by sickness or other occasion As 50. E. 3. n. 35. it is said The King ordains That from thenceforth no Woman should for Maintenance pursue Matters in the Kings Courts upon pain c. And then was the King sick at Eltham and could not come to Parliament as appears by n. 42. and it was only the House of Peers that made that Order So in Judgments though in Ancient Times they were mostly entred as given by the King yet it was the Lords House which was Curia Regis that gave them For we must know the KING hath a double Capacity of sitting in the House of Peers a Legislative Capacity when he hath in himself a Negative Voice to what even both Houses have concluded and done which signifies nothing without his Assent and his single Dissent makes it all null and void This is in passing Acts of Parliament and making of Laws The other is a Judicial Capacity when he will please to assist and be present at the ordinary Transactions of the House as heretofore was usual which alters not the Constitution of it as it is a Court gives it no more Power nor Jurisdiction then it had before he being then but in a manner as Chief Judge and not doing any thing singly but according to the Plurality of Opinions As when the Kings would in Person sit in the Kings Bench which they have in former times done where still all is said to be done Coram Rege though now he never come there and in Our Memory King James hath set in the Star Chamber I think no body will say the Star-Chamber then or Kings Bench before did or could vary from their ordinary Forms and Rules of Proceeding No more can the House of Peers alter their Proceedings or assume greater Authority by reason of the Royal Presence to take Cognisance of other Causes or do any thing which by the Custome and Usage of the House and the Law of Parliament it could not else have done But their Jurisdiction and their way of exercising that Jurisdiction is still one and the same And therefore 26. H. 6. n. 52. When the King had given a Judgment of himself without the advice of the Lords in the Case of William de la Pool Duke of Suffolk who stood impeached for Ireason banishing him the Realm for five years The Lords entred their Protestation against it as not done by their Assent and so no Act of the House And 5. H. 4. n. II. The Earl of Northumberland coming into the Parliament before the King and Lords and by Petition acknowledging to have done contrary to his Allegiance in giving of Liveries and gathering of Power for which he prayed pardon in regard he yeelded himself and came in to the King at York upon his Letters And the King delivering this Petition to the Justices to be considered The Lords made their Protestation That the Judgment appertained only to them And therefore as Peers of Parliament to whom such Judgement belonged in weighing the Statutes concerning Treasons and concerning Liveries they adjudged the Fact of the said Earl to be no Treason nor Fellony but only a Trespass finable to the King Whereupon the King received him into Grace and pardoned him his Fine All Power of Judicature in Parliament is then questionless in the House of Lords where the King alwayes is Personally or Virtually and the Judgment proceeds from them by the Authority and in the Name of the King For the Power of Judicature in Parliament is lodged in them together with the King as is declared 1. H. 4. n. 80. where it is said That the Commons were only Petitioners and that all Judgments appertain to the King and the Lords unless it were in Statutes Grants Subsidies and such like This hath ever been the Practice and Custom and Law of Parliament since there have been Parliaments and when this shall cease to be the Ancient way of Free Parliaments will cease likewise 1. R. 2. n. 30. Sir John de Cobham sheweth That by the delivery of a Ring of Gold for seisin to Edward the third he had setled the Reversion of several Mannors there named in the Crown and now prayes it may so remain according to his Intention divers Lords are examined the Judges Opinions are asked who declare it to be a good Livery and Seisin And so it is setled N. 32. William Fitzhugh a Gold-finer and Citizen of London exhibits a Bill of Complaint in the Name of the Cōmonalty of that Mystery against John Chichester and John Bolsham of the same Mystery for divers Oppressions done by them The Lords send for them examine them they deny those Oppressions And Fitzhugh refusing then to avow his Bill the Lords commit him to the Tower N. 35. Rober Hawley and John Shakell are by the Lords sent to the Tower for refusing to bring forth a Spanish Prisoner taken in Battel whom they had in their keeping and others laid claim to N. 41. Alice Perrers 〈◊〉 Pierce who bad been much in favour with Ed. 3. is questioned in the Lords House Sir Richard Scroope Lord Steward of the Houshold managing the Tryal for that contrary to an Order made by the King and Lords 50. Ed. 3. n. 35. That no Woman and she by Name should pursue any Matters by way of Maintenance upon Pain of perpetual Banishment and loss of the whole Estate She notwithstanding had perswaded King Edward to countermand Sir Nicholas Dagworth from going into Ireland when he had been ordained by the Council to go thither for urgent business which would have been profitable for the King and the Realm And an other Charge against her was for perswading the King to pardon Richard Lyons who had been Farmer of the Customs and for abuses and extortions had been censured in Parliament to forfeit his Estate and be committed to Prison she got all to be remitted and his Estate to be restored unto him even that part of it which the King had given to two of his own Sons for their lives The hearing of this Cause took up several dayes Many that had been Counsellors and Officers to the late King were examined as Witnesses At last she is found guilty and Judgment of Banishment and loss of Estate given upon her 3. R. 2. n. 24. The Case of the Earl of Pembrock and William le Zouch complaining of Thomas Roos for sueing them concerning Lands in Yorkshire and endeavouring to get a Tryall in the Countrey the Record is Desitant D'estre a Lissue du pays trop suspecieusement his desiring it being suspicious so they pray Que Ils partels Malueis Compassements Procurements en pais ne soient desheritez That they may not loose their Inheritance by such wicked practises and procurements The Lords upon this retain the Cause appoint some Persons to examine and report it But this President hath been cited before at large so I do but touch it here N. 22. Sir Philip Darcy complains That the Prior of St.
Chanceler e ceux Ke tuchent Justices v ley veynent a Justices e ceux Ke tuchent Juerie veynent a Justices de le Juerie Et si les besoings seent si grans v si de graces Ke le Chanceler e ces autres ne le pussent fere sans le Rey dunk Ils les porterunt par lur meins de meine devant le Roy pur saver ent sa volentè Ensique nulle Peticion ne veigne devant le Roy e son Conseil fo rs par les majns des avaunt ditz Chanceler e les autres Chef Ministres Ensike le Rey e sun Consail pussent Sanz charge de autre busoignes entendre a grosses busoignes de sun Reaume e de ses Foreines Terres Thus in English In regard the People who come to the Kings Parliament are oft delayed and disturbed to the great grievance of themselves and of the Court by the multitude of Petitions exhibited before the King of which most could be dispatched by the Chancellor and Justices It is provided That all Petitions that concerne the Seal shall come first to the Chancellor and those that concerne the Exchequer to the Exchequer and those that concerne the Justices or the Law shall come to the Justices and those that concerne the Jewes to the Justices appointed for the Jewes And if the businesses be so great or so of Grace as the Chancellor and the rest can not end them without the King then they shall with their own hands bring them before the King to know his pleasure therein So as no Petition shall come to the King and his Counsel but brought by the Chancellor and those Chiefe Ministers that so the King and his Counsel may without the trouble of other busines attend the great businesses of his Kingdome and of his forrein Dominions This is the Order in which two reasons are expressed for their not receiving particular Petitions one in the beginning the other in the end First the ease of the Petitioners and of the House it self which for their multitudes could not give every one his dispatch and secondly that freed of them it might attend the Publick business of the Kingdome Not for want of Jurisdiction And yet be all manner of businesses so put by No! Great ones and such as need grace and favor are still reserved But take it at the strongest admit they had put all out of their own power yet it will be granted they had power till they did in this manner divest themselves of it It appears they had by the Order it self which mentions such multitudes of Petitions I then aske if such resolution of the House at that time could be binding to perpetuity The Houses of Parliament we know are masters of their own Orders and themselves when they please alter the Orders they have made much less then be they binding to succeeding Parliaments And it is obvious to every man who will either look into the Records of Ancient Parliaments or will but recollect his Memory and call to mind what hath passed in our late Parliaments that in all times the House of Peers hath acted contrary to this Order Taking Cognizanceeven of smaller matters which the ordinary Courts of Justice do every day dispatch And no House of Peers did ever do it less then this which in truth hath not done it at all though it be now so quarrelled with for having relieved one poor man from the oppression of the mighty when no inferior Court could do it And this too the only Cause of this Nature that they have medled with during this whole Parliament which hath lasted so many years and hath had so many Sessions And a Cause particularly recommended unto them by the King who is the Fountaine of all Justice not one taken up by themselves which makes not their Case the worse as it may well be hoped But suppose there had been no Reservation at all in that Order of 8 E. 1. of any Cause or any business but that the King and Lords had at that time bound up themselves absolutely from medling with any of those Petitioners Cases and for the Present waved the exercise of their Jurisdiction in all such matters had this been a Renouncing of their Jurisdiction and quitting it for ever No Court but may upon some particular occasion suspende and wave it's Jurisdiction it doth not therefore follow that it must never make use of it again The Court of Chancery doth sometimes appoint a Tryall at Law of points in a Cause which it might have determined it self if it had pleased And at an other time it will determine things of the same nature The House of Peers may do the same and wave their Jurisdiction when they please It did it 13 R. 2. N. 10. in Changeours Case Adam Changeour So is his Name in the Record though the Exact Abridgement call him John petitions the King and Lords against Sir Robert Knolls Setts forth how owing 2000 l to Sir Robert and his Wife Constance he had let him have Lands to receive the Rent till he was Satisfied his debt That Sir Robert had received more then his money due yet kept the Land so prayes remedy The Answer is indorsed upon the Petition Let a Writ be directed to Sir Robert Knolls to appear in Parliament the Friday after Candlemas next to Answer the things contained in the Petition Upon hearing the business the Lords leave it to be tryed at the Common Law This seemes a stronger President for trying all at Law and not in Parliament then any which the Gentlemen of the House of Commons urged at the Conference For here was an absolute dismission of the Cause and not ad praesens only as was in their Presidents But I believe such wise and knowing men could not but see that this President would not so much have helpt one way as done prejudice to their Case an other way The Prejudice it would have done had been this that themselves by their own shewing had overthrown one of their maine Arguments which was That all Proceedings in cases of Freehold should be by the Kings Writ and that no Writ was ever made Returnble Coram Dominis Spiritualibus et Temporalibus Whereas here had been in their own President mention of a Writ returnable in Parliament which is Tantamount and signifies the same thing But I have in this Discourse given Examples of several others in the same kind where Writs are issued by Order of Parliament returnable in Parliament and many more there are if it were necessary and worth the trouble to set them down And then what had they gotten by telling us That the Lords once would not retaine a Cause which was tryable at Law and would for once wave their Jurisdiction in such Matters When it was shewed to them by multitudes of Presidents That the Lords had most frequently done otherwise at other times in Cases of the same Nature And Presidents in the Affirmative are those that prove
formerly given by the Lords Temporal alone with the Kings Assent is fully ratified and confirmed Which is as strong an Argument to evince and prove the Right of Judicature lodged in that House as is possible And so I shall leave that Pamphleter and now conclude only adding this as mine own sense and wish concerning the Lords exercising this Judicature and in truth what hath been my Observation of their Lordships own Intention and Resolution which themselves have still declared and practised in their execution of it which is this First That though they have an undoubted Right to such an universal unlimited Power of taking cognisance of all Manner of Causes of what nature soever and of the Judging and Determining them if no particular Law do otherwise dispose of those Cases Secondly That their Ancestors have so exercised this Power in all times Ancient and Modern which conveys down that Right to them according to the Maxim usus Consuetudo est Lex Parlamenti what hath been alwayes used by Parliaments is the Law of Parliaments Thirdly That this House of Lords hath ever been careful not to entertain any business which was determinable in Inferior Courts so as charged with doing it they may well take up the Psalmists complaint and say They have laid to our charge things that we knew not and would have us restore what we took not away Though if the Lords had now taken upon them to exercise such an universal Power of Judicature they had medled but with their own that which belongs to them and had done no man wrong had given no just cause of complaint they had but troden in their Ancestors steps continued that in the House of Peers which it hath ever been possessed of And would it not be a shame for them to leave their Posterity in a lower and more curtalled condition then their Predecessors left them to give up a Right and a Priviledge oâ— theirs which as hath been shewed iâ— so necessary to the Publick Justicâ— of the Kingdom But they have noâ— done that which is said of them Anâ— there is no colour for any complaint Why then quarrel with them Why at this time stir a question which lay asleep and for ought we know had never awaked not had else ever been stirred Is this a time to divide to cause needless differences Were it not more desirable nay more necessary to reconcile affections to unite endeavours and to conjoyn the Counsels and Power and Authority of the two Houses of Parliament for composing the differences which already are rather then to create new and especially when no cause is given for it For it may be truly said Here is not Causa litigandi if there be not Animus litigandi Let it be calmly and coolely considered what the Lords have done if they have given any cause of difference if this Apple