House of Lords Journal Volume 35
April 1778 21-30

Sponsor

History of Parliament Trust

Publication

Year published

1767-1830

Pages

452-457

Annotate

Comment on this article
Double click anywhere on the text to add an annotation in-line

Citation Show another format:

'House of Lords Journal Volume 35: April 1778 21-30', Journal of the House of Lords volume 35: 1776-1779 (1767-1830), pp. 452-457. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=116616 Date accessed: 26 July 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

April 1778 21-30

DIE Mercurii, 29o Aprilis 1778.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

Epus. Exon. Comes Bathurst, Cancellarius.
Dux Bolton.
Dux Chandos.
Dux Northumberland.
Comes Exeter.
Comes Abercorn.
Comes Galloway.
Comes Breadalbane.
Comes Dunmore.
Comes Radnor.
Comes Darlington.
Comes Clarendon.
Comes Mansfield.
Viscount Stormont.
Viscount Dudley & Ward.
Ds. De Ferrars.
Ds. Boston.
Ds. Foley.

PRAYERS.

Sir L. Dundas against Honeyman et al.

After hearing Counsel in Part in the Cause wherein Sir Lawrence Dundas Baronet, is Appellant, and Patrick Honeyman Esquire, and others, are Respondents:

It is Ordered, That the further Hearing of the said Cause be put off till To-morrow.

Sir J. Wright's Estate Bill:

Hodie 3a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for carrying into Execution an Agreement entered into by Sir James Wright Baronet, for Sale of the Manor of Husborne Tarrant, and several Woodlands and Hereditaments, in the County of Southampton, to Joseph Portal Esquire; and for laying out the Money arising by such Sale, in the Purchase of other Lands and Hereditaments, to be settled to the same Uses."

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 Mr. Browning and Mr. Anguish:

To carry down the said Bill, and desire their Concurrence thereto.

Findhorn Harbour Bill.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Mr. Dundas, and others:

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable Hector Munro Esquire, to build and maintain a Harbour and Pier at the Town of Findhorn, in the County of Elgin and Forres;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Moorfields Streets Bill.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Mr. Alderman Hayley, and others:

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for empowering the Mayor, Aldermen and Commons of the City of London, in Common Council assembled, to make a Street or Opening from Moorselds, opposite Chiswell Street, towards the East, into Bishopsgate Street; and also from the East End of Chiswell Street, Westward, into Barbican; and to raise, upon the Credit of the Surplusses to arise out of a certain Fund commonly called The Orphans Fund, the Sum of Sixteen thousand five hundred Pounds, for such Purpose;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Aldersgate Street Paving Bill.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Mr. Alderman Hayley, and others:

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for paving the High Street or Road leading from Aldersgate Bars, in the Parish of Saint Botolph without Aldersgate, London, to the Turnpike near the End of Goswell Street, in the County of Middlesex; and for applying the Sum of Five thousand Pounds, to be raised upon the Credit of the Surplusses to arise out of a certain Fund commonly called The Orphans Fund, for such Purpose;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Maidford Enclosure Bill.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Mr. Knightley, and others:

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for dividing and enclosing the Open and Common Fields, Common Pastures, Common Meadows, Common Grounds, Heath and Waste Grounds, of and within the Parish of Maidford, in the County of Northampton;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

The said Four Bills were, severally, read the First Time.

Luttrell Petition's discharge Order dismissing his Appeal.

