March 1724, 21-31

DIE Sabbati, 21^o Martii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Eyre & al. versus Burke.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Edward Eyre, Nicholas Darcy, and Dennis Daly, Esquires; complaining of an Order and Decree of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, of the Twenty-fourth Day of February last in a Cause wherein Gerald Burke Esquire was Plaintiff, and the Petitioners and others were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed; and the Plaintiff's Bill dismissed with Costs:"

It is Ordered, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Gerald Burke may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and shall and he is hereby required to put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Saturday the Twenty-fifth Day of April next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondent's Attorney or Attornies in the said Court of Exchequer in Ireland be deemed good Service.

Murray versus Representatives of Sir George Maxwell:

Whereas a Petition and Appeal of Alexander Murray of Broughtoun Esquire; complaining of an Interlocutor of the Lord Newhall, of the Twenty-ninth of November 1721, and the Affirmances thereof, by the Lords of Session in Scotland, the Fifteenth of December 1722, and Eighteenth of June last, made on the Behalf of the Representatives of Sir George Maxwell and his Creditors; and praying, "That the same may be reversed;" was, on the Twenty-first Day of January last, presented to this House, and read; and, for Want of any Answer thereunto, this Day was appointed, for hearing the Cause ex Parte:

And Counsel for the (fn. 1) Appellant only attending:

They were called in, and heard.

And withdrew.

And due Consideration and Debate had of the Merits of this Cause:

Interlocutors affirmed.

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Petition and Appeal be, and is hereby, dismissed this House; and that the said Interlocutor and the Affirmances thereof therein complained of be, and the same are hereby, affirmed.

Brereton versus Cowper.

Whereas Tuesday next is appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Thomas Brereton Esquire is Appellant, and Thomas Cowper Esquire Respondent:

It is Ordered, That the Hearing the said Cause be adjourned till Thursday next; and that the Cause appointed to be heard on that Day be heard on the Saturday following.

Marchioness Dowager of Annandale versus Marquis of Annandale & al.

After hearing Counsel, upon the Petition and Appeal of Charlotta Marchioness Dowager of Annandale; complaining of Two Interlocutors of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the Thirteenth of February One Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-two Twenty-three, and Twenty-sixth of December last, made on the Behalf of James Marquis of Annandale, John Baillie, Francis Holliday, Thomas Sharp, Sir John Inglis, Sir Henry Rollo, William Wilson, William Fall, John Douglass, James Ranken, James Denar, Charles Inglis, George Marshall, Alexander Farquharson and his Spouse, John Drummond Son to the late Lord Drummond, Sir James Carmichaell, James Naismith Junior, John Montgomery, William Boyle, Ronald Campbell, John Lumsdell, David Spence, William Johnstone, Sir Patrick Maxwell, Gawin Johnstone, Robert Gordon, James Bailley, William Baillie, Peter Graham, John Brown and his Wife, John Lewis, George Howston, Robert Law, Thomas Fenton, John Gutherie, John Murray, William Dundass, Thomas Johnstone, John Wightman, Thomas Dick, Roger Hogg, William Carmichaell, George Drummond, William Hutton, Andrew Johnstone, William Hamilton, Thomas Henderson, and Cockburns, claiming to be Creditors of William late Marquis of Annandale; and praying, "That the same may be reversed; and that the Appellant may have the Benefit of the Order and Judgement of this House of the Fifteenth of December One Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-two:" As also upon the Answer of the said Marquis of Annandale, and the other Persons abovementioned, Creditors of the said William late Marquis of Annandale deceased, put in to the said Appeal; and due Consideration had of what was offered on either Side in this Cause:

Interlocutors reversed.

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That so much of the said Interlocutor of the Thirteenth of February One Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-two Twenty-three, and of a former Interlocutor thereby referred to, as supersedes Extract of the Decree for Distress till the Arrestments be purged; and also the said Interlocutor of the Twenty-sixth of December One Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-three, be, and are hereby, reversed: And it is further Ordered, That the Decree for poynding of the Ground be forthwith given out by the proper Officer, and put to Execution; and that the Arrestments in Question be loosed, without Caution or Consignation; and that the said Lords of Session do give such further Directions as shall be just, pursuant to this Order.

Lady Teynham versus Barret Lennard.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Anne Lady Teynham; complaining of Two Orders of the High Court of Chancery, of the Twenty-first of December last and Eighteenth of this Instant March, made upon the Petitions of Dacre Barrett Lennard Esquire; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Dacre Barrett Lennard may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and shall and he is hereby required to put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Saturday the Fourth Day of April next.

Howe & al. Leave for a Bill:

After reading, and considering, the Report of the Judges to whom the Petition of John Howe of Stowell in the County of Gloucester Esquire and Dorothy his Wife, for themselves and in Behalf of their Infant Children, was referred; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, for the Purposes therein mentioned:

It is Ordered, That Leave be given to bring in a Bill, pursuant to the said Petition and Report.

Bill read.

Hodie 1^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to enable John Howe of Stowell in the County of Gloucester Esquire to sell the Manor or Lordship of Ellerton alias Ellerton upon Swale, and all other his Lands and Hereditaments in the County of York, comprised in his Marriage Settlement; he having settled other Lands and Hereditaments, in the County of Gloucester, of greater Value, to the same Uses, in Lieu thereof."

Warwickshire Road, Bill.

The Earl of Findlater reported from the Lords Committees to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act for repairing the Road leading from Dunchurch, in the County of Warwick, to the Bottom of Meriden Hill, in the same County," was committed: "That they had gone through the said Bill; and directed him to report the same to the House, without any Amendment."

Adjourn.

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

Die Veneris, 20^o Novembris, 1724, hitherto examined by us,

Jo. Carliol.
Jo. Norwich.
Gul. Bristol.
De Lawarr.

DIE Lunæ, 23^o Martii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Atkins versus Henriques.

The Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, in the usual Manner, brought up the Transcript of the Record upon a Writ of Error, wherein

Robert Atkins is Plaintiff, and Jacob Lopez Henriques is Defendant.

Mr. Lloyd's Petition, for a Writ of Summons to Parliament, as Lord Lumley:

The Lord Delawarr reported from the Lords Committees for Privileges, to whom was referred the Petition of Robert Lumley Lloyd, Rector of St. Paul's Covent Garden, presented to his Majesty, and by His Majesty referred to this House; thereby suggesting, That the Petitioner is Heir at Law to Ralph Lord Lumley;" and praying, "That His Majesty will be graciously pleased to give Directions for a Writ to be issued, to summon the Petitioner to the Upper House of Parliament: That the Committee had directed a special Report to be made to the House, of the Matter as it appeared before them; which he was ready to make, when their Lordships will please to receive the same."

Ordered, That the said Report be now received.

Accordingly his Lordship reported from the said Committee, as follows:

"That, the House having directed the proper Officers to attend the Committee, with such Writs of Summons, Wills, Records, and other Writings, as might be proper and necessary for making out the Petitioner's Claim, or any Way relating to the same; and ordered Liberty to the Petitioner to be heard by his Counsel; as also Counsel to be heard for the Earl of Scarbrough; and further directed, that Notice should be given to His Majesty's Attorney General, that Counsel might be likewise heard in His Majesty's Behalf: And Counsel on the Behalf of the said Parties, and of His Majesty, attending accordingly:

"The Petitioner's Counsel opened the Nature of their Claim; and produced the Roll, upon which was entered the Writ of Summons, by which Ralph de Lumley was summoned to Parliament in the Eighth Year of the Reign of Richard the Second; and informed the Committee, "That the said Ralph de Lumley and Robert his Eldest Son were both attainted of High Treason, in the First Year of the Reign of King Henry the Fourth;" and then produced an Act of Parliament made in the First Year of the Reign of King Edward the Fourth, upon the Petition of Thomas Lumley Knight, Cousin and Heir to the said Ralph de Lumley Knight; that is to say, Son to John, Son to the said Ralph; whereby it was enacted, "That the Attainder of the said Ralph de Lumley should be, and was thereby, reversed;" and produced the Roll upon which was entered the Writ of Summons by which the said Thomas de Lumley Knight was summoned to Parliament, in the First Year of the Reign of Edward the Fourth. And the Petitioner's Counsel then produced several Inquisitions post Mortem, to prove, that the said Thomas de Lumley Knight Baron de Lumley had Issue George de Lumley Knight Baron of Lumley, his Eldest Son; and that the said George Lord Lumley had Issue Thomas de Lumley Knight, his Eldest Son, who died in the Life-time of his Father; and that the said Thomas had Issue Richard de Lumley Baron de Lumley; and that the said Richard had Issue John de Lumley Knight Baron de Lumley; and that the said John Lord Lumley had Issue George his Eldest Son.

"And the Petitioner's Counsel informed the Committee, "That the said George Lumley was attainted of High Treason, in the Life-time of his Father, in the Twenty-ninth Year of the Reign of King Henry the Eighth; and that he left Issue John his Eldest Son."

"And the Petitioner's Counsel then produced an Act of Parliament, made in the First Year of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth, upon the Petition of the said John Lumley, Eldest Son of the said George Lumley, late Son and Heir Apparent of John late Lord Lumley deceased; whereby, after a Recital of the Attainder of the said George Lumley, by reason whereof the said John Lumley stood and was a Person in his Lineage and Blood corrupted, and deprived of all Degree, Estate, Name, Fame, and of all other Inheritance, that should or might come to him from his said Father, or from the said John late Lord Lumley his Grandfather, if the said George his late Father had not been attainted; and also of all other Inheritance that should, or might by Possibility, have come to him, by any other his collateral Ancestors on his said Father's Side, to whom he should or might have conveyed himself as next Cousin and Heir of Blood by Mesne Degrees by his said Father; it was enacted, "That the said John Lumley, and the Heirs Males of his Body coming, should have, hold, enjoy, and bear, the Name, Dignity, Estate, and Preeminence, of a Baron of this Realm; and that he and his said Heirs Males of his Body coming might and should be accepted, taken, known, reputed, called, and written, from thenceforth, by the Name of the Lord Lumley; and that he and the Heirs Males of his Body should have and enjoy, in and at all Parliaments and other Places, the Room, Name, Place, and Voice, of a Baron of this Realm; and that the said John Lumley and his Heirs might be, and should be, restored and enhabilled only in Blood, as Son and Heir, and Heirs, to the said George Lumley, and as Cousin and Heir, and Heirs, of the said John late Lord Lumley, and made only Heir and Heirs in Blood, as well to the said George, as to the said John late Lord Lumley, and either of them, by the Name of Lord Lumley."

"And the Petitioner's Counsel produced an Inquisition taken after the Death of the said John Lord Lumley, at Southwark, in the County of Surrey, the Thirtieth of May in the Seventh Year of the Reign of King James the First, to prove that the said John Lord Lumley died the Eleventh of April then last, without Issue; and that Splandian Lloyd was his Cousin and next Heir, videlicet, Eldest Son of Barbara Williams then deceased, Sister of the said John Lord Lumley; and that the said Splandian Lloyd was then of the Age of Forty Years and upwards.

"And the Petitioner's Counsel then produced a Book from the College of Arms, wherein a Visitation of the noble Families in the County of Surrey, taken in the Year 1623, is entered; as also a Commission under the Great Seal, authorizing the said Visitation, to prove that the said Splandian Lloyd died without Issue; and also several Deeds and Wills, to prove that Henry Lloyd, the said Splandian's next Brother, had Issue Henry his Eldest Son and Heir; and that the same Henry had Issue Henry his Eldest Son and Heir; and that the last named Henry had Issue the Petitioner Robert Lloyd his Eldest Son and Heir.

"And the Petitioner's Counsel insisted, "That the said Barony of Lumley was a Barony in Fee Simple; and that the said John the last Lord Lumley was, by the said Act of Parliament of the First of Edward the Sixth, restored to the said Barony in Fee Simple; and that the Petitioner, being Heir General of the said John Lord Lumley, was entitled to have a Writ to summon him to the Upper House of Parliament."

"And then the Counsel for the Earl of Scarbrough were heard; who insisted, "That it was not clear that the Barony of Lumley, created by Richard the Second, was created by Writ, or that it was a Barony in Fee Simple; no Evidence being given by the Petitioner that he had made any Search in the proper Offices, to discover whether there was any Patent of Creation of the said Barony; and all who had enjoyed the Barony, being lineally descended from the First Baron, and deriving their Descent through Males only, were consequently entitled to it, though it were a Barony in Tail Male only.

"That, admitting it to be a Barony in Fee Simple; yet, George Lumley being attainted and executed in the Life of John Lord Lumley his Father, upon the Death of the said John Lord Lumley the said Barony became extinct.

"That, by the said Act of Parliament of the First of Edward the Sixth, a new Barony of Lumley was created, and limited by express Words to John Lord Lumley in Tail Male; and that, upon his Death without Issue Male, the said Barony likewise became extinct.

"That the Attainder of George Lumley is not reversed by the said Act, but remains yet in Force; and that the Restitution of the said John Lord Lumley in Blood only, while the Attainder remains unreversed, could not possibly revive the ancient Barony, which was before extinct, and merged in the Crown, in Consequence of that Attainder.

"That the Construction of the Act of First Edward the Sixth, contended for by the Petitioner, would have this Absurdity, if it prevailed; (videlicet,) that the same Act must give the same Barony to the same Person under Two different Limitations, One in Tail Male, the other in Fee Simple, and both in Possession; and was not therefore to be admitted.

"That this was yet more clear from several Clauses and Provisions in the said Act, from which it was evident, that it was not the Intention of the Legislature to revive the ancient Honour.

"That there was an Instance in the same Family, that a bare Restitution in Blood, though by Act of Parliament, doth not revive the Honour, without reversing the Attainder by which it was extinguished."

"To support which Assertion, they produced an Act of Parliament made in the Thirteenth Year of Henry the Fourth, upon the Petition of John Lumley Knight, Second Son of Ralph the First Lord Lumley, taking Notice, that the said Ralph Lord Lumley and Thomas his Eldest Son were both attainted of High Treason; by which it was enacted, "That the said John Lumley should be restored in Blood, as Son and Heir of the said Ralph Lord Lumley, and Heir to the said Thomas Lumley." And the said Earl's Counsel insisted, "That, notwithstanding the said Act of Restitution of the said John Lumley, the said John or Thomas his Son were never summoned to Parliament, until the Attainder of the said Ralph Lord Lumley was reversed by the Act of Parliament of the First of Edward the Fourth, produced by the Petitioner's Counsel."

