7thly, The Commitment upon a general Impeachment hath been heretofore, and may be again, of moft evil and dangerous Confequence; and, as is conceived, the Lords have yet no way for them fo well to justify their fair and upright Proceedings in the Earl of Clarendon's Bufinefs, and the true Regard they have had herein to the King and Kingdom, as to decline this Bill of Banishment, and to expect a particular Accufation of the faid Earl; and thereupon according to Law and Justice to appoint him a Day for Appearance, which if he obferve not, without farther Procefs, Sentence might lawfully be pronounced against him. Strafforde. We having this Day given our Negatives to the Paffing of a Bill for the banishing and difenabling the Earl of Clarendon; and having afked Leave of the House to enter our Diffents, to the end that it may appear to Pofterity that we did not give our Confents to that Bill, we do now take Liberty to enter our Diffents, by fubfcribing our Names. Berkeley of Holles, T. Culpeper. Die Luna 22 Novembris, 1669. Hodie 3 vice leta eft Billa, An A&t for the limiting of certain Trials in Parliament and Privilege of Parliament, and for further afcertaining the Trials of Peers, and all other his Majefty's liege People. The Queftion being put, whether this Bill fhall pass ? It was refolved in the Affirmative. Memorandum, That before the putting the abovesaid Queftion, these Lords following defired Leave to enter their Diffents, if the Queftion was carried in the Affirmative; which being granted, they accordingly enter their Diffents, by fubfcribing their Names and Reafons following: We humbly conceive, that if by reafon of the great Charter, and fome Acts confirming it, we are not difabled to alien, as to the Jufticiary and other Privileges of Parliament and Peerage, yet thereby they are indicated fo fundamental, as we ought not to part therewith. Will, Petre. Bolingbroke, Stafforde, Die Jovis 25° Novembris, 1669. The House resumed the Debate which was on Monday laft concerning the Bufinefs between Bernard Grenville, Efq; and Jeremy Elwes, Efq; And after a ferious Debate the Question being put, whether this Caufe be now properly before their Lordships for any farther Directions to the Court of Chancery? It was refolved in the Affirmative. Memorandum, That before the putting of the abovefaid Question, thefe Lords following defired Leave to enter their Diffents, if the Question was carried in the Affirmative; which being granted, they did accordingly enter their Diflents, by fubfcribing their Names and annexing their Reafons? ift, Because by the Death of Morley the Suit in Chancery, wherein this House gave Direction, seems to us to be abated, and no longer depending there, till it shall be revived by the ordinary Courfe of that Court. 2dly, Because that Court, if the Caufe do yet depend, have made no final Decree upon the former Direction of the Lords House. 3dly, We know of no Precedent, fince the first Beginning of Parliament to this Day, nor were any fhew'd, that ever a Decree in Chancery, upon Appeal to this House, being reverfed, and Directions given for a new hearing of the Caufe in tha. Court, the Lords did refume the Cause and give further Directions (before a final Decree) at the Solicitation of either of the Parties, where the Lord Keeper or Chancellor found no Difficulty in Proceedings on the firft Directions. 4thly, To admit an Appeal or new Refort to this Houfe by either Party, upon an interlocutory Decree, or decretal Order, as this was, we conceive would endlefly multiply a Caufe, be vexatious and chargeable to the Subject, and put this Houfe to many Trials and Judgments in the fame Cause, and take that Jurifdiction from the Chancery which is proper for them, viz. To mend their own Work upon Bills of Review or Reversal if Error or Miftake fhall be found in their Proceedings or Decrees. C 2 5thly, 5thly, If this fort of Appeal be allowed to the Plaintiff, the like cannot be denied to the Defendant, and fo toties quoties; for there can be no Limitation, if either Side apprehend Danger, and refort to their Lordships for Explanation of the former or further Directions, until their Lordships fet down a Rule how often the Plaintiff or Defendant may refort back to them upon interlocutory Proceedings. 6thly, Tho' their Lordships have Power upon Appeal to reverse any Deeree of that Caufe, yet, we humbly conceive, this House will not put the particular Equity, into the Confcience or Mouth of the Judge; but that the general Direction given in this Caufe to proceed, as upon an equitable Mortgage, is as much as can be done (after the Relief already given in laying afide the Releafe and reverfing the Decree given by the late Lord Chancellor) till after a final Decree either Party shall find Caufe to Appeal. 