House of Lords Journal Volume 62: 5 March 1830

Die Veneris, 5 Martii 1830.

DOMINI tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Inglis et al. v. Harper.

The Answer of James Harper Esquire, of Morning field near Aberdeen, Executor Nominate of the deceased Mrs. Margaret Matheson of Gayfield Square, Edinburgh, to the Petition and Appeal of William Inglis Esquire, Writer to the Signet, and William Paul Esquire, Accountant in Edinburgh, Trustee upon his sequestrated Estate, and of Miss Ann Buchan, residing in London, was this Day brought in.

Sir J. Montgomery et al. v. M. of Queensberry, & Selkrig.

As was also, The Answer of The Most Noble Charles Marquess and Earl of Queensberry, and of John Douglas Esquire, of Lockerbie, and William Paul Esquire, Accountant in Edinburgh, Trustees of the said Noble Marquess in room of Charles Selkrig Esquire, Accountant in Edinburgh, formerly Trust Assignee of his Lordship, to the Petition and Appeal of Sir James Montgomery of Stanhope, Baronet, William Murray of Henderland, Esquire, and Edward Bullock Douglas, sometime of the Inner Temple, Esquire, surviving Trustees and Executors of the late William Duke of Queensberry.

The Attorney General v. Browne Mill.

After hearing Counsel fully in the Cause wherein The Attorney General, on the Relation of The Provost of Montrose, and others, is Appellant, and George Gavin Browne Mill is Respondent:

It is Ordered, That the further Consideration of the said Cause be put off sine Die.

Vesey v. Bodkin.

After hearing Counsel, in Part, in the Cause wherein George Vesey is Appellant, and John Bodkin is Respondent:

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

Franklin & Gough v. La Touche et al.

Ordered, That the Cause wherein John Franklin and Richard Franklin Gough are Appellants, and Robert La Touche Esquire, and others, are Respondents, be heard by Counsel at the Bar on Monday next.

Bouchier et al. v. Dillon et al.

Ordered, That the Cause wherein William Bouchier, and others, are Appellants, and Susanna Dillon, and others, are Respondents, be heard by Counsel at the Bar on Monday next.

Sir A. Chichester v. M'Intyre.

Ordered, That the Cause wherein Sir Arthur Chichester Baronet is Appellant, and Charles M'Intyre is Respondent, be heard by Counsel at the Bar on Monday next.

Shakerley'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 Peter Shakerley Esquire, of the Parish of Egham, in the County of Surrey, with Laure Angelique Rosalbe Shakerley 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. Alderson appearing as Counsel on Behalf of the Petitioner, and no Counsel appearing for Mrs. Shakerley;

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

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

(By Counsel.) "Did you serve Madame Shakerley with a Bill, and a Copy of the Order of this House?"

"I did."

"When was that?"

"On the 24th of February I served Madame Shakerley with a Copy of the Bill."

"Where was she at that Time?"

"At Paris."

"In what Part of Paris?"

"At the Hotel of The Duke D'Avaray, at her Father's House; I served her with a Copy of the Bill which I had examined at this House."

(By a Lord.) "How did you know her?"

"I had seen her in the Year 1820 with Mr. Shakerley."

"As his Wife?"

"As his Wife."

(By Counsel.) "Did you also serve her with a Copy of the Order of the House?"

"I did."

(By a Lord.) "Are you the Solicitor in the Cause?"

"I am the Agent to the Solicitor."

"Was she then living with her Father?"

"She was then living at the Hotel of The Duke D'Avaray, and I saw the Duke also."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Sir Archibald John Murray Baronet was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(By Counsel.) "You are in the Household of His Royal Highness The Duke of Gloucester?"

"I am."

"Were you so in the Beginning of the Year 1819?"

"Yes."

"Were you attending His Royal Highness in Paris in February 1819?"

"I was."

"Whilst you were there, in attendance on His Royal Highness, were His Royal Highness and yourself present at the Marriage of Mr. Charles Peter Shakerley with Mademoiselle D'Avaray?"

"Yes."

"Where were the Parties married?"

"At the House of the British Ambassador."

"By whom?"

"To the best of my Recollection, by a Mr. Forster."

"Is that the original Certificate; is that His Royal Highness's Handwriting?" (A Paper being shewn to the Witness.)

"That is His Royal Highness's Handwriting, to the best of my Belief."

"Was His Royal Highness present, and attested the Marriage?"

"He was present."

(By a Lord.) "Was Mr. Forster the Chaplain of the Embassy?"

"I think he was."

(By Counsel.) "Was it performed by the Chaplain to the Embassy?"

"To the best of my Belief it was."

"According to what Form were they married?"

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

(By a Lord.) "Was it in the Chapel belonging to the Embassy?"

