Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 12, 1666-1675. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1767-1830.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
DIE Lunæ, 26 die Aprilis.
Prince Rupert's Bill.
Answer from H. C.
E. of Lincoln versus Woodward.
Upon reading the Petition of Edward Earl of Lincolne, complaining of a Decree made the last Term, in the Court of Chancery, concerning the quieting the Possession of Henry Woodward, in the Lodge and Park belonging to Tatershall Castle, which is the said Earl's chief Mansion House, and praying Relief thereupon:
It is ORDERED, That the said Henry Woodward may have a Copy of the said Petition, to which he is hereby required to put in an Answer in Writing, at the Bar of this House, on Monday the Third Day of May next, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon.
Crispes versus Ly. Cranborne et al.
Whereas the Lady Viscountess Cranborne and the Lady Anne Bowyer were, by Order of this House, dated the 19th of April Instant, appointed to put in their Answer this Day to the Petition and Appeal of Sir Nicholas Crispe Baronet, John Crispe and Thomas Crispe Esquires, depending in this House:
It is this Day ORDERED, That the said Lady Cranborne and Lady Bowyer have hereby Time given them for their preparing and putting in their Answer to the said Appeal, till Monday the Third of May next, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon.
Crispes versus Boys et al.
Upon reading the Petition of John Boys, John Harris, and Richard Harris, John Bradborne, and Francis Shalcross, Esquires, Defendants to the Appeal of John and Thomas Crispe Esquires, surviving Executors of Sir Nicholas Crispe Knight and Baronet, deceased, depending in this House, shewing, "That, in the last Session of this Parliament, a Day was appointed for hearing of Counsel on both Sides thereupon, which, by reason of the Prorogation then suddenly ensuing, could not be done, and therefore pray a Day may be appointed for that Purpose:"
It is thereupon ORDERED, That this House will hear Counsel on both Parts, at the Bar of this House, on Monday the Third Day of May next, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon; whereof the now Petitioners are to cause timely Notice to be given to the said John and Thomas Crispe for that Purpose.
Bill to prevent Dangers from disaffected Persons.
Next, the House took into further Consideration the Bill for preventing the Dangers which may arise from Persons disaffected to the Government: And, for the freer Debate, whether the said Bill should be committed or not, the House was adjourned into a Committee.
Memorandum, That, before the putting of the abovesaid Question, these Lords following desired Leave to enter their Dissent, if the Question was carried in the Affirmative; and accordingly did enter their Dissent, as followeth:
Protest against its being committed.
"The Question being put, Whether the Bill, intituled, "An Act to prevent the Dangers which may arise from Persons disaffected to the Government," should be committed; it being carried in the Affirmative; and we, after several Days Debate, being in no Measure satisfied, but still apprehending that this Bill doth not only subvert the Privilege and Birthright of the Peers, by imposing an Oath upon them with the Penalty of losing their Place in Parliament; but also, as we humbly conceive, does strike at the very Root of Government, it being necessary to all Government to have Freedom of Votes and Debates in those who have Power to alter and make Laws; and besides, the express Words of this Bill obliging every Man to abjure all Endeavours to alter the Government in the Church, without regard to any Thing that Rules of Prudence in Government, or Christian Compassion to Protestant Dissenters, or the Necessity of Affairs, at any Time, shall or may require: Upon these Considerations, we humbly conceiving it to be of dangerous Consequence to have any Bill of this Nature so much as committed, do enter our Dissent from that Vote, and Protestation against it:
House to be called.
Goston versus Sedgwick, in Error.
Whereas this House had appointed to hear Counsel at the Bar, on both Parts, to argue the Errors assigned upon a Writ of Error depending in this House, wherein Thomas Goston is Plaintiff, and Thomas Sedgwick, Lessee of William Collop, Defendant, To-morrow, being Tuesday the 27th Instant:
It is ORDERED, That this House will hear the said Errors argued, by Counsel, at the Bar, on Monday the 3d Day of May next, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon; and hereof both Parties are to take Notice, and attend with their Counsel accordingly.
Barret versus L. Loftus.
Whereas this House had appointed to hear Counsel, upon the Petition and Appeal of Dacre Barret, alias Lennard, Esquire, depending in this House, and the Plea of the Lord Viscount Loftus of the Kingdom of Ireland, put in thereunto, on Thursday the 29th Instant:
It is this Day ORDERED, That this House will hear Counsel, at the Bar, upon the said Appeal and Plea, on Tuesday the Fourth Day of May next, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon; and hereof both Parties are to take Notice, and attend with their Counsel accordingly.
E Dorset versus L. Mayor, Privilege concerning the Jurisdiction of Salisbury Court.
Whereas Sir Robert Vyner, Lord Mayor of London, was, by Order of the 20th Instant, appointed to put in his Answer in Writing to the Complaint of the Earl of Dorset, concerning the Liberty and Jurisdiction of Salisbury Court, near Fleetstreat, London, on Wednesday the 28th Day of this Instant April: