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
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 aâ— 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 oâ— 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
3. N. 96. It is there specified How in the Parliament before one Hugh Staffolk had been accused of divers Extortions and that a Commission was then granted to the Earl of Suffolk and Sir John Cavendish to inquire into it who so had done and had found him guiltless by 18 Enquests which Sir John Cavendish did in that present Parliament witness to be true By all this it appears that the Authority of the House of Peers ends not with the Parliament but their Judgements still continue in full force and power And they may appoint Persons to see them executed if they please And whereas the House of Commons doth not deny them a power of Judicature upon Writs of Error and upon Appeales Will not the same objection lye as well against their Judgements in those Cases For seldome that they be put in execution before the Parliament rise so it takes away their whole Judicature as in truth all the other objections would do could they be made good And whereas it was said That none of the Kings Courts can give remedy where the Kings Writ can not run And where his Majesties Soveraignty doth not come the Jurisdiction of the Peers can have no place It was Answered that there Chiefly the Power of the House of Peers is to give remedy because it only can As for Treasons till the Statutes of 26 H. 8. C. 13.32 H. 8. C. 2. and 5 E. 6. C. 11. which have made them tryable within the Realm and all Misdemeanors committed in Forrein parts which never were nor yet are tryable at the Common Law Of this there are multitudes of Presidents Gomeniz Weston Segrave Hall Richill c. And here within the Kingdome the the Kings Writ doth not originally run in all places as for example in the Counties Palatine yet no man will deny the Authotity of the Lords in Parliament taking place there 9 R. 2. N. 13. The Duke of Lancaster Complaines of Sir John Stanley for not suing out his Livery for the Mannor of Latham in the Dukes Court of Chancery and yet entring upon it They declare his Entry unlawful and Order him to sue out his livery in the Dukes Court. The Kings Writ did not run there but the Authority of the Lords did Another Objection was That all Proceedings ought to be in Latin and nâ— Record to be in English But the Lords had thought That none had ever yet doubted but the House of Peers had been a Court of Record where all the Proceedings Orders Judgements have been in English ever since H. 6â—… time All Acts of Parliament in English All impeachments even those brought up by the House of Commons the Proceedings and the Sentence all in English The Ancient Records were in French and the Pleadings likewise till the Statute of 36 E. 3. Which appoints Pleadings to be in English and to be entred and enrolled in Latin so the Print saith but in Sir Robert Cottons Abridgement of the Records it is observed that the Record it self warrants no such thing Then the Chancery Proceedings are all in English The Pleadings Orders and Decrees Yet it will not be denied but that is a Court of Record Sir Edward Coke who alone is of an other Opinion concerning the Chancery and upon that ground because the Proceeding is in English yet makes the House of Commons it self a Court of Record where every body knowes all is in English Jnst 4. part p. 23. so he doth not sibi constare The last Objection and indeed the the Chief one if true was That it deprives the Subject of the benefit of Magna Charta which will have all men to be tryed by their Peers or by the Law of the Land And the 25 of Ed. 3. C. 4. that none shall be apprehended upon Petition to the King or Counsel and Counsel here they interpreted to be the House of Lords but upon inditement or presentment or by Writ Original And the 42. of E. 3. which is to the same purpose It was urged further that no Writ was ever made returnable Coram Dominis Spiritualibus et Temporalibus And it was said in Regard of the Island being in a Forrein Princes Jurisdiction that it ought to have been done by Act of Parliament for that no Court of his Majestie can give remedy where his Majesties Writ can not run nor can the Jurisdiction of the House of Peers have place there An other observation they had upon Lex Terrae in Magna Charta That in the Arguments of the Kings learned Counsel 3. Car. They made Lex Terrae to be the pleasure of the King And the Lords were desired to consider upon this if by arguing that the Proceedings of their House were maintained to be Secundum Legem Terrae it may not as well be said that Magna Charta will have men to be tryed Per Judicium Parium aut per Legem Terrae That is by the will of the Lords This is the substance of what was most materially urged against the Lords at that Conference Some other things were said rather to entertain the By-standers then for any thing else as the question asked How the Lords should see further beyond sea then other men Indeed the Lords thought they might see as farr as other men and as farr as the Court of Chancery or any other Court but never undertook to see further But they think if some may have their wills they may be laid so low that they shall then see but a very little way but that is not yet And another pretty Dilemma was made which was this Are the Lords bound to recieve all Petitions or not if bound they may refuse none for Magna Charta saith Nulli negabimus and the King is Debitor Justitiae to all his subjects If they be not bound then they must be partial to receive some and dismiss others But this Argumentum bicorne hurts with neither horne For the Lords in these very Presidents brought