No Freeman shall be taken imprisoned put off his freehold liberties free customes c. other then by the lawfull judgement of his Peeres as by the law of the land This great assurance in the 38. Chap. of the same statute was granted for the King and his successors to all his people and was confirmed in thirty Parliaments as I said before Cooke 8. the Princes Case by the statute of 5. Edw. 3. cap. 9. 25. Edw. 3. Cap. 4. 28. Edw. â— cap. â— 42. Edw. 3. cap. 1 â— The great Charter is againe confirmed and not onely so but proceedings contrary to the same before the King or his Counsell are declared voyde The King is to observe and mantayne the law the Iudge by his Oath 18. Edward â— is bound to doe right betweene the King and his people and that right strengthens the Kings prerogative presidents or practise contrary to so many statutes are of no use in many ages past encroachments were made upon these just liberties which were alwayes removed by Parliaments Yet I must confesse that of all antiquity some pleas have beene held in the Kings Royall house as in the Court held by the Marshall of the Kings houshold for things arising within the Verge Fleta lib. 2. cap. 2. but when that Court exceeds its due bounds declaratory statutes were alwayes made to meete them as mischiefes in the common-wealth when they medled with land or the like as appeares by the statute of Articule super Chartam 28. Edw. 1. 15. R. 2. cap. 12. all these statutes My Lords and many more to this purpose are undenyably of force in this kingdome and none of them can be with impunitie said to be obsolete or antiquated My Lords they raise another doubt viz that as the King may grant cognizance of pleas to Corporations or the like and therefore to the Councell-table if this neede an answer I will answer it thus that a grant of cognizance never was neyther can it be otherwise then to proceede per legem terrae or per judicium parium in the same manner as Courts doe proceede at Common-law and not upon paper petitions or summary hearings such cognizance was never granted the King is at losse by such proceedings he looseth fines upon originals he looseth amerciaments and fines incident to every judgement at Common-law as I said before I he subject undergoeth an inconvenience First the law will decline writs originall will by disuse be forgotten Clerks who should draw them discouraged to learne legall proceedings out of doores being the foundation of the law and in stead of regular and orderly proceeding rudenesse and barbarisme introduced the subject will loose the benefit of his attaynte and writ of error by which the law might relieve him against false verdicts or erroneous judgments he will loose the benefit of his warranty which might repaire a purchaser in case his acquired purchase were not good Whereas if a Iudge or Iuror doe wrong the remedy is at hand but against the Lord Deputy and Councell who will seeke for it therefore the countenance of this Iudicature in Common-pleas is against the Kings prerogative and the peoples just rights both which the Iudges ought to maintaine and likewise against the intent of your Lordships order My Lords as in England the said severall statutes were made to prevent the inconveniences aforesaid one good statute was made in Ireland 28. Henr. 6. cap. 2. Irish statut fol. 15. which directs matters of Interest to be determined in the Common-pleas matters of the Crowne in the Kings-bench matters of equity in the Chancery This law if there were no more regulates the proceedings in this kingdome The Iudges insist upon the words in the end of that statute viz. Saving the Kings prerogative My Lords this was stood upon at the late great tryall in England and easily answered for by the Common-law the King may by his prerogative sue in any of the foure Courts for his particular interest although it be contrary to the nature of that Court for he may sue à Quare impedit in the Kings Bench the like yet so as the said suite be bounded by the rules of law I will demaund a question whether the King may bring à Quare impedit in paper at the Councell-board the Kings now Atturney I am confident will answer me he cannot The word salvo or saving is in construction of law of a thing in esse or existente and no creative word 26. Ass pla 66. and cannot in the Kings Case be construed to overthrow the law nor many expresse and positive acts of Parliament My Lords in all humblenesse and dutie I will and must acknowledge his Majesties Sacred and lawfull prerogative whereof the King himselfe is the best expositor in his answer to the Petition of right Poltons stat fol. 1433. he declares that his prerogative is to defend the peoples libertie and the peoples libertie strenghtens the Kings prerogative the answer was a Kingly answer and More â—ajorum this is conformable to the great Charter and to all the statutes before recited The government of England being the best in the world was not onely Royall but also politicke some other princes like Cain Nemrod Esau and the like hunters of men subverted lawes The Kings of England maintayned them and did never assume the power to change or alter the lawes as appeares by Fortescue that grave and learned Lord Chancellor in King Henry the sixts time de laudibus legum Angliae cap. 9. fol. 25. and in the same Booke cap. 36. fol. 84. nor to take his peoples goods nor to lay taxe nor tallage upon them other then by their free consent in Parliament this appeares by the Booke Cases in 1â— Henr. 4. fol. 14. 