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
it is but seemingly as will be shewed upon the Examination of the Presidents themselves Whereas multitudes were produced of the exercise of their Jurisdiction and some Where the parties had desired a try all at common Law and the Lords would not grant it as that of William Paynell and Margaret his Wife in the Placita Parliamentaria of the 30 of Ed. 1. p. 231. The Case was this Margaret had been formerly the Wife of John Cameys and he yet living bad left him as she alledged with his consent and lived with Paynell as his Wife and was married to him Cameys dying Paynell and she sue for the Thirds of the Mannor of Torpell which had been the Land of Cameys It was objected on the other side That she lived in Adultery with Paynell in Cameys life time and so had forfeited her Dower They upon that desire to be tryed by their Country if Adultery or no What say the House of Peers Do they send them into the Country as is desired No Videtur Curiae quod non est necesse contra tantas tamque manifestas Evidentias Praesumptiones Probationes c. ad aliquam Inquisitionem Patriae Capiendam procedere c. Et ideo consideratum est quod praedicti Willielmus Margareta nihil Capiant per Petitionem suam sed sint in Misericordia pro falso Clamore c. This shewes that the Lords some times would retain Causes though sometimes they did dismisse them not for want of Jurisdiction but as it seemed to them convenient and their Occasions would give leave as they had or had not leasure for it from the greater Affaires of the Kingdome or that some Circumstances in the merits of a Causemade it more or less worthy of their Consideration As if one of the parties was powerfull in his Country and suspected to have an Influence upon the Juries the Lords would then some times retain a business and determine it themselves As in 3 R. 2. N. 24. The Case of John Earl of Pembroâ—k and William le Zouch Complaining that they were sued for certain Lands in York-shire by Thomas the Sonne of Sir Robert Roos of Ingmanthorp and alledge That the said Thomas sought to come to a tryall in the Country which he had gained and corrupted And therefore pray for redress and a tryall by Parliament giving this reason for it Que Ils par tels Malveis Compassemens et Procuremens en pais ne soient desheritez That they may not lose their inheritance by such wicked contrivances and practises in the Country Do the Lords then suffer it to go on to tryall in the Country No They take the matter into their own hands appoint John Knevet and John Cavendish Chief Justice and John Belknap Chief Justice of the Common Pleas to examine it and make Report to them which they did And so likewise in the Case of Pontyngdon and Courtney 4 H. 4. N. 21. Sir Phillip Courtney a great man in the Country oppresses Pontyngdon dispossesses him of his Land by force he comes to the Lords praies Pur Dieu Et en oeuure de Charite d'ordeigner remedies en cell Cas For Gods sake and as a work of charity that they would give remedy in this case Setts forth in his Petition that he had before in a Parliament held at Winchester made his complaint at which time Sir Phillip laid the Bastardy of his Father as a Barr and that the Lords Answer then was That he should have right done him and committed the business to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury to take care of it That before the Arch-Bishop Sir Phillip and he agreed to go to a tryall upon that Issue and that there should be a sufficient Jury of the principal Knights and Esquires of the Country But that Sir Phillip had named some of those principal men and withall poor men of less sufficiency to the intent that the great men making default the poor should stand and that these poor men durst not against Sir Phillip maintain the truth les queux poures hommes n'oisent envers le dit Sir Phillip la verite dire That thereupon he Petitioned again the Lords in the next Parliament sitting at Westminster and informed them of all these Particulars whereupon they Ordered a Writ to go to the Judges of Assize of that Country commanding them to admit none to be of the Jury but such as had 40 l a year Land and those to be chosen out of the whole Country notwithstanding any usage or Challenge to the Contrary But that now Sir Phillip finding that the charge of Bastardy would not hold contriving still the wrongful disinherison of the Petitioner had started a release unduely gotten from one Thomas Pontyngdon a Parson whose heirethe Petitioner is And the Petitioner is thereby like to be ruined si il neit vostre tres Hautissime et tres excellent secours et aide if the Lords would not afford him their most High and excellent succour and help This was the effect of the Petition The Lords upon this make an Order to direct the tryall the Point in Issue to be the Bastardy that the Release should be laid aside as null and void that if the Bastardy be proved Pontyngdon shall be for ever barred to sue hereafter