"And Mr. George Holmes, Deputy Keeper of the Records in The Tower, was examined, to prove that he had made diligent Search in the Records of The Tower; and did not find, that, after the Attainder of the said Ralph Lord Lumley, there was any Summons to Parliament directed to the said John Lumley Knight his Son, or to the said Thomas Lumley Knight his Grandson, until the First Year of the Reign of Edward the Fourth.

"And the said Earl of Scarbrough's Counsel produced the Record of the Attainder of the said George Lumley; and alledged, "That the said Earl is Heir Male of the First Lord Lumley; and, to prove the same, they produced several Settlements and Wills, which were read; (videlicet,) a Settlement made by the said John the last Lord Lumley, dated 23d August, 29 Eliz. Anno 1587, whereby the said John Lord Lumley, to the Intent that his Estate might remain in his Name and Blood, and in the House and Family of the said Lord Lumley, limited the Bulk of his Estate, in Failure of Issue of his Body, to the First and other Sons of Barbara Williams his Sister, in Tail Male, Remainder to Roger Lumley therein named, and described to be Son of Anthony Lumley, in Tail Male, with other Remainders; and thereby settled Two Annuities of £20. and £100. upon the said Roger Lumley, and the Heirs Males of his Body, being of the Blood and Kindred of the said Lord Lumley; in which Settlement there was a Power of Revocation.

"And the said Roger Lumley having afterwards Issue Richard his Eldest Son, Great Grandfather of the said Earl of Scarbrough; the said John Lord Lumley, by a Second Settlement, dated 2d May, 39th Eliz. Anno 1597, in Consideration (inter alia) of the natural Love and Affection which the said Lord Lumley bore to Richard Lumley, being of his Blood and Kindred, that is to say, Son and Heir Apparent of Roger Lumley, Son of Anthony Lumley deceased, Second Son of Richard Lord Lumley deceased, Father of John Lord Lumley deceased, Father of George Lumley Esquire deceased, Father of the said John Lord Lumley, and for the Advancement of him the said Richard Lumley, and the Heirs Males of his Body, and of the Heirs Males of the Body of the said Roger Lumley his Father, settled the Bulk of his Estate, in Failure of Issue of his Body, to the Use of the said Richard Lumley, in Tail Male, Remainder to the Heirs Males of the Body of the said Roger Lumley, with other Remainders over, with a Power of Revocation.

"That the said John Lord Lumley, by a Third Settlement, dated 10 March, 4^to Jacobi I^mi, Anno 1606, for the like Considerations as in the said Second Settlement, and wherein the said Richard Lumley is described to be of his Blood and Kindred, in the same Manner, and by such Descents, as are mentionea in the said Second Settlement, settled the Bulk of his Estate, in Failure of Heirs of his Body, to the Use of the said Richard Lumley for his Life, and to his First and other Sons in Tail Male, with like Estates to the Two Brothers of Richard, (videlicet,) George and John Lumley, for their Lives, and their Sons respectively, in Tail Male, Remainder to the Right Heirs of the said Lord Lumley, with a Power of Revocation.

"That the said Lord Lumley, by his Fourth and last Settlement, dated 14th of February, 6^o Jacobi I^mi, Anno 1608, settled the Bulk of his Estate, after the Death of himself and the Lady Elizabeth his Wife, and Failure of Heirs of his Body, to the Use of Trustees for Twenty-one Years; and then to the Use of the said Richard Lumley and his First, and other Sons, in Tail Male, with like Estates to his said two Brothers George and John Lumley, and their Sons respectively, Remainder to the Right Heirs of the said Lord Lumley."

"And the said Earl's Counsel also produced the said John Lord Lumley's Will, dated the 28th of January in the Third Year of King James the First, and the said Inquisition taken after his Death; in both which, the said Richard Lumley is mentioned and described to be the said Lord Lumley's Kinsman, in the same Manner as in the said Settlements; and they also produced the Will of the Lady Elizabeth Lumley, Relict of the said Lord Lumley, dated the 6th of November in the 14th Year of the Reign of King James the First, wherein she gave to the said Richard Lum ley, her Husband's Kinsman, all her Household Stuff, Marbles, and Pictures, in the Castle of Lumley, to remain there as Heir Looms; under which Settlements and Wills the said Estates, or the greatest Part thereof, and the said Heir Looms, and particularly the Castle of Lumley, are, and have ever since the Death of the said John Lord Lumley and his Lady been, enjoyed by the said Earl of Scarbrough and his Ancestors.

"And the said Earl's Counsel also produced an Act of Parliament, made in the Twenty-first Year of King James the First, to enable the said Richard Lumley to sell Part of the Estate settled upon him by the said Lord Lumley; in the Preamble whereof the said Richard Lumley is mentioned to be the nearest Kinsman of the Name and Blood of the said Lord Lumley: And an Instrument under the Hand and Seal of Henry Lloyd, the Petitioner's Great Grandfather, dated 26th February 1623, whereby he gave his Consent to the said Act of Parliament, was also produced and read.

"And the said Earl's Counsel also produced Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England, dated the 12th of July in the Fourth Year of King Charles the First, whereby His then Majesty created the said Richard Lumley Lord Viscount Lumley of Waterford in the Kingdom of Ireland; and in the Preamble thereof mentions him to be of the ancient and noble Family of the Lumleys of Lumley Castle.

"And the said Earl's Counsel informed the Committee, "That the said Richard Lumley Lord Viscount Waterford had Issue John his Eldest Son, who died in his Father's Life-time, and left Richard his Eldest Son, Father of the present Earl of Scarbrough;" and, to prove the same, produced the Will of the said John Lumley, dated the 2d of October 1658.

"And the said Earl's Counsel also produced Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England, dated the 31st of May in the 33d Year of the Reign of King Charles the Second; whereby His said Majesty created the present Earl of Scarbrough's Father a Peer and Baron of this Realm, by the Style and Title of Baron Lumley, de Lumley, in the County Palatine of Durham; and in the Preamble thereof mentions him to be descended from the ancient Family of the Lumleys, in the County of Durham.

"And it being desired by the said Earl's Counsel, "That the Journal of this House might be produced, to shew that the present Earl of Scarbrough was, by His Majesty's Writ of Summons, in the First Year of His Reign, called up to his Father's Barony (by the Name of Richard Lumley, de Lumley, in the County Palatine of Durham, Chevalier), and took his Place by Virtue of the said Writ of Summons;" the same was admitted by the Petitioner's Counsel.

"And, upon the whole, the Earl's Counsel insisted, "That the said Earl is well entitled to the said Barony of Lumley; and that the Petitioner hath not the least Colour of Right to the same; nor have any of the Petitioner's Ancestors, since the Death of John Lord Lumley, which happened the 11th of April 1609, ever claimed the said Barony; though it appeared they were under no Impediment to pursue their Claim, if they had any."

