BHO

Addenda

Pages 587-592

Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1675-6. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1907.

This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.

Citation:
Please subscribe to access the page scans

This volume has gold page scans.
Access these scans with a gold subscription.Key icon

ADDENDA.

[1675. Sept ?] The King to the Lord Lieutenant. Warrant, after reciting the clause in the Act of Explanation which directed payment to Richard Stratford of London of 3,000l. out of the 30,000l. to be levied in lieu of the lapsed money, for levying the said sum of 3,000l., part of the said 30,000l., according to the rules and directions of the letter of 1 Feb. last (1675, calendared in the last volume, p. 567), and for payment thereof to the said Richard Stratford. (See ante, p. 313.) [Draft. S.P. Ireland, Car. II. 337, No. 10.]
[1675. Oct. ?] Case of Alexander McDonnell and Lady Elizabeth Teresa, his wife. About 1652, Henry, late Earl of Arundel, father of the said Lady Elizabeth and Thomas, now Duke of Norfolk, conveyed lands of the yearly value of 12,000l. and upwards to the Marquis of Dorchester and the Earl of Peterborough in trust that part of the profits thereof should be paid to Lord Henry, his second son, now Earl Marshal, and the rest equally divided among his six younger children. The said Earl Marshal has since purchased the shares of all the said younger children except the petitioner. The petitioner Alexander married the said Lady Elizabeth above a year ago (Sept., 1674) and ought to have an account of the profits of part of the lands, and to have the trust executed, which the trustees always refused, so that he has been forced to proceed against them in Chancery for a performance of the trust. (Recital of a petition of both petitioners to the House of Lords for leave to proceed in their suit against the trustees, and of a second petition to the same effect, which was dismissed 9 May, 1675 (see the Ninth Report of the Historical MSS. Commission, Part II, p. 60), on a supposition that the trustees were trustees for the Earl Marshal and not for the petitioners, and that leave was craved to proceed against the Earl Marshal as well as the trustees.) The petitioner does not intend to proceed against the Earl, till the privilege of Parliament is out, but hopes he may have leave to proceed against the trustees according to the order in the case of the Earl of Westmorland v. Lord Holles, without incurring the displeasure of the House. [S.P. Dom., Car. II. 379, No. 67.]
[1675. Oct. ?] Complaint of James Percy, cousin and next heir male to Joscelin Percy, Earl of Northumberland, deceased, to the House of Commons. Stating the proceedings in ejectment in which Robert Utting, the lessee of the said Percy, was plaintiff, and Sir John Copleston, the trustee of Elizabeth, Lady Clifford, was defendant, for the recovery of lands in Cannington and Rodaway, Somersetshire, and the order of the House of Lords of 28 May, 1675 (printed in Lords' Journals, Vol. XII, p. 707), on Lady Clifford's petition, stopping the proceedings therein during the privilege of Parliament, and that, though Sir John had offered to waive his privilege, provided the plaintiff gave security for costs, which was done, he then refused to do so, that 15 June, the day appointed for trial, Percy appeared with his witnesses and begged that the trial might go on, because Lady Clifford was never named in the suit, and other persons concerned were sheltering themselves under her pretended privilege, but the defendant alleged the order of the House of Lords and declared they stood on the privilege of Parliament, so the plaintiff's counsel dared not plead and the trial was put off, and praying their serious considerations therein and to blow over this black cloud of oppression by a brisk gale of justice. On his last complaints the House adjourned a further debate for a fortnight, but parliament was prorogued the same day. He has continued his claim above five years. [Printed paper. S.P. Dom., Car. II. 379, No. 68.]
[1675 ? Oct. ?] David Walter, one of the Grooms of the Bedchamber, to the King. Petition, stating that the estate of Daniel O'Brien, Viscount Clare, is in arrear for quit-rent, which can no otherwise be paid but by a seizure of the same to his Majesty's use, and, as several persons are petitioning for a custodium of the same, which, if granted to any stranger, may ruin the houses, the other improvements and the tenants thereon, and destroy the said estate, praying for a grant to the petitioner of a custodium thereof at such rent as his Majesty may think fit, that so the said Viscount and his wife, who are the petitioner's relations, may not only subsist and the ancient crown rents thereout be answered, but also so much of the arrear and growing quit-rents may be secured, as his Majesty shall continue on the report which shall be made in this case by the commissioners for Irish affairs, before whom the same now depends. (See ante, pp. 344, 345.) [S.P. Ireland, Car. II. 337, No. 11.]
