History of Lisburn (pt5)

SOME EXTRACTS

FROM THE

RECORDS OF

OLD LISBURN

AND THE

MANOR OF KILLULTAGH.

-- -- -- --

 Edited by JAMES CARSON.

-- -- -- --

CXXXXII.

-- -- -- --

HISTORY OF LISBURN.

By W. J. GREENE.

(Continued.)

1800.

Macaulay, in his "History of England," pictures King William III., when he passed through Ireland, as thinking "how different an aspect that unhappy region would have presented if it had been blessed with such a government and such a religion as had made his native Holland the wonder of the world; how endless a succession of pleasure houses, tulip gardens, and dairy farms would have lined the road from Lisburn to Belfast; how many hundreds of barges would have been constantly passing up and down the Lagan." If Macaulay could see Lisburn at the present day perhaps he would think that it does not fall far short, if it does not exceed, the picturesque and prosperous condition which his fertile imagination had conjured up. The Union of England and Ireland was consummated, in 1800, and since that period the prosperity of Ireland has increased exceedingly.

The following is a description of Lisburn written about that time:-- "At present it contains about eight hundred houses neatly built of brick, forming three good streets, at the junction of which stands a good market house, with a ballroom over it, where an assembly is held every fortnight. The Church is large, with a good spire and set of bells, the gift of the present Marquis of Hertford. There is likewise a respectable body of Quakers, a large body of Presbyterians and Methodists, who have each an elegant Meeting-house, and some Roman Catholics, who have also a good Chapel. The trade of the town is very considerable, both in the manufacturing of linen and cotton and also in the shop-keeping line. The following gentlemen have elegant houses, viz.:-- Messrs. Hunter, Rogers, Crommelin, Delacherois, Roger Johnson-Smyth, Handcock, etc. Samuel Heron. Esq., has a good villa in the Castle Garden, from which there is fine view of the river and part of the County Down. The Linen Hall, erected at the expense of the Marquis of Hertford, is a large square court surrounded by a piazza of brick. There is a great market for linen, etc., held here every Tuesday. The present Marquis of Hertford, in 1796, built a very good shambles on a small rivulet in Smithfield. where a great number of black cattle are exposed for sale every Tuesday. The principal inns are kept by Mr. Samuel Waring and Mr. Shaw. Vitriol is made here at present (on the site of the Island Spinning Company) by Dr. Alexander Crawford, a physician of eminence. The works were erected first about thirty years ago by Messrs. Thomas Gregg and Waddell Cunningham, of Belfast. The town is supplied with water by pipes from a basin above it, where it is conveyed from the fountains in Castle Robin and the other mountains.

The streets are wide and well paved, and lighted with globe lamps at proper distances. The river Lagan is now navigable from Belfast to Lough Neagh by a new canal lately finished by Mr. Richard Owens, at the expense of the late Marquis of Donegal!.

Lisburn now returns one member to the Imperial Parliament since the Union. The officers of the Lisburn Cavalry are the Marquis of Hertford, William Smyth, S. Delacherois, James Fulton, and 64 men. The infantry officers are N. Delacherois, Wm. Coulson, and 150 men."

In the famine year of 1800, when the price of wheat in Mark Lane was 130s the quarter, and the retail price of oatmeal 10s the sieve of 20 lbs., John Handcock imported from Philadelphia 200 tons of Indian meal, the first sample of that article ever seen in Ulster. He also brought over 500 barrels of American flour, and both were sold at cost price to the more distressed families in Lisburn. Penal laws were then savage and merciless. The theft of goods to the value of 5s from any dwelling-house was punished with death. In 1811 Mr. Handcock's bleach greens in Lambeg had been broken into and three webs stolen. Knowing the penalty, he refused to prosecute the accused, and, with the aid of Mr. John M'Cance, of Suffolk, and other linen merchants, Sir Samuel Romilly, M.P., was induced to bring a Bill to the House of Commons for the milder punishment of bleach-green robbers. The measure passed, and from that time the crime gradually lessened in Ulster and is now unknown.

