House of Lords Journal Volume 63: 29 June 1831

Die Mercurii, 29° Junii 1831.

DOMINI tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Grahame v. Jolly:

After hearing Counsel, as well on Thursday last as on this Day, upon the Petition and Appeal of Francis Grahame Esquire, of Morphie, in the County of Kincardine, in Scotland; complaining of Six Interlocutors of the Lord Ordinary in Scotland, of the 5th Day of December 1820, the 17th Day of November 1821, the 22d Day of May and 14th Day of June 1822, the 14th Day of June 1828 and the 13th Day of November 1829; and also of Three Interlocutors of the Lords of Session there, of the Second Division, of the 24th Day of February 1824, the 12th Day of December 1827 and the 2d Day of July 1829, except in so far as this last one refuses the Desire of the reclaiming Note for Stewart Jolly; and praying, "That the same might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Appellant might have such other Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, should seem meet;" as also upon the Answer of Mr. Stewart Jolly, in Morphie, put in to the said Appeal; and due Consideration had of what was offered on either Side in this Cause:

Interlocutors in part Reversed, & Cause remitted.

The Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, Find, That the Advocator Stewart Jolly is entitled to Meliorations for Houses and Biggings, in so far as the Houses and Biggings on the Farm at the Dates of the Tacks are improved, or others suitable to the Farm built in lieu of the same and better than the same, at the Expiration of the Tack; and Find, that he is not entitled to Meliorations for Houses and Biggings built of new, except as aforesaid: And it is Ordered and Adjudged, That the several Interlocutors complained of in the said Appeal, so far as the same are inconsistent with the above Findings, be, and the same are hereby Reversed: And it is further Ordered, That the Cause be remitted back to the Court of Session to do therein as shall be consistent with the said Findings, and as shall be just.

The House was adjourned during Pleasure.

The House was resumed by The Lord Wynford, who sat Speaker by virtue of a former Commission.

Flowerdew v. The Dundee, &c. Shipping Co.

The House being informed, "That the Managers of The Dundee, Perth and London Shipping Company, Respondents to the Appeal of William Allen Flowerdew, had not put in their Answer to the said Appeal, though duly served with the Order of this House for that Purpose:"

And thereupon an Affidavit of William Miller of the City of Edinburgh, Solicitor, of the due Service of the said Order, being read;

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

Brown's Estate Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for enabling the Trustee under the Will of Henry Brown deceased to sell certain Shares in the Leeds and Liverpool Canal Navigation, and a Share in the Liverpool Theatre, and certain Bonds from the Liverpool Dock Trustees, and of a certain Sum due on Bond from the Corporation of Liverpool, and to apply the Money arising therefrom in repairing, pulling down and rebuilding certain Houses in Paradise Street, in the Town of Liverpool aforesaid; and for other the Purposes in this Act mentioned."

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

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet on Monday the 11th of July next, at Ten o'Clock in the Forenoon, in the Prince's Lodgings, near the House of Peers; and to adjourn as they please.

Beattie's Estate Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to empower the Judges of the Court of Session in Scotland to take an Account of the Debts and Burdens affecting and that may be made to affect the Entailed Estate of Crieve, and others, in the Counties of Dumfries and Roxburgh, and to sell such Part of the said Estate as may be sufficient to discharge the said Debts and Burdens; and likewise for settling and securing the Lands and Estate of Murrayfield, and others, in the said County of Dumfries, to and in favor of Thomas Beattie of Crieve, Esquire, and the Series of Heirs entitled to take by a certain Deed of Entail made by Thomas Beattie of Crieve, Esquire, now deceased, and under the Conditions and Limitations contained in the said Deed, and for vesting in lieu thereof certain Parts of the Estate of Crieve in the said Thomas Beatlie Esquire, and his Heirs and Assigns, in Fee-Simple."

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

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet on Thursday the 7th of July next, at the usual Time and Place; and to adjourn as they please.

Edwards' Estate Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to effect an Exchange of Lands between Harriet Averina Brunetta Herbert, an infant Ward of the Court of Chancery, and John Edwards Esquire."

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

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

Tuckfield's Charity Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for enabling The Mayor, Bailiffs and Commonalty of the City of Exeter to sell Two Houses in the Parish of Saint Stephen's, Exeter, vested in them, and to purchase other Estates for the Performance of the Charitable Purposes of the Will of Joan Tuckfield."

