Petitions to the House of Lords: 1689

Dame Mary Turnor, relict of Sir Edward Turnor. HL/PO/JO/10/1/384/90 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of Dame Mary Turnor the relict of Sir Edward
Turnor late Lord Cheif Baron of the Exchequer administratrix
of the goods and chattells of Henry Ewer her late father not
administered by Johan his late mother.

Sheweth
that whereas your said petitioner in Michaelmas terme 1676 exhibited her bill into the High Court of
Chancery against Sir Edward Turnor knight and other defendants seting forth that about 45 yeares before there was a treaty
of marriage betweene William Ashton esquire son and heir of Sir William Ashton knight and your petitioner daughter and
heir of Henry Ewer upon which was agreed betweene the said Sir William Ashton and the said Henry Ewer
that the said Sir William should amongst other things in case the marriage took effect settle a jointure of 300 pounds per
annum upon your petitioner which was accordingly executed by way of demise and redemise of certaine mannors lands
tenements and hereditaments called Tingry and Milton in the county of Bedford upon trustees in trust
for your said petitioner for her jointure which she accordingly received untill her marryage with the said Sir Edward
Turnor which was about 23 yeares before the said bill exhibited from which time the said Sir Edward
received the 300 pounds per annum in her right untill he sold it in the yeare 1655 after his death which was in 1675
the said rent of 300 pounds being behind she demanded the same which was refused whereupon because she
had not the writings in her hands she preferred her bill against Sir Edward Turnor knight her husbands son to
obtaine the said writings but the defendants or some of them insisted upon it that the said Sir Edward
Turnor her husband had in consideracion of 2300 pounds sold the said lands to one William Mole esquire tho in truth
her said husband could neither in law or equity sell the same without your petitioners consent she being cestuy
que trust which the purchaser knew very well and therefore tooke collaterall security for the same and
hath enjoyed the same for many yeares and upon afull hearing of all matters the Lord Chancellor
Finch by his decree bearing date the 6th of December in the 30th yeare of King Charles the 2d decreed
that sale was void because she was not consenting to it and that being a trust onely for the wife
it was not transferrable by the husband it being but in the nature of a chose in action which the
husband could not have but as administrator to his wife if he had survived her and that there was no reason
the husband should carry it from your petitioner he haveing notice of the trust as in and by the said
decree it doth and may more at large appeare notwithstanding upon the peticion and appeale of Sir
Edward Turnor knight and Ann Gardiner widow formerly the wife of the said Mole against the said
decree the said decree by vertue of an order dated the 22th day of November 1680 was reversed to the
utter ruine of your petitioner and contrary to the course of law or equity as your petitioner is advised

Wherefore your petitioner humbly prayes that the said order may be
set aside that your petitioner may have the benefitt of her said decree and not be
totally deprived of her jointure she haveing brought with her a considerable
fortune.

And your petitioner shall ever pray
etc.

Mary Turnor

• Wi Williams
• William Pulteney
• Mary Turner

petition reade 16 November
1689
Ordered an answere
this day fortnight

Dismissed 2d December
1689

Sir Edward Turner, knight, and Anne Gardiner, widow. HL/PO/JO/10/1/384/90 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of Sir Edward Turner knight and Anne Gardiner widow, in
answer to a peticion of Dame Mary Turner.

Most humbly sheweth
that there was such bill and proceedings in the High Court of Chancery, and such decree obtained against
your petitioners as in the said peticion is set forth, and your petitioners being agreived thereat as unjust, did appeale from the same, to
the right honourable the lords spiritual and temporal in Parliament assembled, to which appeale the said Dame Mary Turner
did put in her answer, and on Monday the 22th day of November in the year of our lord 1680 councel on both sides
were fully heard at the barr of this honourable house, upon the said appeale, and answer of the said Dame Mary Turner, putt in
thereunto, and after due consideracion had of the matter and hearing of the opinion of most of the judges upon the case, it
was finally ordered and adjudged by the lords spiritual and temporal in Parliament assembled, that the said decree, from
which your petitioners had appealed, should be, and the same was thereby reversed, and ever since the said judgment was so pro=
=nounced, and decree reversed (which is now compleat nine years) the said Dame Mary Turner hath acquiessed under the said order
and judgment of this honourable house, although there have been several sessions of Parliament since that time; but by her peticion
without suggesting any new or other matters, than what was before this honourable house when the said appeale was heard, the said Dame
Mary Turner doth pray that the said order and judgment of your lordshipps may be set aside, and hath presumed to affirm, that
the said decree in Chancery was reversed contrary to the course of law and equity (as she is advised). That inasmuch
as the matter in question has already received so solemne a judgment and determination in this most honourable court, and that
your lordshipps are the ultimate court of appeal that the subject hath, for establishing and fixing controverted titles and estates
both at law and equity, your petitioners humbly offer it to your lordshipps consideracion, whether (especially after so great a length of time
as nine years) your lordshipps will again resume the consideracion of this cause, and reexamine the judgment formerly given
therein in this honourable house, and your petitioners with all submission hope, that your lordshipps will not think the same reasonable, for that
if such liberty should be permitted to persons concerned in causes, it would not only be an occasion of great importunity and
trouble to this honourable house, but leave mens estates in so great incertainties, that all men would be discouraged from purchasing
under such title; your petitioners humbly hope that your lordshipps will not think fitt to reheare the said cause, since it hath been
made so fully appear to your lordshipps that the said decree made by the High Court of Chancery was and ought to be reversed and
set aside, and that the said former order and judgment for reversing the same, made by this honourable house, was founded upon
solid and just grounds, and agreeable to law and justice.

And therefore your petitioners humbly pray, your lordshipps order may stand confirmed, and
that the said Lady Turners peticion may be dismised.

And your petitioners shall ever pray etc.

• Anne Gardiner
• Edward Turnour

Sir Edward Turner and
Anne Gardiner peticion and
aunswer to the Lady
Turners peticion
brought in and reade
2o December 1689 and upon
the quescion the order
made on the Lady Turners
petition sett aside

Henry, Duke of Norfolk. HL/PO/JO/10/1/402/7 (1689)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall
and temporall assembled in this convention
at Westminster

The humble petition of Henry Duke of Norfolke

Sheweth
that by an act of Parliament made in the third
year of the reigne of King Charles the first amongst
other things it is enacted that divers statues
pictures and drawings of your petitioners ances=
tors intended by the said act to have been named
in a schedule and inrolled in the High Court of
Chancery should remaine and bee heire loomes
annexed to the honour

That most of the said statues pictures and drawings
were preserved pursuant to the intent of the said act, and con=
tinued down in the possession of your petitioners predeces=
sors untill now of late that Colonel Maxwell
under pretence and in right of his wife Jane
Duchesse of Norfolke hath exposed the same to
sale by auction, intended to bee opened on Thurs=
day the 24th of this instant January, whereby
your petitioner cannot have recourse to any court
(of law or equity) to stay the sale thereof untill
his right and tytle to the same may be heard
and determined other then to your lordships.

May it therefore please your lordshipps
to grant an order to stay the sale of the
said pictures and drawings that are designed to
be sold at the said auction, untill your petitioner may
exhibit his clayme and tytle to the said pictures and
drawings in some court of law or equity.

And

23o January 1688
the Duke of Norffolks
peticion reade
and referred to the committee
for peticions

24 January reported
and ordered that the sale be
stayed

Henry, Earl of Peterborough, a prisoner in the Tower. HL/PO/JO/10/1/403/8 (1689)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and temporall
assembled in convention at Westminster.

The humble peticion of Henry Earle of Peterborow, a
prisoner in the Tower.

Sheweth
that your petitioner having been a domestick servant to the King,
very near thirty yeares. And by his grace and favour obtained some
publick offices, under him, and his late majestie. But findeing a sensible
decay of health, was advised to travell, for the better recovery thereof.

That in order thereunto; and that he might leave his affaires
here, subject to as little trouble as possible, he did (as advised) obtaine
his majesties generall pardon, under the great seale, of all treasons,
offences, and misdemeanours whatsoever. And for his more safe
passage, did likewise obtaine his royall lycence, to go with his
servants and necessaryes to any place as your petitioner should think
most convenient, as by the same, ready to be showne to your lordshipps
may appeare.

That your petitioner in his voyage, in order thereunto, upon Tuesday
the 11th day of December last, was forceably, by the rude multitude
stopt, and made a prisoner at Ramsgate (and robbed and plundered
of all his goods and necessaryes) and afterwards at Canterbury;
And so continued till removed by the order hereunto annexed.

That in this extraordinary juncture of affaires, all judges have
refused to act, or intermeddle with any order of your lordshipps by
which meanes, your petitioner very much to the prejudice of his
health, has continued a close prisoner in the Tower of
London aforesaid.

Wherefore your petitioner humbly prayes your
lordshipps order for his discharge; with
restitution of his goods etc.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc

Peterborow

The Earle of
Peterborows peticion

Reade 24o January 1688/9
and debate adjourned till next
day.

25 ordered to have the
liberty of the Tower for
his health.

Robert Jennison, gentleman. HL/PO/JO/10/1/403/12 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of Robert Jennison gentleman

Humbly sheweth
that your petitioner was by an order, made by the lords
assembled at Westminster the 24th of December 1688 committed to
the prison of Newgate in London, for being a Romish preist.

That your petitioner neither is, nor ever was a Romish
preist, nor of any other order in the church of Rome, but hath
for diverse years past been a marryed man, and hath a wife
and severall small children now living, who sufferr very
much by your petitioners confinement.

The premisses considered, may it please
your lordshipps, that your petitioner may be
discharged out of custody.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etca:

• Robert Jenyson

The peticion of Robert Jennison gentleman

reade 6o February 1688/9
he discharged

Thomas Hawley, esquire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/403/13 (1689)

To the right honourable the lords assembled at
Westminster.

The humble peticion of Thomas Hawley esquire.

Humbly sheweth
to your lordships that your petitioner
has stood comitted close prisoner by your lordships order in
the Tower of London for above the space of a moneth last past
as your petitioner is informed upon suspicion of some matters
relating to the death of the late Earle of Essex whereof your
petitioner knows himselfe to be innocent and wholely
ignorant. Nor has your peticioner ever heard of any
evidence against him.

Your petitioner therefore humbly prayes your
lordships that hee may bee either bayled or
discharged as to your lordships shall seeme most meete

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc

Thomas Hawley

Thomas Hawleys peticion
reade
21 February 1688/9.
Ordered that he may be
bayled by the Lord Mayor

Thomas Russell, one of the yeoman warders of the Tower. HL/PO/JO/10/1/403/13 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of Thomas Russell
one of his majestyes yeoman warders of the Tower

Sheweth
that your petitioner is committed prisoner to the Tower on
pretence of being concerned in the death of the late Earle of
Essex, which he is altogether ignorant of, and hath beene
confined above thirteene weekes, and forasmuch as your petitioner
is innocent and hath a family to maintaine which will be
ruined and undone by his longer confinement.

Your petitioner humbly prays your lordshipps in
commiseracion of his condicion will be
pleased to order he may be bailed
or discharged

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc

Thomas Russell

The peticion of Thomas
Russell a wardour
but now prisoner
in the Tower

The people called quakers. HL/PO/JO/10/1/403/19 (1689)

To the lords commitees to whom is referred
the bill for tolleration

The humble petition of divers
of the people called quakers, on behalfe
of themselves and the rest of their society

Sheweth
that your petitioners having been long and grievious sufferers because for conscience
sake they dare not take any oath's, though allwayes willing to affirme the
truth in all cases, when called thereto, and alsoe to submitt to such
punishment as the law inflicts upon perjured persons, in case any
among them shall affirme a false thing for truth.

Therefore wee humbly pray, that you will take their suffering
case into your Christian consideration, and find out a way for their
reliefe, that in all cases where oaths are usually required their solemne
affirmations and denialls may be taken and recorded, in which wee hope
allwayes to be found faithfull and conscientious, as becomes just men
and true Christians.

And your petitioners shall pray.

• William Meade
• Steven Crisp
• Gilbert Latye
• William Ingram
• Walter Benthall
• John Edridge


• John Vaughton
• George Whitehead
• John Dew
• [William Shardlow?]
• Thomas Barker
• Richard Whitpaine

William Downing. HL/PO/JO/10/1/404/24 (1689)

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

The humble petition of William Downing junior

Humbly sheweth
that your poore petitioner who is an apprentice, bound to his
owne father a printer, having by order of his said father and master beene lately
concerned in the printing two most scandalous and utterly false libells, and therby
to his great sorrow incurred your lordshipps displeasure, your petitioner is extreamly sensible of
and sorrowfull for his ignorance and crime, and humbly implores your lordshipps mercy
he sincerely protesting and declaring before almighty God and your lordshipps that no other
consideration whatsoever then that of submission and obedience to his father and master
induced him to lay hand to or be assisting in the printing of the said libell. That your peticioner
designes and desires with your lordshipps permition to make such acknowledgment in print of his ignorance
and errour as your lordshipps in your great wisdom shall appoint or think meete with assureance to your
lordshipps of his great care of offending in the like manner hereafter.

Your poore petitioner therefore humbly implores your lordshipps to take his
poore distressed condition into your gratious consideration, to
remitt his fine and grant him his liberty his great poverty
having rendred his imprisonment extraordinary greivous to him
by reason your poore petitioners fathers goods hath been seized by his land=
=lord since this unhappy accident, and without Gods great mercy
his wife and three more children must inevitably fall upon the
parish.

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

• William Downing

The humble petition of
William Downing

reade 22th March 1688

William Downing, junior. HL/PO/JO/10/1/404/24 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of William Downing junior now prisoner in
the Gatehouse.

Humbly sheweth
that your petitioner above three months since was committed prisoner to the
Gatehouse, for printing two papers, the one reflecting on the right honourable the Lord
Gray of Wark, and the other called, A List of the Protesting Lords etc. The former
of which his lordshipp has been pleased (in pity to his miserable condicion, as to his own
particular) to pardon; the other also being printed at that season, when there was
no licenser to the press then constituted.

That your petitioner declared to your lordshipps at the barr of this honourable house, that the said paper
was taken out of a newsletter in a coffee house in Little Brittain, the truth of which
Master Taylor, the messenger, can testify to this honourable house; and that the said news
letter was written by one Dyer, that your petitioner, whatever offence he then committed, acted
no farther therein, then in obedience to his fathers command, being his apprentice, your
petitioner being continued ever since in goal, is not onely reduced to the most miserable
poverty, and haveing been very sick through indisposicion contracted by his confinement
may bee in danger of a relapse, and besides his poor mother and three children more
must perish, if your petitioner bee continued longer in custody, there being no other hopes for
maintenance for your petitioners mother, and the other children then the labour of your petitioner
his father being absconded for debt, and their goods all seized on for rent.

Your petitioner therefore humbly pray's your lordshipps for Christs sake) to commiserate
his, and his poor mother, and the other three childrens miserable
and deplorable condicion, and to grant him his liberty, whereby he
may prevent their perishing.

And your petitioner in all duty bound shall ever pray etc.

• William Downing junior

The humble peticion of William
Downing junior

Reade 5 July 1689

Thomas, Earl Rivers. HL/PO/JO/10/1/404/26 (1689)

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

The humble petition of Thomas Earle Rivers.

Sheweth

That upon the marriage of Thomas Lord Colchester your petitioners eldest sonne with the Lady Charlott sister of the right honourable the Earle of Derby your petitioner
by indenture dated the twelfth day of May 1678 did settle the mannors of Chich St Osith Greate Clacton and Little Clacton in the county of Essex to the use of
his said sonne for his life, the remainder of parte to the said lady for her jointure, the remainder of the whole to the first and all the sonns of that marriage
successively in tayle male, the remainder to your petitioner in tayle, with other remainders over, with a proviso that if your petitioners said sonne should dye
without issue male leaveing one or more daughters by the said lady, that then the Earles of Derby and Strafford and John Grobham How esquire and Robert
Hide gentleman both since deceased and their heires should stand seised to the intent that such daughter and daughters should receive and take tenn thousand
pounds out of the rents issues and profitts of the premisses to the use of one such daughter if but one, and if more then to be equally devided amongst them
with one hundred pounds per annum a peice for their maintenance. That the marriage tooke effect, and your petitioners sonn entred and in October 1679
dyed without issue male leaveing Charlott Katharine Savage his only daughter. That the said earles became thereby intituled to the premisses in
trust for raiseing the said portion and maintenance, who imployed one John Richardson to manage and receive the rents who constantly paid the
maintenance till Christmas 1684 when hee dyed, and Frances Richardson was his executrix, and upon an account soon after taken there was eight
hundred pound in her hands. After the death of Richardson Thomas Mann was receiver. And that Charlott Katherine dyed in 31th March [1687?] being of
the age of seaventeene yeares and noe more not haveing been married, whereby the portion was sunk and gone into the inheritance and ought not to be
raised, the moneys by the settlement being declared to be a portion or preferrment in marriage, and she being dead before marriage soe young there was
noe occasion for raiseing itt, and the moneys allready raised ought to bee paid and the said lands ought to be reconveyed to your petitioner to which
purpose your petitioner did exhibitt his bill in Chancery, and the said Earles of Derby and Strafford Frances Richardson and Thomas Manne did putt in
their answers and the said cause came to heareing upon bill and answer on the eighteenth day of July last before the then Lord Chancellour Jefferies
where your petitioner could obteine noe relleife in the premisses but his bill was absolutely dismissed which dismission is signed and inrolled.

