House of Lords Journal Volume 34
December 1774, 1-10

Sponsor

History of Parliament Trust

Publication

Year published

1767-1830

Pages

273-277

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 34: December 1774, 1-10', Journal of the House of Lords volume 34: 1774-1776 (1767-1830), pp. 273-277. URL: http://british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=113670 Date accessed: 28 November 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Contents

Die Jovis, 1o Decembris 1774.
L. Paget takes the Oaths. D. Montagu et al against L. Beaulieu et Ux. E Fife et al. against D. Gordon et al. E Fife et al. against Walter Dunbar. E. Fife and Duff against Alex. Dunbar. E. Fife et al. against Simpson. His Majesty to by attended with the Address. Cuthbert against Mackinzie et al. Candler against Candler et at. Adjourn. Die Martis, 6o Decembris 1774.
Greig et al. against Carstairs. Sir Alex. Macdonald against Macleod et al. His Majesty’s Answer to Address reported. Lords take the Oaths, &c. East India Goods and Naval Stores &c Accounts delivered. Blake against Perrin and Vaughan, Writ of Error. Causes put off. L. Beaulieu et Ux. against D. Montagu et al; Cross Appeal. Home and Rochfort against E. Ely et al. Whichcote et Ux. Petition refereed to Judges. Raynsford et al. Petition reseired to Judges. De Hahn for a Nat. Bill. Bill read. Ross to enter, into Recognizance on Cuthbert’s Appeal. Nesbitt to enter into Recognizance on Hume’s et al. Appeal. D. Montagu et al. against L Beaulieu et Ux. Chaplin against Bree. Admission of Members of H. C into this House. Adjourn. Die Jovis, 8o Decembris 1774.
Power against Windis. Cope against Rose et al. Cust and Lothian against the Carron Company. Allen et al. against Hancorn et al. Boyd against Steel; Hearing appointed ex-parte. Fitz Edward against Ryves et al. Stacpoole to enter into Recognizance on Candler’s, Appeal. Tancred to enter into Recognizance on Allen’s Appeal. Boyd against Russell. Adjourn.

Die Jovis, 1o Decembris 1774.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

Epus. Landaven. Ds. Apsley, Cancellarius. Ds. Paget.
Epus. Roffen. Ds. Ponsonby.
March. Rockingham. Ds. Boston.
Comes Hertford, Camerarius.
Comes Marchmont.
Comes Stanhope.
Comes Buckinghamshire.
Comes Hillsborough.

PRAYERS.

L. Paget takes the Oaths.

This Day Henry Lord Paget took the Oaths, and made and subscribed the Declaration, and also took and subscribed the Oath of Abjuration, pursuant to the Statutes.

D. Montagu et al against L. Beaulieu et Ux.

The Answer of the Right Honourable Edward Lord Beaulieu and Isabella Lady Beaulieu his Wife, to the Appeal of the Most Noble George Duke of Montagu and others, was this Day brought in.

E Fife et al. against D. Gordon et al.

As was also, The Answer of Alexander Duke of Gordon and others, to the Appeal of James Earl Fife and others.

E Fife et al. against Walter Dunbar.

Also, The Answer of Walter Dunbar Esquire to the Appeal of James Earl Fife and others.

E. Fife and Duff against Alex. Dunbar.

Also, The Answer of Alexander Dunbar of Thunderton, Esquire, to the Appeal of James Earl Fife and Mr. Arthur Duff of Ortown, Advocate.

E. Fife et al. against Simpson.

And also, The Answer of Joseph Simpson Merchant in Aberdeen, to the Appeal of James Earl Fife and others.

His Majesty to by 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 Three o’Clock at His Palace of Saint James.”

Cuthbert against Mackinzie et al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of James Cuthbert of Farnese, complaining of Two Interlocutors of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the 27th of July and 10th of August 1774; 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 this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that Ann Mackinzie and Richard Paterson her Husband, Robert Bruce, and Æneas Macleod and his Tutors and Curators, may be required to answer the said Appeal:”

It is Ordered, That the said Ann Mackinzie and Richard Paterson her Husband, Robert Bruce, and Æneas Macleod and his Tutors and Curators, 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 29th of this instant December; and Service of this Order upon any One of their known Counsel or Agents, in the said Court of Session in Scotland, shall be deemed good Service.

