House of Lords Journal Volume 22: May 1723, 11-20

May 1723, 11-20

DIE Sabbati, 11^o Maii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

Georgius Princeps Walliæ.

PRAYERS.

Bishop of Rochester's Bill:

This Day being appointed, to hear Counsel further upon the Bill, intituled, "An Act to inflict Pains and Penalties on Francis Lord Bishop of Rochester:"

The Counsel were called in.

The Bishop at the Bar.

And the Bishop was brought to the Bar, by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.

And the Bishop's Counsel produced a Paper, said to be an Affidavit of Gordon, dated 8th April, 1723, touching the Letter of the 20th of April, 1722, to prove it was not sent to him; and that he never received any Letters from George Kelly, alias Johnson, or wrote any to him, or had any Correspondence with him.

And the same was read.

And the Counsel against the Bill acquainting the House, "That they should not trouble their Lordships touching the Decyphering the Three Letters of the 20th of April, 1722, whereof they had had Copies:"

They proceeded to sum up their Evidence; and made some Observations on the Evidence for the Bill.

After which, the Bishop was heard in his own Defence.

The Counsel and Bishop were ordered to withdraw.

And being withdrawn:

Bishop of Rochester remanded:

Ordered, That the Bishop be remanded to The Tower of London; and be brought to this House on Monday next, at Ten a Clock in the Forenoon.

Motion for Kelly to be examined concerning the Bill:

A Motion was made,

And the Question was put, "That George Kelly, alias Johnson, now a Prisoner in The Tower of London, be brought to the Bar of this House on Monday Morning next, to be examined upon Oath, on the Bill, intituled, "An Act to inflict Pains and Penalties on Francis Lord Bishop of Rochester?"

It was Resolved in the Negative.

Protest against rejecting it.

"Dissentient.

"1st, Because we think it unquestionable, that the said Kelly is a competent legal Witness to the Matters charged by the Bill against the Bishop, and could not be legally refused to be sworn as such, if the Bishop were on his Trial for the same, in the ordinary Course of Justice, and that whether the said Kelly was produced either for or against the Bishop; and we conceive, if the Counsel for the Bill had thought fit to have produced him in Support of the Bill, that even no legal Objection could have been made by the Bishop's Counsel against his being so produced and sworn; the Bill passed this House against the said Kelly not having received the Royal Assent, and there not being in the said Bill, in our Opinions, any Thing that can destroy even his legal Testimony, when the same is passed into a Law.

"2dly, Because the Three Letters, dated the Twentieth of April, 1722, supposed to contain treasonable Correspondencies with the Pretender and some of his Agents, have been made the principal Charge against the Bishop, and have been endeavoured to be proved to have been dictated to the said Kelly by the Bishop at or about the Time of their Date: But this not being as yet done, as we think, by direct or positive Proof, by any living Witness of the Fact, but by Circumstances only; we think it most proper, and most safe and just, to endeavour to discover the Truth of that material Fact, by the best Evidence the Nature of the Thing can admit of; and that this House should not be left under the Difficulties of judging, on this extraordinary Occasion, from doubtful Circumstances, if the Fact may be cleared by certain positive Proof, and the Examination of a competent and a living Witness, upon Oath, at the Bar of this House.

"3dly, Because several living Witnesses have been examined on Oath, at the Bar of this House, on Behalf of the Bishop, in order to prove, by their positive Testimony, and other Circumstances, that the Bishop did not dictate or direct, or was any Way privy to, the writing the said Letters, or any of them; which has in our Judgements rendered it of yet greater Importance, that the supposed Writer of those Letters should be brought under the most strict and solemn Examination, before the Bill has passed this House.

"4thly, Because the said Kelly, though examined before Committees of both Houses of Parliament and elsewhere, hath not, to our Knowledge, been yet examined on Oath to the Matters contained in this Bill; and it having appeared to us in other Instances on this Occasion, particularly of Mrs. Barnes examined for the Bill, and of Bingley against it, who have materially varied their Examinations at the Bar of this House from their former Examinations, at the same Time declaring that their former Examinations were not taken and sworn to by them; we think it may be both dangerous, and derogatory to the Honour and Justice of this House, not to examine on Oath a Person capable of discovering the Matters of Fact on which the Justice of the Bill against the Bishop must depend; and especially after the said Kelly hath declared, in the most solemn Manner, next to that of his being upon Oath, that the Bishop did not dictate, or was privy to the writing, the said Letters, or any of them; and the Bishop himself, in his Defence, having also, in the most solemn Manner of Asseveration, declared his Innocence in this Particular, and expressly referring to the former Asseverations of the said Kelly, as we conceive, as a Testimony in Confirmation of his own Asseverations.

"5thly, Because we conceive that the said Kelly was not only a legal Witness for or against the Bishop, in the strictest Construction of Courts of Judicature; but the Examination of him upon Oath, on this Bill, is in every respect whatsoever, in our Judgements, less liable to Objection than many or most other Evidences which on this Occasion have been allowed; because the Bill passed by this House against the said Kelly, if it obtains the Royal Assent, as is most probable, doth, in Judgement of Law, as hath been declared by the Judges, acquit him of any future Prosecution for the said Treasons therein charged upon him; and there is no Judgement or Punishment inflicted upon him in the said Bill, which can, when passed, destroy his Capacity of giving Evidence on any Occasion; and the same having been passed by this House, and not passed the Royal Assent, leaves the said Kelly, in our Opinions, under less Influence, either of Hopes or Fears, than such Witnesses which have been examined on this Occasion under Commitments and Charge of High Treason, and, as we conceive, less liable to that Objection, than the Declaration of Philip Neynoe, which has been read against the Bishop, though never signed or sworn to by him, and the said Neynoe some Months since drowned in endeavouring his Escape, and which Declaration appears to us to have been made by him under the strongest Influences of Guilt and Terror.

