House of Lords Journal Volume 62: 8 March 1830

Die Lunæ, 8 Martii 1830.

DOMINI tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Mac Intyre et al. v. Mac Donald & Lawson.

The Answer of Coll Mac Donald Esquire, of Dalness, Writer to the Signet in Edinburgh, and John Lawson Esquire, Writer to the Signet there, to the Petition and Appeal of Christian, Margaret, William, Donald and Robert Mac Intyre, the surviving Children of the deceased Duncan Mac Intyre, Tenant in Benmore, afterwards in Dunaurn, and Donald Mac Intyre at Wester Dunaurn, Peter Mac Intyre at Dalcathy, and James Mac Naughton at St. Fillians, Tutors and Curators nominated to them and for Margaret Mac Naughton or Mac Intyre, Widow of the said Duncan Mac Intyre, was this Day brought in.

Grahame v. Jolly.

As was also, The Answer of Mr. Stewart Jolly in Morphie to the Petition and Appeal of Francis Grahame Esquire, of Morphie, in the County of Kincardine.

The Ld. Provost of Edinburgh et

And also, The Answer of William Bruce, Merchant in Edinburgh, and others, to the Petition and Appeal of * This Evidence is inserted in the Appendix to this Volume. Appendix, No. 1.

al. V. Bruce et. al.

The Right Honorable Walter Brown, Lord Provost of the City of Edinburgh, and others, for themselves and their Successors in Office, as representing the whole Council and Community of the said City, and Patrick Sandeman, Collector of the City of Edinburgh's Shore Dues at Leith.

Vesey v. Bodkin:

After hearing Counsel, as well on Friday last as this Day, upon the Petition and Appeal of George Vesey, now residing at 51, Cadogan Place, Chelsea, in the County of Middlesex, complaining of an Order of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, of the 7th Day of May 1825; and praying, "That the same might be reversed, 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 John Bodkin put in to the said Appeal; and due Consideration had of what was offered on either Side in this Cause:

Order Reversed.

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Order complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby Reversed.

Franklin & Gough v. La Touche et al.

Ordered, That the Hearing of the Cause wherein John Franklin and Richard Franklin Gough are Appellants, and Robert La Touche Esquire, and others, are Respondents, which stands appointed for this Day, be put off to Friday next.

Sir A. Chichester v. M'Intyre.

Ordered, That the Hearing of the Cause wherein Sir Arthur Chichester Baronet is Appellants, and Charles M'Intyre is Respondent, which stands appointed for this Day, be put off to Friday next.

Bouchier et al. v. Dillon et al.

Ordered, That the Hearing of the Cause wherein William Bouchier, and others, are Appellants, and Susanna Dillon, and others, are Respondents, which stands appointed for this Day, be put off to Friday next; and that the said Cause be heard after the last-mentioned Cause.

Shakerley's Divorce Bill.

The Order of the Day being read for the further Consideration and 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 the Lords to be summoned;

Counsel were accordingly called in:

And Mr. Adam and Mr. Alderson appearing as Counsel on Behalf of the Petitioner;

Francois Julien Amable le Vasseur was called in and sworn, and examined as follows, through the Interpretation of Samuel Albert Muller:

(By Counsel.) "Are you acquainted with Madame Shakerley?"

"Yes."

"How long have you known her?"

"Three Years and a Half."

"Were you ever in her Employment as a Servant?"

"Yes."

"When did you enter into the Service of Madame Shakerley?"

"The 29th of December 1826."

"Where was Madame Shakerley residing at that Time?"

"At her Father's, the Hotel D'Avaray."

"In Paris?"

"Yes."

"Are you acquainted with The Marquis D'Herrera?"

"Yes."

"When did you first become acquainted with the Marquis?"

"About Five Weeks after the Arrival of the Marchioness at Paris."

"When did Madame Shakerley arrive at Paris?"

"The 30th of December 1826."

"Are you still in the Service of Madame Shakerley?"

"No."

"When did you quit her Service?"

"The 15th of May 1827."

"On what Occasion did you quit her Service?"

"Because she went to her Father's in the Country, and had no further Occasion for my Services."

"Did you receive any Character from Madame Shakerley or the Duke her Father?"

"Mrs.Shakerley gave me a Character, and The Duke D'Avaray likewise."

(By a Lord.) "Was that Character in Writing?"

"Yes."

(By Counsel.) "Have you got that about you?"

"I have."

"Will you produce it?"

The same was delivered in, and read as follows;

"Je certifie que le nommé Le Vasseur est un tres bon Sujet, et que j'ai connu des personnes qu'il a servi qui ont été parfaitement contents de lui.

"Le M^is D'Avaray.

"Paris, le 8 Maii 1827."

(By a Lord.) "Whose Servant were you?"

"Mrs. Shakerley's."

"Were you hired in Paris?"

"Mr. Shakerley's Valet de Chambre introduced me into the Service."

(By Counsel.) "How came you to be employed by Madame Shakerley?"

"I received a Notice from the Servant of Mr. Shakerley, who wrote to me from London, that Mrs. Shakerley would have Occasion for a Servant, and wished to know whether I would go into her Service for about Five or Six Months."

"In consequence of that did you go to the Hotel D'Avaray?"

"In consequence I went to wait for her at the Hotel D'Avaray, on the 29th of December."

"And entered into her Service immediately?"

"Yes, and then I went into her Service."

"You continued there as long as she resided in Paris?"

"Yes."

"From whom did you receive that Paper?" (The Character.)

"From The Duke D'Avaray, the Father of the Lady."

"Upon the Occasion of your quitting his Daughter's Service?"

"Yes."

"At any Time after you entered into the Service of Madame Shakerley, did you receive any Letter to take to The Marquis D'Herrera?"

"From whom?"

"From any body."

"I received a great many Letters from different People."

"How early after your entering into Madame Shakerley's Service did you receive any Letter to take to The Marquis D'Herrera?"

"Fifteen Days after I entered into the Service."

"From whom did you receive it?"

"From the Marchioness's Waiting-woman."

(By a Lord.) "Whose Handwriting is that?" (The Character.)

"I did not see him write it, but it was delivered to me by The Duke D'Avaray."

"Have you ever seen the Duke write?"

"No, I never have seen him write."

"Do you know whether that is the Mode in which he signs his Name?"

"No, I have never seen it; I have seen the same Name written; I did not see whether it was he who wrote it."

(By Counsel.) "Do you believe it to be The Duke D'Avaray's Handwriting; have you means of Knowledge upon that Subject?"

"The Marquis gave it to me myself, upon the Occasion of his going to St. Cloud."

"You have stated that you received a Letter from the Femme de Chambre of The Marchioness D'Avaray, to take to The Marquis D'Herrera?"

"Yes, I did."

"Do you remember when it was; was it the End of January, the Beginning of February, or when?"

"It was in the Course of the Month of February; about the 15th."

"Was that, to the best of your Recollection, the earliest Date at which you received a Letter to take to The Marquis D'Herrera?"

"That was the first I received, and I brought back an Answer."

"From whom did you receive the Answer?"

"From The Marquis D'Herrera himself."

"To whom did you deliver that Answer?"

"On returning, I gave it to the Femme de Chambre of Madame, who gave it to Madame immediately."

"What was her Name?"

"Louise Comment."

"At any subsequent Time did you take any Letter from Madame Shakerley herself to The Marquis D'Herrera; any Letter delivered by her into your own Hand?"

"Certainly."

"How often?"

"Every Two or Three Days; when the Waitingwoman was not there, it was to myself the Marchioness gave those Letters."

(By a Lord.) "Did The Marquis D'Herrera visit The Marquis D'Avaray; did he visit at the Hotel?"

"Yes, he did."

"He was an Acquaintance and Friend of The Marquis D'Avaray?"

"He dined there very frequently."

"Did he dine there very frequently with The Marquis D'Avaray?"

"Yes; with the Marquis, the Marchioness, and the Daughter, Mrs. Shakerley."

"Did he dine there frequently?"

"Five or Six Times while I remained there; but very frequently he came to pass the Evening there."

(By Counsel.) "On the Days on which he did not dine there?"

"Very frequently, when he dined there, he remained and passed the Evenings there; and when he had not dined there, he came to pass the Evening there."

(By a Lord.) "To visit the Marquis?"

"Yes, to the Family generally."

(By Counsel.) "On those Occasions on which you took Letters from Madame Shakerley to The Marquis D'Herrera, did you take any Answer back again?"

"Sometimes I brought back an Answer; but sometimes, on the contrary, they were sent by a Messenger."

"How were those Answers which you took back yourself to Madame Shakerley directed?"

The Counsel were informed, "That that Question could not be put, consistently with the Rules of Evidence."

"Where did The Marquis D'Herrera live?"

"No. 51, Rue de Provence."

"Do you remember, after having taken the last Letter to The Marquis D'Herrera, and having taken back the Answer, Madame Shakerley going any where?"

"I do not remember particularly on the first Occasion; but a Day or two afterwards she did go to the Rue de Provence, and then to dine at Verey's at the Palais Royal."

"Did you go with her?"

"I did."

