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
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
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 desire to relieve them But secondly we must distinguish between a Fact not being a Crime in the eye of the Law which is neither Malum in se nor Malum prohibitum and when the Fact it self being odious and punishable by all Laws of God and Man only a Circumstance as the Place where it was Committe dputs it out of the Power of the ordinary Courts of Justice to take Cognizance of it which are kept to formes and may not trangresse them In the first Case the House of Lords can not punish that for a Crime which the Law doth not make a a Crime but in the second Case God forbid there should be such a failer of Justice in a Kingdome that fellow subjects should robb and worry and destroy one an other though in Forrein parts and there should be no punishment for the wrong doer nor Relief for the party wronged when they come home For then the King might be deprived of many a good subject the Land loose many of her people Trading receive much prejudice and so King and Kingdome suffer great loss and all without remedy But then say the House of Commons Where the Law hath provided and there is an ordinary remedy an extraordinary ought not to be tryed to this the Lords Answer that their House is not an extraordinary remedy but the ordinary remedy in extraordinary Cases and this of Skinners was so both in point of difficulty and point of Compassion And to what is said That it is the Interest of all men in England to be tryed by Juries and there is remedy against willful Juries by Attaint but here is no remedy nor no Appeal It is Answered That the Court of Chancery disposeth of mens Estates without a Jury Every Court of Justice Every Judge in his Circuit sets Fines on mens heads upon several occasions without a Jury Many are tryed for their lives and their Liberties which is more then Estate in the House of Peers upon an impeachment of the House of Commons who are not a Jury nor are sworn therefore that Assertion holds not That all men in all cases are tryed by Juries And for matters of Appeal there doth lye one to the next Parliament or the next Session But it will be said That is to the same Persons And what hopes of any remedy For they wil make good their own Act To this is Answered It is what the Law of the Land hath established We must not be wiser then the Law It is what our Ancestors thought sufficient what hath been the practice of all time And if we leave Posterity in as good a Condition as our Ancestors left us they will have no Cause to Complain Then we must presume that Courts of Justice will do Justice and will do Right that upon better reason shewed upon the Appeal they will alter their minds and give an other Judgement They have done so heretofore How many Judgements of Parliament have been reversed by succeeding Parliaments And where there is Cause for it we must hope they will do so again Then where as it is said That the greatness of the Charge and the Inconveniencies of attending Causes in the Lords House is an Argument against their Judicature They Answer That it is not the House of Lords that appoints such great Fees to Counsel it being left to their Consciences that take them and to the will and discretion of their Clients who give them and who without an Act of Parliament to restraine it may give what they will or rather what they must However The Lords say that the charge in Chancery is greater there having been some times forty fifty Orders made in one Cause and the delay much greater so as some Causes have lasted there very many years And even at the Common Law how many Verdicts have been given in one Cause contrary Verdicts one for the Plaintiff an other for the Defendant Contrary Rules of Court the Judges give a Rule one day and three daies after give an other clean contrary As an Instance of it can be given but of last Trinity Term in the Kings Bench. These are Inconveniences that lye not in the House of Peers But admit there were Inconveniences Many Laws are found inconvenient which yet are put in execution and all obedience given to them whilest they stand unrepealed And the Question is not now of Convenient or Inconvenient but matter of Right Is it the Right of the House of Peers hath it still been the Custome and Usage of Parliaments and consequently the Law of Parliament that they should exercise such a Power of Judicature If it be so as it is and will be sufficiently proved then the point of Conveniency or Inconveniency is out of doors Well may it be a motive to alter it by the Law But we will play with them at their own Weapon and joyn Issue upon that point that the Inconveniency is but imaginary and so farr from an Inconvenience that it is the great advantage of the subject that it should be so As well to give relief in Cases otherwise unrelievable as to assist and help on the administration of Justice when sometimes the greatness and power of some persons would else bear down or much obstruct and hinder the Proceedings of Inferior Courts An objection also was raised How shall the Lords Judgements be executed after the Rising of the Parliament For so the subject may be deceived And when he thinks that with much Charge he hath made an end of his business he is never the nearer And it is Answered that the House of Peers is not as the House of Commons whose Orders are only of force whilest they are sitting they have power sufficient to require Obedience to their Judgements Nor hath it been knowen that ever any Judgement of the House of Peers was not submitted unto and obeyed till now in this Case of Skinners that the East-India Company stands out in defiance and refuseth all Obedience to it In 15 R. 2. N. 17. in the Case of the Abbot of St Oseches complaining against John Rokell for divers Embraceries and for not obeying an Order of the Duke of Lancasters made therein the Lords Confirme that Order and charge the Lord Chancellor to see Rokell perform it Why may not the Lords do the same still if they doubt of Obedience to their Orders But there was never question made of it before And there are many Presidents of Orders given to persons to act some thing in the Intervalls of Parliaments to give an account of it to the Lords at the next ensueing Parliament which shewes that their Authority stil continues to empower those persons to act and to execute their Orders even when the Parliament is risen 15 E. 3. N. 48. The Bishops of Duresme and Salisbury the Earl of Northamton Warwick Arundell and Salisbury are appointed to take the Answer of the Archbishop of Canterbury and to report it to the next Parliament And 51 E.
