Lord Chancellor Bowes concluded.

Chapter XLII.

Conclusion of the life of Lord Chancellor Lord Bowes.

Rumours of a French invasion, in a.d. 1759, under the guidance of Conflaus, caused some attention to be paid to the claims of Catholics, Dr. Curry [John Curry, M.D., an eminent physician of Dublin.] and Mr. O’Conor, [Charles O’Conor, Esq., of Ballinagar, ancestor of the O’Conor Don, M.P.] men of learning and high personal character, advocated the cause of their oppressed co-religionists with ability and zeal. Nor were their exertions unaided by kind and sympathising Protestants. Alderman George Faulkner, a Protestant, held out his hand to the prostrate Catholic, recognised him as a fellow Christian and a brother, and endeavoured to raise him to the rank of a subject and a freeman. [History of the Irish Catholics, by O’Conor, p. 254.]

A meeting of Catholics was held in Dublin, and an address prepared by Mr. Charles O’Conor, expressive of their readiness to support his Majesty’s Government against all hostile attempts, and of their hopes that means might be devised to render so numerous a body more useful members of the community than they could possibly be under the restraint of penal laws. [Ibid.] It was presented to the Viceroy by Mr. Ponsonby, Speaker of the House of Commons. This direct allusion to the code, and the hope of some relaxation, caused a cold reception to be given to this address.

In the summer of 1759 considerable fears were entertained of the French invasion, and intelligence reached the British Government that Ireland was the place where the first landing was to be effected. The Lords Clare [Charles O’Brien, sixth Viscount Clare.-See Lady M. Wortley’s Letters, vol. ii, p. 158.] and Clancarty were to command the expedition. The Viceroy (Duke of Bedford), then in London, attended a meeting of the Ministry, held at Lord Holderness’s house, on May 8, and stated that garrisons should be placed in all the large towns for the security of the Protestant inhabitants, which would leave him but 5,000 men to meet the enemy. A resolution was then formed to man the greatest fleet that could be got together, to rendezvous at Torbay, and from thence to stretch over to the French coast, in order to deter or defeat the meditated invasion. As an additional precaution, a strong body of infantry was to be encamped on the Isle of Wight, with transports to be kept ready to convey the troops wherever danger was most urgent. As troops could not be spared from England, the Lords agreed that the King’s pleasure should be taken about arming the militia of Ulster, and sending all officers on leave from the Irish establishments to their posts, which the King immediately agreed to.

The Lord Lieutenant at once communicated with the Lords Justices, requiring them to see that everything directed by the English Government was strictly complied with, and the officers not permitted to loiter in Dublin or elsewhere.

Lord Rothes, then Commander of the Forces in Ireland, the Primate, Dr. Stone, and the Speaker of the House of Commons, discussed the state of affairs. As some apprehension existed that the Roman Catholics would join the French, the Primate, in a letter to the Viceroy from Dublin, May 28, 1759, thus refutes the notion:- ‘I beg leave to hazard my private opinion to your Grace, that there is little or no danger to be apprehended from them. This is my firm persuasion, and I would risk all I am worth upon it. I do not indeed doubt but if a French army were to land, many single vagabonds would be ready to take arms with them; but I am almost confident the Roman Catholics of property, whether landed or moneyed, would not assist, but they would rather fear than wish such an attempt from the French; and that some of them would even give assistance towards serving his Majesty. I am well acquainted with several of the heads of that people, and I think I know something of their sentiments.’ [Correspondence of the Duke of Bedford, vol. ii, p. 380.]

On returning to Ireland, his Grace the Duke of Bedford acquainted both Houses of the Irish Parliament with the necessity of taking measures for the defence of all most dear to them. He urged a timely preparation to resist and frustrate any attempts of the enemy to disturb the quiet and shake the security of this kingdom. The Lord Chancellor, by order of the Lords, presented an address to his Excellency, and there appeared a spirit exerted for the defence of the country highly gratifying to the Lord Lieutenant.