"How did Madame Shakerley go to the Rue de Provence; in what Conveyance?"

"In a hired Coach."

"Did you accompany her; did you attend her as her Footman?"

"Yes, I did."

"Do you know whether Madame Shakerley had the Use of the Marquis D'Avaray's Carriages and Horses?"

"Sometimes she used her Father's Carriage, and sometimes she used a Job Carriage; but whenever she went to the Marquis D'Herrera's she had a hired Carriage."

"Do you know whether Madame Shakerley had the Command of The Marquis D'Avaray's Carriages whenever she pleased to order them?"

"Not absolutely always; but generally she had, because there were Two or Three Carriages in the House."

"Were there Two or Three close Carriages belonging to The Marquis D'Avaray?"

"There was a Landau and a Calash, and a Chariot belonging to the Grandfather likewise."

"All at the Hotel?"

"Yes; there were Six Horses at the Hotel."

"Do you know whether Madame Shakerley used alt those Carriages from Time to Time; each of them?"

"She used the Chariot in the Winter-time."

"Did she not use the Calash?"

"No; she never used that."

"At what Time of the Day was it that Madame Shakerley went to the Rue de Provence in the Remise?"

"To go to dine; it was about Half past Five in the Evening."

"Did any body accompany her besides you?"

"No."

"When she arrived at the Rue de Provence, what Orders did you receive from Madame Shakerley?"

"That I was to go up and tell The Marquis D'Herrera that she was in waiting for him."

"Did you go up Stairs; or what did you do?"

"I speak of the first Time when this occurred. I went up Stairs to see the Marquis, and met him on the Staircase, and told him; he then went into the Carriage - Mrs.Shakerley's Carriage, and went to Verey's, the Restaurateur."

"Did you continue in waiting while they were at Verey's?"

"I remained at the Door with the Carriage."

"How long did they remain at Verey's?"

"Two Hours and a Half, or Three Hours."

"When they came out, where did they go then?"

"I think, as far as I recollect, they went to make a Tour on the Boulevard."

(By a Lord.) "Verey's is a Place where People dine, is it not?"

"Yes, a Restaurateur."

"A great many People dine there in public Rooms; both Men and Women together?"

"Yes."

(By Counsel.) "How long did they continue together on the Boulevard?"

"Till Half past Ten."

"Where did they go then; did Madame Shakerley go Home to the Hotel d'Avaray; or where did she go to?"

"She left The Marquis D'Herrera at his House, and returned to her Father's."

"Were you in the House at Verey's while they were at Dinner?"

"I was waiting at the Door."

"You do not know whether they dined in a private Apartment at Verey's, or in the public Room?"

"I only know that they dined in a Room up Stairs; but I do not know whether it was a private Room or not."

(By a Lord.) "Do not you know that one of the public Rooms in which People dine is up Stairs?"

"There is one above, and one below; there are a great many small Rooms up Stairs for dining."

(By Counsel.) "After this particular Transaction you have related, do you remember Madame Shakerley going at any other Time to The Marquis D'Herrera's Lodgings in a Remise?"

"I went several Times. Mrs.Shakerley never went up Stairs to the Marquis; but she has been several Times to the Door in a Remise."

"Did any body accompany Madame Shakerley on any of those Occasions except you?"

"Never."

"Upon her arriving at the Marquis's Lodgings, where did she go?"

"She very often went away then in the Carriage of The Marquis D'Herrera, and told me to come back at Ten, or Half past Ten, with her Carriage."

"Did they drive away together?"

"Yes, they went away together, either in The Marquis D'Herrera's Carriage or her own."

"By her own, do you mean her Remise, or the Carriage belonging to Mrs. Shakerley?"

"Sometimes in her own Carriage, because The Marquis D'Herrera had a hired Carriage there."

"How often do you think you have accompanied Madame Shakerley in the Way you have latterly described?"

"Fifteen or Twenty different Times."

"During what Period of the Year did this continue; for how long?"

"He arrived there about the End of February, and it continued about Four Months."

"Can you recollect whether it was the Beginning or the End of February that The Marquis D'Herrera arrived?"

"He arrived the Twenty-ninth of January; One Month after Madame Shakerley."

"Madame Shakerley arrived the End of December, and The Marquis D'Herrera the End of January?"

"Yes."

"At what Time did Madame Shakerley leave Paris?"

"She left the 5th of May; and I remained about Three Weeks after that, understood to be in her Service, because I waited Mr.Shakerley's Arrival."

"Who desired you to wait until Mr.Shakerley's Arrival?"

"It was in consequence of a Letter."

"Did you see the Letter?"

"Mrs.Shakerley shewed me the Letter; it was a few Lines, saying, you may set off at such a Time to your Father's."

"Did she desire you to remain 'till Mr.Shakerley arrived?"

"Yes; I was to remain 'till he came; and he came about Three Weeks afterwards."

"It was in consequence of those Orders of Madame Shakerley you remained 'till his Arrival?"

"Yes."

(By a Lord.) "Did you receive any Directions from Mrs. Shakerley to keep secret these Circumstances you have mentioned?"

"Yes, I did."

"What did she say to you?"

"The only thing she told me was, to desire me not to say where she had been to the other Servants in the House."

"When did she tell you that; how soon?"

"The same Day; the same Night she told me that."

"She told you, you must not mention this to the other Servants?"

"Yes; it was the Femme de Chambre that told me that."

"Not Mrs. Shakerley?"

"Upon subsequent Occasions Mrs. Shakerley said so to me; because I perceived the Servants were aware of something going on, and I told her that the Servants perceived it, and she then said, you must not say any thing about it."

"Did she give you any Money at that Time?"

"No, never; about a Year after I left her Service I was ill, and she sent me Forty Francs."

"Did she know any thing of you before you entered into her Service; had she any previous Knowledge of you?"

"No, she did not know me; I had seen her, but she did not know me."

(By Counsel.) "About this Time was Madame Shakerley in the habit of going out early in the Morning at any Time?"

"Almost every other Day she went out about Half past Seven in the Morning."

"Did you go with her?"

"No; she went alone."

"Do you mean in February and March; in that Time of the Year?"

"As the Days lengthened she went out a little earlier."

"Was it Day light when she went out at first?"

"Not the first Time she went out; when the Days were very short it was probably about Eight o'Clock."

(By a Lord.) "Was that about the first Week in March?"

"Afterwards, at the End of April, it was hardly more than about a Quarter past Six in the Morning."

(By Counsel.) "As the Days grew longer, Madame Shakerley went out earlier?"

"Yes."

"In what Part of the Hotel D'Avaray were Madame Shakerley's Apartments situate; were they in the main Body of the Hotel, or in a detached Part?"

"Her Apartment was over the Stables; not in the Body of the House, but on the Side of the House, over the Stables."

(By a Lord.) "Were those the Apartments she had always occupied when she was at Paris with her Father?"

"I believe so; I had not known her before that; I understood that was where she ordinarily lived."

(By Counsel.) "Were they situate very near the Porter's Lodge?"

"The Porter's Lodge was on the Left; and immediately after you came to a Staircase, which led up to the Apartments of Madame Shakerley."

"Is the Hotel D'Avaray situated in a Court-yard?"

"In a very large Yard."

"Is there a Porte Cocher?"

"Yes, a large Gate."

"And the Porter's Lodge is in the Left Hand of the Gateway as you go in?"

"Yes, just so."

"How far from the Porter's Lodge, and from the Gateway, is this Staircase you have mentioned?"

"The Distance from here to the Fireplace."

"How large is the Court-yard?"

"As big again as this Room."

"How far is the principal Entrance into the Hotel, the Door from the Porter's Lodge and from the Porte Cocher?"

"Nearly the Length of this Room."

"Can a Person going up the Staircase you have mentioned get to Madame Shakerley's Apartments without going near the main Body of the Hotel?"

"It was all the Distance I have named from the Hotel itself; any Person going up would be seen from thence if there was any body there; it was an open Court."

(By a Lord.) "Are there several Staircases in the Court-yard?"

"There was a large Staircase that went up to the Apartments of the Marquis himself; above that there was another Staircase which went all round the Building, and came round to the Apartments of Mrs. Shakerley."

"Was that large Staircase in the Body of the Hotel?"

"Yes."

"That was on the other Side of the Court-yard from the small Staircase by which you might get to Madame Shakerley's Apartments?"

"Yes, that was the other Side of the Court-yard."

"And within the Hall?"

"Within the Vestibule."

"That was an internal Staircase within the Body of the House?"

"Yes."

"Was there any external Staircase except this which led to Madame Shakerley's?"

"There was another Staircase, a small Staircase by the Side of the Kitchen, which went up likewise to the Apartment of Mrs. Shakerley; but it was only the Servants who used that."

"Should you understand a Plan, if it was shewn to you?"

"I think perhaps I might; I am not certain."

"Does that now before you (a Plan being shewn to the Witness) represent the Court-yard, and the Groundfloor?"

"This is the Porter's Lodge; this is where is the principal Entrance to the House." (Pointing them out on the Plan.)

"Does it represent accurately the Ground Plan of the Porte Cocher, the Staircase and the Porter's Lodge?"

