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
and it pertained to the King and not to the Arch-Bishop to take cognisance of the Imprisonment if or no it was lawful The Judgement is Videtur Domino Regi in pleno Parlamento praedictis Comitibus Baronibus c. Quod praedictus Archiepiscopus quantum in ipso fuit nitebatur usurpare super Coronam Dignitatem Regiam c. Propter quod per Comites Barones Justiciarios omnes alios de Consilio ipsius Domini Regis unanimiter concordatum est quod praedictus Archiepiscopus committatur Prisonae pro Offensa Transgressione praedictis Et super hoc ante Judicium pronunciatum licet unanimiter de Consilio praedict Magnatum aliorum concordatum fuisset tenendum in hoc Casu similiter in Casibus consimilibus in perpetuum praedictus Archiepiscopus Magnates alios de Consilio ipsius Domini Regis rogavit quod pro eo Dominum Regem requirerent ut ante pronunciationem Judicii ipsum ad gratiam suam admitteret voluntatem suam They interceded for him and he made Fine to the King of 4000 Marks and was received to favour They did not only give a Judgment in this particular Case which being Contra Coronam Dignitatem was tryable in Westminster-hall but they declare it to be a Standing Rule for the Judging of all Cases of like nature which shews the absoluteness of that Power of Judicature which is lodged in that House It was said That the Lords could not take a Cause to themselves per Saltum and before it had passed all the formalities below That a Writ of Error did not lie from the Common Pleas to the Lords House but must first be brought to the Kings Bench And the Case of the Bishop of Norwich was urged 50. Ed. 3. And it is acknowledged The Lords would not receive that Bishops Complaint but sent him away with that Answer nor could they give him any other For Writs of Error have their Walk and their gradual Proceeding chalked out and setled by several Statutes and by the Common Law of the Land But what doth that signifie against the Judicature of the House of Peers No man saith the Lords can either take Cognisance of Causes or judge Causes against the Law of the Land and take them per saltum when the Law prohibits it But they do say and affirm That by all the Examples and Presidents of former times it hath been the usage of that House to receive Complaints and give remedy in all Cases where the Law hath not expresly otherwise determined and if there be any thing in the Case which merits or requires and needs something above the ordinary Power and Proceeding of the Inferior Courts of Justice to administer that Relief which is just and due As in Cases of difficulty where a Court cannot or of delay where it will not proceed the Lords who have a general inspection into the Administration of the Justice of the Kingdom and into the Proceedings of all other Courts have ever upon Application made to them assumed to themselves the Cognisance of such Causes 14. Ed. 3. Sir John Stanton and his Wife had passed a Fine of certain Lands to Thomas Cranthorn who reverts them back and by that means setled them upon the Wife Sir Jeffry Stanton as next Heir brings his Formedon en le descender in the Common Pleas where after some Proceedings upon a Demurrer in Law Sir Jeffry could not get the Judges to proceed to Judgement Upon which he Petitions the King in Parliament which no man will deny to have been in the House of Peers They examine the Matter And afterward order a Writ under the Great Seal containing the whole Matter to be sent to the Judges there willing them thereby if the Matter so stood to proceed to Judgment without delay They not doing it an Alias is sent And the Judges doing nothing then neither and Sir Jeffrey renewing his Petition The Lords commanded the Clerk of the Parliament Sir Thomas de Drayton to go to Sir John Stoner and the rest of the Judges of the Common Pleas and to require them according to the Plea pleaded to proceed to Judgment or else to come into the House with the whole Record so as in Parliament Judgement might be given for one or the other of the Parties The Judges come at the day and the business was heard and it was adjudged That Sir Jeffrey should recover And a Writ under the Great Seal was sent to the Judges to give Judgment accordingly Here then the King in Parliament that is the House of Peers upon a Petition assumes the Cognisance of a Cause depending in the Court of Common Pleas which was so far from having passed all the formalities below that is to say an Appeal to the Kings Bench and Chancery that it was as yet undetermined in the Common Pleas. Nor did it appear unto them upon what ground it was that the Judges gave not Judgment So they might have answered Sir Jeffrey Stantons Petition with saying that they would first see what the Court would determine and what the Kings Bench afterwards But they apply themselves to give him relief And yet no Votes past against that House for so doing as now hath been in the Case of Skinner against this So in the Parliament of 18. E. 1. p. 16. of the Placita Parlamentaria William de Wasthul complains of Matthew del Exchequer for cosening him upon the levying of a Fine before the Judges of the Common Pleas by procuring an Atturney to slip in other Lands unknown to Wasthul and which be intended not to pass in the Fine This is returned back to those Judges because the Fine had been levied before them Et dictum est iisdem Justiciariis quod Recordum istud in Rotulis suis faciant irrotulare tam super Recordo isto quam super aliis ipsum Matthaeum coram eis contingentibus procedant ad Judicium debitum festinum faciant Justitiae Complementum True the House of Lords is not so bound up to forms but that it may when it thinks good vary and retain a Cause at one time which it will not do at any other time Yet we see they were proper Judges in this Cause for they order Wasthulls Complaint and the Proceedings before them to be entred as a Record in the Common Pleas and those Judges to proceed upon it which if they had not had Cognisance of the Matter had been all Coram non Judice and could have signified nothing And I must observe one thing which I think will not be denyed That all those Placita Parlamentaria whatever is said to be done Coram Rege in Parlamento is to be understood of the House of Peers where the King was in those times commonly present and alwayes understood to be there representatively So as his Name was ever mentioned in the Proceedings even when his Person was absent being sometimes out of the Kingdom sometimes detained away
Johns of Hierusalem sues him in Chancery for the Mannors of Temple-hurst and Temple-newsom which Ed. 3. had granted to John Darcy his Father and produces a Deed shewing that the Priors Predecessor had passed the Fee of them to Ed. 2. The Lords order that Deed to be sent to the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer to examine the Kings Title and in the mean time stop Proceedings in Chancery This is more then taking Cognisance of a Matter Originally for they take it out of one Court where it depended and was undetermined and send it to be examined in an other Court which shews the Ascendant they had upon all other Courts 4. R. 2. n. 17. Sir Ralph de Ferriers had been seised by the Duke of Lancaster upon the Marches of Scotland upon suspicion of Treason for holding Intelligence with the French the Kings Enemies upon some Letters of his to several French Lords found and taken up by a Begger He was brought into Parliament before the Lords and put to his Answer He first desired Counsel then offered the Combate against any that would acouse him both were denyed him Then he applyed himself to his Answer And after several dayes hearing the Lords still remanding him to Prison he so well defended himself That the Lords suspected the Letters to be forged and therefore committed the Begger and bayled Sir Ralph delivering him to his Manucaptors 5. R. 2. n. 45. The Chancellor and University of Cambridg Petition against the Major Bayliff and Commonalty of the Town for breaking up their Treasury burning their Charter and by force compelling them to make Releases of some Actions they had brought against the Town and enter into Bonds to them for great Summs The Lords direct a Writ to issue out to the Maior and Bayliffs to appear in Person and the