what should be done. As 3 H. 6, the Commons, with the Lords' assent, had granted a subsidy of 33s. 4d. upon every sack of wool, as much upon every 240 woolfells, 3s. upon a tun of wine, and upon all other merchandise 12d. in the pound, under the condition (saith the record) that every merchant stranger coming into the kingdom should within fifteen days be under hoost, and within forty days after his being so under hoost, should sell off all his merchandise, and what after that remained unsold, should be forfeited to the king; and likewise should pay 43s. 4d. (that was 10s. more than the English) upon every sack of wool, and every 240 woolfells; and if these conditions were not observed, the whole grant of tunnage and poundage of the English merchant to be void and of no value. These conditions it seems were not observed; and great stir there was about it in the House of Commons the next parliament, which was 4 H. 6, as appears by the record, which saith thus,—Item pro eo qd. inter cões parlamenti prædicti diverse opiniones de et super concessione et levatione Subsidii Tonagii et Pondagii Domino Regi in parlamento suo ultimo tento concessi motæ fuerunt ut dicebatur et subortæ, visa tandem et diligenter examinata forma concessionis Subsidii prædicti in præsenti parlamento, habita quoq; inde justiciar, et aliorum Legis peritorum deliberatione matura, consideratum fuit et plenius declaratum per magnificum Principem Ducem Bedeordis Commissarium Domini Regis ac Cæteros Dominos Spirituales et Temporales in eodem præsenti parlamento existentes, qd. Subsidium prædictum ad opus præfati Domini Regis omnino esset solvendum et levandum, aliquibus conditionibus in concessione ejusdem Subsidi contentis in aliquo non obstantibus. The Lords eased the merchants' strangers, and yet the House of Commons was not angry at it, nor did they threaten them, that they would have no more to do with them, and that there should be no further transaction between the Houses in matter of money; but Tempora mutantur, &c.

And so we have gone through the precedents for the matter of subsidies, which were cited at the conference by him that

managed it for the House of Commons. Let us now see what will be offered by him in point of reason, in answer unto their lordships reasons. He begins with a terrifying general position,. which he puts in the front, as a caveat to their lordships, that it is a very unsafe thing in any settled government to argue the reasons of the fundamental constitutions: for that (saith he) can tend to nothing that is profitable to the whole. if their lordships' were now unravelling a settled government; whereas their lordships are now arguing against the unsettling of an ancient government, and the setting up of a new one, altogether unknown to our ancestors, which is,-To have the trade and the treasure, and the strength of the kingdom, to be wholly in the hands, and in the absolute dispose of one of the Houses of parliament, be it either of them. This certainly would be the unsafety of the kingdom, and the arguing against it, and opposing it, is for the safety of the kingdom.

Then he brings in (if one may say so) a little improperly the question of judicature, a point formerly controverted by the House of Commons, in which he will have no better luck, than in all the rest; mistaking or misciting his precedents. He first brings in the book case of 22 E. 3, to shew, that sometimes it was not in the whole House of Lords, but such as the king would please to appoint, to exercise that power. The case is this,A judgment had been given in the King's Bench for the king against Edmond Hadelow and his wife; they bring a writ of error in parliament; Sur que le Roy assigne certein Countz et Barons et avesq, eux les Justices, &c. de terminer le dit besoignes. The king appointed certain earls and barons with the judges to end the matter; but this might be a committee appointed by the House and judges to attend it, (which were regular enough) and yet might be said to be done by the king, as in all their judicial proceedings, things were said still to be done by the king, if the king were present, as sometimes he was, when such matters were in agitation, and that the House acted as a court of justice, and not in its legislative capacity. And the rather it seems to have then been so by way of committee,

G

because the parliament ending, the book saith, they could proceed no further, and the business fell to the ground, whereas if they had been referees appointed by the king, their authority had been the same after the parliament as during the parliament.

