onely Whereas the Lord Berckley of Berckley a Member of the House of Peers is likewise of that Company which intitles yet more particularly that House to the Cognizance of the whole business upon point of Priviledge one of their Members being a party All these untruths are in matter of Fact Then for their Inference upon them the Judgement they give against the House of Lords their censure of their Proceedings to be against the Laws of the Land and the Custome of Parliament to be unusual and extraordinary to be a President of ill consequence to all the Commons of England now and hereafter this I hope no man will say to have truth in it but to be a false Imputation and a Slander or as the Lords themselves tern it a Scandalous Libell against the House of Lords And as untrue it is what they say in the close of their Petition and withall most Injurious to the House of Peers viz. That the Petitioners had no way of relief in this Case otherwise then by making their humble Addresses to the House of Commons Whereas ever since Parliaments have been in England the constant practice hath been and multitudes of Presidents there are of it of Appealing to the next Parliament from any Judgment given by a former Parliament which was grievous and unjust And never in this world before was there any Appeal to the House of Commons from a Judgment of the House of Peers much less to take a business out of their hands or give a stop to their Proceedings before they were come to a conclusion Then which nothing can be a greater Violation of the Rights and Priviledges of either House Nor would the House of Lords ever have endured that any should have used the House of Commons so in any application unto their Lordships Yet upon the examination it appeared that this Petition had been really presented to the House of Commons and was there received The Lords then fell upon the consideration of the main business in question between Skinner and the East-India Company and making Reflexion upon what had been alleged on both sides and the proofs gave this Judgment That the Governour and Company should pay unto Thomas Skinner for his losses and damages sustained the Sum of 5000 pounds one thousand within two daies after the serving of this Judgment two thousand pounds in three moneths after and two thousand pounds more in three months after that And they referred to the Committee for Priviledges to examine who was the publisher and disperser of that Scandalous Paper or Petition which they had voted a Scandalous Libell and to make Report thereof to the House In the disquisition of this business which held many daies at the Committee and in the House and where the Lords found much shuffling in the Persons they examined who were Servants and Officers to the Company It appeared at last that the Petition had really been presented to the House of Commons and well received by that House that it had been prepared by a Committee of the Company that Sir Samuel Barnardiston Deputy Governour of the Company Sir Andrew Riccard Mr Rowland Winn and Mr. Christopher Boone were of that Committee and Actors in it but especially Sir Samuel Barnardiston the most Active man who gave no Satisfaction to their Lordships in his Answers which the others did and by their submission obtained favour but the Lords adjudged him guilty of contriving that Scandalous Paper and fined him 300 l. to the King and to remain a Prisoner in the Custody of the Black-Rod till he paid his Fine And now the House of Commons ownes the Cause and seems not only to Justify these Actings of the East-India Company but to lay blame upon the House of Lords and passes certain votes to that purpose which they brought up to the Lords and delivered at a Conference And began with telling the Lords That they had examined the East-India Companies Petition and found the Allegations in it to be true That such Proceedings had been in the House of Lords And that the Lords had since adjudged them to pay 5000 l to Skinner and that the House of Commons thought these Proceedings to be of so very high Concernment to the Right of all His Majesties Subjects that they had passed those Votes upon it The Votes were these 1. That the House of Lords taking Cognizance of and their Proceedings upon the matter set forth and contained in the Petition of Thomas Skinner Merchant against the Governour and Company of Merchants of London trading to the East-Indies concerning the taking away of the Petitioners ship and goods and assaulting his Person and their Lordships over-ruling the Plea of the said Governour and Company the said cause coming before that House Originally only upon the complaint of the said Skinner and being a common Plea is not