Seymour v Wallace – Second Trial, Dec. 1871

SOME EXTRACTS
FROM THE

RECORDS OF

OLD LISBURN

AND THE

MANOR OF KILLULTAGH.

-- -- -- --

Edited by JAMES CARSON.

-- -- -- --

LXXX.

-- -- -- --

SEYMOUR V. WALLACE.

 SECOND TRIAL.

VERDICT AGAIN IN FAVOUR OF SEYMOUR.

Judgment in Court of Common Pleas, December 5th, 1871.

Chief-Justice Monahan delivered the unanimous judgment of the Court. It appeared from the evidence on the trial that the Hertford family had very large hereditary estates in England and Ireland; that a settlement was executed on the 2nd October, 1802, which embraced the Irish estates and also the English estates. By that settlement the estates were limited through all the limitations to the marquis for life, the remainder to his eldest son and other sons in tail, with several remainders over, the ultimate reversion in fee being vested in the then marquis himself. On the 9th September, 1837, a deed of revocation was executed, and a settlement between the then marquis, on the one part, and his eldest son and heir-apparent, Lord Yarmouth, of the other. The effect of that deed of revocation was this, that by it the Irish estates were limited to the marquis himself for life, with remainder in tail to the first and other sons of Lord Yarmouth, the ultimate reversion being Lord Yarmouth. That was in respect of the Irish estates. The English estates, on the contrary, were limited in strict settlement.

So the matter stood on the execution of the deed of the 9th September, 1837. At the time of the execution of that deed Lord Yarmouth was not seized in possession of any real estate, so far as he (the Chief-Justice) could see. He had settled on him under the deed of 1837 an annuity of £5,000 for the joint life of himself and his mother, with a life estate in the lands, but the ultimate reversion in fee of the Irish estates was vested in Lord Yarmouth. The property being so circumstanced, a codicil to the will was executed, on the construction of which the difficulty in the present case arose. The will bore date the 24th June, 1838, some few months after the execution of the settlement.

His lordship read the will, and said it was an important matter for consideration that the subject-matter of the devise was the Irish estates of which the Marquis of Hertford was then possessed, or of which he might be possessed at the time of his demise. To that extent it had a residuary application so far as the Irish estates were concerned, because it referred to Irish estates -- whether actually in possession, the remainder, or expectancy. Formerly no devise of real estate could carry more than the testator was seized of at the time of making the will; but at present a devise of real estate would take in all the testator might afterwards become seized or possessed of. That being the nature of the devise, the next question was the disposition of the property. Certain legacies and annuities were granted, and trustees were appointed; and if the personal estate should not prove adequate for the payment of the debts, annuities, and pecuniary bequests, power was given to raise a sum of money sufficient for the payment of those annuities and legacies.

His lordship referred in detail to the several trusts in the will. It appeared from the evidence that Sir George Hamilton Seymour, the devisee in the will, was not the heir-at-law. He was descended from the fifth son, while the marquis was descended from an elder son, so that there was the issue of one son between himself and the title. In addition to the limitations, the testator gave very large charging powers, and portions to younger children, which would lead one to the conclusion that the estates were of very considerable value to bear such heavy charges. There was one bequest of £30,000, which was to be invested in the public funds, the interest on which was to be paid to one Richard Jackson for life, subsequently to his children, and in default of issue to Richard Jackson absolutely. In addition to that, he bequeathed to a lady named Idle, who was resident in Paris, £12,000 a year during her life, the first payment commencing after his decease. He then made the bequest of his personal estate and effects, subject to the legacies mentioned and the payment of general and testamentary expenses, to Lord Henry Seymour, his executors, administrators, and assigns, for his and their absolute benefit.

Having made and executed this will, it would appear that no change was made in it while he remained Lord Yarmouth; but in the year 1842, his father having died, he became Marquis of Hertford, and entitled to estates in possession both in England and Ireland. Being so seized and possessed of this property, on the 1st of June, 1850, he executed a codicil. Then another. He described it as a further codicil to the last will and testament of Richard Seymour, Marquis of Hertford. By that codicil he gave to Madame Oger -- who was then living in Half Moon Street, Piccadilly, and who had her domicile in Paris -- £5,000 sterling, to be paid by his executors. By a further codicil, executed at the same time, he gave his house and paintings in the Rue Lafitte to this lady, Madame Oger. She was empowered to do what she pleased with it, except to sell it. It would also appear that the testator had a peculiar desire for multiplying testamentary documents, for on the one day it appeared he executed no less than four codicils, three of the four being for the benefit of this French lady. He also gave her an annuity of £2,000 a year for her life. The third codicil was all in the testator's handwriting. By the third codicil he bequeathed a sum of £10,000 to a young lady, a minor, who was then residing at Marley. On her attaining the age of 21 the money was to be handed over to her. A professional man appeared to have been employed for the preparation of that particular codicil.