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

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

Preece's Estate Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to effect an Exchange of Estates in the County of Hereford between William Preece Esquire and the Dean and Canons of Windsor."

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

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

Trower's Divorce Bill.

The Order of the Day being read for the Second Reading of the Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the Marriage of Charles Trower Esquire with Amelia Catherine Trower his now Wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other Purposes therein mentioned;" and for the Lords to be summoned;

The Evidence given on the former Bill in the last Session of Parliament was read by the Clerk as follows; (viz ^t.)

"Die Veneris, 25° Martii 1831.

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

"Counsel were accordingly called in:

"And Mr. Adam, Mr. Serjeant Spankie and Mr. Gambier appearing as Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner; and Mr. Glennie appearing as Proctor on behalf of Mrs. Trower, in the Absence of Mr. Harrison;

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

"Then Francis Lavie was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

"(By Counsel.) Are you in the Office of Messieurs Oliverson and Company, the Attornies for the Plaintiff?"

"I am."

"Did you go over to Paris for the Purpose of serving the Order?"

"I did."

"Did you take a Copy of the Bill and other Documents with you?"

"I did."

"For the Purpose of their being served?"

"I did."

"Did you see Mrs. Trower?"

"I did."

"Did you serve her with the Bill and a Copy of the Order of this House?"

"I did, on the 15th of this Month."

"Where was she then residing?"

"She was residing at the Hotel Windsor, in the Rue de Tivoli, in Paris."

"Did you see Mr. Hodgson?"

"I did."

"Was she living in the same House with him?"

"She was in the same Room with him."

"(By a Lord.) Do you know Mrs. Trower?"

"I had seen her in this Country."

"How do you know it was Mrs. Trower?"

"She was pointed out to me as Mrs Trower."

"By whom?"

"By a Servant who had lived in the Family; she sent me a Letter afterwards."

"Did you receive a Letter from Mrs. Trower?"

"I did."

"Do you know her Handwriting?"

"I do not."

"The said Letter was delivered in.

"The Witness was directed to withdraw.

"Then Ross Donelly Mangles Esquire was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

"(By Counsel.) Do you know Mrs. Trower, the Wife of Mr. Charles Trower of Calcutta?"

"I do."

"Do you know her Handwriting?"

"I do."

"Do you believe that to be her Handwriting? (A Letter being shewn to the Witness.)"

"I do."

"Did you ever see her write?"

"I have."

"The said Letter was read as follows:

"Hotel Windsor, Rue de Rivoli 38.

"Paris, 15th March 1831.

"Sir,

"The Copy of the Bill to dissolve the Marriage of Mr. Charles Trower and myself, and the Copy of the Notice of the Order for the Second Reading of the said Bill in the House of Lords on Friday the 25th Instant, with which you have served me this Day, I request you will have the Goodness to hand over to my Solicitor, William Baker Esquire, 5 Nicholas Lane, Lombard Street, London.

"I am, Sir, Your obedt Servant, Amelia C. Trower."

"To Francis Lavie Esq. Paris."

"The Witness was directed to withdraw.

"Then The Reverend Doctor James Ward was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

"(By Counsel.) Were you at Calcutta, in Bengal, in the Year 1810?"

"I was."

"In what Capacity?"

"As Chaplain in the Honorable Company's Service."

"At Calcutta?"

"Yes; first Junior and afterwards Senior Chaplain."

"Do you know Mr. Charles Trower?"

"Very well."

"What is he?"

"In the Civil Service of the Company."

"Did you marry Mr. Trower?"

"I did."

"Did you know the Lady who has since become Mrs. Trower?"

"Very well."

"When did you marry them?"

"The latter End of the Year 1810."

"What was her Name previous to her Marriage?"

"Erskine; Amelia Catherine Erskine. I married them in the Year 1810; I think in December."

"According to the Rites of the Church of England?"

"According to the Rites of the Church of England."

"Did you see Mr. Trower from Time to Time subsequent to the Marriage?"

"Occasionally I did."

"Did they live together?"

"Yes."

"Had you an Opportunity of observing whether they lived happily together?"

"Very happily every Time I saw them; I never heard or saw any thing to the contrary; and I had occasionally Opportunities of seeing them, because I baptized Three of their Children."