agreeable to the Laws of this Land and tends to deprive the Subject of his Right Ease and Benefit due to him by the said Laws 2. That the Lords taking Cognizano of the Right and Title of the Island in the Petition mentioned and giving damages thereupon against the said Governour and Company is not Warr anted by the said Laws of this Land The Lords were much surprised with these Votes which gave them cause to make a serious Reflection upon what had passed in the business of Skinner and to take a due examination of all Circumstances The way that it came unto them at first upon the Kings Recommendation Their own Right to take Cognizance of Judge and determine and give redress in causes of that nature Then the merits of this particular cause A poor man oppressed by great Ones very unable to contest with them at Law and so very unlikely there to receive relief and have any reparation from them admitting it had been in the power of the Law to have helped him which it was not and The manner of their Proceeding in the hearing examining and determining of it in which they had used all the moderation Imaginable going by steps and dgrees taking first the Opinion of the Judges to know if the man were relievable else where who said he was but in part and not for all relievable in Westminster-Hall which made them undertake it Then giving way to and bearing with many delayes of the East-India Company suffering the business upon several Pretences and excuses of theirs to be put off many daies when their Lordships were prepared to hear it and had laid aside other business for it by which means a whole Session was lost to the poor man And when at the next meeting of the Parliament it was heard in which a great deal of time and very many daies were spent yet not presently to come to a resolution but appoint a day for the debate of it and when that day came not to give a full Judgment but only pass a previous Vote That some Relief was fit to be given and take longer time to consider
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
then Per Legem Terrae is all one with Per Legem Angliae or secundum Legem et Consuetudinem Angliae and what ever is done secundum Legem Angliae is done Per Legem Terrae And in his 1 Inst l. 1. c. 1. Sect. 3. He tells us what Lex Angliae is he saith there are divers Laws within the Realme of England and reckons them up Lex et Consuetudo Parliamenti is in the front of them He names many more the Civil Law by which the Court of Constable and Marshall and the Court of Admiralty and Ecclesiastical Courts do act the Law of War for the Court Martiall to act by the Law of Merchants the law of Stanneries Particular Customes in several places of the Kingdome Statute Lawes established by Authority of Parliament Whoever and whatever is tryed by any of these Laws be it for life Lands or goods it is still according to Magna Charta and though not Per Judicium Parium yet Per Legem Terrae The Law and Custome of Parliament is one of these and the Lords now acting agreeably to that act agreably to Magna Charta and that they have acted so is I think sufficiently proved all ready and will be further hereafter when we shew you Presidents for it from the beginning of Parliaments So for the other Statutes of the 25 of E. 3. c. 4. and the 42. c. 3. They do not at all concerne the House of Peers and were made only to prevent Vexation by Petitions and false accusations before the King and his Privy Counsel as appeares by the Preambles of those Statutes Though the Gentlemen of the House of Commons who managed the Conference were pleased to give them an other Interpretation and to say that the Petitions and suggestions to the King or his Counsel which are condemned by those Statutes are to be understood of those brought to the King and House of Lords But can it be rationally believed That the House of Peers of those times should themselves make so many Lawes pass so many Acts of Parliament five in the space of 17 years the 25 of E. 3. c. 4. the 28 c. 3. the 37 c. 18. the 38 c. 9. the 42 c. 3. all of them prohibiting that any man should be apprehended imprisoned or disinherited upon an accusation or suggestion to the King or his Counsel and enjoyning all Proceedings to be by Original Writ or by Inditement or by Presentment of good and lawfull People of the Neighbourhood And they know themselves to be intended by those Acts and yet still should act contrary to them judge and determine so many Causes both Criminal and Civil as they did from time to time Nay can it be believed That the House of Commons in those daies would bring up Impeachments against men to have them tryed at the Lords Barr if they did then conceive that those Acts of Parliament