"6thly, We think the Crimes charged in the Bill against the said Kelly are in their Nature distinct and independent on those charged upon the Bishop Kelly's Guilt, in writing the said treasonable Letters proved upon him, being the same, though the Bishop be altogether innocent in relation thereto; for which Reason, as we conceive, this House did refuse to permit Kelly, on his Bill, to give Evidence that the Bishop did not dictate the said Letters; for which Reason, we are of Opinion that the Evidence which Kelly might have given, touching the Bishop's dictating the said Letters or not, would have produced no Consequence at all with regard to the Bill passed against himself, though it must necessarily have contributed to the Proof of the Guilt or Innocence of the Bishop.

"7thly, This House having, with great Honour and Justice, declared to several Persons produced as Wit nesses on this Occasion, "that it was not required from them to depose to any Thing which did or might tend to their own Accusation;" the Testimony of the said Kelly, if he had been examined on Oath, we doubt not, would have been taken under the same just Indulgence; and if he had submitted to have been examined on Oath to the Matters of this Bill, such his Examination, being in that respect voluntary, could not, in our Opinions, have been construed as forced from him by the Authority of this House; and such Testimony as he might have given would have remained under the Consideration and Judgement of this House, as to its Credit and Influence on all Circumstances, in the same Manner as the other Evidence for and against the Bill still does.

"Scarsdale.
Strafford.
Cowper.
Lechmere.
Dartmouth.
Pomfret.
Bathurst.
Salisbury.
Northampton.
Anglesey.
Bingley.
Foley.
Berkeley of Stratton.
Fran. Cestriens.
Poulett.
Masham.
Cardigan.
Compton.
Ashburnham.
Willoughby de Broke.
Guilford.
Litchfield.
Weston.
Aylesford.
Bruce.
Gower.
Uxbridge.
Exeter.
Brooke
Craven.
Middleton.
Hereford.
Hay.
Denbigh.
Wharton."

Ordered, That on Monday next, at Eleven a Clock, this House will proceed further on the Bill, intituled, "An Act to inflict Pains and Penalties on Francis Lord Bishop of Rochester."

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Lunæ, decimum tertium diem instantis Maii, hora decima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.

DIE Lunæ, 13^o Maii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

Georgius Princeps Walliæ.

PRAYERS.

Witnesses on Bishop of Rochester's Bill:

Ordered, That Thomas Lloyd Victualer and Francis Smith be, and are hereby, required to attend this House immediately, to be examined, as Witnesses on the Bill, intituled, "An Act to inflict Pains and Penalties on Francis Lord Bishop of Rochester."

Bishop of Rochester's Bill:

This Day being appointed, to hear Counsel further upon the Bill, intituled, "An Act to inflict Pains and Penalties on Francis Lord Bishop of Rochester:"

The Counsel were called in:

The Bishop at the Bar:

And the Bishop was brought to the Bar, by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.

And Mr. Reeves, of Counsel for the Bill, was heard by Way of Reply.

And William Aldrich and John Grahme were sworn, and examined touching the Character of Edmund Bingley.

And George Harcourt proved, upon Oath, the Copy of the Record of the Attainder of Skeene.

And the same was read.

Then John Crawfurd a Messenger, Jane Crawfurd, and Hannah Wright, were severally sworn, and examined touching Skeene, Stewart, Neyno, and Bingley's conversing, or having an Opportunity to converse together, in the House of John Crawfurd, where they were all in Custody together.

Captain Andrew Pancier was sworn, and examined touching his Acquaintance with Skeene; and what Conversation had been between them, concerning the Conspiracy.

Thomas Lloyd Victualer was sworn, and examined touching his Acquaintance with Philip Neyno, and the said Neyno's coming to his House at Westminster, or staying for any Body there.

Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, being examined upon Oath, gave Evidence to the like Effect as he had done in the Proceeding upon the Bill against George Kelly, alias Johnson.

John Downer was sworn, and examined, touching his Acquaintance with the Gordons at Boulogne, and their acting as Bankers together; and a Discourse with Gordon the Son, concerning the aforesaid Letters of the 20th of April 1722, signed "T. Jones," "T. Illington," and "R—" and that Letter, with the enclosed to Waters, printed in the Appendix to the Report of the Committee of Commons, and Gordon's owning that he received the said Letter and Packet, and delivered the Packet to Talbot as directed.

John Crawfurd the Messenger, and Williams, were severally fworn, and examined, to prove the Hand-writing of Mr. Crawford the King's Minister at Paris, and the Hand-writing of John Williams Secretary to the said Minister.

And thereupon a Letter from the said Mr. Crawford at Paris, and also a Certificate by the said John Williams, concerning James Talbot's being at Paris the 11th of May, 1722, were severally read.

And Thomas Grant, the Bishop's Butler, was sworn, and examined touching a Letter, alledged by the Counsel for the Bill to have been brought by him, from the Bishop of Rochester, to the Lord Bishop of St. Asaph, on Saturday the 21st of April, 1722.

