fortune for the only one of his children who had thwarted his wishes.

The situation of the eldest son was also, in these points of view, one of considerable hardship, particularly when he was called upon to defend the judgment in the multiplepoinding, which found that he was only liable in once and single payment. If it had not been found that Alexander and his assignees had discharged his claims after his father's death (a question attended with some difficulty), the consequences must have been very serious to the eldest son. (x)

It was deemed expedient not to interrupt the preceding statement of these questions in the affairs of Mr. Hog, but while they were in progress other questions of great importance upon points of international law had also arisen. To these we must now recur.

The principles as to the effect of the law of the domicil having been fixed in the cases before stated, the chief difficulty with the courts in both countries has since been to apply this doctrine to the facts of each particular case. Upon this subject there has been often a good deal of difficulty in fixing the domicil; and in some cases the circumstances have been so nicely balanced, that the parties deemed it better to settle the questions by compromise,

(x) Mr. Erskine (afterwards Lord Erskine and Lord Chancellor), who was of counsel for Mr. Hog in the two last appeals, often expressed his surprise to the parties that the law of Scotland, as connected with these questions, should have remained unaltered till that time. Other cases of the same nature may at this moment be coming forward for discussion, upon similar questions. Curious questions might also have occurred if Mr. Hog had been a freeman of London: I see no allusion to the fact, whether he was so or not. According to other cases, if he had been a freeman of London, he might have disposed of his whole personal estate by his will or testamentary disposition under the statute of 11 George I.

than to take a decision of the courts of law upon them. The cases upon questions of international succession; though sometimes occurring in one country, sometimes in the other, equally belong to both: they may, therefore, be stated in the order of their dates.

In the case of Macdonald v. Laing (27th November 1794), a question arose in the court of session in Scotland, as to the domicil of the party deceased (y), under the following circumstances, which are not stated very distinctly in the report. "William Macdonald, a native of Scotland, acquired a considerable plantation in Jamaica, where he had resided about fifteen years. In 1779, he was appointed a lieutenant in the 79th regiment of foot, at that time, quartered in the island; he also got the command of a fort in it. In 1783 he obtained leave of absence for a year, that he might return to Scotland for the recovery of his health. He died a few months after his arrival in Scotland. The 79th regiment was by this time reduced. He had no effects in Scotland, and his only property in England was two bills of exchange, which he had transmitted from Jamaica before he left it, in order, as was said, to purchase various articles for his plantation. His father intromitted with his funds in England."

The sisters of the deceased brought an action against their father to account for their brother's executry, the father claiming the whole as coming to him by the law of Jamaica. Pending the action the father died, having disponed to his grandson, Alexander Laing, his rights to the succession of his son.

The Lord Ordinary found, "that the succession was to be regulated by the law of Scotland, in respect that William Macdonald died in Scotland, his native country, where he had resided several months before his death."

(y) Fac. Coll., Morrison, 4627.

With a reclaiming petition, two letters of the deceased were produced, as showing an intention to return to Jamaica upon the recovery of his health. Some of the judges came to be of opinion that the domicil of the deceased was in Jamaica, but a considerable majority were of opinion with the Lord Ordinary, and his judgment was affirmed.

The circumstance of the deceased having been in the King's service as an officer in the army does not appear to have been founded on in this case, though a similar circumstance, and the difference between the service of the King, and the service of the East India Company, formed an important subject of discussion in the case of Bruce v. Bruce. (z) This is a case of difficulty; it appears to be doubtful whether the deceased, by coming to Scotland for the recovery of his health, and dying there, had abandoned his domicil in Jamaica. (a)

In the case of Ommanney and another, executors of Sir Charles Douglas, v. Bingham, the question of domicil was discussed and decided in the Court of Session and in the House of Lords. (b)

Sir Charles Douglas (c) was born in Scotland in 1729, being a younger son of Douglas of Finglassie, in Fifeshire. In 1741, when twelve years of age, he entered the British navy; from that time till 1748, his ship appears to have been his only home. In that year, after the peace of Aix la Chapelle, he was paid off. In the year following he

(z) Supra, p. 118.

(a) Apparently this case was not decided upon the same principles which were held to govern in the case of Munro v. Douglas, at the Rolls, infra.

(b) It does not appear that this case, though of considerable celebrity, is noticed in the Scotch Reports; it was decided in the House of Lords, 18th March, 1796.

(c) The celebrated person who was captain of Admiral Rodney's ship in the action of the 12th of April, 1782.

obtained a lieutenancy in the Dutch service, in which he continued for some years, residing sometimes on shipboard, sometimes at Amsterdam.

In 1754 he returned to the British service, and in 1759, after he had been made master and commander, he married a Dutch lady in Holland. After his marriage he had no fixed residence, but had lodgings in different parts of England, according to the station of his ship. In 1761 he obtained the rank of post-captain, and having been appointed to a foreign station, his wife, being pregnant, went to Amsterdam, where, in June, 1761, her first child, a son, was born; there the mother and child continued to reside till 1765.

In 1763 Captain Douglas accepted a flag in the Russian service. In the beginning of 1764 he went to Saint Petersburg, and commanded the Russian fleet during that summer. In 1765 he returned to England by the way of Holland, bringing his wife and child with him. But having given up the Russian service, in 1766 he got the command of the Emerald frigate, and was appointed to the Leith station. He took his family on board with him to Scotland, and they resided in a house on the shore at Leith.

About this time Lady Irvine dying, left him her residuary legatee, and her house and furniture at Kew. These he soon after disposed of. He continued on the Leith station till the beginning of 1769, and then went with Mrs. Douglas to London. He immediately sailed for the coast of Lapland. Mrs. Douglas returned to Amsterdam, where she bore a daughter (Mrs. Bingham) in April, and died in June, 1769.

On his return from Lapland he went to Amsterdam, and brought away his son, but left his daughter in Holland, where she continued till the death of her grandmother in 1786.

In 1771 he was appointed to the ship St. Alban's, and

sent to the Windward Islands station. There he married Miss Wood, his second wife. In 1772 he returned to Spithead. He now took a house at Berry, near Gosport, in which he resided with his wife and family when not on shipboard. He had two guard ships; one, the St. Alban's, at Portsmouth; the other, the Ardent, in the Medway. Mrs. Douglas, the second wife, bore her first child at their house at Berry, in February, 1774.

Soon after he carried his wife to Scotland, where they remained till the end of 1775 or beginning of 1776, Mrs. Douglas having in this interval had her second child.

In February, 1776, he sailed from the Nore to the relief of Quebec, in the command of the Isis. He had taken the lease of a house at Gosport for his wife, in which she began to reside early in 1776, and continued there till she died in child-bed in August, 1779. He was then at sea; he had in the interval commanded various ships, and had been created a baronet.

In September, 1779, he returned home, and in November sent his three children of his second marriage to Scotland, to his sister, Mrs. Baillie. His eldest son of the first marriage was at the academy at Portsmouth; his daughter of that marriage was still at Amsterdam. His family being thus disposed of, he let the house at Gosport, and lived on shipboard. About a year after the death of his second wife, he married his third wife at Gosport, in 1780, and Admiral Evans quitting his house in that town, Lady Douglas went to reside in it.

After some time, Sir Charles accompanied Rodney to the West Indies, and was Captain of that Admiral's ship. He returned from the West Indies in July, 1783, to Lady Douglas, who was still residing at Gosport.

He was soon after appointed to the Halifax station; he gave up the house at Gosport, sent part of his household effects to Scotland, and carried the remainder with him on