"No; it was in a Room."

"Was it in the long Dining-room?"

"No; it was in a small Room of the British Ambassador's House."

(By Counsel.) "Is that the Signature of the present Lord Stuart?" (A Paper being shewn to the Witness.)

"That I do not know."

The Certificate of Marriage was delivered in, and read as follows:

"Certificate of Marriage.

"I hereby certify, That Charles Peter Shakerley of Somerford Hall, in the Parish of Astbury, in Cheshire, Bachelor, and Laure Angelique Rosalbe D'Avaray of the City of Paris, Spinster, were married in the House of His Britannic Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, according to the Form of the Church of England and Ireland, this Twenty-sixth Day of February, in the Year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and nineteen, by me,

Edward Forster, A. M.

"Chaplain to the British Embassy, and Minister to the English Protestant Congregation at the Church of the Oratoire in Paris.

"In the Presence of William Frederick, Le M ^is D'Avaray, Ch ⁸ Stuart."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

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

(By Counsel.) "Did you see Madame Shakerley at Paris?"

"I did."

"Did you shew her this Certificate?"

"I did. I asked her if that was her Handwriting, and she admitted it was."

"Do you know the Handwriting of Mr. Shakerley?"

"I do."

"Is that his Handwriting?"

"It is."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Colonel Cotton was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(By Counsel.) "Were you present at Mr. Shakerley's Marriage?"

"I was."

"To whom was he married?"

"To Mademoiselle D'Avaray."

"Where were they married?"

"At the British Ambassador's."

"Can you state by whom they were married?"

"I forget his Name; it was by a Clergyman."

"According to what Form?"

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

"In a Room in the Ambassador's House?"

"In the Chapel of the Ambassador, where the Service is usually performed."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

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

(By Counsel.) "Are you a Solicitor?"

"I am."

"Where do you live?"

"I live at Knutsford, in Cheshire."

"Have you been the Solicitor of Mr. Shakerley's Father for some Time?"

"I have."

"Do you remember at any Time being applied to by Mr. Charles Peter Shakerley respecting his Wife?"

"I do."

"When were you first applied to?"

"It was very early in the Year 1827."

"Did you, in consequence of that, make any Enquiries?"

"In consequence of that Communication I went to Leamington, and made Enquiries there."

"Could you ascertain any thing definite respecting Madame Shakerley at that Time?"

"No; nothing beyond Surmise and Suspicion."

"Did you at any Time go over to Paris?"

"I went over with him to Paris in May 1827."

"For what Purpose?"

"For the Purpose of seeking an Explanation, of Madame Shakerley, of Reports that had reached the Ears of Mr. Shakerley."

"At what Time did you arrive in Paris?"

"It was the latter End of May 1827."

"How long did you remain at Paris with Mr. Shakerley?"

"I remained in Paris, I think, Fourteen or Fifteen Days."

"Were you, or Mr. Shakerley, able to obtain any Explanation or Interview with Madame Shakerley?"

"No."

"Were either of you enabled to obtain an Interview with Madame Shakerley or with The Marquis D'Herrera?"

"Certainly not."

"Did you endeavour to make any Enquiries as to the Conduct of Madame Shakerley in Paris?"

"We did."

"Could you ascertain any thing?"

"Nothing definite."

"Was there any Correspondence between Mr. Shakerley and The Marquis D'Herrera, and between him and his Wife?"

"A Number of Letters passed between the Parties."

"Have you got any of those Letters?"

"They are attached to the Proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court."

"Was there a considerable Correspondence?"

"There was."

"Was this one of the Letters that was brought?" (A Letter being shewn to the Witness.)

"That was one of the Letters received by Mr. Shakerley during the Time we were in Paris."

"Were the others now shewn to you received by Mr. Shakerley?" (Several Letters being shewn to the Witness.)

"They were."

"What Time was it that you left Paris finally?"

"I left in June, after remaining there about Fourteen or Fifteen Days."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Miss Dorothy Ranking was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(By Counsel.) "Are you a Relation of Mr. Shakerley?"

"A Cousin."

"Did you know Mrs. Shakerley?"

"Yes."

"Did you ever correspond with Mrs. Shakerley?"

"Yes."

"Have you received Letters from her?"

"Three."

"Be so good as to look at that, and tell me whether you believe that to be the Handwriting of Mrs. Shakerley?" (A Letter being shewn to the Witness.)

"I believe it to be so."

(By a Lord.) "Have you received Letters from her in Answer to those you have written?"

"Yes."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Samuel Albert Muller was called in; and sworn as Interpreter, as follows:

"You shall well and truly interpret, according to the best of your Skill and Understanding, between this House and the Witnesses who shall be examined at the Bar of this House, and a true Report make of the Matter and Matters which each and every such Witness shall give in Evidence. So help you GOD."

(By Counsel.) "Will you be so good as to read in English that Letter of the 5th of June?" (A Letter being shewn to the Witness.)

"I can only repeat to you, as I did Yesterday, that so long as there is any Question of Explanations, I shall never give them to you. You tell me that if you approve those that I give to you, that then you will receive me. What would you do then if your Homme d'Affaires should not be satisfied with them? Why do you talk to me of Affections?-You, who pretty well prove to me that you have none remaining for me, treating me as a Criminal. I sent away Le Vasseur, being determined, as I have always been since your first Letter to my Father, never to answer your horrible Accusations; and as you yourself said that we could no more live happily together, I follow my own Wish in this respect, in not going as a Criminal to implore your Pardon, and in never going to live with you again. Adieu. I am very ill; it is to you that I tell this."

"Have the Goodness to read the Letter of the 8th of June?"

"I Yesterday and this Morning received your Two Letters; and as you appear to me to wish to have an Answer before your Departure, I hasten to answer it, although extremely unwell. You misunderstand me entirely, I assure you, if you think that in going to England I should experience any unpleasant Feeling in one Place more than in another."

Samuel Albert Muller was directed to withdraw.

Then James Roscoe was again called in, and further examined as follows:

(By Counsel.) "You say you left Paris in June 1827?"

"I did."

"Did you leave any Agent at Paris to make Enquiries afterwards?"

"Not at the Time; but I afterwards corresponded with a professional Gentleman upon the Subject."

"When did you first receive any Intimation respecting any Evidence in this Case?"

"Not until June last."

"Did you go over to Paris at that Time?"

"I did."

"At what Time did you arive in Paris?"

"The latter End of June."

"What Witnesses did you discover at Paris upon going there last June?"

"Two Witnesses of the Name of Le Vasseur and Paix."

"In whose Service had Le Vasseur been living?"

"He had formerly been in the Service of Madame Shakerley."

"In whose Service had Paix lived?"

"In the Service of The Marquis D'Herrera."

"After you obtained that Evidence, were Proceedings forthwith taken for commencing a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court here?"

"Immediately."

(By a Lord.) "Were they in her Service at the Time you obtained this first Evidence?"

"No."

"Had they been dismissed?"

"I am not aware."

(By Counsel.) "Did you know Mr. and Mrs. Shakerley living together as Man and Wife in this Country previous to 1827?"

"I did."

"Did they visit together as Man and Wife?"

"They did."

"Between 1819 and 1826?"

"I saw them as Man and Wife in the Summer of 1826."

(By a Lord.) "Had you any Means of knowing under what Circumstances she went Abroad?"

"No; she was at Leamington at that Time, and I lived a Distance of Sixty Miles from Leamington."

"Do you know from Mr. Shakerley whether she was in the habit of going Abroad every Year to see her Father?"

"Yes."

"And that when she went Abroad in 1826, she went Abroad as she had been accustomed to do before?"

"In the usual Way."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Miss Dorothy Ranking was again called in, and further examined as follows:

(By Counsel.) "Were you at Leamington, in the End of 1826, with Mr. and Mrs. Shakerley?"

"Yes, I was."

"Do you remember her going away from Leamington?"

"I left before she left."

"Was The Marquis D'Herrera at Leamington at that Time?"

"Yes, he was."

"Did he visit Madame Shakerley at that Time?"

"Yes."

"Was he intimate with both Mr. and Mrs. Shakerley?"

"Yes."

"Did you observe at that Time any particular Attentions which The Marquis D'Herrera paid to Madame Shakerley?"

"I observed unwearied Attention."

"Did you observe any thing more than usual in his Attention to her?"

"As a very intimate Friend."

"Do you know whether they had been previously acquainted?"

"I heard they had been."

"Do you know whether he or she went from Leamington first?"

"I was not there."

"How late did you stay at Leamington?"

"In October. I was only a Fortnight with them."

"Do you remember any Ball at Leamington?"

"Yes."

"Was The Marquis D'Herrera there?"

"Yes, he was."

"Was Mrs. Shakerley there?"

"Yes, she was."

"Was Mr. Shakerley attending that Ball?"

"No, he was not."

"Do you remember whether The Marquis D'Herrera danced with Madame Shakerley that Night?"

"Yes, he did."

"What was the Reason Mr. Shakerley was not there that Night?"

"He was not well."

"Did The Marquis D'Herrera dance with any body else during the whole of that Evening?"

"No, he did not."

"Did Mrs. Shakerley next Day make any Request to you respecting what had passed that Evening?"

"The Night that we returned from the Ball, she requested I would not tell Mr. Shakerley that she had not danced with any body but The Marquis D'Herrera."

"Did you comply with her Request?"

"I did."