"When did you leave Calcutta?"

"The latter End of the Year 1815."

"The Witness was directed to withdraw.

"Mr. Serjeant Spankie stated to the House, "That a Clerk from the India House was in Attendance to produce the Certificate of Marriage, if it was desired."

"The Counsel was informed, "That this was not necessary, the Marriage being proved."

"Then Mary Price was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

"(By Counsel.) Were you at Calcutta in the Year 1824?"

"I never made any Memorandum of the Year, but I believe it was."

"Do you know Mr. and Mrs. Trower?"

"Yes."

"Were you engaged by Mrs. Trower to accompany her to England?"

"Yes."

"In what Year was it that you came to England?"

"In 1825 I think we arrived; I may be mistaken in the Year."

"Did you continue with Mrs. Trower for several Years after that Time?"

"Yes."

"Where did Mrs. Trower reside in this Country?"

"Her first Residence was in Wimpole Street."

"Was she visited by any of her Husband's Family?"

"The whole, as far as I knew; all of them."

"Where did she live after she lived in Wimpole Street?"

"She removed to Welbeck Street?"

"Do you know Mr. Hodgson?"

"Yes, I have seen him many Times."

"Did you ever see Mr. Hodgson there?"

"Yes, I have seen him many Times."

"Did you see Mrs. Hodgson, the Mother of Mr. Hodgson, and his Sisters?"

"Yes."

"Did Mrs. Trower visit Mrs. and the Miss Hodgsons?"

"Yes; Morning Calls."

"Had Mr. Hodgson a House near Epsom?"

"Yes."

"Do you remember being with your Mistress at Mr. Hodgson's House near Epsom?"

"Yes, we went on a Visit."

"In what Year was that?"

"I think that must be 1827; but I am not quite certain as to the Year?"

"You remember, however, going there?"

"Yes."

"Do you remember afterwards Mrs. Trower going on the Continent?"

"Yes."

"In the Year 1827 do you remember your Mistress leaving her House in Welbeck Street, and going to Sittingbourne?"

"Yes."

"At what Time of the Year was that?"

"In the Month of June."

"Did you go with her?"

"I did; I accompanied her."

"At Sittingbourne did any one come to meet Mrs. Trower?"

"Mr. Hodgson joined us there."

"Where did you go from Sittingbourne?"

"To Canterbury."

"Whom did your Mistress go with?"

"With Mr. Hodgson."

"In his Carriage?"

"Yes."

"Did you follow?"

"Yes; I followed in a Post Chaise."

"With a Child of Mrs. Trower?"

"With a young Lady that I had the Charge of."

"A Child of Mrs. Trower?"

"Yes."

"What took place at Canterbury in the Evening when you arrived?"

"We slept at Canterbury."

"Where did Mrs. Trower sleep?"

"In the same Room with myself."

"In what Room in the Inn did she sleep?"

"Upon my Word I do not remember in what Room."

"Did any one sleep in the Room with her?"

"I believe Mr. Hodgson slept in the same Room that Night."

"Did you see them in that Room together?"

"I saw them in the Room together."

"Did you see Mrs. Trower the next Morning?"

"Yes."

"Did she say any thing to you upon the Subject of her Journey there?"

"She said then, that we were going on our Route to France."

"Did she say any thing about Mr. Hodgson?"

"No, not in particular."

"Did they go to France together?"

"Yes."

"Did you accompany them?"

"Yes, I did."

"In what Manner did they live on the Road?"

"They travelled as Man and Wife from that Time."

"Where did they sleep at Night; was that as Man and Wife?"

"Yes; and they passed as Man and Wife."

"By what Name did Mrs. Trower pass on this Journey?"

"She took the Name of Mrs. Hodgson from Canterbury."

"(By a Lord.) Did they sleep in the same Room?"

"Yes."

"In the same Bed?"

"Yes."

"You know that?"

"Yes."

"Have you seen your Mistress in Bed with Mr. Hodgson?"

"Yes."

"Had your Mistress told you any thing before you set out?"

"No, not a Word; but she did not conceal it from me afterwards."

"Had she never told you any thing respecting Mr. Hodgson before that?"

"No."

"Had they been very intimate before?"

"Only as visiting each other in the Family."

