the bill from the Commons, but the Lords on the same day ordered their committee of privileges to prepare a bill "Concerning privilege and judicature in parliament," which, it may be well supposed, was of a very opposite description; and what was remarkable enough, lord chief justice Vaughan, who had been re=cently placed at the head of the Common :Pleas, acted as Speaker of the Lords for lord keeper Bridgman, and so underwent the mortification of putting the question, without being at liberty to say a word against that original =jurisdiction which he had in the beginning of Skinner's case, and so long as his being a mem ber of the Commons gave the opportunity, uniformly concurred in resisting. In consequence of this order of the Lords for a bill concerning privilege and judicature in parliament, a bill was soon brought in; and having been read for the third time, it was passed by the Lords with the title of "An Act for limiting of certain trials in parliament and privilege of parJiament, and for further ascertaining the trial of peers and all others his majesty's liege people;" and immediately after passing the Lords sent it to the Commons.

dicial to the rights of the Commons of England. Also upon a further report from the same committee, the House of Commons resolved upon several general heads of reasons*

The heads of Reasons for the first three points resolved on by the Commons were these. "It hath been always, time out of mind, the constant and uncontroverted usage and custom of the House of Commons, to have petitions presented to them from commoners, in case of grievance public or private; in evidence whereof it is one of the first works done by the House of Commons to appoint a grand committee to receive petitions and informations of grievances. -That in no age that we can find, any person, who presented any grievance by way of petition, to the House of Commons, which was received by them, was ever censured by the Lords without complaints of the Commons.-That no suitors for justice, in any inferior court whatever in law or in equity, exhibiting their complaint for any matter proper to be proceeded upon in that court, are therefore punishable criminally though untrue, or suitable by way of action in any other court whatever; but are only subject to a moderate fine or amercement by that court; unless in some cases specially provided for by act of parliament, as appeals or the like. In case men should be punishable in other courts for preparing and presenting petitions for redress of grievances to the House of Commons, it may discourage and deter his majesty's subjects from seeking redress of their grievances, and by that means frustrate the main and principal end for which parliaments were ordained."

For the fourth point the instruction was to insist "That no petition, nor any other matter depending in the House of Commons can be taken notice of by the Lords without breach of privilege, unless communicated by the House of Commons."

Upon receipt from the Lords of this counterbill to the bill of the Commons concerning parliamentary judicature, the latter were provoked juto further activity against the Lords. A day was indeed appointed for reading of the bill; and after one adjournment it was read for the first time. But, upon its being moved the same day for a second reading, it passed in the negative. Nor did the Commons stop here. A few days after, they resolved to desire a Conference with the Lords on their judgment and fine against sir Samuel Barnardiston; and with a view to such request, they appointed a committee to prepare Reasons for the Conference. Upon report also from this committee, the House resolved upon five distinct propositions as proper to be insisted upon to the Lords, namely; 1. That it is the inherent right of every commoner to present petitions to the House of Commons in case of grievance, and of that house to receive them ;* 2. That it "Upon conclusion of the four first proposiwas the right of the House to determine how tions it is further to be alledged, that the house far such petitions are fit or unfit to be received; of peers, as well as other courts, are in all their 3. That no court has power to censure a peti- judicial proceedings to be guided and limited tion to the House of Commons unless trans-by law: but if they should give a wrongful senmitted from thece; 4. That the censure and proceedings of the Lords against sir Samuel Barnardiston were in subversion of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons and of the liberties of the Commons of England; and 5. That the continuance upon record of the judgment by the Lords in the case of Skin-pare a bill for that purpose, and for preventing ner and the East India Company was preju

So encouraging is the habit of the House of Commons to receiving petitions of grievance, that at the beginning of every new parliament, they appoint one grand committee for griev ances, and another for courts of justice, and both are appointed to sit in the House once a week. See Journ. Comm. Nov, 13. 1761.

The House of Commons, as a conclusion to the first four points, added the following instruction.

tence contrary to law, and the party grieved might not seek redress thereof in full parliament, and to that end repair to the House of Commons, who are part of the legislative power, that either they may interpose with their lordships for the reversal of such sentence, and pre

the like grievance for the time to come, the consequence thereof would plainly be, both that their lordships judicature would be boundless and above law, and that the party grieved should be without remedy.”

