Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 19, 1709-1714. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1767-1830.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
Die Jovis, 11 Januarii.
L. Stawell takes the Oaths.
Sir H. Monoux's Bill.
Hodie 1a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for the Sale of Lands and Tenements late of Sir Philip Monoux Baronet, deceased, in Broome and Parish of Southill, in the County of Bedford, according to his Will."
Matthew's Leave for a Bill.
After reading, and considering, the Report of Mr. Baron Bury and Mr. Baron Price, to whom was referred the Consideration of the Petition of Thomas Mathew Senior, and others; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, for the Purposes in the Petition mentioned:
Paul versus Shaw, in Error.
Whereas Saturday next was appointed for hearing the Errors argued upon the Writ of Error depending in this House, wherein William Paul and Christopher Clitheroe Esquires are Plaintiffs, and Sir John Shaw Baronet is Defendant:
It is Ordered, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That this House will hear the Errors argued thereupon, on Saturday the Twentieth Day of this Instant January, at Eleven a Clock.
Papers concerning the War in Spain.
E. Gallway and Ld. Tyrawly's Petitions read, and rejected.
And a Petition of Henry Earl of Gallway being offered, and read; desiring Time to put in an Answer in Writing, to the Matters contained in the Entry on the Journal of this House, of the Ninth Instant, before their Lordships do proceed to any Determination thereon:
Protest against rejecting them.
"Because that, when a Question was stated in the House, which seemed to us to import a Censure on the Conduct of the Earl of Gallway, Lord Tyrawly, and General Stanhope, the Two Lords, being now in Town, should, we conceive, have been heard in their Defence before the Question passed, though they had not petitioned to put in their Answers; much less ought the said Petitions to have been rejected: And we think, that their having been before examined only as to what they remembered concerning the Council of Valencia, when they did not know that any, much less what, Censure was intended upon the Opinions given at that Council, is not sufficient to satisfy what we apprehend to be the Rule of natural Justice, That every One should have an Opportunity of answering for themselves, at least upon their humble Petitions, before what we take to be a public Censure should pass upon them.
"J. Ely. "Sunderland.
"W. Carliol. "Gi. Sarum. Dorechester.
"C. Norwich. T. Wharton. Jo. Lichfield & Cov.
"Stamford. "Jo. Bangor.
"W. Asaph. "Herbert.
"Scarbrough. "Somers. "Orford. "Hervey.
Sate of the War in Spain.
Resolution, that the Opinions of the E. of Galway, L. Tyralwley, and Gen. Stanhope, in a Council of War, were the Occasion of the Loss of the Battle of Almanza, and the subsequent Losses:
"That the Earl of Gallway, Lord Tyrawly, and General Stanhope, insisting, in a Conference held at Valencia, some Time in January 170 6/7, in the Presence of the King of Spain; and the Queen's Name being used in Maintenance of their Opinion for an Offensive War, countrary to the King of Spain's Opinion, and that of all the General Officers and Public Ministers, except the Marquis das Minas; and the Opinion of the Earl of Gallway, Lord Tyrawly, and General Stanhope, being pursued in the Operations of the following Campaign, was the unhappy Occasion of the Battle of Almanza, and One great Cause of our Misfortunes in Spain, and of the Disappointment of the Duke of Savoy's Expedition before Thoulon, concerted with Her Majesty."
Protest against it.
"2dly. Because we conceive, that the said Proofs do not support the Consequences drawn from the Facts stated in the Question; especially the Disappointment of the Expedition against Thoulon, which, as we humbly apprehend, was clearly occasioned by other Causes, and not by the Cause assigned in the Question.
"3dly. Because we conceive, it may be of dangerous Consequence, if those who may have the Honour to serve the Queen in Spain should from hence have Reason to apprehend, that they may be censured for presuming to insist on such Opinions as shall appear to them to be most for the Queen's Service and the common Cause, if contrary to the Opinion of the King of Spain and His Ministers.
"J. Ely. Dorset.
"W. Carliol. Sunderland.
"T. Wharton. Gi. Sarum. Herbert.
"Stamford. Jo. Lichfield & Cov.
W. Asaph. Rockingham.
"Orford. J. Bridgewater. Somers.