would, I am sure, give me Abundance. Do you recollect producing a Paper purporting to be an attested Copy of that Order marked No. 4?"

"Of this Order dated the 8th of May 1806? No, 1 do not recollect it. I have not upon my Recollection the having made any attested Copy of that; I probably did."

"Were the Entries in that Book which you call the original Book made in your own Handwriting?"

"They were."

"All of them?"

"Not all of them."

"How far do your Entries extend?"

"They extended down to 1808; the 19th of January 1808."

(By a Lord.)"Were all the Entries down to that Time in your own Handwriting?"

"No, not all; the Commencement of the Book is in the Handwriting of a Clerk of mine. From the 21st of January 1805 those Entries are in the Handwriting of a Clerk; and from the 3d of January 1806 I commenced making the Entries in my own Handwriting."

(Mr. Grady.)"To what Period did your Clerk make those Entries?"

"Down to the 3d of January 1806."

"You are aware that any Entries, except original Entries made by yourself, are not Judicial Acts of the Court?"

"There are some Entries in my Handwriting here."

"Such of those as are in the Handwriting of your Clerk, not being a Proctor, not being the Registrar, you are aware are not Judicial Acts, and cannot be considered or treated by the Court as Judicial Acts?"

"No, I am not aware of that."

(By a Lord.)"Was he acting under your Direction in making those Entries?"

"Under my immediate Inspection and Direction."

"Did you see the Entries made yourself?"

"Yes; he was my confidential Clerk."

(Mr. Grady.)"What was his Name?"

The Witness referred to the Book.

"This is not written by my confidential Clerk, I see; it is another Clerk."

"What is his Name?"

"I do not immediately recollect his Name."

"Is he living or dead?"

"I protest I do not know whether he is living or dead."

"Nor you do not know his Name?"

"No; I do not recollect his Name at this Instant."

"Can you tell how long he was living with you?"

"He was not living with me a long Time."

"How long?"

"He was an additional Clerk."

"How long was he with you?"

"I cannot recollect exactly."

"Was he a Month?"

"I cannot recollect."

"Was he a Week?"

"He was for Years with me."

"When did he begin to live with you?"

"I cannot recollect exactly."

"Nor you cannot tell his Name?"

"It is a long Time ago."

"I am aware of that; you cannot tell his Name, nor whether he is living or dead?"

"No."

"But you have a perfect Recollection that you were present when he made the Entries?"

"Yes."

"May be you can tell the Part of the House or the Office where he made the Entries?"

"No, I cannot; it was in the Office, of course; in the Public Office in my House."

"He made those Entries in your Presence?"

"He copied them in my Presence."

"What may be the Number of Pages?"

"The Book is not numbered."

"Are not you aware that no Judicial Entry can be considered as such unless entered according to the established Rules of that and every other Admiralty Court and Prerogative Court; unless the Entry appears to have been made either in the Handwriting of the Registrar himself or in the Handwriting of a Deputy Proctor, and not a Clerk?"

"There is a certain Memorandum Book, or a Blotter, usually kept by the Registrar, and the Clerk of the Registrar copies it out fair into what is called the Rule Book, the fair Copy."

"That is that Book?"

"Yes."

"Then that cannot be the original Book; that is made up from another Book, which is the original?"

"Yes."

"Where is that?"

"I have it at Home in my House in Dublin; that is what is called the Rough Book."

"In Dublin?"

"Yes."

"You have been misleading me; and I am afraid their Lordships have been also led astray, by that you have impressed my Mind with the Belief that that which you produced was a Copy of the Original, and now you say that Original is but a Copy made by your Clerk of another you have in Stephen's Green?"

"Yes, a Rough Book."

"Is it not so?"

"This is the original Rule Book."

"Is not this a Copy of the Court Book you have in Stephen's Green?"

"It is."

"If it be a Copy, you have not as yet produced that original Book which you have at the Green?"

"This is the original Rule Book of the Court."

"You state that this is a Copy of the original Court Book you have at the Green?"

"This is the Rule Book of the Court of Admiralty."

"You have not given me the Court Book?"

"This is the Court Book of the Court of Admiralty."

"Then the Book you have at the Green is not the Court Book?"

"That is the Rough Book."

"This is copied by your Clerk from the other Book?"

"Yes; that is the Rough Book."

"In whose Handwriting is that Rough Book?"

"The Handwriting of the Rough Book is my own."

