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
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
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
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
by sickness or other occasion As 50. E. 3. n. 35. it is said The King ordains That from thenceforth no Woman should for Maintenance pursue Matters in the Kings Courts upon pain c. And then was the King sick at Eltham and could not come to Parliament as appears by n. 42. and it was only the House of Peers that made that Order So in Judgments though in Ancient Times they were mostly entred as given by the King yet it was the Lords House which was Curia Regis that gave them For we must know the KING hath a double Capacity of sitting in the House of Peers a Legislative Capacity when he hath in himself a Negative Voice to what even both Houses have concluded and done which signifies nothing without his Assent and his single Dissent makes it all null and void This is in passing Acts of Parliament and making of Laws The other is a Judicial Capacity when he will please to assist and be present at the ordinary Transactions of the House as heretofore was usual which alters not the Constitution of it as it is a Court gives it no more Power nor Jurisdiction then it had before he being then but in a manner as Chief Judge and not doing any thing singly but according to the Plurality of Opinions As when the Kings would in Person sit in the Kings Bench which they have in former times done where still all is said to be done Coram Rege though now he never come there and in Our Memory King James hath set in the Star Chamber I think no body will say the Star-Chamber then or Kings Bench before did or could vary from their ordinary Forms and Rules of Proceeding No more can the House of Peers alter their Proceedings or assume greater Authority by reason of the Royal Presence to take Cognisance of other Causes or do any thing which by the Custome and Usage of the House and the Law of Parliament it could not else have done But their Jurisdiction and their way of exercising that Jurisdiction is still one and the same And therefore 26. H. 6. n. 52. When the King had given a Judgment of himself without the advice of the Lords in the Case of William de la Pool Duke of Suffolk who stood impeached for Ireason banishing him the Realm for five years The Lords entred their Protestation against it as not done by their Assent and so no Act of the House And 5. H. 4. n. II. The Earl of Northumberland coming into the Parliament before the King and Lords and by Petition acknowledging to have done contrary to his Allegiance in giving of Liveries and gathering of Power for which he prayed pardon in regard he yeelded himself and came in to the King at York upon his Letters And the King delivering this Petition to the Justices to be considered The Lords made their Protestation That the Judgment appertained only to them And therefore as Peers of Parliament to whom such Judgement belonged in weighing the Statutes concerning Treasons and concerning Liveries they adjudged the Fact of the said Earl to be no Treason nor Fellony but only a Trespass finable to the King Whereupon the King received him into Grace and pardoned him his Fine All Power of Judicature in Parliament is then questionless in the House of Lords where the King alwayes is Personally or Virtually and the Judgment proceeds from them by the Authority and in the Name of the King For the Power of Judicature in Parliament is lodged in them together with the King as is declared 1. H. 4. n. 80. where it is said That the Commons were only Petitioners and that all Judgments appertain to the King and the Lords unless it were in Statutes Grants Subsidies and such like This hath ever been the Practice and Custom and Law of Parliament since there have been Parliaments and when this shall cease to be the Ancient way of Free Parliaments will cease likewise 1. R. 2. n. 30. Sir John de Cobham sheweth That by the delivery of a Ring of Gold for seisin to Edward the third he had setled the Reversion of several Mannors there named in the Crown and now prayes it may so remain according to his Intention divers Lords are examined the Judges Opinions are asked who declare it to be a good Livery and Seisin And so it is setled N. 32. William Fitzhugh a Gold-finer and Citizen of London exhibits a Bill of Complaint in the Name of the Cōmonalty of that Mystery against John Chichester and John Bolsham of the same Mystery for divers Oppressions done by them The Lords send for them examine them they deny those Oppressions And Fitzhugh refusing then to avow his Bill the Lords commit him to the Tower N. 35. Rober Hawley and John Shakell are by the Lords sent to the