Your petitioner humbly prays your lordships that the said defendants may appeare before your lordships and answer the premisses
and that your petitioner may bee relleived by your lordships according to the true intent and meaneing of the said settlement
and according to justice and good conscience and that your lordships will be pleased to correct the aforesaid erroneous judgement
and to make such decree therein as ought to have been made below in the Court of Chancery.

And your petitioner shall pray etc.

Rivers

George Bradbury

Earl Rivers appeale

Reade 7o Martii 1688
an answere to be put in
this day 3 weekes

29 Aprill 1689
heard and dismissed.

Sir John Heath, Attorney General of the Duchy of Lancaster. HL/PO/JO/10/1/404/27 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of Sir John Heath knight his majesties Attorney Generall of his Dutchy of Lancaster as well on the part and behalfe of the Kings
most excellent majestie as well by the relacion of Sir James Boteler knight Attorney Generall of the Queen Dowager on behalfe of the said Queen and the right
honourable Philipp Earle of Chesterfeild the right honourable Henry Earle of Clarendon and the honourable William Montague esquire surviveing trustees of
her said majesty and Thomas Eyre esquire

That the Queen Dowager and her trustees anno 1674 granted unto your peticioner Eyre a moity of divers parcells of common and wast grounds for the remainder of her
said majesties terme of 99 yeares under the yearly rent of 50 pounds afterwards obtained a grant of the inheritance of the said commons from the late King Charles the second
(of ever blessed memory) under the fee farme yearly rent of 100 pounds and whereas a decree was made in the Duchy in June 1684 for the relator Eyre and his heires to have
a moity of the wast grounds in the townes of Hope Bradwall and Wormehill, against Anthoney Longden Humphry Thornhill Thomas Fletcher Thomas Eyre esquire
Willim Inge esquire Adam Bagshaw gentleman Richard Bowes Nicholas Stones Thomas Balgay esquire Henry Balgay esquire Nicholas Thornhill John Wagstaffe John Bocking John
Hurler Robert Hallom George Hallom George Bagshaw Anthony Hall and others defendants and theire heires, and that the defendants should make a moity of the fence against the
relator and upon a reheareing the decree was confirmed, it being then alledged by the defendants that the relator Eyre had foure parts in five decreed to him for a moity
the relator Eyres counsell then offered to exchange parts, but the defendants refused

In May following the said defendants appealed to the lords assembled in Parliament against the said decree thereby setting forth that the relator had foure parts in five
set forth and decreed for a moity, after severall debates in this honourable house the said decree was affirmed afterwards a commission in pursuance of the said decree to
devide and allot the fences issued out of the Duchy Court in December 1685 directed to commissioners in which the defendants joyned which commission was executed and the fences to
be made were allotted and distinguished, which part the relator should make, and which the defendants should make against the relator, which commission was certified and returned and the
relator made all his part of the fence against the defendants according to the said allotments, and the defendants of Wormehill made all theire moity of fence against the relator according to the said
allotments the defendants of Bradwall made a great part of theire fence against the relator and the defendants of Hope made some part of theire fence against the relator according to the said
allotment which was a complyance with the affirmacion of the decree by this honourable house afterwards many persons heareing that the said decree was affirmed by the
supreme and difinitive judgement of this grand judicature, and the complyance of the defendants were incouraged, and did purchase of the relator the inheritance of divers great
quantities of the said grounds under a yearly rent, who have made great improvement thereof, notwithstanding all the aforesaid transaccions, the defendants together with Rowland
Eyre esquire sonne and heire of the said defendant Thomas Eyre late of Halsop esquire deceased and Henry Balgay esquire sonne and heire of the said defendant Henry Balgay esquire deceased, on the 24 of November 1687 with
designe utterly to ruine the relator Eyre your peticioner by a continued suit and disturbance, in contempt and to the diminucion both of the honour, order and judgement of this
grand and supreme judicature, moved the then Chancellour of the Dutchy who to invallid the authority of Parliaments, called to his assistance Sir Richard Allibone, who upon
the defendants bare allegacion, that the said commons were not equally devided ordered a commission should be awarded to surveyors to be indifferently named on either side to
make anew division in the townes of Hope and Bradwall and the said Chancellor to gratify the said Rowland Eyre on the 24th of December 1687 issued out a new
commission, not warranted out quite contrary to his owne owne orders of the 24th of November and the 3d of December by virtue of which commission the commons were againe
devided and the certificate thereof returned by which division the relator Eyre, his tenants and purchasers are stript of the greatest part of theire lands, and theire corne
groweing thereon (in May last was most barbarously destroyed, by the order of the said Rowland Eyre and others, meerly to shew theire contempt of the judgement of this honourable
house and to support the said unpresidented proceedings, on the 8th of May last it was ordered by the said Chancellour that the certificate of the executeing the
said commission with the plots and mapps of the division therewith should be, and was confirmed and that each party should enjoy theire severall moities, laid out
for them, according to the said new division by colour of which unjust proceedings, contrary to the determinacion of this honourable judicature, the defendants have entered upon
the greatest part of your peticioners land, and have it now in possession and by colour of the said new division and allotment, the greatest part of your peticioners fences are
throwne downe and demolished, from all which irreguler and arbitrary proceedings, contrary to a decree so solemnly affirmed in Parliament

Your lordshipps most humble peticioners do appeale, and humbly implore the aid and
justice of this grand judicature for theire just releefes.

Thomas Eyre

R Sawyer

Rowland Eyre, esquire, and others. HL/PO/JO/10/1/404/27 (1689)

Betweene the attorney of the Duchy
Thomas Eyre esquire and others plainantes

Rowland Eyre esquire and others defendantes.

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

The humble peticion of the defendants

Sheweth

That a peticion of appeale was exhibited into this most honourable house this present Parliament on the behalfe of
the plaintiffes, tending to the setting aside of certaine orders and proceedings in the Duchy for the dividing the commons
in the two townes of Hope and Bradwall in the county of Derby into two equall [illegible] moyeties whereof one to be held
and enjoyed by Master Eyre and the other by your peticioners that Master Eyre prosecuted the said appeale upon the
ground and reason as if the said orders and proceedings did in some measure intrench upon the judgement and
determinacion of this most honourable house upon an appeale presented by your peticioners in 1685 against a
decree of the Duchy Court, whereby the said Master Eyre had one moyety of the said commons decreed unto him
and your peticioners doe apprehend that your lordshipps have made or pronounced some order for the setting aside the said proceedings
in the Duchy which if absolutely done, and that your petitioners have not the leave and direccion of this most honourable
house for [illegible] a legall and equall division by metes and boundes indifferently to be made and sett out (none such being
hitherto duly had) they will be ruined in their estates by the said Master Eyres takeing exceedingly beyond a
moyety for though your peticioners have and do submitt that Master Eyre should have an equall moyety, which is all
he can justly pretend to, and which as they humbly conceive was the true intent and meaneing of the said
decree, and of your lordshipps in affirming the same. Yet the said Master Eyre instead of a moyety claimes
and pretends to near three parts in four quantity and quality considered, so that your peticioners without the authority
and direccion of your lordshipps are like to be deprived of a great part of the commons which they ought to enjoy

Your peticioners therefore most humbly pray this most honourable house to take
their case into consideracion, and to make such order and or direccion to the
Duchy Court or otherwise that a fair indifferent and equall division
of the said commons may be made by metes and boundes, whereof Master Eyre
may have one moyety and your peticioners the other moyety, or that such other
order may be made for your peticioners releife in the premisses as to this
most honourable house shall seeme meet

And your peticioners shall dayly pray etc.

Rowland Eyre

Edward Ward

Rowland Eyre petition
versus
Thomas Eyre
read 7o May 1689
ordered an answere
this day sentnight

Rowland Eyre, esquire, and others. HL/PO/JO/10/1/404/27 (1689)

Rowland Eyre esquire
et al
against
Thomas Eyre esquire
et al

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

The humble peticion of the appellants

Sheweth
that William Eyre esquire one of the persons concerned in the
commons in question, who came to towne to attend this cause
was suddenly sent for hence and is gone into Darbyshire on the occasion of
his wife being lately visited with a feaver since his
coming hither and there being none other of the peticioners
in towne to enter into recognizance

Your peticioners doe most humbly beseech your
lordshipps, that the recognizance of Master Francis
Gell merchant brother in law to the said Master
Eyre or some responsible person may be taken
though no parties to the said peticion.

And your peticioners as in duty bound shall dayly
pray etc.

Rowland Eyre.

Eyre
versus
Eyre
Rowland
reade 16 May 1689.

Thomas Eyre, esquire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/404/27 (1689)

The peticion of Thomas Eyre

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

The humble peticion of Thomas Eyre esquire

Sheweth
that a peticion is exhibited by Rowland Eyre esquire and
others against your peticioner and others who have all answered

Your petitioner humbly praies your lordshipps will be
pleased to order a short day for heareing the
cause

And your petitioner will ever pray etc

Thomas Eyre

Eyre
and
Eyre
Thomas
reade 16 May 1689

Edward Roper. HL/PO/JO/10/1/404/28 (1689)

Anne Roper plainant
Edward Roper esquire
and Henry Lord
Arundell defendants

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

The humble peticion and appeale of
the defendant Edward Roper

Sheweth
that by the decree in this cause pronounced by George Lord Jeffryes in the High Court of
Chancery the 24th of February in the fourth yeare of the raigne of his late majestie King
James the second and by vertue of a report and subsequent orders made in the said
cause your petitioner and all his estate stand charged to pay to the plainant 5580 pounds on pretence of mony
lymitted for porcions to bee raised by a terme for 10 yeares determined above 35 yeares
since and actually raised by the plainants guardians within that time with a great overplus
and the remainder of the said estate was by the same settlement lymitted in tale to your
peticioner who was under the age of three yeares when the said terme of 10 yeares commenced

That in justice the plainants bill ought to have beene dismist with costs and the said decree and
subsequent orders and all proceedings thereupon are unjust inconsistent and irregular

Your petitioner therefore humbly appeales to your lordshipps and humbly
prayes that the said decree orders and proceedings may bee
reversed and for that purpose that your lordshipps will appoint a
short day for hearing the said cause

And your petitioner etc

Edward Rooper

• Heneage Finch

George Bradbury

Ropers petition and
appeale versus Roper
et al defendts
reade 8th March 1688

3 April 1689.
Decree and orders
reversed.

Robert Clerke. HL/PO/JO/10/1/404/30 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of Robert Clerke

Sheweth
that your petitioner was taken into custody on Thursday last on
suspision of being a papist and that he had lately been in France and
for as much as your petitioner is ready to give an undoubted testimony that
he never was nor is of the popish comunion nor hath been in France since
the late King James left this kingdome

May it therefore please this most honourable house
to order that your petitioner may be forthwith
discharged without charges

And your petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray etc

Robert Clark

Master Robert Clarke
peticion

Charles, earl of Macclesfeild. HL/PO/JO/10/1/404/34 (1689)

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

The humble peticion and appeale of the right honourable Charles Earle of Macclesfeild

Sheweth
that Sir Alexander Fytton haveing in your peticioners exile with King Charles the second gotten
into possession of your peticioners estate and your peticioner after his majesties restauration
haveing obteyned a decree in Chancery for the possession and the deeds (which has been confirmed
by your lordshipps upon an appeale) Sir Alexander Fytton then sett upp a mortgage of part of the
estate whereof he had gotten an assignement to one Jolliffe in trust for him your peticioner exhibited
his bill in Chancery for a redempcion which comeing to be heard July 23o Caroli secundi Sir Alexander
Fytton insisted for want of partyes whereupon the cause was putt off; the court reserveing the consideration
of interest from that tyme in regard your peticioner was ready to goe to an accompt and to pay what
should appeare due.

That by reason of severall abatements and delays your peticioner could not bring on his cause till
19th May 35 Caroli secundi when itt came to be heard before the then Lord Keeper North, and albeitt the
original mortgage money in 1640 was but 1500 pounds and the mortgagee had received great summes for
interest fynes and rents yett the mortgagee haveing assigned in 1652 for a pretended consideracion
of 2400 pounds which the defendants insisted ought to be taken as a stated summe and to carry interest from
the tyme (though your peticioner was neither party nor privy to that assignement) his lordshipp
was pleased to make your peticioner a president which he declared to be a standing rule in all
like cases and to decree that the consideration money mencioned in the assignement should carry
interest from that tyme and that the accompt should bee so taken and since ordered that a booke of
accompts made upp betweene other partyes should conclude your peticioner whereupon severall
orders have beene made and your peticioner not being able by reason of his late absence to procure the
masters report the late Lord Chancellor Jeffrys dissolved your peticioners injunction though it was
offered on your peticioners behalfe to pay what was due and when the report was ready it was stopt on
pretence of an outlawry against your peticioner for pretended misdemeanors on the mocion of the then
Attorney Generall whereupon Sir Alexander Fytton being gotten into possession to gratify his freinds
and adherents covinously makes leases for not halfe the true value notwithstanding the suite was
depending and undetermined without any leave of the court

Which said decree in directing the said accompt and makeing the said booke evidence and proceedings
are contrary to justice and equity as your peticioner is advised and contrary to the course of the
Chancery and a judgment of your lordshipp in a case of like nature and is of universall concerne
being introductive of a new law to make mortgagors pay interest upon interest to make
evidence, and to encourage mortgagees to make havock of mortgagors estates

Your peticioner therefore being aggreived by the said decree orders and
proceedings doth humbly appeale from the same to your lordshipps and prays to
be releived therein as to justice and equity shall apperteyne and that in order thereunto
your lordshipps would be pleased to award the usuall summons to the said Sir
Alexander Fytton and Thomas Jolliffe esquire to appeare and answere the same

And your peticioner as in duty bound shall ever pray etc

Maclesfeld

Earl Macclesfeild petition
versus
Fitton and Jolly
reade 15o March 1688.
Ordered an answere
this day month

Ordered to be
reheard in Chancery
3 May 1689.

Andrew Dyer. HL/PO/JO/10/1/404/36 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of Andrew Dyer

Sheweth
that your petitioner haveing stopt a hoy at Gravesend with severall
popish passengers on board, as is more fully set forth in the case annexed
for which, he hath been greatly molested, and has at this time two
severall actions depending against him by reason thereof; soe that
he must be forced to leave his habitation, to the utter ruine of
himself, and family, unless relieved herein by your lordshipps favour, and
goodness.

Wherefore your petitioner humbly prays your lordshipps to order a stop
to the said masters proceedings at law, and to cause the same
to be brought before your lordshipps, and to order the mayor of Gravesend,
the said master William Read, and his brother Charls Read, in the
annexed case named, together with your petitioner to attend your
honours and to give your petitioner such reliefe herein as to your
lordshipps (upon hearing the whole matter) shall seem meet.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc

Andrew Dyer

Andrew Dyers peticion

Reade 15 March 1688.
Ordered to shew cause
why they doe not desist
within 6 dayes.

22o March 1688.
Ordered that the peticion
be dismissed this house.

Elizabeth, Countess of Burlington. HL/PO/JO/10/1/404/37 (1689)

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

The humble petition of Elizabeth
Countess of Burlington.

Humbly sheweth
that the right honourable James late Earle of Salisbury
by his last will and testament did bequeath and commit
to your petitioner the custody and tuition of all his
children untill their respective age of one and twenty
yeares if your petitioner should so long live.

That your peticioner did pursuant to the said
will take care of the honourable William and Charles
Cecill younger sons of the said Earle of Salisbury
and placed them in Eaton school.

That about the middle of August last the
right honourable James now Earle of Salisbury beeing their
eldest brother took the said William and Charles
Cecill from the said school and did afterwards
send them into France to bee educated in the
Roman Catholic religion as your petitioner
hath reason to beleive.

Your peticioner therefore prays that
my Lord Salisbury beeing under
confinement, shee may from this
honourable house receive such direcions
and assistance as may enable her
to performe the trust reposed in
her.

And your peticioner
shall pray etc.

• Elizabeth Burlington

Thomas Newcombe and Dorothy his wife. HL/PO/JO/10/1/405/41 (1689)

Thomas Bonham and Alice his wife by bill of review plainants

Thomas Newcombe and Dorothy his wife defendants

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

The humble peticion of the defendants Thomas Newcombe and Dorothy his wife

Sheweth

That Anthony Young being seized in fee of the mannor of Ambersham in the county of Southampton of
about 200 pounds per annum and having occasion for 1000 pounds borrowed the same of the plainant Bonham and for security
thereof he by lease and release conveyed the same to the plainants Thomas Bonham and his wife and to the heirs of the
said Bonham whereupon the plainants by their deed dated the next day following demised the same to the said Anthony
Young for 99 years if he should so long live and the plainant Bonham thereby covenanted that in case the said Young
should at any time while he lived pay the saide 1000 pounds and interest that then the premises should be reconveyed to
the said Young and his heirs but if the 1000 pounds and interest should not be paid in his life time then the said Young covenanted
that his heirs after his death should not take advantage nor have any benefit in law or equity of the said
covenant but should be for ever barred from all remedy either in law or equity for the redemption of the premisses

That Anthony Young died soon after and before he paid the 1000 pounds whereupon the plainants obtained letters of administracion
of his personal estate and entred on the said real estate and claimed the same as absolute purchasers.