of Dissention grew with them which hath been maliciously cast in by some of the East India Company and too readily taken up by those whom they had surprised and abused by misinformations Their Lordships have now only done Right to a poor man that was oppressed to ruine by potent Adversaries who had done the wrong in a Forreign Countrey and so were no wayes punishable for it here in the ordinary Course of Law nor the poor man any wayes relievable for no part of his Case as hath been shewed was within the Compass of the Common Law Their new devise of a Fiction which is in truth meerly a Fiction in the whole of it without any real foundation in Law Reason or good Conscience as being grounded upon a falshood and yet this Fiction I say such as it is not applicable to Trespasses so as here had been an absolute Failer of Justice if the Lords had not undertaken it And they undertaking it also not of themselves as making it their own Act but upon the Kings earnest Recommendation when his Majesty and Counsel had in vain spent some years in endeavouring to perswade those severe Adversaries of this poor man to make him some reasonable Reparation and they would not Fourthly And notwithstanding all this that their Lordships should be quarrelled with decried misrepresented by Offenders whom they had before them and that even before they had determined any thing concerning them yet the Petition of those Offenders full of Falsities not onely to be received which under Correction and with great respect be it spoken of them who did receive it was a Manifest Breach of Priviledge but to be believed and Votes to be passed thereupon That the Lords had done that which was not agreeable to Law and which tended to deprive the Subject of the benefit of the Law Fifthly Though these things might well provoke their Lordships to vindicate themselves not only by asserting their Right to so great and extensive a Power which they have done upon good grounds and with evincing Argaments but even employing and exercising it in its full latitude And the same Maxim would justifie them in their so doing which the Poet brought to justifie Caesar in his vast undertakings when the Senate by denying him his just demands gave him the occasion and the boldness to make himself Master of all take that which was denied him and all the rest which happily he had else never attempted the Maxim is Omnia dat qui justa negat So quarrelling with the Lords now upon so unjust a ground and denying them such an apparent Right as they had to give Relief to Skinner would plead their excuse to all the World if they should extend their Power as far as their Ancestors ever did But we will hope better things from them and that as the Apostle saith their Moderation shall appear to all men and that no ill usage will make them depart from their resolution of not interposing their Power where the Law can give a remedy nor entertaining any Cause which is properly determinable in Inferior Courts For that certainly however it might be Lawful would not be expedient and good men will onely do that which is expedient as being that which is most acceptable to God and most beneficial to men which Parliaments will I hope ever do It shall be my Prayer they may to which I am sure all good people will say Amen FINIS
from the Ships worth and other particulars in a Schedule would have rendred alone above 20000 l sterling yearly Yet I submit that and my whole Sufferings and Concerns to your Lordships Determination in hopes That if I do not receive an adequate Recompence yet I shall by his Majesties Grace and your Lordships direction be enabled by the restoring of my Island Barella in India to reap a future benefit without the East India Companies further molestation or interruption His Majesties late Charter granted the third of April 1661. prohibiting the Company expresly to undertake any thing against any Christian Colonie setled in India before the date thereof October the 6. 1666. Signed Thomas Skinner THe Lords Referrees finding this vast disproportion between the demands and Pretences of the Petitioner and the real loss and damage which he had sustained and the Offers on the other Side of the Company for his Reparation and Satisfaction and seeing no possibility of reconciling them though much pains had been taken in endeavouring it at last resolved to report it back to the King and Councel and made their Report as followeth IN pursuance of his Majesties Order in Councel dated the three and twentieth of March last we have treated with the Governor and Company of Merchants trading into the East Indies and have heard the Councel both of the said Company and Thomas Skinner Complainant in the disquisition whereof we found the said Thomas Skinner to have suffered much wrong by the said Company and their Agents and therefore endeavoured to perswade the said Company to give satisfaction to the Petitioner but there being a great difference between the Petitioners Demands of Reparation for Damages and the Companies Offer towards the same our Mediation proved ineffectual therein As to the Island of Barella in the East-Indies claimed by the said Thomas Skinner We conceive that he ought to enjoy the same and from thence to trade into any part of the world except into England Given under Our Hands the sixth day of December 1666. Signed Gilb. Cant. Clarendon C. J. Roberts Ashley HIs Majestie upon this finding the East-India Company would be brought to no reason thought fit to recommend the business to the House of Peers to do the Petitioner Justice according to the merits of his Cause which Message was brought to the House the 19. of January 1666 by the Lord Privy Seal and all the Proceedings in Councel transmitted thither and withall a Petition from Skinner himself was presented to them setting forth the wrongs done to him by the East-India Company The House of Peers thus possessed of this business Order a Copy of Skinners Petition to be given to the Governor and Company and they to bring in their Answer to it upon Friday the 28 of January They accordingly bring in for Answer a Plea to the Jurisdiction of the House of Lords and say That the Petition is in the Nature of an Original complaint not brought by way of Appeal Bill of Review or Writ of Error nor intermixed with Priviledge of Parliament nor having Reference to any Judgement of that Court therefore offer If it will please to take any further Cognizance of that Cause And then plead over and say That the Company was incorporated by several Charters in the Reignes of Queen Elizabeth and King James and likewise by a Charter from Oliver which excluded all others not Members of the Corporation from trading in any part of the East-Indies within the limits of the said Charter and that therefore if any such Injuries were done it was by vertue of the Charter and whether Criminal or Civil they were for ever released and discharged by the Act of Oblivion The Lords upon debate of this Plea well knowing their own Right to retain even Original causes when accompanied with such Circumstances as this then before them had A poor man oppressed by potent Adversaries by a rich and numerous Society where there was a Peer of the Realm the Lord Berckley of Berckley Gentlemen of great Estates very many wealthy Merchants incorporated in one body driving on a great trade in the Indies with one joynt stock resolved to imploy that whole stock for the destruction of any man that should presume but to touch upon that trade without their leaves which was this poor mans Case in a time when he had been encouraged thereunto by a general Liberty then taken to trade in that Country who after the spoyle of his goods and Plantation there to save his life they having beset his passage by Sea was glad to expose himself to the hazard and charge of a Journey of many thousand Miles over Land to return into England that he might here endeavor to get some reparation for all those losses which that Company with their great purse and power opposed and had already made him spend that little Estate he had left and seven years attendance to prosecute that reparation without any fruite So as to go to Law with them and abide all the delayes and formalities even of the ordinary Proceedings at Law much less what such Adversaries would have raised to him he was no waies able The Lords I say knowing all this and that what was pretended of the Indemnity by the Act of Oblivion was of no validity that Act not at all intended for things of this nature betwixt party and party not relating to the Warr made no difficulty to over-rule their Plea and enter into the disquisition of the Fact and to do the poor man Justice and give Releife if they found cause for it as a work worthy of them much conducing to the administration of the publick Justice of the Kingdome and most agreable to the constant practice of that House from the very beginning of Parliaments Wherefore they appointed Tuesday the 24 of January for the Counsel of both sides to be heard at the Barr. But such art was used so many delayes cast in by the Company and their Counsel as the cause could not be brought to hearing during all that Session of Parliament At the next meeting of the Parliament in the year 1667. Skinner renued his suit and presented a Petition the 30. day of October In haec verba TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE c. The Humble Petition c. THat in the year 1657. Private Trade being open in the East-Indies the Petitioner set forth his ship Thomas on a trading voyage to the said Indies where being arrived in 1658 he possessed himself of a Ware-house on the River side of Jamby on which his ship rode wherein he put a great part of his goods and also had a house at Jamby and goods therein and purchased of the King of Jamby the Island of Barella and built a house for habitation and had contracted for planting of Pepper and other Commodities thereon That in May 1659. the Agents of the Governour and the Company of Merchants of London trading into the East-Indies by direction of the said Governour
