House of Lords Journal Volume 31
January 1765, 11-20

Sponsor

History of Parliament Trust

Publication

Year published

1767-1830

Pages

8-13

Annotate

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

Citation Show another format:

'House of Lords Journal Volume 31: January 1765, 11-20', Journal of the House of Lords volume 31: 1765-1767 (1767-1830), pp. 8-13. URL: http://british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=113232 Date accessed: 20 April 2014. Add to my bookshelf


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Contents

Die Veneris, 11o Januarii.
French and Netterville against Kelly & al. Darcy against Mitchell & al. His Majesty to be attended with the Address. Wishart & al. against Magistrates of Edinburgh. Bridges against Shirley. Adjourn. Die Martis, 15o Januarii.
M'Donald against M'Donald. His Majesty’s Answer to the Answer reported. His Majesty’s Message, relating to the Maintenance of French personers of War: Papers delivered East India Goods and Naval Stores, &c. Accounts delivered. Mr. Strutt to assist the Clerk Assistant in the Execution of his Office. Whaley against Bagenal. Ly. Forbes & al. against L. Forbes. Causes removed. French & al. against Farrel. & al. Darcy against Mitchell & al. Erskine & al. against Magistrates of Stirling M’Donald against M’Donald. Banks and Brougham, for Sale of Dobinson‘s Estate, Pet. referred to Judges. Edgworth against Edgworth. Blair & al. against Sir W. Moncrief. New College, Oxford, Pet. referred to Judges. Respondents peremptorily to answer Boston’s Appeal. Respondents peremptorily to answer Charles’s Appeal. Spottiswood to enter into Recognizance on the Appeal of Dr. Wishart & al. Dobbyn against Barker & al. Adjourn. Die Jovis, 17o Januarii
Charles against Rowlley. Mercers Company Accompts delivered. Proceedings of the Commissioners for paving Westminster, delivered. Pleadings, &c. proved in Two Causes. Respondents peremptorily to answer French’s Appeal. Respondents peremptorily to answer Hamilton’s Appeal. McIntos to answer the Appeal of His Majesty’s Advocate. Levy to answer Gordon’s Appeal. Cunningham against Weir. Cunningham against Kinnear. Charles against Rowley. Chamberlain of London against Shease; Writ of Error. Wainwright to enter into a Recognizance on Edgworth’s Appeal. Wilson’s Petition referred to Judges. Spalding against Laurie. Charles against Rowley: Pleadings proved Adjourn.

Die Veneris, 11o Januarii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

Epus. Roffen. Comes Northington, Cancellarius. Ds. Botetourt.
Epus. Cicestrien. Comes Gower, Camerarius.
Epus. Bangor. Comes Shaftesbury.
Epus. Bristol. Comes Abercorn.
Epus. Exon. Comes Marchmont.
Vis. Wentworth.

PRAYERS.

French and Netterville against Kelly & al.

The Answer of John Kelly of Fidane Esquire and Jane his Wife, Denis Daly Esquire, and John Farrell, otherwise Kelly, a Minor, by Richard Holmes his Guardian, Four of the Respondents to the Appeal of Arthur French and Edmund Netterville Esquires:

Also, the Answer of Richard Farrell otherwise Caddell, Thomas Caddell, and Robert Caddell, Three other of the Respondents to the same Appeal:

And also, the Answer of John Kelly of Lackban Esquire, the other Respondent to the same Appeal;

Were this Day brought in.

Darcy against Mitchell & al.

Also, the Answer of Henry Mitchell Esquire, the Right Honourable Nathaniel Clements Esquire, and Carleton Whitelock Esquire, and of Mary King and Margaret King Spinsters, Heirs at Law and Devisees of Maccarell King Esquire, deceased, Infants, by the said Henry Mitchell their next Friend and Guardian, and of Michael Clarke, Robert King, and James King Esquire, Eight of the Respondents to the Appeal of Francis Darcy and Nicholas Darcy, was this Day brought in.

His Majesty to be attended with the Address.

The Lord Chamberlain reported, “That the Lords with White Staves had (according to Order) waited on His Majesty, humbly to know what Time His Majesty would please to appoint, to be attended with their Lordships Address; and that His Majesty had appointed this Day, at Two o’Clock, at His Palace of Saint James.”

