|
Dec. 5.
Deptford. |
Thomas Turner to the Navy Commissioners. According to
your order touching the dispatch of the flyboat lately come from
Scotland with masts, etc., for preventing demurrage Mr. Shish
has been often on board her to quicken her men and both he and
I have taken the best course we can to hasten her unloading and
lighters have been daily on board her, but the master has given
no attendance these four days, which occasions some of the
company to be absent, whereby that dispatch is not given that
might be. [S.P. Supplementary 137, No. 170.] |
Dec. 8.
Deptford. |
Jonas Shish to Mr. Phips (Pepys). Requesting that his
assistant might have the lesser part of the house in which Capt.
Cox lived. [Ibid. No. 171.] |
Dec. 15.
Deptford. |
Jonas Shish to the Navy Commissioners. Requesting that
some compass timber may be speedily sent for the London and
other works. [Ibid. No. 172.] |
| Dec. 29. |
Affidavit by John Harrison, Thomas Lloyd and John Coppelstone, midshipmen late belonging to the Norwich, that 10 May,
1667, the said ship, being in fight with the French and Dutch
fleet at Nevis, received a great shot into the closet in the steerage
where lay the writings, papers and books of the purser, by which
all or most of them were torn and utterly defaced. [Ibid.
No. 173.] |
| Dec. 29. |
Affidavit by Robert Werden, late commander of the Norwich.
Deposing as to the damage to the purser's books as in the last
paper, so that an account cannot be exactly given as to the reason
of bearing the particular supernumeraries now appearing on his
seabook. To the best of his knowledge all the persons borne as
such supernumeraries were only such as were victualled by the
deponent's command on strict occasion of service. [Ibid.
No. 174.] |
| Dec. 31. |
Affidavit by Peter Myles, purser of the Norwich, that the
entries and discharges on his seabook between 10 Feb., 1664[–5],
and 19 Dec., 1668, are really true, and that the men borne really
belonged to the ship for the time charged on each man's head.
[Ibid. No. 175.] |
| [Dec.] |
Draft of clauses in the warrant for a grant of the surveyorship
of the Excise in Ireland calendared in Cal. S.P. Ireland, 1666–69,
p. 665. [S.P. Ireland, Car. II. 349, No. 16.] |
| [1668 ?] |
Blank testimonial of the piety, sobriety and orthodoxy of
John Moorehouse. (B.A. and ordained in 1668.) [Latin. S.P.
Dom., Car. II. 441, No. 40.] |
| [1668 ?] |
The case of Thomas Hawles in John Norden v. Thomas Hawles.
The warren in Albourne Chase, Wiltshire, during the rebellion
was in great measure destroyed by the tenants of Albourne, which
caused suits between the Earl of Pembroke and the tenants, but
an agreement was made that the Earl should have 571 acres of
land in lieu of Dudmore and Southwood Walks, which were to be
diswarrened, and the 571 acres were set out, whereof 240 were set
out by Hawles out of land he had purchased of Doyly, which he
did that the agreement might not be obstructed, and Hawles by
agreement with the Earl in Oct., 1652, was to have a lease of the
North Walk and of the said 571 acres for 99 years if three lives
should so long live for 1,000l. fine and 114l. and 300 couple of
coneys yearly rent. |
|
Hawles entered on the premises and spent great sums in
building and fencing and diswarrened Dudmore and Southwood
Walks and enjoyed the same upwards of five years, and in Nov.,
1656, by agreement between Norden and Hawles in the Earl's
presence, Norden was to have the benefit of Hawles' bargain,
he making Hawles 500l. a clear gainer by his own account, and
the Earl by Hawles' consent promised to make a lease to Norden
as he should have done to Hawles, and Norden was to have
no other agreement from Hawles than what the latter was to
have had from the Earl and 240 acres and no more of Doyly's
land were set out as part of the 571 acres and the rest of Doyly's
land was let by Hawles to [the] Gilberts at 55l. per annum. |
|
At Ladyday, 1657, Norden paid not the 500l. but at Michaelmas,
1657, without Hawles' knowledge procured a lease from the Earl
of the whole warren of Albourne and not of the 571 acres, whereby
the first agreement with the Earl was destroyed and Hawles'
bargain with Norden defeated and the commoners of Albourne by
Norden's planting Dudmore and [Southwood] Walks with coneys,
which by the first agreement were to be destroyed on their
compensation of lands set out in lieu thereof, and by Norden's
taking a lease of the warren only the contract as to the whole
was voided, which was done by Norden to out Hawles of his
bargain and to avoid paying the 500l. |
|
Norden in 1658, 59, 60 brought in the names of the Earl and
himself seventeen actions at law against Hawles and his tenants
for ploughing up the warren, besides Chancery suits, whereas
Hawles never brought but one bill in Chancery, which was to
have the agreement with the Earl performed, in which 17 May,
1661, by the consent of Norden and Hawles it was decreed by
the Master of the Rolls that Norden should make Hawles 500l.