"Did you afterwards at any Time mention that Circumstance to Mr. Shakerley?"

"I mentioned it to his Brother afterwards."

"At what Time?"

"After she had left England."

"How long; soon after she had left England?"

"Very soon after."

"Did you mention any other Circumstances to his Brother very soon after she left England? Was any thing said at Breakfast the next Day?"

"Mr. Shakerley asked Mrs. Shakerley with whom she had danced; she told him she had danced with the Marquis and my Partners."

"Was it a Fact that she had danced with your Partners?"

"She had danced with no one but the Marquis."

"You did not contradict her?"

"No, I did not."

"Did you mention any other Circumstances to his Brother, besides those, after she had left England, as to what you had observed of their Intimacy?"

"No; I do not recollect any thing particularly."

(By a Lord.) "You were visiting in the Family with them at that Time?"

"I was staying with them at the same Hotel."

"How long were you together?"

"A Fortnight."

"What Terms were they living upon?"

"Very good Terms."

"They were living affectionately together?"

"Very."

(By Counsel.) "Had you seen them living together before?"

"Yes."

"Had they lived upon affectionate Terms before?"

"Yes."

"Was she in the habit of going to see her Family every Year?"

"She was."

"For what Period of Time usually?"

"For the Winter Season."

(By a Lord.) "Did Mr. Shakerley usually accompany her?"

"Yes, he did."

"Did he stay with her during the Time of her Absence, generally, and return with her?"

"Yes, he did; but I was not with them at the Time."

"Did he accompany her in the Year 1826, when she went to Paris?"

"He went with her some Way, I think; I do not think he went into France with her."

"At what Time did Mr. Shakerley go to Leamington in the Year you have mentioned?"

"In October."

"How long did he remain there?"

"I do not know; I was only with them a Fortnight at Leamington."

"Did The Marquis D'Herrera go with them?"

"No; he was there when we arrived."

"Had he any previous Acquaintance with Mrs. Shakerley?"

"Yes; I was introduced to him as her Friend."

"And with Mr. Shakerley?"

"Yes."

"Did they live at the same Hotel?"

"Yes, they did."

"At this Ball did Mrs. Shakerley dance the whole Evening?"

"No, she did not."

"How many Dances?"

"Two or Three."

"And those Two or Three Dances the Marquis danced with her?"

"Yes."

"Had he any Acquaintance at the Ball, or was he a Stranger there?"

"Not many, I think."

"Do you know why Mr. Shakerley did not go to Paris with her the last Time?"

"I do not know."

"Did they live together on good Terms up to the Period when she went the last Time to Paris, in 1826?"

"Yes, I believe they did."

(By Counsel.) "You say she only danced Two or Three Dances; what did she do the rest of the Time?"

"She sat with the Marquis."

(By a Lord.) "And with you?"

"No; I was dancing."

"Did she go with the Marquis; was he of her Party?"

"Yes, he was."

"Was any body else of her Party?"

"No."

"Did Mr. Shakerley know that the Marquis went with her?"

"Yes."

"And the Party consisted of you, Mrs. Shakerley, and the Marquis?"

"Yes."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then James Roscoe was again called in, and further examined as follows:

(By Counsel.) "By whose Desire did you go with Mr. Shakerley to Paris?"

"I went at the Request of his Father."

"For what Purpose did both of you go?"

"For the Purpose of obtaining an Explanation from Madame Shakerley of those Circumstances which were suspicious in her Conduct."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Stubbs Wightwick was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(By Counsel.) "Are you any Relation of Mr. Shakerley?"

"None."

"Are you an Acquaintance of his?"

"I am."

"How long have you known him?"

"I should think about Seven or Eight Years."

"Did you know him when he was married, or before he was married?"

"Since he was married."

"Have you seen Mr. and Mrs. Shakerley residing together as Man and Wife?"

"I have."

"Did they up to 1826 reside together upon good Terms?"

"Very."

"Was their Conduct affectionate to each other up to that Time?"

"Particularly so."

"Was his Conduct attentive towards her?"

"Very."

"Do you know whether she had been in the habit of going to see her Parents at Paris during any Period of the Year?"

"I believe she generally went at Christmas."

"How long did she usually stay?"

"I believe, generally, 'till the Midsummer."

"Did he go with her?"

"He always took her, and I believe he generally staid with her."

"Do you know whether he went with her the last Time?"

"He took her, but did not remain; that is, he took her, I believe, to Dover, and she went forward by herself."

"With his Servants?"

"I believe with his Servants, or with particular Friends."

"Did you see The Marquis D'Herrera at Leamington at the End of 1826?"

"I did."

"Did you observe any thing particular between him and Mrs. Shakerley?"

"Particular Attention."

"What Species of Attention was it?"