"You have not produced to the Commissioners of Inquiry, neither have you produced to the Select Committee, that Book which was in your own Handwriting, and which you now state to have been kept in your own Possession?"

"I produce this, which is the Rule Book of the Court; I did not produce the original Rough Book, the Blotter; that I never produced; this is the Rule Book of the Court of Admiralty; in the other Book any other Entries of Matters are in a rough Way, frequently done upon the Back of a Brief, it may be, and in a rough Manner, and they are then put into Form, under the Inspection and Direction of the Registrar, as in every other Court, I believe; and from those original Documents is produced a Book called the Court Book, the Registrar's Court Book of the Court of Admiralty, and that is that Book."

(By a Lord.)"That is the Record of the Court?"

"It is; that has been read and produced and always acted upon when any Necessity arose."

(Mr. Grady.)"What did you mean by saying at one Time that the original Court Book or Rough Book, call it whatever Name you please, is in your House in Dublin, and now that it may consist of little Briefs or Pieces of Paper; is it a Court Book, or does it consist of mutilated Pieces of Paper?"

"It consists of Pieces of Paper. I go to Court, and take down my Memorandums of Entries in sometimes a Book and sometimes the Back of a Brief or a Sheet of Paper, and I have them collected and made into Form; and then I get the Clerk sometimes to copy them into my fair Book; sometimes myself, and sometimes I get the Clerk to do them."

(By a Lord.)"Those Memoranda of Minutes you take in Court of the Orders of the Court?"

"Yes."

"Those you afterwards reduce into Form and enter in that Book?"

"Yes."

(Mr. Grady.)"Those you have in Dublin?"

"I believe I have those very Originals."

"Suppose Sir Jonah Barrington shall send for these Memoranda To-morrow, and for this original Book, can he get them?"

"I do not think he could get them very well without me."

"Could he get them by the Order of the House?"

"It would be difficult to get Access to them."

"I have a particular Reason for asking that."

"I have not the slightest Objection. That Order of Sir Jonah Barrington would constitute Part of the Rough Book, and several other Orders Sir Jonah Barrington has made; it would be impossible to produce them as the Book of the Court of Admiralty; but those Orders, and every other Order of the like kind, have been reduced into a regular authentic Form."

"How can the Order made by Sir Jonah Barrington, now in the House, compose Part of your Book, of the Rough Book, as you call it?"

"If I call it that which is the original rough Order, it would be Part of the rough Material from which this has been formed."

(By a Lord.)"The Book which is now in your Hand is the Book of the Court?"

"It is."

"That is the original Book of the Court?"

"Yes."

"Is that made from any Book in your House in Dublin, or from the original Minute now here?"

"It was made from the original Minute, in the Handwriting of Sir Jonah Barrington, and from nothing else."

"Do you refer to the Minute which is produced here?"

"Yes; this Minute of the 8th of May 1806 was made from that original Minute."

(Mr. Grady.)"Supposing there should appear other Orders in that Book touching the Transaction alluded to of the Nancy, respecting which you had no original Order from Sir Jonah Barrington, from whence must this have been made?"

"From the Dictation of the Judge in the Court."

"Entered in what you call the Rough Book?"

"As I mentioned, either on a Sheet of Paper, or a Book, or the Back of a Brief."

"Are there not other Books besides those you have produced which contain Entries relating to the Redstrand?"

"I cannot call Papers, detached in that Way, Books."

"Are there not other Books here?"

"There are no other Books but those; there is no other Rule Book of the Court of Admiralty but this Book."

"Have the goodness to tell me in what other Book do you find any Entries in the Year 1815 of the Redstrand?"

"I believe the Book is here."

"This Book is described as Admiralty Rule Book?" (A Book being shown to the Witness.)

"This is 1813 to 1815."

"Are there any Entries in that Book in the Year 1815 relating to the Redstrand Derelict?"

"I do not find any."

"Is that the original Book?"

"That is the original Book."

(By a Lord.)"That is the Record of the Court?"

"It is."

(Mr. Grady.)"In whose Handwriting is that Book?"

"Part of it is in my Handwriting."

"Will you tell me the Name of the Clerk in whose Handwriting that Book is?"

"The Name of the Clerk who wrote the first Part of this Book is William Fitzpatrick. I wrote a considerable Part of this Book myself; and the Remainder of it is written in the Handwriting of Samuel Stephens, another Clerk."

"Am I to understand that all the Parts you point out are written by the Two Clerks, (you perceive there are a great Number of Pages,) and all the Entries made by them were made in your Presence?"

