Die Jovis 6° Maii, 1675. The Commons by Meffage fignified they were informed, an Appeal was depending before the Lords at the Suit of Sherley, against Sir John Fagg, a Member of their Houfe, to which he is ordered to anfwer; they therefore defired their Lordships to have Regard to their Privileges. Which Meffage being confidered, the Question was put, whether this Answer fhall be now returned to the faid Meffage, viz. That the House of Commons need not doubt but their Lordships will have a Regard to the Privileges of the House of Commons, as they have of their own? It was refolved in the Affirmative. Memorandum, That before the putting of the aforefaid Queftion, thefe Lords following defired Leave to enter their Diffents, if the Queftion was carried in the Affirmative, and accordingly they do enter their Diffents. Because the Anfwer voted to be fent to the House of Commons being the fame that wat fent down formerly in the Cafe of Hale and Slingby, hath, as we, with all Humility, do apprehend, been already miftaken by them, as a Condefcenfion of this Houfe to forbear pro-ceeding in Judicature in Affairs of this Nature, and appears to us very liable to fo great a Misconstruction, that it may feem, in fome measure, to acknowledge that the Houfe of Commons have a Claim to fome Privilege in Judicature, which is a Thing that, we conceive, belongs folely to this House. Bedford, Newport, T. Culpeper, Brifol, Bafil Denbigh, Howard E.of Berks, Dorfet, Shaftsbury. Die Luna 10° Maii, 1675. Poft Meridiem. The Houfe having heard the Council of Dacre Barret Plaintiff, and alfo the Council of the Lord Viscount Loftus, Defendant, upon an Appeal, defiring that a Decree made in Parliament the 3d of May 1642, on Behalf of the faid Viscount, may be reverfed; and long Debate and Confideration thereof, The The Queftion was put, whether this Decree shall be affirmed ? It was refolved in the Negative. We whose Names are underwritten, having, before the putting of the faid Question, defired Leave of the House to enter our Proteflation, if the same were carried in the Negative, do accordingly enter our Diffent and Proteftation for the Reasons following. 1, Because this Refolution retains a Complaint, which, upon weighty Grounds, appearing in the Judgment of Parliament, and in the Pleadings in this Caule, as we humbly conceive, ought to be dismissed. 2dly, It is a very dangerous Precedent, and may be of ill Confequence to the Judicatory of this High Court, if not destructive thereunto, after above three and thirty Years to shake a Judgment made against an extrajudicial Decree of the Council-board in Ireland, grounded on a fuppofed parole Agreement pretended to be made four and fifty Years ago, and built upon a fingle Teftimony, various in itself, for Manors and Lands of Inheritance, of a great yearly Value, and wholly deftructive to the Family of a Vifcount of that Kingdom; and all this, after the faid Judgment fully executed, after Settlement of Marriage, for great and valuable Confiderations, made upon the Heirs Male of the Family for Support of the Honour to them descendable, and divers Leases and Contracts touching feveral Parts of the Estate, and a great Portion of the Sister paid, chargeable on the Premiffes, and great Debts of the Lord Chancellor Loftus ;. and Part thereof fold and other Part mortgaged; all which Transactions have been founded upon the said Judgment in Parliament, and the said Eftate quietly enjoyed under it ever fince. 3dly, Because it feems to us unreasonable, and very infecure for the Subject, that such a Judgment, upon the laft Refort, vacating a Decree, vicious both in Form and Matter, and making a full Settlement between the Parties, fhould, after moft of the Witneffes dead, and after thofe under whom the now Complainant claims, their Submiffion thereunto, and taking Benefit by the Execution thereof, and receiving fome thousands of Pounds thereupon, be drawn into Question, and the Merits of the Caufe reheard, much lefs, that new Matters should be admitted in a Caufe fo concluded. 4thly, We conceive the Plea of the Lord Loftus, upon the Matters aforefaid, to be good and valid in Law. 5thly, That to admit a Rehearfing can only tend to impoverish the Parties and increate Divifions between near Relations, which the Honour and Wisdom of this High Court ever endeavours to prevent. Anglesey, Shaftesbury, Carlisle, W. Widdrington, Vaughan Carberey, Bafil Denbigh. Die Jovis 27 Maii, 1675. A Meffage was brought from the House of Commons by Sir Thomas Lee and others, to this Effect, That the Houfe of Commons heretofore did defire a Conference touching their Privileges in the Cafe of Mr. Onflow, and their Lordships returned Anfwer, That their Lordships would fend an Answer by Meffengers of their own: The House of Commons looks upon this as a Cafe of great Confequence