"Had he often called, and been alone with her in the Morning?"

"He made her Morning Calls, sometimes with Relations, and sometimes by himself."

"Did you see any thing before that Visit to Canterbury particular in his Conduct towards her?"

"Not 'till then."

"How long had they known each other?"

"I think about Ten Years."

"During those Ten Years had you never seen any Intimacy between them more than that between Persons of common Acquaintance?"

"No."

"Never any Familiarities?"

"No; never in my Sight."

"What Age is your Mistress?"

"I never heard her say that."

"Is she much younger than Mr. Trower?"

"No; I should not conceive she was so much younger."

"About what Age?"

"I should suppose about Ten Years younger than Mr. Trower."

"About what Age is she?"

"She never told me her Age."

"About what Age?"

"I cannot judge from her Looks."

"You can judge generally from her Looks?"

"I should suppose she was turned Thirty."

"Under Thirty-five?"

"I really cannot say that."

"(By Counsel.) How long did you continue with Mrs. Trower after you went Abroad with Mr. Hodgson and Mrs. Trower?"

"We went through the Country to Carlsburg, in Germany, and there we stayed, and returned to Paris, and there I left her."

"(By a Lord.) Did they go to Germany together?"

"Yes."

"(By Counsel.) Did they live in this Way as Man and Wife during the whole of the Time you remained with them?"

"Yes, all the Time."

"(By a Lord.) When you went down to Canterbury, your Mistress told you she was going out of Town?"

"Yes."

"Were you the Child's or the Mistress's Maid?"

"I attended on both."

"When you came to Sittingbourne was Mr. Hodgson there?"

"No; he did not come for Three Days afterwards."

"During those Three Days did she say any thing?"

"She said she expected him."

"Did she say for what Purpose she expected him?"

"No."

"Did she say she was going Abroad with him?"

"No; she never assigned why she expected him, or where we were going."

"At what Time of the Day did he arrive?"

"I think about Four o'Clock in the Afternoon."

"Were you by when he came?"

"I was taking a Walk with the young Lady."

"When did you first find they were sleeping together in the same Bed?"

"The same Evening at Canterbury."

"Did you attend her when she went to Bed?"

"Yes, as usual."

"Did she then tell you Mr. Hodgson was to sleep with her?"

"Yes; she never kept it a Secret from that Time."

"When did she first tell you this very important Matter, which you seem to pass over so lightly, that Mr. Hodgson, not being her Husband, was to sleep with her in the same Bed?"

"She did not tell me at all; that was explained to me in a Note."

"Have you kept the Note?"

"No; I returned it to her, as she ordered me."

"When did you, after receiving that Note, first see her?"

"The same Evening we slept at Canterbury."

"At what Time in the Evening?"

"I cannot remember the Hour."

"Was it when she was going to Bed?"

"No; long before Bed-time."

"Did she say any thing to you about Mr. Hodgson?"

"She said I was to understand she was going Abroad, and to travel in Mr. Hodgson's Name."

"She told you that?"

"Yes."

"Did you, at the Time you saw her, know that she was going to sleep with Mr. Hodgson?"

"Not 'till Bed-time."

"You did not know 'till Bed-time whom she was to sleep with?"

"Oh dear no!"

"At Bed-time what did she tell you about this that was going on?"

"She told me nothing more."

"Did she say she was going to sleep with Mr. Hodgson?"

"I saw it at the Time that the Preparations were made."

"Did you express any Surprise to her upon this?"

"I did express my Surprise, but it was in a very few Words, for I was not to call her to Account."

"Did you express your Surprise to her upon this?"

"I expressed my Surprise; I said I thought she ought to have told me before we left London."

"Did she make any Answer?"

"The Answer she made me was a very slight Answer; I cannot recollect it now."

"Did you understand from her at that Time where Mr. Trower was?"

"I know he was in India."

"Did she say at the Time you were making the Preparations for her going to Bed, and expressed your Surprise about Mr. Hodgson, any thing about Mr. Trower?"

"Oh dear no!"

"She made no Complaint of Mr. Trower's Behaviour?"

"Oh dear no!"

"Did she say any thing in Justification of her Conduct?"

"No, not to me."

"Nor in your Presence?"

"No."

"Did Mr. Trower, so far as you saw, behave kindly to her in India?"