Wishart & al. against Magistrates of Edinburgh.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of George against Wishart Doctor in Divinity, Patrick Cumming Doctor in Divinity, Mr. John Glen, Robert Wallace Doctor in Divinity, Alexander Webster Doctor in Divinity, John Jardine Doctor in Divinity, George Kay Doctor in Divinity, Mr. Robert Walker, Hugh Blair Doctor in Divinity, Robert Duck Doctor in Divinity, Daniel Macqueen Doctor Divinity, Mr. Henry Lundie, William Robertson Doctor in Divinity, Mr. John Erskine, and Mr. John Drysdale, all Ministers of the City of Edinburgh, the Moderator of the Presbytery at Edinburgh, and David Dalrymple Esquire Procurator for the Church of Scotland ; complaining of an Interlocutor of the Court of Session in Scotland, of the 12th of December 1764; and praying, “That the same may be reversed, varied, or altered; or that the Appellants may have such Relief in the Premises as to their Lordships shall seem just; and that the Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of Edinburgh, may be required to answer the said Appeal:”

It is Ordered, That the Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of Edinburgh, may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and do put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Friday the 8th Day of February next; and Service of this Order on the said Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council, or upon any of their known Procurators or Agents before the Court of Session in Scotland, shall be deemed good Service.

Bridges against Shirley.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of William Bridges Esquire; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Exchequer, of the 4th Day of July 1764; and praying, “That the same may be reversed; or that the Appellant may have such other Relief as to their Lordships shall seem meet; and that Lewis Shirley and Mary his Wife, and Ann Craven, may be required to answer the said Appeal :”

It is Ordered, That the said Lewis Shirley and Mary his Wife, and Ann Graven, may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and do put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Friday the 25th Day of this Instant January.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Martis, decimum quintum diem instantis Januarii, hora undecima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.

Die Martis, 15o Januarii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

Epus. Duresm. Dux Somerset. Ds. Botetourt.
Epus. Winton. Dux Richmond. Ds. St. John Blet.
Epus. Litch. & Cov. Dux Argyll. Ds. Clifton.
Epus. Wigorn. Dux Bridgewater. Ds. Leigh.
Epus. Bangor. March. Rockingham. Ds. Masham.
Epus. Glocestr. Comes Gower, Camerarius. Ds. Bathurst.
Epus. Meneven. Comes Huntingdon. Ds. Chedworth.
Epus. Landav. Comes Denbigh. Ds. Mansfield.
Epus. Lincoln. Comes Westmorland. Ds. Grantham.
Epus. Bristol. Comes Sandwich. Ds. Grosvenor.
Epus. Exon. Comes Scarbrough. Ds. Boston.
Comes Holdernesse. Ds. Lovel & Holl’d.
Comes Scarbrough.Ds. Beaulieu.
Comes Albemarle.
Comes Eglintoun.
Comes Abercorn.
Comes Marchmont.
Comes Hyndford.
Comes Bute.
Comes Aylesford.
Comes Halifax.
Comes Macclesfield.
Comes Pomfret.
Comes Waldegrave.
Comes Northumberland.
Comes Hardwicke.
Viscount Townshend.
Viscount Weymouth.
Viscount Wentworth.
Viscount Courtenay.

PRAYERS

The Lord Mansfield, Lord Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, sat Speaker, by virtue of a former Commission.

M'Donald against M'Donald.

The Answer of Alexander Mac Donald of Boisdale, to the Appeal of Lieutenant John Mac Donald Younger of Moror, was this Day brought in.

His Majesty’s Answer to the Answer reported.

The Lord Mansfield Speaker reported, “That the House did, on Friday last, present their Address to His Majesty; to which His Majesty was pleased to return the following most Gracious Answer; videlicet,

“My Lords,

“I thank you for this dutiful and affectionate Address. The Satisfaction which you express, on the intended Marriage of My Sister, the Princess Caroline Matilda, is particularly agreeable to Me: And I accept with Pleasure the Assurances you give Me of your zealous Endeavours for the Advancement of the Prosperity of My Kingdoms, and the Happiness of My People, which I shall ever have most sincerely at Heart.”

Ordered, That the said Address, and His Majesty’s most Gracious Answer thereunto, be forthwith printed and published.

His Majesty’s Message, relating to the Maintenance of French personers of War:

The Earl of Halifax acquainted the House, “That he had a Message from His Majesty, under His Royal Sign Manual, which His Majesty had commanded him to deliver to their Lordships.”