did forbid the Lords to meddle For though the Commons House are sometimes called the Grand Inquest of the Kingdome to present the Grievances thereof it is presumed they will not say that their Presentment is the Presentment intended by those Statutes For the Presentment mentioned there is the very description and true Character of your Country Juries The words of the Statute are The Presentment of good and lawful people of the same neighbourhood where such Deeds be done And can any man think that this is to be understood of the House of Commons No certainly What then is it that makes the Lords Proceedings upon the Impeachments of the Commons to be Legal and not contrary to those Acts of Parliament Since there is neither Writ nor Inditement nor Presentment and yet men are brought to tryal condemned and executed by their Judgements but only this that it is the Common Law of the Land being the Ancient unquestioned and undoubted Law and Usage of Parliaments And thereby is there a clear demonstration of the true meaning of those Statutes that it was the Regulation of the Kings Privy Counsel they aimed at and not of the House of Lords that Counsel of which Sir John Lee was one in that 42 of E. 3. n. 23. who was tryed and censured by that very Parliament in which that Act was made One of the Articles against him was That being of the Kings Counsel and Steward of his House be caused sundry men to be attached and and brought before him and made them answer singly to him as if it had been to the body of the Counsel He was fined for it and committed to the Tower The Lords John Nevil was likewise of this Counsel for misbehaving himself in it Judgment of Imprisonment and loss of Lands goods and Office was given upon him 50 E. 3 n. 34. And in the same Parliament n. 18. The Lord Latimer was accused for divers miscarriages being a Counsellor and for them he was by the Bishops and Lords committed to the keeping of the Marshall of England and adjudged to make Fine and Ransome at the Kings pleasure It is true he was enlarged presently by the Earl Marshall one Arch-Bishop three Bishops the Prior of St. John three Earls fifteen Barons and thirteen Knights being his Manucaptors but the Commons desired further that he might be no longer of the Kings Counsel which was granted And this was not to put him out of the Lords House for he continued still a Member there and had his Writ of Summons to come to the next Parliament in the 51 th year of that King There is nothing more clear then that those Statutes are all to be understood to mean the Privy Counsel and so did the two Houses of Parliament interpret them 3 Car. in their Petition of Right where the expression is That against the tenor of those Statutes divers were detained by his Majesties special command certified by the Lords of the Privy Counsel and one may bodly affirme that never any Statute or Act of Parliament did term the House of Lords the Kings Counsel So that Article of Magna Charta urged likewise at the Conference Communia Placita non sequantur nostram Curiam concernes not them neither It was to fix the Court of Common Pleas which as all other Courts was before that Ambulatory and followed the King where ever he was if he was in the Kingdome and the Writs were made returnable Coram nobis ubicunque fuerimus which was a great Grievance to the subject and cause of many discontinuances in sutes The following words clear it Sed teneantur in aliquo certo loco Now the place of the meeting of the Parliament was alwaies certainly known being expressed in the Writ of Summons which shewes it was not meant for them And whereas it was said That in Cases of Freehold there is no Proceeding without an Original Writ Scarse any that walkes Westminster-Hall but knows the contrary and the Course of Proceeding to be so fart otherwise as that not one Tryal for Land of forty comes on upon
such a Writ But by the delivery only of a Declaration of Trespass and Ejectment any mans Inheritance of never so much value may be questioned and brought to Tryal if it shall continue his or no Nay There is an Act of Parliament 18 El. c. 14. which provides expresly That after a verdict given the want of an Original Writ shall be no Cause of Error to be pleaded in Arrest of Judgement but that Judgement and Execution shall follow So farr is it from being true that no Freehold can be judged without an Original Writ And faine would I aske what Original Writ they use in Chancery to sue men there for their Freehold Is it any more then for the Complainant to put in his Petitionary Bill of Complaint then take out a Writ of Subpoena for the Defendant to come in and answer by such a day just what was heretofore used in the House