15. 16. the great case of the Awlnage of London and in the Case of toll-travers and toll-through 14. Henr. 4. 9 37. Henr. 6. 27. 8. Henr. 6. 19 all agreeing nor to alter the nature of land as by converting land at Common-law to Gavelkind or Borrough English or e conuerso as to the estate otherwise as to the person of the King Ple. Com. the Lord Barclyes Case fol. 246. 247. Yet it is most true that the law of the land gives the King many naturall and great prerogatives farre beyond all other men as may appeare in the said Case fol. 243. but not to doe wrong to any subject Com. 246. The person of the King is too sacred to doe a wrong in the intention of Law if any wrongs bee done his ministerâ— are Authors and not the King And the Kings just prerogatives by the Kings Royall assent in Parliament were bounded limited and qualified by severall Acts of Parliament as if Tenant in cap. did alien at common-Common-law without licence this was a forfeyture of his estate Plo Com. case of mines fol. 332. the statutes of 2. Edw. 3. cap 14. makes this only finable the statute of Magna Charta cap. 21.
takes away the Kings prerogative for cutting woodes where he pleased many other cases there are upon this learning By this great Iustice and bounty of the Kings of England the Kings grew still greater and more permanent The people became free and wealthy no King so great as a King of rich free people If the Councell-table may retaine cognizance of causes coÌ„trary to the Law to so many Acts of Parliament why may they not avoyde all Acts of Parliament aswell This no man will affirme nor they intend My Lords two objections seeme to stand in my way First the multitude of presidents countenancing the cognizance of the Councell-board in the matter aforesaid some in ancient times and of late in great clusters throngs Secondly that in book Cases it appeares the Iudges of Law did take advice in their Iudgements with the Kings Counsell as 40 Ed. 3. fol. 34. 39. Ass placito primo 35. Edw. 3. fol. 35. 19. Edw. 3. fitz Iudgement 174. In answer to the first as for the multitude of presidents hinc illae lachrymae there is our griefe I find in our Bookes that presidents against Law doe never bind there is no downe right mischiefe But a president may be called upon to beare it up Iudicandum est legibus non exemplis Cooke 4. fol. 33. Mitâ—ons case Cooke 11. fol. 75. Magdalen Colledges case Cooke 4. fol. 94. Slades case multitudo errantium non parit errori patrocinium I answer to the second that in those yeare books of Edw. 3. It is true that the Iudges appealed to the Kings Councell for advice in law but who gave the Iudgment the Iudges and what Iudgement a legall Iudgement and no paper or arbitrary Iudgment If this objection were materiall I might answer further that the Councell here may bee understood the great Councell viz. the Parliament propter excellentiam vide Cooke 6. 19. 20. Gregories case By the stat of 4. Edw. cap. 3. 14. and 36. Edw. 3. c. 10. Rastall fol. 316. Parliaments were then to be held once a yeare the booke of 39. Edw. 3. fol. 35. in the case of a formedon may well warrant this explanation of those books the Bishops Abbots Earles and Barons mentioned in the said books may be well taken to be the Lords house which might sit by adjournements in those times of frequent Parliaments My Lords I kept you too long upon this Question I will be as short in the next And so I conclude the answer as to this point is no answer and whether the matters therein comprized be of dangerous consequence I submit to your Lordships If the Chiefe Governor and Councell of this kingdome cannot heare or determine the causes aforesaid surely the Chiefe Governor alone cannot doe it all I have said to the third I doe apply to this Question together with one president worthy your observation in 25. Edw. 1. Claus. m. 20. where I have an authenticke coppie viz. Claus. vicessimo quinto Eaw primi m. 20. Rex dilecto fideli suo Iohanni VVogan Iusticiario suo Hiberniae salutem cum intellexerimus quod vos comunia placita quae totis temporibus retroactis per brevia originalia de Cancellaria nostra Hiberniae placitari deberent consueverunt per billas petitiones vacuas jam de novo coram vobis deduci facitis etiam terminari per quod feodum sigilli nostri quo utimur in Hibernia fines pro breuibus dandis ad alia