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, 6 die Maii.
Sherley versus Sir J. Fagg. Report concerning Privilege of Members of H. C. in Appeals to this House.
The Earl of Berks reported, "That the Committee of Privileges having met, and considered of what was referred to them in the Case between Thomas Sherley Esquire and Sir John Fagg a Member of the House of Commons, and the Message from the House of Commons thereupon, have ordered to report, That the Committee have found that the House did refer the Business of Mr. Hale and Mr. Slingsby, upon a like Message from the House of Commons, to the Committee of Privileges; who did report to the House, That it is the undoubted Right of the Lords, in Judicature, to receive and determine, in Time of Parliament, Appeals from Inferior Courts, though a Member of either House be concerned, that there may be no Failure of Justice in the Land; and the House did agree with the Committee therein. And thereupon the Committee do humbly offer to their Lordships, upon this Occasion, to take the same Course, and to insist upon their just Rights in this Particular; which their Lordships will be pleased to signify to the House of Commons in such Manner as they shall think fit."
Declaration concerning Judicature.
"That it is the undoubted Right of the Lords, in Judicature, to receive and determine, in Time of Parliament, Appeals from Inferior Courts, though a Member of either House be concerned, that there may be no Failure of Justice in the Land."
Then it was moved, "That the former Answer sent to the House of Commons, in the Case between Mr. (fn. 1) Slyngsby and Mr. Hales, might be given now to the House of Commons, in this Case of Sir John Fagg; and that the Declaration reported and agreed to this Day might be added to it."
The Answer returned formerly to the House of Commons, in the Case between Mr. Slyngsby and Mr. Hales, was in these Words, "That the House of Commons need not doubt but that their Lordships will have a Regard to the Privileges of the House of Commons as they have of their own."
Answer to H. C. concerning their Message about Sherley's Appeal versus Sir J. Fagg.
Memorandum, That, before the putting of the aforesaid Question, these Lords following desired Leave to enter their Dissents, if the Question was carried in the Affirmative; and accordingly they do enter their Dissents:
Protest against it.
"Because the Answer voted to be sent to the House of Commons, being the same that was sent down formerly in the Case of Hale and Slyngsby, hath, as we with all Humility do apprehend, been already mistaken by them, as a Condescension of this House to forbear proceeding in Judicature, in Affairs of this Nature; and appears to us very liable to so great a Misconstruction, that it may seem in some Measure to acknowledge that the House of Commons have a Claim to some Privilege in Judicature; which is a Thing that we conceive belongs solely to this House:
Bill to prevent Dangers from disaffected Persons.
ORDERED, That To-morrow Morning this House shall be adjourned into a Committee, to proceed further in the Consideration of the Bill to prevent the Dangers which may arise from Persons disaffected to the Government.
E. of Strafford versus Eyres, for Scandal.
Whereas William Eyres (according to Summons) appeared this Day at the Bar, and owned the Book, or Case, intituled, The Case of William Eyres Esquire (complained of by the Earl of Strafford); and said, "That he would justify the Contents thereof:"