Candler against Candler et at.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of the Reverend Henry Candler Clerk, Doctor of Laws, complaining of an Order or Decree of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, of the 20th Day of June 1774; and Praying, That the same may be reversed, or that the Appellant may have such other Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that Elizabeth Candler and George Shinton and Frances his Wife, may be required to answer the said Appeal:”

It is Ordered, That the said Elizabeth Candler and George Shinton and Frances his Wife, 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 5th Day of January next; and Service of this Order upon the said Respondents, or upon their Agents or Solicitors, in the said Court of Exchequer in Ireland, shall be deemed good Service.

Adjourn.

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

Die Martis, 6o Decembris 1774.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

Archiep. Cantuar. Dux Gloucester. Ds. Abergavenny.
Archiep. Ebor. Dux Cumberland. Ds. Cathcart.
Epus. Londin. Ds. Apsley, Cancellarius. Ds. Trevor.
Epus. Duresm. Ds. Cadogan.
Epus. Lincoln. Comes Cower, Præses. Ds. Edgecumbe.
Epus. Cestrien. Dux Bolton. Ds. Bruce.
Epus. Meneven. Dux Portland. Ds. Ponsonby.
Epus. Roffen. Dux Manchester. Ds. Hyde.
Dux Dorset. Ds. Lyttelton.
Dux Bridgewater. Ds. Wycombe.
March. Rockingham. Ds. Boston.
Comes Talbot, Senescallus. Ds. Milton.
Comes Hertford, Camerarius. Ds. Sundridge.
Comes Suffolk.
Comes Denbigh.
Comes Peterborough.
Comes Stamford.
Comes Winchilsea.
Comes Thanet.
Comes Sandwich.
Comes Carlisle.
Comes Plymouth.
Comes Rochford.
Comes Cholmondeley.
Comes Abercorn.
Comes Galloway.
Comes March.
Comes Ferrers.
Comes Dartmouth.
Comes Tankerville.
Comes Waldegrave.
Comes Ashburnham.
Comes Effingham.
Comes Brooke.
Comes Bucks.
Comes Egremont.
Comes Hardwicke.
Comes Northington.
Comes Spencer.
Viscount Say & Sele.
Viscount Weymouth.
Viscount Bolingbroke.
Viscount Falmouth.
Viscount Torrington.
Viscount Wentworth.

PRAYERS.

Greig et al. against Carstairs.

The Answer of James Bruce Carstairs Esquire to the Appeal of Robert Greig and others, was this Day brought in.

Sir Alex. Macdonald against Macleod et al.

As was also, The Answer of Norman Macleod and his Guardians, to the Appeal of Sir Alexander Macdonald Baronet.

His Majesty’s Answer to Address reported.

The Lord Chancellor reported, “That the House did on Thursday lad present their Address to His Majesty, to which His Majesty was pleased to return the following most gracious Answer.”

“My Lords,
“I thank you for your affectionate Assurances of Duty and Loyalty.
“The Zeal you express for the Support of the Supreme Authority of the Legislature, which I shall constantly maintain, is very agreeable to me; and your Resolution to proceed with Temper and Unanimity in your Deliberations, gives Me the greater Satisfaction, as it corresponds with the hearty Concern I shall ever have for the true Interests of all My People.”

Ordered, That the said Address, together with His Majesty’s most gracious Answer thereto, be forth with printed and published.

Lords take the Oaths, &c.

The Lords following took the Oaths, and made and subscribed the Declaration, and also took and subscribed the Oath of Abjuration, pursuant to the Statutes.

Harry Duke of Bolton.

George Duke of Manchester.

Sackville Earl of Thanet.

Other Earl of Plymouth.

George James Earl of Cholmondeley.

Thomas Earl of Effingham.

John Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

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),

“No 1. An Account of prohibited East India Goods imported into Saint Helens and Private Trade Warehouses in the Port of London, from Michaelmas 1773 to Michaelmas 1774, also what exported during that Time, and what remained in the said Warehouses at Michaelmas 1774.
“2. An Account of prohibited East India Goods imported into Leadenhall Warehouses in the Port of London, from Michaelmas 1773 to Michaelmas 1774, also what exported during that Time, and what remained in the said Warehouses at Michaelmas 1774.
“3. An Account of prohibited East India Goods remaining in His Majesty’s Warehouse in the Port of London at Michaelmas 1773, what have been since brought in, what exported, as also what remained at Michaelmas 1774.
“4. An Account of East India Goods prohibited to be worn in this Kingdom, in the respective Warehouses in the Out Ports at Michaelmas 1773, what have been since brought in, what exported, as also what remained at Michaelmas 1774.
“5. An Account of prohibited East India Goods which have been delivered out of the Warehouses at Saint Helens, Leadenhall, Billiter Lane, and the Custom House, in the Port of London, since Michaelmas 1773, in order to be dyed, glazed, and refreshed; what have been returned, and what remained out at Michaelmas 1774.
“6. An Account of Naval Stores imported from Russia into the Port of London, from Michaelmas 1773 to Michaelmas 1774.
“7. An Account of Naval Stores imported from Russia into the Ports of England, commonly called The Out Ports, from Michaelmas 1773 to Michaelmas 1774.
“8. 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 Burthens, from whence they were sitted 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 1774.
“9. An Account of all Corn, Grain, Meal, Malt, Flour, Bread, Biscuit, and Starch, exported from England to any Place whatsoever, by virtue or in pursuance of any of the Liberties or Powers given or granted for that Purpose, by an Act, passed last Session, to prohibit the Exportation thereof, continued from the last Account, (viz.) from the 10th of October 1773 to the 10th of October 1774 inclusive.”

And then they withdrew.

And the Titles thereof being read by the Clerk:

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

Blake against Perrin and Vaughan, Writ of Error.

Ordered, That the Hearing of the Errors argued, assigned upon the Writ of Error wherein Hannah Blake is Plaintiff, and William Perrin and Thomas Vaughan are Defendants, which Hands appointed for To-morrow, be put off till after all the Causes already appointed.

Causes put off.

Ordered, That the Hearing of the Cause wherein Sir John Eden Baronet and others are Appellants, and the Right Honourable John Earl of Bute and others are Respondents, which Hands appointed for Friday next, be put off to Friday the 16th Day of this instant December; and that the Rest of the Causes be removed in Course.

Ordered, That the Hearing of the Cause wherein Sir John Eden Baronet and others are Appellants, and the Right Honourable John Earl of Bute and others are Respondents, which stands appointed for Friday next, be put off to Friday the 16th Day of this instant December; and that the Rest of the Causes be removed in Course.

L. Beaulieu et Ux. against D. Montagu et al; Cross Appeal.

Upon Reading the Petition and Cross Appeal of the Right Honourable Edward Lord Beaulieu and Isabella Lady Beaulieu his Wife, One of the Two Daughters and Coheirs of John Duke of Montant deceased, and One of the Grand-daughters of Ralph formerly Duke of Montagu also deceased, complaining of an Order of the Court of Chancery, of the 21st Day of January 1774; and praying, “That the same may be reversed or varied, or that the Appellants may have such other Relief in the Premises as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that George Duke of Montagu and Mary Duchess of Montagu his Wife, Henry Duke of Buccleugh and Elizabeth Duchess of Buccleugh his Wife, Charles William Scott commonly called Earl of Dalkeith, and Edward Montagu, may be required to answer the said Appeal:”

It is Ordered, That the said George Duke of Montagu and Mary Duchess of Montagu his Wife, Henry Duke of Buccleugh and Elizabeth Duchess of Buccleugh his Wife, Charles William Scott commonly called Earl of Dalkeith, and Edward Montagu, 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 20th Day of this instant December.