Mr. H. Betty, of Chapel Hill, Lisburn, was a linen merchant and bleacher. He was the father of W. Henry West Betty, born in 1791, and known in theatrical circles.

"The Young Roscius."

He became an adept in reciting Shakespeare in his ninth year, and in 1804 created the greatest sensation ever known in the theatrical world in London. Not far from Chapel Hill, in a small house in Bow Street, dwelt another celebrity, Sydney Owenson, who became Lady Morgan, the authoress of "The Novice of St. Dominick," "The Wild Irish Girl," and "St. Clair." Lisburn from time to time has been fortunate in having for its inhabitants men who, having ao abundance of this world's goods, were not forgetful of their poorer brethren, among whom were the Rev. Mr. Carleton, the interest of whose bequest is divided annually among poor householders of the town. An almshouse for eight poor widows was founded by the will of Mr. Williams in 1826, and six almshouses for as many poor widows were also founded by a member of the Traill family. In 1828 the town first elected Commissioners to look after the watching, lighting, and cleansing of the town, and four night watchmen were also appointed.

In 1845 an indignation meeting was held, the Marquis of Downshire in the chair; on one of the hills that rise above the station of the Great Northern Railway. Mr. James Watson, of Brookhill, had been deprived of the Commission of the Peace, as well as the Deputy-Lieutenancy of the County, on account of having attended a meeting of the Orange leaders early in July.

"The Old Commodore,"

as Mr. Watson was called, had been a steady friend of law and order for half a century. As a captain of a local corps of yeomanry he had led one section of the loyal troops at the battle of Antrim, in June, 1798, where his horse was shot under him, and he himself narrowly escaped death. Residing as he did at Brookhill and heaping up the fame of a country gentleman, a worthy magistrate, and an enthusiastic lover of turf and field sports, he enjoyed universal popularity with peer and peasant, and the action of the Irish Government in depriving him of his magisterial honours caused widespread indignation. In that feeling the Conservative was heartily joined by many Liberals, all of whom held the Chief of Brookhill in the highest respect. When arrangements had been made by Mr. Watson's friends for the purpose of getting up a meeting of sympathisers in Lisburn, great difficulty was experienced in obtaining a field to hold it in. At last Mr. David Beatty was applied to, and at once gave the committee leave to hold the meeting in his field, a spot since famed as "Watson's Hill." The meeting was one of the most enthusiastic ever seen in the North of Ireland. It was estimated that fifty thousand, including all creeds and classes, attended the great convention. In the years 1847-48, through the failure of the potato crop, the famine was sore in the land, and a committee was formed to look after and help the starving poor of the town, when the manufacturers and others subscribed liberally towards that deserving object.

In 1863

the disastrous civil war in America, by destroying the cotton crop, produced widespread misery in the North of Ireland, and particularly in those districts where the cotton trade was the staple manufacture. A committee of gentlemen resident in Lisburn was formed to supply the waste of those who were suffering, and that committee appealed, and appealed successfully, to wealthy men in Ireland, England, and Scotland, and received large contributions from the charitable in all districts, and particularly from many successful men in our colonies -- Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. One of the most generous was Mr. A. T. Stewart, of New York, who chartered a ship at his own expense, filled her with provisions to the value of £6,000, and despatched her across the Atlantic to relieve the starving poor of his native town of Lisburn. On her return she took out about 120 emigrants, whom he provided for until they found employment in their adopted land. Full particulars of these time's and of Mr. A. T. Stewart will be found in Mr. Hugh M'Call's book, "The Cotton Famine."

