the Power of Hearing and Determining upon the Writ of Error: Because, as was said before, [126] it belongs properly to the Chancery, to Issue a Writ Commanding it to be done, Si ita est, as is Suggested.
By 12 Rep. 63. the King himself cannot take any Cause out of the Court where it depends, and give Judgment on it himself.
And this House can make no Order upon this Petition that will be a Record, as in Hob. 110. The Petition is in the Name of a Person not Party to the Record. Which seems very new: For 'tis by a Stranger, in the Eye of the Law, to the Cause, and consequently ought not to be joined in any legal Proceeding, if this be such.
This is not incident to the Jurisdiction of the Error; no more than Amendment of an Error in the Court from whence the Record comes, or the filing of Bail, a Declaration, or a Warrant of Attorney, or the Suing out another Process in Defect of one lost, or the like. These Things are never Examinable in the superior Court: For in these Collateral Things the other are intrusted.
Here's no Hardship upon the Petitioner: For he might have been Nonsuit, or have given this repeal'd Act in Evidence at first; and then have demurr'd on the Defendant's Evidence: Or might have sued a Writ on the Statute of Westminster 2.
But suppose this House should Examine this Matter, and find the Petition to be Groundless, will such Determination prevent the Judges from being troubled by suing of the Writ afterwards. Suppose it Econtra, that this House shall punish the Judges and commit them, and award Damages, or make other Order in Favour of the Petitioners, would such Order bar or stop the legal Process afterwards? Can any Order made here be used below, as a Recovery or Acquittal, as an Auterfoits Convict, or Auterfoits Acquit?
If there be any Thing in it, 'tis a Breach of a Statute Law; for which they are punishable at the King's Suit; will the Proceeding here save them from the Trouble of answering to an Indictment or Information for the same Thing?
Then since a Writ lies to Command them to Seal this Bill; and since an Act of Parliament directs it, if it were a true one, perhaps it may be Questionable, if they do not break their Oaths, in case they Sign it in Obedience to any other Direction. If they did it in Obedience to the Royal Word, Signet or Privy Seal of the King their Master, 'twould be a Breach of their Oath. Then as to Precedents of the Exercise of such a Jurisdiction, none come near this: And Abundance of particular Cases were put and answered; but the considerable one was Jeffery Stanton's Case, 14 E. 3. 31. Cot. 30.
The Case is odd, 'tis in Fitz. Abridg. tit. Voucher, 119. there is a Writ Directory to the Judges to proceed to Judgment, or to bring the Record before the Parliament, that they might receive an Averment, &c. To this Case it was Answered, That the same was long before most of the Statutes aforementioned, and in full [127] Parliament: And in that Case Stone would not agree to it; but adhered to the Law according to his Opinion. 'Tis true, Shard, in the Absence of Stone, gave Judgment according to that Advice; but a Writ of Error was afterwards brought in the King's Bench, and the Judgment was reversed, 15 E. 3. B. R. even contrary to the Advice of Parliament, to the other Judges.
As to the other Cases of Property Examined here, either the Parties submitted to answer; or they were at the Suit or Complaint of the Commons; or by Consent of the King and Commons: But none of them carry any Resemblance to this. where the Judges insist upon it, that there is another and a proper Remedy. All the Cases in Ryley's Placita Parliamentaria are either Ordinances of Parliament. or Directions to follow before the Justices. But there's no Precedent to warrant this Petition, and therefore 'twas prayed, that the Petition might be dismissed.
And afterwards
86