That your peticioner Dorothy being heir at law to the said Young and being advised that she had a right to
redeem the premisses your petitioners offered to pay the 1000 pounds and interest or so much thereof as the personal estate would
not extend to satisfy which the plainants refused and insisted upon their conveyance as an absolute purchase whereupon
your petitioners exhibited their bill in Chancery to be relieved and upon hearing the cause before the late Earl of
Nottingham then Lord Chancellor his lordship declared the conveyance to the now plainants to be but a security and not an
absolute purchase and decreed that upon your petitioners payment of the 1000 pounds and interest discounting thereout the said personal
estate and the profits received of the mortgaged premisses the now plainants should reconvey the same to your petitioners.

That the now plainants being not satisfied with the decree petitioned the then Lord Chancellor Nottingham for a
rehearing and the same coming to be reheard before him was confirmed.

That the now plainants afterwards exhibited a bill of review to reverse the said decree which being heard before the
late Lord Keeper North he reversed the said decree and dismissed your peticioners original bill.

That your petitioners do humbly conceive and are advised that the conveyance of the premisses by the said Young to the
plainants was but in the nature of a mortgage for the said 1000 pounds and interest and that the said Young having a right to
redeem that right did upon his death descend to your petitioner Dorothy as his heir at law and that your petitioners
are intituled to a redempcion and that if such contrivances should hinder a redempcion many mortgages
and their heirs might be prevented of redeeming their estates by usurers and scriveners

Your petitioners do therefore humbly appeal to your lordshipps from the
said reversal and do humbly pray that the same may be set aside
and that the decree made by the said Lord Chancellour Earl of Nottingham
for a redempcion may be confirmed.

And your petitioners shall ever pray etc.

• Thomas Newcomb
• Dorothy Newcomb

George Hutchins

Thomas Bonham and his wife. HL/PO/JO/10/1/405/41 (1689)

Inter Thomas Bonham and Alice his wife by bill of reviewe plainants

Thomas Newcombe and Dorothy his wife defendants

To the honourable the lords spirituall
and temporall in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of Thomas Bonham and his wife

Shewe
that your petitioners were served with your lordships order made the 28th day of March last upon Saturday in the evening last at their dwelling house in West Meane in Hampshire
neare sixty miles distance from London at which time of the said service your petitioner Thomas
Bonham was very ill and indisposed with the gout as the messenger sent on that occation
was an eyewitness thereof:

Nowe for as much as your petitioner was only served on Saturday last and is by your lordships
ordered to put in his answer to the defendants peticion on Friday the fifth of this instant
Aprill as alsoe for that your petitioner is afflicted with the goute and both himselfe and
writings are at such a distance as aforesaid and that it is impossible for your petitioner to put
his answer in readiness by the time limitted in and by your lordships order.

May it therefore please your lordships the premises to
consider and to order and allowe your petitioner tenne dayes or
such further and reasonable time for the preparing and
putting in your petitioners answer as to your lordships shall seeme
most meete

And your petitioners as in duty shall ever pray etc.

Thomas Bonham.

[Bonhams?] peticion
versus
Newcomb for a
longer day
reade 4 Aprill 1689.
Ordered 10 dayes

Richard Hutchinson and Dorothy his wife. HL/PO/JO/10/1/405/41 (1689)

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

The humble petition of Richard Hutchinson and Dorothy his
wife against Thomas Bonham and Alice his wife

Sheweth that Anthony Young the peticioner Dorothy's uncle, to whome she was nice and
heir at law, was seized in fee of the mannor of Ambersham in the county of Southamton and divers
other mannors and lands in the county of Southampton and Sussex, of above 200 pounds per annum, part in possession, and
part in reversion after his mothers death. The said Anthony did agree with the respondent Bonham
(who married Alice the sister of the said Anthony) to pay and advance 1000 pounds for him, whereupon the said
Anthony by lease and release, dated the 13th and 14th of Aprill 1679, in consideration of the said 1000 pounds sworn in
the said respondents answear to be actually paid to the said Anthony Young before the sealing thereof,
he did convey the same to Bonham and his heirs, and that if he the said Anthony did not repay the said
1000 pounds in his life time or within 99 years his heirs executors or administrators should not take any advantage
or should have any benefitt in law or equity for the reobtaining a redemption of the premises forever,
as by last recited deed, though it afterwards appears by Bonhams own proofs ther was only 200 pounds thereof paid
in the life time of the said Young, who died about two months after, and therefore unreasonable the
respondent should insist on the forfeiture of a covenant of which he had not performed in his own part, the rest
of the 1000 pounds the said Bonham paid by takeing up mortgages and bonds, and getting assigned in trust to his own use,
by which means he made the estate liable to pay him interest, and principall when he pleased.

Whereupon the said Dorothy and her late husband Thomas Newcomb about June 1679 exhibited their bill in
Chancery before my Lord Nottingham then Lord Chancellor, who in consideration of the premisses, and upon a
full hearing of the cause, did decree, that upon paying the said 1000 pounds and interest discounted thereout the
profitts received from the premisses, the petitioner Dorothy should have the said estates.

That afterwards the said Bonham moved my Lord Chancellor Nottingham for a rehearing, which he obtained
and the said decree on solemn debate was thereupon confined. That afterwards the said Bonham brought a
bill of review before the late Lord Keeper North, who after hearing, when it seemed as left by the councell
to stand fair for the petitioner, yet his lordshipp to their supprize was pleased to reverse both my Lord
Chancellor Nottinghams decree for redemtion, and dismissed the petitioners and her late husband
Newcombs originall bill. That thereupon the petitioner and her late husband appealed to your lordships and the
said appeal came to be heard before your lordshipps the first of May 1689, when his majestie came on a
sudden to pass severall acts, your lordships were then pleased to dismiss the appeale.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your lordshipps that they may be admitted to
redeem the premisses according to the two decrees of the Lord Chancellor Nottingham
that the respondent Bonham may not take advantage by the sudden dismission
and forfeiture for breach of covenant before he had performed what was on his
part first to be done, or otherwise to releive the petitioners as to your great
wisdomes shall seem meet.

• Richard Hutchinson
• Dorothy Hutchinson

Peticion
Richard Hutchinson and Dorothy his wife
against
Thomas Bonham and his wife

Reade 13 February 1694 and
rejected

Edward Strode. HL/PO/JO/10/1/405/43 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of Edward Strode

Sheweth unto your lordshipps.

That he hath brought two writs of error
before your lordshipps, for himself and Edmond Eyre, his baile
at the suit of George Rodny, and the said writs are returned
and the records of the said judgments are removed into this
honourable house, before your lordshipps, and your petitioner hath assigned
errores on the said judgment, but Rodnys attorney hath not
joyned in errors, or taken copyes of the said records, yet his
attorney threatens to take your petitioner, and his bail in
execution, on such judgments at law.

Your petitioner therefore humbly prays your
lordshipps, will be pleased to appoint a
day, as to your lordshipps shall seem
meet, for Rodny to joyne in errors
and that all proceedings against your petitioner
and his bayl may be staid and the other side
may take coppies of the record

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc

Edward Strode

Master Strodes peticion

Reade 5 Aprill 1689

Titus Oates, clerk. HL/PO/JO/10/1/406/54 (1689)

To the lords spirituall and temporall
assembled in Parliament

The humble peticion of Titus Oates clerke

Sheweth
that three judgements against your peticioner in the Kings
Bench, videlicet, two upon indictments for perjury, and
the other on an action of scandalum magnatum
at the suit of James Duke of Yorke are removed by
writts of error and now lye before your lordshipps
in this most high court of Parliament where
your petitioner hath assigned errors and issue is joyned
thereon.

Your petitioner therefore most humbly
craves a short day for hearing

And you petitioner shall ever pray etc.

Titus Oates

Tytus Otes peticion
for a day of
heareing.
Reade 9o Aprill 1689.
Ordered to be heard
this day sent night.

Sir James Bradshaw, Richard Northend and Nathaniel Northend. HL/PO/JO/10/1/406/58 (1689)

Sir James Bradshaw knight
Richard Northend and
Nathaniel Northend complainants
against
Christopher Northend defendant

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

The humble peticion and appeale of Sir James Bradshaw knight, Richard Northend and Nathaniel Northend

Sheweth that John Northend late father of your petitioners Richard and Nathaniel Northend deceased was seized in fee of a capitall messuage and lands called Hundslee alias Hunslee in the county of
Yorke of the vallue of fifty pounds per annum that the said John Northend had divers sonns (videlicet) John Northend his eldest son your petitioner Nathaniel, and Richard Northend, that the said John Northend your
petitioners brother designeing to intermarry with one Ann Hardee who had to her porcion some lands of the vallue of twenty pounds per annum there might be some discource between the relations of
the said Ann and the said John Northend the elder touching the settlement of the said messuage and lands of Hunslee upon the said John the younger and the said Ann for lyfe and to their heires but the same
was not reduced into writeing or if the same were yett no deeds were legally executed and if the said agreement were reduced into writeing the same was made void by a subsequent agreement and deed duely
executed bearing date the first day of February in the seaventeenth yeare of King Charles the second by the consent of the said John Northend the father and his son John Northend and all partyes concerned
therein by which deed so duely executed and upon an agreement to pay debts of the said John the father and for porcions for his younger children the said John the father did settle the said
lands on your petitioners the said Nathaniel and Richard the said John the elder haveing before by the consent of his said son John the younger sold his lands in Huggate in the said county to
the vallue of sixteene pounds per annum to be as a portion for his said son John the younger in leiu of the said lands of Hunslee and John the son had the money for the same and thereupon
gave his consent to the said settlement on your petitioners which settlement was to the said John the elder and his wife for their lives and after to your petitioner the said Nathaniel and Richard and their heires
that the said John the younger dyed in the fathers lyfe tyme haveing marryed the said Ann Hardee and had issue the said Christopher Northend that John the younger is deceased that John the
grandfather did enjoy the said messuage and lands dureing his lyfe and your petitioners Nathaniel and Richard after the death of the said John the elder haveing paid three hundred pounds debts for
him the said John the elder did by virtue of the said deed of settlement possesse themselves of the said lands and premisses and wanting money to pay the said debts mortgaged the said capitall
messuage lands and premisses to your petitioner Sir James Bradshaw for the summe of three hundred pounds and your petitioners have all along been in the quiett possession of the said lands without
any pretence or clayme ever since the death of the said John Northend the grandfather and some yeares since your petitioner Sir James Bradshaw was putt into the peaceable possession thereof for
the said summe of three hundred pounds with the interest that the said Christopher the grandson haveing lately exhibited his bill into the Court of Chancery for the said lands and claymeing
the same under pretence of his fathers marriage agreement and your petitioners Nathaniel and Richard haveing answered the said bill denying the whole equity thereof and wittnesses being
examined butt not fairly as they ought to have beene a decree was pronounced against your petitioners the said Nathaniel and Richard Northend by the then Lord Chancellor Jeffryes the twenty
fifth day of November in the third yeare of the late King James the second by which decree your petitioners Nathaniel and Richard Northend are ordered not only to deliver possession of the
said lands and premisses to the said Christopher free from all incumberances but your petitioners the said Nathaniel and Richard are decreed to be accountable for all the rents and proffitts made
of the said lands since the death of the said grandfather notwithstanding the said plainants bill ought to have beene dismist (as your petitioners are advised) that your petitioners haveing matteriall
wittnesses which were not fairely examined on the interrogatoryes did move for a second hearing and that the said wittnesses who could have cleered your petitioners title and proved the said
deed might be examined in court viva voce which was granted as your petitioners understood yett at the second hearing the said Lord Chancellor Jeffryes refused to have them so examined
or to dyrect any tryall in this cause but ordered the said first decree to stand that your petitioner Sir James Bradshaw who was no party to the cause and being a mortgagee of the said lands for
a reall consideracion of three hundreed pounds and being in actuall possession some yeares since of the said lands yett is served with an injunccion out of the said court to deliver
possession of the said lands to the said Christopher (though your petitioner doubts not butt he hath a sufficient title in law and equity to hold the said lands till payment of the said three
hundred pounds and intrest thereof notwithstanding the clayme and pretence of the said Christopher your petitioners therefore doe appeale from the said decree and proceedings
in the said Court of Chancery to your lordshipps in Parliament and most humbly pray your lordshipps that the said Christopher may answer the same and that the said
decree may be reversed and your petitioners shall pray etc

James Bradshaw

Ambrose Phillipes

Thomas Filmer

Bradshaws appeale
versus
Christopher Nortend
brought in 15 Aprilis
1689

30 May 1689
appeal dismissed

Christopher Northend of Beverley, Yorkshire, gentleman. HL/PO/JO/10/1/406/58 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of Christopher Northend
of Beverley in the county of Yorke gentleman.

Sheweth.

That your petitioner was lately served with a copy of an order from
your lordshipps to putt in his answer to a certaine peticion and appeale
of Sir James Bradshaw knight Richard Northend and Nathaniell
Northend complaineing of a decree pronounced against them by
the late Lord Chancellor Jeffreys, in which they pray the reversall
thereof your petitioner hath accordingly putt in his answer thereto, and
came up on purpose out of Yorkeshire with his writeings to certifye
your lordshipps that the said Nathaniell and Richard have agreed with your
petitioner and that the said Sir James Bradshaw was never any party to
the suite, and that the said peticion and appeale to your lordshipps in
the said Nathaniell and Richards names is without their order and
appointment as appeares by their affidavit, and that the said Sir James
Bradshaw has lately perswaded the said Nathaniell and Richard to
give him possession of the lands recovered by your petitioner, and that hee
intends to keepe itt from your petitioner allthough hee hath noe legall right thereto.

Your petitioner most humbly prays that your lordshipps
will bee pleased to appoint some short day for
the hereof thereof, and that the peticion and
appeale may bee dismissed with costs.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc

• Christopher Northend

Sir James Bradshaw, knight. HL/PO/JO/10/1/406/58 (1689)

Sir James Bradshaws petition

Sir James Bradshaw knight
et al quer
versus
Christopher Northen def

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

The humble petition of Sir James Bradshaw knight one of the plainants

Sheweth
that the defendants answere came in but the sixth of this instant May.

That your petitioners wittnesses being sent for out of Yorkshire cannot be here
untill Saturday seavenight next yet the defendant by his peticon hath obtained an order to
heare this cause on Munday next.

Your peticioner therefore most humbly prays your
lordshipps that the said cause may not be heard till before
next Saterday seavenight.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc.

• James Bradshaw

Sir James Bradshaw

Sir James Bradshaw, knight. HL/PO/JO/10/1/406/58 (1689)

The peticion of Sir James Bradshaw knight

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

Sir James Bradshaw et al plainants
Nicholas Northen defendant
Christopher Northen defendant

The humble petition of Sir James Bradshaw knight

Sheweth
that this cause is appointed to be heard before your
lordshipps on Munday next. That the defendants answere came in but the
sixth instant, and the witnesses for your petitioner are now in Yorkshire.

Your petitioner therefore most humbly prayes your
lordshipps that the said cause may not be heard
till next Munday fortnight.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc

• James Bradshaw.

John Browne. HL/PO/JO/10/1/406/59 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of John Browne one of the bearers of the
verges of their majesties houshold

Sheweth
that your petitioner is in custody of the black rod, by order of this most honourable
house, upon the false accusation of one Isaac Symball and his confederates, persons
knowne to be so false and wicked that they have no reputation with their neighbours
and have done this evill against your petitioner in revenge, because your petitioner arrested the
said Symball for a just debt.

That in regard your petitioner is knowne to be a protestant of sober life and conversation, who
was never heard to speake the least irreverent word, against any of his superiours, nor
never had so much as an unmannerly thought towards any noble peere of this realme,
and yet your petitioner is like to suffer wrongfully, to the ruine of his wife, and nine
children, unlesse releived by your honours.

Your petitioner therefore most humbly prayeth that your honours
will vouchsafe to order his speedy discharge.

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

• John Brown

The peticion of John Browne.

Henry Howard, esquire, brother of the Earl of Suffolk. HL/PO/JO/10/1/406/63 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of the honourable Henry Howard esquire brother to the Earl of
Suffolk

Sheweth

That the late James Earl of Suffolk in his life time was seized in fee of the mannor
house of Audley End in the county of Essex, the building whereof stoode the Earl and his ancestors in the summe of
200000 pounds that his late majesty King Charles the second did purchase of the said Earl, the said mannor
house and park etc in the year 1660 for the summe of 50000 pounds, whereof he received 30000 pounds in part of
payment, and the remaining 20000 pounds was charged on severall orders to be paid in course out of the Exche=
=quer from the revenue ariseing out of the hearth mony

That six severall orders dated 7o Aprill 1670 were issued
charged and registered, in the Exchequer on the said revenue of hearth mony for the said remaining
summe of 20000 pounds payable in course to the said Earle [his?] executors or assignes

That about the year 1671 when the orders were
very neer to be paid in course, his said majesty was pleased to put a stopp to the payment of all orders charged
to be paid in course, out of the said revenue in the said Exchequer, by reason whereof the said 20000 pounds
residue of the said purchace mony hath not been paid to the said Earl in his lifetime, nor to your petitioner
since his death, although your petitioner neither hath nor can make any other provision for his younger
children

Your petitioner therefore being informed that an act of Parliament is suddenly
to be past for takeing away the said revenue of hearth=mony whereby
your petitioners debt may irrecoverably be lost, unless som regard be had
by your lordshipps to the justice of his case; most humbly prayes your lordshipps to
take his said case into your consideracion and before the passing of the said intended
act to cause satisfacion to be made to your petitioner of the said 20000 pounds in such
manner as your lordshipps great wisdome shall think best

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

• Henry Howard

Richard Brett, esquire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/406/63 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of Richard Brett esquire

Sheweth
that his late majestie King Charles the 2d did duely
charge two thousand pounds upon the reveanue of
the hearth money beeing a debt owing by his said majestie
the benefitt whereof is duely accrewed to your petitioner
for money actually paid by him that your petitioner hath
received the interest thereof to the 14th of June 1688.