Commonalty by Atturney They appear The Chancellor exhibits Articles against them They being asked why their Liberties should not be seised plead to the Jurisdiction that the Court ought not to have cognisance of them They are told Judgment should be given if they would not answer Then they answer and the business is heard The Townsmen are ordered to deliver up those Deeds forced from the University which are presently cancelled The Town Liberties are seised into the Kings hands and part of them granted to the University Some are granted back to the Town for which they were to pay an increase of Rent Note here is a Plea to the Jurisdiction and that Plea Overruled 8. R. 2. n. 12. The Earl of Oxford complains of Walter Sibell of London for a Slander in having to the Duke of Lancaster and other Noble-men accused him of Maintenance The Lords hear the business Commit Sibell to Prison and give 500 Marks dammages to the Earl 9. R. 2. n. 13. The Case of the Duke of Lancaster complaining That Sir John Stanley had entred upon the Mannor of Latham which held of him and had not sued out his Livery in his Court of Chancery The Lords order him to sue out his Livery But this hath been already mentioned 15. R. 2. n. 16. The Prior of Holland in Lancashire complains of a Riot committed by Henry Trebble John Greenbow and others and of an Entry made by them into the Parsonage of Whit wick in Leicestershire John Ellingham the Serjeant at Arms is sent for them who brings them into the Parliament The Lords commit them to the Fleet. N. 17. The Abbot of St. Oseches complaineth of John Rokell for Embracery This Case hath been already cited N. 18. Sir William Bryan had procured a Bull directed to the two Archbishops to excommunicate some that had broken up his House and carried away Writings This was read in Parliament and adjudged to be prejudicial to the King and to be in Derogation of the Laws for which he is committed to the Tower N. 20. Thomas Harding accuseth Sir John Sutton and Sir Richard Sutton and layeth to their charge that by their Conspiracy he had been kept Prisoner in the Fleet Upon hearing of both Parties for that the two Knights were known to be men of good Fame The Lords adjudge him to the Fleet. N. 21. John Shad well complains against the Archbishop of Canterbury for excommunicating him and his Neighbors wrongfully for a Temporal Cause appertaining to the Crown and to the Laws of the Land The Lords hear the business find the Suggestions untrue and commit him to the Fleet. 1 H. 4. n. 93. Sir William Richill one of the Justices of the Common-Pleas who by express Order of Ri. 2. went to Calais and took the Examination and Confession of the Duke of Gloucester after murdered by Hall was brought a Prisoner into the Lords House the King present and by Sir Walter Clopton Chief Justice apposed And answered so fully shewing his sincere dealing that the Lords one by one declared him innocent And Sir Walter Clopton pronounced him such 4 H. 4. n. 21. The Case of Pontingdon and Sir Philip Courtney where the Lords direct the Tryal appointing what the Issue shall be and what kind of Jury shall be impannelled to prevent Sir Philip 's practices in the Country It hath been cited before at large 1. E. 4. m. 6. n. 16. The Tenants of the Mannor of East-Maine belonging to the Bishop of Winchester the King being in his Progress in Hampshire in the Summer-time complained to him of their Bishop for raising new Customs among them and not suffering them to enjoy their Old ones The King bids them come to Parliament in Winter and they should be relieved They come and the King recommends their business to the Lords They commit it to certain Justices to examine Upon their Report and upon mature Deliberation it was adjudged That the Tenants were in fault That they complained without cause and they were ordered to continue their said Customs and Services Here observe there was the recommendation of the King in the Case just as now in Skinners and this difference that a question of Custom betwixt Lord and Tenants was properly determinable by the Common Law and a Jury of the Visenage and this of a Trespass in the Indies to be punished in Parliament or no where which justifies the Proceedings there 43. Eliz. the 18th of December A Complaint was made to the Lords by the Company of Painters against the Company of Plaisterers for wrong done them in using some part of their Trade Their Lordships referred it to the Lord Maior and Recorder of London to be heard examined adjudged and ordered by them Which was all one as if they had done it themselves For it was done by their Authority and by their Order Qui facit per alium facit perse 18. Jac. The Lords took notice of the Proceeding of the House of Commons in the Case of one Flood whom they had convented before them for insolent and scandalous words spoken by him against the Prince and Princess Palatine examined Witnesses and given Judgment in the Cause
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
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
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.
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
his Father deceased And that a Statute of 1600 l entred into by the said Thomas Bagshaw to John Gell Esq shall be discharged and made void And that Thomas Bagshaw shall make a Release to the said Edward of all Debts and Demands The sixteenth of June 41. The Lord Audley Complains by Petition That the Lord Cottington kept from him the Mannor of Fonthill and prayed Relief therein Upon hearing Counsel on both sides the Lords dismissed the Petition The twenty third of June 41. The Committee for Petitions Reports That Mistris Walter had preferred a Petition setting forth That William Walter her Husband will not permit her to cohabit and dwell with him nor allow to her and three Children any thing for their support The Lords Order her to repair to her Husband and offer to live with him and if he shall refuse to admit her that then he shall allow her 60 l per annum for her Maintenance The 21 th of July 41. A Petition was exhibited before the Lords by sundry Officers and Clerks of the Court of Common Pleas shewing That the disposing of the Offices of Protonotaries Phitizers Exigenters and other Offices of the said Court had time out of mind belonged to the Chief Justice of that Court for the time being but several Grants and Patents had been obtained from his Majesty for the disposing of the said Offices and therefore they prayed That all those Grants and Letters Patents might be recalled The Lords heard Counsel upon it and after mature deliberation declared That the said Offices do of Right belong to the disposition of the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas And the Grants formerly made by Letters Patents of the said Offices to be Illegal and void And Ordered the said Patents to be brought into the House There is likewise in the Journal Book of that Parliament mention made of a Petition of one Thomas Smithick preferred the tenth of June 1641. Complaining of wrongs sustained from the East India Company and likewise of a Petition from the East India Company full of Respect and Submission to the House of Lords and praying a longer day then it seems was appointed for hearing the Merits of the Cause which the Lords granted and Ordered all such Books Certificates and Writings as were in the Custody of the Company concerning that business should be produced and Smithick to peruse and take Copies of them What was more done upon this Petition of Smithicks appears not by the Journal Book probable they compounded the business among themselves But however it is observable the different Spirits of the East India Company then and of this now The Modesty of that and the Carriage of this so far differing In those times no question was made of the Power of the Lords in point of their Judicature nor no Complaint against their practice of it Yet we see the frequency of it in Causes of all Natures Criminal Civil Mixt between King and Subject between Subject and Subject no Protection no Priviledge did exempt any body from their Jurisdiction The Lords at the Conference as they said to the Gentlemen of the House of Commons were the more Copious in the enumeration of these later Presidents especially