them with a conclusive Opinion in this Matter? When Calais was in our Hands, Writs of Error lay thither, 21 Hen. 7. fol. 3. As to the Pretence, that the Orders of this House cannot be executed there; 'tis very vain: For if the King's Bench Command their Judgments to be executed there, this House may order theirs; and in like Manner as they do to the Chancery here.
In 15 Rich. 2. Numb. 17. in the Abbot of St. Osithe's Case, the Lords here made an Order, and charged the Lord Chancellor that he see it performed; and this hath been constant Practise.
[81] It hath been imagined, That the Jurisdiction of this House in Matters of this Kind, is Dated from the 21 Jac. 1. as to the Proceedings in Chancery: But that is not now to be disputed; for the Commons in Parliament Assembled did agree it to be the Right of this House, in the Case of Skinner and the East-India Company. And in the Book about it, supposed to be written by that Noble Lord, the Lord Hollis, 105. 'tis said, that where the King's Sovereignty doth not reach, the Jurisdiction of this House cannot; the contrary is implied, that where the King of England's Sovereignty doth extend, the Jurisdiction of this House doth so too. And no Man will affirm, That Ireland is out of or beyond the Limits of the Sovereignty of the English Crown. And as to the Exercise of this Judicature by the Lords here, nothing can be stronger for it, than the 1 H. 4. Numb. 79. So 'tis in the Record, though in Cotton's Abridg. 'tis 80. the Commons declare that all Judgments Appertain to the King and Lords, and not to them; Skinner's Case, 199, 200. 4 Inst. 349, 353, 354.
It was farther argued, That Protection commands a due Subjection, and that these People who insisted upon this Independency, had forgot the English Treasure and Blood, which had been spent for their Preservation.
That they are Part of England and subject to its Laws, appears from the common Case of an Incumbency here, being made void by Acceptance of a Bishoprick in that Colony. Besides, that in Ancient Time the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was Primate of Ireland, and had the Confirmation and Consecration of Bishops there. Camden's Brit. pag. 735. and 765. 4 Inst. 360. then 'twas urged that the question now was, whether it were a Dominion inferiour, or equal to and independent upon the Realm of England. That the constant Practise had been for the Lords here to examine the Decrees in their Court of Chancery. That the Refusing of this Appeal would shake all those Cases thus determined. That every Appeal here from their Equity Sentences, (which have been very many) was an Argument against the Order of their Lords, and for the Receiving of this Appeal here. That this Thing hath been acknowledged, even by the Rebels there: For in Sir John Temple's History of the first Progress of the Irish Rebellion, written 1641. pag. 141. amongst the several Propositions made by the Irish (then in a general Rebellion) these two are mentioned.
1. That by several Acts of Parliament to be respectively passed in England and Ireland, it should be declared, that the Parliament of Ireland had no Subordination to the Parliament of England, but should have supreme Jurisdiction in that Kingdom, as Absolute as the Parliament of England here hath.
2. That the Act of 10 Hen. 7. called Poyning's Act, and all other Acts expounding or explaining that Law, should be Repealed; both which with their other dangerous Propositions were justly rejected. However, it shews their Opinion, that at that Time the Law was, or was taken and deemed to be, against [82] them in this Point. And there is as much Reason for keeping the final Judicature here, as there is for maintaining the Superiority and Obligatory Power over them in the Legislature.
'Twas farther urged, That the With-holding the Irish Lords from having the like Jurisdiction in their Parliament as the Lords in England have, in Judging upon Appeals and Writs of Error, was absolutely necessary for the Preserving of the Possessions of the English in Ireland. For those of that Country must be supposed to incline to their own Interest, and cannot be supposed so much inclined to love and affect the English amongst them: And that this Power of Judging here is co-eval with the very Constitution of the Government.
'Twas farther urged, That their Precedents returned did not concern the Point in Question, except the two or three Cases in 1661 and 1662. and two Appeals
56
