Petitions to the House of Lords: 1679

Petitions to the House of Lords, 1597-1696.

This free content was born digital. CC-NC-BY.

Citation:

'Petitions to the House of Lords: 1679', in Petitions to the House of Lords, 1597-1696, ed. Jason Peacey, British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/petitions/house-of-lords/1679 [accessed 25 July 2024].

'Petitions to the House of Lords: 1679', in Petitions to the House of Lords, 1597-1696. Edited by Jason Peacey, British History Online, accessed July 25, 2024, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/petitions/house-of-lords/1679.

"Petitions to the House of Lords: 1679". Petitions to the House of Lords, 1597-1696. Ed. Jason Peacey, British History Online. Web. 25 July 2024. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/petitions/house-of-lords/1679.

Long title
Petitions to the House of Lords: 1679

In this section

Thomas, Earl of Danby. HL/PO/JO/10/1/384/80 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall
in Parliament assembled.

The peticion of Thomas Earle of Danby

Most humbly sheweth,
that your peticioner does with all due thankfullnesse
acknowledge your lordshipps favourable allowance of six days time
for your peticioner to putt in his answer to the articles of impea=
chment depending in that honourable house against him, but so it is
that your lordshipps having disallowd one of his councill, and ano=
ther of them, videlicet Master Sanders, being out of town, so that your
peticioner could not gett him till Saturday last nor could he gett
any of them on Good Friday, nor to do any thing considerable on
Saturday, being Easter Eve, and yesterday being Sunday your peticioner
hath yett been able to make very little progresse in the drawing
up of his said answer.

Now forasmuch as the matter is of no lesse importance
to your peticioner then the concern of his life, your
peticioner most humbly prays, that your lordshipps will
bee pleasd to afford him some longer time for the
putting in his said answer

And your peticioner shall ever pray etc

  • Danby

Thomas, Earl of Danby. HL/PO/JO/10/1/384/80 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall
and temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble petition of Thomas Earle of Danby

Most humbly sheweth

That your lordships order of the 6th instant (hereunto
annexed) not expressely appointing your petitioners councell
to bee heard for the defence of his plea, and there=
upon your petitioners said councell doubting what is to
bee done by them.

Your peticioner humbly prayeth that
your lordships order herein may bee explained,
and your peticioners councell ordered to attend
for defence of his plea.

And your peticioner shall pray

  • Danby

Thomas, Earl of Danby. HL/PO/JO/10/1/384/80 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall
and temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of Thomas Earle of Danby

Most humbly sheweth
that your peticioner is now attending according
to your lordships order and expected to have mett
his councill assigned by your lordships for the
defence of your peticioners plea. But so it is
that instead thereof, your peticioner hath received
a message from every one of them, severally
that they dare not appeare to argue for your
peticioner by reason of a vote of the House of
Commons past yesterday, whereby your peticioner
is destitute of all councell and is thereby
totally disabled of making his legall defence

Wherefore your peticioner most humbly
prays your lordships to take the premisses
into your consideracion and to give such
releife and directions to your peticioner
as your lordships in your great judgments
shall thinke fitt.

And your peticioner shall
ever pray

Danby

Earl of Danby's petition
shewing that his
councell refuse to
appeare
10 May 1679.

Thomas, Earl of Danby, prisoner in the Tower of London. HL/PO/JO/10/1/384/80 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall
and temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of Thomas Earle of
Danby prisoner in the Tower of London

Mosty humbly sheweth

That your peticioner hath beene detained a prisoner in the
Tower for above three and twenty months last past, during which time
of his restraint, hee hath undergone severall sicknesses, and hath been
and is still very much impaired in his health.

Wherefore your peticioner humbly prayeth that your
lordshipps would bee pleased to baile your peticioner, hee being
ready to give good and responcible security to your lordshipps
in what sume soever it shall please your lordshipps for your
peticioners appearance as your lordshipps shall thinke fitt
and direct

And your peticioner shall ever pray etc.

  • Danby

Sir Edward Turnor, knight, and Ann Gardner, widow. HL/PO/JO/10/1/384/90 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall
in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition and appeale of Sir Edward Turnor knight and Ann Gardner widdow
formerly the wife of William Mole esquire from a decree made in the High Court of
Chancery in a cause there depending between Dame Mary Turnor widdow plainant and
your petitioners defendants.

Sheweth
that Sir Edward Turnor knight late Lord Cheife Baron of his majestyes Court of Exchequer having in
or about the yeare of our Lord 1651 intermarryed with the said Dame Mary Turnor who was well entituled
to a certain rent charge or annuity of three hundred pounds per annum payable to her for the terme of eighty
yeares if she should soe long live, he the said Sir Edward Turnor being by the said marriage entituled thereunto
did in or about the yeare of our Lord 1653 for good and valuable consideracions in money paid really bargain and
sell the same unto the said William Mole

And your petitioners further shew that the said Sir Edward Turnor being dead the said Dame Mary
Turnor exhibited her bill against your petitioners to have the deeds whereby the said three hundred pounds
per annum was setled upon her and although your petitioners did set forth by theire answer that the said
William Mole did purchase the same for a full and valuable consideration and so it did appear to the court
and also your petitioner Ann Gardner hath a jointure upon her marriage with the said William Mole of one
hundred and eighty pounds per annum issuing out of those lands and insisted that the said Sir Edward
Turnor had power to sell and dispose thereof yet the said Court of Chancery conceiving the said Sir
Edward Turnor had no power to sell that terme have decreed that the said deeds shall be delivered unto
the said Lady Turnor whereby consequentially the said sale may be impeached and your petitioner
Sir Edward Turnor may be subject to be questioned touching the said sale made by your petitioner's
father to the said William Mole and your petitioner Ann Gardner is like to loose her provision for her
jointure whereas it is plain that whatsoever chattle interest a feme sole is owner of at the time of
her marriage by the marriage becomes subject to the disposition of her husband and herein your petitioners
humbly conceive the said decree is not just but upon this case the bill ought to have been dismissed.

Your petitioners doe therefore humbly appeale from the said decree to your lordshipps judgements
and pray that your lordshipps would be pleased to heare the cause upon the meritts and give your
petitioners such releife as to your lordshipps shall seem just.

And your petitioners shall pray etc.

  • Edward Turnor
  • Anne Gardner

Charles Porter

Dame Mary Turner, widow. HL/PO/JO/10/1/384/90 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall
in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of Dame Mary Turner
widdow.

Sheweth.

That Sir Edward Turner knight and Ann Gardiner widdow
haveing lately preferred theire peticion to your lordshipps thereby
appealing from a decree lately made in the High Court of
Chancery on your peticioners behalfe.

Your lordshipps on the 11th instant were pleased to order that your
peticioner (on notice of the said peticion) should put in her answer
by or before Tuesday the 18th day of this moneth.

Your peticioner haveing no notice of the said order till
the 12th instant late at night, nor could have a coppy
of the peticion till the 13th and by reason of her councells
[other affaires?]; is not able to gett her answer ready
by the time limmitted, she therefore humbly prayes your
lordshipps to give her [10?] dayes further time for putting in
her answer to the said peticion

And your peticioner shall pray etc

Mary Turner

The Lady Turners peticion

Dame Mary Turner, widow. HL/PO/JO/10/1/384/90 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of Dame Mary Turner widdow

Sheweth
that your peticioner being joyntured by a former husband in lands in
Bedfordshire Sir Edward Turner your peticioners late husband without your peticioners consent
dureing coverture conveyed the same lands to one Master Mole deceased.

That Sir Edward dyeing your peticioner exhibited her bill in equity against Sir Edward
Turner sonne of your peticioners late husband and Anne Gardiner widdow of the purchaser
that the cause comeing to heareing the Lord Chancellor was clearly of opinion your peticioner
ought to be releived, against this decree the said defendants Sir Edward Turner and Anne Gardner
have appealed to your lordshipps.

That by reason of diverse prorogacions and of two dissolucions since this appeale your petitioner
hath not been able either to proceed to a heareing before your lordshipps or to an execucion
of her decree in Chancery

That this appeale is meerly vexacion and dilatory and onely to keep your peticioner
from receiving any benefitt of her joynture which is very much to her prejudice

May it therefore please your lordshipps (the premisses
considered) to prefix a short [illegible] day for the heareing of
this appeale

And your peticioner shall ever pray etc

Mary Turnor

Dame Mary Turner's
petition for a hearing
against Sir Edward Turner
11 November 1680

For a short day of hearing

Dame Mary Turner, widow. HL/PO/JO/10/1/384/90 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall in
Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of Dame Mary Turnor widdow.

Sheweth
that your lordshipps on the 11th instant by the annexed order have appoynted the
hearing the appeale of Sir Edward Turnor and your petitioners answer on the
22th of November next; that the said Sir Edward and Ann Gardner the other
appelant doe avoyd a personall service of your lordshipps said order but
the said appellants, haveing severall agents, solicitors and clerks
who have formerly been employed in the said cause.

The petitioner humbly prays your lordshipps order that
the petitioner serving your lordshipps order for the said
hearing upon the said appealants solicitors
and clerk in Chauncery shall be a sufficient
service.

And she shall pray etc.

  • Mary Turnor

Sir Edward Turner, knight. HL/PO/JO/10/1/384/90 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall
and temporall in Parlyament assembled

The humble peticion of Sir Edward Turner knight

Sheweth
that youre petitioner on Tuesday night was served
with your lordshipps order apoynting your petitioners cause
upon his appeale to be heard on Monday next
by haveing a copy thereof left with your peticioners
soliciter in the Temple of which your peticioner
had notice above fortye myles from London
and is come to towne since on purpose to
attend your lordshipps upon the sayd heareing
but can not possibly be reddy for the same
in less then tenn dayes

Your petitioner therefore humbly
prayes your lordshipps favours to
grante him tenn dayes longer
tyme for the heareing his cause

And he shall pray

Edward Turnor

Sir Edward Turner peticion
to put off a heareing
19 November 1680

Dame Mary Turner, widow. HL/PO/JO/10/1/384/90 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of Dame Mary Turner
widdow.

Sheweth.
That notwithstanding the petitioners constant endeavours in severall
sessions of Parliament to bring the matter of Sir Edward
Turnor's appeal against a decree in Chancery made
on the petitioners behalfe by the present Lord Chauncelor
in reference to her joynture to a hearing the said Sir Edward
hath kept the said cause of by delayes and your
lordshipps haveing on the petitioners late petition ordered the
said matter to be heard at the barr on Monday
next, the petitioner is informed the said Sir Edward Turnor
intends to move your lordshipps for longer tyme alltho
he hath had due notice according to your lordshipps order

May it therefore please your lordshipps
on consideration that it is the said Sir
Edwards appeal, he may not [further?]
delay your petitioner from the releif
she humbly hopes for by your lordshipps
justice.

And she shall pray

Mary Turnor

Petition of the
Lady Mary Turnor

Thomas Newton, esquire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/384/92 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble petition of Thomas Newton esquire

Humbly sheweth
that your petitioner to reverse a judgment in ejectment obteyned against him by John Binns
gentleman in the Court of Kings Bench for lands and tenements ande in Barden and other townes
in Yorkshire did bring his writ of error retornable in Parliament

That your petitioners councell who have beene all along advised with by your petitioner
herein videlicet Sir Creswell Leavine knight and John Holt esquire are now in the circuit and
will not retorne till about the fowerteenth day of Aprill next. So that your petitioner
(in regard severall points in law which they have studied and considered of will arise upon
argueing the errors in the said judgement) may be much prejudiced if he be necessitated
to imploy other councell.

May it therefore please your lordshipps to give your petitioner tyme for
argueing the said errors untill his said councell shall retorne out of their
circuits

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc

Thomas Nuton

The petition of Thomas
Newton for a longer
day of hearing
nothing done it.
28 Martii 1679.

Elizabeth, dowager Abergavenny. HL/PO/JO/10/1/384/97 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall
and temporall assembled in Parliament

The humble peticion of Elizabeth dowager Abergeveny

Sheweth
that your peticioner on the seaventh day of January last
past with her meniall servants were presented for
recusancy att the quarter sessions held for the county of Oxford
which time being within priviledge of Parliament your peticioner
being a peeresse of this realme hopeth that she with her meniall
servants shall have the priviledge of her peerage as well for her selfe
as her servant to be discharged of the said presentment.

Wherefore your petitioner humbly
prayeth your lordshipps order to cause the said
presentment to be discharged and all further
prosecucion thereupon to be stayed

And your peticioner shall pray etc.

Elizabeth Abergevenny

Lady Abergaveny's petition
being presented for recu=
sancy etc
18 Martii 1678.

Garret Johnson, cabinet-maker in ordinary to her majesty. HL/PO/JO/10/1/385/101 (1679)

To the lords spirituall and temporall in Parliament assembled

The most humble peticion of Garret Johnson cabinet-maker in ordinary to her majesty

Sheweth
that your petitioner has lived many yeares in and about the Citty of London, and always behaved
himself loyally and peaceably, and having stayd in towne since the issuing of his majesties late royall proclamacion
for the departure of Roman Catholicks hence by virtue of a licence or warrant from the bench of justices
at Westminster, and finding that hee cannot be longer free to follow his occasions, which are both very great and
of divers natures, he having severall peices of cabinet-worke to finish for divers persons of quality, which
wilbe a great losse if he cannot perfect, and also dealing in ships at sea for himself, and as a factor in some
affaires here for the Duke of Holsteine.

Your petitioner therefore most humbly prays your lordships would be pleased to grant him leave
with his wife and family to stay in towne for the space of 6 moneths, or such competent
tyme as your lordships shall thinke fitt, aswell for the settlement and dispatch of his said affaires,
is for the disposall of his trade and houshold goods, and getting in, and payment of his
debts, and that at the end of such licence hee may be at liberty to transport himself
and family beyond seas.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etca.

Mary Witherings, widow. HL/PO/JO/10/1/385/104 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall
in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of Mary Witherings widdow.

Sheweth
that your peticioner being obliged by his majesties proclamacion to depart the
cities of London and Westminster etca (being of the Roman communion)
it hath pleased God to affict her with great sickness and weakness, at
the age of 65, in so much that by the judgement of her
phisitian, shee cannot remove without manifest danger of death

Your peticioner therefore humbly prayes your lordships upon
affidavit made before your lordships by her phisitian of the
truth of th'above allegation to give leave to your peticioner
and two servants that attend her to remaine here for a few months
till shee recover strength (if it be the will of God) and be able to
remove without endangering her life.

And your peticioner shall pray etca.

The peticion of
Mary Withering widdow
to stay in towne
24 Martii 1678

Phillip Whistler. HL/PO/JO/10/1/385/108 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords
spirituall and temporall in
Parliament assembled.

The humble peticion of
Phillip Whistler

Sheweth
that one Thomas Wallis haveing lately obteyned
a judgment in an accion on the case against your
petitioner in his majesties Court of Kings Bench, your
petitioner finding himselfe agreived therupon brought
a writt of error in the Exchequer Chamber:
but the said judgment being affirmed there and
your petitioner still finding himselfe agreived brought
another writt of error (retornable in Parliament
the 6th of March instant) upon the said judgment
that accordingly hee hath allowed the same and
gotten the record transcribed ready for bringing
into this most honourable house, but my Lord Cheife Justice
of the Kings Bench being gon [a?] circuit; your petitioner
if informed, noe other judge of the same court cann
bring up the said writt and record without an order from
your lordshipps for that purpose.

May it therefore please your lordshipps for as much
as that Master Justice Wilde is now in towne, and
your petitioner being very willing to bring up the said
writt and record soe soone as may bee, designeing
noe delay to the plainant in the said judgment but insistith
onely one the meritts of his cause

Your petitioner therefore most humbly prayeth
that your lordshipps would bee pleased to graunt
your order that the said Master Justice Wilde
may bring up the said writt and record
heither, and to give your petitioner some day
such as your lordshipp shall thinke fitt for
the doeing thereof.

And as in duty bound hee shall
ever pray etc

  • Philip Whistler

Thomas Wallis. HL/PO/JO/10/1/385/108 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parliament assembled.

The humble peticion of Thomas Wallis

Most humbly sheweth
that your peticioner haveing obtained judgment against Philipp Whistler
in the Court of Kings Bench for 144 pounds besides cost and affirmed the same
in the Exchequer Chamber, the said Whistler for further delay hath
brought a writt of error retornable before your lordshipps in Parliament
and hath certified the record into this honourable house but hath
not assigned any errors thereon, notwithstanding the said writt of
error was retornable before your lordshipps ever since the 6th of March
last which proceedings of the said Whistler is meerely delay and to putt
your peticioner to great charges

Your peticioner therefore most
humbly beseeches your lordshipp to affirme
the said judgment with full cost
according to the course of this house

And your peticioner shall pray

Thomas Wallis

[illegible]
Thomas Wallis's
petition for against Whistler
who hath not assigned
errors
8 May 1679.

Phillip Whistler, prisoner in the Kings Bench. HL/PO/JO/10/1/385/108 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall
and temporall in Parliament assembled.

The humble peticion of Phillip
Whistler now a prisoner in the
Kings Bench:

Sheweth
that one Thomas Wallis haveing obteyned a judgment
in an accion on the case against your petitioner in the Kings=
Bench, your petitioner thereupon brought a writt of
error in Parliament and had the record and
proceedings thereof brought up into this
most high and honourable house and assigned
errors thereupon to which the said Wallis
rejoyned:

That notwithstanding this: the said Wallis
and one Whittaker his sollicitor have caused
your petitioner to bee taken in execucion upon the
said judgment notwithstanding the said writt of
error.

May it therefore please your lords

Your petitioner humbly prayeth
your lordshipps order for the
said Wallis and Whittaker to
attend your lordshipps and answer
this high contempt and abide
such further order herein
as your lordshipps shall see
convenient:

And your petitioner as in duty bound
shall ever pray etc

Philip Whistler

This day [tonight?]
to be argued

Richard Marryot, servant to the Duke of Norfolk. HL/PO/JO/10/1/385/109 (1679)

The peticion of
Richard Maryot.

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of Richard Marryot servant to his grace the Duke of Norfolke
now in parts beyond the seas.

Sheweth
that in the yeare 1676 the said Duke demised his fishing in the River of Eden in the barony of
Burgh in the county of Cumberland unto Jervas Barty for the terme of seaven years, which said farme some of the
customary tennants of the said barony having formerly been tennants to, claimed a right therein, and gave disturbance
to the said Barty. But by due course of law the possession of the said fishery with his graces said tenant was
quieted till about December or January last some of the aforesaid customary tenants (videlicet) John Hodgsion of
Northend, John Hodgsion of Westend, Joseph Mathew and Richard Selby arrested the said Jervas Barty
in order to try the said pretended title to the said fishing and do proceede thereupon by the advice of George Bell
their attorney. Now forasmuch as the said action was commenced and is prossecuted during the privilledge of
Parliament.

Your petitioner on the behalfe of his noble master the said Duke, humbly
pray's your lordshipps order for the stay of their proceedings upon their said
actions during the privilledge of Parliament and that the said partys and their attorney
may answear the violacion and infringement of the privilledge of the peeres of this realm

And your petitioner as in duty bound shall pray etc.

  • Richard Marryot.

John Hodgson, John Hodgson, Joseph Mathew, Richard Selby and George Bell. HL/PO/JO/10/1/385/109 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in his majesties High Court of Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of John Hodgson of Northend John
Hodgson of Westend, Joseph Mathew, Richard Selby yeoman and George Bell gentleman

Humbly sheweth. That your peticioners upon the fourth of this instant Aprill were
served with an order of this honourable court to appeare at this barr three weekes
after notice thereof to answer to a breach of priviledge for prosecuting suite against
Gervas Bertue tenant to his grace the Duke of Norfolke in order to the tryall of the
title to the said Dukes fishing in the river of Eden in the county of Cumberland as
in Master Marriots peticion was suggested.

Your peticioners are ready and willing to give all due obedience to the said order, if their exceeding
poverty and their great distance from this honourable court being neere three hundred miles, had not
disabled them, to give theire personall attendance here in soe short a time, and your peticioners did
humbly conceive themselves not to be guilty of any breach of priviledge of peerage for that
they did not suppose that his grace was in the least concerned and your peticioners were the rather
induced to suppose the same for that the causes comenced against the said Gervas Barty at the suite of the two
said Hodgsons are in trover and Mathews accion only for fals imprisonment and the said Selby
never yet commenced any suite against the said Bart therfore the said George Bell did suppose it might
be lawfull for him to prosecute the said three personall accions thinking there was noe colour of
title likely to appear concerning the said Duke but that if his grace be any way concerned in the
title and this honourable house thinke it a breach of priviledge of peerage your peticioners were
alltogether ignorant of it and doe with all submission humble begg the pardon of this
honourable house and of his grace for the same and are willing to withdraw all proceedings against
the said Barty if this honourable house shall thinke fitt.

May it therefore please your honours to discharge
your said peticioners of the great charge and trouble
of giveing their personall attendance being it would
tend to your peticioners utter ruine and depauperacion

And your peticioners shall ever as they are
in duty bound pray etc

  • John Hodgson
  • John Hodgson
  • Joseph Mathew
  • Richard Selby
  • George Bell

Mary Smyth, widow, Francis Smyth, Lewis Smyth and Martha Smyth. HL/PO/JO/10/1/385/111 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall in
Parliament assembled

The humble petition of Mary Smyth the widdow of Sir Thomas Smyth
of Sproxton in the county of Leicester in the behalfe of her selfe, and
Francis Smyth, Lewis Smyth, and Martha Smyth,

Sheweth;

That your petitioners husband constantly adheared to his
late majestie of happy memory and borrowed a great summe of money to raise a troope
of horse under the Earle of St Albans, whereupon his estate and goods were seques=
tered, and he never able to pay his debts, soe that his small estate (being a younger
brother) hath beene extended, whereby your petitioner and seven children have beene
reduced to great wants, for many yeares.

And now may it please your lordshipps your petitioner and three of her children (not being satis=
fied that they may take the oaths) have beene imprisoned for severall weekes
in the common goale at Notingham, and put to extraordinary charges the
continuance whereof may prove the utter ruine of your petitioner, and the greate
decay of her health, she being very aged and infirme.

Your petitioner humbly prayes that according to your
wonted justice and compassion your lordshipps
will be pleased to order that your petitioner and
her sayd children may be freed from
their imprisonment:

And they shall ever pray etc:

  • Mary Smith

The Lady Smiths
petition

Being prisoner in
Nottingham Goale
28 Martii 1679.

John Dickonson, citizen and mercer of London. HL/PO/JO/10/1/385/112 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall
in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of John Dickonson
citizen and mercer of London.

Humbly sheweth.
That your peticioner being bred and borne a Roman Catholick
did in obedience to your majesties proclamacion absent himselfe
and being in partnership with one Nicolas Allexander a protestant
who did all the time of his absence mannage the buisness
of the shop as well for your petitioner as for himselfe. It hath
now pleased God to vizit the said Nicolas Allexander with
such indisposition of health that he is not able to mannage
the partnership any longer without your peticioners help and
assistance.

The premisses considered and the respect had
to your peticioners sad condicion haveing a trade to
mannage and severall thousand pounds abroade
in debts, his partner indisposed, and nobody
to depend upon but servants, your peticioner humbly
prayes the favour of this honourable house that he
may have licence to returne home and mannage
his concernes in towne for two monthes, your
peticioner behaveing himselfe as a good subject
ought to doe.

And your peticioner shall pray

John Dickonson

The peticion of John
Dickenson

Read [25?] Martii 1679
nothing done on it

Elizabeth Crosse. HL/PO/JO/10/1/385/117 (1679)

The peticion of
Elizabeth Crosse

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of Elizabeth Crosse.

Sheweth

That whereas one William Clarke, who is an advocate in Scotland being come
for England, about nyne moneths since your petitioner did entertaine one Master
John Carre, unto whome the said William Clarke was steward, and is indebted unto your
petitioner for meat and drinke in the summe of xiii pounds - xiii shillings - vi pence: for which he gave under his hand
to pay, but after many demands made, and he delaying to pay your petitioner shee
imployed Luke Hemmings to arrest the said William Clarke who is protected by the Lord Rochester,
and your petitioner being in restraint aswell as the sayd Luke Hemmings, to the serjeant at armes to this
honourable house.

Your petitioner most humbly prays that (as she pays scott and lott
and all duties where she lives) she may have liberty to take
her course in law against the sayd William Clarke for recovery of her sayd
debt, as in the case of the Lord Manchester and others, and that she and the said Luke
Hemmings may be freed from their restraint.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc.

  • The marke of Elizabeth Crosse.

Luke Hemings. HL/PO/JO/10/1/385/117 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble petition of Luke Hemings

Sheweth

That your petitioner on Saturday last was taken in custody of
the Black Rod for a breach of priveledge comitted against the right honourable the Earle
of Rochester by arresting one Clarke who is the said Earles servant (though contrary
to your petitioners knowledge) that your petitioner has acted as provost marshall ever since
his majesties happy restauration and never had any complaint against him till this
for which your petitioner is heartily sorry and humbly craves the pardon of this
most honourable house for soe doeing, it being comitted through his ignorance being
informed that the said Clarke was not his lordships servant which if he had
knowne to the contrary he would not have done for any thing whatsoever it
being your petitioners interest to serve your lordships in Parliament and to preserve their
priviledges in what he can.

Your petitioner therefore humbly prayes that your lordships would
be favourably pleased to order that your petitioner may be dischargd
out of custody

And your petitioner (as in duty bound) shall ever pray

Luke Hemmyng

Luke Hemings's petition
[illegible]
for his discharge
1o April 1679

Edward Lord Ward, John Levett and Mary his wife, on behalf of William Ward, an infant. HL/PO/JO/10/1/385/118 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion and appeale of the honourable William
Ward esquire an infant by Edward Lord Ward his
guardian and next friend and John Levett gentleman and Mary his wife

Humbly shew unto your lordshipps

That Sir Thomas Brereton baronett deceased being in his lifetime seized in fee of and in certaine mannours and lands in the county of Chester being
a man of weake understanding was in the yeare of our Lord 1666 when he was surprized in drinke prevailed upon by one Master John Warren a councellour att law
to seale and execute a deede of settlement of his estate in manner following (videlicet) to him selfe for life to his lady for life then to the issue of his body and
for want of such issue the remainder to one Nathaniell Booth esquire and the heires of his body remainder to the right heires of him the said Sir Thomas Brereton
but the said Warren being a great freind of the said Master Booth and knowing that the said Sir Thomas Brereton would revoake and destroy the said deed if ever he
should remember or consider what hee had done and understand how hee might legally doe itt therefore to make it as difficult to bee revoaked as hee could did
put into the said deed an extraordinary provisoe to the effect following (videlicet) that it should bee lawfull to and for the said Sir Thomas Brereton upon payment
of twelve pence to the trustees therein named or to their use with intent purpose and declaracion to make voyd the said deed and if hee should alsoe by any deed
in writeing under his hand and seale in the presence of two witnesses att the least revoake and make void the same that then itt should be void and
some time after the sealeing thereof the said Sir Thomas Brereton being informed what hee had done tooke the said deed and tore of his hand and seale from
the same and declared the same to bee voyd but the said Warren takeing the said cancelled deed into his custody carryed it away with him and kept itt
from the said Sir Thomas Brereton who severall times before his death did send to Warren for the said deed that hee might see what the power of revocation was
left that such his cancelling thereof might not amount to a good revocation in law and thereby his heires att law receive damage and did likewise personally
before witnesse demand the same of the said Warren but the said Warren designeing to preserve the said deed for the benefitt of the said Booth his freind and
kinsman told the said Sir Thomas Brereton and those that hee sent as aforesaid for the said deed that hee could not find the same and withall told Sir Thomas
Brereton hee neede not trouble him selfe about itt for that hee the said Sir Thomas had long since destroyed the same and that the deed was void to all intents
and purposes and promised that if hee the said Warren could find it hee would deliver it to him butt the said Sir Thomas notwithstanding all his endeavours could
never gett the said deed into his custody and being ignorant how the power of revocation was penned was by the contrivance of Warren satisfied that
hee had utterly destroyed the estate thereby lymitted and hindred from revoakeing the same according to the strictnesse of law and the exact letter
of the provisoe butt declared all along to his death that the same was voyd and that his estate should discend and come to his right heires att law
and to noe body else and your petitioners shew that they are his heires att law and since the death of the said Sir Thomas Brereton and Dame Theodosia his
widdow and relict the said mannours and premisses ought to come to your peticioners as heires generall of the said Sir Thomas Brereton (that is to say)
your peticioner William Ward is son and heir of Frances the late wife of Edward Lord Ward and your peticioner Mary Levett is daughter and heire of
Susanna the wife of Edmund Lenthall esquire who are both deceased which said Frances and Susanna were the onely sisters and coheires of the
said Sir Thomas Brereton butt the said Master Booth doth pretend title at law under the said cancelled settlement and pretends Sir Thomas
Brereton hath not in law revoaked the same and therefore would now wholy carry away the said estate from your peticioners William
and Mary contrary to all equitie and justice and the intent of the said Sir Thomas Brereton where upon your peticioners did exhibite their bill in
the high and honourable Court of Chancery to bee releived against the said fraudulent settlement and practice and although your peticioners made
the truth of the premisses fully and plainely to appeare yet the Lord Chancellour upon the heareing of the cause (videlicet) on the eighteenth of
February last was not pleased to give your peticioners releife in the premisses but as your peticioners are advised contrary to good equity dismissed their bill

From which dismission your petitioners (being noe other way releivable butt by the aid of this high and honourable court the
supreame fountaine of justice within this kingdome) most humbly appeale to your lordshipps praying that a short day may
bee appointed for the said Nathaniell Booth to appeare and putt in his answere to all and singuler the premisses in writeing
att the barr of this honourable house to the end that their cause may bee speedily heard upon the merritts thereof and they bee
releived according as to your lordshipps greate wisdome shall seeme agreeable to equity and justice

And your petitioners as in duty bound shall pray etc:

  • George Bradbury

  • [illegible] Ward
  • William Ward
  • John Levett
  • Mary Levett

Mary Braithwaite, widow. HL/PO/JO/10/1/385/122 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parliament assembled.

The humble peticion of Mary Braithwaite widow,

Sheweth

That your petitioner hath endeavoured in obedience to his majesties royall proclamacion of the 30th
October last to absent herselfe from the City of London, but being 65 yeares of age and continuall
labouring under great indisposicion of health so as shee cannot goe out of towne with out great
hazzard, shee is compelled by necessity to seeke her abode here:

Wherefore your lordships petitioner humbly prayes that your lordships will be pleased
to graunt her an order to make her abode in London with her neice and
one maid servant without which shee cannot be by reason of her
infirmity.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc

William Noy, executor of Honor Noy, and the children of Honor Noy. HL/PO/JO/10/1/385/124 (1679)

William Noy executor of Honor Noy
plainant in one bill

Humphry
Sarah
Honor and
Prudence children and administrators of
Francis Noy in the
other bill

Plainants

Sir Peter Fortescue barronet and Dame
Amy his wife relict and executrix of Sir
Peter Courtny defendants

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall
in the High Court of Parliament assembled

The humble peticion and appeale of the complainants in both causes

Most humbly shewing

That Phillip Noy the said Francis and your peticioner William Noyes late father deceased being possest
of a terme for 99 yeares absolute of lands in Cornwall worth about 200 pounds per annum made Honor his relict and the said Francis his sonne executor

That in June 1661 Francis Noy dyed and Honor as surviveing executor entred and quietly enjoyed the lands untill her death which
was in Aprill 1665 haveing first made your peticioner William Noy her executor who entred and enjoyed quietly untill Sir Peter Courtny
brought his ejectment and obteined judgment by default and gott possession whilest your peticioner William Noy (being an officer at Portsmouth)
was attending his majesties service there above 200 miles distant and knew nothing of it whereupon your peticioner William Noy exhibited his
bill in Chancery to discover the defendants title and to be releived therein

The defendants by answear say that Sir Peter Courtny 4o August 1649 and one Holmes as suerties only became bound with Humphry
Noy esquire (Attorny Generall Noyes sonne) to Edward Parker esquire in a bond of 1000 pounds for payment of 500 pounds and interest and confesse he had allsoe a
mortgage from Humphry Noy for further security thereof and say

That Francis Noy one of the said executours thereupon by deed dated 28o November 1651 in consideracion of 50 pounds assigned the
whole term to Sir Peter Courtny and beleive this assignment was made for the consideration of 50 pounds and to countersecure Sir Peter against
this bond to Parker (allthough in truth noe such consideration is mencioned in the deed) and that Parker sued Sir Peter and gott judgment
against him on this bond in 1655 and that the defendant Dame Amy as Sir Peters executrix hath been forc't to pay 1000 pounds for principall and interest
besides costs of suite to Parker

That your peticioner William Noyes cause coming to be heard before the late Lord Keeper Bridgman in 1673 and the defendants
councell findeing his lordship to declare the said assignement could be taken at most to be but a security for the 50 pounds insisted that the
administrator of Francis Noy who [aliened?] the term ought to be a [party?] to the suite before it could regularly be determined thereupon the
court suspended giveing judgment untill Francis Noyes administrator were made a party and brought to hearing.

That your peticioners the children of Francis Noy thereupon took administracion to theire father and were made defendants and answeared this
bill and exhibited theire originall bill against the defendant Fortescue and the peticioner William Noy to be releived in case the right to the estate should bee
adjudged with them, and the case as between your peticioners the plainants in both causes is only whether the executours of the surviveing executors or the
administrator of the first dying executor (as this case is) be intitled to the premises in question which they both humbly submitt to your lordshipps judgments

That Francis Noy was nowayes oblidged for or concerned in the debt to Parker and the assignement to Courtny was made 2 yeares
after the bond to Parker and but by one of the executors without the privity of the other executor, and it is proved that quiet possession went
against the deed for 15 yeares together and that Humphry Noy and Sir Peter Courtny kept Francis Noy up 2 dayes and 2 nights drinking and when he was
disguised in drinke gott him to seale this deed allthough [illegible] Sir Peter had halfe the mony borrowed of Parker and both
these causes coming to be heard before the now Lord Chancellor his lordshipp was pleased to dismisse your peticioner William Noyes bill with
costs which are taxed at 100 pounds and as to your peticioners the childrens bill directed an accompt and that unlesse they should pay [illegible] the said
mony with interest and costs of suite in law and in Chancery at such time as the master should appoint theire bill allsoe to stand dismist

And the master hath by his report allowed 934 pounds for interest of the said 500 pounds which is interest upon interest and 527 pounds for costs of suite
in all 1922 pounds - 3 shillings - 7 pence to be paid by your poor peticioners the children in six months then next which your said peticioners not being able to doe and the time
being elapsed the said judgments and dismissions in both causes are signed and inrolled and your poor peticioners the children have nothing left
but the kindnesse and charity of theire freinds to live upon.

Now forasmuchas the said judgments or dismissions are grounded upon matter of fact not proved and errors not appearing in the body
of the said dismissions soe as your peticioners cannot be releived therein upon any bill of reveiw and for that the lands in
question are worth above 3000 pounds to be sold and that there is but 50 pounds consideration mencioned in the assignement and that not proved to be
paid and for that the defendants upon payment of the mony to Parker had an assignement of the mortgage from Humphry Noy to Parker
and are now in possession and receive the profits thereof and for the reasons above mentioned

The plainants your peticioners in both the said causes doe therefore humbly appeale from the said judgments decree and dismissions and
all proceedings thereupon had to the judgment of this most high and honourable court and humbly pray that summons may be awarded
against the said defendants to shew cause if they can why the said judgments decree and dismissions and all proceedings thereon should not
bee sett aside and your peticioners releived according as to your lordshipps judgments shall seem most agreeable to justice and
equity and that all proceedings both at law and in Chancery touching any of the said matters may in the mean time be stayed

And your peticioners as in duty bound shall ever pray etc

  • Owen Feltham
  • William Noye

Sir Peter Fortescue, baronet, and Dame Amy his wife. HL/PO/JO/10/1/385/124 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parliament assembled.

The humble peticion of Sir Peter Fortescue barronet and Dame
Amy his wife respondents to the peticion and appeal of William
Noy and others apellants

Most humbly sheweth
that the said apellants after above 18 years contest in Chancery for the
matters in question have causlesly and meerly to vex your petitioners, and to prevent the
payment of 100 pounds costs taxed (and for non payment whereof they now stand in contempt exhibited
their humble peticion and appeal in to this most honourable house from a decree made in the
high and honourable Court of Chancery, and having lodged the same with the clerks of the
Parliament obteined an order bearing date the 10th of April 1679; whereby your
petitioners are required to put in their answers to the said appeal, in writeing at
the barr of this most honourable house on the first day of May next, whereof
they were to give your petitioners timely notice. But your petitioners never heard of the said
order or were served therewith till the 25th of this instant April when they received a copy thereof about two hundered and twenty miles from
London at which time their writeing's was in the hand's of their solicitor who
was above fifty miles distant from them to whome they did imediately send
for the same (as by the affidavits annexed) appeareth. And will with all the speed
imaginable render obedience to your lordshipps order but cannot possibly obteyn
their writeings untill their solicitor come to London which cannot be within the
times prefixed.

Your petitioners (the premises considered) most humbly
pray your lordshipps favour to give them three weeks longer
time to put in their answer. And that the apellants
according to thee [illegible] order of this honourable house
may be required before any further proceedings had in
this cause to put in security to perform the decree of
the Court of Chancery. And pay your petitioner costs of that
court. And for this unnecessary vexation. If your lordshipps
shall not thinke fitt (upon the hearing of their cause)
to grant them releif

And your petitioners (as in duty bound) shall
pray etc

  • Peter Fortescue
  • Amy Fortescue

William Noy and children and administrators of Francis Noy. HL/PO/JO/10/1/385/124 (1679)

William Noy [gen?] executor
of Honor Noy in one cause plainante
and in the other cause
Humphrey Sarah Honer and Prudence
[illegible] children and administrators of Francis Noy plainants

Sir Peter Fortescue barronet and Dame
Amy his wife relict and executrix
of Sir Peter Courtney defendants

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in the High Court of Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of the plaintiffs
in both causes.

Shew.

That your peticioners the last sessions of Parliament (by advice of their councell) preferred their humble peticion
of appeale to this honourable house to be releived against an erronious decree or dismission made against your
peticioners in the High Court of Chancery whereby your peticioners are decreed to pay 1922 pounds. 3 shillings. 7 pence which they ought
not to pay or their bill to be dismist. Which decree or dismission is there signed and inrolled.

To which peticions the defendants put in theire answere, but by reason of the suddaine dissolution of the Parliament
noe further proceedings was thereon had soe that your peticioners could have no releife.

Now forasmuch as the said matter was formerly lodged with the clerke of this house
and noe determinacion thereon had, and the matter propperly determinable before your
lordshipps your peticioner being destitute of all releife elsewhere.

May it therefore please your lordshipps that your peticioners
former peticion and all proceedings thereon may stand and be
revived. And that your lordshipps will appoint a convenient day
for the hearing and determining thereof before your lordshipps

And your peticioners shall ever pray etca

William Noye

I am humbly of opinion that the peticioners
have good cause for bringing their appeale
and to be releived thereupon.


Owen Feltham


Peticion of Sir Peter Fortescue and Dame
Amy his wife.

Sir Peter Fortescue, knight. HL/PO/JO/10/1/385/124 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of Sir Peter Fortescue knight
respondent to the peticion and appeale of William
Noyes appelant

Sheweth
that the appelant hath brought his appeale into
this most honourable house meerely to create to your
petitioner further trouble and chardge, after all that
given him in Chancerye, and well knowing that
your petitioner lives remote from London in the further
parte of Cornwall and that your petitioner is resident
there, hath as your petitioner is informed obteyned an
order for hearing this cause on the 24th of this
instant November, of which your petitioner had noe
notice till Monday the 15th instant, and then only
by a letter haveing as yett never benn served
with any order for that purpose, nevertheless is
comeing up in order to the sayd tryall

Your petitioner therefore most humbly implores
your lordshipps justice, and prayes
favour that he may have a convenient
tyme granted for the hearing of his
cause that soe he may not be surprized
in his absence, all the papers being with
him in the contry, that must necessarely
be made use of for makeing out his
right

And youre peticioner as in duty
bound shall ever praye

Peter Fortescue

22o Novembris 1680

Fortescues peticion
[illegible]

Sir Peter Fortescue, baronet, and Dame Amy his wife. HL/PO/JO/10/1/385/124 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parliament assembled.

The humble peticon of Sir Peter Fortescue baronet and Dame Amy
his wife.

Sheweth. That William Noy esquire aboute 2 yeares since appealed to this most honourable
house from a decree made in the High Court of Chancery in favour of your petitioner and Dame
Amy his wife to which your petitioners immediatly put in their answer, were necessited for that
purpose to come neere 200 miles and lay all that session here, and all the time of the said Parliament
in order to have obteyned its hearing, but to this day the said appellant hath not given any
security to performe the decree if not by your lordships reversed or to pay costs as by your lordships
order is directed, that the said appelant when your petitioner with his wife were nigh 300 miles of
got the cause set downe to be heard on the 24th of November and your petitioner had no other notice thereof
than that a copy of your lordships order for such heareing was left at your petitioners house on the 17th of November and
no originall shown but copy served on a [illegible] servant at which time your petitioners weere aboute
100 miles from home and so had been for near a month before, that your petitioner so soone as he
had notice of your lordships order set forward with his wife for London and are come aboute
300 miles this sad season of the yeare to the hazard of their lives from their family and
left some of his children sick then on purpose to attend the hearing before your lordships which
the said Noy now neglects to bring on.

Your petitioner the premises considered most humbly prayes your
lordships favour to direct that the said William Noy before the heare=
=ring do give security to answer your petitioners great cost they
have been put unto in this his unjust prosecucion before your
lordships if he shall not by your lordships be releived against the decree
he appeals from, and that a short day may be appointed for the
said hearing.

And your petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray etc:

  • Fortescue

John Sayer, John Billingsley, Thomas Blagrave and Thomas Dyos. HL/PO/JO/10/1/385/125 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall
and temporall, in Parliament assembled

The humble petition and appeale of John Sayer, John Billingsley
Thomas Blagrave and Thomas Dyos of London vintners.

Sheweth

That by an act made 1668 310000 pounds was given to his majesty to be raised upon wines and other liquors retayled
between the 24th June 1668 and the 24th June 1670 and after that time in case of raiseing the money sooner the duties of that act to cease, and if
not raised in that time then provision made for supplying what wanted by 4 pounds a tun upon wines imported within a yeare after to be collected by comissioners
appointed by his majesty and for security of such as should lend money upon the credit of that act a register was appointed to be kept in the Exchequer
of all orders of loane which were to be paid in course to the lenders or their assignes.

That your petitioners together with John Wadlow William Hargrave Thomas Coates, Richard Dormer, John Henderson all deceased, and Richard Kensey all vintners
of London advanced and paid to his majesty according to contract 300000 pounds upon the credit and security of that act and had granted to them and their
assignes to their owne use the benefitt of that act, and all the money to be raised thereby, and had orders of loane for the same which were assigned to
divers persons who lent or advanced any money thereupon.

That Master Colvile a goldsmith in London haveing many orders assigned to him to enable himselfe to obtain satisfaction for the same in course
was made treasurer of the money for the greatest part of the time of the act, and till it expired and he received the same accordingly and did or at least
might and ought to have paid all such orders to himselfe and others in course as they became due and the money receivd extended to.

That the money raised by the duties of the said act amounted to about 222700 pounds which was paid in discharge of orders.

That in November 1669 your petitioners and the said Dormer and Kensey haveing receivd in course the money they advanced out of their owne private estates
and haveing assigned all other orders whereby the assignees thereof became legally intituled to the money due thereupon (and noe right therto remayneing
in your petitioners or the said Dormer and Kensey) did with the privity of the said Colvile, release unto the said Wadlow, Henderson and Hargrave the benefitt of the contract
with his majesty and their interest in the gratuity money, and other benefitt thereby granted.

That though it appeared there was not more raised or secured by the act then as aforesaid yet noe power was granted nor course taken for receiving
the 4 pounds per tunn for the yeare after the act which would have supplied the defects of the other duties, but shortly before the expiracion of that act a new act
of Parliament was made whereby new and other duties were given for raysing what wanted of the first, which second act was made for the sole benefitt of
the assignees and other persons interested in orders not paid and at the earnest solicitation and entreaty of the said Colvile, Wadlow, Hargrave and Henderson
and for their availe, and not any wayes tending to the benefitt or advantage of your petitioners or the said Dormer and Kensey, nor obtained with their privity.

That there was (as since it appeares) about 52000 pounds by the 2d act, which by the express order of the lords commissioners of the Treasury was appointed to
be paid, and accordingly was paid to Wadlow, Hargrave, and Henderson, and wherein your petitioners or the said Dormer and Kensey were not named, nor did they
ever receive, or had any power to receive any part of it nor did any waies intermeddle or concerne themselves about it or had any reason or power soe to doe, being
advised their contract with his majesty did not extend unto the second act or the money raised thereby, but wholly belonged unto the assignees of orders.

That although all the money raised upon the first [act?] [illegible] granted to the petitioners and other the undertakers to their own use, and was duely paid in discharge
of orders and that your petitioners were not concerned in the 2d act [illegible] to doe with or received any of the money ariseing by the 2d act.

Yet in Michaelmas terme 23tio Caroli 2di his majesties [attorney?] [illegible] the solicitation and prosecucion of the administratrix of Master Colvile [exhibited an?] English bill
in the Exchequer against your petitioners and other the said undertakers for an account and due application of all the money raised by both acts alleadging many orders
to remaine unsatisfied, which if any did it was through the default of the said Wadlow Hargrove and Hendersons not due paying and applying the money
paid to them upon the second act, and not through the least default of any of your petitioners. Wherto your petitioners and other the parties answered and upon heareing
were joyntly and severally referred to account, and thereupon the truth appeared to be as aforesaid, and yet notwithstanding it was fully made appeare
that all the money raised by the first act was paid in discharge of orders of loane, and that your petitioners and the said Dormer and Kensey did not recive or
had any right or power to receive any of the money raised by the second act, but that the same was paid to Wadlow, Hargrave and Henderson as aforesaid
yet nevertheless upon the 25th day of February in the 27th yeare of his majesties raigne it was decreed by the court of Exchequer that your petitioners and the said
Dormer and Kensey, as also the said Wadlow, Hargrave and Henderson should be charged to his majesty with the summe of 47881 pounds 8 shillings 9 pence and should satisfie
and pay the same to his majestie or his assignes whereby your petitioners and the said Dormer and Kensey who never medled nor were interested or concerned in
the second act or the money raised thereby are charged therewith joyntly and equally with the said Wadlow, Hargrave and Henderson whereas your
petitioners humbly conceive and are advised, they are not nor ought by any rule or course of law or equity to be answerable for any part of the said money
decreed being raised by the second act all the money raised by the first act being payd in discharge of orders, which decree as to your petitioners is
wholly erronious and contrary to equity and justice as will plainely appeare, if all the proofes and matters in evidence in the said cause be impartially
considered, but the matters of fact in the penning and drawing up of the said decree are soe untruely and erroniously drawne up and stated that your
petitioners according to the strict rules of the said Court of Exchequer cannot have any releife there by way of a bill of review nor be releived against the said
mistakes and mistated matters of fact or the said decree thereupon made or to reverse the same but by an appeale to your lordshipps in this most honourable
court, where they humbly hope your lordshipps will please to heare the said cause upon the proofes and merritts thereof and releive your petitioners against the said
decree, his majesty haveing been pleased lately to release the said Kinsey of the said decree and money thereby decreed, to the intent therefore that the
said cause may be heard before your lordshipps, and your petitioners be thereupon releived against the said erronious decree, and that the same as to your
petitioners may be reversed.

May it please your lordshipps to direct and order that his majesties attorney generall may by some short
time put in his answere in writeing to the premisses, and that the said cause may be heard at the barr
of this most honourable house, and your petitioners receive such releife therein as to your lordshipps great wisdome
shall seeme agreable to equity and justice.

And your petitioners (as in duty bound)
shall ever pray etc

  • John Sayer
  • John Billingsley
  • Thomas Blagrave
  • Thomas Dyos

Thomas [Leekmore?]

John Sayer and Thomas Blagrave of London, vintners. HL/PO/JO/10/1/385/125 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall in
Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of John Sayer and Thomas Blagrave of
London vintners.

Most humbly sheweth

That your petitioners together with one John Billingsley and Thomas Dyos
since deceased, by their most peticion humble peticion of appeale
presented to this most honourable house the last session of the last
Parliament appealed unto your lordshipps for justice against a decree
made against them and others in his majestyes honourable Court of Exchequer
Chamber the 25th of February 1674 in a cause wherein his majestyes
then Atturney Generall was plaintiff and your lordshipps petitioners and others defendants
that by reason of the more weighty affaires then under the
consideracion of this most honourable house your petitioners could not obtaine
any order upon their said appeale.

Wee therefore your petitioners doe now most humbly
beseech your lordshipps favour in appointing a day
for Master Attorney Generall to put in his answere
in writeing to your petitioners said appeale to the end
that this cause may come to be heard at the barr
of this most honourable house and that your petitioners may
receive such releife as to your lordshipps great
wisdome shall seeme agreeable to justice and right.

And as in duty bound wee your honours petitioners shall
ever pray etc:

  • John Sayer
  • Thomas Blagrave

Sayer and Blagraves peticion etc.


John Sidway, prisoner in the Gatehouse. HL/PO/JO/10/1/386/135 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall
and temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble petition of John Sidway
prissoner in the Gate-House

Humbly sheweth

That your petitioner is very sensible that through
ignorance, and the great surprize he was under when he
appeared before soe high and honourable assembly as your
lordships, may have very much misdemeaned himself,
and justly incurred your lordships displeasure; for which
he is heartily sorry, and doth humbly begge your lordships
pardon, and implore this most honourable house
to extend their favour and goodnesse to him, and accept
this his most humble submission, and release him from
his imprissonment.

And your lordships humle petitioner
shall ever pray etc

  • John Sidway

Francis Harvey, gentleman. HL/PO/JO/10/1/386/136 (1679)

To the lords spirituall and temporall
assembled in Parliament

The humble peticion and appeale of Francis Harvey gentleman

Sheweth

That whereas one Henry Harvey was seized of the mannour and
castle of Bridgewater on or about the seaventh yeare of the raign
of King Charles the first [granted?] a rent charge for life unto
one Barbarah Harvey and there being an arreare of rent for 16
yeares the said master Barbara preferred a bill in the Court of Chancery
to enforce your peticioner being tennant of parcell of the said
mannour of about 46 pounds per annum and haveing enjoyed the same about
three yeares before the said bill to pay all the said arreare
being 550 pounds and to pay all the incurring rent whereto your peticioner
answeared that there were severall other tennants of the said
mannour and in all 200 pounds per annum and that your peticioner was ready
to pay his proporcion and although your peticioner proved his
answeare by severall witnesses yett your peticioner was decreed
to pay the 550 pounds and all the incurring rent and upon the
peticioners non payment your peticioner was by order of the said court
to be turned out of possession whereupon your peticioner was
inforced to pay the said 550 pounds and 50 pounds since incurred and 200 pounds
more for interrest and costs:

Your peticioner therefore most humbly prayes
your honours would be pleased to heare the
said matters and examine the said
decree and reverse the same and grant your
peticioner such further releife as to your
justice shall seeme good

And your peticioner shall ever pray etc

  • Francis Harvy

  • Charles Porter
  • John Hawles

The petitioner is defendant in Chancery and assignes the
error in the body of fact of the decree soe cann
have noe remedy by bill of veiwe nor cann
bringe any.

Hester Dodington, widow of John Dodington, and George Dodington. HL/PO/JO/10/1/386/138 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall in Parliament
assembled.

The humble peticion of Hester Dodington widdow and relict of John
Dodington esquire deceased and of George Dodington gentleman sonne of the
said John and Hester Dodington.

Most humble sheweth.

That Sir Francis Dodington knight was in his life tyme seized in fee simple or in fee tayle of and in the mannour of Dodington in the county of
Somersett and of severall other lands tenements and hereditamentes in the said county and being soe seized and being zealously engaged in his late majesties
service was there uppon excepted by the late usurpers from theire pardons and his whole estate was by them sold and hee thereby forced
to intrust Christopher Dodington and Abraham Williams his servant (whome hee made steward of his lands) with the mannagement of
his estate and with the custody of his deedes and writeings relateing thereto that thereby John Dodington his sonne might bee the better
enabled to purchase the same from the said usurpers.

That about the moneth of July 1651 your petitioner Hester intermarried with the said John Dodington sonne and heire apparent of the said Sir
Francis Dodington and in consideracion of the said marriage and a marriage porcion of 2000 pounds and upwardes the said Sir Francis Dodington and John Dodington
by theire deedes of lease and release dated and executed in July 1660 in pursueance of marriage articles and agreementes made before the said marriage
settled and conveyed the said mannour of Dodington with the appurtenances and other lands to severall trustees and theire heires to the use of the said
John Dodington for his life and imediately fromme and after his death to the use of your petitioner Hester for her life for her joyncture the remainder
to John Dodington theire elder sonne and the heires males of his body and for want of such issue to your petitioner George in tayle with other remainders.

That the said Sir Francis Dodington dyed about 8 yeares since and the said John Dodington your petitioners late husband dyed about 5 yeares since whereby
your petitioner Hester by vertue of the said marriage agreement and deedes became entituled to the said mannour of Dodington and to the lands and
tenementes thereto belonging with the appurtenances and other joyncture landes and accordingly entred thereon and endeavoured to recieve and
take the rents issues and proffittes thereof.

Butt the said Abraham Williams who for many yeares had beene steward and servant to the family being gotten into the possession of a farme
or tenement called Varnams Tenement and certaine grounds called Chipperlands Close and Meadowe and other lands belonging to the sayd mannor and hee pretending to have severall leases of the said
severall parcells of land under severall rents but refuseing to appeare att the courts of survey of the said mannour or produce his leases or
discover under what rents and services hee claymed the premisses or any parte thereof and your petitioner being thereby unable to recover any rent
of the premisses by distresse or otherwise if in truith the said Williams had leases of the same your petitioneres haveing noe counterparts of any graunts
or demises to him and feareing that your petitioneres might bee defeated of theire respective estates by the said Williams disseizin if hee should leavy
a fine and 5 yeares should passe were advised and did give the said Williams declaracions in ejectment to enforce him to shew his tytle if hee
had any but hee to avoide produceing his tytle and proveing his tytle att lawe exhibited his bill in June 1677 in Chancery against your petitioner Hester and
her trustees and against your petitioner George thereby setting forth his pretended tytle and that your petitioner Hester had joyned in a fine of the said mannour
and lands by which and the deedes leading the uses thereof the said mannour of Dodington and other lands and tenementes were settled uppon [severall?]
trustees and theire heires to bee sold for payment of the said Sir Francis Dodingtons debts and such like uses and that hee had bought of the said trustees
and of the said John Dodington and prayed to have his estate confirmed in equity though the same had beene till then concealed.

Unto which bill your petitioneres appeared and answeared denyeing that they had ever joyned in any such deedes or fine as was pretended and [denyed?]
the whole equity of the said bill butt nevertheles the Lord High Chancellor was pleased to graunt an injuncion to stopp all your oratours proceedings att
law and refused while the case depended before hearing to suffer your petitioners or any for them to see the said pretended [illegible] leases sett forth in the said
bill whereby your petitioneres were unable to examine any wittnesses on theire behalfe or to crosse examine the wittnesses of the said Williams and the said
cause comeing to heareing uppon the said bill answer and examinacions on the 16th day of November 1677 before the right honourable the Lord High Chancellour
of England who thereuppon decreed that the plainante in the said cause shold hold and enjoye the said severall parcells and tenementes against your petitioneres and all persons
claymeing under the said Sir Francis Dodington and John Dodington his sonne and that the said plainante should have his costs of the said suite as by
the said decree more att large appeareth.

From which decree your petitioneres are advised they have good cause to appeale and doe accordingly appeale from the said decree for that (as they are advised)
the Lord Chancellour ought not to have decreed the said pretended estates to the said Abraham Williams hee not haveing proved any sufficient
tytle thereto or power in the said trustees to graunt any such nor the payment of the consideracion nor how the same was applyed nor had the said
trustees or the said John Dodington right to graunt any such estate in the said premisses to which the said Williams pretends a tytle by his said bill
for that the said severall lands and tenements were and are parcell of the mannour of Dodington which said mannour with the appurtenances and other landes and tenementes by
articles of agreement made and entred into in July 1651 and then duely sealed and delivered by the said Sir Francis Dodington and John Dodington his son
on the marriage then agreede to bee had and shortly after solempnized betweene the said John Dodington and your petitioner Hester were agreed to
bee settled uppon trustees to the use of the said John Dodington for his life and after his death to the use of your said petitioner Hester for her life for her
joyncture with remainder to theire issue male and the [illegible] heires males of such issue male with other remainders over to which marriage articles and
marriage the said Williams and the said pretended trustees were privy and that afterwards the said Sir Francis Dodington being by the happy restauracion
of his majesty restored to his liberty hee and his said sonne John Dodington pursueant to the said agreement made before marriage and of a marriage porcion of 2000 pounds
received did accordingly settle and convey the said mannour and landes whereof the said parcells to which the said Williams pretends tytle are parte as was well knowne
to the said Williams and the said pretended trustees and that by the death of the said John your petitioner Hester became rightfully intituled to the said mannour
landes and premisses for her life and ought to enjoy the same accordingly and after her death the same by vertue of the said marriage articles and settlement
ought to come to your petitioner George as sonne and heire of the said John and Hester his wife and your petitioner Hester never joyned in or acknowledged any fine and if any
deede or fine was made or acknowledged by the said Sir Francis and John his sonne to trustees (as by the said Williams pretended the same was and were
only to preserve the estate from the power of the usurpers and the estate to bee att the absolute disposicion of the said Sir Francis and his said sonne or else the deede was after wardes razed vacated
or cancelled and noe act done or grant made by the pretended trustees or by the said John Dodington after the marriage agreement ought tobee supported in equity to prejudice the right of your
petitioneres butt the said Williams ought to have beene left to trye his tytle att lawe nor however ought your petitioneres to pay any costs the said Williams haveing conseald his pretended tytle
untill after the said Sir Francis and John Dodingtons death and untill after ejectmentes brought by your petitioner Hester nor is there any proviso made by the decree for recovery of the rent admitted
to bee due.

And therefore and for many other erroures in fact and defects in the said decree [illegible] your petitioneres haveing noe remedy but before
your lordshipps in Parliament doe most humbly appeale to your lordshipps from the said decree

May itt therefore please your lordshipps to stay all proceedings on the said decree and to order the said Abraham Williams personally
to appeare att the barre of this honourable house to putt in his answer in writeing to the matteres aforesaid to produce
the respective deedes whereby hee pretendes tytle to the premisses and that your petitioner may bee heard and releived uppon the
whole mattere in such manner as to your lordshipps greate wisdome shall seeme expedient

And your petitioneres shall ever pray etc

  • Hester Dodington
  • George Dodington

I doe conceive the petitioneres
have good cause to appeale
Walter Savage

Mistress Dodingtons peticion

Mistress Dodingtons
petition and appeale
17 April 1679

Judgment 20o Novembris 1680
decree affirmed

[illegible]
[illegible]
[illegible] 17th Aprill 1679

Hester Dodington, relict of John Dodington, and George Dodington her son. HL/PO/JO/10/1/386/138 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parliament assembled.

The humble peticion of Hester Dodington relict of John Dodington
esquire deceased, and George Dodington her sonne.

Sheweth

That your petitioner formerly presented to this most honourable howse their humble
peticion whereby they appealed to your lordshipps from a decree made in the High Court of Chancery
in a cause there depending wherein one Abraham Williams is plainant against your petitioners defendants which
decree was made 16 November 1677, and is noe way agreable to justice, and equitie but greatly to
your petitioners prejudice.

That your lordshipps upon reading the said appeale ordered all proceedings in Chancery
upon the said decree to be stayed till your lordshipps should heare the cause, and directed Abraham
Williams to putt in his answer in writing which accordingly hee hath done, but the more
weighty affaires of the kingdome prevented your lordshipps hearing the cause last Parliament.

Your petitioners humbly prayes your lordshipps favour to appoint
a day for the hearing of this cause to the end they may by
your lordshipps justice receive releiff agreable to the equity of
their cause, and that they may have a convenient time allotted
to give notice to the said Williams (who lives about 130 miles
from London) of the day appointed for such hearing.

And your petitioners shall pray etc.

  • Hester Dodington
  • George Dodington

Hester Dodington and her son's
petition for a heareing
30 October 1680.

Abraham Williams. HL/PO/JO/10/1/386/138 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall
in Parliament assembled

The humble petition of Abraham Williams

Humbly sheweth

That your petitioner haveing a decree in the Court of Chancery against
Hester and George Doddington, to hold certaine small tenements against theire claimes, the cause
appeared soe vexatious in Chancery, that costs was awarded to your petitioner, which being
taxed, and the said defendant Hester arrested for non payment, the said Hester promised to
pay the same, and thereupon had time given her for to pay it. But instead thereof shee
appealed to your lordshipps from the decree, and haveing given a recognizance of 100 pounds, shee in
May 1679 procured an order for stay of all proceedings: and ever since till the 20th
instant she hung up your petitioner from getting the fruite of the decree, and the said
20th instant upon a heareing at your lordshipps barr, the appeale was dismissed. And
in as much as it appeared that the appealants had noe title to the premises claimed by
your petitioner untill his severall termes by his leases are expired, and soe the said appeale
and defence of the suite in Chancery was purely for vexation, and to put your petiti=
=oner to needlesse trouble and charge. Wherein it hath cost him above 40 pounds.

Your petitioner being a man but of smale fortune, most humbly prayes that your
lordshipps will be pleased to direct the Court of Chancery, to order a master
of that court, to taxe such costs, as your petitioner hath beene at, since
the said former costs in Chancery were taxed, and that the same may
be paid to your petitioner by the said appealants who are well able to
pay the same.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc

Charles, earl of Dorset, and Thomas Hawles. HL/PO/JO/10/1/386/139 (1679)

To the lords spirituall and temporall assembled
in Parliament

The humble peticion and appeale of Charles Earle of Dorsett, and Thomas
Hawles executors of the last will and testament of Thomas Hawles his father deceased.

Sheweth
that whereas Phillip Earle of Pembroke preferred his bill in the Court of Chancery against your
petitioner Charles Earle of Dorsett and your petitioner Thomas Hawles the testatour to have a decree against
them for the residue of a terme for 99 yeares of the warren of Alborne granted by King
James to Sir John Walter and others setting forth that King James being seized in fee of the
mannour chace and warren of Alborne granted the same to Sir John Walter and others for 99 yeares in
trust for King Charles the first then Prince of Wales, and that Sir John Walter assigned the mannour
of Alborne during the said terme to William Williams and others in trust for the Citty of London
excepting the chace with it's rights profitts and priviledges with power to dispose thereof to the
Kings best profitt and that the late king granted the revercion of the mannour and warren to
Ditchfeild and others in trust likewise for the Citty excepting the chace as before under whome
the said earle claimed, and that in strictnesse of law the said warren did not passe to the said
Williams but remained in the kings trustee from whome your petitioner Charles Earle of Dorsett
had obtained a grant of the said Warren and had conveyed the same to the said Thomas Hawles
deceased howbeit it was the kings intencion to have granted the said warren to the Citty and
therefore the equity thereof belonged to the said Earle of Pembroke. Which cause came to
hearing before the Lord Chancellour in the Court of Chancery in Easter terme 1677 when although
it appeared in the cause both by your petitioner Charles Earle of Dorsetts answeare and likewise by the
answeare of the said Thomas Hawles deceased and by the proofes in the cause that the said
chace and the warren within the chace being a necessary part of the chace was excepted
in strictnesse of law and was intended to be excepted out of the grants to the Citty as
appeared by expresse entries for that purpose both in the dutchy and citty booke of survey of the
said mannour chace and warren in order to the sale of the said mannour and that your petitioner Charles
Earle of Dorsett by his majesties favour had obtained a grant of the said chace and warren within
the said chace and alsoe it appeared in the cause by antient and moderne surveyes and by the
said Earle of Pembrokes own witnesses that there was a considerable warren within the said
mannour of Alborne and out of the said chace of much greater value then the purchase
mony paid by the Earle of Pembrokes ancestours being but 1230 pounds which was sufficient to answer
the words and consideracion of the grants. And although it appeared in the cause that if there had
been any equity for the Earle of Pembroke on pretence of the kings intencion to grant the
warren within the chace to the Citty yett the said Earle was not as yett intituled to the same the
said Earles father having made a lease for 99 yeares if three lives yett in being soe long lived to your
petitioner Thomas Hawles his testatour of the said warrens aswell within the chace as without in
consideracion of 1000 pounds fine paid and ayearly rent of 114 pounds yett his lordshipp was pleased to decree
against your petitioner Charles Earle of Dorsett and all clayming under him and that he and they should
convey theire legall interest to the warren within the chace to the Earle of Pembroke which
decree is enrolled but being erroneous aswell in the aforesaid points as in many others
ready to be assigned by your petitioners your petitioners doe therefore appeale from the said Court of
Chancery to your lordshipps

And humbly pray your lordshipps to heare the said matters and
doe such justice therein as to your wisedomes shall seeme good

And your petitioners shall ever pray etc.

Charles Dorset Thomas Hawles

J Ewer

Sarah Cole, widow and relict of Basset Cole, esquire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/386/140 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of Sarah Cole widdow and relict
of Basset Cole esquire deceased

Sheweth

That your petitioners husband dyed in January 1671 and left a considerable personal estate to the value of
15000 pounds which in the time of his sicknesse by a nuncupative will proved by nine positive and credible
witnesses hee gave to your petitioner, hee haveing noe child or neere relacions your petitioner thereupon undertooke the
charges of his funerall and other necessary charges to above 500 pounds after which one Master Robert Mordant
contested in the Prerogative Court the said nuncupative will, setting upp a former will made by your peticioners
husband two yeares before his intermarriage with your petitioner by vertue of which being made executor hee would carry away
the whole estate leaveing your petitioner without any provision in the world (tho shee brought him a considerable fortune
which is since recovered by Coles heire att law) Mordant being noe otherwayes related but as son to your petitioners
husbands former wife by a former husband, the cause was removed before delegates who after a verdict
att law under the countenance of a feigned issue and by a Middlesex jury gave the cause against your petitioner and mainely upon
the testimony of one William Bucknam and [Nathaniell?] Bacon that headed the rebellion in Virginia who produced
a forged letter against your petitioner. And that the said Bucknam who was the maine witnesse against your peticioner
is lately convict of forgery and that your petitioner hath lately (since the tryall att the Kings Bench barr) discovered
severall strange and foule practices of the said Mordant, and his undue procureing severall witnesses by bribes and
large promises of reward to testifye what they did not know.

Your peticioner therefore humbly beseecheth your lordshipps
that shee may bee heard att the barr of this honourable
house haveing noe releife in any other court.

And your petitioner (as in duty bound shall ever pray etc

Sarah Cole

Thomas Jenner

Sir Nicholas Stoughton, Thomas Cate, John Flood and Abraham Bernard. HL/PO/JO/10/1/386/141 (1679)

To the lords spirituall and temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion and appeale of Sir Nicholas Stoughton barronet Thomas Cate alias Cawood John Flood and Abraham Bernard
of Stoake next Guilford in the county of Surrey millers,

[Shewe?]

That your peticioner Sir Nicholas Stoughton and his ancestors (amongst other things) have been seized severall hundreds of yeares (and now is seized) of three corne mills, one fulling mill, and two
paper mills (ever since the ereccion thereof) in Stoake aforesaid demised by lease to the other peticioners for severall yeares, (many of which are yet to come) at the yearly rent of one hundred pounds,
together also with a mill streame belonging to the said mills for the private use thereof,

One James Pitson and others in 1651 having procured the river of Wye near Guilford aforesaid by an act of the then pretended Parliament to be made navigable joined the said river to the
said mill streame for boates and barges to pass therein, and not onely so but the bargemen required your petitioners the millers to shutt downe their mills and penn the waters many howers at a time
to heighten the water for the better passage of boates and barges, refusing to give satisfaccion therefore,

That thereupon differences arising betweene your petitioners and the bargemen for satisfaccion by them to be made for the loss of the said millers water time and trade by heightening the water
as aforesaid, it was agreed betweene them that the said bargemen should pay the said millers certaine reasonable rates therefore

That afterwards in 1671 the said river by act of Parliament then made was vested in Sir Adam Browne barronet Sir Joseph Sheldon knight Sir Edward Thurland knight Henry Hilliard esquire and others in
trust, in which act [it?] was particularly provided that the said trustees should not demolish or impaire the aforesaid mills (nor other mills neare the said river) but that they should
remaine in the same plight and condicion that they were in before this act was made,

That by a provisoe in the same act incerted, the said trustees were impowred to sett a low-water-marke at each mill adjoyning on the said river below which it should not be
lawfull for any person to draw the water to the prejudice of the navigacion

That three of the said trustees did on the 16o of May 1671 set a low-water-marke at the aforesaid mills of your petitioner Sir Nicholas Stoughton (and at no other mills besides although the
occupiers thereof take monies for heightening the water aswell as your petitioners) which marke was set as high as the high water marke formerly set by the commissioners of sewers, above which it
was not lawfull to raise the water, whereby your petitioners the millers could not (nor cannot), (observing that direccion,) draw and have sufficient water for their necessary worke and trade

That in Trinity terme in the 24th yeare of his now majesties raigne his said majesties then Attorney Generall at the relacion of the said trustees preferred an informacion by English bill
in the Exchequer to require an account of all your petitioners of and for all monies which the bargemen had paid the said millers for heightening the water as aforesaid,

That your petitioner Thomas Cate alias Cawood and John Flood answered severall matters in the said informacion charged; and demurred in law that they ought not to give any
account of the monies so received to the relators, in regard they did not receive such monies as proffits of the said river, but onely for their loss of water and time trade and prejudices by
heightening the water as aforesaid, which demurrer upon argueing the 3d of February 1676 was overruled, and by order of the said court then made your said two petitioners were ordered to
account upon oath for all monies so taken as aforesaid contained in the said demurrer; although the said informacion requires an account of what was taken for penning the
water for above foure yeares before the making of the said last act of Parliament,

That your petitioners are likewise further damnifyed and agreived by reason of an injunccion awarded by the said Court of Exchequer against them the 4th of July 1677 which prohibits them
to draw any water out of the said river below the said low-water-marke, untill the hearing of the aforesaid cause in the said court, or further order of that court made, whereby
the said mills (without breach of the said injunccion) cannot worke at all or very little, to the great dammage of your petitioners and disherison of your petitioner Sir Nicholas Stoughton, (the said
injunccion as your petitioners are advised being new and without president.

That severall locks and bancks of the said river being by certaine ill disposed persons cut and much dispoiled, the said Court of Exchequer (upon suggestion by the said
ill disposed persons that they were hired to doe the same by your petitioner Sir Nicholas Stoughton, and upon pretence that by one of those breaches, the water was drawn below the said
low-water-marke, (which if it had been true yet is not within the meaning of the said injunccion which was onely to hinder the said millers from drawing away the water
by the said mills,) did in Michaelmas terme 1677 grant an attachment against your petitioner Sir Nicholas Stoughton, who appearing thereto, and being examined upon interrogatoryes
did answer, (as the truth was,) that hee did not order nor hire any of the said ill disposed persons to cutt or break the said banks or locks whereby the water was drawne
below the low-water-marke.

And did demurr in law that hee ought not to make any answer about the cutting of any bancks or locks whereby no water could bee (nor was) drawne below the said
low-water-marke

Yet notwithstanding he did fully answer all the said interrogatoryes that concerned him to answer, the said Court of Exchequer the 12th of June last did order him to stand
committed to the prison of the Fleete till hee should make a further answer to the said interrogatoryes, and to answer in custody, (but is not yet in custody)

And your petitioner Sir Nicholas Stoughton complaineth and further sheweth unto your lordshipps that in Michaellmas terme in the 29th yeare of his now majesties raigne an informacion
was exhibited in the Crowne Office in his said majesties Court of Kings Bench in the attorney generalls name against the said Sir Nicholas Stoughton, suggesting as if he hired the
said ill disposed persons to cut and breake divers bancks and locks whereby the navigacion of the said river was hindred, and concludes the same informacion ad grave et commune
nocument ligeores et subditores etc.

To which informacion your said petitioner pleaded by rule of court before the 25th of December following; that it appeared by the said last act of Parliament that the aforesaid river
was a private river, and therefore it ought not to bee ad comune nocument ligeores et subditores etc.

Wherupon by mocion in Hillary terme following the said court (after the aforesaid plea pleaded,) made a rule for the amending the said informacion without the
consent of your said petitioner whereby it was [...red?] from an informacion of a publick nusance to an informacion for a private trespass, causing the originall informacion on the
[illegible], and [illegible] et subditores to bee blotted out and severall other razures to bee made therein, and many things to bee also interlined and added to the
same, as by the said originall [informacion?] remaining on the file (as of record) in the said Court of Kings Bench it doth more fully and at large appeare, whereby it was
became a new informacion, and therefore [illegible] amendments could not bee warranted by law, and the said plea ought to bee allowed and stand good,

But your peticioner Sir Nicholas Stoughton beeing compelled by rule of court to plead de novo to the said informacion after the said amendments, pleaded a speciall
plea in the nature of a plea in abatement, setting forth the said act of Parliament, and demands judgement of the said informacion in regard the same statute had
appointed another speciall remedy by accion of trespass and treble damages to bee recovered thereupon, and not by informacion,

To this plea the Attorney Generall demurred, and upon argueing thereof the last terme it was overruled, and judgement given for the King, as upon a plea in
cheife, whereas it should have been but a respondeas ouster, which judgement is since signed, and although it bee not so fully entred as thereupon to bring a writt of error,
yet by the rules of the said Court of Kings Bench your petitioner Sir Nicholas Stoughton is liable to bee taken in execucion thereupon,

All which orders injunccion judgement and other the proceedings aforesaid tend to the disherison and depriving of your peticioners of the said mills and of the
proffitts thereof, and are to their great greivance and dammage, and will impaire and totally destroy the same mills, contrary to the true meaning of the aforesaid
last act of Parliament, and they are remediless in the premises unless they may have releife therein before your lordshipps in this honourable house of peeres
according to the usuall justice and equity thereof in cases of this nature; and the rather for that the powers given to the court of judicature by the said last act of
Parliament appointed to make the peticioners satisfaccion for heightening the water, are now determined, without giving your peticioners any releife therein or hearing
their claymes which they exhibited in due time according to the direccions of the said act of Parliament.

The premises considered your peticioners most humbly pray that the said order of the 3d of February 1676 may bee discharged, and that the
aforesaid demurrer in the Exchequer may stand good against any account, and that the said injunccion may bee dissolved, and that they may have
the free use and benefit of the aforesaid water as formerly, and that the said order of committment of the Exchequer of the 12th of June 1678 may be
discharged, and that all process and proceedings in the Exchequer may bee stayed till hearing of the cause and matters aforesaid at the barr of
this honourable of peeres,

And your peticioner Sir Nicholas Stoughton further prayeth that the said originall informacion (as it was filed in the Kings Bench before the
said amendments were made) may bee certifyed before your lordshipps into this honourable house of peeres, withall alteracions therein incerted
and that the said amendments may bee set aside, not beeing warranted by law and the rules and presidents of the said Court of Kings Bench,
and that your peticioners Sir Nicholas Stoughtons first plea to the said informacion may stand good; and that (depending this cause in this honourable house
of peeres,) your said peticioners and every of them may bee protected by the order thereof from beeing any way molested, arrested, imprisoned, or otherwise
detained by any order judgement execucion or other process or thing whatsoever made entred or issued, or to bee made entred or issued out of the said
Court of Kings Bench and Exchequer or either of them, touching the premises, or any other way concerning the same, and that till hearing of this
cause, and the matters aforesaid at the barr of this honourable house judgement may bee stayed from beeing entred against your said peticioner Sir
Nicholas Stoughton upon the said informacion in the Kings Bench; and that the Attorney Generall or the said relators or any of them may put in
their answeres, and that all your petitioners may bee releived in the premises as to your lordshipps in your wisedomes shall seem most just and reasonable,

And your peticioners and appellants shall ever pray etc

  • Charles Molloy
  • Nicholas Stoughton
  • The marke of Abraham Barnard
  • Thomas Cate alias Cawood
  • John Flood

Thomas Tindal and other proprietors of the navigation upon the River Wey. HL/PO/JO/10/1/386/141 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall
in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of Thomas Tindal esquire on behalfe of himselfe
and others the proprietours of the navigacion upon the River Wey in Surry

Sheweth

That your petitioner and the rest are interested in the said navigacion but the
legall interest thereof is by act of Parliament for the peticioners vested in severall
persons of quality as trustees some whereof (videlicet) Arthur Onslow and George
Evelin esquire are members of the present House of Commons

That your petitioners were yesterday and not before by accident informed that Sir Nicholas
Stoughton has lately exhibited his peticion in the nature of an appeale into this honourable
house against his majesties Attornie Generall and the said trustees endeavouring thereby
to impeach and stay severall proceedings in two suits duly brought against him and
still depending undetermined one in the Kings Bench against himselfe and the other in
the Exchequer against him and others

That the said peticion as your peticioneres humbly conceive and are advised is of
an exterordinary nature and tends to call in question and to be relived releived
against proceedings in courtes of justice where they are legally and judicially
depending and wherein noe decree or [judgment?] hath been yet given but the
said Sir Nicholas Stoughton standing in contempt of the said Court of Exchequer
wherein he in a very high manner hath used many triflings and delayes

That before your petitioneres had any notice of the said peticion and appeale hee was
taken upon his said contempt and yet endeavours as your petitioneres are informed without
any notice to the said trustees who are relatoures in the said suite (wherein the said
Sir Nicholas Stoughton stands and is taken in contempt) to obtaine some order of
this honourable house not onely for the staying proceedings in the said two suites
but also for his discharge from his confinement upon his said contempt

Your petitioneres therefore most humbly pray that your lordshipps would be pleased not
to make any order in the said case untill the matteres of the said peticion
be heard before your lordshipps whereupon your peticioneres doubt not but the
nature of the case will appeare to be such before your lordshipps that your
lordshipps will not thinke fitt to give him and the rest any releife thereupon

And your petitioneres shall ever pray etc

  • Thomas Tyndale

John Barrett, esquire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/386/142 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall, in Parliament assembled.

The humble peticion and appeale of John Barrett esquire from a decree made in a cause in the High Court
of Chancery in Ireland between John St Leger esquire plaintiffe and the petitioner defendant.

Sheweth that Sir William Barrett knight was att his death seized of the severall mannors and territories of Rathduffe, Castlemore and
Magowley and the severall lands and tenements thereunto belonging in the county of Cork in Ireland about the yearly value of fifteen hundred poundes of an estate tayle with
remainder in tayle to the petitioner by vertue of severall setlements made by some of the ancestors of the said Sir William and the petitioner as by severall inquisitions upon record
may appeare and being so seized was also seized in fee of some other estate the sixteenth day of February 1672 made his will in Bristoll and thereby leaves (as justice and
conscience tells him he ought) all his estate entailed to the right and lawfull heire the petitioner being the heir in taile; and that which is not intayled to the said John St Leger
his uncle and his heires males with remainder to the petitioner and made the said John St Leger the petitioners guardian and dyed, after whose death the petitioner entred upon the
intaild lands and the said John Saint Leger upon the lands in fee and accepted the guardianship, and entred into articles under hand and seale to performe the trust and
permitted the rents and profitts of the intailed land to be taken by the petitioner and his agents and by him to be disposed of, and many other wayes acknowledged the petitioners right and title, but
having by the assistance of the said Sir Williams mother (who is sister of the said John St Leger) and by a bill exhibited by him as guardian for the petitioner against hir and others
setting forth your petitioners title as heir entaile, gotten all the ancient writings into his power, he then contrived in breach of the trust of a guardian, to defeat the petitioner of the premisses
and for that purpose exhibited a bill against him during his minority in the High Court of Chancery in Ireland claymeing the greatest part of the said lands intayled to belong to
him by the said devise of fee simple lands, and alledged that those lands were not entailed but were originally the lands of inheritance of Katherin the wife of Andrew Barrett
and great grandfather of Sir William and the petitioner and that no entaile could be made thereof by the said Andrew Barrett; which cause being brought to hearing on bill answer
and proofes before the Lord Chancellour of Ireland the 19th of November 1677 and severall other times before: on which hearings it was insisted by the petitioners councell that the
plaintiffe in the cause having proved the will ought not to proceed any further in that cause in that court in regard that court had not any jurisdiction of the cause it being
a question of freehold and inheritance, determinable only att the comon law; but the Lord Chancellour notwithstanding did direct this issue to be tryed (videlicet) what lands
Andrew Barret the great grandfather was seized of in the right of Katherine his wife? and whether he made any intaile and of what land? and the jury to try that issue
the 28th day of June 1677 found that Andrew Barrett was seized in the right of Katherin his wife of most part of the lands claimed by the bill and also of lands which
the plaintiffe did not pretend too by the bill and said we doe not find that Andrew made any intaile.

That the cause coming after to be reheard by the Lord Chancellor on the said verdict, on severall dayes exceptions were taken by the petitioners councell to the proceedings
as that the Chancery ought not to have directed any issue to be tryed in that cause but to have dismissed the bill and that the issues [illegible] directed were unreasonable and did
restraine the defendant from the just defence of his right, for that it put the tryall on an intail by Andrew the great grandfather only, whereas if any other
ancestor had intailed it the plaintiffes right was bound thereby; and as the issue was, it was to try an entaile de jure only, whereas an entaile de facto in this cause
was sufficient for the defendant, for that Sir William looking upon it as entailed an having in an answer on oath in Chancery in another cause swore it was entailed
and devising it to go accordingly, an entaile de facto was sufficient for the defendant, and the verdict was uncertaine as to that matter, and yet the verdict was by
the Lord Chancellor ordered to stand a new tryall denyed your petitioner although affurdavit was made of new evidence by deeds and records that was discovered since
the said tryall by the petitioner and the cause being afterwards heard with the assistance of the Lord Cheife Baron and Master Justice Reynell, the Lord Cheife Baron for the
reason aforesaid conceiving the cause utterly improper for the Chancery and the issues and verdict to be uncertaine the Lord Chancellour did afterwards without the
defendants consent make an order to refer the matter to arbitrament and for that the defendant being advised by his councell that he ought not by a refference to hazard
his title of intaile which might prejudice the heir in remainder did make default in attending the referrees; (besides he durst not do it for feare of arrests) being
in debt by reason of this vexatious suite, the Lord Chancellor awarded a sequestration before any finall decree to sequester all the rents and profitts of the
premisses continued the said sequestration till December last past, and in the said moneth the Lord Chancellor tooke to his assistance to hear this cause, six
judges namely the Lord Cheif Justice Booth Lord Cheif Baron Sir Richard Kenneday Master Justice Johnson Master Justice Jones and Sir Richard Reynell but declared
they should not take any consideration whether equity had any jurisdiction in this cause, or the issues were proper, or the verdict certaine but should speake to the
construction of the will only, on which hearing the Lord Cheif Baron Sir Richard Keneday and Justice Jones gave their positive opinion that the bill ought to be
dismist for want of jurisdiction and that on the will it selfe the matter of law was for the petitioner, the Lord Cheife Justice Booth and Master Justice Johnson were of
opinion (taking it for granted) that the former proceedings were regular and that there was no entaile de jure or de facto nothing passed by the will to the petitioner
and Master Justice Reynell being formerly of councell for the plaintiffe as your petitioner hath heard drew the plaintiffes bill and was of opinion that the plaintiffe ought
to have a decree and thereupon on the 17th February 1678 the Lord Chancellor (who is related to the plaintiffe) did declare that nothing that he had heard, from the
judges could alter his opinion and so decreed all the lands in the bill to the plaintiffe being all the estate the petitioner hath or can pretend unto (although there were
divers lands in the bill that the verdict did not extend to) and his lordship had on former hearings declared the plaintiff could not have any decree for them
and did order an injunction to put the plaintiffe into possession with which injunction the petitioner expects daily to be served and thereby to be put out of possession
unlesse prevented by your lordships.

From which decree and proceedings the petitioner doth humbly appeale to your lordships being without any other possible meanes of redresse, or to prevent his being turned
out of possession which he and his ancestors have had for hundreds of yeares; and humbly prayeth that the said decree and proceedings in the said Court of Chancery
may be reversed and discharged and the bill there dismist and the petitioner otherwise releived as to justice appertaines: that decree for the reason aforesaid and
many more being not only against law but arbitrary and in subversion of the due course of tryalls and rights of inheritance, and freehold, and by the example of it
(if suffered) may in a little time become by consequence a destruction of property;

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc

  • John Barrett

  • Maynard [illegible]

  • Francis Pemberton
  • H Finch
  • Anthony Keek
  • Francis Winnington

John Barrett, esquire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/386/142 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall
and temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of John Barrett esquire

Most humbly sheweth

That your petitioner hath exhibited his peticion of appeale into this most high and honourable court the
supream fountaine of justice within his majesties dominions, from the jurisdiction of the high and honourable
Court of Chancery in Ireland; and from a decree made and pronounced by the said court in a
cause there depending, wherein John St Leger is plantiff against your petitioner; by which decree your petitioner is
totally disinherited and his estate which he and his ancestors have possessed and quietly enjoyed for
above 500 yeares, decreed from him, and to the said John St Leger.

That the said John St Leger hath put in his answere to the said appeale; and your petitioner by reply
thereunto, hath avered all the matters conteyned therein to be untrue, and that your petitioners appeale
in all the materiall parts thereof is right: as also that he is properly before your lordshipps for releif, and
remediless elsewhere, all which he is ready to make out by his councell if your lordshipps shall please to
vouchsafe them a hearing, and is content to pay costs if upon such hearing your lordshipps shall think
fitt to dismiss his appeale without granting him releif.

Your petitioner therefore most humbly prays your lordshipps favour to appoint a day
for hearing his cause: to the end he may thereupon receive releif
according to justice: and that in the mean time all proceedings against him
upon the decree complained of for outing him of his possession, may by
order of this most honourable house be stayed.

And as in duty bound he shall pray etc.

  • John Barrett

John St Leger, esquire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/386/142 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of John St Leger esquire

Sheweth that your petitioner about the year 1674 exhibited a bill of complaint in the
High Court of Chancery in Ireland against John Barret Fitz James and Heyward St Leger and Dame Barbara his
wife for recovery of severall lands and tenements in the kingdome of Ireland devised to him by Sir William Barret lately
deceased, in which cause after very many hearings and debates, and upon full consideracion of what had been offered
aswell from the bar as by the lords the judges his grace the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on Munday the 17th day of
February 1678 did declare his judgment and decree, that your petitioner the plaintiff was justly and rightfully entituled by
vertue of the before mentioned last will and testament of the said Sir William Barret, and the true intent and meaneing
thereof to have, possesse, and enjoy, and that accordingly he should and might hold possesse and enjoy all and singuler the lands
and tenements in his said bill mentioned, from which decree the said John Barret Fitz James one of the defendants almost
two yeares since appealed to this most honourable court suggesting that the High Court of Chancery had not any jurisdiction
of the cause it being a question of freehold and inheritance determinable only at common law; by which appeale all
further proceedings in the said High Court of Chancery in this cause were supersedid, and your petitioner ever since tied
up from useing any meanes for recovery of his right. And your petitioner further sheweth that he being hereby
kept out of possession of the said estate so devised and decreed to him (and to which he questions not but he shall make
it appeare to this honourable court hee undoubtedly has right) was willing to have tried his title at common law, and
in order to it made application to his grace the Lord Chancellor of Ireland that the depositions of Anne Brimsden
(the only surviveing wittness to the said will of Sir William Barret, by which your petitioner claimes) who had been examined
in perpetuam rei memoriam in the said Court of Chancery of Ireland, and her depositions published might bee
exemplified under his majesties great seale for his kingdome of Ireland in order to their being given in evidence at
his tryall at common law, which he did not suspect could be denied him, having produced affidavits that she did
not live within the kingdom of Ireland (and so could not be compelled by any process out of the courts there to
appeare) nor could be found, and that other sufficient proof of the said will could not be made (the other persons
who were witnesses thereunto beeing all dead) yet that (contrary to every dayes practise as your petitioner is informed) would
not be granted to him whereby he can have no remedy at common law for want of proof of the said will, which is his
onely title, nor any other possible redress unless releived by this most honourable court.

Wherefore your petitioner humbly prayeth, that it would please this honourable
cour to appoint a short day for heareing of the said appeal which has so long depended
here, to the utter ruin of your petitioner and his family.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc.

  • John St Leger

John Barrett, esquire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/386/142 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of John Barrett esquire appellant from a decree made in the High Court of
Chancery in a cause there depending wherein John St Leger esquire is plainant and your petitioner defendant.

Sheweth
that your petitioner in the last Parliament humbly presented to this most honourable house his appeale from the decree aforesaid whereby his
estate worth about 1400 pounds per annum was decreed from him, without any other tryall at law then one, when the jury which tryed the cause was nominated
by the Court of Chancery, and consisted most of them of the relations of the Lord High Chancellour, to whome the said St Leger is alsoe a kind. Howbeit
after the said tryall the ancient intailes of your petitioners estate under which hee claimes and by the said St Legers owne consent was putt into the possess
=ion off is come to your petitioners hands, which were kept from him till after the said tryall, unto which appeale the said John St Leger putt in his answer
and your petitioner replyed, and hee rejoyned in the same session of Parliament but your petitioner could not obteyne a hearing before the prorogacion and dissolution
of that Parliament.

That your petitioner continued in England from Aprill 1669 till July 1680 in hopes to have obteyned a hearing which was prevented
by the frequent prorogations of this Parliament and had not gone back and endangered thereby the losse of all his evidences, but that the said
St Leger gave your petitioner hopes hee should have noe further occasion to give your lordshipps any trouble in this cause, for that the most matteriall thing
complayned of by your petitioners appeale was his being denyed a second tryall att law and the said John St Leger between Easter and Trinity terme
last brought his ejectments att common law in order to evict your petitioner by tryall which if they had gone on would have given your peticioner
oppertunity of offering his evidence for the cleering of his title.

That your peticioner had notice of such tryall which forced him into Ireland with all his writings to defend the same, and the said John
St Leger the 6th of November 1680 made his ellection upon your petitioners mocion in Chancery to proceede att the common law, but offered as a reason
why his bill should not be dismist, that the same was exhibited to examine witnesses in perpetuam rei memoriam, and moved the court severall
tymes that the deposition of one of the witnesses examined in that cause and now alive, liveing att the Lambe Inne in Bristoll might be exemplified
and made use of att the tryall, which your petitioner by his councell did oppose being well sattisfied that shee was not fairely examined, nor any thing taken
of what shee said, and is ready to sweare as your petitioner is informed for his advantage

That the tryall att law was to have been on the 22 November last, and your petitioner with all his witnesses lay ready for such tryall, and
his councell were all feed for that purpose, but the said St Leger finding that the court would not grant liberty for the said deposition, nor give leave
for the useing thereof, nor make any order in the cause it being appealed to this honourable house, thereupon hee the said St Leger (after the vast charge
your petitioner had been putt too in goeing into Ireland to the hazard of his life when very sick and preparing for the said tryall feeing of his councell for
severall motions as well as for the said tryall) gave notice that hee would not proceede to tryall, drew the fourty eight pounds which hee had
deposited for the paying of the jury, out of court and moved that the same should be discontinued, and notice of the tryall withdrawne which was
all ordered excepting the discontinuance of the suite which on the 24 November 1680 was ordered to stand in the court as then it did and not to be
discontinued. And on the 27th of November 1680, the court declared as by the rule thereof annexed appeares, that there was noe default in your
petitioner in not goeing to tryall in the said cause this last terme soe that your petitioner hath yet in effect what fruite and benefitt hee could reasonably hope for
upon the hearing of his cause before your lordshipps and therefore continues in Ireland wayting the said tryall, but is informed that the said John St
Leger is gone into England with designe [partly?] to surprize your petitioner by bringing on the said cause before your lordshipps to a speedy hearing when
your petitioner with all his writings is in Ireland. Whereas your petitioner is advised by his councell that his appeale to your lordshipps is att an end by reason
of the accions att law by the said St Leger and his ellecting to proceede att comon law as aforesaid, by which meanes the cause is att issue and
ready for tryall, and your petitioner would bring the same on the next terme where hee not prohibited from soe doeing by the court. Nevertheless
your petitioner, if your lordshipps shall thinke fitt to heare his apeale before the tryall att law be had, will upon reasonable notice considering the
season of the yeare and the sickness of his condicion attend your lordshipps for that purpose. The aforesaid allegacions of your petitioner being all true
as appeares by the severall certificates orders and rules of court annexed, under oath and the seale of the citty of Dublin.

Your petitioner therefore most humbly prays your lordshipps pleasure whither yow will
please to heare this cause, before the tryall att law aforesaid be over, and if yow
shall see cause soe to doe, that then your lordshipps would please to give him a convenient
time for comeing over and preparing for such hearing, such as may agree with your
petitioners very sickly condicion, and the season of the yeare and the length and difficulty of
the journey and voyage.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc

  • John Barrett

John Barrett of Ireland, esquire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/386/142 (1679)

Peticion of John Barrett esquire

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of John Barrett of the
kingdome of Ireland esquire

Sheweth

That your petitioner about two yeares since exhibited an appeale in this most honourable house
from a decree made in the High Court of Chancery in Ireland on a cause there depending wherein
John St Leger esquire is plainant against your petitioner defendant to which appeale the said John St Leger did the same
session putt in his answer, whereto your petitioner replyed, and St Leger rejoyned soe that the cause
is fully att issue, and your petitioner by himselfe or agents have attended every sitting of Parliament
for a hearing att vast charge and come severall times out of Ireland with his evidence to
prove his title to the estate in question which have been thereby frequently hazarded
and if lost must inevitably prove your petitioners ruyne.

Your petitioner therefore most humbly prayes your lordshipps favour to
appoint a day for the hearing of his cause this session
of Parliament to the end hee may receive such releiff as to your
lordshipps shall seeme agreable to justice and not be totally
ruyned by wayting upon the said St John Leger delayes
and unjust prosecution, to defend himselfe against which
it hath already cost him above 4000 pounds

And your petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray etc

John Barrett

Peticion John Barrett
esquire

John Barrets peticion
against
John St Leger
23th March 1680
Oxon

John St Leger, esquire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/386/142 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parliament assembled.

John Barret appellant
John St Leger esquire respondent

The humble peticion of the respondent.

Sheweth
that above two yeares since the appellant appealed to this most
honourable court from a decretall order pronounced by his grace the Lord
Chancellour of Ireland in behalfe of your petitioner which appeale hath ever since hung
undecided, whereby your petitioner is kept out of possession of an estate of right
belonging to him (hee having no other remedy for the recovery of it) almost
to his ruine.

That it pleased your lordshipps in the last Parliament to appoint a day
for hearing the said appeale. And your petitioner desiring a speedy determinacion gave
notice to Alderman Deane (who purchased a considerable part of the estate in
question under the appellant, and prosecuted for and transacts every thing relating
to this appeale in his behalfe) that hee intended as soon as your lordshipps
were met to peticion your lordshipps for a short day of hearing, to which the said Alderman
Deane returned answer that hee was ready to attend it, and the next day sent
his man to your petitioner to give your petitioner notice that hee was ready and desired that
your petitioner would be ready also as appeares by the affidavit hereunto annexed.

Your petitioner therefore humbly prayes that your lordshipps
will please to appoint a short day for the hearing the
said appeale, which hath so long depended.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc:

  • John St Leger

John St Leger, esquire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/386/142 (1679)

John St Leger esquire respondent

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of the respondent

Humbly sheweth
that your petitioner did heretofore exhibit his bill in the Chancery of Ireland to
examine his witnesses in perpetuam rei memoriam for preservation of their testimony
touching the will in question, and accordingly did examine them, and their deposicions
were duely published.

That afterwards your petitioner exhibited his bill for reliefe touching the estate which
hee claymed by vertue of the said will, and after tedious proceedings in the said court
had a decree pronounced by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland assisted with judges:
but the appellant hath appealed to your lordshipps against the same which appeale is
depending.

That your petitioner having great occation to use the depositions taken in perpetuam
rei memoriam as aforesaid did speake for, and procure to be made as a thing of
course an exemplificacion thereof to bee under the great seale of Ireland, but the
Lord Chancellour there was pleased (by reason of the said appeale before your lordshipps in
the said other cause) to refuse the sealing the said exemplificacion.

And in asmuch as the matter of the said exemplificacion is not as your petitioner
humbly conceives, at all in prejudice of the said appeale, one way or other
but rather a thing necessary to be used thereupon, in case the said will
should be controverted.

Your petitioner humbly prayes that your lordshipps will
be pleased to signify to his grace the said Lord
Chancellor that he may seale the said exemplificacion
notwithstanding the appeale before your lordshipps.

And your petitioner shall pray etc:

John St Leger

The humble peticion
of John St Leger esquire

against barret
25 March 1680

John Barrett, esquire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/386/142 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall
and temporall in Parliament assembled.

The humble peticion of John Barrett esquire apellant.

Sheweth:

That your petitioner in the yeare 1680 brought his apeale into this most honourable house for
reversing a decree made in the High Court of Chancery in his majesties kingdome of Ireland in a cause there
depending wherein John St Leger esquire was plaintiff and your petitioner defendant to which apeale the said
respondent John St Leger put in his answer in writeing and the cause was at issue and a day of
hearing apointed in January 1680 when both sides attended your lordshipps with their councill ready
for that purpose, but your lordshipps more weighty affaires prevented the hearing that Parliament. Whereupon
your petitioner humbly peticioned your lordships at the Parliament held the month following at Oxford for [a?]
day of hearing, and obtained the same, served the respondent therewith, and both sides attended
with councill that day but was prevented of such hearing by a dissolution of that Parliament
that very morning.

The premisses considered your petitioner most humbly prayes your lordships
favour that the said apeale and all proceedings thereupon had in this
most honourable house may stand revived: and that your lordships
(your petitioner and his papers being in Ireland as well as the respondents)
will appoint some convenient day for hearing this cause at the barr
to the end he may receive releife by reversall of the said decree or
otherwise as to your lordships great wisdome shall seeme agreable to
justice.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc.

  • John Barrett

William Crabb and Thomas Goldsmith, merchants of Bristol. HL/PO/JO/10/1/387/132 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition and appeale of William Crabb and Thomas Goldsmith
both merchants of the citty of Bristoll.

Humbly sheweth
that your petitioners together with Richard Crabb Alexander Gray and Henry Heynes being each of them owner of an eight part and Richard Fenton owner of three eight parts of the ship
the Rainbow of Bristoll in the year 1656, all the said owners appointed one William Stafford to be husband of the said shipp for the receiving in all freights and profits which should be
brought home upon the account of all the owners of the said shipp in a voyage from Virginia and to make accompts of all the shipps receipts and disbursements and to proportion and
pay the neat profit of her voyages amongst the owners according to their severall shares and interests, which the said Stafford accordingly discharged for that voyage and by the consent of
all the said owners furnished her out againe to Virginia in a second voyage from whence she retourned againe to Bristoll about June 1657 and was againe discharged by Stafford as husband
but the said Richard Fenton dyed about a month before the retourne of the ship on the second voyage haveing received more then his share of the freight of the first voyage and
haveing not paid his proportion of the charge for setting out the ship in the second voyage

That the said Fenton dyeing intestate Elizabeth his wife obteyned administracion of his estate and exhibited her bill in the High Court of Chancery against Stafford and all the rest of the owners
to have an accompt but afterwards at Mistress Fentons request a reference was directed to persons of her own choosing and bonds of arbitration were sealed on both sides and an award
made that the owners should pay Mistress Fenton fourteen pounds in full of all demands and that mutuall releases should be given to each other

Afterwards the ship was set out for a third voyage at the onely charge of the owners then living which cost six hundred and sixty pounds, and the owners were willing to allow
Mistress Fenton her proportion of the freight she bearing her share of the charge

But the said Mistress Fenton severall years after the said award exhibited her bill to have an accompt of all the said voyages from all the said owners and notwithstanding your petitioners did
insist upon the said award as to the two first voyages yet the Court of Chancery decreed an accompt to be made of the said three voyages and of what was made of tobacco and other
goods and that your petitioners and Richard Crabb since deceased should pay what should appeare to be due (which was most illegall after accompts stated and determined by arbitrators soe
many years since) and yet this accompt was proceeded in with such violence that by surprise upon a report of a master in Chancery ex parte, seven hundred forty seven pounds
sixteene shillings and six pence was decreed against your petitioners and the said Richard Crabb

Whereupon your petitioners and the said Richard Crabb brought a bill of reveiw to reverse the said decree and were forced to pay two hundred forty and seaven pounds to Mistress Fenton and give
security for five hundred pounds more before they could be admitted thereunto

And the errors assigned were that the court had set aside the award, without the plainants consent or proofe of any surprise in the makeing thereof and that it appeared that
the said Grey and Heynes were part owners as well as the plainants and yet noe parties to the decree, and the whole decreed against the then plainants, and there were severall other errors assigned
and the cause comeing to be heard on the said bill of review, the court did not (as aught to have been done) reverse the said decree but declared that the said decree ought
to be reversed. But made propositions to Mistress Fenton either to bring back the 247 pounds by her received and then the court would name new arbitrators or else to goe back to
the former arbitrators and that Mistress Fenton should elect which of the two she would accept

That Mistress Fenton accepted the last proposition and went back to the former arbitrators, who on hearing all sides made their second award and thereby certefied three hundred
pounds and upward due from Mistress Fenton

But by subsequent orders upon the great importunity and clamor of Mistress Fenton at length the court directed a new accompt and therein your petitioners have ever since been travailed to
their great expence and the court hath not onely suppressed the evidence of the said Stafford who was the onely person that could prove any of the transactions but have
proceeded to decree your petitioners to pay unto the said Mistress Fenton (over and above the said summe of 247 pounds by her received and 170 in the hands of one Master Haggett which she hath or is
likewise to receive) the summe of five hundred fifty five pounds soe that there is in all decreed against your petitioners the summe of nine hundred seaventy and odd pounds although your
petitioners are but two of five owners, and it is not proved, nor is the truth soe that ever your petitioners received one penny of money belonging to the said Fenton neither were your petitioners in any sort
whatsoever lyable to be accountable to the said Fenton for either of the said two first voyages but for the third voyage onely, which they were always ready to doe

All which proceedings as your petitioners are advised have been very irregular, and the court should have reversed the said first decree as your petitioners humbly conceive, and if they
had not reversed the same yet your petitioners are advised they ought to be answerable onely for themselves and what they received that belonged to the said Fenton and not for the
said Stafford or the other partners and therefore and for many other unreasonable things as your petitioners humbly conceive laid upon your petitioners the said first
decree as your petitioners are advised ought to be reversed, and all proceedings subsequent to the hearing upon the said bill of review ought to be discharged and
made null as your petitioners humbly conceive

Your petitioners therefore humbly beseech your lordshipps that you would be pleased to hear this cause
upon the said bill of review and alsoe upon the merritts and to give your petitioners such releife therein
as to equity and justice shall appertaine

And your petitioners shall ever pray etc

  • William Crabb
  • Thomas Gouldsmith
  • [illegible] [...chill?]

The petition and appeale
of William Crabb and
Thomas Goldsmith
10o Aprilis 1679

Read 14 April 1679

Judgment 17o Novembris 1680
decree reversed.

Elizabeth Fenton, widow. HL/PO/JO/10/1/387/132 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall, and
temporall in Parliament assembled.

The humble peticion of Elizabeth Fenton widdow respondent to the
peticion and appeale of William Crabb and Thomas Goldsmith appellants

Sheweth

That the said appellants William Crabb and Thomas Goldsmith
have appealed to this most honourable house from two decrees the one made some ten yeares since
which as this petitioner is advised is contrary to an order of this house and have not put in any
security as your petitioner is informed, neverthelesse upon reading thereof this petitioner was ordered
to bring in her answer in fourteen dayes which by reason that two of her councell are
members of the House of Commons and another being not well your petitioner is necessitated to
employ a councell that is a stranger to the cause to draw her answer and that its being
intricate and long no lesse then the proceedings of eighteen yeares to be perused, she
could not possibly get it ready

Therefore humbly prayes your lordshipps to grant unto
your petitioner some few dayes longer to answer and that the
said appellants may first give security to abide the order made
on the hearing of the cause, and to answer costs as your petitioner is
advised they ought to doe

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc

  • Elizabeth Fenton

William Crabb and Thomas Goldsmith, merchants of Bristol. HL/PO/JO/10/1/387/132 (1679)

[illegible] Thomas

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parliament assembled.

The humble peticion of William Crabb and Thomas
Goldsmith merchants of the city of Bristoll.

Shew
that your peticioners being agreived att a decree pronounced against them in the Court of Chancery on
the behalfe of Elizabeth Fenton widdow did thereupon present their humble peticion of
appeale to your lordshipps to be releived therein.

That your lordshipps on reading of the said peticion on the 14th day of Aprill 1679 were pleased
to order that the said Fenton should answere the said peticion in 14 dayes after notice given her
thereof.

That Fenton had notice given her thereof but did not put in any answer according to the
said order, nor hath as yet done the same.

That your peticioners according to an order of your lordshipps dated the 10th day of December
1678 have given security by recognizance in the Chancery of 1000 pounds penalty to performe the said
decree in case they be not releived by your lordshipps.

That the said Fenton hath notwithstanding in the intervall of Parliament by severall councells
attorneys, sollicitors and clerks in court prosecuted your peticioners in the Chancery for not
performing of the said decree and arrested your peticioner Crabb and put your peticioners to a very great
expence to keepe themselves with much difficulty from being comitted to the Fleete for disobeying
of the said decree and doe still proceed against and prosecute your although they have given
security as aforesaid on which all proceedings by the said order are to cease.

Your peticioners therefore humbly pray that all proceedings that
have been against your peticioners since their giveing security may be
discharged and that all further proceedings (untill your peticioners
be heard by your lordshipps) may be stayed, and that your peticioners may
have such releife as to your lordshipps great wisdome shall seeme
fitting

And your peticioners shall ever pray etc.

  • William Crabb
  • Thomas Goldsmith

Elizabeth Fenton, widow. HL/PO/JO/10/1/387/132 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords
spirituall and temporall
in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of Elizabeth Fenton widdow.

Humbly sheweth

That her cause comeing to be heard before your lordshipps on
the 17th instant when the appellants councell insisting that the Court of Chancery
had set aside an award without any proof of fraud or corrupcion your lordshipps were
pleased to order that the decrees should be reversed

That the award went but to the two first voyages and not to the account of the third
voyage for which the appellants are decreed to account to your petitioner and the award is
not good in law

Your petitioner therefore most humbly prayes your lordshipps to reheare
your peticioners councell as to this matter or else that your lordshipps would
be pleased to explaine your order of reversall that it may extend to
the award only and that the decrees may stand as to the 3d voyage which was since
the award

And your petitioner shall pray etc

Elizabeth Fenton

We humbly conceive this
matter is proper for your
lordships rehearinge (if your
lordships shall soe please)


  • H Finch
  • George Hutchins
  • Crab
  • and

  • Fenton

Frances, Countess of Portland. HL/PO/JO/10/1/388/151 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall
in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of Frances Countess of Portland

Sheweth

That in time of privelidge of the last Parliament your petitioner was unknown to her
indicted for recusancie by her tennants that ought her rents, at a sessions in
Westminster held in 1673 and that to be releived against which she did humbly
supplicate the then House of Lords and doubts not but to have had the privelidge
of the house allowed unto her, in haveing had the same vacated had not
the Parliament beene dissolved and since which time in February last the saide
indictment in his majesties Court of Comon Please was pleaded against hir
by one Morrice Cole hir late steward, that hath gotten above one thousand
pounds of hir rents into his hands on purpose to deceave hir of hir moneys
that to be releived against the saide proceedinges and have the same vacated
your peticioner made hir humble address to his sacred majestie who was gratiously pleased
in councell the 12th of February last as by the order annexed to declare his royall
pleasure that your peticioner should have his gracious pardon for the said offence
and in pursuance thereof a bill was drawne by his majesties learned councill
and by his majestie signed and entred in the signett and privy seale and
theare stopte for wante of a dockquett which hapned by reason of the
chainge of the late treasurer and now the present lords commissioners conceive
they ought to have particular comand to them to pass the saide dockquett
before they signe the same to obtaine which your peticioner hath made
hir humble application to his majestie of whose grace and favor she doth not
doubt but in as much as your lordshipps are his majesties greate and supreame
court and councell and that your peticioners father brothers husband and sonn have in
there time had the honor of beinge members of this high and honourable courte and
ever beene for theyre duty and loyalty the greatest of sufferers in the late times
in the loss of thayre estates and lives and your peticioner left a helpless widdow
the premisses considered

May it please your lordshipps to take the same into your lordshipps
considerations and findeinge the allegations of your peticioner to
be true partly by many of your lordshipps owne knowledges and by
the order annexed to interpose and advise his majestie for your peticioners
releefe that the lords of the treasury may signe the saide
dockquett that shee may have the bennefit of his royall
pleasure declared in councell

And as in duty bound she shall pray

Portland

The countess
of Portlands peticion
26 Aprilis 1679.

Francis, Countess of Portland. HL/PO/JO/10/1/388/151 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of Francis Countesse of Portland

Sheweth
that upon your petitioners former addresse the 7th instant you
were pleased to intersede to his majesty that a pardon
granted her may be perfected, and upon which his majesty having
consented, was gratiously pleased to grant the warrant
annexed which doth direct the lords commissioners of the treasury to signe
the docquetts for passing the same, upon which humble
applicacion hath been made to the said commissioners who
doe possitively refuse to signe the said docquettes, and
in as much as your petitioner is in danger not only to
loose her action but also her debt of above 1000 pounds
and that the Lord Privy Seale and Lord Chancellor
doe not usually passe patents without docquetts
unless warrants be granted for that purpose and that
your petitioner may not suffer at common law by the pro=
=secucion of her steward Maurice Cole and Thomas
Ferrar his atturny upon the said conviction as appeares
by the certificate annexed

May it please your lordshipps of your great wisedome
and goodnesse and for releife of a distressed
widdow to present to his majestie the denyall of
the commissioners and interceede that your petitioners
patent may passe with or without a docquett
and that the proceedings in law upon
the conviction may stay, and that
Maurice Cole and Thomas Farrer that
prosecutes your petitioner upon her conviction
may attend your lordshipps in custody to
answeare their contempt

And your petitioner shall pray etc

Portland

The peticion off
Frances Countes of Portland

concerning her pardon
read 24 May 1679

Respited for some time

Henery Killigrew, one of his majesty's grooms of his bedchamber. HL/PO/JO/10/1/388/152 (1679)

To the lords spirituall and temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of Henery Killigrew one of his majesties groomes
of his bedchamber.

