failure of all the intermediate heirs, the said succession devolved upon the said James Galbraith of Culholm, as beir of the fifth nominatim substitute, and by his death, and that of the said Archibald Galbraith in Honeyholm, father of James Galbraith, the pursuer, the succession devolved upon the pursuer as greatgreat-great-grandson of John Galbraith, in Hill of Balgair, the seventh nominatim substitute."

The reasons of reduction, as stated in the summons, were, in the first place, the ordinary reasons of style; Secundo,

"The said pretended special service, retour, precept from Chancery, and instrument of sasine, proceed on false narratives, without due authority or legal evidence, and are altogether irregular and invalid. Tertio, The foresaid pretended special service was obtained by the said Richard Galbraith, in absence of the beforenamed James Galbraith of Culholm, now deceased, the descendant of John Galbraith of Old Graden, the fifth nominatim substitute in the said deed of entail, who, as aforesaid, declined to oppose the said Richard Galbraith's service, whereby he was served entirely in absence of the proper heir, in the false character of great-grandson of Major Hugh Galbraith, the third nominatim substitute in the said entail of Polgairs, or Balgair, although the said Richard Galbraith of Cappahard was in no way, manner, or degree descended from, or connected with, the said Major Hugh Galbraith of the kingdom of Ireland, son to the deceased Andrew Galbraith, the entailer's father's brother consanguinean, and the third nominatim substitute aforesaid. Quarto, The evidence led, adduced and exhibited by the said Richard Galbraith of Cappahard, in the foresaid service, was false, feigned, forged, simulate and devised, utterly inconsistent and contradictory in itself, totally incompetent to establish the alleged claim, and entirely destitute of authority, and unworthy of credit; and the parole evidence was likewise taken in Ireland, in a manner contrary to, and inconsistent with the laws, and inadmissible by the practice of this country. Quinto, Esto, That the said evidence had in all respects been unexceptionable, still it was utterly defective as to establishing the pretended claim of the said Richard Galbraith of Cappahard, that he was the greatgrandson of, or in any way or manner descended from the said Major Hugh Galbraith, the third nominatim substitute aforesaid in the said deed of entail, or that the said Richard Galbraith of Cappahard, was in any way descended from, or related to the said James Galbraith of Polgairs, or Balgair, the entailer, or of James Galbraith, last of Polgairs, or Falgair, who was vest and seised in the said estate in the year 1791, and died in the year 1794."

After a proof and a variety of procedure, Lord Mackenzie, on the 25th November 1823, pronounced this interlocutor:

"The Lord Ordinary having considered the memorials for the parties, and whole process, Finds, that, in the absence of all proof existing, or offered by the pursuer, to the contrary, the circumstances proven on the side of the defender, afford sufficient ground for inferring that Major Galbraith, of whose body the defender is heir-male, was Major Galbraith, of the kingdom of Ireland, who, and the heirs-male of whose body, are called in the entail of Balgair; therefore, and upon the whole case, repels the reasons of reduction, and assoilzies the defender and decerns: Finds no expenses due to either prrty."

The appellant reclaimed; but the Court, on the 20th June 1826, adhered.

The appellant then took the case by appeal to the House of Lords, and pleaded-I. The interlocutors complained of proceed upon a fundamental mistake as to the nature of the question, in so far as they take for granted that it was incumbent on the appellant to lead evidence at all, or to do anything more than to show that the evidence referred to by the respondent, in support of the service under reduction, does not prove the facts which it was incumbent upon him to

prove. II. The respondent has not proved that he is the nearest heir-male alive of the third substitute in the entail, through whom he claims the estate, viz. Major Hugh Galbraith in the kingdom of Ireland, son to the deceased Andrew Galbraith, the entailer's father's brother consanguinean, nor indeed has he proved that he is at all connected with that person.-III. A great part of the evidence relied upon by the respondent, and without which, confessedly, his case cannot he made out, is unworthy of credit. Answered-I. The appellant has failed to establish any of the grounds on which his action of reduction proceeded. -II. The respondent was justly and legally served heir to the entailed estate of Balgair.-III. The appellant has failed to identify Hugh Galbraith, merchant, burgess in Glasgow, with a pretended Major Galbraith of the county of Longford, and to make him the third substitute.

