Kings Bench because no Writ of Error lyes but in Plaint Robert Bankes Case Mich. 6 Jac. Regis Mich. 6 Jac. Rot. 639. Robert Bankes Gent. brought an Action upon the Statute of Winton 13 Ed. 1. against the Inhabitants of the Hundred of Burnham in the County of Bucks and counted that certain misdoers to the Plaintiff unknown at Hitcham the 22d of Nov. 5 Jac. assaulted the Plaintiff and robbed him of 25 l. 3 5. 2 d. ob and that he immediately after the robbery the same 22d of Nov. at Joplow and Maalow the next Towns to Hitcham in the said County made Hâ—e-and Cry c. and after the said Robbery and within 20 dayes before the purchase of the Writ viz. the 19 of Fâ—br Aâ— 5. at Dorney in Com. praed the Plaintiff before Sir William Gâ—rrard Knight then Justice of Peace in the said County and living next the said Hundred being examined upon Oath according to the Statute 27 Elâ—z the Plaintiff upon his Oath said He knew not the Parties who robbed him and since the said Robbery 40 dayes are past and the said Inhabitants of Burnham have not made him any amends nor the Bodies of the Felons or any of them have taken but suffered them to escape to which the Defendants plead Not Guiley and Vâ— fa. was awarded de vicineto c. And the Jury gave a special Verdict and found that the Plaintiff was robbed and made Hue-and-Cry as aforesaid and found over That the Plaintiff was sworn before Sir William Gerrard as aforesaid and said upon his Oath in these English words viz. That he on Thursday the 22 d. of Nov. 1604. riding under Hitcham wood c. was then and there set upoâ— by Horsemen which he knew not and robbed of 25 l. 3 s. 2 d. ob but whether the said Oath so taken be true according to the said Statute 27 Eliz. the Jurors pray the direction of the Court. Mouses Case Mich. 6 Jac. Regis In an Action of Trespass brought by Mouse for a Casket and 113 l. taken and carryed away the Case was the Ferryman of Gravesend took 47 Passengers into his Barge to pass to London and Mouse was one of them the Barge being upon the Water a great Tempest happened so that the Barge and all the Passengers were in danger to be drowned if a Hogshead of Wine and other pouderous things were not cast out And it was Resolved per totam Curiam That in a case of necessity for saving the Lives of the Passengers it was lawful to the Defendant being a Passenger to cast the Plaintiff's Casket out of the Barge with what was in it for quod quis ob tutelam corporis sui fecerit jure id fecissâ— videtur Upon the special matter pleaded and Reply De injuria sua propria absque tali causa the first day of this Term the Issue being tryed and it was proved directly That the Men had been drowned if the things had not been cast out The Plaintiff was Non-sult Resolved also That though when the Ferry-man surcharge the Barge yet to save the Passengers Lives in such a Necessity it is lawful for the Passengers to cast the things out of the Barge yet the Owners shall have their Remedy upon the surchage against the Ferry-man but if there was no surcharge but the danger came by the Act of God then every one must bear his own losse for Interest Râ—ipub quod homines conserventur â— Ed. 4. 23. Bull. c. 12 H. 8. 15. 28 H. 8. Dyer 36. Mich. 5. Jac. Regis Prohibitions del Roy. Noâ—e On Sunday the 10. of Nov. in this Term the King upon Complaint made by Bancroft Arch-Bishop of Canterbury concerning Prohibitions the King was informed That when Question was made of what matters the Ecclesiastical Judges have Cognâ—zance c. in any Case in which there is not express Authority in Law the King himself may decide in his Royal Person the Judges being but his Delegates c. And the Arch-Bishop said this was clear in Divinity To which it was answered by Mee in the presence and with the clear Consent of all the Justices of England and Barons of the Exchequer that the King in his own person cannot adjudge any Case either Criminal as Treason c. or betwixt party and party concerning Inheritance Goods c. But it ought to be determined in some Court of Justice according to the Law and Custome of England and all Judgments are given Ideo consideratum est per Curium And the King hath his Court in the Upper House of Parliament in which he with his Lords is the Supream Judge over all Judges And in this respect the King is called Chief Justice 20 H. 7. 7. a. by â—rudnel and it appears in our Bookes 2 R. 3. 9. 21 H. 7. 8. that that the King may sit in the Star-Chamber but this was onely to consult not in judicio So in the Kings-Bench but the Court gives Judgment And 't is commonly said in our Books the King is alwayes present in Court and therefore he cannot be Non-suit And it appears by the Acts of Parliament 2 Ed. 3. c. 9. 2 Ed. 3. c. 1. That neither by the Great Seal nor by the little Seal Justice shall be delayed ergo The King cannot take any Cause out of any of his Courts and give Judgment upon it but in his own Cause he may stay it as appears 11 H. 4. 