Then there came a fifth codicil, dated 7th of June, 1850, six or seven days after the other. By that codicil he says -- "I hereby revoke the bequest contained in my will of the residue of my real and personal estate to my brother, Henry Seymour; and to reward Richard Wallace for his attention to my mother, and his devotion to me during a long and painful illness which I had in Paris, I give the same residue to Richard Wallace absolutely." That was the codicil on which the right to those large and extensive estates depended. The only other document completing the reference to the will was the probate, on which it appeared stamp duty to the amount of £6,000 had been paid. The personal property was sworn to be under £500,000. The deceased nobleman was described as of Warwick, Suffolk, Manchester, and Lisburn.

There being the will and codicil, the question which that Court had to decide was -- What operation, if any, the particular codicil had on the devise of the Irish estates contained in the will, and which estates were bequeathed or devised to his brother for life, which remainder to first and other sons, with remainder to daughters in tail also, and in default of all such issue, to Sir Henry Seymour for life, with ultimate remainder to himself? Before stating the conclusion the Court had unanimously arrived at, he would refer shortly to some of the cases cited on the construction of wills and codicils in determining what operates as a revocation. The Chief-Justice commented at length on the effect of the decisions in those cases as applicable to the present. These were the principles which they were bound to apply to the construction of the will and codicil in question, and he would state shortly the reasons which induced him and the other members of the Court unanimously to hold that the Irish estates do not pass under the devise of the fifth codicil. For his own part, he could say that during the arguments he entertained a very strong opinion the other way; but on a careful consideration of the words of the will and codicil, and the authorities bearing on the question, he had since formed, but he would not say a very decided opinion as to what the intention of the testator was. He had a strong opinion, however, as to what ought to be the judgment of the Court.

The codicil revoked the bequest contained in the will of the residue of the real and personal estate to his brother, Lord Henry Seymour. The first question was: What was the devise in the will expressly revoked by that clause? Was there in the will a bequest or devise at all of the real estates to Lord Henry Seymour? In his (the Chief-Justice's) opinion, there was not. He did not come to that conclusion on the grounds argued -- that the words were not sufficient to convey the residue of the Irish estates -- but bearing in mind that hey were construing the will of an English testator who resided in England, and was dealing with his Irish estates. The clause with which they were dealing was clearly not a devise of all his residuary estate. The revocatory part of the codicil was express in revoking only the devise to Lord Henry. If the testator had not added the subsequent part of the will, and if the question was between the heir-at-law and Sir George Hamilton Seymour, no one, he believed, could contend that the revocation of the life estate given to his brother, Lord Henry, would at all revoke the subsequent life estate given to Sir George Hamilton Seymour. On the contrary, he Would immediately take the estate under the will, and same would not pass to Sir Richard Wallace. But what did the codicil devise to Sir Richard Wallace? It says, "I give such residue to Sir R. Wallace." What is "such residue," then? It was perfectly plain "such residue" was the same residue of the real and personal estate contained in the will, and devised to Lord Henry Seymour. If the Marquis of Hertford intended to dispose of these Irish estates, which were the subject of very long, elaborate limitations in the will, he (the Chief-Justice) could not bring himself to the conclusion that he would not have, stated in the codicil that he was revoking the limitation, not merely so far as his brother, Lord Henry Seymour, was concerned, but also as to the ultimate remainder where Sir G. H. Seymour was concerned. Further, he believed if the marquis intended to dispose of such enormous estates, amounting to some £40,000 or £50,000 a year, he would have done so by such a codicil, and would have done so by such a codicil, and would have availed himself of the assistance of some professional man.

Then came the difficulty as to what was to be done with the word "real" contained in the codicil. It was difficult to give a satisfactory answer to that question. It was probable the testator did not know what the effect of the construction of it was. According to the legal construction of the words "my personal estate and effects," in his opinion it would apply only to personal estate, and would not pass real estate. He did not know what the knowledge of the Marquis of Hertford was, but he described what he revoked as "the residue of all my real and personal estates." Having given the best consideration he could to the case, he had come to the conclusion that, notwithstanding the words of revocation might be sufficient to pass the estate, yet he was not satisfied that such was the true construction of the words, or that it was the intention of the testator to pass these Irish estates.

The codicil should be clear and explicit and unambiguous in order to interfere with the clear disposition of the property in the will. In his (the Chief-Justice's) opinion, that did not exist in the present case. Therefore, the judgment of the Court should be in favour of the will and against the codicil, the cause shown to be allowed. Accordingly, the verdict entered in Antrim in favour of Sir George Hamilton Seymour stands, as the codicil did not clearly revoke the disposition of the Irish estates the will.

(Next Week: Third Trial.)


(This article was originally published in the Lisburn Standard on 26 April 1918 as part of a series which ran in that paper each week for several years. The text along with other extracts can be found on my website Eddies Extracts.)

Seymour v Wallace – First Trial, 1871 (pt 2)

SOME EXTRACTS

FROM THE

RECORDS OF

OLD LISBURN

AND THE

MANOR OF KILLULTAGH.

-- -- -- --

Edited by JAMES CARSON.

-- -- -- --

LXXIX.

-- -- -- --

SEYMOUR V. WALLACE.
FIRST TRIAL.

BELFAST ASSIZE SPECIAL JURY, JULY, 1871.


Notes from Address by Counsel for Sir Richard Wallace.

(Continued.)