The Witness pointed out the different Places.

"Is this an accurate Plan of the Porte Cocher, the Porter's Lodge, and the Staircase to Madame Shakerley's Apartments?"

"Yes."

"Does that Plan, where the Cross is marked, represent correctly where the Staircase is situate?"

"Yes."

"Look at the other Plan, and state whether that accurately represents the upper Story of the Apartments of Madame Shakerley?" (The same being shewn to the Witness.)

"This is the Corridor." (Pointing it out.)

(By a Lord.) "Opposite the Porte Cocher was the grand Staircase?"

"Directly facing it; if the Hotel Door was open, you saw the grand Staircase."

"On the Side of the Porte Cocher there was a small Staircase that went up to Mrs. Shakerley's Apartment?"

"You must go under the Archway."

"Then you would turn to the Left?"

"Yes."

"Then you would go up the Staircase that led to Mrs. Shakerley's Apartments?"

"Yes, that is so."

"Was your Room next to Mrs. Shakerley's?"

"It was facing."

"Was the Room of the Femme de Chambre contiguous to Mrs. Shakerley's?"

"The Passage separated them."

"Was your Room also on the other Side of the Passage?"

"Yes; on the other Side of the Corridor."

"Did that Corridor lead round the Hotel?"

"Yes; it went all round it."

"Was there any Staircase that communicated from the Court-yard to that Corridor?"

"That small one by the Kitchen."

"That was all; was it?"

"And the grand Staircase; that was all."

"That Corridor communicated with the principal Rooms of the Hotel?"

"Yes."

(By Counsel.) "Did any body else occupy Apartments near Madame Shakerley's at that End of the Corridor?"

"No; nobody else."

"Who cleaned Madame Shakerley's Room; who had Charge of it, and made the Bed?"

"It was I myself and the Chambermaid."

"Nobody else?"

"No; nobody else."

"How long used Madame Shakerley to remain out when she went out early in the Morning in the Way you stated?"

"She always came back at Ten or Half past Ten to breakfast with her Family."

"Did any body go out with her?"

"Never; she came back alone, and changed her Dress, perhaps took off her Pelisse, and went down to breakfast with her Family."

"Did you ever hear Madame Shakerley give any Directions as to what should be said if she was enquired for during her Absence?"

"Yes, I have."

"What were those Directions?"

"She desired that if her Parents were to ask for her we should say that she was fatigued, and that she was in her Apartment; and not to let any body come in."

"Was any thing done with the Blinds of her Apartment on those Occasions?"

"Her Window looked into the Court; and when she went out, she never opened the Blinds."

"You have stated that The Marquis D'Herrera several Times dined at The Marquis D'Avaray's, and several Times came in the Evening?"

"Yes."

"When The Marquis D'Herrera went away, where did his Carriage draw up?"

"Sometimes he remained, and slept in the Hotel; and on other Occasions he ordered his Carriage to draw up at the Steps of the Hotel, and then gave Orders to the little Lacquey who attended him to open the Door, and then shut it up again; and then The Marquis D'Herrera pretended to get into the Carriage, made believe that he got into the Carriage, then went up into the Apartment up the little Staircase."

"When you say that he slept in the Hotel, do you mean the Body of the Hotel where The Marquis D'Avaray resided, or in the Apartment of Madame Shakerley?"

"In the Apartment of Madame Shakerley."

"Did he ever sleep in the Body of the Hotel, where the Family in general resided?"

"On One Occasion he slept in the Body of the House, because Madame Shakerley came back from the Country, after having been absent; and she then slept in the Apartment of her Father, and he slept there with her."

"Did he ever sleep in the Body of the Hotel, where the Family in general resided?"

"The first Time that he slept there he slept in the Apartment of Mrs. Shakerley."

"Did he at any Time sleep in the Body of the Hotel?"

"Once only; the last Time that he slept in the House."

"Upon what Occasion was that?"

"Because there was nobody in the House; and I suppose it was more convenient to sleep in the Apartment of the Father, which was larger."

"Did Madame Shakerley, on that Occasion, sleep in the Body of the Hotel?"

"Yes."

"You say that no other Part of the Family were in the Hotel upon that Occasion?"

"There was nobody but Mrs. Shakerley, myself, the Porter, and the Femme de Chambre. I was there, because she asked me whether I could remain there some Time longer to serve her. She had written from the Country to ask whether I could attend her for a few Days while she remained in Paris."

"How often do you think The Marquis D'Herrera slept in the Apartment of Madame Shakerley?"

"Five or Six Times."

"When The Marquis D'Herrera slept in Madame Shakerley's Apartment, do you know where she slept?"

"She slept in the same Room?"

"Do you know whether any Clothes were brought upon those Occasions to The Marquis D'Herrera?"

"Yes; the first Time that he slept there he gave me a Letter in the Morning to take to his Valet de Chambre; and the Valet then gave me a Package, in which was a Great Coat and Boots and Pantaloons."

"What did you do with the Pantaloons and the Boots?"

"I took them into the Apartment of Madame Shakerley, and delivered them to him."

"Did you see the Marquis there?"

"Yes; I saw him, and delivered them to himself in the Chamber."

"The next Morning did you take away any Clothes?"

"Yes; about Noon on the following Day I took away the Clothes he had left."

"What Clothes were those he had left?"

"The Clothes he left there-There were a Coat and Black Pantaloons."

"Were those the Clothes he had worn the Evening before?"

"Yes, they were."

"Do you state that upon the Occasion when the Morning Dress was brought, which you delivered to the Marquis the next Day, you took away the Dress the Marquis had worn on the Evening before?"

"I carried them to his House; the Clothes he had worn in the Evening Party the Evening before."

(By a Lord.) "Did you see the Marquis in Mrs. Shakerley's Room in the Evening?"

"It was I myself who let him in."

"Was Madame Shakerley there at the Time?"

"No, she was not; she came in afterwards."

"Did you see her come in?"

"Yes, I did."

"At what Time in the Evening did you see The Marquis D'Herrera go into Mrs. Shakerley's Room?"

"At Half past Ten."

"How soon afterwards did Mrs. Shakerley come to him?"

"Five or Six Minutes afterwards."

"At what Time in the Morning was it you saw the Marquis again?"

"I saw him about Nine o'Clock."

"In Mrs. Shakerley's Room?"

"Yes, in the Apartment."

"Was he dressed?"

"He was not dressed; he had his Pantaloons on, but he sent me for his Dress."

"Had he no Coat or Waistcoat on?"

"He had not his Coat nor his Boots on, but he had his Waistcoat on."

"Was The Duke D'Avaray at that Time living in the Hotel?"

"Yes."

"And The Duchess D'Avaray and Family?"

"Yes, all the Family."

"Had the Marquis dined there that Day?"

"I do not recollect whether he dined there, or only came to the Evening Party."

"Could he go in or out without the Porter seeing him?"

"No, he might go out in the Morning; if the Court Gate was open, and nobody was there by it, he might go out unperceived; he had no Occasion to knock."

(By Counsel.) "Did you ever receive Instructions to go to see whether the Marquis could get out without being observed, before the Marquis went away?"

"Each Time, when I was going out, he desired me to go into the Court to see whether any body observed him."

(By a Lord.) "Did he give you Money to conceal these Things?"

"Sometimes he gave me some Trifle."

"Did he tell you not to say any thing about these Things?"

"Yes; he desired me not to say any thing about it to any body."

"Did he give you Money at the Time he told you this?"

"Sometimes he gave me Ten or Fifteen Francs."

(By Counsel.) "You have stated that the Marquis's Lacquey pretended to shut the Carriage Door; why do you say that he pretended to shut the Carriage Door?"

"He let down the Steps as if the Marquis was going to get into the Carriage, and frequently then he went up the Staircase to those Apartments; and he shut up the Door again, and called out to the Coachman to drive on."

"Did the Lacquey go with the Carriage?"

"Yes."

"As if the Marquis had been in the Carriage?"

"Yes, just so,"

(By a Lord.) "Is the Lacquey a Frenchman?"

"I believe he was a Spaniard."

(By Counsel.) "What was his Name?"

"Francois Paix."

"What was the first Occasion you recollect the Marquis slept at Madame Shakerley's Apartment, when his Clothes were sent for, as you have described them to be on one Occasion?"

"The Second Time that he remained there, he remained all the following Day."

"Did any body take Breakfast to him the following Day?"

"Yes, I took Breakfast to the Marquis in Mrs. Shakerley's Apartment."

"Did any body take Dinner to him?"

"I likewise took his Dinner to him."

"Where did you get it?"

"I got it at the Restaurateur, Rue St. Marc."

"What was the Name of the Restaurateur where you got it?"

"I do not recollect the Name. I took a cold Fowl."

"Who gave you Orders to get Breakfast and Dinner?"

"The Marquis gave Orders; and the Chambermaid of Mrs. Shakerley made the Breakfast for him."

"Louise Comment?"

"Yes."

"The next Morning, the Second Morning, did the Marquis go away, or what became of him?"

"He remained; he slept there the Second Night, and the next Morning went away, about Half past Ten, I think."