8. And the Judges informed the King that no King after the Conquest ever assumed to himself to give Judgment in any Cause whatsoever which concerned the Administration of Justice within the Realm 17 H. 6. 14. 39 Ed. 3. 14. the King cannot Arrest any man 1 H. 7. 4. Hussey chief Justice Reports being Attorney to Ed. 4. That Sir John Markham chief Justice said to Ed. 4. That the King cannot Arrest a man for suspition of Treason or Felony as his other Leiges may And it was greatly marvailed That the Archbishop durst inform the King that such absolute Power as aforesaid belonged to him by the Word of God Vide 4 H. 4. cap. 22. Westm 2. cap. 5. vide le stat de Marlbridge cap. 1. stat de Magn. Chart. cap. 29. 25 Ed. 3. c. 5. 43 Ed. 3. c. 3. 28 Ed. 3. c. 3. 37 Ed. 3. c. 18. vide 17 R. 2. ex Rotulis Parliamenti in Turri act 10. A controversy of Land between Parties was heard by the King and Sentence given which was repealed because it did belong to the Common Law Then the King said That the Law was grounded upon Reason and that He and Others had reason as well as the Judges To which it was answered by Me That true it was God had endued his Majesty with excellent Science but his Majesty was not learned in the Laws of England and Causes which concern the Life or Inheritance or Goods of his Subjects which are not to be decided by natural Reason but artificial Reason and Judgment of Law which
holden That if one were to sit in the Chancel and hath there a place his Carpet Livery and Cushion the Parson cannot claim them as Oblations for that they were hanged there in honour of the Deceased the same Reason of a Coat-Armour c. And the Chief Justice said the Lady might have a good Action during her Life in the Case aforesaid because she caused the things to he set up there and after her death the Heir shall have his Action they being in the nature of Hire-looms which belong to the Heir And with this agrees the Laws of other Nations Bartho Cassanâ—us sol 13. Coâ—cl 29. Actioâ— dat si aliquis arma in aliquo loco posita deleat aut abrasit c. and in 21 Ed. 3. 48. in the Bishop of Carlisle's Case Note That in Easter Term 10 Jacob. it was Resolved in the Star-Chamber in the Case between Hussâ—y and Katharine Leyton that if a man have a house in any Parish and that he and all those whose Estate he hath have used to have a certain Pew in the Church that if the Ordinary will displace him he shall have a Prohibition but where there is no such Prescription the Ordinary shall dispose of common and vulgar Seats Earl of Shrewes buryes Case Sir Humphry Winch Sir James Ley Sir Anthony St. Leger and Sir James Hullesâ—on certified the Lords of the Councel by Command from them by Letters dated 28. Martii 1612. of the Claim of Gilbert Earl of Shrewesbury to the Earldome of Waterford and Barony of Dungarvan in Ireland as followeth King Henry the Sixth by Letters-Patents in the 20th year of his Reign did Grant to his Cosin John Earl of Shrewsbury in consideration of his Loyal Services in the City and County of Waterford pro se c. ipsum in Comitem Waterford una cum stilo et titulo ac nomine ac honore eisdem debitis ordinamus creamus habendum to the said Earl and his Heirs-males of his Body and further did Grant the Castles Lordships c. of Dungarvan to the said Earl and the Heirs-males of his Body To hold c. of the King and his Heirs by Homage and Fealty and by the Service of being his Majesties Seneschal in Ireland After in the Parliament called Des Absentees holden at Dublin in Ireland 10. Maii 28 H. 8. It was enacted by reason of the long absence of George Earl of Shrewesbury out of the said Realm That the King his Heirs c. shall enjoy in right of his Crown of England all Honors Mannors Castles c. and all and singular possessions c. as well Spiritual as Temporal which the said George Earl of Shrewesbury and VVaterford or any other Persons had to his Use c. King Henry the 8th by his Letters Patents dated 29th of his Reign reciting the said Statute Nos praemissa Considerantes c. did Grant to the said Earl and his Heirs the Abbey of Rufford with the Lands thereunto c. in the County of Nottingham and the Lordship of Rotheram in the County of York the Abbeys of Chestersteld Shirbrook and Glossaâ—dale in Derbyshire with divers other Lands c. to be holden in Capite And the Questions were as followeth 1. Whether by the long absence of the Earl of Shrewsbury out of Ireland the Title of the Honor be lost and forfeited he being a Peer of both Realms and refiding here in England 2. Whether by the Act Des absentâ—es 28 H. 8. the Title of Dignity of Earl of VVaterford be taken from the said Earl as well as the Land c. Afterwards by other Letters Patents dated 27th of Sept. 1612. the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron were required to consider of the Case and to certifie their