The case stated concerning the judicature of the House of Peers in the point of appeals

Postscript.

IN the citing of the Record of the Agreement between the King and Lords 4. of E. 3. mentioned pag. 19. one passage in it may be thought to have been purposely omitted, which truly was meer Inadvertency: and it seeming to restrain the Judicial Power of the Lords, that it should not extend to the Judging of Commoners, I have thought fit to insert it here. The words are these; after saying, That it was agreed between the King and Lords, Qe les Pieres qores sont, ou les Pieres que seront en temps auenir ne soient mes tenuz ne chargez a rendre jugements sur autres qe sur lur Pieres, there is added, Ne a ce faire mes eient les Pieres de la Terre poer, eins de ce pur touz iours soient deschargez, & quitez. That the Peeres of the Land may not have Power to

doe this, but that for ever they may be discharged and freed of it, that was, of Judging any but their Peeres. And if this had been an Act of Parlament, which had passed both Houses, and be∣comed a Law by having the Kings As∣sent to it, no question the Lords had been bound up; and without another Act of Parlament to Repeale this, they could not have exercised that Jurisdi∣ction, which they have exercised ever since in all Parlaments, and which those Lords themselves, who made that A∣greement and Bargaine with the King, did afterwards exercise in that very Parlament, in the Case of Sir Thomas de Bercley, whom they Tried for the Murther of King Edward the 2d. The truth is (as is before said in this Trea∣tise) it was but a sudden effect of Pas∣sion, and of an Indignation which they had conceived against themselves, for what they had been forced by the King to do most unjustly, in condemning the Earle of March, and Sir Simon de Be∣resford to death without calling them to answer. Nor yet do they say, they

had not Power, clean contrary, it ap∣pears they had it, for they desire that Power may be taken from them, that neither they nor their Successors may have it for the future, but then having it, they could not by this act of theirs divest themselves of it. For nothing but a Law could doe that, and it is cleare that this was none, but meerely an Or∣der of that House, of which themselves were Masters, (as the House is still of all it's Orders, and may alter or revoke them as it pleaseth) and themselves it seems did revoke this Order, for they afterwards in that very Parlament did the contrary in the Case of Sir Thomas de Barcley. But admit they had done so, and that their Order had still continued in force as to them, it could have no o∣peration upon succeeding Parlaments to bind them. So as this Record can¦not be said to be of any signification to impeach the Power of Judicature which is in the House of Lords, no not in the least degree. But I was willing not to conceal any thing, which hath but a semblance the other way: And indeed

indeed the Truth will the better appear, and be made the more clear and per∣spicuous, by shewing the weakness of all that can be said against it.

FINIS.