And the said Lord Bishop of St. Asaph, in his Place, gave the House an Account of a Letter which he received from the Bishop of Rochester upon that Day.

Then the Counsel for the Bill acquainting the House, "They had no further Evidence to offer in Support of the Bill:"

The Bishop's Counsel were heard, in Answer to the Evidence offered on the Reply.

And Francis Wincle was sworn, and examined, as to the Time of Thomas Grant's coming to Town, on Saturday the 21st of April, 1722.

Christiana Lenos, Francis Wood and his Wife, and Anne Russell, were severally sworn, and examined, to prove that Neyno, Skeene, and Stewart, were frequently together, while in Custody, at Mr. Crawfurd's the Messenger.

Captain Andrew Pancier and Skeene were called in together.

And the said Skeene was examined, in Presence of the said Pancier, as to his Acquaintance and Conversation with Captain Andrew Pancier; and was also examined, in the Presence of John Crawfurd the Messenger, Jane Crawfurd, and Hannah Wright, touching the Conversation he pretended to have had with Neyno and Stewart, when in Custody at the said Mr. Crawfurd's.

And the said Stewart was examined, to the same Particular, in their Presence.

And the Bishop himself was heard, as to the new Matter this Day offered.

Afterwards Mr. Wearg was heard, in Reply.

Then the said Bill was read a Second Time.

And the Bishop being asked, "Whether he had any Thing further to offer?"

And declaring, "That he had not:"

The Counsel were ordered to withdraw.

And the Bishop being taken from the Bar:

Bishop of Rochester remanded.

It is Ordered, That the Bishop of Rochester be remanded to The Tower of London.

Then a Motion being made, "That the Bill, intituled, "An Act to inflict Pains and Penalties on Francis Lord Bishop of Rochester," be read the Third Time on Wednesday next, at Eleven a Clock:"

It was, upon the Question, Resolved in the Affirmative.

Ordered, That the Lords be summoned upon the Third Reading of the said Bill.

Causes put off.

Whereas Wednesday next is appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein James Macartney Senior Esquire and others are Appellants, and Richard Arundell, alias Bellings, Esquire, and others, are Respondents; et è contra:

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on Friday next; and that the other Causes appointed on Cause-days be removed in Course.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Mercurii, decimum quintum diem instantis Maii, [hora decima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.

DIE Mercurii, 15^o Maii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

Georgius Princeps Walliæ.

PRAYERS.

State of Public Debt delivered.

The House being informed, "That Mr. Alexander Chocke, from the Exchequer, attended:"

He was called in; and, at the Bar, presented to the House, pursuant to their Lordships Address to His Majesty, of the Tenth of December last,

"A State of the Public Debt at the Receipt of His Majesty's Exchequer, provided or unprovided for, as it stood on the Thirty-first of December 1721, and on the Thirty-first of December 1722; together with the Produce of the Sinking Funds in each of those Years; and how much thereof hath been applied towards sinking the said Debt, and how much thereof hath been otherwise applied, and to what Uses, in each of those Years."

And being withdrawn:

The Title thereof was read by the Clerk.

L. Lovat versus Mackenzie.

Whereas Saturday next is appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Simon Lord Lovat is Appellant, and Hugh Mackenzie is Respondent:

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on Tuesday next, at Eleven a Clock.

Gayer versus E. of Anglesey & al.

The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Robert Gayer Esquire and Robert Gayer Junior Esquire are Appellants, and Arthur Earl of Anglesey, Thomas Gayer, Henry Gayer, James Gayer, and Edward Gayer, are Respondents:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on Saturday the Twentyfifth Day of this Instant May, at Eleven a Clock.

Maxwell's Committee revived.

Ordered, That the Committee to whom the Petition of Charles Maxwell Esquire and Janet his Wife stands referred, be revived, and meet on Tuesday next.

Bishop of Rochester's Bill:

Hodie 3^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to inflict Pains and Penalties on Francis Lord Bishop of Rochester."

And, after long Debate,

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

It was Resolved in the Affirmative.

Protest against it.

"Dissentient.

"1st, Because the Objection which we thought lay against the Bills of Plunket and Kelly, "That the Commons were thereby in Effect let into an equal Share of Judicature with the Lords," does hold stronger, as we apprehend, against the present Bill; since, by Means of it, a Lord of Parliament is in Part tried and adjudged to Punishment in the House of Commons, and reduced to a Necessity, either of letting his Accusation pass undefended in that House, or of appearing there, and, as we take it, derogating from his own Honour, and that of the Lords in general, by answering and making his Defence in the Lower House of Parliament.

"2dly, Because we are of Opinion, that the Commons would be very far from yielding to the Lords any Part of those Powers and Privileges which are properly theirs by the Constitution, in any Form or under any Pretext whatsoever; and it seems to us full as reasonable that the Lords should be as tenacious of the Rights and Privileges which remain to them, as the Commons are on their Part.