Sheweth:

That your petitioner contrary to the priviledges of this honourable howse is
arrested without leave given

May it therefore please your lordships [or?] order your
petitioners releasement and that the partyes may
suffer condigne punishment for arresting your petitioner

And he will alwayes pray
etc.

  • Henry Killigrew

Thomas Price, milliner. HL/PO/JO/10/1/388/152 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall in Parliament assembled.

The humble peticion of Thomas Price milliner.

Sheweth that Henry Killigrew esquire groome of his majesties bedchamber in the yeare 1662 became indebted to your petitioner in the
summe of 80 pounds and upwards for wares by your petitioner sold and delivered him and although your petitioner often desired payment thereof
yet could never obtaine the same but after a long and wearisome attendance the said Master Killigrew in the beginning
of March 1664 made your petitioner abate above 10 pounds of his debt upon his faithfull promise to pay the residue within a
yeare after and soe accordingly the said Master Killigrew gave your petitioner a bond for payment of 70 pounds being residue thereof on the
1st March 1665 your petitioner likewise sheweth after the said moneys became due upon the bond, your petitioner for severall yeares
made application to Master Killigrew to pay the said debt, but all faire meanes and entreaties proveing ineffectuall, your
petitioner peticioned the Lord Chamberlaine of his majesties household for liberty to proceed at law against the said Master Killigrew
but after severall hearings his lordshipp declared that he could not give liberty to proceed against Master Killigrew as
being one of the groomes of his majesties bedchamber without his majesties express order, whereupon your petitioner humbly
peticioned his majesty for such liberty and thereupon on the 9 of June 1676 his majesty in councill did thinke fitt and order
that your petitioner should once more make application to the said Master Killigrew for his debt and in case satisfaccion was
not made, your petitioner should be left at liberty to take his remedy at law against the said Master Killigrew (as by [illegible] the
said order annexed may appeare) in pursuance of which order your petitioner afterwards made severall applications to the
said Master Killigrew for his money, but in vaine, whereupon your petitioner by vertue of his majesties said order did arrest
and implead the said Master Killigrew at law for the said debt and recovered a judgment against him for the same, which upon
a writt of errour brought by the said Henry Killigrew was afterwards affirmed in his majesties Court of Kings Bench.

That your petitioner haveing sued out execucion to take the said Master Killigrew, he thereupon earnestly desired your petitioner in
August last to suspend the same and faithfully promised and ingaged under his hand and seale that he would pay your petitioner
100 pounds by the middle of September last and that he would not seeke by any way or meanes whatever either by proteccion or
priviledge to vacate his majesties said order of liberty to sue him or to exempt himselfe from any execucion that should
be taken out against him in case he did not pay the said 100 pounds accordingly. Yet the said Master Killigrew has not paid the
said 100 pounds or any penny thereof, whereby your petitioner being in extreeme want was forced againe to take out
severall executions against Master Killigrew but could not gett him taken till Satherday the 26th Aprill instant
whereupon the said Master Killigrew by his peticion untruely pretending he was taken without leave and without informing
your lordships of any the matters aforesaid hath procured an order to be released and likewise for the taking your petitioner
and his attorney and the officers into custody of a sergeant at armes and your petitioner and his attorney
are taken and in custody thereupon

This being the trueth of your petitioners case and your petitioner with his wife and family being in a very low condicion
for want of the said monies.

Your petitioner humbly prayes your lordships that he may have the fruite of his execucion against the said Master Killigrew
by vertue of his majesties most gracious leave granted as aforesaid and that he and his attorney may be
discharged of the contempts wholly submitting himselfe to your lordships great justice, and humbly
begging pardon for what he hath therein offended your lordshipps

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc.

  • Thomas Price

Essex Strode, esquire, high bailiff of the liberty of Westminster. HL/PO/JO/10/1/388/152 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall
in Parliament assembled.

The most humble peticion of Essex Strode esquire high bayliffe of the liberty of Westminster

Humbly sheweth

That in obedience to an order made in this honourable house the 26th day of Aprill 1679 directed unto
your peticoner and grounded on a peticon of Henry Killegrew one of the groomes of his majesties
bed chamber shewing that contrary to the priviledge of Parliament he was then arrested the
Parliament sitting and deteyned prisoner in custody att the house of Edward Moulton one of your
peticioners officers) att the suite of Thomas Price milliner your lordshipps did then order that
the said Henry Killagrew should bee forthwith discharged from his then present restrainte by reason
of that arrest contrary to priviledge and that your honours order should bee a sufficient warrant on
that behalfe.

That accordingly your peticioner did imediately on receipt of such your honours order cause the said
Master Killagrew to be sett att large.

Since which time and imediatly after the dissolucion of the then Parliament the said Thomas Price
by the advise of Master Ince his attorney have brought an accion of escape against your peticioner
for dischargeing the said Master Killagrew by vertue of your lordshipps order contemning
your order as invalid in law to discharge any man taken in execucion and have soe proceeded
against your peticioner that they have entred up judgement against your peticioner for one hundred
sixty foure pounds debt and costs and [illegible] damage being the whole summe pretended due to the said
Thomas Price by the said Master Killagrew and your peticioner in this long vacacion of the sitting of
your lordshipps in Parliament have beene forced to expende above the summe of eighty poundes in writts
of error to stave of his beeing clapped up in prison for the said debt soe unjustly obteyned against him.

This beeing the truth of your peticioneres case as by affidavit annexed appeares.

Your peticioner most humbly prayeth your lordshipps to take this
his severe case against him into with your serious consideracions
and to releive him therein to your lordshipps great justice
shall seeme meete.

And your peticioner as alwayes in duty bound
shall ever pray for your lordshipps

  • Essex Strode

John Caryll the elder of Harting in Sussex, esquire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/388/160 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall setting in the High Court of Parliament

The humble petition of John Caryll the elder of
Harting in the county of Sussex esquire

Sheweth
your petitioner having obtained licence to goe over seas, and being in London
in order to his going over fell most dangerously sicke, soe that his majestie was
gratiously pleased with the advice of his honorable Privy Councell to give
your peticioner leave to stay in London for one month which licence was dated the 24th
of March.

That your peticioner still remaining very weake through his slow recovery by reson
of his greate age being theescore and sixteene next July, and being att present
in a course of physick, as appeareth by a certificate of his physican Doctor
Thomas Short

Your peticioner therefore humbly prayeth that your lordshipps
will be pleased to give him a farther licence to stay in London
for the recovery of his health being at this time very weake and infirme
and not able to remove,

And your petitioner will ever pray etc

  • John Caryll

George, earl of Dunbarton. HL/PO/JO/10/1/388/161 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall
and temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble petition of George Earle of Dunbarton

Sheweth

That a standing regiment in France having for some ages past been
established in your petitioners family and your petitioners brother who last comanded the same being unfortunatly
killed att the head thereof when your petitioner was very young, your petitioner upon his death was imediatly
sent for into France, bred in that court and the said regiment reserved for him till he was fitt
to undertake the comand thereof and then was conferred upon hime ever since which time he hath
continued in the service of the French King by whose favour he was advanced to the honour of the
comanding as one of the leiutenant generalls of his army and received in pay and pentions above 5000 pounds
per annum and had the promises of more honourable and profitable government and preferments which
most certainly would have been conferred upon him if he had continued in the service of that king

Notwithstanding all which advantages in possession and expectation your petitioner retained that
duty and loyalty to his king and love to his countrey that noe sooner had he intimation of his majesties
royall pleasure for his departing that service, and comeing into England with his regiment but he
most cheerfully complyed therewith gave obedience thereunto and with great difficulty and charge
brought his regiment into England not only in the time of the first Dutch Warre (when he brought
them to Chattam where they as he humbly conceives did very good service when the Dutch were
there) but also this last yeare when the French king and his ministers made great offers to him if
he would have staid all which he refused came away in their great displeasure left his comands
and arreares (which were very considerable) and put himselfe thereby out of a capacity of ever
expecting or hoping for any favour or preferment from that court for the future so that he
hath no place of abode where he can expect honourably to subsist unlesse here

Your petitioner therefore humbly prayes the favour of this most
honourable house to take the premisses into your serious consideracion
and to exempt him by name out of the bill now passing for the
removall of all papists from London and Westminster and the
suburbs thereof and not to suffer him to be ruined for his loyalty
to his king and affection for this kingdom manifested as aforesaid
your petitioner being ready to give such security for his peaceable
living as this honourable house shall think fit to direct

And he shall pray etc.

  • Douglas Dunbarton

Elizabeth, Countess of Powys. HL/PO/JO/10/1/388/170 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall in
Parliament assembled

The humble petition of Elizabeth Countesse of Powis

Humbly sheweth.

That last night about twelve of the clocke severall persons to the number
of twenty or thereabouts with staves and halberts did enter into your petitioners
house in Lincolnes Inne Feilds without produceing any order or warrant what=
=soever for their soe doeing; that being soe entred they pretend that they had
order to search your petitioners house and threatned soe to doe, and certeinely had
soe done if your petitioner notwithstanding the greate fright she was putt unto by
theire comeing att that unseasonable time and in that unusuall manner, had
not admonished them of the priviledge which she conceived was due to her in
respect of peerage during the sessions of Parliament. That notwithstanding such
admonishment those few servants she had were raised out of theire bedds and forced to
give in their names and were threatned by the said persons to be taken into custody
unlesse your petitioner would undertake for their being forth comeing this morning which your
petitioner was forced to doe.

That in regard your petitioner doth apprehend that the said actions are against the
priviledge of peereage and in manifest breach thereof your petitioner takes
her selfe to be obliged to acquaint your lordshipps therewith and to pray your
lordshipps protection against such affronts and injuryes and that such further consider=
=ation by due punishment of the persons that have committed the said breach
which your petitioner hopes upon enquiry she shalbe able to discover, may be
had as to your lordshipps shall seeme meete

And your petitioner shall pray

Elizabeth Powis

Countess of Powis's
peticion upon the
searching of her house
2 May 1679.

The wives and relations of several hundred seamen. HL/PO/JO/10/1/388/171 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of the wives and relations of severall
hundred seamen his majesties good subjects now in Algeire in slavery

Sheweth

That your petitioners said relations (to their great greife) have many of them
been miserable slaves for the space of 18 months, being taken before any warr knowne;
others were taken being (by stresse of weather) forced from under the convoys of his majesties
ships, and the rest taken in 13 Virginia ships, even at the mouth of his majesties channell;
and for as much may it please this honourable house, as your petitioners are all of them poore
people, haveing many small children, who are under such extremities, that they
are ready to perish for want of the income they reaped from their husbands
earnings: while they (poore soules) who have done his majestie faithfull service, in all
the late warrs endure the hardships of Turkish cruelty.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly lay the premisses before your
lordshipps beseeching your lordships would be pleased out of your great
wisdome to consider of some expedient for the speedy ransome
of their said relations, that so many seamen may be sett at liberty
for the service of his majestie and the nation, and to prevent the ruine
of their poore families

And your petitioners (as in duty bound) shall ever
pray etc.

Wee whose names are here under subscribed doth verifie the truth
of the above peticion

  • John Swanley

  • John [Linse?] church warden
  • William [Staple?] constable
  • [Richard Hamon?] church warden

  • William Bayley churchwarden
  • William Winne churchwarden
  • John Akers constable
  • Francis Suton constable

The peticion of the wives and
relations of severall hundred
seamen


The trustees and executors of the late Lord Witherington and his children. HL/PO/JO/10/1/388/172 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall assembled in Parliament.

The humble peticion of the trustees and executours
of the late Lord Witherington and his children.

Sheweth

That whereas Master Robert Grey of Coughton in the county of Warwickshire
hath been above these twenty years alwayes and particularly imployed in stating of
all accompts concerning the family, receiving all the rents, letting and setting of all
the lands, and no other person at present being capable, or possibly can discharge the
same.

It is humbly desired, that your lordships will be favourably pleased
(for the right and support of that family) to grant your lordships
order for the said Master Robert Grey to travell into
Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire for the space of three
monthes, for the discharging of his imployment he acting
nothing prejudiciall to the King and his government.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc.

R: Widdrington

petition for Robert Grey
to looke after the Lord Widringtons
estate
2 May 1679.

John Coniston, William Dargue and John Whorton. HL/PO/JO/10/1/388/174 (1679)

John Conistons peticion

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble petition of John Coniston William Dargue and John Whorton servants of the
honourable John Tufton esquire brother of the right honourable Nicholas Earle of Thanet.

Humbly sheweth.

That the said Master Tufton was seized and in possession of the mannor of Brough in Westmerland, and
did let Brough Mill, part thereof, unto one John Horne for a terme which is now expired, who not
being willing any longer to farme the same, did freely deliver up the possession thereof unto your
peticioner John [illegible] Coniston for Master Tuftons use. (As by the annexed affidavit appeares.)

But the said Earle of Thannet clayming title to the said mannor, tis now pretended, that the said Horne
had before attorned tenant to the said Earle, which if he had, was unknowne unto your peticioners, yet
your peticioners are summoned by your lordshipps order, to appeare before your lordshipps the
seaventeenth instant, for forcibly entering into and turneing the said John Horne out of the said mill.
The fact being only as before is set forth by your peticioners, and for that your peticoners are intrusted
by the said Master Tufton with the custody of his estate in Westmerland, above two hundred miles distant and
are not able to attend this most honourable house in so short a tyme without hazarding the losse of the said
Master Tuftons possession they being intrusted with the possession of all his castles and mannors in
Westmerland

Your petitioners most humbly pray your lordshipps will be pleased to grant them a longer
tyme for their appearance, and they doubt not to prove the fact to be as they have before
alleaged which they humbly hope your lordshipps will not construe to be a breach of
priviledge, however your peticioners will in all humility submitt unto your lordshipps

And dayly pray etc.

  • John Coniston
  • William Dargue
  • John Whorton

Sir John Gage, baronet. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/177 (1679)

The peticion
of Sir John Gage.

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parliament assembled.

The humble peticion of Sir John Gage baronet

Sheweth.
That whereas your petitioner in Hillary terme last, by virtue of an order from
the lords of his majesties Privy Councell, directed to the justices of the Kings
Bench to take baile for his appearance, (in case he was baileable) had
liberty granted him to goe into the countrey for the attaining of his
health, he having given baile to appeare on the first day of Easter
terme next.

And whereas it would prove very prejudiciall to your said petitioners health
to lye under a confinement

He therefore most humbly prayes that your lordshipps
will be pleased to grant him a farther order to the
justices aforesaid, that his said baile may be
renewed for such longer time as your lordshipps shall
thinke fitt.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc.

John Gage

The petition of Sir
John Gage for continu=
ing longer under bayle
nothing done in it.
6 May 1679.

Thomas Knox, gentleman, prisoner in the Gatehouse. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/188 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of Thomas Knox gentleman prisoner in the Gatehouse.

Most humbly shewing.

That your peticioner hath been kept close prisoner in the Gatehouse
since Tuesday the 29 of Aprill, and since Saturday the 3d of May hath beene kept in
very close durance whereby his life is in danger, and no crime assigned.

Your petitioner therefore most humbly prays hee may be called before your
lordships to give an account of his usage that your lordships may please to give such
further direccions touching your petitioner as to your honours compassion may
seeme meet.

And hee shall in duty pray.

  • Thomas Knox

John Gazanie, prisoner in the Gatehouse, his wife and seven children. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/198 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spiritual
and temporal assembled in Parliament.

The humble peticion of John Gazanie (now prisoner in the
Gatehouse) his wife and seaven
children.

Humbly sheweth.

That about 3 months since, an informacion was
given in against your peticioner before his majestie
and councell that your petitioner John Gazanie had spoke dangerous
words against his majesties sacred person was committed
to the Gatehouse and upon his humble peticion to his
majestie and attorney generalls opinion thereupon his
majestie was gratiously pleased to admitt him to his
libertie upon bail.

That about [7?] weekes since your peticioner was
apprehended by order from this honourable house and
then comitted to the Gatehouse upon the very same
informacion.

That your peticioner is a very poor tradesman
and altogeather innocent of any such matters laid to
his charge and hath nothing to mainteine himselfe
and family but his trade.

Your petitioner therefore most humbly
praies your honors to discharge
your poor peticioner or otherwise as to
grave wisdome shall seeme most
meet els he and his family must
inevitably perish.

And your petitioner shall ever pray

John Gazanie

John Gazane prisoner
in the Gatehouse
his petition for a
discharge. Read but
not [ordered?]
21o May 1679

George Osborne. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/199 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble petition of George Osborne:

Sheweth
that James Nappier being seized to him and his heires of a coppie hold messuage and certaine lands called Baldens in comitatu Sussex
and about June 1665 surrendred the same to the use of himselfe for life and after his decease to James his sonne and his heires for=
ever which surrender was presented at a court held in October 1665 and James the father was thereupon admitted tennant as by
the court rolls may appeare.

That James the father survived James the sonn who dyed without issue leaveing Anne his sister and heire, after which in Aprill
1670 your peticioner and James the father and Anne the daughter and Edward Stephens her husband came to an agreement for the purchase
of the premisses, and in consideracion of 170 pounds James the father and Stephens and his wife 2o April 1670 surrendred the premisses to the use of your
petitioner and his heires which surrender presented the next court 7: Aprill 1670 your petitioner paid 20 pound fine and the entred on the premisses and enjoyed
the same:

But Richard West to defeate the peticioner of his purchase pretends that James that James the sonne in his life time surrendred the
revercion of the premisses expectant upon the death of James the father to the use of the said West and his heires and thereupon brought
his ejectment at law to recover the possession from your petitioner although the surrender if any was condicionall and onely for security for 150 pounds
which West received againe or some for him, and that after the pretended surrender made to West James the sonne conveyed to him a
freehold estate called Malkinsons with a provisoe to be voyd on payment of 150 pounds and interest which freehold estate your petitioner purchased
of James the sonne and out of the purchase money paid West 226 pounds and interest which was all Nappier the sonne then owed him:

That West notwithstanding he was privy to your petitioners purchase and received the purchase money and never made or pretended any clayme to
the coppiehold estate till lately and although he received of James the sonn in cattle above 60 pounds and a considerable some for assigneing
a lease for 3 lives which he had from James the sonne and was a collaterall security which lease upon receipt of the mortgage money hee
assigned over without James the sonns direction and gott a considerable summe.

To be releived against the said West your peticioner exhibited his bill in Chancery.

Unto which bill the said West appeared and answered and setts forth that he was not privy to your petitioners purchase but sayes
Nappier the sonne 25th September 1666 surrendred 2 customary tenements and 4 acres of land on condicion that James the
sonne his heires etc should pay to West his heires etc 159 pounds on 25th December 1667 then the surrender be void, and sayes
he bona fide lent 150 pounds on the surrender and the said cause comeing to be heard before the Lord
Chancellour whoe in regard the said West had not made any proofe that he had really lent the 150 pounds to the said Nappier the
sonne on the surrender directed a tryall at law at which tryall onely 30 pounds was proved paid and that by one of Westes
daughters whoe at the time of the pretended lending of the said money to Nappier was not above the age of 8 yeares
but your petitioners counsell adviseing your peticioner to suffer a non suite, the Lord Chancellour 17th May instant on hearing the
cause on the equity reserved dismissed your peticioners bill with costs refuseing to direct another tryall for the full
discovery of the truth of the matter soe that your peticioner is defeated of his purchase although noe money more then 30 pounds or thereabouts be proved paid
lent by the the said West and your petitioner upon anew a former tryall directed had averdict that noe money was lent on the said security, and yett if any had been
soe lent the defendant hath confessed in his answer in Chancery parte thereof received backe.

May it therefore please your lordshipp to stay all proceedings on the said dismission and to
order the said Richard West personally to appeare at the barr of this honourable house
to putt in his answere in writeing to the matters afore said and that your petitioner may
be heard and releived upon the whole matter, in such manner as to your lordshipps
great wisedome shall seeme expedient

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc

George Osborne

I humbly conceive that there is
sufficient matter conteyned in this
peticion to ground an appeale
to this honourable house W Savage

George Osborne. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/199 (1679)

George Osborne plainant
Richard West defendant

To the right honourable the lords
spirituall and temperall in Parliament
assembled;

The humble petition of the plaintiffe

Sheweth
that your peticioner the last sessions of Parliament (by the advice of his councell) preferred his humble peticion
of appeale to this honourable house in due time to be releived against a dismission of a bill by him brought
against the defendant in the High Court of Chancery touching your petitioners title to certaine lands in the county
of Sussex, but by reason of the suddaine dissolucion of that Parliament there was noe order made thereupon
of which the defendant takeing advantage hath during the intervall of Parliament prosecuted your petitioner upon the
said dismission and at law contrary to all equity as your petitioner hopes to make it appeare to your lordshipps:

Now forasmuch as the former peticion was lodged with the clerke of this house in due time, and
security given by your petitioner on the [paiment?] of costs according to the course and practice of this honourable house, and
forasmuch as the matter therein conteyned is properly determinable before your lordshipps and your peticioner
destitute of all releife elsewhere:

May it please your lordshipps to order that your peticioners said
former peticion may stand revived and all proceedings at law and equity concerneing
the matter herein in question may be stayed till the heareing of this cause before
your lordshipps: and the defendant may putt in his answere to the said peticion

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc

  • George Osborne

Osborne's petition

I am humbly of opinion that the
peticioner hath good cause for bringing
his appeale, and to be releived thereupon
Walter Savage

Richard West. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/199 (1679)

The humble petition of
Richard West.

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall
in Parliament assembled

The humble petition of Richard West.

Sheweth

That your petitioner endeavouring by law to recover some
coppyhold lands in Sussex, and being mortgaged to him for 150 pounds hath been obstructed
in the same by George Osborne an attorney at law, yet after foure tryalls at law
and severall heareings in the High Court of Chancery your petitioner hath obtained a
dismission in that court of the said Osbornes bill after the expence of neare 400 pounds
yet hath he brought the said cause by a petition of appeale before your lordshipps to
which your petitioner hath put in his answere.

