the voyage. Before he sailed he went to Scotland to see his children; he afterwards sailed from Portsmouth with his wife and her sister, in October, 1783. At Halifax he lived on shore in an official house.

On his return from Halifax in August, 1785, he carried his wife to Scotland. Returning from the north he lodged for some time in London; from thence, early in 1786, he went to Amsterdam, on the death of the mother of his first wife. He there rented and kept house for about half a year. From Amsterdam he returned to London, bringing his eldest daughter with him, and a nephew, whose father had been in the Dutch service. He then went to Scotland, to the house of his sister, Mrs. Baillie. Before setting out, he wrote to her from London, on the 29th of November, 1786, in these terms: "On Tuesday the 14th three hair trunks, and a large round hat-case belonging to my ladies, went from the White Horse Inn at Cripplegate, in the Edinburgh waggon; and yesterday, from the same place, and by a similar conveyance, were sent to the northward a large Dutch basket with a lock hanging to it, two knife cases, and a middle-sized square mahogany case, belonging to the same owners, with whom, and Charles of Venlo, I set out on Saturday or Monday next, and shall not travel very fast. Be pleased to observe that I do not engage to build my tabernacle in Scotland; and that if it should some time hence prove convenient to me to establish myself elsewhere, because of service or otherwise, I shall probably remove the whole of my family, considering in such case my nephew aforesaid a very precious member thereof."

He remained in Scotland till September, 1787, when he was appointed an admiral, and called by the Admiralty to take an important command in the armament then forming. He carried his wife and daughter to London, where they all remained for a few weeks. Lady Douglas and his daughter then went down to Gosport, to obtain a house or

lodgings. Lady Douglas's father gave up a house at Gosport to accommodate them for a while: another house at Gosport was afterwards taken for them, in which Lady Douglas and Miss Douglas resided great part of the year 1788. He himself was absent for some months in Scotland in that year. He returned in July. Soon after, on the prospect of being appointed to the command on the Halifax station, he gave notice that he should quit the Gosport house as at Lady Day, 1789, meaning to carry his wife and daughter to Halifax with him. In January, 1789, his appointment for Halifax took place, being for three years; and he hoisted his flag in the Downs. Meaning to go himself to Scotland, to see his children and friends before leaving Britain, he carried Lady Douglas and her sister to London, where they took lodgings in Titchfield Street.

In the beginning of March, 1789, Sir Charles went to Edinburgh alone by the mail, or some stage coach. On his arrival in that city he took furnished lodgings, where in two days he died in a fit of apoplexy.

In the year preceding his death, when he returned from Holland, it was communicated to him that the Rev. Richard Bingham, son of the Rev. Isaac Moody Bingham, had paid his addresses to his eldest daughter of the first marriage. For some weeks Sir Charles appears to have been not averse to the match; but having heard some reports to Mr. Richard Bingham's prejudice, he enjoined that his daughter should have no further intercourse with him, and did all he could to break off the match. On the 11th of October, 1788, Sir Charles added a codicil to his will, expressing his strong dislike to the marriage, and directing that if his daughter Lydia Mariana Douglas should intermarry with Mr. Richard Bingham, or any son of Mr. Moody Bingham (d), she, or such her husband, his

(d) In this codicil he is named John instead of Isaac by mistake.

or her heirs, executors, or administrators, should take no part of the testator's estate under his will, but that the same should be divided and distributed by the trustees thereby appointed, as if his daughter had died before her mariage, or attaining the age of twenty-one years, and without issue. At the same time he executed a disposition of some heritable and other property which he had in Scotland to his trustees, for the uses of his will.

The marriage, notwithstanding, took place between the parties in November, 1788. Sir Charles never saw his daughter afterwards.