"3dly, We think this Bill against a Lord of Parliament, taking its Rise in the House of Commons, ought the rather not to have received any Countenance in this House; for that, as it appeared to us by the printed Votes of the House of Commons, that House had voted the Bishop guilty of all the Matters alledged against him in the Bill before the Bill was brought into that House, and consequently before the Bishop had any Opportunity of being heard: And although there be nothing absurd in passing such a Vote, in order to their accusing by an Impeachment; yet it seems to us absolutely contrary to Justice, which ought to be unprejudiced, to vote any one guilty, against whom they design to proceed in their Legislative Capacity, or in Nature of Judges, before the Party has an Opportunity to be heard, or the Bill which is to ascertain the Accusation is so much as brought in.

"4thly, We are of Opinion, that no Law ought to be passed on Purpose to enact, that any One be guilty in Law, and punished as such, but where such an extraordinary Proceeeding is evidently necessary for the Preservation of the State: Whereas the Crime offered to be proved against the Bishop of Rochester is, as we apprehend, his partaking in a traiterous Conspiracy against the Government; which Conspiracy, by God's Blessing, is detected, and, as we hope, disappointed, without the Aid of such a dangerous Proceeding as we conceive this to be.

"5thly, Because there are certain known and established Rules of Evidence, which are Part of the Law of the Land, either introduced by Acts of Parliament, or framed by Reason and the Experience of Ages, adjusted as well for the Defence of the Life, Liberty, and Property of the innocent Subject, as the Punishment of the Guilty: And therefore these Rules are, or ought to be, constantly adhered to, in all Courts of Justice; and, as we conceive, should be also observed, till altered by Law, in both Houses of Parliament, whenevever they try, judge, and punish the Subject, though in their Legislative Capacity: But since in many Instances, in this and the Two other Proceedings by Bill, we have been taught, by the Opinion of the House, that these Rules of Evidence need not be observed by the Houses acting in their Legislative Capacity, we clearly take it to be a very strong Objection to this Manner of Proceeding, that Rules of Law made for Security of the Subject are of no Use to him in it; and that the Conclusion from hence is very strong, that therefore it ought not to be taken up but where clearly necessary, as before affirmed; and we desire to explain ourselves so far, upon the Cases of Necessity excepted, as to say, we do not intend to include a Necessity arising purely from an Impossibility of convicting any other Way.

"6thly, If it be admitted that traiterous Correspondencies in Cyphers and cant Words may to a Degree be discouraged by this Sort of Proceeding, in which Persons, as we think, are convicted on a more uncertain Evidence than the known Rules of Law admit of; yet we are of Opinion, that Convenience will be much more than outweighed, by the Jealousy it must of Necessity, as we conceive, create in the Minds of many of His Majesty's most faithful Subjects, that their Lives, Liberties, and Properties, are not so safe, after such repeated Examples, as they were before; and, by the natural Consequence of this Apprehension, an Abatement of their Zeal for the Government may ensue, excepting such Persons as have had more than ordinary Opportunities of being well instructed in Principles of the utmost Duty and Loyalty.

"7thly, We cannot be for the passing this Bill, because the Evidence produced to make good the Recital of it, or that the Lord Bishop of Rochester is guilty of the Matter he therein stands accused of, is, in our Opinion, greatly defective and insufficient, both in Law and Reason, to prove that Charge; the Evidence consisting altogether, to the best of our Observation, in Conjectures arising from Circumstances in the intercepted Letters, or on a Comparison of Hand-writings, resting on Memory only; and there being as we think, no Proof of the Bishop's Knowing of, or being privy to, any of the said Correspondence: And as to the principal Part of the Charge against the Bishop, and on which, as we think, all the rest does depend, videlicet, the dictating the Letters of the Twentieth of April, 1722, which the House of Lords seem to have determined that Kelly wrote; we are of Opinion, that the Bishop has, in his Defence, very clearly and fully proved that he did not, nor possibly could, dictate those Letters, or the Substance of any Part of them, to Kelly, either on the Day of their Date, or at any Time during several Days next before or next after the Day of their Date, nor was in any Capacity to write them himself, though the Letters must have been wrote within that Compass of Time: And we are, on the whole, of Opinion, that the Proof and Probability of the Lord Bishop of Rochester's Innocence, in the Matters he stood charged with, were much stronger than those of his Guilt.

"Strafford.
Scarsdale.
Denbigh.
Bruce.
Salisbury.
Northampton.
Montjoy.
Poulett.
Fran. Cestriens.
Dartmouth.
Cardigan.
Litchfield.
Anglesey.
Craven.
Aylesford.
Foley.
Hay.
Ashburnham.
Trevor.
Osborne.
Bathurst.
Uxbridge.
Weston.
Gower.
Compton.
Masham.
Arundell.
Exeter.
Guilford.
Berkeley of Stratton.
Willoughby Broke.
Middleton.
Pomfret.
Cowper.
Hereford.
Brooke.
Stawell.
Bingley.
Oxford & Mortimer."

"I dissent, for the Sixth and Seventh Reasons of the aforegoing Protestation, and for the following Reasons:

"1st, Because this extraordinary Method of proceeding, by Bills of this Nature, against Persons who do not withdraw from Justice, but are willing to undergo a legal Trial, ought, in my Opinion, to be supported by clear and convincing Evidence; and, I apprehend, there has been nothing offered to support the Allegations set forth in the Preamble of the Bill to inflict Pains and Penalties on Francis Lord Bishop of Rochester, but what depends on decyphered Letters, forced Constructions, and improbable Innuendos.