Home and Rochfort against E. Ely et al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Gustavus Rochfort Hume Esquire, only Son of the Honourable George Rochfort, of Rochfort in the County of Westminster, in the Kingdom of Ireland, Esquire, and Alice his late Wife, deceased, (an Infant under the Age of Twenty-one Years), by the said George Rochfort his Father and next Friend, and of the said George Rochfort the Father, Administrator with the Will annexed, of the said Alice his late Wife, complaining of an Order of Dismission of the Court of Chancery in Ireland of the 4th of July 1774; and praying, “That the same may be reversed and set aside, or that the Appellants may have such other Relief in the Premises as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that Henry Earl of Ely, Stephen Lord Viscount Mount Cashell, John Ponsonby Esquire, Sir James May Baronet, Patrick Cullen, and Allen McClean and Margaret his Wife, may be required to answer the said Appeal:”

It is Ordered, That the said Henry Earl of Ely, and the said several other Persons last named, 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 10th Day of January next; and Service of this Order upon the Clerks in Court or Agents of the said Respondents, in the said Court of Chancery in Ireland, shall be deemed good Service.

Whichcote et Ux. Petition refereed to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of Christopher Whichcote Esquire, and Jane his Wife, for themselves and on Behalf of Thomas Whichcote Esquire, their infant Son; praying Leave to bring in a Bill for the Purposes in the Petition mentioned:

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

Raynsford et al. Petition reseired to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of Richard Raynsford Esquire, and Frances his Wife, and the said Richard Raynsford, on Behalf of George Nigel Raynsford and Thomas Alexander Raynsford, his infant Sons; and also the humble Petition of the Reverend James Pinnock and Catherine his Wife, Susanna Raynsford Spinster, the Honourable Thomas Howard, and Robert Palmer Esquire, and the said Thomas Howard, on Behalf of Robert Raynsford and Mary Raynsford, the infant Children of Richard Raynsford the Elder, Esquire, deceased; William Veale Esquire, John Colborne Gentleman, and Hannah Ambrose and Thomasine Ambrose Spinsters; praying Leave to bring in a Bill for the Purposes in the Petition 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 Burland, 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.

De Hahn for a Nat. Bill.

Upon reading the Petition of George Ernst de Hahn; praying Leave to bring in a Bill for his Naturalization:

It is Ordered, That Leave be given to bring in a Bill, according to the Prayer of the said Petition.

Bill read.

Accordingly, the Lord Boston presented to the House a Bill, intituled, “An Act for naturalizing George Ernst de Hahn.”

The said Bill was read the First Time.

Ross to enter, into Recognizance on Cuthbert’s Appeal.

The House being moved, “That, William Ross of Lincoln’s Inn, Gentleman, may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for James Cuthbert of Farnese on Account of his Appeal depending in this House, he living abroad:”

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

Nesbitt to enter into Recognizance on Hume’s et al. Appeal.

The House being moved, “That Arnold Nesbitt Esquire may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for Gustavus Rochfort Hume Esquire and others, on Account of their Appeal depending in this House, they residing in Ireland.”

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

D. Montagu et al. against L Beaulieu et Ux.

The House being moved, “That a Day may be appointed for hearing the Cause wherein the Molt Noble George Duke of Montagu and Mary Duchess of Montagu his Wife, and others, are Appellants, and Edward Lord Beaulieu and Isabella Lady Beaulieu his Wife, 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.

Chaplin against Bree.

The House being moved “That a Day may be appointed for hearing the Cause wherein Charles Chaplin Esquire is Appellant, and John Bree Clerk 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.

Admission of Members of H. C into this House.

The Order of the Day being read for taking into Consideration the Standing Orders of this House, and for the Lords to be summoned:

Moved, “That the Lords be summoned to attend this House To-morrow, in order to take into Consideration a Motion for dispensing with the Standing Order of the 5th of April 1707, so far as to admit; the Representatives of the Commons of Great Britain into this House, during the Sitting thereof.”

Which being objected to;

After Debate,

The Question was put thereupon?

It was resolved in the Negative.