those of 1640 and 1641. not that they thought themselves at all to stand in need of them the antient ones before produced shewing the usage all along from the very first and best times which in their Lordships Opinions were of much more weight sufficiently convincing but the House of Commons having a little before at an other Conference delivered it for a Maxim That the later Presidents were best and having accordingly insisted upon one single President of the same Parlialiament of 1640. to Oblidge the House of Lords to commit a person upon a general Impeachment of Treason without special Matter shewn and opposing that one President to what their Lordships alleadged to the contrary and made appear to have been the usage of all former times no Record being of any Man ever sent to Prison by the House of Peers without a particular Crime expressed in the Impeachment of some Act done by him before the Earl of Strafford which was the President stood upon This made the Lords heap up so many Examples of the Proceedings of their House in that Parliament of 1640. in the point of Judicature to use it as Argumentum ad heminem and what the House of Commons could no wayes except against themselves having declared it to be of greatest Authority Until Henry the Eights time the very House of Commons was to be beholding to the House of Lords for their Administration of Justice even concerning their Members as the only Judges and Conservators of their Liberties and Priviledges Themselves could not before that have punished any one that had never so much offended them So far were they from exercising a Power of Commitment or of inflicting any punishment for Crimes at large and against the Laws of the Land where neither the Offence nor the Offender had particular relation to their House as in these later times hath been often practised by them But as I say the first time that ever they punished any and it was for breach of Priviledge was in the Parliament 34 H. 8. in the Case of George Ferrers Burgess for Plimouth who was arrested and put in the Counter The House informed of it sent their Serjeant to demand their Member not so much as to summon Sheriff or Bayliff that made the Arrest or Party at whose suit it was made and less to bring any of them as Delinquents to the Bar as now a dayes nor could they obtain that But their Serjeant coming to the Counter found resistance the top of his Mace was broken off his Man knocked down and he glad to get off without the Prisoner So back he comes to the House yet sitting and makes his Complaint They presently all rise with their Speaker come up to the House of Lords and the Speaker makes the Complaint to Sir Thomas Audley Lord Chancellor sitting on the Wooll-sack The Lords judge the Contempt to be very great and refer the punishment of it to the Order of the House of Commons Then indeed they return to their House and send for the Sheriff of London the Clerks of the Counter all the Officers there that had a part in the fray with their Serjeant one White at whose Sute Ferrers was Arrested and the Bayliffs that did Arrest him all to appear personally before them at eight of the Clock next Morning and when they came they sent some of them to the Tower some to Newgate where they continued till they were delivered at the suite of the Lord Major We do not find that before this the House of Commons committed any body no not for the Breach of their Priviledges nor were themselves so much as Judges of the Elections of their Members but were fain to come up to the Lords and pray their aid to
redress what was amiss and punish those that had offended All the Presidents shew it so to have been and not one no not one to the contrary 5. H. 4. n. 74. The Commons Petition That all such Persons as shall Arrest any Knight or Burgess of the Commons or any of their Servants and know them so to be do Fine at the Kings Will and render treble Damages to the Party grieved The Answer is There is sufficient remedy for the Cause Which remedy it seems was That the King and Lords would set them at Liberty which was as they conceived sufficient For 8. H. 6. n. 57. Among the Petitions of the Commons one is That William Lake Servant to William Mildred Burges for London was Arrested and carried to the Fleet upon an Execution and they pray he may be delivered according to the Priviledge of their House It is granted but withal Authority is given to the Chancellor to commissionate Persons to apprehend him again after the Parliament 39. H. 6. n. 9. The Commons complain by Petition to the King and Lords That Walter Clerck one of their Members Burgess for Chippenham in Wilts had been Outlawed and put in Prison and pray That by the Assent of the King and Lords he may be released Which was granted and their Member set at Liberty 14. E. 4. n. 55. The Commons among their Petitions bring up one of a Member of theirs William Hide Burgess likewise for Chippenham being taken in Exeoution for Debt and a Prisoner in the Kings Bench praying he may be delivered by a Writ of Priviledge out of the Chancery the which is granted with this saving That bis Creditors may renue their Execution after the Parliament 17. E. 4. n. 36. At the Petition also of the Commons the King with the Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal grants That John at Will Burgess for Exceter condemned in the Exchequer during the Parliament upon eight several Informations at the Sute of John Taylor of the same Town shall have as many Supersedeas therefore as he will until his coming home after the Parliament One memorable Case of this Nature must not be omitted which hapned 31. H. 6. n. 25 26. c. Thomas Thorp Chief Baron was Speaker of the House of Commons and in an Interval of Parliament the Parliament being upon a Prorogation he had been Arrested and carried to Prison at the Duke of York ' s Sute who had got a Judgement against him in the Exchequer upon an Action of Trespass for carrying away the Dukes Goods from Durham-House The Parliament meeting the House of Commons send up some of their Members to make Complaint to the King and Lords That their Speaker was a Prisoner and desire his Release The Duke of York gives the Lords an account of the business They ask the Judges Opinion in the Point The Judges Answer was in these words It hath not been used before time nor becomes it us to determine matters concerning the High Court of Parliament which is so high and mighty in its Nature that it is Judge of the Law and makes that to be Law which is not Law and that to be no Law which is And the Determination of its Priviledges belongs to the Lords in Parliament and not to Justices But to declare the Use in Lower Courts they said That as Writs of Supersedens of Priviledge of Parliament were brought unto them concerning any particular Member of Parliament who had been Arrested so it were not for Treason Felony Surety of the Peace or for a Condemnation before Parliament they did alwayes release him that be might freely attend the Parliament After which Answer made It was by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal agreed assented and concluded That the said Thorp should remain in Prison notwithstanding his being Speaker of the House of Commons or any other Priviledge of Parliament And they Ordered the same to be declared unto them that were come from the Commons by Walter Moyle a Serjeant at Law because it was Matter of Law but in the presence of the Bishop of Ely and many other Lords And then the Bishop of Ely was to charge them in the Kings Name to chuse an other Speaker This was accordingly performed And the House of Commons did chuse an other Speaker Sir Thomas Charleton in the place of Thomas Thorp and sent some Members to acquaint the Lords with it and the Lord Chancellor answered The King likes him well It is to be noted That the King lay then sick at Windsor and yet all is done in the Kings Name as if he had been present These Presidents shew That the House of Commons did not in those times exercise any Jurisdiction nor themselves lay any punishment upon those that broke their Priviledges and that the Sheriffs and Bayliffs of London in that Parliament of 34. H. 8. were the first who felt any effects of their Justice in that kind Nor after that did they constantly put that Power in