In the reply of Mr. Secretary Pitt to the despatch of the Duke of Bedford, just referred to, that minister entirely ignores the aid of the Roman Catholics of this kingdom; nor was he quite confident of the support of the Protestants. He says, ‘As for the zeal of his Majesty’s Protestant subjects in that kingdom, no doubt can possibly be entertained of the sincerity of it; but the almost total inefficiency of that zeal, though ever so real, in a conjuncture like the present, and such an unfortunate incredulity and supineness in consequence of it, after so strong and so frequent warnings of danger, cannot but administer here much just grounds of wonder and concern. The kingdom of Ireland, if it will call forth and exert its resources, is, by its wealth, and by the number and courage of its Protestant subjects, well able to repel and defeat, *proprio motu, *any attempts of the enemy which may happen to be made there; nor is it prudent for their own. sakes, or reasonable in itself, that the Protestant people of Ireland should, in such a critical and decisive conjuncture as the present, withhold their efforts and sit still till a descent be actually made upon them unprepared, trusting that the reinforcements from Great Britain (who may in that moment be herself the object of actual invasion) are at once to be sent to put an end to a war which, by a timely exertion of their own intrinsic strength, might have been totally prevented or at once repelled.’ [Vide Correspondence of the Duke of Bedford, vol. ii. p. 393.]

A report having gone abroad in 1759 that the measure of a Union between the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland was likely to be brought forward and would pass the Irish Parliament, the population of Dublin evinced their hostility to this proposed annihilation of home legislation in a marked and decided manner. Crowds of excited citizens, chiefly tradesmen, surrounded the avenues leading to the Parliament House, and, in order to cause them to disperse, Mr. Rigby, the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Duke of Bedford) addressed them, and assured them ‘there were no grounds for their apprehensions.’ The fears of the citizens, however, were not so easily allayed, and the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Right Hone John Ponsonby, son of the Earl of Bessborough, who was of a family always popular, next came forward, and with better success. Rigby also made a solemn declaration ‘that if a Bill of Union was brought in, he would vote against it,’ which satisfied the people, and they dispersed. Their suspicion of this measure not being wholly abandoned appeared to receive some confirmation when a motion was made by Mr. Rigby that ‘the Lord Lieutenant be enabled to summon a Parliament without the usual interval of forty days, in the event of an invasion or other emergency.’ The citizens considered this was a pretext to enable the Government to pass the obnoxious Union Bill before the nation would be in a position effectually to oppose it.

December 3, 1759, found the city in a ferment. Popular excitement is catching; beginning with the lower ranks, it spreads like wildfire, and kindles the masses immediately above, and soon the whole is in a blaze. The population flocked from all quarters, again beset the passages of the Houses of Parliament, and, with all the rude violence inseparable from outbursts of public indignation, they seized many of the members, and compelled them to swear ‘fidelity to Ireland, and that they should vote against the Union.’ Lord Inchiquin was one of the first peers attacked. The mob pulled off his periwig and red ribbon, and when the impediment of his speech prevented his repeating readily the words of the oath tendered to each member, attributing the delay to refusal, some one cried out, ‘D—n you, do you hesitate?’

