Visitor not appearing upon Summons refusing to be examined was an Offence and contrary to what the Statutes require He is to inspect the state of the Colledge and each Member's particular behaviour and now when the Visitor comes to make such an Inquisition and the Head or the Members withdraw themselves and will not appear to be examined if this be not a good Cause of Deprivation nothing can be for that nothing else can ever be inquired into As for that Statute which refers to the Causes for which a Rector may be deprived it doth not relate to a Deprivation in a Visitation but shews the manner how the Colledge is to proceed if he be guilty of such Offences they may complain at any time to the Visitor if he wasts the Revenues or behave himself scandalously and upon request will not resign and they may Article against him out of a Visitation but when he comes to execute his Power in his quinquennial Visitation he is not confined to proceed only upon the Information of the Fellows but is to inquire into all the Affairs of the Colledge and may proceed to deprivation as he sees Cause Now Contumacy is a causa of a Forfeiture of his Office which is subject to the power of the Visitor by the original Rules of the Foundation and to evade or contumaciously to refuse or deny a Submission to that Power is an Offence against the Duty of his Place and consequently a just Cause of Deprivation so that upon the whole Matter 't was inferred and urged that the Bishop hath a Visitatorial Power vested in him to deprive the Rector without consent of the four Senior Fellows And 2. that the Justice of the Sentence is not examinable in Westminster-hall And 3. that if it were and the Cause necessary to be shewn here was a good one an affronting the very Power of Visiting and fetting up for Independency contrary to the Will of the Founder and therefore it was prayed that the Judgment should be reversed On the other side 't was argued by the Counsel with the Judgment That this Sentence was void that 't was a meer Nullity that this proceeding had no Authority to warrant it and that it being done without Authority 't is as if done by a meer Stranger and whether it be such an Act or not is examinable at Law for that the Power of a Visitor must be considered as a meer Authority or a Trust and it is one or rather both and then either way 't is examinable for every Authority or Trust hath or ought to have some Foundation to warrant it and if that Foundation which warrants it hath limited any Rules or Directions by which it is to be executed then those Directions ought to be pursued and if they are not 't is no Execution of the Authority given or Trust reposed and if not 't is a void Act a meer Nullity and consequently 't is that of which every Man may take notice and advantage Then 't was said That it must be agreed that of a void thing all Persons may take advantage and contest it in a Collateral Action and that altho' it have the form and semblance of a Judicial Proceeding and for this was cited the Case of the Marshalsea's 10 Rep. 76. as a full Authority the Resolution was That when a Court hath no Jurisdiction of a Cause there all the proceeding is coram non judice and Actions lye against any Person pretending to do an Act by colour of such Precept or Process without any regard to its being a Precept or Process and therefore the Rule qui jussu judicis aliquid fecerit non videtur dolo malo fecisse quia parere necesse est will not hold where there is no judex for 't is not of necessity to obey him who is not Judge of the Cause and therefore the Rule on the other side is true judicium a non suo judice datum nullius est momenti and so was it held in the Case of Bowser and Collins 22 Edw. 4.33 per Pigot and 19 Edw. 4.8 And therefore if the Court of Common Bench held Plea of an Appeal of Felony 't is all void but it must be owned that the meer erroneous procedure of a Court which hath a General Jurisdiction of the Subject Matter is not examinable in a Collateral Action whether upon true Grounds or not and yet if it be a limited Jurisdiction and those limits are not observed even that is coram non judice and holds with respect to Courts held by Authority of Law which are much stronger then the Cases of Power created or given by a private Person A Sheriff is bound by Law to hold his turn within a Month after Michaelmas and he holds it after the Month and takes a Presentment at that time if that be removed into the King's Bench the Party shall not answer it but be discharged because the Presentment was void coram non judice for that the Sheriff at that time had no Authority and yet in that Case his Authority and Jurisdiction extended to the Person and Thing The same Law for a Leet unless Custom warrants the contrary and then that Custom must be pursued The Commissioners of Sewers have a limited Authority and if the number of Persons or other Requisites mentioned in their Commission be not pursued what they do which exceeds it is void and yet they have a kind of Legislative Authority