Execution and for some time it seems they absolutely waved it For the very next year the 35th of H. 8. One Trewinnard a Burgess for Cornewall had been imprisoned at the suite of one Skewis and was delivered onely by a Writ of Priviledge But Skewis not sent for by the Serjeant at Arms to be committed and punished by the House as the use is now So far from that That the Executors of Skewis in the Trinity term of the 36th of H. 8. brought their Action of Debt against Chamond the Sheriff of Cornewall for the Escape but were cast in their Sute and the Priviledge allowed as Dyer mentions it in his Reports p. 59. And in the 18th of Queen Elizabeth a Servant of one Mr. Hall a Member of the House being Arrested upon Complaint made to the House it was referred to a Committee to consider of the Business and how he should be released who made their Report That it could be only by a Writ of Priviledge as appears by the Journal of that Parliament And there is some reason to believe That they never or very rarely sent for by their Serjeant or medled with the Persons of such as broke their Priviledges by arresting or misusing their Servants and Attendants till 43. Eliz. For I find in a Journal of that Parliament which I have by me That a Complaint being made to the House How a Servant of one Mr. Cooke a Member of the House was arrested that President was urged of the 34th of H. 8. And it was said that the House had committed the Sheriffs of London and the Bayliffs for abusing their Serjeant and for arresting of Ferrers Whereupon it was then resolved and ordered That the Serjeant attending the House should go to Newgate and bring away both the Prisoner and his Keeper and likewise command the Bayliff who made the Arrest and the Person at whose suit it was made to appear before the House This was done the Prisoner discharged and the Bayliff and he who
the Persons that do the wrong if any be done It is Curia Regis that doth it and not the King though he sit in Court in Person And so the stile is Videtur Curioe And the Pleas Commonly end with this Declaration of the Party Hoc paratus sum Verificare pro at Curia ordinaverit and when mention is of any thing done contrary to the formes of proceeding Non sic in Curia ista usitatum est is the expression as it is in the President of the 18. E. 1. so much insisted upon by the House of Commons So hath it been in all times the Authority of the Court to which the Law requires obedience When Henry the third would have his Brother Richard Duke of Cornewall confirm the grant of a Mannor to one Waleran a Germain to whom King John had given it and which the Duke of Cornwall said belonged to his Dutchy of Cornwall and had therefore taken possession of it his Answer was That he was willing Curioe Regioe subire Judicium Magnatum Regni that was to say the Judgment of his Peers in Parliament and when the King said angrily to him He should then quit the Kingdom it he would not deliver up the Mannor his reply as Matthew Paris Records it was Quod nec Walerano Jus suum redderet nec sine Judicio Parium fourum e Regno exiret He would neither quit his Right nor the Kingdom but by the Judgement of his Peers Such difference was then made betwixt the Kings Personal Command and an Order of the House of Peers in disposing of mens Rights which makes it very apparent That the Kings Personal presence could not add any thing to or make any alteration in the Jurisdiction of any Court. But enough of this especially considering what is said before upon the same Subject Some other Evasions I find in that Book to elude the Lords Judicature and take off the force of some Presidents which have been cited in maintenance of it which I think are but evasions and work no great effect As that of the Banishment of Alice Perrers or Pierce which that Author will prove to have risen from the Commons and to have been at their Petition because Walsingham a Cloistered Monk saith so contrary to the Record in the Tower where he finds no such thing where certainly it would not have been omitted had it been so that being so essential a part of a Transaction of Parlament that it could not have been left out by the Clerk in the Journal Book And whereas to fortifie Walsingham's Testimony he saith he then lived as if he had been Testis Ocularis I doubt much if he was then born or so young he must have been that he could little take notice of the passages of the time for Baloeus in his Book De Scriptoribus Britanicis saith he flourished in the year 1440. under Henry the sixth when he died we know not but had he died then or soon after he must have been sixty three years old if so be he was in the World when Alice Pierce was banished for the Judgement of Alice Pierce was the first year of Richard the second which was in 1377. So as what he writes could be but by hearsay Which is observed by me onely to shew what weak proofs that Author brings to make good his Assertions and shews the badness of his Cause Not that I think it at all material to the point in question whether or no it was at the request of the Commons that Alice Pierce was judged by the Lords which would not at all evince what he would infer upon it that the House of Lords hath not of it self Cognisance of the Cause of a Commoner nor can judge him for an Offence whether Capital or of a lesser Nature but that the House of Commons making it their desire qualifies them for it Which is a strong Argument of the contrary and proves that the House of Commons doth thereby acknowledge their Judicature For ridiculous it were to think That any Act of that House could create a new Power in the House of Lords which it had not in it self before and which afterwards must cease till it please the House of Commons to give again a new life and being to it As if the House of Lords were but a Property which cannot move of it self to have the Verse said of it Ducitur ut nervis alienis mobile lignum I am sure it hath not been so heretofore nor do I think the House of Commons will own that Authors Opinion And so the Judgment of Hall for the death of the Duke of Glocester that too forsooth must be at the request of the Commons and so be an Act of Parliament and the proof for it is that at the end of the Roll they thank the King for his just Judgment But if the Gentleman would have perused the whole Roll he would easily have been satisfied that the thanks of the Commons related not to Halls condemnation but to the proceedings of the King and House of Peers against Sir William le Scroop Sir Henry Green and Sir John Bussy who had been active for Richard the second and were looked upon as principal Authors of the Miscarriage of his Reign For at the request of the Commons the Lords confirmed a Judgment formerly given against them in some of the Kings Courts not in Parliament and the King declaring That though he took the forfeiture of their Estates according to the Sentence given upon them yet he understood not there should be by it any Infringement of the Statute which said That no mans Estate should be forfeited after his death who had not been convicted whilst living for these persons he said had been so convicted Whereupon the Commons thanked the King for his righteous Judgment and thanked God for giving them such a King This had no relation at all to the business of Hall And in the Record it is an Article by it self of what had passed in Parliament another day So for the proceeding against Gomeniz and Weston that too must be at the request of the Commons and consequently an Act of Parliament Whereas the Commons had onely in general desired that all such as had delivered up any of the Kings Forts and Castles unduely might be called to account for it in that Parliament and be punished for it according to their demerit by the Judgment of the Lords who thereupon commanded the Lievtenant of the Tower to bring before them those two who were already in hold for their several Facts in that kind whom they tryed and condemned and proceeded likewise against several others as Cressingham Spikesworth Trevit and many more guilty of the same Crime whom they convented before them and Sentenced some to death some to other punishments according to the Quality of their Offence Now I do ask if in common sence it can be construed that the Commons were at all Parties in the prosecution
