Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	hold_v	king_n	tenant_n	4,936	5	10.1458	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86467	The grand question concerning the judicature of the House of Peers, stated and argued And the case of Thomas Skinner merchant, complaining of the East India Company, with the proceedings thereupon, which gave occasion to that question, faithfully related. By a true well-wisher to the peace and good government of the kingdom, and to the dignity and authority of parliaments.	Holles, Denzil Holles, Baron, 1599-1680.	1669 (1669)	Wing H2459; ESTC R202445	76,537	221

their Misdemeanors and wrongs done to Skinner and in adjudging them to give Skinner Reparation for it The 3d President was that of william de Valentia and Isabell de Mareschal in which the Lords observed the dismission to have been only ad proesens But withall observed that the bare reading of the Case in the Book will satisfy one of the Jurisdiction of the Peers to retaine such Causes It sayes That William de Valentia had at the fore going Parliament been Ad querelas Isabellae le Mareschall allocutus et ad rationem positus impleaded and put to Answer by what right he assumed such an Office and such Power in the Hundred of Hosterelegh and that he then alleged he did it in the Right of his Wife and that it being his Wifes Inheritance he ought not to be put to answere without her Ita quod datus fuit dies ei ad hunc diem ad Parlamentum Domini Regis viz. a die Paschae in ires Septimanas And then his Wife and he appeared by their Atturney and after pleadings The Judgment is Quia praedicti Willielmus Et Johanna sunt in seisina de praedicta Jurisdictione et de Haeredicate ipsius Johannae per descensum haereditarium et non per Usurpationem seu Purpresturam c. Consideratum est quod eant inde sine die quoad praesens Et Dominus Rex habeat Breve si voluerit c. The Lords knew they had Jurisdiction else they would have dismissed the Cause the Parliament before and not have adjourned it to the next Parliament upon that ground to make the Wife a Party as we see they did And whereas the Commons had upon this President observed that if there had been Crime in the Case as Usurpation or Purpresture then they acknowledged that in such Cases the House of Lords did usually proceed and try them but withall added That if that were the question much might be said how the Constitution of Government hath been since altered So as they soon retracted their admittance of but so much of the Lords Right and what they had given with their right hand they would soon take again with their left But first for their Concession of Judging Crime the Lords say that suffices for their Jndemnity as to what they have done in this particular Case of the East-India Company and Skinner for here is Crime sufficient and Usurpation and Purpresture taking them in the larger sence for invading any other mans Right and not only where the King is concerned as those termes are taken some times And then for the Qualification of their Gift upon the Change and alteration of the Government The Lords Answer That when they shew the Time when that alteration was made and the Persons by whom and the Manner how if Legally done they shal then believe submit and not till then But they never heard of any thing that till now so much as looked that way except that Vote of the Assembly called the Rump which declared the House of Lords useless and dangerous and therefore to be abolished and taken away and by a Clubb Law they did take it away But even they that passed that Vote and did make that Clubb Law thought the Judicature necessary and fit to be continued for they immediatly assumed it to themselves and fairely voted themselves into that Power by the Name of the Commons of England the very same Title that the East-India Company do now make use of in their Petition to the House of Commons To the 4th of Roger de Somerion prosecuting for the King and complaining of the Prior of Buttele for unjustly withholding from the King the mannor of Somerton And the Judgment upon it Ideo praedictus Priot quo ad hoc eat inde sine die ad praesens The Lords say it is but a Temporary dismission as the others were and signifies nothing as to the point of Jurisdiction And they wish the Commons would have pleased to cast their eye upon the ensuing Case in the same leafe of William de Valentia again and of him upon the same occasion concerning his Wifes Inheritance as formerly where there is not a Dismission of the Cause as formerly but a determination of it and that determination again referred unto and confirmed by a suceeding Parliament to shew that the House of Lords sometimes would and sometimes would not Judge and determine such causes as were brought before them That Case was thus William de Valentia Complaines of the Lords of the Counsel for admitting during the Kings absence beyond the Seas one Dionisia a pretended Daughter of William de Monte Caniso Tenant to the King of Lands held in Capite and formerly enjoyed by her Father in his life time Whereas his Wife was true Heire to that William and the Land belonging to her The Lords of the Councel justifie what they have done say that Dionisia was notoriously known to be the true Daughter of that William and that the Bishop of Winchester in whose Diocess she was born testified it The Judgment is Ideo videtur domino Regi quod praedictus Comes Thesaurar Alij de Consilio bene et rité processerunt It is not now sibi perquirat per Breve de Cancel They do not referr him to the Chancery as they did in the other Case This was in 18 E. 1. In 20 E. 1. p. 103. he comes again to Parliament and renues his Complaint and that Judgment given before is confirmed the words are these et de alijs Petitionibus suis viz. De hoereditate Willielmi de Monte Caniso petenda et etiam quod procedatur juxta Bullam quam jidem Williemus et Johanna impetrarunt ad inficiendum Processum perquod Dionisia filia proedicti Willielmi Legitima censebatur alias eis responsum fuit viz. in Parliamento post Natale Domini Anno 18. ut patet in Rotulis ejusdem Parliamenti Ad quam Responsionem se teneant c. Nothing can be clearer then the continual practice of this Jurisdiction in the House of Lords whensoever they pleased Not that it hath alwaies pleased them to trouble themselves with exercising this Jurisdiction their time having been so taken up some times with businesses of a higher Nature that they could not attend it so as many times they have tyed up themselvesby an Order of the House not to receive any private business As in the Close Roll 18 E. 1. There is a memorable Order to that purpose I will set it down at length in the very words which are these Pur ces Ke la gent Ke venent al Parlement le Roy sunt sovent destaez et destourbez a grant grevance de eux e de la Curt par la multitudine des Peticions Ke sunt botez devant le Roy de quevx le plus porreient estre espleytez par Chanceler et par Justices purveu est Ke tutes les Petitions Ke tuchent le sel vegnent primes al