That is the will of 1838, or, at least, the material portion of it; and, at the time of its execution, they would pause to consider the circumstances of the Earl of Yarmouth. His father was alive at that time, and he had nothing to bequeath or devise but his Irish estates, for the English estates could not have been devised. His father at that time being living, he might observe that the reversion of the Irish estate was not very valuable, because they knew that during the lifetime of an old man of sixty, the reversion at his death is not a commodity easily selected in the market; and if they took out of this reversion the £30,000 charged to it, and a £12,000 a year to Mrs. Idle, he thought he might say that devise of those Irish estates was certainly not very considerable. It is important to recollect that Lord Yarmouth had nothing to devise but Irish estates, for the deed of 1802, was superseded by that of 1837. That being so, that will having been thus executed in 1838, the third marquis died in 1842. He had said before that Mr. Wallace had been living on the amicable terms he had described with the fourth marquis from his childhood; while, as time progressed, the affection displayed with the Marquis of Hertford was increasing -- in point of fact, as far as he could judge from what he had seen and read of his care, that the affectionate communion of the two human beings could not be closer; and that the fourth Marquis of Hertford had a generous and disinterested affection for his mother and for Richard Wallace before all others in the world. Now, at this time Lord Henry Seymour, who was the brother, and who was heir-presumptive to the title and English estates, supposing his brother to die unmarried, was tenant-in-tail of the English estate, and, therefore, must be absolute master.

Lord Henry Seymour, being at the time of the settlement in 1802 unborn, he must necessarily be a tenant-in-tail. That is what we mean. The fourth marquis was tenant for life, and, in default of his male issues, Lord Henry Seymour was tenant-in-tail. Lord Henry, under the will of 1838, would be entitled to the life interest of the Irish estates, and the life interest only. He was unmarried also, and died unmarried in 1859.

The fourth marquis been absolutely entitled to do what he liked with the Irish estates, and, as he said before his affection for Mr. Richard Wallace having increased as time progressed, he executed but codicil on the 7th June, 1850. Here, then, is the codicil, and not only was a distinct in its directions, but it showed the deep sense of thankfulness and affection which he entertained towards Mr. Wallace:--

"This is a further codicil to the last will of me, Richard Seymour Conway, Marquis of Hertford, K.G., which bears date on or about the 21st June, 1838. I hereby revoked the bequest contained in my will of the residue of all my real and personal estates to my brother, Lord Henry Seymour, and to reward, as much as I can, Richard Wallace for all his care and attention to my dear mother, and likewise for his devotedness to me during a long and painful illness I had at Paris in 1840, and on all other occasions, I give such residue to the said Richard Wallace, now living at the Hotel des Baines, Boulogne-sur-Mer, in France, and whose domicile previous to the revolution of February, 1848, was in my brother's house, Rue Faitbout, No. 3, Paris (formerly No. 1), absolutely."

It is evident, then, that there is no devise co nomine either of personal or real estate but that contained in that codicil. The Irish estates, the only ones dealt with in the will of 1838, have passed to Mr. Richard Wallace. Upon the legal effect of this document this case will turn to a great extent, and with the construction of these documents the jury had not much to say -- that having almost entirely devolved upon his Lordship, who will direct them in point of law, and that will be for others to overturn, if they can, what might be done in this court. He might observe that the marquis lived till 1870 -- his brother, Lord Henry, died in 1859 -- and the result was that, whatever be the legal operation of the will and codicil, there can be no doubt that the intention was to give to Mr. Wallace the Irish estates. Or his death English estates, with the title, went to the present marquis, and he is in possession altogether; but he has no claim whatever on this Irish property. The fifth marquis is a descendant of the fifth son of the first marquis. He is a great-grandson of the first marquis, being the second cousin to the late marquis. In the will Sir George Seymour is described as the eldest son of Lord George Seymour, who was dead. He was the seventh son of the first marquis.

I take the codicil first. It says: "I hereby revoke the bequest in my will of the residue of all my real and personal estates to my brought to my brother, Lord Henry Seymour." Let us see what that deals with -- "the residue of all my real and personal estates" -- the word estates being in the plural number. Prima facie we must take it that we deal with some real estate. We are entitled to throw the onus on my friends opposite to show your lordship that real estate is not to mean real estate, but, in fact, it is to be nothing -- that that word is to be struck out of the codicil. "The bequest contained in my will of the residue of my real and personal estates." We say that that plainly is a revocation of a devise or bequest. Nothing will turn on that now material, because it is a holograph codicil drawn in the testator's hand-writing. Looking at the will, we find but one devise dealing with real estate, and that is the Irish estate. I apprehend that no case can be shown in which the word real estate, particularly when we find real estates in the plural, and when we have real and personal estates used in contradistinction to each other, has been expunged from the will, unless they show a case where it is impossible to apply to any one at all. The other side contended that as it said the residue of my real and personal estates, and as there was no gift of the residue of the real estate, it could not apply to real estates.