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
Subjects shall commit Treason though out of the Limits of this Realm it shall be tryed in any place that the King shall appoint by Commission under the great Seal So a special Commission was to be issued for it And several other Statutes were afterwards made of the same Nature But for Trespasses as this of the East India Company against Skinner there is no Act of Parliament to authorise the Prosecution at Common Law nor I think any Book Case to warrant the practice of it Book Cases against it there are many even for Trespasses in the Isle of Jersey though within the Kings Dominions because a Venire Facias could not go thither to summon a Jury from thence Mich. 42 as Mr. Prin cites it or 41. as Sir Edw. Cook E. 3. Coram Rege rot 109. An Inhabitant of Jersey complains to the King and Councel of false Imprisonment and several Injuries done him in the Island They send this Bill of Complaint to the Judges of the Kings Bench and there the Bill is dismissed Quia compertum est saith the Record quod negotium praedictum in Curia hic terminari non potest eò quod Juratores Insulae praedictae hic venire non possunt c. Other Cases there are of the same nature And if a Fiction could not help for Jersey being part of the Kings Dominions much less could it help for Forein parts where the King had no Authority at all Yet the House of Lords hath in all times exercised Jurisdiction upon Crimes done and committed in Forein parts as well as those within the Kingdome both Treasons and other Offences As in the Cases of the Lord Latimer for the loss of St. Saviour in Normandy and Oppressions done by him in Britany 50. E. 3. n. 21. Of William de Weston for the surrender of Outherwick in Flanders 1. R. 2. n. 38. John de Gomeniz for Ardes 1. R. 2. n. 40. Pierce de Cressingham and John Spickworth for the Castle of Drinkham in Flanders 7. R. 2. n. 17. The Bishop of Norwich for not doing Service beyond Seas according to promise and as he ought to have done for delivering up Graveling to the French not mustering his Army at Calice as he should have done and not having his Number compleat n. 18. Sir William Elinsham Sir Thomas Trevit Sir Henry Ferrers Sir William de Hurnedon and Robert Fitz-Ralph for delivering strong Holds and Fortresses for Money n. 24. John Hall a Servant to the Duke of Norfolk for Murthering the Duke of Gloucester at Calice 1 H. 4. n. 11. Sir William Richill for but taking the Examination of the Duke of Gloucester at Calice 1 H. 4. n. 93. And multitudes of others who could not have been tryed by the Common Law were tryed by the House of Lords And in truth a man may say the whole Case of Skinner in every point of it was only cognisable before them However it being out of all dispute even by the Confession of the Judges That some things in it are not tryable in Westminster Hall I hope it may be thought reasonable to leave as great an extent of Power to the House of Peers which is the supreme Judicature of the Kingdome as to the Court of Chancery where the ordinary practice is to retain a Cause when there is Equity in any part of it The Lords therefore Ordered the hearing of the Cause spent several daies in it and having with much patience heard all that could be said on both sides appointed a day to consider what was fit to be done super totam materiam Upon which day after a solemn debate they came to this Resolution only in general That Thomas Skinner was to be relieved by that House And referred it to a Committee to consider what damages he had sustained by the Governour and Company trading to the East Indies and to report their Opinions what Recompence was fit to be given him for the same Whilest the Business was under the consideration of the Committee and before the House of Peers had made any Determination of it a Petition was said to be presented by the East India Company unto the House of Commons which I will set down word for word before I give it any Epithete and upon reading it I think every unprejudicate man will say one cannot give it an Epithete bad enough the Petition was thus TO THE HONOURABLE The Commons of ENGLAND in Parliament Assembled The Humble Petition of the Governour and Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies Humbly sheweth THat Thomas Skinner lately exhibited a Petition to the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled against your Petitioners many of which are and were Members of this Honourable House when the said Petition was exhibited for Injuries pretended to be done by your Petitioners Factors in the East Indies in seizing his Ship Goods and Money and dispossessing him of a small Island there all which Matters excepting what concerns the Island are Matters clearly determinable in his Majesties Ordinary Courts of Law as by the Judges attending their Lordships hath been resolved and reported And for the Island the same is parcel of the Dominions of a Foreign Prince and so the Right thereof only determinable by the Laws of that Prince That though the Petitioners did humbly tender a Plea to their Lordships for that the Petition was in Nature of an Original Complaint concerning Commoners only and not brought to their Lordships by Writ of Error or Bill of Review or any way of Appeal and that the Matters therein were relievable in the Courts of Westminster Hall and thereupon prayed the Judgement of that High Court whether it would please to take further Cognizance thereof Yet their Lordships have been pleased not only to give a hearing to all the Matters in the said Petition contained but have denied to gran◠the Petitioners a Commission or so much a◠time to send for their Witnesses now inhabiting upon the place where the Injuries were pretended to be done and without whos◠Testimony it was impossible for the Petitioners to make their Defence That upon the said hearing their Lordships were further pleased to appoint a Committee to assess damages against your Petitioners which Committee is now proceeding thereon accordingly whereby several Members of this Honourable House who are of the said Company as well as others your Petitioners may be highly detrimented All which proceedings as your Petitioners humbly submit to your Honourable Judgements are against the Laws and Statutes of this Nation and Custome of Parliament In tender Consideration whereof and for as much as these unusual and extraordinary Proceedings of their Lorships are not only grievous to your Petitioners at present but may also be a President of ill Consequence to all the Commons of England hereafter and for as much as your Petitioners have no way of Relief in this Case otherwise than by making their humble Addresses to this Honourable
House your Petitioners do therefore most humbly pray That your Honours will be pleased to take the Premisses into your grave Considerations and to interpose with their Lordships for your Petitioners Relief therein in such way and manner as to your great Wisdoms shall seem meet And your Petitioner as in duty bound shall pray c. Signed by the Order and in the Name of the said Governour and Company Robert Blackborne Secr. Copies of this flew about were in every mans Pocket and in every mans mouth That the Lords were even forced to take notice of it yet scarce could believe the House of Commons would receive such a Petition against them so scandalous and so false nor did they in the whole debate so much as mention the House of Commons but looked upon it as a thing done without doors thrown abroad only to blast and asperse the House of Lords and to bring them into the ill opinion and dis-esteem of the people which after a serious consideration and debate their Lordships voted To be a scandalous Libel against the House of Peers And certainly so it was both in Matter and Manner and had the Matter been true yet the Manner was scandalous For though all had been true which was suggested if the House of Lords had committed an Error had done some thing grievous to the Petitioners yet was it most unfit for private men to censure their Proceedings declare them to be unusual and extraordinary to be against the Laws and Statutes of the Nation and Costome of Parliament grievous to the Petitioners at present and of ill consequence hereafter to all the Commons