commoda quae nobis inde solent accrescere di versimode subtrabuntur in nostri incolarum partium illarum damnum non modicum gravamen nolentes igitur hujusmodi novitates fieri per quas nobis damna gravia poterunt evenire vobis mandamus quod si ita est tunc aliqua placita comunia quae per brevia originalia de Cancellaria nostra praedictâ— de jure consuetudine hucusque visitata habent terminari per petitiones billas coram vobis deduci placitari aut terminari de caetero nullatenus praesumatis per quod vobis imputari debeat aut possit novum incommodum in hac parte Teste Rege apud Shestoniam xxiij die Martij Convenit cum Recorda VVilliam Collet Your Lordships may see that in Edward the firsts time the King took notice First that the said petitions were void Secondly that his revenues were thereby impaired Thirdly that it was against the Custome of the land of Ireland Fourthly that it was to the grievance of the people of Ireland Fifthly he comanded Iohn VVogan then Chiefe Governor not to presume to deale in the like proceedings thereafter I marvaile not a little wherefore the Iudges in our time after so many acts of Parliament since 25. Edw. 1. should make any doubt or question to answer this cleerly My Lords I humbly desire not to be misconstrued in the debate of this Question my meaning is not to pry into his Majesties just prerogatives Qui enim majestatem scrutatur Principis corruet spelndore ejus the old saying in English is as good he that hewes a block above his head the chipps will fall into his eyes The Question warrants no such scrutinie I may not officiously search into it The Question is onely whether grants made of monopolies to a subject be good in law And whether by pretext of such grants the Kings free people may loose their goods by seisures or may be fined imprisoned pillored papered c. Those things have been done and acted in many cases where the Monopolites were Iudges and parties in which case if an act of Parliament did erect such a Iudicatorie it were void as against naturall Iustice Cooke 8. 118. a Doctor Bonhams case I speake to that thing that odious thing Monopolie which in law is detestable Cooke 11. 53. b. the Taylors of Ipswich case by which any subject is hindered to exercise his lawfull trade or lawfully to acquire his living and the Condition of a bond being to restraine any man from his trade the bond is void in law 2 Hen. 5. 5. b. In this case the Iudge Hull swoare par Dieu if hee who tooke this bond were present he would fine him to the King and commit him to prison by which case I observe that the consent of the partie cannot make it good That a Patent of any such Monopolies is a grievance against the Common wealth and consequently voyd in law the case was of Cards which is observable Cook 11. 85. 86. 87 c. Darcy Allens Case There is a Condition tacite or expresse in every grant of the Kings Ita quod patriamagis solito non gravetur vel oneretur vid. Fitz. N. br fol. 222. Cod. ad quod damnum This learning is so cleare as to Monopolies thus stated that I will dwell no longer upon them as I hope they may no longer reside among us The
Common-wealth And they say that the matter manner restrictions limitations reservations and other clauses contayned in such grants or licences and the Commissions or Proclamations thereupon and undue execution thereof and severall circumstances may make the same lawfull or unlawfull whereof they are not able to give any certayne resolution before some particular commes in judgement before them neyther are they otherwise able to answer the generall in the particulars of the said question of what in what cases how where and by whom or which of them wherein whosoever desireth further satisfaction he may please to have recourse unto the knowne cases of Monoplies Printed authorities and written Reports and unto the statute of 21. Ia. in England concerning Monopolies and the severall exceptions and limitations therein 6. To the sixt they say they can no otherwise answer then they have already in their answer to the third question for the reasons therein setforth 7. To the seventh they say that a Proclamation or act of State cannot alter the common-common-law and yet Proclamations are acts of his Majesties prerogative and are and alwayes have beene of great use and that the contemners of such of them as are not against the law are and by the constant practise of the Star-chamber in England have beene punished according the nature of the contempt and course of the said Court and although acts of State are not of force to bind the goods possessions or inheritance of the subject yet they have beene of great use for the setling of the estates of very many subjects in this kingdome as may appeare in the Report of the case of Irish gavelkind in Print And further to that question they cannot answer for the reasons in their answer unto the third question set forth 8. To the eight they say