of Lords the Plaintiff put in his Petition and the House ordered a Writ of Summons to Issue out to call in the Defendant But in later times that House as is usuall for all Courts to alter their Method of Proceeding and find out some more compendious and easy way both for themselves and for Suitors so have they instead of a Writ as formerly which asked more time and charge to take out made it now that an Order of the House shall be sufficient for that purpose but they may returne to their Writs of Summons again when they please And as to Original Writs ow unseasonable is it and ggainst all reason to make it now an Objection against the Judicature of the House of Peers That the Proceedings there not being upon those Writs they ought not to meddle with matters of Freehold Since the Practice of the Law is now so changed that even Inferior Courts have left off the use of them whereas heretofore when all other Courts were by the Law and the practise of those times tyed to those Forms the House of Lords was not but exercised still their Judicature in their own Parliamentary way without Original Writs yet no such exception was then taken but all their Judgements were still allowed of approved and obeyed and punctually executed And the other Assertion doth not operate much neither viz. That it was never heard of a Writ Returnable Coram Dominis Spiritualibus et Temporalibus For if it be meant of Original VVrits what doth that signifie seeing they are not at all necessary no not used now for Commencing of suites even in Westminster-Hall much less in Parliament where the use hath ever been otherwise And if meant of other VVrits it is a foul-mistake For it hath been the Common practice of the House of Peers especially in former times upon any Complaint made to them by Petition to Order a VVrit to Issue out with the Petition annexed or containing the matter of it directed sometimes to the party himself petitioned against commanding him to appear sometimes to the Sheriff of the County commanding him to summon the party to appear before them at a certaine day and the Writ withall to be then returned so to enter into the examination of the busines and afterwards proceed to Judgement Ancient Presidents of this are sans nombre 25 E. 1. m. 14. Upon Complaint of the Arch-Bishop of York That the Advouson of the Rectory of Bridgeford was detained from him by Boniface de Salucijs a Writ reciting the matter complained of is ordered to be sent unto him requiring him to appear in Parliament the morrow after St. Gregory the Pope at Carlile and shew cause Quare ad finalem expeditionem praedictorum negotiorum minime fuerit procedendum why the House should not proceed to a final dispatch of the busines and be was enjoyned to bring the Writ with him habeas ibi tunc hoc Breve is the Close of the Writ The Printed Book of the Placita Parliamentaria in Ed. 1. time is full of Presidents of this Nature I have in this discourse cited very many both out of that Book other Records of Parliament under the other Kings I shal not therefore heap uy any number here though it were easie to do I will only give a short account of one which seemes to me a memorable one out of that Book of the Pacita Parliamentaria p. 1.57 the 21 of E. 1. Magdulphus sonne of Malcolin Earl of Fife in Scotland complaines in Parliament to King Edward That John King of Scotland had wrongfully dispossessed him of certain Lands in Scotland called Reyes and Crey Whereupon King Edward directs his Writ to the Sheriff of Northumberland commanding him to go into Scotland taking persons with him to testifie it and there deliver a Writ of Summons to the King of Scotland to appear before him such a day ad respondendum praedicto Magdulpho super praemissis et ad faciendum et recipiendum ulterius quod Justitia requireret Which was by the Sheriff performed at Striveling the morrow after St. Peter ad vincula who made his returne accordingly to the Parliament And the King of Scotland appeared at his day and was asked if the Kings Writ had been delivered to him by the said Sheriff which he acknowledged and said further Quod semper paratus est et erit Brevia et mandata Regis ut Domini sui admittere Then be was bid to deliver in the Writ and he said he had delivered it to his Chancellor and the Chancellor examined said he had it not there But yet upon the Kings acknowledgement that he had received such a Writ his appearance was admitted and be was willed to Answer to the matter of complaint put in by Magdulphus His Answer was That he was King of Scotland and could not without the Counsel and Advice of the good men of his Kingdome speak to any thing that concerned it This was judged by the Parliament to be Contempt