Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 10, 1688-1693. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1802.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
Lunæ, 19 die Augusti; Primo Gulielmi et Mariæ.
Recovery of Tythes.
Mr. Speaker, The Lords have commanded us to acquaint this House, That they have agreed to the Bill for the more speedy and easy Recovery of small Tythes; with some Amendments: To which Amendments they desire the Concurrence of this House.
"Provided, that nothing in this Act shall extend to take away, or diminish, the Power or Jurisdiction of the Bishops, Archdeacons, and their Ordinaries: But that, in their Visitations, they may proceed in all Matters of Church Repairs and Dilapidations, as they might have done before the passing this Act."
And it is referred to Sir Tho. Littleton, Mr. Bickerstaffe, Mr. Hawles, Sir John Brownlow, Mr. Sacheverell, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Arnold, Sir John Mathews, Sir John Trevor, Sir Edw. Hussey, Sir Hen. Goodrick, Mr. Paul Foley, Mr. Ettericke, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Gwyn: And they are to withdraw into the Speaker's Chamber; and prepare the said Reasons.
Mr. Hawles reports from the said Committee, That they had prepared Reasons accordingly: Which he read in his Place; and afterwards, delivered the same in at the Clerk's Table: Where the same were read; and, upon the Question put thereupon, agreed unto by the House: And are as followeth; viz.
1st. It is conceived, that the said Proviso is needless, for saving the Jurisdiction of the Spiritual Courts, as to the Matter of the Repairs of Churches; there being no Words in the Bill, which takes away the Jurisdiction of those Courts in that Matter, although another Remedy is given, by the Bill, for such repairs.
2. It is conceived, the said Proviso is needless, for saving the Jurisdiction of those Courts in the Matter of Dilapidations, for the Reason aforesaid; and also, because nothing in the Bill meddles with Dilapidations.
3. It is conceived, that the leaving out the last Clause in the Bill is contradictory to the Design of the Bill; which was to give a quicker and less chargeable Way of recovering small Tythes and Oblations; and to disable those, who would be litigious, from putting Persons to extravagant Charges in recovering such Tythes; and, for that the leaving out the said Clause makes the Subject liable to a double Jurisdiction for the same thing.
|Tellers for the Yeas,||Mr. Done,||33.|
|Tellers for the Noes,||Lord Wm. Pawlett,||46.|