House of Lords Journal Volume 13: 20 March 1677

DIE Martis, 20 die Martii.

REX.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Vacat per Ordinem 13^tii Novembris, 1680, coram

J. Bridgewater.
Clarendon.
P. Bath & Wells.
Tho. Exon.
Howard.

*********

The Lord Steward made Report from the Committee of Privileges, as follows:

Report concerning Privilege of Parliament to Peeresses, &c.

"That, in Pursuance of the Order of the House, dated the Ninth of March Instant, directing them to enquire what hath been done in the Case of Privilege of Parliament allowed to Noblewomen and Widows of Peers, and make Report; the Committee hath examined several Precedents, by which it appeareth to them, that the Widows of Peers have been allowed from Time to Time the Privilege of Parliament, which Precedents are ready to be produced; and that no Precedent hath been produced to weaken or take away the said Privilege."

ORDERED, That this House agrees with the Committee in this Report.

Report concerning Messenger being taken in Execution, though he prosecuted his Writ of Error against Taunt.

The Earl of Dorset reported, from the Committee for Petitions, the Case of John Messenger;

"That their Lordships had examined the Nature of the Proceedings had upon the Writ of Error, and whether the Petitioner had done what he ought to do in Prosecution thereof, and also what hath been done by Mark Taunt, Richard Halton, and Charles Cheney, complained of in the Petition; and the Committee are of Opinion, That the said Messenger hath done all that he could do, in prosecuting a Writ of Error, bearing Date the 19th of February last, in order to bring the Judgement before the House; notwithstanding which, the said Taunt hath taken out Execution, by the Procurement of Charles Cheyney (who practiseth as an Attorney in Mr. Halton's Name), and keeps the said Messenger in Prison: Which Opinion their Lordships are of, upon the Account of the following Testimony of William Carr, who (being sworn at the Bar) faith, "That he saw Mr. Pearce shew Mr. Charles Cheney the said Writ of Error Four or Five Days before the said Cheney made out the Execution;" and he further faith, "That the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench advised the said Cheney to condescend to a Supersedeas, to discharge the Body of the said Messenger, because the Writ of Error was brought before the Lords; which Cheney refused."

Upon which, the House made this ensuing Order:

Messenger released.

"Upon Report made from the Lords Committees appointed to receive and consider of Petitions, to whom was referred the Petition of John Messenger, complaining of his being imprisoned upon Execution, notwithstanding a Writ of Error granted to him for bringing the Judgement upon which he was taken in Execution before this High Court, That their Lordships are of Opinion, that the said John Messenger hath done all that he could do, in prosecuting the said Writ of Error, bearing Date the 19th of February last, to bring the Judgement before this House; notwithstanding which, Mark Taunt, complained of, took out the Execution, by the Procurement of Charles Cheney (who practiseth as an Attorney in Mr. Halton's Name) and keeps the said John Messenger in Prison, which Charles Cheney was shewed the said Writ of Error by Mr. Pearce Four or Five Days before the said Charles Cheney made out the Execution, as appeareth by the Testimony of William Carr, delivered upon Oath before the said Lords Committees: After due Consideration had thereof, it is ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench be, and is hereby, appointed forthwith to direct the issuing of a Writ of Supersedeas, for the Discharge of the Person of the said John Messenger out of Prison by reason of the Execution before mentioned, to the End he may attend the Prosecution of his said Writ of Error in this High Court; and hereunto the Obedience of all and every Person and Persons concerned in the detaining of the said John Messenger in Prison is required, as they and every of them will answer the contrary unto this House."

Peeresses, &c. Privilege.

Upon Report made by the Lord Steward of His Majesty's Household, from the Lords Committees appointed to consider of the Privileges of the Peers of this Kingdom, "That, in Pursuance of the Order of this House, dated the Ninth of March Instant, directing them to enquire what hath been done in the Case of Privilege of Parliament allowed to Noblewomen and Widows of Peers, and make Report; their Lordships, at the Committee, have examined several Precedents, by which it appeareth to them that the Widows of Peers have been allowed from Time to Time the Privilege of Parliament; and that no Precedent hath been produced to weaken or take away the said Privilege:"

Upon due Consideration had of the said Report, it is ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That this House agrees with the Committee therein; and do declare, that therefore Noblewomen and Widows of Peers ought to enjoy the Privilege of Parliament.

Howards & al. versus Marq. of Dorchester, E. of Norwich, & al.

Next, was read the Petition of Edward Howard and Bernard Howard Esquires, and Alexander Macdonnell Esquire and the Lady Elizabeth his Wife, which concerns the Marquis of Dorchester, the Earl Marshal of England, and the Earl of Petriburg, in Point of Privilege of Parliament, being Trustees for and on the Behalf of the Petitioners.

After Debate thereof, it was moved, "That the Question might be put, Whether this Petition shall be dismissed."

The Question being put, "Whether this Question shall be put?"

It was Resolved in the Affirmative.

Then the Question being put, "Whether this Petition shall be dismissed?"

It was Resolved in the Affirmative.

Hereupon the House made the ensuing Order:

"Upon reading the Petition of Edward Howard and Bernard Howard Esquires, Younger Brothers of the Right Honourable Thomas Duke of Norfolk, and Alexander Macdonnell Esquire and the Lady Elizabeth his Wife, Sister of the said Edward and Bernard Howard; shewing, That Henry Marquis of Dorchester, Henry Earl of Norwich Earl Marshal of England, and Henry Earl of Peterborough, being concerned as Trustees for and on the Behalf of the Petitioners, in a great Accompt to be given by them the said Lords to the Petitioners, they the said Petitioners were forced to exhibit a Bill in the Court of Exchequer, to which the said Lords, being served with Letters Missive (the usual Process of that Court to Persons of that Quality), have not answered; but are in Contempt, as in the said Petition is alledged; and therefore praying, That, by Order of this House, the said Marquis of Dorchester, Earl Marshal, and Earl of Peterborough may give in their Answer to the said Bill in the Exchequer, or that Process for their not answering may be made out against them: After due Consideration had of the said Petition, and hearing the said Marquis of Dorchester, Earl Marshal, and Earl of Peterborough concerning the Nature of the said Trust wherein their own Estates are concerned, and the Privilege of Parliament by them respectively claimed, it is Resolved, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Petition of Edward Howard, Bernard Howard, Alexander Macdonnell and the Lady Elizabeth his Wife, be dismissed."

Vacat per Ordinem 13^tii Novembris, 1680, coram

J. Bridgewater.
P. Bath & Wells.
Clarendon.
Tho. Exon.
Howard.

*********

Bill for the more effectual Conviction of Popish Recusants.

ORDERED, That To-morrow Morning the House shall be put into a Committee, to proceed in the Bill for the more effectual Conviction and Prosecution of Popish Recusants.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque in diem Mercurii, 21^um diem instantis Martii, hora decima Aurora, Dominis sic decernentibus.