A Petition of the Honourable Henry Lawes Luttrell, Defendant in Two Causes, in the First of which the Right Honourable Simon Lord Baron Irnham, in the Kingdom of Ireland, was Plaintiff, and the said Henry Lawes Luttrell Defendant; and in the other, the said Simon Lord Baron Irnham was Plaintiff, and the said Henry Lawes Luttrell and Francis McFarland were Defendants, was presented and read; setting forth, "That the Petitioner is entitled to an Annuity of £600 during the joint Lives of the said Lord Irnham and of himself, payable Quarterly, secured by a Deed of the 24th of May 1769, and charged upon and payable out of the Park and Paddock of Luttrell's Town, in the County of Dublin, and out of divers other Estates in the Kingdom of Ireland (whereof the said Simon Lord Irnham is Tenant for Life in Possession), with a Clause of Distress and also of Entry upon the Lands charged in Default of Payment on any of the Days appointed for the Payment of the same, or within Forty Days afterwards; and also claims to be entitled to the Park and Paddock of Luttrell's Town, under an Agreement for a Demise, during the joint Lives of the said Lord Irnham and the Petitioner, at and under the yearly Rent of £400: That the said Bill, in the first above mentioned Cause, was filed by the said Lord Irnham on the 28th of June 1771, on the Grounds of an alleged Lease to the Petitioner, dated the 24th of May 1769, for Seven Years; wherein was inserted a Clause that the Lessor or Lessee should not cut Timber (which said Lease was denied by the Petitioner in his Answer) and stating that the Petitioner had cut Timber, and therefore prayed an Injunction to restrain him from committing Waste, and an Account: That the Possessory Bill in the Second above-mentioned Cause was filed on the 3d May 1776, against the Petitioner, and against Francis McFarland, his Bailiff; whereby after stating the said alleged Lease, and the Possession of the Petitioner under it, and that the Term was expired, it was prayed, That the said Lord Irnham might be restored to the Possession of the said Park and Paddock of Luttrell's Town: That on the 20th of April 1776, the Petitioner filed his Bill in the Court of Chancery of Ireland, against the said Lord Irnham, amongst other Purposes, to have a specific Performance of the said Agreement for a Demise of Luttrell's Town, and for an Injunction to restrain Lord Irnham from proceeding to recover Possession of the same at Law: That on the 26th February 1777 the Possessory Cause being ready for hearing, the Petitioner, preferred his Petition in the Two Causes mentioned in the Title of this Petition, to the Court of Chancery of Ireland, stating the close Connection between the Two Causes, and the Necessity of reading Proofs taken in the Petitioner's Cause on the Hearing of the Possessory Cause, and praying that the Hearing of the Possessory Cause might be postponed, and that all the Three above-mentioned Causes should come on to be heard together; but the Court ordered the said Petition to be dismissed: That on the 26th Day of February 1777, the said Possessory Cause was called on to be heard, and although the Petitioner gave in Evidence his said Deed of Rent Charge, and no Proof was then given of the Payment of any Part thereof, yet the Court, on the 3d Day of March 1777, was pleased to declare the Petitioner guilty of the Contempt laid to his Charge, and to decree an Injunction to the Sheriff to deliver Possession of Luttrell's Town to Lord Irnham, and the Petitioner was ordered to be committed till he paid the Costs, and farther order: That the Petitioner in the Month of March 1777 appealed from the said Orders of the 26th Day of February and 3d Day of March 1777 to their Lordships: That, antecedent to the Appeal from the said Orders, the said Lord Irnham had filed a Bill in the said Court of Chancery of Ireland, against the Petitioner, and also against Francis McFarland, Samuel Peach, Henry Thompson and William Dale, respecting the Possession of some other small Parts of the Lands charged with the said Annuity; and that in the said last mentioned Cause, and also in the Cause wherein the Petitioner is Plaintiff, and the said Lord Irnham is Defendant, an Order was made on the 11th Day of July 1777, whereby it was ordered that an Agreement bearing Date the 10th Day of July 1777, should be made an Order of the said Court; and that the growing Payments of the said Annuity should be paid into Court, or in Default thereof a Receiver was to be appointed, and an Account was thereby directed of the Arrears of the said Annuity, and of all other Accounts between the Parties; and it was farther ordered, that the said Consent, or the Accounts to be taken in consequence thereof, should not in any Sort affect the Decree obtained by Lord Irnham in his Possessory Cause on the Appeal against such Decree, or be made use of by either of the Parties therein: That the Petitioner being advised that by the Terms of the said Agreement and Order, no Use could be made thereof or of the Accounts to be taken in consequence thereof, on the Hearing of the said Appeal, did not even furnish his Counsel or Agents on the said Appeal, with any Copy of, or Extract from, the said Agreement or Order, or anywife apprize them of the Nature thereof, or that any such Consent had ever been entered into, or Order made, further than by stating in the Petitioner's printed Case upon the said Appeal, That since the Hearing of the Possessory Cause, an Account of the Arrears of the Annuity had been directed to be taken by a Master; nor did the said Lord Irnham's Counsel or Agents give Notice to the Petitioner, or to any Person concerned for the Petitioner, that his Lordship meant to produce on the Hearing of the said Appeal, the said Consent and Order of the 11th of July, nor in any Manner mentioned or alluded to it in his printed Case upon the said Appeal: That on the 10th Day of March now last past, the said Appeal came on to be heard before their Lordships, when