[163] This case is given briefly in contemporary reports, under the title of Smith and others v. Lord Pomfret and wife. It had been originally heard before Lord Camden when he held the Great Seal. He directed an action at law to be brought to try the right in dispute. The verdict, as Walpole correctly states, was given against Lord Pomfret. His Lordship then applied to the Commissioners of the Great Seal, who had succeeded Lord Camden, for a new trial, which they refused. On this he appealed to the Lords, where a new trial, and not the estate in question, was granted, upon some distinction taken by Lord Mansfield as to the original order for the action having been made without Lord Pomfret’s consent—a point which seems to have escaped the counsel, who had argued the case on the merits, which seem to have been on Lord Pomfret’s side, since the new trial ended in a verdict in his favour. There are some points of practice involved in the case which make it probable that the decision of the Lords would not be followed in the present day, and there is no doubt that the interference of the lay Lords in the adjudication of rights of this nature was wholly unjustifiable. No similar instance has occurred during the present century,—the attendance of lay peers on appeals being regarded as a mere matter of form. The decision on the appeal rests exclusively with the law peers, otherwise the appeal would be from a court of great authority to one of none at all.—E.
[164] Mr. Turner was M.P. for York, and a friend of Lord Rockingham.—E.
[165] The King wrote thus to Lord North on the 17th of March:—“If Lord Mayor and Oliver be not committed to the Tower the authority of the House of Commons is annihilated. Send Jenkinson to Lord Mansfield for his opinion of the best way of enforcing the commitment, if these people continue to disobey. You know very well I was averse to meddling with the printers, but now there is no retreating. The honour of the House of Commons must be supported.” (MS.)—E.
[166] In the year 1762.—See vol. i. pp. 109, 120.
[167] Then only Mr. Fox.
[168] The City’s claim to exemption from the jurisdiction of the House was founded on the restitution of their charter by King William, which had been forfeited by the Quo Warranto of Charles the Second, and which confirmed all their ancient privileges, but gave no new; and the House said they had never enjoyed such exemption.
[169] “They [the Spanish Ministers] also report that we have given a verbal assurance to evacuate the Falkland Islands in the space of two months.”—(Letter from Mr. Harris to Lord Rochford, 14th February, in Malmesbury Correspondence, vol. i. p. 77.)—This was probably the origin of the report so generally credited at the time, and which the Spaniards circulated as much as possible in order to save their honour. The English Ministers, however, may have stated that the Islands might soon be given up as not worth keeping, which indeed speedily happened.—E.
[170] Three millions, it was said, but undoubtedly half the number, were lost by that execrable monopoly. [Mill states that a third of the population perished.—History of British India, vol. iii. p. 431.—E.]
[171] Sir John Wrottesley, of Wrottesley, M.P. for the county of Stafford, afterwards a Major-General and Colonel of the 45th regiment. He was nephew of the Duchess of Bedford, and brother-in-law of the Duke of Grafton. He died in 1787. Lord Wrottesley is his grandson.—E.
[172] Son of James Grenville, younger brother of Lord Temple.