"Yes."

"Had they any Quarrels more than married People generally have?"

"I was with them a very short Time; I thought they appeared very affectionate."

"She threw no Blame upon Mr. Trower accompanying that Act of sleeping with Mr. Hodgson?"

"Not to me."

"The Witness was directed to withdraw.

"Then Ross Donelly Mangles Esquire was again called in, and further examined as follows:

"(By Counsel.) Were you ever in India?"

"I was."

"Did you know Mr. and Mrs. Trower there?"

"I did."

"In what Year did you go to India?"

"1820."

"Was Mrs. Trower living in India at that Time?"

"No, she had not then arrived; she was on her Way out from England when I arrived; she had been Home once before."

"When you say that she had been Home once before, you mean that she was on her Return from her first Visit to England in 1820?"

"Yes."

"Did you live in the House with Mr. and Mrs. Trower?"

"I did."

"For how long?"

"I do not know that I lived in the House at that Time; I lived in the House afterwards in 1823; but I was a constant Visitor in the House, and was very much in the House."

"Did you continue to live on Terms of Intimacy with Mr. and Mrs. Trower 'till she left India again?"

"Yes, I did."

"Had you an Opportunity of seeing the Terms on which they lived together?"

"Yes."

"What Sort of Terms were they?"

"Most affectionate."

"Do you remember Mrs. Trower leaving India again?"

"I do."

"What was the Cause?"

"The State of her Health."

"Had she any Children during that Residence in India?"

"Yes."

"Did she bring those Children with her to England?"

"Yes."

"What Situation did Mr. Trower occupy at that Time?"

"Collector of a District; the 24 Pergunnahs."

"Could he accompany her without giving up his Situation?"

"He could not."

"Are you acquainted with his Affairs so as to say whether he could have given up that Situation without Injury?"

"He could not without absolute Ruin. I collect that he is a Person who has not realized a Fortune yet. He was in embarrassed Circumstances, and his only Means were his Official Salary, which he must have given up if he had accompanied her to England."

"Do you know in what Ship she came Home?"

"I think it was the Neptune, Captain Cumberland."

"Did you see the Accommodation Mr. Trower had provided for her?"

"I did not."

"Did Mr. Trower leave Calcutta and go down to the Ship with her?"

"Yes."

"Was it a Matter of Necessity her leaving India at that Time?"

"The Medical Man said so; and I believe she would have died if she had stayed."

"How long did you continue to reside in India?"

"'Till the Beginning of 1828."

"Did your Intimacy with Mr. Trower continue after Mrs. Trower came to England?"

"Yes."

"Had you Occasion to know whether a Correspondence by Letter was kept up between Mr. and Mrs. Trower?"

"I had."

"Did you ever see him receive Letters that purported to come from her?"

"I did."

"Did you ever hear him express Satisfaction?"

"Very much. I have seen Letters of extreme length from her, and he has read Passages to me expressive of great Affection."

"Where did you find Mrs. Trower when you came to this Country in 1828?"

"I never found her at all. I saw her once on Epsom Race-course."

"You remained in India 'till 1828?"

"Yes."

"Intimate with Mr. Trower up to that Time?"

"Yes."

"Had Mrs. Trower ever returned to India?"

"No."

"You must have known that?"

"I was living in the House with him. I left in January 1828."

"Do you happen to know the Provision Mr. Trower made for his Lady in this Country?"

"I know it merely from Mr. Trower."

"(By a Lord.) You do not know it from her?"

"No, I do not."

"Do you know of any Arrangement made by Mr. Trower before his Wife left him, to enable her to draw Money?"

"No. I believe she was never in Want of Money."

"In what Department are you?"

"I am a Civilian in the Company's Service."

"The Witness was directed to withdraw.

"Then George Brayne was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

"(By Counsel.) Are you a Clerk in the House of Messieurs Palmer, M'Killop and Company?"

"I am."

"They are East India Agents?"

"Yes."

"Do you know Mrs. Trower?"

"I do not know her personally."

"Do you know whether Mr. Trower made any Arrangements through your House for paying Money to his Wife then in England?"

"Yes, he did."

"Were Sums paid to the Account of that Provision?"

"Yes."

"What was about the Average Rate of the Allowance he made to her?"

