House of Lords Journal Volume 23: February 1727, 1-10

February 1726, 1-10

DIE Mercurii, 1^o Februarii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Nesbitt's Answer to Skerrett's Appeal.

This Day the Answer of John Nesbitt Esquire, One of the Respondents to the Appeal of Humphrey Skerrett Gentleman, was brought in.

Chamberlayne & al. Leave for a Bill.

Upon reading the Petition of Thomas Chamberlayne Clerk, Rector of Little Rissington in the County of Gloucester, Christopher Shute Clerk, and John Reynolds, on the Behalf of themselves and the rest of the Land Owners in the said Parish of Little Rissington; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, for exchanging, enclosing, and reducing into Severalty, several Parcels of Land, lying dispersedly open and intermixed with each other and unenclosed, in the Common Fields, Common Meadows, and Mowing Ground, in Little Rissington aforesaid, pursuant to Articles of Agreement entered into for that Purpose:

It is Ordered, That Leave be given to bring in a Bill, according to the Prayer of the said Petition.

Thanks to Bp. Hereford, for his Sermon.

Ordered, That the Thanks of this House be, and are hereby, given to the Lord Bishop of Hereford, for the Sermon by him preached before this House, on Monday last, in the Abbey Church, Westminster; and he is hereby desired to cause the same to be forthwith printed and published.

Gyles & al. Pet. referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of John Gyles Clerk, Vicar of Great Stoughton in the County of Huntington, and of Sir Baldwin Conyers of Great Stoughton aforesaid Baronet; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, to ratify and confirm a certain Conveyance and Exchange of the Rectory Manor of Great Stoughton, and divers Cottages, Tenements, and Hereditaments, pursuant to Articles entered into for that Purpose:

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby, referred to the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench and the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas; who are forthwith to summon all Parties concerned in the Bill; and, after hearing them, are to report to the House the State of the Case, with their Opinion thereupon, under their Hands, and whether all Parties that may be concerned in the Consequences of the Bill have signed the Petition; and also that the Judges, having perused the Bill, do sign the same.

Yate & al. Pet. referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of John Yate Gentleman and Anne his Wife, Joyce Sprott Widow, John Baldwin, William Haslewood, and William Dobles, Gentlemen; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, for Sale of certain Houses and Premisses, in Bridgnorth, in the County of Salop; and for applying the Money arising thereby in compleating the Purchase of divers Lands and Premisses, in the County of Montgomery, agreed to be purchased by the Petitioner John Yate; and for settling the said Lands to the same Uses as the Houses and Lands in Bridgnorth are now settled:

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby, referred to Mr. Justice Price and Mr. Baron Hale; with the usual Directions, according to the Standing Orders.

Ashby's Petition referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of Francis Ashby of Harefield in the County of Middlesex Esquire and Judith his Wife, William Ashby their Eldest Son and Anne his Wife, and Robert Ashby Younger Son of the said Francis and Judith his Wife; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, to supply certain Omissions in the Settlement made on the Marriage of the Petitioner William Ashby and his Wife, for the Purposes in the Petition mentioned:

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby, referred to the Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer and Mr. Baron Commyns; with the usual Directions, according to the Standing Orders.

L. Griffin takes his Seat.

This Day Edward Lord Griffin sat first in Parliament; having, at the Table, taken the Oaths, and made and subscribed the Declaration, and also taken and subscribed the Oath of Abjuration, pursuant to the Statutes.

Agnew versus M^cAull.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of William Agnew of Castlerig Esquire; complaining of an Interlocutory Sentence of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the Seventeenth of November last, and the Affirmance thereof in December following, made on the Behalf of Mr. John M^caull; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said John M^caull may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and he is hereby required to put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the First Day of March next.

Kerrich & al. versus Bransby & al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Anne Kerrich Widow, Giles Bladwell and Elizabeth his Wife, which Anne and Elizabeth are the Aunts and Coheirs of Robert Bransby Esquire, deceased; complaining of Part of a Decree of the Court of Chancery, made the Fourteenth of November Quinto Georgii Regis, in a Cause wherein Thomas Bransby Esquire was Complainant, and the Petitioners were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be rectified; and that Bridget Bransby, the Widow and Relict of the said Thomas Bransby, as also Thomas, William, James, George, and Astley Bransby, the Five Sons, and Elizabeth, Margaret, and Mary Bransby, the Three Daughters, of the said Thomas Bransby and John Kerrich, may be obliged to put in their Answer to this Appeal:"

It is Ordered, That the Parties before mentioned may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and they are hereby required to put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the Fifteenth Day of this Instant February.

Freman & al. versus Sir C. More.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Ralph Freman, Franklyn Miller, Esquires, Elizabeth Greenhill Spinster, and John Ellis Esquire; complaining of Two Decrees of the Court of Exchequer, made the Twentyeighth of January 1726, and the Ninth of July last, in a Cause wherein Sir Cleave More Baronet was Plaintiff, and the Petitioners and others were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Sir Cleave More may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and he is hereby required to put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the Fifteenth Day of this Instant February.

Morse & al. versus Dubois & al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of John Morse, Samuel Clarke, Esq., and Thomas Bowdler Esquire, in Behalf of themselves and others, Proprietors and Adventurers of the late old East India Company at the Time of the Dissolution thereof; complaining of Part of a Decree made the Sixteenth of February 1719, by the Master of the Rolls, in a Cause wherein the Adventurers of the said late old East India Company were Plaintiffs, and Charles Dubois, Edward Gibbon, Nathaniel Horne, Arthur Moore, William Fellowes; Esquires, and Sir John Fellowes Baronet, Executors of Thomas Coulston Esquire, and Joseph Herne Esquire Executor of Frederick Herne Esquire, and Grantham Andrews Esquire Executor of Sir Jonathan Andrews, were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed."

It is Ordered, That the said Charles, Dubois, Arthur Moore, Edward Gibbon, and Grantham Andrews, may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and they are hereby required to put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the Fifteenth Day of this Instant February.