In 1878, Sir Richard Wallace

succeeded to the estate, after a long and costly litigation with Sir Hamilton Seymour, and his coming marked a new era in the history of Lisburn. The early lords of the soil from Sir Fulke Conway to Francis second Marquis of Hertford paid annual visits to the estate, but the third and fourth holders of the title and property were absentees. With the exception of a three weeks' visit by Richard fourth Marquis, paid in October, 1845, neither father nor son set foot on the estate from 1822 till 1870; nor did either of these landlords grant a building lease in fee simple. Very little increase was made in the population during the interval, but owing to the munificent and gentlemanly treatment by Sir Richard of the rural tenantry, and the granting of building sites on leases in fee simple, together with the promptitude and business-like arrangements of his estate agent, F. L. Capron, Esq., in having these leases perfected, a new era dawned on Lisburn, and its progress during the following years has been almost phenomenal. The gross valuation of the town in 1874 was £15,339; 1884, £19,392; 1894, £25,459; 1905, £30,753 -- double the amount in 30 years. During Sir Richard's ownership many new buildings were erected at his expense, one of which is the splendid residence opposite the Castle Gardens, of which all the work in connection with it was done by residents of the County Antrim. The old Market House was renovated, the dome re-coppered and adorned by a handsome illuminated clock. In 1874 the Towns' Improvement Act, 1854-55 was adopted, and on the 9th July the election of Town Commissioners took place, when out of thirty candidates the following fifteen were elected -- viz., William Graham, David Beatty, William Savage, Robert Alister, Redmond Jefferson, Samuel A. Johnson, James A. Mack, Samuel Musgrave, John Ruddy, John D. Barbour, George Bell, John Ritchie, George StGeorge, James S. Dawson, Lucas Waring. In 1893, Bills were promoted in Parliament for the purchase of water and market rights from Lady Wallace, which passed, and since they became the property of the town have bean improved and enlarged. Since then the Courthouse, Assembly Rooms, and Estate Office (the latter now used as the Town Hall) have been purchased from Sir John Murray Scott.

In 1884, Sir Richard Wallace, Bart., presented to the town the handsome public park called by his name. It contains 25 acres, in which are some fine oaks, elms, and limes; there is a beautiful lime-tree walk along the side of the railway, which is familiarly known as the "Dean's Walk" from having been planted by Dean Stannus, who was for many years rector of the Cathedral, and at same time acted as agent for the Marquis of Hertford.

Some years after,

Sir John Murray Scott

presented the Castle Gardens to the town this is one of the most interesting places in it owing to its historical associations. It has an entrance from Castle Street, and a beautiful lime-tree walk leading almost through the centre, at the end of which there is a monument to Sir Richard Wallace, erected by public subscription, and beyond this is placed one of the guns captured at Sebastopol, and presented by Admiral Meynell, R.N., in 1858. From the bowling green there is a charming view of the County Down, a portion of which is known as Largymore forms part of the town of Lisburn. There is also a beautiful fountain situated in the centre of the gardens. Thus very few towns of the same size of Lisburn are so well provided with public parks.

(To be continued.)

(This article was originally published in the Lisburn Standard on 25 July 1919 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 – Third Trial, Feb. 1872

SOME EXTRACTS
FROM THE
RECORDS OF

OLD LISBURN

AND THE

MANOR OF KILLULTAGH.

-- -- -- --

Edited by JAMES CARSON.

-- -- -- --

LXXXI.

-- -- -- --

SEYMOUR V. WALLACE.

THIRD TRIAL.

EXCHEQUER COURT, FEB. 26, 1872.

Tried before seven judges. Three decided in favour of Seymour, four in favour of Wallace.

Immediately after the decision arrangements were entered into for a final appeal to the House of Lords. An agreement, however, was come to a few months afterwards between the parties, whereby Sir Richard Wallace took over the Irish estate absolutely, paying Sir George Hamilton Seymour the sum of £400,000.

The Chief Baron,

in giving judgement in favour of Sir Richard Wallace, said he could not expunge from the codicil and treat as nul the expression "real." It referred to the real estate given by the will, which dealt only with the Irish estates, for the testator had no other real estate.

Had the word "real," any meaning at all?

Treating this not as a lawyer, but looking at it from the testator's position with all the surrounding circumstances, including the antecedent circumstances, he was satisfied the fourth marquis must have understood what was meant by the expression "real estate." From his education and intelligence, from his opportunities of knowledge as a member of the House of Lords, and from previous dealings with property, there could be no doubt he had present to his mind when writing the codicil that he was dealing with real as well as with personal estate.