"They were made from Entries by me."

"Were they copied in your Presence?"

"They were copied by my Directions; they were copied by a Clerk in my Office, in which Office I was daily and hourly."

"Did you see him make the Entries?"

"I did."

(By a Lord.)"Were you in the habit, after the Entries were made by the Clerks, of reading the Entries over for the Purpose of seeing that they were correct?"

"It was constantly my habit."

(Mr. Grady.)"What was the Name of the first Clerk?"

"William Fitzpatrick."

"Is he living?"

"He is."

"You were in the habit of comparing with the Clerk who made those Entries the Entries themselves?"

"I was in the habit of reading over the Order after the Clerk had written it, and I pretty well knew whether it was a correct Copy."

"Are you sure you did so in the Instances you have mentioned?"

"I am."

"Was it not in your own private Office, or in your own House, you always deposited the Proceeds of Property belonging to the Admiralty?"

"It was not always in my own House I deposited the Proceeds."

"But generally, was it not?"

"At first, of course, I brought them Home."

(By a Lord.)"What did you do with them afterwards?"

"I sometimes lodged them in Latouche's Bank; sometimes I lodged Money with Mr. Charles Ward, a Director of the Bank of Ireland; but I very frequently made the Parties in the Cause my Bankers; I frequently advanced Money to them."

(Mr. Grady.)"I think, in your Evidence before the Select Committee, you said there was no particular Place appointed by the Court for depositing the Sums, and that you constantly deposited them in your own House?"

"There was no particular Place- no particular Bank allotted; I might deposit them where I pleased."

"Am I right in supposing that you said, in your Examination, that you generally deposited them in your own House, and sometimes at Latouche's?"

"Yes; and sometimes with other Persons."

"In fact it was discretionary where you lodged them?"

"Quite discretionary; which was a very wrong Thing."

"Have you accounted, for the last Seven or Eight Years, for the several Sums of the Public Money so deposited with you?"

"I have accounted for every Sum claimed, every Sum that I have been called upon for the last Six or Seven Years; I have some Money in my Hands, for which I have not been called upon."

"May I ask you, have not you stated that you had sometimes a pretty large Sum for several Years that had not been called for?"

"I had some Sums for several Years, but not large Sums."

"Five or Six or Seven hundred Pounds?"

"Somewhere about that."

"Have you converted those into Government or Public Securities?"

"No, I have not."

"You have the Money at Home, have you?"

"I have the Money forthcoming whenever it is demanded, at a Moment's Warning. I have it forthcoming; and I mean to say that I never delayed nor disobeyed a Money Order of the Court of Admiralty of Ireland; there are Persons who can give Testimony to that."

"Did you state before the Select Committee, that the Sums you advanced to Sir Jonah Barrington, amounting to Five hundred and eighty odd Pounds, were Sums advanced by you, to use your own Expressions, I believe, bonâ fide out of your own Funds, and not out of any of the Proceeds in the Cause?"

"I did."

"And that is the Fact?"

"Yes, that is the Fact."

"Were you at any one Time enabled to advance to Sir Jonah Barrington a Sum of Two or Three hundred Pounds out of your own Funds?"

"Often."

"During the Period you mention?"

"Aye, and Ten Times as much."

"Give me Leave to ask - I do not mean it disrespectfully, it may happen with respect to the best Gentleman in the World- but have you not been for several Years past greatly embarrassed in your Circumstances?"

"No."

"Have there not been several Judgments against you in the several Courts of Law in Ireland, for the last Two or Three and twenty Years, amounting to a very considerable Sum?"

"There have been Judgments entered against me for very large Sums, and I have paid a great Sum."

"You recollect, I am sure, and for very small Sums too?"

"Yes, and some for very small Sums."

"And Executions, I believe, against you?"

"I believe there were One or Two Executions against me for Debts which I did not choose to pay; for they were Accommodation Bills, and I chose not to pay those particular Debts, but to oblige the Parties who ought to pay them to pay them by letting Costs run on them, and the Parties ultimately did pay them. In some Cases that happened."

"For those Debts which were not Accommodation Debts, were there not Judgments against you?"

"There were Judgments against me."

"Perhaps it will be the shortest Way for you to look over the List; you cannot forget the Names of your Creditors and the Amount of the Sums you owed them, and the Judgments against you during this Period, during which you were enable to advance large Sums of Money to Sir Jonah Barrington."

The Paper was put into the Witness's Hand.

(By a Lord.)"What is the earliest?"