by the House of Commons in Ed. 1. Ed. 2. time did not deny Justice when they sent the Petitioners unto those several Courts where they should receive it one to the Chancery an other to the Common Law and directed one to bring such an Action another a differing one according to their several Cases And in those multitudes of Presidents brought by the Lords where Causes have been retained and determined in that House they can not justly be charged with Partiality when they are moved thereunto by some thing extraordinary in those Cases which requires their Relief and that it can not be had else where And a Question may be put on the other side whither it can be believed that Partiality was imputed to all the Parliaments heretofore which at their first sitting appointed Committees Tryers of Petitions for England for Ireland for Gascony nay for Flanders where the King had no Dominion and sometimes in general for all places beyond the Seas to examine which were fit to be received
by sickness or other occasion As 50. E. 3. n. 35. it is said The King ordains That from thenceforth no Woman should for Maintenance pursue Matters in the Kings Courts upon pain c. And then was the King sick at Eltham and could not come to Parliament as appears by n. 42. and it was only the House of Peers that made that Order So in Judgments though in Ancient Times they were mostly entred as given by the King yet it was the Lords House which was Curia Regis that gave them For we must know the KING hath a double Capacity of sitting in the House of Peers a Legislative Capacity when he hath in himself a Negative Voice to what even both Houses have concluded and done which signifies nothing without his Assent and his single Dissent makes it all null and void This is in passing Acts of Parliament and making of Laws The other is a Judicial Capacity when he will please to assist and be present at the ordinary Transactions of the House as heretofore was usual which alters not the Constitution of it as it is a Court gives it no more Power nor Jurisdiction then it had before he being then but in a manner as Chief Judge and not doing any thing singly but according to the Plurality of Opinions As when the Kings would in Person sit in the Kings Bench which they have in former times done where still all is said to be done Coram Rege though now he never come there and in Our Memory King James hath set in the Star Chamber I think no body will say the Star-Chamber then or Kings Bench before did or could vary from their ordinary Forms and Rules of Proceeding No more can the House of Peers alter their Proceedings or assume greater Authority by reason of the Royal Presence to take Cognisance of other Causes or do any thing which by the Custome and Usage of the House and the Law of Parliament it could not else have done But their Jurisdiction and their way of exercising that Jurisdiction is still one and the same And therefore 26. H. 6. n. 52. When the King had given a Judgment of himself without the advice of the Lords in the Case of William de la Pool Duke of Suffolk who stood impeached for Ireason banishing him the Realm for five years The Lords entred their Protestation against it as not done by their Assent and so no Act of the House And 5. H. 4. n. II. The Earl of Northumberland coming into the Parliament before the King and Lords and by Petition acknowledging to have done contrary to his Allegiance in giving of Liveries and gathering of Power for which he prayed pardon in regard he yeelded himself and came in to the King at York upon his Letters And the King delivering this Petition to the Justices to be considered The Lords made their Protestation That the Judgment appertained only to them And therefore as Peers of Parliament to whom such Judgement belonged in weighing the Statutes concerning Treasons and concerning Liveries they adjudged the Fact of the said Earl to be no Treason nor Fellony but only a Trespass finable to the King Whereupon the King received him into Grace and pardoned him his Fine All Power of Judicature in Parliament is then questionless in the House of Lords where the King alwayes is Personally or Virtually and the Judgment proceeds from them by the Authority and in the Name of the King For the Power of Judicature in Parliament is lodged in them together with the King as is declared 1. H. 4. n. 80. where it is said That the Commons were only Petitioners and that all Judgments appertain to the King and the Lords unless it were in Statutes Grants Subsidies and such like This hath ever been the Practice and Custom and Law of Parliament since there have been Parliaments and when this shall cease to be the Ancient way of Free Parliaments will cease likewise 1. R. 2. n. 30. Sir John de Cobham sheweth That by the delivery of a Ring of Gold for seisin to Edward the third he had setled the Reversion of several Mannors there named in the Crown and now prayes it may so remain according to his Intention divers Lords are examined the Judges Opinions are asked who declare it to be a good Livery and Seisin And so it is setled N. 32. William Fitzhugh a Gold-finer and Citizen of London exhibits a Bill of Complaint in the Name of the Cōmonalty of that Mystery against John Chichester and John Bolsham of the same Mystery for divers Oppressions done by them The Lords send for them examine them they deny those Oppressions And Fitzhugh refusing then to avow his Bill the Lords commit him to the Tower N. 35. Rober Hawley and John Shakell are by the Lords sent to the Tower for refusing to bring forth a Spanish Prisoner taken in Battel whom they had in their keeping and others laid claim to N. 41. Alice Perrers 〈◊〉 Pierce who bad been much in favour with Ed. 3. is questioned in the Lords House