so is it in Sir Henry Mildmay's Case 2 Cro. 336. and there they had an Authority both of Thing and Person but did not observe the Rules prescribed in the Gift of that Authority according to the 23 Hen. 8. cap. 5. and no reason could or can be given for that Resolution but that it was a particular limited Authority And then to apply this to the present Case the Sentence in question can no more aggrieve the Defendant then an Order pronounced or made by a non Judex if it be not agreeable to the Power given by the Statutes and this appears further from Davis's Rep. 46. where the same Distinction is allowed Nay in some Cases the Award of a wrong Process is void as if by a Steward of a Mannor Court that a Capias should issue where the same doth not lye but only an Attachment Turville and Tipper's Case Latch 223. A Court of Pypowders hath Jurisdiction of an Action of the Case yet if it holds Plea of Case for Slander 't is all void tho' the words were spoken within the Boundaries of the Fair because the Jurisdiction is limited so that if the Thing the Time the Person or the Process be not regarded according to the Authority given 't is all void and an Advantage may be taken of it by any Body where the Plaintiff Claims or makes his Demand by colour of such Act. 'T was further argued That the Reason given in that Case of Latch is because the Custom which gave him his Authority gave him
Inst 125. though the Statutes of Hen. VIII impower Commissions for trial of Treasons Committed beyond the Seas yet this Court doth and may still take Conusance of such Causes 4 Inst 124. Its Sentences are only reversable by and upon Appeal to the King no Writ of Error or false Judgment lies upon any of them which shews the greatness of the Court and the difference of its Jurisdiction from other Courts which may be some of thereasons why no Prohibition was ever granted to it and why the Parliament of Rich. II. gave the Remedy of a Privy Seal wherefore it was prayed that the Judgment should be Reversed On the other side it was argued by the Council in behalf of the Plaintiff in the Original Action that this Judgment ought to be affirmed and it was after this manner there seem three Queries in the Case 1. If any Prohibition lies to that Court 2. If any Cause here for a Prohibition and 3. If there be any such Court as that before the Earl Marshal but another doubt was raised whether any of these Questions could be such upon this plea which is concluded to the Jurisdiction for that seems to make only one doubt whether the Court of Exchequer could hold Plea of an Action for proceeding contrary to a Prohibition already granted but this was waved and then it was argued 1. That a Prohibition doth lie to this Court of Chivalry in case it exceeds the Jurisdiction proper to it and it was agreed that the Office of Constable is Ancient and by Cambden is held to have been in Ure in this Kingdom in the Saxon's time though the Office of Marshal is but of a puisne date but however Great and Noble the Office is however large and Extensive the Jurisdiction is yet 't is but limitted and Coke in 4 Inst 123. says that 't is declared so by the Statute of Rich. II. where 't is said that they incroached in great prejudice of the King's Courts and to the great grievance and oppression of his people and that their proper Business is to have conusance of Contracts and Deeds of Arms and of War out of the Realm which cannot be determined or discussed by the Common-Law which other Constables have heretofore duly and reasonably used in their time now by this Act 't is plain what the Jurisdiction is Contracts and Deeds of Arms and War out of the Realm are the subject matter of it and by Coke 't is called curia militaris or the Fountain of Marshal Law which shews it a Court that hath its boundaries a Court that may incroach nay which hath incroach'd in diverse instances belonging to the Common-Law And that 't is a Court that ought to meddle with nothing that may be Determined in Westminster-Hall then there must be some way of restraining this excess and these incroachments and if the Statute of Rich. II. had not been made it must be agreed that a Prohibition would have lain for else there had been no remedy which is absurd to affirm 'T is no Objection that Prohibitions are only grantable to Inferiour Courts and that this is one of the greatest Courts in the Realm for if a Court Marshal intermeddle with a Common-Law matter ea ratione it becomes inferior and may be controwled There needs no contest about the Superiority of Courts in this matter 't is the same here as among private Persons he that offends becomes inferior and subject to the Censure of his equal by offending though that Court should be reckoned so noble and great as hath been represented yet 't is only so while it keeps within its Jurisdiction Prohibitions are grantable to almost all sort of Courts which differ from the Common-Law in their proceeding to Courts Christian to the Admiralty nay to the Delegates and even to the Steward and Marshal upon