Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 11, 1660-1666. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1767-1830.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
DIE Jovis, 6 die Februarii.
E. of Denbigh excused.
Admiralty Jurisdiction Bill.
Tenants of Clitherow Bill.
Additional Act concerning Merchants Assurance.
E. of Derby's Bill:
Protest against it.
"Whereas, before the Question was put, upon the Bill, intituled, "An Act for restoring Charles Earl of Derby to the Possession of the Manors of Hope and Hopesdale, Mould, and Mouldesdale, in the County of Flint," Leave was desired for entering a Protest, on the Behalf of the Lords hereunder written, in case the Vote upon the said Bill pass in the Affirmative: We, in Pursuance thereof, according to the Course of Parliament in such like Cases used, do enter our Protestation against the said Bill, for these Reasons following; videlicet,
"That it appears to us, these Two Manors were sold by the Earl of Derby, and in Pursuance of Contracts desired and made by himself: That the Purchasers are now in Possession thereof by good Assurances in Law, as Deeds enrolled, Feossments, Fines, Recoveries passed from the Earl and his Lady: That we conceive, by a future Law, to destroy Assurances which are good by the Standing Law, is of dangerous Consequence, and in this Case unreasonable, where the Contracts and Conveyances have appeared voluntary, and desired on the Earl's Part, in whom there was no Disability to grant or convey, and the Proceedings on the Part of the Purchasers to have been without Colour either of Error or Crime: That we think it not reasonable, by a new Law, to create an Equity of Redemption, after a Purchase fairly transacted and perfected, nor to require any Accompt from the Purchasers, when, from the Nature of the Purchase, we cannot reasonably expect it; and particularly we think it beyond all Pretence of Justice, that they should be required to accompt for the Sum of Nine Thousand Pounds, which they received for the Redemption of Hawardine, without any Allowance made to them for the Purchase thereof, which they made by Direction of the Earl of Derby, and for his Use, and were only reimbursed in this Sum of Nine Thousand Pounds, according to their Articles, when the said Earl sold this Manor to Serjeant Glynne; and the Business of Hawardine is altogether foreign both to the Title and Substance of the Bill, and concerning which there hath not been any Thing heard at the Bar or otherwise.
"Besides, we cannot look upon this but as a Breach of the Act of Judicial Proceedings, when, by a new Law, we take away the Force of those Fines and Recoveries which by that Act were made good; and no less than a Trenching on the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion, when an Estate so fairly derived must be looked upon as destroyed only in Favour of the Earl of Derby, when no Argument from the Demerits of the Purchase could persuade it; and that this is of such a Consequence, as the same Favour can never be denied to any hereafter that shall ask it, which of Necessity will infer a general Violation of that Act. This Bill tendeth to vacate the great Assurances of the Realm before mentioned; which may be of dangerous Consequence, as to render buying and selling of Land insecure, uncertain, and doubtful; it brings Titles into Examination in Parliament after Judgements given, as those of Fines, contrary to the Statute of 4 H. IV. Cap. 22.; it doth not restore the Consideration given for the Purchase; it creates Suits and Contentions between the Parties, who have not, nor can have any, about the said Lands without this Act: Whereas the Authority of Parliament ought to be of last Resort, and to mend and end the Work of other Courts; but not to make Work for them. It seems to pass too soon; the Cause appearing in the Body of it not to be ripe for Determination. And it is without Precedent, for Part of a Cause to be judged in one Court, and the rest of it in another. Besides, the Bill mentioneth some Practices of the Purchasers, which we conceive not proved.