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
Temporalibus none such is found in the Register or Fitzherberts Natura Brevium And the reason they said was the same for Personal Actions as those that concern Free-hold that Magna Charta and several Statutes made in Ed. 3. time provide for our Tryall by our Peers Some other Presidents they mentioned out of the Roll of Petitions answered in the Parliament of 14. E 2. as that of William le Rous F. 408. Complaining of the Kings Bayliffs who had twice dispossessed him of a house in Westminster and praying remedy the answer was Habeat Breve novae disseisinae in suo casu Then that of the Bishop of Winton Elect in the same page Complaining that the Kings Officers had cut down the woods of the Bishoprick during the vacancy and praying remedy The Answer is Habeat Breve de Transgess in Canc. Next of Joane the widdow of John Fouks p. 409. by Petition Complaining of a wast committed in the Mannor of Radewynter The answer is sequatur ad Legem Communem Another President of Mariote the wife of Robert de Carle in the same page praying remedy for a breach of the Peace by the Parson of Wormele and others the Answer is Adeat Cancel habeat ibi Breve in suo Casu And to a Petition of Robert le Sausser p. 410 for a debt due to him Answered habeat in Cancell Breve de debito The last President cited was p. 411. Ralph de Draiton Parson of Luffenham complaining against Robert de Vere and others for imprisoning him till he resigned his living taking away his goods and committing other violences for which he had a Commission of inquiry in the Country of York and now prayed remedy The answer is quoad Resignationem nonpertinet ad Regem quoad Commissionem habendam ostendat in Cancellaria primam commissionem ibi respondeatur Et habeat similiter in Cancell Brevia de Transgressionibus sibi factis contra pacem c. To this first part of that Conference the Lords when they came to theirs gave for Answer in the first place That they could not but observe some thing unusual in the very title of the Petition differing from the ancient Stile of those presented to the House of Commons Then that they were much surprised reading the Petition to find so many falsities and yet to heare the Gentlemen that managed for the House of Commons say that their House had examined it and found all the Allegations in it to be true Whereas in truth there were in it almost as many Falshoods as Lines those Falshoods have been mentioned before so as it is not needfull again to repeat them The Lords took notice after of the unusual Proceeding of the House of Commons to take Cognizance of any matter depending in their House before their Lordships had given any Judgment therein or communicated the same unto them And to examine proceed upon and censure by vote the Proceeding of the House of Peers which they said the House of Commons could not Legally do because they were not a Court of Judicature in any case much less of the House of Peers which is the Highest Iudicature And that in truth they had not means to come to the Knowledge of the truth whereby to found a Right Judgment because they have not power to give an Oath Nor in this particular had they heard any more then one side having not heard Skinner at all Nor yet had they conferred with the Lords by which meanes they might have come to the knowledge of the grounds and reasons upon which their Lordships had proceeded So as the Lords could not but wonder at this Judgement which had been past upon them Then they came to that Assertion concerning Common Pleas That they must be proceeded in by the Kings Original writ and consequently not before the Lords for which the House of Commons brought some Presidents to prove that Free-holds were never examined in Parliament but alwaies left to the remedy at Law And in the next place the Lords took into Consideration how they began their Presidents with this Preamble That where the party never Pleads to the Jurisdiction of the Court it is ordinary for Courts to proceed though in Cases not within their Jurisdiction To which the Lords said in the first place as to the Assertion viz. That all Common Pleas must be proceeded in by Original Writ and Consequently not before the Lords That it was as easy for them to assert the contrary and upon better grounds Being able to shew Presidents all along from the first and the most ancient Records we have down to the latest and most moderne ones of the Proceedings of Parliaments even within the memory and knowledge of every yong man that the House of Peers have still exercised this Jurisdiction even in particular Cases of Meum Tuum between man and man when they have thought good though that but rarely and when moved to it by some thing extraordinary in the Case and that no House of Peers hath done it less and been more tender of entertaining such businesses and more unwilling to be troubled with them then this present House of Peers upon which so much blame is laid and which is the only House of