any body else perhaps I say even some of them should they prevail now may hereafter repent it and wish they had not removed an Ancient Land Mark which heretofore was in Veneration and looked upon as that which bounds both power and Liberty and is a guard to both by keeping both within their due limits and hath ever been held most necessary to the Constitution the Government of this Kingdome for the Preservation of it and as servicable to Monarchy for the keeping up of Regal Dignity and Authority as usefull to the subject for the maintaining of his just Liberty and Freedome But let us go on with the Conference and see what was said by the Lords to the Presidents cited by the Commons To the first of John de Insula against the Bishop of Winchester the Lords said it was no dismission of the Bishop for want of Jurisdiction for then it would not have been said Eat inde ad praesens but rather ad perpetuum This is but a Temporary dismission no more but as if they had said Well the Bishop saith he was seised of that advowson in Right of his Church Let the King for whom John de Insula prosecutes take his Writ out of the Chancery and try for that And for the Ejection Complained of let that be tryed by a Jury of the Country and see if things can be so ended If not come again then and we will hear you But for the Present we dismiss you So the Lords concluded That this President made nothing against their Jurisdiction To the 2d of Hugh de Louther and the Heire of Edelyngthorp upon which the Commons did so much insist and particularly upon the expression Nec est Juri Consonum nec hactenus in ista Curia usitatum c. The Lords said That neither this President well examined would make much against them For that Adam concerning whom and upon whose occasion that was said was not at all before the Lords as a Partie in the Cause before them but came in of himself unsent for unlooked for layes in a claime which the Lords of that Parliament had not heard of before nor did at all then question So as it cannot be said that there was any dismission of him or of his business But the Lords say Let him pursue and recover his Land by a Writ out of the Chancery if he will and that he sees it convenient for him si sibi Viderit expedire and they go on to determine the business which was before them The Case was thus Thomas de Normanvil an Escheator had order concerning Hugh de Louther for certain Lands then in his Possession which had been seised into the Kings hands as held of him in Capite formerly by Henry de Edelyngthorp to whom one Eston had granted them and to the Heirs of his body lawfully begotten and having none to returne to Eston under whom now Louther claimed The order was That Louther should give Pledge to come and Answer at that Parliament for the profits of those Lands to the King Louther comes as he was bound and at the same time one Adam comes also pretends himself to be Son and Heire to Edelyngthorp and demands the Land Louther said he is a Bastard and the Lands belong not to him And the Lords they say they have nothing to do with him let him sue for his Land where he thinks best and so send him away But Louther they adjudge to do his homage and to be Answerable to the King for the Rent And for the Title of the Land What do they do they let it alone and meddle no more with it as a thing not at all within their Cognizance or Jurisdistion Nothing less They Command the Escheator Normanvil to make enquiry upon Oath if Edelyngthorp had any Heire lawfully begotten who he was and upon what Title he claimed and to give on account of it at the next Parliament Ita quod idem Escaetor ad proximum Parlamentum post Festum Sancti Michaelis Domino Regi distinctè et apertè inde respondeat So as the Lords then were farr from thinking they must not meddle with such things And for that expression of Non est consonum c. rendred as the ground of that Judgment of dismission First it is answered it was no Judgment at all not only of dismission for Adam was no party in the Cause Then it is no part of the Judgment if there were a Judgment but precedes it The Judgment such as it is or rather the Answer to Adams demand followes in these words Dictum est praedicto Adae quod sibi perquirat per Breve de Cancellaria si sibi viderit expedire So as the preceding words may perhaps have been but inserted by the Clerk that entred the Order But take it at the strongest Admit that the Lords then present in the House had inserted those words as their sence at that time Is that binding to the House that it may not be of an other opinion at an other time In that very Parliament of 18 E. 1. How many times have they been of an other mind How many examples are there of Particular Causes Judged and determined by them And shall one Swallow make a Summer one single President overballance multitudes of Presidents to the Contrary In the last place it was said That this President did not Quadrare sure with this present Case of Skinners fort at was meerely concerning a Liberum Tenementum and within the Realm where the Law had free Course here is Rapine Oppression Spoiling of goods dispossessing one of an Island in Fortein parts extra potestatem Legis assaulting the Person of a fellow Subject a violent Interruption of the trade and commerce of the Nation Which concernes the Government of the Kingdome is a matter of State and highly entrenches upon the Authority of the King which will suffer much if he suffer one subject to exercise a Tyrannicall Dominion over an other though in an other Country And is against the profit of the King which is much concerned That no violence be used in the management of trade to bring a Scandal upon the Nation make it stinke in Forrein parts that none will have to do with us which must needs become the ruine of our trade and so of all His Customes If one Merchant do that which is prejudicial to an other or to a Company let them Complain of him to the King who will command him home and punish him And if he will not come for that may be objected being so farr off out of reach then the King will give them leave that are wronged and grieved by him to right themselves But that they should do it of themselves and in their own Case be Judges Witnesses and Executioners against all reason and Justice So the Lords were not at all convinced with this President neither but still thought they had done very well in Censuring the East-India Company for
their Misdemeanors and wrongs done to Skinner and in adjudging them to give Skinner Reparation for it The 3d President was that of william de Valentia and Isabell de Mareschal in which the Lords observed the dismission to have been only ad proesens But withall observed that the bare reading of the Case in the Book will satisfy one of the Jurisdiction of the Peers to retaine such Causes It sayes That William de Valentia had at the fore going Parliament been Ad querelas Isabellae le Mareschall allocutus et ad rationem positus impleaded and put to Answer by what right he assumed such an Office and such Power in the Hundred of Hosterelegh and that he then alleged he did it in the Right of his Wife and that it being his Wifes Inheritance he ought not to be put to answere without her Ita quod datus fuit dies ei ad hunc diem ad Parlamentum Domini Regis viz. a die Paschae in ires Septimanas And then his Wife and he appeared by their Atturney and after pleadings The Judgment is Quia praedicti Willielmus Et Johanna sunt in seisina de praedicta Jurisdictione et de Haeredicate ipsius Johannae per descensum haereditarium et non per Usurpationem seu Purpresturam c. Consideratum est quod eant inde sine die quoad praesens Et Dominus Rex habeat Breve si voluerit c. The Lords knew they had Jurisdiction else they would have dismissed the Cause the Parliament before and not have adjourned it to the next Parliament upon that ground to make the Wife a Party as we see they did And whereas the Commons had upon this President observed that if there had been Crime in the Case as Usurpation or Purpresture then they acknowledged that in such Cases the House of Lords did usually proceed and try them but withall added That if that were the question much might be said how the Constitution of Government hath been since altered So as they soon retracted their admittance of but so much of the Lords Right and what they had given with their right hand they would soon take again with their left But first for their Concession of Judging Crime