Winckworth versus Najack.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of John Winckworth Esquire; complaining of several Orders of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, the Ninth of July 1717, the Twelfth of July 1723, and Twenty-fourth of May last, made in certain Causes, wherein the Petitioner was Complainant, and Mark Anthony Najack Esquire and Anne his Wife, since deceased, were Defendants; et è contra; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Mark Anthony Najack may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and he is hereby required to put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the Eighth Day of March next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondent's Clerk in Court be deemed good Service.

Jones & Ux. versus Kenrick.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Jasper Jones Gentleman and Frances his Wife; complaining of an Order of Dismission of the Court of Chancery the Fourth of June 1725, and also of an Order of the Twenty-fifth of November last, allowing a Demurrer to the Petitioner's Bill of Review, made on the Behalf of John Kenrick Esquire, Executor of Sir W'm Cranmer deceased; and praying, "That the same may be reversed, and the Petitioner let in to redeem the mortgaged Premises in Question:"

It is Ordered, That the said John Kenrick may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and he is hereby required to put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the Fifteenth Day of this Instant February.

L. Lovat versus M'Kenzie & al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Simon Lord Lovat; complaining of several Interlocutors of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the Eighteenth of February 1724, and the Twentieth, Twenty-fifth, Twenty-sixth, and Twenty-ninth of July last, made on the Behalf of Sir James M'kenzie of Royston, and Roderick M'kenzie Second Son to Alexander M'kenzie late of Frazerdale, and Sir James Sinclair of Dunbeath his Guardian, and Mrs. Emelia and Mrs. Margeret Frazers, Infant Daughters of the said Alexander M'kenzie, and the said Alexander M'kenzie, Mr. William Scott Professor of Greek in the College of Edinburgh, and James, Robert, William, George, John, Margaret, Marion, Agnes, Jean, and Hellen Scotts, his Children, by Elizabeth Wife of the said William Scott deceased, Alexander M'kenzie of Garloch, and Roderick Maclcod of Cadboll and John Paterson of Preston Hall, Esquires; and praying, "That the said Interlocutors may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Sir James M'kenzie and the several other Persons abovenamed may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and they are hereby required to put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the First Day of March next; and that Service of this Order on their respective Agents in the Court of Session in Scotland be deemed good Service.

White & al. versus E. of Granard et al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of John White Esquire, John Croston Gentleman, and Bridget Maguire Widow; complaining of several Orders, Proceedings, and Decrees, made in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, in certain Causes, wherein the said White and Croston were Plaintiffs, and Arthur Earl of Granard, George Lord Forbes, Richard Nutley, Robert Doyne, Esquires, and others, were Defendants; and also wherein the said Lord Forbes, was Plaintiff, and the said White, Crofton, and Maguire, were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Earl of Granard, Lord Forbes, Richard Nutley, and Robert Doyne, may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and they are hereby required to put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the Eighth Day of March next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondents Clerk, or Solicitor, in the said Court of Chancery in Ireland, be deemed good Service.

Blakeney versus Byrne.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Catherine Blakeney Widow, and Mable Blakeney; complaining of several Decrees, Orders, and Proceedings, of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, in a Cause wherein Walter Byrne Esquire was Plaintiff, and the said Widow Blakeney and Catherine Reiley were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Walter Byrne may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and he is hereby required to put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the Eighth Day of March next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondents Attorney in the said Court be deemed good Service.

Price versus Baker et al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Anne Price; Widow; complaining of a Decree of the late Lord Chancellor, made the Eleventh Day of July 1724, on the Behalf of Thomas Baker and Watkin Williams Wynne; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Thomas Baker and Watkin Williams Wynne may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and they are hereby required to put in their Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the Fifteenth Day of this Instant February.

Byrne versus Morley et al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Gerald Byrne Gentleman; complaining of an Order of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, for discharging the Enrolment of a former Decree of that Court, and an Order made on the Re-hearing, on the Behalf of Jane Morley, Geffrey Luther, Michael Waldron, Elizabeth Mórley, and others; and praying, "That the said Orders may be reversed, so far as they are inconsistent with the former Decree; and that the same shall stand."

It is Ordered, That the said Jane Morley, Geffrey Luther, Michael Waldron, Elizabeth Morley, and others, may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and they are hereby required to put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the Eighth Day of March next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondents Attorney or Attornies in the said Court be deemed good Service.

Dornellan et al versus Burke et al:

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Joseph Donnellan Gentleman, Margaret his Wife, and John French of Aggard Esquire; complaining of an Order and Decree of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, made the last Trinity Term, on the Behalf of Miles Burke and Annable his Wife, John M'Hugo and Mary his Wife, and John Lenan and Christian his Wife; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Miles Burke and the other Persons beforementioned may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and they are hereby required to put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the Eighth Day of March next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondents Attorney or Attornies in the said Court be deemed good Service.

Cromy versus Holland, alias Ash.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Elizabeth Cromy Widow; complaining of several Orders, Decrees, and Proceedings, of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, in a Cause wherein Mary Holland, alias Ash, Widow and Relict of Stephen Holland, alias Ash, deceased, was Plaintiff, and John Cromy since deceased, the Petitioner his Wife, Thomas Edwards, and Alexander Gordon, were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Mary Holland, alias Ash, may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and she is hereby required to put in her Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the Eighth Day of March next; and that Service of this Order on the said Respondents Attorney in the said Court be deemed good Service.

Danson versus Trott et al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Mary Danson, Widow of John Danson Esquire, deceased; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Chancery, made in certain Causes; in One of which, Nicholas Trott Esquire and Anne his Wife were Plaintiffs, and John Danson Esquire the Petitioner's late Husband was Defendant; and in the other of which, the said John Danson and the said Petitioner then his Wife were Plaintiffs, and the said Nicholas Trott Esquire and Anne his Wife, and Elizabeth Moor Widow, were Defendants; and of a subsequent Order made in the said last mentioned Cause, between the Petitioner, the then Widow and Relict of the said John Danson then deceased, Plaintiff, and the said Nicholas Trott Esquire and Anne his Wife, and the said Elizabeth Moor, Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Nicholas Trott and his Wife and Elizabeth Moor may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and they are hereby required to put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the Fifteenth Day of this instant February.