I will show that the word "residue" is not an erroneous description. But supposing it to be an erroneous description, it must be rejected in the same way as in the case put about the black and white horses, which is so well known. It is quite established law that if a testator bequeathes his black horse, and he happens to have only one horse, and that a white one, the false description of the animal will not affect the matter, and the white horse will pass, because it is the only subject-matter that could be dealt with. Let us see if that is such a description as will be contended for. Turn back to the will, and recollect that the other estates -- the English estates -- were settled, and that he had nothing to devise but this reversion of the Irish estates, you will find the following:-- "I given and devise all my castles, &c., and real estates whatsoever in Ireland to which I am now, or shall, or may at my deceased be seized or entitled," &c. Is it possible for any devise to be even in terms more completely a residuary devise than that? Recollect that the word residue does not occur in the will at all, and I am pointing out, and venturing humbly to press, that the form of the devise is in itself residuary. I would go the length to say, if necessary, technically residuary; but, at all events, residuary sufficiently within the popular sense to make the language of the codicil no misdescription. If you compare the description given of those estates in the devise with the language of the bequest of the personalty, you will see how closely they resemble each other.

Counsel then read the language devising the personalty, and pointed out the similarity with that and the words conveying the real estate, and went on to say that the language in describing the devise of the Irish estates was residuary, even technically inept character, and sufficiently so to justify a non-professional man like the Marquis of Hertford to use the word "residue" in the codicil. The first use was a term of 300 years to provide for the very same liabilities which the personal estate was made subject to. It was only subject to whatever might be necessary for paying of the annuity legacies and testamentary expenses -- in point of fact, at the time the will was made the real estate was the only fund out of which the £12,000 or the £30,000 could be realised, and was there any misdescription in the testator calling that in his codicil a residue, it being nothing but the residue, after providing for all those outgoings? Lord Henry got for his life so much of the Irish estates as would remain after the providing for the £30,000 and £12,000 a year, and the debts and testamentary expenses show that, in point of fact, it was only a residue. But he rather took it now as if the words were simply, "I revoke the bequest contained in my will of the residue of my real and personal estates." It went further, even. In added -- "To my brother, Lord Henry Seymour." Where were they to find words to satisfy that unless they went to the Irish estates? The plain meaning was: "Whatever real and personal estate I gave by my will to my brother, Lord Henry Seymour, I revoke, and I will give the said residue to Richard Wallace."

But, in addition, the codicil said: "And to reward, as much as I can, Richard Wallace for alk his care and attention to my dear mother, and likewise for his devotedness to me during a long and painful illness I had in Paris in 1840, and on all other occasions, I give such residue to the said Richard Wallace, now living at the Hotel des Baines, Boulogne-sur-Mer, in France," &c. There they have a declaration from the testator, drawn up in his own writing, that he wished to do all he could for Richard Wallace. His brother would seem to have been a wealthy man; his brother was provided for as marquis was exactly in the manner in which the present marquis is; he was absolutely entitled to dispose of the Irish estates in whatever way he pleased. But the testator said in the codicil, "I want to reward as much as I can Richard Wallace." Was not that a declaration that he wanted to give him as much as he could? Why was it not to apply to what they saw it plainly could apply to -- the Irish estates given to Lord Henry Seymour, who died unmarried not long after -- and very probably the marquis knew he never would be married. It appeared to him (counsel) that it was impossible, consistently with the ordinary rules of construction, to leave out the word "real," and not only that, but to do so it would not only be necessary to reduce personal estates to the singular number and read the will thus: "I hereby revoke the part contained in my will leaving the residue of my personal estate to my brother."

He admitted at once that if the Irish estates were left to go with the title there would be certainly an argument for improbability, though, indeed, it would not be a very strong argument either for a construction such as that; but when it was recollected that in the events which had occurred, for once and for ever those estates were severed from the title, the ingenuity of his learned friends could not suggest any reason why this would be allowed to go to distant collateral branch of the Seymour family, and why the marquis did not carry out the intention which he expressed of doing all he could for Richard Wallace, who had been so kind to him. He contended that the gift to be revoked was accurately referred to, and that the legatee named by the will was actually named in the codicil, and it would hardly be disputed that if he were right in his contention that the codicil revoked the devise of the Irish state to Lord Henry Seymour, it revoked the whole lot of limitations afterwards. His Lordship would recollect that it was only a life estate was given to Lord Henry Seymour by will, but in the codicil the testator used the word absolutely, showing conclusively that he intended to give them entirely to Richard Wallace, and not merely a life interest in them.

His Lordship (Mr. Justice O'Brien) -- Richard Wallace, the claimant, has brought an ejectment, and the ordinary rule is that, for the plaintiff to proceed, he must establish his title to the satisfaction of the Court. Without pronouncing any opinion, it appears to me there are difficulties in the plaintiff's construction of the will. There may be also difficulties, and there are, in the defendant's construction; but there are difficulties in the plaintiff's construction which, in my mind, preclude me from at present from saying anything more than that I don't think the claimant has satisfied me the will bears the construction he puts upon it. In saying that, I hold myself at perfect liberty, when the case comes before the upper Court, as if I had never heard the case before, to have that question rediscussed; and I have no such impression as would preclude me from forming an opinion in favour of the plaintiff. But I think the more regular and evident course, and the one more generally adopted in ejectments where the plaintiff does not make out his case clearly, is to direct a verdict for the defendant.

The jury, by direction of his Lordship, then brought in the verdict for the defendant, Sir George Hamilton Seymour.