Sir Richard Scroope Lord Steward of the Houshold managing the Tryal for that contrary to an Order made by the King and Lords 50. Ed. 3. n. 35. That no Woman and she by Name should pursue any Matters by way of Maintenance upon Pain of perpetual Banishment and loss of the whole Estate She notwithstanding had perswaded King Edward to countermand Sir Nicholas Dagworth from going into Ireland when he had been ordained by the Council to go thither for urgent business which would have been profitable for the King and the Realm And an other Charge against her was for perswading the King to pardon Richard Lyons who had been Farmer of the Customs and for abuses and extortions had been censured in Parliament to forfeit his Estate and be committed to Prison she got all to be remitted and his Estate to be restored unto him even that part of it which the King had given to two of his own Sons for their lives The hearing of this Cause took up several dayes Many that had been Counsellors and Officers to the late King were examined as Witnesses At last she is found guilty and Judgment of Banishment and loss of Estate given upon her 3. R. 2. n. 24. The Case of the Earl of Pembrock and William le Zouch complaining of Thomas Roos for sueing them concerning Lands in Yorkshire and endeavouring to get a Tryall in the Countrey the Record is Desitant D'estre a Lissue du pays trop suspecieusement his desiring it being suspicious so they pray Que Ils partels Malueis Compassements Procurements en pais ne soient desheritez That they may not loose their Inheritance by such wicked practises and procurements The Lords upon this retain the Cause appoint some Persons to examine and report it But this President hath been cited before at large so I do but touch it here N. 22. Sir Philip Darcy complains That the Prior of St.
the Persons that do the wrong if any be done It is Curia Regis that doth it and not the King though he sit in Court in Person And so the stile is Videtur Curioe And the Pleas Commonly end with this Declaration of the Party Hoc paratus sum Verificare pro at Curia ordinaverit and when mention is of any thing done contrary to the formes of proceeding Non sic in Curia ista usitatum est is the expression as it is in the President of the 18. E. 1. so much insisted upon by the House of Commons So hath it been in all times the Authority of the Court to which the Law requires obedience When Henry the third would have his Brother Richard Duke of Cornewall confirm the grant of a Mannor to one Waleran a Germain to whom King John had given it and which the Duke of Cornwall said belonged to his Dutchy of Cornwall and had therefore taken possession of it his Answer was That he was willing Curioe Regioe subire Judicium Magnatum Regni that was to say the Judgment of his Peers in Parliament and when the King said angrily to him He should then quit the Kingdom it he would not deliver up the Mannor his reply as Matthew Paris Records it was Quod nec Walerano Jus suum redderet nec sine Judicio Parium fourum e Regno exiret He would neither quit his Right nor the Kingdom but by the Judgement of his Peers Such difference was then made betwixt the Kings Personal Command and an Order of the House of Peers in disposing of mens Rights which makes it very apparent That the Kings Personal presence could not add any thing to or make any alteration in the Jurisdiction of any Court. But enough of this especially considering what is said before upon the same Subject Some other Evasions I find in that Book to elude the Lords Judicature and take off the force of some Presidents which have been cited in maintenance of it which I think are but evasions and work no great effect As that of the Banishment of Alice Perrers or Pierce which that Author will prove to have risen from the Commons and to have been at their Petition because Walsingham a Cloistered Monk saith so contrary to the Record in the Tower where he finds no such thing where certainly it would not have been omitted had it been so that being so essential a part of a Transaction of Parlament that it could not have been left out by the Clerk in the Journal Book And whereas to fortifie Walsingham's Testimony he saith he then lived as if he had been Testis Ocularis I doubt much if he was then born or so young he must have been that he could little take notice of the passages of the time for Baloeus in his Book De Scriptoribus Britanicis saith he flourished in the year 1440. under Henry the sixth when he died we know not but had he died then or soon after he must have been sixty three years old if so be he was in the World when Alice Pierce was banished for the Judgement of Alice Pierce was the first year of Richard the second which was in 1377. So as what he writes could be but by hearsay Which is observed by me onely to shew what weak proofs that Author brings to make good his Assertions and shews the badness of his Cause Not that I think it at all material to the point in question whether or no it was at the request of the Commons that Alice Pierce was judged by the Lords which would not at all evince what he would infer upon it that the House of Lords hath not of it self Cognisance of the Cause of a Commoner nor can judge him for an Offence whether Capital or of a lesser Nature but that the House of Commons making it their desire qualifies them for it Which is a strong Argument of the contrary and proves that the House of Commons doth thereby acknowledge their Judicature For ridiculous it were to think That any Act of that House could create a new Power in the House of Lords which it had not in it self before and which afterwards must cease till it please the House of Commons to give again a new life and being to it As if the House of Lords