that they know no ordinary rule of law by which the subjects of this kingdome are made subject to Marshall-law in time of peace and that they find the use thereof in time of peace in England complayned off in the petition of right exhibited to his Majestie in the third yeare of his raigne And that they conceive the granting of authority and Commission for execution thereof is derived out of his Majesties Regall and prerogative power for suppressing of suddaine and great insolencies and insurrections among armies or multitudes of armed men lawfully or unlawfully convented together the right use wherof in all times hath beene found most necessary in this kingdome And further to that question they cannot answer for that as they conceive it doth concerne his Majesties Regall power and that the answering of the other part of the question doth properly belong to another profession whereof they have no Cognizance 9. To the ninth they say that as the taking of any Oath before any but such Iudges or persons as have power to give or demaund an Oath for decision of controversies is by most Divinâ— in most cases counted to be a rash Oath and so an offence against God within the third Commandement so the prescribing and demaunding of a set Oath by any that cannot derive power so to doe from the Crowne where the fountaine of Iustice under God doth reside is an offence against the law of the Land and as for voluntary and extra judiciall Oathes although freely taken before arbitrators or others they say as this kingdome is composed in many particulars as the nature consequence of the cause or the quality of the person who taketh or before whom the same is taken may concerne the Common-wealth or the members therof such taking of such Oathes or proceeding or grounding on such Oath in deciding of controversies according to the severall circumstances that may occurre therein or the prejudice it may introduce to the Common-wealth may be punishable by the Common-law or if it grow unto an height or generall inconvenience to the common-wealth or members thereof in the Castle-chamber For though such an Oath be voluntary yet in most cases it is received by him that doth intend to ground his Iudgment thereon and after the Oath is taken the arbitrator or he that intends to yeeld faith to the party that tooke the Oath doth examine him upon one or more questions upon the said Oath unto the answer whereof hee doth give faith and assent trusting on the said Oath And whereas Oathes by Gods institution were chiefly allowed to bee taken before lawfull Magistrates for ending of controversies yet common experience doth teach in this kingdome that oftentimes orders and acts grounded on such voluntary Oathes beget strife and suits and commonly such orders when they come to bee measured by rules of law or equitie in the Kings Courts become voyde after much expence of time and charge that we say nothing of that that thereby many causes proper to the Kings Courts are drawn ad aliud examen and thereby the Kings justice and Courts often defrauded and declined 10. To the tenth they say that they are not Iudges of rules of policie but of law and that they know no certayne rule of law concerning reducement of fines The same being matters of his Majesties own meere Grace after a man is censured for any offence And that they know no law that none shall be admitted to reducement of his fines or other penalties in the Courts in the question specified untill he confesse the fact for which he was censured But forasmuch as the admittance to a reducement after conviction for an offence is matter of Grace and not Iustice It hath beene the constant course of these Courts both here and in England for cleering of his Majesties justice where the partie will not goe about to cleere himselfe by reversall of the censure or decree not to admit him to that grace untill he hath confessed the justnesse of the sentence pronounced by the Court against him And that the rather for that commonly the ability and disabilitie of the partie doth not appeare in judgement before them but the nature and circumstances of the offence according to which they give sentence against him or them in terrorem after which when the partie shall make the weaknesse of his estate appeare or that the Court is otherwise ascerteyned that they doe of course proportion the censure or penaltie having regard to his estate 11. To the eleventh they say That neither the Iudges of the Kings Bench as they informe us that are of that Court or Iustices of Gaole delivery or of any other Court doe or can by any law they know deny the copies of Indictments of Felony or Treason to the partie only accused as by the said question is demanded 12. To the twelfth they say that where lands are holden of the King by the Knights service in Capite the tenant by the strict course of Law ought in person to doe his homage to the King and untill he hath done his homage the ancient course of the Exchequer hath beene yet is to issue