to the Privileges of their House; and therefore now defire a Conference concerning the Privileges of their Houfe in the Cafe of Mr. Onflow. The Lords enter'd into a ferious Debate of this Meffage, and a Paper was offer'd to the Houfe as an Answer to be returned to this Meffage. The faid Paper was read as follows: The Lords have confidered of their Meffage, and fhail be ever ready to grant the House of Commons a Conference in any thing which may concern the Privileges of their Houfe; but they find that the Defire of this Conference is upon the fame Ground with the former Meffage of the 21it Instant, which was upon the Answer fent by the Lords in the Cafe of Mr. Onflow of the 17th Instant, wherein the whole Cafe concerns the Judicature of the Lords, on which they can admit of no Debate, nor grant any Conference. The Question being put, whether the Anfwer which It was refolved in the Negative. Question, Queftion, thefe Lords following defired Leave to enter their Diffents, if the Question was carried in the Negative; which accordingly they did. Because they do humbly conceive this Queftion, being carried in the Negative, deprives this House of the Advantage of making ufe of that Anfwer to the House of Commons, which would have been the surest Way to have juftified and preserved the Right of the Lords of Judicature upon this Occafion. -Grey de Rollefione, Stamford, Mohun, Die Jovis 24° Novembris, 1675. The Lords in a Committee of the whole Houfe having debated upon appointing a Day for hearing the Appeal of Dr. Sherley against Sir John Fagg. And the Houfe being refumed, the Queftion was put, whether the 20th Day of this Inftant November fhall be the Day appointed for the hearing of the Cause between Dr. Thomas Sherley and Sir John Fagg. It was refolved in the Affirmative. Before the putting of the faid Queftion, Leave being demanded and given to fuch Lords as thought fit (if the fame were carried in the Affirmative) to enter their Proteftation and Diffent; accordingly this Proteftation is enter'd against the said Vote, for the Reafons following: ft, Because it feems contrary to the Ufe and Practice of this High Court (which gives Example to all other Courts) upon a bare Petition of the Plaintiff Dr. Sherley, in a Caufe depending laft Seffion, and difcontinued by Prorogation, to appoint a Day for hearing of the Caufe before the Defendant is fo much as fummoned, or appears in Court, or to be alive. 2dly, The Defendant, by the Rules of this Court, having Liberty upon Summons to make a new Answer, as Sir Jeremy Whitcbcott was admitted, after Summons, to do laft Seffion in Darrell's Cause against him, discontinued by Prorogation, or to mend his Anfwer, or to plead as he fhall fee Caufe, is deprived of this and other Benefits of Law, by appointing a Day of Hearing without thefe effential Forms. 3dly, It appears, by the Plaintiff's own fhewing in his Petition, Petition, that his Cafe against a Purchafer is not relieveable in Equity; and therefore ought to be difmifs'd without putting the Parties to a further Charge. 4thly, It appears, by his own fhewing, and the Defendant Sir John Fagg's Plea, that he comes hither per faltum, and ought to attend Judgment in the inferior Courts, if his Cafe is relievable, and not to appeal to the highest Court, till either Injustice is done him below, or erroneous Judgment given against him, and Relief denied him upon Review. 5thly, The Danger of this Precedent is fo universal, that it flakes all the Purchafers of England. Anglefey. It was moved, that this Houfe might make an humble Addrefs to his Majefty for the Diffolution of this Parliament; which being long and feriously debated, Contents 4148 Proxies 7 Not Cont. 342 Proxies 19550 The Question was put thereupon ? And, It was refolved in the Negative. We whofe Names are underwritten, Peers of this Realm, having propofed, That an humble Addrefs might be made to his Majefty from this Houfe, that he would be graciously pleased to diffolve this Parliament, and the Houfe having carried the Vote in the Negative; for the Juftification of our loyal Intentions towards his Majesty's Service, and of our true Respect and Deference to this Honourable Houfe, and to fhew that we have no finifter or indirect Ends in this our humble Proposal, do, with all Humility, herein fet forth the Grounds and Reasons why we were of Opinion that the said humble Addrefs fhould have been made. 1, We do humbly conceive, that it is according to the ancient Laws and Statutes of this Realm, that there fhould be frequent and new Parliaments, and that the Practice of feveral hundred Years hath been accordingly. 2dly, It feems not reasonable, that any particular Number of Men fhould, for many Years ingrofs fo great a Truft of the People, as to be their Reprefentatives in the Heufe of Commons, and that all other the Gentry, |