were but a Property which cannot move of it self to have the Verse said of it Ducitur ut nervis alienis mobile lignum I am sure it hath not been so heretofore nor do I think the House of Commons will own that Authors Opinion And so the Judgment of Hall for the death of the Duke of Glocester that too forsooth must be at the request of the Commons and so be an Act of Parliament and the proof for it is that at the end of the Roll they thank the King for his just Judgment But if the Gentleman would have perused the whole Roll he would easily have been satisfied that the thanks of the Commons related not to Halls condemnation but to the proceedings of the King and House of Peers against Sir William le Scroop Sir Henry Green and Sir John Bussy who had been active for Richard the second and were looked upon as principal Authors of the Miscarriage of his Reign For at the request of the Commons the Lords confirmed a Judgment formerly given against them in some of the Kings Courts not in Parliament and the King declaring That though he took the forfeiture of their Estates according to the Sentence given upon them yet he understood not there should be by it any Infringement of the Statute which said That no mans Estate should be forfeited after his death who had not been convicted whilst living for these persons he said had been so convicted Whereupon the Commons thanked the King for his righteous Judgment and thanked God for giving them such a King This had no relation at all to the business of Hall And in the Record it is an Article by it self of what had passed in Parliament another day So for the proceeding against Gomeniz and Weston that too must be at the request of the Commons and consequently an Act of Parliament Whereas the Commons had onely in general desired that all such as had delivered up any of the Kings Forts and Castles unduely might be called to account for it in that Parliament and be punished for it according to their demerit by the Judgment of the Lords who thereupon commanded the Lievtenant of the Tower to bring before them those two who were already in hold for their several Facts in that kind whom they tryed and condemned and proceeded likewise against several others as Cressingham Spikesworth Trevit and many more guilty of the same Crime whom they convented before them and Sentenced some to death some to other punishments according to the Quality of their Offence Now I do ask if in common sence it can be construed that the Commons were at all Parties in the prosecution
Subjects shall commit Treason though out of the Limits of this Realm it shall be tryed in any place that the King shall appoint by Commission under the great Seal So a special Commission was to be issued for it And several other Statutes were afterwards made of the same Nature But for Trespasses as this of the East India Company against Skinner there is no Act of Parliament to authorise the Prosecution at Common Law nor I think any Book Case to warrant the practice of it Book Cases against it there are many even for Trespasses in the Isle of Jersey though within the Kings Dominions because a Venire Facias could not go thither to summon a Jury from thence Mich. 42 as Mr. Prin cites it or 41. as Sir Edw. Cook E. 3. Coram Rege rot 109. An Inhabitant of Jersey complains to the King and Councel of false Imprisonment and several Injuries done him in the Island They send this Bill of Complaint to the Judges of the Kings Bench and there the Bill is dismissed Quia compertum est saith the Record quod negotium praedictum in Curia hic terminari non potest eò quod Juratores Insulae praedictae hic venire non possunt c. Other Cases there are of the same nature And if a Fiction could not help for Jersey being part of the Kings Dominions much less could it help for Forein parts where the King had no Authority at all Yet the House of Lords hath in all times exercised Jurisdiction upon Crimes done and committed in Forein parts as well as those within the Kingdome both Treasons and other Offences As in the Cases of the Lord Latimer for the loss of St. Saviour in Normandy and Oppressions done by him in Britany 50. E. 3. n. 21. Of William de Weston for the surrender of Outherwick in Flanders 1. R. 2. n. 38. John de Gomeniz for Ardes 1. R. 2. n. 40. Pierce de Cressingham and John Spickworth for the Castle of Drinkham in Flanders 7. R. 2. n. 17. The Bishop of Norwich for not doing Service beyond Seas according to promise and as he ought to have done for delivering up Graveling to the French not mustering his Army at Calice as he should have done and not having his Number compleat n. 18. Sir William Elinsham Sir Thomas Trevit Sir Henry Ferrers Sir William de Hurnedon and Robert Fitz-Ralph for delivering strong Holds and Fortresses for Money n. 24. John Hall a Servant to the Duke of Norfolk for Murthering the Duke of Gloucester at Calice 1 H. 4. n. 11. Sir William Richill for but taking the Examination of the Duke of Gloucester at Calice 1 H. 4. n. 93. And multitudes of others who could not have been tryed by the Common Law were tryed by the House of Lords And in truth a man may say the whole Case of Skinner in every point of it was only cognisable before them However it being out of all dispute even by the Confession of the Judges That some things in it are not tryable in Westminster Hall I hope it may be thought reasonable to leave as great an extent of Power to the House of Peers which is the supreme Judicature of the Kingdome as to the Court of Chancery where the ordinary practice is to retain a Cause when there is Equity in any part of it The Lords therefore Ordered the hearing of the Cause spent several daies in it and having with much patience heard all that could be said on both sides