and if not proved but that his Father was Mulier he should then recover the Land with Costs and damages And they further Order a Writ to the Sheriff to Impannell none of the Jury that had not 40 l per annum Land So then three several times in three several Parliaments did the Lords take Cognizance of this Cause being a Common Plea for a mans Free-hold and that Originally in the first Instance not upon an appeal or Writ of Error or any of those waies to which the House of Commons would now limit them They direct the tryall the Issue the Condition and Qualification of the Jury and the Judgment and if this be not taking Cognizance of a Cause I know not what is And well was it for that poor Gentleman That the Lords had that Jurisdiction that they could take Cognizance of his Cause to give him relief then As now it was well for Skinner That the Lords took Cognizance of his Otherwise this powerfull Company had trampled him in the dirt and ruined him as that violent man Sir Phillip Courtney for so he appears to have been by several Complaints against him in the Parliaments of those times had served Pontyngdon And well will it still be for many a poor man to have such an Asylum such a City of refuge to fly unto to save himself from the violence and Oppression of power and greatness And perhaps some of those who now endeavour to lay low the House of Peers who would make it to be of no signification to have no power no Influence upon the Kingdome be as salt that hath lost its Savor only Magni Nominis Umbra a Name of Peerage without ability to help themselves or
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-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
his Father deceased And that a Statute of 1600 l entred into by the said Thomas Bagshaw to John Gell Esq shall be discharged and made void And that Thomas Bagshaw shall make a Release to the said Edward of all Debts and Demands The sixteenth of June 41. The Lord Audley Complains by Petition That the Lord Cottington kept from him the Mannor of Fonthill and prayed Relief therein Upon hearing Counsel on both sides the Lords dismissed the Petition The twenty third of June 41. The Committee for Petitions Reports That Mistris Walter had preferred a Petition setting forth That William Walter her Husband will not permit her to cohabit and dwell with him nor allow to her and three Children any thing for their support The Lords Order her to repair to her Husband and offer to live with him and if he shall refuse to admit her that then he shall allow her 60 l per annum for her Maintenance The 21 th of July 41. A Petition was exhibited before the Lords by sundry Officers and Clerks of the Court of Common Pleas shewing That the disposing of the Offices of Protonotaries Phitizers Exigenters and other Offices of the said Court had time out of mind belonged to the Chief Justice of that Court for the time being but several Grants and Patents had been obtained from his Majesty for the disposing of the said Offices and therefore they prayed That all those Grants and Letters Patents might be recalled The Lords heard Counsel upon it and after mature deliberation declared That the said Offices do of Right belong to the disposition of the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas And the Grants formerly made by Letters Patents of the said Offices to be Illegal and void And Ordered the said Patents to be brought into the House There is likewise in the Journal Book of that Parliament mention made of a Petition of one Thomas Smithick preferred the tenth of June 1641. Complaining of wrongs sustained from the East India Company and likewise of a Petition from the East India Company full of Respect and Submission to the House of Lords and praying a longer day then it seems was appointed for hearing the Merits of the Cause which the Lords granted and Ordered all such Books Certificates and Writings as were in the Custody of the Company concerning that business should be produced and Smithick to peruse and take Copies of them What was more done upon this Petition of Smithicks appears not by the Journal Book probable they compounded the business among themselves But however it is observable the different Spirits of the East India Company then and of this now The Modesty of that and the Carriage of this so far differing In those times no question was made of the Power of the Lords in point of their Judicature nor no Complaint against their practice of it Yet we see the frequency of it in Causes of all Natures Criminal Civil Mixt between King and Subject between Subject and Subject no Protection no Priviledge did exempt any body from their Jurisdiction The Lords at the Conference as they said to the Gentlemen of the House of Commons were the more Copious in the enumeration of these later Presidents especially those of 1640 and 1641. not that they thought themselves at all to stand in need of them the antient ones before produced shewing the usage all