For support of the fifth proposition the reference was to be to the reasons formerly offered against the judgment of the Lords against the East India Company.

to be used at the Conference intended to be desired; and at the same time resolved, That the Lords should be desired to vacate both their judgment against sir Samuel Barnardiston and their judgment against the East India Company.

Thus far had the House of Commons proceeded on the 10th of December 1669. But in this stage of the proceeding, it was thought fit by the king to stop the progress of quarrel between the two houses: and accordingly on that day he prorogued the parliament to the 14th day of February; and so the session terminated without passing so much as one act, and the consequence to the king was disappoint ment of a supply of 400,000l. which had been voted to him by the Commons.

this in the way, which to them seemed least wounding to their extensive claims of judicature; and for that purpose left their journal without a trace of the cause and manner of obliteration, or scarce a memento of the subject

of it.

This Narrative of what occurred subsequently to the Conferences is extracted from the Abridgement of the Case by Mr. Hargrave, who thus proceeds:

Thus at length this great case of Skinner against the East India Company, after engaging the Lords and Commons in serious quarrel during almost two years, was concluded through the source of recommendation whence the case was introduced into parliament: for from the On the day appointed by the prorogation king's recommending the case to the House of the parliament being again assembled, the king Lords their cognizance of it commenced, and made a speech, one part of which anxiously from his recommendation also proceeded the guarded the two houses against revival of the compromise by which the quarrel of the two difference between them. But yet as early as Houses about the case was finally disposed of, the fifth day of the session the Commons fixed Whilst the contention lasted, it was a hard an early time for resuming consideration of struggle on the part of the Lords to fix their the jurisdiction of the Lords. This was enough claim of original jurisdiction over civil causes, to convince the king, that unless something to fix their claim of assessing damages, to beyond a general dissuasion was adopted on fix their claim of fining and imprisoning at his part the dispute would soon recommence; pleasure, and to assist their claim of the sole and that the supplies, for which he had ur-judicature of parliament. On the part of the gently pressed in his speech, were in danger of being interrupted. In order, therefore, to prevent the further interruption of parliamentary business, the king made a speech to the Lords and Commons, offering his mediation between the two houses in the case of Skinner. His proposal to them for ending their difference was, that he should give present order to eraze all records and entries of this matter in the council books and in the Exchequer; and that the two Houses should do the like; so that no memory might remain of the dispute. This proposal of the king was instantly accepted by both houses. In the printed journal of the Commons there is an entry of the king's speech, and of their resolution in compliance with it to make a razure or vacat in their journals of all matters relating to the business between the East India Company and Skinner, and of the making of such razure or vacat accordingly in the House. But it is observable, that the printed journal of the Lords is with a blank on this part of the business of the day, neither giving the king's speech, nor an entry of their manner of proceeding upon the occasion. In other words, the Lords equally with the Commons accepted the king's expedient, and equally with them complied with the terms of it in point of razure and obliteration: but the Lords chose to do

* See Hume's Hist. chap. 65. Mr. Hume's account is, "That the king prevailed with the peers to accept of the expedient proposed by the Commons." But the king's speech entered in the journal of the Commons sufficiently proves him to have been the proposer to both Houses.

king also it was obvious, that he was not averse to all these pretensions of the aristocracy, so far as they tended to exclude the Commons: for he not only first recommended the cognizance of the case to the Lords; but at their request postponed a prorogation to facilitate the completion of their operation of fining and imprisoning sir Samuel Barnardiston; and his ministers afterwards concurred in the contrivance of releasing him, as if he had submitted to the jurisdiction and paid the fine, when according to the reality of the case the payment was a mere juggle, and he was liberated by order of the Lords gratuitously, and without any submission whatever. But the issue was unfavourable both to the king and to the Lords. To the king it was discreditable; because, after having in some measure encouraged the Lords to take cognizance of the case, and avowed himself suficiently to shew his wish to side with them in the contest, he found himself necessitated for the sake of pecuniary supply to propose a retreat to them. To the Lords the contest was all loss. From the stirring of the question, it was disclosed, that almost all Westminster Hall, except Mr. Prynne, was against the main pretensions of the Lords: and there followed votes of the house of Commons, proclaiming to the people of England, that the claim of exercise of original jurisdiction by the Lords in civil causes was an usurpation; that the supreme jurisdiction was not in the Lords but in the full and whole parliament; and that when the Lords fined and imprisoned persons for complaining by petition to the house of Commons, it was a breach of their privilege and an invasion of the rights of the people at large. In form, indeed the compromise of the quarrel