His Lordship -- I will enter the following memorandum in my notes: "I direct a verdict for the defendant, reserving, by consent, liberty to the plaintiff to move the Court to enter a verdict for him, if the Court should be of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to it on the will and codicils, no question being raised as to the truth of the evidence; with liberty for the plaintiff, if he thinks fit, to take a bill of exceptions on the ground that the judge should not have directed for the defendant."

(Next Week: Second Trial.)


(This article was originally published in the Lisburn Standard on 19 April 1918 as part of a series which ran in that paper each week for several years. The text along with other extracts can be found on my website Eddies Extracts.)

The Mercantile Navy List

In 1845, in order to bring Great Britan into line with the rest of Europe which required all Masters and Mates to have passed an examination and obtain a certificate of competancy, The Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council for Trade brought in regulations for a voluntary examination.

The Lords of the Admiralty expanded on this and from 23rd of March, 1847, no vessel was able to be taken up as a transport, convict, or freight ship, unless the Master and Mates had obtained the required certificates.

This was further extended to passenger freight ships and others over which the Government, the Honourable East India Company, the Royal West Indian Mail, and the British and North American Mail Companies exercised control.

A Bill was then introduced into Parliament making the condition compulsory for masters and mates who obtained their ratings for the first time after the 1st January, 1851. Masters and mates who had already served in such a capacity also had to possess an authenticated attested certificate of the fact before their vessel could effect a clearance at the Custom House so they would not be required to undergo examination.

The Mercantile Navy List was established, under the superintendence of the Registrar General of Seamen, to publicise the names of those who possessed certificates and was published half-yearly from 1849. After 1857 it was issued annually until 1976 (with supplements up to the end of 1977), with the exception of 1941 to 1946 during the Second World War. Monthly supplements were issued under various titles from 1886.

Initially being a source of information on masters and mates who had obtained a certificate of competency, the early volumes also included lists of pilots, receivers of wreck, obituaries, and records of awards and testimonials for services at sea, ships signals and various official notices and statistics.

Of particular interest to the family historian the 1849 and 1850 publications gave the year of birth of those examined.

The initial publications also gave a list of registered Steam Vessels. With the passing of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 every British registerd ship was to be given an official number to be recorded on the certificate of registry and marked upon her main beam. This register would include name of vessel, port of registry, tonnage, signal letters and name and address of the owner(s). These details where then added to the Mercantile Navy List.

In the mid-1860s the names of Masters and Mates were dropped from the List.

Only a few near-complete sets exist with even the British Library set missing two volumes. The National Maritime Museum has editions which cover the period from 1857 to 1976.

The Mercantile Navy List provides a comprehensive index to ships' official numbers from 1854 to 1976 and provides basic information on each ship, which can be used to trace other records and to compile an outline history of a ship and its owners.

The same numbering system is used for crew lists and certificates held at The National Archives and in other repositories, making the Mercantile Navy List a primary resource for searching maritime records.

Many of the available editions are being digitised and a list of those available can be found at maritimearchives.co.uk

An explanation of how to use the List can be found at PortCities Southampton: How to use the Mercantile Navy List

I have transcribed the details of Masters and Mates from the 1849 publication and they can be found on my web site Eddies Extracts

Seymour v Wallace – First Trial, 1871

SOME EXTRACTS

FROM THE

RECORDS OF

OLD LISBURN

AND THE

MANOR OF KILLULTAGH.

-- -- -- --

Edited by JAMES CARSON.

-- -- -- --

LXXVIII.

-- -- -- --

SEYMOUR V. WALLACE.

FIRST TRIAL.

BELFAST ASSIZE SPECIAL JURY, JULY, 1871.

Notes from Address by Counsel for Sir Richard Wallace.

He would ask their particular attention to this important circumstance, that, whatever the result of the litigation may be -- whether, as he confidently hoped, Mr. Wallace will succeed in establishing his title to those estates, or that the defendant, Sir Hamilton Seymour, will be the successful litigant -- whatever be the result, the estates will be no longer the Hertford estates. They are separated from the marquisate of Hertford, from which, by the death of the late marquis, they have been detached.

In the year 1790 the marquisate of Hertford and earldom of Yarmouth were granted to the then Earl of Hertford, who thereby became the first marquis in 1793. He was succeeded in 1794 by his eldest son. He had a large family, seven sons and six daughters; and in '94 the eldest son became the marquis, the second after the creation of the peerage in that family. The second marquis was married twice. By the first wife he had no issue, but he married secondly Isabella Anne, the daughter of Viscount Irwin, of Scotland, and by that union he had an only son, Francis Charles Ingram Seymour Conway, who was the third Marquis.