And the same was read, by the Speaker, as follows:

GEORGE R.
His Majesty, having received from the Ambassador of the Most Christian King a Declaration made by Order of his Court, containing a Proposal for the speedy Settlement of the Accompts concerning the Subsistence and Maintenance of Prisoners of War, and for the Discharge of the Balance due thereon, is desirous, as the Parliament is now sitting, to know their Sense, before He takes His final Resolution upon this Subject; and has therefore ordered a Copy of the above-mentioned Declaration, together with the Accompts referred to therein, to be laid before this House.
“G. R.

Papers delivered

The Earl of Halifax likewise (by His Majesty’s Command) laid before the House,

“Copy of a Declaration, made by Order of His Most Christian Majesty, containing a Proposal for the more speedy Settlement of the Accompts concerning the Subsistence and Maintenance of Prisoners of War, and for the Discharge of the Balance due thereon, dated the 5th Day of January 1765 ;” and Translation.

“Copy of an Accompt, delivered by Order of His Most Christian Majesty, being a State of the Expense for the Maintenance and Subsistence of English Prisoners of War, who were detained in France during the late War, and at Martinique and Guadeloupe during the Year 1756 ;” and Translation.

“Accompt, shewing the Charge of maintaining and supporting French Prisoners of War, in His Majesty’s Dominions at Home and Abroad, between the 14th October 1755 and the 11th November 1762; distinguishing the Expense of subsisting those confined in Prisons, in Hospitals, and on Parole, respectively, and the Number who have been subsisted daily on an Average in each Year during the Time above-mentioned; with an Abstract of the total Charge, and the estimated Expense of maintaining and supporting for One Week, or One Day, the Number of Prisoners remaining in England at the Time this Accompt ends.”

“Articles whereon the Charge of £. 121,990. 1s. 1d mentioned in the general Accompt of subsisting French Prisoners of War to the IIth of November 1762, was incurred.”

And the Titles thereof being read, by the Clerk:
Ordered, That the said Papers do lie on the Table.

Ordered, That this House will take into Consideration His Majesty’s laid most Gracious Message on Monday next; and the Lords to be summoned.

East India Goods and Naval Stores, &c. Accounts delivered.

The House being informed, “That some of the Commissioners of the Customs attended:”

They were called in; and delivered, at the Bar, pursuant to several Acts of Parliament,

“The Return of the said Commissioners; with the following Accounts; (videlicet,)

“1. An Account of prohibited East India Goods brought into the East India Warehouses in Saint Hellens, since at Michaelmas 1763; what exported, and also what remained in the said Warehouses at Michaelmas 1764.”

“2. Account of prohibited East India Goods brought into the East India Warehouses in Leadenhall and Billiter Lane, in the Port of London, from Michaelmas 1763 to Michaelmas 1764; what exported, and what remained in the said Warehouses at Michaelmas 1764.”

“3. An Account of prohibited East India Goods remaining in His Majesty’s Warehouse in the Port of London at Michaelmas 1763; what have been since brought in, what exported, as also what remained at Michaelmas 1764.”

“4. An Account of East India Goods prohibited to be worn in this Kingdom, in the respective Warehouses in the Out Ports, at Michaelmas 1763; what have been since brought in, what exported, as also what remained Michaelmas 1764.”

“5. An Account of prohibited East India Goods, which have been delivered out of the Warehouses at Saint Hellens, Leadenhall, Billiler Lane, and Customhouse, in the Port of London, since Michaelmas 1763, in order to be dyed, glazed, and refreshed; what have been returned, and what remained at Michaelmas 1764.”

“6. An Account of Naval Stores imported Russia into the Port of London, from Michaelmas to Michaelmas 1764.”

“7. An Account of Naval Stores imported from Russia into the Ports of England (commonly called the Out Ports), from Michaelmas1763, to Michaelmas 1764.”

“An Account of the Number of Ships which have been employed in the Whale Fishery to Davis’s Streights and The Greenland Seas, with their respective Names and Burdens; from whence they were fitted out, and at what Port in Great Britain they were discharged; and also what Quantity of Oil or Whale Fins each Ship has imported in the Year 1764.”

And then they were directed to withdraw.

Add the Titles thereof being read, by the Clerk:

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

Mr. Strutt to assist the Clerk Assistant in the Execution of his Office.