a clear gainer and 9 July following it was confirmed by the Lord
Chancellor and since by the Lord Keeper (appointed in 1667). |
|
Norden inveigled the tenants of the part of Doyly's land not
part of the 240 acres to attorn to him, on which Hawles brought
an action against the Gilberts and recovered 700l., and the Gilberts
by Norden's advice exhibited a bill against the Earl, Norden and
Hawles, but only Hawles answered, which came to a hearing in
May, 1661, and then and by subsequent orders it was decreed
that the arrears of the 55l. should be paid to Hawles and the
lease and possession delivered up to him by the Gilberts, who
for not performing the decree stand committed but not to be
taken because privileged as Norden's servants. |
|
Norden exhibited his cross bill pretending that the former
agreement was not in issue in the former causes, but it was
dismissed as tending to question what had been formerly decreed
by consent. Notwithstanding Norden is still in possession not
only of the warren lease but of all the lands purchased of Doyly,
and Hawles can have no proceeding against him in respect of his
privilege. (Norden died between Aug., 1668, and Oct., 1669.
See Commons' Journals, Vol. IX, p. 99.) [Ibid. No. 41.] |
| [1668 ?] |
Thomas White in behalf of himself and 100 families in Dover
to the Commissioners of the Admiralty and Navy. Petition
stating that there is due to the petitioners (sic) for refitting
and furnishing the Navy with things he has an order for from the
Lord General and the commander in chief in the Downs 3,164l. 9s.,
which materials and workmanship are supplied by the said poor
workmen and families, and that the petitioners have not wherewith to feed their families but are forced to borrow and having
spent all their stock and what they can borrow are forced to
submit to the mercy of their creditors and are disabled from doing
any further service, and that the petitioner has disbursed all his
stock to poor workmen and engaged himself above his abilities;
and therefore craving order for payment of the said arrears that
so he may satisfy all the poor petitioners. The reason why the
arrears are so high is because they have received neither pitch,
tar nor any other stores sent to that port for two years and are
forced to buy all materials. [S.P. Supplementary 137, No. 176.] |
| [1668 ?] |
Seven Trumpeters belonging to the late King to the King.
Petition for some speedy relief and for an order that they may
duly receive their pensions granted them (24 Oct., 1662, see Cal.
S.P. Dom., 1661—62, p. 527) because they were not re-invested
in their places, which have been discontinued these four years,
whereby they expect daily to be imprisoned. (See Calendar of
Treasury Books, Vol. II, p. 440.) [S.P. Dom., Car. II. 441,
No. 42.] |
| [1668 ?] |
Statement that those made baronets ought to deposit a year's
pay for thirty men for the defence of Ulster at 8d. per diem and
secure two years' pay more, which amounts to 1,095l., and have a
constat reciting the payment and security and then and not before
the patent was used to be sealed. Since, it has pleased our Kings
to order the sealing of such patents and at the same time to sign an
order to the Exchequer to strike a tally for the said 1,095l. in discharge of maintaining the men. Very many baronets have taken
out their patents, but not the discharge, so that they are debtors to
his Majesty for 1,095l. each. It will be requisite that his Majesty
signify his pleasure that no tallies be now struck on any allowances
dated before the first day of Trinity term last. By the institution
of that order the King covenants there shall never be above 200
of that Order at one time, which may be used either to reduce
them to that number or else to make them more sensible of the
laspe (? lapse) incurred upon them through their own negligence.