the Statute of Articuli super Chartas Cap. 3. That they shall not hold Plea of Freehold or of Trespass Fits ' N.B. 241 242. is an express Writ of Prohibition though the Statute gave no such Writ but only did restrain the Jurisdiction of the Court which in truth is the Case in Question antecedent to the Statute pleaded No Argument can be raised from the subject matter of the Jurisdiction of this Court that 't is different from the Common-Law for so is the Admiralty and the Prerogative Courts nor is it any Objection that upon any Grievance in this Court the Appeal must be to the King for that holds in the other Courts with equal reason Nay Prohibitions lie from Westminster-Hall to hinder proceeding in Causes which the Courts that grant such Prohibitions cannot hold Plea of as to the Ecclesiastical Court which grants probate of a Will made within a Mannor to the Lord whereof such probate belongs 5 Rep. 73. to the Marches of Wales if hold Plea of what belongs to Court Christian 2 Roll's Abridg. 313. are several Cases to this purpose there were also Cited 1 Roll's Rep. 42. 2 Roll's Abridg. 317. Sid. 189. 1 Brownl 143 144. and Herne 543. 't was further urged that there neither was nor could be any reason assigned why a Prohibition should not be grantable to the Court of Chancery when by English Bill it meddles with the Common-Law in other manner than its Ancient and proper Jurisdiction doth allow and several Authorities were Cited to countenance that Assertion Then was considered the reason of Prohibitions in general that they were to preserve the right of the King's Crown and Courts and the ease and quiet of the Subject that 't was the Wisdom and Policy of the Law to suppose both best preserved when every thing runs in its right Channel according to the Original Jurisdiction of every Court that by the same reason one Court might be allowed to incroach another might which could produce nothing but confusion and disorder in the Administration of Justice that in all other Writs of Prohibition the suggestion is and with Truth in prejudicium corone Regis Gravamen partis and both these are declared to be the consequent of this Courts excess or incroachment of Jurisdiction even by their own Statutes and when the reason is the same the remedy ought to be so But it hath been pretended That the Statute appoints a Privy Seal for to supersede c. and therefore no Prohibition to this it was answered That this Act doth not take away the force of the 8 Rich. II. mentio ned in 4 Inst 125. which restrains the Constable and Marshal from medling with any Plea which concerns the Common Law and if it had a limitted Jurisdiction by the Common-Law or by that Statute the subsequent Statute which gave a further Remedy for to restrain them did not take away that which they had before and every Body must agree that where an Act of Parliament restrains a Jurisdiction such Act warrants a Prohibition in case that restraint be broken or exceeded 't is so in case of a limited Power at
the Common Law but much more so upon a Statute Besides the latter Statute which gives a Privy Seal doth not Repeal or alter the Law then in being 't is an Affirmative Law and that seldom or never works any change or alteration in what was before any otherwise then by Addition or Confirmation and in truth this is only a further remedy and is far from declaring a Prohibition not to lie the meaning might be to give a Privy Seal immediately even in vacation time the preamble complains so much of the Grievances that it cannot be supposed to Design any thing in favour of them or to prevent the restraint Suppose between the 8 and the 15 Rich. II. an excess of Jurisdiction had been usurped as in this Case will any Man say that a Prohibition would not then have lain and if it would can any Man say that the Statute pleaded doth take it away or Prohibit such Writ of Prohibition And the 11 Hen. IV. 24. ordains that all the Statutes concerning the Court of Constable and Marshal shall be duly observed and if so the 8 Rich. II. as well as the 15 Rich. II. are within that ordinance and if so a Prohibition lies as well as a Privy Seal and both are little enough to keep that Court within its due bounds and limits 2. It was argued That the proceeding upon these Articles was an intermedling with a subject matter properly determinable at Common-Law here 's no contract or deed of Arms no Mis-behaviour in War nothing of that nature which their own Statute says belongs to them Rushworth's II. Vol. 1054. he frequented the Court for four years together he observed no Cases there but for Words and one or two as Delaware's Case about abusing an Honourable Family by assuming to be a branch thereof here 's no such thing but express Articles for exercising of a lawful Trade 't is not causa armorum it doth neither concern Warlike matters nor Honour a Funeral Ceremony can never be within their Power this is a plain Accusation for a wrong to one of their Officers the Articles charge that Sir Henry S. George by his Office within his