House of Lords Journal Volume 15: 2 January 1693

DIE Lunæ, 2 die Januarii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Walthall's Bill.

Hodie 3^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to enable Richard Walthall Esquire to sell Lands, for the Payment of Portions and Debts."

The Question was put, "Whether this Bill shall pass?"

It was Resolved in the Affirmative.

Sir. J. Wentworth's Bill.

Hodie 3^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to enable Sir John Wentworth Baronet, an Infant under the Age of One and Twenty Years, to make a Jointure out and Settlement of his Manors and Lands, in the Counties of Yorke and Westmorland."

The Question was put, "Whether this Bill shall pass?"

It was Resolved in the Affirmative.

A Message was sent to the House of Commons, by Sir Miles Cooke and Sir Lacon William Child:

To carry down the said Bills, and desire their Concurrence thereunto.

Bellamy versus Allen & al.

Upon reading the Petition of John Bellamy; praying, "That a further Day may be allowed, for hearing of the Cause wherein he is Appellant, and John Allen and John Glover Respondents:"

It is ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel on both Sides, at the Bar, on Monday the Sixteenth Day of this Instant January, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon.

Englefield versus Sir C. Englefield.

The House being this Day moved, "That a Day may be appointed for hearing of the Cause wherein Anthony Englefyld is Appellant, and Sir Charles Englefyld is Respondent:"

It is ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel on both Sides, at the Bar, on Saturday the Fourteenth Day of this Instant January, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon.

Inhabitants of Oundle, Tansor, &c. versus Barton & al.

Upon hearing Counsel this Day, at the Bar, upon the Petition and Appeal of Sir John Sommers Knight, Their Majesties Attorney General, on the Behalf of the several Towns of Oundle, Tansor, Cotterstock, and Glapthorne, in the County of North'ton, against a Decree and Dismission pronounced in the High Court of Chancery, by the late Lord Chancellor Jeffryes, the Two and Twentieth Day of February, Quarto Jacobi Secundi, in certain Causes then there depending, wherein His then Majesty's Attorney General, on the Behalf of the Poor of the said Four Towns, was Informant, against Thomas Barton the Elder, Charles Kirkham, George Welby, and others, Defendants; as also upon the Answers of Thomas Barton Senior, Gentleman, Thomas Arnold Doctor of Laws, Richard Filbrigg, John Filbrigg, and the rest of the Respondents, to the said Petition and Appeal:

After due Consideration had of what was offered by Counsel on all Sides thereupon, it is ORDERED and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Dismission of the Two and Twentieth Day of February, Quarto Jacobi Secundi, shall be, and is hereby, reversed.

D. of Norfolk, Divorce Bill.

The Order being read, for considering of the Bill offered to this House, on the Behalf of the Duke of Norfolke, for dissolving of the Marriage between the said Duke and his Dutchess; and that the Record of the Court of King's Bench be brought, wherein Judgement is entered for his Grace the Duke of Norfolke against John Germaine; and the Lord Chief Justice of that Court and Counsel to attend, to be heard if the House think fit.

Record of the King's Bench: D. of Norfolk versus Germaine.

The Record being brought in by the proper Officer; it was read by the Clerk.

Which being done, the Lord Chief Justice Holt was asked, "Whether the Dutchess of Norfolke was concerned in the Action in the King's Bench, as a Party?"

He answered, "She was neither Plaintiff nor Defendant: The Action was, between the Duke of Norfolke and Mr. Germaine."

And, after Debate,

The Counsel for the Duke and Dutchess of Norfolke were called in.

And the Counsel for the Duke was asked this Question, "Whether the Lady Dutchess of Norfolke was ever sent to, to wave her Privilege?"

They said, "They did not know that she was."

Then the Counsel for the Dutchess of Norfolke was asked this Question, "Whether, if the Dutchess of Norfolke had been desired to wave her Privilege, she would have done it?"

They said, "She would."

Then, the Counsel being withdrawn, and Debate thereupon,

Bill not to be read.

This Question was put, "Whether the Bill offered to this House, on the Behalf of the Duke of Norfolke, for dissolving of the Marriage between him and his Dutchess, shall be read?" It was Resolved in the Negative.

Superstitious Truth for vesting in the Crown, Bill.

It is ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the Bill, intituled, "An Act for vesting of superstitious Trusts and Uses in the Crown," shall be read the Second Time on Wednesday next, at Twelve of the Clock; and that the (fn. 1) Lords Chief Justices do then attend.

Adjourn.

Rob'tus Atkyns, Miles de Balneo, Capitalis Baro de Scaccario, Orator Procerum, declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque in diem Martis, (videlicet), tertium diem Januarii instantis, hora decima Aurora, Dominis sic decernentibus.