Lord Wynford.-My Lords, your Lordships have, with great earnestness, been warned to take care how you overturn the law of Scotland. I for one, I believe, am as anxious as any man in this House can be, never to trench upon the law of Scotland. If ever I should find that the law of Scotland is at variance with justice, I should still think it my duty to act according to that law, leaving it to your Lordships, in your legislative character, to alter it. But I should hope there is little danger of overturning the law of Scotland, when I am about to advise your Lordships to affirm the judgment which has been pronounced by the Courts in Scotland. There might be, perhaps, some reason for alarm, if I were about to overturn that judgment; but I should hope the law of Scotland will be safe under the protection of the Court of Session, and also under the protection of this House. The learned Counsel, who has argued with great ability, has supposed that we shall overturn the law of Scotland, if we do not support the claim of the seventh substitute, on the ground that that seventh substitute has had his right found by a Jury, and that that right has not been appealed against, and that, consequently, it must be taken as having been decided; but the learned Counsel will recollect that he admitted, that though that would prevail in the absence of any nearer claimant bringing forward a claim, yet that the moment a nearer claimant proved his claim, that instant the right of the seventh substitute is gone. Now, if your Lordships should be of opinion that the nearer claimant has offered satisfactory evidence of his claim, then, by deciding in his favour, we shall not overturn the law of Scotland-we shall not trench upon the opinion so ably given by Lord Alemore, in the Douglas case, but we shall be deciding in entire accordance with the principles of the law of Scotland. As some of your Lordships were not here when this case was first begun, it will be necessary that I should state, shortly, the circumstances of the case, which I shall be able to do the more briefly from hav ing bad a good deal of time to consider this case. Your Lordships will recollect that a person of the name of Galbraith, so long ago as the year 1705, now considerably more than 100 years ago, made this entail, which is consistent with the law of Scotland, but inconsistent with the law of England; and by the deed of entail, the estate "to be made, given and granted to me, the said James Galbraith, and the heirs to be procreate of my own body; which failing, to John Galbraith," (who is the first substitute) "eldest lawful son to umquhill George Galbraith, merchant, burgess of Edinburgh, my cousin-german, and the heirs-male lawfully to be procreate of his body; which failing, to James Galbraith, second lawful son to the said umquhill George Galbraith, and the heirs-male lawfully to be procreate of his body, which failing,"-(now comes the question which your Lordships are called upon to decide, whether the claimant, under this person, has made out, by reasonable evidence, his claim?) which failing, to Major Hugh Galbraith, in the kingdom of Ireland," he does not say of the kingdom of Ireland, but, in the kingdom of Ireland," son of the deceased Andrew