between the two houses was mutual cessation | nullation of the judgments they had throughout of hostility, with mutual obliteration from their sought to annul. The Lords gave up their two journal. But in substance there was a vast judgments. The entry, of the vigorous proceedifference between the two obliterations. Thedings to obtain that sacrifice from the Lords, obliteration by the Lords included vacating the was the only concession made by the Commons. judgment against the East India company, and The consequences also of the compromise corthe judgment against sir Samuel Barnardiston, responded with these views ofit: for it operated without an iota of protestation, exception or as a blow so fatal to the claim of the Lords to reserve; that is, included the whole of the an original jurisdiction, that the exercise in requisition resolved upon by the Commons im- civil causes has ever since been relinquished; mediately before the king's mediation. But the and it also made such an impression upon the Commons in their obliteration only yielded the other judicative pretensions of the Lords, that razure of their own proceedings, when the object new controversies were soon generated between of them was sufficiently accomplished by an- the houses.

222. The Trial of the Lord MORLEY, for Murder, before the House of Lords 18 CHARLES II. A. D. 1666.

MEMORANDUM (a) That upon Saturday the 28th of April, 1666, A.D. 18 Car. 2. all the Judges of England, viz. myself, J. K. Lord Chief Justice of the King's-bench; sir Orlando Bridgman, Lord Chief-Justice of the Common Pleas; sir Matthew Hales chief baron of the Exchequer, my brother Atkins, brother Twisden, brother Tyrell, brother Turner, brother Browne, brother Windham, brother Archer, brother Raynsford, and brother Morton met together at Serjeants-Inn in Fleet-street, to consider of such things as might in point of law, fall out in the Trial of the Lord Morley (b); who was on the Monday to be tried by his Peers for a murder: and we did all, una voce, resolve several things following, par. 1. First it was agreed, that upon the letter of the lord high-steward directed to us we were to attend at the trial in our scarlet robes and the chiefjudges in their collars of SS, which I did accordingly. But my lord Bridgman was absent being suddenly taken with the gout; the chief baron had not his collar of SS, having left it behind him in the country; but we all were in scarlet, but nobody then had a collar of SS, but myself, for the reasons aforesaid.

2. It was resolved, that in case the Peers who are triers (c) after the evidence given, and the prisoner withdrawn, and they gone to consult of their verdict, should desire to speak with any of the Judges to have their opinion upon any point of law, that if the lord steward spoke to us to go, we should go to them; but when the

(a) Kelyng's Reports, p. 53.

(b) Vide Moore's Reports, 621. Resolved by all the Judges, that on a Trial by Peers, the prisoner cannot challenge any of the peers that are returned on his jury. See also in this Collection, vol. 1. p. 1335, and vol. 3. p. 402.

Lords asked us any question, we should not deliver any opinion, but let them know we were not to deliver any private opinion, without conference with the rest of the Judges, and that to be openly done in court. And this notwithstanding the precedent in the case of the earl of Castlehaven (d) was thought prudent in re gard of ourselves, as well as for avoiding suspicion, which might grow by private opinions, all resolutions of judges being always done in public.

3. Although we were not all agreed in the precedent of the Lord Dacre's case, cited by sir Edw. Coke, in the Pleas of the Crown, p. 29. & 30. that the judges may deliver any opinion in open court, in the absence of the pri soner; yet it was agreed, that if the lord stew ard should in open court, demand any of our opinions in any thing, though in the absence of the prisoner, we were to give an answer to the question, the lord high steward should demaud of us; we being called to assist the court, and the demand of any question in such case being referred to the discretion of the high-steward. (e)

4. It was resolved by us all, That in case any of the witnesses which were examined be fore the coroner were dead, or unable to travel and oath made thereof, that then the examinations of such witnesses, so dead or unable to travel, might be read; the coroner first making oath that such examinations are the same which he took upon oath, without any addition or alteration whatsoever. (f)

5. That in case oath should be made, that any witness who had been examined by the com

(d) Ante, vol. 3. p. 401.

(e) See the earl of Warwick's Case, A. D. 1699, infra.