Opinions which Case being argued by Councel learned in the Law in behalf the said Earl and they having taken great advisement It was unanimously Resolved by them all as followeth 1. As to the fiâ—st Resolved That since it does not appear what defence was requisite and that the Consideration Executory was not found by Office to be broken in that Point the said Earl of Shrewsbury notwithstanding does remain Earl of Waterford 2. As to the second It was Resolved That the said Act 28 H. 8. Des Absenteâ—s does not onely take away the Possessions given him at his Creation but also the Dignity it self for though one may have a Dignity without Possession yet is it very inconvenient that Dignity should be cloathed with Poverty and so it was resolved in the Lord Ogles Case in Edw. 6. Reign as the Baron of Burleigh 35 Elâ—z did report The cause of Degradation of George Nevil Duke of Bedford is worth observation which was done by Act of Parliament 16 June 17 Ed. 4. which Act reciting the making the said George Duke sets forth the cause of his Degradation in these words And for so much as it is openly known that the said George hath not or by Inheritance may have any livelyhood to support the said Name Estate and Dignity c. Therefore the King by Advice of his Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons c. Enacteth c. That from henceforth the same Creation of the said Duke and all Names of Dignity given to the said George or to John Nevil his Father be void and of none effect Wherein are to be observed 1. That though the Duke had not Possessions to maintain his Dignity yet it could not be taken from him but by Act of Parliament 2. Great Inconveniencies follow where there is great State and Dignity and no means to maintain it 3. It is good reason to take away such Dignity by Act of Parliament and then the Act shall be expounded to take away such Inconvenience And though the Earl of Shrewsbury be of great Honour Vertue and Possessions in England yet it was not the Intention of the Act to continue him Earl in Ireland when his Possessions there were taken away And where it was objected that the general words Honours and Hereditaments are explained and qualified by the said Relative subsequent which the said George or any to his use hath Now in regard no man can be seized of the said Digniâ—y therefore the Act doth not extend to it 'T is answered that is to be understood Reddendo singula singulis and these words which the said G. E. hath are sufficient to pass the Dignity and with this agrees all the Judges Opinions in England in Nevils Case upon the like in the Statute 28 H. 8. in 7th Part of my Reports sol 33 and 34. Hill 2 Jacob. Regis Jurisdiction of the Court of Common-Pleas In the last Term by the King's Commands the Justices of the Kings Bench and Barons of the Exchequer were assembled before the Lord Chancellor Ellesmere at york-York-house to deliver their Opinion Whether there was any Authority in our Books that the Justices of the Common-Bench may grant Prohibitions or whether every Plea ought to be pending
Service Tenant Richard Hulme dyed after whose death 31 H. 8. it was found that he dyed seized of the said Mesnalty and that the same descended to Edward his Son and Heir within Age and found the Tenure aforesaid c. And during nonagâ— Robert Male dyed seized of the said Tenancy peravail and that the same descended to Richard his Son and Meir as was found by Office 25 H. 2. within age and that the said Tenancy was holden of the King as of his said Dutchy by Knights Service whereas in truth the same was holden of Edward Hulme then in Ward of the King as of his Mesnalty for which the King seized the Ward of the Heir of the Tenant And afterwards Anno quarto Jacobi Rogis nunc after the death of Richard Male the lineal Heir of Robert Male by another Office it was found that Richard dyed seized of the Tenancy and held the same of the King as of his Dutchy c. his Heir within age Whereupon Richard Hulme Cozen and Heir of the said Richard Hulme preferred a Bill to be admitted to traverse the Office found 4 Jac. Regis And the Question was Whether the Office found 35 H. 8. be any Estoppel to the said Hulme or if that the said Hulme should be first driven to Traverse that And it was objected That he ought first to traverse the Office of 35 H. 8. as in the Case 26 E. 65. And that the first Office shall stand as long as the same remaines in force To which it was Answered and Resolved by the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron and Court of Wards That the finding of an Office is not any Estoppel for that is but an Inquest of Office and the party grieved shall have a Traverse to it But when an Office is found falsly that Land is holden of the King by Knights Service in capite or of the King himself in Socage if the Heir fueâ—h a general Livery it is holden 46 Ed. 3. 