Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 15, 1691-1696. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1767-1830.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
DIE Mercurii, 10 Januarii.
Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:
Simpson versus Broomwhorwood.
The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed for hearing of the Cause wherein William Simpson is Appellant, and Thomas Broomwhorwood Respondent:"
It is ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel on both Sides, at the Bar, on Tuesday the Sixteenth Day of this Instant January, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon.
Keymer versus Penny.
Upon reading the Petition of Mary Keymer (and the Clerk giving an Account of the Proceedings in this Case); shewing, "That Edward Penny brought an Appeal against her into this House, the Seventh of December, One Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-one, which she answered the Fourteenth of the same Month; and that she obtained an Order, the Twentieth of January, One Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-one, that, unless the Appellant Edward Penny did enter into a Recognizance for Costs, and proceed in the Cause within a Week, the Appeal should stand dismissed; and that he hath not as yet entered into a Recognizance; but did, on the Five and Twentieth of January, One Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-one, procure an Order for a Day of Hearing; but hath not since proceeded; and praying, that the said Appeal may now stand dismissed, for Want of Prosecution:"
It is this Day ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Petition and Appeal of Edward Penny shall be, and is hereby, absolutely dismissed this House.
Zouch versus Swinnock, et è contra.
After hearing Counsel Yesterday, at the Bar, upon the Petition and Appeal of James Zouch Esquire, from a Decree made in the Court of Chancery, the Sixteenth Day of April, in the Fourth Year of the Reign of Their present Majesties, by the late Lords Commissioners for the Custody of the Great Seal, in a Cause then depending, between Thomas English and Dorothy his Wife (the Appellant's Sister) Complainants, and the Petitioner Defendant, et è contra; as also upon the Answer of Samuel Swynocke and Dorothy English put in thereunto; as also after hearing Counsel upon the Petition and Appeal of Dorothy English Widow, from the Decree abovementioned, and the Answer of James Zouch and Samuel Swynock put in thereunto:
After due Consideration had of what was offered by Counsel upon the said Petitions and Answers, it is ORDERED and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the Decree complained of in the said Petitions of Appeal shall be, and is hereby, reversed, as to so much as relates to the Settlement of the Fifteen Hundred Pounds, Principal Money; and that the same shall be paid by the Appellant James Zouch, to the Appellant Dorothy English; and as to the Interest which accrued for the Fifteen Hundred Pounds, during the Marriage between the said Thomas English and Dorothy his Wife, that the same shall be paid to the Respondent Samuel Swynock, deducting so much as was paid by the Appellant James Zouch for the Maintenance of the Appellant Dorothy English, during her Coverture; but such Allowance for Maintenance not to exceed One Moiety of the Interest Yearly, and the Accompt to be taken in Chancery accordingly; and that the Interest accrued since the Death of Thomas English be paid to the Appellant Dorothy English.
Then the House went into farther Consideration of the Expedition at Sea the last Summer; and the Admirals who commanded the Fleet.
And, after hearing them at the Bar, in Answer to some Questions proposed to them, and reading some Letters and Orders in relation to that Business; and upon full Consideration of what had been in Debate the several former Days:
This Question was put, "Whether the House shall be now adjourned?"
It was Resolved in the Negative.
Vote, That the Admirals have done well in the Execution of their Orders:
Then it was Resolved, upon the Question, "That the Admirals who commanded the Fleet the last Summer have done well, in the Execution of the Orders they received."
Protest against it.
"Leave having been asked, and given, for any Lords to dissent from the abovesaid Resolution; the Lords whose Names are after subscribed dissent in the following Reasons; (videlicet,)
"1. Whereas, by an Order of the Admiralty, bearing Date the Nineteenth of May last, the Admirals were to direct Sir George Rooke, that, after their parting with him, he should steer such a Course for his Passage to Cadiz as shall be thought most safe by a Council of War, with relation as well to the Brest Fleet, if gone out to Sea, as to the Thoulon Squadron; it does not appear to us, that there has been any Council of War from the Two and Twentieth of May to the Fourth of June, which was the Day that the Signals were given for their parting from the Streights Fleet; which last Council of War was not called till after the Signals for Parting were given, and occasioned by the Accident of the Turkey Fleet's being becalmed.
"2. That though it doth appear by the Result of the Council of War of the Fourth of June, that they had no Intelligence where the Enemy was; yet notwithstanding, we do not find, in that Council, it was so much as proposed how to get Intelligence where the Brest Fleet was, pursuant to the Order of the Admiralty of the Nineteenth.
"3. We conceive it to be the Duty of an Admiral or General, to use his utmost Endeavours to discover the Motions of an Enemy, without an Order from his Superiors, and much more when he has one.
"4. Their not sending One or more good Sailers, to find out if the French Fleet were failed from Brest; as also what Course they steered, so as to give Intelligence to our Main Fleet, at a Station appointed before they parted with Sir George Rooke, was (as we conceive) the chief Cause of the Misfortune that happened to the Turkey Fleet.
"5. It appears by the Admirals own Letters to the Admiralty, of the Fourteenth of July and Eighteenth of September last, that, at a Council of War held on the Two and Twentieth of May, they were of Opinion, that that Part of the Admiralty's Order of the Nineteenth, which related to the Course of Sir George Rooke was to steer, was unreasonable and impracticable; yet they did not send up to have it explained, though the Fleet did not sail till the Thirtieth. This looks as if they rather designed an artificial Excuse for doing nothing, than the Discharge of the Trust reposed in them.
"6. That Sir George Rook's Narrative, which might have given a further Light to the Enquiry into the Admirals Conduct last Summer, was not allowed to be read.
"7. This Vote seems to approve of the Behaviour of the Admirals, in the last Summer's Expedition; which differs (as we conceive) from the Opinion the greatest Part of Europe has of it, and may be of ill Consequence, by giving our Allies no very fair Prospect of better Success.
"8. Because, by this Vote, is prevented any further Inquiry into the last Year's Miscarriage, relating to the Admirals, if any new Matter should arise from new Evidence; and it may stop any Prosecution of the King's, in case He should think fit to proceed farther in that Affair.
Berkeley of Berkeley.
Dominus Custos Magni Sigilli declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Jovis, (videlicet,) undecimum diem instantis Januarii, hora decima Aurora, Dominis sic decernentibus.