There was evidence leading to a necessary inference that he must have perused the will. In the body of the will there was a correction in his own handwriting, introducing the word "Sir" before the name of Hamilton Seymour, and adding "Minister Plenipotentiary at Brussels." On the back of the will was the memorandum in his own handwriting, dated in August, 1848, and the date of the codicil was June, 1850, so that it might fairly be presumed he had the contents of the will in his mind when he made the codicil.

It was said he did not know the distinction between real and personal estate, but that was highly improbable in the case of a person of his rank, education, and enlightenment. It was difficult to assume that he did not know the significance of the word "real" when using it in the codicil. He (the chief Baron) could not imagine a condition of mind in which he would write "real and personal estate" without intending to convey that there was a thing called "real" and a thing called "personal estate." In the codicil he dealt with the residue of all his real and personal estates, and the only real estate given by the will was his Irish estate. The defendant, if he meant to exclude these Irish estates, must show that there was other real estate upon which the codicil could operate. It did not appear that any such other real estate existed. Therefore the testator truly described the devise of all his Irish estates to Lord Henry Seymour as a devise of the residue of all his real estate. The word "real" must have the ordinary import, unless there was something in the context to repeal that meaning.

Then what was the meaning of the word "residue?" It was what remains after dealing with the whole. He gave the large annuity of £12,000 and created other charges, and would it not be reasonable to say that what remains after deducting these charges was the residue?

The plaintiff was to get the real estate, subject to these charges, and what remained to him after these charges was the residue.

But he had the testator interpreting his own meaning, and saying he understood the residue to be all that he gave to Lord Henry Seymour, and what he gave to Lord Henry was what remained after paying the £12,000 a year and other charges.

He (the Chief Baron) was unable to ascertain the slightest doubt that the testator did intend to revoke the bequest of the real estate to Lord Henry Seymour, and to revoke that the bequest of real estate under the word residue. True, there was no express revocation of the ultimate limitations, but they were revoked the moment there was a clear revocation of the first gift of the subject-matter of these limitations. Anything more baseless, unsupported by a single particle of fact, than the notion that the testator did not understand the meaning and effect of what he was writing in the codicil, he never heard.

He adopted the proposition that the judge could not make up his mind without reasonable doubt that the codicil revoked the will, he ought to allow the will to stand. If there was a reasonable doubt, that doubt was not to be resolved by ratiocination.

He was not at all surprised that there should be a disposition to attribute to the testator a desire to connect the estate with the family title. That was a natural sentiment in which he entirely sympathised. He was one of those who thought that the great houses which had existed for ages, or even arose in modern times, should be maintained. He was not, therefore, surprised at the desire to sustain dispositions which kept property connected with titles. But sitting in a court of law, he should fling all these consideration to the winds when he came to the great maximum of the law, that he who is the owner can dispose.

It did appear a strange thing that these half-dozen lines of a codicil should dispose of these vast possessions without the intervention of a of a solicitor to draft a conveyance, and that there should not be a resort to some of that eminent profession who had for ages aided in the disposal of property. But still he could not hold that the express words of a man of education and enlightenment should not have all the force the belonged to them according to the import of words in the English language. Placing himself, as a brother judge had said, in the position of the testator himself, when writing the codicil or called on to construe it the day after it was written, he could not entertain a doubt but that the codicil revoked the devise of the Irish estates to Lord Henry Seymour and give them to the plaintiff. He was, therefore, of opinion the judgement of the Common Pleas should be reversed, and that the verdict should be entered for the plaintiff -- Sir Richard Wallace.

Lord Chief Justice Whiteside

delivered judgement for the defendant -- Sir George Hamilton Seymour -- affirming the decision of the Common Pleas and Assize Court.