Your petitioner therefore humbly prayes your
honours to take into consideracion your
petitioners case so as the said two thousand
pounds may be secured to your petitioner
before your honours passe the bill for
takeing away the dutie of hearth money
which is your petitioners present securitie for his
debt.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc

• Richard Brett

Sir Christopher Phillipson, knight. HL/PO/JO/10/1/407/72 (1689)

Sir Christopher Phillipson knight plainant
John Copley et al defts

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

The humble peticon of Sir Christopher Phillipson knight

Sheweth

That Christopher Gilpin esquire 1o Marcii 1650 for valuable consideracion conveyed the demesne
of Kentmer and Vethwaite Mill comitatu Westmerland to Mary Phillipson in fee in trust for Huddleston
Phillipson esquire her son your peticioners late father deceased who durst not take the deed in his own name
because he was a great loyalist and afraid of sequestracions

That Master Gilpin afterwards married the daughter of Nathaniell Nicholson and Nicholson being a potent
man in those usurping tymes did 3o Marcii 1650 draw in Gilpin to make him an absolute conveyance of the
premisses in fee and incertes therein 1520 pounds as the consideracion whereas little or noe money was ever paid
the said conveyance being intended onely to protect the estate from sequestracon

That anno 1658 assoon as Master Phillipson durst appeare to looke after his right he brought
an ejectment against Nicholson and the same comeing to tryall the matter was referred to two gentlemen of the countrey and
750 pounds was awarded to be paid or secured by [Master?] Phillipson to Nicholson in a yeare being the whole moneye
Nicholson then pretended to and security was accordingly tendred but shortly after Master Phillipson dyes and
leaves your peticioner his son then an infant of tender yeares.

That in 1671 Nicholson (taking advantage of your peticioners infancy) exhibited his bill in Chancery
against the said Mary Phillipson and others but never made your peticioner who was the cestuique trust and principally
concerned party to the suite nor served him with any subpoena and runns on the suite to a hearing ex parte soe that he gott a decree
nisi causa to have the whole 1520 pounds mencioned as the consideracion in the said deed as if he had really paid
the same whereas the intencion of the said deed was onely to protect the estate from sequestracion but the
said decree was never confirmed or made absolute nor was any account taken of the mesne profitts received
by Nicholson who was by the said decree to account for the same nor any further proceedings had on that decree

And Nicholson dyeing and leaving 2 grandaughters his coheires videlicet Beatrix since married to John Copley and
Judith since married to George Carns your peticioner assoon as he had found out and got his deeds and writings into his
hands (which were for severall yeares detayned from him) brought his ejectment at law against the coheires of Nicholson
and their husbands who thereupon brought their bill of revivor to revive the said decree and thereupon got an
injunccion against your peticioner to stay his proceedings at law being conscious that upon a fair tryall the deed made to
Nicholson under which they clayme would appeare to be fraudulent upon which your peticioner was advised to and did
exhibit his bill against the said coheires and their husbands for liberty to proceed at law notwithstanding the said
injuncion and decree and to examine his witnesses and to be releeved upon the whole matter and the cause
comeing on to a hearing 11o June 1686 before the late Lord Chancellor Jeffryes the court without hearing the
award or your peticioners proofes and evidence read declared your peticioner bound by the former decree and ordered him
to pay the 1520 pounds with interest and costs discounting the mesne profitts

That your peticioner being noe party to the first decree and being then an infant and never served with any
subpoena and being the cestuique trust and Master Phillipsons name being onely used in trust for your peticioner who was
principally concerned in interest and the said decree being onely ex parte and never inrolled or soe much as
made absolute or confirmed nor any account taken of the mesne profitts your peticioner is advised that he ought not
to be bound by the former decree but that both the former and the later decree made by the late Lord
Chancellour Jeffryes ought to be sett aside and that your peticioner ought to be at liberty to proceed at law to
recover his right (it being matter of title and properly tryable there as he is advised) and the rather for that your
peticioner hath offered and is still willing either to accept of his principall money and interest and so to quitt the
purchase or else to pay the said coheires the 750 pounds awarded if they will account for the mesne profitts

And therefore your peticioner humbly appeales to your lordshipps and prayes that
both the said decrees may [be?] sett aside and that the said coheires and their
husbands may accept of the said 750 pounds awarded and account for the mesne profitts
to your peticioner or that your peticioner may be left to try his right at law and may
have such other or further releife in the premisses as to your lordshipps shall
seem reasonable

And your peticioner etc

Christopher Philipson

Henry Penton

Thomas Orme, esquire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/407/73 (1689)

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

The humble peticon of Thomas
Orme esquire

Sheweth
that your petitioners cause being by your
lordshipps appointed to be heard by councell
at the barr on Wednesday next which
being the last day of the terme he
cannot gett councell to attend your
lordshipps and humbly prayes

That your lordshipps wilbe pleased to appoint
some other day for heareing
thereof as to your honours shall
seeme meete

And your petitioner shall ever pray

Thomas Orme

The defendant consents

Ormes peticon
reade 18 June 89.

Oliver Cloberry. HL/PO/JO/10/1/407/75 (1689)

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

Oliver Cloberry plainant
Ezekiel Lampen defendant

The humble peticion of the plainant

Sheweth
that the defendant Lampen having putt in his
peticion and appeale before your lordshipps for reversing of part of a decree
of the Court of Chancery (made by the late Lord Chancellor the Earll of Nottingham
upon two hearings in 1677 for the said Lampen's payment of 500 pounds and the interest
thereof to your peticioner as in the said decree is mencioned and for payment of
which he entered into a recognizance of one thousand pounds in which
judgment and execucion is awarded by the lords commissioners of the great seale
of England this last Easter term) and your peticioner having putt in his
answer to the said appeale according to your lordshipps order your lordshipps
were pleased upon the peticion of your peticioner to hear the said appeale
and answer the twelfth day of June instant and upon hearing
councell on both sides at the barr of this house your lordshipps did order
and adjudge that the said Lampen's peticion and appeale be dismissed this
house and the said decree from which he appealed be confirmed as per order
annexed may appear

That the said Lampen immediatly upon your lordshipps passing the
said judgment upon his appeale served your peticioner with a proteccion
under the hand and seale of the right honourable the Earll of Suffolke protecting
him the said Lampen as the said Earl's meniall servant (as per a coppy
of the said proteccion annexed may appear) although the said Lampen is
a merchant and dwelleth in London

That your petitioner hath endeavoured to waite upon the said noble
Earl to have acquainted him in the premisses and to have requested his
lordshipps discharging the said proteccion but findeth at his lodgings
that his lordshipp is gone into the countrey so that your petitioner cannot
addresse to him

Your peticioner therefore humbly beseecheth your lordshipps to
take the premisses into your grave consideracion and to
order therein as to your lordshipps shall seem meet that your
petitioner after so great and unnessary vexacion that the said
Lampen hath putt him unto in the premisses may not
be abridged in his proceedings against the said Lampen for
the recovery of his right

And your petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray etc

• Oliver Clobery

Richard Arnold, gentleman. HL/PO/JO/10/1/407/76 (1689)

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

The humble peticion and appeale of Richard Arnold gentleman

Sheweth

Sir Edward Smyth and Dame Frances his wife brought a suite in Chancery against
Henry Nourse esquire and your peticioner setting forth that your peticioners father had mortgaged
certain lands to the said Master Nourse and that Sir Richard Weston the said Dame Frances's
former husband had purchased the revercion and redempcion of the said lands and that shee
was intituled to the same as devisee of all the said Sir Richards reall estate.

That your peticioner preferred a cross suite against the said Sir Edward and his Lady Ann Arnold
widdow and the said Master Nourse to have the redempcion of the said mortgage which two suites comeing to
be heard togeather the court decreed the redempcion to your peticioner.

That afterwards the said Anne Arnold (although shee had sworne both by answer and
likewise, as a witness for the said Sir Edward and his lady that the said conveyance to the said
Sir Richard Weston was areall purchase) brought a bill against the said Sir Edward Smyth
and his lady and the said Master Nourse and your peticioner to have the redempcion of the said lands from
the said Master Nourse and likewise a reconveyance from the said Sir Edward Smyth and his lady to
which bill of the said Anne Arnold Sir John Guise baronet and William Guise esquire are named
parties plainants as trustees for her in a bond [and?] [illegible] judgment by which bill the said Anne
Arnold pretendeth that the revercion and redempcion were conveyed to the said Sir Richard
Weston by your peticioners father in trust for her altho noe trust was declared in the
conveyance and that by vertue of such trust or else by vertue of the said judgment, shee is
intituled to the redempcion from Master Nourse which suite of the said Anne Arnolds
comeing to hearing by it selfe the court decreed the redempcion to her accordingly which
decree is since signed and inrolled soe that your peticioner has now noe remedy in
Chancery but onely before your lordshipps

Forasmuch as your peticioner has good right to have the redempcion of the said
lands decreed to him

Your peticioner therefore humbly appeales to your lordshipps and prayes that the said causes may
be heard before your lordshipps and that the said Anne Arnold Sir Edward Smyth and his lady
and Henry Nourse may be ordered to answer hereunto before your lordshipps and that the said decree
for your petitioner may be confirmed and the decree of the said Anne Arnold may be reversed
according as your lordshipps shall thinke fitt

And your peticioner shall ever pray etc

Richard Arnold

Ch. Porter
Richard Freeman

Richard Arnold, gentleman. HL/PO/JO/10/1/407/76 (1689)

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

The humble peticon of Richard Arnold gentleman

Sheweth

That your petitioner preferred his humble petition and appeale to your
lordshipps thereby complayning of severall decrees and proceedings in the Court
of Chancery and praying that the causes in the petition mencioned might bee
heard before your lordshipps and that Anne Arnold Sir Edward Smith baronet
and his lady and Henry Nourse esquier might be ordered to answer thereunto
upon which it was ordered by your lordshipps that they might have a coppy of the
said appeal, and that they should put in theire answers thereunto on Tuesday
the one and twentieth of May last which they have all since severally done
accordingly

Your petitioner therefore humbly prayes your lordshipps to be
pleased to appoint a day for the hearing of the said
causes and that the registers may attend att the heareing
with theire minute bookes relateing to the suite of
the said Anne Arnold there being some materiall
variacions betweene the minutes and the orders
in the said suite

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc.

• Richard Arnold

Richard Arnold. HL/PO/JO/10/1/407/76 (1689)

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

Betweene Anne Arnold widow and others her
trustees in a judgement plainants

Sir Edward Smyth and his lady, Henry Nourse
esquire and Richard Arnold defendants

The humble peticion of the said Richard Arnold.

Sheweth

That upon heareing of his cause in the Chancery itt was decreed that the said
Anne Arnold your peticioners mother in law, should by virtue of marriage articles and a judgement and conveyance
for their performance redeeme a mortgage which your peticioners father had made to the other defendant Master Nourse and that your
peticioner and the other defendants should accompt for the profitts of the said mortgaged lands, and pay the same to the said
Anne Arnold unlesse your peticioner would pay her 2000 pounds with interest agreed by the said marriage articles to be left
her by your peticioners father, she discounting upon oath what she had received out of your peticioners fathers personall estate
towards satisfaction of the said 2000 pounds and upon such payment made by your peticioner of what should make upp the said personall
estate 2000 pounds. Itt was ordered that your peticioner should redeeme the said mortgage, and have and keepe the said proffitts.

Your peticioner brought his appeale, before your lordshipps, and for the reasons therein contained praied that your
lordshipps would be pleased to reverse, the said decree, and your lordshipps were pleased to confirme the said decree in which
judgement of your lordshipps your peticioner humbly acquiesces and is willing to performe the said decree according to the intencion thereof.

But forasmuch as the intencion of the said decree in Chancery was to have the said marriage agreements aswell on the part
of the said Anne Arnold as of your peticioners father performed and forasmuch as your peticioner hath applyed to the Chancery
to have ordered the said Anne Arnold to performe her part of the said marriage agreement by takeing att the vallue of
1000 pounds her leases for yeares, and the other things she brought as her marriage porcion att that vallue (which as your
peticioner is advised) is just and equall, and was the intencion of the said decree, but the said decree not being expresly
enough worded for that purpose and the same being confirmed by your lordshipps your peticioner could not
prevaile therein, and (as the matter now stands) the said Anne Arnold will have above 4000 pounds instead of the 2000 pounds
decreed her, unlesse your lordshipps will be pleased to explaine the intencion of your judgement upon the
affirmance of the said decree for that purpose.

Your peticioner therefore humbly praies your lordshipps that the said Anne
Arnold may according to her marriage agreement with your peticioners father and according to the
intencion of the said decree, and intencion of your lordshipps said affirmance as your peticioner
humbly conceives, take againe att the vallue of 1000 pounds her leases for yeares and the other
things she brought as her marriage porcion to your peticioners father att that vallue and
that she may account for the rest of your peticioners fathers personall estate att the true vallue
thereof, and for the profitts of the said mortgaged lands since your peticioner delivered her
possession thereof by order of the Chancery towards satisfaccion of the other 1000 pounds and interest
which profitts were never yet accompted for, and that your lordshipps would be pleased to
explaine your lordshipps judgements on the said appeale and give direccions thereon your peticioner
being willing to performe everything your lordshipps upon consideracion of the premisses shall order and
that in the meane time all proceedings may be staid in the court below.

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

Richard Arnold

Wi Williams

George Pery

Richard Arnold petition

versus
Anne Arnold

reade 28o January 1691

Heard 6o February 1691
and dismissed and with costs

Gaynor Jones, widow, and William Crosse, gentleman. HL/PO/JO/10/1/407/78 (1689)

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

The humble peticion and appeale of Gaynor Jones widdow and William
Crosse gentleman from a decree made in the Court of Exchequer in Trinity term
1688 against them at the prosecution of the then Attorney Generall.

Sheweth

That Robert Charnock being seized of certaine lands in Leyland in the county of Lancaster for
valueable consideracion by deed inrolled conveys the same to Edward and Willoughby Manley and Richard Orell
in fee

That Robert Charnock and Willoughby Manley (Orrell haveing released his interest to Manley) the 9th of [illegible] 1660
in consideracion of 500 pounds conveyed the premisses to Grace Bold in fee and the said Robert Charnock by will alsoe devised the premisses
to the said Mistress Bold, who enjoyed the same untill March 1686

That Grace Bold leavyed a fine of the premisses and declared the uses thereof to her self for life remainder to your petitioner
Jones for life remainder to her self in fee and by will dated 22th January 1689 devised the premisses to your petitioner Crosse for raising porcions for
his younger children remainder to John Crosse his son in tayle with other remainders over and in March 1686 Grace Bold dyed
in possession of the premisses and your petitioner Jones entred and being in possession thereof the late King James his Attorney Generall exhibited
an informacion in the Court of Exchequer against your peticioners suggesting that Robert Charnock had conveyed the premisses to the said Grace Bold
in trust for such uses as by the laws of this realme are superstitious and unlawfull whereby the premisses beeing forfeited to the crowne.

That your peticioners answered the said bill and therein insisted on their title aforesaid and after many tedious proceedings the cause came to be heard before the
barons of the Exchequer the 23th of June in the 3d yeare of the reigne of the late King James the 2d where a tryall at law was directed to be had at the then next assizes for the county
of Lancaster on this issue whether the said estates and conveyances of the premisses were made declared or [illegible] upon any trust and what trust which tryall was accordingly had at Lancaster
by a jury eleaven whereof were papists and by the undue solicitacion of one [G...?] a popish priest who had obteyned a promise of a grant of the premisses if [recovered and prosecuted?]
your petitioners at his owne charge a verdict was [illegible] obteyned against your petitioners that the [premisses?] were conveyed to the use of [the said?] Grace Bold for the support and maintenance [of the priests?]
of the Romish religion videlicet in trust for the support of the priests of the secular clergy of the Romish religion in the county of Lancaster and the said [cause comeing to be heard?] [illegible]
on the [r...?] of the said verdict in the said cause it was declared a decree by the barons of the said court of Exchequer that the premisses being [so conveyed to the said Grace?]
did belong to the said late King and it was further decreed that the said late King [should forever enjoy the same?] [illegible]
said court upon oath before the last day of Michaelmas terme last past all [illegible] [up to his said?] [illegible] majestie or [whome hee?]
should appoint the possession of the premisses and it was further decreed that your petitioners should convey and [assure?] the [premisses?] [illegible] late [King?] and his heires and that [your petitioners should?]
account for the profitts of the premisses since the death of the said Grace Bold [which?] [illegible] for the benefitt of the popish priests in the county of Lancaster
and your petitioners are advised the said decree is erronious and not warranted by the laws of [the?] realme [or the course and practice?] of courts of equity [illegible] and ought to be [reversed?]
and sett aside by the justice of this supreme court

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that their majesties Attorney Generall [may answer?]
the premisses and that your lordshipps [may please to examine and review?] the said decree and
proceedings thereupon and vouchsafe your petitioners such releife [therein as to your?] lordshipps shall
seeme meete and just.

And your petitioners shall ever pray etc

• Gaynor Jones
• William Crosse

Edward Warde

Inhabitants of the principality of Wales. HL/PO/JO/10/1/408/80 (1689)

To the lords spirituall and temporall
in Parliament assembled.

The humble peticion of severall inhabitants
within the principallity of Wales on the behalfe
of themselves and other inhabitants within the
said principality.

