House of Lords Journal Volume 14: 14 November 1685

Pages 81-82

Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 14, 1685-1691. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1767-1830.

This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.

Page 81
Page 82

In this section

DIE Sabbati, 14 die Novembris.


Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

Arch. Cant.
Arch. Yorke.
Epus. London.
Epus. Durham.
Epus. Winton.
Epus. Sarum.
Epus. Norwich.
Epus. Lyncolne.
Epus. Oxon.
Epus. Exon.
Epus. St. Asaph.
Epus. Gloucester.
Epus. Ely.
Epus. Carlile.
Epus. Rochester.
Epus. Bath & Wells.
Epus. Chichester.
Epus. Peterborough.
Epus. Bristol.
L. Chancellor.
L. Treasurer.
L. Privy Seal.
L. Steward.
Duke of Somerset.
Duke of Grafton.
Duke of Beaufort.
Marq. of Hallyfax.
L. Chamberlain of the Household.
E. of Oxon.
E. of Shrewsbury.
E. of Kent.
E. of Derby.
E. of Huntingdon.
E. of Bedford.
E. of Bridgewater.
E. of Devon.
E. of Manchester.
E. Rivers.
E. of Peterborow.
E. of Kingston.
E. of Carnarvon.
E. of Strafford.
E. of Sunderland.
E. of Scarsdale.
E. of Anglesey.
E. of Craven.
E. of Aylesbury.
E. of Burlington.
E. of Litchfeild.
E. of Danby.
E. of Feversham.
E. of Radnor.
E. of Yarmouth.
E. of Berkeley.
E. of Nottingham.
E. of Gainesborough.
Vicecomes Fauconberg.
Vicecomes Mordant.
Vicecomes Newport.
Vicecomes Weymouth.
Vicecomes Hatton.
Ds. Ferrers.
Ds. De Grey.
Ds. Cromwell.
Ds. Paget.
Ds. North.
Ds. Maynard.
Ds. Colepeper.
Ds. Lucas.
Ds. Rockingham.
Ds. Lexington.
Ds. Berkeley.
Ds. Cornwallis.
Ds. Arundell Trerice.
Ds. Butler de Weston.
Ds. Lumley.
Ds. Dartmouth.
Ds. Godolphin.
Ds. Churchill.


Lords take the Oaths.

These Lords following took the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and made and subscribed the Declaration, in Pursuance of the Act for the more effectual preserving the King's Person and Government, by disabling Papists sitting in either House of Parliament:

John Lord Bishop of Chichester. William Lord Bishop of Norwich.

The same Time Charles Duke of Somersett took the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and subscribed the Declaration, according to the Statute made in the 25th Year of King Charles the Second, intituled, "An Act for preventing Dangers which may happen from Popish Recusants."

Eyre & al. versus Eyre & al.

The Lord Chancellor reported the Effect of what was said by Counsel, at the Bar, in the Case of Appeal, depending in this House between Eyre and Eyrc, for reversing a Decree made in the Dutchy Court.

And after Debate and Consideration thereof;

The Question being put, "Whether to affirm this Decree?"

It was Resolved in the Affirmative.

Protest against affirming the Decree.

The Earl of Anglesey, before the putting of this Question, desired Leave to enter his Dissent, if the Question was carried in the Affirmative.

"Dissentio, Anglesey."

Upon hearing Counsel at the Bar, in the Cause upon the Petition and Appeal of Thomas Eyre of Hassop Esquire, William Inge, Henry Balgay Esquire, and divers others, Freeholders and Inhabitants of the Towns of Hope, Bradwell, and Wormhill, in the County of Derby, from a Decree made against them in the Court of the Dutchy of Lancaster; as also upon the several Answers of Sir James Butler Knight, the Queen Dowager's Attorney, on the Behalf of Her Majesty, and Her Majesty's Trustees, the Answer of Sir John Heath Knight, His Majesty's Attorney General of the Dutchy of Lancaster, for and in Behalf of His Majesty, and the Answer of Thomas Eyre Esquire, and others, Relators, put in thereunto:

After due Consideration had of what was offered by Counsel on either Part thereupon; it is Resolved and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the Petition and Appeal of the said Thomas Eyre of Hassop Esquire, William Inge, Henry Balgay Esquire, and divers Freeholders and Inhabitants of the Town of Hope, Bradwell, and Wormhill aforesaid, be, and is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further ORDERED, That the Decree made in the Court of the Dutchy of Lancaster, from which they appealed to this House, be, and is hereby, affirmed.

Grenvile versus E. Huntingdon, Privilege waved.

The Counsel of the Earl of Huntingdon was heard at the Bar, concerning his Lordship's claiming his Privilege of Parliament, against the Proceedings of Bernard Greenvile Esquire, a Member of the House of Commons; but no Counsel appeared for Mr. Greenvile:

And the House being informed, That the Plaintiff Mr. Greenvile was at the Door;

It was moved, "he might be called in."

But, upon Debate, these Two Questions were proposed:

"1. Whether the Petition shall be dismissed?"

"2. Whether the Petitioner shall be called in?"

The Question being put, "Whether the First Question shall be now put?"

It was Resolved in the Affirmative.


The Question was put, "Whether the Petition shall be dismissed?"

It was Resolved in the Negative.


The Question was put, "Whether the Petitioner shall be now called in?"

It was Resolved in the Affirmative.

Mr. Greenvile was called in; and asked, "What he had to say to the House?"

He said, "That he has petitioned against the Earl of Huntingdon, for claiming his Privilege of Parliament, to stop a Proceeding at Law which he had commenced against the said Earl." He said, "he never claimed his Privilege in his Life, nor will in this Cause: And the Reason why he had no Counsel this Day to appear for him was, because the Earl of Huntingdon had threatened them, if they did appear."

Hereupon the Earl of Huntingdon declared in the House, "That he did wave his Privilege of Parliament in this Cause."

And the House caused the waving of both their Privileges to be entered accordingly.

Indictment against the E. of Stamford, delivered in.

This Day Tanner, the Clerk of the Peace for the City of London, according to the Order of this House, delivered in an Indictment against the Earl of Stamford.

Which was received.


Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque in diem Lunæ, 16um diem instantis Novembris, hora decima Aurora, Dominis sic decernentibus.