appointed a day to consider what was fit to be done super totam materiam Upon which day after a solemn debate they came to this Resolution only in general That Thomas Skinner was to be relieved by that House And referred it to a Committee to consider what damages he had sustained by the Governour and Company trading to the East Indies and to report their Opinions what Recompence was fit to be given him for the same Whilest the Business was under the consideration of the Committee and before the House of Peers had made any Determination of it a Petition was said to be presented by the East India Company unto the House of Commons which I will set down word for word before I give it any Epithete and upon reading it I think every unprejudicate man will say one cannot give it an Epithete bad enough the Petition was thus TO THE HONOURABLE The Commons of ENGLAND in Parliament Assembled The Humble Petition of the Governour and Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies Humbly sheweth THat Thomas Skinner lately exhibited a Petition to the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled against your Petitioners many of which are and were Members of this Honourable House when the said Petition was exhibited for Injuries pretended to be done by your Petitioners Factors in the East Indies in seizing his Ship Goods and Money and dispossessing him of a small Island there all which Matters excepting what concerns the Island are Matters clearly determinable in his Majesties Ordinary Courts of Law as by the Judges attending their Lordships hath been resolved and reported And for the Island the same is parcel of the Dominions of a Foreign Prince and so the Right thereof only determinable by the Laws of that Prince That though the Petitioners did humbly tender a Plea to their Lordships for that the Petition was in Nature of an Original Complaint concerning Commoners only and not brought to their Lordships by Writ of Error or Bill of Review or any way of Appeal and that the Matters therein were relievable in the Courts of Westminster Hall and thereupon prayed the Judgement of that High Court whether it would please to take further Cognizance thereof Yet their Lordships have been pleased not only to give a hearing to all the Matters in the said Petition contained but have denied to gran◠the Petitioners a Commission or so much a◠time to send for their Witnesses now inhabiting upon the place where the Injuries were pretended to be done and without whos◠Testimony it was impossible for the Petitioners to make their Defence That upon the said hearing their Lordships were further pleased to appoint a Committee to assess damages against your Petitioners which Committee is now proceeding thereon accordingly whereby several Members of this Honourable House who are of the said Company as well as others your Petitioners may be highly detrimented All which proceedings as your Petitioners humbly submit to your Honourable Judgements are against the Laws and Statutes of this Nation and Custome of Parliament In tender Consideration whereof and for as much as these unusual and extraordinary Proceedings of their Lorships are not only grievous to your Petitioners at present but may also be a President of ill Consequence to all the Commons of England hereafter and for as much as your Petitioners have no way of Relief in this Case otherwise than by making their humble Addresses to this Honourable
a desire to relieve them But secondly we must distinguish between a Fact not being a Crime in the eye of the Law which is neither Malum in se nor Malum prohibitum and when the Fact it self being odious and punishable by all Laws of God and Man only a Circumstance as the Place where it was Committe dputs it out of the Power of the ordinary Courts of Justice to take Cognizance of it which are kept to formes and may not trangresse them In the first Case the House of Lords can not punish that for a Crime which the Law doth not make a a Crime but in the second Case God forbid there should be such a failer of Justice in a Kingdome that fellow subjects should robb and worry and destroy one an other though in Forrein parts and there should be no punishment for the wrong doer nor Relief for the party wronged when they come home For then the King might be deprived of many a good subject the Land loose many of her people Trading receive much prejudice and so King and Kingdome suffer great loss and all without remedy But then say the House of Commons Where the Law hath provided and there is an ordinary remedy an extraordinary ought not to be tryed to this the Lords Answer that their House is not an extraordinary remedy but the ordinary remedy in extraordinary Cases and this of Skinners was so both in point of difficulty and point of Compassion And to what is said That it is the Interest of all men in England to be tryed by Juries and there is remedy against willful Juries by Attaint but here is no remedy nor no Appeal It is Answered That the Court of Chancery disposeth of mens Estates without a Jury Every Court of Justice Every Judge in his Circuit sets Fines on mens heads upon several occasions without a Jury Many are tryed for their lives and their Liberties which is more then Estate in the House of Peers upon an impeachment of the House of Commons who are not a Jury nor are sworn therefore that Assertion holds not That all men in all cases are tryed by Juries And for matters of Appeal there doth lye one to the next Parliament or the next Session But it will be said That is to the same Persons And what hopes of any remedy For they wil make good their own Act To this is Answered It is what the Law of the Land hath established We must not be wiser then the Law It is what our Ancestors