CHRONICLE. 



279 



day, at the desire of the noble de- 

 fendant. 



Mr. O'Deady, jun. council, 

 opened the case of earl Stanhope- 

 Mr. Richards, on behalf of lord 

 Mahon, expressed a wish that the 

 noble defendant, who was in court, 

 should not be permitted to speak 

 for himself, as he had engaged the 

 assistance of counsel. 



Earl Stanhope immediately ad- 

 dressed the master of the rolls. 

 He said that old birds were not to 

 be caught by chaff. He claimed it 

 as an indisputable right to speak 

 for himself, because he knew his 

 own cause better than he could in- 

 struct any counsel. His intention 

 was to state his objections to the 

 decree which his honour had made 

 on the 9th of March, 1808 ; and 

 before he should state them, he 

 wished to acquit his honour the 

 master of the rolls of all bias or 

 partiality, and he trusted that any 

 thing he should say against his op- 

 ponents should not be considered 

 by the learned gentlemen (Sir 

 Samuel Romilly and Mr. Richards), 

 who were counsel for the plaintiff, 

 as a personal attack upon them- 

 selves. His lordship said, that his 

 son had originally hleda bill against 

 him full of falsehood, and charging 

 him with many atrocities, which he 

 afterwards abandonedin his amend- 

 ed bill. He was charged in the 

 amended bill with having exceeded 

 the powers vested in him by hisfirst 

 marriage settlement, and his honour 

 referred it to Mr. Harvey, one of 

 the masters in chancery, to inquire 

 how far the allegations were true. 

 To that part of the decree he felt 

 himself bound to object, because it 

 was not sought for in the prayer of 

 the bill ; and he contended that no 

 decree of the court of chancery 



could be made upon any other 

 grounds than those which were 

 stated in the bill, and the allega- 

 tions of the bill must also be 

 proved by the answer of the de- 

 fendant, or some other evidence. 

 He objected partly to the decree, 

 because it referred to what had 

 taken place in his father's time, and 

 for whose acts he could not be re- 

 sponsible. He had nothing to do 

 withwhatestateshisfather had sold, 

 nor the money he received for them, 

 and he therefore thought that part 

 of the decree which referred to that 

 point ought to be expunged. In 

 the whole bill there was no charge 

 made against him respecting the 

 estates which had been sold in his 

 father's time, and if there had, it 

 could not apply to him, but to his 

 father's trustees, who were dead ; 

 and there was no person made 

 party to the suit who could defend 

 hisfatber's characterin his transac* 

 tions. He could not consider the 

 inquiry of the master to be any 

 thing else than a sham inquiry, be- 

 cause no opportunity was allowed 

 of cross-examining the witnesses, 

 whomightperhapsbeperjured. He 

 did not think that his honour could 

 act upon a report taken under such 

 circumstances. His lordship then 

 quoted a number of law authori- 

 ties, tending to show, thatno decree 

 could be made by any court of 

 justice beyond that which the 

 plaintiff prayed for. The doctrine 

 was established in the case of Mr. 

 Hastings, where the House of 

 Lords, at the request of Mr. Law, 

 now lord Ellenborough, refused to 

 hear any evidence which did rot 

 respect any of the charges alleged 

 against the defendant. — His lord- 

 ship, therefore, objected to the de- 

 cree, because it was not founded 



upon 