(c) This trial was in the Court of the High Steward; as to which, and the difference between it and the Court of our Lord the King in Parliament,' see the Cases of lord De-Book 2. c. 46. s. 15, et seq. lamere, A. D. 1685, and of earl Ferrers, A. D. 1760, and the Notes to those Cases, infra. VOL. VI.

() As to these 4th, 5th, and 6th Resolu tions, see the Cases of lord Mohun, and of Harrison, A. D. 1692, post. Hawk. Pl. Cr. and the Books there referred to. See also the Case of si John Fenwick, A. D. 1696. 3 D

roner, and was then absent, was detained by | the means or procurement of the prisoner, and the opinion of the Judges asked whether such examination might be read; we should answer, that if their lordships were satisfied by the evidence they had heard, that the witness was detained by means or procurement of the prisonner, then the examination might be read; but whether he was detained by means or procurement of the prisoner, was matter of fact of which we were not Judges, but their lordships. 6. Agreed, That if a witness who was examined by the coroner be absent, and oath is made that they have used all their endeavours to find him, and cannot find him, that is not sufficient to authorize the reading of such examination.

7. Agreed, That no words, be they what they will, are in law such a provocation, as if a man kill another for words only, will diminish the offence of killing a man, from murder to be manslaughter. As suppose one call another son of a whore, or give him the lie, and thereupon he to whom the words are given kill the other, this is murder; but if upon ill words, both the parties suddenly fight, and one kill the other, this is but manslaughter, for it is a combat betwixt two upon a sudden heat, which is the legal description of manslaughter (g); and we were all of opinion that the statute of 1 Jac. for stabbing a man, not having first struck, nor having any weapon drawn, was only a declaration of the common law, and made to prevent the inconveniencies of juries, who were apt to believe that to be a provocation to extenuate a murder which in law was not. (h)

8. Agreed, that if upon words two men grow, to anger, and afterwards they suppress that anger, and then fall into other discourses, or have other diversions for such a space of time as, in reasonable intendment, their heat might be cooled, and some time after they draw one upon another, and fight, (i) and one is killed, this is murder; because being attended with such circumstances as is reasonably supposed

(g) Vide Crompton's Justice, 23, a. b. Two play at tables, and fall out suddenly, and one with a dagger kill the other. If there be a quarrel, and a reasonable time before they fight, it is murder.

(h) As to these 7th and 8th Resolutions, see the Cases of Mawgridge, A. D. 1706, and of Oneby, A. D. 1726, post. See also East's Pleas of the Crown, c. 5. sect. 19, et seq.

(i) Two fall ont suddenly, and fight presently, and one kill the other, it is but manslaughter: so if after they have quarrelled, they presently go into the field and fight, one kills the other, it is but manslaughter; for all is one continued act of fury. But if two fall out suddenly, and before any blows, presently appoint to go to the field and fight, and one kill the other, this is murder; because it appeareth by choosing a fit place to fight, their reason was above their passion, and so a deliberate act. Vide Crompton's Justice, p. 25.

to be a deliberate act, and a premeditated revenge upon the first quarrel; but the circumstances of such an act being matter of fact, the jury are Judges of those circumstances.

Lord High-Steward's Commission.