"It was left unlimited; she had unlimited Command over his Funds."

"To what Amount did she draw?"

"It was One Year £1,100, and another Year £1,600, just as she chose to draw."

"In June 1827 had she a Power of drawing Money from your House?"

"Yes; I think she drew in 1827 for £1,100."

"She ceased drawing Money from your House in June?"

"Yes."

"(By a Lord.) Did she ever complain of the Want of pecuniary Means?"

"Not that I am aware of; she could not, for she had an unlimited Command over her Husband's Funds."

"Did that bear a due Proportion to his Means?"

"I should conceive so, from what I knew of Mr. Trower's Circumstances."

"Was he embarrassed?"

"I have heard so, but I do not know that of my own Knowledge."

"The Witness was directed to withdraw.

"Then Charles Field was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

"(By Counsel.) Were you Butler in the Service of Mr. Hodgson?"

"I was."

"How many Years were you in his Service?"

"Nearly Nine Years."

"When did you leave his Service?"

"I left his Service in 1828; in the latter Part of it."

"(By a Lord.) What is Mr. Hodgson?"

"He is a Brewer."

"Where does he live?"

"His House is at Clarence Lodge, Roehampton."

"Is that the Gentleman who was in Parliament?"

"Yes; Member for Barnstaple, in the North of Devon."

"His Beer went chiefly to the East Indies?"

"Yes."

"(By Counsel.) Do you remember, in 1827, Mr. Hodgson being Abroad?"

"I do."

"Do you recollect his coming Home?"

"I do."

"At what Time of the Year did he come Home?"

"He returned in February 1828."

"Did anybody accompany him?"

"Yes."

"Who accompanied him?"

"Mrs. Charles Trower."

"Had you known Mrs. Trower before that Time?"

"Yes, I had."

"By what Name did she pass when she came over with Mr. Hodgson?"

"By his Request she passed as Mrs. Hodgson."

"Where did they come to?"

"They came to St. James's Place, 15; his Town House."

"Did Mrs. Trower remain there?"

"She did."

"Did she live with Mr. Hodgson until you left his Service?"

"She did."

"When did you leave his Service?"

"I left it the latter End of 1828."

"Have you been to Mr. Hodgson's House from Time to Time since?"

"Continually, up to October last."

"Have you seen Mrs. Trower there?"

"I have."

"The Witness was directed to withdraw.

"Then Daniel Lay junior was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

"(By Counsel.) Do you produce a Judgment in the Common Pleas?"

"I do; in the Cause of Trower against Hodgson."

"Did you examine it with the Record?"

"I did."

"Is it a true Copy?"

"It is."

"The Judgment is for the Recovery of £1,500 Damages?"

"Yes."

"Do you know whether those Damages have been paid?"

"They have been."

"And the Costs?"

"They have."

"The same was delivered in and read, being an Office Copy of a Record of a Judgment in the Court of Common Pleas, in Hilary Term in the First Year of the Reign of His present Majesty, in an Action by Charles Trower against Frederick Hodgson, for Trespass, Assault and Criminal Conversation with Amelia Catherine, the Wife of the said Charles Trower, for £1,500 Damages, besides Costs of Suit."

"(By a Lord.) Did you receive the Damages?"

"Yes."

"From whom did you receive them?"

"From Mr. Baker, the Attorney for the Defendant."

"He was Solicitor for the Defendant in that Case?"

"Yes."

"He paid the Damages and Costs?"

"Yes."

"To whom did you pay them over?"

"It was paid into our Bankers, to the Account of Messieurs Oliverson, Denby and Lavie."

"You paid it to the Account of your Employers?"

"To the Account of our House; I am Clerk in the Office of Mr. Oliverson."

"Did you pay it in to Mr. Trower's Account?"

"It was paid to the Bankers on account of our House."

"Do you account for it to Mr. Trower?"

"We shall do."

"How does it happen not to have been paid to Mr. Trower's Account; an Attorney does not keep £1,500 to pay Costs?"

"Mr. Lavie will explain that."

"The Witness was directed to withdraw.

"Then Germain Lavie Esquire was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

"(By a Lord.) What has become of the Money?"

"It lies at our Bankers."

"To the Credit of your Account?"

"Yes."

"Does Mr. Trower owe you Money to that Amount?"