Tower for refusing to bring forth a Spanish Prisoner taken in Battel whom they had in their keeping and others laid claim to N. 41. Alice Perrers 〈◊〉 Pierce who bad been much in favour with Ed. 3. is questioned in the Lords House Sir Richard Scroope Lord Steward of the Houshold managing the Tryal for that contrary to an Order made by the King and Lords 50. Ed. 3. n. 35. That no Woman and she by Name should pursue any Matters by way of Maintenance upon Pain of perpetual Banishment and loss of the whole Estate She notwithstanding had perswaded King Edward to countermand Sir Nicholas Dagworth from going into Ireland when he had been ordained by the Council to go thither for urgent business which would have been profitable for the King and the Realm And an other Charge against her was for perswading the King to pardon Richard Lyons who had been Farmer of the Customs and for abuses and extortions had been censured in Parliament to forfeit his Estate and be committed to Prison she got all to be remitted and his Estate to be restored unto him even that part of it which the King had given to two of his own Sons for their lives The hearing of this Cause took up several dayes Many that had been Counsellors and Officers to the late King were examined as Witnesses At last she is found guilty and Judgment of Banishment and loss of Estate given upon her 3. R. 2. n. 24. The Case of the Earl of Pembrock and William le Zouch complaining of Thomas Roos for sueing them concerning Lands in Yorkshire and endeavouring to get a Tryall in the Countrey the Record is Desitant D'estre a Lissue du pays trop suspecieusement his desiring it being suspicious so they pray Que Ils partels Malueis Compassements Procurements en pais ne soient desheritez That they may not loose their Inheritance by such wicked practises and procurements The Lords upon this retain the Cause appoint some Persons to examine and report it But this President hath been cited before at large so I do but touch it here N. 22. Sir Philip Darcy complains That the Prior of St.
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
Jamby six Moneths under that trouble and coming home over Land from India 19 Moneths travel the Companies Agents refusing to give him passage in their Ships 1800. Totall 16836 Ryalls Interest for 16836 Ryalls for six years Ryals are valued at Jamby 5 s per Ryal But what they produce here being brought over in black Pepper to the Company clear of all Charges is expected they will ingenously own For The Assault of his Person Loss of six years Time Disappointment of his Trade Attendance and Charge here Disseizin of his Island Being valuable at more than all the other particulars are humbly submitted to your Lordships Discretion Signed Joseph Ayloff The Lords Referrees to this requiring the Answer of the Company receive this as follows To the Right Honourable the Lords Referrees concerning the Demands of Thomas Skinner upon the East India Company IN obedience to your Lordships Order and Direction the Court of Committees of the said Company have considered of the Matter proposed by your Lordships and do humbly offer to your Lordships That for the Nutmegs white Pepper and other things which were seized by the Justice of the place in part of a Debt due to the Company from Frederick Skinner which said Goods were brought to the Companies Accompts though the same were afterwards lost in the Ship Dragon and in the regard the Accompts between the Company and Frederick are concluded and the said Goods not included therein the said Company have alwaies offered to pay for the said Goods and are now ready to pay 3160 Dollars for the same which at 4 s 9. d per Dollar amounts unto the summe of 750 l 10 s And concerning the 1521 Dollars demanded by Thomas Skinner as a Debt due unto him from Thomas Leaver they in complyance with your Lordships desires will bè ready and willing to pay the said fifteen hundred twenty one Dollars amounting to 361 l 4 s 9 d to the said Thomas Skinner so as they may be discharged by the Administrator of the said Thomas Leaver to whom only they are liable it being very reasonable that the Company pay the Debt but once But the Company do utterly disavow that the Company can by any Law or Equity be liable for their Factors Debts Concerning Skinners other Demands for his Ship and for other Goods pretended to be seized on shore The Company do humbly offer to your Lordships That the Company are not liable for the Debt or Action of their Factors unless done by their Order and if the Company should be liable to every ones Clamors and pretences for wrongs done or pretended to be done by their Factors when if any such thing were done the same was not by their Order or Knowledge nor appliable to their use