Errington versus Errington et al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of William Errington Gentleman; complaining of Part of a Decree of the Court of Chancery, made the Twelfth Day of November last, in a Cause wherein John Carrick Son and Heir of Anne Errington deceased, One of the Sisters of Edward Errington deceased, Thomas Lorraine and Jane his Wife, another of the Sisters of the said Edward, and John Robson and Margaret his Wife, another of the Sisters of the said Edward, were Plaintiffs, and Thomas Errington of Capheaton, the Petitioner, and others, were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said John Carrick, Thomas Lorraine and Jane his Wife, John Robson and Margaret his Wife, and also Frances Errington, Thomas Errington of Capheaton, Richard Ridley, Nicholas Fenwick, and Ralph Soulby, may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and they are hereby required to put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the Fifteenth Day of this Instant February.

Eyre versus Daly.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of John Eyre Esquire; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, made on the Behalf of Laughlin Daly; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Laughlin Daly may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and he is hereby required to put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the Eighth Day of March next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondents Clerk in Chancery be deemed good Service.

Walter versus Glanville.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of John Walter of Busbridge in the County of Surry Esquire; complaining of an Order of the Court of Chancery, made the Sixth Day of May last, in a Cause wherein the Petitioner was Plaintiff, and William Glanville Esquire Defendant; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said William Glanville may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and he is hereby required to put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the Fifteenth Day of this Instant February.

Thurston versus Estington et Ux.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Mary Thurston Widow, Relict and sole Executrix of Joseph Thurston Esquire, Eldest Son and Heir of Joseph Thurston Gentleman, and also Brother and sole Executor of Thomas Thurston Doctor of Physic, Younger Son of the said Joseph Thurston the Father; complaining of a Decree of Dismission, made by the late Lord Chancellor, the One and Twentieth of June 1721, in a Cause wherein the Petitioner was Plaintiff, and John Essington Esquire and Mary his Wife, Executrix of Mary Thurston Widow, deceased, who was Relict and Executrix of the said Joseph Thurston the Father were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed."

It is Ordered, That the said Defendants may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and they are hereby required to put in their Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the Fifteenth Day of this Instant February.

White versus Jones.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Nicholas White Gentleman; complaining of a Decree of Dismission made in the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, in a Cause wherein the Petitioner was Plaintiff, and Lewis Jones Gentleman Defendant; and praying, "That the same may be reversed, and the Petitioner's Bill retained:"

It is Ordered, That the said Lewis Jones may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and he is hereby required to put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the Eighth Day of March next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondent's Attorney in the said Court be deemed good Service.

Dutchess of Hamilton versus Duke of Hamilton.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Elizabeth Dutchess of Hamilton; complaining of an Interlocutory Order of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the Eighth of December 1724, made on the Behalf of James Duke of Hamilton; and praying, "That the same may be reversed; and that the said Duke may make good the Petitioner's Jointure, One Thousand Five Hundred Pounds per Annum Sterling:"

It is Ordered, That the said Duke of Hamilton may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and do put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the First Day of March next.

Baynes et al. versus Bertie et Ux.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Richard Baynes, Administrator of John Fisher deceased, for the Use of Anne Langton, and the said Anne Langton; complaining of a Decree of Dismission made by the Lord Chancellor, the Eighteenth of November last, in a Cause wherein the Petitioners were Plaintiffs, and Peregrine Bertie Esquire and Elizabeth his Wife were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed; and that the Petitioners may have the Five Hundred Pounds Legacy in the Appeal mentioned, with Interest and Costs, decreed to them:"

It is Ordered, That the said Peregrine Bertie and his Wife may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and they are hereby required to put in their Answer there unto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the Fifteenth Day of this Instant February.

Sankey versus Giahams.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Henry Sankey Esquire; complaining of several Orders, Decrees, and Proceedings, of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, in a Cause wherein Anne Graham Widow and Administratrix of Winwood Graham deceased, and Anne, Margaret, and Sarah Graham, Sisters and Heirs of the said Winwood, Minors, by their next Friend the said Anne Graham Widow, were Plaintiffs, and Henry Sankey, Nicholas Mullegan, James Farrell, and Joseph Boardman, were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the Plaintiffs abovenamed may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and they are hereby required to put in their Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the Eighth Day of March next; and that Service of this Order on the said Respondent's Attorney in the said Court be deemed good Service.

Dutchess of Hamilton et al. versus Hobart et al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Elizabeth Dutchess of Hamilton and Brandon, Relict of James late Duke of Hamilton and Brandon deceased, the Lady Charlotte Orby Relict and General Devisee of Sir Thomas Orby Baronet, deceased, John Elrington, Gerard Elrington, Thomas Collett and Elizabeth his Wife, Henry Symes and Henrietta his Wife; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Chancery, of the Fifteenth Day of April 1706; and praying, "That the same may be reversed; and that Sir John Hobart, Charles Mordaunt, William Congreve, Moses Beranger, Esquires, James Duke of Argyle, Archibald Earl of Ilay, Sir Robert Rich and Dame Elizabeth his Wife, William Stanhope, Arthur Mohun St. Leger, and Robert Hunter, may put in their Answers to this Appeal:"

It is Ordered, That Sir John Hobart and the other Parties before mentioned may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and do put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the Fifteenth Day of this Instant February.

Appeals concerning Suitors Money in Chancery: Lockman et Ux. Appeal presented:

A Petition and Appeal of Ascanius Christopher Lockman Esquire and Elizabeth his Wife; complaining of Two Orders made by the Lord Chancellor, the Eighth of September and One and Twentieth of October last, refusing an Allowance of Interest to the Appellants, for Money paid into the Hands of Mr. Dormer One of the late Masters of the Court of Chancery; and praying such Relief as to the House shall seem just:

Abp. of Cashell et al Appeal:

Likewise, a Petition and Appeal of His Majesty's Attorney General, at the Relation of William Lord Archbishop of Cashell in the Kingdom of Ireland, and others; complaining of an Order made by the Lord Chancellor, the Thirteenth Day of December last, whereby his Lordship disallowed full Interest for Money paid into the Hands of Mr. Godfrey, One of the present Masters of the Court of Chancery; and praying, "That the said Order may be reversed; and that full Interest may be allowed, as in the Appeal mentioned; or that the Petitioners may be relieved, as the House shall think fit:"

Sutton et al. Appeal presented:

And also, a Petition and Appeal of Prideaux Sutton Clerk, Mercy Sheldon Spinster, and Giles Lawrence Gentleman, Executor and Residuary Legatee of Winefrid Sheldon deceased; complaining of Two Orders made by the Lord Chancellor, the Eighth of September and Thirty first of October last, whereby his Lordship refused to allow the Petitioners Interest for Money paid into the Hands of Mr. Dormer, mentioned in the foregoing Order; and praying such Relief as to the Wisdom and Justice of this House shall seem meet:

Were severally presented to the House.