it was contended on the Behalf of the Petitioner, that the Hearing of the Possessory Cause should have been postponed till it was determined what was the real Agreement for a Lease; and that in the Possessory Cause the Proof of the Deed of Rent Charge, and the Arrear being put in Issue, was full Evidence of the Annuity being due; that the Petitioner being in Possession of Luttrell's Town, his Title thereto was compleat without Claim or Entry, and that therefore the said Order and Decree should be varied or reversed: That the said Lord Irnham's Counsel (without entering into the Merits of the Question) produced on the Hearing of the said Appeal, the said Order of the 11th Day of July 1777, and read the same to their Lordships, notwithstanding the Clause therein contained, and notwithstanding the said Order was made in other Causes, and not those in which the Orders appealed from were made, and long after the pronouncing of those Orders: That the Petitioner is informed that their Lordships did not affirm the Decree, or go into the Merits of the Question intended to be submitted to their Lordships Consideration on the said Appeal, but that their Lordships made an Order thereon, wherein it is stated, that the said Appeal was called on, and that the first Counsel for the Petitioner having been heard, and that an Order of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, made the 11th of July 1777, in the Causes then before their Lordships, whereby an Agreement therein recited to bear Date the 10th of July 1777, between the Petitioner and the said Simon Lord Irnham, was made an Order of the said Court of Chancery having been read, the Counsel were directed to withdraw, and then an Order was made to the Effect following; (videlicet), Upon reading an Order of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, made the 11th of July 1777, in the said Cause, whereby an Agreement therein recited to bear Date the 10th Day of July 1777, between the Petitioner and the said Simon Lord Irnham was made an Order of the said Court of Chancery; it was ordered and adjudged by their Lordships, That the said Petition of Appeal be, and the same was thereby dismissed, as by their Lordships said Order will appear: That the Petitioner's Counsel not being then apprized of the said Order, could not then inform their Lordships as the Fact is, that the said Agreement and Order was not made in the Causes mentioned in the Title of this Petition, or in their Lordships said Order, or in either of them, but the same was made in the Causes above particularly mentioned: That the Petitioner is informed, and believes that the said supposed Agreement and Order were totally unproved and unauthenticated, and had the same been proved, were in point of Date posterior to, and totally unconnected with, the said Order and Decree so appealed from: That the Petitioner is advised that it appears by their Lordships said Order, that the Petitioner's said Petition and Appeal were so dismissed, merely on the Ground of the said Agreement of the 10th, and Order of the 11th of July 1777, supposed to have been made in these Causes, and that they were not dismissed on the real Merits of the Petitioner's Case, independant of the said supposed Agreement and Consent: That in consequence of the Dismissal of the Petitioner's said Appeal, notwithstanding the Accounts directed by the said Order of the 11th Day of July 1777 are not yet taken, an Injunction on the Possessory Cause hath issued, and the said Lord Irnham hath taken Possession of Luttrell's Town, and the Petitioner is deprived of the Possession of the House and Demesne of Luttrell's Town, and by that Means of his Security for the Payment of the Arrears of the said Annuity, and may be committed for his supposed Contempt in the said Possessory Cause until he shall pay the Costs thereof, which amount to a very large Sum, and will also remain exposed to any Suit which the said Lord Irnham may hereafter think proper to institute against the Petitioner, with respect to the mesne Profits of the said Lands: That the Petitioner most humbly presumes, that it was not the Meaning and Intention of their Lordships on dismissing the said Petition, that the Petitioner should be stripped of the Possession, and deprived of the Pledge in his Hands, which was his only Security for the Payment of the Arrears, but that the Petitioner should remain in Possession thereof till the Accounts were taken, and the Balance ascertained by the Master: That since the making of the said Order of the 11th of July 1777, the Petitioner hath, with all due Diligence, prosecuted the Accounts thereby directed, and endeavoured to oblige the said Lord Irnham effectually to proceed therein; but that his Lordship hath, as the Petitioner believes, given every possible Delay to the said Accounts, to embarrass the Petitioner, and to prevent the making of a Report: That on the Foot of the Petitioner's said Annuity there is a very large Arrear due to him above all just Allowances, which he hath no Hope of recovering unless he is permitted to regain and retain the Possession of the said Estate:" And therefore praying their Lordships, "To take the Premises into their Consideration, and that their Lordships will be pleased to review the said Order of Dismissal of the Petitioner's aforesaid Petition and Appeal; and that their Lordships will be pleased to receive the Petitioner's Petition and Appeal, to reverse the said Order of the 25th Day of February 1777, and the said Order or Decree of the 3d of March 1777; and that in the mean Time, and until the Petitioner's said Appeal shall be received and heard by their Lordships, their Lordships will please to order the said Injunction, which so issued in the Second of these Causes, to be set aside, and the Petitioner to be restored to the Possession of the said House and Demesne of Luttrell's Town, or grant to the Petitioner such Relief and Redress as to their Lordships in their great Wisdom shall seem meet."