Upon reading the Petition of Joseph Wight, Clerk Assistant in this most Honourable House; “begging Leave, with the utmost Duty and Gratitude, to acknowledge the many Instances of their Lordships Favour and Indulgence to him in the Course of Forty Years and upwards, in which he has had the Honour to be employed in their Lordships Service” and setting forth,“ That, in the last Session of Parliament, the Petitioner was seized with a Fit of Sickness, which utterly disabled him from attending his Duty in this House; upon which Occasion, their Lordships were pleased to permit Mr. Samuel Strutt, One of the Clerks in the Parliament Office, to officiate for him during his Inability to attend, or until the further Order of the House; which Mr. Strutt performed for the Remainder of the Session; and the Petitioner has satisfied him for his Trouble and alleging;” That the Petitioner is very ready and willing (as his Duty requires) to execute his said Office to the best of his Ability; but, as the State of his Health, from the Consequences of his last Illness, is still precarious, expressing his Apprehensions, that (although he hopes he shall be able to attend regularly) he may not be able to execute the Whole of the Business of his said Office, in the Manner the same ought to be performed, without some temporary Assistance as Occasion may require;” and therefore praying, “In Regard the said Mr. Strutt has had some Experience in the Business of the said Office, that he may be again permitted to give the Petitioner such Assistance in the Execution of his said Office, during the Sitting of the House, as may be compatible and not intersere with the Execution of the Office which the said Mr. Strutt now holds in the Parliament-office, upon the Petitioner’s making him a proper Compensation for the same;”

It is Ordered, That the said Mr. Strutt be permitted to give the Petitioner such Assistance in the Execution of his said Office, as prayed by his laid Petition, until the further Order of this House.

Whaley against Bagenal.

The House being moved, “That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Richard Chappel Whale, Esquire is Appellant, and Beauchamp Bagenal Esquire is Respondent:”

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

Ly. Forbes & al. against L. Forbes.

Ordered, That the Hearing of the Cause wherein the Lady Dowager Forbes and others are Appellants, and James Lord Forbes is Respondent, which stands appointed for To-morrow, be put off till Friday the 25th Instant.

Causes removed.

Ordered, That the Hearing of the Cause wherein the Duke of Hamilton and others are Appellants, and John Cochran is Respondent, which stands appointed for Friday next, be put off till the Wednesday following; and that the other Causes be removed in Course.

French & al. against Farrel. & al.

The House being moved, “That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Arthur French and Edmund Netterville of the City of Dublin Esquire are Appellants, and Richard Farrell and others are Respondents:”

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

Darcy against Mitchell & al.

The House being moved, “That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Francis Darcy and Nicholas Darcy are Appellants, and Henry Mitchell and others are Respondents:”

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

Erskine & al. against Magistrates of Stirling

The House being moved, “That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Thomas Erskine of Alloa, commonly called Lord Erskine, and other, are Appellants, and Magistrates and Town Council of Struling are Respondents:”

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

M’Donald against M’Donald.

The House being moved, “That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein John MacDonald Younger of Moror is Appellant, and Alexander Mac Donald is Respondent:”

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

Banks and Brougham, for Sale of Dobinson‘s Estate, Pet. referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of Dorothy Banks Widow, Mother and Guardian, and on the Behalf, of Abraham Banks her Son, an Infant, by Joseph Banks her late Husband, deceased; and also of Thomas Brougham the Guardian, for and on the Behalf of Joseph Banks, also an Infant, and claiming to be the Son of the said Joseph Banks deceased, by Elizabeth Banks, formerly Elizabeth, Brougham, who is alleged to be his First Wife; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, for vesting certain Estates late of Abraham Dobinson deceased, in the County of Cumberland, in Trustees, to be sold; and for applying the Money arising by such Sale for the Purposes therein mentioned:

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby, referred to the Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer and Mr. Justice Gould; 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.

Edgworth against Edgworth.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Edward Edgworth Esquire; complaining of an Order of Court of Chancery in Ireland, of the 24th of May 1760; and also of a Decree of the same Court, of the 1st of March 1763; made in a Cause wherein Moore Edgworth and Damer Edgworth, by the Reverend John Magill Clerk, their Guardian and next Friend, were Plaintiffs, and the Appellant and others were Defendants; and praying, “That the same may be reversed or rectified, as to their Lordships shall seem just; and that the said John Magill, Moore Edgworth, and Damer Edgworth, may be required to answer the said Appeal:”

It is Ordered, That the said John Magill, Moore Edgworth, and Damer Edgworth, may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and do put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Tuesday the 19th Day of February next; and Service of this Order on the said Respondents, or on their Clerk in Court, or Solicitor, shall be deemed good Service.