Carolus sccundus Dei gratia Ang. Scot. Fran. et Hiber. Rex, fidei Detensor. &c. Clarissimo Consanguineo et Conciliario nostro Edwardo Comiti Clarendon Dom. Cancellar. Angliæ Salutem. Sciatis quod cum Thomas Dom. Morley et Mounteagle nuper de parochia S. Egidii in campis in Com. Midd, coram nobis apud Westm. de felonia et murdr. per ipsum Thom. Dom. Morley et Mounteagle commiss. et perpetrat. per Sacram, probor, et legal. Hom, Com. præd. indictat. existit. Nos considerantes quod Justitia est Virtus excellens et Altissimo complacens, eaq; præ omnibus uti volumus, ac pro eo quod cfficium Senescalli Angliæ cujus presentia pro Administratione Justicia et executione ejusdem in hac parte firm. requiritur (ut accepimus) jam vacat, de fidelitate, prudentia provida, Circumspectione et Industra vestris plurim. confidentes, ordinavimus et constituimus vos ex hac causa Senescallum Angliæ ad officium illud cum omnibus eodem officio in hac parte debit. et pertinen. (hac vice) gerend. occupand. et exercend. Dantes et Concedentes vob. tenore presentium plenam et sufficientem potestatem et authoritatem et mandat. speciale indictament. præd. eundem Thomæ Dom. Morley et Mounteagle concernen. cum omnibus illud tangen. a delect. et fidel. nostro Joh. Kelyng Milite capital. Justiciario nostro ad placita coram nob. tenend, et assign. in cujus custodia remanent, recipiend. et illud inspiciend. et ad certos diem et locum quos ad hoc providetis ipsum Thomæ Dom. Morley et Mounteagle coram vobis evocand. et ipsum superinde audiend. et examinand. et respond. compellend. ac fine debito terminand. Nee non tot et toties Dom. Proceres et Magnates hujus regni nostri Angl. ejusd. Thomæ Dom. Morley et Mounteagle pares per quos rei veritas in hac parte melius sciri poterit ad diem et locum præd. ex causa præd. coram vobis comparare astringend. veritateq; inde comperta ad Judicium per vos inde Senescall. nostrum Angl. in hac parte reddend. secundum Legem et Consuetudinem regni nostri Anglia (hac vice) versus præfat. Thomam Dom. Morley et Mounteagle procedend. sententiend, adju dicand. et Executionem inde fieri præcipiend. Ceteraq; omnia et singula quæ ad officium Senescalli Angliæ in hac parte pertinent et requiruntur (hac vice) facieud. exercend. et exequend. et ideo vob. mandamus quod circa præmissa diligenter intendatis ac ea fac. et exequamini in forma præd. Damus autem universis et singulis Ducibus, Marchionibus, Comitibus, Vicecomitibus, Baronibus, et aliis Officiariis, Ministris, et Ligeis nostris quibuscunq; tenore presentium firmiter in Mandatis quod vobis in executione præmissorem inten-. dentes sint consulentes, assistentes, obedientes et auxiliantes in omnibus prout decet. Man

davimus enim præfat. Capital justiciar. nostro pred. quod indictament. præd. cum omnibus illud tangen. ex causa præd. vobis deliber. Mandavimus etiam Locumtenenti nostro Turris nostr. London. sive ejus deputat. ibidem quod ad certos diem et locum quos ei scire fac. præfat. Thomam Dom. Morley et Mounteagle coram vobis venire fac. In cujus rei Testimonium has literas nostras fieri fecimus patentes. Teste meipso apud Westin. duodecimo die Aprilis Anno Regni nostri decimo octavo.

(Per ipsum Regem propria manu signat.)

Breve de Certiorarì.

BARKER.

teagle nuncupetur, in eodem coram me præfat. Senascallo sub sigillo vestro apud Westm. in magna Aula placitor. ibidem die Lunæ (viz.) tricesimo die instantis mensis Aprilis ad horam octavam ante meridiem, ejusq; diei liberetis una cum hoc præcepto ut ulterius inde fieri faciam, quod de jure ad secundum Legem et Consuetud. Regni Angl. fuerit faciend. Dat. sub sigillo meo apud Westm. 14 Die Aprilis Anno Regni Dom. Careli secundi, Dei gratia Angl. Scot. Fran. et Hiber. Regis fidei Defensoris, &c. decimo octavo. Per Senescallum. FANSHAW.

Carolus secundus Dei gratia dilect. et fidel.lar. Angl. hac vice Serescallus Angliæ Joh. nostro Joh. Kelyng Milit. Capital. Justic. nostro ad placita coram nobis tenend. assign. Salutem Vob. mandamus quod quoddam indictament de Felonia et Murdro unde Thomas Dom. Morley et Mounteagle nuper de parochia S. Egidii in campis in com. nostro Midd. in nostra curia coram nobis apud West. Indictat. existit, et penes vos in cur. nostra jam remanen, cum omnibus ill. tangen. Clarissimo Consanguineo et Consiliar, nostro Edwardo Comiti Clarendon Cancellar. nostro Angl. et hac vice Senescallo Angl. sub sigillo nostro deliberetis indilate, una cum hac brevi ut ipse Senescallus inspectit indictament. præd. et ceteris ill, tangen. ulterius inde (hac vice) fieri fac. quod de jure et secundum Legem et Consuetudinem regni nostri Angl. firmit. faciend. Teste, &c.