And thereupon the Agents on both Sides were called in, and heard at the Bar:

And being withdrawn:

Ordered, That the Matter of this Petition be heard at the Bar of this House on Monday the 4th Day of May next, and also the Merits of the Appeal in case the said Order of the 10th of March last, dismissing the Appeal, should be discharged; and that the Counsel be called in at One o'Clock.

Stirling High ways and Bridges Bill, Petition against.

Upon reading the Petition of James Francis Erskine Esquire, taking Notice of a Bill depending in this House, intituled, "An Act for repairing the Highways and Bridges, in the County of Stirling;" and praying "in regard the said Act makes sundry Alterations and Innovations upon the General Law of Scotland, re specting the repairing the Highways and Bridges, and ordering the Statute Work in that County, which the Petitioner conceives will, in its present Form, be injurious to himself and detrimental to the County of Stirling, That he may be heard by his Counsel why the said Bill should not pass into a Law:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to the Consideration of the Lords Committees, to whom the said Bill stands committed, with Liberty for the Petitioner to be heard by his Counsel against the said Bill, before the said Committee as desired; as also Counsel for the Bill at the same Time, if they think fit.

Rann & Taylor against Hughes, in Error.

Ordered, That the Hearing of the Errors argued, assigned upon the Writ of Error, wherein Joseph Rann Clerk, and Arthur Taylor, are Plaintiffs, and Isabella Hughes is Defendant, which stands appointed for Monday next, be put off to Monday the 11th Day of May next; and that the Judges do then attend.

Darby or Bridges Estate Bill.

Ordered, That the Committee, to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act for vesting in Trustees certain Messuages, Lands and Tenements, in the County of Surrey, settled in and by the Will of Thomas Bridges Esquire, deceased, to be sold and conveyed pursuant to Articles; and for laying out the Purchase Money in other Lands and Tenements to be settled to the Uses of the said Will," stands committed, be revived and meet To-morrow.