"2dly, I conceive that the Examination of Philip Neynoe, taken before the Lords of the Council, not sworn to, nor signed, which appears to me to be the Foundation on which the Charge against the Bishop of Rochester is built, has been, in my Apprehension, sufficiently proved by the positive Oaths of Three Persons, Two of which have been for several Months in separate Custodies, confirmed by other Circumstances, to have been a false and malicious Contrivance of the said Neynoe, to save himself from the Hands of Justice, and to work the Destruction of the Bishop of Rochester.

"3dly, I do not apprehend that the Letters of the Twentieth of April, which are suggested to be wrote by George Kelly alias Johnson, and dictated by the Bishop, have been sufficiently proved to be the Handwriting of the said Kelly; but, on the contrary, it appears, to the best of my Judgement, that the Letter of the Twentieth of August (stopped at the Postoffice, and from which the Clerks of the Post-office, on their Memory only, swear they believe the said Letters of the Twentieth of April to be the same Hand-writing, though they never compared Two original Letters together, during all that Time) has been proved by Three credible Witnesses, concurring in every Circumstance of their Testimony, and well acquainted with the Hand-writing of the said Kelly, not to be his Hand-writing; and I conceive, that the Difference they have observed in the Hand of the said Kelly, upon which they ground their Opinions, is sufficiently supported, by comparing the said Letter of the Twentieth of August with the Letters wrote by the said Kelly to the Lord Townshend and Mr. Delasaye, during the Time of his Confinement.

"4thly, I do not apprehend that any Proof has been offered, to support what has been so much insisted on, and justly esteemed essential to the Charge, that the Bishop of Rochester dictated the Letters of the Twentieth of April. But it has appeared, I conceive, that there has been no Intimacy between the Bishop and the said Kelly; and the Testimony of the Bishop's Servants concurring with the Evidence given on that Head by the Persons that Kelly lived in the strictest Correspondency with, leaves, to the best of my Judgement, no Room to doubt but that the Acquaintance between them was slender and public: And to suggest from thence, that the Bishop dictated the Letters of the Twentieth of April, when it appeared that, for many Days before, he could not possibly see the said Kelly, is, in my Opinion, repugnant to Reason, and contrary to Justice.

"Wharton."

Message to H. C. that the Lords have agreed to it.

A Message was sent to the House of Commons, by Mr. Lovibond and Mr. Bennet:

To acquaint them, that the Lords have agreed to the before-mentioned Bill, without any Amendment.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Veneris, decimum septimum diem instantis Maii, hora undecima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.

Die Jovis, 16^o die Aprilis, 1724, hitherto examined by us,

Findlater.
Hu. Bristol.
Jo. Norwich.
Delawarr.

DIE Veneris, 17^o Maii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

E. Stamford takes his Seat.

This Day Harry Earl of Stamford sat first in Parliament, after the Death of his Uncle Thomas Earl of Stamford; and came to the Table, and took the Oaths, and made and subscribed the Declaration, and also took and subscribed the Oath of Abjuration, pursuant to the Statutes.

Message from H. C. to return Sir Gervas Clifton's Bill.

A Message from the House of Commons, by the Lord William Pawlet and others:

To return the Bill, intituled, "An Act for vesting the Estates of Sir Gervas Cliston Baronet in Trustees; and to enable him to take an Estate for Life, by Way of Purchase, in Settlements intended to be made of his Estates, on the Marriage of Robert Glifton Esquire, his Son and Heir Apparent;" and to acquaint this House, that they have agreed to the said Bill, with One Amendment, whereunto they desire their Lordships Concurrence.

Which Amendment, being read Twice by the Clerk, was agreed to by the House.

And a Message was sent to the House of Commons, by Mr. Holford and Mr. Kynaston, to acquaint them therewith.

Journeymen Shoemakers Bill.

A Message from the House of Commons, by Mr. Godfrey and others:

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for preventing Journeymen Shoemakers selling, exchanging, or pawning, Boots, Shoes, Slippers, cut Leather, or other Materials for making Boots, Shoes, or Slippers; and for better regulating the said Journeymen;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

The said Bill was read the First Time.

Aberdeen Records, Bill.

A Message from the House of Commons, by Mr. Grant and others:

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for making more effectual an Act passed in the Eighth Year of His Majesty's Reign, intituled, An Act for supplying the Records of the Commissary Court of Aberdeen, burnt or lost in the late Fire there;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Then the said Bill was read the First Time.

Messages from H. C. with a Bill; and to return Gower's Bill.

A Message from the House of Commons, by Mr. Sandys and others:

To return the Bill, intituled, "An Act for Sale of the Manor of Queenhill, and other the Lands therein mentioned, in the County of Worcester, for raising Monies, for and towards Payment of the Debts of William Gower Esquire and of John Gower his Son, deceased; and for discharging the said Manor and Lands of and from the same;" and to acquaint this House, that they have agreed to the said Bill, without any Amendment.

Customs, and Tobacco Duties, &c. Bill.

A Message from the House of Commons, by Mr. Sandys and others:

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for enabling His Majesty to put the Customs of Great Britain under the Management of One or more Commissions; and for better securing and ascertaining the Duties on Tobacco; and to prevent Frauds in exporting Tobacco, and other Goods and Merchandizes, or carrying the same Coastwise;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Then the said Bill was read the First Time.