along from the very first and best times which in their Lordships Opinions were of much more weight sufficiently convincing but the House of Commons having a little before at an other Conference delivered it for a Maxim That the later Presidents were best and having accordingly insisted upon one single President of the same Parlialiament of 1640. to Oblidge the House of Lords to commit a person upon a general Impeachment of Treason without special Matter shewn and opposing that one President to what their Lordships alleadged to the contrary and made appear to have been the usage of all former times no Record being of any Man ever sent to Prison by the House of Peers without a particular Crime expressed in the Impeachment of some Act done by him before the Earl of Strafford which was the President stood upon This made the Lords heap up so many Examples of the Proceedings of their House in that Parliament of 1640. in the point of Judicature to use it as Argumentum ad heminem and what the House of Commons could no wayes except against themselves having declared it to be of greatest Authority Until Henry the Eights time the very House of Commons was to be beholding to the House of Lords for their Administration of Justice even concerning their Members as the only Judges and Conservators of their Liberties and Priviledges Themselves could not before that have punished any one that had never so much offended them So far were they from exercising a Power of Commitment or of inflicting any punishment for Crimes at large and against the Laws of the Land where neither the Offence nor the Offender had particular relation to their House as in these later times hath been often practised by them But as I say the first time that ever they punished any and it was for breach of Priviledge was in the Parliament 34 H. 8. in the Case of George Ferrers Burgess for Plimouth who was arrested and put in the Counter The House informed of it sent their Serjeant to demand their Member not so much as to summon Sheriff or Bayliff that made the Arrest or Party at whose suit it was made and less to bring any of them as Delinquents to the Bar as now a dayes nor could they obtain that But their Serjeant coming to the Counter found resistance the top of his Mace was broken off his Man knocked down and he glad to get off without the Prisoner So back he comes to the House yet sitting and makes his Complaint They presently all rise with their Speaker come up to the House of Lords and the Speaker makes the Complaint to Sir Thomas Audley Lord Chancellor sitting on the Wooll-sack The Lords judge the Contempt to be very great and refer the punishment of it to the Order of the House of Commons Then indeed they return to their House and send for the Sheriff of London the Clerks of the Counter all the Officers there that had a part in the fray with their Serjeant one White at whose Sute Ferrers was Arrested and the Bayliffs that did Arrest him all to appear personally before them at eight of the Clock next Morning and when they came they sent some of them to the Tower some to Newgate where they continued till they were delivered at the suite of the Lord Major We do not find that before this the House of Commons committed any body no not for the Breach of their Priviledges nor were themselves so much as Judges of the Elections of their Members but were fain to come up to the Lords and pray their aid to
of their not Judging Commoners is apparently proved by the constant practice of the House of Peers in all succeeding times And one thing more would be taken notice of in the Proceedings of the House of Peers at that time after their precipitate and Illegal Condemnation of those Persons without ever calling them to answer The Earl of March a Peer of the Realm was condemned and executed as well as the Commoners and this was looked upon as a President of ill Consequence for the Peerage and therefore they would have a Law to prevent it and that the Nobles of the Land should not be put to answer but in open Parliament by their Peers which they long endeavoured before they could obtain it So as in 15. Ed. 3. n. 6. they adjourned the Parliament severall dayes upon that point and at last appointed four Earls four Bishops four Barons to draw it up into form and got it passed into an Act but two years after the King got that Act to be repealed And so far they likewise took care of Commoners in that Parliament of 15. Ed. 3. as to have it enacted also That no man should be impeached by Commandment without process of Law These were Acts of Parliament and Laws which did bind but the other of their judging none but Peers was a meer particular Order of the House an Agreement betwixt the King them which was no wayes binding to posterity and alterable still at pleasure by the same House that made it Another Battery raised by that Author against the Jurisdiction of the House of Peers is from the Statute of Appeals 1 H. 4. c. 14. And with that he would