us manifeslus et Inobedientia expressa and it was further Ordered that three of the Principal Castles of Scotland should be seised into the Kings hands and so remain Quo-usque de contemptu et Inobedientia praedicta cidem Domino Regi satisfecerit But the King of Scotland came before the pronouncing of the sentence Coram Rege et Consilio suo et fecit Domino Regi quandam Supplicationem ore suo proprio per verba subscripta which words were these Sire Ieo suy vostre home du Royaulme d'Escoce et vous prie que de ceo que vous me avez mis adevant que touche les gents de mon Royalme aussy come a moy voillez mettre en soeffrance jesques a taunt que ieo ay a eux parle que ieo ne sey suppris per defaute de Conseil desicum les gens que cy sont oue moy ne moy voillent ne osent conseiller sauns autre du Royaulme et quand ieo me averay a eux consaile ieo vous respondray a vostre primer Parliament apres
and it pertained to the King and not to the Arch-Bishop to take cognisance of the Imprisonment if or no it was lawful The Judgement is Videtur Domino Regi in pleno Parlamento praedictis Comitibus Baronibus c. Quod praedictus Archiepiscopus quantum in ipso fuit nitebatur usurpare super Coronam Dignitatem Regiam c. Propter quod per Comites Barones Justiciarios omnes alios de Consilio ipsius Domini Regis unanimiter concordatum est quod praedictus Archiepiscopus committatur Prisonae pro Offensa Transgressione praedictis Et super hoc ante Judicium pronunciatum licet unanimiter de Consilio praedict Magnatum aliorum concordatum fuisset tenendum in hoc Casu similiter in Casibus consimilibus in perpetuum praedictus Archiepiscopus Magnates alios de Consilio ipsius Domini Regis rogavit quod pro eo Dominum Regem requirerent ut ante pronunciationem Judicii ipsum ad gratiam suam admitteret voluntatem suam They interceded for him and he made Fine to the King of 4000 Marks and was received to favour They did not only give a Judgment in this particular Case which being Contra Coronam Dignitatem was tryable in Westminster-hall but they declare it to be a Standing Rule for the Judging of all Cases of like nature which shews the absoluteness of that Power of Judicature which is lodged in that House It was said That the Lords could not take a Cause to themselves per Saltum and before it had passed all the formalities below That a Writ of Error did not lie from the Common Pleas to the Lords House but must first be brought to the Kings Bench And the Case of the Bishop of Norwich was urged 50. Ed. 3. And it is acknowledged The Lords would not receive that Bishops Complaint but sent him away with that Answer nor could they give him any other For Writs of Error have their Walk and their gradual Proceeding chalked out and setled by several Statutes and by the Common Law of the Land But what doth that signifie against the Judicature of the House of Peers No man saith the Lords can either take Cognisance of Causes or judge Causes against the Law of the Land and take them per saltum when the Law prohibits it But they do say and affirm That by all the Examples and Presidents of former times it hath been the usage of that House to receive Complaints and give remedy in all Cases where the Law hath not expresly otherwise determined and if there be any thing in the Case which merits or requires and needs something above the ordinary Power and Proceeding of the Inferior Courts of Justice to administer that Relief which is just and due As in Cases of difficulty where a Court cannot or of delay where it will not proceed the Lords who have a general inspection into the Administration of the Justice of the Kingdom and into the Proceedings of all other Courts have ever upon Application made to them assumed to themselves the Cognisance of such Causes 14. Ed. 3. Sir John Stanton and his Wife had passed a Fine of certain Lands to Thomas Cranthorn who reverts them back and by that means setled them upon the Wife Sir Jeffry Stanton as next Heir brings his Formedon en le descender in the Common Pleas where after some Proceedings upon a Demurrer in Law Sir Jeffry could not get the Judges to proceed to Judgement Upon which he Petitions the King in Parliament which no man will deny to have been in the House of Peers They examine the Matter And afterward order a Writ under the Great Seal containing the whole Matter to be sent to the Judges there willing them thereby if the Matter so stood to proceed to Judgment without delay They not doing it an Alias is sent And the Judges doing nothing then neither and Sir Jeffrey renewing his Petition The Lords commanded the Clerk of the Parliament Sir Thomas de Drayton to go to Sir John Stoner and the rest of the Judges of the Common Pleas and to require