Blair & al. against Sir W. Moncrief.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Alexander Blair and others, Creditors of the deceased Sir Thomas Moncrief of Moncrief; complaining of Two Interlocutors of the Lord Ordinary in Scotland, of the 29th of July and 30th of November 1758; of Two Interlocutors of the Lords of Session there, of the 3d of July and 8th of December 1759; of Two Interlocutors of the Lord Ordinary, of the 5th of August 1760, and 21st of January 1761; and also of Two Interlocutors of the said Lords of Session, of the 16th of December 1761, and 23d of February 1762; and praying, “That the same may be reversed, or that the Appellants may have such Relief in the Premises as to their Lordships shall seem just;” and that Sir William Moncrief may be required to answer the said Appeal:

It is Ordered, That the said Sir William Moncrief may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and do put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Tuesday the 12th Day of February next; and Service of this Order on the said Sir William Moncrief, or his known Agents or Solicitors in the Court of Session in Scotland, shall be deemed good Service.

New College, Oxford, Pet. referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of Thomas Hayward Doctor of Laws, the Warden and Scholars of Saint Mary College of Winchester in Oxford, commonly called New College in Oxford ; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, for annexing the Rectory of Colerne, in the County of Wilts and Diocese of Salisbury, to the Office of Warden of the said College, with such Provisions as to their Lordships shall seem proper:

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby, referred to the Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer and Mr. Baron Smythe, who are forthwith to summon all Parties concerned in the Bill; and, after hearing them, are to report to the House the Stare 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.

Respondents peremptorily to answer Boston’s Appeal.

The House was informed, “That William Barton the Elder and Grace his Wife, and Thomas Barton and William Barton the Younger, their Sons, Respondents to the Appeal of Thomas Barton the Elder of Bourdeaux in the Kingdom of France, had not put in their Answer to the said Appeal, though duly served with an Order of this House for that Purpose.

And thereupon an Affidavit of George Cannon of the City of Dublin Gentleman, of the due Service of the said order, being read:

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

Respondents peremptorily to answer Charles’s Appeal.

The House was also informed, “That Hercules Langford Rowley, Respondent to the Appeal of Charles Vipont Charles Esquire, had not put in his Answer to the said Appeal though duly served with the Order of this House for that Purpose.

And thereupon an Affidavit of Charles Dingman of the City of Dublin Gentleman, of the due Service of the said Order, being read:

Ordered, That thee said Respondent do put in his Answer to the said Appeal, peremptorily, in a Week.

Spottiswood to enter into Recognizance on the Appeal of Dr. Wishart & al.

The House being moved, “That John Spottiswoode of The Inner Temple, London, Esquire may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for Doctor George Wishart and others, on account of their Appeal depending in this House; they living in Scotland:”

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

Dobbyn against Barker & al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Robert Dobbyn the Younger, late of the City of Waterford in the Kingdom of Ireland, but now of The Middle Temple, London, Esquire; complaining of an Order of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, of the 2d Day of June 1764; and praying, “That the same may be reversed and set aside; or that the Appellants may have such Relief in the Premises as the Nature and Circumstances of the Case may require; and that Francis Barker, Samuel Barker, Hans Thomas Fell, Cornelius Bolton, and Robert Dobbyn the Elder, may be required to answer the said Appeal:”

It is Ordered, That the said Francis Barker, Samuel Barker, Hans Thomas Fell, Comcluis Bolton, and Robert Dobbyn the Elder, may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and do put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Tuesday the 19th Day of February next; and Service of this Order on the Clerks in Court or Agents of the said Respondents in the said Court of Chancery in Ireland shall be deemed good Service.

Adjourn.

Dominus Mansfield, Capitalis Justiciarius Banci Regii, declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Jovis, decimum septimum diem instantis Januarii, hora undecima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.