Peers that ever Private Persons found guilty and censured by it for foul Oppressions did presume in that manner to accuse and impeach to any Court or Councel or Company of men no not to the King himself Or that ever were censured and such votes passed upon before But we shall hereafter in its due place examine the matter of this Assertion and shall shew that it holds not true even in the ordinary Courts of Westminster-Hall whither of common Law or Equity where Cases of mens Free-holds are tryed every day without any original Writt and much less in Parliament In the mean time we will take things in order as they were delivered And to the Preamble which usherd in the Presidents That where the Party never pleads to the Jurisdiction it is ordinary for Courts to proceed though in Cases not within their Iurisdiction upon which the Inference must be that Presidents then signify nothing to prove a Jurisdiction though never so many though a constant Series of them in all times be made appear except there be still a pleading to the Jurisdiction and that Plea overruled The Lords thought this a strange Argumentation and took the force of the Argument to lye rather the other way That it is a clearer Proofe of a Jurisdiction to have it never or seldome questioned and be still exercised and submitted unto then if it be some times opposed though it be made good and maintained against that Opposition And they thought that in this particular Case they had good Warrant for their Jurisdiction finding it so seldome opposed even by the House of Commons own shewing who could bring but four Presidents where any had pleaded to their Jurisdiction and the Plea seemingly admitted for
and Company and of Maurice Tompson and Sir Andrew Riccard seeing the Petitioners hopeful designe in his Plantation and way of trade with his Ship did seize for and on the behalf of the said Governour and Company his said Ship goods houses Istands and 1521 Dollars of the Petitioners in the hands of Thomas Leaver the Companies Chief Agent at Jamby which hath damaged him 17172 l Sterling besides the disappointment of his trade disseizin of his said Island loss of above six years time with attendance and vast charges here in endeavors for a just satisfaction c. being much more valuable then all the other damages And the said Agents used many violences upon his person in the said Indies notwithstanding that the Petitioner proffered Bail and good Security there to answer all their pretences which inhumane and unreasonable dealing forced the Petitioner through infinite hazards and expence to come most over Land for England to seek redress That in the year 1661 and continually since he hath humbly besought his Majesty for Justice against the said Governour and Company and persons aforesaid and though his Majesty hath been graciously pleased to convene the said Company and Persons and to hear the said Matters and also to referre it divers times to several Lords of his Majesties most Honourable Privy Councel to hear them and mediate an End yet they could not be reduced to Reason nor Justice albeit the Petitioners Wrongs and Damages were made to appear as well by their own acknowledgement as other evidence produced before the Lords Referrees but endeavoured by the strength of their Joynt-Purse to bear down the Petitioners Relief though never so just by wearying him from further Prosecution That the Petitioners whole Case not being remediable by the Courts below he is constrained humbly to address himself to your Lordships his Majesties great Councel and Supreme Judicature whom the Petitioner most humbly petitioned the last Sessions and your Lordships were pleased to order their Attendance but by their Dilatory Pleas and several non-attendances upon slight excuses at the day appointed by your Lordships they frustrated the Petitioner of obtaining your Lordships Justice that Session Wherefore he most humbly prayes That your Lordships will be pleased to cause the said Governour and Company and persons aforesaid to answer the premisses before your Lordships by a short day and that he may receive from your Lordships such Relief as shall be consistent with Justice and Equity And he shall pray c. Signed Thomas Skinner The Lords upon this order the Company to put in their Answer in Writing upon Wednesday the 6 th of November They bring in a Plea as before First by way of Protestation That all the Injuries supposed to be commited by them and their Factors are untrue Then plead as formerly That the Petition is in the Nature of an Original Complaint not brought by way of appeal c. as in their Plea of the last Session but add And therefore these Respondents do humbly demand the Judgement of this honourable Court whither it will please to take any other or further Cognizance of the same the rather because the matters of Complaint in the Petition are such for which remedy is ordinarily given in the Courts of Westminster-Hall wherein these Respondents have Right to be tried and ought