Of

Galbraith, my father's brother consanguinean." Now, unquestionably, I concede to the learned counsel, that before the respondent can establish bis case, he must give your Lordships reasonable evidence, that the person who is called in the evidence, Major Galbraith, was son to Andrew Galbraith, the settler's father's brother consanguinean. I beg leave, however, to state to your Lordships, that these facts are not required, nor are any facts in any Court of Judicature required to be proved by direct positive evidence. These facts may be raised by presumption,—and, indeed, most of the facts upon which Courts of Justice act, not only in civil, but in criminal cases, even those which affect the liberty and character and lives of individuals, are raised by presumption-and the question for your Lordships is, whether of those facts that are not directly proved in this case a presumption, unrepelled, has been proved, sufficient to satisfy your Lordships of their existence? Now, I will state to your Lordships my opinion of the doctrine of presumptive evidence-Presumptive evidence means this-where one fact, or several, closely connected with the fact to be proved, are so strongly proved as to render it highly probable that that connection exists;-if they are, unless the inference arising from that fact is rebutted by contrary proof, your Lordships may act upon the presumption. Now, so far, as to the extent that I am now about to mention, your Lordships have direct positive proof. You have direct positive proof that there was a Major Galbraith in the kingdom of Ireland; because that is proved by the best possible evidence—namely, by the evidence of the testator himself. But the next fact, which undoubtedly is equally necessary to your Lordships to be satisfied of, is, that the person under whom these parties claim, was descended from the Major Hugh Galbraith in Ireland, which Major Hugh Galbraith was the son of the deceased Galbraith, whom the testator describes as "my father's brother consanguinean." that you have no direct evidence; and, perhaps, in the imperfect state of the Registers of Scotland at that time, it would be difficult now to furnish your Lordships with direct evidence of that; but then comes the question, Have your Lordships any facts proved in this case, from whence you can infer that the Major Galbraith who was in Ireland, answered the other description, of being a son of this Andrew, the brother of the settler? Now, my Lords, this person, it is quite clear, whoever he was, had gone from Scotland many years before. It does not appear that the settler knew in what part of Ireland he was. If he had, it is most probable that, in this instrument of settlement, he would have given a more particular description of him-stating him to be Major Galbraith of Cappahard, or any other place. But he appears not to have known where he was, and therefore he gives no better description of him. Then, is that want of description supplied by other evidence? That this Major Galbraith was a major, there can be no doubt, because your Lordships have the return of the army in which he appears to be a major, although certainly not a major in the regiment in which he was once supposed to be. But you have also this important fact, which you will find to be most important, when connected with some parole evidence, that he was a major that served in Flanders, Did, then, Major Galbraith serve in Flanders? It is proved by Colonel Persse, who was a near relation, I rather think a nephew of the wife of Major Galbraith, a lady whom your Lordships may recollect, was courted in rather an extraordinary way by this gallant major, namely, that when he went for the purpose of taking her to church, he was attended by a party of horse, in order to carry her away by force. We bave heard of something like that in other countries, where they are in the habit of giving a good beating, in order to create affection. But it is no evidence in this case, that this marriage was completed by the gallant captain, who was then only captain, after carrying the lady away in the manner I have described. Now, your Lordships have evidence which, I think, makes this man to be a major beyond all doubt, and to be the major who married this lady; for you have the lady herself speaking of the civilities that she received from King James;-you have the lady herself speaking of him during the service in Flanders; and I think, therefore, here the chain is complete, to shew that there was a Major Galbraith in the army; that that Major Galbraith married Miss Persse; and that he had served in Flanders.