of England Can the tongue of man utter more reproachful and stabbing words against any man or society of men If this were true do they deserve to live who are guilty of such things to continue so much as Members of any State or Common-wealth much less to have Power and Jurisdiction in it Certainly to revile in this manner and throw dirt upon the Highest Judicatory of the Kingdome was a most transcendent Presumption and of a most dangerous Consequence to the whole Nation even to those Commons of England whom these Petitioners pretend for so much making themselves as it were their Patrons and Protectors Tribunes of the people and withall endeavouring to bring an Odium upon the whole Peerage What is this but sowing sedition between the two Houses of Parliament and between the Peers and the Commons of England And what can it tend to but to the very dissolution of the Frame of Government The Scripture saith Thou shalt not speak evil of the Rulers of thy People and Elihu in Job moves this question Is it fit to say to a King Thou art wicked and to Princes Ye are ungodly Yet these Rabshakehs dare heap up Reproaches against the Lords of Parliament and bring railing Accusations against the Highest Order of Magistracy under the King in the Kingdom And how little Cause was given them for this the preceding Narrative of the proceedings of the Lords is I think an evident demonstration Their Lordships had proceeded with all the tenderness imaginable nothing of heat nothing of Precipitation had appeared in the whole Transaction They were not come to a full Conclusion and Determination of the business which these Merchants had no reason to suspect that it would be severe upon them And they might at least have staid till it had come what ever it had been and not have prejudged a Court before it had declared it self what Judgment it would give All it had then done was but what the East-India Company it self had by their own offer of Reparation for the wrong done acknowledged to be Just For the Lords had only declared That Skinner was fit to be relieved But what relief how much and in what sort the Quid and the Quomodo they had not determined that was under the Consideration of a Committee They themselves in their Answer to the Lords Referrees appointed by His Majesty in Counsel had offered to pay unto Skinner for Nutmegs White Pepper and some other things which had been unjustly taken from him by their Factors and had been brought to their account 3160 Dollars And 1521 Dollars more they offered for so many taken from him in Specie And by this they confess they had done him wrong and were willing to give him some Reparation So without condemning themselves they can not say the Lords had as yet done amiss and notwithstanding all this moderation and Circumspection that opprobrious railing Petition was preferred against them and which besides was full of untruths For the main matter in it and which in truth had carried a shew of Injustice had it been true is absolutely false And that is that the Lords denied them a Commission or time to send for Witnesses inhabiting upon the place without whose testimony it was impossible for them to make their defence First it is not true that the Lords denied them a Commission or time to send for Witnesses for they never insisted upon it which must have brought on a Resolution of the house and have been entred in the Clerks Book which was not Some such thing was once said by some of the Councel at Barr but themselves went off it knowing it would have grosly manifested their intent to delay longer a Poor man who had already spent seven years in the prosecution of that suit And as untrue is it that they could not else make their defence for multitudes of Witnesses were produced by them and all fully heard with Patience and enough acknowledged even by their own Witnesses and more by their own offer formerly mentioned of giving Skinner so many thousand Dollars Reparation which they had then declared which was only That Skinner should be relieved A second untruth is That they say all the matters complained of were clearly determinable in the ordinary Courts of Justice excepting what concernes the Iland whereas it appears there was likewise a dwelling house at Jamby and a Ware-house by the River-side of which they dispossessed him which were not so determinable even by the report of the Judges in their Opinion but in truth one may say no part of the Complaint was so determinable they say untruely then in saying there was only the Iland that he could not be relieved in and as untruely do they vouch the Opinion of the Judges for it who expresly mention the House as well as the Iland A third untruth is to say the Iland was parcell of the Dominions of a Foreigne Prince and the Right to it only determinable by the Laws of that Prince Whereas that Prince had made an absolute bargain and sale and a Totall Alienation of it from his Dominion and so had put it out of the Protection of his Laws A fourth and which they had inserted to be a Baite to draw on the House of Commons to espouse their Quarrel is that they suggest the complaint to be concerning Commoners
onely Whereas the Lord Berckley of Berckley a Member of the House of Peers is likewise of that Company which intitles yet more particularly that House to the Cognizance of the whole business upon point of Priviledge one of their Members being a party All these untruths are in matter of Fact Then for their Inference upon them the Judgement they give against the House of Lords their censure of their Proceedings to be against the Laws of the Land and the Custome of Parliament to be unusual and extraordinary to be a President of ill consequence to all the Commons of England now and hereafter this I hope no man will say to have truth in it but to be a false Imputation and a Slander or as the Lords themselves tern it a Scandalous Libell against the House of Lords And as untrue it is what they say in the close of their Petition and withall most Injurious to the House of Peers viz. That the Petitioners had no way of relief in this Case otherwise then by making their humble Addresses to the House of Commons Whereas ever since Parliaments have been in England the constant practice hath been and multitudes of Presidents there are of it of Appealing to the next Parliament from any Judgment given by a former Parliament which was grievous and unjust And never in this world before was there any Appeal to the House of Commons from a Judgment of the House of Peers much less to take a business out of their hands or give a stop to their Proceedings before they were come to a conclusion Then which nothing can be a greater Violation of the Rights and Priviledges of either House Nor would the House of Lords ever have endured that any should have used the House of Commons so in any application unto their Lordships Yet upon the examination it appeared that this Petition had been really presented to the House of Commons and was there received The Lords then fell upon the consideration of the main business in question between Skinner and the East-India Company and making Reflexion upon what had been alleged on both sides and the proofs gave this Judgment That the Governour and Company should pay unto Thomas Skinner for his losses and damages sustained the Sum of 5000 pounds one thousand within two daies after the serving of this Judgment two thousand pounds in three moneths after and two thousand pounds more in three months after that And they referred to the Committee for Priviledges to examine who was the publisher and disperser of that Scandalous Paper or Petition which they had voted a Scandalous Libell and to make Report thereof to the House In the disquisition of this business which held many daies at the Committee and in the House and where the Lords found much shuffling in the Persons they examined who were Servants and Officers to the Company It appeared at last that the Petition had really been presented to the House of Commons and well received by that House that it had been prepared by a Committee of the Company that Sir Samuel Barnardiston Deputy Governour of the Company Sir Andrew Riccard Mr Rowland Winn and Mr. Christopher Boone were of that Committee and Actors in it but especially Sir Samuel