not to be brought hither per saltum nor drawn ad aliud examen and so pray to be dismissed The Lords having received this Plea to shew the clearness of their Intentions and their tenderness of doing any thing which might but carry a Semblance That they desired to engross to themselves the judging of particular Causes when determinable elsewhere and nothing extraordinary in the Case to induce their Lordships to take Cognizance of the Matter which apparently was in this Case of Skinners as hath been said before would have the Opinion of all the Judges before they proceeded any further And therefore made an Order Monday the 2 d. of December That it be referred to all the Judges to consider of Skinners Petition and to Report to the House upon the Wednesday following whether the Petitioner were relievable upon the matters therein mentioned in Law or Equity and if so in what manner upon the several parts of the Complaints of the said Petition The day appointed the Judges came and the Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench reported That all the Judges had considered of the Matter referred to them and having met and considered thereof were of Opinion That the Matters touching the taking away of the Petitioners Ship and Goods and assaulting of his Person notwithstanding the same were done beyond the Seas might be determined in his Majesties Ordinary Courts at Westminster And as to the dispossessing him of his House and Island That be was not relievable in any ordinary Court of Law Here then clearly by the Judges own Confession part of the Case was not within the Power of Westminster Hall and under favour of better Judgements I think it will be but a venial Sin if notwithstanding this Declaration of our Sages in the Law the Doubt do still remain with us if some of the other points also as that of the taking of his Ship a Robbery committed super altum mare be punishable by the Law of Westminster Hall Nay may not one be bold to affirm That it is not And may it not be doubted further if any part of Skinners Case be tryable there and if their Fiction in Law will reach any part of it being all for Injuries and Violence against his Person and Estate in India We know that some Judges and Lawyers make it to extend to Contracts and Bonds made beyond the Sea which they ground upon a Case in the Year Book of 48 E. 3. fol. 2. where Sir Ralph Pole brings his Action against Sir Richard Tochester upon an Obligation bearing date at Harfleet in Kent Lou de rei veritate I l fust fait en Normandie the Book saith and his Action was held good And Brook who makes it to be at Roan not Harfleet gives the reason in his Abridgement Faits 98. le lieu n'est traversable the place is not traversable which is to be understood when it is expressed in the Bond for a man cannot traverse the place against his own Act. But the Law was ever understood to be otherwise till then that the Judges would ampliare Jurisdictionem And to shew what the Law was before E. 3. it was adjudged Michaelmas 2 E. 2. That no Action would lie for a Bond made at Barwick which did not then belong to England ou cest Court nau ' conisans where the Court hath not cognisance saith Fitzherbert Obligation 15. And so Perkins Faites 121. But both before and since the Courts of Law were so far from punishing Injuries and Trespasses done beyond Sea That even Treason was not tryable till the Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. which saith That if any of the Kings
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
their Misdemeanors and wrongs done to Skinner and in adjudging them to give Skinner Reparation for it The 3d President was that of william de Valentia and Isabell de Mareschal in which the Lords observed the dismission to have been only ad proesens But withall observed that the bare reading of the Case in the Book will satisfy one of the Jurisdiction of the Peers to retaine such Causes It sayes That William de Valentia had at the fore going Parliament been Ad querelas Isabellae le Mareschall allocutus et ad rationem positus impleaded and put to Answer by what right he assumed such an Office and such Power in the Hundred of Hosterelegh and that he then alleged he did it in the Right of his Wife and that it being his Wifes Inheritance he ought not to be put to answere without her Ita quod datus fuit dies ei ad hunc diem ad Parlamentum Domini Regis viz. a die Paschae in ires Septimanas And then his Wife and he appeared by their Atturney and after pleadings The Judgment is Quia praedicti Willielmus Et Johanna sunt in seisina de praedicta Jurisdictione et de Haeredicate ipsius Johannae per descensum haereditarium et non per Usurpationem seu Purpresturam c. Consideratum est quod eant inde sine die quoad praesens Et Dominus Rex habeat Breve si voluerit c. The Lords knew they had Jurisdiction else they would have dismissed the Cause the Parliament before and not have adjourned it to the next Parliament upon that ground to make the Wife a Party as we see