a jurisdiction especially when many in number are produced and some of all times and in every Kings Reign of which the Records can be had which shewes a Continuance of and so an unquestionable Right to such a power One or two or twenty then in the Negative that the Lords did not do so in such and such Cases Nay I say more were the Number equall as many in the Negative as in the Affirmative yet it could not disprove their Jurisdiction It would only shew that their Lordships were free Agents to do it or not do it as they saw Cause But their Jurisdict on remained still enure to do it whensoever they would And when all is done I may say all this is Nihil ad rem and concernes not the point in question which is If the Lords have done well or ill in relieving Skinner against the East-India Company for he was not relievable a● the Common Law as hath been shewed And if he had not been relieved there had been a failer of Justice So as there was a necessity of their Lordships acting in that particular to keep up the publick Justice of the Kingdome And all Presidents and all that can be said and urged to shew that the House of Peers ought not to meddle with matters determinable at Law are in truth out of doors and can not concerne this House of Peers which never did it but the contrary For whensoever it appeared that any business before them was proper to be tryed at Law they presently dismissed it Yet since their Right is questioned they must defend it though they gave no Occasion for it having not at all put that Right in execution nor as it may well be presumed by their proceeding hereto ever intending it As to the 6 other Presidents o● Petitions Answered in the Parliament of the 14 of E. 2. which the Gentlemen of the House of Commons themselves seemed not to lay so much weight upon The Lords thought they did wisely in it for they were not such as would bear weight to build upon The Lords of that Parliament according to the several natures of the businesses Petitioned for dismissed the Petitioners with several directions Which shewes they took Cognizance of those matters One was directed to take out his Writ novaedisseisinae and an other to bring his action of Trespass the third they send to the Common Law the fourth into the Chancery the fifth they Order to bring his action of debt the sixth who complained of several things to him they gave particular Answers and particular Directions to every point One of which they said pertained not to the King that is to his Laws so they could give no Order in it it was concerning the Resignation of a living which was to be tryed by the Laws of the Church For the other points they disposed them into their proper Channells Was this to be done by a Court that had no Jurisdiction in these matters No rational man can think so But it would be considered that in this Case of Skinners the Lords could give none of those Answers neither sibi perquir at per Breve de Cancellaria not Sequatur ad Legem Communem or tobring this or the other Action For neither Law nor Equity in the Ordinary way of the Inferior Courts could relieve him for the loss of his real Estate in the Indies the Judges said he was not relievable for his House and Island So as none of those Presidents are applicable to the point in question Not that the Law even in the ordinary execution of it provides not for the punishment of all Crimes It declares against and condemns the Fact but can not reach the person to punish him when he hath committed that Fact in a Forrein Country Ubi lex Angliae non currit And the House of Peers hath but helpt the Law to inflict such punishment upon Offenders as by the Law was due to them which otherwise they had escaped And were it but this it sufficiently justifies the Proceedings of the Lords in that particular Case Then as to the Jurisdiction of that House in the generall it will be made as apparent as the Sun at Noone how they have in all times exercised it to the relief of all persons who stood in need of their relief even for things done within the Kingdome Where the Law had provided a remedy they applyed it Some times themselves would take the pains in Cases that deserved it where there was some thing extraordinary to move them to it and when they were at leisure from the more weighty and important Affaires of the Kingdom Some times they would send it down to the Inferior Courts to do it for them and give them Authority for it which they could not have done if they had not had it themselves for Nemo dat id quod non habet as in the Case of certaine Rioters 11 H. 4. N. 38. in the Exact Abridgement Whom they turned over to the Kings Bench and gave those Judges Authority to the end the busines where the Law had not provided there they would not meddle themselves and declared it so That none else neither should presume to meddle As upon the Petition of Martin Chamberlain in that 14 E. 2. p. 409. Who upon the suppression of the Knights Templers desired to be put into the possession of a mannor which the Templers whilest they stood had held of him The Answer is Quod non est Lex ordinata there was no Law ordained in the Case And because the Law had not determined how those Lands should be disposed of the Lords would say nothing to it But will it not be said that this makes good what the Commons objected against the Lords retaining this Cause of Skinners because some parts of it were not determinable in Westminster-Hall Whereas there being no Law concerning those points till there had been one made their Lordships should not have meddled with them As the Lords in that Parliament of E. 2. would do nothing in Chamberlains Case because the Law had not provided for it And as in those two Cases mentioned by the House of Commons That of an Inheritrix Forfeiting by her husbands default where as the Statute of Westminster the second expressed it a Durum est was in the Case And that of the Hospitall of St. Leonards 2 H. 6. N. 37. which had a clear Right to a Corn Rent Yet the Lords could not relieve them but both were faine to have Acts of Parliament This receives a twofold Answer One That there are other Motives in this Case to make the Lords retain it and give Skinner Relief Here is a poor man oppressed by a rich Company with whom he was no waies able to wage Law And that Consideration hath in all times prevailed with that House which is composed of Persons of generous and noble Spirits who can not see poor men oppressed without feeling in their hearts an Inclination and

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