Moved, “To adjourn to Thursday next.”

Accordingly,

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Jovis, octavum diem instantis Decembris, hora undecima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.

Die Jovis, 8o Decembris 1774.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

Epus. Roffen. Ds. Apsley, Cancellarius. Ds. Cathcart.
Ds. Boston.
Comes Abercorn.
Viscount Say & Sele.

PRAYERS.

Power against Windis.

The several Answer of Samuel Windis to the Appeal of David Power was this Day brought in.

Cope against Rose et al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Arthur Cope Esquire, complaining of Three several Decretal Orders of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, of the 8th of December 1773, and 12th of July and 24th of November 1774, and praying, “That the same may be reversed, or that the Appellant may have such other Relief in the Premises as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that John Rose, Ann Ford, Henry Blacker, George Moore, Thomas Boyce, and Linegar Rogers, may be required to answer the said Appeal:”

It is Ordered, That the said John Rose, and the said several other Persons last-named, 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 12th Day of January next; and Service of this Order upon the Attorney, Agent, or Six Clerk, for the said Respondents, in the said Court of Chancery in Ireland, shall be deemed good Service.

Cust and Lothian against the Carron Company.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Peregrine Cust Esquire of London, Merchant, and David Lothian Writer, in Edinburgh, his Factor or Attorney, complaining of an Interlocutor of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the 17th of November 1774; and Praying, That the same may be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Appellants may have such other Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that the Carron Company in Scotland may be required to answer the said Appeal:”

It is Ordered, That the said Carron Company in Scotland 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 5th Day of January next; and Service of this Order upon any of the Respondents known Agents or Counsel in the said Court of Session in Scotland, shall be deemed good Service.

Allen et al. against Hancorn et al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of John Bartlett Allen and Elizabeth his Wife, late Elizabeth Hensleigh Daughter of John Hensleigh deceased, and also of John Hensleigh Allen, eldest Son and Heir of the said John Bartlett Allen and Elizabeth his Wife, Elizabeth Allen, Catherine Allen, Mary Ann Allen, and Antonietta Caroline Allen, Leonisa Jane Allen, and Joan Bartlett Allen, the younger Children of the said John Bartlett Allen and Elizabeth his Wife, complaining of a Decree of the Court of Chancery of the 2d Day of May 1774; and praying, “That the same may be reversed, or that the Appellants may have such other Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem just; and that Frances Hancorn Widow, Thomas Hancorn, Thomas Northey and Margaret his Wife, and Frances Hancorn Spinster, may be required to answer the said Appeal:”

It is Ordered, That the said Frances Hancorn Widow, and the said several other Persons last-named, 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 22d Day of this instant December.

Boyd against Steel; Hearing appointed ex-parte.

The House being moved, “That a Day may be appointed for hearing the Cause, wherein John Boyd late of Wester Greenrig, is Appellant, and James Steel is Respondent ex-parte, the Respondent not having put in his Answer thereto, though peremptorily ordered so to do:”

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause ex-parte, by Counsel at the Bar, on the First vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed, unless the Respondent puts in his Answer thereto in the mean Time.

Fitz Edward against Ryves et al.

The House being moved, “That a Day may be appointed for hearing the Cause wherein Robert Ryves Fitz Edward is Appellant, and William Ryves 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.

Stacpoole to enter into Recognizance on Candler’s, Appeal.

The House being moved, “That Joseph Stacpoole, of Serjeant’s Inn, Fleet Street, London, Esquire, may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for the Reverend Henry Candler Clerk, Doctor of Laws, on Account of his Appeal depending in this House, he residing in Ireland.”

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

Tancred to enter into Recognizance on Allen’s Appeal.

The House being moved, “That Darcy Tancred of the Inner Temple, London, Gentleman, may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for John Bartlett Allen, and others, on Account of their Appeal depending in this House, they residing in the Country:”

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

Boyd against Russell.

The House being informed, “That John Russell of Todsbrights, Respondent to the Appeal of John Boyd of Wester Greenrig, 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 Laur Spens 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.

Adjourn.

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