12. by Mowbray and Persey that he shall not after adde that the Land is not holden of the King But that is not any Estoppel to the Heir himself and shall not conclude his Heir for so saith Mowbray himself expresly 44 Ass pl. 35. See 1 H. 4. 6. b. So 33 H. 6. 7. And there is no Book that saith that the Estoppel shall endure longer than his life but that is to be intended of a general Livery but a special Livery shall not conclude one And if a Jury find falsly in a Tenure of the King the Lord of whom the Land is holden may traverse that Office Or if Land be holden of the King in Socage c. the Heir may traverse the last Office for by that he is grieved and he shall not be driven to traverse the first Office And when the Father sues Livery and dyes the Conclusion is executed and past as is aforesaid And note there is a special Livery but that proceeds of the King's Grace and is not the Suit of the Heir and the King may grant it either at full age before aetate probanda or to the Heir within age as appears 21 E. 3. 40. And then is general and shall not comprehend any Tenure as the several Livery doth and therefore it is not any Estoppel without question See the 33 H. 8. cap. 22. 23 Eliz. Dyer 177. It was also Resolved in this Case that the Office of 35 H. 8. was not traversable for his own Traverse shall prove that the King had cause to have Wardship by reason of Ward And when the King comes to the Possession by a false Office or otherwise if it appears the King have any other Right to have the Land there none shall traverse the Office or Title of the King because the Judgment in the Traverse is Ideo consideratum est quod manus Domini Râ—gis amoveantur c. See 4 H. 4. fol. 33. in the Earl of Kents Case c. Mich. 7 Jacobi Regis Note The Priviledge Order or Custom of Parliament either of the Upper-House or House of Commons belongs to the Determination of the Court of Parliament and this appeareth by two notable Presidents 1. The one at the Parliament holden in the 27 H. 6. There was a Controversie moved in the Upper-House between the Earles of Aâ—undel and Devonshire for their Seats Places and Pre-eminences of the same to be had in the King's Presence as well in Parliament as in Councels and elsewhere The King by the Advice of Lords Spiritual and Temporal committed the same to certain Lords of Parliament who not having leisure to examine the same by the said Lords Advice referred it to the Judges of the Land to hear see and examine the Title c. and to report what they conceive herein The Judges reported as followeth That this matter viz. of Honour and Pre-eminency between the two Earles Lords of Parliament was a matter of Parliament and belonged to the King and his Lords in Parliament to be decided Yet being so commanded they shewed what they found upon Examination and their Opinions thereon Another Parliament 31 H. 6. 6th of March begun and after some continuance was prorogued to the 14 of February and afterwards in Michaelmas Term the same 31 H. 6. Thomas Thorpe Speaker of the Commons House was condemned in the Exchequer in 1000 l. Damages at the Duke of Buckingham's Suit for a Trespass done to him The 14th of Feb. the Commons mâ—ved in the Upper-House that their Speaker might be set at liberty to exercise his Place c. The Lords refer it to the Judges and Fortâ—scue and Prisoit the two Chief Justices in the Name of all the Judges answer'd That they ought not to consider this Question c. but it belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament and not to the Justices But as to their Proceedings in the Lower-Courts in such Cases they deliver'd their Opinions See 12 E. 4. 2. Hill 7 Jac. Regis In Cam. Stâ—ll Heyward and Sir John Whitbrook's Case In the Case between Hyward and Sir John Whitbrook in the Star-Chamber the Defendant was convicted of divers Misdemeanours and Fine and Imprisonment imposed on him and Damages to the Plaintiff And it was moved that a special Process might be made out of that Court to levy the said Damages upon the Lands and Goods of the said Defendant And it was referred to the two Chief Justices whether any such Process might be made who this Term moved the Case to the Chief Baron and the rest of the Judges and Barons and it was unanimously by them all Resolved That no such Process could or ought to be made neither for the Damages nor for the Costs given to the Plaintiff the Court having no such power but onely to keep the Defendant in Prison till he pay them For for a Fine due to the King they can make no Process to levy it but they estreat it into the Exchequer which hath power by Law to write forth Process