"More Attention, I think, than a Man would like to have paid to his Wife constantly."

(By a Lord.) "Describe the particular Acts?"

"Familiar Conversation; under-toned Conversation; they seemed together when Mr. Shakerley was not present."

(By Counsel.) "Did you ever see them walking out together by themselves?"

"I did."

"Where was that?"

"In Leamington."

"(By a Lord.) "Were they of the same Party in the Hotel?"

"They were; he was in the habit of dining with Mr. Shakerley at the Hotel."

"Had they been previously acquainted, before they went to Leamington?"

"I do not know that."

(By Counsel.) "Was it a Subject of Remark by other Persons as well as yourself?"

"It was, that there was too great an Intimacy."

"Do you know at what Time it was that Mr. and Mrs. Shakerley went away?"

"I believe it was the Christmas ending 1826."

"Do you know whether The Marquis D'Herrera went away also?"

"I think he went away about Two Months after; perhaps not so much, but I do not recollect precisely; it was soon after."

"Did you ever observe them walking together upon any particular Occasion?"

"Yes, I have."

"Tell us what that was?"

"When I have been returning from Hunting, I have seen them walking together; when Mr. Shakerley has been absent in Hunting also."

"Where were they walking?"

"On the Parade, I think."

"Do you remember, on a particular Sunday, any thing that you observed?"

"Yes, I do."

"Be so good as to state that?"

"I recollect joining Mr. and Mrs. Shakerley on the Parade, and at that Time the Bell was going for Church; and Mr. Shakerley wished us good Morning, and said he must attend Church, and I continued walking with Madame Shakerley for a short Time afterwards; and in coming down the Parade we saw The Marquis D'Herrera at a Distance; and feeling rather anxious myself to quit her, I observed that I saw the Marquis, and she immediately uttered an Expression of Ejaculation, and said that she must quit me. She immediately crossed the Street, and went into the Hotel. I followed immediately close upon her. She said she must go to her Room, and I followed her; and as soon as she had gone into the Hotel, and I had immediately followed her and turned into the Coffee-room, she had turned back, and gone down the Street in the Direction where The Marquis D'Herrera was; and I have no doubt, if I had taken the Trouble to have looked out of the Window, I should have seen her with him."

"When did you mention these Circumstances to Mr. Shakerley ?"

"When I understood he had instituted Proceedings against her."

"Not 'till then ?"

"Not 'till then."

(By a Lord.) "You never mentioned to Mr. Shakerley that you had seen any of those Things?"

"Not 'till after that Time."

"You say that he seemed very attentive to her?"

"Very attentive."

"Do you suppose he was aware of their walking together?"

"I do not think he was."

"You say that Mr. Shakerley was attentive to Mrs. Shakerley; how did she conduct herself towards Mr. Shakerley ?"

"I never saw any thing incorrect."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

The Counsel was directed to withdraw.

Ordered, That the further Consideration and Second Reading of the said Bill be put off to Monday next, and that the Lords be summoned; and that the Counsel be called in at Three o'Clock.

Poor Removal (Jersey & Guernsey) Bill.

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

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act to repeal the Provisions of certain Acts relating to the Removal of vagrant and poor Persons born in the Isles of Jersey and Guernsey, and chargeable to Parishes in England; and to make other Provisions in lieu thereof;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

The said Bill was read the First Time.

Ordered, That the said Bill be printed.

Lunatics Property Bill.

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

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for consolidating and amending the Laws relating to Property belonging to Infants, Femes-Covert, Idiots, Lunatics, and Persons of unsound Mind;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

The said Bill was read the First Time.

Ordered, That the said Bill be printed.

County Palatine of Durham Bill.

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

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for extending certain Provisions of an Act of the Eighth Year of Queen Anne, for the better Security of Rents, and to prevent Frauds committed by Tenants regarding Executions, to certain Process in use within the County Palatine of Durham and Sadberge;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

The said Bill was read the First Time.

Ordered, That the said Bill be printed.

Contempt in Equity Bill.

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

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for altering and amending the Law regarding Commitments by Courts of Equity for Contempts, and the taking Bills pro Confesso;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

The said Bill was read the First Time.

Ordered, That the said Bill be printed.

Property in Infants Bill.

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

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for amending the Laws respecting Conveyances and Transfers of Estates and Funds vested in Trustees and Mortgagees; and for enabling Courts of Equity to give effect to their Decrees and Orders in certain Cases;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

The said Bill was read the First Time.

Ordered, That the said Bill be printed.

Real Property Liability Bill.

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

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for consolidating and amending the Laws for facilitating the Payment of Debts out of Real Estate;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

The said Bill was read the First Time.

Ordered, That the said Bill be printed.

Market Harborough Roads Bill.