and accompt the same will necessarily impoverish and ruine the Company And the Company gave no Order for the seizure of Thomas Skinners ship nor nothing else of his nor was the same brought to the Companies accompt and the Agents at Bantam expresly ordered the Factors at Jamby not to meddle with the said Thomas Skinners ship who acted accordingly For it appears clearly That Captain Allnut and his Mariners had his Provisions and Stores for their Wages and that the King of Jamby and Jehore seized and kept the ship And his Goods on shore were seized on by Chinenses and other his Creditors and therefore they hope that his continual clamours of oppression shall not take any Impression in your Lordships great Judgments the Company not being able to put a price upon an oppression where none was at least that they are concerned in Yet for the procuring of their own peace and quiet and to prevent all further trouble unto your Lordships and the Company they do submit unto your Lordships disposal such further summe as will make the whole amount to 1500 l which is more than his ship and Goods were ever worth or valued at upon the Insurance at her going forth so as the Company may have thereupon full and final Releases and Discharges from the said Thomas Skinner and Frederick Skinner September 28. 1666. By Order of the said Company Signed Jo. Stanyon Secr. To which Skinner makes this Reply To the Right Honourable the Lords Referrees concerning the Damages done to Thomas Skinner Merchant by the East India Company The humble Reply of Thomas Skinner to the Proposals of the said Company THat since the Rapine and Spoil of the Companies Agents by their commands took from me Nutmegs white Pepper Provisions c. Of 3355 Ryals value if but 3160 Ryals came to their Accompt yet are they answerable for the whole which as the Justice of Jambyes Attestation That they took all without Reason monishes them of the duty of Restitution so the perishing thereof in and with the Companies Ship Dragon threatens them with the Improsperity of ill gotten goods And then though Ryals Cost put on Ship-board in England but 4 s 9 d or 5 s as they go for India yet they come home at above 15 s clear as by Oath of the Companies own Servants appears that when Pepper was sold at London but 11 d a pound though the Company sold ever since Anno 1660 at 11 d 13 d 14 d ½ and upwards therefore they are justly so demanded with Interest The 1521 Ryals owing formerly by Leaver is become the Companies Debt not only because he was their Servant and Agent but because it was seized for them and they have so much in their hands for my satisfaction and therefore are Receivers thereof to my use and may now pay it as safely as they ought honestly to have paid it long since with Interest in manner as those above mentioned Concerning my ship and goods taken on shore my Persecution in Jamby and tedious Journey home for which the Company offer payment by Fictions and Reproaches the sence which the King of Jamby who would have made that Factory a Publick Example had not my importunate Intercessions in Confidence to find Justice at home prevented it had of the Agents Inhumanity And which as their own Letters witness against them was by their Order what ever pretended against Frederick executed against my self and afterward owned by the Company cannot but goade their private Consciences how Insensible soever the Politique Conscience of a Corporation be as it did Allnuts upon his death bed who confest and repented sorely That he had been inticed and incited by the Agents unjustly against me and had nothing of the depredations With what modesty do the Company then upbraid me with pretended debts and calumniat the King and people of those parts and so much undervalue my Ship and Oppression when the contrary to the Companies Knowledg is so clearly manifest Nor are they ignorant of the hopeful Designe in my Plantation and valuable Trade they have destroyed me of which though it plainly appears That my Ships intended Voyage for Maccassor and freight thence for which Consideration above 2000 Ryalls is deducted