[Before Nov., 1675.] William Ryley to Fabian Phillips. I send you this again with the copy of the petition enclosed which concerns the first part. If it be not worded according to this petition, I doubt it may not be useful, if not well considered. Pray look this up and put this and the next into a certain method. Written on the back of an extract from the Parliament Roll of 46 Edw. III. No. 43, being a petition with the King's answer relating to the Search and Exemplification of Records. On the back is also written a request by J. Borough for permission to search about the manor of Haddenham, Buckinghamshire, and what privileges belong to it. [Ryley died in Nov., 1675. S.P. Dom., Car. II. 379, No. 69.]
[1675. Nov. 20.] Protest against the rejection of the address for dissolving the Parliament. (Printed in Lords' Journals, Vol. XIII, p. 33.) Annexed is a list of the Lords who voted for and against the vote for the above address, which is printed in the Ninth Report of the Historical MSS. Commission, Part II., p. 79. [Ibid. No. 70.]
[1675 ?] Case of Mr. Briscoe. John Seyliard died in 1669, without any will then pretended, leaving a daughter, Elizabeth, an infant about a year old. Letters of administration were granted to his brother Thomas, and on his death to Edward Briscoe, the infant's uncle by the mother's side. Afterwards Dorothy Powell, in whose care the infant was and is, and who was allowed 20l. a year for keeping her, trumped up a nuncupative will, under which she claims the whole estate during the infant's minority for her maintenance. Briscoe was about to prefer a bill in Chancery praying for a confirmation of his guardianship, when he discovered that her father had been a merchant tailor and a freeman of the City. He then abandoned the bill and went to Alderman Sir J. Sheldon and requested that the Lord Mayor and Aldermen should remove the child from Dorothy Powell, for she had trumped up a nuncupative will and made her interest for the guardianship merely for the sake of the estate. He directed Briscoe to inform the Court of Aldermen, and she was summoned to appear before them with the child, which she did after several summonses, in which she had made several friends who urged for the continuance of the child with her, as she had been delivered to her by her father and mother and continued with her by her uncle Thomas. Briscoe answered that the father, mother, and uncle would have never delivered or kept the child in her keeping, had they foreseen she would have acted as she did, but an order was made for the continuance of the child with her with an allowance of 35l. a year, and so it rests at present. Now Dorothy Powell desires an administration and the guardianship of the child, who is now upwards of 7 years old, and, though the Lord Mayor and Aldermen are her guardians as a freeman's child, she applies to the civil law, knowing that the child will choose her as guardian and that the Court will admit her on such choice, and will vacate Briscoe's administration by virtue of her thus being admitted guardian, and has cited him to appear at Doctors' Commons to show cause why she should not be admitted guardian and his administration be ipso facto vacated. [S.P. Dom., Car. II. 379, No. 71.]
[1675. Dec. 31—]
1676. Jan. 10. The Hague.
Peter du Moulyn to Lord —. The officers of the Royal Regiment of Fops, whereof your worship is adjutant, having understood that the affairs of his Majesty, who is colonel of the said regiment, are in no very good condition since the prorogation of Parliament, and are like every day to wax worse and worse, unless new measures be taken suitable to the present emergencies, have thought fit in pursuance of a resolution taken in a council of the said officers to conjure you immediately on receipt hereof to make your address to the said colonel, desiring him in their name to give out speedy orders for a general rendezvous and muster of the said regiment at Blackheath with all convenient speed, as not only the last of remedies but the best of means to secure the great interests of your religion and property, to bridle the impertinencies of Parliaments, to assert and maintain the good old position against the fanatics' good old cause that monarchy is jure dirino, that the bishops, who are chaplains of the said regiment, are one of the three estates, the Temporal Lords another, and the Commons the third, and the colonel head of those three estates, that the said chaplains are not therefore to be confounded or mixed with the said Temporal Lords, and generally by the means aforesaid to effect those great things which we have in our hearts to do for the people, but dare not at present express. And, to the end that nothing may be wanting on our parts, we have thought fit to make the French King major of the said regiment, and to the King of Sweden we have given a captain's place, and we think they have well deserved the same in this last summer's campaign, to speak nothing of the general intrigue. You are therefore to take care that the said kings have their commissions sent them accordingly. But, in case you find yourself too much intrigued, when, besides your important affairs at Hicks Hall, the weight of this business so nearly concerning our special service shall come upon you, I'll recommend to you the assistance of Lauderdale, the Colonel's buffoon. Consult him in the ear, you know his sufficiency. But one thing must not be forgotten as being a more than usual concern for us, and that is, the business of our salaries. Therefore we must desire your assistance in procuring an order from the Colonel that we may draw bills on Alderman Backwell, the cashier of the regiment, for the three years due to us, as well to take off our anticipations as for the buying our equipage for the approaching campaign. Though we have not been so good husbands as we might have been, yet you know there wants not good-will in us to spend more, if we had it.
You know that the nation had a pretty stock both of money and honour at the most happy restoration of the Colonel, but we have pretty well eased them of both, so that we hope we shall be able to make the Colonel as absolute in his government as the major is in his, which of all things would most effectually secure religion and liberty and set him out of the reach of the people, parliament and laws, for you know that he is greater than them, and besides he was not made for the people, but the people for him.
If the Duke join with the Country party, we are undone. Besides, who knows what that distinction may run up into? But, to secure what we can in a desperate game, press the Colonel that Buckingham and Shaftesbury be brought to a council of war as deserters.
It is true we cannot but tell you how much we are concerned for your religion and property. But, God's fish, what will become of our women and children, an interest yet dearer to us, if powerful remedies be not applied to these growing mischiefs, our women that are sweeter than angels, nay than gold itself? [3 pages. S.P. Dom., Car. II. 379, No. 72.]
1676. [Jan. 14.] Christian and Elizabeth, daughters and heirs of Col. Patrick Hayes, deceased, to the King. Petition, stating that the case between the Senate of Hamburg and the petitioners has been heard very often both by the late and present kings and also in the late times of usurpation and satisfaction adjudged to be made by the Senate, who still endeavour to evade compliance therewith, on pretence that they were not heard to make their defence neither at the Council of Scotland nor before the Committee of the Privy Council here for the affairs of Hamburg, and have now lately signified as much by their letters to Sir J. Williamson, insinuating likewise to him their supposed absolution from the petitioners' just demands by the letter which Monsr. Garmers obtained from his Majesty, as the petitioners conceive by a surprise, all which pretences are not only illusory, but with great boldness reflect on the justice of the Councils of both kingdoms of giving rash and sudden judgment without making intimation to the agent of that Senate to appear before them, whereas the intimations were not only given but proved before any order was made by either Council, and the pretences of the Senate are only to delay the petitioners of the just satisfaction adjudged their due above 30 years ago. Notwithstanding these pretences made by the Senate in their letters to Secretary Williamson, they have since made offers for a composure of this business to Sir William Swan, the Resident there, as he has signified by several letters to Peter Proby, of London, merchant. But since those offers they have sent Monsr. Garmers away for some months to a congress at Mulhausen and pretend they cannot make any offers till his return, and therefore praying his Majesty to command his Resident at Hamburg to acquaint that state in ultimam instantiam that, if they shall not forthwith satisfy Peter Proby, who has full power to act for the petitioners, what is due to them according to Sir Walter Walker's report, which was lately transmitted to them, his Majesty will grant such redress to the petitioners by granting them letters of marque or otherwise as the justice of the case and the law of nations require. [Copy. S.P. Dom., Car. II. 379, No. 73.] Annexed,