7thly, The further Direction their Lordships are moved to give in this Caufe, is in a Point never ftirred by the Plaintiff in his first Appeal, and may, for ought yet appears to their Lordships, never happen in the Cafe, or be made ufe of in the Decree of the Court of Chancery to be made; and therefore very improper for the Lords to interpofe by Anticipation. 8thly, This way of frequent and importunate Application to the Lords in the fame Cause, before it be ripe for Hearing of Judgment, we conceive to be a dangerous Precedent, and both derogatory and dilatory to the Proceedings of this High Court. Cardigan, J. Bridgewater, Anglefey, Effex, C. Notingham, T. Lucas. Die Sabbati 17° Decembris, 1670. Upon hearing Counsel at the Bar upon the Petition of Robert Pitt and others, and the Answer of Robert Pelham and others; The Question being put, whether the Petitioners ought to be relieved upon their Petition? It was refolved in the Affirmative. The Question being put, whether, the Lord Keeper be be directed from this Houfe to lay afide the Dif miffion of the Bill in Chancery, and that the Heir at Law of Sherley the Teftator be ordered by that Court to fell the Land and diftribute the Money according to the Direction of the Will? It was refolved in the Affirmative. Memorandum, That before the putting of the abovefaid Questions, I defired Leave to enter my Diffent ard Proteftation, if the Questions were carried in the Affirmative; which being granted, I do accordingly enter my Diffent and Proteftation as followeth : That the Will, as to the Appointment of the Sale of the Lands in Question, being void in Law, there is no Equity to compel the Heir to fell the Lands in Queftion to his own Ditherifon; and if it fhould be otherwife, it would be of a dangerous Confequence; for then the Lord Keeper might, by the fame Reason, make good all void Wills and other Affurances. Appley. Die Jovis 9° Martii, 1670. The Houfe took into Confideration the Bill concerning Privileges of Parliament; and for the better Debate thereof, the Houfe was adjourned into a Committee. The House being refumed, the Queftion was put, whether this Bill fhall be committed ? And it was refolved in the Negative. Becaufe, I conceive, there is no Colour of Law to claim a Privilege of Freedom from Suits; and for many other Reasons. Anglesey. Die Mercurii 15° Martii, 1670. Holles. The Earl of Dorfet reported, that the Committee for Petitions have confidered the Petition of John Cusack, but cannot determine whether it came regularly before this House, because they know not whether any Appeal lies from the Court of Claims to the Chancery in Ireland; therefore humbly offers, as an Expedient, that this Houfe would order fome of the Judges in Ireland to certify whether an Appeal lies from the faid Court of Claims to the Chancery in Ireland. C 3 Upon Upon this, the faid Petition of John Cusack was read. And after Debate thereupon, the Queftion being put, whether it fhall be ordered that the Execution of the Judgment against the faid John Cusack fhall be fufpended? It was refolved in the Affirmative. Diffentient' Anglefey: Because the Defendants were never yet fummoned nor heard, and are not Parties to the Judgment; and for many other Reafons, very obvious, as I humbly conceive. Die Martis 13° Aprilis, 1675. The Question being put, whether the humble Thanks of this House shall be now prefented to his Majefty for his moft gracious Speech? It was refolved in the Affirmative. Memorandum, That before the putting of the abovefaid Question, thefe Lords following defired Leave to enter their Diffents, if the Queftion was carried in the Affirmative; and accordingly did enter their Diffents as followeth : The Question being put to give the King Thanks for his Speech, and we propofing to thank his Majefty for his gracious Expreffions in his Speech, and it being laid afide, do think fie to enter our Diffent to the Vote, as it is now paffed, becaufe of the ill Confequence we apprehend may be from it; and that we think this Manner of Proceeding not fo fuitable with the Liberty of Debate neceffary to this House. Stamford, P. Wharton, Hallifax, Clarendon, Will. Paget, Shaftesbury. Die Mercurii 21° Aprilis, 1675. The Lords in a Committee of the whole Houfe ha ving debated on the Bill to prevent Dangers which may arife from Perfons diffaffected to the Government; Contents 27 And the House being refumed, the Queftion was put, whether this Bill does fo far intrench upon the Privileges of this Houfe as it ought therefore to be caft out? It |