What and How much and referr it to the Consideration of a Committee to prepare it for the House And that then in that Interim of time before any thing was determined whilest but in Agitation and under consideration what should be done a Scandalous false railing Petition to be delivered to the House of Commons against the House of Peers contrary to all usage Right and Priviledge of Parliament and what was expresly forbidden 9. H. 4. N. 22. And this not withstanding not knowen upon what mistake for a mistake it must have been to be received with approbation by the House of Commons and seconded and confirmed by those forementioned Votes which were broughâ— up to the Lords and declared unto them at a Publick Conference Aâ—â— these things considered made the Lord very sensible who thought if there haâ— been failings that a gentler application had yet been more convenient but conscious to themselves of none and very confident that what they had donâ— was most Justifiable by the constanâ— course and practice of their House and in it self most Just and Equitable they conceived it absolutely necessary for thâ— Vindication of themselves and the asserting of their Rights to pass likewise two votes in Answer to the two of the House of Commons 1. That the House of Commons entertaining the Scandalous Petition of the East India Company against the Lords House of Parliament and their Proceedings Examinations and Votes thereupon had and made are a Breach of the Priviledges of the House of Peers and contrary to the faire cor-respondency which ought to be betweene the two Houses of Parliament and unexampled in former times 2. That the House of Peers taking Cognisance of the Cause of Thomas Skinner Merchant a Person highly oppressed and injured in East India by the Governour and Company of Merchants of London trading thither and over-ruling the Plea of the said Company and adjudging 5000 l damages thereupon against the said Governour and Company is agreeable to the Laws of the Land and well warranted by the Law and Custome of Parliament and Justified by many Parliamentary Presidents Ancient and modern Two Conferences past between the Houses upon this occasion One asked by the House of Commons the other by the Lords and what past at both the objections of the one side and the others Answers What was said by the Commons against the Proceedings of the Lords and what by the Lords to maintaine what they had done the substance of all that was said on both sides I shall here set downe as briefly as can as I find them entred in the Journal Book of the House of Lords where they are now a Publick Record The Gentlemen of the House of Commons that managed the Conference on their parts endeavored to maintain their votes by shewing the reasons of them They said that Pleas being of two natures Common Pleas and Pleas of the Crown in this Case they said they did not meddle with any part of their Lordships Judicature concerning Pleas on the Crown this being of the First sort and those being of two natures Personal or Real actions and in both all proceedings must be by the Kings Original Writ And this being a Case between Person and Person and so a common Plea ought to be proceeded in the Ordinary way by the Kings Original Wriâ— Presidents were brought for this vshered in with a Preamble That where the party never pleades to the Jurisdiction of the Court it is ordinary for Courts to proceed though in Cases not within their Jurisdiction The Presidents cited were out of the Placita Parliamentaria four in Ed. 1. time 1. President 18. E. 1. Johannes de Insula against the Bishop of Winton fol. 33. John de Insula prosecutes for the King Complains that the Bishop had disposed of an Hospitall which belonged to Queen Eleenor the Kings Mother and ejected her Tenant the Bishop Pleads that he found his Church seised of that advowson petit Judicium si debeat sine Brevi Domini Regis inde respondere The Judgement is Et quia praedictus Episcopus invenit Ecclesiam suam seisitam de praedicta advocatione tempore Creationis suae Ideo ipse quoad hoc eat inde fine die ad praesens Dominus Rex habeat Breve versus ipsum Episcopum quod reddat ei Advocationem c. quoad Ejectionem inquiratur veritas per Patriam 2. President in the same Parliament 18. E. 1. The Case of Hugh de Louther and the Heirs of Henry de Edelynthorp F. 43 Where it was much insisted upon these words Nec est Juri consonum vel hactenus in Curia ista vsitatum quod ali quis sine Lege Communi Brevi de Cancellaria de Libero Tenemento suo respondeat Et maxime in Casu vbi Breve de Cancellaria locum habere potest There fore dictum est praedicto Adae quod sibi perquirat per Breve de Cancellaria si sibi viderit expedire 3. The Case of William de Valentia Earl of Pembrook Jone his Wife and Isabell le Mareschal 18. E. 1. p. 44. Isabell Complaines of the Earl for assuming Jurisdiction in the Commote or Hundred of Esterlow which is in the Kings County of Kermerdyn and not in Pembrook-shire which belongs to the Earl and ejecting her He pleads that he is seised of it in the Right of his Wife and they crave Judgement si sine Brevi Domini Regis inde debent respondere The Judgment is Quia praedicti Willielmus Johanna sunt in Seisina de praedicta Jurisdictione per discensum haereditarium non per Usurpationem seu Purpresturam quod eant inde sine die ad praesens Dominus Rex habeat Breve si voluerit The Gentlemen