"And then the Petitioner's Counsel were heard upon their Reply.

"And afterwards the Counsel on Behalf of His Majesty was heard.

"And then the Counsel were ordered to withdraw.

Resolution that Mr. Lloyd has no Right to a Writ of Summons.

"And, upon the whole Matter, the Committee came to this Resolution, That the Petitioner hath not any Right to a Writ of Summons to Parliament, as prayed by his Petition."

Which Report was read by the Clerk.

And the said Resolution, being read a Second Time, was agreed to by the House.

Ordered, That the said Resolution be laid before His Majesty, by the Lords with White Staves.

Colonel Charteris versus Earl of Hyndford.

After hearing Counsel, upon the Petition and Appeal of Colonel Francis Charteris of Ampsfield; complaining of several Interlocutory Orders and Decrees of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the Twenty-first and Twenty-ninth of July and Twenty-eighth of November One Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-one, the Thirteenth of November One Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-two, and Sixteenth of July last; and of Two other Interlocutors, of the Thirtieth of the same Month, made on the Behalf of James Earl of Hyndfoord; and praying, "That the said several Interlocutory Orders may be reversed; and particularly the said Decree of the Sixteenth of July last, whereby the Lords of Session sound, that the Minutes of an Agreement made between the Appellant and Respondent, whereby the former was to transfer to the latter Five Thousand Pounds South Sea Stock, on receiving from him a Bond for Twenty Thousand Five Hundred Pounds, granted in Pursuance of the said Agreement, for the Performance thereof:" As also upon the Answer of the said Earl of Hyndfoord put in to the said Appeal:

And the Counsel for the Appellant having informed the House, "That the Appellant had that Regard to the Respondent, and the Loss sustained by him in the Stocks, that he would consent that the Bond and Enfeoffment in Question, though found good by the House, should be restricted to the Sum of Eleven Thousand Pounds, payable at Martinmas next, with Interest from this Day; and to the further Sum of Two Thousand Pounds, by Way of Penalty, over and above the said Eleven Thousand Pounds, and Interest from this Day, in Case the said Eleven Thousand Pounds and Interest be not paid at the Day aforementioned:"

And the Appellant, being present in Person, having declared his Consent thereunto to the House:

Interlocutors reversed, with Directione.

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said several Interlocutory Orders and Decrees complained of in the said Appeal be, and the same are hereby, reversed: And, in regard of the Appellant's Consent abovementioned, it is further Ordered, That all further Proceedings be stayed upon the said Bond and Enfeoffment until Martinmas next; and in Case the Sum of Eleven Thousand Pounds Sterling, with Interest from this Day, be then paid to the Appellant, or his Order, that from thenceforth the said Bond and Enfeoffment shall be esteemed to be fully satisfied and discharged, and shall be delivered up and vacated in due Form of Law; and in Default of Payment of the said Eleven Thousand Pounds, with Interest from this Day, at the Time aforesaid, the said Bond and Enfeoffment shall be restricted to the said Sum of Eleven Thousand Pounds and Interest, and the further Sum of Two Thousand Pounds in the Name of Penalty; and the Appellant shall be at Liberty thenceforth to pursue and carry on his Suit upon the said Bond and Enfeoffment, under the Restrictions aforesaid, in the same Manner as if no Stay or Proceedings had been ordered; and upon his recovering, or being paid, the said Sum of Eleven Thousand Pounds, and Interest from this Day, and the said Penalty of Two Thousand Pounds, the said Bond and Enfeoffment shall thenceforth be esteemed fully satisfied and discharged, and shall be delivered up, or vacated, in due Form of Law.

Commissioners forfeited Estates versus Lockart.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of the Commissioners and Trustees nominated and appointed by Warrant or Authority under His Majesty's Royal Sign Manual, made and passed in Pursuance of the Act Nono Georgii Regis, limiting the Times of Continuance of Commissioners for forfeited Estates for England and Scotland respectively; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Delegates in Scotland, of the Third Day of this Instant March, made on the Behalf of George Lockart of Carnwath; and praying, "That the same may be reversed; and that the Judgement and Decree given by the Petitioners, the Twentieth of August 1720, may be affirmed:"

It is Ordered, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said George Lockart may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and shall and he is hereby required to put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Monday the Twentieth Day of April next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondents Procurators, or any of them, in the Court of Delegates in Scotland, be deemed good Service.

Commissioners forfeited Estates versus Lockart.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of the Commissioners and Trustees nominated and appointed by Warrant or Authority under His Majesty's Royal Sign Manual, made and passed in Pursuance of the Act Nono Georgii Regis, limiting the Times of Continuance of Commissioners for forfeited Estates for England and Scotland respectively; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Delegates in Scotland, of the Third Day of this Instant March, made on the Behalf of George Lockart of Carnwath; and praying, "That the same may be reversed; and that the Judgement and Decree given by the Petitioners, the First of September 1719, may be affirmed:"

It is Ordered, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said George Lockart may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and shall and he is hereby required to put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Monday the Twentieth Day of April next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondents Procurators, or any of them, in the Court of Delegates in Scotland, be deemed good Service.

Commissioners forfeited Estates versus Lockart.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of the Commissioners and Trustees nominated and appointed by Warrant or Authority under His Majesty's Royal Sign Manual, made and passed in Pursuance of the Act Nono Georgii Regis, limiting the Times of Continuance of Commissioners for forfeited Estates for England and Scotland respectively; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Delegates in Scotland, of the Third Day of this Instant March, made on the Behalf of George Lockart of Carnwath; and praying, "That the same may be reversed; and that the Judgement and Decree given by the Petitioners, the Sixteenth of September 1720, may be affirmed:"

It is Ordered, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said George Lockart may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and shall and he is hereby required to put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Monday the Twentieth Day of April next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondents Procurators, or any of them, in the Court of Delegates in Scotland, be deemed good Service.

Howe's Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to enable John Howe of Stowell in the County of Gloucester Esquire to sell the Manor or Lordship of Ellerton, alias Ellerton upon Swale, and all other his Lands and Hereditaments, in the County of York, comprized in his Marriage Settlement; he having settled other Lands and Hereditaments, in the County of Gloucester, of greater Value, to the same Uses, in Lieu thereof."

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

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

Warwickshire Road Bill:

Hodie 3^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for repairing the Road leading from Dunchurch, in the County of Warwick, to the Bottom of Meriden Hill, in the same County."

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

It was Resolved in the Affirmative.

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

A Message was sent to the House of Commons, by Mr. Conway and Mr. Elde:

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

Adjourn.

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

DIE Martis, 24^o Martii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Peterson versus Ogilvie and Murray.

The Answer of Mr. Archibald Ogilvie of Rothiemay, One of the Respondents to the Appeal of Thomas Paterson Esquire:

Farrell versus French.

As also the Answer of Arthur French and Robert Shaw Esquires, to the Appeal of James Farrell Esquire;

Were this Day brought in.

Paterson versus Ogilvie and Murray.

The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Thomas Paterson Esquire is Appellant, and Mr. Archibald Ogilvie and Alexander Murray are Respondents:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the First free Causeday after the Causes already appointed.