These Appeals, and the Act for Relief of the Suitors, to be confidered.

And thereupon a Clause in the Act of the last Session of Parliament, intituled, "An Act for Relief of the Suitors of the High Court of Chancery," which directs that Court to determine in the most compendious and summary Way the Claims of the Suitors, both of Principal and Interest, upon the Offices of some of the Masters, being read:

It is Ordered, That this House will, on Saturday next, take the said Act of Parliament into Consideration; and that the said Appeals be then read; and the Lords to be summoned.

Orlebar's Appeal presented.

A Petition and Appeal of John Orlebar Esquire, Son and Administrator of John Orlebar Esquire, deceased, late One of the Masters of the High Court of Chancery; complaining of an Order of the said Court, of the Fifth of July last, made upon the Petition of Nicholas Paxton, Solicitor on Behalf of the Suitors of the Court of Chancery, whereby the Appellant is ordered to be examined upon Interrogatories, as Mr. Holford One of the Masters of the said Court should direct, concerning the several Matters contained in the said Mr. Paxton's Petition, and the Payments made by the said Mr. Orlebar the Appellant's Father, or the Appellant, to Mr. Edward Conway; and praying, "That the said Order may be reversed;" was presented to the House: And ordered to be read on Saturday next.

Breton's Pet. referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of Moyle Breton of Kennington in the County of Kent Esquire; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, for Sale of the Manor of Hoarns, and all other the Residue of the Petitioner's Mother's Estate, in the said County; and to settle another Estate, in the same County, to the same Uses:

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby, referred to Mr. Justice Denton and Mr. Justice Probyn; with the usual Directions, according to the Standing Orders.

Dunne's Pet. for a Bill, referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of Daniel Dunne Esquire and Edward Dunne only Brother of the said Daniel; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, for vesting certain Lands and other Estates in Ireland, in the Petition expressed, in Trustees, to sell or mortgage the same, or a sufficient Part thereof, for discharging certain Sums of Money in the Petition mentioned:

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby, referred to Mr. Justice Reynolds and Mr. Baron Carter; with the usual Directions, according to the Standing Orders.

Browne, called Lord Kenmare, Pet. for a Bill, referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of Valentine Browne Esquire, commonly called Lord Kenmare in the Kingdom of Ireland; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, to enable him, by Sale or Mortgage of Part of his Estate in the said Kingdom, to raise Money, to discharge his Debts; and for other Purposes in the Petition mentioned:

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby, referred to Mr. Justice Price and Mr. Baron Hale; with the usual Directions, according to the Standing Orders.

Baxter et al. Pet. for a Bill, referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of George Baxter and Elizabeth his Wife, Mary Walker, Richard Norton, Robert Hopkins and Sarah his Wife, John Downing Clerk, Stephen Ashby, and Robert Meadowcourt; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, to render effectual an Agreement in the Petition mentioned; and for other Purposes therein expressed:

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby, referred to Mr. Justice Fortescue and Mr. Justice Page; with the usual Directions, according to the Standing Orders.

Pratt versus Jackson:

After hearing Counsel, upon the Petition and Appeal of Samuel Pratt; complaining of an Order of the Court of Chancery, made the Tenth Day of November One Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-five, in certain Causes, wherein Christopher Clarke and others were Plaintiffs, and Mary Jackson Widow and the Appellant and others were Defendants; and wherein Frances Clarke, by her next Friend, and others, were Plaintiffs, and the said Mary Jackson and others were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:" As also upon the Answer of the said Mary Jackson put in to the said Appeal; and due Consideration had of what was offered on either Side in this Cause:

Order reversed.

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Order complained of in the said Appeal be, and the same is hereby, reversed.

Standing Orders to be read.

Whereas To-morrow is appointed, for reading the Roll of Standing Orders of this House:

It is Ordered, That the said Roll of Standing Orders be read on Tuesday next; and the Lords to be summoned.

Complaint of Stoppages in the Streets:

Complaint was made to the House, "That, notwithstanding the Order of this Session, to prevent Stoppages in the Streets and Passages leading to this House, several Lords were this Day greatly interrupted in coming hither."

And thereupon the said Order being read:

High Bailiff to attend.

It is Ordered, That the High Bailiff of Westminster do attend this House on Friday Morning next.

Adjourn.

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

DIE Veneris, 3^o Februarii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Hoskyns et al. Answer.

This Day the Answer of William Hoskyns Esquire, Humphry Burgoyn, John Bland, and Joseph Budd, to the Appeal of Robert Pakenham Esquire, was brought in.

Nicholson to enter into Recognizance for Cames.

The House being moved, "That Anthony Nicholson, of The Inner Temple, London, Gentleman, may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for Francis Came and Jane Came, on account of their Appeal depending in this House, to which John Came, an Infant, by Elizabeth Came his Mother and next Friend, is Respondent; the Appellants residing in Devonshire:"

It is Ordered, That the said Anthony Nicholson may enter into a Recognizance for the said Appellants, as desired.

Bayley to enter into a Recognizance for Thurston.

The like Order for Daniel Bayley Gentleman to enter into a Recognizance for Mary Thurston Widow, on account of her Appeal, to which John Essington and Mary his Wife are Respondents; for a Reason of the same Nature.