When he was recognised as the head of the ancient house of Thomond, another said, ‘For shame! he is O’Brien, of the race of Brien Boroihme.’ Whereon, with the sudden revulsion of feeling, also a marked feature of popular commotion, his lordship was cheered, and followed by every demonstration of respect. The Bishop of Killala was made to get out of his coach and take the oath. The Lord Chancellor’s (Bowe’s) carriage was next seen, as he was on his way to the House of Lords, and when he learned the cause of the tumult, and was required to take the oath himself, he was naturally very indignant. Fearing, however, the consequence of refusing the oath tendered by the violent men, who seemed ready to carry out any measure of resentment, the Chancellor acquiesced, and then a singular circumstance occurred. He was compelled to repeat it in the presence of the Lord Chief Justice Caulfield, for some hazy notion prevailed amongst the rabble of the oath not being binding if administered by persons having no authority to impart it, and that it would receive most binding force if the person was sworn in the presence of a person lawfully authorised to administer it. The Lord Chancellor was then allowed to pass into the House. But the commotion did not end there. Lord Farnham, [This was Robert, second Baron, who succeeded to the title on the death. of his father August 6, 1759. He was created Viscount in 1761, and Earl of Farnham in 1763. He was twice married, but leaving no issue male on his decease in 1779, the title of Baron only devolved upon his brother Barry, who, however, restored the family honour and died Earl of Farnham in 1800.] who was entitled to take his place as a Peer on the death of his father John, Baron Farnham, was taking the customary Peer’s oaths when the people burst into the House of Lords and insisted on Lord Farnham taking their oath also. Finding themselves masters of the situation, the mob proceeded to all the lengths that vulgar and debased tastes could suggest. To show their contempt for the House they brought a feeble old woman and seated her on the throne, where like King Artaxemanes in Bombastes Furioso, they placed a pipe in her mouth, and insisted on her smoking. They made a sudden irruption into the House of Commons, and were about to make a bonfire of the Journals, when, by way of diversion, they proposed to hang Rigby, who on November 21 previously, had been made Master of the Rolls. Rigby most likely got a hint of these lawless proceedings, and he prudently went into the country, so that when they went to his house with the determination of executing him on a gallows which they prepared for his use, he was not to be found.

The Castle authorities were in dismay. The Lord Lieutenant, the Duke of Bedford, despatched an express to the Lord Mayor, John Tew, requesting him to quell the disturbance. But that functionary, either from the notion he was powerless, or from some other cause, returned for answer ‘that he could not act, as there was no Riot Act in Ireland,’ Then in hot haste the Privy Council was summoned, and the Commander-in-Chief [General John Leslie, eighth Earl of Rothes, K. T.] received instructions from the Lord Lieutenant, as General Governor of the Kingdom, to employ the troops under his command. Trusting to disperse the rioters with as much forbearance as possible, the General ordered a troop of horse to ride among them, and use their sabres only, *not to fire; *but such was the obstinacy of the multitude that, before the peace of the city was restored, no fewer than sixteen lives had been sacrificed. These outrageous proceedings very naturally aroused the indignation of the Houses. On the day after this disgraceful affair, the Commons passed a resolution declaring ‘that the assaulting, insulting, or menacing any Member of their House, on his coming to or from it, or on account of his behaviour in Parliament, was a high infringement of their privileges, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament, and a high crime and misdemeanour.’ A Committee was named to enquire and report as to the persons implicated in the riot, and to prepare an address to his Excellency to thank him for his energy in causing the dispersion of the rioters, and requesting him to offer a reward for the discovery of the guilty persons or their abettors. The Lord Mayor and Sheriffs of the city were examined at the Bar, and admonished by the Speaker to observe the orders relative to keeping the avenues of the House free and open, and preventing riotous assemblages. An address was also presented, through the Lord Chancellor, from the Lords, thanking the Lord Lieutenant ‘for his seasonable interposition in having made use of the most effectual means for dispersing a most dangerous and insolent multitude of persons assembled before the Parliament House, in order most illegally and audaciously to obstruct and insult the members of both Houses of Parliament attending the public service of the nation, in manifest violation of the rights and privileges of Parliament.’ The King was most indignant at the gross supineness of the civic authorities of Dublin, and desired ‘that an enquiry should take place by the executive to see what course should be taken to punish their wilful and shameful inexertion.’ The Viceroy called a meeting of the Law officers, and, under the seal of secrecy, confided to them such portions of the royal wishes as related to the ordering proper legal proceedings against the magistrates of Dublin for not exerting themselves in quelling the riot, according to their duty. Two modes were suggested. By *quo warranto *against the franchisees of the city, or by indicting the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs on personal acts of misdemeanour for non-execution of the trust reposed in them. These modes were open to objections. As to the first, ‘that it could not be sustained;’ as to the second, ‘the law officers declined to give any assurance of its success until evidence of the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs not having done their duty was submitted to their consideration, as upon the nature and strength of that evidence, the success or failure of the prosecution would depend.’ They urged the difficulty of procuring sufficient evidence to induce a jury to find them guilty for their conduct during the riot before the Parliament House, and also the impropriety of most of the Privy Council, who were present in the Viceroy’s chamber when he offered the aid of troops to the Lord Mayor, which he refused, to appear in a court of justice as evidence against this magistrate. The Duke of Bedford would have been a most material witness, but felt that his station as representative of his Majesty made it impossible for him to appear in Court on this affair. [I have been present when the Earl of Clarendon, then Viceroy, was examined as a witness in Birch’s case. The above particulars are chiefly related in the Duke of Bedford’s Letters.]

