DIE Jovis, 29 die Aprilis.
Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:
|His Royal Highness the Duke of York.
Epus. Cov. et Litch.
Epus. Bath & Wells.
Ds. Finch, Ds. Custos Magni Sigilli.
Ds. Thesaurarius Angliæ.
Ds. Custos Privati Sigilli.
Marq. de Winton.
Marq. de Dorchester.
L. Great Chamberlain of Engl.
Comes Marescallus Angliæ.
Comes St. Albans.
Vicecomes Say & Seale.
Ds. Arundell de Ward.
Ds. Grey de Wark.
Ds. Gerard de Brand.
Ds. Berkeley de Strat.
Ds. Arundell de Trer.
Ds. Butler de M. Park.
Ds. Grey de Roleston.
Church Rates, Tithes, &c. Bill.
Hodie 1 vice lecta est Billa, "An Act for the better
Payment of Church Rates, Small Tithes, and other
Prince Rupert's Bill.
vice lecta est Billa, "An Act for Confirmation of Letters Patents granted to Prince Rupert."
ORDERED, That the Consideration of this Bill is
committed to these Lords following:
E. St. Alban.
Bp. Bath & Wells.
L. Gerard Brand.
L. Arundell Trer.
Their Lordships, or any Five of them; to meet Tomorrow, at Three of the Clock in the Afternoon,
in the Prince's Lodgings; and to adjourn themselves as they please.
vice lecta est Billa, "An Act to prevent the
spoiling of all Highways by Carts and Carriages that
go on Four Wheels."
The House was called; and these Lords were absent:
Ds. Butler de Weston.
Ds. Howard de Esc.
Ds. Arundell de Warder.
Bp. of Bangor.
Bp. of St. Asaph.
Bp. of Exon.
Bp. of Worcester.
Bp. of Carlile.
Bp. of Hereford.
Bp. of Norwich.
Bp. of St. David's.
Bp. of London.
Comes Warwicket Holland.
Marq. de Worcester.
Dux de Newcastle.
A Proxy.Infra Ætatem.
Lords who have not taken the Oath of Allegiance.
The House perusing the List of the Peers that have
not taken the Oath of Allegiance in this House, it did
appear that these Lords following have not taken it:
Vicecomes Say & Seale.
Bp. St. Asaph.
Ds. Arundell de Ward.
Ds. Grey de Wark.
Standing Orders read.
Next, the Standing Orders were read.
Writs of Error brought in.
This Day the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of
King's Bench, in the usual Manner, brought in
these Writs of Error:
1. Inter Samuell Crake and Sir James Norfolke.
2. Inter Dorothy Asmall and Thomas Asmall.
3. Inter Joseph Wright and Peter Stevenson.
Protest against the Commitment of the Bill to prevent Dangers from disaffected Persons, voted a Reflection upon the House.
Two Questions were propounded:
"1. Whether the House taking Offence at divers
Expressions in the Protestation entered by some Lords
the 26th of April, and the said Lords severally and
voluntarily declaring that they had no Intention to
reflect upon any Member, much less upon the whole
House; the House declared, That they were satisfied
in this Declaration?
"2. Whether that the Reasons given in the Protestation entered the 26 of this Instant April do reflect upon
the Honour of this House, and are of dangerous
The Question being put, "Whether the First
Question shall be first put?"
It was Resolved in the Negative.
Then the Second Question being put, "Whether
that the Reasons given in the Protestation entered the 26 of this Instant April do reflect
upon the Honour of this House, and are of
It was Resolved in the Affirmative.
Memorandum, That, before the putting of the
abovesaid Question, these Lords following desired Leave to enter their Dissent, if the
Question was carried in the Affirmative; and
accordingly did enter their Dissent, as followeth:
Protest against this Vote.
"Whereas it is the undoubted Privilege of every
Peer in Parliament, when a Question is passed contrary to his Vote and Judgement, to enter his Protestation against it; and that, in Pursuance thereof, the
Bill, intituled, "An Act to prevent the Dangers
which may arise from Persons disaffected to the Government," being conceived by some Lords to be of
so dangerous a Nature as that it was not fit to receive
so much as the Countenance of a Commitment, those
Lords did protest against the committing of the said
Bill; and the House having taken Exceptions at
some Expressions in their Protestation, those Lords
who were present at the Debate, did all of them
severally and voluntarily declare, "That they had
no Intention to reflect upon any Member, much less
upon the whole House;" which, as is humbly conceived, was more than in Strictness did consist with
that absolute Freedom of Protesting which is inseparable from every Member of this House, and was
done by them merely out of their great Respect to
the House, and their earnest Desire to give all Satisfaction concerning themselves, and the Clearness of
their Intentions: Yet the House, not satisfied with
this their Declaration, but proceeding to a Vote,
"That the Reasons given in the said Protestation do
reflect upon the Honour of the House, and are of
dangerous Consequence;" which is, in our humble
Opinion, a great Discountenancing of the very Liberty of Protesting; we whose Names are underwritten, conceiving ourselves and the whole House of
Peers extremely concerned, that this great Wound
should be given (as we do in all Humility apprehend)
to so essential a Privilege of the whole Peerage of
this Realm as is their Liberty of Protesting, do now
(according to our unquestionable Right) make Use of
the same Liberty to enter this our Dissent from, and
Protestation against, the said Vote:
Howard E. of Bercks.