"The earliest here I see is 1808."

"How many are there?"

(Mr. Grady.)"Did not you owe £14,000?"

"I believe not; most of them are paid."

"Have you the Names of the Creditors and the Courts in which the Judgments were entered?"

"Yes."

(By a Lord.)"Does that List appear to you to be right?"

"I dare say it is right. The first is for £66 17s. 5d. which is paid."

"Are they all paid?"

"No; there are some of them that are unsettled Accounts, and I have set-off against them."

(Mr. Grady.)"Tell me the smallest Sum for which there is a Judgment against you and Execution?"

"I think there is one of £53 here."

(By a Lord.)"The Question intended to be asked you is, how could you be in a Condition to advance Money to that Extent to Sir Jonah Barrington when you were not in a Condition to pay your own Debts?"

"My Reason was, that I was in good Business as an Attorney; I had a great many Clients; I had Two or Three Agencies; I received about £3,000 a Year for several Years, and great Confidence was placed in me by several Persons, and I constantly, for a Number of Years, had a great deal of ready Money; at other Times I had not ready Money."

"Why did you not pay your Debts, and not suffer Judgment to be entered against you, if you had a Sum of Money?"

"A Man in Business very often has Judgments entered against him for Sums that he borrows, and afterwards pays; that was my Case."

The List referred to by the Witness was delivered in, and read as follows:

"EXCHEQUER.
£ s. d.
William Dykes M.T. 1808.
a' Confession 66 17 5
Daniel Pineau, Gentleman, Attorney, Roll, 260.
Francis Hamil and another T.T. 1810.
a' Debt 341 7 8
Same, of Stephen's Green, City of Costs 3 8 6
Dublin, Esq. Roll, 35.
James Biron T.T. 1819.
a' Debt 500 0 0
Costs 3 15 0
Same of same. Roll, 68.
Same Same Term and Year.
a' Debt 500 0 0
Costs 15 0 0
Same. Roll, 68.
Wm. Gresham and another H. T. 1821.
a' Confession 40 1 2
Same. Roll, 580.
Arthur Perrin, Same Term and Year.
a' Confession 111 10 11
Same. Roll, 695.
Samuel Fisher and another E. T. 1821.
a' Confession 51 19 0
Same, Attorney. Roll, 237.
Lee, Sir Francis Hopkins T. T. 1822.
a'
Same Gentleman, one of the Attorneys. Roll, 623.
Result of Search from 1804 to 1824, both inclusive.
COMMON PLEAS.
Richard Collis H. T. 1810.
a' Judgment 68 5 0
Costs 2 11 6
Daniel Piueau of Stephen's Green. Roll, 406.
Matthew Griffith H. T. 1810.
a' Judgment 58 2 8
Same. Roll,
Boyle Travers E.1819.
a' Judgment 164 0 0
Same. Roll, 315.
Thomas Thompson H. 1820.
Debt 400 0 0
a' Costs 2 16 7
Same. Roll, 49.
H. 1820.
John Brebner Debt 711 2 4
a' Costs 2 16 7
Same. Roll, 203.
M. 1820.
Theophilus Dixon Debt 140 7 6
a' Costs 2 13 0
Same. Roll, 138.
William Colley and anr, surviving M. 1820.
Executors Debt 400 0 0
a' Costs 2 16 7
Same, of Wm. St. City of Dublin, Roll, 286.
Attorney at Law.
From Hilary 1804 to Michaelmas 1824, inclusive.
KING'S BENCH.
Richard Colles H. T. 1811. £ s. d.
a' Debt 110 0 0
Daniel Pineau, Stephen's Green, City Costs 2 9 6
of Dublin, Attorney. Roll, 541.
James Gordon and another H. T. 1811.
a' Report 53 1
Daniel Pineau. Roll, 184.
Benjamin Holdbrook T. T. 1811.
a' Debt 200 0 0
Same, of Stephen's Green, City of Costs 2 9 6
Dublin, Esq. Roll, 307.
H. T. 1812.
Samuel Guiness Debt 408 9
a' Costs 2 10 7
Same, of same, Attorney. Roll, 218.
H. T. 1817.
William Glenton Confession 27 0 0
a' Costs 14 10 6
Same. Roll, 179.
E. T. 1819.
Morris Hirne Debt 1,500 0 0
a' Costs 2 18 8
Same. Roll, 211.
T. T. 1820.
Mrs. Ellen Myers Debt 284 0 0
a' Costs 2 11 8
Same, of same, Attorney. Roll, 392.
M. T. 1820.
William Barrett Debt 394 16 0
a' Costs 2 11 2
Same, of City Dublin, Gentleman. Roll, 185.
John Robinson M. T.
a' Debt 417 3 0
Same. Roll, 185.
Clarisson M. B. Travers M. T. 1822.
a' Execution 190 0 0
Same, of Stephen's Green, City Dublin, Costs 2 12 2
Attorney at Law. Roll, 327.
H. T.
Arthur M'Kenna Confession 40 19 10
a' Costs 12 11
Same. Roll, 211.
"Search from 1804 to 1824 inclusive."