the Lords say that suffices for their Jndemnity as to what they have done in this particular Case of the East-India Company and Skinner for here is Crime sufficient and Usurpation and Purpresture taking them in the larger sence for invading any other mans Right and not only where the King is concerned as those termes are taken some times And then for the Qualification of their Gift upon the Change and alteration of the Government The Lords Answer That when they shew the Time when that alteration was made and the Persons by whom and the Manner how if Legally done they shal then believe submit and not till then But they never heard of any thing that till now so much as looked that way except that Vote of the Assembly called the Rump which declared the House of Lords useless and dangerous and therefore to be abolished and taken away and by a Clubb Law they did take it away But even they that passed that Vote and did make that Clubb Law thought the Judicature necessary and fit to be continued for they immediatly assumed it to themselves and fairely voted themselves into that Power by the Name of the Commons of England the very same Title that the East-India Company do now make use of in their Petition to the House of Commons To the 4th of Roger de Somerion prosecuting for the King and complaining of the Prior of Buttele for unjustly withholding from the King the mannor of Somerton And the Judgment upon it Ideo praedictus Priot quo ad hoc eat inde sine die ad praesens The Lords say it is but a Temporary dismission as the others were and signifies nothing as to the point of Jurisdiction And they wish the Commons would have pleased to cast their eye upon the ensuing Case in the same leafe of William de Valentia again and of him upon the same occasion concerning his Wifes Inheritance as formerly where there is not a Dismission of the Cause as formerly but a determination of it and that determination again referred unto and confirmed by a suceeding Parliament to shew that the House of Lords sometimes would and sometimes would not Judge and determine such causes as were brought before them That Case was thus William de Valentia Complaines of the Lords of the Counsel for admitting during the Kings absence beyond the Seas one Dionisia a pretended Daughter of William de Monte Caniso Tenant to the King of Lands held in Capite and formerly enjoyed by her Father in his life time Whereas his Wife was true Heire to that William and the Land belonging to her The Lords of the Councel justifie what they have done say that Dionisia was notoriously known to be the true Daughter of that William and that the Bishop of Winchester in whose Diocess she was born testified it The Judgment is Ideo videtur domino Regi quod praedictus Comes Thesaurar Alij de Consilio bene et rité processerunt It is not now sibi perquirat per Breve de Cancel They do not referr him to the Chancery as they did in the other Case This was in 18 E. 1. In 20 E. 1. p. 103. he comes again to Parliament and renues his Complaint and that Judgment given before is confirmed the words are these et de alijs Petitionibus suis viz. De hoereditate Willielmi de Monte Caniso petenda et etiam quod procedatur juxta Bullam quam jidem Williemus et Johanna impetrarunt ad inficiendum Processum perquod Dionisia filia proedicti Willielmi Legitima censebatur alias eis responsum fuit viz. in Parliamento post Natale Domini Anno 18. ut patet in Rotulis ejusdem Parliamenti Ad quam Responsionem se teneant c. Nothing can be clearer then the continual practice of this Jurisdiction in the House of Lords whensoever they pleased Not that it hath alwaies pleased them to trouble themselves with exercising this Jurisdiction their time having been so taken up some times with businesses of a higher Nature that they could not attend it so as many times they have tyed up themselvesby an Order of the House not to receive any private business As in the Close Roll 18 E. 1. There is a memorable Order to that purpose I will set it down at length in the very words which are these Pur ces Ke la gent Ke venent al Parlement le Roy sunt sovent destaez et destourbez a grant grevance de eux e de la Curt par la multitudine des Peticions Ke sunt botez devant le Roy de quevx le plus porreient estre espleytez par Chanceler et par Justices purveu est Ke tutes les Petitions Ke tuchent le sel vegnent primes al
a jurisdiction especially when many in number are produced and some of all times and in every Kings Reign of which the Records can be had which shewes a Continuance of and so an unquestionable Right to such a power One or two or twenty then in the Negative that the Lords did not do so in such and such Cases Nay I say more were the Number equall as many in the Negative as in the Affirmative yet it could not disprove their Jurisdiction It would only shew that their Lordships were free Agents to do it or not do it as they saw Cause But their Jurisdict on remained still enure to do it whensoever they would And when all is done I may say all this is Nihil ad rem and concernes not the point in question which is If the Lords have done well or ill in relieving Skinner against the East-India Company for he was not relievable aâ— the Common Law as hath been shewed And if he had not been relieved there had been a failer of Justice So as there was a necessity of their Lordships acting in that particular to keep up the publick Justice of the Kingdome And all Presidents and all that can be said and urged to shew that the House of Peers ought not to meddle with matters determinable at Law are in truth out of doors and can not concerne this House of Peers which never did it but the contrary For whensoever it appeared that any business before them was proper to be tryed at Law they presently dismissed it Yet since their Right is questioned they must defend it though they gave no Occasion for it having not at all put that Right in execution nor as it may well be presumed by their proceeding hereto ever intending it As to the 6 other Presidents oâ— Petitions Answered in the Parliament of the 14 of E. 2. which the Gentlemen of the House of Commons themselves seemed not to lay so much weight upon The Lords thought they did wisely in it for they were not such as would bear weight to build upon The Lords of that Parliament according to the several natures of the businesses Petitioned for dismissed the Petitioners with several directions Which shewes they took Cognizance of those matters One was directed to take out his Writ novaedisseisinae and an other to bring his action of Trespass the third they send to the Common Law the fourth into the Chancery the fifth they Order to bring his action of debt the sixth who complained of several things to him they gave particular Answers and particular Directions to every point One of which they said pertained not to the King that is to his Laws so they could give no Order in it it was concerning the Resignation of a living which was to be tryed by the Laws of the Church For the other points they disposed them into their proper Channells Was this to be done by a Court that had no Jurisdiction in these matters No rational man can think so But it would be considered that in this Case of Skinners the Lords could give none of those Answers neither sibi perquir at per Breve de Cancellaria not Sequatur ad Legem Communem or tobring this or the other Action For neither Law nor Equity in the Ordinary way of the Inferior Courts could relieve him for the loss of his real Estate in the Indies the Judges said he was not relievable for his House and Island So as none of those Presidents are applicable to the point in question Not that the Law even in the ordinary execution of it provides not for the punishment of all Crimes It declares against and condemns the Fact but can not reach the person to punish him when he hath committed that Fact in a Forrein Country Ubi lex Angliae non currit And the House of Peers hath but helpt the Law to inflict such punishment upon Offenders as by the Law was due to them which otherwise they had escaped And were it but this it sufficiently justifies the Proceedings of the Lords in that particular Case Then as to the Jurisdiction of that House in the generall it will be made as apparent as the Sun at Noone how they have in all times exercised it to the relief of all persons who stood in need of their relief even for things done within the Kingdome Where the Law had provided a remedy they applyed it Some times themselves would take the pains in Cases that deserved it where there was some thing extraordinary to move them to it and when they were at leisure from the more weighty and important Affaires of the Kingdom Some times they would send it down to the Inferior Courts to do it for them and give them Authority for it which they could not have done if they had not had it themselves for Nemo dat id quod non habet as in the Case of certaine Rioters 11 H. 4. N. 38. in the Exact Abridgement Whom they turned over to the Kings Bench and gave those Judges Authority to the end the busines where the Law had not provided there they would not meddle themselves and declared it so That none else neither should presume to meddle As upon the Petition of Martin Chamberlain in that 14 