Vicars and Grace against Colclough, et al.:

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Richard Vicars Esquire, and Owen Grace Esquire, complaining of a Decree or Order of Dismission of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, of the 8th of December 1777, (which is not yet made up and entered,) made in Two certain Causes; in the first of which, Richard Vicars Esquire was Plaintiff and Timothy Colclough Esquire, William Lyster and Lawrence Adams, Executors of Thady Carroll deceased, were Defendants; and in the last, the said Owen Grace was Plaintiff, and the said Timothy Colclough, William Lyster and Lawrence Adams, were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed, or that the Appellants may have such other Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that the said Timothy Colclough, William Lyster and Lawrence Adams, may be required to answer the said Appeal:"

It is Ordered, That the said Timothy Colclough, William Lyster and Lawrence Adams, may have a Copy of the said Appeal, and do put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the 3d Day of June next; and Service of this Order upon the Attornies or Agents of the said Respondents in the said Court of Exchequer in Ireland, shall be deemed good Service.

Dawson to enter into a Recognizance on said Appeal.

The House being moved, "That the Honourable John Dawson may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for Richard Vicars Esquire, and Owen Grace Esquire, on account of their Appeal depending in this House, they residing in Ireland:"

It is Ordered, That the said John Dawson may enter into a Recognizance for the said Appellants, as desired.

Exchequer Loans Bill.

Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for raising a certain Sum of Money by Loans or Exchequer Bills, for the Service of the Year One thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Ordered, That the House be put into a Committee upon the said Bill To-morrow.

Exportation Bonds Bill.

Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to repeal such Part of an Act, made in the last Session of Parliament, as relates to the Manner of discharging Bonds given for the due Exportation of certain Goods from Great Britain to Foreign Parts; and to extend such Part of the same Act, as obliges the Master of British or Irish Ships, sailing from any of His Majesty's Dominions into the Baltic, to deliver a Manifest of their Cargoes to the British Consul residing there, to the like Vessels failing into Denmark, Norway and Archangel."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Ordered, That the House be put into a Committee upon the said Bill To-morrow.

Fuglberg for a Naturalization Bill:

Upon reading the Petition of Henning Fuglberg Merchant, praying Leave to bring in a Bill for his Naturalization:

It is Ordered, That Leave be given to bring in a Bill, according to the Prayer of the said Petition.

Bill read.

Accordingly, The Earl of Galloway presented to the House a Bill, intituled, "An Act for naturalizing Henning Fuglberg."

The said Bill was read the First Time.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Jovis, tricesimum diem instantis Aprilis, hora undecima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.

DIE Jovis, 30o Aprilis 1778.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales presentes fuerunt:

Archiep. Ebor.
Epus. Eliens.
Epus. Cicestrien.
Epus. Carliol.
Epus. Exon.
Comes Bathurst, Cancellarius.
Dux Bolton.
Dux Manchester.
March. Rockingham.
Comes Abercorn.
Comes Galloway.
Comes Breadalbane.
Comes Dunmore.
Comes March.
Comes Darlington.
Comes Mansfield.
Viscount Stormont.
Viscount Dudley & Ward.
Ds. Willoughby Br.
Ds. Craven.
Ds. Sandys.
Ds. Scarsdale.
Ds. Camden.
Ds. Cardiff.
Ds. Foley.

PRAYERS.

Sir L. Dundas against Honeyman, et al.

After hearing Counsel further in the Cause wherein Sir Lawrence Dundas Baronet, is Appellant, and Patrick Honeyman Esquire, and others, are Respondents:

It is Ordered, That the further Hearing of the said Cause be put off till To-morrow.

Parish Apprentices Bill.

The House (according to Order) was adjourned during Pleasure, and put into a Committee upon the Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend such Part of an Act, made in the Forty-third Year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, intituled, "An Act for the Relief of the Poor," "as relates to the binding of Parish Apprentices."

After some Time, the House was resumed:

And the Lord Sandys reported from the Committee, That they had gone through the Bill, and made several Amendments thereto, which he was ready to report, when the House will please to receive the same."

Ordered, That the said Report be received Tomorrow.

Stokes and Wagner against Paterson.