"Had he any Morning Dress the Second Day?"

"The Lacquey sometimes brought a Package in the Carriage when he came-a Package of Clothes."

"What was done with that Package which was brought in the Carriage?"

"The little Lacquey took the Package from the Carriage of the Marquis, and took it up Stairs to my Apartment."

"What did you do with it?"

"The next Morning the Marquis asked me for it, and I gave it to him."

"On any other Occasion were you ever sent for the Marquis's Clothes?"

"No; only on One Occasion."

"Did you, in the Course of the Night, on any Occasion, hear Voices in Madame Shakerley's Room on the Nights when The Marquis D'Herrera was there?"

"Yes; my Apartment being immediately facing Mrs. Shakerley's, nothing but the Wainscot between them, I heard every thing."

"How late at Night?"

"Only Five or Six Minutes, perhaps, because I went into my Room again."

"As late as you were up, you heard a Conversation in Madame Shakerley's Apartment?"

"Yes, I heard it."

"How many Beds were there in Madame Shakerley's Apartment?"

"Only One."

"The Mornings after the Marquis had slept there, as you have stated, could you form any Opinion how many Persons had slept in the Bed that Night?"

"Two Persons."

"Did the Bed exhibit those Appearances as if Two Persons had slept there?"

"Yes."

(By a Lord.) "In what Situation are you now?"

"I am out of Place; a Servant out of Place."

"Have you been in Place since?"

"I have been in the Service of different English Families since."

"How long were you out of Place after you left this Service?"

"About Fifteen Days after Mr. Shakerley returned to England."

"Did you see Mr. Shakerley in Paris?"

"Yes, I served him after Mrs. Shakerley left."

"Did you mention some of these Things to Mr. Shakerley?"

"No, never; Mr. Shakerley never asked me any thing, and I never mentioned any thing about it."

"If he had asked you, you would have stated it, perhaps?"

"If he had asked me any Questions, I would then have told him what had happened."

"He never did ask you any Questions?"

"Not on any Occasion."

"You would have told him that the Marquis gave you Money?"

"Yes, I should."

"Can you mention any One Person you have lived with since you have quitted this Service?"

"General Sir John Hamilton."

"When did you go into his Service, and when did you quit it?"

"Last Year, in the Month of December, I went into his Service."

"Do you mean 1829, or 1828?"

"I meant in December 1828."

"How long did you remain in his Service?"

"Two Months and a Half, or Three Months."

"Can you mention any one that you lived with since that Time?"

"Major Fencoe."

"Did you ever use the Character which The Duke D'Avaray gave you?"

"I have given it to be presented to the Intendant at St. Cloud; it was given for him."

"Did any body give you a Character to go into any other Service?"

"When I was at the Hotel de Restardt I had the ordinary Certificate, but no Character."

"You were not a mere Lacquey de Place, were you?"

"Yes, I was; I had never been Lacquey de Place before I was in the Service of Mrs. Shakerley, but after I left her I was a Lacquey de Place."

"With whom did you live before?"

"With Mr. Kelly, Four Years."

"In what Capacity?"

"As Valet de Chambre."

"What Countryman is Mr. Kelly?"

"An Irishman."

"Have you been a Lacquey de Place from 1826 down to the present Time?"

"Yes, always."

"When did you first mention these Circumstances, and to whom?"

"About Seven Months and a Half ago; in the Month of July."

"To whom?"

"To Mr. Shakerley."

"How did Mr. Shakerley find you out?"

"I was in the Hotel de Restardt, and Mr. Shakerley came to that Hotel."

"Did you ever see Mr. Shakerley at the Hotel D'Avaray?"

"Never."

"How did Mr. Shakerley find you out?"

"Because he had his own Servant, to whom I was well known, and we had Correspondence together."

"Were you well known to that Servant immediately after you quitted the Hotel of The Duke D'Avaray?"

"I knew him before."

"Did you know that Servant before -that Servant continually living with Mr. Shakerley from that Time down to the Time of your meeting him at the Hotel de Restardt?"

"Yes."

"Though Mr. Shakerley's Servant was known to you, there was no Application made to you 'till the Year 1828?"

"No, never."

"Did you correspond with this Servant during that Time?"

"No; I was about Eighteen Months without writing to him."

"Were you in the habit of corresponding with that Servant much before that?"

"No; we had had a little Quarrel together."

"When was that Quarrel?"

"At the Time that Mr. Shakerley returned we quarrelled."

"When was that?"

"Just at the Time I left the Service of Madame, Mr. Shakerley came to bring Mrs. Shakerley back to England."

"About what did you quarrel?"

"Something relating to some Female at Paris."

"When was the Quarrel made up?"

"The last Time that he came back to Paris again it was made up again."

"Who was the Female?"

"A Femme de Chambre at Paris."

"What is her Name?"

"Josephine."

"Where does she live?"

"I cannot tell."

"Where did she live then?"

"She lived in Rue Richelieu."

"Where is the Valet de Chambre of Mr. Shakerley now?"

"I think he is always with him."

"Who was this Woman about whom you had a Quarrel, and where did she live?"

"Her name is Josephine, and she lived in Rue Richelieu."

"With whom did she live?"

"I know that she lived in the Rue Richelieu, but I do not know with whom she lived."

"What was the Subject of the Quarrel?"

"Because I was acquainted with her, and the Lacquey was likewise acquainted with her, and in taking a Walk we had a Quarrel together."

"Do not you know where she lived?"

"I know that she lived in the Rue Richelieu, but I never went into the House of her Mistress."

"Did this Lady permit you to come into her Bedroom when The Marquis D'Herrera was there?"

"Yes, but she was never there when I went in."

"Has she come into the Room while you have been there?"

"No; The Marquis D'Herrera came in first; she came in a short Time; and then either I or the Chambermaid used to come to the Door and lock it."

"The Quarrel was at the Time that Mr. Shakerley came over?"

"Yes; but before that we had some little Misunderstanding, and then we discontinued corresponding."

"What is the Valet's Name?"

"Francois Doray."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

The Counsel were informed, "That it was the Desire of their Lordships that Francois Doray should be called forthwith."

Then Francois Doray was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(By a Lord.) "Have you been in this House during the Examination of the last Witness, or any Part of it?"

"Yes, I have."

"In this Room?"

"Yes."

(By Counsel.) "Have you To-day been in the House during the Examination?"

"No."

(By a Lord.) "Do you know Le Vasseur?"

"Yes."

"Has he been a Friend of yours?"

"Yes."

"Do you remember going over to Paris with Mr. Shakerley after this Affair?"

"Yes."

"The last Time, when Mr. Shakerley went, and when Mrs. Shakerley did not return, in the Year 1827?"

"Yes."

"Did you know Le Vasseur at that Time?"

"Yes."

"How long have you known him?"

"I cannot say exactly; I knew him, perhaps, Six or Seven Years."

"Were you on good Terms with him?"

"Yes."

"Were you always on good Terms?"

"Yes."

"You never had any Quarrel with him?"

"No."

"Nor any Dispute whatever?"

"We had some Words; I beg pardon, we had some Words; very little."

"When was that?"

"I cannot say justly."

"On what Occasion was it?"

"It was nothing of consequence."

"On what Occasion?"

"I really cannot recollect."

"How long ago?"

"Five or Six Years."

"When you went over with Mr. Shakerley had you no Quarrel with him then?"

"No; we were good Friends then."

"Did you know a Girl of the Name of Josephine?"

"I have seen her; I do not know her."

"Had you ever any Dispute about her?"

"No; I had no Occasion for it."

"She was very kind to both of you, was she; you had no Quarrel with him about Josephine?"

"No."

"You had never any Quarrel with him, except occasionally a Word, as one Servant might with another, about different Matters?"

"That was all."

"Do you ever correspond with him?"

"Very little; I do not think I wrote more than One or Two Letters since I was in England."

"Did you ever write to him after the Occasion referred to, when you went with Mr. Shakerley there the last Time, when Mrs. Shakerley did not come back again?"

"I think I wrote to him since."

"How soon after that?"

"Perhaps a Twelvemonth; I think he lived with Mr. Shakerley when I wrote to him."

"Did you write to him soon after he left Mrs. Shakerley?"

"I cannot tell."

"He left Mrs. Shakerley in May 1827; did you write after that?"

"I cannot say; I do not recollect exactly; I cannot swear whether it was before or after; I did not take notice."

"Had you been in the habit of writing to him before that?"

"Not much; I never wrote to him frequently; very few Letters altogether."

"You are quite certain you never had any Quarrel with him about Josephine?"

"No; I do not know her Character, nor nothing about her."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Francois Julien Amable Le Vasseur was again called in, and further examined as follows, through the Interpretation of Samuel Albert Muller:

(By a Lord.) "Are you quite sure you had a Quarrel with Doray immediately on Mr. Shakerley's coming to Paris, and about this Woman Josephine?"

"Yes, most certainly I had; if he was here I could make him understand it."

"You are quite sure that you never, in consequence of this Quarrel, wrote to him 'till you came back to Paris?"

"I wrote to him when he was at Leamington last Year, to which he did not give an Answer."