"He owes us Money to some Amount."

"Nearly to that Amount?"

"No."

"How is it it is not paid over?"

"He gave a Power of Attorney to a Gentleman, but that Gentleman has not called for it."

"You keep it at his Disposal?"

"Yes."

"After this Bill has been passed, what shall you do?"

"I shall deduct my Expences, and pay over the Difference to Mr. Trower's Agents, the Gentlemen acting under his Power of Attorney."

"Did any Communication pass between you and Mr. Baker, or between your House and Mr. Baker, with respect to this Money, further than receiving the Money?"

"No, I think not; not to my Knowledge. Mr. Baker sent me a Cheque, which I received myself through Mr. Daniel Lay. It was received at Two different Times, a £1,000 and £500."

"There is no Understanding of returning it?"

"No, not the slightest."

"Nor any Understanding on any Part of the Proceedings?"

"No."

"Was the Case a hostile Case?"

"Yes, it proceeded in the usual Way, hostilely."

"There was Counsel attending?"

"Yes; Mr. Serjeant Spankie, and Mr. Adolphus on the other Side."

"Mr. Adolphus did not call Witnesses?"

"No."

"Did he address the Jury?"

"Yes, at great length."

"The Witness was directed to withdraw.

"Mr. Adam stated, "That he had further Evidence, but that he did not feel it necessary to produce it."

"The Counsel were directed to withdraw."

Then the said Bill was read a Second Time.

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

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

Ackerley's Name Bill.

The Earl of Shaftesbury reported from the Lords Committees, to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable Joseph Chamberlayne Wilkinson Ackerley otherwise Acherley, of the Town and County of the Town of Southampton, Esquire, to lay down and for ever cease to use the Surnames of Wilkinson and Ackerley otherwise Acherley, and to take the Name of Chamberlayne only, and bear the Arms of Chamberlayne quarterly with his own Family Arms, pursuant to the Will of his late Maternal Uncle Edmund John Chamberlayne Esquire, deceased," was committed; "That they had considered the said Bill, and examined the Allegations thereof, which were found to be true; and that the Committee had gone through the Bill, and directed him to report the same to the House, without any Amendment."

Ordered, That the said Bill be ingrossed.

Hebeler's Naturalization Bill.

The Earl of Shaftesbury made the like Report from the Lords Committees, to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act for naturalizing Bernhard Hebeler," was committed.

Ordered, That the said Bill be ingrossed.

Desvignes' Naturalization Bill.

The Earl of Shaftesbury reported from the Lords Committees, to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act for naturalizing Peter Hubert Desvignes and George Desvignes," was committed; "That they had considered the said Bill, and examined the Allegations thereof, which were found to be true; and that the Committee had gone through the Bill, and made some Amendments thereto."

Which Amendments, being read Twice by the Clerk, were agreed to by the House.

Ordered, That the said Bill, with the Amendments, be ingrossed.

Report on Isherwood's et al. Petition for a Bill:

The Earl of Shaftesbury reported from the Lords Committees, to whom it was referred to consider of the Petition of John Isherwood Esquire and others; praying, "That they may have Leave to present a Bill in the same Words as their former Bill reported by the Judges in the last Session of Parliament;" "That the Committee had met, and considered the said Petition, and had examined Thomas Morton Ferns, Solicitor for the Bill; and that it did not appear to the Committee that any Alteration had taken place in the State or Interest of the Parties since the Proceedings on the said former Petition and Bill were stayed by the Prorogation of the last Parliament."

Which Report, being read by the Clerk, was agreed to by the House.

Leave for a Bill:

Ordered, That Leave be given to the Petitioners to bring in a Bill in the same Words as their former Bill reported by the Judges in the last Session of Parliament.

Bill read.

Hodie 1^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for vesting certain Parts of the Devised Estates of Thomas Bradshaw Isherwood Esquire, deceased, in Trustees, in Trust to be sold or demised for the Purposes therein mentioned."

Bulkley v. Wilford, Appellant's Petition for the Judge's Notes to be produced, referred to Appeal Com ee.

Upon reading the Petition of George Wilford Bulkley, Appellant in a Cause depending in this House, to which Anna Wilford is Respondent; praying, "That their Lordships will be pleased to make an Order, that the Notes of The Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, taken on the Trial of the Two Issues directed from the High Court of Chancery to be tried in the Court of King's Bench, may be produced to their Lordships on the hearing of this Appeal:"

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.