Now, the third marquis, married a foreign lady, Madlle. Faniani, and she was the daughter of a dancer, and they might well suppose that the marriage was not very pleasing to the other branches collateral of the Seymour family. She gave birth to four children; one, a daughter, was born before the marriage, and possibly that circumstance may have led to what undoubtedly did take place -- that she was not received into the Seymour family as the wife of the head of the family, which, if differently selected, would probably have been otherwise. The daughter of the dancer of whom he spoke had three sons, the eldest Richard Seymour Conway, and he was the fourth marquis, and was the late Marquis of Hertford, the last of the line, who died. He was, in other words, the eldest legitimate son of Maria Faniani, the dancer's daughter, afterwards Marchioness of Hertford. Her second son was Lord Henry Seymour. This Mademoiselle Faniani does not appear to have lived with her other sons, or to have cared much for cultivating the acquaintance of the family who had turned their backs upon her, and so she lived in Paris almost continually. Her son, the late marquis, then Earl of Yarmouth, also went to Paris to reside at a very early age, and, in fact, spent the greater part of his time away from this country, and was not in any sense a resident in Great Britain. He was devotedly attached to his mother; whether it was that the affection which existed in his breast by reason of their being slighted by other members of the family he would not say, but whatever was the cause -- whether it was the maternal love for his mother, or the sympathy he felt for her slighted condition -- he regarded her with feelings of the sincerest love. He evidently was not well pleased at the manner in which she was treated by the other members of the family, and, as if he wished to soften the aspersion and sustain her under the affliction which she must have experienced at he contemplation of her loneliness, he remained always by her side, attending to and comforting her. This being the condition of affairs, the Marchioness of Hertford and the Marquis of Hertford both resided in Paris; and he would now, at this stage, call their attention to the connection of the plaintiff with these distinguished parties.

The plaintiff, Mr. Wallace, was born in England about the year 1819. He was the son of Mrs. Agnes Jackson, a Scotch lady, her maiden same being Wallace, and the earliest reminiscence of the plaintiff is this circumstance, that he was brought, when a child, from England to Paris, where his mother at that time resided, and was paying a visit to Lord Hertford. On being brought over to Paris he was introduced, or he might say more correctly of one of his tender years, he was shown to Lord Hertford. Eventually, after the lapse of a few months, he was one day taken into the carriage of the Marchioness of Hertford, the mother of the then Earl of Yarmouth, and from that day up to the time of the death of the Marquis of Hertford in 1870 Mr. Richard Wallace, boy, youth, and man, never left Lord Hertford. He was educated as a child, he was educated as a youth, under the direction of the late marquis; and as he advanced towards man's estate he was given an allowance of a very handsome sum, £1,000 a year. He received considerable presents from time to time, and he might illustrate the liberality with which he was treated by mentioning that when he grew a little older, and commenced amusing himself by speculating on the Bourse, they find Lord Hertford paying sums amounting to £27,000, and making an entry in his diary, "Richard paid for his losses in speculating on the Bourse, so much." In every entry made with reference to him, in his diary or any other document, it is evidently in the affectionate terms with which he regarded him, for he names him "Richard," so that there cannot be the least doubt as to the kindly relations that existed between the parties. When first this acquaintance was formed the Marquis and Marchioness of Hertford lived in the Rue Lafitte, in Paris, and we find Mr. Wallace always treated and regarded as a member of the family, dining with them daily, driving in the family carriage, and, in fact, accompanying them as a matter of course wherever they went.  Thus matters continued to progress up to the year 1837, and it was at this date that both properties of the marquis, the English and the Irish, became dissevered. The estates, English and Irish, of the Marquis of Hertford were settled by a deed bearing date the 2nd day of October, 1802.

The result of that was that the second marquis having died in 1822, the third marquis was tenant for life, remainder to the fourth marquis for life, with remainder to his first and other sons in tail. That deed contained a power of revocation, which in events that may occur was exercisable by the second marquis, and was exercisable by the third marquis and his son, then Earl of Yarmouth, afterwards fourth marquis. The deed of 1802 comprised and settled into one, and described the estates both English and Irish, including the family mansions in England. In 1837 the third marquis proposed to his son to revoke the deed as to the Irish estates, and to settle them on the fourth marquis in default of issue. That was done by a deed of revocation and appointment -- the new settlement on the 9th September, 1837.

The Irish estates were settled for life on the third marquis; for life to the fourth marquis, with remainder to his first and other sons as before, but giving him an ultimate revocation in view of any inconvenient limitations -- the English estates remaining settled to go with the title. That deed having been executed on the 9th September, 1837, on the 21st June, 1838, the then Earl of Yarmouth, afterwards fourth marquis, who had acquired the reversion in fee in the Irish estates, made his will in these words:-- "I give and devise all my castles, houses, manors, advowsons, messuages, farms, lands, tenements, titles, hereditaments, and real estates whatsoever in Ireland, of or to which I am now, or shall, or may at my decease, be seized or entitled for any estate or interest in possession, reversion, remainder, or expectancy with their rights, members, and appurtenances to the uses following."

He then gives it to two trustees for a term of 300 years upon trust, and he expressly provides that "if my personal estates shall not be adequate for payment of my just debts, and funeral and testamentary expenses, and of the annuities and pecuniary legacies hereinafter bequeathed, and to be bequeathed by any codicil or codicils in this my will, then in trust to levy and raise, by way of mortgage, of the hereinbefore devised hereditaments and premises, or any part thereof, such a sum of money as will be sufficient to make up such deficiency, as aforesaid, of my personal estate, and to apply the money so to be raised in answering and satisfying the purposes for which I have made the same raisable; provided always, and my will is that, when all and singular, the trusts hereinbefore expressed concerning the said term of 300 years shall have been fully answered and satisfied, or shall have become unnecessary or incapable of taking effect, and when the expenses of the trustee, or trustees, for the time being of the same term shall have been paid, then and thenceforth the same term shall cease and determine, and from and immediately after the expiration or soever determination of the said period of 300 years, and in the meantime subject thereto, and to the trusts thereof, to the use of my brother, the Hon. Henry Seymouth Conway, commonly, called Lord Henry Seymour, and his assigns, during his life, without impeachment of waste (except as to ornamental timber)."