Mordaunt and Lady Mohun versus Minshull:

Whereas To-morrow is appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Charles Mordaunt Esquire and Elizabeth Lady Mohun his Wife are Appellants, and Peter Minshull, Alice Minshull, and Jane Minshull, are Respondents:

Judges to attend.

It is Ordered, That the Judges in Town do attend this House, at the said Hearing.

Viewing and searching Medicines, Bill.

The Order of the Day being read, for hearing the Apothecaries, by Counsel or themselves, against the Bill, intituled, "An Act for the better viewing, searching, and examining, all Drugs, Medicines, Waters, Oils, Compositions, used, or to be used, for Medicines, in all Places where the same shall be exposed to Sale, or kept for that Purpose, within the City of London and Suburbs thereof, or within Seven Miles Circuit of the said City; and also for providing a Remedy for the President and College of Physicians in London to have the Bodies of Persons executed for Felony or other Offences, within the City of London, or Counties of Middlesex or Surrey, according to the Charters therein mentioned; and for the better enabling the Faculty of Physic in the University of Cambridge to take the Bodies of Persons executed for Felony and other Crimes in the Counties of Cambridge and Huntington, for Anatomical Dissections;" as also to hear the College of Physicians, by their Counsel or any of their Members, for the said Bill, at the Second Reading thereof:

The Counsel and Parties were called in.

And the Counsel against the Bill were heard; and several Witnesses were examined, upon Oath, for the Petitioners.

And Counsel for the said College, as likewise several of their Members, were heard for the said Bill.

And the Petitioners Counsel having replied:

They were directed to withdraw.

And the said Bill being read a Second Time:

Ordered, That it be committed to a Committee of the whole House, on this Day Sevennight; and the Lords to be summoned.

Farrell versus French.

The House being moved, on the Behalf of Arthur French and Robert Shaw Esquires, Respondents to the Petition and Appeal of James Farrell Esquire, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing thereof:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the First free Causeday after those already appointed.

Adjourn.

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

DIE Mercurii, 25^o Martii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Sir J. Evelyn's Bill:

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

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable His Majesty to grant the Inheritance of certain Lands and Tenements, in or near Deptford, in the County of Kent, to Trustees, upon Trust, for Sir John Evelyn Baronet and his Heirs, upon a full Consideration to be paid for the same;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Then the said Bill was read the First Time.

His Majesty's Consent signified.

And the Lord Viscount Townshend (by His Majesty's Command) signified to the House, "That His Majesty had been informed of the Contents of the said Bill; and had no Objection to the passing thereof."

E. of Cavan and Piggot's Petition, to receive Appeal.

Upon reading the Petition of the Right Honourable Richard Earl of Cavan and Thomas Piggot Gentleman; praying, "In regard to the Nature and extraordinary Proceedings in their Case, that the Order of this House on Friday last, against receiving any more Appeals this Session, may be so far dispensed with, as to admit an Appeal of the Petitioners, against certain Proceedings of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, to be received:"

It is Ordered, That the said Appeal be received accordingly.

E. Cavan and Piggot versus Piggot.

Then, a Petition and Appeal of the said Richard Earl of Cavan and Thomas Piggot Gentleman, was presented to the House and read; complaining of several Orders and Decrees of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, of the Twenty-ninth of January 1721, and Fourteenth of February last, in a Cause wherein Robert Piggot Esquire was Plaintiff, and the Petitioners and others were Defendants; and in a Cross Cause, wherein the Petitioner the said Earl of Cavan was Plaintiff, and the said Thomas Piggot, Robert Piggot, and Lancelot Sands, were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed; and that the Decree of the Fifth of February 1722 may be affirmed; and that the Petitioners may be at Liberty, at the Hearing this Cause, to read and make Use of all their Proofs, Deeds, and Evidences, in the said Causes:"

It is Ordered, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Robert Piggot may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and shall and he is hereby required to put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the Twenty-ninth Day of April next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondent's Clerk in Court be deemed good Service.

Mordaunt and Lady Mohun versus Minshulls.

After hearing Counsel, in Part, upon the Petition and Appeal of Charles Mordaunt Esquire and Elizabeth Lady Mohun his Wife; complaining of several Decrees of the High Court of Chancery, made on the Behalf of Peter Minshull Esquire, Alice and Jane Minshulls:

It is Ordered, That the further Hearing the said Cause be adjourned till To-morrow, at Eleven a Clock; and that the Cause wherein Thomas Brereton Esquire is Appellant, and Thomas Cowper Esquire is Respondent, which stands for that Day, be heard on Saturday next; and that the Cause for that Day be heard on the Tuesday next after the Recess.

Commissioners forfeited Estates versus E. Ruglen.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of the Commissioners and Trustees nominated and appointed by Warrant or Authority under His Majesty's Royal Sign Manual, made and passed in Pursuance of the Act Nono Georgii Regis, limiting the Times of Continuance of Commissioners for forfeited Estates in England and Scotland respectively; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Delegates in Scotland, of the Sixth Day of this Instant March, made on the Behalf of John Earl of Ruglen; and praying, "That the same may be reversed; and that the Judgement and Decree given by the Petitioners, the Seventeenth of October 1720, may be affirmed:"

It is Ordered, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Earl of Ruglen may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and do put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the Twenty-second Day of April next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondent's Procurators, or any of them, in the Court of Delegates in Scotland, be deemed good Service.

Commissioners forfeited Estates versus Stevinson.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of the Commissioners and Trustees nominated and appointed by Warrant or Authority under His Majesty's Royal Sign Manual, made and passed in Pursuance of the Act Nono Georgii Regis, limiting the Times of Continuance of Commissioners for forfeited Estates in England and Scotland respectively; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Delegates in Scotland, of the Ninth Day of this Instant March, made on the Behalf of Elizabeth Stevinson, Relict of Archibald Pitcairn of that Ilk, Doctor of Medicine; and praying, "That the same may be reversed; and that the Judgement and Decree given by the Petitioners, the Fourteenth of October 1723, may be affirmed:"

It is Ordered, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Elizabeth Stevinson may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and shall and she is hereby required to put in her Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the Twenty-second Day of April next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondent's Procurators, or any of them, in the Court of Delegates in Scotland, be deemed good Service.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad & in diem Jovis, vicesimum sextum diem instantis Martii, hora undecima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.

DIE Jovis, 26^o Martii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Messages from H. C. with a Bill, and to return L. Craven's and Tylney's Bill.

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

To return the Bill, intituled, "An Act for adding the Surname of Tylney to the Descendants of the Right Honourable William Lord Craven and Anne his Wife, sole Daughter and Heir of Frederick Tylney Esquire;" and to acquaint this House, that they have agreed to the said Bill, without any Amendment.

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

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act to explain and amend an Act passed in the Sixth Year of His Majesty's Reign, intituled, An Act for ascertaining the Breadths, and preventing Frauds and Abuses in manufacturing Serges, Plaidings, and Fingrums, and for regulating the Manufactures of Stockings, in that Part of Great Britain called Scotland, so far as the same relates to Serges;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Mordaunt and Lady Mohun versus Minshulls.