Amphlett's Pet. referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of John Amphlett Esquire; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, for settling certain Copyhold and other Lands, in the Counties of Worcester and Salop, on the Petitioner, in Lieu of Freehold Lands in the Counties of Worcester, Stafford, and Salop, intended to be settled on him by his Father's Marriage Articles; and for making Provision for the Younger Children of that Marriage:

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby, referred to Mr. Justice Denton and Mr. Justice Probyn; with the usual Directions, according to the Standing Orders.

High Bailiff of Westminster to preyent Stoppages in the Streets.

The House being informed, "That the High Bailiff of Westminster (according to Order) attended;" he was called in.

And the Order of the Eighteenth of last Month, to prevent Stoppages in the Streets, being read:

He was heard, as to what he had done with respect thereunto.

And then being directed, by the Lord Chancellor, to take Care the same be duly observed for the future;

He withdrew.

Message from H. C. with a Bill.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Mr. Philpot and others:

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for naturalizing Daniel Crespin;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Consideration of the Act for Relief of the Suitors in Chancery, and Appeals, adjourned.

Whereas To-morrow is appointed, to take into Consideration the Act of the last Session of Parliament, intituled, "An Act for Relief of the Suitors of the High Court of Chancery;" and to read the Three Appeals presented on Wednesday last, in relation to the Interest of the Suitors Money paid into the Hands of Masters in Chancery; as also the Appeal of Mr. Orlebar.

It is Ordered, That the Consideration thereof be adjourned to Tuesday next; and the Lords to be summoned; and that the Judges do then attend.

Corporation of Trinity-House versus Ryall and Noble.

After hearing Counsel, in Part, upon the Petition and Appeal of the Master, Wardens, and Assistants, of the Corporation of Trinity House; complaining of a Decree made by the late Lords Commissioners for the Custody of the Great Seal, in a Cause wherein the Appellants were Plaintiffs, and Maltis Ryall and George Noble Defendants:

It is Ordered, That the further Hearing the said Cause be adjourned till To-morrow, at Eleven a Clock.

Adjourn.

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

DIE Sabbati, 4^o Februarii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Dutchess of Hamilton versus Mordaunt.

This Day the Answer of Charles Mordaunt Esquire, One of the Respondents to the Appeal of Elizabeth Dutchess of Hamilton and Brandon, and others, was brought in.

Corporation of Trinity House versus Ryall and Noble.

After hearing Counsel, as well Yesterday as this Day, upon the Petition and Appeal of the Master, Wardens, and Assistants, of the Corporation of Trinityhouse; complaining of a Decree of the Lords Commissioners for the Custody of the Great Seal, made the First Day of June in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty-five, in a Cause wherein the Appellants were Plaintiffs, and Maltis Ryall and George Noble Defendants; and praying Relief: As also upon the Answers of the said Maltis Ryall and George Noble put in to the said Appeal; and due Consideration and Debate had of what was offered on either Side in this Cause:

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the perpetual Injunction decreed by the said Lords Commissioners in this Cause be, and the same is hereby, extended to restrain the Respondents from using any Soil or Dung, as well as Dung mixed with Soil, for ballasting any Ship or Vessel going out of the River of Thames, between the Bridge of the City of London and the Main Sea Eastward: And it is further Ordered and Adjudged, That the Respondent Ryall do come to an Accompt, before Mr. Holford, One of the Masters of the Court of Chancery, for all Monies received by him, or by any other Person for his Use, of the Respondent Noble, for all the Soil or Dung sold by him, and put on board any Ship or Vessel within the Limits aforesaid, for ballasting of any Ships or Vessels; for the better taking of which Accompt, the Respondent Ryall is to be examined upon Interrogatories, as the said Master shall direct, and produce all Books and Papers of Accompt relating thereto, upon Oath, before the Master; and what, upon the said Accompt, shall appear to have been so received, the Respondent Ryall is to pay the same to the Appellants: And it is further Ordered, That the said Master do tax the Appellants Costs in the said Suit; and that the same, when so taxed, be paid by the Respondent Ryall to the Appellants.

Anderton versus Magawley in Error.

Whereas Monday next is appointed, for arguing the Errors assigned upon the Writ of Error depending in this House, wherein Thomas Anderton is Plaintiff, and Jane Magawley Defendant:

It is Ordered, That the arguing the said Errors be adjourned to Thursday next.

Pitt's Appeal to be confidered.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of William Pitt Esquire, and Samuel Pitt Merchant; complaining of Two Orders made by the Lord Chancellor, the Twenty-third of December and Twenty-fifth of January last, granting the Custody of the Person of Samuel Pitt a Lunatic, the Appellants Uncle, as in the Appeal is mentioned; and praying, "That the said Orders may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That, on this Day Sevennight, this House will take into Consideration the said Appeal.

Adjourn.

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

DIE Martis, 7^o Februarii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Johnson versus Johnson.

The Answer of Mary Johnson, to the Appeal of Robert Johnson:

Mitchell versus Lady Tullamore & al.

Also, the Answer of the Baroness of Tullamore, and Thomas Lumm Esquire, to the Appeal of William Mitchell Merchant:

Chevers versus Chevers & al.

Likewise, the Answer of John Chevers, Chistopher Chevers, Andrew Crosby, Clare Geoghegan, alias Hussy, Hubert Dillon Esquire and Mary his Wife, to the Appeal of Andrew Chevers Esquire and Hyacinth Chevers:

E. of Strafford versus Blakeway.

Also, the Answer of William Blakeway, to the Appeal of Thomas Earl of Strafford:

West versus Erisey & al.

As also, the Answer of Mary Erisey, and Thomas Barrable an Infant by the said Mary his Guardian, to the Appeal of Mary West and Frances West, Infants, by John West Esquire their Father and next Friend;

Were this Day brought in.

Governor & al. of the Poor of Gloucester, Petition referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of the Governor, Deputy Governor, and Guardians, of the Poor of the City of Gloucester; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, for repealing so much of an Act, made in the First Year of the Reign of Her late Majesty Queen Anne, intituled, "An Act for incorporating certain Persons, for the better providing for and setting at Work the Poor of the City of Gloucester," as relates to the Elections of Four and Twenty Guardians, and the Method and Manner thereof; and as relates to making any Elec tions by Balloting; and as confines the said Corporation from raising and levying any Sum or Sums of Money, by and out of the said several Parishes and Precincts, exceeding what was and were annually paid by the said Parishes or Precincts respectively, in any of the Three Years next before the Twenty-ninth of September 1702; and also so much of the said Act as gives Power to the said Corporation to elect and constitute such charitable Man as therein mentioned, to be a Guardian; and such other Clauses as shall seem meet; and that other Clauses may be added to, and other Alterations made in, the said Act, in order to render the same more effectual:

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby, referred to Mr. Justice Denton and Mr. Justice Probyn; with the usual Directions, according to the Standing Orders.