The Lord Chancellor, smarting under the indignity offered, not only to himself personally, but to his high office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland and Speaker of the House of Lords, was very desirous of having the civic functionaries severely punished. But the difficulties which the Attorney and Solicitor-General believed to be insuperable retarded any action against them in the Law Courts, and soon the French invasion engrossed the attention of all classes.

On February 20, 1760, a body of French troops under Thurot effected a landing unopposed at Carrickfergus, about ten miles distant from Belfast, the richest town in Ireland, The small force stationed in the barracks of Carrickfergus were surprised; Lieut.-Colonel Jennings and four companies of Major-General Strode’s infantry, who then garrisoned Carrickfergus Castle, made as good a defence as they could, killing three or four of the enemy, and wounding the French General who was in command of the attacking party. But their ammunition failing, they were made prisoners of war. In repeating this affair to the Duke of Bedford, Major-General Strode acquaints the Viceroy further: [Correspondence of the Duke of Bedford, vol. ii. p. 408.] ‘And this morning (February 22, 1760) a flag of truce came into town (Belfast) and made a demand of the several articles undermentioned (stores), to be delivered this day at two o’clock, promising to pay for them, and threatening in case of refusal to burn Carrickfergus, and afterwards to come up and burn this town also: with which demand the gentlemen of Belfast thought it best to comply. About five or six hundred of the country militia came to town to-day, but are very ill provided with arms, and have great scarcity of ammunition, [This shows Mr. Pitt’s complaint of the supineness of the Irish was not without cause.] though I spared them part of what I had.

‘I am informed the French lost about four or five at Carrickfergus, and our people about three or four.’

The Viceroy was much blamed for allowing this surprise, and not having the militia properly provided with arms and ammunition, for had the enemy landed in greater force, and made a descent upon Belfast, the consequences might have been most disastrous. Mr. Pitt, whose warnings were neglected, had just reason to be indignant. The Duke made every effort to repair former neglect, and Thurot set sail again without delay, taking as prisoners of war along with him the Mayor of Carrickfergus and two other gentlemen. They were not long in captivity. The Duke of Bedford communicated Thurot’s departure to Captain Elliot, of the Royal Navy, brother of Sir Gilbert Elliot, who with some frigates fortunately stationed at Kinsale, County Cork, intercepted the French squadron, and captured it entire, after a brilliant action, in which Thurot lost his life. [Bedford Correspondence, vol ii. p. 411.] This made some atonement for what must be considered very culpable negligence.