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

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for more effectually repairing and improving the Roads from Market Harborough to Loughborough, and from Filling Gate to the Melton Mowbray Turnpike Road, in the County of Leicester;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Wendover Road Bill.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Sir Thomas Fremantle and others;

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for more effectually repairing and improving the Road from Wendover to the Town of Buckingham, in the County of Buckingham;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Whitesheet Hill Road Bill.

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

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for repairing the Turnpike Road from the Top of Whitesheet Hill to the Wilton Turnpike Road at or near Barford, in the County of Wilts;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Thirsk Roads Bill.

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

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for repairing certain Turnpike Roads leading to and from Thirsk, in the County of York;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

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

Lennox Peerage, Petition of Count & Countess Nugent respecting, referred to the Com ee for Privileges on the Claim.

Upon reading the Petition of Laval Count Nugent and of Jane Countess Nugent his Wife, Duchess of Riario Sforza; setting forth, "That a Petition to His Majesty of John Earl of Darnley in Ireland and Baron Clifton of Leighton Bromswold in Great Britain, claiming the Titles of Duke of Lennox, Earl of Derneley and Lord Torbolton, hath been referred to their Lordships to examine the Allegations thereof, and to inform His Majesty how the same shall appear to their Lordships: That the Petitioner, the said Laval Count Nugent, though in the Service of His Imperial Majesty The Emperor of Austria, is a natural-born Subject of His Britannic Majesty; and the Petitioners therefore humbly conceive that the said Petitioner Jane Countess Nugent, as the Wife of a Subject of His Majesty, is competent to submit to their Lordships Consideration any Pretensions to Titles of Honour in this Country (a Petition claiming such Titles by another Person being referred to their Lordships) in which by virtue of her Descent she may be immediately or remotely interested: That the said Petitioner, the said Jane Countess Nugent, is the only Child and Heir of Raphael Duke of Riario Sforza and of The Princess Beatrix his Wife, Daughter and Coheir of Francis Xaviar Prince of Poland and Saxony, the younger Son of Frederick Augustus the Third, King of Poland and Elector of Saxony, by Maria Joseph his Consort, Archduchess of Austria, eldest of the Two Daughters and Coheirs of the Emperor Joseph the First by the Princess Wilhelmina Amelia of Brunswick Lunenbourg his Consort, One of the Two Daughters and Coheirs of John Frederick Duke of Hanover (Uncle of His Majesty King George the First) by Benedicta Henrietta, Daughter of Edward Count Palatine, the Son of Frederick the Fifth, Elector Palatine, King of Bohemia, by the Princess Elizabeth of England, Daughter of King James the First, who was Grandson and Heir of Matthew Earl of Lennox, Baron Derneley, &c., some time Regent of Scotland, as set forth in the Pedigree thereunto annexed: That the said Petitioner, Jane Countess Nugent, and the Issue of the Petitioners, are the only Descendants (excepting the Royal Family) of King James the First, who are Subjects of His Majesty, and, as such, capable of taking or enjoying any Hereditary Title of Honour in this Country: That the Earldom of Lennox and Barony of Derneley are ancient Dignities which became vested in the illustrious House of Stuart: That the said Dignities descended to, and were enjoyed by the said Matthew Earl of Lennox, some time Regent of Scotland, whose Son and Heir Apparent Henry, commonly called Lord Derneley, was the Husband of Mary Queen of Scotland, and that King James the Sixth of Scotland and the First of England, being the sole Issue of that Alliance, succeeded to the said Earldom and Barony immediately upon the Demise of his Paternal Grandfather the said Matthew Earl of Lennox and Baron Derneley: That His said Majesty King James granted the said Dignities successively to several of the junior Branches of his illustrious House, with Limitation to the Heirs Male of their respective Bodies, whom failing, to return to His Majesty; and by a Royal Charter dated at Dalkeith the 5th of August 1581, His said Majesty was pleased, in the Person of his Cousin Esme, then Earl of Lennox, to make, create, erect and incorporate the said Earldom of Lennox into a Dukerie, to be called the Dukerie of Lennox, and the said Lordship of Derneley into an Earldom, to be called the Earldom of Derneley: That the Petitioners, notwithstanding these several Creations, with Limitations to Heirs Male, in favour of junior Branches of the House of Stuart, humbly submit that such Creations could not invalidate any Right vested in the Descendants of the elder Branch of the Family, in relation to the ancient Honours of Lennox and Derneley, so enjoyed by the said Matthew Earl of Lennox: That the said Petitioner, the said Jane Countess Nugent, as a lineal Descendant of the elder Branch of the illustrious House of Stuart, conceives herself to be interested in the Titles and Honours of Lennox and Derneley, heretofore inherited by her Ancestors, and therefore presumes to approach their Lordships with the foregoing Statement of her Pretensions to or Interest in the said Titles and Dignities, which, upon the Demise of Charles the last Duke of Lennox, of the said illustrious House of Stuart in 1672, she submits reverted to the Crown: That the Claimant, the said Earl of Darnley, is, as the Petitioners humbly submit, precluded from the Titles of Duke of Lennox and Earl of Derneley, consolidated as above mentioned with the new Earldom and Barony previously granted to the said junior Branch of the Family, his Lordship not being a Descendant in the Male Line from the original Grantee, and from the said ancient Honours of Earl of Lennox and Baron Derneley, he being descended from a junior Branch of the House of Stuart; whereas the Petitioner, the said Jane Countess Nugent, and her Issue, are descended from the elder Branch, and, being the only Subjects of His Majesty (the Royal Family excepted) who have that Descent, are, as such, qualified to take the said Honours, in case such Honours should be descendible to them, or that the said Honours should be revived in their Persons;" and therefore praying their Lordships, "That any Claim, Interest or Pretension vested in the Petitioner, the said Jane Countess Nugent, and her Issue, may not be prejudiced by any Proceedings upon the Claim of the said John Earl of Darnley; and that the said Petitioner may be admitted as a Party to oppose the Claim of the said Earl, and be heard by Counsel against it:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to the Lords Committees for Privileges, to whom the Petition of John Earl of Darnley in Ireland and Baron Clifton of Leighton Bromswold in Great Britain, to His Majesty, praying His Majesty, "That the Titles, Honors and Dignities of Duke of Lennox, Earl of Derneley, and Lord of Aubigny, Torboltoun and Dalkeith, may be declared of Right to belong to him and his Heirs," together with His Majesty's Reference thereof to this House, stands referred.