Province hath the ordering of these matters and the party hath medled therein without his License he says 't is lawful and the exercise of a lawful employment they say 't is otherwise because it belongs to another Man's Office then 't was admitted by the Council for the present to be so that Sir Henry was an Officer by Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England which by the way makes the Office and rights of it to be of Common-Law Conusance and the Patent is set forth at large in Prinne on 4 Inst 64 65. and that the King at Arms hath such a right yet if any Man intermeddles or incroaches upon that Office 't is not a breach of the rules of Honour and not relating to Arms but a plain injury at Common-Law and an Action lies for it as it doth for the disturbance of any other Office or Franchise In 4 Inst 126. 't is said that they do upon request Marshal Funerals but supposing they alone ought to do it then an Action lies This is merely a question whether the Letters Patents do carry such a sole priviledge suppose nul tiel record be Pleaded to them when Pleaded or Inrolled and without producing them suppose non concessit Pleaded to them when produced how shall these issues be tried Suppose they awarded a satisfaction to be made to Sir H. S. by the gift of a Summ of Money and he should afterwards bring an Action at Law for the same Cause will the proceeding in the Court of the Earl Marshal be a barr the Fact alledged in these Articles comes within none of those particulars supposed to be belonging to this Court in 1 Inst 391. It matters not whether these were publick Funerals as was questioned in Parker's Case Sid. 352. and in 2 Keble 316.322 but the Query here is if this be a point of Honour or whether it be not about the right of an Office and if it be the latter they have no Power to determine it The Heralds are Officers attendant upon that Court but it doth not follow that that Court can judge of the nature or extent validity or operation of their Letters Patents no more than the Court Christian can try the right or Freehold of a Chancellors or Registers Office The Earl Marshal cannot License the doing this in prejudice of the Heralds or acquit the party if does it for he still stands liable at Law the Herald hath a Freehold in it and may bring his Action notwithstanding Then 3. 'T was argued that admitting that no Prohibition did lie to the Court of Honour or that there was no cause for such Prohibition yet it ought to be granted to this pretended Court which is not within their Statute The true Court is before Constable and Marshal it is a Court by Prescription and cannot be altered but by Act of Parliament All our Books which describe the Court mention it to be before both 4 Inst 125. Crompt Jurisdiction 82. 1 Inst 74. Stamford 65. The Constable is the Chief and so are the Old Books and 37 Hen. 6.20 expresly before the Constable and Marshal The Statutes which mention the Court do all take notice of it as held before both the 8 Rich. 2. and that which they Plead do describe it so and the 1 Hen. 4. Cap. 14. the 13 Hen. 4.4.5 all Attainders are Pleaded to be before both Cambden who was an Herald in his Commentary de Etymologio antiquitate officio Comitis Mareschalli Angliae fol. 87. 't is published at the end of his Latin Epistles which are in 4to Printed for Chiswell 1691. he endeavours to advance the Office of Earl Marshal and searches for the Etymology and after all makes him but an Harbinger and tells us when the Title Mareschallus Angliae was first used and how it hath been enjoyed and by whom and of what Families and afterwards 91. lessens his Character much and derives the Office of Marshal of England from that of Marshal of the Houshold which he describes to disadvantage the same is likewise in Fleta lib. 2. cap. 5. But this is observable which Cambden says that the greatest increase of the Authority of this Office hath been since there were no Constables for the Kings since that time have referred many things to them which in former times were proper for the Constable neither had the Marshal any precedency in respect of his place until King Hen. 8. Anno 31. by Parliament Assigned him place next to the Lord Constable and before the Lord Admiral all which shews that the Earl Marshal never had that Authority time out of mind to hold this Court before himself alone as is pretended during the vacancy of the Office of Constable In November 1640. 't was Voted by the House of Commons upon a report from a Committee of some
