Both,  however,  were  dismissed  as  incompetent;  the  Record


{')  It  IB  true  that  in  conrae  of  the
well-known  dispute  between  the  two
Houses  on  the  Aylesbury  Ejection  Case
( 1 704-5),  the  Managers  for  the  Commons
delivered,  at  a  conference,  a  paper  de-
scribing the  Judicature  of  the  Lords  as
^  a  bottomless  and  insatiable  gulf,
which  would  swallow  up  both  the  pre-
rogatives of  the  Crown,  and  the  rights
and  liberties  of  the  people."  The  re-
monstrances, however,  of  the  Commons,
in  this  famous  case,  are  now  curious
merely  as  specimens  of  parliamentary
vituperation.
(■)  Cottington  r.  Gallina  (his  alleged
wife).
(*)  Bampfield  v.  Borers.    The  entry


in  this  case  is  as  follows :— ^25  June,
1678.  Whereas  the  House  has  received
a  petition  of  W,  Bampfield,  &c^  exe-
cutors of  the  last  will  and  testament  of
Henry  Rogers,  Esq.,  being  an  appeal
from  a  decree  made  in  the  Court  of
Chancery,  pursuant  to  a  trust  given  by
the  said  Henry  Rogers  to  Anne  Rogers,
on  whose  behalf  judgment  has  been
pronounced  in  the  Prerogative  Court,
as  to  the  validity  of  a  codicil  annexed
to  the  said  will :  Forasmuch  as  it  ap-
peareth  that  the  matter  depends  upon
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  it  is  ordered
that  the  said  petition  of  the  said  W.
Bampfield  be  dismissed  this  House."


HIBTOBY   OF  THE  JURISDICTION.
91


stating,  as  a  reason,  that  the  matter  m  contest  involyed
a  question  of  "  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.'*  From  this
resolution  Lord  Shaftesbury  dissented ;  holding,  that  the
authority  of  the  House,  as  a  court  of  review,  rested  upon
a  principle  of  universal  superintendency,  reaching  all
courts  in  the  kingdom,  civil,  criminal,  and  ecdesiastical.