(Mr. Grady.)"Look at this List of earlier Judgments against you, commencing in the Year 1799." - (It was shown to the Witness.)

"There are Two Judgments by Ann Carrothers, both paid."

"What is the Amount of those; the first?"

"£28 4s."

"When was that paid?"

"Oh, a long Time ago."

"What is the next?"

"£16 8s."

"And Costs?"

"Yes, that is paid long ago."

"What is the Amount of the Third?"

"For £32, paid long ago; William Taylor £18, paid long ago; and James Ball, paid long ago. Every one of those is paid."

"So you say. Do you mean to tell their Lordships that at this Period you were in such Credit, those Judgments outstanding against you, that you would suffer those Judgments for those small Debts to run up to the Amount you mention without discharging them?"

"This was in 1799, when I had not Money; it goes down to 1802."

"When did you pay the Judgments of 1802?"

"The Period we are talking of is in 1805."

"When did you pay the Judgments of 1802?"

"Long ago; many Years ago."

(By a Lord.)"When did you advance that Money to Sir Jonah Barrington?"

"In the Year 1805."

"Were there any Judgments standing against you in 1805?"

"No, I believe not."

"Look at the List, and state the Fact?"

"This comes down to 1802, and the other begins in 1808."

(Mr. Grady.)"When did you pay the last Judgment of 1802?"

"To the best of my Recollection it is a long Time ago; I paid that Judgment in a Year or two afterwards."

"It may have been Three Years?"

"Yes."

"Perhaps it may be Four?"

"No, I do not think it was."

(By a Lord.)"What is the Amount of that?"

"It is £56 19s. 9d."

"This Money was advanced in the Interval between those Two Accounts?"

"Yes."

(Mr. Grady.)"Was the Judgment immediately before that paid, or is it paid to this Hour?"

"Oh it is paid long ago."

"(By a Lord.)"Were any of those Judgments, stated in that List you have in your Hand, outstanding against you in 1805?"

"No."

"That you swear?"

"I do swear, according to the best of my Recollection, Knowledge and Belief."

(Mr. Grady.)"I thought you said you did not pay the last Judgment for Two or Three Years; that will bring it up to 1805?"

"I think they were all paid before that Time."

The List last referred to by the Witness was delivered in, and read as follows:

KING'S BENCH.
£ s. d.
Ann Carrothers H. T. 1799.
a' Confession 28 4 0
Daniel Pineau, Gentleman, Roll, 172.
Same M. T. 1799.
a' 16 8 0
Same and another, of City of Dublin, Cost 2 4 1
Attorney. Roll, 503.
John Moses E. T. 1800.
a' Confession 32 2 1
Same, Gentleman. Roll, 137.
William Taylor T. T. 1802.
a' 18 6 0
Same, City of Dublin, Gentleman, Cost 2 4 1
Attorney. Roll, 29.
EXCHEQUER.
James Ball M. T. 1802.
a' Debt 56 19 9
Daniel Pineau, of the City of Dublin, Cost 2 4 8
Esq., Attorney.
COMMON PLEAS.
None.
Searched from 1798 to 1804.

"You were desired to make Returns, some Years ago, of the Sums in your Hands?"

"Yes."

"Did you make the Returns?"

"I did."

"In what Year?"

"To the Commissioners of Inquiry, I think I made them in the Year 1828, to the best of my Recollection; but that is a Matter that the Blue Book will tell, the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry?"

"Did you not also make a Return to Parliament?"

"I did."

"In what Year was that?"

"I think it was in the Year before; I think it was in the Year 1827."

"In what Year was it you made the first Claim or first Demand upon Sir Jonah Barrington for this Sum of Five hundred and odd Pounds?"

"Not until 1825."

"He left Ireland in 1810?"

"He did."

"From that Period to 1825 you made no Demand?"