Then the question is-Is that Major Galbraith, who so married Miss Persse, and who so served in Flanders, a Scotchman? That is the next thing in the chain. Now, here you have the evidence of the same Colonel Persse, who appears to be above all suspicion; and his rank and station in society, if any thing can give your Lordships security for his speaking truth, do give you that security. He tells your Lordships that he had heard that he was a Scotchman; and then he gave the best possible evidence that he was a Scotchman, for he spoke with the Scotch accent. Then, your Lordships have another witness, who tells you distinctly that he had it from the major himself, that he came from Scotland. Now, stopping here, it stands thus, that the testator, who lives in Scotland, speaks of a major who was in Ireland; and you have proved by these witnesses, that this major came from Scotland into Ireland. Your Lordships also will recollect, that the figure of this man is spoken of. He was a man six feet high, and a very likely sort of person to have contracted matrimony in the manner in which he is reported. He entered into engagements with the lady against the will of her father, and it is perhaps probable that the lady would be more attracted by the six feet high man, than the father, who found he had nothing but his sword and his station. How is this man spoken of by another witness? He is spoken of as a big Scotchman. Here your Lordships have strong evidence that this was the major that came from Scotland. The other witnesses, on both sides, tell your Lordships that this man had no connexions in Ireland,-that there was a mystery about his birth, that he was described as being descended from a hogshead of port wine, probably from his taking a large proportion of wine-in short, that there was a mystery about his birth. Is not that accounted for by the circumstance of his having come over from Scotland, and having settled in a country in which he had no connexions. But it is said he may have come from Scotland, and he may be a major, and yet he may not be the cousin-german of this testator. Then, my Lords, to shew that he was connected with the Galbraiths of this family-and you have another fact which is extremely important, you have this man found with a field cloth, having upon it the arms of the Galbraiths, though, perhaps, not exactly painted as they ought to be; but I think your Lordships will go along with me in this observation, that different herald painters would represent the same arms so differently, that you would hardly know them to be the same; but, undoubtedly, there is such a resemblance between the arms of the family, and those painted upon this field cloth, which is described to have been in the possession of this person, as strongly shew that he claimed to be a member of that family. Now, I state to your Lordships all these circumstances, taken together, as constituting very cogent proof, particularly in the absence of there being any other major. If any evidence had been put in, giving your Lordships any satisfactory reason to suppose that there was some other Irishman that answered all those different descriptions, then, as I have already stated to your Lordships, the presumption raised from the facts I have adverted to, would be immediately knocked to the ground. That, therefore, it is necessary to inquire into. Is there any other person who can be put in competition with this Major Galbraith, or whose existence shews to you that this is not the man of whom this settler was speaking? Now, my Lords, here are two persons put forward as being clothed with the character of major, for the purpose of shewing that no inference can be drawn from the fact of his being a major; because it is said there are other majors to whom that description would apply. The first is a Hugh Galbraith of Johnston, in the county of Longford. Now, I quite agree that there was certainly a military service existing in this country before the present militia. I believe there was no period of time, from the feudal times down to the present, in which, besides the standing army, there were not troops in which there were persons acting who were gentlemen in the country. It is rather a speculation; but I believe, that the persons forming part of that service, were, generally speaking, considerable land proprietors. Now, that by no means answers the description of this major; because I can find him in no higher situation than that of a tenant of some manor under my Lord Lanesborough, I do not find any person of that description, possessing that sort

of property, that I should expect a man would possess who was raised to the rank of major in one of those corps. But there is some evidence of his being spoken of as major, and that might either be he, or it might be another person who is described as a major, and who certainly seems to me to have some connection with this man. I think the major of Galway was related, in some way or other, to this other man; because, undoubtedly, from the instruments that have been put in, there appears to have been some connection between them-and think some relationship. Now, when there is a major in one part of the county, if there is another man of the same in another part of the county, it is not uncommon that that man of the same name should, in his own neighbourhood, be called by a name which properly belongs to the man in another part of the country of the same name. But let us look at the man's own account of himself. With respect to Major Galbraith, whom I consider to be the true Galbraith, you find him described as major in the instruments, given and brought to him while he was major, and he then ceases to be major; and how is he then called? He is called, Esquire. But that would not affect this case. For suppose, for example, a person was to leave me a considerable estate, now, as the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, (though I have ceased to be Chief Justice of the Common Pleas,) I think I should have a pretty good chance of re. covering it, unless you found some other person of the name of Best, who was Chief Justice of the Common Pleas; and therefore, although this man ceased to be major, if the testator in Scotland called him major in his deed, he would be entitled to take the estate, although his character of major had ceased. Now, in the instrument set out upon the record in the Court of Exchequer, he describes himself as Esquire. That is the way in which a man who has been a major, and who ceases to be major, would describe himself; because, having been once called by the King, Esquire, he is, as long as he lives, legally Esquire. I venture to say, that no major would adopt any other title. If he had taken either a lower or a higher title, his declaration might have had a plea of abatement put in to it. I think, therefore, that you might take it, that Esquire was at that time his proper legal description. That is perfectly consistent with his having had the character of major. Let us see how the other gentleman describes himself: In his last will, he describes himself as Hugh Galbraith, gentleman. I venture to say, that no major in the volunteers-no major in the army-no person even in the next inferior rank in the army, even a captain, would have been described in his will as gentleman. At all events, he would have been described as Esquire. I cannot help thinking, therefore, that is the strongest possible evidence to shew that this last mentioned person had never been a major-that though he might by some persons have been called major, he never could be understood by the settler, as being that Major Galbraith, whom he, at all events, considered to be his cousin consanguincan. This appellant has himself thrown a little doubt upon his own title, in setting up this person-because he has abandoned this major. It is true, that if he sets up either, that will answer his purpose; because he will defeat this respondent, if he satisfies this House, that any other major is the true major designated by this deed. Therefore, it appears that he thinking there was some doubt, after all the inquiry that had taken place, whether the major who came from Longford in Ireland is the true major-sets up another major that came from Glasgow. It is impossible for any man who has attended to the evidence to hesitate for one moment, before he pronounces an opinion, that the man who came from Glasgow never did, in the course of his life, obtain the rank of major, or any situation in the service of the King whatever, that would entitle him to that rank, or to that appellation in society. It appears that he was a very inferior tradesman; and the last account you have of him, is that he is still prosecuting his trade. Such a man as that could not possibly have filled in the army the character of major, although he might possibly have been in some subordinate situation; and such a man as that, would still less have found his way to the rank of major in that other service which has been alluded to. It seems to me, that both these competitors, with the man whom I consider the true person who claims this property, are both put out of the question. If they