answer is insufficient as in the case of a new invention of manufactory or the like in such cases a Patent may be good they say for certaine yeares whereas the yeares ought to be competent ten thousand years are certaine but not competent and they who offend are to give damage in an ordinary Court of Iustice to the Patentee unto which they adde or otherwise Oh this arbitrary word the like arbitrary advice of others I feare hath occasioned this Question Where Monopolies were clearly voyde punishments were inflicted upon The honest man and the Monopolist escaped they answer nothing to the losse of goods heavy fines mutillation of members the before recited statutes direct cleare answers to these particulars My Lords the statute of Magna Charta cap. 30. quod omnes Mercatores tam indigenae quam alienigenae have free passage sine omnibus malis tolnetis consuetudinibus ex Anglia in Anglia nisiantea publicè prohibiti fuerunt the subsequent statutes declaring many oppressions and grievances occasioned by restraints in trade and Commerce made trade free for victuall and merchandises and in them Nisi c. is omitted as the statute of 9. Edw. 3. c. 1. 25. Edw. 3. cap. 2. 2. Rich. 2. cap. 1. 11. Rich. 2. cap. 7. 16. Rich. 2. cap. 1. these statutes give double damage to the party and the offender to be imprisoned The statute of 21. Iacob c. 3. in England against Monopolies in the exception of new inventions limits the time to a reasonable number of yeares viz. fourteene yeares or under whether the heavie punishments aforesaid can be in this case especially the private interest of a subject being therein onely or mainly concerned Magna Charta cap. 29. gives me a cleere answer and satisfactory Nullus liber homo capiatur imprisonetur disseifietur vel aliquo modo destruatur c. nisi per judicium parium legem terrae if this be law or a lawfull statute as no doubt it is the question is soone answered My Lords by this time you know how the Innocent was actually punished in these cases Now it is time and not improper to shew how the Nocent ought to be punished who tooke unlawfull Monopolies seised the subjects goods by violence imprisoned fined mutilated and destroyed the Kings people and caused all the evils that depended therevpon For that my Lords it is not within my charge yet I hope it shall not remaine unrepresented by the house of Commons nor unremembred by your Lordships in due time To this the Iudges answered nothing but with a reference to their answer to the third whereas in truth this comprehends two matters besides of great weight and consideration first whereas the third question concerneth the decision at Counsell-board of matters of interest onely This question is of matters of punishment in an extrajudiciall way secondly this question demands knowledge of the punishment due to such as vote for such extrajudiciall punishments to these mayne matters there is no answer at all My Lords the statutes and authorities before mentioned upon the third and fourth questions against the determination at Councell-board or before the chiefe Governor in matters of interest do cleare this businesse as to the punishments depending upon those interests although not è converso And as for such as voted and acted therein if they besworne Iudges of the law the before recited Oath of 18. Edw. 3. declares enough His Majesty at his Coronation is bound by Oath to execute justice to his people according to the lawes this great trust the King commits to his Iudges who take a great Oath to discharge this trust if they fayle therein Sir VVilliam Thorp in Edward the 3. time for breaking this oath in poore things was indicted thus Quia praedictus VVillielmus Thorp habuit Sacramentum Domini Regis erga populum suum ad custodiendum illud fregit malitiosè falsé rebellitèr quantum in ipso fuit this extends to a Iudge onely who tooke that Oath habuit leges terrae ad custodiendum The trust betweene the King and his people is threefold First as betweene Soveraigne and Subject Secondly as betweene a Father and his Children under Pater Patriae Thirdly as betweene Husband and Wife this trust is comprehensive of the whole body politicke And for any Magistrate or private person to advise or contrive the breach of this trust in any part is of all things in this world the most dangerous vae homini illi First I doe conceive that an act of state or Proclamation cannot alter the Common-law nor restrayne the old nor introduce a new law and that the same hath no power or force to bind the goods lands possessions or inheritance of the subject but that the infringing thereof is onely a contempt which may bee punished in the person of the delinquent where the Proclamation is consonant and agreeable to the lawes and statutes of the kingdome or for the publicke good and not against law and not otherwise punishable