Sheweth

That your lordshipps upon reading of the
bill now before your lordshipps for takeing away the
court held before the president and councell in the
marches of Wales were pleased to order that the same
be read on Monday the 27th day of May instant
and that then their majesties councell should be heard
to the said bill if they please.

Wherefore your petitioners most humbly
pray that councell may at the
same tyme be heard on the
behalfe of your petitioners for the said
bill.

And your petitioner shall ever pray

• William Gwynne
• John Vaughan
• E: Mansell
• T Button
• [Richard Loyd?]
• Robert Hookes
• John Evans
• [Rice?] Griffith


• [J?] Williams
• E Cornwallis
• Arthur Mansell
• William [illegible]
• John [Haberley?]
• Daniell Davies
• Robert Griffith


• [A?] Arnolde
• [Fouke?] Williams
• Lewis Owen
• John Barlow
• John Owen
• Walter Lloyd
• John Pryce


• Owen Evans

Inhabitants of the principality of Wales. HL/PO/JO/10/1/408/80 (1689)

To the King and Queens most excellent majestys and to
the right honourable the lords spiritual and temporall, and
the Commons in this present Parliament assembled

The humble petition of the inhabitants within the principality of Wales

Sheweth
that your peticioners have by too long and [wofull?] experience found the
court held at Ludlow before the president and council of the dominion of
Wales to be an insupportable grievance to all subjects in Wales

And that the said court is also a greate expence to the crown; and brings no
maner of advantage to it, in return of its charge

And moreover that the said court is wholly usless for that the petitioners have
have both courts of law and equity in the greate sessions, wherein justice
is brought twice a year to theire doares, and the proceedings much cheaper
than in the court of Ludlowe, which is a hundred miles distant from
most part of Wales; and where the proceedings are not only very chargeeble
but also illegal and arbitrary: and the said court hath been presented
to be a greevance by severall grande juries in most counties of Wales
in consideration of the premises: and for that your petitioners have advised
and considered of all expedients proposed to reforme the abuses of the
said court, and find them all ineffectual: and for that your petitioners
are subjects to the jurisdiction of the courts at Westminster

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the said court at
Ludlow may be abolished and taken away by an act of
Parliament

And your petitioners shall ever pray etc

The shoemakers of the City of London and Westminster. HL/PO/JO/10/1/408/87 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of the shoemakers in
and about the Citty of London and Westminster

Sheweth
wheras the Company of Curryers have laid before your honours a bill intituled
An Act for Explaning an Act Made in the First Yeare of King James the First
Concerning Tanned Leather and therein instead of fairely reciting the same have
wrested the meaning thereof to their private interest and to the great damage
of the publick and would appropriate that to themselves which is contrary
to experience and the knowne lawes of this kingdom

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that
your honours will admitt them an hearing
by councill with their reasons before
any further proceedings be made in
there said bill

And your petitioners shall ever pray etc

• [Jer?] Cray
• Jonathan Newark


• William Savage
• Joseph Saunders
• John Charckley

The petition of the
cordwainers of London
and Westminster
1o Junii 1689

The merchants of the City of London buying and exporting leather. HL/PO/JO/10/1/408/87 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of the merchants of the City of London
buying leather and transporting it beyond the seas.

Sheweth

Whereas the Company of Curriers have laid before your honours a
bill intituled An Act for Explaining an Act Made in the First
Year of King James the First Concerning Tannd Leather your
peticioners humbly crave leave to represent to your lordships that the
said bill if it should passe would be a monopolising the trade of
buying and selling curryed leather by the Company of Curryers and
would prove a very great prejudice to your peticioners in their dealing
in leather and an inconveniency to the publick all which your peticioners
are ready to make appear to your lordships.

Your peticioners therefore most humbly pray this
honourable committee will be pleased to assigne them
a day and give them leave to attend with councell to
shew their reasons against the passing the said bill

And your peticioners shall ever pray etc.

• Reginald [Heber?]
• Thomas Legg
• Nicholas Midy
• De Bille
• Bartholomew Midy

The tanners in Southwark and other parts of London. HL/PO/JO/10/1/408/87 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of the tanners in Southwarke and other
partes in and about the cittyes of London and Westminster

Sheweth:

Whereas the Company of Curryers have layd before your honours a bill
intituled An Act for Explaineing an Act made in the First Yeare of King James
the First Concerneing Tanned Leather: your peticioners humbly crave leave to
represent to your lordshipps that the said bill if it should passe would be a monopolizing
the trade of buyeing and selling [curryed?] leather by the Company of Curryers
a hinderance in the transportacion and would prove a very great prejudice to your
peticioners in theire trade and dealeing in leather and an inconvenience to the
publique all which your peticioners are ready to make appeare to your lordshipps

Your peticioners therefore most humbly pray this honourable committee
will be pleased to assigne them a day and give them leave to
attend with councell to show theire reasons against the passeing
the said bill

And your peticioners shall ever pray etc

• Henry Freeman


• James [Lowder?]
• William [Lomme?]
• John Bacon
• John Heaton
• James Moore

The shoemakers of Northampton. HL/PO/JO/10/1/409/91 (1689)

To the right honourable the House of Lords
in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the shoemakers of Northampton

Humbly sheweth:
that whereas a very considerable part of the trade of
the said town doth consist and (time out of mind) hath
consisted in the manufacture of boots and shoes; and great
quantities of the same wares are and have been yearly vended
in parts beyond the seas, whereby the shoemakers in the said
town have had a comfortable subsistance and thereby
enabled to maintain their familys, and set on worke a
number of poor people. And whereas your petitioners are
credibly informed, that there are vigorous endeavours
for procureing a bill to be passed for the free transportation
of leather (beyond the seas) unwrought.

Now so it is (may it pleas your honours) that if the said bill
should pass, then the shoemakers trade in the said town will
be utterly ruined, and consequently a great number of the
inhabitants, both masters journymen and servants quite undone
in regard that then the merchandize and vending of shoes into foraign
parts would ceas, for those that live beyond sea, having leather sent
over (from hence unwrought) will be enabled to get shoes made there
and soe the sending over shoes (ready made) will be rendred useless where
=by a number or poor people will perish for want of imployment.

Most humbly therefore beseech your honours to take the premisses
into your most serious and tender consideration and not to permit the said
bill to pass into an act in regard of such the said sad consequents thereof.

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

• William Wallis
• Daniell Cockerell
• William Randes
• Nicholas Stratford
• Richard [Fowkes?]
• Joseph Talor


• Francis Greenough
• John Wallis
• William Pheasant
• Samuel Bradshew


• John Farr
• John Hocknill
• Thomas Johnson
• Samuel Wickins

The Company of Cordwainers of the City of London. HL/PO/JO/10/1/409/91 (1689)

To the right honourable the lords in Parliament assembled

The humble peticion of the Company of Cordwayners of the Citty of
London, and also of the liberties of the Citty of Westminster

Sheweth

That after the plague, Dutch warr and fire, the question was how to advance trade,
the French merchants being glad of that opportunity pretended, the only way was to transport
leather, and the then Parliament being not used to that, sufferred an act to pass for seaven
yeares for experience, but sad was the effect thereof, for many of the manufacturers of leather
went a begging before that act was expired; yet this is the president of some particular men, to
make a private interest to stand in competicion with a publick nusance. And accordingly some
private men (not tanners) about 4 yeares since, did bring in a bill to the honourable House of
Commons for the exportacion of leather unmanufactured contrary to many poenall laws of this
kingdome for many ages past, and after much trouble to that honourable house and great charge
to the poor manufacturers and opposers thereof, a bill past that house for the same for seaven
yeares and then was sent up to your lordshipps for your concurrence, but after severall hearings
thereof before your lordshipps, who considered the effects thereof dubious, your lordshipps past the
same bill, but for three yeares and untill the end of the next session of Parliament for
experience. And now there are also some private persons so eager upon the reviveing that
act. That another bill is brought in by them to revive the same, although severall peticions
to the House of Commons from this citty and the country have been read to pray a hearing
against the same bill, yet they would not permitt your petitioners any hearing at all: and
particularly a peticion from Bristoll sent to their representatives was not by them delivered
which peticion signifyed that there is not 20 hides in or about Bristoll in one tanners
yard to be sold, for all of them are bought for transportacion before they are half
tanned and now lye in merchants hands to be exported. And now your petitioners having
experienced the sad and grievious effects of that act by deadness of trade in most of
the corporacions in England.

Most humbly pray, that the bill for reviving the said statute
may be throwne out of this most honourable house, if not, that your petitioners
may have liberty to appear by themselves and councill before a
grand committee of the whole house to give their reasons
against the same, when this most honourable house shall order.

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

• Joseph Saunders
• William Savage
• John Charckley
• Nicholas Capell
• Jonathan Newark

Henry, Duke of Grafton. HL/PO/JO/10/1/409/94 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of Henry Duke of Grafton.

Sheweth

That his late majestie King Charles the second by his letters patents under the great
seale of England bearing date the 2d of February 1684 did give and grant unto your petitioner for
his life the office of clarke of the treasury in the Common Pleas at Westminster and keeper of the records
there, with all fees, profitts and advantages whatsoever to the same office belonging, to commence
after the death, surrender, or amoveall of Sir Thomas Jones then Lord Cheife Justice of the Common Pleas
from the said place of Lord Cheife Justice.

That Sir Thomas Jones in or about Hillary terme 1684 being amoved from the said place of Cheife Justice
and Sir Henry Beddingfield putt into that place, your petitioner was admitted into the said place of clarke
of the treasury and ever since quietly held the same and received the fees and profitts thereunto belonging
without any interruption either from him, or those that have enjoyed that place successively after
him untill Sir Henry Pollexfen in Easter terme last being made Cheife Justice of the said Court of
Common Pleas seized the said office of clarke of the treasury into his owne hands, and tooke the keys and profitts
of the said office from your petitioners deputy and deteined them to his owne use, without any legall processe
and disposed of offices, properly in the disposall of the clarke of the treasury, notwithstanding your petitioner
acquainted him that hee had a freehold therein.

Now forasmuch as this proceeding of my Lord Cheife Justice Pollexfen in dispossessing your petitioner of his
freehold after this manner, is not only contrary to the knowne laws of this kingdom but alsoe a great
violation and contempt of the priviledges of this house your petitioner being a member thereof.

Hee humbly desires your lordships will please to take the matter of fact into your
consideration, and give your petitioner such releife therein as to your lordships shall seem
meet.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc.

• Grafton

Duke of Graftons peticion.

Duke Graftons peticion
versus
Lord Chief Justice
reade 7 Junii 1689.

Adjudged a breach
of priviledge
13 June 1689

Henry, Duke of Grafton. HL/PO/JO/10/1/409/94 (1689)

Petition
of the Duke of Grafton

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

The humble petition of Henry Duke of Grafton

Sheweth

That your petitioner being dispossessed of the place of clarke of the treasury in the
Comon Pleas att Westminster by the Lord Chiefe Justice Pollexfen dureing the time of priveledge
of Parliament and without any legall processe although he had enjoyed the same by virtue of a patent
under the great seale of England for some yeares past without any interruption from three
succeeding chiefe justices of that court, whereupon your petitioner did petition your lordshipps for redresse
therein who referred the consideration thereof to the lords comittees for priveledges and upon their
report your lordshipps were pleased to order that your petitioner as to the said place should be in all respects
in the same condition as he was in before the said Lord Chiefe Justice Pollexfen came into the said
office of Lord Chiefe Justice

That notwithstanding your petitioner caused your lordshipps said order to be shewed unto him and a coppy
thereof left with him and Master Edward Mills his deputy, he hath instead of giveing due obedience thereunto
caused the seale which was alwaies kept at the said office to be removed from the same, and his said deputy
hath sealed records without your petitioners deputys signing the same and without any notice taken of your petitioners
said office to the totall losse of your petitioners title and interest in the same and contrary to the constant rules
and practices of the said court and hath done many other things to the discouragement and disparagement of
those officers imployed by your petitioner in the said office not only as to the perception of the proffitts thereof
but to the high contempt and eludeing your lordshipps said order

Hee therefore humbly thinks himselfe obliged to lay before your lordshipps this great contempt of
your order, and desires you will bee pleased to direct all persons concerned to attend your
lordshipps and alsoe to order your summons to such persons as your petitioner shall nominate as witnesses
to prove the the truth of the allegations, and then to give your petitioner such reliefe therein as
to your lordshipps shall seem meet

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc

• Grafton

Richard Carter. HL/PO/JO/10/1/409/94 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of Richard Carter.

Humbly sheweth

That your said petitioner being attached by warrant of this
honourable house dated the first of this instant July for not
appeareing upon an order of the said house made the twenty
nineth of June last to be sworne on the behalfe of his grace
the Duke of Grafton, with great submission acknowledges
his fault, and tenders his service to his said Grace begging his pardon and humbly
prayes the pardon of this house, and beggs to be discharged.

Richard Carter

Richard Carters petition
reade 3o July 1689
nothing done on it
discharged

The president and ancient fellows of the College of Physicians London. HL/PO/JO/10/1/409/95 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of the president and the antient fellowes of the Colledge of Physitians London whose
names are hereunto subscribed

Most humbly sheweth

That King Henry the eighth by his charter incorporates the physitians of London, and grants them
divers privelidges very benefficiall for the publique as well as the good government of the society and in the 14th
and 15th yeares of the said Kings reigne, the same was confirmed by act of Parliament

That the said colledge and society under the said charter and act of Parliament and other grants have alalong continued
in peaceable government under wholesome statutes and by lawes made by the society agreeable to the said statutes
untill the time of the late King James the second; att which time Sir Thomas Witherley and others, by threatts
procured a surrender of the said charter to King James the second, and though the said surrender was not inrolled; yett
a new charter was obtained from the said late King James the second, which distroyes the very rights and privelidges
of the said colledge, and intrenches on the famous universityes of this kingdome

That the said new charter being void (as your petitioners are advised) your petitioners about 3 monthes since with others
caused a colledge to be summoned to settle themselves upon the old foundacions, but the said new members (some
of which are knowne papists) togather with some of the old members, who were the contrivers of the surrender
opposed your petitioners and keept possession of the said colledge by force under collour of their new charter, and to
support their arbitrary power indeavoured by peticion to the honourable House of Commons this sessions, that their new
charter might be confirmed, which being not liked by the committee of the said House of Commons, the same was
withdrawne as your petitioners are informed

Yett since your petitioners understands that the same persons who procured the new charter joyned with the new
fellowes have procured a bill to be brought into this honourable house to pass into an act under pretence of the better
settleing the said colledge, which your petitioners find is designed by them to settle themselves in an arbitrary manner, in
opposeccion to your petitioners just rights, as well as the said universityes

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray your lordshipps that the
said bill may not pass this honourable house untill your petitioners
are first heard

And your petitioners shall pray etc

• [Atfield?]
• John Downes
• Thomas Alvey


• George Rogers president


• John Lawson
• Humphrey Brooke
• Richard [Torless?]
• [J Clerk?]
• Richard Fine
• Richard Morton
• Edward Browne
• Edward Tyson

The masters, assistants and members of the barbers and chirurgions of London. HL/PO/JO/10/1/409/95 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of the masters or governours of the mistery and cominalty of
barbers and chirurgions of London, and the assistants and other members of the said company.

Most humbly sheweth

That the barbers and chirurgeons of London were in the 32th of King Henry the eighth
by act of Parliament incorporated with power to practise chirurgery in all its parts.

And that the said company under that act and the royall charters of King James
the first, King Charles the first have continued in a peacefull government, under good
statutes, and by lawes made by the company agreeable to the law of the land, and had
alwayes amongst themselves a government without dependence upon the Colledg of Phisitians
yett notwithstanding within these late yeares they have been threatned by the said colledge
and as your petitioners are informed, they have now procured a bill to bee brought into this honourable
house to passe into an act, under pretence of better settling the said colledg, which your petitioners find
is designed by them in prejudice of your petitioners who have alwayes and now are oblidged to provide
chirurgions for their majesties service both by sea and land, which cannot bee performed, nor their
majesty's subjects have that due care taken of them, as they ought to have, if the said bill
should bee past into an act

Your petitioners therefore, and for divers other reasons, they will shew unto
your lordshipps, most humbly pray that the said bill may not passe this
honourable house, untill your petitioners are first heard.

And your petitioners shall ever pray etc.

• Thomas Gardiner
• Thomas Lichfeild
• Samuel Smith

The master wardens and society of the apothecaries of the City of London. HL/PO/JO/10/1/409/95 (1689)

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

The humble petition of the master wardens
and society of the art and mistery of apothecaries
of the Citty of London.

Sheweth

That whereas your petitioners are informed that a bill is
brought into this honourable house in behalfe of some of the
members of the Colledge of Phisitians London; and your petitioners
being advised that there are severall matters therein very
prejudiciall to the said company.

The petitioners therefore humbly pray that they
may be heard by their councell before the
said bill passe this honourable house.

And they shall ever pray etc.