89. But in a Writ of false Judgement the Plaintiff shall have direct averment against what the Judges in the inferior Court have done as Judges Quia Recordum non habent 21 H. 6. 34. Neither shall a Judge in the Cases aforesaid be charged before any other Judge at the Suit of the King 27 Ass pl. 18. 23. 2. R. 3. 9. 28 Ass pl. 21. 9 H. 6. 60. Catlyn and Dyer chief Justices Resolved That what a Judge doth as a Judge of Record ought not to be drawn in Question in this Court Nota bene that the said matters at the Bar were not examinable in the Star-Chamber and therefore it was Decreed by all the Court That the said Bill without any Answer to it by Barker shall be taken off the File and utterly cancelled And it was agreed That the Judges of the Realm ought not to be drawn into question for any supposed Corruption which extends to the annihilating of a Record or tending to the slander of the Justice of the King except it be before the King himself for they are only to make an account to God and the King otherwise this would tend to the subversion of all Justice for which reason the Orator said well Invigilandum est semper multae invidiae sunt bonis And the reason hereof is the King himself being de jure to deliver Justice to all his Subjects and because himself cannot do it to all Persons he delegates his Power to his Judges who have the Custody and Guard of the Kings Oath Thorpe being drawn into question for Corruption before Commissioners was held against Law and he pardoned Vide the conclusion of the Oath of a Judge Stowes châ—oi 18 Ed. 3. 312. Weyland chieâ— Justice of the Common Bench and Hengham Justice of the Kings Bench and other Justices were accused of Bribery and their Causes were determined in Parliament Vide 2 Ed. 3. fol. 27. The Justices of Trayl-Baston their Authority was grounded upon the Statute of Ragman which you may see in old Magna Charta Vide the form of the Commission of Trayle-Baston Hollingshead Chron. fol. 312. whereby it appears That the Corruption of his Judges the King himself examined in Parliamentâ— and not by Commission Absurdum est affirmare recredendum esse non judici Pasch 4 Jacob. Regis Case concerning the Oath ex officio The Lords of the Council at Whitehall sedente Parliamento demanded of Popham chief Justice and my self upon motion of the Commons in Parliament In what cases the Ordinary may examine any person ex Officio upon Oath and upon Consideration and View of our Books we answered the said Lords at another day in the Council Chamber 1. That the Ordinary cannot constrain any man to swear generally to Answer to such Interrogatories as shall be administred unto them but ought to deliver them a Copy of the Articles in writings that they may know whether they ought to answer them by Law or no according to the Course of the Chancery and Star-Chamber 2. No man shall be examined upon the secret thoughts of his Heart or of his secret Opinion but of what he hath spoken or done No Lay-man may be examined ex officio nisi in causis matrimonialibus et Testamentariis as appears by an Ordinance of Ed. 1. Title Prohibition Rastal See also the Register fol. 366. the force of a Prohibition and an Attachment upon it by which it appears That such Examination was not only against the said Ordinance but also against the Custome of the Realm which hath been time of which c. but also in prejudice of the Crown and Dignity of the King and with this agrees F. N. B. fol. 41. And so the Case reported by my Lord Dyer not printed Trin. 10 Eliz. One Leigh an Attorney of the Common Pleas was committed to the Fleet because he had been at Mass and refused to swear to certain Articles and in regard they ought in such case to examine upon his Oath and hereupon he was delivered by all the Court of Common-Pleas The like in Mich. 18 Eliz. Dyer fol. 175. in Hinds Case Also vide de Statute 25 H. 8. cap. 14. which is declaratory as to this point It stands not with the right order of Justice that any person should be convict and put to the losse of his Life good Name and Goods unless by due Accusation and Witnesses or by Presentment Verdict precess of Outlawry c. And this was the Judgment of all the said Parliament See F. N. B. Justice of Peace 72 Lam. 6. in his Justice of Peace 338. Crompton in his Justice of Peace 36. 6. In all which it appears That if any be compelled to Answer upon his Oath where he ought not by Law this is oppression and punishable before a Justice of Peace c. But if a Person Ecclesiastical be charged with any thing punishable by our Law as for Usury there he shall not be examined upon Oath because his Oath is Evidence against him at the Common Law but Witnesses may be cited Register title Consult F. N. B. 53. d. 2 H. 4. cap. 15. In H. 8. nor Ed. 6. time no Lay-man was examined upon his Oath except in the said two Cases But in Queen Maries Reign 2 H. 4. was revived but afterwards repealed 10 Eliz. Note King John in the time of his Troubles granted by his Charter 13 Maii Anno Regni 140. submitted himself to the Obedience of the Pope And after in the same year by another Charter he resigned his Crown and Realm to Pope Innocent and his Successors by the hands of Pandulph his Legate and took it of him again to hold of the Pope which was utterly voyd because the Dignity is an inherent inseparable to the Royal Blood of the King and descendable and cannot be transferred Also the Pope was an Alien born and therefore not capable of Inheritance in England By colour of which Resignation the Pope and his Successors exacted great Sums of the Clergy and Layety of England pro commutandis paenitentiis And to fill his Coffers Pope Gregory the 9th sent Otho Cardinalis de Carcere Tulliano into this Realm to Collect Money who did Collect infinite Sums so that it was said of him Quod Legatus saginatur bonis Angliae which Legate held a Councel at London Anno Dom. 1237. 