E. 2. p. 409. Who upon the suppression of the Knights Templers desired to be put into the possession of a mannor which the Templers whilest they stood had held of him The Answer is Quod non est Lex ordinata there was no Law ordained in the Case And because the Law had not determined how those Lands should be disposed of the Lords would say nothing to it But will it not be said that this makes good what the Commons objected against the Lords retaining this Cause of Skinners because some parts of it were not determinable in Westminster-Hall Whereas there being no Law concerning those points till there had been one made their Lordships should not have meddled with them As the Lords in that Parliament of E. 2. would do nothing in Chamberlains Case because the Law had not provided for it And as in those two Cases mentioned by the House of Commons That of an Inheritrix Forfeiting by her husbands default where as the Statute of Westminster the second expressed it a Durum est was in the Case And that of the Hospitall of St. Leonards 2 H. 6. N. 37. which had a clear Right to a Corn Rent Yet the Lords could not relieve them but both were faine to have Acts of Parliament This receives a twofold Answer One That there are other Motives in this Case to make the Lords retain it and give Skinner Relief Here is a poor man oppressed by a rich Company with whom he was no waies able to wage Law And that Consideration hath in all times prevailed with that House which is composed of Persons of generous and noble Spirits who can not see poor men oppressed without feeling in their hearts an Inclination and
a desire to relieve them But secondly we must distinguish between a Fact not being a Crime in the eye of the Law which is neither Malum in se nor Malum prohibitum and when the Fact it self being odious and punishable by all Laws of God and Man only a Circumstance as the Place where it was Committe dputs it out of the Power of the ordinary Courts of Justice to take Cognizance of it which are kept to formes and may not trangresse them In the first Case the House of Lords can not punish that for a Crime which the Law doth not make a a Crime but in the second Case God forbid there should be such a failer of Justice in a Kingdome that fellow subjects should robb and worry and destroy one an other though in Forrein parts and there should be no punishment for the wrong doer nor Relief for the party wronged when they come home For then the King might be deprived of many a good subject the Land loose many of her people Trading receive much prejudice and so King and Kingdome suffer great loss and all without remedy But then say the House of Commons Where the Law hath provided and there is an ordinary remedy an extraordinary ought not to be tryed to this the Lords Answer that their House is not an extraordinary remedy but the ordinary remedy in extraordinary Cases and this of Skinners was so both in point of difficulty and point of Compassion And to what is said That it is the Interest of all men in England to be tryed by Juries and there is remedy against willful Juries by Attaint but here is no remedy nor no Appeal It is Answered That the Court of Chancery disposeth of mens Estates without a Jury Every Court of Justice Every Judge in his Circuit sets Fines on mens heads upon several occasions without a Jury Many are tryed for their lives and their Liberties which is more then Estate in the House of Peers upon an impeachment of the House of Commons who are not a Jury nor are sworn therefore that Assertion holds not That all men in all cases are tryed by Juries And for matters of Appeal there doth lye one to the next Parliament or the next Session But it will be said That is to the same Persons And what hopes of any remedy For they wil make good their own Act To this is Answered It is what the Law of the Land hath established We must not be wiser then the Law It is what our Ancestors thought sufficient what hath been the practice of all time And if we leave Posterity in as good a Condition as our Ancestors left us they will have no Cause to Complain Then we must presume that Courts of Justice will do Justice and will do Right that upon better reason shewed upon the Appeal they will alter their minds and give an other Judgement They have done so heretofore How many Judgements of Parliament have been reversed by succeeding Parliaments And where there is Cause for it we must hope they will do so again Then where as it is said That the greatness of the Charge and the Inconveniencies of attending Causes in the Lords House is an Argument against their Judicature They Answer That it is not the House of Lords that appoints such great Fees to Counsel it being left to their Consciences that take them and to the will and discretion of their Clients who give them and who without an Act of Parliament to restraine it may give what they will or rather what they must However The Lords say that the charge in Chancery is greater there having been some times forty fifty Orders made in one Cause and the delay much greater so as some Causes have lasted there very many years And even at the Common Law how many Verdicts have been given in one Cause contrary Verdicts one for the Plaintiff an other for the Defendant Contrary Rules of Court the Judges give a Rule one day and three daies after give an other clean contrary As an Instance of it can be given but of last Trinity Term in the Kings Bench. These are Inconveniences that lye not in the House of Peers But admit there were Inconveniences Many Laws are found inconvenient which yet are put in execution and all obedience given to them whilest they stand unrepealed And the Question is not now of Convenient or Inconvenient but matter of Right Is it the Right of the House of Peers hath it still been the Custome and Usage of Parliaments and consequently the Law of Parliament that they should exercise such a Power of Judicature If it be so as it is and will be sufficiently proved then the point of Conveniency or Inconveniency is out of doors Well may it be a motive to alter it by the Law But we will play with them at their own Weapon and joyn Issue upon that point that the Inconveniency is but imaginary and so farr from an Inconvenience that it is the great advantage of the subject that it should be so As well to give relief in Cases otherwise unrelievable as to assist and help on the administration of Justice when sometimes the greatness and power of some persons would else bear down or much obstruct and hinder the Proceedings of Inferior Courts An objection also was raised How shall the Lords Judgements be executed after the Rising of the Parliament For so the subject may be deceived And when he thinks that with much Charge he hath made an end of his business he is never the nearer And it is Answered that the House of Peers is not as the House of Commons whose Orders are only of force whilest they are sitting they have power sufficient to require Obedience to their Judgements Nor hath it been knowen that ever any Judgement of the House of Peers was not submitted unto and obeyed till now in this Case of Skinners that the East-India Company stands out in defiance and refuseth all Obedience to it In 15 R. 2. N. 17. in the Case of the Abbot of St Oseches complaining against John Rokell for divers Embraceries and for not obeying an Order of the Duke of Lancasters made therein the Lords Confirme that Order and charge the Lord Chancellor to see Rokell perform it Why may not the Lords do the same still if they doubt of Obedience to their Orders But there was never question made of it before And there are many Presidents of Orders given to persons to act some thing in the Intervalls of Parliaments to give an account of it to the Lords at the next ensueing Parliament which shewes that their Authority stil continues to empower those persons to act and to execute their Orders even when the Parliament is risen 15 E. 3. N. 48. The Bishops of Duresme and Salisbury the Earl of Northamton Warwick Arundell and Salisbury are appointed to take the Answer of the Archbishop of Canterbury and to report it to the next Parliament And 51 E.