of the House of Commons observed upon this That if there had been a Crime as Usurpation or Purpresture such Cases had usually been tryed in the Lords House But then added That if that had been the Case much might be said now how the Constitution of the Government hath been altered since The 4 th President in the 18. of E. 1. F. 51. was the Case of Roger de Somerton and the Prior of Buttele Somerton followes for the King and by Petition Complaines that the Prior unjustly withheld from the King the mannor of Somerton The Prior Answers that he holds it in the Right of his Church of Buttele petit Judicium si debeat inde sine Brevi Domini Regis respondere The Judgment is Ideo praedictus Prior quoad hoc eat inde sine die ad praesens Dominus Rex habeat Breve c. And this though the King was concerned as was observed by them By these Presidents they said it did appear that in Cases of Free-hold there is no Proceeding without an original Writ and then necessarily and Demonstratively it must follow That the Lords can not Judge in these Cases for there was never any Writt Returnable Coram Dominis Spiritualibus
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
which not And those Parliaments that the Modus Parliamenti speakes of when a little before the rising of the Parliament Proclamation was made in Publick places to know if any had business to the Parliament if any had Petitioned the Parliament their Petition had not been answered Certainly those Parliaments then did not apprehend to be reproached either with Partiality or deniall of Justice And I would aske this further If they can think that such a Committee of Tryers would have rejected Skinners Petition and have said The Lords can take no Cognizance of your business because it is concerning things done beyond Sea when themselves were a Committee appointed only for such businesses But to let these Sarcasmes pass and see rather what was said and may be said to the more solid objections concerning Magna Charta and those other Statutes which they will have to condemne the Proceedings of the Lords First it may be observed as a thing very strange that in above 400 years since Magna Charta was first made a Law it was never till now found out that the Lords had broken that Law by the exercise of this Jurisdiction nor were they ever charged with it before But besides do they by this any more break it then the Court of Chancery which by a Decree disposes of a mans Lands or the Court of the Constable and Marshall which takes away a mans life or any other Court where the Judge for a Contempt presently sends a man to Prison or claps a Fine on his head so takes both person and Estate or the same House of Lords when it Commits a man upon an Impeachment of the House of Commons Judges and Condemnes him Here is no Judicium Parium that is most certain nor Lex Terrae if you take it for an Original Writ And yet no man will say any of this is contrary to Magna Charta Why then may not the Proceedings of the House of Peers when it punisheth a man for robbing and assaulting his fellow subject in as strange Country which puts the busines out of the Cognizance of the ordinary Courts of Justice receive as favourable a Construction It can not be said that the House of Commons by their taking Cognizance of a Fact by their previous examination of it and declaration upon it giving it the Denomination of Treason or of any other lesser Crime can create a Jurisdiction in the House of Peers which it had not before and give it new power and Authority to pass a condemnation upon the guilty Person yet is it the Ordinary practice of the House of Commons who have a Grand Committee of Grievances for that purpose to impeach men so before the Lords They could receive not long since a Petition of one Taylor complaining against the Lord Mordant for oppression and falss imprisonment and the injurious taking away of an Office from him at Windsor All which were properly tryable in Westminster-Hall yet they could bring this up to the Lords and crave Reparations and Damages in the Name of the Commons of England And the Lords must not though at the Kings recommendation receive a Petition from Skinner and give him relief for his whole Estate by violence and with a strong hand taken from him part at Sea part upon Land in a strange Country in neither of which the Courts of Westminister can afford him any help For this must be against Magna Charta So rather then the Lords shall do it this must be a Failer of Justice in the Land the King shall not be able to protect his subjects the oppressor shall go free and the cry of the oppressed shall go up to heaven for Judgment upon the Land because he finds not Justice in it for his Relief But I remember what the Gentlemen of