Act for Relief of the Suitors in Chancery, and Appeals, confidered.

The House (according to Order) proceeded to take into Consideration the Act of the last Session of Parliament, for Relief of the Suitors of the Court of Chancery, together with Three several Appeals of some of those Suitors; complaining of Orders made by the Lord Chancellor, disallowing Interest for certain Sums of Money formerly paid by them into the Hands of some of the Masters in Chancery.

And the said Appeals being read; as also several Clauses in the said Act of Parliament:

The following Order was made;

"Ordered, That the several Appeals abovementioned be, and are hereby, referred to a Committee, to search Precedents of receiving Appeals of this Nature, and report them to the House; and that all the Lords this Day present be of the Committee:

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

Then the Order for taking into Consideration the Appeal of Mr. Orlebar being read, the following Order was made:

Orlebar versus Paxton & al.

"Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of John Orlebar Esquire, Son and Administrator of John Orlebar Esquire, deceased, late One of the Masters of the High Court of Chancery; complaining of an Order of the said Court, of the Fifth of July last, made upon the Petition of Nicholas Paxton, Solicitor on Behalf of the Suitors of the Court of Chancery, whereby the Appellant is ordered to be examined upon Interrogatories, as Mr. Holford, One of the Masters of the said Court, should direct, concerning the several Matters contained in the said Mr. Paxton's Petition, and the Payments made by the said Mr. Orlebar the Appellant's Father, or the Appellant, to Mr. Edward Conway; and praying, that the said Order may be reversed: It is Ordered, That the said Nicholas Paxton and Edward Conway may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and they are hereby required to put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Tuesday the One and Twentieth Day of this Instant February."

Pakenham versus Hoskyns.

Upon reading the Petition of William Hoskyns Esquire, Respondent to the Appeal of Robert Pakenham Esquire; praying, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing thereof:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on Tuesday the One and Twentieth Day of this Instant February, at Eleven a Clock.

Town of Shrewsbury versus St John's College.

The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses, of the Town of Shrewsbury, are Appellants, and His Majesty's Attorney General, at the Relation of the Master, Fellows, and Scholars, of St. John's College in Cambridge, is Respondent:"

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

Skerret versus Nisbet & al.

Whereas, by Order of this House of the Twentysixth of January last, William Slack and Joseph Hall were required peremptorily to put in their Answer to the Appeal of Humphrey Skerret Gentleman in a Week; which they have neglected to do:

And the House being this Day moved, "To appoint a Day for hearing thereof:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, the First vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed; and that the same be heard ex Parte, as to those Respondents who have not put in their Answers to the said Appeal.

Thursday to be a Causeday.

Ordered, That Thursday be appointed a Causeday; and the Causes to come on in Course.

Wilmot & al. for Books and Papers to be produced.

Upon reading the Petition of John Wilmott, Jonathan Welch, and Thomas Alsop; praying, "That George Wingfield, Abel Wilkinson, Henry Vere Graham, and James Plume, may, upon Oath, forthwith produce before, and leave with, Mr. Elde, One of the Masters of the Court of Chancery, all the Deeds, Writings, Books, and Papers, mentioned in their respective Answers, or in their Custody or Power, relating to the Matters in Question; and that the Petitioners may be at Liberty to resort to, and take Copies thereof, and examine the same, as Occasion may require; and that the Master's Clerk may attend therewith, and with the other Books and Papers in his Custody, at the Hearing in this House; and that Service of this Order on the Clerks in Court for Thomas Brand, the said Wingfield, Wilkinson, Graham, and Plume, may be deemed good Service:"

It is Ordered, That the said Deeds, Writings; Books, and Papers, be produced, and left with the said Master; and that the Petitioners be at Liberty to resort to, and take Copies, and examine the same; and that the Master's Clerk do attend therewith, and with the other Books and Papers in his Custody, at the said Hearing, according to the Prayer of the said Petition; and that Service of this Order on the Clerks in Court for the said Brand, Wingfield, Wilkinson, Graham, and Plume, be deemed good Service.

Perkins to enter into a Recognizance for Jones and his Wife.

The House being moved, "That Hutton Perkins of Lincoln's Inne Gentleman may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for Jasper Jones Gentleman and Frances his Wife, on account of their Appeal depending in this House, to which John Kenrick Esquire is Respondent; the Appellant residing in the Country:"

It is Ordered, That the said Hutton Perkins may enter into a Recognizance for the said Appellants, as desired.

Yates to enter into a Recognizance for Price.

The like Order for John Yates Gentleman to enter into a Recognizance for Anne Price Widow, on account of her Appeal, to which Thomas Baker and Watkin Williams Wynne are Respondents; for a Reason of the same Nature.

Daly to enter into a Recognizance for Donnellan & al.

The like Order for Laughlin Daly Esquire to enter into a Recognizance for Joseph Donnellan Gentleman, Margaret his Wife, and John French Esquire, on account of their Appeal, to which Miles Burke and Annable his Wife, John M'Hugo and Mary his Wife, and John Lenan and Christian his Wife, are Respondents; the Appellants residing in Ireland.

Taaffe to enter into Recognizance for Byrne.

The like Order for John Taaffe Esquire to enter into a Recognizance for Gerald Byrne Gentleman, on account of his Appeal, to which Jane Morley, Geffrey Luther, Michael Waldron, and Elizabeth Morley, are Respondents; for a Reason of the same Nature.

Meighan to enter into Recognizance for Winckworth.

The like Order for Patrick Meighan of St. Andrew's Holbourn Bookseller to enter into a Recognizance for John Winckworth Esquire, on account of his Appeal, to which Mark Anthony Najack Esquire is Respondent; for a Reason of the same Nature.