"I give and bequeath the following pecuniary legacies and annuities -- that is to say, to George Capron and William Hughes Brabant, their executors, owners, and assigns, a sum of £30,000 sterling, in trust, to invest the same in or upon some or one of the Parliamentary stocks, or public funds of Great Britain, or upon Government or real securities in England or Wales, but not in Ireland, and in trust to pay unto, or empower Richard Jackson, son of Agnes Jackson, now of the ago of twenty, or thereabouts, and residing at No. 1 Rue Taitbout, in Paris, or his assigns, to receive the interest, dividends, or annual proceeds of the said £30,000, or of such stocks, funds, or securities as aforesaid, during his life; and my will is that (subject to such life interest therein of the said Richard Jackson), my said trustees, their executors, administrators, and assigns shall stand possessed of the same £30,000, and such stocks, funds, and securities as aforesaid, and the interests, dividends, or annual proceeds thereof, ii trust, for all and every the children and child of him, the said Richard Jackson, lawfully to be begotten, and their respective administrators and executors, and as to the same £30,000, and such stocks, funds, and securities as aforesaid, and the interest, dividends, or annual proceeds (subject to the trusts hereinbefore expressed concerning the same), in trust for the said Richard Jackson, his executors, administrators, and assigns, for his and their absolute benefit. I give to Amelia Idle (widow of George Idle, Esq.) an annuity, or clear yearly sum of £12,000 during her life, the said annuity to be paid by equal half-yearly instalments, the first of which shall be made at the end of six calendar months next alter my decease." Counsel then proceeded to observe that the Richard Jackson mentioned in that will is the plaintiff is this action, Mr. Richard Wallace, and about his identity, he believed, no controversy could arise.

I may here observe, for once and for all, that in 1842 Mr. Richard Jackson was rebaptised by a Protestant clergyman in Paris, and took then the name of, and thenceforward was known as Mr. Richard Wallace.

(To be Continued.)


(This article was originally published in the Lisburn Standard on 12 April 1918 as part of a series which ran in that paper each week for several years. The text along with other extracts can be found on my website Eddies Extracts.)

Seymour-Wallace Litigation of 1871

SOME EXTRACTS

FROM THE

RECORDS OF

OLD LISBURN

AND THE

MANOR OF KILLULTAGH.

-- -- -- --

Edited by JAMES CARSON.

-- -- -- --

LXXVII.

-- -- -- --

SEYMOUR--WALLACE LITIGATION, 1871.

Extracts from "Ulster As It Is,"
by Thomas Macknight, 1896.

The litigation between Sir George Hamilton Seymour and Sir Richard Wallace for the possession of the Irish estates of the late Marquis of Hertford was proceeding. The Irish Court of Common Pleas gave a judgment in favour of Sir George. This was in confirmation of a verdict delivered with great reluctance by the jury, according to the direction of the Judge of Assize is Belfast. Notice of appeal was, however, immediately given, and in the Ulster newspapers advertisements appeared cautioning the tenants not to pay any rent to the defendant, who had obtained the judgment in his favour. The tenants, a very large body, in and around Lisburn, were in a state of great perplexity. The agent of the estate, Walter T. Stannus, who up to this time had acted in a neutral capacity between the litigants, thought that the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas was irrevocable. He at once acted as Sir Hamilton Seymour's representative, and thus placed himself in a position towards Sir Richard Wallace he had afterwards much reason to regret. The Ulster tenant farmers generally watched the progress of this great case with much interest. It was for the time the general topic of conversation. Some of those on the estate were perhaps not disinclined to profit by the opportunity of not paying their rents. They were, however, very earnestly advised by a newspaper in their confidence that they might be quite sure they would have, sooner or later, to pay the money to the last farthing, and that they had better hoard it until they knew who their landlord should finally by law be declared to be. The glorious uncertainty was exemplified in the progress of this litigation. Before seven judges in the Irish Court of Exchequer Chamber the case was again considered, and a majority reversed the unanimous judgment of the Court of Common Pleas. It was known that an appeal would be made to the House of Lords. Some time afterwards, however, a compromise was come to between Sir Richard and the defendant. Sir George Hamilton Seymour agreed to take four hundred thousand pounds, and allow the larger Hertford estate in Ireland to remain with Sir Richard Wallace. The question turned on the interpretation of a codicil in Sir Richard Wallace's favour. Some lawyers maintain to this day that the Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas was right, and that it should have been upheld. Sir George Hamilton Seymour was, however, not rich; he thought it better to be on the safe side.

Stannus v. "Northern Whig."