Labourers Wages, Petitions from Burslem respecting.

Upon reading the Petition of the Workmen and Labourers of the Town of Burslem, in the Staffordshire Potteries, and its Vicinity, whose Names are thereunto subscribed:

And also, Upon reading the Petition of the Shopkeepers and other Traders of Burslem, in the Staffordshire Potteries, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; severally praying their Lordships "for additional Protection against the System of paying Wages by Truck or Barter instead of Money, which has hitherto defied the many Legislative Enactments which have been passed against it:"

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

Idolatries in India, Petition of Baptist Congregation, Pleasance, Edinburgh, respecting.

Upon reading the Petition of the Members of the Baptist Congregation meeting in the Pleasance of Edinburgh, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships "to devise and adopt such Measures as, in their Wisdom, may appear best calculated to relieve our Indian Fellow Subjects from those abominable Idolatries, the murderous Rites of the Idol Temple of Juggernaut, and the horrid Cruelties of the Suttee, by discountenancing them, and allowing Christianity and Civilization to have free Course, in consistency with that enlightened Regard to the Rights of Conscience which has lately distinguished their Lordships Proceedings:"

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

Office of Church Warden, Petition of Presbyterians of Cork, against Liability to serve.

Upon reading the Petition of the Unitarian Presbyterians of the City of Cork, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships, "That their Intention to give Relief to Dissenters may be made effectual, and for such Purpose that a Law may be enacted, relieving such bonâ fide Dissenters from the Church of England as have conscientious Scruples against filling the Office of Church Warden, provided that such Dissenter shall, at least One Week before Easter, deposit with the Church Warden or Wardens of the Parish or Parishes in which he is eligible a written Declaration of his Objection and Dissent; and that it may also be enacted, that such Declaration shall be Protection against his Appointment while the Subscriber shall remain and declare himself a Dissenter:"

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

Ecclesiastical Courts, Petition of T. Clark respecting.

Upon reading the Petition of Thomas Clark, late of Hart Street, Bloomsbury, Gentleman, but now and for Three Years a Prisoner in the Fleet Prison for unavoidable Contempt of the Court of Chancery; praying, "That their Lordships will take the Premises therein stated into Consideration, and direct such Enquiries and adopt such Measures touching the same as may lead to a thorough Change, not only in the Constitution of the Ecclesiastical Court, but in that of the High Court of Delegates, and place the Powers thereof respectively within such Limits as may be consistent with the Laws and Constitution of this Realm; and generally to reform, regulate and improve the Proceedings, and correct the Practice of those Courts:"

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

East India Com ee, Sir R. Rice to attend:

Ordered, That Sir Ralph Rice do attend this House on Monday next, to be sworn, in order to his being examined as a Witness before the Select Committee appointed to enquire into the present State of the Affairs of The East India Company, and into the Trade between Great Britain, the East Indies and China.