I do conceive that a Proclamation is a branch of the Kings prerogative and that the same is usefull and necessary in some cases where it is not against the law wherein the publicke weale is interested or concerned but that any clause therein contayning forfeyture of the goods lands or inheritance of the subjects is meerely voyde for otherwise this inconvenience will ensue That Proclamations or acts of state may bee made in all cases and in all matters to bind the libertie goods and lands of the subjects and then the Courts of Iustice that have flourished for so many ages may be shut up for want of use of the law or execution thereof and there is no case where an offence is committed against law but the law will find out away to punish the delinquent The King by his proclamation may inhibit his subject that he shall not goe beyond Sea out of this Realme without his licence and this without any writt or other Commandement to his subject for perchance the King may not finde his subject or know where he is And if the subject will goe out of the Kings Realmes contrary to this proclamation this is a contempt and he shall be fined to the King for the same as saith Fitz-Herbert that such a proclamation can prohibit the Kings subjects to repayre into England for England is our Mother and though the Sea divide us that Sea is the Kings and therefore it is not pars extra in this sense It seemes by the Lord Chauncellor Egertons argument upon the case of post nati that a proclamation cannot binde the goods lands or inheritance of the subjects A provision was made in haec verba Promissum est coram Domino Rege Archiepiscopus Comitibus Baronibus quod nulla assis ultimae praesentationis de caetero capiatur de Ecclesiasticis praebendatis nec de praebendis but I doe not finde any forfeyture
or penaltie upon the libertie goods or lands of him that would bring an assize of Daren presentment for a prebendary I doe finde that a provision was made in haec verba Promissum est à Consilio Regis quod nullus de potestate Regis Franciae respondeat in Anglia antequam Anglici de jure suo in terra Regis Franciae c. Yet by that provision no forfeyture upon the lands or goods of him who sued a Frenchman in England at that time It is true that a Custome may bee contrary to the law and yet allowable because that it may have a lawfull commencement and continuall usage hath given it the force of a law Consuetudo ex certa rationabili causa vsitata privat communem legem but no proclamation or act of state may alter law For example sake at Common-law a Proclamation cannot make lands devisable which are not devisable by the law nor alter the course of descent The King by his Letters-patents cannot doe the same nor grant lands to bee ancient demesne at this day nor make lands to be descendible according the course of Gavelkind or Borrough English unlesse that the custome of the place doth warrant the same nor Gavelkind land to be descendible according the course of law à fortiori an act of state or proclamation which I hold to bee of lesse force then the Kings patent under the great Seale cannot doe it And in the case of Irish Gavelkind it is not the proclamation or act of state that did abolish or alter it but the very custome was held to be unreasonable and repugnant to law If an act of state bee made that none within the kingdome shall make Cards but Iohn at Stile this act is voyde for the King himselfe cannot grant a Patent under his great Seale to any one man for the sole feazance of Cards So it is of all proclamations or acts of state that are to the prejudice of Trafficke trade or Merchant affaires or for raysing of Monopolies or against the freedome and libertie of the subjects or the publicke good as I said before Also if proclamations or acts of state may alter the law or bind the libertie goods or lands of the subjects then will acts of Parliaments bee to no purpose which doe represent the whole body of the kingdome and are commonly for creating of good and wholesome lawes Therefore I conceive that all proclamations made against law are absolutely voyde and that the infringers thereof ought not to loose or forfeyte their liberty goods or lands And for the punishment of such Iudges that vote herein I referre to the sixt they deny to answer to this question This answer is generall and dangerous withall it is generall viz. they know no ordinary rule of law for it they ought to declare the law against it the right use of it here they commend and yet they doe not describe that right use therefore they commend two things the one the life of a subject to be left to Marshall law in time of peace the other they leave it likewise discretionary when they describe not the right use their last resort is to the Kings prerogative I have said before that Lawyers write the King can doe no wrong and sure I am our King meanes no wrong the Kings of England did never make use