thought sufficient what hath been the practice of all time And if we leave Posterity in as good a Condition as our Ancestors left us they will have no Cause to Complain Then we must presume that Courts of Justice will do Justice and will do Right that upon better reason shewed upon the Appeal they will alter their minds and give an other Judgement They have done so heretofore How many Judgements of Parliament have been reversed by succeeding Parliaments And where there is Cause for it we must hope they will do so again Then where as it is said That the greatness of the Charge and the Inconveniencies of attending Causes in the Lords House is an Argument against their Judicature They Answer That it is not the House of Lords that appoints such great Fees to Counsel it being left to their Consciences that take them and to the will and discretion of their Clients who give them and who without an Act of Parliament to restraine it may give what they will or rather what they must However The Lords say that the charge in Chancery is greater there having been some times forty fifty Orders made in one Cause and the delay much greater so as some Causes have lasted there very many years And even at the Common Law how many Verdicts have been given in one Cause contrary Verdicts one for the Plaintiff an other for the Defendant Contrary Rules of Court the Judges give a Rule one day and three daies after give an other clean contrary As an Instance of it can be given but of last Trinity Term in the Kings Bench. These are Inconveniences that lye not in the House of Peers But admit there were Inconveniences Many Laws are found inconvenient which yet are put in execution and all obedience given to them whilest they stand unrepealed And the Question is not now of Convenient or Inconvenient but matter of Right Is it the Right of the House of Peers hath it still been the Custome and Usage of Parliaments and consequently the Law of Parliament that they should exercise such a Power of Judicature If it be so as it is and will be sufficiently proved then the point of Conveniency or Inconveniency is out of doors Well may it be a motive to alter it by the Law But we will play with them at their own Weapon and joyn Issue upon that point that the Inconveniency is but imaginary and so farr from an Inconvenience that it is the great advantage of the subject that it should be so As well to give relief in Cases otherwise unrelievable as to assist and help on the administration of Justice when sometimes the greatness and power of some persons would else bear down or much obstruct and hinder the Proceedings of Inferior Courts An objection also was raised How shall the Lords Judgements be executed after the Rising of the Parliament For so the subject may be deceived And when he thinks that with much Charge he hath made an end of his business he is never the nearer And it is Answered that the House of Peers is not as the House of Commons whose Orders are only of force whilest they are sitting they have power sufficient to require Obedience to their Judgements Nor hath it been knowen that ever any Judgement of the House of Peers was not submitted unto and obeyed till now in this Case of Skinners that the East-India Company stands out in defiance and refuseth all Obedience to it In 15 R. 2. N. 17. in the Case of the Abbot of St Oseches complaining against John Rokell for divers Embraceries and for not obeying an Order of the Duke of Lancasters made therein the Lords Confirme that Order and charge the Lord Chancellor to see Rokell perform it Why may not the Lords do the same still if they doubt of Obedience to their Orders But there was never question made of it before And there are many Presidents of Orders given to persons to act some thing in the Intervalls of Parliaments to give an account of it to the Lords at the next ensueing Parliament which shewes that their Authority stil continues to empower those persons to act and to execute their Orders even when the Parliament is risen 15 E. 3. N. 48. The Bishops of Duresme and Salisbury the Earl of Northamton Warwick Arundell and Salisbury are appointed to take the Answer of the Archbishop of Canterbury and to report it to the next Parliament And 51 E.
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
Pasch le Conseil qil moy averont donnez et fray envers vous ceque fere deveray Sir I am your liege man for the Kingdome of Scotland and do pray that as to what you have proposed unto me which concernes the People of my Kingdome as well as my self you will have patience till I can speak with them that I be not surprised for want of Counsel seeing those who are here with me will not nor dare not give me their advice without the rest of the Kingdome And when I shall have advised with them I shall give you for Answer at your first Parliament after Easter that which they shall counsel me and shall do unto you that which I ought to do This request of his did King Edward grant the Record saith Et Dominus Rex habito super hoc Consilio ad Rogatum praedictum praedicti Regis Scotiae et etiam ad Instantiam Procerum et Magnatum de Consilio suo et Gratia sua speciali et similiter de Consensu praedicti Magdulphi concessit ipsi Regi Scotiae supplicationem suam et diem ei dedit ad Parliamentum suum post Pascha viz. in Crastino Sanctae Trinitatis c in omnibus in eodem statu quo nunc Idem dies datus est praefato Magdulpho Et per ipsum dominum Regem dictum est praefato Regi Scotiae et injunctum quod habeat ad praefatum terminum praedicta Brevia quae cognovit se recepisse ut supra dictum est He must not forget to bring the Writs with him 1 R. 2. n. 29. A Scire facias is awarded against the Earl of March to appear before the Lords at the next Parliament and