Messages to H.C. for Sir E.H. East to attend the Com ee;

Ordered, That a Message be sent to the House of Commons, to request that they will give Leave to Sir Edward Hyde East Baronet, a Member of that House, to attend their Lordships, in order to his being examined as a Witness before the Select Committee appointed by this House to enquire into the present State of the Affairs of The East India Company, and into the Trade between Great Britain, the East Indies and China.

& for Glossary to 5th Report of Com ee on Affairs of The East India Co:

Ordered, That a Message be sent to the House of Commons, to request that they will be pleased to communicate to this House the Glossary to the Fifth Report from the Select Committee appointed by that House to enquire into the present State of the Affairs of The East India Company, which Report was made on the 28th Day of July 1812, and was communicated to the Lords, but the Glossary was not then annexed to the Report.

Evidence in Part reported; & to be delivered out to all the Lords.

The Lord President reported the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee appointed to enquire into the present State of the Affairs of The East India Company, and into the Trade between Great Britain, the East Indies and China; up to the 26th Day of February last inclusive.

The said Evidence was read by the Clerk. (fn. 1)

Ordered, That the Prints of the Evidence be delivered out to all the Members of the House.

Ordered, That the Evidence which shall from Time to Time be reported to the House be delivered out in like Manner.

East India, &c. Trade, Petition from Plymouth for opening.

Upon reading the Petition of the Merchants, Bankers, Ship Owners and Traders of the Port of Plymouth, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships, "That a Committee of this House may be appointed forthwith to enquire into the present State of the Trade with China and other Eastern Countries, with the view to the Admission of British Subjects generally to a Participation of the Commerce of the Eastern Part of the World; and that their Lordships will not allow the Period to elapse which is by Law required to give Notice for the Termination of the existing Charter of The East India Company:"

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

Slavery, Petition from Keighley for Abolition of.

Upon reading the Petition of the Inhabitants of the Town and Neighbourhood of Keighley, in the County of York, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying, "That their Lordships will take immediate Steps for the complete Abolition of the inhuman System of Colonial Slavery, and for placing the Negro Population under those Restraints alone which are needful for the Security of the Colonies, and which will afford the greatest Opportunities for improving them in moral and religious Knowledge, and for making peaceful and industrious Members of Society:"

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

Wheat, Accounts respecting, Ordered.

Ordered, That there be laid before this House, "A Return of the Quantities of Wheat imported from Ireland into Great Britain in each Week, specifying in what Port, from the 15th July 1828 to the latest Period:"

And also, "A Return of the Average Price of Wheat at Liverpool and at Manchester in each Week during the same Period:"

Fructuozo's Naturalization Bill.

The Earl of Shaftesbury reported from the Lords Committees, to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act for naturalizing John Anthony Fructuozo," 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.

D. of Argyll's & Ld. John Campbell's Petition to change Reference to the Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of George William Duke of Argyll, and John Douglas Edward Henry Campbell, commonly called Lord John Campbell; praying, "That their Lordships will be pleased to refer their Petition for a Private Bill, presented to the House Yesterday, to Lord Fullerton and Lord Moncrieff, instead of The Lord Justice Clerk and Lord Fullerton, the said Lord Moncrieff being already completely cognizant of the whole Details of the Judicial Proceedings which have taken place in the Courts in Scotland regarding the Estates in dispute between the Petitioners, and which it is proposed by the said Bill to adjust and settle; which would materially lessen the Labour and Trouble of the Judges, and save the Parties considerable Expence:"

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby referred to Lord Fullerton in Scotland, and Lord Moncrieff in Scotland, who are forthwith to summon all Parties before them who may be concerned in the Bill, and, after hearing all the Parties, and perusing the Bill, are to report to the House the State of the Case, with their Opinion thereupon, under their Hands, and are to sign the said Bill.

Marshall's & May's Petition referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of John Marshall of Barnstaple, in the County of Devon, Esquire, and John May of the same Place, Esquire, on Behalf of Bouchier Mervin Marshall, Ellen Susanna Marshall, John Norris Marshall and Emily Frances Marshall, Infants; praying Leave to bring in a Bill for the Purposes in the said Petition mentioned:

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby referred to Mr. Justice Park and Mr. Baron Vaughan, who are forthwith to summon all Parties concerned in the Bill, and, after hearing them, are to report to the House the State of the Case, with their Opinion thereupon, under their Hands, and whether all Parties, who may be concerned in the Consequences of the Bill, have signed the Petition; and also, that the Judges, having perused the Bill, do sign the same.

Great Torrington Roads Bill:

Hodie 3^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to enlarge the Term and Powers of an Act for more effectually improving the Roads to and from the Town of Great Torrington, in the County of Devon."

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

It was resolved in the Affirmative.

Message to H.C. that the Lords have agreed to it.

A Message was sent to the House of Commons, by Mr. Farrer and Mr. Eden;

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

Adjourn.

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