then Per Legem Terrae is all one with Per Legem Angliae or secundum Legem et Consuetudinem Angliae and what ever is done secundum Legem Angliae is done Per Legem Terrae And in his 1 Inst l. 1. c. 1. Sect. 3. He tells us what Lex Angliae is he saith there are divers Laws within the Realme of England and reckons them up Lex et Consuetudo Parliamenti is in the front of them He names many more the Civil Law by which the Court of Constable and Marshall and the Court of Admiralty and Ecclesiastical Courts do act the Law of War for the Court Martiall to act by the Law of Merchants the law of Stanneries Particular Customes in several places of the Kingdome Statute Lawes established by Authority of Parliament Whoever and whatever is tryed by any of these Laws be it for life Lands or goods it is still according to Magna Charta and though not Per Judicium Parium yet Per Legem Terrae The Law and Custome of Parliament is one of these and the Lords now acting agreeably to that act agreably to Magna Charta and that they have acted so is I think sufficiently proved all ready and will be further hereafter when we shew you Presidents for it from the beginning of Parliaments So for the other Statutes of the 25 of E. 3. c. 4. and the 42. c. 3. They do not at all concerne the House of Peers and were made only to prevent Vexation by Petitions and false accusations before the King and his Privy Counsel as appeares by the Preambles of those Statutes Though the Gentlemen of the House of Commons who managed the Conference were pleased to give them an other Interpretation and to say that the Petitions and suggestions to the King or his Counsel which are condemned by those Statutes are to be understood of those brought to the King and House of Lords But can it be rationally believed That the House of Peers of those times should themselves make so many Lawes pass so many Acts of Parliament five in the space of 17 years the 25 of E. 3. c. 4. the 28 c. 3. the 37 c. 18. the 38 c. 9. the 42 c. 3. all of them prohibiting that any man should be apprehended imprisoned or disinherited upon an accusation or suggestion to the King or his Counsel and enjoyning all Proceedings to be by Original Writ or by Inditement or by Presentment of good and lawfull People of the Neighbourhood And they know themselves to be intended by those Acts and yet still should act contrary to them judge and determine so many Causes both Criminal and Civil as they did from time to time Nay can it be believed That the House of Commons in those daies would bring up Impeachments against men to have them tryed at the Lords Barr if they did then conceive that those Acts of Parliament did forbid the Lords to meddle For though the Commons House are sometimes called the Grand Inquest of the Kingdome to present the Grievances thereof it is presumed they will not say that their Presentment is the Presentment intended by those Statutes For the Presentment mentioned there is the very description and true Character of your Country Juries The words of the Statute are The Presentment of good and lawful people of the same neighbourhood where such Deeds be done And can any man think that this is to be understood of the House of Commons No certainly What then is it that makes the Lords Proceedings upon the Impeachments of the Commons to be Legal and not contrary to those Acts of Parliament Since there is neither Writ nor Inditement nor Presentment and yet men are brought to tryal condemned and executed by their Judgements but only this that it is the Common Law of the Land being the Ancient unquestioned and undoubted Law and Usage of Parliaments And thereby is there a clear demonstration of the true meaning of those Statutes that it was the Regulation of the Kings Privy Counsel they aimed at and not of the House of Lords that Counsel of which Sir John Lee was one in that 42 of E. 3. n. 23. who was tryed and censured by that very Parliament in which that Act was made One of the Articles against him was That being of the Kings Counsel and Steward of his House be caused sundry men to be attached and and brought before him and made them answer singly to him as if it had been to the body of the Counsel He was fined for it and committed to the Tower The Lords John Nevil was likewise of this Counsel for misbehaving himself in it Judgment of Imprisonment and loss of Lands goods and Office was given upon him 50 E. 3 n. 34. And in the same Parliament n. 18. The Lord Latimer was accused for divers miscarriages being a Counsellor and for them he was by the Bishops and Lords committed to the keeping of the Marshall of England and adjudged to make Fine and Ransome at the Kings pleasure It is true he was enlarged presently by the Earl Marshall one Arch-Bishop three Bishops the Prior of St. John three Earls fifteen Barons and thirteen Knights being his Manucaptors but the Commons desired further that he might be no longer of the Kings Counsel which was granted And this was not to put him out of the Lords House for he continued still a Member there and had his Writ of Summons to come to the next Parliament in the 51 th year of that King There is nothing more clear then that those Statutes are all to be understood to mean the Privy Counsel and so did the two Houses of Parliament interpret them 3 Car. in their Petition of Right where the expression is That against the tenor of those Statutes divers were detained by his Majesties special command certified by the Lords of the Privy Counsel and one may bodly affirme that never any Statute or Act of Parliament did term the House of Lords the Kings Counsel So that Article of Magna Charta urged likewise at the Conference Communia Placita non sequantur nostram Curiam concernes not them neither It was to fix the Court of Common Pleas which as all other Courts was before that Ambulatory and followed the King where ever he was if he was in the Kingdome and the Writs were made returnable Coram nobis ubicunque fuerimus which was a great Grievance to the subject and cause of many discontinuances in sutes The following words clear it Sed teneantur in aliquo certo loco Now the place of the meeting of the Parliament was alwaies certainly known being expressed in the Writ of Summons which shewes it was not meant for them And whereas it was said That in Cases of Freehold there is no Proceeding without an Original Writ Scarse any that walkes Westminster-Hall but knows the contrary and the Course of Proceeding to be so fart otherwise as that not one Tryal for Land of forty comes on upon
Pasch le Conseil qil moy averont donnez et fray envers vous ceque fere deveray Sir I am your liege man for the Kingdome of Scotland and do pray that as to what you have proposed unto me which concernes the People of my Kingdome as well as my self you will have patience till I can speak with them that I be not surprised for want of Counsel seeing those who are here with me will not nor dare not give me their advice without the rest of the Kingdome And when I shall have advised with them I shall give you for Answer at your first Parliament after Easter that which they shall counsel me and shall do unto you that which I ought to do This request of his did King Edward grant the Record saith Et Dominus Rex habito super hoc Consilio ad Rogatum praedictum praedicti Regis Scotiae et etiam ad Instantiam Procerum et Magnatum de Consilio suo et Gratia sua speciali et similiter de Consensu praedicti Magdulphi concessit ipsi Regi Scotiae supplicationem suam et diem ei dedit ad Parliamentum suum post Pascha viz. in Crastino Sanctae Trinitatis c in omnibus in eodem statu quo nunc Idem dies datus est praefato Magdulpho Et per ipsum dominum Regem dictum est praefato Regi Scotiae et injunctum quod habeat ad praefatum terminum praedicta Brevia quae cognovit se recepisse ut supra dictum est He must not forget to bring the Writs with him 1 R. 2. n. 29. A Scire facias is awarded against the Earl of March to appear before the Lords at the next Parliament and to abide further Order And 2 R. 2. n. 33. the Sheriff of Shropshire makes his return that the same Earl was not found in his Bayliwick it seemes he was dead for there was then an other Scire facias ordered to warne his Son who was then Earl to be and Answer at the next Parliament after 13 R. 2. n. 12. Upon a complaint of the Bishop and Dean and Chapter of Lincolne against the Mayor and Townesmen for some wrongs done them in Execution of their Charter by order of Parliament a Writ was directed to the Mayor and Bayliffs of the Town to appear at a certain day before the Lords with Authority from their commonalty for abiding their Lordships determination they appear but not coming with full Power they are adjudged in Contempt By the same Parliament such a Writ is directed likewise to the Mayor and Bayliffs of Cambridge upon 〈◊〉 Petition and Complaint from the Vice-Chancellor and Scholars and they run the like fortune to be adjudged in Contempt for the like cause So then there are Writs made returnable in Parliament And many other examples may be given and some more will be given in this Discourse and Presidents cited upon other occasions where Writs have been Issued so returnable Which shall be observed as we go along And these few shall in this place suffice to disprove that Assertion Nor indeed was there any thing said on that side that did not receive a full and satisfactory Answer For what was said of an Act of Parliament to give Skinner relief for his Island doth in truth deserve no Answer for it were ridiculous to think an Act of Parliament or any thing else but an Army could put him into Possession of his Island again And it would be altogether useless unto him could he so obtaine it his Plantation there being utterly destroyed and all his goods spoiled and lost both there and at Jamby so as it would be impossible for him to carry on his trade to any advantage Therefore it is Reparation and Satisfaction for his Damage which he must have And that is not the work of an Act of Parliament but of a Court of Judicature That advice then is not to be followed and so we will leave it It now remaines but to set forth the Presidents which the Lords did on their part alledge with some few more Antient ones which shall be added for the Vindicating and Asserting of their Right unto this never before controverted point of their Judicature in all Cases