22 H. 3. and for finding out Offences which should be redeemed with Money with the assent of the English Bishops he made certain Canons among which one was Jusjurandi Calumniae in causis Ecclesiasticis cujus libet de veritate dicendi in spiritualibus quoque ut veritas facilius aperiatur c. Statuimus de Caetero praestari in regâ—o Angliae secundum Canonicas legitimas Sanctiones obtenta in contrarium consuetudine non obstante c. By which Cannon it appears That the Law and Custom of England was against such Examinations so that this was a new Law and took its effect de
hath well observed Vide Dyer 298. vide le Stat. 27 Eliz. Pasch 9 Jacobi Regis Sir William Chancâ—ys Case In this Term Sir William Chancy having the priviledg of this Court and being a Prisoner in the Fleet was brought to â—he Bar by Habeas Corpus by the Guardian of the Fleet who returned That the said Sir William was committed to the Fleet by Warrant from the High-Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes which Warrant follows in these words viz. These are to Will and Require you in his Majesties Name by Vertue of his Hâ—gh-Commission c. to Us and others directed c. That herewithal you take and receive into your Custody the Body of Sir William Chancy Knight whom we will that you keep c. untill further Order c. letting you know the cause of his Committment to be for that being at the Suit of his Lady convented bâ—fore c. for Adultery and expelling her from his Company and Co-habiting with another Woman without allowing her any competent Maintenance and by his own Confession convict thereof he was thereupon enjoyned to allow his Wife a competent Maintenance c. and to perform such Submission and other order for his Adultery as by Law should be enjoyned him which he expresly refused to do in contempt c. Given at London 19 Martii 1611. subscribed Henry Mountague George Overall Thomas Morton Zach. Paâ—field And it was moved by Nicholas Serjeant a Councel with Sir William that this return was insufficient 1. Because Adultery ought to be punished by the Ordinary and not by the High-Commâ—ssioners on which the Offender is remediless and can have no appeal Quod fuit concessum per Coke Warberton and Foster but Walmesly doubted of Adultery 2. That by force of the Act of the 1. of Eliz. the High-Commissioners cannot imprison Sir William for Adultery nor for denying Alimony to his Wife And Doderidge the Kings Sâ—rjeant of Council on the other side did not defend the Imprisonment to be lawful And it was clearly agreed by Coke Walmesly Warberton and Foster That the Commissioners had not power to imprison in this Case And Walmâ—sly said That though they have used this Power for twenty years without any exception yet when it comes before them judicially they ought to Judge according to Law and upon this Sir William Chancy was Bailed And it was resolved per totam Curiam That when it appears upon the Return that the Imprisonment is not lawful the Court may discharge him of Imprisonment Also it was Resolved That the Return was insufficient in form 1. It is not shewn when the Adultery was committed 2. He was enjoyned to allow his Wife a competent Maintenance without any certainty and to perform such submission c. as by Law shall be enjoyned which is all infuturo and uncertain Vide in my Treatise at large the Reasons and Causes why the High-Commissioners may sue and imprison Vide Pasch 42 Eliz. Rot. 1209. Pasch 9 Jacobi Regis Empringham's Case In this Term a Case was moved in Star-Chamber upon a Bill exhibited by the Attorney-General against Robert Empringham Vice-Admiral in the County of York Marmaduke Ketthewell one of the Marshals of the Admiralty and Thomas Haâ—rison an Informer in the same Court for Oppression and Extortion in Fining and Imprisoning divers of the Kings Subjects in the said County which no Judge of the Admiralty can justifie because it is not a Court of Record but they proceed according to the Civil Law and upon their Sentence no Writ of Error lyeth but an Appeal Also the said Empringham hath caused divers to be cited to appear before him for things done in the Body of the County which were determinable by the Common Law and not