It was in the time of Lord Chancellor Bowes, in the years 1763 and 1764, the first printed reports of the speeches delivered in the Irish Parliament were published. They can hardly be considered very reliable, as they were given from the recollection of Sir James Caldwell, and few have memories so accurate as to recollect what falls from several speakers on the same, or on different subjects. The chief subjects of the debates were:-Prisoners; the necessity of a standing army in time of peace; addresses to the King; disturbances in the North; residences of the clergy; publication of libels; the duration of Parliaments; and the reporter observes, ‘The debates were carried on with the deepest penetration, the most extensive knowledge, and the most forcible eloquence.’ This was almost superfluous to state, when among the debaters were Sir Richard Cox, Edmund Sexton Pery, Dr. Charles Lucas, Anthony Malone, John Hely Hutchinson, Henry Flood, Philip Tisdall, John Fitz Gibbon, and William Gerard Hamilton. The reporter says, ‘I have visited many nations, and during an absence of many years I came into no kingdom where I did not find natives of Ireland in every station who were preferred to many situations merely upon their merits.’ He declared the debates he heard in College Green ‘would do honour to any age or nation.’

The proverbial tediousness of Chancery suits was thus deplored by an Irish legal writer of this time: [Howard’s Equity Side of the Exchequer, xxx.] ‘There is not any nation upon earth where law suits are so tedious and so expensive as in this poor kingdom, let the right be as unquestionable as it may. In England suits are generally determined in quarter the time they are here, and at one quarter of the expense; but there the Counsel are confined to Courts, and it is a rare thing to see more than three Counsel on a side, unless it be some very extraordinary case; in common ordinary cases seldom more than two, And the Courts there are not pleased at seeing many Counsel on a side, and will show it, saying, “They are already possessed of the cause, and desire that nothing more that is not needed may be added,” But in this kingdom the practice is for members of the Bar to take business in any branch, and pass from Court to Court as if justice was to be taken by storm.’ So our author pathetically says, ‘what can the unfortunate suitors do? If they were to employ but two or three Counsel, they may, when a cause comes on in one Court be engaged in another, and this is looked on as sufficient excuse, so that the Courts must be kept in exercise by bringing some of the scattered forces to the engagement until the main body may come in, or the cause may be undone. Then every one must speak in the cause, and so, as they are seldom in the way to hear about what the others have said, repetitions necessarily follow.’ Having enumerated the expense to suitors from refreshers, and the enormous length of pleadings, so that the time of the Court is taken up without hearing perhaps one cause of any consequence, to the manifest ruin of suitors, the writer adds: ‘By examining the books of hearings and notes for twenty years past, this grievous mischief will appear most evident.’ He suggests ‘that when affidavits are referred for prolixity and impertinence, and if reported, the attorney who drew it should pay the costs out of his own pocket. [Mr. Howard was himself an Attorney. What if the pleadings were settled by Counsel? Ought the Counsel suffer the loss?] So he should in all cases where he puts his client to unnecessary expense, either from a contentious spirit, mistake, or neglect.’

The intemperate habits of the time extended to the learned professions, and are censured by the same legal writer, [Gorges E. Howard.] who says ‘he has to mention an evil which he would fain have thrown a veil over, but for the degree of excess to which it was carried in Ireland, and among the legal profession - a profession which requires the coolest head, the clearest intellect a man can possess.’ He does not wonder men should be incapable of transacting their clients’ business who filled themselves with strong wines, unless endowed with a capacity such as not one in a thousand is ever blessed with. ‘I have had occasion,’ he adds, ‘to transact business in London several times, and I can affirm that there is no such thing practised there, as for men of business to sit whole evenings over their bottle, in the midst of Term; and I have myself heard several of them say they could not conceive how many of the profession of the law in this kingdom (Ireland) effected any business, for that they seemed there to do nothing but walk the Courts the whole morning, and devote whole evenings to the bottle.’

The hints about selecting Judges are very pointed and forcible: ‘The people of England have one great advantage in regard to their Judges - they are there seldom taken from the Bar and placed on the Bench on account of their interest or abilities in the House of Commons. The gentlemen of this profession in England are but of small consideration in the House when compared to the country gentlemen, who excel them far, not only in the knowledge of the constitution, but in oratory also. Hence few other but lawyers speak in the House. [This was written in 1759] Now should it ever come to pass (which God forbid) that Judges should be made for no other reason but to take them off (as it is usually termed), in what a wretched condition we should be as to everything in life that is dear to us - our lives, our liberties, and properties! Therefore, it is to be wished we may never want at least one *Englishman *knowing in his profession, and honest withal, a Judge on every Bench.’ [Howard’s Exchequer in Ireland, vol.

