Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 13, 1675-1681. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1767-1830.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
DIE Mercurii, 26 die Junii.
Sir R. Viner's & al. Bankers Bill.
Heralds Bill, to register Deaths, &c.
The Earl of Bridgwater reported, "That the Committee have considered the Bill for registering Certificates in the Heralds Office, and have made some Amendments therein, which are offered to the Consideration of the House."
Heads for a Conference on Amendments to the Supply Bill.
The Lord Privy Seal reported, "That the Committee have prepared Reasons, to be given to the House of Commons, why their Lordships do not agree with them in the Proviso offered at the last Conference."
"To let the House of Commons know, the Lords have appointed this Conference, upon the Subjectmatter of the last Conference, concerning the Bill, intituled, "An Act for granting a Supply to His Majesty, for enabling Him to pay and disband the Forces which have been raised since the 29th of September last, and to preserve that good Correspondence which ought to be between the Two Houses in the Course of Parliamentary Proceedings in passing of Bills, and for which, in their Introduction to the last Conference was intimated, the same was desired by the Commons.
"Their Lordships finding that as the Bill came up to them, limited to so very short a Time for the Execution of it, and that under the Penalties of Forfeitures and Disabilities to bear Office on those who should not do their Work according to the Purport of the Bill within the Time prefixed; which their Lordships found absolutely impossible: They therefore proceeded to such Amendments as made the Bill practicable, by assigning further Periods of Time; videlicet, for disbanding the Forces in England to the 27th of July, and for those beyond Sea, to the 24th of August; and for Apprentices to return to their Masters to the 29th of September: To all which Amendments, they tell their Lordships, the Commons find themselves obliged to disagree with them, by reason of the Methods and Rights of the House of Commons in a Matter very tender to them; but did not communicate to their Lordships what those Methods and Rights were. But, for answering the End which they told their Lordships they seem to aim at, they offered them an Expedient in the Proviso then delivered, which they conceived was warranted by Two Precedents which they mentioned.
"First, That where they have found their Amendments so necessary, that by the Expedient proposed they have enlarged the Periods even beyond their Lordships Amendments, their Lordships perceive the Commons have in Effect consented thereunto; and the Course of Parliament is not to help that by new Proviso, which might have been done by the Change of Days, as was by their Amendments.
"3. They observe rightly, that those Provisos added by the Lords after the Bills sent by them to the Commons did not relate to any Amendments made by the Commons; whereas the Proviso now added by the Commons relates to Two of the Amendments made by the Lords.
"4. Their Lordships take Notice, that though the Commons seem to disagree to all their Amendments, yet, in the Expedient, they take no Notice of that Amendment relating to Apprentices, without which the Provision which seems to be made for them in the Bill will be merely illusory.
"6. If the Proviso should be added, the Clauses of the Bill would be inconsistent with it; the same Bill appointing short Days under great Penalties, and enlarging the Days without Penalties: For these Reasons, their Lordships, as they have disagreed to the Commons Expedient, do insist on their Amendments, and desire a speedy Concurrence in this Bill so amended, that His Majesty may not want the Money so necessary to His Service and the Kingdom's Quiet."
Message to H. C. for this Conference; and that the Lords agree to the Dean of St. Paul's Bill.
St. Ann's Parish Bill.
Marriot versus Regem, in Error.
Answer from H. C.
Pet. to the King for a Bill to disable Villiers from claiming the Title of Vise. Purbeck.
The Earl of Bridgwater reported, "That the Committee, according to the Directions of the House, have prepared a Draught of a Petition to His Majesty, to give Leave that a Bill may be brought in, to disable the Petitioner to claim the Title of Viscount Purbeck."
Sir J. Norfolke versus Symball.
Upon reading the Petition of Sir James Norfolke Knight, Serjeant at Arms in Ordinary to His Majesty, being an Appeal from the Dismission of his Bill in Chancery, against John Symball, concerning the Goods of Henry Symball, Brother to the said John Symball, and other Matters in the said Petition suggested:
It is ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said John Symball may have a Copy of the said Petition; to which he is hereby required to put in an Answer in Writing within One Week next after Notice given him hereof by the said Sir James Norfolke for that Purpose.
De la Poole versus Okeover.
Whereas this House had appointed to hear Counsel, at the Bar, in the Cause depending between Sir Henry De la Poole and Dame Elizabeth his Wife, Plaintiffs, and Rowland Okeover and Elizabeth his Wife, Defendants, To-morrow, being the 27th Instant:
It is this Day ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Hearing is hereby put off to Monday the First Day of July next, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon; whereof both the said Parties are hereby required to take Notice, and attend with their Counsel accordingly.
Reading versus Cooke.
Whereas this House had appointed to hear Counsel at the Bar, on Monday the First Day of July next, upon the Petition of Nathaniell Reading Esquire, and the several Answers of Sir George Cooke Baronet, John Millington, Toby Humfrey, and George Westby, Esquires:
It is this Day ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Hearing is hereby put off to Tuesday the Second Day of July next, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon; whereof the said Parties are hereby required to take Notice, and attend with their Counsel accordingly.
Woodward versus Herbert, in Error.
Whereas Francis Woodward, Plaintiff in a Writ of Error depending in this Court, whereto William Herbert is Desendant, hath assigned Errors, and therein prayeth that a Writ of Certiorari may be directed to the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench for the more perfect certifying of the Record of that Court, wherein Judgement is entered for the said William Herbert against the said Francis Woodward:
It is ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench be attended with the said Errors and this Order; and that thereupon his Lordship cause the said Record and Proceedings thereupon to be forthwith perfectly certified into this Court.
Lawrence versus Berney.
It is ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the Counsel shall proceed To-morrow Morning, at Ten of the Clock, to shew what Errors in Law are in the Decree mentioned in the Petition of the said Thomas Laurance, which he prays may be executed.