Goate to enter into Recognizance for Kerrich & al.

The like Order for John Goate Gentleman to enter into a Recognizance for Anne Kerrich Widow, Giles Bladwell and Elizabeth his Wife, on account of their Appeal, to which Bridget Bransby and her Children, and John Kerrich, are Respondents; the Appellants residing in Devonshire.

Morison versus Viscount Arburthnot.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of William Morison of Prestoungrange Esquire; complaining of several Interlocutors of the Lords of Session, of the Thirteenth of January 1716, the Eleventh of February, the Sixth of June, the Twenty-second of November, and Nineteenth of December following, made on the Behalf of John Lord Viscount of Arburthnot; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Viscount of Arburthnot may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and do put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Tuesday the Seventh Day of March next.

Chevers versus Chevers & al.

The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed for hearing the Cause wherin Andrew Chevers Esquire and Hyacinth Chevers are Appellants, and John Chevers the Younger, Christopher Chevers, and others, are Respondents:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the First vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Mercurii, Octavum diem instantis Februarii, hora undecima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.

DIE Mercurii, 8^o Februarii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Dillon & Ux. to amend Appeal.

Upon reading the Petition of John Dillon Esquire and Susanna Lady Shaen his Wife, Appellants in a Cause depending in this House, to which Frances, Elizabeth, and Susanna Shaen, Minors, by their prochein Amie Thomas Magan Esquire, are Respondents; praying Leave to amend their Appeal, by inserting therein an Order made in the said Cause the Ninth of November last; and that the same may be reversed, the Respondents not having yet put in their Answers:

It is Ordered, That Leave be given to amend the said Appeals, as desired; the Appellants amending the Respondents Copy, if taken out.

Mitchel versus Craige & al.

The House being informed, "That all the Respondents to the Appeal of William Mitchell Merchant have put in their Answers, except the Heir and Executor of Denniston:"

And it being moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the said Cause:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the First vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed; and that the same, as to the said Heir and Executor of Denniston, be heard ex Parte, if no Answer is put in in the mean Time.

Cole to enter into Recognizance for White & al.

The House being moved, "That Thomas Cole Gentleman may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for John White Esquire, John Crofton Gentleman, and Bridget Maguire Widow, on account of their Appeal depending in this House, to which Arthur Earl of Granard, George Lord Forbes, Richard Nutley, and Robert Doyne, Esquires, are Respondeuts; the Appellants residing in Ireland:"

It is Ordered, That the said Thomas Cole may enter into a Recognizance for the said Appellants, as desired.

Cole to enter into a Recognizance for Cromy.

The like Order for the said Thomas Cole to enter into a Recognizance for Elizabeth Cromy Widow, on account of her Appeal, to which Mary Holland alias Ash is Respondent; for a Reason of the same Nature.

Cole to enter into Recognizance for White.

The like Order for the said Thomas Cole to enter into a Recognizance for Nicholas White Gentleman, on account of his Appeal, to which Lewis Jones Gentleman is Respondent; for the same Reason.

Donnelly to enter into Recognizance for Sankey.

The like Order for John Donnelly Gentleman to enter into a Recognizance for Henry Sankey Esquire, on account of his Appeal, to which Anne Graham Widow and others are Respondents; for a Reason of the same Nature.

Crosley versus Shadforth:

After hearing Counsel, upon the Petition and Appeal of Nathaniel Crosley; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Exchequer, the One and Twentieth of February One Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty-two, and the Affirmance thereof, by the said Court, on a Rehearing; and also of subsequent Proceedings of the said Court, in a Cause wherein the Appellant was Plaintiff, and George Shadforth, and Daniel and John Arthur, were Defendants; and in a Cross Cause, wherein the said George Shadforth was Plaintiff, and the Appellant Defendant; and praying, "That the said Decree and Proceedings may be reversed:" As also upon the Answer of the said George Shadforth put in to the said Appeal; and due Consideration had of what was offered on either Side in this Cause:

Decree in Part reversed.

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That so much of the said Decree of the Twenty-first of February One Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty-two, as directs that the Appellant should bear his Proportion of the Loss sustained by the Failure of the said Daniel and John Arthur, be, and the same is hereby, reversed; and that the Deputy Remembrancer of the said Court of Exchequer do vary the Accompt, by him to be taken, pursuant to this Direction; and that the said Decree, as to all other Matters therein contained, be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

Crespin's Nat. Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for naturalizing Daniel Crespin."

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

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

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Jovis, nonum diem instantis Februarii, hora undecima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.

DIE Jovis, 9^o Februarii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Dutchess of Hamilton versus Hobart & al.

This Day the Answer of Sir John Hobart Baronet, One of the Respondents to the Appeal of Elizabeth Dutchess of Hamilton and Brandon, and others, was brought in.

Upon reading the Petition of Sir Robert Rich Baronet and Dame Elizabeth his Wife, the Honourable William Stanhope Esquire, and Charles Mordaunt Esquire; praying, "In regard the Appeal of the Dutchess of Hamilton and Brandon and others, to which the Petitioners are Respondents, is against a Decree of above Twenty Years standing, that the same may be heard on some short Bye-day:"

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

Busby & al. Petition for a Bill to exchange Tithes, &c. in Addington, referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of Anne Busby Widow, for and on Behalf of herself and of Anne and Jane Busby her Infant Daughters, and of William Butterfield Clerk, Rector of the Parish Church of Addington, in the County of Bucks; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, for making effectual an Exchange of certain Lands in the said Parish of Addington; and for settling other Lands upon the Petitioner Anne Busby the Widow, in Lieu of her Jointure Lands, to be settled upon the said Rector and his Successors:

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby, referred to the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench and Mr. Justice Fortescue; with the usual Directions, according to the Standing Orders.

West versus Erisey & al.

The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Mary West and Frances West Infants, by John West Esquire their Father and prochein Amie, are Appellants, and Mary Erisey, and Thomas Barrable an Infant, by the said Mary Erisey his Guardian, Respondents:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the First vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed.