good for them and that they had the like Power of Appeals Writs of Error and Impeachments c. and that the Cognizance of such Appeals in England would produce great inconveniencies by making poor people to attend here whereas they might with less trouble and expence have Justice at home that this did agree with the reasons of that Ancient Statute 4 Inst 356. that persons having Estates in Ireland should Reside in that Kingdom else half of their Estates should go to maintain the Forts there That this practice of receiving Appeals here would be vexatious to the people of that place and that no Court could have Jurisdiction but by grant or prescription and that there could be no pretence for either in this place Then was it ordered in these or the like Words Whereas a Petition and Appeal was offered to the House the Day of last from the Society of the Governour and Assistants London of the New Plantation in Ulster in the Kingdom of Ireland against a Judgment given by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of Ireland in Parliament there Assembled on the day of last upon the Petition and Appeal of William Lord Bishop of Derry against the Decree or Orders made in the said Cause in the Court of Chancery there Whereupon a Committee was appointed to consider of the proper method of Appealing from Decrees made in the Court of Chancery in Ireland and that pursuant to the Orders of the said Committee and a Letter sent to the Lords Justices of Ireland by Order of this House several precedents have been transmitted to this House by the said Lord Justices Copies whereof were ordered to be delivered to either side After hearing Counsel upon the Petition of the said Society of London presented to this House praying that they might be heard as to the Jurisdiction of the House of Lords in Ireland in receiving and judging Appeals from the Chancery there as also Counsel for the Bishop of Derry after due Consideration of the Precedents and of what was offered by Counsel thereupon It is ordered and adjudged by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled That the said Appeal of the Bishop of Derry to the House of Lords in Ireland from the Decree or Orders of the Court of Chancery there made in the Cause wherein the said Bishop of Derry was Plaintiff and the said Society of the Governour and Assistants London of the New Plantation in Ulster in Ireland were Defendants was coram non judice and that all the proceedings thereupon are null and void and that the Court of Chancery in Ireland ought to proceed in the said Cause as if no such Appeal had been made to the House of Lords there and if either of the said Parties do find themselves Agrieved by the said Decree or Orders of the Chancery of Ireland they are at liberty to pursue their proper Remedy by way of Appeal to this House Sir Caesar Wood alias Cranmer versus Duke of Southampton APpeal from a Decree in Chancery the Case was thus Sir Henry Wood the Appellant's Unkle makes a Settlement in Consideration of a Marriage to be had between his Daughter Mary and the Duke c. to the uses following i.e. in Trust to Receive and Pay out of the Profits 450 l. a Year to the Lady Chester for the Education and Maintenance of his Daughter till twelve years of Age then 550 l. a year till Marriage or Seventeen years of Age which should first happen and in Trust to pay the Residue of the Profits to the Duke after Marriage he first giving Security to the said Trustees to provide Portions and Maintenance for the Daughters of the Marriage equal to the Sum he should receive and in case there should be none then the same Money to remain to the Respondent and if the said Mary should die before Marriage or Age of Seventeen years to such Uses as Sir H. W. should appoint And if Mary after Sir Henry's death die under Sixteen the Respondent then unmarried to any other Woman or after and before Seventeen the Respondent then living and unmarried or if before Seventeen she should marry any other or if she should refuse the Respondent then 20000 l. out of the Profits to the Duke But if the said Marriage shall take effect after Mary's Age of Sixteen years and she shall have Issue Male by the Respondent then for the better Settlement of the Premisses upon the Issue Male and a more ample Provision and Maintenance for the Respondent and his Wife and the longest Liver of them in Trust for the said Duke and Mary for and during their Lives and the Life of the longer liver of them and after their Deaths to the first Son c. in Tail Male and for default of Issue Male to the Daughters And for default of such Issue in Trust for such Persons only as Sir Henry should appoint and in default thereof to the right Heirs of Sir Henry Sir Henry W. at the same time makes his Will tho' dated after the Settlement reciting that he had settled the Premisses upon the Duke and Mary for their Lives and the Life of the Longer liver of them c. and confirms it and in Case the said Martiage should not take effect according to the Limitations of the Settlement or if the said Respondent should die without Issue by Mary or if he have Issue by her and that Issue die without Issue then the Remainder to Mary for Life and afterwards to her first Son and after several mediate Remainders then to the Appellant for Life c. and after to Thomas Webb c. Sir Henry Wood dies the Marriage between Mary and the Duke afterwards takes effect upon her arrival to years of Consent and they lived in that state till she was near Seventeen years of Age and then she dies without Issue The Court of