them according to the Plea pleaded to proceed to Judgment or else to come into the House with the whole Record so as in Parliament Judgement might be given for one or the other of the Parties The Judges come at the day and the business was heard and it was adjudged That Sir Jeffrey should recover And a Writ under the Great Seal was sent to the Judges to give Judgment accordingly Here then the King in Parliament that is the House of Peers upon a Petition assumes the Cognisance of a Cause depending in the Court of Common Pleas which was so far from having passed all the formalities below that is to say an Appeal to the Kings Bench and Chancery that it was as yet undetermined in the Common Pleas. Nor did it appear unto them upon what ground it was that the Judges gave not Judgment So they might have answered Sir Jeffrey Stantons Petition with saying that they would first see what the Court would determine and what the Kings Bench afterwards But they apply themselves to give him relief And yet no Votes past against that House for so doing as now hath been in the Case of Skinner against this So in the Parliament of 18. E. 1. p. 16. of the Placita Parlamentaria William de Wasthul complains of Matthew del Exchequer for cosening him upon the levying of a Fine before the Judges of the Common Pleas by procuring an Atturney to slip in other Lands unknown to Wasthul and which be intended not to pass in the Fine This is returned back to those Judges because the Fine had been levied before them Et dictum est iisdem Justiciariis quod Recordum istud in Rotulis suis faciant irrotulare tam super Recordo isto quam super aliis ipsum Matthaeum coram eis contingentibus procedant ad Judicium debitum festinum faciant Justitiae Complementum True the House of Lords is not so bound up to forms but that it may when it thinks good vary and retain a Cause at one time which it will not do at any other time Yet we see they were proper Judges in this Cause for they order Wasthulls Complaint and the Proceedings before them to be entred as a Record in the Common Pleas and those Judges to proceed upon it which if they had not had Cognisance of the Matter had been all Coram non Judice and could have signified nothing And I must observe one thing which I think will not be denyed That all those Placita Parlamentaria whatever is said to be done Coram Rege in Parlamento is to be understood of the House of Peers where the King was in those times commonly present and alwayes understood to be there representatively So as his Name was ever mentioned in the Proceedings even when his Person was absent being sometimes out of the Kingdom sometimes detained away
Officio The Lords ordered him to be forthwith released The 21th of January the Committee for Petitions report the Complaint of William Waters and Thomas Waters How they had suffered much by an untrue and false Certificate made by Dr. Clerk and Dr. Sibthorp unto the Counsel-Table for their refusing to pay Ship-money whereby they were forced to pay the sum of 34 l for Fees Upon which Dr. Clerk and Dr. Sibthorp were heard at large The Lords ordered them to pay back the 34 l to the Complainants which they had paid for Fees and 100 l Damages And to be turned out of the Commission of the Peace The 22th of January the Committee for Courts of Justice reported the Complaint of the Lady Frances Weld Widdown against the Archbishop of Canterbury and Mr. Dell suggesting That she had been much prejudiced by them in the recovering of a Debt of 1300 l due to her upon Bond from Mr. Child Upon hearing of all Parties the Lords find the Archbp. and Mr. Dell free from blame and order them to be discharged concerning that business The 5th of February the Committee reports the Complaint of Jeremy Powel That the Bishop of Hereford had admitted a Clerk to the Vicarage of Burknill in Shropshire though the said Powel in the Right of himself and of Mary his Wife had caused a Ne Admittas to be directed to the Bishop The Lords upon bearing the business found that the Bishop had done contrary to Law and thereupon ordered him to pay unto Powel by way of Damages the sum of 30 l And the said Powel as Patron to be left in the same condition for tryal of his Right as he was before the Bishop had put a stop to his business The 9th of Febr. the Committee for Courts of Justice reports the Case of Nicholas Bloxam That Andrew Sandeland Clerk had procured a Sentence against him in the High-Commission Court by vertue whereof the said Sandeland had violently gained from him the possession of the Rectory of Great Waldingfield in the County of Suffolk The Lords judging this proceeding of the High-Commission to be most injurious and contrary to Law ordered That