they did And whereas the Commons had upon this President observed that if there had been Crime in the Case as Usurpation or Purpresture then they acknowledged that in such Cases the House of Lords did usually proceed and try them but withall added That if that were the question much might be said how the Constitution of Government hath been since altered So as they soon retracted their admittance of but so much of the Lords Right and what they had given with their right hand they would soon take again with their left But first for their Concession of Judging Crime the Lords say that suffices for their Jndemnity as to what they have done in this particular Case of the East-India Company and Skinner for here is Crime sufficient and Usurpation and Purpresture taking them in the larger sence for invading any other mans Right and not only where the King is concerned as those termes are taken some times And then for the Qualification of their Gift upon the Change and alteration of the Government The Lords Answer That when they shew the Time when that alteration was made and the Persons by whom and the Manner how if Legally done they shal then believe submit and not till then But they never heard of any thing that till now so much as looked that way except that Vote of the Assembly called the Rump which declared the House of Lords useless and dangerous and therefore to be abolished and taken away and by a Clubb Law they did take it away But even they that passed that Vote and did make that Clubb Law thought the Judicature necessary and fit to be continued for they immediatly assumed it to themselves and fairely voted themselves into that Power by the Name of the Commons of England the very same Title that the East-India Company do now make use of in their Petition to the House of Commons To the 4th of Roger de Somerion prosecuting for the King and complaining of the Prior of Buttele for unjustly withholding from the King the mannor of Somerton And the Judgment upon it Ideo praedictus Priot quo ad hoc eat inde sine die ad praesens The Lords say it is but a Temporary dismission as the others were and signifies nothing as to the point of Jurisdiction And they wish the Commons would have pleased to cast their eye upon the ensuing Case in the same leafe of William de Valentia again and of him upon the same occasion concerning his Wifes Inheritance as formerly where there is not a Dismission of the Cause as formerly but a determination of it and that determination again referred unto and confirmed by a suceeding Parliament to shew that the House of Lords sometimes would and sometimes would not Judge and determine such causes as were brought before them That Case was thus William de Valentia Complaines of the Lords of the Counsel for admitting during the Kings absence beyond the Seas one Dionisia a pretended Daughter of William de Monte Caniso Tenant to the King of Lands held in Capite and formerly enjoyed by her Father in his life time Whereas his Wife was true Heire to that William and the Land belonging to her The Lords of the Councel justifie what they have done say that Dionisia was notoriously known to be the true Daughter of that William and that the Bishop of Winchester in whose Diocess she was born testified it The Judgment is Ideo videtur domino Regi quod praedictus Comes Thesaurar Alij de Consilio bene et rité processerunt It is not now sibi perquirat per Breve de Cancel They do not referr him to the Chancery as they did in the other Case This was in 18 E. 1. In 20 E. 1. p. 103. he comes again to Parliament and renues his Complaint and that Judgment given before is confirmed the words are these et de alijs Petitionibus suis viz. De hoereditate Willielmi de Monte Caniso petenda et etiam quod procedatur juxta Bullam quam jidem Williemus et Johanna impetrarunt ad inficiendum Processum perquod Dionisia filia proedicti Willielmi Legitima censebatur alias eis responsum fuit viz. in Parliamento post Natale Domini Anno 18. ut patet in Rotulis ejusdem Parliamenti Ad quam Responsionem se teneant c. Nothing can be clearer then the continual practice of this Jurisdiction in the House of Lords whensoever they pleased Not that it hath alwaies pleased them to trouble themselves with exercising this Jurisdiction their time having been so taken up some times with businesses of a higher Nature that they could not attend it so as many times they have tyed up themselvesby an Order of the House not to receive any private business As in the Close Roll 18 E. 1. There is a memorable Order to that purpose I will set it down at length in the very words which are these Pur ces Ke la gent Ke venent al Parlement le Roy sunt sovent destaez et destourbez a grant grevance de eux e de la Curt par la multitudine des Peticions Ke sunt botez devant le Roy de quevx le plus porreient estre espleytez par Chanceler et par Justices purveu est Ke tutes les Petitions Ke tuchent le sel vegnent primes al
a 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.