• James Chase
• Henry Sykes
• Thomas Fyge

Edward, Lord Griffin. HL/PO/JO/10/1/409/97 (1689)

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

The humble petition of Edward Lord Griffin

Sheweth

That your petitioner is truly sensible of and
sorry for the misfortune of lieing under your lordshipps displeasure which hee humbly
hopes he should be able to remove if your lordshipps more weighty affairs could
allow of a short day to bring him to a speedy tryall, but finding that your
lordshipps have not yett leasure to allow any of your time to the examination of
this matter, he hopes that your lordshipps will be pleased to take into your consideration
that his present confinement is not only very chargeable but alsoe extreame
prejudiciall to his health:

And therefore humbly prays you would bee pleased to
take such bayle for his appearance att any time that your
lordshipps shall appoint, as your lordshipps may think reasonable

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc

• Griffin

John Roffey senior and John Roffey junior, vintners. HL/PO/JO/10/1/409/99 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of John Roffey senior and John Roffey
junior of Saint Clements Danes in the county of Middlesex vintners

Sheweth

That in Janury 81 your petitioner John the elder became bound as surety with and for Durant Jenkinson to William Dalton in four hundred pounds
for payment of two hundred pounds and interest at two severall payments and the first hundred pounds becomeing due Dalton threatned to arrest your said petitioner for the
same whereupon your petitioner repaired to Jenkinson who informed your petitioner that if both your petitioners would become bound to Benjamin Hinton a gouldsmith he
the said Hinton would forthwith pay Dalton the hundred pounds then due.

Accordingly your petitioners became bound to Hinton in two hundred pounds for payment of a hundred pounds 28 February 81 which bond
was executed late at night and left in trust with Hinton on his promise to pay Dalton the next day but Hinton haveing got the bond into his possession
and there being then as your petitioners afterwards discovered great accounts standing open between the said Hinton and Jenkinson he the said Hinton
would neither pay Dalton nor deliver back the bond but put the same in suit and obtained judgment thereon intending thereby to secure
himself so much of Jenkinsons debt on the said account

For releife against which fraud your petitioners exhibited their bill in Chancery against the said Hinton and against Reginald Heber
Anthony Ward John Hill and Obediah Sedgwick commissioners and assignees upon the statutes of bankrupt awarded against him the said Hinton and upon
hearing the cause before the then Master of the Rolls he was fully satisfied of the fraud and dishonesty of Hinton and did thereupon pronounce
a decree for your petitioners releif but upon rehearing before the late Lord Chancellor Jeffrys your petitioners were decreed to pay principall interest and costs or
be dismist and shortly after the defendants took your petitioners goods in execucion and levyed two hundred pounds the penalty of the said bond and six
pounds for costs at law and by prosecucion forced your petitioners to [pay?] near forty pounds more for costs in Chancery.

And your petitioners further shew that there was then a suit depending in the Court of Chancery betweene the said Durant
Jenkinson plainant and the said Benjamin Hinton and the said commissioners and assignees upon the statutes of bankrupt defendants to setle all accounts between them
which was since heard and referred to a master to take the accounts and upon debateing that point and examining severall witnesses it plainly appeared that
your petitioners money was never intended to be brought into [Hintons?] account but was designed to pay Dalton therefore the master gave Jenkinson
noe creditt for the same nor took any notice thereof in his report so that the defendants have your petitioners money for nothing and your petitioners must
quite loose the same together with all their costs and charges in defending themselves against so unjust a prosecucion and is utterly remedilesse
in the premisses save before your lordshipps in this high and honourable court.

Your peticioners therefore humbly appeal to your lordshipps from the said decree as erronious grevious and
unjust and humbly pray that your lordshipps will be graciously pleased to order the said Benjamin Hinton
Reginald Heber Anthony Ward John Hill and Obediah Sedgwick at such short day as your lordshipps shall
appoint to answer the premisses and shew cause if they can why the said decree should not be reversed in
this high and honourable court and the said defendants adjudged to repay unto your petitioners all the aforesaid
moneys recovered of your petitioners for principall interest and costs and that such further releif may be given
to your petitioners upon the whole matter as to your lordshipps in your great wisdome and justice shall seem meet

And your petitioners shall pray etc

• John Roffey senior
• John Roffey junior

• George Bradbury
• J Baggs

Peticion of John
Roffe senior and John
Roffe junior
11o Junii 1689.
Ordered an answere
10 dayes hence

George Price, Edward Price, Mistress Anne Price and Mistress Rebecca Brandreth. HL/PO/JO/10/1/410/103 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of George Price Edward Price
gentleman Mistress Anne Price and Mistress Rebecca Brandreth
against the bill of Roger Price esquire

Sheweth

That whereas your peticioners are given to understand that there is a bill
brought into this honourable assembly for the impowering the said Roger Price to make his wife
and younger children a provision out of an estate that is intailed on his son and wherein your said
peticioners have a right in remainder which said bill doth tend to the great prejudice of his son and heire
who hath no other estate in lands then that and there is near 700 pounds per annum which the said Roger
Price hath or may make his wife a joynture of, and to provide therewith for his younger children

Therefore your said peticoners humbly pray the said bill may not pass

And your peticoners shall ever pray etc

• George Price
• Edward Price
• Anne Price
• Rebecca Brandreth

A peticion of George
Price Edward Price Anne
Price and Rebecca Brandreth
reade 17o Junii 1689
ordered to be heard
Thursday next.

Sir Robert Atkyns, chief baron of the Court of Exchequer. HL/PO/JO/10/1/410/104 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of Sir Robert Atkyns knight of the bath
and cheif baron of his majesties Court of Exchequer.

Humbly sheweth.

That ever since the statute of Carlisle in the sixteenth year of King Edward the 2d the
course of levying of fines by persons in the country who cannot well come up to London hath
been by a certaine writ called a dedimus potestatem whereby power is given to certain commissioners
in the said writt named of good worth and creditt to receive the cognisance or acknowledgment
of the parties who are to levy the fine in the country which commissioners are to certify the said
cognizance to the judges of the Court of Common Pleas where the fine is to be afterwards
levyed and perfected.

Which said writt of dedimus potestatem hath bin alwayes drawn and engrossed by
the cursitors and by the respective cursitor brought to any one of the 12 judges at the said
cursitors choyce to be approved of and signed by him for signing whereof there hath been
constantly paid the fee of 6 shillings for such judge and 4 pence for the judges clerk and being soe
signed by a judge it never was denied to be passed at the great seale by the Lord Chancellor
or Lord Keeper.

The profitt of which fees to the judges being considerable hath sometime but of late
by generall consent of all the judges bin farmed out at a certaine summe paid every term
to every judge alike and the farmer hath had the benefitt of the overplus of the said fees. But
it was never so put to farme if any one judge were not consenting to the farming
thereof

Your peticioner further sheweth that some of the now judges observeing that diverse of the
cursitors out of a respect to your peticioner did apply themselves rather to your peticioner then to any
other judge for signing many of their said writts which hath bin a considerable benefitt to your
petitioner but your petitioner was never so mean as to seek and labour any way for the same.

Such judges to hinder your peticioner of the said just profitt have laboured with
your peticioner to agree for the letting of the said fees to farme as sometimes before had
been don by a generall consent of the judges

And your peticioner not complying therein the said judges have prevailed with
the lords commissioners of the great seal to appoint a new officer one Samuel Keck gentleman who as
the said lords commissioners are pleased to order is to be the receiver of all the said writts
and they likewise impower him to receive the fees due to the judges and such receiver
by the said order is to carry the said writts to what judge he thinks fitt

Which order your peticioner conceives to be very unjust partiall and arbitrary and
utterly contrary to the auncient and constant course and is burdensome to the people
by erecting of a new officer and tends to great delay in the passing of fines and is
much to the prejudice of your peticioners just right and profitt. And a breach of the
priviledge of your peticioners as an assistant to your lordships in taking from your
peticioner the profit of his place whereof he was till now in quiett enjoyment

Your peticioner therefore humbly appeales to this
honourable and supream court against the said order and
prayes to be releived herein.

And your peticioner shall ever pray etc

• Robert Atkyns

Edmond Wyndham, esquire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/410/106 (1689)

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

The humble peticion and appeale of Edmond Wyndham esquire.

Most humblye sheweth

That your petitioners grandfather in the yeare 1676 exhibited his bill into the High Court of Chancerye against Dame Anne
Wyndham relict and executrixx of Sir Francis Wyndham deceased to redeeme certeine lands therein mencioned and to have an accompt of the profitts thereof and of other
monyes received towards sattisfaccion of the mortgage money to which shee pleaded the statute of lymitacion and soone after your petitioners grandfather dyed and
your petitioners father beinge dead before the equity of redempcion discended to your petitioner who revived the said proceedings and then shee againe pleaded the
same plea and further insisted on a stated accompt pretended to bee made in February 1664 wherein 2912 pounds: 16 shillings: is stated due to Sir Francis Wyndham on argueinge
of which plea, it was ordered the benifitt should bee saved to the heareinge and that the then defendants should answeare to all things but the accompt of the
meane profitts.

And then the said lady brought a crosse bill to compell your petitioner to redeeme upon the foote of the stated accompt or bee foreclosed, to which your
petitioner answeared and sett forth severall errors and falshoods in the pretended accompt and that other moneys were received which were not brought to the said
accompt and in perticuler one summe of 900 pounds and upwards

22o Novembris 3 Jacobi And both the causes comeinge to bee heard before the late Lord Chancellour Jefferyes though your petitioner fully proved that the said 900 pounds and severall
other summes were omitted to nigh 2000 pounds and not brought into the said accompt the said Lord Chancellour decreed that your petitioner should redeeme the premisses
upon the foote of the said accompt of 2912 pounds: 16 shillings: and pay the same with interest and cost or bee foreclosed of the equity of redempcion by which meanes your petitioner is like
to loose his inheritance

[When as?] your petitioner is advised that by the rules of justice of the said Court of Chancerye that the said Dame Anne Wyndham ought to have accounted ab
origine and the said pretended accompt ought to have been sett aside as a falsyfied in many perticulers

Wherefore and forasmuch as the said decree is unjust and not warranted by the prooffes
in the said causes and by reason of the signeinge and enrollinge of the said decree and
dismission your petitioner can have noe releife in the said Court of Chancerye by any reheareing
there your petitioner humbley appeales from the said decree and dismission to your lordshipps and
humbley prayes that the said Lady Anne Wyndham may by such tyme as your lordshipps shall
thinke fitt give in her answer hereto and that all further proceedings on the said decree or [dismission?]
may bee stayed and that your petitioner may have such releife as in justice and conscience he
ought to have

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc

Edm Wyndham

• Charles Porter
• Nicholas Hooper

Edmund Wyndham. HL/PO/JO/10/1/410/106 (1689)

Edmund Wyndham esquire appellant
Dame Anne Wyndham widdowe
respondant

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

The humble peticion of the said Edmund Wyndham

Most humblye sheweth

That your petitioner in July last did by his petition humbly appeale to your
lordshipps from a decree and dismission made by the late Lord Chancellour Jeffereys and obteyned
your lordshipps order for requireinge the said Dame Anne Wyndham to answeare the said
appeale which shee hath accordingly donne soe that the said cause is now fitt for your lordshipps
heareinge and judgement

That the said decree and dismission from which your petitioner hath appealed
was made and grounded on a pretended stated accompt sett forth and pleaded by the said Lady Wynd=
=ham to your petitioners bill exhibited against her in the Court of Chancerye and produced by her
att the tyme of obteyneinge the said decree and dismission and which was not fully sett forth by
her said plea but a very materiall parte thereof was thereby omitted as it appeared when produced
in the Court of Chancerye insoemuch as it was not aperfect stated accompt and your petitioner have=
=inge noe true coppy thereof his councell were not instructed to make theire objeccions thereto and
this cause cheifely depends thereon and to the intent that your petitioner may bee inabled to have
his councell instructed therein against such tyme as your lordshipps shall vousafe to appointe for the
heareinge of this cause

Your petitioner most humbly prayes your lordshipps to order
the said respondent to give your peticioner or his
sollicitor a true and perfect coppy of the pretended stated
accompt a weeke before such tyme as your lordshipps shall
appointe for the heareinge of this cause and that your
lordshipps will allsoe bee pleased to appoint some day for
such heareinge

And your peticioner as in duty bound shall
ever pray etc

Edm Wyndham

The peticion of [illegible]
Wyndham esquire [illegible]
day for heareinge of his appeale
against the Lady
Anne Wyndham

Reade 12to Novembris 1689
ordered to be heard
and an account delivered [a?]
weeke before.

Edmund Wyndham, esquire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/410/106 (1689)

Edmund Wyndham esquire
appellant
Dame Anne Wynham widdowe
respondent

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

The humble peticion of the appellant

That by your lordshipps order made in this cause the 12th of this instant the defendante
was the 19th of this instant to give your peticioner or his sollicitour a true and perfect copy of
the stated account in question and your lordshipps allsoe thereby appointed Tuesday the 26th of
this moneth for heareinge this cause as by the order annexed appeares

That the respondent beinge served with a true copy of the said order did the day
appointed send your peticioners sollicitour a paper as a true copy of the account without pro=
=duceinge the originall or admitteinge any compareinge or examinacion of the copy with the
originall and which appeares to bee onely a copy of whatt was annexed to her answeare
in Chancerye; and both in that and the copy delivered by your lordshipps order as aforesaid
an indorsement thereon or subscription underwritten and supposed to bee signed and
made by your peticioners grandfather is omitted whereby it would appeare that the same
was noe settled and allowed accompt and on which depends your peticioners cause and is the principle
point to instruct his councell in

Your peticioner therefore most humbly prayes your lordshipps
to order the respondent forthwith to deliver in the origi=
=nall paper which she relyes on as the stated account
and was signed by your peticioners grandfather and proved in Chancerye
into the hands of Master Browne the clerke of the Parliament
soe that your peticioner or his sollicitour may bee att liberty to
examine the copy dilivered; with such originall and
have the copy to bee attested by the said clerke

And your peticioner as in duty bound
shall ever pray etc

• Edm: Wyndham

Henry Creech. HL/PO/JO/10/1/410/108 (1689)

Inter Robertum Maundrell et al quer
Henricum Creech et al defendentes

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

The humble peticion of Henry Creech.

Sheweth unto your lordshipps

That your petitioner as cozen and heir, to John Somerset late of South=
=Brent in the county of Somerset gentleman deceased without issue, was possessed of a
mannor and several parcells of landes and tenements in the said county of Somerset that
were the estate of the said John Somerset.

That one Robert Maundrell and others pretending the said John
Somerset had made several conveyances and thereby setled all his estate on
him and others for a charity got into possession of other part of the said estate
and had a tryal with your petitioner on such their pretended tytle and upon full evidence
on both sides by a jury of gentlemen of the same county a verdict passed
for your petitioner by which it appeared the said Maundrell and others had noe tytle.

But the trustees being rich brought several actions at law
and bills in Chancery against your petitioner and after they had ruined him they obtained
an order in Chancery for an ejectment brought by your petitioner to be tryed at
the Common Pleas bar knowing your petitioner was not able to bring his witnesses
up out of Somersetshire and brought the same to tryal by [illegible] provisoe where
noe one appearing for your petitioner he became non suit, on which non suit the
9th day of November 1678 the complainants got a decree against your petitioners on noe
other equity but the said non suit on which tryal your petitioner nor none for
him ever appeared.

Now for that the said non suit and decree are ex parte and tend
to the disinherison of your petitioner who hath a verdict on hearing of evidence
on both sides against the plainants pretences and for that the plainants being conscious to
themselves of the weakness of their pretences have not for twelve years
last past erected any charity but converted the profits to their own
respective uses and therefore and for several other errors and imperfeccions
in the said proceedings and decree your petitioner doth humbly appeale
from the said decree to the grave judgment of your lordshipps

And humbly prays your lordshipps would be pleased
to appoint all partys to attend and to hear the said
cause in this honourable house and to reverse the
said decree and proceedings thereupon.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc.

Henry Creech

• [John?] Swayne
• John Keene
• John [Hacobs?]

peticion
Creech contra Maundrell.
Reade 27th June 89.

Henry Creech. HL/PO/JO/10/1/410/108 (1689)

Inter Robertum Maundrell
et al quertes
et
Henricum Creech et al
defendentes

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

The humble peticion of the defendant Henry Creech.

Sheweth unto your lordshipps

That the 9th of November 1678 a decree was [pronounced?]
in the Court of Chancery against your petitioner to barr him of his right as
he had to the estate of John Somerset deceased to whom your petitioner
is heir at law.

That the said decree is grounded on a nonsuit in
ejectment where your petitioner nor none for him appeared nor was heard
and setteth up a deed that at a tryall directed in the cause and
hearing evidence on both sides have been found revoked and
void and never any verdict to support it, all which matters apperes
by the proofes in the said cause and that the estate is your petitioners and
the plainants have not any right thereto.

Your petitioner therefore humbly prayeth that (all
his proceedings before your lordshipps the last
sessions being discharged by the prorogation)
your lordshipps would be pleased to appointe
a short day for the said Maundrell and others
to answer the premisses, and to revers the
said decree.

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc.

Henry Creech

Wee humbly conceive there
is good cause of error to
[re...e?] this decree

• John Hawles
• Edward [illegible]

Henry Creech peticion

John Bullingham. HL/PO/JO/10/1/410/109 (1689)

George Benyon esquire plainant

John Bullingham late
high sheriffe of Rutland defendant

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

The humble petition of the defendant John Bullingham

Sheweth

That your petitioner haveing obtained a judgement at law against George Benyon
esquire for certaine stone quarries in the county of Rutland belonging to a corps of the church
of Lincolne the said George Benyon in order to prevent your petitioner of the benefitt of his
said judgement by his petition to this honourable house in June 1678 complained of a breach
of priviledge committed by your petitioner in the said proceedings against the said George Benyon
(being one of the gentlemen in ordinary of his majesties privy chamber) dureing the sitting of
the Parliament and whilest hee was actually attending his majesties person whereto your petitioner
appeareing and upon hearing what was offered by councill of either part your lordshipps were
pleased to order the said George Benyons petition to be dismissed and your petitioners
judgement to remaine in force for the security of the said John Bullingham
but noe execucion thereupon was to be taken, nor any possession of the said George
Benyon since the last tryall to be changed, untill after the lent assizes then next
comeing, at which tyme a new tryall was to bee betweene the said George Benyon
and John Bullingham, and if the verdict should then passe against the said George
Benyon, execucion should bee had thereupon, for the said John Bullingham, or
else not att all, as by your lordshipps order hereunto annext appeares.

