Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 17, 1701-1705. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1767-1830.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
DIE Martis, 24 Februarii.
Yates versus Lewis:
After hearing Counsel, upon the Petition and Appeal of James Yates and Mary his Wife, from a Decree made in the Court of Chancery on the Six and Twentieth Day of April last, in a Cause there depending, wherein one Richard Lewis was Plaintiff, against the Petitioner and one David Williams and Margaret his Wife, John Jones and Elizabeth his Wife, Defendants, and praying the Reversal of the said Decree; as also Counsel for the Respondent Richard Lewis; and due Consideration of what was offered thereupon:
It is this Day ORDERED and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the Decree complained of in the said Petition shall be, and is hereby, reversed; and the Respondent Richard Lewis do pay, or cause to be paid, to the Appellants James Yates and Mary his Wife, their Principal, Interest, and Costs at Law and Equity, within One Month; and, upon Payment thereof, to be relieved against the Judgement in the Decree mentioned; and for Want of such Payment, the Respondent's Bill in Chancery shall be dismissed, with Costs.
Sibourg & al. Nat. Bill.
Dey versus Thwaits.
It is ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That this House will hear the Cause upon the Petition of John Deye and his Wife, and the Answer of Josiah Thwaits per Guardian. put in thereunto, on Wednesday the Fourth Day of March next, at Eleven a Clock in the Forenoon; and that Dame Susannah Bridgeman may be heard, by her Counsel, at the same Time, if she think fit.
Succession of the Crown, Bill:
Hodie 3a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for the further Security of His Majesty's Person, and the Succession of the Crown in the Protestant Line; and for extinguishing the Hopes of the pretended Prince of Wales, and all other Pretenders, and their open and secret Abettors."
Protest against it.
"2. And much less should any new Oath be imposed upon the Lords, with such a Penalty as to lose their Seats in Parliament upon their refusing it; such a Penalty being in some Measure an Intrenchment upon our Constitution, and expressly contrary to the Standing Order of this House, made the 30th Day of April 1675.
"3. And if such an Infringement of the Rights of Peers might be admitted; yet, in a Matter of so great Importance to all the Peers, we conceive, that, in Justice, they should all have had Notice of this Matter, and been specially summoned to have attended the House upon so great an Occasion; which has not been done, though it was moved, and humbly desired, on Behalf of the absent Lords.
"4. And if any further Evidence of the Subjects Fidelity were at this Time necessary to be required; we conceive a new Oath is no such Evidence, nor any additional Security to the Government; because those who have kept the Oaths which they have already taken ought in Justice to be esteemed good Subjects, and those who have broken them will make no Scruple of taking or breaking any others that shall be required of them; and consequently this new Oath may be of dangerous and pernicious Consequence to the Government, by admitting such ill Men who do not fear an Oath into the greatest Trusts, and who, under the specious Pretence and Protection of this new Oath, which is to free them from Suspicion, will have greater Opportunities of betraying their King and their Country.
"5. If a new Oath were necessary, as we conceive it is not; yet the Words of this Oath are so very ambiguous, and have been so very differently construed by several Lords who have declared their Sense of them, that this may become a Snare to Men's Consciences, or tend to overthrow the Obligation of an Oath, by allowing Men Liberty to take it in their own Sense; whereas this, as all other Oaths, ought to be taken in the Sense of the Imposer; which hath not been declared in this Case, though we earnestly pressed it, and though it has been done in other Cases of like Nature.
"6. And we conceive, that it necessarily follows from hence, that this Oath can be no Bond of Union among those who do take it, nor any true Mark of Distinction between the Friends and the Enemies of this Government; and therefore repugnant to the very Nature of a Test.
Message to H. C. with Amendments to the Bill.
Quakers Affirmation to be taken, Bill to continue the Act for.
Whereas this Day was appointed for the Second Reading of the Bill, intituled, "An Act for continuing an Act, intituled, An Act, that the solemn Affirmation and Declaration of the People called Quakers shall be accepted instead of an Oath in the usual Form:"
Wentworth versus L. Raby.
Whereas Thursday next was appointed for hearing of the Cause wherein Thomas Wentworth, alias Watson, is Appellant, and Thomas Lord Raby Respondent; the House being informed, "That each Party agrees to a further Day, if the House thinks fit:"
It is ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on Saturday next, at Eleven a Clock; and that the Cause appointed to be heard that Day be removed to Monday, and the other Causes in Course.
Dominus Custos Magni Sigilli declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Mercurii, vicesimum quintum diem instantis Februarii, hora undecima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.