1. xv. Whoever prepared the petition against the learned judge who tried the Waterford Election Petition in 1870, must have been reading Mr. Howard’s work.]

The conduct of Lord Charlemont in suppressing disturbances in the north of Ireland in 1763 having been considered deserving of commendation, King George III. directed the Lord Lieutenant, Earl of Northumberland, to offer him an earldom. Lord Charlemont expressed to the Lord Lieutenant his gratitude to his Majesty for having overrated any trifling services which, as a good subject, it was his duty to perform to the utmost of his power, but as to the proffered earldom, he begged his Excellency’s permission to consider the subject for a day or two, Lord Northumberland suggested ‘that the offer of promotion having proceeded directly from the King himself, any declension of such promotion might possibly be construed into disrespect;’ on which Lord Charlemont consented, with the understanding ‘it was in no wise to be considered as influencing his political conduct.’ His patent as Earl had, as usual, been laid before the Lord Chancellor Bowes. [Hardy’s Life of Charlemont, p. 101.] In the Preamble it was stated ‘that this advancement in rank had been conferred unsolicited in any way whatever.’ To this the Chancellor objected, as contrary to all usage, and struck out the words *unsolicited, *&c. Lord Charlemont said, ‘that though it was no doubt contrary to precedent, it was exactly consonant to the truth; that he owed his earldom entirely to the benignity of his sovereign, and respect to his Majesty alone prevented him from declining even then the earldom; but that he would, as he had a right to do, annex an engrossed testimonial to his patent, specifying the manner in which it was granted.’

We now approach the conclusion of the Lord Chancellor’s earthly career; the three-score and ten years had been reached, and illness prostrated the strong frame of the once vigorous Irish Chancellor. He suffered much from repeated attacks of gout, and in the spring of 1767 his physicians were very seriously alarmed about his health. He resolved to lose no time in settling his temporal affairs, and made his will in favour of his two brothers, Samuel Bowes and Ramsay Bowes, Esqrs., of Benfield, County Surrey. He did so in time, as on July 22 in that year Lord Bowes died, and the title of Lord Bowes of Clonlyon disappeared from the peerage. He was interred in the Cathedral of Christ’s Church, Dublin, where a handsome monument is erected to his memory.

The appearance and manner of Lord Bowes were extremely agreeable. His countenance was oval, with handsome features, and a winning smile. His look inspired confidence and created trust. His voice was clear and resonant, the selection of his words happily chosen, and his delivery that of an accomplished elocutionist. It is to be regretted no more than one decision of this able Judge has reached us. The reason which guided his judgments now must remain unknown. I have only traced one judgment of Lord Bowes. In the cause of Rochfort *v. *Earl of Ely, [Reported in Wallis’s Reports, by Lyne, p. 172. The judgment of Lord Chancellor Bowes I give from Ridgeway’s Par. Cases, vol. i. Ap. ii.] a petition in 1758 having been presented to Lord Bowes, then Lord Chancellor, by a party claiming under a settlement to set aside certain deeds, fines, and recoveries, executed, levied, and suffered by the Earl of Ely, who was alleged to have been of weak mind, and praying that a Commission be granted to enquire into the capacity of the alleged lunatic. A Commission issued, directed to certain parties therein named, ‘to enquire and report whether the respondent, the Earl of Ely, was an idiot or person of unsound mind. The jury, having examined many witnesses, and also the Earl himself, returned a verdict that his Lordship was *not *an idiot, or person of unsound mind.’ Whereupon Rochfort presented another petition to the Chancellor, praying ‘that this inquisition might be set aside, and that his Lordship would be pleased to examine the Earl personally, or that a new Commission might issue.’ On the hearing of this petition the Lord Chancellor, on February 11, 1767, delivered the following judgment:-