to abide further Order And 2 R. 2. n. 33. the Sheriff of Shropshire makes his return that the same Earl was not found in his Bayliwick it seemes he was dead for there was then an other Scire facias ordered to warne his Son who was then Earl to be and Answer at the next Parliament after 13 R. 2. n. 12. Upon a complaint of the Bishop and Dean and Chapter of Lincolne against the Mayor and Townesmen for some wrongs done them in Execution of their Charter by order of Parliament a Writ was directed to the Mayor and Bayliffs of the Town to appear at a certain day before the Lords with Authority from their commonalty for abiding their Lordships determination they appear but not coming with full Power they are adjudged in Contempt By the same Parliament such a Writ is directed likewise to the Mayor and Bayliffs of Cambridge upon 〈◊〉 Petition and Complaint from the Vice-Chancellor and Scholars and they run the like fortune to be adjudged in Contempt for the like cause So then there are Writs made returnable in Parliament And many other examples may be given and some more will be given in this Discourse and Presidents cited upon other occasions where Writs have been Issued so returnable Which shall be observed as we go along And these few shall in this place suffice to disprove that Assertion Nor indeed was there any thing said on that side that did not receive a full and satisfactory Answer For what was said of an Act of Parliament to give Skinner relief for his Island doth in truth deserve no Answer for it were ridiculous to think an Act of Parliament or any thing else but an Army could put him into Possession of his Island again And it would be altogether useless unto him could he so obtaine it his Plantation there being utterly destroyed and all his goods spoiled and lost both there and at Jamby so as it would be impossible for him to carry on his trade to any advantage Therefore it is Reparation and Satisfaction for his Damage which he must have And that is not the work of an Act of Parliament but of a Court of Judicature That advice then is not to be followed and so we will leave it It now remaines but to set forth the Presidents which the Lords did on their part alledge with some few more Antient ones which shall be added for the Vindicating and Asserting of their Right unto this never before controverted point of their Judicature in all Cases of what nature soever when some thing extraordinary in those Cases did induce them to exercise it Of which they were the sole Judges that being a Trust lodged in them by the very Frame and constitution of the Government In the black Book in the Tower which is Printed by the Name of Placita Parliamentaria 30 E 1. F. 231. is the Case of Sir VVilliam Paynell and Margaret his Wife suing for Dower upon the Lands of John Cameys who had been Margarets former Husband and whom she had left he yet living And they now desiring tobe tryed by their Country upon the point of Adultery and the Lords not allowing of it This hath been at large expressed before therefore I only mention it now In the same Book p. 266.33 Ed. 1. The Case of Nicholas Segrave who was tryed in Parliament for leaving the Kings Army then in Scotland and goeing over into France to fight with one John de Crumbwell upon a falling out between them they being together in the Kings Army This was a case not tryable in VVestminster-Hall nor punishable in any ordinary Court of Justice by the Common Law of England yet the House of Lords could try him and adjudge him worthy of death And one thing more is observable in that Record That a Writ is Issued to the Sheriff of the County to take foure Knights with him and in their presence to Summon Segrave Quod esset Coram Domino Rege in proximo Parliamento suo apud VVestm ad audiendum voluntatem ipsius Regis et ad faciendum et recipiendum ulterius quod Curia Domini Regis consideraret in Praemissis So here is a Writ returnable in Parliament and the Sheriff did accordingly make his returne that he had Summoned and charged him Quod esset coram Domino Rege in isto Parliamento nunc juxta formam et Tenorem Mandati praedicti c. It was therefore a gross mistake to say That never any Writ was made returnable in Parliament as it was likewise one to say That the House of Peers could give no remedy where there was not remedy at Law this President proving the Contrary to both 21. Ed. 1. p. 135 136 c. The Arch-bishop of York is questioned in Parliament for excommunicating the Bishop of Duresme The ground of the Excommunication was For that the Bishop of Duresme had imprisoned two Persons employed by the Arch Bishop to cite the Bishop to appear before him The Arch Bishop appeals Et dicit quod de sententia a Canone lata per ipsum declarata in Curia Domini Regis non debet respondere The House of Lords goes on The other side alleadging That the Bishop in his Temporal Capacity as Count Palatin had committed those men
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
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
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