"I did not."

(By a Lord.)"Had you any Security for the Debt?"

"No; he offered me his Bond, and I did not take it; that is mentioned in his Letter on the Table before your Lordships."

(Mr. Grady.)"To what Amount?"

"About £190."

"Your Demand was £580?"

"That was on particular Matters, when he wanted me to make a Report, in the Case of the Nancy, that I had Two Government Debentures for the £200 under the Order of the 8th May 1806; he wanted me to make that Report; I told him I could not make that Report. He wrote a Letter to me requesting I would make the Report in the Manner in which he stated it."

(By a Lord.)"Is that Letter in Evidence?"

"Yes, it is; stating my having Two Debentures, and so on."

(Mr. Grady.)"From that Period did you ever make a Demand for the Amount of 580 odd Pounds on Sir Jonah Barrington?"

"I wrote a Letter to Sir Jonah Barrington in the Year 1825, particularly alluding to the Redstrand Derelict, the £200 in his Hands and £40."

"Until the Year 1825 did you make any Demand?"

"No Demand whatever until that Time."

"Did you ever tell any of the Proctors belonging to your Court, Friends of your own, any Person now living connected with the Court, that you had any Claim against Sir Jonah Barrington, to the Amount of £500 or any Amount?"

"I did mention that."

"To whom?"

"I mentioned it to the late Mr. Whiteway."

"He is dead?"

"He is dead."

"Will you tell me any Person living to whom you mentioned it?"

"I am not certain but that I mentioned it to Mr. William Richardson."

"Mr. William Richardson is here?"

"He is."

"He is The King's Proctor, is he not?"

"He is."

(By a Lord.)"What was it you told him?"

"I told him there was a large Sum in the Nancy, in the Hands of Sir Jonah Barrington, and I think I told him of another; but I am not sure but I mentioned this Sum."

(Mr. Grady.)"About what Time did you mention it to Mr. Richardson?"

"It was a little before or else a little after the Commissioners of Inquiry; about that Period."

"Do you recollect the Year 1815 and the Year 1816, when The Lord Lieutenant and Government of Ireland instituted an Inquiry respecting the Subject Matter you have given Evidence upon?"

"I do; it was relating to the Redstrand Derelict."

"Was not Mr. Richardson Proctor at that Time?"

"Yes."

"You know of the Report made by him; he was called upon to report?"

"I believe there was a Report made by him."

"Were not you privy to it?"

"I knew he made a Report."

"Did you, at the Time he was making that Report, apprise him that Sir Jonah Barrington owed you any thing?"

"I do not immediately recollect that we had any Conversation upon the Subject; I do not think we had."

"However, a Report was made upon the Order of Government?"

"Yes."

"And respecting that very Redstrand?"

"Yes."

"And that related to a Claimant of the Name of Wycherly, mentioned also in your Evidence of Yesterday, which Claimant you said you paid the Sum of Money to?"

"Yes."

"You have produced a Paper purporting to be a Receipt signed by Mr. Hamilton, in the Course of your Evidence?"

"I have; it is before the House."

"You gave that in Evidence as a Receipt of Mr. Hamilton for a Sum of Money, there said to have been paid by you to Mr. Hamilton, the Proctor?"

"£482 18s. 8d."

"Does not the Receipt appear to be witnessed by your confidential Clerk?"

"It does."

Mr. Grady submitted,"That it ought not to be received without the Testimony of the Clerk who witnessed it."

(Mr. Attorney General.)"Is the Witness alive?"

"He is alive."

The Receipt not being at the Instant forthcoming, Mr. Grady was requested to pursue for the present some other Head of Inquiry.

(Mr. Grady.)"Be so kind as to refer to the Order of the 28th December 1807?"

"I do not find any such Order entered here; there is an Order of the 23d December 1827."

"We have now found the Receipt which was stated to have been given in by you." (It was handed to the Witness.)"Does not that appear to have had a Witness to it?"

"This Receipt is signed,"Patrick Hamilton, Proctor;" with the Words"Present, Samuel Stephens."

Mr. Grady submitted,"That this ought not be received in Evidence without the Production of Samuel Stephens as a Witness."

Mr. Attorney General submitted,"That it did not appear to have been witnessed by Samuel Stephens; but that Samuel Stephens merely stated himself to have been present at the Transaction."

(By a Lord.)"In whose Handwriting are the Words, "Present, Samuel Stephens?"