3. N. 96. It is there specified How in the Parliament before one Hugh Staffolk had been accused of divers Extortions and that a Commission was then granted to the Earl of Suffolk and Sir John Cavendish to inquire into it who so had done and had found him guiltless by 18 Enquests which Sir John Cavendish did in that present Parliament witness to be true By all this it appears that the Authority of the House of Peers ends not with the Parliament but their Judgements still continue in full force and power And they may appoint Persons to see them executed if they please And whereas the House of Commons doth not deny them a power of Judicature upon Writs of Error and upon Appeales Will not the same objection lye as well against their Judgements in those Cases For seldome that they be put in execution before the Parliament rise so it takes away their whole Judicature as in truth all the other objections would do could they be made good And whereas it was said That none of the Kings Courts can give remedy where the Kings Writ can not run And where his Majesties Soveraignty doth not come the Jurisdiction of the Peers can have no place It was Answered that there Chiefly the Power of the House of Peers is to give remedy because it only can As for Treasons till the Statutes of 26 H. 8. C. 13.32 H. 8. C. 2. and 5 E. 6. C. 11. which have made them tryable within the Realm and all Misdemeanors committed in Forrein parts which never were nor yet are tryable at the Common Law Of this there are multitudes of Presidents Gomeniz Weston Segrave Hall Richill c. And here within the Kingdome the the Kings Writ doth not originally run in all places as for example in the Counties Palatine yet no man will deny the Authotity of the Lords in Parliament taking place there 9 R. 2. N. 13. The Duke of Lancaster Complaines of Sir John Stanley for not suing out his Livery for the Mannor of Latham in the Dukes Court of Chancery and yet entring upon it They declare his Entry unlawful and Order him to sue out his livery in the Dukes Court. The Kings Writ did not run there but the Authority of the Lords did Another Objection was That all Proceedings ought to be in Latin and nâ— Record to be in English But the Lords had thought That none had ever yet doubted but the House of Peers had been a Court of Record where all the Proceedings Orders Judgements have been in English ever since H. 6â—… time All Acts of Parliament in English All impeachments even those brought up by the House of Commons the Proceedings and the Sentence all in English The Ancient Records were in French and the Pleadings likewise till the Statute of 36 E. 3. Which appoints Pleadings to be in English and to be entred and enrolled in Latin so the Print saith but in Sir Robert Cottons Abridgement of the Records it is observed that the Record it self warrants no such thing Then the Chancery Proceedings are all in English The Pleadings Orders and Decrees Yet it will not be denied but that is a Court of Record Sir Edward Coke who alone is of an other Opinion concerning the Chancery and upon that ground because the Proceeding is in English yet makes the House of Commons it self a Court of Record where every body knowes all is in English Jnst 4. part p. 23. so he doth not sibi constare The last Objection and indeed the the Chief one if true was That it deprives the Subject of the benefit of Magna Charta which will have all men to be tryed by their Peers or by the Law of the Land And the 25 of Ed. 3. C. 4. that none shall be apprehended upon Petition to the King or Counsel and Counsel here they interpreted to be the House of Lords but upon inditement or presentment or by Writ Original And the 42. of E. 3. which is to the same purpose It was urged further that no Writ was ever made returnable Coram Dominis Spiritualibus et Temporalibus And it was said in Regard of the Island being in a Forrein Princes Jurisdiction that it ought to have been done by Act of Parliament for that no Court of his Majestie can give remedy where his Majesties Writ can not run nor can the Jurisdiction of the House of Peers have place there An other observation they had upon Lex Terrae in Magna Charta That in the Arguments of the Kings learned Counsel 3. Car. They made Lex Terrae to be the pleasure of the King And the Lords were desired to consider upon this if by