Barnardiston the most Active man who gave no Satisfaction to their Lordships in his Answers which the others did and by their submission obtained favour but the Lords adjudged him guilty of contriving that Scandalous Paper and fined him 300 l. to the King and to remain a Prisoner in the Custody of the Black-Rod till he paid his Fine And now the House of Commons ownes the Cause and seems not only to Justify these Actings of the East-India Company but to lay blame upon the House of Lords and passes certain votes to that purpose which they brought up to the Lords and delivered at a Conference And began with telling the Lords That they had examined the East-India Companies Petition and found the Allegations in it to be true That such Proceedings had been in the House of Lords And that the Lords had since adjudged them to pay 5000 l to Skinner and that the House of Commons thought these Proceedings to be of so very high Concernment to the Right of all His Majesties Subjects that they had passed those Votes upon it The Votes were these 1. That the House of Lords taking Cognizance of and their Proceedings upon the matter set forth and contained in the Petition of Thomas Skinner Merchant against the Governour and Company of Merchants of London trading to the East-Indies concerning the taking away of the Petitioners ship and goods and assaulting his Person and their Lordships over-ruling the Plea of the said Governour and Company the said cause coming before that House Originally only upon the complaint of the said Skinner and being a common Plea is not agreeable to the Laws of this Land and tends to deprive the Subject of his Right Ease and Benefit due to him by the said Laws 2. That the Lords taking Cognizano of the Right and Title of the Island in the Petition mentioned and giving damages thereupon against the said Governour and Company is not Warr anted by the said Laws of this Land The Lords were much surprised with these Votes which gave them cause to make a serious Reflection upon what had passed in the business of Skinner and to take a due examination of all Circumstances The way that it came unto them at first upon the Kings Recommendation Their own Right to take Cognizance of Judge and determine and give redress in causes of that nature Then the merits of this particular cause A poor man oppressed by great Ones very unable to contest with them at Law and so very unlikely there to receive relief and have any reparation from them admitting it had been in the power of the Law to have helped him which it was not and The manner of their Proceeding in the hearing examining and determining of it in which they had used all the moderation Imaginable going by steps and dgrees taking first the Opinion of the Judges to know if the man were relievable else where who said he was but in part and not for all relievable in Westminster-Hall which made them undertake it Then giving way to and bearing with many delayes of the East-India Company suffering the business upon several Pretences and excuses of theirs to be put off many daies when their Lordships were prepared to hear it and had laid aside other business for it by which means a whole Session was lost to the poor man And when at the next meeting of the Parliament it was heard in which a great deal of time and very many daies were spent yet not presently to come to a resolution but appoint a day for the debate of it and when that day came not to give a full Judgment but only pass a previous Vote That some Relief was fit to be given and take longer time to consider
it is but seemingly as will be shewed upon the Examination of the Presidents themselves Whereas multitudes were produced of the exercise of their Jurisdiction and some Where the parties had desired a try all at common Law and the Lords would not grant it as that of William Paynell and Margaret his Wife in the Placita Parliamentaria of the 30 of Ed. 1. p. 231. The Case was this Margaret had been formerly the Wife of John Cameys and he yet living bad left him as she alledged with his consent and lived with Paynell as his Wife and was married to him Cameys dying Paynell and she sue for the Thirds of the Mannor of Torpell which had been the Land of Cameys It was objected on the other side That she lived in Adultery with Paynell in Cameys life time and so had forfeited her Dower They upon that desire to be tryed by their Country if Adultery or no What say the House of Peers Do they send them into the Country as is desired No Videtur Curiae quod non est necesse contra tantas tamque manifestas Evidentias Praesumptiones Probationes c. ad aliquam Inquisitionem Patriae Capiendam procedere c. Et ideo consideratum est quod praedicti Willielmus Margareta nihil Capiant per Petitionem suam sed sint in Misericordia pro falso Clamore c. This shewes that the Lords some times would retain Causes though sometimes they did dismisse them not for want of Jurisdiction but as it seemed to them convenient and their Occasions would give leave as they had or had not leasure for it from the greater Affaires of the Kingdome or that some Circumstances in the merits of a Causemade it more or less worthy of their Consideration As if one of the parties was powerfull in his Country and suspected to have an Influence upon the Juries the Lords would then some times retain a business and determine it themselves As in 3 R. 2. N. 24. The Case of John Earl of Pembroâ—k and William le Zouch Complaining that they were sued for certain Lands in York-shire by Thomas the Sonne of Sir Robert Roos of Ingmanthorp and alledge That the said Thomas sought to come to a tryall in the Country which he had gained and corrupted And therefore pray for redress and a tryall by Parliament giving this reason for it Que Ils par tels Malveis Compassemens et Procuremens en pais ne soient desheritez That they may not lose their inheritance by such wicked contrivances and practises in the Country Do the Lords then suffer it to go on to tryall in the Country No They take the matter into their own hands appoint John Knevet and John Cavendish Chief Justice and John Belknap Chief Justice of the Common Pleas to examine it and make Report to them which they did And so likewise in the Case of Pontyngdon and Courtney 4 H. 4. N. 21. Sir Phillip Courtney a great man in the Country oppresses Pontyngdon dispossesses him of his Land by force he comes to the Lords praies Pur Dieu Et en oeuure de Charite d'ordeigner remedies en cell Cas For Gods sake and as a work of charity that they would give remedy in this case Setts forth in his Petition that he had before in a Parliament held at Winchester made his complaint at which time Sir Phillip laid the Bastardy of his Father as a Barr and that the Lords Answer then was That he should have right done him and committed the business to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury to take care of it That before the Arch-Bishop Sir Phillip and he agreed to go to a tryall upon that Issue and that there should be a sufficient Jury of the principal Knights and Esquires of the Country But that Sir Phillip had named some of those principal men and withall poor men of less sufficiency to the intent that the great men making default the poor should stand and that these poor men durst not against Sir Phillip maintain the truth les queux poures hommes n'oisent envers le dit Sir Phillip la verite dire That thereupon he Petitioned again the Lords in the next Parliament sitting at Westminster and informed them of all these Particulars whereupon they Ordered a Writ to go to the Judges of Assize of that Country commanding them to admit none to be of the Jury but such as had 40 l a year Land and those to be chosen out of the whole Country notwithstanding any usage or Challenge to the Contrary But that now Sir Phillip finding that the charge of Bastardy would not hold contriving still the wrongful disinherison of the Petitioner had started a release unduely gotten from one Thomas Pontyngdon a Parson whose heirethe Petitioner is And the Petitioner is thereby like to be ruined si il neit vostre tres Hautissime et tres excellent secours et aide if the Lords would not afford him their most High and excellent succour and help This was the effect of the Petition The Lords upon this make an Order to direct