the House of Commons said at the Conference That therefore the Lords should not have given Relief in this Case because there was no remedy at all at Law This Objection hath been already answered therefore I shall not repeat it here only use one Argument more ad hominum that they forget what themselves have done this very Parliament entertaining a Complaint of one Farmer against the Lord Willoughby who is since dead for dispossessing him of his Estate and other wrongs done him in the Barbadoes which could not be tryed in Westminster-Hall which yet they were preparing to bring up to the Lords by way of Impeachment if the Lord Willoughby had not dyed And there is reason to believe that if Skinner had in the like manner applied himself to them there had been no breach of Magna Charta nor no exceptions taken at the great charge of the Subject appealing to the House of Commons and prosecution there though the charge be every whit as great and becomes much greater to the party that prosecutes for when he hath done there then he must begin again in the House of Lords so the charge is double and the Judgement when it comes is never a whit more in Latin to make it a Record then if the business had begun first in the Lords House as much is it without Jury or Appeal and no less danger of the non-execution of the Judgement after the rising of the Parliament In Fine all that is said against the Lords Proceedings now might as well be said against them then And to say the truth if it be well considered it wil be found that the consequence of this opposition should it work it's effect and prevail would be the overturning of the very foundation of all Authority of Parliament that it might then well be said of the whole Parliament that it did sit only to make Laws and give Subsidies But all this proves not the exercise of the Lords Judicature to be warranted by Magna Charta it only saith that other Courts and the House of Commons it self do as bad Which is no Justification of the Lords For to erre with Company is not to be free from fault Let us then see what may be said to clear them all but principally and Chiefly this Judicature of the House of Peers which is the mark shot at And to do this we must examine the Disjunctive proposition in Magna Charta which saith that every man shal be tryed Per Legale Judicium Parium suorum vel per Legem Terrae For if the Lords judge by either of these they are well enough And Sir Ed. Coke shall determine the question whom no man can suspect of partiality for the House of Lords He tells us in his 2. Inst F. 51. That Lex Terrae is Lex Angliae not Voluntas Regis as the Commons said the Kings Counsel would have it to be 3 Car. And less voluntas Dominorum Fot it is not in an arbitrary way the Lords proceed but according to the Law of the Land to punish nothing but what the Law makes punishable and Judge every thing according to Right secundum aequum et bonum So
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
procured the Arrest brought to the Bar and upon their humble sumbmission pardoned with a check from the Speaker and paying their Fees Three Presidents only there are which Sir Edward Cooke produces of their exercising a Judicature two of them upon their own Members for Miscarriages the third upon one no Member for striking a Member this primo Mariae the other 8. Eliz. 23. But they did not constantly nor frequently do that neither that is not judge and punish either their own Members for any Offence whether against the House or out of the House or any other for arresting or assaulting them till after Queen Elizabeths time For in the 27th of her Reign as appears by the Journal of that Parliament A Member of the House having been served with a Sub-poena the House sent to the Lord Keeper and signified unto him That it was against their Priviledge The Lord Keeper returned answer That he should not submit to any Opinion of the House concerning their Priviledges except those Priviledges were allowed in Chancery and would not recal the Sub-poena So in Matters of Elections they were glad to pray the aid of the House of Peers upon any Miscarriage or Neglect of the Sheriffs as in the 18th H. 6. n. 18. The Sheriff of Cambridgshire Gilbert Hore had made no return of the Knights for the County upon Complaint made to the House of Peers it was Ordered That he should go to a New Election and make Proclamation That no Person should come armed thereunto Any of the Members to be dispensed of their Attendance in the House come to the King and Lords for it So did Sir Philip Courtney Knight for Devonshire 16. R. 2. n. 6. who being accused of some hainous Matter comes to the King in Parliament for the King did then ordinarily sit in Person in the House of Peers and