"In the Handwriting of Samuel Stephens. The Body of it is in my Handwriting; the Signature in the Handwriting of Patrick Hamilton."

Mr. Grady was heard in reply.

The Counsel were informed,"That it appeared that Stephens meant to sign as a Witness to the Transaction, and that it could not be received as Evidence of the Payment of Money without the Production of him as a Witness."

Mr. Attorney General stated,"That he was perfectly willing to withdraw the Receipt rather than incur the Expence of bringing over the Witness; and the same was struck out of the Minutes accordingly."

(Mr. Grady.)"The Sum you claimed from Sir Jonah Barrington was Part of a large Sum of 600 and odd Pounds?"

"Yes."

"This Sum you stated to the Committee to have been due from 1805 to 1809?"

"I do not perfectly understand you."

"Was any Part of this Sum of 600 and odd Pounds you claimed against Sir Jonah Barrington due to you any Year after the Years 1807, 1808 and 1809?"

"Yes."

"How much, do you recollect?"

"I have an Account, stated about Five hundred and odd Pounds."

"You said you did not apply to Sir Jonah Barrington until the Year 1827?"

"1825."

"Was not your first Demand against him a Demand on account of the Redstrand?"

"It was; but my Letter stated, that upon a cursory View I found that he owed £200 in the Redstrand Derelict. That was written in a Hurry, as Keating was going to Boulogne, in order that he should have that Communication made. I had not looked into the Accounts at that Time."

"It was only in a cursory View you just took at the Moment when you wrote that Letter in 1827?"

"In 1825."

"At that Time there were Judgments against you?"

"There were."

"Can you account why, there being Judgments against you pressing upon you at that Time, you did not make up an accurate Account against Sir Jonah Barrington for so large a Sum as you have mentioned, instead of taking so cursory a View of it?"

"I had not made up my Accounts."

(By a Lord.)"The Question is, why did not you?"

"The Answer is, that I was irregular, and had not made up my Accounts."

"You were asked why you had not?"

"From my own Negligence."

"Your mere Negligence?"

"It was."

(Mr. Grady.)"It could not have proceeded from any Distress or Want of Money on your Part, or you would have been very anxious to get it?"

"I have wanted Money to pay Debts."

"Is it your usual habit, whether you practise as Registrar or practise as an Attorney, to treat your Clients with so much Clemency as not to make up your Accounts, or furnish an Account, for Eight or Ten Years?"

"It is my usual habit not to furnish my Account; and I could give a particular Instance of that of a Gentleman in the Room, if I thought it material."

(By a Lord.)"It is your habit to be negligent?"

"It is my habit to be negligent in calling in Sums due to me; but I was very prompt in paying Money due from me."

"As the Judgments prove?"

"No; if they sent the Accounts, I paid my Debts."

(Mr. Grady.)"But your Promptness to pay your Creditors induced you to suffer these Judgments to remain so long unpaid?"

"No; it was not that."

"That was your Negligence too?"

"In those Instances it was Negligence."

"It was not your constant Custom to pay your Creditors; in those Instances you forgot to pay them?"

"No, I did not forget."

"Were you able to pay?"

"Some of those Judgments were to lie over; it was not intended they should be called for."

"But they proceeded against you?"

"On some of those Judgments there were no Proceedings."

"Were not there Judgments?"

"There were."

"Have the goodness to put in the other Judgments on which no ulterior Proceedings have been taken?"

"There were many."

"Put your Pen on those on which no ulterior Proceedings were taken?"

The Counsel was informed,"That if it was intended to proceed further, and to rely upon those Judgments as in Evidence, the Judgments themselves must be produced, and not parol Evidence of their Contents."

(Mr. Grady.)"Will you show me the Letter in your Book of the 21st of December 1805?"

(The Witness turned to the same, and added)-"I have an Order of the 21st of December 1805, and I have in the Rule Book an Entry,"on which Day the Registrar paid to Patrick Hamilton £482 18s. 8d. which, with £14 10s. Poundage, makes up £497 16s. 8d., being One Half of the Proceeds in this Cause." I paid that."

"In whose Handwriting is that Entry?"

"That is in the Handwriting of the Clerk whose Name I cannot recollect."

"Or whether he is living or dead?"

"I cannot recollect whether he is living or dead."

"You have already said that the Sum you gave Sir Jonah Barrington was entirely out of your own private Funds?"

"Yes."

"So that in fact the Public was not a Sufferer One Shilling?"

"No, not a Shilling."

"Respecting the Case of the Nancy?"