before the Admiralty whose authority is limited to the High Sea And for these and other Oppressions they were fined and imprisoned and sentenced beside to make Restitution c. Trin. 9 Jacobi Regis Memorandum That upon the Thursday before this Term all the Justices of England by the Kings Command were assembled in the Council-Chamber at Whitehall where was Abbot Archbishop of Canterbury and with him two Bishops and divers Civillians the Archbishop complained of Prohibitions out of the Common-Pleas and delivery of Persons by Haheas Corpus but chiefly of Sir William Chancy I defended our proceedings according to my Treatise thereof which I delivered before the High-Commissioners And after great dispute between the Archbishop and Me at last he said He had a Point not yet touched upon in my Treatise which would give satisfaction to the Lords and Us also and upon which he would rely And that the Clause of Restitution and Annexation viz. And that all such Jurisdictions c. Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any power Spiritual hath heretofore or hereafter lawfully may be used c. for visitation of the Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for Reformation Order and Correction of the same and of all Errors Heresies Schismes c. shâ—ll for ever by authority of this present Parliament be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And it was said That H. 8. and Ed. 6. did give Power by their Commissions to divers to impose Mulcts c. in Ecclesiasticall Causes c. and upon this he concludes That this having been used before 1 Eliz. this is given to Queen Eliz. and her Successors Also inasmuch as by 2 H. 4. and 2 H. 7. the Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical may Fine and Imprison in particular Causes therefore Power to Fine and Imprison in all Ecclesiastical Causes is given to the King And this he said he uttered that it might be answered 1. To which I for a time gave this Answer That it was good for the Weal-publick that the Judges at the Common-Law should interpret the Statutes within this Realm 2. It was said by me That before the Statute of 1 Eliz. no Ecclesiastical Judge may impose a Fine or Imprison for any Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Offence unless there be Authority by Act of Parliament And this was so affirmed by all the Justices Vide my Book of Presidents the Commission at large to Cromwel to be Vicegerent Afterwards in this very Term the Privy-Council sent for the Justices of the Common-Pleas only and there the Reasons of the said Resolution were largely debated and strong Opposition made hy Egerton Lord Chancellor but the Justices of the Common-Pleas remained constant in their Resolution Afterward the Council sent for the chief Justice of the Kings Bench Justice Williams Justice Crook Chief Baron Taâ—field Snig Althan and Bromly who were not acquainted with the Reasons of the said Rule of the Common-Pleas nor knew why they came before the Council And hearing the Lord Chancellor affirm That the High-Commissioners have alwayes by the Act 1 Eliz. imposed Fines and Imprisonments for exorbitant Crimes without any Conference with us or among then selves or hearing the matter debated were of Opinion with us And after at another day this
in the Court for such cause And the King would know their Opinions The Judges took time till this Term and then Fleming Chief Justice Tanfield Chief Baron Saig Altham Crook Bromley and Dodderidge Yelverton and Williams Justices being dead since last Term did deliver their Opinions to the Lord Chancellor That the Presidents of each Court are sufficient Warrant for their Proceedings in the same Court and for a long time and in many Successions of Reverend Judges Prohibitions upon Information without any other Plea pending have been granted Issues tryed Verdicts and Judgments given upon Demurrer All which being in force they unanimously agreed to give no Opinion against the Jurisdiction of the Common-Bench in this Case See my Treatise of the Jurisdiction of the Common-Bench in this Point Hill 10 Jac. Regis Parliament in Ireland The Lords of the Councel did write to the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron to look into Poynings Act made 10 H. 7. in Ireland and to consider thereof and certifie what shall be fit to be held concerning the same their Letter bore date Ultimo Janii 1612. Upon which in this Term the said Chief Justices Chief Baron Attorney and Sollicitor General were assembled two days at Sergeants Inne And they considered not onely of the said Act 10 H. 7. c. 4. called Poynings Act but also of an Act made in Ireland 3 4 P. M. c. 4. Entituled An Act declaring how Poynings Act shall be expounded and taken for by the said Act 10 H. 7. it is provided That no Parliament be hereafter holden in Ireland but when the Kings Lieutenant and Councell there first certifie the King