heard concerning his rights; he then produced his evidence before certain 
members of the Council. 4 * It was ordered that an inquisition concerning the 
rights in the land be taken in Jersey and the report remitted to the King under 
seal. 46 Finally, after an inquisition had been taken in the island, it was reversed 
for error by King's Bench. 47 From King's Bench there seems to have 
been a petition coram rege which resulted in a reversal of the judgment of 
Scrope and his brethren of King's Bench. 48 
It is open to conjecture when the parliamentary petition ceased to be utilized 
by Channel Islanders to gain supervision of insular judiciaries. The 
islands are invariably mentioned in the appointments made of receivers and 
triers of parliamentary petitions during the fourteenth century and later. 49 
But these appointments degenerated into mere formalities without functional 
significance. 50 
The fourteenth century as a period of institutional segregation witnessed the 
emergence of Parliament and the Council as quasi-entities. As the function of 
Parliament assumed legislative complexion, matters raised by private petition 
tended to be diverted to the Council or to Chancery. 51 But it should be noticed 
that Parliament continued to exercise a judicial function in the form of the 
error jurisdiction of the House of Lords. 52 
During this same period the competency of King's Bench in Channel 
Islands causes was questioned, 53 and in 1368 that court declined jurisdiction in 
a trespass action. 54 Sir Edward Coke later asserted that it appeared by this 
judgment that the King's writ did not run into the islands. 55 This principle 
that original writs did not run into dominions of the crown outside the 
realm was probably first enunciated in the case of Wales. 56 The eyres had 
45 1 Rot. Pari., 180b. 
46 Ibid., 181 a. The commission is set out in 
Havet, op. cit., 222. For difficulties encountered 
in execution of the commission see ibid., 225. 
47 Cartulaire des lies Normandes, 114. 
48 Ibid., 123-24. 
49 See the appointments scattered through the 
volumes of Rot. Pari. 
50 Richardson and Sayles, The Parliaments of 
Edward 111, 9 Bulletin of the Institute for Historical 
Research (1931-32), 3. 
51 Pollard, op. cit., 130-31; Wilkinson, op. cit., 
52-53; Baldwin, The King's Council in England 
during the Middle Ages (1913), 115 et 
seq.; Richardson and Sayles, 9 Bull. Inst. Hist. 
Research, 4; cf. Report of the Select Committee 
of the House of Lords on Appellate Jurisdiction 
(1872) x. 
52 Baldwin, op. cit., 334-38. 
53 See Le Patourel, op. cit., 11 2-13. 
si lbid., 113; Havet, Serie chronologique des 
gardiens et seigneurs des lies Normandcs 
(1198-1461), 37 Bibliotheque de l'Ecole des 
Chartes (1876), 232-37. 
55 Coke, Fourth Institute, 286-87; Prynne, 
Brief Animadversions (1669), 393-94. 
66 The early cases are collected and discussed 
in A Discourse against the Jurisdiction of the 
King's Bench over Wales by Process of Latitat, 
1 Hargrave, Collection of Tracts relating to the 
Law of England (1787), 377; "Concerning 
Process Out of Courts at Westminster into 
Wales of Late Times, and How Anciently," 
Vaughan, 395; Goebel, review of Schuyler, 
Parliament and the British Empire, in 30 Col. 
L.R. 273; cf. Keilway 202; Jenkins 5; Calvin's 
Case (7 Coke Rep. 1, 20-21). See also Lord 
Mansfield in Rex v. Cowle (2 Burr. 834), and 
the cases on the running of prerogative writs 
outside the realm, Bourn's Case (Cro. Jac. 543,