That the said George Benyon directed diverse of your petitioners agents for
digging in the said quarry before your lordshipps said order, and continued them in prison
under the same arrest till August following yet neither in all that time, nor hitherto
hath ever declared or proceeded one step to a tryall, which your petitioner humbly
conceives by the true intencion of your lordshipps said order, he ought to have done, by the
then next Lent assizes or otherwise your petitioner to be at liberty to proceed upon
his said judgement, your petitioner being alwayes ready to justify his title to the
said quarry, upon any accion to be brought by the said George Benyon

Your petitioner therefore most humbly prayes your lordshipps that in as much as the
said George Benyon hath not within your lordshipps said time appointed,
nor hitherto proceeded to a tryall at law to decide the title of the said
quarryes whereof the possession is open lyeing in an open common far distant
from any houses, and so the possession is equall on both sides and forasmuch
as your petitioner hath already a judgement at law ordered by your lordshipps to
remaine in force, which would have beene of noe availe to your petitioner
had it beene your lordshipps intencion that your petitioner should have had and
procured an nother tryall on his parte, whereon a judgement within
4 dayes would have beene of course that your petitioner may be at liberty
to proceed on his said judgement, notwithstanding the said
order of this house of the 19th of June 1678.

And your petitioner shall ever pray

• John Bullingham [illegible]

Please to turne over.

Petition
of Master John Bullingham
esquire

Reade 29th Junii 89 and
laid on the table

3 July 1689
ordered that the order
complained of be repealed.

Sir Thomas Pilkington, Anne Shute, Henry Cornish and others. HL/PO/JO/10/1/410/110 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of Sir Thomas Pilkington knight, Anne Shute executrix of Samuel Shute, Henry Cornish, son and
heir of Henry Cornish deceased, Thomas Cooke executor of Joyce Player executrix of Sir Thomas Player knight, Slingsby [illegible]
Bethell [esquire?] Sarah Jenkes executrix of Francis Jenks, John Deagle, Richard Freeman, Robert Raye, John Wickham
Samuel Swinnock, and John Jekyll

Sheweth

That about Trinity terme in the 34th yeare of the late King Charles the 2d, an erronious judgement and arbitrary fynes
of 4104 pounds was sett upon your petitioners and those whom your petitioners represent by Sir Thomas Jones, and Sir Francis Wythins knights,
then judges of the Court of Kings Bench att Westminster upon an informacion brought in the said court in the name of Sir Robert Sawyer
then Attorny Genrall against your petitioners, and prosecuted by Phillip Burton and Richard Grayham upon a pretended ryott before that
laid in the said informacion to be committed att Guildhall London upon the choyce of shreiffes for the said citty in the time
of the mayoralty of Sir John Moore the 24th of June 1682

That your petitioners and those whom they represent were forced to pay into the Exchequer the said arbitrary fynes of
4104 pounds besides other great cost and charges to redeeme themselves out prison

That your petitioners haveing this sessions brought their writt of error before your lordshipps in Parliament, the said
erronious judgement was reversed by your lordshipps, as by the records appeares (and thereupon in justice your petitioners
ought to be restored to the said 4104 pounds (as they are advised)

That by reason of the invasions made on the citty rights as well as your petitioners rights by the said Sir John Moore in
imposeing Sir Dudley North, and Sir Peter Rich shreiffes for the said citty in the said yeare 1682 without due eleccion of the
cittizens of London was the means of the said unjust verdict and erronious judgement against your petitioners and those whom your
petitioners do represent and the only cause of loss of the said summe of 4104 pounds

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray your lordshipps to permitt a bill to
be brought into this honourable house for the reimburseing your petitioners the said
summes of 4104 pounds and their cost and charges by the persons and estates of the
said Sir John Moore, Sir Dudley North, [illegible] Sir Thomas Jones,
Sir Francis Wythins, and the said Phillipp Burton and Richard Grayham
or such other redresse as to your lordshipps shall seeme meete

And your petitioners shall pray etc

• Thomas Pilkington
• Slingisby Bethell
• Samuell Snynoke
• John Deacle
• Robert [Kaye?]
• Henry Cornish
• R Freeman
• John Jekyll

Sir John Sydenham. HL/PO/JO/10/1/411/111 (1689)

Inter Johannem Terry quer
Johannem Sydenham [baronet?] et
Edwardum Strode defendentes

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

The humble peticion of the defendant Sir John Sydenham

Sheweth unto your lordshipps

That he being made a joynt trustee with the defendant Strode and four others since
deceased by the right honourable John Lord Pawlett late of Hinton in the county of Somersett
deceased in trust first for payment of his lordshipps debts and after in trust for the now
John Lord Pawlett the plainant hath brought his bill in the Court of Chancery against
your peticioners and the said Strode to enforce them to grant a tenement in the mannor of
Yatton of the now Lord Pawletts to him for his life on your peticioners Sir Thomas Putt
and Francis Pawlett esquire since deceased signeing to the plainant a contract for the same on
surrender of his old lease which he pretends is lost the Court of Chancery the
six and twentyeth day of June 1689 hath made a decree

That your peticioner shall execute a lease of the said Lord Pawletts lands
to the defendant for his life and procure the other defendant Strode to joyne in the execucion thereof
and to pay the plainant his costs both in the said Court of Chancery and att law which is impossible for
your peticioner soe to doe

The said defendant [illegible] refuseing to doe the same insisting it will be a breach of
trust in him if he should joyne in such lease nor is the Lord Pawlett whose estate it is as appeares
by bill answer and decree made any party to such suite and therfore your peticioner though
barely a trustee is not saved harmeless against the Lord Pawlett for executeing such estate to
the plainant

Now for that by the said trust no one trustee can grant any estate but all the
surviveing trustees must joyne therein and the said Lord Poulett is made noe party whereby
to be obliged by such decree and the defendant Strode though brought to hearing is not obliged by the
decree of the said court to joyne with your peticioner but dismissed and the said decree is
contradictory eronious and impossible to be performed by your peticioners and not warranted
by any rules in equity or by the proofes in the said cause

Therefore and for severall other errors and imperfeccions in the
said proceedings and decree your peticioner doth humbly appeale
from the said decree and proceedings to the grave judgment of
your lordshipps and humbly prayes your lordshipps would
be pleased to appoint all parties to attend to answer the premisses
to heare the said cause in this honourable howse and to reverse the
said decree and proceedings thereupon

And your peticioner shall ever pray etc

• John Sydenham

Peticion

• John Hawles
• Edward [Stroth?]

John Terry, gentleman. HL/PO/JO/10/1/411/111 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of John Terry gentleman

Sheweth

That your peticioner having in obedience to your lordships order exhibited
his answere unto the peticion of Sir John Sydenham baronett before your lordships and
thereby so stated the truth of the case on the decree in Chancery in such
maner as that your peticioner humbly hopes your lordships on reading of the said
answeare wilbe so farre satisfied as to dismisse the said peticion of
appeale, the same being also carryed on solely by Edward Strode esquire who
was and is still a defendant in the suit and decree aforesaid and ought to have
been appellant aswell as the said Sir John Sydenham only to vex and weary
out your peticioner

Your peticioner therefore humbly prayes your lordships will
please to cause your peticioners said answeare to be read
before your lordships and in case your lordships shall not thereupon
be so farre satisfied as to dismisse the said appellants
peticion that then your lordships will order a speedy day to heare
the matter of the said appellants peticion, that your peticioner may
be fully releived therein

And your peticioner shall ever pray etc.

• John Terry

Sir Richard Wiseman, knight. HL/PO/JO/10/1/411/112 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of Sir Richard Wiseman knight.

Sheweth

That he brought his writ of error in Parliament, upon an
affirmation of a judgment in ejectment in the Kings Bench obtained against him by Stephen
Terry in the Common Pleas, and on Monday last brought in his errors, and assigned for error
that Sir Edward Herbert Lord Cheif Justice of the Common Pleas, transcribed the record of
of the judgment in to the Court of Kings Bench in Easter term last, and not before, when he was
out of his office, and had not power to transcribe the same, and to prove this matter, your petitioner
prayed a circiorare to the Lord Cheife Justice Holt to certifie the truth thereof

That your peticioner had ten days given to returne the certiorare, but upon [illegible] before
your lordships on Tuesday last, alledging there was no error, but only for delay, and no perticular
diminution alledged your lordships ordered that the cause should be sett downe for hearing
on Friday next, to the great surprise of your petitioner. Whereas the diminution is
alledged to be because the Lord Herbert brought in the transcript into court in Easter term last
and if he had not then power to do the same, the record still remaines in the Common Pleas
and could not by due course of law be affirmed in the Kings Bench; and to make the matter
of fact appear to your lordships a certiorare was prayed

That your peticioner cannot prove his error without the returne of the certiorare, and
is advised the error will hold good, for that the Lord Cheife Justice Pollexfen, notwithstand=
ing the act of this present Parliament for reviving and continuing of actions and process
etc ordered a new writt of error to be directed to him, because Sir Edward Herbert had not
then power to act, as by affidavit annexed appeares

May itt please your lordshipps to let your petitioner
have convenient time to returne the cerciorare, whereby
the merrits of the whole cause will appear to your
lordshipps

And your peticioner shall ever pray etc

Richard Wyseman

Sir Richard
Wisemans peticion
reade 19th July 89
nothing done on it.

Dorcas, Lady Ashfeild, widow and executrix of Sir Richard Ashfeild. HL/PO/JO/10/1/411/113 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of Dorcas Lady Ashfeild widdow and executrix of Sir Richard Ashfeild barronet deceased.

Sheweth

That the said Sir Ashfeild in the yeare 1674 married with your peticioner his second wife, and had with her 18000 pounds, but your peticioner
being young and soe married without the care or knowledge of her relacions had noe joynture before marriage but Sir Richard being seized of the
farme of Northbersted the mannor of Shripney farme of Shripney and of the reputed mannor of Southbersted which consistes only of quit rentes and casuall
profittes from the coppyholders of inheritance in the vill of Southbersted (all which premisses are in the parish of Bersted alias South Bersted in Sussex,) and
haveing by two deedes altered the property of your peticioners fortune (all which your peticioner had as administratrix to her former husband and his child) soe
that noe part of it might survive to her, in the yeare 1675 in consideracion of the said marriage had and porcion received and for provision for your peticioner and
her children by him setled all the premisses by the name of the mannor of Northbersted mannor of Shripney farme of Shripney in Southbersted and of all mannors
or reputed mannors messuages landes tenements courtes leet and baron hereditamentes and appurtenences whatsoever scituate and being or to be had received or
taken in or out of the parishes vills or townes of North Bersted Suth Bersted Shripney or elsewhere in the county of Sussex as to Northbersted for provision
for the children by the first wife as to the mannor of Shripney farme of Shripney and as for and concerning all the rest of the premisses beforemencioned to
your peticioner for joynture and provision for her children.

That anno 1678 your peticioner joyned in a fine to trustees to barr her selfe of her dower in Northbersted as she was advised she ought to doe haveing a
joynture in the rest after marriage.

That afterwards in the same yeare Sir Richard made another setlement without your peticioners knowledge by which he againe setled or intended
to setle all in Sussex except Northbersted farme upon your peticioner and her children in such manner as by the said joynture of 1675, and anno
1679 sold Northbersted without your peticioners consent.

That anno 1684 Sir Richard died haveing on his death bed declared that he had setled all his estate in Sussex upon your peticioner and his
children by her, and would give her more if he had it, and charged his heire on his blessing to give your peticioner noe disturbance

That after Sir Richardes death, Richard and Anne Ashfeild two of the children by the first wife sued your peticioner in Chancery upon an
old bond of 4000 pounds penalty (of which your peticioner never heard till after Sir Richards death) pretended to be given by Sir Richard anno 1653 after his
first marriage to pay 1500 pounds for his first wife if she survived him and afterwardes for her children, the said Richard and Anne pretending that your
peticioners estate in Sussex was not setled that your peticioner [not?] finding her true joynture of 1675 but the said deed of 1678 claimed all the estate
in Sussex for her joynture and was forced to defend her selfe by that deed.

That the court decreed all not setled to bee lieable to the bond, and referred it to Sir John Hoskins to report what was setled.

That the master reported all in Sussex setled by that deed of 1678, and that the reputed mannor of Southbersted which was the matter in
question has alwaies passed as part of or belonging to Shripney thereby setled;

That upon a tryall at law directed to find what was not setled the jury strangely found the landes of the coppyholders of inheritance in
the vill of Southbersted to bee freehold and not coppyhold to have beene Sir Richard Ashfeildes and not setled;

That the court upon that verdict, did not decree the landes found being the landes of the copyholders, but decreed to the plainants the said
reputed mannor cheife rentes and casuall copyhold profittes ariseing out of the said vill of Southbersted though they were not found by the verdict.

That before the closeing the said decree your peticioners true joynture of 1675 came to her handes by which the said reputed mannour
in Southbersted and all in Sussex is plainely setled on your peticioner.

That upon a hearing your peticioners said joynture being read and admitted, the court decreed the said reputed mannor and
hereditamentes in Southbersted to the said Richard and Anne Ashfeild and that your peticioner should accompt for the same from Sir Richardes death
and set your peticioners joynture deed aside, as to all but the mannor and farme of Shripney mencioned to bee setled by the said deed of 1678 upon a
pretence that the hereditamentes and reputed mannor in Southbersted were not intended to bee setled upon your peticioner by her said joynture of 1675.

Which decrees and orders ought to bee reversed being against the rules of law and equity

(1) For that the verdict by which the landes of the coppyholders were only found, and found to bee freehold could in noe wise justifye the decreeing your
peticioners reputed mannor cheife rentes and copyhold profittes which were not found.

(2) For that the said reputed mannor and hereditamentes in Southbersted are plainely and legally setled upon your peticioner and her children, and that
noe pretence of Sir Richardes not intending to setle the same against his hand and seale and without tryall at law ought to bee strained to the divesting your
peticioner of her joynture.

(3) That there is not the least evidence in the cause of Sir Richardes not intending to setle the same but the strongest to the contrary.

Your peticioners doth therefore upon the whole matter humbly appeale from the said decrees
and orders to your lordshipps and humbly prayeth to be releived therein as to justice and equity shall
appertaine and that in order thereunto your lordshipps would please to award the usuall summons
to the said Richard and Anne Ashfeild to appeare before this honourable house and answere the
premisses at such time as your lordshipps shall thinke fitt.

And your peticioner as in duty bound shall ever pray etc.

Dorcas Ashfeild

• Ambrose Phillipps
• H Finch

Richard and Anne Ashfeild, two of the children of Sir Richard. HL/PO/JO/10/1/411/113 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of Richard and Anne Ashfeild two of the younger children
of Sir Richard by Mary his first wife.

That Sir Richard Ashfeild the petitioners father being seized of the mannor and landes of North Bersted the mannor and
farme of Shripney and the reputed mannor of South Bersted all in Sussex did in 1675 settle his mannor and landes of North=
=Bersted for raising 1000 pounds for portiones and 60 pounds a year for maintenance for each of the petitioners and his other
children.

That Dorcas Ashfeild second wife of Sir Richard by contrivance with Sir John Ashfeild the petitioners elder
brother did on the death of Sir Richard enter on all his landes in Sussex and among others on part of the lands of
North Bersted pretending the same were setled on her for her jointure.

That the petitioners brought their bill in Chancery to discover the said settlement and to have their portiones and to discover
the Lady Ashfeilds tytle to the landes of her husband in Sussex and to subject and the reall and personall estate of Sir Richard
Ashfeild to the payment of the petitioners portions and maintenance and to a bond of 4000 pounds given by Sir Richard towardes a
provision for his children and a legacy of 865 pounds by his will.

That the Lady Ashfeild by her answer denyed the having of any such settlement as the deed of 1675
and insisted on a settlement made by Sir Richard Ashfeild on her in 1678 and by virtue of this deed claimed all
the landes of Sir Richard Ashfeild in the county of Sussex.

That the cause was severall times heard and reheard at the desire of the Lady Ashfeild and by those decrees
the reall estate of Sir Richard Ashfeild which descended to his heir Sir John and not by him conveyed away before the
petitioners bill exhibited and alsoe the personall estate of Sir Richard should be lyable to the petitioners demandes and [illegible]
perticulerly that the reputed mannor of Southbersted which on a tryall had been found to descend to Sir John
(though conveyed away by him to the Lady Ashfeild after the petitioners bill wase made subject to the petitioners demandes.

That the Lady Ashfeild finding that neither the conveyance from Sir John nor the deed of 1678 did give her right
to more landes then the mannor and farme of Shripney she obtained a fifth hearing on the 30th of May 1689 and
then produced the settlement of 1675 which she alleadged had been throwne into her coach and then insisted
Shripney by expresse wordes and Southbersted by the generall wordes in that deed [illegible] being all the landes of Sir Richard Ashfeild
in Sussex (except Northbersted which by the deed was settled for the petitioners portions) were setled on her for jointure
and therefore insisted to have the benefitt of it.