prayes to be discharged his Attendance until he was purged which was granted This was upon the Wednesday and the Munday after at the Request of the Commons he is restored to his place in their House and to his good Name for that he had submitted himself to reasonable Arbitrement saith the Record All this is said with great Respect to the House of Commons and not any wayes to impugn or question their exercise of Jurisdiction upon their Members and for the defence of their Priviledges but only to shew how things were in the beginning and how extensive the Power of the House of Peers hath ever been in their Judicature reaching all Crimes all Persons all Places none exempt And how necessary it is it should be so That there be not a failer of Justice in the Land that no Offender may escape unpunished and no oppressed Person go unrelieved All other Courts having their Bounds and Limits which make them too narrow for some Cases And this trust being in the House of Peers there is remedy in those extraordinary Cases But before I wind up all to a Conclusion a word must be said to answer some Objections which I have met with in a Book intituled the Commoners Liberty printed in the year 1648. The first Objection is an Order of the House of Peers with the Kings Assent to it 4. E. 3. n. 6. by which the King and Lords declare an Agreement made betwixt them That the Lords shall not be held nor charged to give Judgment on others but their Peers And that the Judgements then given shall not be drawn into Consequence to oblige the Peers in time to come to judge other then their Peers against the Law of the Land This the Author of the Book will have to be an Act of Parliament because it is said to be done in full Parliament To which I answer The Record it self shews it to be otherwise The Title is Concordia ne trabatur in Consequentiam That is an Agreement an Accord between Parties that what is done shall not be drawn into Consequence no Law to impose upon them and to oblige them And the expression That it was done in full Parliament and so the Commons present signifies nothing as to inforce what he would infer upon it For admit that yet it makes it not a Law the Commons might be Witnesses to what was done but were no Parties Which must have been to make it a Law They must either have Petitioned for it before or have given their Assent and Approbation after it must either have begun or ended in their House before it had gone to the King for his Royal Assent and then it had been binding and the Law of the Land but there was no such thing here The Occasion of it was this The King had prevailed with the Lords against their Wills and Protestations to the contrary as appears by the Record of that Parliament n. 2. even in a Manner forced them to condemn the Earl of March Sir Simon de Beresford John Matrevers Bogo de Bayons John Devaral Thomas de Gourney and William of Ogle for the murther of Edward the Second and the death of the Earl of Kent all of them Commoners except the Earl of March and none of them called to answer yet some of them in hold and others not Those that were in hold were presently executed and great rewards promised to who should bring in the rest quick or dead The Lords afterwards troubled in Conscience at what they had done and moved with just indignation against themselves made first a Protestation That they would not for the future be Tenus Chargez a rendre Jugement sur autre que sur leurs Pairs be tyed and charged to judge any but their Peers and this they get the King to consent unto and happily for the more Solemnity of the business would have the King declare so much before the Commons And their Indignation together with their Precaution not to be again necessitated to do the like might carry them further to say They would not be obliged to judge any but Peers against the Law of the Land though it will very well bear an other Construction that it was their being in that Manner forced and pressed to do what otherwise they would not have done which they declared to be against the Law of the Land because it is against the Freedom of Parliaments and not their Judging of Commoners to be against the Law of the Land But admit it those Lords then thought it to be so and that they ought not to judge any but their Peers Doth that bind up the House of Peers that they may never be of another mind They are still Masters of their own Orders and alter them and change them as they think good And I look upon this Order as no other nor of no more force then that made 8. E. 1. which is in the Appendix to the Placita Parliamentaria p. 442. concerning Petitions which I have mentioned before and which succeeding Parliaments would not observe And that they did not observe this neither