After Sir Charles's death, Mr. and Mrs. Bingham brought their action in the Court of Session in Scotland, for reducing the codicil to Sir Charles's will, in so far as it related to the marriage between Mr. and Mrs. Bingham, as being contra libertatem matrimonii. The trustees met them upon this ground, and after a long discussion, the Court of Session, on 14th February, 1792, "sustained the reasons of reduction of the irritant condition contained in the codicil libelled; found the pursuer entitled to the whole provisions originally destined for her by her father's settlements; and that the defenders, as trustees under those settlements, were bound to account to her therefore, as if no such condition had ever been inserted in the said codicil, or as if she had married with their consent." This judgment was adhered to on 17th December, 1793.

It was found, that there was little of the property of the deceased in Scotland which could be affected by this judgment; and on consulting counsel, whether or not to apply to the Court of Chancery to make the same effectual, it was pointed out by the counsel who was consulted in England, that a very important point had not yet been considered;

Some argument was founded on this, but there was no doubt as to the

namely, whether Sir Charles Douglas was domiciled in England or in Scotland at the time of his death. Of consent of parties, the question of the domicil of Sir Charles Douglas was then brought before the Court, in a reclaiming petition, by his trustees, and the several facts before mentioned were stated in minutes by the parties on both sides. The trustees contended, that he had an English domicil, and that by the law of England such codicil would be free from objection. On the other hand, Mr. and Mrs. Bingham contended, that Sir Charles's domicil was in Scotland at the time of his death. After the facts and arguments of parties had been discussed, the Court of Session, on the 17th of December, 1793, pronounced their first decision in these terms: "Upon report of Lord Dreghorn, and having advised the mutual informations for the parties, in respect Sir Charles Douglas was born in Scotland, and occasionally had a domicil there; that he died in Scotland, where some of his children were boarded; and that he had not at the time a domicil any where else, the Lords find his succession falls to be regulated by the law of Scotland, and remit to the Lord Ordinary to proceed accordingly."

On a reclaiming petition, and minutes given in by the parties, the Court, on 7th February, 1794, came to this further decision: "Having resumed consideration of the petition, and advised the same with the minutes given in by the parties, refuse the desire of the petition, and adhere to the interlocutor reclaimed against."

The trustees considered it to be their duty to appeal to the House of Lords against all these judgments. Under this appeal, the parties went into a discussion upon the several points before mentioned: 1st, Where the domicil of Sir Charles Douglas was at the time of his death: 2d, Whether the codicil was contra libertatem matrimonii, and whether this was a sound ground of reduction even in Scotland: 3d, Whether it could apply to Richard Bingham,

the son of Isaac Moody Bingham, who had been described in the codicil as the son of John Moody Bingham.

The case attracted much attention at the time; it was argued by persons then of the highest eminence, who had been of counsel in the then recent cases. Lord Thurlow assisted Lord Loughborough, then Lord Chancellor, at the hearing. After hearing the cause, the House of Lords, on the 18th of March, 1796, came to this judgment: "Ordered and adjudged, that the interlocutors of 17th December 1793 and 7th February 1794 be reversed; and it is declared that the succession to the property of Sir Charles Douglas should be regulated by the law of England; and it is further ordered, that the interlocutor of the 14th February 1792 be also reversed."

Though the main ground of decision appears to have been, that Sir Charles Douglas had his domicil in England at the time of his death, and that the codicil, by the law of England, was not liable to objection, still the reversal of the interlocutor of the 14th February 1792 appears to infer, that the House of Lords did not coincide with the doctrine, that the codicil was contrary to the law of Scotland. (e)

In the case of Bempde v. Johnstone, in 1796, relative to the personal succession of the Marquis of Annandale, similar points received a decision in the Court of Chancery in England on the point of domicil. (ƒ)

George Marquis of Annandale died in 1792, at an advanced age, at Turnham Green, near London, intestate, a

(e) The notes of the speech of Lord Loughborough, in this cause, have fortunately been preserved, and obtained from the agents in the cause they are given in the Appendix. These indicate that he was unfavourable to the doctrine, that this codicil was contrary to the law of Scotland; but, though he gave an opinion to that effect, he considered that the reversal of the first interlocutor was a necessary consequence of the reversal of the judgment in regard to the domicil. (f) Hilary Term, 1796, 3 Vesey, 198.