After hearing Counsel, as well Yesterday as this Day, upon the Petition and Appeal of Charles Mordaunt Esquire and Elizabeth Lady Mohun his Wife, sole Executrix and Devisee of Charles Lord Mohun, her late Husband, deceased, who was Devisee and Executor of Charles Earl of Macclesfield the Son, deceased, who was Heir, Executor, and Residuary Legatee of Charles Earl of Macclesfield the Father, deceased, who was Devisee and Administrator, with the Will annexed, of Sir Edward Fitton deceased; complaining of several Decrees of the High Court of Chancery, of the Thirteenth of June and Fourteenth of November One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty-seven, the Eighteenth of June and Nineteenth of November One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven, the Eleventh of December and Twenty-fifth of January last, made on the Behalf of Peter Minshull Esquire, Brother and Heir of Thomas Minshull Esquire, who was Son and Heir of Thomas Minshull Esquire his late Father deceased, Alice Minshull and Jane Minshull, Sisters and Administratrixes of the said Thomas Minshull, the Son and Daughters and Administratrixes of the Goods of Thomas Minshull the Father, not administered by Thomas Minshull Esquire the Son; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:" As also upon the Answer of the said Peter Minshull, Alice Minshull, and Jane Minshull, put in to the said Appeal; and due Consideration had of what was offered on either Side in this Cause:

Decrees affirmed.

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Petition and Appeal be, and is hereby, dismissed this House; and that the said Decrees therein complained of be, and the same are hereby, affirmed.

Manufacturing Serges in Scotland, Bill.

Hodie 1^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to explain and amend an Act, passed in the Sixth Year of His Majesty's Reign, intituled, An Act for ascertaining the Breadths, and preventing Frauds and Abuses in manufacturing Serges, Plaidings, and Fingrums, and for regulating the Manufactures of Stockings, in that Part of Great Britain called Scotland, so far as the same relates to Serges."

Eyre & al. versus Burke.

The House being moved, "That Luke Martin Gentleman may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for Edward Eyre, Nicholas Darcy, and Dennis Daly, Esquires, on account of their Appeal depending in this House, to which Gerald Burke Esquire is Respondent; the Appellants residing in Ireland:"

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

Sir J. Evelyn's Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to enable His Majesty to grant the Inheritance of certain Lands and Tenements, in or near Deptford, in the County of Kent, to Trustees, upon Trust, for Sir John Evelyn Baronet and his Heirs, upon a full Consideration to be paid for the same."

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

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

Col. Cosby's Petition to receive Appeal:

Upon reading the Petition of William Cosby Esquire; praying, "In regard to the Nature of his Case, that the Order of this House on Friday last, against receiving any more Appeals this Session, may be so far dispensed with, as to admit an Appeal of the Petitioner's, against an Order of Dismission of the Court of Exchequer, to be now received:"

It is Ordered, That the said Appeal be received accordingly.

Col. Cosby versus Packenham.

Then, a Petition and Appeal of the said William Cosby Esquire, was presented to the House, and read; complaining of a Decree of Dismission of the Court of Exchequer, made the Twentieth Day of February last, in certain Causes, wherein the Petitioner was Plaintiff, and Robert Packenham Gentleman Defendant, & è contra; and praying, "That the same may be reversed and set aside; and that it may be referred to the Deputy Remembrancer of the said Court, to take an open Accompt of the Matters in Question:"

It is Ordered, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Robert Packenham may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and shall and he is hereby required to put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Thursday the Ninth Day of April next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondent's Clerk or Attorney in the said Court of Exchequer be deemed good Service.

The Lord Bishop of Bristol reported from the Lords Committees to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act for vesting the Manor of Coniston Cold, in the County of York, and other Lands and Tenements therein mentioned, in Trustees, to be sold, for Payment of the Debts of Henry Coulthurst Esquire, and for other Purposes therein mentioned," was committed: "That they had considered the said Bill, and found the Allegations thereof to be true; that the Parties concerned had given their Consents; and that the Committee had gone through the Bill, and made some Amendments thereunto."

Which were read Twice, and agreed to.

Ordered, That the Bill, with the Amendments, be engrossed.

Appleton's Bill.

The Lord Bishop of Bristol also reported from the Lords Committees to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act for vesting certain Copyhold Lands, in the County of Suffolk, late the Estate of Henry Appleton Esquire, deceased, in Trust, to be sold, for Payment of his Childrens Portions," was committed: "That they had considered the said Bill, and found the Allegations thereof to be true; that the Parties concerned had given their Consents; and that the Committee had gone through the said Bill, and directed him to report the same to the House, without any Amendment."

Ordered, That the said Bill be engrossed.

Sir W. Barker versus Letitia Barker & al.

The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Sir William Barker Baronet is Appellant, and Letitia Barker, Darby Egan, and Thomas Ivers, Esquires, are Respondents:"

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

Commissioners forfeited Estates versus Mac Lair.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of the Commissioners and Trustees nominated and appointed by Warrant, or Authority, under His Majesty's Royal Sign Manual, made and passed in Pursuance of the Act Nono Georgii Regis, limiting the Times of Continuance of Commissioners for forfeited Estates in England and Scotland respectively; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Delegates in Scotland, of the Ninth Day of this Instant March, made on the Behalf of George Mac Lair Portioner of Preston; and praying, "That the same may be reversed; and that the Decree and Judgement given by the Petitioners, the Seventeenth of August 1719, may be affirmed:"

It is Ordered, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said George Mac Lair may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and shall and he is hereby required to put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Thursday the Twentythird Day of April next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondent's Procurators, or any of them, in the Court of Delegates in Scotland, be deemed good Service.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad & in diem Veneris, vicesimum septimum diem instantis Martii, hora undecima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.

Die Martis, 24^o Novembris, 1724, hitherto examined by us,

Dorset.
Findlater.
Pomfret.
Jo. Norwich.
De Lawarr.

DIE Veneris, 27^o Martii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Messages from H. C. with Bills.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by the Lord Harley and others:

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for repairing the Roads leading from Stump Cross, in the Parish of Chesterford, in the County of Essex, to Newmarkett Heath and the Town of Cambridge, in the County of Cambridge;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

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

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for continuing Acts for preventing Theft and Rapine upon the Northern Borders of England; and for better regulating of Pilots; and for regulating the Price and Assize of Bread; and for better Encouragement of the making of Sail-cloth in Great Britain;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

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

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act to naturalize John Wern;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Knight versus Winckworth, in Error:

Whereas this Day was appointed, for hearing the Errors argued, upon the Writ of Error brought into this House the Fifth Day of February last, from the Court of King's Bench, wherein Isaac Knight is Plaintiff, and Hugh Winckworth is Defendant:

Counsel appearing for the Defendant, but no Counsel for the Plaintiff in Error:

And the Counsel for the Defendant acquainting the House, "That the Matters in Difference were agreed between the said Parties;" and praying, "That the Judgement may be affirmed, with Costs:"

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the Judgement given, in the said Court of King's Bench, for the said Defendant in Error, be, and the same is hereby, affirmed; and that the Record be remitted, to the End Execution may be had thereupon, as if no such Writ of Error had been brought into this House: And it is further Ordered, That the said Isaac Knight do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Hugh Winckworth, the Sum of Ten Pounds, for his Costs sustained by reason of the bringing the said Writ of Error.