arguing that the Proceedings of their House were maintained to be Secundum Legem Terrae it may not as well be said that Magna Charta will have men to be tryed Per Judicium Parium aut per Legem Terrae That is by the will of the Lords This is the substance of what was most materially urged against the Lords at that Conference Some other things were said rather to entertain the By-standers then for any thing else as the question asked How the Lords should see further beyond sea then other men Indeed the Lords thought they might see as farr as other men and as farr as the Court of Chancery or any other Court but never undertook to see further But they think if some may have their wills they may be laid so low that they shall then see but a very little way but that is not yet And another pretty Dilemma was made which was this Are the Lords bound to recieve all Petitions or not if bound they may refuse none for Magna Charta saith Nulli negabimus and the King is Debitor Justitiae to all his subjects If they be not bound then they must be partial to receive some and dismiss others But this Argumentum bicorne hurts with neither horne For the Lords in these very Presidents brought by the House of Commons in Ed. 1. Ed. 2. time did not deny Justice when they sent the Petitioners unto those several Courts where they should receive it one to the Chancery an other to the Common Law and directed one to bring such an Action another a differing one according to their several Cases And in those multitudes of Presidents brought by the Lords where Causes have been retained and determined in that House they can not justly be charged with Partiality when they are moved thereunto by some thing extraordinary in those Cases which requires their Relief and that it can not be had else where And a Question may be put on the other side whither it can be believed that Partiality was imputed to all the Parliaments heretofore which at their first sitting appointed Committees Tryers of Petitions for England for Ireland for Gascony nay for Flanders where the King had no Dominion and sometimes in general for all places beyond the Seas to examine which were fit to be received
such a Writ But by the delivery only of a Declaration of Trespass and Ejectment any mans Inheritance of never so much value may be questioned and brought to Tryal if it shall continue his or no Nay There is an Act of Parliament 18 El. c. 14. which provides expresly That after a verdict given the want of an Original Writ shall be no Cause of Error to be pleaded in Arrest of Judgement but that Judgement and Execution shall follow So farr is it from being true that no Freehold can be judged without an Original Writ And faine would I aske what Original Writ they use in Chancery to sue men there for their Freehold Is it any more then for the Complainant to put in his Petitionary Bill of Complaint then take out a Writ of Subpoena for the Defendant to come in and answer by such a day just what was heretofore used in the House of Lords the Plaintiff put in his Petition and the House ordered a Writ of Summons to Issue out to call in the Defendant But in later times that House as is usuall for all Courts to alter their Method of Proceeding and find out some more compendious and easy way both for themselves and for Suitors so have they instead of a Writ as formerly which asked more time and charge to take out made it now that an Order of the House shall be sufficient for that purpose but they may returne to their Writs of Summons again when they please And as to Original Writs ow unseasonable is it and ggainst all reason to make it now an Objection against the Judicature of the House of Peers That the Proceedings there not being upon those Writs they ought not to meddle with matters of Freehold Since the Practice of the Law is now so changed that even Inferior Courts have left off the use of them whereas heretofore when all other Courts were by the Law and the practise of those times tyed to those Forms the House of Lords was not but exercised still their Judicature in their own Parliamentary way without Original Writs yet no such exception was then taken but all their Judgements were still allowed of approved and obeyed and punctually executed And the other Assertion doth not operate much neither viz. That it was never heard of a