Anderton versus Magawley, in Errors:

After hearing Counsel, to argue the Errors assigned upon the Writ of Error brought into this House the Seventeenth Day of March last, between Thomas Anderton, Lessee of the Governor and Company for making hollow Sword Blades in England, and also of Francis Edwards Esquire, Plaintiffs, and Jane Magawley Widow Defendant, for reversing a Judgement given in the Exchequer Chamber of heland, whereby a Judgement given for the Plaintiffs, by the Barons of the Court of Exchequer in that Kingdom, was reversed; and due Consideration had of what was offered on either Side in this Case:

Judgement of the Exchequer Chamber reversed, and Judgement of the Court of Exchequer affirmed.

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Judgement of Reversal given in the said Exchequer Chamber be, and is hereby, reversed; and that the said Judgement of the Barons of the said Court of Exchequer be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

The Tenor of which Judgement, to be affixed to the Transcript of the Record to be remitted, follows:

"Sed quia Cur. Parliamenti præd. nunc hic de Judicio suo de et super Præmiss. reddend. nondum advisatur, Dies inde dat. est Partibus præd. coram dicto Domino Rege, in eadem Cur. Parliamenti apud Westm. usque Diem Jovis, Nonum Diem Februarii, Anno Regni dicti Domini Regis nunc Decimo Tertio, de Judicio suo inde audiend. eo quod Cur. Parliamenti præd. nunc hic inde nondum &c.; ad quem Diem, coram dicto Domino Rege in eadem Cur. Parliamenti apud Westm. ven. Partes præd. per Attorn. suos præd.; super quo, visis & per Curiam Parliamenti præd. diligenter examinat. et plenius intellect. tam Record. et Process. præd. ac Judic. superinde reddit. quam præd. Causis pro Error. superius assign. et allegat. videtur Cur. Parliamenti præd. quod in Record. præd. Judic. Reversationis præd. manifeste est Erratum: Ideo cons. est per eandem Cur. Parliamenti, quod præd. Judicium Reversationis præd. Judicii in præd. Cur. dicti Domini Regis, coram Baronibus de Scaccario ipsius Domini Regis, apud le King's Courts, Dublin, in Regno Hib'niæ, sic, ut præfertur, reddit. pro præd. Thoma Anderton versus præd. Janam Magawley, per Cur. dicti Domini Regis, in Camera Concilii juxta Scaccarium, coram nuper Domino Cancellario dicti Domini Regis Regni sui Hib'niæ, ob Error. ill. reversetur, adnulletur, et penitus pro nullo habeatur: Et ulterius cons. est per eandem Cur. Parliamenti, quod præd. Judic. in præd. Cur. dicti Domini Regis coram præd. Baronibus de Scaccario præd. in præd. Regno Hib'niæ sit, ut præsertur, reddit. pro præd. Thoma Anderton versus præd. Janam Magawlay, in omnibus affirmetur, et in omni suo Robore stet et Effectu; et quod præd. Thomas Anderton in præd. Cur. ipsius Domini Regis, coram præd. Baronibus de Scaccario præd. in præd. Regno Hib'niæ, habeat inde Executionem, juxta Formam et Effectum Judicii illius in præd. Cur. dicti Domini Regis coram præd. Baronibus de Scaccario præd. in præd. Regno Hib'niæ; et quod ipse ad omnia quæ ipse Occasione præd. Judicii Reversationis præd. amisit restituatur; ac superinde Record. præd. et Process. præd. per eandem Cur. Parliamenti dicti Domini Regis præd. Cur. dicti Domini Regis coram præd. Baronibus de Scaccario præd. in præd. Regno Hib'niæ remittuntur &c."

Adjourn.

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

DIE Veneris, 10^o Februarii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Morse versus Dubois & al.

This Day the Answer of Charles Dubois, Arthur Moore, Edward Gibbon, and Grantham Andrewes, Esquires, to the Appeal of John Morse and others:

Pakenham versus Budd.

As also, the Answer of Joseph Budd, One of the Respondents to the Appeal of Robert Pakenham Esquire;

Were brought in.

Crespin's Nat. Bill.

The Lord Bishop of Norwich reported from the Lords Committees to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act for naturalizing Daniel Crespin," was committed: That they had considered the said Bill, and gone through the same; and directed him to report it to the House, without any Amendment."

E. Strafford versus Blakewey.

The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Thomas Earl of Strafford is Appellant, and William Blakewey is Respondent:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the First vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed.

E. Sandwich takes the Oaths.

This Day Edward Earl of Sandwich 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.

Report of South Sea Trustees delivered.

The House being informed, "That a Person from the Trustees for raising Money, on the Estates of the late Directors of the South Sea Company and others, attended:"

He was called in; and delivered, at the Bar, the Report of the said Trustees.

And then he withdrew.

And the Title of the said Report was read.

Viscountess Fanconberg versus Evans.

Counsel were called in, to be heard, in the Cause wherein Bridget Viscountess Dowager Fauconberg is Appellant, and Thomas Evans Respondent.

And the Counsel for the Appellant being accordingly heard, and several Prooss in the Cause read:

It was proposed, "To read certain Affidavits, of Persons skilled in Building, touching the House in Question, which were offered to the Master of the Rolls, on applying for Leave to move for a new Trial, whether the said House was substantially built, fit for a Tenant to live in."

Which being objected to by the Respondent's Counsel:

They were all directed to withdraw.

After Debate;

The Question was put, "Whether the said Affidavits shall be read?"

It was Resolved in the Affirmative.

Then the Counsel were called in again.

And the Lord Chancellor acquainted them with what the House had determined.

And thereupon One of the Affidavits being read:

The Counsel were directed to withdraw.

Ordered, That the further Hearing of this Cause be adjourned till To-morrow, at Eleven a Clock.

Pitt's Appeal to be considered.

Whereas To-morrow is appointed, to take into Consideration the Appeal of William Pitt Esquire, and Samuel Pitt Merchant; complaining of Two Orders made by the Lord Chancellor, granting the Custody of the Person of Samuel Pitt, a Lunatic, the Appellants Uncle:

It is Ordered, That on Tuesday next this House will take into Consideration the said Appeal.

Adjourn.

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