References dated 16, and 29 November, 1660 and 20 March and 31 May, 1661, of Patrick Hayes' petition. [Copies. Ibid. No. 73 i.]
The King to the Senate of Hamburg. Thanking them for their congratulations on his restoration.—Since our commissaries appointed to examine the business between Col. Hay and your state hare reported that justice has not been delayed or denied, no ground has been shown for the reprisals demanded, but we hare accepted as sufficient excuse the information laid before us. 19–29 July, 1661, Westminster. [Latin. Copy. Ibid. No. 73 ii.]
The City of Hamburg to Secretary Corentry. They hare examined the letter of his Excellency to them in favour of John Dickson, according to the series of acts and protocols in the Hayes' business, and find he has given his Excellency an untrue report and has omitted many things. (They then go on to argue against the Hayes' claim, particularly insisting on the abore letter of July, 1661, as an answer to it.) Oct. 1, 1675. [Latin. Copy. 2½ pages. Ibid. No. 73 iii.]
The Magistrates and Senate of Hamburg to Secretary Williamson. Similar to the last, but going with more detail into the business. Oct. 1, 1675. [Latin. Two copies. 4 pages. Ibid. Nos. 73 iv., v.]
Feb. 11.
Westminster.
Warrant for a yearly pension of 1,000l. to James, Earl of Northampton, during pleasure, from 24 June last. [Copy. Ibid. No. 74.]
[Feb. ?] Katherine Maclier, late wife of Sir James Maclier, son of Sir John Maclier, deceased, to the King. Petition, stating that Katherine Butler alias Cantwell, was the petitioner's grandmother and had right to divers lands in Tipperary, and entered her claim for the same, and was adjudged innocent by the late Commissioners of the Court of Claims, and having done so they left her to the law to prove her title and recover the lands, but the person entrusted by her neglected to take out the said decree of innocence and to pay the fee thereof, and that the petitioner, being her grandmother's heiress, is on this bare pretence, though the title was fully proved, barred at law in obtaining the possession of her right, the persons in possession of the said estate having shifted it from hand to hand by sales and blind bargains, being conscious of the injustice of their own and the justness of the petitioner's title, and that the petitioner's father-in-law and husband loyally assisted his Majesty both before and at his being in Scotland to their utmost with thousands of pounds and never had any satisfaction, so that the petitioner thereby became desolate and disabled to subsist and has for many years incurred many debts, and praying, that, as the petitioner having a clear right to the said lands ought not to be barred from the recovery thereof by the negligence or falseness of her said grandmother's solicitor in not taking out the decree during the continuance of the power of the said Court, that his Majesty would grant her his right and interest in the said lands, that the petitioner's adversaries in possession may not plead anything in bar to her just and equitable claim, and order the judges in Ireland to inspect the books of entries and examine witnesses, and, if they find there was judgment of innocency, to give judgment for the petitioner, that so she may have speedy possession of her right of descent from her ancestors who had the possession for many hundred years. At the foot,
Feb. 16.
Whitehall.
Reference thereof to Sir W. Jones, Attorney-General. On the back,
His report that as to the part which prays the royal right and interest, he thinks it not fit to be done, because there is an order of his Majesty and Council to the contrary, till Adventurers and Soldiers be fully satisfied, but conceives it may be fit that his Majesty signify to the Lord Lieutenant to command those who have the custody of the Entry Books to produce them or authentic copies thereof concerning the claim and judgment of innocency of Katherine Cantwell, to be brought for the petitioner as cridence at any trial at Clonmel for the recovery of the lands. 20 April. [S.P. Ireland, Car. II. 337, No. 12.]