‘This was a cause of more importance than he ever knew in the Court. The value of the property was very great, but the consequences as to the subject was much greater. No instance was produced to show that a finding in such a case against the Crown had been set aside, and that an attempt to set it aside must make a Judge to whom the application was made well consider the consequences that might attend it. If the words *unsound mind *must have a legal signification, the inquisition having returned Lord Ely of * sound mind, *to send the matter to a further enquiry would be a departure from the legal import of the expression, and to give room for the construction contended for; that by *unsound mind *was not meant a deprivation of the faculties of reason, but a degree of weakness. If that came to be the question a new scene would be opened. If the Crown, by right of the prerogative, could issue Commissions to try whether the party was of sufficient understanding to manage himself and his affairs, it would be very vague and uncertain, and an opening would be given to invade the liberty of the subject and the rights of property. That in this sense “unsound mind” did not relate to a degree of weakness, but incapacity. It was never known that there was an application for such a Commission on account of the interest the petitioner had, which might be affected, but the application was always on behalf of the person, and he thought if there was not this restriction upon the exercise of the prerogative, the whole economy of the law would be overturned. The law had wisely provided against fraud, imposition, and deceit of all kinds, and against those acts that might draw in weak persons to dissipate their property, but it had relation to particular acts, that must stand or fall by their circumstances, and did not proceed on the general principle of prerogative. Every day’s observation presented persons in the possession of property, who might be clearly said not to have a capacity to manage, but that they were a prey for art and fraud, and yet the remedy was not by application to the prerogative, nor did our law know what the civil law admitted of *curators, *which might do very well in a constitution formed like the Roman, calculated for war and grandeur, not for commerce and the changes necessary for a commercial state. The consideration of the interest of the person in remainder after an estate tail had very little weight with him. He would be sorry to take from an unhappy subject the benefit of that part of the prerogative which was certainly originally calculated for the subject’s benefit; but he would be much more sorry to extend the prerogative to other objects than the law had extended it. He must consider the subjects of these kingdoms in a strange light if suggestions of weakness were a foundation for the King to take the person and property of the subject into his hands. He did not know who was to be trusted with the power of issuing such a Commission, nor where the jury, or set of men were, of abilities and properties necessary to determine questions of such a nature - an honest, conscientious man would be frightened at it. Dominion over his own property was the blessing and happiness of a man living in free societies. The law allows alienation by people extremely weak, who are not capable of reasoning, but on a particular thing happening to be then before them, as in case of a man making his will *in extremis, *and as incapable, of reading two skins of parchment as an Hebrew Bible, but if he knows the consequence of that act will be a disposing to one he likes, and from one he does not like, that will could not be overturned, and yet there was the greatest incapacity.’ His Lordship refused to make any order, and dismissed the Petition.

Perhaps had I whole volumes to select from, I could not have produced a better sample of argumentative reasoning, mingled with noble sentiments and apt illustration, than this solitary specimen of Lord Chancellor Bowes’ judgments.

This judgment was appealed from, and brought before the House of Lords in Westminster on February 29, 1768.

It was argued for the appellant Rochfort by Charles Yorke [Afterwards Lord Chancellor of England.] and A. Forrester, and resisted by F. Norton and A. Wedderburne, [Another Chancellor of England.] on the ground that an application for a new Commission or *melius inquirendum *was without precedent. The verdict upon inquisitions taken for the Crown, if the writ or Commission be regular, and the finding perfect, is by law traversable by the party, where the finding is *for the Crown, *but if the finding be * against the Crown *it is final; because, otherwise, such enquiries might be infinite, and productive of contradiction and uncertainty, and therefore no new Commission could in this case issue.

The Lords ordered and adjudged the Appeal should be dismissed. [Rochfort *v. *Earl of Ely. 1 Brown Par, Cases, p. 460.]

Chancellors Index. Chancellors 43. Home.