Hunter v. Cochrane's Trustees.

The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed for hearing the Cause wherein George Hunter Esquire is Appellant, and the Trustess of The Honorable Basil Cochrane are Respondents:"

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

Leys & Co. v. Ld. Forbes et al.

The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed for hearing the Cause wherein Leys, Masson and Company are Appellants, and James Ochoncar Lord Forbes, and others, are Respondents:"

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

Report on Governors of Birmingham Grammar School Petition for a Bill:

The Earl of Shaftesbury reported from the Lords Committees, to whom it was referred to consider of the Petition of the Governors of the Possessions, Revenues and Goods of the Free Grammar School of King Edward the Sixth, in Birmingham, in the County of Warwick (under their Common Seal); The Reverend John Cooke Clerk, the Pedagogue or Head Master of the said Free Grammar School; and The Reverend Rann Kennedy Clerk, the Sub-Pedagogue or Usher of the said Free Grammar School; praying, "That Leave may be given to present a Bill in the same Words as the former Bill passed by this House in the last Session of Parliament;" "That the Committee had met, and considered the said Petition, and had examined John Welchman Whateley, Solicitor for the Bill; and that it did not appear to the Committee that any Alteration had taken place in the State or Interest of the Parties since the Proceedings on the said former Petition and Bill were stayed by the Prorogation of the last Parliament."

Which Report, being read by the Clerk, was agreed to by the House.

Leave for a Bill:

Ordered, That Leave be given to the Petitioners to bring in a Bill in the same Words as their former Bill in the last Session of Parliament.

Bill read.

Hodie 1^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to enable the Governors of the Possessions, Revenues and Goods of the Free Grammar School of King Edward the Sixth, in Birmingham, in the County of Warwick, to erect a School House, Masters Houses, and other suitable Accommodations for the said School, on a new Site in the Vicinity of the Town of Birmingham, and to extend the Objects of the Charity; and for other Purposes."

Currie to enter into a Recogce on Sir R. W. Vaughan's Appeal.

The House being moved, "That James Currie of Lincoln's Inn, in the County of Middlesex, Gentleman, may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for Sir Robert Williams Vaughan Baronet, on account of his Appeal depending in this House:"

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

Ld. Trimlestown's Petition claiming to vote for Peers for Ireland, referred to Com ee for Privileges.

Upon reading the Petition of The Right Honorable John Thomas Baron Trimlestown, of that Part of the United Kingdom called Ireland; setting forth, "That Nicholas Baron Trimlestown, the Petitioner's late Father, was a Peer of Ireland previous to the Union of the Two Kingdoms, and took the Oath of Allegiance in the House of Lords of Ireland: That the Petitioner's Father died in the Month of April 1813: That The Honorable Richard Barnewall, the Petitioner's elder and only Brother, died in the Month of November in the Year 1770, in the Lifetime of the said Nicholas Baron Trimlestown, and before the Birth of the Petitioner, an Infant of the Age of Six Weeks; and that, upon the Death of the said Nicholas Baron Trimlestown, the Title of Baron Trimlestown devolved upon the Petitioner, his only surviving Son: That in virtue of such Peerage the Petitioner claims a Right to vote at the Election of Peers of Ireland to sit in the Parliament of the United Kingdom;" and therefore praying, That his said Right may be admitted by their Lordships:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to the Lords Committees for Privileges, to consider and report; and that the Committee do meet to consider thereof on Wednesday next.

Macintyre et al. v. Macdonald & Lawson.

Ordered, That the Cause wherein Christian Macintyre, and others, are Appellants, and Coll Macdonald and John Lawson are Respondents, be heard by Counsel at the Bar on Friday next.

The Provost, &c. of Dingwall et al. v. Mackenzie & Munro.

Ordered, That the Cause wherein The Provost and Magistrates of Dingwall, and others, are Appellants, and The Honorable Mrs. Maria Hay Mackenzie and Hugh Munro Esquire are Respondents, be heard by Counsel at the Bar on Friday next.

Adjourn.

Dominus Wynford declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Jovis, tricesimum diem instantis Junii, horâ undecimâ Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.