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

Judgement affirmed, with Costs.

"Et quia Cur. dicti Domini Regis hic, coram ipso Rege, in Parliamento suo, de Judicio suo de & super Præmiss. reddend. nondum advisatur, Dies inde dat. est Partibus præd. coram dicto Domino Rege, in Parliamento suo, usque Diem Veneris, Vicesimum Septimum Diem Martii extunc prox. sequent. ubicunque &c. de Judicio suo de & super Præmiss. ill. audiend. eo quod Cur. dicti Domini Regis in Parliamento suo inde nondum &c.; ad quem Diem, coram dicto Domino Rege, in Parliamento suo apud Westm. ven. præd. Hugo, per Attorn. suum prædict.; super quo, vis. & per Cur. Parliamenti examinat. tam Record. & Process. præd. ac Judic. superinde reddit. ac Affirmat. Judic. ill. quam Causis pro Error. superinde assign.; cons. est per Cur. Parliament. præd. quod Judic. præd. in omnibus affirm. cum Decem Libris solvi præfat. Hugon. Winckworth, pro Mis. & Custag. suis, Occasione Dilation. Execution. Judic. præd. Prætextu Prosecution. præd. Brevis de Error. ac quod Record. præd. remittatur in Cur. dicti Domini Regis, ad Executionem superinde pro dicto Hugone fiend. &c."

Coulthurst's Bill:

Hodie 3^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for vesting the Manor of Coniston Cold, in the County of York, and other Lands and Tenements therein mentioned, in Trustees, to be sold, for Payment of the Debts of Henry Coulihurst Esquire; and for other Purposes therein mentioned."

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

It was Resolved in the Affirmative.

Message to H. C. with it.

A Message was sent to the House of Commons, by Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Conway:

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

Edgworth versus Giffard:

The House being informed, "That Mr. John Roberts attended, on the Behalf of Thomas Giffard Esquire, Respondent to the Petition and Appeal of Edward Edgworth Esquire, with several Pleadings and Proceedings to be made Use of on hearing the said Cause; and that the said Roberts, being obliged to be absent, desired now to prove the same to be true Copies:"

Pleadings proved.

He was thereupon called in; and delivered the said several Pleadings and Proceedings at the Bar; and attested, upon Oath, "That the same were true Copies, he having examined them with the Originals in the respective Offices in Ireland."

And then he withdrew.

Cambridge Roads, to repair, Bill.

Hodie 1^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for repairing the Roads leading from Stump Cross, in the Parish of Chesterford, in the County of Essex, to Newmarket Heath and the Town of Cambridge, in the County of Cambridge."

Appleton's Bill.

Hodie 3^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for vesting certain Copyhold Lands, in the County of Suffolk, late the Estate of Henry Appleton Esquire, deceased, in Trust, to be sold, for Payment of his Children's Portions."

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

It was Resolved in the Affirmative.

Message to H. C. with it.

A Message was sent to the House of Commons, by Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Conway:

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

Manufacturing Serges in Scotland, Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to explain and amend an Act passed in the Sixth Year of His Majesty's Reign, intituled, An Act for ascertaining the Breadths, and preventing Frauds and Abuses in manufacturing Serges, Plaidings, and Fingrums, and for regulating the Manufactures of Stockings, in that Part of Great Britain called Scotland, so far as the same relates to Serges."

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

Continuing Laws, Bill.

Hodie 1^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for continuing Acts for preventing Theft and Rapine upon the Northern Borders of England; and for better regulating of Pilots; and for regulating the Price and Assize of Bread; and for better Encouragement of the making of Sail-cloth in Great Britain."

Wern's Nat. Bill.

Hodie 1^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to naturalize John Wern."

E. Cavan and Piggot versus Piggot.

The House being moved, "That Thomas Cole Gentleman may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for Richard Earl of Cavan and Thomas Piggot Gentleman, on account of their Appeal depending in this House, to which Robert Piggot Esquire is Respondent; the Appellants residing in Ireland:"

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

Burgh versus Langton:

The House being informed, "That Mr. John Roberts attended, on the Behalf of William Burgh Esquire, Appellant in a Cause depending in this House, to which Colthurst Langton Gentleman is Respondent, with several Pleadings and Proceedings to be made Use of, on hearing the said Cause; and that he desired now to prove the same to be true Copies."

Pleadings proved.

He was thereupon called in; and delivered the said several Pleadings and Proceedings, with a Schedule of them, at the Bar; and attested, upon Oath, "That the same were true Copies; he having examined them with the Originals, in the respective Offices in Ireland."

And then he withdrew.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad & in diem Sabbati, vicesimum octavum diem instantis Martii, hora undecima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.

DIE Sabbati, 28^o Martii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Ly. Teynham versus B. Lennard.

This Day the Answer of Dacre Barret Lennard Esquire, to the Appeal of Anne Lady Teynham, was brought in.

Sir J. Evelyn's Bill:

The Lord Delawarr reported from the Lords Committees to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable His Majesty to grant the Inheritance of certain Lands and Tenements, in or near Deptford, in the County of Kent, to Trustees, upon Trust, for Sir John Evelyn Baronet and his Heirs, upon a full Consideration to be paid for the same," was committed: "That they had considered the said Bill, and found the Allegations thereof to be true; that the Parties concerned had given their Consents; and that the Committee had gone through the Bill, and directed him to report the same to the House, without any Amendment."

Then the said Bill was read the Third Time.

And the Question being put, "Whether this Bill shall pass?"

It was Resolved in the Affirmative.

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

A Message was sent to the House of Commons, by Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Conway:

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

Continuing Laws, Bill:

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for continuing Acts for preventing Theft and Rapine upon the Northern Borders of England; and for better regulating of Pilots; and for regulating the Price and Assize of Bread; and for better Encouragement of the making of Sail Cloth in Great Britain."

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

Brereton versus Cowper:

Counsel were this Day called in, to be heard, upon the Petition and Appeal of Thomas Brereton Esquire; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Exchequer at Chester, made the Twenty-first of October last, on the Behalf of Thomas Cowper Esquire; and praying, "That the same may be reversed, and the Respondent's Bill in that Court dismissed with Costs:" As also upon the Answer of the said Thomas Cowper put in to the said Appeal:

And the Counsel for the Appellant having stated the Nature of his Case, "That the Respondent's Bill was brought to the Intent to compel a specific Performance of a Contract made by the Appellant with the Respondent, for the Purchase of an Estate at an extravagant Price, on which Part of the Purchasemoney was paid:" And the Counsel urging, "That the Respondent might well have been contented with the Money which had been paid him, without praying the Assistance of a Court of Equity to enforce the Payment of the rest:"

They were asked, "If the Appellant would be contented to lose the Money so paid, on being discharged from his said Contract?"

And the Appellant being present in Person, and being asked, "What he said to the said Proposal?" and expressing his Readiness to comply therewith:

And upon further hearing the said Parties and their Counsel:

Decree reversed, by Consent.