Macartney & al. versus Arundell alias Bellings & al.; et è contra:

This Day being appointed, to hear Counsel, as well upon the Original Appeal of James Macartney Senior and John Roberts Esquires, Executors of the last Will and Testament of Douglas Ludlow Widow, deceased, and James Macartney Junior and Michael Cuffe Esquire; complaining of several Orders and Decrees made in the High Court of Chancery in Ireland, the Fifteenth of June 1711, the Third of July and Eighth of November 1712, the Thirteenth of May 1714, the Fourth of May, the Twenty-fifth of June, and Fifth of July, 1716, the Eleventh of July and Twenty-fifth of November 1720, the Thirteenth of June and Third of August 1721, and the Fifth of May 1722, in the Causes following; (videlicet,) in a Cause wherein the said Douglas Ludlow Widow, and Francis Cuffe Esquire, and the said James Macartney Junior, Minors, by their Guardians, were Plaintiffs, and Sir Richard Bellings, Dame Catherine Arthur, Daniel Arthur Smith, John Arthur, Elizabeth Arthur, Margaret Arthur, Dorothy Arthur, and John Galway, were Desendants; and in one other Cause, wherein the said Sir Richard Bellings, Dame Catherine Arthur, Daniel Arthur Smith, John Arthur, Elizabeth Arthur, Margaret Arthur, and Dorothy Arthur, were Plaintiffs, and the said Douglas Ludlow Widow, Francis Cuffe, and James Macartney Junior, were Defendants; which Cause was afterwards revived, on the Death of the said Douglas Ludlow, against James Macartney Senior and John Roberts Esquires, and the said Francis Cuffe and James Macartney Junior; and was also revived against them, on the Death of Sir Richard Bellings, in the Name of his Executor Richard Arundell alias Bellings Esquire; and was also revived, on the Death of the said Francis Cuffe, and on the Marriage of the said Dorothy Arthur with John Butler; and in a Cause wherein the said James Macartney Senior and John Roberts, and the said Francis Cuffe and James Macartney Junior, were Plaintiffs, and the said Sir Richard Bellings, Dame Catherine Arthur, Daniel Arthur Smith, John Arthur, Elizabeth Arthur, Margaret Arthur, and Dorothy Arthur, were Defendants; which Cause was afterwards revived, on the Death of Sir Richard Bellings, against the said Richard Arundell alias Bellings; and, on the Death of the said Francis Cuffe, was revived in the Name of the Appellant Michael Cuffe, his Brother and Heir; and, on the Marriage of the said Dorothy with John Butler, against the said John and Dorothy; and praying, "That the same, and all Proceedings thereupon, may be reversed or rectified:" As also upon the Cross Appeal of the said Richard Arundell Esquire, Dame Catherine Arthur alias Smith, Widow and Relict of Daniel Arthur, late of Paris, and formerly of London, Merchant, since called Sir Daniel Arthur Knight, Daniel Arthur Smith of Paris Merchant, John Arthur of London Merchant, Elizabeth Arthur, Margaret Arthur, John Butler of London Merchant and Dorothy Butler, alias Arthur, his Wife; the said Daniel Arthur Smith, John, Elizabeth, Margaret, and Dorothy, being Children of the said Sir Daniel Arthur by the said Dame Catherine; to which the said Appellants in the Original Appeal were Respondents: In which Cross Appeal the Appellants complained; "That they are aggrieved by Part of the said several Orders and Decrees of the Fourth of May and Twenty-fifth of June and Fifth of July 1716, the Eleventh of July 1720, the Twelfth of May and Thirteenth of June 1721;" the Fifth of May and Twenty-third of June 1722;" and praying Relief therein:

And the Counsel on both Parts having been fully heard; and offering, "that the Accompt might be taken from the Death of Sir Daniel Arthur, and not from any Time before:"

And due Consideration had of what was offered on either Side in this Cause:

Judgement.

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That an Accompt be accordingly taken of what is due on the Mortgage for the Principal Money of Four Thousand Pounds, and for Interest growing due for the same, from and after the Death of the said Sir Daniel Arthur; in the taking of which Accompt, the said Principal Sum of Four Thousand Pounds, and Interest thereof, is to be considered as Money to be paid in England, and proper Allowances for the Return thereof to be made accordingly; and that the Respondents, the said Richard Arundell alias Bellings, Dame Catherine Arthur, Daniel Arthur Smith, John, Elizabeth, and Margaret Arthur, John Butler and Dorothy Butler alias Arthur his Wife, do accompt for the Rents and Profits of the said mortgaged Estate, what they or any for their Use have received, or, without their wilful Default, might have received, from the Death of the said Sir Daniel Arthur, or from such Time after such Decease as they, or any of them, or any in Trust for them, or for their Use, entered upon the Possession of the said Premises, or any Part thereof, or the Receipt of the Rents and Profits thereof; and all such Orders, Decrees, and Proceedings, complained of in either of the said Appeals, as are inconsistent or interfere with this Decree, be so far reversed: And it is further Ordered, That the Court of Chancery in Ireland take Care to put this Order and Decree in Execution; and give such further Directions for making the same effectual, according to the true Intent and Meaning thereof, and make such Order in Pursuance thereof as shall be just.

East India Company Bill.

A Message from the House of Commons, by Sir Nathaniel Gould and others:

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act to prevent His Majesty's Subjects from subscribing, or being concerned in encouraging or promoting any Subscription, for an East India Company in The Austrian Netherlands; and for the better securing the lawful Trade of His Majesty's Subjects to and from The East Indies;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Then the said Bill was read the First Time.