under the Great Seal of that Land the causes c. and such causes c. affirmed by the King and his Councel to be good and expedient for the Land and his Licence thereupon c. A Parliament to be holden after the former before c. And any Parliament holden contrary c. to be void in Law Upon which Act divers Doubts were conceived 1. And first Whether the said Act 10 H. 7. does extend to the Successors of H. 7. the Act speaking onely of the King generally and not his Successors 2. If the Queen Mary were within the word King and both were held affirmatively for the word King being spoke indefinitely does extend in Law to all his Successors And this is so expounded by the Act 3 and 4 P. and M. viz. That the said Act 10 H. 7. shall extend to the King and Queens Majesty her Heirs and Successors Secondly where Povnings Act sayes the Kings Lieutenant and Councel the said Act 3 and 4 P. and M. explains it to extend to all other Officers the King shall Depute by what Name soever 3. The greatest Doubt was upon these words of Poynings Act And such Causes Considerations and Acts affirmed by the King and his Councel to be good and expedient for the Land c. Whether the King may make any change or alteration of the Causes c. which shall be transmitted hither from the Lieutenant and Councel of Ireland for that it is not affirmative but correction and alteration of them and therefore it was necessary to explain that the Act 3 and 4 P. and M. was in these words Either for the passing of the said Acts and in such form and tenor as they should be sent into England or else for the change or alteration of them or any part of them 4. Another Doubt arose from these words That dâ—ne a Parliament to be had If at the same Parl. other Acts which have been affirmed or altered here may be Enacted there which is explained by the said last Act in these words viz. For passing and agreeing upon such Acts and no others as shall be returned c. 5. A fifth Doubt arose from the same words Whether the Lieutenant and Councel of Ireland after the Parliament begun and pendente Parliamento may upon debate there transmit any other Considerations c. the which said Act 3 and 4 P. and M. is by express words explained they may And it was unanimously Resolved That the Causes Considerations and Acts transmitted hither under the Great Seal of Ireland ought to be kept in the Chancery in England and not be remanded 2. Iâ— they be affirmed they must be transcribed under the Great Seâ—l and so returned into Ireland 3. If the Acts transmitted hither be in any part altered or changed here the Act so altered must forthwith be returned under the Great Seal of England for the Transcript under the Irish Great Seal to remain in Chancery here shall not be amended but the Amendment shall be under the English Great Seal See 10 H. 6. 8. which begins Mich. 18 H. 6. Rot. 46. coram Rege how a Parliament was holden there before Poynings Act. See also another Act made in Ireland the same 10 H. 7. c. 22. vide R. 3. 12. Hibernia habet Parliamenta faciunt leges nostra statuta non ligant â—os quia non mittunt milites ad Parliamentum sed personae coâ—um sunt subjecti Regis sicut inhabitantâ—s Calinae Gascogniae Guienae But question is made of this in some of our Books vid. 20 H. 6. 8. 32 H 6 25. 1 H. 7. 3. 8 H. 7. 10. 8 R. 2. Precess 204. 13 Ed. 2. Tit. Bastard 11 H. 47. 7 Ed. 4. 27. Plow Comment 368. 13 Eliz. Dyer 35. 2 Eliz. Dyer 366. Calvins Case 7th of my Reports 226. 14 Ed. 3. 184. A Prâ—bend in England made Bishop of Dublin in Ireland his Prebendary is voâ—d See the Sâ—atute of Ireland c. That the Acts of Parliament made in England since the 10 H. 7. do not hind them in Ireland but all made in England before the 10 H. 7. by the Act made in Ireland 10 H. 7. c. 22. do bind them in Ireland Note Cambden King at Arms told me that some held if a Baron dyes having Issue divers Daughters the King confer the Dignity to him who marryes any of them as hath been done in divers Cases viz. In the case of the Lord Cromwel who had Issue divers Daughters And the King did confer the Dignity upon Burchier who marryed the youngest Daughter and he was called Cromwel and so in other Cases Note by Linwood it appears by the Canons Ecclesiastick none may exercise Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction unless he be within the Orders of the Church because none may pronounce Excommunication but a Spiritual Person But now by the 37 H. 8. c. 17. a Doctor of Law or Register though a Lay-man may execute Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction No Ecclesiastical may cite a Church-Warden to the Court but so as he may return home the same day Also the Canons limit how many Courts Ex Officio they may have in a year Mich. 11 Jac. Regis Note If a man give to one of his Children a certain sum in his life and after dyes though this is not given as a Child 's full Portion yet it