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, 20 die Maii.
P. Rupert's Bill.
Heads for a Conference about Sherley's Appeal, versus Sir J. Fagg.
The Earl of Dorsett reported, "That the Committee for Privileges, in Pursuance of the Order of this House of the 19th Instant, have considered what is fit to be done upon the Matters offered by the House of Commons, at a Conference had touching the Message of the Lords concerning the Warrant for apprehending Dr. Thomas Shirley, and report the same to the House; and the Committee offer their Opinion to the Consideration of the House; videlicet,
"The Lords have appointed this Conference upon the Subject-matter of the last Conference; and have commanded us to give these Answers to the Reasons and other Matter then delivered by the House of Commons.
"To the First Reason, the Lords conceive, that the most natural Way of being informed is, by Way of Question; and seeing a Paper here, which did reflect upon the Privileges of the Lords House, their Lordships would not proceed upon it, till they were assured it was owned by the House of Commons: But the Lords had no Occasion at that Time, nor do they now think fit, to enter into the Debate, of the House of Commons being, or not being, proper Judges, in a Case concerning the Privilege of a Member of that House; their Lordships necessary Consideration, upon Sight of that Paper, being only how far the House of Commons ordering (if that Paper were theirs) the Apprehension of Doctor Shirley, for prosecuting his Appeal before the Lords, did intrench upon their Lordships both Privilege and undoubted Right of Judicature; in the Consequence of it, exempting all the Members of both Houses from the Judicature of this the Highest Court of the Kingdom, which would cause a Failure of that Supreme Justice, not administrable in any other Court, and which their Lordships will never admit.
"To the Third Reason, the Lords cannot imagine how it can be apprehended, in the least, to reflect upon the House of Commons, for the House of Peer; (upon a Paper produced to their Lordships in Form of a Warrant of that House, whereof Doubt was made among the Lords whether any such Thing had been ordered by that House) to enquire of the Commons, whether such Warrant was ordered there or no; and without such Liberty used by the Lords, it will be very hard for their Lordships to be so rightly informed, as to preserve a good Correspondence between the Two Houses, which their Lordships shall ever endeavour; or to know when Warrants in the Name of that House are true, or pretended.
"And it is so ungrounded an Apprehension, that their Lordships intended any Reflection in asking that Question, and not taking Notice in their Message of the Complaint of the House of Commons owning that Warrant, that the Lords had sent their Message concerning that Paper to the House of Commons before the Lords had received the said Commons Complaint.
"But their Lordships have great Cause to except against the unjust and strained Reflection of that House upon their Lordships, in asserting that the Question in the Lords Message could not be for Information, as we affirm, but tending to interrupt the mutual Correspondency between the Two Houses; which we deny, and had not the least Thought of.
"The Lords have further commanded us to say, That they doubt not, when the House of Commons have received what we have delivered at this Conference, they will be sensible of their Error, in calling our Message strange, unusual, or unparliamentary; though we cannot but take Notice, that their Answer to our Message, "that they would consider of it," was the First of that Kind that we can find to have come from that House."
Message to H. C. for this Conference,--with Sir F. Compton's Bill; and that the Lords agree to P. Rupert's.
And further to acquaint them, that the Lords have agreed to the Amendments made by the House of Commons to the Bill for granting a License to his Highness Prince Rupert Duke of Cumberland, for One and Thirty Years.
Taylor to be proceeded against for Blasphemy.
Whereas John Taylor, being brought to the Bar of this House, for Blasphemous Words by him uttered, and there owned by him, was, by Order of the 14th of May Instant, committed to Bedlam, for the Recovery of him from the Madness wherewith he seemed to be possessed:
Upon Information given to this House this Day, "That the said John Taylor is not mad, and yet persisteth in his Blasphemies;" it is ORDERED, That it be, and is hereby, referred to the Judges, to consider how, and in what Manner, the said John Taylor is to be proceeded with; and make Report unto the House.
E. of Denbigh versus Villiers, claiming the Title of L. Purbeck.
Upon this, the House ORDERED, That whereas this Day was appointed for Counsel to be heard upon the Petition of the Earl of Denbigh, and the Plea of Robert Villiers put in thereunto, concerning his Claim to the Title of Viscount Purbecke: It is ORDERED, That this House will hear Counsel at the Bar, both in Maintenance of and against the said Plea, and not upon the Merits of the Cause, as also what his Grace the Duke of Bucks shall offer by his Counsel concerning the said Plea, on Thursday the 3d Day of June next, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon.
Hubert, King's Servant, Privilege: Slocombe and Fellows to appear.
It is ORDERED, That John Slocombe and George Fellowes, who were summoned to appear at the Bar of this House, to answer to the Complaint of John Hubert Esquire, One of His Majesty's Gentlemen Pensioners, for a Breach of Privilege of Parliament, be, and are hereby, appointed to appear for that Purpose on Wednesday the Second Day of June next, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon.
Herbert, King's Servant, Privilege, versus Standen.
ORDERED, That the Complaint of Edward Herbert Esquire, One of His Majesty's Gentlemen Pensioners, against William Standen (which should have been heard this Day), concerning a Breach of Privilege, as in the Petition of the said Edward Herbert is set forth, shall be examined, at the Bar of this House, on Wednesday the Second Day of June next, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon; and that the said William Standen, or some other Person on his Behalf, is to attend this House at the Time aforesaid.
Answer from H. C.
Domini tam (fn. 1) Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:
Hallet versus Kendall
Upon hearing Counsel several Days on both Parts, at the Bar, upon the Petition and Appeal of Mary Hallet Widow, the Relict of John Hallet deceased, and Johanna Hallet, One of the Daughters and Coheirs of the said John Hallet and the said Mary, concerning a Decree made in the Court of Chancery, on the 24th Day of January, in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy and Two, on the Behalf of Thomas Kendall Esquire and Mary his Wife, concerning the Manor of Killigarth, in the County of Cornwall; and upon the Answer of the said Thomas Kendall and Mary his Wife put in thereunto:
After due Consideration had of what was alledged and offered in Proof on either Part thereupon, it is ORDERED and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Petition and Appeal of the said Mary Hallet and Johanna Hallet be, and is hereby, dismissed this House.