Your petitioner humbly prayes a speedy heareing of the
said cause, and such releife against the said
unreasonable proceedings as to your lordshipps shall
seeme meete.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc

  • Richard West

Richard West. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/199 (1679)

The petion of
Richard West

To the right honourable the lords spirituall, and
temporall in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of Richard West

Sheweth

That your petitioner having for divers yeares last past
been very much perplexed with the tricks and trifleing delayes of one Master
George Osborne an attorney at law, in and about your petitioners recovering the
summe of one hundred and fifty pounds by him lent on the mortgage of
certaine coppyhold lands, and your petitioner having recovered his right at law
the said Osborne exhibited his bill against your petitioner in equity, and after
heareing the said cause and severall issues at law directed and tryed
the said Osborne bill being dismissed out of that court, he hath appealed
unto your lordshipps which appeale was to have been heard before your lordshipps
on the eighteenth of November instant, but by reason of other weighty
affaires intervening it could not be heard that day, now inasmuch
as your petitioner being a poore man and his concernes lying wholly in the
country about his husbandry affaires above forty miles distant, and having
had great vexacion and trouble therein.

Your petitioner humbly prayes the said cause may this
day be heard, or soe soone as may be that soe your petitioner
may obtaine releife against such malitious proceedings
as to your lordshipps shall seeme meete.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc

  • Richard West

Sir Oliver Boteler, knight and baronet. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/200 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in the Parliament assembled

The humble peticion and appeale of Sir Oliver Boteler knight and barronet

Sheweth

That Sir William Boteler your peticioners father being seized in fee of above 2000 pounds per annum and possest of a lease
of the mannor of Long Sutton in Lincolneshire worth 400 pounds per annum, in 1644 made his will, and devised his lease of Long
Sutton to his executors and willed that they out of the first profitts should raise 600 pounds to be laid out on lands and setled
on the viccaridge of Shornebrooke in Bedfordshire and made Dame Joane and five others executors and dyed, leaveing your
peticioner betweene 10 and 11 yeares old,

All these executors renounced but Dame Joane who proved the will and in 1646 married Sir Phillip Warwick and they enjoyed
Long Sutton till the end of the lease of which there was about 11: yeares to come att Sir Williams death, and Sir Phillip Warwick
and his lady alsoe enjoyed your peticioners estate (being above 2000 pounds per annum) till his full age which was above nine yeares, which
came to above 18000 pounds.

Sir Phillip Warwick paid the interest of the 600 pounds to the viccar for severall yeares, but when your peticioner came of age they prevailed
with him to pay the 30 pounds per annum in ease of his mother on promise of great kindenesse which shee would doe him, which
your peticioner freely paid for many yeares and being sick and haveing buried all his children and not likely to live did
make a voluntary grant of a farme in Thurleigh in Bedfordshire to trustees to secure the said 30 pounds per annum for ever
but never parted with the deed out of his custody nor tooke a counterparte thereof nor ever acquainted the trustees with it
resolveing that if hee recovered and had children hee would cancell itt and your peticioner recovering and haveing three
children cancelled the deed but att his mothers importunity and faire promises continued to pay the 30 pounds per annum
till the yeare 1672 when your peticioner receiveing unkinde usage from his said mother, refused to pay the 30 pounds per annum

Thereupon Sir Phillip Warwick caused Alexander Bolton (who was then viccar of Shornebrook) to sue your peticioner and Sir
Phillip in the Court of Chancery for the 600 pounds and arreares of itt, and demands itt against your peticioner on allegacion
that hee received the 600 pounds out of Long Sutton, and for that cause had setled the premisses in Thurleigh by deed
which hee had since cancelled

Your peticioner denied upon oath that hee ever received any profitts of Long Sutton, and that the deed by which hee
secured the 30 pounds per annum out of Thurleigh was voluntary and made upon the termes aforesaid and there was noe
manner of proofe that hee received any profitts of Long Sutton onely one wittnesse sweares hee saw an
accompt by which 50 pounds of the profitts of Long Sutton were charged on your peticioners accompt which if soe was
done by Sir Phillip Warwick to prevent your peticioner from calling him to accompt when hee came of age
by which accompts hee made your peticioners estate a debtor 3000 pounds besides 3000 pounds which it cost your peticioner
in repaires,

Upon heareing of this cause in the said Court of Chancery the 22th of May 1677 itt was decreed your peticioner
should pay the arreares of the 30 pounds per annum with costs of suite and pay the 30 pounds per annum for the future and
that Thurleigh should stand charged therewith for ever, and that your peticioner should make a good conveyance
of Thurleigh to that use discharged of all former incumbrances if the same are of value sufficient, if not, then
of some other lands neer Shornebrooke free from incumbrances,

By which decree your peticioner is not onely adjudged to make good the conveyance which was voluntary as aforesaid
but is compelled to make it better then it then was the same being then incumbred and the same incumbrance
lyeing on itt to this day and whereas by that conveyance Thurleigh onely was security for the 30 pounds per annum now
the persons of your peticioner and his heires are alsoe subjected and lyable to be imprisoned for non payment of
it, and if those lands are not enough your peticioner is decreed to make a good estate in other lands, which is
impossible for him to doe, all his other lands being before setled on his marriage soe that hee cannot
dispose of any of them,

Your peticioner therefore humbly appeales
to your lordshipps and prayes that hee may have
releife in the premisses and that the said decree
may be reversed,

And your peticioner shall pray etc

  • Oliver Boteler

Sir Oliver Botoler, baronet. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/200 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition and appeale of Sir Oliver Botoler barronet.

Sheweth

That your petitioners father Sir William Botoler being seized in fee of a reall estate worth above 2000 pounds per annum, and possessed
of the mannor of Long Sutton in Lincolnshire worth about 400 pounds per annum (for tearme of yeares) made his will in 1644 and thereof Dame Joane his wife
[and?] five other executors to whom he devised his interest in the said mannor of Long Sutton, in trust that they out of the first profitts should raise 600 pounds to be disposed
[in?] the purchase of lands worth 30 pounds per annum in Bedfordshire to be settled on the viccaridge of Shornbrooke within that county soone after which the said Sir William
was slaine in his majesties service, after whose death all the executors except your petitioners mother (who alone proved the will) renounced their executorshipps and left her as
sole executrix to enjoy the said mannor wherein there was then about 10 or 11 yeares to come. That in the yeare 1646 the said Dame Joan intermarried
with Phillip Warwick esquire now Sir Phillip Warwick knight after which they not only injoyed the profitt of the said Long Sutton but for above 9 yeares together
during your petitioners minority) received the rents of his estate amounting in the whole to above 20000 pounds. That for many yeares after the said
marryage the said Sir Phillip paid the interest of the aforesaid 600 pounds to Master Allexander Bolton the then viccar of Shornbrooke, and by indenture tripartite beareing
date 25th March 1651 made betweene the said Sir Phillip Warwick and Dame Joane Botoler his wife of the first part Richard Fanshaw and John Smith of the 2d
part and William Rant John Dingly and John Smith of the third part, the said Richard Fanshaw and John Smith were impowered to receive the rents of Long Sutton
in trust that out of the profitts thereof they should pay the said John Dingly and William [Rant?] 130 pounds per annum for 4 years and 1050 pounds with interest at 6 pounds per centum to one John
Smith, and after those summes paid then to raise and pay the 600 pounds legacy given by the will aforesaid.

Neverthelesse after your petitioner coming to age which happened in 1654 he confesseth he was prevailed upon (on promisses of great kindness from Sir Phillip and
his mother) to pay the said interest for some yeares, and your petitioner afterwards being sick and not expecting to recover his health and having buried all his children did
voluntarily and freely (and not in pursuance of any agreement or promise or upon any valluable consideration) execute a conveyance
whereby he vested a farm he had lyeing in Thurleigh in the county of Bedford in certain trustees for securing the said 30 pounds per annum forever to the viccar of Shornbrooke
but never parted with the said deed or acquainted the trustees therewith resolving if he should recover and have children of his own to cancell the same, and
accordingly your petitioner being restored to health and having three children since borne, and still alive did cancell it. But upon his mothers faire promisses and great
opportunityes he did continue to pay the viccar yearly till 1672 when receiving very unkinde and ill usage from his mother he denyed payment any longer

Whereupon the aforesaid Alexander Bolton by the perswasion (as your petitioner hath heard and hath good reason to beleive) of the said Sir Phillip Warwick did in Easter
tearme 1676 exhibit an information against your petitioner, and the said Sir Phillip Warwick in the High Court of Chauncery in his majesties then Attorney Generalls name
therein setting forth the aforesaid will and bequest, and praying the same might be performed either by paying the said 600 pounds or purchasing lands of 30 pounds per annum as aforesaid
to which informacion your petitioner put in his answere and therein set forth the matters aforesaid and the said Sir Phillip Warwick having also answered and the petitioner thereto
replyed wittnesses being examined and publication duely past, the cause comeing to heareing before the right honourable the Lord High Chancellor of England on the 22th May 1677.
And albeit there was not any proofe that ever any part of the profitts of Long Sutton was accompted for to your petitioner (excepting that one Tench swore that he had seen an
accompt in your petitioners custody wherein was mentioned 50 pounds to be received as he beleives out of the profitts of Long Sutton, and which he conceived to be the last money received
out of that mannor, and although your petitioner when he came of age was by Sir Phillip Warwick and his mothers managery brought 3000 pounds in debt besides the profitts of his
estate as aforesaid yet nevertheless your petitioner is decreed not only to pay the arreares of the 30 pounds per annum then due to the informant Bolton with costs of suit but also the
constant growing payments for the future, and further that the farme of Thurleigh aforesaid shall stand charged therewith forever, and your petitioner make a good conveyance
thereof for that purpose free from all incumbrances, and if the same be not a sufficient vallue then to convey other lands of sufficient value free from incumbrances and
lying near Shornbrook to the same uses, by which decree your petitioner is greatly agreived being decreed not only to make good the aforesaid voluntary conveyance
but to make the same better then ever it was, the lands thereby settled being at the time of the executeing that conveyance incumbred (and still lyeing under the
same mortgage) must now by the decree be settled free from the same, and your petitioners person and all other his reall and personall estate aswell as the said farme
of Thurleigh are made lyable to answere the said annuity and he decreed to convey other lands if Thurleigh be not sufficient to answere the same (which is
impossible for him to doe his whole estate being entailed) from which decree your petitioner is noe way releivable but by the ayd of this most high court, noe
bill of reveiw lying, the errour being an errour in fact, and not in law, nor can your petitioner (if a bill of review did lye) bring the same till he shall have
performed the decree, the performance whereof would be a determination of his right. Your petitioner therefore the last session of the last Parliament lodged his humble
appeale from the said decree in this most honourable house, but the same could not (by reason of the more weighty affaires of the kingdome, be then read nor
any order made thereupon, since which time the aforesaid Alexander Bolton is dead leaveing Bolton his relict and executrix or administratrix
and one Tiffonye is admitted into the said viccaridge and is the present incumbent there. Who have prosecuted your petitioner upon the said
decree, the one for the arreares, and the other for the payment and settlement of 30 pounds per annum for the future to all contempts and not only have obtained
a warrant to be issued for your petitioners committment but also a sequestration against his estate reall and personall which they are now
endeavouring to put in execution against him.

Your petitioner (the premisses considered) most humbly implores your lordshipps favour to order the said
Bolton and Tiffonye now viccar of Shornbrooke his majesties attorney generall and Sir Phillip
Warwick to appeare before your lordshipps at the barr of this most honourable house on a certaine day for that
purpose to be appointed, then and there to put in their answere in writeing to the premisses to the end the merritts
of this cause may come juditially to be heard before your lordshipps and your petitioner thereupon receive releife
according to justice, and that in the meane time all proceedings in Chancery upon the said decree contempts
and sequestracion may be stayed, and your peticioner by your lordshipps favour may have liberty to prosecute
this his humble appeale in this most honourable house, and not be taken up and committed for the contempts
prosecuted against him in Chancery, till after the heareing of this cause, hee giveing security to pay costs
if your lordshipps upon the hearing shall not think fitt to grant him releife.

And your petitioner (as in duty bound) shall ever pray etc.

Oliver Boteler

I am humbly of opinion that the appellant
hath just cause to appeale from the decree
above mentioned, and good reason to hope,
to be releived by your lordshipps against the
same.


George Hutchins

Sir Oliver Botelers
appeale against
Bolton Tiffonye
and Sir Philip Warwicke
3o November 1680.

Dismissed and judgment affirmed
30 June 1685.
With 20 pounds costs.

Sir Oliver Boteler. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/200 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parlyament assembled

The humble peticion of Sir Oliver Boteler

Sheweth
that your peticioner haveing appealed from a decree
made in Chancerye to this High Courte of Parlyament
the respondants Sir Phillip Warwick and others
have putt in theire severall answers thereuntoo

Your peticoner therefore most humbly prayes
your lordshipps favoure to appoynt a day
for heareing the sayd cause to the end
he may receive releiff agreable to justice
in the appoyntment of which day he prayes
consideration that severall of the defendants
live above 50 myles distant from London

And as in duty bound he shall pray

Oliver Boteler

Sir Oliver Botelers
peticion for a day
of heareing
23 November 1680

Sir Oliver Boteler, baronet. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/200 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of Sir Oliver Boteler baronet

Sheweth: that your petitioner having appealed this session of Parliament to
this most honourable house from a decree made in the high and honourable Court of Chancery
in a cause there depending wherein Master Attorny Generall and others were plainants against your
petitioner and Sir Phillip Warwick defendant all partyes thereto answered except Master
Atturney Generall and the cause was appointed to be heard on the 8th of December instant,
notice of which time was duly given, but Master Atturny Generalls answer being as your petitioners
councill advized him obsolutely necessary to bring the cause judicially before
your lordships and that not coming in till the sixt of December instant, so that your petitioner can
not as yet have a copy thereof, by reason of the Lord Staffords tryall, he is not able
to give his councill untill he obteyne the same that due instruction which is obsolutly
necessary for his defence, that since the hearing in Chancery there is come to your
petitioners hand a deed executed by Sir Phillip Warwick which clearly proves the 600 pounds in
question long since raised out of Long Sutton which now is decreed to be paid by your petitioner
and the same is set forth in his appeale.

Wherefore he most humbly prayes your lordships favour to grant him
a day or twoes further time for the said hearing if your lordships
please till Satturday next, when he hath a writt of error to be opened
before this most honourable house, and that your petitioner may make use of the deed
aforesaid at the hearing, and produce a witness to prove the same.

And your petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray etc:

  • Olliver Boteler

Sir Oliver Boteler, knight and baronet. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/200 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parliament assembled.

The humble peticion of Sir Oliver Boteler knight and barronet

Sheweth:

That your petitioner the 3d November 1680 exhibited his humble apeale
into this most honourable house, praying releife against a decree, made in the High Court of
Chancery the 22d May 1677 in a cause there depending wherein his majesties Attorney Generall
and Alexander Bolton vicar of Thornbrook in the county of Lincoln were plaintiffs against
your petitioner and Sir Phillip Warwick knight defendants to which apeale Master Attorney Generall
as also Elizabeth Bolton executrix of Alexander Bolton her late husband deceased, Master
William Tifany clerk, and Sir Phillip Warwick were made respondents and have long
since pursuant to an order of your lordshipps put in their answers thereunto; soe that
the cause was at issue and a day appointed for the hearing thereof in January 1680:
when with councill both sides attended but not heard that sessions; since which time
the said Sir Phillip Warwick is dead, haveing first made a will and thereby appointed
Mathew Johnson esquire and John Tench gentleman his executors parties to the said apeale and the
said Elizabeth Bolton hapening also to dye leaveing her son Anthony Bolton her
executor your petitioner is advized that the said Mathew Johnson John Tench and
Anthony Bolton are persons absolutely necessary for your petitioner to make parties to his
said apeale.

Wherefore hee most humbly prayes your lordships favour that
the said Mathew Johnson, John Tench and Anthony Bolton may
be incerted and made parties to the said apeale, and by your
lordships order appointed at a certain day to apear at this most
honourable barr and put in their answer in writeing to the same to
the end that he may be heard thereupon, and receive such
releife as to your lordships great wisdome shall seeme agreable to
equity and justice.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc.

Oliver Boteler

Sir Oliver Boteler his
peticion.

William Tiffin, vicar of Sharnebrooke. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/200 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parliament assembled.

The humble peticion of William Tiffin
vicar of Sharnebrooke in the county of Bedford

Sheweth

That there was a decree and sequestracion obtained in the Court
of Chancery against Sir Oliver Boteler about setling 30 pounds per annum on the said
vicaridge: from which decree, the said Oliver appealed to the honourable House of
Lords in the year 1680, and hath in the honourable house now sitting revived his
appeal, and obtained an order for severall persons to put in their answers
thereunto, which they have accordingly done; but left out the name of your
petitioner in the said order who is a person cheifly concerned.

Therefore he most humbly prayes, that
your lordships will be favourably pleased to
give him leave to put in his answer to the
said appeal.

And your petitioner (as in duty bound)
shall ever pray etc.

William Tiffin

William Tiffin
against
Sir Oliver Boteler
reade 13 June 1685

The shoemakers and other manufacturers of leather in London. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/201 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall
in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of the shoemakers and other manufacturers of
leather, in and about London.

Humbly sheweth.

That whereas the Act of Transportacion of Leather [illegible] [Manyfacture?] expired [illegible] [Lady Day?]
1675, and your petitioner understanding, that there is a bill preferred to this honourable court to
revive the said act for transportacion, which said act was the utter ruine and
impoverishing thousands of families.

And forasmuch as it can plainely be made appeare; by the dealers in leather, and the register of
Leaden Hall and all other marketts in England that before and since the expiracion of the said act,
raw hides and tannd leather and bark, did and doth yeild, as good aprice, as in time of transportacion.

And that farr greater quanties of forreigne raw hides, have been imported, since the act
expired, then in time of transportacion, as can plainly be made appeare by certificates from the
custome house bookes of London.

Soe that this act can be noe incouragement to the breed of cattle; nor to navigation, but on the
contrary will very much lessen navigacion, and the nation will loosse 200 pounds, for every 100 pounds
worth of leather, sent away unwrought, and it will certainely lessen his majestes
customes many thousands a yeare.

And only be benificiall to some few of London, French, and Bristoll merchants, who have beene
the continuall promoters of this bill.

And to the ruine of many thousands of poore familyes, whose whole livelyhood, depends on the
manufacture of leather, as hath been found, by sade experience; in the time of the late
act for seven yeares.

The premisses therefore considered your petitioners most humbly pray, that this most
honourable court will be pleased to dismisse the said bill, or otherwise to admitt your
petitioners to be heard with their reasons by themselves, or councell at the barr of
the whole house; before any bill passe for the transportacion of leather.

And your petitioners (as bound) shall ever pray etc.

  • John Paitt
  • Thomas Lowe
  • Nicholas Capell
  • George [Sanford?]
  • John Brice

John Relfe. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/202 (1679)

21o May 1679

John Relfe peticion

To the right honourable the lords and committees for examinacions

The humble peticion of John Relfe

Sheweth

That your peticioner hath constantly attended
your honours as clerke both in this and the last session
of the last Parliament, and hath hitherto had noe other
incouragement then your lordshipps favour, haveing noe
salary for his service, and haveing lately
received by your lordshipps order two hundred pounds
to be disposed of for rewards and incouragements
to such persons as your lordshipps shall thinke fitt.

Your petitioner humbly prayes that such
reward may be by your lordshipps order
appointed to him out of the said moneyes,
as to your honours shall seeme reasonable.

And your petitioner shall pray [etc?]

  • John Relfe

Sir Christopher Clapham, knight. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/208 (1679)

Peticion
Sir Christopher Clapham

To the right honourable the lords spirituall
and temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of Sir Christopher Clapham knight

Humbly sheweth
that William Foster, John Nicholson, James Altham, and divers other tennants of the
mannor of Clapham in the county of Yorke did in Hillary terme 1669 exhibite theire
bill into the High Court of Chancery against your petitioner lord of the said mannor to have certaine
pretended customes within the said mannor confirmed by the decree of that court
grounding theire said demand upon an agreement made (as was pretended) betweene them
and theire auncestours and one John Ingleby formerly dominus pro tempore of the said
mannor and a decree made betweene them by consent establishing the said
agreement,

That your peticioner by his answer to that bill denyed the said customes and insisted that
John Ingleby with whom the said pretended agreement was made and against whom the
said decree was had was but lord of the said mannor for his life only, Thomas
Ingleby father of the said John haveing in the reigne of the late King James by
deed and fine made a settlement to that purpose, which deed your petitioner averred hee
had seene, but could not in present produce the same, being in the hands of a
member of the honourable Howse of Commons against whom (by reason of his priveledge)
your petitioner could not then proceed though your peticioner had preferred his bill into the
said High Court of Chancery against him to that purpose

That thereupon your peticioner by his councell did move the then Lord Keeper to putt of the
cause untill the said [deed?] of [illegible] [might?] be obtained, your petitioner offering that the
[tennants?] should in the meane time keepe both theire rents and fines in theire
hands howbeitt the said cause came to be heard the 4th November in the 23th
yeare of his now majesties reigne, on the heareing whereof (your petitioner for want of the said
deed being disabled to make out his defence) a decree passed against him ex parte
which was afterwards signed and inrolled,

That your petitioner afterwards procured the said deed into his custody haveing made oath thereof
and that he could not untill then obtaine itt, he was advised to preferre his bill of
reviewe into the said High Court of Chancery for reverseing the decree soe
obtained against him, he haveing good new matter to induce the court thereunto as
hee was advised,

To which bill of reviewe the said tennants put in a plea and demurrer which comeing to
be argued the 19th of February 1673 the court declared they could not releeve your petitioner in
respect the said tennants in the penning theire decree ex parte had incerted a
matter of fact which (though untrue) could not be controverted upon a bill of reviewe,

Whereupon your petitioner hath noe other remedy but to resort to your lordshipps for
releefe therein, which your petitioner humbly prayes upon the wholle matter, there being
noe equity to take from your petitioner the benefitt of his purchase,

Wherefore your petitioner doth with all humility lay himselfe att your
lordshipps feete beseeching your lordshipps upon consideracion of the
premisses to reverse the said decree and to afford to him such
speedy releefe therein as to your lordshipps wisdomes shall seeme
meete

And he shall ever pray etc

  • Christopher Clapham

Challoner Chute, esquire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/209 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall in Parliament assembled.