"But you never wrote to him before that?"

"No; not before that."

"You have stated that The Marquis D'Herrera could have been observed by any body in The Duke D'Avaray's House when he came to those Apartments?"

"In what Shape do you mean?

"Have you not stated that any body at the Hotel could have been The Marquis D'Herrera passing to this Lady's Apartment?"

"They might have seen him, if they had suspected any thing; but as nobody had any thing to do with him but me, I was the only Person who saw him."

"How many Servants were there in the Hotel?"

"Sixteen or Seventeen, Men and Women."

"Did you ever hear any one of them mention the Marquis coming in and going out?"

"No."

"You never heard either of them say that they saw him coming in and going out at Nine or Ten in the Morning?"

"No, never."

"You have stated that the Marquis used to come, and pretend to get into the Carriage, and then the Man used to drive away; did the Marquis ever come out of the Duke's Apartments without others being there who might see whether he got into the Carriage or not?"

"Never any body but me or his Lacquey."

"You mean to swear that he constantly went away from the Duke's House, no other Servant being in Attendance but Mrs. Shakerley's Servant and his own Servant?"

"I never saw any."

"What Necessity was there for his Pretence to get into the Carriage, if there was nobody there?"

"They would have suspected something, if they had not heard the Steps let down and the Door closed; the Servants who were close at hand might have suspected."

"How far off were the Servants?"

"In the Anti-chamber."

"At what Distance?"

"There was nothing but the Staircase up to it, and then the Anti-chamber; it joined there; and very often he went along the Wall."

"Was the Door of the Hotel open or shut?"

"Shut; he sometimes made believe to go into the Corner."

"Did Mrs. Shakerley know you before you came into the Service at all?"

"No."

"As neither the Marquis or Mrs. Shakerley knew you, were not you a little surprised at the Confidence they placed in you?"

"They said nothing; the Letters were given to me, and some Time after that the Chambermaid said, "LeVasseur, do not say any thing about those Letters, or where you are going to."

"Was the Porter pretty constant in his Attendance; was he not always pretty near the Gate?"

"He was employed in the House, but his Wife was there."

"There was always the Husband or the Wife in Attendance?"

"In the Evening they were there; but in the Morning they were very often in the House or in other Places."

"Were they ever away entirely from the Court or the Gate?"

"At the Time the Marquis went there ordinarily, he was then employed in putting the Lamps in order, for that was his Business."

"What was his Wife about?"

"She was sometimes there, but sometimes she was occupied in arranging the Chamber of Mr. Boulivier."

"When she was there she must have seen him come in or go out?"

"She never said any thing to me upon that Subject; sometimes she asked where Madame Shakerley went."

"Did you mention those Things to any of the Servants of the House?"

"No, never."

(By Counsel.) "You have stated that the Marquis slept there Five or Six Times altogether?"

"Yes."

"You always went out to see whether any body was in the Way before he took his Departure?"

"Yes."

"Were the Servants of the Hotel in the habit of going to the Porter's Lodge, or did their Business keep them in the Hotel itself?"

"They had nothing to do with the Porter's Lodge; they only remained in the House."

"Was any body at the Porter's Lodge, for the most part, except the Porter's Wife?"

"They had a little Child that came there at the Time of Meals, and so on; he was generally there unless he was employed in the House."

"In your Opinion, was it probable or improbable that a Person could go out through the Porter's Lodge without being observed?"

"In the Morning it was very easy for any body to have gone out or come in without their being perceived; but in the Evening the Doors were closed, and they were obliged to knock or to ask; they open the Gate with a String."

"Were the Doors closed on the Evening of the Soirees?"

"Yes; they were equally closed then."

"Where did the Carriages wait on the Evening of the Soirees; in the Court-yard, or in the Street?"

"When there were not many of them they were in the Court-yard."

"Were there a considerable Number of Carriages on the Evenings on which The Marquis D'Herrera slept at the Hotel?"

"When he was there, there was only his own Carriage there."

"Do you know whether the Marquis gave any Orders where his Carriage should draw up, and where it should wait for him?"

"I do not know whether he gave the Orders, but his Carriage did always wait in the Yard."

"Was the Marquis in the habit of walking to his Carriage from the Door of the Hotel, or did it draw up to the Door of the Hotel?"

"He preferred walking to his Carriage at a little Distance; because if the Carriage were drawn up to the Door, the Servants might have seen."

(By a Lord.) "Do you mean to say that he gave that Reason?"

"I suppose it was so, because those were the Orders he gave me."

(By Counsel.) "If the Carriage of the Marquis had gone out without the Servant behind, would it have been likely to have attracted the Attention of the Porter or his Wife?"

"I cannot tell whether they would have observed it; they might have observed."

The Counsel requested, "That Francois Doray might be again called to the Bar, and confronted with this Witness, as he had stated that he had no Doubt he should be able to bring the Circumstance referred to to Francois Doray's Recollection."

The Counsel was informed, "That their Lordships did not consider that the proper Course to adopt at present; but that he might put any Questions he wished, to elicit Facts which might form the Subject of any Examination of Francois Doray."

(By Counsel.) "What Questions would you wish to have put to Doray, to satisfy him that you had a Quarrel with him upon the Occasion of Josephine?"

"It matters not what Questions are put to him, but that was the Fact; we had drank a little, and had a Tiff, a little Misunderstanding; I am not now quite certain about the Name of the Woman."

(By a Lord.) "You have over and over again sworn to her Name?"

"I do not know whether the other might know the Name; that is what I mean. I knew that was her Name."

"Was the Quarrel about a Woman?"

"It was relating to this Woman, and other Quarrels between him and me."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Francois Doray was again called in, and further examined as follows:

(By a Lord.) "Are you sure you never had a Quarrel with the other Witness on the Subject of Josephine?"

"No, never."

"You know Josephine very well?"

"I knew her by seeing her; I did not know her."

"She was an Acquaintance of yours, and an Acquaintance of Le Vasseur?"

"I beg your Pardon; she was never my Acquaintance."

"Had you ever any Quarrel with Le Vasseur about any Woman?"

"No, never."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

The Counsel were directed to withdraw.

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

Fructuozo's Naturalization Bill:

Hodie 3^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for naturalizing John Anthony Fructuozo."

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

It was resolved in the Affirmative.

Message to H.C. with it.

A Message was sent to the House of Commons, by Mr. Harvey and Mr. Stratford;

To carry down the said Bill, and desire their Concurrence thereto.

Humphrys v. Pratt Plaintiff's Petition for further Time for his Case, referred to the Appeal Com ee.

Upon reading the Petition of William Humphrys, Plaintiff in a Writ of Error depending in this House, wherein Harvey Pratt is Defendant; praying their Lordships, "That he may have a Month's further Time to prepare his printed Case in this Cause:"

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.

Faussett v. Carpenter, Plaintiff's Petition for further Time for his Case, referred to Appeal Com ee.

Upon reading the Petition of Charles Faussett, Plaintiff in a Writ of Error depending in this House, wherein Michael Carpenter, Lessee of Thomas Palmer and others, is Defendant; praying their Lordships, "That he may have a Month's further Time to prepare his printed Case:"

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

Ld. Clonbrock's Petition

Upon reading the Petition of The Right Honorable Robert Lord Clonbrock, Baron Clonbrock in the Kingdom of Ireland; setting forth, "That on the 27th Day of June 1806 their Lordships were pleased to order and adjudge that Luke Lord Clonbrock hath made out his Claim to be admitted to vote at the Election of Peers of Ireland: That the said Luke Lord Clonbrock departed this Life on or about the 13th Day of December 1826: That the Petitioner is the eldest Son of the said Luke Lord Clonbrock, and claims a Right to vote at Elections of Peers for 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.

Freeman et al. v. Fairlie et al. Petition of W. Smith et al. to be made Respondents, referred to Appeal Com ee.

