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 Martis, 18 Martii.
Partition Treaty, State of Facts concerning.
And it being proposed, "That it appears that there were Powers, dated the First of July, to treat with the Emperor, the Dutch and French Ministers, for securing the mutual Friendship upon Terms most suitable to the Circumstances at that Time; and we are informed, that accordingly there was some Progress made in that Negotiation: But afterwards there were new Powers granted, the First of January, to treat with the French and Dutch Ministers only; and the Treaty for the Partition of the Spanish Monarchy was concluded without the Emperor:"
Protest against rejecting the Heads about excluding the Emperor, in the Address upon it.
French King's accepting the King of Spain's Will, a Violation of the Treaty:
That it appears, that the French King's Acceptance of the Will of the King of Spaine, is a manifest Violation of the Treaty; and humbly to advise the King, that, in all future Treaties with the French King, His Majesty do proceed with such Caution, as may carry along with it a real Security."
Protest against that Head.
Message from the King, with Proposals to the French Ambassador, and Resolution of The States about treating with him.
"His Majesty having directed Mr. Stanhope, His Envoy Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at The Hague, to enter into Negotiations, in Concert with The States Generall of the United Provinces and other Potentates, for the mutual Security of England and Holland, and the Preservation of the Peace of Europe; and the said Mr. Stanhope having transmitted to His Majesty Coples of the Demands made by himself and the Deputies of The States, upon that Subject, to the French Ambassador there: His Majesty has thought fit to communicate the same to the House of Lords; it being His Majesty's Gracious Intention to acquaint them, from Time to Time, with the State and Progress of those Negotiations.
Dormer versus Bertie & al.
Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of John Dormer, of Ascott, in the County of Oxon, Esquire, from a Decree of Dismission made in the Court of Chancery, the Fourteenth Day of June, in the Eleventh Year of His Majesty's Reign, upon the Hearing of Two Causes there depending; the One, wherein the Petitioner was Plaintiff, against the Honourable Peregrine Bertie, Charles Bertie and Henry Bertie Esquires, and Henry Cane Gentleman, Executors of Robert Dormer, late of Dorton; in the County of Bucks; Esquire, deceased, Charles Dormer, William Dormer, Robert Dormer, Phillip Dormer, James Dormer, and John Dormer, of Rousham, in the County of Oxon aforesaid, Esquires, Defendants; and the other, wherein the said John Dormer of Rousham, Charles, William, Phillip and Robert Dormer, and James Dormer an Infant, by his next Friends, were Plaintiffs, against the Petitioner and the said Peregrine Bertie,Charles Bertie, Henry Bertie, and Henry Cane, Defendants; and praying, "That the said Order of Dismission, and an Order of the Ninth of February One Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-eight, may be reversed; and that Henry Smith, mentioned in the Appeal, may be fully examined:"
It is ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Charles Bertie, Henry Bertie, Anthony Henley and Mary his Wife, Bridget Bertie, Henry Cane, Charles Cane, Mathew Cane, John Cane, John Dormer of Rousham, Charles, William, Robert, Phillip and James Dormer, may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and shall and they are hereby required to put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on Tuesday the First Day of April next, at Eleven of the Clock.