As to the next quotation of the parliament roll 25 E. 3. n. 4, it must be some mistake, for nothing is to be found there relating in any sort to the matter in hand: but n. 10, there is something to this purpose, which perhaps the manager meant, though if duly considered it makes against him. The case is that the king caused to be brought into parliament the record of the proceedings against Sir William Thorp chief justice, Et le fit lire ouvertement devaunt les Grauntz du parlement, and caused it to be read openly before the Lords, to have their advice upon it, who judged it to be rightly and duly made, and approved of the judgment given against him, because he had bound himself by oath to undergo such punishment, if he did contrary to what he had sworne, which was not to take any bribes; Et sur ceo y fut accorde par les Grauntz de mesme le parlement; que si nul tiel cas avigne dejorenavant que nostre Seigneur le Roy preigne luy des Grauntz que lui plerrra et per lour bon avis fait outre ceoq; pleise a sa Royale Seigneurie. The Lords do agree, that if any such case happen afterwards, the king may take such of his Lords as he please, and by their advice further do what seems good unto him. Is there anything here that doth derogate from the Lords power of judicature? or rather can anything be more in affirmance of it? One who out of parliament had been tried and condemned by a special commission, the king the next parliament, brings the whole business before the Lords before any execution be of that judgment, to have their judgment upon that judgment; they confirm it, and further (as it seems by the record) give the king power in the like case to call what Lords he thinks good, and by their advice to determine it, (which is to be supposed meant by them, if the case happen out of parliament.) And certainly there cannot be a stronger argument for the judicature of the House of peers in parliament.

Then he brings precedents to shew, that by the king's good pleasure the Commons have been let into a share of the judicature. His first is the 42 E. 3. n. 20, 21. The business was this the king the last day of the parliament invited all the Lords and plusours des Comunes, many of the Commons, to dinner, Et aprez manger vindrent les Prelats, Counts, Barons et ascuns des Communes en la dite Chambre blanche.

And after

they had eaten, the prelates, earls, barons, and some of the Commons, (probably not all they that had dined there, for the record is ascuns) went into the foresaid Chamber blanche, which is now the Court of Requests, where the House of Lords then sat, as the Commons En la petite sale, (the record saith in the little Hall) and thither was brought Monsieur John de la Lee, and tried for several crimes laid to his charge, the articles read by the chief Justice Robert de Thorp Del commandement des Seigneurs illoeques assemblez, by the commandment of the Lords who were there assembled; so likewise the record saith that his answer, Fust avis aux Seigneurs non resonable, seemed to the Lords not to be reasonable. And then n. 22, the record saith further, that he was, Mis a reason devant les Seigneurs, tried by the Lords upon another point. The conclusion was, that he was sent to the Tower, and made fine and ransom to the king; but all was done by the Lords, who sat there as a House in their judicature, the few commoners who were present being but so many private persons and lookers on, and not the least colour of their bearing any part in the judicature.

As to his next quotation of 31 H. 6. n. 10, nothing can be said, it must be mistaken; for in that parliament, we find nothing of this nature. The complaint of the Commons to the House of Lords for their Speaker being imprisoned, and their desire to have him released, which would not be granted, was indeed that parliament.

But to Hugh Brice's Case, 8 E. 4, a clear answer may be given, that what was therein done, was by act of parliament, in a legislative way. The Commons petitioning in these words, Please it therefore your highness, by the advice and assent of the Lords spiritual and temporal in this parliament assembled,

and by authority of the same, to assign, name and appoint the full reverend Fader in God Thomas Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury, &c.; then names several Lords both spiritual and temporal, the three chief judges of the three Courts, and some of the House of Commons, to be the persons to examine that business, and hear those complaints against Brice the master of the Mint; the king's answer is, Le Roy le voet, with a saving to his prerogative royal; conceiving it (it seems) to be some derogation to it, that the Commons should be admitted to any part of judicature, though by a special law for it. For this was a perfect act of parliament, in which the three estates concurred in their legislative capacity, which had no affinity with the judicial power exercised by the Lords in their House, as the highest Court of judicature.

As for his precedent of 2 H. 5, where he saith, it was assigned for error in the House of peers, that the Lords gave judgment without the assent or a petition of the Commons. It was the Earl of Salisbury's Case, to reverse the judgment given upon his father, and it is true indeed, it was assigned for an error; but it is as true, it was not allowed to be one, for his writ of error was rejected, and that judgment was affirmed. And strange it is that he should produce this for a precedent to prove a partnership of judicature in the Commons, being a strong one against it and as well might at any time a plaintiff's bill in Chancery be produced for evidence against a defendant in some other suit, even when the bill hath been dismissed.

And his next precedent is just such an other, to shew that the king and Commons alone without the Lords have made acts of parliament, for which he quotes 1 E. 6. c. 5. It is a statute against conveying horses out of England; and it is true that in Pulton's collections it is so printed, as enacted by the king and Commons, without mention of the Lords. But if the journal of the Lords' House had been consulted, it would have shewed, that the bill began in their House, was read the first time the 1st of December upon a Thursday. The second time upon Wednesday the 7th. The third time upon Saturday the 10th, and sent down to the House of Commons by the king's attorney