Upon reading the Petition of William Smith of Belvoir Terrace, Vauxhall Bridge Road, in the County of Surrey, and Charlotte his Wife, Elizabeth Oldham of Grove Road, Mile End, in the County of Middlesex, Spinster, and of John Eborall, One of the Respondents in a Cause depending in this House, wherein Ann Freeman, and others, are Appellants, and William Fairlie, and others, are Respondents; setting forth, "That by a Decree made in the Court of Chancery by The Right Honorable the Master of the Rolls, in the Causes therein mentioned, dated the 2d Day of April 1827, his Honor declared that the Messuages, Lands, Tenements and Hereditaments in the Pleadings of these Causes mentioned were Freehold of Inheritance; and it was ordered, that the Possession thereof be delivered to the said Defendant John Eborall, the Heir at Law ex-parte maternâ of Samuel Oldham, the Intestate in the Pleadings named; and it was ordered that it be referred to the Master to whom these Causes stood referred, to make his Report on the Account of the Rents and Profits of the said Messuages, Lands, Tenements and Hereditaments, received by the late Defendant William Fairlie in his Lifetime, as directed by the Decree of the 30th Day of November 1815, and to take the Accounts of such Rents and Profits, if any, received by the Defendant John Innes, as directed by the Decree dated the 21st Day of July 1826; and it was ordered that the said Master in taking such Accounts should distinguish such Part of the said Rents and Profits as had accrued due since the Death of the said John Eborall, the Father of the Defendant John Eborall, mentioned in the said Master's Report dated the 18th Day of January 1826; and it was ordered that the said Master should enquire and state to the Court what Part of any Bank £3 per Cent. Annuities which might be standing in the Name of the Accountant General of the said Court, in Trust in the Cause Freeman and others v. Fairlie and others, the Account of Rents and Profits, and any Cash in the Bank placed to the Credit of the said Cause, the like Account at the Date of his Report to be made in pursuance of that Order, after Payment of the Costs therein-after directed to be taxed and paid, was constituted of Rents and Profits which had accrued due in respect of the said Messuages, Lands, Tenements and Hereditaments, since the Death of the said John Eborall the Father, or of the Interest, Dividends or Accumulations thereof; and the Defendant William Butt, the personal Representative of Hannah Haigh, the Testatrix in the Pleadings named, was to be at liberty to apply to this Court as he might be advised, for an Enquiry by whom the Houses mentioned in the said Master's Report dated the 6th Day of November 1823, or either of them, were built; and any of the Parties were to be at liberty to apply to the Court as there should be Occasion: That by an Order made on the Petition of the Petitioners William Smith and Charlotte his Wife, and Elizabeth Oldham, bearing Date the 17th Day of March 1829, it was ordered, amongst other Things, that the Parties should proceed to a Trial at Law in the Court of Common Pleas, on the following Issue; viz^t. Whether the Petitioners Elizabeth Oldham and Charlotte Smith were the Coheiresses at Law of Samuel Oldham, the Intestate in the Pleadings named; and the Petitioners Elizabeth Oldham, and William Smith and Charlotte his Wife, were to be Plaintiffs at Law, and the Petitioner John Eborall Defendant at Law: That the said Issue was tried on the 18th Day of July 1829, before The Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas and a Special Jury, and a Verdict was thereupon found in favor of the Petitioners the Plaintiffs, and a Motion, made by the Petitioner John Eborall, for a new Trial of the said Issue, was refused: That the Petitioner John Eborall was made a Party to the said Suit, as the Heir at Law ex-parte maternâ of Samuel Oldham, the said Intestate, it having been supposed that there was no Heir at Law ex-parte paternâ of the said Intestate; but it having been found by the said Verdict that the Petitioners Elizabeth Oldham and Charlotte Smith are the Coheiresses at Law ex-parte paternâ of the said Intestate, they now stand, as they submit, in the same Situation in which the Petitioner John Eborall stood at the Time when the said Decree was made: That the Plaintiffs in the said Causes, on or about the 20th Day of July 1829, preferred their Petition to their Lordships, appealing from the said Decree of the 2d Day of April 1827, and praying that the same might be reversed or varied: That the said John Eborall has put in his Answer to the said Petition and Appeal: That on the 24th Day of December 1829 the Petitioners William Smith and Charlotte his Wife, and Elizabeth Oldham, field their Supplemental Bill in these Causes, against the Petitioner the said John Eborall, and others, thereby praying that the said Order dated the 8th of June 1826, whereby the said Master's Report, finding the said Defendant John Eborall to be the Heir at Law of the said Intestate Samuel Oldham, was confirmed, and the said Decrees or Decretal Orders, bearing Date respectively the 21st of July 1826 and the 2d of April 1827, and such other Proceedings (if any) in the said Causes as relate to the Claim of the said Defendant John Eborall, as such Heir at Law, might be reviewed; and that the said Order dated the 8th of June 1826 might be reversed; and that so much of the said Decree or Decretal Order dated the 21st of July 1826 as directed that the said Defendant John Eborall should have the Benefit of the Proceedings in the said Causes as if he had been originally made a Party thereto, and so much of the said Decree or Decretal Order dated the 2d of April 1827 as ordered that the Possession of the Messuages, Lands, Tenements and Hereditaments therein mentioned should be delivered to the said Defendant John Eborall, as the Heir at Law of Samuel Oldham, the Intestate in the Pleadings named, and as ordered that the said Master in taking the Accounts thereby directed should distinguish such Parts of the Rents and Profits therein mentioned as had accrued due since the Death of John Eborall, the Father of the Defendant John Eborall, and as ordered that the said Master should enquire and state to the Court what Part of any Bank £3 per Cent. Annuities which might be standing in the Name of the said Accountant, in Trust in the Cause Freeman and others v. Fairlie and others, the Account of Rents and Profits, and any Cash in the Bank placed to the Credit of the said Cause, the like Account at the Date of his Report to be made in pursuance of that Order, after Payment of the Costs thereby directed to be taxed and paid, was constituted of Rents and Profits which had accrued due since the Death of the said John Eborall the Father, or of the Interest, Dividends and Accumulations thereof, might be reversed or varied; and that such other Proceedings, if any, in the said Causes, as related to the Claim of the said John Eborall, as such Heir at Law as aforesaid, might also be reversed or varied, so far as the same might be founded on the Supposition of the said John Eborall being the Heir at Law of the said Intestate; and that it might be declared that the Petitioners William Smith, and Charlotte his Wife in her Right, and the Petitioner Elizabeth Oldham, were entitled to the said Messuages, Lands, Tenements and Hereditaments, and that the Possession thereof might be delivered to them; and that it might also be declared that they were entitled to the said Sums standing in the Name of the said Accountant General, in Trust in the said Cause, "Freeman and others v. Fairlie and others," "The Account of Rents and Profits," and to such other Sums as have been received in respect of the Rents and Profits of the said Messuages, Lands, Tenements and Hereditaments, accrued due since the Death of the said Intestate Samuel Oldham, and that the same might be transferred and paid to the said Petitioners accordingly; and that the said Petitioners might have the Benefit of the several Proceedings in the said Causes, except such of them as might be reversed or varied, as against the several Parties thereto; and that the said Petitioners might be at liberty to carry on and prosecute the several Accounts and Enquiries directed by the said Decree and Decretal Orders (so far as the same might not be reversed or varied, and so far as such Accounts and Enquiries remain to be carried on and prosecuted;) and that the said Petitioners might also have the Benefit of the said Proceedings against David Clark, in the Petitioners said Bill named, in the same Manner as if he had been a Party to the Third Supplemental Suit; and that an Account of the Rents and Profits of the said Messuages, Lands, Tenements and Hereditaments, possessed by the said Defendant David Clark, might be directed, in like Manner as an Account of such Rents and Profits received by the said Defendant John Innes, as directed by the said Decrees or Decretal Orders of the 21st of July 1826 and the 2d of April 1827, and that such other Accounts as might be necessary might be directed as to such Rents and Profits; and that the said Defendant David Clark might admit Assets of the said William Fairlie; and that an Account might (if necessary) be taken of the Personal Estate of the said William Fairlie possessed by the said Defendant David Clark; and that the said Petitioners might have further Relief in the Premises: That the Appeal presented by the said Plaintiffs does not seek to impeach any of the Proceedings in the said Cause which relate to the Claim of the Petitioner John Eborall to be Heir at Law of the said Intestate; and the said Bill exhibited by the Petitioners William Smith and Charlotte his Wife, and Elizabeth Oldham, does not seek to impeach any Part of the Proceedings in the said Cause, except those which relate to the said Claim of the Petitioner John Eborall, and does not seek to interfere with or affect any of the Matters complained of by the said Appeal; and the Petitioners William Smith and Charlotte his Wife, and Elizabeth Oldham, are willing to adopt and submit to be bound by all the Proceedings in the said Causes, (except as aforesaid,) in the same Manner as if they had been named as Parties thereto in the Room of the Petitioner John Eborall: That the Petitioners William Smith, and Charlotte his Wife in her Right, and Elizabeth Oldham, being now, under the said Verdict, to be held the Coheiresses at Law and real Representatives of the said Intestate, although they do not appear so to be on the Records of the Court of Chancery in the above Suits, where the Petitioner John Eborall appears and sustains the Character of Heir at Law, are as such deeply interested in the Decision to be made by their Lordships on the said Appeal, and they are anxious that the same should not be delayed, and they are therefore desirous of being allowed to defend the same in the Name or in the Place of the Petitioner John Eborall, and they are willing and hereby submit to be bound by the Decision to be pronounced by their Lordships on the said Appeal, in the same Way as if they had been Parties to the said Cause instead of the Petitioner John Eborall: That the Petitioner John Eborall, although he still appears as Heir at Law of the said Intestate on the Records of the Court of Chancery in the above Suits, is willing to relinquish his Right to contest the said Appeal, in Favor of the Petitioners William Smith and Charlotte his Wife, and Elizabeth Oldham, and that they should defend the said Appeal in his Name or in his Place;" and therefore praying their Lordships, That the Petitioners William Smith and Charlotte his Wife, and Elizabeth Oldham, may be admitted to the Bar of their Lordships House, in order that they may, in their Character of real Representatives of the said Intestate, defend the said Appeal so presented by the said Plaintiffs in the first-mentioned Cause, and for that Purpose may be permitted to make use of the Name or be substituted in the Place of the Petitioner John Eborall:"

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.