The humble peticion and appeale of Challoner Chute esquire from decrees made in the Court of Chancery in two severall causes one wherein the right honourable Dorothy Lady Dacre Sir Dudly
North late Dudly Lord North Richard Barret esquire were plainants against Challoner Chute esquire your petitioners father and others defendants and another wherein the persons aforesayd and alsoe one Richard Owen
were plainants against your petitioner and others defendants.

Humbly sheweth
that Challoner Chute your peticioners grandfather haveing upon his marriage with the sayd Lady Dacre covenanted with the sayd Sir Dudley North and Master Barret (her trustees)
to purchase and setle on the sayd lady within three yeares then next a joynture of 500 pounds per annum value or else in default thereof that 5000 pounds parte of a debt oweing by the late Earle
of Arundell should bee received by the sayd lady or her trustees soe that shee her executors and administators might after your petitioners grandfathers death have the benefitt thereof although
your petitioners sayd grandfather had to the good likeing of the sayd lady and her trustees within the tyme agreed upon made a setlement accordingly of an estate at Chiswicke of above
500 pounds per annum value which shee and they both before and after his death accepted and enjoyed and your petitioners grandfather had with her and her trustees allowance received the sayd Earle of
Arrendells debt and otherwise disposed thereof yett after your petitioners sayd grandfathers death the possession of a greate parte of the sayd estate by her owne default being evicted away shee and
her sayd trustees exhibited a bill in Chancery against your petitioners sayd father (who was heyre and executor of your petitioners grandfather) to have the sayd 5000 pounds payd and alsoe to have a legacy of goods to
the value of 1000 pounds and upwarards given her by your petitioners sayd grandfathers will.

And in 1664 they obtayned a decree for the sayd 5000 pounds and interest from your petitioners sayd grandfathers death, till the same should bee payd; and that the revercion of the Vine and certaine landes in
Hampshire (which were setled on your petitioners father and mother for life and devised to your petitioners father in fee by your petitioners grandfather) should after your petitioners father and mothers death bee
lyable as legall assettes defended soe to pay the sayd 5000 pounds and interrest upon interrest for a greate parte thereof till it bee all payd; and alsoe a decree for the sayd legacy although it
appeares by the sayd decree there was not sufficient assettes to pay the other debts by 2000 pounds

That your petitioners father and mother soone after dyeing before there was any execucion of the sayd decree the sayd lady in your petitioneres minority when hee was but about nyne yeares old (hee being
then and dureing all his minority under her tuition) procured her servant Master Owen to take administracion of your petitioners fathers personall estate with a purpose as shee declared to improve mannage and preserve
it for your petitioner and then exhibited another bill against your petitioner in his minority whereupon shee obtayned another decree for the possession of your petitioners estate for satisfaccion of her sayd demand
and for felling of wood and timber therefrom alsoe for that purpose and for haveing an allowance of 120 pounds per annum out of your petitioners estate for her maintenance of three of her grandchildren
which both in lawe and honour shee her selfe ought to have meynetayned which decree is pretended to bee by your petitioners consent in his minority and is therefore not bynding to him and is unjust.

By which meanes shee and her servant Master Owen have for about 11 yeares last possessed your petitioners estate reall and personall and have cutt downe and felled at least 6000 pounds worth of your petitioners
timber and shee has possest her selfe of all the furniture of your petitioners howse at the Vyne and pretends that shee bought them of Owen and claimes them as her owne of all which your
your petitioner is now become intituled as haveing lately obtayned his age and letters of administracion of his sayd fathers estate) to have an accompt and ought to have his sayd estate delivered [up to?]
him.

Now for as much as (your petitioner is advised) there ought to have beene noe decree for the sayd 5000 pounds for that there was a joynture setled and accepted as aforesayd however that that
covenant was noe ground for a decree in equity in this case nor if damages had beene thereupon recoverable at lawe could they have exceeded the 5000 pounds which was in the nature
of a penalty nor could any things theron by course of lawe that had beene recovered, have beene satisfyed, dureing your petitioners minority soe that at the utmost extremity if shee
had received 5000 pounds shee must have expected it without interest dureing the minority of your petitioner in which tyme shee hath had and received 8000 pounds and yett demands 5000 pounds to bee
still due to her according to that decree and computacion of interest thereby decreed which is unjust and against lawe therefore and her demand of allowance for maintenance
for the sayd grandchildren ought not to bee charged on your petitioner.

And for as much as the sayd first decree (on which the sayd other decree is founded) is grounded on mistakes of fact as well as lawe and such injustice for which your
petitioner cannot properly bee releived by bill of reveiwe and your petitioner cannot untill those bee certifyed come at such releife as hee is properly intituled unto against the
sayd other decree and proceedings against him thereupon in his infancy nor have any accompt for the sayd estate reall and personall of his father

Hee doth for the reasons aforesayd humbly pray your lordshipps to sett aside and reverse the sayd decrees and that hee may bee restored to the possession of
his estate and have an accompt from the sayd lady and Master Owen both of his reall and his fathers personall estate and that your lordshipps will appoynt [a tyme?]
for the sayd Lady Dacre her sayd trustees and Master Owen to putt in their answers and alsoe for the heareing and setleing the sayd matters and affording
your petitioner such releife as in your greate judgements shall seeme just and that in the meane tyme all proceedings upon the sayd decrees may bee stayd.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc.

Challoner Chute

Ambr Phillipps

Challoner Chute, esquire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/209 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall
and temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of Challoner Chute esquire.

Humbly sheweth.

That your peticioner in May 1679 preferred his peticion of
appeale to your lordshipps against two decrees made in the High Court
of Chancery: and your lordshipps the 23th day of May aforesaid ordered
the right honourable Dorothy Lady Dacre, Richard Barret esquire her trustee and Richard
Owen gentleman, to put in their answeares in a weeke after notice of
the said order.

That notice was given of the said orders, but before the defendants
answeared, the Parliament was dissolved, and since that tyme noe
session hath been; but yet notwithstanding such appeale, was
received, and the defendants had notice of the said order, they have
proceeded upon the said decrees, in the Court of Chancery, and
though your petitioner, offerred to give security according to your lordshipps
orders, to performe the decrees in case hee was not releived upon
appeale, the defendants have forced your petitioner to relinquish the possession
of the estate in question, of which the defendants are now in possession
of about 1000 pounds per annum value:

Your peticioner therefore humbly prayes your lordshipps
to appoint the said defendants some shorte tyme to putt
in their answers, that soe your peticioners cause may
receive a speedy determinacion.

And your petitioners shall pray etc

Challoner Chute

Master Chutes peticion

Challoner Chute, esquire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/209 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall
in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of Challoner Chute esquire

Humbly sheweth
that your petitioner haveing in May 1679 preferred his peticion
of appeale to this honourable house, from two decrees made
in the Court of Chancery and the respondents the right
honourable Dorothy Lady Dacre and her trustee and one Master
Owen, haveing put in their answer to the same.

In as much as your petitioner is by vertue of the said
decrees as he conceives most unjustly kept out of
possession of an estate of 1000 pounds per annum value untill
he shall (as he hopes) obteine your lordshipps reliefe

Your petitioner humbly prayes that your
lordshipps will vouchsafe to appoint
some short day for the heareing
and determining the said cause

And your peticioner shall pray

  • Challoner Chute

Challoner Chute, esquire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/209 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of Challoner
Chute esquire

Most humbly sheweth

That the matter on the appeale of your peticioner to your lordshipps from a decree in Chancery
wherein the right honourable the Lady Dacre was plainant against your peticioners father being
yesterday heard in part by your lordshipps your peticioner is informed your lordshipps as to the
matter then debated which was whether the lady by her acceptance of Sutton Court was barred
of the 5000 pounds were of oppinion shee was not to which your peticioner doth in all humility
submitt.

But your peticioners appeale consisting of divers other particulars as namely that though hee be
charged with the 5000 pounds yett hee ought not to be charged in that manner the decree hath charged
him for instead of 5000 pounds (which is the uttermost the lawe could charge him incase there had beene
noe settlement at all of Sutton Court) hee is by that decree charged with above 12000 pounds and your
peticioner doubts not but to satisfye your lordshipps if you vouchsafe to heare him in that matter
that a great part of that charge ought to be taken off

And your peticioner alsoe excepted against the said decree for that the Lady Dacre had a legacy of
900 pounds decreed her though there were not assetts to pay debts

And in his appeale hee complayned alsoe of a latter decree made against himselfe when a tender
infant by colour of a consent (which could not be in the case of an infant) to binde him) whereby hee
is much agreived

In all and every which matters hee doubts not but to satisfye your lordshipps hee ought to be releived
if hee were fully heard by his councell thereunto which at yesterdayes hearing was not
sufficiently stood upon under a presumption that your lordshipps enclined to releife your
peticioner in the other point

Hee therefore humbly prayes your lordshipps to assigne him a short day to be heard
by his councell upon those other matters at the barr of the house and that the Lady
Dacres may be ordered then to attend such hearing and that the order on yesterdays
hearing may be without prejudice to such further hearing on those other matters

And your peticioner shall pray etc

  • Challoner Chute

Dorothy, Lady Dacres. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/209 (1679)

Challoner Chute esquire appellant
Dorothy Lady Dacres respondent.

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of Dorothy Lady Dacres

Sheweth

That your peticioner doth most readily submitt unto and acquiesse in your lordships grave
determinacions upon the heareings of this cause but your peticioner is advised that the
minutes taken and the order drawne up thereupon are in disadvantage to your peticioner
and not pursuant to your lordshipps direccion and meaneinge in relacion

(1st) To the sale of timber which directs an account thereof absolutely by your peticioner or her agents whereas your peticioner
is advised the account by your lordships directed was onely to bee by persons actinge in it, and that onely for
fraudulent sales and wilfull defaults there beinge an account already made and applyed to the benefitt
of the appellants estate otherwise the appellant by this meanes would have a double account for the same

(2dly) To your peticioners principal debt of 5000 pounds and damages which (as humbly conceives) was settled and confirmed
on the first hearinge and not appoynted to bee heard again by your lordshipps yet the draught of the order upon the last hearinge would turne what interest
of the said 5000 pounds have been received into principall and soe take away all damages for the 5000 pounds and
render your lordships first heareinge ineffectuall to your peticioners ruine; the law alloweinge damages

(3dly) To the legacy ordered to goe in payment of the principall debt of 5000 pounds upon the supposicion of defect of
personall assetts whereas your peticioner received but 200 pounds in goods the value of the legacy unreceived and which
partly made up the summe of 6100 pounds ought (as humbly conceives was directed) to bee deducted out of and
to [sinke?] the same summe wherewith it was made up, and not the value thereof to goe in payment of
your peticioners principal debt of 5000 pounds as the draught of the order suggests

To all which misunderstandeinges of the clerke your peticioner most humbly appeales to your lordships
memory and humbly prayes your lordships that the same might bee rectifyed and for as much as the
matter of legacy and interest thereof was disallowed upon pretence of defect of personall assetts whereas
at the time of the appellants grandfathers death or soone after there was personall assetts to pay all
the appellants grandfathers debts with an overplus exceedinge the value of the said legacy which
your peticioner is ready to make appeare to this honourable house if under the favor of this honourable house shee
may bee permitted unto by her counsell soe to doe.

Your peticioner therefore most humbly prayes your lordships that the
said former account directed to bee taken in Chancerry may goe with
this farther direccion to examine into the personall assetts of the appellants
grandfather at the time of the account or at any other time and
to allow or disallow the said legacy accordinge as the same shall
bee found and that your petitioner may bee releived in the mistakes
of the clerke in drawinge your lordships order pronounced or
otherwise that your lordships would please to permitt your peticioner
to bee heard by her counsell to these poynts

And your peticioner shall ever pray etc

Dorothy Dacre

  • John Churchill
  • William Hancoke

Challoner Chute, esquire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/209 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall
and temporall in Parliament
assembled.

The humble peticion and appeale of Challoner Chute esquire
against a decree made in the High Court of Chancery
in a cause wherein Dorothy Lady Dacre is complainant
against the said petitioner defendant

Humbly sheweth

That your petitioner in or about the yeare of our Lord 1680 did preferre
his peticion of appeale to your lordshipps against three decrees obteined by the said
lady in the said court two of them against your petitioners father the one [on?] or
about the yeare 1664 for the summe of 5000 pounds and damages to bee paid to her
out of the estate of your petitioners grandfather and the other on or about the
yeare of our Lord 1666 for her haveing a specificke legacy of goods of 900 pounds
value given her by your petitioners said grandfather and which by the said decree
was allowed unto her notwithstanding there wanted assettes to pay his debtes and the
third decree was in or about the yeare 1668 against your petitioner (in his infancye)
whereby power was given to commissioners to cutt downe timber upon your petitioners estate
(a thing very extraordinary) and for the allowances of 40 pounds per annum apeice out
of his said estate for the maintenance of three younger children which your petitioner
or his estate was in noe sort by law chargeable with, as by the said peticion
of appeale more at large it doth and may appeare

That the said appeale comeing to bee heard before your lordshipps in the said
yeare 1680 it was then ordered that the said first decree as to the said 5000 pounds and
damages should bee confirmed and upon the 26th day of November in the said yeare
1680 the said appeale as to the said other matters comeing to bee heard it was ordered
that the clause in the said decree touching the said meintenance bee reversed and
that the said lady and her agents should make a faire and full accompt
in the Court of Chancery for the value and proffittes of all such tymber and
wood as shee or they had sold or disposed of which grew on your petitioners estate and that
the value of the legacy decreed to the said lady and which shee had all along enjoyed
bee applyed towards payment of the said debt of 5000 pounds at the tyme shee had the
said legacye and that untill the debts should bee fully satisfied the said lady
should not have any advantage of the said legacye and not have interrest
for it but from the tyme it came to bee due if it was not then paid and
to the direccions aforesaid as by the said orders alsoe appeareth

That pursuant to the said order on or about the 15th day of December
1680 an order was made by the said Court of Chancery that Sir John Coell should take the
accompt according to your lordshipps said order and see what the said lady or any for
or under her had or might without wilfull default have received under the
sequestracion (which shee had obteyned to bee laid upon your petitioners estate in his
infancye) or otherwise, and after long and tedious proceedings before the said
master [Sir?] John Coell (where your petitioner charged the said lady with great sumes
of money for the said tymber and proffittes of your petitioners estate and for your
petitioners fathers goods and personall estate and for the said legacy of 900 pounds.

1

The said Sir John Coell on or about the 16th day of December 1681 made a long
speciall report touching the matters aforesaid and there unto your petitioner
tooke severall excepcions which were severall tymes heard in the said Court of
Chancery (perticulerly on or about the first day of May 1683 whereupon a very
long order or decree was drawne up as by the said report and orders may
appeare at which your petitioner is greatly aggrieved and by which hee is greatly
wronged and prejudiced as not [p..sueing?] and in truth goeing in many things
quite contrary to your lordshipps said orders (in which order of your lordshipps your
petitioner wholly relyes, in case the said lady shall alsoe bee bound thereby
but in case shee shall bee permitted to drawe the matters thereby [illegible] settled
into a new hearing and debate as by a peticion by her preferred to your lordshipps this
present Parliament shee endeavours in such case your petitioner humbly
hopes hee shall bee at liberty to applie alsoe to your lordshipps for a rehearing
of his said appeale against the said first decree as to the said 5000 pounds and
damages hee haveing as hee humbly conceives and is advised very good
reason soe to doe and doth hereby humbly appeale from the same

That the matters in which your petitioner is aggrieved as aforesaid are as followeth videlicet

That whereas the said legacye was by the decree in 1669 (as twice then reported by the
master) fixed at 900 pounds which report the said lady tooke out and obteined to bee confirmed
and rested thereupon for neere 20 yeares without any complaint against the same
the said master did take upon him to ravell in to the same and examine
witnesses after all that time to lessen the value of the said goods (upon
pretence that the generall [word?] value was in your lordshipps order when as that
happened by reason of the differrence of the coppies of the decree (read at your
lordshipps barr) the said ladyes coppie expressing it to bee 500 pounds, but your petitioner
900 pounds as the truth was the said decree was which was signed and enrolled and
the said court hath settled the said legacie at a farre lesser summe videlicet at 380 pounds
or thereabouts contrary to the true intent and meaneing of your lordshipps order and
the said decree and your petitioner relyeing upon the said settlement of the said value
in the said decree, not examineing any wittnesses to the said [value?] the said
court hath not onely altred the said value settled soe long since as 1666 but
debarred your petitioner from examineing any witnesses to the said value of the said
specificke legacye which proceedings humbly conceives to bee against justice

2 That whereas there was tymber and wood to the value of 8000 pounds or thereaboutes
cutt from of your petitioners estate by vertue of the said third decree and sold by Master Owen
the said ladyes servant and agent your petitioner is not allowed above the summe
of 2500 pounds or thereaboutes for the same althoe by your lordshipps order hee is to
have a full accompt made for the same.

3 That althoe your lordshipps order did reverse the said decree as to the
money allowed for the said childrens maintenance (the naturall consequence
whereof was that your petitioner was to bee restored to the money taken out of his
estate for that purpose and which was paid to the said lady or her order and that
at the tyme the same was soe paid, yet the said Court of Chancery, hath
allowed your petitioner the said money but at the tyme of the date of your
lordshipps said order

2

4 That your petitioner haveing charged the said lady for your petitioners fathers goods
at his houses at the Vyne and in Newport Streete, with the summe of 2000 pounds
mor then the said master allowed your petitioner upon the said accompt
the said court, notwithstanding your petitioner had made proofe of the great
undervalue of the said goods and desired to have the ayde of the said court
for a full and cleere valuacion to bee made (the said goods being all
still in the said ladyes custody and as areason and evidence of
such undervaluacion offerring to give 200 pounds for that which was valued but
about 5 pounds and the like as to severall other perticulers of the said goodes
yet your petitioner could not obteyne any such ayde or to charge the said lady
further then shee had charged herselfe in respect of the said goods when as
shee ought to have been and now to bee charged with the full value thereof
and your petitioner have all reasonable releife given him for ascerteineing
such value

5 That the said lady ought to have been and to bee charged with at
least 60 pounds per annum for her [liveing?] in the said house called the Vyne, with
the lands and conveniencyes therewith enjoyed and which are of themselves
are proved to bee worth soe much by the neighbouring gentlemen of the
countrey according to your petitioners excepcion to the said report

6 That shee ought alsoe to have been and to bee charged with 70 pounds
per annum for the wood by her burnt and spent from off your petitioners estate at
the Vyne or at least the money and value of the said wood as the same is
expressed in your petitioners excepcion to the said report

7 That the Vyne lodge and other partes of your petitioneres estate stood empty
or was underlett by the said lady or her agentes, for which shee ought to bee charged
(as a willfull default) according to the said order of the Court of Chancery
and your petitioneres excepcions taken to the masters report touching these
matters

8 That your petitioner and his estate are charged by the said Court of
Chancery with 244 pounds for costes of suite expended by the said complainant in the suite
against his father which (his said father being dead and that before the same
were taxed or ascerteined) hee ought not to bee, especially hee being
heire and the costes relateing onely to a personall wrong (if any was) by
his father which dyed with him and yet your petitioner is not onely charged with the said
costes but with interrest for the same from 1666 now 19 yeares

In all which hardshipps your petitioner being elsewhere then before your lordshipps
the supreame court of judicature of this realme remedylesse

Your petitioner humbly prayes that your lordshipps will assigne the
said lady a shorte day to putt in her answer touching
the premisses and thereupon to appoint a day for
hearing the matters aforesaid and for giveing your petitioner
such releife in the matters aforesaid as to justice and
equity shall apperteine

And your petitioner shall pray etc

Challoner Chute

Ambr Phillipps


George Hutchins

Sir John Platt, knight. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/210 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall
in Parliament assembled.

The humble peticion of Sir John Platt knight

Plat plaintife
Bennet defendant
in a writ of error

Humbly sheweth

That one Jerrard Gore having gotten a judgment in
ejectment against your peticioner in the name of one
Bennet plainant against your peticioner defendant in the Common
Pleas, your peticioner removed the said judgment into
the Kings Bench by writt of error, and there by
surprize none attending for your peticioner the
judgment was affirmed though there be severall manifest
errours in it, whereupon the peticioner hath brought his
writt of errour on the said judgment retornable in this
present Parliament but the same cannot be received into
the House of Peers by reason of a late order of your lordshipps
for that the same was not brought in within the
time lymitted by the said order. Whereas your peticioner
never heard of the same order untill now.

Your peticioner humbly prayes your honours
the premisses considered to order your peticioners
writt of errour in the said cause, and
the returne of it to be received into the
House of Peers notwithstanding the said
late order.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc

John Plate.

Sir John
Plate knight
against
Bennet
peticion

for bringing in a writt of
error.

[illegible] 23 May 1679.

Evan Lloyd, esquire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/389/213 (1679)

To the right honourable the lords spiritual
and temporall in Parliament assembled.

The humble peticion of Evan Lloyd esquire.

Sheweth
that your peticioner together with Roger Lloyd his brother, were bound for Thomas
Morice their father in [law?] unto one Thomas Moulton, in a bond of 200 pounds
for payment of 100 pounds with interest that the said Morice dyed insolvent, and the
100 pounds and interest not being payd the said Moulton put his bond in suite against
the said Roger Lloyd whoe payd unto the said Moulton at one time 50 pounds in
parte and at another time he payd the remainder, and got an assignment of the
said bond from Moulton in the name of Sir Philipp Lloyd, and afterwards made
his will, and made the said Sir Philipp Lloyd his executor and dyed, after whose death
the said Sir Philipp in the name of the said Moulton, put the said bond of 200 pounds in
suite against your petitioner whereupon your petitioner preferred his bill in his majesties High
Court of Chancery against the said Sir Philipp to be releived against the said bond
uppon payment of a moyety of the said money, your peticioner being but a surety for the
said money as well as the said Roger Lloyd, and the said cause came to be heard
before the Lord Chancellor of England, and uppon the said heareing unjustly decreed
and ordered your petitioner to pay the whole money although your petitioner was but a
surety and ought to have payd but a moyety of the said money, which said decree
your petitioner is advised is erronious and unjust and therefore appeales from the
same to your lordshipps grave judgments.

Your peticioner therefore humbly prays your lordshipps
to appoint a short day for the hearing of the
said cause before your lordshipps and to summone Sir
Philipp Lloyd before your lordshipps for that purpose

And your petitioner as in duty bound shall
ever pray etc

Evan Lloyd.

I conceive the peticioner
hath good cause to appeale
William Westbrooke.