of their prerogative to the destruction of the subject nor to take away his life nor libertie but by lawfull meanes I conceive this advise should become the Iudges other advise they find not in their law Bookes The statute of Magna Charta cap. 29. and 5. Edw. 3. cap. 9. the petition of right the third of King Charles in full Parliament declared Tell them nay doe convince them that no man in time of peace can bee executed by Marshall law My Lords I could wish the Iudges had timely stood in the right opposition to the drawing of causes proper for the Kings Courts to an aliud examen the improper and unlawfull examen thereof on paper petitions whereby the Kings Iustice and Courts were most defrauded whereas an arbitrement being a principall meane to compose differences arising betweene neighbours and to settle amitie betweene them without expence of time or money was a course approved by law all our Bookes are full of this It is by consent of parties by arbitrators indifferently chosen bonds for performance thereof are not voyde in law and Iudgements given upon arbitrements and such bonds in our Bookes without question or contradiction to the lawfullnesse of an arbitrement or bond in proper Cases the principall good wrought by them was the hindering of suites debates at law therfore that exception fals of it selfe then I am to consider how far an Oath in the particular is punishable I will not speake of an Oath exacted or tendered that is not the question the question is of a voluntary Oath which the arbitrator cannot hinder I speake not to the commendation of any such Oath nor doe I approve of any Oath other then that which is taken before a Magistrate who derives his authoritie from the King the fountaine of Iustice but onely how farre this Oath is punishable by the late statute 10. Caroli fol. 109. a prophane Oath is punished by the payment of twelve pence no more vide stat of Marl. cap 23. 52. Hen. 3. viz. Nullus de caetero possit distringere liber ' tenentes suos c. nec jurare faciat libere tenentes suos contra voluntatem suam quia nullus facere potest sine praecepto Domini Regis which statute teacheth us that an exacted or compulsive Oath is by the Kings authority a voluntarie Oath is not reprehended 19. Edw. 4. 1. a. It was not reprehended in the case of an arbitrement this voluntarie Oath is punishable in the Star-chamber as the Iudges would affirme which I conceive to bee against the law First for that wee cannot learne any president in England for it It was but lately introduced here therefore the house of Commons is unsatisfied with the answer to this question in Boyton and Leonards case in the Star-chamber in Ireland Boyton was dismissed in a Case to this purpose about the yeare 1630. or 1631. It hath beene the late introduced course of the Castle-chamber and Councell-table not to admit the party censured to the reducement of his fine before hee acknowledged the justnesse of the sentence pronounced against him and that for divers reasons First the course of a Court being as ancient as the Court and standing with law is Curiae lex as appeareth by our bookes 2. Co. 16. b. Lanes case 17. Long 5. Edw. 4. 1. but if it be a course introduced de novo in mans memorie or a course that is against law it cannot be said to be lex Curiae for consuetudo licet sit magnae authoritatis nunquam tamen praejudicat manifestae veritati
sine licentia Domini Regis Fitz. Natur. br fol. 85 the words of this writ cleares the Common-law in the point it begins with a datum est nobis intelligi c. The King being informed that such person or persons in particular doe intend to goe whether ad partes exteras viz. foraigne Countries to what purpose to prosecute matters to the prejudice of the King his Crowne the King in such a case by his writ warrant or Command under the great Seale privie Seale privy Signet or by proclamation may command any subject not to depart the kingdome without the Kings licence this writ is worthy to be observed for the causes aforesaid therein expressed the writ extendeth only to particular person or persons not to all the subjects of the kingdome no man can affirme that England is pars extera as to us Ireland is annexed to the Crowne of England and governed by the lawes of England our question set forth the cause viz. to appeale to the King for Iustice or to goe to England for other lawfull causes whereas the said writ intends practises with foraigne Princes to the prejudice of the King and his Crowne At the Common-law if a subject in contempt of this Command went ad partes exteras his Lands and goods ought to be seized 2. 3. Philip Mary Dy. 128. b. and yet if the subject went to the parts beyond the Seas before any such speciall inhibition this was not punishable before the statute of 5. Rich. 2. cap. 2. as appeares 12. 