While the litigation was proceeding, and for some time afterwards, the management of the Hertford estates had been the subject of unfavourable comment in several of the Ulster newspapers, and especially in the "Northern Whig." Walter T. Stannus, who had been superseded by Mr. Capron, the head of the London firm of Sir Richard Wallace's solicitors, thought that a paragraph and a leading article in that journal reflected upon himself. He brought an action for libel. The trial excited the greatest interest in the North of Ireland, for a plea of justification was entered, which implied that certain allegations of tyrannical conduct were true. The case came before Chief Justice Whiteside and a special jury in Dublin. The trial continued for several days, and through the Christmas holidays. Without in any way wishing to reflect on Chief Justice Whiteside's memory, it may perhaps be permitted to be said that, bred as he was in an extreme Conservative school, and with some very strong Protestant and territorial prejudices, on the bench in political cases he was at least as much an advocate as a judge. Some of the witnesses, however, confident in their statements out of court, lost their self-possession under examination in the box. The judge retorted on them with merciless severity, and he was, of course, upheld in this conduct by the leading counsel for the plaintiff, the late Serjeant Armstrong. The serjeant contended that an agent had a right to use a certain amount of influence for political objects over tenants on a large estate. He was professedly a Liberal, and had sought to obtain the representation of the ancient borough of Carrickfergus as a Liberal. But he now said in court, "Away with sentimentalism on this question between landlords and tenants."

One tenant who stated that he had been induced to sign a document of which he did not approve, was met by the Chief Justice with the statement: "Well, sir, well, you are of sane mind. You have not been in a lunatic asylum, have you?"

This for a time checked the overbearing style of Serjeant Armstrong. He appeared utterly confounded. Nor was this strange. The Bar and a large number of people in court knew that the learned serjeant had himself once been placed under certain restraint.

But this was not the last of Chief Justice Whiteside's not very judicial utterances. The question about the sane mind led to another one from the bench. The timid farmer, who had never been in the box before, said that he was perplexed when he signed the paper, with beside it a threatening notice to quit. "Surely, sir," said the judge, "you knew what you were doing?"

"Oh, yes, my lord," said Mr. Palles. the present Chief Baron, who was one of the counsel for the defendant, "he knew perfectly well what he was doing under a threat of a notice to quit." Loud cheers from the large body of tenant farmers in court greeted this announcement. "Clear the court." shouted the Chief Justice.

The judge's charge to the jury was strongly in favour of the plaintiff. He plainly stated that had it not been that the question was in some degree connected with electioneering matters in Lisburn, he would have been disposed to state that the management of a large estate was a private business and not a subject for public criticism in newspapers.

The jury, after a considerable delay, told the judge that there was no prospect of coming to an agreement. He left them to themselves and went to dinner. On his return he was informed that there was still a disagreement. In answer to a juror he gave a direction to which immediate objection was taken by Mr. Butt, who acted as principal counsel for the defendant. The judge did all he could to obtain a verdict. It would, he said, be much to be regretted if the costs of a new trial should have to be incurred. At last the jury gave way. They returned a verdict; but only for fifty pounds on each of the two counts. This could scarcely be considered a triumph to the gentleman who brought the action. That he was guilty of intentional tyranny was not believed nor even intimated. There is here no attempt, no desire to revive any of the charges which were testified to in the witness-box. It must be confessed, however, that to administer a large Irish estate for an absentee landlord like the Marquis of Hertford, under a system through which the tenants had no legal protection, was trying to the character of any human being.

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

The first hearing of the Seymour--Wallace case came up in the Assize Court in Belfast, before a special jury, when a verdict was recorded for Seymour. A full report of the proceedings appears in the Belfast Press of August 1st, 1871.

In the Court of Common Pleas, Dublin, before four judges, the judgment on appeal was again in favour of Sir George Hamilton Seymour. A report of the case appeared in the Press, November 18th, 1871.

The case on appeal then came before the Exchequer Court, January 18 and 19. Judgment was delivered February 26, 1872, when three judges gave judgment that the decision of the two previous courts given in favour of Seymour should be affirmed, four judges giving judgment that the decision should be reversed and deciding in favour of Sir Richard Wallace. Arrangement were immediately made for a final appeal to the House of Lords. A few months afterwards, however, an agreement was come to between the parties, Sir Richard Wallace taking over absolutely the Irish estate and paying Sir George Hamilton Seymour £400,000.

Intense excitement prevailed in Lisburn and all over the estate during the litigation. The tenants refused to pay their rents, not knowing who the actual owner might ultimately be. It was arranged, however, in the meantime to pay the rents to Mr. Stannus, the Hertford agent, the money to be lodged in the Bank of Ireland in the names of the two litigants pending the final settlement.

On December 19th, 1872, commenced the extraordinary libel suit heard in Dublin before a special jury -- Walter T. Stannus v. the "Northern Whig." The case continued for eight days. Damages were laid at £10,000 and resulted in a verdict for Mr. Stannus wish damages on two counts of £50 each.

(Next week: Judgment of the Court of Assize, Belfast.)


(This article was originally published in the Lisburn Standard on 5 April 1918 as part of a series which ran in that paper each week for several years. The text along with other extracts can be found on my website Eddies Extracts.)