And ordered to be read a Second Time Tomorrow.

Minters, Southwark, Bill.

A Message from the House of Commons, by Mr. Condurt and others:

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for more effectual Execution of Justice, in a pretended privileged Place, in the Parish of St. George, in the County of Surrey, commonly called The Mint; and for bringing to speedy and exemplary Justice such Offenders as are therein mentioned; and for giving Relief to such Persons as are proper Objects of Charity and Compassion there;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

The said Bill was read the First Time.

Message from H. C. with a Bill.

A Message from the House of Commons, by Mr. Farrér and others:

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for granting an Aid to His Majesty, by laying a Tax upon Papists; and for making such other Persons as, upon due Summons, shall refuse or neglect to take the Oaths therein mentioned, to contribute towards the said Tax, for reimbursing to the Public Part of the great Expences occasioned by the late Conspiracies; and for discharging the Estates of Papists from the Two Third Parts of the Rents and Profits thereof for One Year, and all Arrears of the same, and from such Forfeitures as are therein more particularly described;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Sabbati, decimum octavum diem instantis Maii, hora undecima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.

DIE Sabbati, 18^o Maii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Lords of Manors to recover their Fines, Bill.

Whereas Thursday the Second Instant was appointed, to take into further Consideration the Report of the Amendments made by the Committee of the whole House to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable Lords of Manors more easily to recover their Fines; and to exempt Infants and Femmes Covert from Forfeitures of their Copyhold Estates, in particular Cases," was committed:

It is Ordered, That the said Report be further considered on Tuesday next.

Rane versus Merret, in Error.

The Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, in the usual Manner, brought up the Transcript of the Record upon a Writ of Error, wherein Rene Ranc is Plaintiff, and Francis Merret Defendant.

East India Company Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to prevent His Majesty's Subjects from subscribing, or being concerned in encouraging or promoting any Subscription, for an East India Company in The Austrian Netherlands; and for the better securing the lawful Trade of His Majesty's Subjects to and from The East Indies."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords following; (videlicet,)

Their Lordships, or any Five of them; to meet on Monday next, at Ten a Clock in the Forenoon, in the Prince's Lodgings near the House of Peers; and to adjourn as they please.

Tax on Papists, Bill.

Hodie 1^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for granting an Aid to His Majesty, by laying a Tax upon Papists; and for making such other Persons as, upon due Summons, shall refuse or neglect to take the Oaths therein mentioned, to contribute towards the said Tax, for reimbursing to the Public Part of the great Expences occasioned by the late Conspiracies; and for discharging the Estates of Papists from the Two Third Parts of the Rents and Profits thereof for One Year, and all Arrears of the same, and from such Forfeitures as are therein more particularly described."

Ordered, That the said Bill be read a Second Time on Monday next; and the Lords to be summoned.

Dutchess Dowager of Hamilton versus D. of Hamilton.

Whereas Monday next is appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Elizabeth Dutchess Dowager of Hamilton is Appellant, and James Duke of Hamilton and Brandon and Alexander Gillyes are Respondents:

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on Tuesday next; and that the Cause appointed on that Day be heard on Wednesday; and the other Causes to be heard on the following Days successively in Course.

Persons going armed in Disguise, to punish, Bill.

A Message from the House of Commons, by the Lord William Pawlet and others:

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for the more effectual punishing wicked and evil-disposed Persons going armed in Disguise, and doing Injuries and Violences to the Persons and Properties of His Majesty's Subjects; and for the more speedy bringing the Offenders to Justice;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

The said Bill was read the First Time.

Aberdeen Records, Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for making more effectual an Act passed in the Eighth Year of His Majesty's Reign, intituled, An Act for supplying the Records of the Commissary Court of Aberdeen, burnt or lost in the late Fire there."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the same Lords Committees to whom the Bill relating to the East India Company stands committed:

Their Lordships, or any Five of them; to meet also on Monday next, at the same Place; and to adjourn as they please.

Whatley to be brought to the Bar.

A Petition of Stephen Whatley, in Custody of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, for causing to be inserted in a printed News Paper, intituled, "The Flying Post," of the 20th of April last, the Name of the Right Honourable the Earl of Kinnoul, in an Index to the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons, was presented to the House, and read; expressing his hearty Sorrow for his Offence, and humbly begging Pardon for the same, and promising never to offend again in the like Kind; and praying to be discharged:

It is Ordered, That the Petitioner be brought to the Bar of this House on Monday next, in order to his Discharge.

Journeymen Shoemakers, Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for preventing Journeymen Shoemakers selling, exchanging, or pawning, Boots, Shoes, Slippers, cut Leather, or other Materials for making Boots, Shoes, or Slippers; and for better regulating the said Journeymen."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the same Lords Committees to whom the Bill relating to the East India Company stands committed:

Their Lordships, or any Five of them; to meet also on Monday next; and to adjourn as they please.

Customs, and Tobacco Duties, &c. Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for enabling His Majesty to put the Customs of Great Britain under the Management of One or more Commissions; and for better securing and ascertaining the Duties on Tobacco; and to prevent Frauds in exporting Tobacco, and other Goods and Merchandizes, or carrying the same Coastwise."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, on Tuesday next.

