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 Lunæ, 19 die Martii.
L. Morley's Bill.
Hodie 1 vice lecta est Billa, "An Act for enabling the Right Honourable Thomas Lord Morley and Mountegle, Baron of Rye, to make Sale of the Manor of Fareleton, and certain Lands and Hereditaments in Fareleton, in the County of Lancaster, for Payment of Debts."
Bill for the more effectual Conviction of Popish Recusants.
And the Earl of Bridgwater reported, "That they have proceeded further in Consideration of the said Bill, and have made a Memorial, which they offer to the House for their Directions therein, which was: That the Two Lords Chief Justices do prepare a Clause to be added to the said Bill, That Conformity to the Church of England, and receiving the Sacrament of the LORD'S Supper therein, shall discharge all Persons so conforming from the Penalties to be inslicted by this or any other Act upon Popish Recusants."
Tresihan & al. versus Tremenhere & al. in Error.
Whereas there is a Writ of Error brought into this High Court, wherein Pascatius Tresilian and others are Plaintiffs, and John Tremenhere and others are Defendants, upon which Writ of Error the said Plaintiffs have assigned Errors, and prayed that a Day may be appointed for the said Defendants to join Issue thereupon:
It is this Day ORDERED, That the said John Tremenheere and others, Defendants in the said Writ of Error, are hereby required to appear, and join Issue thereupon, on or before Monday the Ninth Day of April next, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon, to the End this Court may appoint a Day for Hearing the said Errors argued by Counsel on both Parts at the Bar; and hereof they may not fail.
Barret versus L. Loftus.
Whereas the Lord Viscount Loftus, of the Kingdom of Ireland, was, by Order of this House, dated the Nineteenth Day of February last, appointed to put in such Allegations as he should think fit to insist on, by Way of Answer to the Allegations of Dacre Barret, alias Lennard, Esquire, put in against him within Three Weeks after Notice given him in the Kingdom of Ireland:
It appearing this Day by a Letter of the said Lord Loftus, "That he had Notice thereof, and that he is coming to attend this House, but being old and infirm cannot make such Speed as to observe the said Time; and therefore humbly desires, That this Honourable Court may be moved for a longer Time for putting in his said Answer;" it also appearing, by the Oath of Edward Swan, "That he served the said Order of this House on the said Lord Viscount Loftus, at his Dwelling-house in Ireland, on Tuesday the 27th Day of February last;" it is thereupon ORDERED, That the said Lord Loftus hath hereby Time given him till Tuesday the Third Day of April next, longer than the Three Weeks after Notice before mentioned, at or before which Day he is hereby appointed peremptorily to put in such Answer as aforesaid, to the End that this Court may come to a Judgement thereupon.
Bulkley versus Bulkley.
Whereas the Petition of William Bulkley Merchant was this Day offered to this House; shewing, "That he hath a Petition and Appeal depending in this Court against Bartholomew Bulkley (his Brother) Defendant, who hath not answered thereunto, against whom also the said William Bulkeley hath a Writ of Error depending in this House, upon which Errors are assigned and issue joined, and a Day appointed to hear the said Errors argued, at the Desire and Petition of the said Bartholomew Bulkeley the Defendant; and therefore prayeth, That a Day may be appointed for the said Bartholomew Bulkeley to answer to the said Appeal before the said Errors be argued by Counsel at the Bar:"
It is ORDERED, That it be referred to the Lords Committees for Petitions, to consider whether the said Petition of William Bulkeley offered this Day be fit to be received by this House or not, and to make Report thereof unto the House.