Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 13, 1675-1681. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1767-1830.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
In this section
- DIE Jovis, 31 die Januarii.
DIE Jovis, 31 die Januarii.
Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:
Bill against clandestine Marriages.
Hodie 3a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act to prevent clandestine and irregular Marriages."
The Question being put, "Whether this Bill shall pass?"
It was Resolved in the Affirmative.
Message to H. C. with it, and the Bill for baptizing Infants.
A Message was sent to the House of Commons, by Sir William Beversham and Sir Andrew Hackett;
To deliver these Bills following, and desire their Consent thereunto:
1. "An Act concerning Baptizing and Catechizing."
2. "An Act to prevent clandestine and irregular Marriages."
Sir Ralph Bankes's Bill.
Hodie 1a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act to enable the Trustees of Sir Ralph Bankes to sell Lands, for Payment of Debts."
Hodie 1a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act to confirm such Sale as hereafter shall be made of the Manor of Aldwordly, in the County of York, by Sarah Clifton, the Widow of Robert Clifton, deceased."
Bill against Blasphemy.
Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act for punishing of Atheism and Blasphemy."
ORDERED, That the First Part of this Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House; to be taken into Consideration To-morrow Morning.
The House being informed, "That the Attorney of the Lord Marquis of Winchester dares not proceed at Law against John Farrington, now a Prisoner in The King's Bench Prison, by reason of a Protection produced by the said John Farrington, signed (Ardglas):"
Upon Consideration had thereof, it is ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the Law shall have its due Course against the said John Farrington, notwithstanding the said Protection so by him produced as aforesaid.
Barret versus Lord Loftus.
Upon reading the Petition of the Lord Loftus, Vicecomes Ely, in the Kingdom of Ireland, Defendant in the Cause depending in this House, wherein Dacre Barret, alias Lconard, Esquire, is Plaintiff, praying, "That a Day may be appointed, to hear the Cause;" as also upon a Motion made in this House, on the Behalf of the said Dacre Barret, to the same Effect:
It is thereupon ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That this House will hear Counsel on both Parts, at the Bar, upon the Allegations of the said Dacre Barret, and Answer of the said Lord Loftus, depending here, on Monday the Eleventh Day of February next, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon; whereof both the said Parties are to take Notice, to the End they may come prepared accordingly.
Taunt versus Messenger, in Error.
Upon reading the Petition of Marke Taunt; shewing, "That John Messenger, who was, by Order of the Ninth of April last, to bring into this House a Record of the Court of King's Bench, wherein Judgement is entered for the Petitioner against the said John Messenger, by virtue of a Writ of Error granted to the said John Messenger for that Purpose; under Pretence of the Protection whereof, the said John Messenger threateneth the Sheriff and his Officers from executing a Judgement obtained by the said Marke Taunt, by the Nonsuit of the said John Messenger, in another Action brought by the said John Messenger against the Petitioner, who therefore prayeth, That this House would be pleased to appoint a Day for bringing in the said Writ of Error and Record:"
It is thereupon ORDERED, That the said John Messenger be, and is hereby, required to cause the said Writ of Error and Record to be brought into this House on or before Thursday the Seventh Day of February next; or, in Default thereof, that the Law shall have its due Course against the said John Messenger, as if no such Writ of Error had been granted as aforesaid; whereof the Petitioner is to cause timely Notice to be given to the said John Messenger, or his Attorney for that Purpose.
Count. of Kinnoul versus Count. of Norwich.
Upon reading the Petition of Katherine Countess Dowager of Kinnoule, Executrix of William late Earl of Kinnoule, in the Kingdom of Scotland, her late Husband, deceased; shewing (amongst other Things), "That she is obstructed, by the Countess Dowager of Norwich, in receiving such Annual Sums of Money as were decreed to her said Husband by a Decree of the Court of Chancery, dated the 18 of December, 1676, and an Order of the said Court, dated the 28th of May last, whereby John Dcane and other the Tenants in Possession of the Lands concerned should attourn to her; the said Countess of Norwich claiming Privilege of Parliament, and having gotten into Possession of the Manor of Waltham, in the County of Essex, since Michaelmas last, hath agreed with the said John Deane and other the said Tenants to attourn to her; and doth protect them, by her Privilege, from paying what Monies ought to be by them paid to the said Countess of Kinnoule, as in the Petition is alledged:"
It is thereupon ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Countess Dowager of Norwich be, and is hereby, appointed to attend this House, to answer to the said Petition, on Monday the 4th Day of February next, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon.
Cusack versus L. Dunganon.
Whereas, on the 21th Day of May, 1677, it was referred, by this House, to the Lords Committees for Petitions, to inspect and examine the Steps and Proceedings that have been in the Cause between John Cusack and the Lord Viscount Dunganon of Ireland:
It was this Day reported, from the Lords Committees for Petitions,
"That John Cusack's Petition of Appeal was, on the 27th of January, 1670, referred to the Committee for Petitions.
"That, on the 16th of March, 1670, it was, upon Report from the Committee, ordered, That the Lord Dunganon should put in an Answer to the said Petition within One Month after Notice.
"That, on the 29th of March, 1673, the said Mr. Cusack's Petition was referred to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, to take Order therein for his Relief; which if he could not have by the ordinary Rules of Proceedings in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, the Lord Dunganon was then to put in an Answer to the said Petition, at the Bar of this House, on the First Tuesday of the next Sitting of the Parliament.
"That, upon another Petition of the said Mr. Cusack, setting forth, That his Bill was dismissed by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, it was ordered, on the 14th of February, 1673, That the said Lord Dunganon and Mr. Bolton should put in an Answer to the said Petition within Three Weeks after Notice.
"That, upon another Petition, on the 15th of April, 1675, shewing, That, by reason of the Prorogation, the Lord Dunganon and Mr. Bolton had not put in any Answer, it was then again ordered, That they should put in their Answer within a Month after Notice.
"That, upon another Petition, shewing a Failure by reason of another Prorogation, an Order was made, the 10th of November, 1675, for the said Lord Dunganon and Mr. Bolton to answer.
"Lastly, That on a Petition of the 21th of May, 1677, it was referred by the House to the Committee for Petitions, to examine the Steps and Proceedings that have been made and had in this Case.
"In Obedience unto which Order, we have examined the several Steps and Proceedings in that Business as abovesaid; which we humbly do represent unto the House."
Hereupon the House made this ensuing Order; videlicet,
"Upon Report made this Day from the Lords Committees appointed to receive and consider of Petitions, &c. stating the Progress of the Petition of John Cusack Gentleman, concerning some Lands in Ireland, to which the Lord Viscount Dunganon, of the Kingdom of Ireland (an Infant, by his Guardian) and Nicholas Bolton were, by several Orders of this House, required to put in their Answer or Answers, which they have not hitherto done: It is this Day ORDERED, That the said Lord Dunganon, by his Guardian, and Nicholas Bolton be, and are hereby, required, to put in their Answer or Answers in this House, within One Month peremptorily next after that Notice of this Order shall be to them respectively given by the Petitioner, or his Agent in Ireland, for that Purpose."
Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque in diem Veneris, primum diem Februarn, 1677, hora decima Aurora, Dominis sic decernentibus.
Memorandum, That the Lines blotted in John Cusack's Order were inserted by a Mistake, now rectified by us; who have hitherto examined:
P. Bath & Wells.
North & Grey.
In the Original there are Two Lines blotted out here.