of what nature soever when some thing extraordinary in those Cases did induce them to exercise it Of which they were the sole Judges that being a Trust lodged in them by the very Frame and constitution of the Government In the black Book in the Tower which is Printed by the Name of Placita Parliamentaria 30 E 1. F. 231. is the Case of Sir VVilliam Paynell and Margaret his Wife suing for Dower upon the Lands of John Cameys who had been Margarets former Husband and whom she had left he yet living And they now desiring tobe tryed by their Country upon the point of Adultery and the Lords not allowing of it This hath been at large expressed before therefore I only mention it now In the same Book p. 266.33 Ed. 1. The Case of Nicholas Segrave who was tryed in Parliament for leaving the Kings Army then in Scotland and goeing over into France to fight with one John de Crumbwell upon a falling out between them they being together in the Kings Army This was a case not tryable in VVestminster-Hall nor punishable in any ordinary Court of Justice by the Common Law of England yet the House of Lords could try him and adjudge him worthy of death And one thing more is observable in that Record That a Writ is Issued to the Sheriff of the County to take foure Knights with him and in their presence to Summon Segrave Quod esset Coram Domino Rege in proximo Parliamento suo apud VVestm ad audiendum voluntatem ipsius Regis et ad faciendum et recipiendum ulterius quod Curia Domini Regis consideraret in Praemissis So here is a Writ returnable in Parliament and the Sheriff did accordingly make his returne that he had Summoned and charged him Quod esset coram Domino Rege in isto Parliamento nunc juxta formam et Tenorem Mandati praedicti c. It was therefore a gross mistake to say That never any Writ was made returnable in Parliament as it was likewise one to say That the House of Peers could give no remedy where there was not remedy at Law this President proving the Contrary to both 21. Ed. 1. p. 135 136 c. The Arch-bishop of York is questioned in Parliament for excommunicating the Bishop of Duresme The ground of the Excommunication was For that the Bishop of Duresme had imprisoned two Persons employed by the Arch Bishop to cite the Bishop to appear before him The Arch Bishop appeals Et dicit quod de sententia a Canone lata per ipsum declarata in Curia Domini Regis non debet respondere The House of Lords goes on The other side alleadging That the Bishop in his Temporal Capacity as Count Palatin had committed those men
which they look'd upon as deeply trenching upon the Priviledges of their House all Judgments properly and solely belonging to them Thereupon they sent a Message to the House of Commons and desired a Conference At which Conference the Commons confessed That out of their Zeal they had censured Flood But they left him now to their Lordships and hoped their Lordships would censure him In order to which they sent up a Trunk of Writings concerning his Case Then the Lords proceeded to the hearing of it examined several Witnesses and heard all Flood could say for himself which done they adjudged him Not to bear longer the Arms of a Gentleman To ride with his face to the Horse tayl to stand upon the Pillory with his Ears nailed to be whipped at a Carts tayl to be fined Five thousand pounds and to be imprisoned in Newgate during life 21. Jac. Thomas Morley was convented before the Lords for delivering a Scandalous Petition to the House of Commons as himself affirmed against the Lord-Keeper Coventry Upon examination it appeared that it had not been presented to the House of Commons only to their Committee of Grievances that he had published very many Copies of it even since his being convented before their Lordships They adjudge him to be imprisoned in the Fleet to pay 1000 l Fine to stand with his neck in the Pillory to make his Submission and Acknowledgment at the Barr. 22 Jac. Mary Brocas petitioned the Lords to be relieved for a Debt of 1000 l due unto her by Bond from the Muscovia Company Upon hearing both sides their Lordships order the Company to pay the Debt with 5 l per cent Interest out of the Leviations which the said Company had made among themselves for the payment of their Debts The same Parliament May 28. Thomas Pynckney petitions the House in the behalf of himself and other Creditors of Sir John Kennedy to be relieved for Debts owing to them from Sir John by the sale of Barn-Elms Lands in the possession of his Heir John Kennedy The Lords upon examination of the business find cause and so they order it That Barn Elms should be sold to the best value and the Profits to be sequestred in the mean time into indifferent hands And that a Recognizance of 2000 l in which Pinckney stood bound in Chancery should be withdrawn and cancelled The same Parliament again Grizell Rogers Widow petitions the Lords for the setling her Title to certain Lands in Heygrove in the County of Somerset and for quieting and ending divers Suits and Differences between her and Sir Arthur Ingram Sir William Whitmore c. They order her Satisfaction out of particular Lands And all Suits to cease between them And appointed Releases of all differences on both sides to be drawn and sealed 4. Car. 31. Jan. The Lords Committees for Petitions make report to the House of a Petition of Benjamin Crokey against John Smith in behalf of a Grammar-School at Wotton-Underedge in the County of Glocester which School was endowed with great Possessions by the Widow of the Lord Berkly in Richard the 2 ds time which were now much abated and brought to an undervalue by the cunning practices of the said Smith Upon which the Lords awarded a Commission to issue out of the Chancery to survey all the said Lands And ordered also a special Habeas Corpus to be directed to the Warden of the Fleet where Crokey was a Prisoner to bring the Body of the said Crokey before the Lord-Keeper to the intent he might attend the said Commission And ordered further That if Crokey did make it appear the value of the Lands to be so as be said and that to be approved by the Lords Committees for Petitions then Smith to repay to the said Crokey such Charges as he shall disburse in the Prosecution In the Parliament of 1640 Decemb. 16. Upon report from the Lords Committees for Petitions That Mistris James complained against Sir Edmond Sawyer for sheltring himself under a Royal Protection which he had procured by which means she could not sue him upon a Bond of 500 l for so much Money borrowed of her and two years Interest and so was debarred from helping her self by any Legal course The Lords ordered that the said Mris James should proceed against the said Sir Edmond Sawyer for the recovering of her Debt in any Court where she thought best notwithstanding his Protection December 21. The Lords Committees report a Petition of Katherine Hadley complaining that she had been kept a long time a Prisoner in the Common-Gaol in the Old Bridewell without any cause shewn the Lords ordered her Release The 22th of Decemb. Upon a Report from the Lords Committees of Sir Robert Howard's Case complaining that he had been committed Close-Prisoner to the Fleet by the High Commission Court and kept there three months till he was fain for his enlargement to enter into several Bonds with Sureties in the sum of 3500 l For which he desired Reparations and his Bonds to be cancelled The parties interessed were summoned and heard And after due consideration the Lords ordered a thousand pound damages to Sir Robert Howard of which 500 l to be paid by the Archbishop of Canterbury 250 l by Sir Hen. Martin and 250 l by Sir John Lambe the Bonds to be forthwith cancelled and delivered to Sir Robert Howard The 23d of Decemb. They reported the Case of William Dudley that he having arrested the Lord Wentworth son to the Earl of Cleveland for a Debt of 400 l entred a Caution in Mr. Justice Bartley's Chamber for good Bayl to be taken yet Justice Bartley had released the said Lo. Wentworth upon such Bayl as the said Dudley was utterly disabled to recover his debt Justice Bartley being called made no good Answer thereunto The Lords thereupon order that the said Justice Bertley should forthwith assure unto the said Dudley his House and Land near Barnet for securing the said Debt with Interest and Damages The same day they report likewise the Case of Mris Mary Stanhope Widow Daughter-in-law to the Earl of Chesterfield complaining that the said Earle refused to assure unto her 40 l per Annum during her Widowhood according to a former Agreement made between them which appeared to be true by a Letter produced under the Earl's hand And his counsel being heard and no good cause shewn why the Petitioner should not be relieved The Lords ordered the Earl of Chesterfield forthwith to assure to the said Mris Mary Stanhope his Daughter-in-law 40 l per Annum during her Widdowhood and to pay unto her such money as was in arrear of the 40 l per Annum due to her for the space of two years The 30th of December the Lords Committees for examining Abuses in Courts of Justice report the Complainâ—… of John Turner a Prisoner in the Gate-house committed thither by the High-Commission Court where he had lain fourteen years for refusing to take the Oath Ex