Chancery decreed the Profits of the Estate to the Duke for Life It was argued for the Appellant That here was a precedent Copulative Condition that if the Marriage take effect after Sixteen and there be Issue then to the Duke and neither of these being in the Case the Decree is not consistent with the positive words of the Settlement for that the Duke was to have it upon no other terms That by this Settlement the Duke was thus provided for 1. If the Marriage did not take effect by Mary's refusal or taking another Husband the Duke was to have 20000 l. 2. If the Marriage did take effect and Issue was had then the Duke was to have an Estate for Life but not otherwise that the words are plain and certain that there must not only be a Marriage but Issue Male between them that tho' it should be agreed to be a good Marriage within the intention of the Settlement she living till after Sixteen years of Age yet when a Condition Copulative consisting of several Branches as this doth is made precedent to any Use or
it hath been time out of Mind But here 's a new Constitution and the Rule holds so in Commissions of Oyer and Terminer if the direction be so as is the Case in Plowden 384. the Earl of Leicester's Case If a Mayor and three Aldermen have Conusance of Pleas what a Mayor and two does is null and void And if there be no direction in particular for the number the Law requires the majority So that here was no Councel because but five of them present The Councel have not the power but the Governour with the Advice and Assent of the Councel and so ought their pleading to have been according to their Case That if a Man justifies as a Judge to excuse him from an Action he must set forth his Authority and the Cause must appear to be within his Conusance and so are multitudes of Cases 3 Cro. 130. 2 Leon. pl. 43. and 1 Cro. 153 557 579 593. 12 Rep. 23 25. Mod. Rep. 119. But taking it as a Councel neither Person nor Thing are within its Jurisdiction for if their Doctrine be true that by being Governour he is so absolute as to be subject only to the King then what Sir John Witham did being while and as Deputy Governour which is the true Governour to all purposes in absentia of the other is not examinable by a Successor But admitting for the present that by the Law one Magistrate may be punishable before his Successor for Miscarriages which were committed colore Officii yet here are no such Miscarriages sufficiently alledged to be charged on him 1. There 's no pretence of an Oath nor Circumstances shewing a reasonable Cause of Suspicion one of which ought to have been 2. In pleading no Allegation is sufficient if it be so general as the Party opponent can't in reason be supposed capable of making an Answer to it and that is the true Cause why our Law requires Certainty He did male arbitrarie execute the Office to the Oppression of the King's Subjects No Man living can defend himself on so general a Charge as this is for if Issue had been taken thereon all the Acts of his Government had been examinable which the Law never allows Then the Particulars are as general 1. That he did not take the usual Oath and it doth not appear what Oath or if any was requirable of a Deputy Governour nor who was to administer it so that non constat whether 't was his Fault or the Governours besides that 's no cause of Imprisonment for any thing which appears in the Plea 2. Assuming illegally the Title of Lieutanant Governour that is so trivial as it needs no Answer for Deputy Governour and Lieutenant Governour are all one locum tenens is a Deputy è contra 3. Altering of Orders at his Chamber ad libitum which were made in Court not said that there was any such Court or what Orders or where made non tantum without etiam or verum etiam is not a sufficient positive Allegation not said that he was guilty but only charged and not said how charged whether with or without Oath in writing or by parol nor said to be in any such manner as that the Councel ought or might receive it tho' Oath be not necessary to be mentioned in the Commitment yet it ought to be alledged in pleading because 't is necessary to warrant the Commitment as was held in the Lord Yarmouth's Case in B.R. It could not be to secure his answering the same for not so expressed and 't is not said that Sureties were demanded or denied or that he had notice of the Charge and surely this was bailable As to the Query If conusable here 't was argued That they had not pleaded to the Jur ' nor any Matter to oust the Court of its Jur ' If they intended by this Plea to have done that they should have given Jur ' to some other Court in some other place but this is not done for if an Injury 't is relievable somewhere in the King's Dominions and whether it be so or not is examinable somewhere Now here is a Wrong complain'd of as done by one English-man to another English-man and a Jur ' attacht in the King's Bench both of Cause and Person by the Bill filed and his Defence to it besides Jur ' could not be examined in the Exchequer Chamber because