Breve de Venire Fac.

BARKER.

Carolus secundus, &c. dilecto et fidel. nostro Joh. Robinson Militi et Baronetto Locumtenenti Turris nostr. London. vel. deputat. suo ibidem Salutem. Vobis mandamus quod Thomam Dom. Morley et Mounteagle nuper de parochia S. Egidii in Campis in com. nostro Midd. de Felonia et Murdro indictat. et vestra in Custodia infra Turrem nostram London. præd. detent. coram Charissiino Consanguineo et Consiliar. nostro Edwardo Comiti Clarendon Dom. Cancellar. nostro Angl. et hac vice Senescallo Angliæ ad certum diem et locum quos idein Senescalius vobis scire fac. præmissis responsur. salvo et secure venire fac. Et hoc nullatenus omittatis. Teste, &c.

BARKER.

Edwardus Comes Clarendon Dom. Cancellar. Angl: et hac vice Senascallus Angl. Joh. Kelying Militi Capitali Justic. Dom. Regis ad placita coram ipso Rege tenend. assign. Salutem. Virtute Literarum Dom. Regis Patentium mihi direct. vobis mando firmiter injungend. quod quoddam Indictamentum de Felonia et Murdro unde Thomas Dom. Morley et Mounteagle nuper de parochia S. Egidii in Campis` in com. Midd. in cur. Dom. Regis coram ipso Rege apud. Westm. indictat. existit, et penes vos in cur. præd. jam remanen. cum omnibus ill. tangen. adeo plane et integre prout coram dicto Dom. Rege nuper capt. fuit quocunq; nomine præd. Thomas Dom, Morley et Moun

Edwardus Comes Clarendon Dom. Cancel Robinson Militi et Baronetto Locumtenenti Dom. Regis Turris suæ London. vel Deputat. suo ibidem Salutem. Virtute Literar. Dom. Regis Patent. mihi direct. tibi mando firmiter injungendo quod Corpus Thomæ Dom. Morley et Mounteagle nuper de parochia S. Egidij in Campis in com. Midd. in Prisona Dom. Regis sub Custodia tua detent. ut dicitur, una cum causa detentionis suæ quocunque nomine idem Thomas Dom. Morley et Mounteagle in eodem censeatur, habes coram me præfato Sennescallo, apud Westm. in magna Aula placitor. ibidem die Lunæ viz. 30. die instantis mensis Aprilis, ad horam octavam ante meridiem ejusdem diei, ad subjiciend. et recipiend. ea omnia quæ Cur. Dom. Regis de eo tunc ibidem consideraverit: in hac parte, et habeas ibi tune hoc præceptum. Dat. sub sigillo meo apud Westm. 14 die Aprilis, Anno Regni Dom. Car. secundi Dei gratia Angl. Scot. Fran. et Hiber. Regis Fidei Defensoris, &c. 18. Per Senescalium. FANSHAW.

Edwardus Comes Clarendon Cancellar. Angl. hac vice Senescallus Angliæ Rogero Harsnett Arm' servien. Dom. Regis ad Arma Salutem. Virtute Literar. Dom. Regis Patent, mihi direct. tibi mando firmiter injungendo quod summoneas tot et toties Dom. Proceres et Magnates hujus Regni Angl. Thoma Dom. Morley et Mounteagle nuper de parochia S. Egidii in Campis in Com. Midd. Pares per quos rei veritas de Felonia et Murdro unde idem Thomas Dom. Morley et Mounteagle indictat. existit melius sciri potuit quod ipsi personalit. compereant coram ne præfat. Senescallo apud ibidem die Lunæ, viz. 30 die instantis Mensis Westm. in Com. Midd. in Magna Aula placitor Aprilis ad horam octavam ante Meridiem ejusdem diei ad faciend. tunc et ibidem ea quæ in hac parte fuerint faciend. et habeas ibi tune nomina prædictor. Dom. Procerum, et Magnat. et hoc præcept. Dat. sub sigillo meo apud Westm. &c. Per Senescallum.

FANSHAW.

The Lord Chancellor being then Lord-Steward, came from Worcester-house in his coach, having (besides his usual attendance) sir John Eaton, his majesty's chief gentleman-usher, carrying a white staff nine foot long; and sir Edward Walker, Garter king at arms in his coat