are put out of the way, then, how does the case stand? With the army list now lying before you, it appears that no other name can be found either in the marines (they did not exist, it seems, at the time) or any other service, possessing a character under which he can compete with reference to this property, with this man in whose favour the Jury and the Court below have found. If they cannot-if there is no other person-then I humbly put it to your Lordships, whether you are not satisfied that a fair presumption is raised, that he is the man meantand, if your Lordships will not act upon that presumption, when there is no evidence whatever offered to beat it down. My Lords, there is another circumstance to which I ought to allude, because, with reference to it, I certainly was for a time puzzled with the prejudices of an English lawyer. But, while I have the honour of sitting here, I must forget, as fast as I can, that I ever was an English lawyer. Undoubtedly, in a Court of law in this country, if you saw that the Jury had been acting upon evidence which ought not to have been received, you can do nothing but grant a further inquiry, because we cannot say whether it was not upon that very objectionable evidence that the verdict was founded. But I have got rid of that in this case; because in Scotland, it is not a question, whether you shall send it again to a Jury-because this case never can go to a Jury by the constitution of the Scotch Courts. An inquisition is to be found first, and there the Court of Session are to sit as a Court of Appeal from that inquisition. They are not to send it back to a Jury, but they are to decide it, hearing any other evidence, if they think proper, and upon that evidence, to judge whether the Jury in the Court below have decided aright. Now, that being the case, undoubtedly, if the Court above excluded that objectionable evidence from their consideration, when they pronounced their opinion, the reception of that evidence in the Court below would not affect the judgment. Now, I took the trouble of reading the judgment; and I find that every one of their Lordships spoke with indignation of the evidence that had been received, and entirely dismissed it from their consideration. They said they were to consider whether, striking out all that had evidence, there was not still sufficient evidence to support the finding of the Jury upon the inquisition. They were of opinion that there was. I have taken the same trouble that they have taken, and I have waded through this evidence, and though my mind for some time was in considerable doubt, I am satisfied, that, in the absence of any countervailing evidence, there is enough to raise the presumption I bave stated, and that, therefore, that presumption not being repelled, your Lordships ought to act upon it. My Lords, there is one fact which has had more weight with me than any other, and it is, that this inquisition was held so long ago as the year 1804. The suit was first instituted in 1799;-from 1804 down to this time, the respondent has been in possession. I am aware that during part of that time, this person had no curator, but he had a father alive, and it is proved to us now, that the father, so far from disputing the interest in this property, was actually consenting to become a tenant. It seems to me, therefore, that that is extremely strong evidence. We have the evidence of the whole world here, that that verdict was acquiesced in, although this was advertised in all the newspapers, so that all the claimants might come forward; and we hear that there were a host of claimants came forward-every man, I suppose, whose name was Galbraith-attempting to make out his claim to this property; but no one has ventured to enter the lists subsequently to the time of that finding. It seems to me, that that is a circumstance which ought to weigh more upon your Lordships' minds, in considering whether this verdict has been rightly found, than any other which has been alluded to; for your Lordships may be sure, that if it was possible that any body connected with this family could shew that that man had no claim, long before this time proceedings would have been instituted by some one, and this inquest would have been set aside. Therefore, my Lords, although this case is certainly a very extraordinary onethough, undoubtedly, the Judges in the Court below appear to have had great difficulties, and to have made observations which were very much calculated to send this case for further inquiry in your Lordships House-I still think, after having sifted it in the best way I have been able to do, during the three days in