Thomson v. Forrester, Respondent's Petition to receive his Case, referred to Appeal Com ee.

Upon reading the Petition of Thomas Forrester, Respondent in a Cause depending in this House, to which James Thomson is Appellant; praying, "That their Lordships will be pleased to order that his Appeal Case may be now received:"

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

Maxwell & Co. v. Stevenson & Co:

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Messieurs Maxwell and Company, Cornfactors in Leith; complaining of Two Interlocutors of the Judge Admiral in Scotland, of the 17th of September and 2d of November 1829; and also of an Interlocutor of the Lords of Session there, of the Second Division, of the 2d of March 1830; and praying, "That the same may be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Appellants may have such Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that Thomas Stevenson and Company, Merchants in Leith, may be required to answer the said Appeal:"

It is Ordered, That the said Thomas Stevenson and Company may have a Copy of the said Appeal, and do put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Monday the 5th Day of April next; and Service of this Order upon the said Respondents, or upon any one of their known Agents in the Court of Session, shall be deemed good Service.

Richardson to enter into a Recog ce on it.

The House being moved, "That John Richardson of Fludyer Street, Westminster, Gentleman, may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for Messieurs Maxwell and Company, on account of their Appeal depending in this House, they being in Scotland:"

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

Humphrys v. Pratt, in Error.

The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed for hearing Counsel to argue the Errors assigned upon the Writ of Error wherein William Humphrys is Plaintiff, and Harvey Pratt is Defendant:"

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

Bryan's Petition claiming the Barony of Slane.

The Earl of Shaftesbury (by His Majesty's Command) presented to the House A Petition of George Bryan of Jenkinstown, in the County of Kilkenny, Esquire, to His Majesty; praying His Majesty "to refer the Petitioner's Claim to the House of Peers for their Lordships Consideration and Report, whether the Title of Baron of Slane be or be not a Barony in Fee, by Writ of Summons descendible to Heirs General, and whether the same is or is not now in Abeyance between Edward Lord Dunsany and the Petitioner;" together with His Majesty's Reference thereof to this House, and the Report of The Attorney General thereunto annexed.

Which Petition and Reference were read by the Clerk, and are as follow; (vizt.)

"To The King's Most Excellent Majesty.

"The humble Petition of George Bryan of Jenkinstown, in the County of Kilkenny, Esquire;

"Sheweth,

"That Thomas Fleming of Slane, in the County of Meath, Esquire, Titular Baron of Slane, on the 26th Day of April 1585, the 28th Year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, was summoned to the Parliament held before Sir John Perrott Knight, then Lord Deputy of Ireland, by the Title of Lord Slane; that he died without Male Issue the 9th of November 1597, leaving Two Daughters his Coheirs, Catharine, who became the Wife of Pierce Butler of the Old Abbey, in the County of Kilkenny, Esquire, Ancestor to the Lords Viscounts Galmoy, since attainted, and Elinor, who became the Wife of her Cousin William Fleming, Titular Baron of Slane, in the County of Meath, who as Heir Male to her Father inherited his Estates. This Title went into Abeyance between these Two Ladies.

"That Christopher Fleming, eldest Son and Heir of said Elinor by said William Fleming, was summoned to the Parliament held in Dublin on the 18th May 1613, and to that held there on 16th May 1615; and it appears he sat in both: That by the Summons of said Christopher to Parliament the Abeyance of his Grandfather's Dignity of Lord Slane, Your Majesty's Petitioner is advised, was terminated in his Favour, or that a new Peerage was created in said Christopher by such Summons, and Sitting thereon: That said Christopher Lord Baron of Slane died in the Year 1625, leaving Six Sons; 1, Thomas, his eldest Son and Heir; 2, William, Heir to his Brother; 3, John; 4, Patrick; 5, James; and 6, Lawrence; which Four last all died without Issue.

"That it appears by a King's Letter dated 13th October in the 5th Year of King Charles the First, 1629, that Thomas Fleming, Son and Heir unto "Christopher Fleming late Baron of Slane, within that Our Realm of Ireland, did, during the Lifetime of his Father, become and profess Eriar in the Parts beyond the Seas, and that the said Baron of Slane did thereupon settle all his Lands and Hereditaments in the said Kingdom, after his Decease, upon William Fleming his Second Son, and the Heirs Male of his Body, with Remainders in like Manner to other younger Brothers of the said William, wholly excluding the said Thomas, as not intending that he should succeed him, either in his Honour or Fortunes: Now, forasmuch as We are given to understand that the said Thomas Fleming, being resolved to persist in that Course of Profession, is not only content to relinquish and leave unto the said William Fleming, his Brother and Heir, the Honour and Title of Baron of Slane, and all Estates and Fortunes which by the Laws of that Kingdom are descended upon him, but doth also humbly desire that We would be graciously pleased to give Way, that during his Life his said Brother William, and the Heirs Male of his Body, might be reputed Barons of Slane; We, taking into Consideration the many Services in former Times done to Our Crown by the Ancestors of the said William, and to nourish still that good Disposition in him of whom We conceive good Hopes, We are therefore graciously pleased, and do hereby declare Our Royal Will and Pleasure to be, that the said William, and the Heirs Males of his Body, shall be from henceforth during the Life of his said elder Brother reputed, styled and called Barons of Slane; and farther Our Pleasure is, that special Care be had that in all Meetings and Assemblies of Parliament, or otherwise, where the said William shall happen to be, or the Heirs Males of his Body, in case he dye in the Lifetime of his elder Brother, that he or they shall have the same Places and Precedency which of Right belonged to his Father; but with this Caution, that if the said Thomas Fleming shall hereafter, quitting the Habit and Life which he is now entered into, return unto his Country, claiming the said Title of Honour, and the Estates cast upon him by the Law, that this Declaration of Our gracious Pleasure shall be no waies prejudicial unto him. Given under Our Signet, at Our Palace of Westminster, the 30th October in the 5th Year of Our Reign," &c.

"William Fleming, the 2d Son, under the foregoing Authority, was allowed to take his Seat in Parliament, as appears by the Journals of the House of Lords on the 14th July 1634, his Brother Thomas being then alive: He married Lady Anne Macdonnell, Daughter of Randall Earl of Antrim, by whom he had Issue Four Sons; 1, Charles, his Heir; 2, Randall, Heir to his Brother; 3, Michael, who died unmarried; and, 4, Thomas, whose Issue are extinct; and, dying in 1641, was succeeded by his eldest Son,

"Charles Fleming Lord Baron of Slane, who died unmarried, and was succeeded by his Brother,

"Randall Fleming Lord Baron of Slane, who married Two Wives; first, Elinor Barnwall, Daughter of Sir Richard Barnwall of Crickstown, in Meath, Knight, by whom he had an only Daughter, Mary, who married, first, Richard Fleming Esquire, eldest Son of Sir John Fleming of Staholmock, and, 2dly, Oliver O'Gara Esquire; by the last Husband she had a Son, Charles, who died unmarried, at Brussels, 1785; by her first Husband, Richard Fleming, said Mary had an only Son, James Fleming, who died young and unmarried, and an only Daughter, Bridget, who became the Wife of Randall Plunket, 11th Lord Baron of Dunsany, Whose eldest Son and Heir, Edward, became 12th Lord Baron of Dunsany, and left Randall, 13th Lord Baron of Dunsany, his Son and Heir, whose eldest Son and Heir is Edward, now 14th Lord Baron of Dunsany, Heir General of Mary Fleming, eldest Daughter of said Randall Lord Baron of Slane.

"That the said Randall Lord Baron of Slane married to his second Wife Lady Penelope Moore, Daughter of Henry, first Earl of Drogheda, by whom he had Three Sons and One Daughter; 1, Christopher, his Heir; 2, Henry, who died without Issue; and 3, Randall, who also died without Issue: The Daughter was Alice, hereafter mentioned: Randall Lord Slane died about the Year 1676.

"Christopher Fleming, Lord Baron of Slane, succeeded his Father, and taking Part with King James the Second, was outlawed for High Treason, and forfeited his Honours and Estates, but was afterwards restored in Blood, but not to his Estates, by an Act of the English Parliament in 1708: He married the Daughter of Sir Patrick Trant, and dying, left an only Daughter and Heir, Ellen, who died unmarried, and was buried in the Parish of St. Sulpice, at Paris, 8th August 1748, on whose Death the Peerage of Lord Baron of Slane went into Abeyance between the Heirs of Mary and Alice, the Two Daughters of Randall Lord Baron of Slane: The Descent of Mary the elder has been before herein recited.