(See Cal. S.P. Dom., 1667—68, pp. 488, 491.) [Ibid. No. 43.] |
| [1668 ?] |
Case of William Blackett of Newcastle, merchant. In 1658 he
consigned on board the Joseph of Newcastle a considerable cargo
of cloth and coats for Stockholm. On her arrival at Elsinore
she was seized by the King of Denmark's orders and carried to
Copenhagen, where the goods were landed and a price set on
them much below their true value and a bill for 7,142 rixdollars
given for the same by the said King on his Commissioner at
Amsterdam, payable in six months. The said Commissioner
refused acceptance and payment, though he knew the goods
were used for the relief of his master's soldiers and subjects,
then in great distress at Copenhagen. No satisfaction on several
applications to the said King being obtained, Mr. Blackett
obtained from the King of England letters of 21 Oct., 1661, to
the said King earnestly desiring that Mr. Blackett's losses might
be fully repaired, to which no answer was ever returned nor has
any satisfaction ever been given. |
|
Opinion of William Turner on the above case. On perusal of
the 5th article of the late treaty for peace between England and
Denmark and having seen a copy of the specialty ordering payment
of 7,142 rixdollars by the said Commissioner, he is of opinion that
the said debt is still justly demandable from the King of Denmark,
not having been paid or received by virtue of confiscation or
reprisal before 10 May, 1667, and the exception in the said
5th article of 120,000 rixdollars, for which King Christian IV gave
his bond to the English Hamburg Company, which are said to
be confiscate, makes the case clearer that the above debt is still
to be paid, for exceptio firmat in non exceptis. [Ibid. No. 44.] |
| 1668—1670. |
A large bundle of bills of lading, accounts and other papers
relating to Capt. William Thwaites, captain successively of the
Alapeene and the Thomas and Richard. Among them is a bill of
lading of 12 Dec., 1668, for twelve Turkey work chairs and couch
with one satin petticoat with silver lace and two pair of thread
stockings for Barbados. [S.P. Supplementary 135, No. 22.] |
| [1668 ?] |
Statement that the recovery suffered by an infant appearing
by guardians is consonant to law as appears by a multitude of
cases in Hobart's Reports, p. 196, and no inconvenience will arise
from a privy seal enabling Lady Muskerry's daughter to suffer a
recovery. The whole estate of the house of Clanrickard, both
entailed and fee simple, was given away by an agreement between
the late Earls of Clanrickard and Clancarty, which they got
confirmed by letters patent and Acts of Parliament in Ireland
without the consent of or any recompense to Lady Muskerry,
then actually seised of the fee simple, or the now Earl, the heir of
the entailed estate, which is all thereby so settled that, in case the
young lady should die unmarried, the same would go to the
Clancarty family, who have never made the least provision out
of their estate for her or her mother, and, if she marry, then to
her husband and his issue by her. For remedying this injustice
the Earl of Clanrickard and Lady Muskerry are petitioners for a
privy seal. [S.P. Ireland, Car. II. 349, No. 17.] |
| [1668 ?] |
[The King to the Lord Deputy.] Warrant for issuing a commission to try Dudley Loftus, LL.D., for the ecclesiastical offences
alleged against him. Endorsed, " Disallowed by the Lord Keeper
as illegal." [Draft. Ibid. No. 18.] Enclosed, |
|
Commission to James, Archbishop of Armagh, Robert Booth,
a Justice of Common Pleas (made Chief Justice in Feb.,
1668–9), and others, after reciting that by informations of
sundry very credible persons and by the public fame in Dublin
Dudley Loftus, LL.D., a Master of the Court of Chancery
there, Surrogate to the Primate of all Ireland, Judge of the
Prerogative Court there, and Vicar General to the said
Archbishop, for the fulfilling of his fleshly lusts and carnal
concupiscence with Maria Frances Lucretia Plunket is
alleged to have made very wicked and damnable contracts
with her (notwithstanding that he has been married for divers
