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 Jovis, 29 die Aprilis.
Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:
Church Rates, Tithes, &c. Bill.
Hodie 1 vice lecta est Billa, "An Act for the better Payment of Church Rates, Small Tithes, and other Church Duties."
Prince Rupert's Bill.
Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act for Confirmation of Letters Patents granted to Prince Rupert."
ORDERED, That the Consideration of this Bill is committed to these Lords following:
Their Lordships, or any Five of them; to meet Tomorrow, at Three of the Clock in the Afternoon, in the Prince's Lodgings; and to adjourn themselves as they please.
Hodie 1a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act to prevent the spoiling of all Highways by Carts and Carriages that go on Four Wheels."
The House was called; and these Lords were absent:
Lords who have not taken the Oath of Allegiance.
The House perusing the List of the Peers that have not taken the Oath of Allegiance in this House, it did appear that these Lords following have not taken it:
Standing Orders read.
Next, the Standing Orders were read.
Writs of Error brought in.
This Day the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, in the usual Manner, brought in these Writs of Error:
1. Inter Samuell Crake and Sir James Norfolke.
2. Inter Dorothy Asmall and Thomas Asmall.
3. Inter Joseph Wright and Peter Stevenson.
Protest against the Commitment of the Bill to prevent Dangers from disaffected Persons, voted a Reflection upon the House.
Two Questions were propounded:
"1. Whether the House taking Offence at divers Expressions in the Protestation entered by some Lords the 26th of April, and the said Lords severally and voluntarily declaring that they had no Intention to reflect upon any Member, much less upon the whole House; the House declared, That they were satisfied in this Declaration?
"2. Whether that the Reasons given in the Protestation entered the 26 of this Instant April do reflect upon the Honour of this House, and are of dangerous Consequence?"
The Question being put, "Whether the First Question shall be first put?"
It was Resolved in the Negative.
Then the Second Question being put, "Whether that the Reasons given in the Protestation entered the 26 of this Instant April do reflect upon the Honour of this House, and are of dangerous Consequence?"
It was Resolved in the Affirmative.
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 this Vote.
"Whereas it is the undoubted Privilege of every Peer in Parliament, when a Question is passed contrary to his Vote and Judgement, to enter his Protestation against it; and that, in Pursuance thereof, the Bill, intituled, "An Act to prevent the Dangers which may arise from Persons disaffected to the Government," being conceived by some Lords to be of so dangerous a Nature as that it was not fit to receive so much as the Countenance of a Commitment, those Lords did protest against the committing of the said Bill; and the House having taken Exceptions at some Expressions in their Protestation, those Lords who were present at the Debate, did all of them severally and voluntarily declare, "That they had no Intention to reflect upon any Member, much less upon the whole House;" which, as is humbly conceived, was more than in Strictness did consist with that absolute Freedom of Protesting which is inseparable from every Member of this House, and was done by them merely out of their great Respect to the House, and their earnest Desire to give all Satisfaction concerning themselves, and the Clearness of their Intentions: Yet the House, not satisfied with this their Declaration, but proceeding to a Vote, "That the Reasons given in the said Protestation do reflect upon the Honour of the House, and are of dangerous Consequence;" which is, in our humble Opinion, a great Discountenancing of the very Liberty of Protesting; we whose Names are underwritten, conceiving ourselves and the whole House of Peers extremely concerned, that this great Wound should be given (as we do in all Humility apprehend) to so essential a Privilege of the whole Peerage of this Realm as is their Liberty of Protesting, do now (according to our unquestionable Right) make Use of the same Liberty to enter this our Dissent from, and Protestation against, the said Vote:
Howard E. of Bercks.
Say & Seale.
Grey De Rolleston.
Streater versus Roper & al. in Error, Plaintiff to have his Liberty to attend the Suit.
Whereas John Streater, Plaintiff in a Writ of Error now depending in this House, to which Abel Roper and others are Defendants, is a Prisoner upon Execution in the Prison of The Fleete; this House being moved, "That the said John Streater may have Liberty to attend the Prosecution of his said Writ of Error:"
It is ORDERED, That the said John Streater shall have Liberty (with his Keeper) to attend the Prosecution of the said Writ of Error in the House of Peers; and this shall be a sufficient Warrant on that Behalf.
Crispes versus Boys & al.
Whereas this House had appointed to hear Counsel at the Bar, upon the Petition and Appeal of John and Thomas Crispe Esquires, to which John Boys, John Harris, and others, are Defendants:
It is this Day ORDERED, at the humble Request of the Petitioners, That the Hearing of Counsel on both Parts in the said Cause be, and is hereby, put off to Monday the Tenth Day of May next, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon; whereof the said Petitioners are to cause timely Notice to be given to the said Defendants for that Purpose.
Hallet versus Kendall.
ORDERED, That the Counsel which were appointed to be heard at the Bar on Friday the 30th Instant, to proceed in the Cause depending, wherein Mary Hallet Widow is Plaintiff, and Thomas Kendall and his Wife Defendants, be, and are hereby, appointed to be heard, at the Bar, on Wednesday the 5th Day of May next, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon.
Sir N. Stoughton versus Onslow.
Whereas Arthur Onslow Esquire, who is made Defendant to the Petition and Appeal of Sir Nicholas Stoughton, had Time till this Day to put in his Answer thereunto, if he thought fit; who appearing, prays a longer Time for Perusal of some Writings, in Order to the perfecting of his Answer to the said Appeal:
It is thereupon ORDERED, That the said Arthur Onslow have hereby Time allowed to him for putting in his said Answer in Writing till Thursday the Sixth Day of May next, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon.
Dutchess of Cleveland, Privilege;--Vinson versus Channell & al.
Whereas John Channell Plumber, and Richard Gilson, who arrested Richard Vinson, Servant in Livery to her Grace the Dutchess of Cleaveland (sitting the Parliament, contrary to the Privilege of Parliament), were, by Order of the 24th Instant, required to appear at the Bar on Tuesday last:
It is this Day ORDERED, That the said John Channell and Richard Gilson be, and are hereby, required to appear at the Bar of this House, on Monday the Third Day of May next, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon; and hereof they may not fail.
Herbert, King's Servant, Privilege, versus Standen.
Whereas William Standen, of Brightwell, in the County of Bucks, Esquire, was, by Order of the 15th Day of April Instant, required to appear at the Bar of this House within One Week next after Notice given him, or left at his Dwelling-house, to answer to the Breach of Privilege complained of in the Petition of Edward Herbert Esquire, One of His Majesty's Gentlemen Pensioners in Ordinary; it appearing, upon the Affidavit of Elizabeth Standen his Wife, and Mary Pening Spinster, "That, by reason of Sickness, he cannot appear as is required, without Danger of his Life:"
It is this Day ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said William hath further Time given him, and he is hereby required to appear at the Bar of this House on Thursday the Sixth Day of May next, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon; and hereof he may not fail.
Crispe versus Ly. Cranborne & al. to stay Proceedings in Chancery.
The House being moved, to stay Proceedings in Chancery, in the Case of Sir Nicholas Crispe Baronet and others, upon their Appeal depending in this House against the Lady Viscountess Cranborne and others:
It is ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That it be referred to the Committee for Privileges, to consider of the Manner of staying Proceedings in the Courts in Westm. Hall upon Appeals to this House, and what Rule is fit to be settled for the future in Cases of this Nature; and make Report to the House.
Dominus Custos Magni Sigilli declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque in diem Veneris, 30um diem instantis Aprilis, hora decima Aurora, Dominis sic decernentibus.