Die Jovis, 17o Januarii

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

Epus. Duresm. Dux Somerset. Ds. Abergavenny.
Epus. Eliens. Dux Richmond. Ds. Botetourt.
Epus. Sarum. Dux Portland. Ds. Leigh.
Epus. Litch. & Cov. March. Rockingham. Ds. Masham.
Epus. Cestrien. Comes Denbigh. Ds. Ducie.
Epus. Wigorn. Comes Sandwich. Ds. Manson.
Epus. Glocestr. Comes Plymouth. Ds. Edgecumbe.
Epus. Carliol. Comes Abercorn. Ds. Sandys.
Epus. Exon. Comes Marchmont. Ds. Hyde.
Comes Hyndford. Ds. Mansfield.
Comes Halifax. Ds. Scarsdale.
Comes Northumberland. Ds. Boston.
Comes Hardwicke. Ds. Lovel & Holland.
Viscount Weymouth. Ds. Milton.
Viscount Wentworth.

PRAYERS.

The Lord Mansfield sat Speaker.

Charles against Rowlley.

The Answer of the Right Honourable Hercules Langford Rowley Esquire, to the Appeal of Charles Vipont Charles Esquire, was this Day brought in.

Mercers Company Accompts delivered.

The House being informed, “That Mr. Cawne, Clerk to the Mercers Company, attended:”

He was called in; and delivered, at the Bar,

The Accompts of the Wardens and Commonalty of the Mystery of Mercers of the City of London, from the 10th of October 1763, to the 10th of October 1764; directed to be laid before each House of Parliament by Two several Acts, the One of the 21st Year of the Reign of His late Majesty King George the Second, intituled, “An Act for the Relief of the Annuitants of the Wardens and Commonalty of the Mystery of Mercers of the City of London;” and the other of the 4th Year of the Reign of His present Majesty King George the Third, intituled, “An Act for the Relief of the Bond and other Creditors of the Wardens and Commonalty of the Mystery of Mercers of the City of London.”

And then he was directed to withdraw.

And the Title thereof being read by the Clerk:

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

Proceedings of the Commissioners for paving Westminster, delivered.

The House being informed, “That Mr. Box, from the Commissioners for paving, &c. the Streets in Westm’r, attended:”

He was called in; and delivered, at the Bar, Two Books; containing,

A Copy of the Proceedings of the Commissioners for executing Three several Acts of Parliament, made in the Second, Third, and Fourth, Years of His present Majesty’s Reign, for paving, cleansing, and lighting, the Squares, Streets, and Lanes, Within the City and Liberty of Westminster, &c. and of all Contracts and Agreements made by the said Commissioners, from the 8th Day of December 1763, to the 9th Day of January 1765, both inclusive.”

Copies of the Accompts of the Treasurer to the Commissioners for paving, cleansing, and lighting, the City and Liberty of Westminster, of the Receivers to the said Commissioners, and of the Bank of England with the said Commissioners, to the 29th of December 1764, inclusive.”

And then he was directed to withdraw:

And the Titles thereof being read by the Clerk:

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

Pleadings, &c. proved in Two Causes.

The House was informed, “That Walter Sweetman attended, in order to deliver in Copies of Pleadings and Proceedings relating to Two Causes depending in this House; in one of which, Arthur French and Edmund Netterville Esquires are Appellants, and Richard Farrell otherwise Cadell and others are Respondents; and in the other, Charles Vipont Charles Esquire is Appellant, and Hercules Langford Rowley Esquire is Respondent.”

And thereupon he was called in, and delivered the same at the Bar; and attested upon Oath, “They were true Copies, he having examined them with the Originals in the proper Offices in Ireland.

And then he was directed to withdraw.

Respondents peremptorily to answer French’s Appeal.

The House was informed “That Sir Henry Lynch and Dame Mary his Wife, Henry Lord Viscount Kingsland and Honoria his Wife, Thomas Earl of Lowth and Margaret his Wife, Charles Daly Esquire and Anastasia his Wife, Robert French, Anthony French, Ignatius Blake, Miles Burke, Andrew Lynch, Denis Daly, John Taylor, Elizabeth Daly Widow, James Daly, Robert French of Moneva, John Taylor, Guy Atkinson Clerk, Robert Hamilton, Thomas Rutledge, Walter Burke, Edmund Burke, Mark French, and John Skerrett, Respondents to the Appeal of Arthur French and Edmund Nettervile of the City of Dublin Esquires, had not put in their Answer to the said Appeal, though duly served with the Order of this House for that Purpose.”

And thereupon an Affidavit of George Cannon Gentleman, of the due Service of the said Order, being read:

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

Respondents peremptorily to answer Hamilton’s Appeal.

The House was informed, “That Gustavus Lambart and Christopher Nicholson, Two of the Respondents to the Appeal of Richard Hamilton Esquire, had not put in their Answer to the said Appeal, though duly served with the Order of this House for that Purpose.”

And thereupon an Affidavit of John Dowdall of the City of Dublin Gentleman, of the due Service of the said Order, being read:

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

McIntos to answer the Appeal of His Majesty’s Advocate.

The House was informed, “That Æneas McIntosh Respondent to the Appeal of His Majesty’s Advocate for Scotland, had not put in his Answer to the said Appeal, though duly served with the Order of this House for that Purpose.”

And thereupon an Affidavit of Thomas Blackhall Clerk to John Russell Clerk to His Majesty’s Signet, of the due Service of the said Order, being read:

Ordered, That the said Respondent do put in his Answer to the said Appeal peremptorily in a Week.

Levy to answer Gordon’s Appeal.

The House was informed, “That Judy Levy, One of the Respondents to the Appeal of the Honourable Lockhart Gordon, Administrator of Isabella Gordon, formerly Levy, his late Wife, deceased, had not put in her Answer to the said Appeal, though duly served with the Order of this House for that Purpose.”

And thereupon an Affidavit of William Ross of Bloomsbury Gentleman, of the due Service of the said Order, being read:

Ordered, That the said Respondent do put in her Answer to the said Appeal peremptorily in a Week.

Cunningham against Weir.

The House being moved, “That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Alexander Cunninghame is Appellant, and John Weir is Respondent:”

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

Cunningham against Kinnear.

The House being moved, “That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Alexander Cunninghame is Appellant, and Thomas Kinnear is Respondent:”

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

Charles against Rowley.

The House being moved, “That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Charles Vipont Charles Esquire is Appellant, and Hercules Langford Rowley is Respondent:”

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

Chamberlain of London against Shease; Writ of 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 Sir Thomas Harrison Knight, Chamberlain of the City of London, is Plaintiff, and Alexander Shease Esquire 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.

Wainwright to enter into a Recognizance on Edgworth’s Appeal.

The House being moved, “That Thomas Wainwright of Hatton Garden Gentleman may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for Edward EdgworthEsquire, on account of his Appeal depending in this House; he Livingston in Ireland:”

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

Wilson’s Petition referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of Ann Wilson Widow Relict of William Wilson Esquire, deceased, and judges. Daughter and Heir of Henry Pawson Esquire, deceased, by Ann Pawson his Wife, also deceased, who was only Daughter and Heir of Hugh Sleigh Gentleman, long since deceased, for herself and on the Behalf of Ann Wilson, her Daughter and only Child by the said William Wilson, an Infant; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, for vesting the Manor of Northall, in or near Leeds, in the County of York, and other Lands and Hereditaments therein mentioned, the settled Estate late of the said William Wilson deceased, in Trustees, to be sold, for discharging Debts and Encumbrances; and for other Purposes therein mentioned:

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby, referred to the Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer and Mr. Baron Perrott; 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.

Spalding against Laurie.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Alexander Spalding of Holm; complaining of Three Interlocutors of the Lord Ordinary in Scotland, of the 16th of July 1761, the 29th of January 1762, and 31st of January 1764 ; and also of Three Interlocutors of the Lords of Session there, of the 7th and 24th of July, and 23d of November 1764; and praying, “That the same may be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Appellant may have such other Relief in the Premises as to their Lordships in their great Wisdom and Justice shall seen just; and that Margaret Laurie and Andrew Sloan Laurie her Husband may be required to Answer the said Appeal:”

It is Ordered, That the said Margaret Laurie and Andrew Sloan Laurie her Husband may have a Copy of the said Appeal ; and do put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Thursday the 14th Day of February next; and Service of this Order upon the said Respondents, or upon any of their Procurators or Agents in the Court of Session in Scotland, shall be deemed good Service.

Charles against Rowley:

The House was informed, “That David Buttle attended, in order to deliver in Copies of Pleadings and Proceedings relating to a Cause depending in this House, wherein Charles Vipont Charles Esquire is Appellant, and Hercules Langford Rowley Esquire is Respondent.”

Pleadings proved

And thereupon he was called in, and delivered the same at the Bar; and attested upon Oath, “They were true Copies, he having examined them with the Originals in the proper Offices in Ireland.

And then he was directed to withdraw.

Adjourn.

Dominus Mansfield, Capitalis Justiciarius Banci Regii, declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Lunæ, vicesimum primum diem instantis Januarii, hora undecima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.