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, by Consent of both Parties, That the said Decree complained of in the said Appeal be, and is hereby, reversed: And it is further Ordered and Adjudged, by Consent of both the Appellant and Respondent, expressly declared at the Bar of this House, That the First Minutes or Note of the Agreement between the said Appellant and Respondent, dated July Twenty-second One Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty, and likewise the Articles executed in Pursuance thereof, dated the next Day, be delivered up and canceled; and that the Appellant do forthwith deliver the Possession of the said Estate, or so much thereof as he is possessed of, to the Respondent; and also deliver to the Respondent all the Deeds and Writings relating to the Estate in Question; and that the Respondent retain to his own Use, without Accompt, all the Money which he has received from the Appellant in Part of the said Purchase; and that a Bill filed by the Appellant against the Respondent, to set aside the said Agreement and Articles, be dismissed by the Appellant without Costs; and that general Releases be mutually given, by the Appellant and Respondent; to each other."

Cambridge Roads, to repair, Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for repairing the Roads leading from Stump Cross, in the Parish of Chesterford, in the County of Essex, to Newmarket Heath and the Town of Cambridge, in the County of Cambridge."

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

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

Ly. Teynham versus Lennard:

The House being moved, on the Behalf of Dacre Barret Lennard Esquire, Respondent to the Petition and Appeal of Anne Lady Teynham, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing thereof:"

Hearing appointed.

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the First Tuesday after the approaching Recess; and that the Cause wherein James Hamilton of Dalzell Esquire is Appellant, and James Hamilton and others are Respondents, appointed for that Day, be heard on the Thursday following.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad & in diem Lunæ, tricesimum diem instantis Martii, hora undecima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.

DIE Lunæ, 30^o Martii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Munro and Mac Neill versus Mackenzie.

Counsel (according to Order) were called in, to be heard, upon the Petition and Appeal of George Munro and Captain Donald Mac Neill; complaining of several Interlocutors of the Lords of Session in Scotland; as also upon the Answer of Kenneth Mackenzie and others put in to the said Appeal.

And the Appellants Counsel and One of the Respondents being heard:

They were directed to withdraw.

And it being moved, "To put off the further Hearing of this Cause till To-morrow Morning:"

Which being objected to;

The Question was put, "Whether the further Hearing of this Cause shall be adjourned till To-morrow?"

It was Resolved in the Affirmative.

Ordered, That this House will proceed in the further hearing the said Cause, To-morrow, at Eleven a Clock.

Adjourn.

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

DIE Martis, 31^o Martii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Cosby versus Packenham.

This Day the Answer of Robert Packenham Gentleman, to the Appeal of William Cosby Esquire, was brought in.

Munro and Mac Neill versus Mackenzie & al.

After hearing Counsel, as well Yesterday as this Day, upon the Petition and Appeal of George Munro and Captain Donald Mac Neill; complaining, on the Part of the said Munro, of several Interlocutors of the Lords of Session in Scotland of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth of November One Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-two, and that Part of the Interlocutory of the Fourth of December following, affirming their former Interlocutories, and the Interlocutory of the Twenty-sixth of the said Month of December, the Fifth, Fifteenth, Eighteenth, and Twenty-third of January 1722/23, and the Thirteenth and Nineteenth Days of February following, made in a Cause wherein Kenneth Mackenzie late of Auchtedonald, deceased, in his own Name, and as empowered by Kenneth Mackenzie his Eldest Son, and several others, were Plaintiffs, and the Appellants Defendants; and praying, "That the said several Interlocutors may be reversed, and the Appellant Munro further and otherwise relieved:" And the said Appeal further complaining, on the Part of the said Captain Donald Mac Neill, of an Interlocutory of the Twentyeighth of February 1722/23, refusing him his Costs; and praying, "That the said Interlocutor may be reversed:" As also upon the Answer of the said Kenneth Mackenzie, and of the other Persons in whose Behalf an Action was brought against the Appellants, put in to the said Appeal; and due Consideration and Debate had of what was offered on either Side in this Cause:

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Interlocutor of the Twenty-eighth of February One Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-two-Twenty-three, whereby the Lords of Session refused the Appellant Mac Neill his Costs, be, and the same is hereby, reversed; and that the said Lords of Session do cause his Costs to be taxed and ascertained, and, when so ascertained, to be forthwith paid to him by the Respondent: And it is hereby further Ordered and Adjudged, That the said Interlocutor of the Nineteenth of February One Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-two-Twentythree be, and is hereby, reversed: And it is hereby Declared, That it is the Opinion of this House, "That William Munro and other Persons of the Party commanded by the Appellant George Munro may be proper Wirnesses for the said Appellant in this Cause, notwithstanding their being of the same Party, unless there be some other just Cause of Objection against their Testimony; and that the said Appellant be at Liberty to produce Witnesses in his Defence; and that the Witnesses already examined on Behalf of the Plaintiff below be re-examined; and that the Defendant below be at Liberty to cross-examine them; and that the Appellant Munro be heard in the Court below, as to the Relevancy of the Libel."

Message from H. C. with a Bill.

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

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for amending the Roads from The Stones End, in Southwark, to Highgate, at the Entrance of Ashdown Forest, in the Parish of East Grinsted, in the County of Sussex, and from Kingston to Burton Common, and also the Lane leading from Wood Hatch to Sidlow Mill, and the Lanes called Horsehills, Bonehurst alias Boners, and Petridge Lanes, in the County of Surrey, by enlarging the Terms granted by Two former Acts, One of the Fourth, and the other of the Sixth Year of His Majesty's Reign;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Viewing and searching of Medicines, Bill:

The Order of the Day being read, for the House to be in a Committee upon the Bill, intituled, "An Act for the better viewing, searching, and examining, all Drugs, Medicines, Waters, Oils, Compositions used or to be used for Medicines, in all Places where the same shall be exposed to Sale, or kept for that Purpose, within the City of London and Suburbs thereof, or within Seven Miles Circuit of the said City; and also for the providing a Remedy for the President and College of Physicians in London to have the Bodies of Persons executed for Felony or other Offences within the City of London or Counties of Middlesex or Surrey, according to the Charters therein mentioned; and for the better enabling the Faculty of Physic in the University of Cambridge to take the Bodies of Persons executed for Felony and other Crimes in the Counties of Cambridge and Huntington, for Anatomical Dissections:"

It is Ordered, That this House be put into a Committee on the said Bill, on the Second Day after the approaching Recess.

Dr. Eaton's Pet. against Part of the Physicians Bill.

Upon reading the Petition of Doctor Robert Eaton; praying, "That the Right and Property in a Patent granted to him by His Majesty, for making and vending a Cordial Balsamic Styptic Medicine, which universally stops all external and internal Bleedings, may be preserved to him, against certain general Words contained in the Bill last abovementioned; or that he may be heard, by himself or Counsel, against Part of the said Bill:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to the Committee of the whole House to whom the said Bill stands committed; and that the Petitioner may be heard, according to the Prayer of his Petition; and that the College of Physicians may have a Copy of the said Petition, and be heard likewise, if they think fit.

Message from H. C. with a Bill.

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

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act to naturalize John Van Rixtell;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Mercurii, primum diem Aprilis jam proxim. sequent. hora undecima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.

Footnotes