"Alice Fleming, only Daughter of said Randall Lord Baron of Slane by his second Wife, became the Wife of Sir Gregory Byrne of Tymoge, in the Queen's County, Baronet, by whom she had several Sons; Charles, the elder, married, and had several Children, who all died without Issue; and Henry Byrne, the second Son, left an only Daughter and Heir, Catherine Xaveria, who became the Wife of George Bryan of Portland Place, London, Esquire, by whom she had George Bryan, now of Jenkinstown, in the County of Kilkenny, Esquire, her only surviving Son and Heir, Your Majesty's Petitioner, who is now sole Heir of Alice, youngest Daughter of Randall Lord Baron of Slane, and as such One of the Two Coheirs General of said Randall Lord Baron of Slane, of his Father William Lord Baron of Slane, and of his Grandfather Christopher Lord Baron of Slane, summoned to Parliament in 1613 and 1615, in whose Favour the Abeyance was terminated of the Peerage created in his Maternal Grandfather William Lord Baron of Slane, in 1584-5.

"That Your Majesty's Petitioner presented an humble Petition to Your Majesty in May 1828, praying that, as One of the Coheirs of the aforesaid Randall Lord Baron of Slane, he might be allowed to produce Evidence, and use such Arguments as he should be advised, for the Protection of his Rights, before Your Majesty's Attorney General for England, to whom the Petition of Mr.James Fleming, who claimed to be (and has assumed the Title and calls himself) Lord Baron of Slane, on the Allegation that he is Heir Male of The Honorable John Fleming, Uncle of the aforesaid Randall Lord Baron of Slane, and as such now Heir Male of said Randall: That Your Majesty's Petitioner's said Petition was graciously referred to Your Majesty's Attorney General, before whom Petitioner attended by his Agents and Counsel: That Mr.James Fleming closed his Case before The Attorney General, and Petitioner proved his Descent and Coheirship; but Petitioner believes The Attorney General has not yet made a Report thereon.

"That Mr.James Fleming, founding his Claim on a Ground altogether new and unprecedented, as Petitioner is advised, that there are Peerages in Ireland originating previously to the Introduction of either Writs of Summons or Patents, which have always descended to the Heirs Male, and that this Peerage of Slane is one of them, thus alledging a new Point of Law involving the Rights and Privileges of the antient Peers of the Realm, and the Laws affecting the same; a Point which Petitioner most humbly conceives requires the most solemn Investigation and Decision.

"That a Claim involving the same Question has been made to the Title of Athenry, another antient Irish Title, which has been twice investigated, first before Sir John Copley (now Lord Lyndhurst,) and secondly before Sir James Scarlet, when they respectively held the Office of Attorney General of England, and neither of those learned Individuals, as Petitioner has heard and believes, made any Report thereon; and Your Majesty's Attorney General Sir Charles Wetherell Knight having had the whole Evidence in these Claims for the Title of Slane before him since August last, and did not make any Report thereon; and as Your Majesty's Petitioner is advancing in Years, he is most anxious to have a Question of such urgent Importance to himself and his Family decided by the highest and most competent Tribunal; and as the Claim of Mr. James Fleming has already been before the House of Peers, and Proceedings have been had before the Committee for Privileges of their Lordships thereon, and as all Cases of Claims to Irish Peerages must eventually be decided by their Lordships Vote, by a Provision of the Act of Union,

"May it therefore please Your Most Excellent Majesty to refer Your Petitioner's Claim to the House of Peers, for their Lordships Consideration and Report, whether the said Title be or be not a Barony in Fee, by Writ of Summons descendible to Heirs General, and whether the same is or is not now in Abeyance between the said Edward Lord Dunsany and Your Majesty's humble Petitioner; or to make such other Order in the Premises as to Your Majesty's Royal Wisdom shall seem meet.

"And Petitioner will pray.

"Geo. Bryan."

"Whitehall, 8th June 1829.

"His Majesty is pleased to refer this Petition to Mr. Attorney General, to consider thereof, and report his Opinion what may be properly done therein; whereupon His Majesty's further Pleasure will be declared.

"Robert Peel."

"Whitehall, 4th March 1830.

"The King, being moved upon this Petition, is pleased to refer the same (together with the Report of The Attorney General thereunto annexed) to The Right Honorable The House of Peers, to examine the Allegations thereof, as to what relates to the Petitioner's Title herein mentioned, and to inform His Majesty how the same shall appear to their Lordships.

"Rob. Peel."

Ordered, That the said Petition, with His Majesty's Reference thereof to this House, and the Attorney General's Report thereunto annexed, be referred to the Consideration of the Lords Committees for Privileges; whose Lordships, having considered thereof, and heard such Persons concerning the same as they shall think fit, are to report their Opinion thereupon to the House.

Hamerton's Divorce Bill.

It was moved, "That the Order made on Monday the 22d of February last, "That the Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the Marriage of William Medows Hamerton Esquire with Isabella Frances his now Wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other Purposes," be read a Second Time on Wednesday the 10th of March next, and that the Lords be summoned," be now read."

The same was accordingly read by the Clerk.

Ordered. That the said Order be discharged.

Ordered, That the said Bill be read a Second Time on Wednesday the 17th of this instant March; and that the Lords be summoned.

26th Report of Carnatic Com rs delivered.

The House being informed, "That Mr. Parkhouse, from the Carnatic Commissioners, attended;"

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

"The Twenty-sixth Report of the Commissioners appointed under an Agreement concluded on the 10th of July 1805 between The East India Company and the Private Creditors of the late Nabobs of the Carnatic."

And then he withdrew.

And the Title thereof being read by the Clerk;

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

Slavery, Petition from Hanley & Shelton for Abolition of.

Upon reading the Petition of the Inhabitants of Hanley and Shelton, in Staffordshire, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying, "That their Lordships will take the Case of the Slaves in the British Colonies into their earliest and most earnest Consideration; and that their Lordships will not permit any Motives of mere Expediency to turn them from imparting the Justice required at their Hands, by bringing about their Freedom in the most wise, speedy and effectual Manner:"

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

East India, &c. Trade, Petition from Oldham for throwing open, referred to East India Com ee.

Upon reading the Petition of the Merchants, Manufacturers and others, Inhabitants of Oldham, in the County of Lancaster, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships, "That the Commercial Interests of the Nation may be promoted, by throwing open, as speedily as practicable, the Trade with the Countries comprehended in and affected by The East India Company's Charter, and that no further Extension of that Charter may be granted:"

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

Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to the Lords Committees 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.

Officers of State for Scotland v. Com rs of Supply for Wigton et al.

Ordered, That the Cause wherein His Majesty's Officers of State for Scotland are Appellants, and the Commissioners of Supply for the County of Wigton, and their Collectors, and others, are Respondents, be further heard by Counsel at the Bar on Wednesday next.

Kirkpatrick v. Innes et al.

Ordered, That the Cause wherein John Kirkpatrick Esquire is Appellant, and Mrs. Isobel Innes or Clephane, and others, are Respondents, be heard by Counsel at the Bar on Wednesday next.

Muskett's Divorce Bill, Witnesses to attend.

Ordered, That Charlotte Lucy Holding and Joseph Muskett do attend this House on Friday next, in order to their being examined as Witnesses upon the Second Reading of the Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the Marriage of Joseph Salisbury Muskett Esquire with Mary Muskett his now Wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other Purposes."

Lords summoned, Order for, discharged.

It was moved, "That the Order made on Monday the 1st of this instant March, "That all the Lords be summoned to attend the Service of the House on Thursday the 11th of this instant March," be now read."

The same was accordingly read by the Clerk.

Ordered, That the said Order be discharged.

Marriages validating Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to render valid Marriages solemnized in certain Churches and Chapels."

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 Thursday next.

Distress of the Country, Petition from Bedworth respecting.

Upon reading the Petition of the Ribbon Manufacturers, Weavers and other Inhabitants of Bedworth, in the County of Warwick, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying, "That their Lordships will take their distressed Situation into their serious Consideration, and adopt such Measures as shall be calculated to ensure their permanent Relief, which the Petitioners imagine can only be effected by a Suspension of the present partial System of Free Trade 'till the Corn Laws are abolished, and such a general Reduction of Taxation is made as shall place the Petitioners on equal Terms with the Manufacturers and Operatives of other Countries:"

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

Hindoo Widows, Petitions from Alcester against the Practice of burning, &c.

Upon reading the Petition of the Inhabitants of Alcester and its Vicinity, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships "to adopt such Measures as may be deemed most expedient and effectual for the Suppression of the Custom of burning of Widows with the dead Bodies of their Husbands, and other Customs by which Human Life is wantonly sacrificed, and which continue to be practised in various Parts of British India with undiminished Frequency, in gross Violation of the Law of God and of the Rights and Feelings of Humanity, so abhorrent to the British Character, and so opposed to the Welfare of our Indian Possessions, and thus remove the Stigma which at present attaches to our National Character, and relieve the Inhabitants of British India from this cruel Scourge:"

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

Upon reading the Petition of the Female Inhabitants of Alcester and its Vicinity, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships "to adopt such Measures as may be deemed most expedient and effectual for the Suppression of those atrocious and sanguinary Practices, the burning of Widows with the dead Bodies of their Husbands, the Destruction of Female Children, and other dreadful Customs by which Human Life is sacrificed, and which is continued to be practised in British India, in Violation of the Law of God and the Feelings of Humanity, so degrading to the Character, and disgusting to the Moral Feelings of every British Female:"

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

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandam esse usque ad et in diem Martis, nonum diem instantis Martii, horâ undecimâ Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.