which it has been under your Lordships' consideration; and having devoted a good deal of my time at home, in examining this immense mass of evidence, after the fullest examination I have been able to give of it, I do think it would be pregnant with injustice, if your Lordships were to disturb this verdict. I have alluded to the difficulties which the Court below seemed to feel, when they were called upon to consider this case, and I think, that many of the observations which were made by the Judges in the Court below, were perhaps sufficient to put the parties upon appealing; and therefore I should not recommend your Lordships to give costs. I think there were fair grounds of appeal, in order to have this case sifted and examined in the manner it has been. It has been examined on the one side and the other, with the greatest industry. I confess I have derived great satisfaction, as well as great advantage, from the manner in which it has been discussed at the Bar; and, from the advantage I have so derived, I feel myself strongly founded in recommending to your Lordships to affirm the judgment of the Court below, without costs. I therefore humbly recommend to your Lordships, that the judgment of the Court below should be affirmed, without costs.

Judgment affirmed, without costs.

Appellants' Authorities. Stair, III. 3, 44. Stair, III. p. 940. February 10, 1686, Murray. Spottiswoode, Brieves, p. 494, Murray Murray. Mercer v. Rowand, February 24, 1665. Speeches in Douglas' Cause, p. 183.

v.

Second Division.-Lords Ordinary, Pitmilly and Mackenzie. -James Duthie, Appellants' Solicitor.-Spottiswoode & Robertson, Respondents' Solicitors.

3d March 1831.

No. 331.-SIR R. B. JOHNSTON HONYMAN, Appellant, v. ELIZABETH CAMPBELL, & ELIZABETH & ALEXA HONYMAN, Respondents.

Marriage-Process-Summons-T. Objection, that in a summons which narrated a train of courtship and correspondence, but set forth specifically only a marriage by acknowledgment per verba de præsenti, it was incompetent to prove a marriage to have been constituted in any other way, repelled, in respect that in the subsumption it was stated, that, from other correspondence to be produced, and facts and circumstances to be proved, it will appear that the parties are married persons.-II. Circumstances in which, without any direct promise or acknowledgment of marriage, except in one letter alleged to have been vitiated, a marriage was held to be established, from the scope and tenor of the corre spondence, and conduct of the appellant.

The respondent, Campbell, had been governess in the family of the appellant's father, and had borne two children, the other respondents, to the appellant. On 6th May 1825, an action of declarator of marriage and of legitimacy was brought before the Commissary Court, setting forth :