the tryall the Point in Issue to be the Bastardy that the Release should be laid aside as null and void that if the Bastardy be proved Pontyngdon shall be for ever barred to sue hereafter and if not proved but that his Father was Mulier he should then recover the Land with Costs and damages And they further Order a Writ to the Sheriff to Impannell none of the Jury that had not 40 l per annum Land So then three several times in three several Parliaments did the Lords take Cognizance of this Cause being a Common Plea for a mans Free-hold and that Originally in the first Instance not upon an appeal or Writ of Error or any of those waies to which the House of Commons would now limit them They direct the tryall the Issue the Condition and Qualification of the Jury and the Judgment and if this be not taking Cognizance of a Cause I know not what is And well was it for that poor Gentleman That the Lords had that Jurisdiction that they could take Cognizance of his Cause to give him relief then As now it was well for Skinner That the Lords took Cognizance of his Otherwise this powerfull Company had trampled him in the dirt and ruined him as that violent man Sir Phillip Courtney for so he appears to have been by several Complaints against him in the Parliaments of those times had served Pontyngdon And well will it still be for many a poor man to have such an Asylum such a City of refuge to fly unto to save himself from the violence and Oppression of power and greatness And perhaps some of those who now endeavour to lay low the House of Peers who would make it to be of no signification to have no power no Influence upon the Kingdome be as salt that hath lost its Savor only Magni Nominis Umbra a Name of Peerage without ability to help themselves or
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
of these several Offenders But admit they had particularly impeached every one of them which is more then to desire such a Delinquent may be brought to his Tryal and that the Lords would do Justice on him as they find Cause and much more then onely to design the Crime and leave it to the Lords to find out the Persons For in an Impeachment they examine the matter and first find themselves the Party to be guilty and then they follow it against him and prove him so before the Lords Doth this at all give them any part in the Judgment or must it not necessarily be understood that the Judicature is naturally and constantly lodged with the Lords and the House of Commons part then is onely to bring the Offender before the Lords to be tryed This very Record of the Proceedings in the Lords House against Gomeniz and Weston shews it so to be and proves the Judicature of the House of Peers as strongly as can be It runs thus Item par la ou supplié est par les Communes que tous ceux qunt rendus perdus Chatels ou Villes par dela par uray defaut des Capitaines puissent estre a Response a Cest Parlement selon leur desert fortement punis par agard des Seigneurs Baronage eschievant le malueis ensample qils ont donnez as autres qui sont Gardeins de villes Chatels Commandé est a Sire Alein de Buxhall Conestable del Tour de Londres qe y face venir deuant les Seigneurs en Parlement a Westminster le Vendredy 27 Jour de Novembre lán susdit Jehan sire de Gomeniz William de Weston c. Item Whereas it is prayed by the Commons that all those who have delivered up and lost Castles and Towns on the other side of the Sea by their own default being Captains of them may be put to their answer at this Parliament and according to their desert be severely punished by the award of the Lords and Baronage for the eschewing of the evil example which they have given to other Guardians of Towns and Castles Command is given to Sir Allen de Buxhall Constable of the Tower of London to bring before the Lords in Parliament at Westminster upon Friday the 27th of November of the aforesaid year John Lord of Gomeniz and William of Weston c. Here the Commons desire that all such may be severely punished by the award of the Lords and Baronage So it is their Award and their Judgment must punish and this by the Commons confession And you may observe further that the Commons do not make any mention of any particular Person but the Lords they command Sir Allein de Buxhall to bring Gomeniz and Weston before them such a day But it is easie to trace the Author of the Pamphlet where he was led out of the way and that was by an other Pamphlet of the Priviledges of the Baronage which goes under Mr. Seldens Name but hath as many mistakes in it as leaves and there indeed it is said p. 15. That at the supplication of the Commons that all those who have rendred Castles be put to their Answer and that Allen Buxhall Constable of the Tower do bring before the Lords such a day Gomeniz and Weston to answer the Articles which there shall be preferred for the said Cause they were so brought c. But the Record it self you see is otherwise which that Pamphleter it seems never read And for what he further would infer to make that and all other Judgements at the prosecution of the Commons admit they had been so which these were not Acts of Parliament is a Fancy so ridiculous as it is not worth the answering which makes no difference betwixt an Act of Attainder that passeth both Houses and afterwards hath the Kings Assent as all other Laws have which is an effect of the Legislative Power in which either House hath an equal Vote and a proceeding before the Lords against a Criminous Person in a Judicial way wherein the Commons have nothing to do as to the judging of him But one thing more in that Pamphlet I cannot let pass which is in p. 12. The words are these viz. For the Kings giving Judgment in Parliament with the Lords Assent I do confess Judgements there ought to be properly and punctually entred as given Par nostre Seigneur le Roy que est Souverain Juge en tous Cas par les Seigneurs Spirituels Temporels ouel Assent des Communes de la Terre ou a leur Petition Nenny par les Seigneurs Temporels Seulement That is As given by our Lord the King who is Sovereign Judge in all Causes and by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal with the assent of the Commons of the Land or upon their Petition and not by the Lords Temporal alone And for this he quotes in the Margent Rot. Part. apud Leicester II. 16. which he delivers so Magisterially as any man would swear he had good Authority for what he said and that his old French was some old Oracle of Parliament And I must confess upon the first reading of this I was at a stand finding here such a positive Precept contrary to what I had still believed both in the Affirmative it must be by the Kings and Lords with the Assent of the Commons and Negative not by the Lords alone But when I came to examine this Assertion by the Record I found there was a foul mistake whether purposely or ignorantly I judge not For what was delivered by Counsel to bolster up his Clients pretentious is there produced as the Rule of the Court And an Error assigned to reverse a former Judgment which is but the Allegation of a Lawyer that draws up his Clients Plea is made an Argument to controul and condemn a constant usage of the House of Peers It was in the Case of the Earl of Salisbury Who brought a Writ of Error in the Parliament 2. H. 5. to reverse the Judgment given 2. H. 4. n. 30. by the Lords Temporal alone with the Kings Assent by which Judgment the Earls of Kent Huntington and Salisbury and some others who had been some slain some taken in actual Rebellion by other the Kings Subjects and by them put to death without form of Law were declared attainted of Treason and their Estates forfeited For the reversal whereof Thomas the Son Earl of Salisbury amongst the Errors assigns this for one as a principal one that it was given by the Lords Temporal alone with the King whereas it should have been by the King Lords Spiritual and Temporal with the Assent of the Commons or at their Petition And what follows upon this Indeed if the Judgment had been reversed though perhaps upon some other Error for several others were assigned there might have been some colour for the Gentlemans Assertion and the Inference he would make upon it But so far from it that the Judgment
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