[41] For the whole of this business, which is erased from the journals of both houses, see _State Trials_, v. 711; _Parl. Hist._ iv. 431, 443; Hatsell's _Precedents_, iii. 336; and Hargrave's Preface to Hale's _Jurisdiction of the Lords_, 101. [42] Hale says, "I could never get to any precedent of greater antiquity than 3 Car. I. nay scarce before 16 Car. I. of any such proceeding in the Lords' house." C. 33, and see Hargrave's Preface, 53. [43] _Id._ c. 31. [44] It was ordered in a petition of Robert Roberts, Esq., that directions be given to the lord chancellor that he proceed to make a speedy decree in the court of chancery, according to equity and justice, notwithstanding there be not any precedent in the case. Against this Lords Mohun and Lincoln severally protested; the latter very sensibly observing, that whereas it hath been the prudence and care of former parliaments to set limits and bounds to the jurisdiction of chancery, now this order of directions, which implies a command, opens a gap to set up an arbitrary power in the chancery, which is hereby countenanced by the House of Lords to act, not according to the accustomed rules or former precedents of that court, but according to his own will. Lords' Journals, 29th Nov. 1664. [45] It was thrown out against them by the Commons in their angry conferences about the business of Ashby and White, in 1704, but not with any serious intention of opposition. [46] C. J. May 30. [47] _Id._ Nov. 19. Several divisions took place in the course of this business, and some rather close; the court endeavouring to allay the fire. The vote to take Sergeant Pemberton into custody for appearing as counsel at the Lords' bar was only carried by 154 to 146, on June 1. [48] Lords' Journals, Nov. 20. [49] Lords' and Commons' Journals, May and November 1675; _Parl. Hist._ 721, 791; _State Trials_, vi. 1121; Hargrave's Preface to Hale, 135; and Hale's _Treatise_, c. 33. It may be observed, that the Lords learned a little caution in this affair. An appeal of one Cottington from the court of delegates to their house was rejected, by a vote that it did not properly belong to them, Shaftesbury alone dissentient. June 17, 1678. Yet they had asserted their right to receive appeals from inferior courts, that there might be no failure of justice, in terms large enough to embrace the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. May 6, 1675. And it is said that they actually had done so in 1628. Hargrave, 53. [50] _Parl. Hist._ ii. 148. [51] _Id._ 200. [52] _Id._ 300 (43 Edw. 3). [53] _Rot. Parl._ iii. 611; _View of Middle Ages_, ii. 310.