That, in the month of May 1808, the complainer entered as governess into the family of the deceased Sir William Honyman, &c., and continued to live therein for six years and four months: That while living at their house of Smyllum Park, near Lanark, the said Richard Bempde Johnston Honyman (defender), professed the greatest love and affection for the complainer; and she having fallen into a bad state of health in the year 1812, was advised to go to London by sea, which she did accordingly, in the month of June that year, with the permission and approbation of the said Sir William Honyman and his lady: That the complainer having lived with a relation of her's, No. 8, Milman Street, London, for several weeks, and the said R. B. J. Honyman having, a short time before the complainer left Scotland, gone to Cheltenham, he, soon after her arrival in London, went there also, and visited her daily, and sometimes twice-a-day, at the house of her relative in Milman Street, during the whole period that she remained in London: That she having returned from London to Smyllum Park, he, the said defender, arrived there much about the same time, and continued his attentions

and professions of love and esteem for the complainer as before: That, sometime in the month of November, or the beginning of December 1812, he was elected Member of Parliament for Orkney; and being obliged to go to London about the beginning of the year 1813, to attend his duty in Parliament, he, for some time previous to his setting off, expressed the strongest love, affection and esteem for the complainer,-courted her in marriage, -begged and entreated of her to allow him to write to her, and that she would answer his letters, which, he said, would be some consolation for what he would suffer during their separation: That she having agreed to this, he, a few days after his arrival in London, and before he had written to any of the members of his father's family, wrote to her; and they having kept up a correspondence, he, in all the letters which he sent her from London, expressed the strongest love, affection, and esteem for her: That having returned from London to Edinburgh in the year 1813, or thereby, he, upon his arrival, and at his first meeting with the complainer, expressed most unbounded affection for her, and said that his determination was, that they should not again part: That he continued to reside sometimes at his father's house in Queen Street, Edinburgb, and sometimes at Smyllum Park, from the month of April to the month of June 1813, inclusive, and during this period, his courtship and solicitations to the complainer were incessant: He took every opportunity of being with her in her own room, and of walking out with her whenever he had an opportunity: That, in consequence of his addresses, professions of love and esteem, continued and repeated for nearly two years, both verbally and by many letters, he gained the complainer's affection; but she, considering that a marriage betwixt thein might not be altogether agreeable to his parents, or others of his relations, for some time endeavoured to dissuade him therefrom: He, however, having persevered in his professions of love and proposals of marriage, requested that she would accept of him as her husband, and that their marriage should be kept private for a short time; and, in particular, he, early on the morning of the 20th day of June 1813, came into the complainer's bed-room, in his father's house at Smyllum Park, when he earnestly solicited and entreated the complainer that she would consent to take him as her husband, declaring, that on the first opportunity which they had of leaving Smyllum, he would legally make her his wife: That the complainer having resisted his entreaties at this time, he asked her why she would not consent to his wishes, adding, that she might depend upon his honour, and that no one could possibly know what had passed betwixt them;-to which she answered, I believe I may depend upon your honour; but, were every eye shut, every ear closed, and every tongue silent, much and dearly as I love you, I should know the circumstance myself, and that would be sufficient to make me miserable :" That the said R. B. J. Honyman, defender, continued to beg and entreat of the complainer to consent to bis wishes, assuring her that he was then incapable of injuring either his own honour or her's: That next morning, he left Smyllum Park for Edinburgh, but having returned thereto upon the 24th or 25th day of the said month of June 1813, he, upon the evening of the day he so returned, came into the room where the complainer was at the time, and having repeated his entreaties that she would consent to their being married, she, in answer, said, that she never would hesitate to become his wife, and that to him every affection of her heart had long been dedicated; but called upon him, at same time, to recollect, that, by marrying her, he might be making a sacrifice in the eyes of his relations, seeing she could not offer him any fortune; and that however respectable her connections were, his parents might not consider them to be so, to qualify her for their son's wife ;-to which he answered, that he would consult his own happiness, and not that of his relations: That, upon this, he asked the complainer if he might call her his wife; to which she having assented, he said to her, Do then, my beloved wife, let me hear you call me husband,'— -to which she replied, Dearest, dearest Dick, you are my husband;' and the parties having thus mutually accepted of each other as husband and wife, the said R. B. J. Honyman addressed the complainer in the following words: You are now mine for ever, Betsy; and, as my wife, you must share whatever I have in this world. You know I have just £200 a year, and the half of it must be your's: That they afterwards lived and cohabited privately to