"With respect to the Case of the Nancy; not so with respect to the Redstrand."

"From the Period of 1810, were not you in the habit of paying Sir Jonah Barrington, or to his Order, regularly, the annual Amount of Fees out of the Office of Judge, amounting to Thirty or Forty Pounds?"

"Yes; I paid Two or Three Times to Lady Barrington."

(By a Lord.)"What was the Amount of them?"

"About Twenty or Thirty Pounds."

"Why did not you retain that Money, if Sir Jonah Barrington owed you that £200?"

"Because that was a separate Thing; it was the Fees of Office belonging to him. Lady Barrington applied for them; and it was not a Thing I liked to mix up with that Transaction."

(Mr. Grady.)"Those were paid from Year to Year, up to the present Time?"

"No; the Surrogate settled them. I was going at one Time to stop them, but did not like to stop £13 from Lady Barrington."

"Do you recollect being examined as to the Proceeds of the Mavina in 1805, in which a Claim had been made against you by Government of £707?"

"I recollect being examined."

"Do you recollect that Claim being made against you?"

"No Claim was made against me, and it is impossible there should be a Claim made against me in that Matter."

"You wrote in a cursory Manner, you say, claiming an Amount of Sir Jonah?"

"Yes."

"At what Time was that?"

"In August 1825, to the best of my Recollection."

"From that Period of 1825 have you made up a regular Account?"

"Yes."

"Did you ever furnish that Account to Sir Jonah?"

"No."

"Though you admit that in 1825, in a cursory Manner, you made a Claim, you were not in the habit of making up Accounts; you are so negligent that from that Period you never made up an Account against him?"

"Nor never will, because it will be totally useless."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Mr. Grady was informed,"That he might now proceed in the Statement of the Case on behalf of Sir Jonah Barrington."

Mr. Grady applied for further Time, stating,"That he had but lately arrived from Dublin, and that he was not fully instructed."

Mr. Grady was informed,"That the further Consideration of this Matter would be postponed to Friday next, and that their Lordships expected that the Case on behalf of Sir Jonah Barrington should be closed on that Evening."

Mr. Grady stated,"That it had become important, with a view to discrediting the Evidence given by Mr. Pineau, that his Clerk, now in Dublin, should be called, in order to being examined as to certain Entries in the Books which had been produced."

Mr. Grady was directed to point out the Entries to which the Evidence would apply, and to state whether they related to the Transactions in question; and he stated,"That they were Entries made in the Book from which Leaves had been torn out; that he wished to enquire of the Witness out of what Book those Entries had been made, and whether that Book, which Mr. Pineau stated to be the original Rule Book, was or was not an original Book; that he submitted that if he could shew that Entries made by that Clerk in that which Mr. Pineau called the original Book were never made by his Authority or in his Presence, that would be most material."

The Counsel were informed,"That there must be something more than a Supposition of Facts before their Lordships granted Time at this Period of the Case, considering that the Application ought to have been made at a much earlier Period."

Mr. Attorney General stated,"That he had made no Use of the Books in question, but that he relied on the Documents in the Handwriting of Sir Jonah Barrington; that the only Entry read from the Book was the Decree in the Case of the Nancy, which was perfectly immaterial."

Mr. Grady submitted,"That the Orders could be of no Avail, unless it was shown that they were Judicial Acts; and that they could not be Judicial Acts unless they were regularly entered in the Rule Book."

The Counsel were informed,"That the Books having been brought from Ireland at the Desire of Sir Jonah Barrington, and having been for several Days in the Possession of the Clerk of the House, and accessible to the Agent for Sir Jonah Barrington, and inspected by him, further Delay could not now be granted, as he ought to have made an earlier Application for Witnesses, if their Attendance was required."

The Counsel were directed to withdraw.

Ordered, That the further Consideration of the said Address be put off to Friday next; and that the Lords be summoned.

Military Stores exported to India, & Sums paid by The East India Co. for Commercial Freight, Accounts of, Ordered.

Ordered, That there be laid before this House,"An Account of the Quantity and Value of Military Stores exported to India during each of the last Ten Years, (from 1819-20 to 1828-29, inclusive;) specifying the Average Rate of Freight at which they have been sent out in each Year:"

And also,"A Statement of the Sums paid by The East India Company for Commercial Freight in each Year since 1814; distinguishing the Amount charged to the Trade with India from the Amount charged to the Trade with China."

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Veneris, decimum sextum diem instantis Julii, horâ undecimâ Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.