13. Elizab. Dy. 296. a. So that before the inhibition the law was indifferent now the question is at Common-law whether the subject of Ireland having no Office can be hindered to appeale or goe to the King for Iustice The King is the fountaine of Iustice and as his power is great to command so the Scepter of his Iustice is as great nay the Scepter hath the priority if any be for at his Coronation his Scepter is on his right side his Sword on his left side to his Iustice he is sworne therefore if any writ Commandement or proclamation bee obtayned from him or published contrary to his Iustice it is not the act of the King but the act of him that misinformed him then will I adde the other words of the question viz. or other his lawfull occasions as I said before in the case of a writ of error in the Kings Bench of England or in the Parliament of England which are remedies given by the law therefore the Common-law doth not hinder any man to prosecute those remedies which are given to everie subject by the same A scire facias may be brought by the King in England to repeale a patent under the great Seale of Ireland of lands in Ireland 20. Henr. 6. fol. a. An exchange of lands in England for lands in Ireland is a good exchange in law 8. ass placit. 27. 10. Edw. 3. fol. 42. tempor Edw. 1. Fitz voucher 239. What law therefore can prohibit any subject for to attend this scire facias in England or to make use of his freehold got by exchange The law being thus then it was considered what alteration was wrought by one branch of the statute of 5 Rich. 2. cap. 2. by which the passage is stopped out of the kingdome Lords notable Marchants and the Kings souldiers excepted I conceive this statute doth not include Ireland I never heard any Irishman questioned upon this statute for going into England nor any Englishman for comming into Ireland untill the late proclamation by the statute 34. Edw. 3. c. 18. in England all persons which have their heritage or possessions in Ireland may come with their beasts corne c. to and fro paying the Kings dues The statute of 5. Rich. 2. did never intend by implication to avoyde the said expresse statute of Edw. 3. betweene the Kings two kingdomes being governed by one law in effect the same people the words of the statute of 5. Rich. 2. are observable the principall scope of it is against the exportation of Bullion in the later part there is a clause for licences to be had in particular Portes by which I conceive that the Customers of those Portes may grant a let passe in such Cases It is therefore to be considered whether that branch of the said statute of 5. Rich. 2. was received in Ireland I thinke it is cleare it was not for by the statute 10. Henr. 7. cap. 22. in Ireland all the generall statutes of England were received in Ireland with this qualification viz. such as were for the Common and publicke weale c. And surely it cannot be for the weale of this kingdome that the subjects here be stayed from obtayning of Iustice or following other lawfull causes in England The statute of 25. Henr. 6. cap. 2. in Ireland excuseth absentes by the Kings command and imposeth no other penaltie so that upon the whole matter this question is not answered For so much as they doe answer of this question the answer is good for there is no doubt to be made but Deaneries are some donative some elective and some may be presentative according to the respective foundations I will only speake of a Deane de facto if a Deane bee made a Bishop and hath a dispensation Decanatus dignitatem in commenda in the retinere the confirmation of such a Deane is good in law This was the case of Evans and Acough in the Kings Bench in England Ter. 3. Caroli where Doctor Thornbow Deane of Yorke was made Bishop of Limmericke with a dispensation to hold in the retinere after his patent and before consecration it was adjudged his confirmation was good and yet if a Deane be made a Bishop in any part of the world this is a Cession Co. 5. 102. a. VVindsors case Davis Rep. 42. 43. c. The Deane of Fernes his case 18. Elizab. Dy. 346. the confirmation of a meere Laicus being Deane is good though he be after deprived 10. Eliz. Dy. 273. 12. 13. Elizab. Dy. 293. although the Deane be after deprived by sentence declaratorie yet his precedent confirmations are good So I conceive that a Deane who hath stallum in Choro vocem in Capitulo during all the time of his life and never questioned and usually confirmed all Leases without interruption is good And to question all such acts 40. 50. 100. yeares after is without president especially in Ireland untill of late yeares and in this kingdome few or no foundations of Bishopricks or Deaneries can bee found upon any Record therefore I conceive the Iudges ought to answer this part of the question My Lords I know you cannot forget the grounds I layd before for this question nor the time nor the occasion of the issuing of Quo warrantoes nor what was done thereupon in the Court of Exchequer Now remayneth to consider of the answer