Say & Seale.
Grey De Rolleston.
Streater versus Roper & al. in Error, Plaintiff to have his Liberty to attend the Suit.
Whereas John Streater, Plaintiff in a Writ of Error
now depending in this House, to which Abel Roper and
others are Defendants, is a Prisoner upon Execution in
the Prison of The Fleete; this House being moved,
"That the said John Streater may have Liberty to attend
the Prosecution of his said Writ of Error:"
It is ORDERED, That the said John Streater shall
have Liberty (with his Keeper) to attend the Prosecution
of the said Writ of Error in the House of Peers; and
this shall be a sufficient Warrant on that Behalf.
Crispes versus Boys & al.
Whereas this House had appointed to hear Counsel
at the Bar, upon the Petition and Appeal of John and
Thomas Crispe Esquires, to which John Boys, John Harris,
and others, are Defendants:
It is this Day ORDERED, at the humble Request of
the Petitioners, That the Hearing of Counsel on both
Parts in the said Cause be, and is hereby, put off to
Monday the Tenth Day of May next, at Ten of the
Clock in the Forenoon; whereof the said Petitioners
are to cause timely Notice to be given to the said Defendants for that Purpose.
Hallet versus Kendall.
ORDERED, That the Counsel which were appointed
to be heard at the Bar on Friday the 30th Instant, to
proceed in the Cause depending, wherein Mary Hallet
Widow is Plaintiff, and Thomas Kendall and his Wife
Defendants, be, and are hereby, appointed to be
heard, at the Bar, on Wednesday the 5th Day of May
next, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon.
Sir N. Stoughton versus Onslow.
Whereas Arthur Onslow Esquire, who is made Defendant to the Petition and Appeal of Sir Nicholas
Stoughton, had Time till this Day to put in his Answer
thereunto, if he thought fit; who appearing, prays a
longer Time for Perusal of some Writings, in Order
to the perfecting of his Answer to the said Appeal:
It is thereupon ORDERED, That the said Arthur
Onslow have hereby Time allowed to him for putting
in his said Answer in Writing till Thursday the Sixth
Day of May next, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon.
Dutchess of Cleveland, Privilege;--Vinson versus Channell & al.
Whereas John Channell Plumber, and Richard Gilson,
who arrested Richard Vinson, Servant in Livery to her
Grace the Dutchess of Cleaveland (sitting the Parliament, contrary to the Privilege of Parliament), were,
by Order of the 24th Instant, required to appear at
the Bar on Tuesday last:
It is this Day ORDERED, That the said John Channell and Richard Gilson be, and are hereby, required
to appear at the Bar of this House, on Monday the
Third Day of May next, at Ten of the Clock in the
Forenoon; and hereof they may not fail.
Herbert, King's Servant, Privilege, versus Standen.
Whereas William Standen, of Brightwell, in the
County of Bucks, Esquire, was, by Order of the 15th
Day of April Instant, required to appear at the Bar
of this House within One Week next after Notice
given him, or left at his Dwelling-house, to answer to
the Breach of Privilege complained of in the Petition of
Edward Herbert Esquire, One of His Majesty's Gentlemen Pensioners in Ordinary; it appearing, upon the
Affidavit of Elizabeth Standen his Wife, and Mary
Pening Spinster, "That, by reason of Sickness, he
cannot appear as is required, without Danger of his
It is this Day ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said
William hath further Time given him, and he is hereby
required to appear at the Bar of this House on Thursday
the Sixth Day of May next, at Ten of the Clock in
the Forenoon; and hereof he may not fail.
Crispe versus Ly. Cranborne & al. to stay Proceedings in Chancery.
The House being moved, to stay Proceedings in Chancery, in the Case of Sir Nicholas Crispe Baronet and
others, upon their Appeal depending in this House
against the Lady Viscountess Cranborne and others:
It is ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That it be referred to the
Committee for Privileges, to consider of the Manner
of staying Proceedings in the Courts in Westm. Hall
upon Appeals to this House, and what Rule is fit to be
settled for the future in Cases of this Nature; and make
Report to the House.
Dominus Custos Magni Sigilli declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque in diem Veneris,
30um diem instantis Aprilis, hora decima Aurora,
Dominis sic decernentibus.