Minters, Southwark, Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for more effectual Execution of Justice, in a pretended privileged Place, in the Parish of St. George, in the County of Surrey, commonly called The Mint; and for bringing to speedy and exemplary Justice such Offenders as are therein mentioned; and for giving Relief to such Persons as are proper Objects of Charity and Compassion there."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the same Lords Committees to whom the Bill relating to the East India Company stands committed:

Their Lordships, or any Five of them; to meet also on Monday next, at the same Place; and to adjourn as they please.

Gayer & al. versus E or Anglesey & al.

Whereas Saturday next is appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Robert Gayer Esquire and Robert Gayer Junior Esquire are Appellants, and Arthur Earl of Anglesey, Thomas Gayer, Henry Gayer, James Gayer, and Edward Gayer, are Respondents:

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, peremptorily, on Friday next, the First Business.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Lunæ, vicesimum diem instantis Maii, hora undecima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.

DIE Lunæ, 20^o Maii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

East India Company Bill.

The Lord Herbert of Cherbury reported from the Lords Committees to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act to prevent His Majesty's Subjects from subscribing, or being concerned in encouraging or promoting any Subscription, for an East India Company, in The Austrian Netherlands; and for the better securing the lawful Trade of His Majesty's Subjects to and from The East Indies," was committed: "That the Committee had gone through the said Bill; and directed him to report the same to the House, without any Amendment."

Journeymen Shoemakers, Bill.

The Lord Herbert of Cherbury also reported from the Lords Committees to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act for preventing Journeymen Shoemakers selling, exchanging, or pawning, Boots, Shoes, Slippers, cut Leather, or other Materials for making Boots, Shoes, or Slippers; and for better regulating the said Journeymen," was committed: "That the Committee had gone through the said Bill; and directed him to report the same to the House, without any Amendment."

Aberdeen Records, Bill.

The Lord Herbert of Cherbury also reported from the Lords Committees to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act for making more effectual an Act passed in the Eighth Year of His Majesty's Reign, intituled, An Act for supplying the Records of the Commissary Court of Aberdeen, burnt or lost in the late Fire there," was committed: "That the Committee had gone through the said Bill; and directed him to report the same to the House, without any Amendment."

Minters, southwark, Bill.

The Lord Herbert of Cherbury also reported from the Lords Committees to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act for more effectual Execution of Justice, in a pretended privileged Place, in the Parish of St. George, in the County of Surrey, commonly called The Mint; and for bringing to speedy and exemplary Justice such Offenders as are therein mentioned; and for giving Relief to such Persons as are proper Objects of Charity and Compassion there," was committed: That they had gone through the said Bill; and directed him to report the same to the House, without any Amendment."

East India Company Bill.

Hodie 3^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to prevent His Majesty's Subjects from subscribing, or being concerned in encouraging or promoting any Subscription, for an East India Company, in The Austrian Netherlands; and for the better securing the lawful Trade of His Majesty's Subjects to and from The East Indies."

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

It was Resolved in the Affirmative.

Jonrneymen Shoemakers, Bill:

Hodie 3^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for preventing Journeymen Shoemakers selling, exchanging, or pawning, Boots, Shoes, Slippers, cut Leather, or other Materials for making Boots, Shoes, or Slippers; and for better regulating the said Journeymen."

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

It was Resolved in the Affirmative.

Messages to H. C. that the Lords have agreed to the Two preceding Bills.

And Messages were severally sent to the House of Commons, by Mr. Fellows and Mr. Lovibond:

To acquaint them, that the Lords have agreed to the said Bills, without any Amendment.

Whatley discharged.

Stephen Whatley, in Custody of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, for causing to be inserted in a printed News Paper, intituled, "The Flying Post," of the 20th of April last, the Name of the Right Honourable the Earl of Kinnoul, in an Index to the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons, was (according to Order) brought to the Bar; where he, on his Knees, having received a Reprimand from the Lord Chancellor for his said Offence, was ordered to be discharged, paying his Fees.

Persons going armed in Disguise, to punish, Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for the more effectual punishing wicked and evil-disposed Persons going armed in Disguise, and doing Injuries and Violences to the Persons and Properties of His Majesty's Subjects; and for the more speedy bringing the Offenders to Justice."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, To-morrow.

Tax on Papists, Bill:

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for granting an Aid to His Majesty, by laying a Tax upon Papists; and for making such other Persons as, upon due Summons, shall resuse or neglect to take the Oaths therein mentioned, to contribute towards the said Tax, for reimbursing to the Public Part of the great Expences occasioned by the late Conspiracies; and for discharging the Estates of Papists from the Two Third Parts of the Rents and Profits thereof for One Year, and all Arrears of the same, and from such Forfeitures as are therein more particularly described."

After Debate;

The Question was put, "Whether the said Bill shall be committed?"

It was Resolved in the Affirmative.

Protest against committing it.

"Dissentient.

"Scarsdale.
Litchfield.
Strafford.
Bingley.
Gower.
Uxbridge.
Foley.
W. Duresme.
Pomfret.
Ashburnham."

Ordered, That the House be put into a Committee of the whole House upon the said Bill, To-morrow.

Dutchess of Hamilton versus D. of Hamilton.

Ordered, That Counsel be called in, to be heard, in the Cause wherein Elizabeth Dutchess Dowager of Hamilton is Appellant, and James Duke of Hamilton and Brandon and Alexander Gillyes are Respondents, Tomorrow, at Ten a Clock.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Martis, vicesimum primum diem instantis Maii, hora nona Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.