years) and has covenanted to live with her during both their
lives or at least as near as he can to her and never to leave
the country where she is without her licence in writing and
not to surpass the limits of the same and to love her most
constantly to the last gasp of his spirit, putting himself
without any reservation into her power to order him according
to her pleasure, and that he will never love any other with so
great affections nor touch any other woman against her will,
promising, when he is free of his present wife, to give himself
in matrimony to her (his dear soul as he terms her), and that he
has engaged himself and her that whichever of them shall first
die, he or she shall return thence within ten days and shall at
least once a day visit the party remaining in this life to
inform that party of all things and secrets which may conduce
to all sorts of prosperity in this and the other life, but if the
one first dying shall be hindered so as not to be able to perform
this, then the executor, administrator or some other good
messenger sent from the other world shall be begged and
ordered to execute that office of the party deceased, or to have
made some covenants or engagements to some such effect, and
that he has been so presumptuous as to commit them into
two several writings and has set his name thereto written in
his own blood as also his seal in the presence of witnesses,
whose names are subscribed, by which writings he ratifies
what he engages to perform, partly by his sworn faith but
chiefly under penalty of eternal damnation, or has made the
said or some such engagement by some such writings: for
inquiring into and determining the premises or any crimes or
offences ecclesiastical charged on the said Dudley Loftus and
committed by him with the said Maria Frances Lucretia
Plunket, with power, if he be found guilty of any of the said
charges, to deprive him of all or any of his said offices and
to punish him by such penances and other corrections as his
crimes and offences shall deserve. [2 pages. Draft.
Ibid. No. 18 i.] |
| [1668 ?] |
Sir William Gideon's case. John Mosservy of Jersey was
indebted to Sir William, who appointed John le Hardy of Jersey
to receive the debt, which he did, and set a label on the money
that it was Sir William's. Falling sick he delivered it to his eldest
son John as Sir William's and to be paid to him and died. John
converted it to his own use and, he coming to London, Sir William
demanded it and he promised to pay it or give good security.
This he failing to perform Sir William caused him to be arrested
and he has put in bail. |
|
The questions are:—1. If this be Sir William's proper money
or shall go in succession to John le Hardy's coheirs with the rest
of his estate. 2. If a Jersey man may not be arrested in England
for a transitory cause of action, the promise being made in
London. [S.P. Channel Islands 1, No. 147.] |
|
Note by Williamson that Sir W. Gideon arrests John le Hardy
of Jersey for 50l. money deposed in his hands. Le Hardy pretends to have the cause dismissed here and tried in Jersey on
pretence of a privilege of their charters and practice in like cases,
which is much otherwise. Sir William desires the law may
proceed. [Ibid. No. 147 a.] |
| [1668 or 1669 ?] |
The King to his right trusty and right entirely beloved cousin
and counsellor (i.e. the Duke of Ormonde). Warrant, after reciting
a grant dated 9 June, 1668, to Sir William Flower and his heirs
of the lands of Killcrony and other lands in the half barony of
Rathdown, territory of Glancapps, co. Wicklow, which contained
a saving of all the estate, right, title and interest which the King
might have in right of the Crown of Ireland other than by virtue
of any outlawries or attainders since 23 Oct., 1641, or of the
Acts of Settlement and Explanation, for a release to the said
Sir William and his heirs of all such estate, etc., which the Crown
might have to the premises by virtue of the said saving or any
other way. [Nearly 2 pages. Draft. S.P. Ireland, Car. II.
349, No. 19.] |