overthrow the force of that President of John Hall condemned by the Lords in that first year of H. 4. for the death of the Duke of Glocester in the 21 of R. 2. as if that power were now taken from them by that Act and that the Commons by it had taken care it should not be so done by them any more for so he saith p. 23. Which by his leave concerns nothing the proceedings against Hall and will less I may say concern the present question of the proceedings of this House of Lords in the Case of Skinner For that Statute provides only for Tryall of Appeals where a private person next of kin is or shall be prosecutor which was not in Halls Case the prosecution being in the ordinary way at the Kings suit It is true that in the 21 of R. 2. an horrible abuse had been in point of Appeals Certain Lords not by Law capable of it taking upon them to be Appellants and in their own Names acousing in Parliament several persons Peers of the Realm and Commoners of divers Treasons and Murthers making themselves Judges and Parties and condemning them to die without nay against all forms of Law rules of Justice by which means many innocent men lost both lives and Estates This it is that is provided for by that Statute and care taken it shall be so no more not the Ordinary prosecution of Offenders in the Kings Name as Halls was Though one particular in that Tryal is confessed to have been most Irregular and Illegal which was examining him against himself upon Oath but that is not material to the point in question which is Whether the Statute of Appeals forbids such Tryals as assuredly it doth not nor any of those formerly instanced in to have past in the House of Peers And least of all can it concern the late Proceedings in the business of Skinner and the East India Company in which there is no charge either of Treason or Felony where an Appeal onely can take place to bring it within that Statute In the same 23d page an other Argument is used against this Jurisdiction of the Peers in which that Author hath certainly missed his Mark for nothing could be produced that makes more for that Jurisdiction He saith That the Subject of England hath moderated Parlaments and by express words determined that some things cannot be done in Parliament as that any should be impeached there of that concerns his Francktenement or Hereditament and vouches for his Authority Rot. Parl. 10. H. 6. n. 35. where indeed there is such a desire of the House of Commons That none shall be compelled to answer in Parliament concerning his Francktenement But let him tell us how they sped with their desire if their Petition was granted to make it a Law and binding Far from it The Answer is Le Roy saduisera The King will advise which in Parliamentary Language is a flat Denyal So then no alteration was made of what was formerly the Usage and Power of Parliament but all continued as it was before And that before they did in Parliament try and judge such matters is apparent by the desire of the Commons that it should not be so hereafter for if no such thing was their desire it should be no more so was ridiculous but it was so it seems and their desire that it should be altered being rejected leaves it in the same state it was that the Parliament might continue still to do it And by the Parliament in these Cases is to be understood onely the House of Peers for there singly lies the Judicial Power as is confessed and acknowledged by the House of Commons themselves 1. H. 4. n. 79. so it is in the Record but in the Exact Abridgment it is n. 80. That all Judgments appertain to the King and Lords and not to them but when out of especial grace some are communicated unto them and therefore they there desire that the Records may be so entred as they may not be made Parties to them So careful they were then not to seem to encroach upon that Power And whereas the Author of that Pamphlet would make a difference upon the Personal presence of the King in those times in the House of Lords That though they might do it then in some Cases it followed not the Lords might do it alone the King not there it is but a fancy of his making a difference where in truth there is none I have proved it before that the Court is the same be the King present or absent The King in Person can judge no man nor dispose of no mans Life or Estate therefore it is a Maxim That the King can do no wrong the reason is because he of himself and by his own particular and personal Authority can give away no mans Right no not any ones pretended Right where a man hath only a possession though without right the King alone in propria Persona can give no Rule in it but it must be tryed in one of his Courts And his Judges and Ministers whom he intrusts with his Regal Power that with which he is himself invested in his Politick Capacity and which he conveys to them making them thereby the Dispensers of his Royal Justice unto all his Subjects they must be
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