the Cause should be left to a tryal at Law at the next Assizes for that County That Sandeland should appear gratis and plead Not guilty that so the Cause might come to a final Determination that Assizes The same day the same Committee report That John Radway William Newark and Walter Cootes were presented Ex officio mero in the Ecclesiastical Court of Glocester and afterwards Excommunicated for going to Church out of their own Parish and upon pretence of a Significavit which was imperfect were arrested and cast into Prison where they continued Eleven dayes whereas there was no Writ justly taken out The Lords Ordered that Dr. Baber Chancellor of Glocester should pay to those three persons 40 l for Damages and the Undersheriffs Deputy Richard Byford 20. l upon the account of the Arrest The 23d of Febr. the same Committee report That Abraham Hill a poor aged man was committed to Prison in the year 1636 by Robert Buxton then Maior of Colchester by verbal command onely without any Warrant or Cause shewed and continued a Prisoner sixteen weeks to his utter undoing The Lords Ordered that the said Buxton should pay unto him 16 l by way of damages The 5th of March the Committee for Petitions inform the House that Complaint had been made before them That Nicholas Haws Gent. an antient man had not yet sued out his Livery in the Court of wards the Lords order him to do it without delay The 11th of March the Committee for Petitions gives account to the House that according to their Lordships direction there had been a Tryal at the last Assizes for Suffolk between Bloxam and Sandeland and that the Verdict had passed for Bloxam whereupon the Lords Order That Bloxam should discharge the Cure as Lawful Incumbent And that Sandeland should deliver unto him the quiet Possession of it It is worthy Observation That the Lords after they had referred the Decision of the Title for Matter of Fact as to the forcible Entry to the Common Law remained still Judges of the Cause and their Judgement setled the Possession The second of April 1641. The Committee Reports That Lambert Osbolstone Clerk had complained of a Sentence in the Star-Chamber by which he was degraded and deprived of all his Spiritual Livings and Preferments being a Prebend of Westminster and Parson of Whethamsted Fined in 5000 l to the King and adjudged to pay the like Sum for dammages to the Arch bishop of Canterbury and to be Imprisoned The Lords Order That be shall be freed and discharged of his Fine Dammages and Imprisonment and be restored to his Prebendary and Parsonage The sixth of April 41. The Committee Reports That the Lady Dyer had made her Complaint That primo Caroli she had lent Sir Richard Tichburn 400 l upon Bond and sued it to a Judgement but Sir Robert Pye Mr. Button and others had extended all the Lands lyable to that Judgement at a far undervalue to deprive her of all the benefit of it The Lords Order That Counsel of both sides should agree to draw up Assurances for setling the payment of all the Parties upon the Judgement and Extent to be all Signed and Sealed by them and that the Lady Dyer should be first satisfied and enjoy the Lands till then One thing by the way is to be noted That Sir Robert Pye was then a Member of the House of Commons The twelfth of April 41. The Committee Reports a Complaint of Dr. Walker That Sir John Lamb had unjustly taken from him his Offices of Commissary of Leicester and of Official to the Archdeaconry there which he injoyed by Patent for life That now Sir John Lamb took the Profits of them to himself And had forced him by many Menaces and Oppressions to release all Suits and Actions to his utter ruine and undoing and to his Loss and Dammage of above 1500 l The Lords Order That Sir John Lamb should pay unto the said Dr. Walker by way of Damages the sum of 1500 l to be levied upon his Lands and Chattels should be brought to the Bar as a Delinquent and there receive a Reprebension The twelfth of June 41. The Committee Reports a Complaint of Edward Bagshaw his Brother Henry and Sisters Mary and Margaret against their Brother Thomas concerning Portions and Annuities given them by their Fathers Will That all parties have been heard and their Witnesses Upon hearing the State of the Matter The Lords Order Thomas to put in Security within four dayes for the payment of the Portions according to the Will And to give security by Land for the paying of an Annuity of 20 l per annum to Edward for term of his life That then the said Edward shall release by a Fine to the said Thomas all his Estate Right Title and Interest in the Lands and Goods of
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
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.