It was said by the Chief Baron that this question should be regarded with the eye of common sense. He owned that came upon him as a surprise. It was observed that they must regard the testator as an educated man. They were asked to take up his this fifth codicil and interpret by itself. He would do nothing of the kind. He would consider the antecedent instruments and facts, and then consider the codicil and its effect on the will.

After the fourth marquis came of age, his first act was to entail and settle the estates, and all this was to be set aside by a codicil. There was no question but that the will was a clear and precise document.

There was grave doubt as to Lord Hertford's understanding of the word "real."

There was a legacy to Sir R. Wallace of £30,000, and an annuity for life to a lady of £12,000, and then Lord Henry Seymour was made residuary legatee of all the personal estate. That will remained untouched for twelve years.

He now came to the codicils, the first four of which referred to the will, and affirmed the will, and the legacy given to a lady by the fourth codicil was to go, in the event of death, to Lord Henry Seymour, the residuary legatee under the will. It was said that with these intentions, expressed over and over again, affirming the will, he suddenly conceived the idea of revoking the will and of disinheriting his brother, the heir of the marquisate.

The fifth codicil was made only seven days after the fourth.

The two great principles which governed the conduct of men in this world were love and hate. There was evidence of a growth of affection Sir Richard Wallace, but where was the evidence of any change of feeling -- of any hatred -- towards Lord Henry Seymour, to explain the stripping that brother of every acre of the hereditary estates in Ireland? Lord Hertford understood the evils of a pauper peerage, and the blessing of living in a country where a powerful aristocracy supported the monarchy. Was it to be said Lord Hertford, knowing the rank of the family, and the requirements of the title, intended by the fifth codicil to take away every acre of the paternal estates in Ireland from Lord Henry, who in the course of nature he would have regarded as his successor in the title? In his opinion the clause of revocation in the codicil did not apply to the devise in the will of the Irish estates. He had no doubt whatever but that the object of Lord Hertford was to entail the Irish estates on his family.

The codicil like this, made without legal assistance, ought not to set aside a well drawn according to established legal principles, unless that revocation was clearly and distinctly expressed.

The word "real" was in the codicil, no doubt, but did it apply to the real estate disposed of by the will? How could anyone say that this codicil, infelicitously and obscurely worded, was clearer than the limitations contained in the will? The position of the word "real" in the codicil must not be overlooked. The four first codicils dealt only with the personal estate, and it was the fifth dealt with all the real estate as well. The word "real" must be estimated by the context, and that context dealt only with the personal estate.

The position of Lord Hertford and the circumstances of the family had been overlooked in construing this codicil. This codicil should be regarded as a general devise of the residue of all the testator's real and personal estate; that would not revoke the device to Lord Henry, which was not a devise of a residue of real estate, but it would affect a gift of what had not been previously disposed of.

There was a gift of the "residue" of personal estate to Lord Henry, but no gift of a residue of real estate. If the testator meant to give the Irish estate to Sir R. Wallace, why did he not revoke all the limitations over those estates, after the limitation to Lord Henry? If it were to be held there was a revocation, it would be only of what was given to Lord Henry himself -- namely, a life estate -- and Lord Henry being dead, Sir R. Wallace would take nothing.

His Lordship give reasons for supposing that the testator used the word "real" in reference to other property called "effects" in the will, and said he was for these reasons of opinion that the judgement of the Common Pleas should be affirmed; but the majority of the Court holding the other way, the judgement of the Court must be one reversing the judgement of the Common Pleas, and entering a verdict for the plaintiff -- Sir Richard Wallace -- with costs.

Chief Justice Whiteside referred twice to the length of the address delivered by counsel for Sir Richard Wallace.

And all this -- referring to the will -- was to be set aside by a codicil, which they were told was as clear as day, but which it took counsel a day and a half to obscure.

The fact that the counsel was a day and a half trying to clear up the codicil satisfied him that there must be obscurity in it.

He further spoke rather disparagingly of Lord Hertford's ability to understand the meaning of the word "real".

(Next week: Stannus v. "Northern Whig.")


(This article was originally published in the Lisburn Standard on 3 May 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 – 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.)

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.)