Ordered, That the Hearing of the Cause wherein Nehemiah Stokes and Christian Wagner Merchants, are Appellants, and John Paterson is Respondent, which stands appointed for To-morrow, be put off to Friday the 8th Day of May next.

Stirling Highways and Bridges Bill.

The Lord Scarsdale reported from the Lords Committees, to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act for repairing the Highways and Bridges, in the County of Stirling," was committed: "That they had considered the said Bill, and examined the Allegations thereof, which were found to be true; and that the Committee had gone through the Bill, and directed him to report the same to the House, without any Amendment."

Bolnhurst Enclosure Bill.

The Lord Scarsdale also reported from the Lords Committees, to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act for dividing and enclosing certain Open and Common Fields, and Commonable Lands and Grounds, within the Manor and Parish of Bolnhurst, in the County of Bedford; and for exonerating certain ancient Enclosures within the said Manor and Parish, from the Payment of Tythes," was committed: "That they had considered the said Bill, and examined the Allegations thereof, which were sound to be true; that the Parties concerned had given their Consents to the Satisfaction of the Committee; and that the Committee had gone through the Bill, and directed him to report the same to the House, without any Amendment."

Exchequer Loans Bill.

The House (according to Order) was adjourned during Pleasure, and put into a Committee upon the Bill, intituled, "An Act for raising a certain Sum of Money by Loans or Exchequer Bills, for the Service of the Year One thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight."

After some Time, the House was resumed:

And the Lord Scarsdale reported from the Committee, "That they had gone through the Bill, and directed him to report the same to the House, without any Amendment."

Exportation Bonds Bill.

The House (according to Order) was adjourned during Pleasure, and put into a Committee upon the Bill, intituled, "An Act to repeal such Part of an Act, made in the last Session of Parliament, as relates to the Manner of discharging Bonds given for the due Exportation of certain Goods from Great Britain to Foreign Parts; and to extend such Part of the same Act as obliges the Master of British or Irish Ships, sailing from any of His Majesty's Dominions into the Baltic, to deliver a Manifest of their Cargoes to the British Consul residing there, to the like Vessels failing into Denmark, Norway and Archangel."

After some Time, the House was resumed:

And the Lord Scarsdale reported from the Committee, "That they had gone through the Bill, and directed him to report the same to the House, without any Amendment."

Findhorn Harbour Bill.

Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to enable Hector Munro Esquire, to build and maintain a Harbour and Pier at the Town of Findhorn, in the County of Elgin and Forres."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords following:

D. Bolton.
D. Manchester.
M. Rockingham.
E. Abercorn.
E. Galloway.
E. Breadalbane.
E. Dunmore.
E. March.
E. Darlington.
E. Mansfield.
V. Stormont.
V. Dudley & Ward.
L. Abp. York.
L. Bp. Ely.
L. Bp. Chichester.
L. Bp. Carlisle.
L. Bp. Exeter.
L. Willoughby Br.
L. Craven.
L. Sandys.
L. Scarsdale.
L. Camden.
L. Cardiff.
L. Foley.

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet To-morrow, at Ten o'Clock in the Forenoon, in the Prince's Lodgings, near the House of Peers; and to adjourn as they please.

Keighley to Kirkby Road Bill.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Sir James Lowther, and others:

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for continuing the Term, and altering and enlarging the Powers of an Act, made in the Twenty-sixth Year of the Reign of His late Majesty King George the Second, intituled, An Act for repairing, amending and widening, the Road from Keighley, in the West Riding of the County of York, to Kirkby in Kendal, in the County of Westmorland;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

The said Bill was read the First Time.

Franklin against Fearon, in Error.

The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed for hearing Counsel to argue the Errors assigned upon the Writ of Error, wherein Henry Franklin Gentleman, is Plaintiff, and Anthony Fearon is Defendant:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Errors argued by Counsel at the Bar, on the First Vacant Day for Causes, after those already appointed.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Veneris, primum diem Maii, jam prox. sequen. hora undecima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.