Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 16, 1696-1701. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1767-1830.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
DIE Jovis, 13 Januarii.
Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:
Hodie 3a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to enable Rebecca Lassells Widow to sell Copyhold Lands in Ealing, in the County of Middl'x."
The Question was put, "Whether this Bill shall pass?"
It was Resolved in the Affirmative.
Message to H. C. with it.
A Message was sent to the House of Commons, by Sir Miles Cooke and Sir John Hoskyns:
To carry down the said Bill, and desire their Concurrence thereunto.
Message from thence, for a Conference. on the Bill to continue Imprisonment of Counter et al.:
A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Mr. Clarke and others:
To desire a Conference, upon the Subject-matter of the Lords Amendment made to the Bill, intituled, "An Act for continuing the Imprisonment of Counter and others, for the late horrid Conspiracy to assassinate the Person of His Sacred Majesty."
To which the House agreed.
And the Commons were called in; and told, "That the Lords have considered of their Message; and they agree to a Conference, as desired; and appoint it presently, in the Painted Chamber."
Then these Lords following were named (fn. 1) Managers of the Conference:
Dux Devon, Ds. Senescallus.
The Commons being come to the Conference, the Managers Names were read.
Then the House was adjourned during Pleasure, and the Lords went to the Conference.
Which being ended, the House was resumed.
Commons do not agree to a Clause added to it by the Lords:
And the Earl of Stamford reported, "That they had attended at the Conference; and the Commons do not agree to the Clause added to the said Bill by this House."
And thereupon the House agreed, not to insist on their Clause to the said Bill.
Message to them, that the Lords do not insist upon it.
A Message was sent to the House of Commons, by Sir John Hoskyns and Sir Richard Holford:
To let them know, the Lords do not insist on their Clause added to the said Bill.
Sir Evan Lloyd versus Sir Richard Carew et al.:
After hearing Counsel, upon the Petition and Appeal of Sir Evan Lloyd Baronet and Dame Mary his Wife, Sidney Godolphin Esquire and Susan his Wife, from a Decree made in the Court of Chancery, in Michaelmas Terme last, whereby the Bill exhibited in the said Court by the Petitioners, as Plaintiffs, against Sir Richard Carew Baronet and Charles Tremaine Clerk, Defendants, was dismissed; as also upon the Answer of the said Sir Richard Carew put in to the said Petition:
Upon Consideration of what was offered thereupon, it is this Day ORDERED and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Decree of Dismission, complained of in the said Petition and Appeal, shall be, and is hereby, reversed.
Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Veneris, (videlicet,) decimum quartum diem instantis Januarii, hora undecima Aurora, Dominis sic decernentibus.