Writ Returnable Coram Dominis Spiritualibus et Temporalibus For if it be meant of Original VVrits what doth that signifie seeing they are not at all necessary no not used now for Commencing of suites even in Westminster-Hall much less in Parliament where the use hath ever been otherwise And if meant of other VVrits it is a foul-mistake For it hath been the Common practice of the House of Peers especially in former times upon any Complaint made to them by Petition to Order a VVrit to Issue out with the Petition annexed or containing the matter of it directed sometimes to the party himself petitioned against commanding him to appear sometimes to the Sheriff of the County commanding him to summon the party to appear before them at a certaine day and the Writ withall to be then returned so to enter into the examination of the busines and afterwards proceed to Judgement Ancient Presidents of this are sans nombre 25 E. 1. m. 14. Upon Complaint of the Arch-Bishop of York That the Advouson of the Rectory of Bridgeford was detained from him by Boniface de Salucijs a Writ reciting the matter complained of is ordered to be sent unto him requiring him to appear in Parliament the morrow after St. Gregory the Pope at Carlile and shew cause Quare ad finalem expeditionem praedictorum negotiorum minime fuerit procedendum why the House should not proceed to a final dispatch of the busines and be was enjoyned to bring the Writ with him habeas ibi tunc hoc Breve is the Close of the Writ The Printed Book of the Placita Parliamentaria in Ed. 1. time is full of Presidents of this Nature I have in this discourse cited very many both out of that Book other Records of Parliament under the other Kings I shal not therefore heap uy any number here though it were easie to do I will only give a short account of one which seemes to me a memorable one out of that Book of the Pacita Parliamentaria p. 1.57 the 21 of E. 1. Magdulphus sonne of Malcolin Earl of Fife in Scotland complaines in Parliament to King Edward That John King of Scotland had wrongfully dispossessed him of certain Lands in Scotland called Reyes and Crey Whereupon King Edward directs his Writ to the Sheriff of Northumberland commanding him to go into Scotland taking persons with him to testifie it and there deliver a Writ of Summons to the King of Scotland to appear before him such a day ad respondendum praedicto Magdulpho super praemissis et ad faciendum et recipiendum ulterius quod Justitia requireret Which was by the Sheriff performed at Striveling the morrow after St. Peter ad vincula who made his returne accordingly to the Parliament And the King of Scotland appeared at his day and was asked if the Kings Writ had been delivered to him by the said Sheriff which he acknowledged and said further Quod semper paratus est et erit Brevia et mandata Regis ut Domini sui admittere Then be was bid to deliver in the Writ and he said he had delivered it to his Chancellor and the Chancellor examined said he had it not there But yet upon the Kings acknowledgement that he had received such a Writ his appearance was admitted and be was willed to Answer to the matter of complaint put in by Magdulphus His Answer was That he was King of Scotland and could not without the Counsel and Advice of the good men of his Kingdome speak to any thing that concerned it This was judged by the Parliament to be Contempt us manifeslus et Inobedientia expressa and it was further Ordered that three of the Principal Castles of Scotland should be seised into the Kings hands and so remain Quo-usque de contemptu et Inobedientia praedicta cidem Domino Regi satisfecerit But the King of Scotland came before the pronouncing of the sentence Coram Rege et Consilio suo et fecit Domino Regi quandam Supplicationem ore suo proprio per verba subscripta which words were these Sire Ieo suy vostre home du Royaulme d'Escoce et vous prie que de ceo que vous me avez mis adevant que touche les gents de mon Royalme aussy come a moy voillez mettre en soeffrance jesques a taunt que ieo ay a eux parle que ieo ne sey suppris per defaute de Conseil desicum les gens que cy sont oue moy ne moy voillent ne osent conseiller sauns autre du Royaulme et quand ieo me averay a eux consaile ieo vous respondray a vostre primer Parliament apres
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