then Per Legem Terrae is all one with Per Legem Angliae or secundum Legem et Consuetudinem Angliae and what ever is done secundum Legem Angliae is done Per Legem Terrae And in his 1 Inst l. 1. c. 1. Sect. 3. He tells us what Lex Angliae is he saith there are divers Laws within the Realme of England and reckons them up Lex et Consuetudo Parliamenti is in the front of them He names many more the Civil Law by which the Court of Constable and Marshall and the Court of Admiralty and Ecclesiastical Courts do act the Law of War for the Court Martiall to act by the Law of Merchants the law of Stanneries Particular Customes in several places of the Kingdome Statute Lawes established by Authority of Parliament Whoever and whatever is tryed by any of these Laws be it for life Lands or goods it is still according to Magna Charta and though not Per Judicium Parium yet Per Legem Terrae The Law and Custome of Parliament is one of these and the Lords now acting agreeably to that act agreably to Magna Charta and that they have acted so is I think sufficiently proved all ready and will be further hereafter when we shew you Presidents for it from the beginning of Parliaments So for the other Statutes of the 25 of E. 3. c. 4. and the 42. c. 3. They do not at all concerne the House of Peers and were made only to prevent Vexation by Petitions and false accusations before the King and his Privy Counsel as appeares by the Preambles of those Statutes Though the Gentlemen of the House of Commons who managed the Conference were pleased to give them an other Interpretation and to say that the Petitions and suggestions to the King or his Counsel which are condemned by those Statutes are to be understood of those brought to the King and House of Lords But can it be rationally believed That the House of Peers of those times should themselves make so many Lawes pass so many Acts of Parliament five in the space of 17 years the 25 of E. 3. c. 4. the 28 c. 3. the 37 c. 18. the 38 c. 9. the 42 c. 3. all of them prohibiting that any man should be apprehended imprisoned or disinherited upon an accusation or suggestion to the King or his Counsel and enjoyning all Proceedings to be by Original Writ or by Inditement or by Presentment of good and lawfull People of the Neighbourhood And they know themselves to be intended by those Acts and yet still should act contrary to them judge and determine so many Causes both Criminal and Civil as they did from time to time Nay can it be believed That the House of Commons in those daies would bring up Impeachments against men to have them tryed at the Lords Barr if they did then conceive that those Acts of Parliament did forbid the Lords to meddle For though the Commons House are sometimes called the Grand Inquest of the Kingdome to present the Grievances thereof it is presumed they will not say that their Presentment is the Presentment intended by those Statutes For the Presentment mentioned there is the very description and true Character of your Country Juries The words of the Statute are The Presentment of good and lawful people of the same neighbourhood where such Deeds be done And can any man think that this is to be understood of the House of Commons No certainly What then is it that makes the Lords Proceedings upon the Impeachments of the Commons to be Legal and not contrary to those Acts of Parliament Since there is neither Writ nor Inditement nor Presentment and yet men are brought to tryal condemned and executed by their Judgements but only this that it is the Common Law of the Land being the Ancient unquestioned and undoubted Law and Usage of Parliaments And thereby is there a clear demonstration of the true meaning of those Statutes that it was the Regulation of the Kings Privy Counsel they aimed at and not of the House of Lords that Counsel of which Sir John Lee was one in that 42 of E. 3. n. 23. who was tryed and censured by that very Parliament in which that Act was made One of the Articles against him was That being of the Kings Counsel and Steward of his House be caused sundry men to be attached and and brought before him and made them answer singly to him as if it had been to the body of the Counsel He was fined for it and committed to the Tower The Lords John Nevil was likewise of this Counsel for misbehaving himself in it Judgment of Imprisonment and loss of Lands goods and Office was given upon him 50 E. 3 n. 34. And in the same Parliament n. 18. The Lord Latimer was accused for divers miscarriages being a Counsellor and for them he was by the Bishops and Lords committed to the keeping of the Marshall of England and adjudged to make Fine and Ransome at the Kings pleasure It is true he was enlarged presently by the Earl Marshall one Arch-Bishop three Bishops the Prior of St. John three Earls fifteen Barons and thirteen Knights being his Manucaptors but the Commons desired further that he might be no longer of the Kings Counsel which was granted And this was not to put him out of the Lords House for he continued still a Member there and had his Writ of Summons to come to the next Parliament in the 51 th year of that King There is nothing more clear then that those Statutes are all to be understood to mean the Privy Counsel and so did the two Houses of Parliament interpret them 3 Car. in their Petition of Right where the expression is That against the tenor of those Statutes divers were detained by his Majesties special command certified by the Lords of the Privy Counsel and one may bodly affirme that never any Statute or Act of Parliament did term the House of Lords the Kings Counsel So that Article of Magna Charta urged likewise at the Conference Communia Placita non sequantur nostram Curiam concernes not them neither It was to fix the Court of Common Pleas which as all other Courts was before that Ambulatory and followed the King where ever he was if he was in the Kingdome and the Writs were made returnable Coram nobis ubicunque fuerimus which was a great Grievance to the subject and cause of many discontinuances in sutes The following words clear it Sed teneantur in aliquo certo loco Now the place of the meeting of the Parliament was alwaies certainly known being expressed in the Writ of Summons which shewes it was not meant for them And whereas it was said That in Cases of Freehold there is no Proceeding without an Original Writ Scarse any that walkes Westminster-Hall but knows the contrary and the Course of Proceeding to be so fart otherwise as that not one Tryal for Land of forty comes on upon
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
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
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