That upon a long debate and hearing of the Lady Ashfeildes councell the Court of Chancery was satisfyed
that there had been a contrivance between the Lady Ashfeild and Sir John to defeat the petitioners of their portiones
and did not thinke it just to give the Lady Ashfeild any reliefe upon the said then produced deed of 1675 but
decreed Southbersted and Northbersted landes being all the reall estate (except the mannor and farme of Shripney) and the
personall estate of Sir Richard Ashfeild to be subject to the petitioners demandes.

That the Lady Ashfeild did thereupon peticion your lordshipps that she might have the benefitt of her said
jointure deed of 1675 and the cause coming to be heard before your lordshipps on the 23th of July 1689 your lordships
were pleased to order that the said Lady Ashfeild should have the benefitt of her whole jointure by the deed
of 1675 and that the same should be confirmed but as your lordshipps order is drawne your lordshipps have not
only confirmed the jointure deed of 1675 but reversed the decrees made by the Court of Chancery generally
when as by the decrees of the Court of Chancery the personall estate of Sir Richard Ashfeild and the North=
=Bersted landes which are noe part of the jointure landes of the Lady Ashfeild setled on her by the deed of 1675
are lyable to the petitioners demandes touching which the Lady Ashfeild by her petition to your lordshipps sought
noe reliefe.

That in as much as the peticion of the Lady Ashfeild was only to have the benefitt of her jointure
deed of 1675 and the petitioners doe submitt to your lordshipps order made touching the same

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your lordshipps will explaine
your order and declare that they may have the benefitt of the
deed in 1675 as to Northbersted and be at liberty to proceed in the
Court of Chancery against all the personall estate of Sir Richard
Ashfeild their father in satisfaccion of their bond and charges.

And the petitioneres shall pray.

• Richard Ashfeild
• Ann Ashfeild

Charles Porter

Peticion

Richard and Anne
Ashfeilds petition
reade 5o December 1689

Ordered an answere
12th instant

Heard 21o December 1689
and ordered some
words to be incerted
in the former judgment.

Dorcas, Lady Ashfeild. HL/PO/JO/10/1/411/113 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of Dorcas Lady Ashfeild in answer to the peticion of Richard and Anne Ashfeild.

Most humbly sheweth

That Sir Richard Ashfeild was seized in fee of the mannour or farme of Northbersted of the
mannour and farme of Shripney and of the reputed mannor of Southbersted in Sussex and that by such deed of setlement of 1675 as the said peticioners
have set forth, he did setle the mannour and farme of Shripney and all the rest of his estate in the said county of Sussex except the mannour only of Northbersted upon your
peticioner for her joynture and for provision for her children and the said mannour of Northbersted for the benefitt of the said peticioners in such manner as they have set forth, and
afterwards makeing other provision for the said peticioners sold the said mannour or farme of Northbersted.

That your peticioner after the death of Sir Richard Ashfeild did enter upon and yet doth possesse all the remaininge estate of the said Sir Richard in Sussex being noe part of the mannor of
Northbersted soe setled for the said peticioners;

That such bill was exhibited in the High Court of Chancery as the said peticioners have set forth, that 11th May 1687 Sir Richards personall estate and reall estate unsetled was decreed to be
accounted for, and the disposicion reserved to the consideracion of that court either to discharge incumbrances upon your peticioners joynture or to answer the demands of the peticioners and others as that
court shall thinke fitt, which decree your peticioner hath not appealed from.

That by decree made the 23d November 1688 your peticioner was ordered to account for the profitts of the mannour of Southbersted as not setled under the colour of a verdict which found noe such matter but only
freehold lands in the vill of Southbersted where your peticioner had none.

That by decrees made the 18th Aprill 1689 and 30th of May following your peticioner upon the foundacion of the said verdict which did not warrant the same was ordered to convey her mannour of Southbersted
and all her estate in Sussex except the mannour and farme of Shripney to the said peticioners and to account for the profitts of the same from Sir Richard Ashfeilds death and then was your peticioner denyed
the benefitt of her said joynture deed of 1675 which till that time had unjustly beene concealed from her.

That your peticioner being agreived at the 3 last decrees as unjust did appeale from the same to your lordships in Parliament to which the said peticioners did put in their answer and on Wednesday 23d of July last
on hearing councell on both sides at the barr of this honourable house and on hearing the said settlement read, upon the evidence of your peticioner [fortune?] received by Sir Richard and of the said Sir Richards deathbed
declaration that he had setled all his estate in Sussex upon your peticioner and charged his children on his blessing to give her noe disturbance, and after due consideracion of the matter had itt
was finally ordered and adjudged by the lords spirituall and temporall in Parliament assembled that the said decrees from which your peticioner did appeale should be and were thereby reversed and your
peticioners whole joynture by the said setlement of 1675 should be and was thereby confirmed.

That the said peticioners did upon the passing your lordshipps decree the next day peticion your lordshipps for alteracions and that they might have the profitts till that time of your peticioners joynture lands which
they call the personall estate, which peticion your lordshipps were then pleased to reject;

That the said peticioners have now prayed your lordshipps that they may proceed in Chancery as to all the personall estate of Sir Richard Ashfeild which your lordshipps decree doth not obstruct, nothing
concerning the personall estate being comprized in the decrees by your lordshipps reversed unlesse the said peticioners doe pretend as before the profitts of your peticioners joynture lands to be such

That the said peticioners have also presumed to pray your lordshipps to declare to them the benefitt of the Northbersted lands which with most humble submission is under pretence of explanacion
to pray the reversall of your lordshipps decree for that your peticioners mannour and farme of Shripney expressly setled upon your peticioner by the said deed and confirmacion by your lordshipps
doe extend into the vill and towne of Northbersted though not into the mannour of Northbersted which mannour only was setled as aforesaid for the peticioners benefitt.

Inasmuch therefore as the prayer of the said peticioners is in effect but to set aside your lordshipps judgment or at least to reheare the said cause as by theire peticion will appeare
after soe solemn and just a determinacion by this most honourable house upon full hearing on both sides.

Your peticioner doth with all submission most humbly pray that your lordshipps will not thinke the same reasonable but that this honourable
house (haveing soe lately in the case of the Lady Turner) determined your decrees to be finall and conclusive to all partes as formerly they have beene
will be (especially after haveing once before rejected a peticion of the said Richard and Anne Ashfeild to the like effect) gratiously please to confirme your
last judgment, and dismiss theire present peticion with costes for soe unjust and groundlesse a vexation, which if reheard will be endlesse and create dayly
trouble to your lordshipps;

And your peticioner shall ever pray etc.

Dorcas Ashfeild

Ja Selby

Captain Henry Vaughan, Captain Frederick Mole and Dr John Elliott, prisoners. HL/PO/JO/10/1/411/118 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of Captain Henry Vaughan
Captain Frederick Mole and Doctor John Elliott
now prisoners in Newgate.

Sheweth

That your petitioners being strictly confined to close roomes without the
benefitt of the aire does much prejudice their healths and if continued
this hot season will certainely indanger their lives, and inasmuch
as your petitioners are under apprehensions that their tryalls will not
bee till the next sessions of Parliament

They therefore most humbly pray your lordshipps
order that they may have onely the benefitt
of the presse yard.

And they shall pray etc

• Henry Vaughan
• Frederick Mould
• John Elliott

Peticon
of Captain Vaughan etc
for the liberty of Newgate
prison

Reade and granted
14 August 1689.

Sir Adam Blair, prisoner in the Gatehouse. HL/PO/JO/10/1/411/118 (1689)

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

The humble peticion of Sir Adam Blair
now prisoner in the Gatehouse Westminster

Most humbly sheweth

That your peticioner was committed to
the Gatehouse on the fifteenth day of July last past by vertue of an order made
by this honourable house, and that on the 22th of the same moneth, in obedience to
your lordships command your petitioner did with all duty and submission, deliver in his
answer att the barr of this honourable house to certaine articles of impeachment
exhibited against him by the honourable House of Commons then being, by which
answer he did then putt himselfe upon his tryall and did humbly submitt to
the judgment of your lordships not doubting that upon full hearing he should
have been restored to your lordships favour, and discharged from those crimes
objected against him in the sayd impeachment: but your petitioner (without
any further prosecution in two sessions of Parliament) doth still suffer a
very rigorous and chargeable imprisonment, which he hath now
languished under for allmost nine moneths to the great damage of his
estate and health which is judged irrecoverable whilst he continues under
confinement, as may appear by the certificate hereunto annexed

In consideration whereof your peticioner
most humbly prayes he may be discharged from his
said imprisonment, in order to the recovery of his
health, he giveing sufficient baile to attend the further
pleasure of this honourable house, when commanded

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc.

• Adam Blair

Doctor Robert Gray. HL/PO/JO/10/1/411/118 (1689)

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

The humble petition of Doctor Robert Gray now prisoner in
the Gatehouse Westminster

Most humbly sheweth

That your peticioner was committed to
the Gatehouse on the fifteenth day of July last past, by vertue of an order made by this
honourable house. And that on the 22th day of the same moneth in obedience to your lordships
command, your petitioner did with all duty and submission deliver in his answer att the
barr of this honourable house to certaine articles of impeachment exhibited against
him by the honourable House of Commons then being. By which answer your peticioner did
then putt himselfe upon his tryall and did humbly submitt to the judgment of your lordships
not doubting but that upon full hearing he should have been restored to your lordships
favour, and discharged from those crimes objected against him in the aforesayd impeachment

But your petitioner (without any further prosecution in two sessions of Parliament) doth
still suffer very rigorous and chargeable imprisonment which he hath now languished
under for almost nine moneths to the very great damage of his health and
estate

In consideration whereof your petitioner most humbly prayes
he may be discharged from his sayd imprisonment, upon his
giveing sufficient bayle to attend the further pleasure of
this honourable house when commanded

And your peticioner shall ever pray etc.

• Robert Gray

The humble peticion of
Doctor Robert Gray.

Reade 7o April 1690.

Captain Henry Vaughan, prisoner in Newgate. HL/PO/JO/10/1/411/118 (1689)

To the right honourable the lords spirituall and
temporall now assembled.

The humble petition of Captain Henry Vaughan now prisoner
in Newgate

Most humbly sheweth

That your petitioner was comitted to Newgate on the 11th day of June last past by
vertue of a warrant from the Lord Maior of London and on the 12th of July following in obedience
to your lordshipps comands your petitioner did with all submission deliver in his answere at the barre
of this most honourable house to certaine articles of impeachment exhibited against him and
others by the honourable House of Comons, by which answere he did then put himselfe upon his
tryall and humbly submitt to your lordshipps judgement, but your petitioner (without any further
prosecucion in two sessions of Parliament) does still suffer a very rigorous and chargeable
imprisonment, which he has now languished under for almost ten moneths last past to
the greate damage of his health and estate

In consideracion whereof and for that the honourable house
of Parliament have ever been most tender of the libertyes
of the subject and doeing equall justice to all persons
he most humbly prayes he may be discharged of his
imprisonment upon giveing sufficient baile to attend
the further pleasure of this most honourable house

And your petitioner shall pray etc

• Henry Vaughan

Petition
of Captain Vaughan prisoner
in Newgate to be bayled

Reade 8o April 1690
ordered to be bayled

Frederick Mole and Doctor John Elliott, prisoners in Newgate. HL/PO/JO/10/1/411/118 (1689)

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

The humble petition of Frederick Mole and Doctor John
Elliott now prisoners in Newgate

Most humbly sheweth

That your petitioners were comitted to Newgate on the 11th day of June last
past by vertue of a warrant from the Lord Mayor of London, and on the 12th of
July following in obedience to your lordshipps comands, your petitioners did with all duty and
submission deliver in their severall answeres at the barre of this most honourable house to
certaine articles of impeachment exhibited against them by the honourable House of
Commons, by which answere they did put themselves upon their tryall and humbly submitt
to the judgment of your lordshipps, but your petitioners (without any further prosecucion in two sessions
of Parliament) doe still suffer a very rigorous and chargeable imprisonment, which
they have now languished under for almost tenne moneths last past to their greate
damage of their health and estate.

In consideracion whereof and for that the honourable
houses of Parliament have ever been most tender
of the libertyes of the subject, and doeing equall
justice to all persons, they most humbly pray
they may be discharged of their imprisonment
upon giveing sufficient baile to attend the further
pleasure of this most honourable house

And your petitioners shall ever pray etc

• Frederick Mole
• John Elliott

Peticon
or Captain Moll and Doctor
Elliott now prisoners
in Newgate
to bee bayled

Reade 8 April 1690.
Ordered to be bayled.

Sir Adam Blaire. HL/PO/JO/10/1/411/118 (1689)

The peticion of Sir Adam Blaire

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

The humble peticion of Sir Adam Blaire.

Sheweth

That your petitioner being by order of this honourable house in April
last, admitted to bayle, has ever since in all dutifull obedience, according to his
recognizance, attended your lordshipps pleasure.

That by reason of his long absence from his family and estate
occasioned by such his attendance, your petitioner therein has received very great damage
almost to his utter ruine.

The premises considered, your petitioner most humbly beseeches this
honourable house, to discharge him and his bayle, so that he may
be at liberty to goe into Scotland, to take care of his
family, and that part of his small fortune which yet re=
=maines preserved.

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

Adam Blair

Prayeing to be discharged
reade 2o December 1690.
Ordered to be discharged.

Captain Frederick Moll. HL/PO/JO/10/1/411/118 (1689)

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

The humble petition of Captain Frederick Moll.

Sheweth

That your petitioner was admitted to baile in
Aprill last by an order of this most honourable house, and that your petitioner is
destitute of all manner of subsistance in this country, he being a stranger
borne at Antwerp, a naturall subject of the King of Spaine.

In consideration of which your petitioner does most
humbly implore this most honourable house to extend your
clemency towards him, in discharging him from his
baile, that he may returne into his native country.

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

Frederick Moll

Captain Frederick
Molls petition to be
discharged of his
bayle.
Reade 3 December 1690
and discharged.

John Elliot, doctor in physic. HL/PO/JO/10/1/411/118 (1689)

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

The humble petition of
John Elliot doctor in physic;

Sheweth

That your petitioner having been
admitted to bail in April last by
this honourable house.

Doth now most humbly
desire your lordshipps to
discharge him of the
said bail

And he shall ever pray
etc:

• John Elliot

The humble petition of
John Elliot doctor in physic

John Elliots petition
reade 5 December 1690
and he discharged

Henry Vaughan. HL/PO/JO/10/1/411/118 (1689)

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

The humble petition of Henry Vaughan

Sheweth

That your petitioner being admitted to
bayle by this honourable house in Aprill last,

Your petitioner doth now most humbly
pray your lordshipps to discharge him
of the said baile

And your petitioner shall ever pray
etc

• Henry Vaughan

Henry Vaughans
peticon

Reade 5 December 1690
and he discharged

Doctor Robert Gray. HL/PO/JO/10/1/411/118 (1689)

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

The humble petition of Robert Gray
doctor in physick

Sheweth.

That your petitioner having bene admitted
to bayle in Aprill last, by this honourable
house

Doth now most humbly desire
your lordshipps to discharge him of
the said bayle

And he shall ever pray
etc.

• Robert Gray

The humble petition
of Doctor Robert Gray.

John Grays peticon
reade 5 December 1690
and he discharged

Elizabeth Villiers, Vicountess Purbeck, on behalf of her grandson. HL/PO/JO/10/1/411/122 (1689)

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

The humble petition of Elizabeth Villiers commonly called
Vicountess Purbeck for and on the behalfe of her grandson
the heir maile of the late Duke of Buckingham

Sheweth

That your petitioner being but newly informed
that there is a bill brought into this honorable house to
enable the trustees and creditors of the said late Duke of
Buckingham deceased to sell all or the greatest part of the
estate lately belonging to his grace for the payment of his
debts your petitioner is likewise informed that great part
of the said late Dukes estate was soe settled as that it is
come or decended to your petitioners said grandson freed and
discharged of the said Dukes debts or at least your petitioners grandson
is entitled to the residue of the said Dukes estate after sufficient is raised
for payment of his debts and that therefore your petitioners grandson (as
your petitioner is advized) ought to have some fitt person assigned by your lordships
for his guardian to inspect your petitioners grandsons title to the said late
Dukes estate and allsoe to examine the severall creditors pretended debts thereon
before any such bill be received by this honourable house that soe your petitioners
grandson may be heard before the said bill doe pass and may not be prejudiced
therby in his title to the said Dukes estate and that noe more may be charged
thereon then what is justly due and ought to be payd by your petitioners grandson
wherefore and for that your petitioners grandson is not yett twelve years
old and his mother the Lady Margrett formerly [illegible] Lady Muskery since
commonly called Lady Vicountess Purbeck and Robert Feilding esquire her husband
are both knowne papists and have and doe breede up your petitioners
grandson stricktly in the Romish religion and the said Master Feilding is now
with the late King James in Ireland soe as that there is noe care
taken either of your petitioners grandsons education in the protestant religion
or of preserving his estate

Your petitioner therefore humbley prays your lordshipps would be pleased
to comitt the care and custody both of your petitioners grandsons person and
estate to such person of integrity and known constancy to the protestant
religion as your petitioners shall prevaile with to undertake the same that
soe he may be educated in the protestant religion and not prejudiced
in his title to the said Dukes estate and that all further
proceedings in the said bill may be stayed untill such guardian
be assigned and heard on the behalf of the said petitioners grandson

And your petitioner shall ever pray etc

• Elizabeth Villiers commonly called Vicountess Purbecke