of these several Offenders But admit they had particularly impeached every one of them which is more then to desire such a Delinquent may be brought to his Tryal and that the Lords would do Justice on him as they find Cause and much more then onely to design the Crime and leave it to the Lords to find out the Persons For in an Impeachment they examine the matter and first find themselves the Party to be guilty and then they follow it against him and prove him so before the Lords Doth this at all give them any part in the Judgment or must it not necessarily be understood that the Judicature is naturally and constantly lodged with the Lords and the House of Commons part then is onely to bring the Offender before the Lords to be tryed This very Record of the Proceedings in the Lords House against Gomeniz and Weston shews it so to be and proves the Judicature of the House of Peers as strongly as can be It runs thus Item par la ou supplié est par les Communes que tous ceux qunt rendus perdus Chatels ou Villes par dela par uray defaut des Capitaines puissent estre a Response a Cest Parlement selon leur desert fortement punis par agard des Seigneurs Baronage eschievant le malueis ensample qils ont donnez as autres qui sont Gardeins de villes Chatels Commandé est a Sire Alein de Buxhall Conestable del Tour de Londres qe y face venir deuant les Seigneurs en Parlement a Westminster le Vendredy 27 Jour de Novembre lán susdit Jehan sire de Gomeniz William de Weston c. Item Whereas it is prayed by the Commons that all those who have delivered up and lost Castles and Towns on the other side of the Sea by their own default being Captains of them may be put to their answer at this Parliament and according to their desert be severely punished by the award of the Lords and Baronage for the eschewing of the evil example which they have given to other Guardians of Towns and Castles Command is given to Sir Allen de Buxhall Constable of the Tower of London to bring before the Lords in Parliament at Westminster upon Friday the 27th of November of the aforesaid year John Lord of Gomeniz and William of Weston c. Here the Commons desire that all such may be severely punished by the award of the Lords and Baronage So it is their Award and their Judgment must punish and this by the Commons confession And you may observe further that the Commons do not make any mention of any particular Person but the Lords they command Sir Allein de Buxhall to bring Gomeniz and Weston before them such a day But it is easie to trace the Author of the Pamphlet where he was led out of the way and that was by an other Pamphlet of the Priviledges of the Baronage which goes under Mr. Seldens Name but hath as many mistakes in it as leaves and there indeed it is said p. 15. That at the supplication of the Commons that all those who have rendred Castles be put to their Answer and that Allen Buxhall Constable of the Tower do bring before the Lords such a day Gomeniz and Weston to answer the Articles which there shall be preferred for the said Cause they were so brought c. But the Record it self you see is otherwise which that Pamphleter it seems never read And for what he further would infer to make that and all other Judgements at the prosecution of the Commons admit they had been so which these were not Acts of Parliament is a Fancy so ridiculous as it is not worth the answering which makes no difference betwixt an Act of Attainder that passeth both Houses and afterwards hath the Kings Assent as all other Laws have which is an effect of the Legislative Power in which either House hath an equal Vote and a proceeding before the Lords against a Criminous Person in a Judicial way wherein the Commons have nothing to do as to the judging of him But one thing more in that Pamphlet I cannot let pass which is in p. 12. The words are these viz. For the Kings giving Judgment in Parliament with the Lords Assent I do confess Judgements there ought to be properly and punctually entred as given Par nostre Seigneur le Roy que est Souverain Juge en tous Cas par les Seigneurs Spirituels Temporels ouel Assent des Communes de la Terre ou a leur Petition Nenny par les Seigneurs Temporels Seulement That is As given by our Lord the King who is Sovereign Judge in all Causes and by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal with the assent of the Commons of the Land or upon their Petition and not by the Lords Temporal alone And for this he quotes in the Margent Rot. Part. apud Leicester II. 16. which he delivers so Magisterially as any man would swear he had good Authority for what he said and that his old French was some old Oracle of Parliament And I must confess upon the first reading of this I was at a stand finding here such a positive Precept contrary to what I had still believed both in the Affirmative it must be by the Kings and Lords with the Assent of the Commons and Negative not by the Lords alone But when I came to examine this Assertion by the Record I found there was a foul mistake whether purposely or ignorantly I judge not For what was delivered by Counsel to bolster up his Clients pretentious is there produced as the Rule of the Court And an Error assigned to reverse a former Judgment which is but the Allegation of a Lawyer that draws up his Clients Plea is made an Argument to controul and condemn a constant usage of the House of Peers It was in the Case of the Earl of Salisbury Who brought a Writ of Error in the Parliament 2. H. 5. to reverse the Judgment given 2. H. 4. n. 30. by the Lords Temporal alone with the Kings Assent by which Judgment the Earls of Kent Huntington and Salisbury and some others who had been some slain some taken in actual Rebellion by other the Kings Subjects and by them put to death without form of Law were declared attainted of Treason and their Estates forfeited For the reversal whereof Thomas the Son Earl of Salisbury amongst the Errors assigns this for one as a principal one that it was given by the Lords Temporal alone with the King whereas it should have been by the King Lords Spiritual and Temporal with the Assent of the Commons or at their Petition And what follows upon this Indeed if the Judgment had been reversed though perhaps upon some other Error for several others were assigned there might have been some colour for the Gentlemans Assertion and the Inference he would make upon it But so far from it that the Judgment