both the Statute and the Writ of Error expresly provide against it and. this Writ of Error is founded upon that Affirmance and therefore questionable whether that could be insisted on here But supposing it might 't was argued that the Action lies for that 't is a transitory Action and follows the Person wheresoever he comes under the power of the Common Law Process and that a Man may as well be sued in England for a Trespass done beyond Sea as in Barbadoes or the like place as for a Debt arising there by Specialty or other Contract that no Body but Prynne ever denied it and he did so only in case of Bonds dated there That many Actions have been maintained and tried here for Facts done in the Indies notwithstanding special Justifications to them and the Trials have been where the Actions were laid There was quoted Dowdale's Case 6 Rep. 47 48. and 7 Rep. 27. and if otherwise there would be a failure of Justice in the King's Dominions 32 Hen. 6.25 vide Jackson and Crispe's Case Sid. 462. 2 Keeble 391 397. 'T was then argued That whatsoever question might be made about the Trial of the Issue if one had been joyned yet now Demurrer being to the Plea if that Plea be naught then the Plaintiff is to have Judgment upon his Declaration and that is all right It was further said That the Justification of such a tort or wrong ought to be according to the Common Law of England for that Barbadoes is under the same Law as England and if 't were not upon his pleading it must be intended to be so and tho' they should be intended different yet the Defendant in the Action was obliged to the same Rules of Pleading for tho' the Matter may justifie him for an Act done there which would not justifie him for the same Act done here yet he must shew that he hath pursued the Rules of Law in that place or in case of no positive Laws the Rules of Natural Equity for either the Common Law or new instituted Laws or natural Equity must be the Rule in those places 'T was agreed That according to Calvin's Case 7 Rep. 17. upon the Conquest of an Infidel Country all the old Laws are abrogated ex instanti and the King imposes what he pleases and in case of the Conquest of a Christian Country he may change them at pleasure and appoint such as he thinks fit tho' Coke quotes no Authority for it yet 't was agreed that this might be consonant to reason But 't was denied that Barbadoes was a Conquest 't was
person As to the Objection from Appleford's Case Sid. 71. there that Writ was fully answered and they could not Examine into the truth and falsity of that Answer but must leave the party to his Action and it doth not thence follow That in an Action there 's no remedy But the strongest Objection is that in pleading a Deprivation you need not shew the Cause and it must be taken sor just and good as Moore 781. Jones 393. Moore 228. 2 Roll's Abridg. 219. 9 Edw. 4.25 that need only shew by whom All these stand upon the same foundation they were by Authority Ecclesiastical and must stand till Repealed and even those Cases of the High Commission Court they were by the course of the Ecclesiastical Law which was saved to them by the Proviso in 1 Eliz. and therefore shall be intended so till the contrary appear and even there 't was debito modo privatus which implies all due requisites but here the whole is disclosed upon a special Verdict 't is not found here that he was duly deprived but that he was deprived after such a manner which if it appears to have been without Authority must be null As to Ley's Opinion in Davis 47. that a Sentence of Deprivation in case of a Donative by an Ordinary was effectual in Law till Reversed that 's not Law for 't was all coram non judice Bro. Praemunire 21. Nat. Br. 42. the Ordinary cannot visit a Benefice Donative Then they Object That this is an Elemosinary interest and the Rector took it under those terms of subjection to such a Visitor but that is the Question what those terms are and the consequences of such an Opinion may be dangerous to the Universities those Nurseries of Learning and good Manners 't is to make them too precarious and dependent upon will And as to the pretence that the Land was the Founders and he might dispose of it at pleasure it was answered that before the Gift the Lands and the Profits and the Ownership were all subject to the Common-Law and the Owner could not give such a Power as is pretended no more than he could oblige all differences about his Estate to be finally determined by a particular person and his Heirs or Successors no Absolute Power can be fixed in this Nation by Custom but rather then the same shall be allowed the Custom shall be void 1 Inst 14. Davis 32. 2 Roll's Abridg. 265. Copyholds were Anciently at mere will and pleasure but the Lord is now obliged to and by certain Rules by our Law the Power of Parents over Children is qualified and restrained 't is no Argument to say that the Visitor comes in loco or vice fundatoris for the Alienation and the Statutes did oblige even himself and though perhaps if no Statutes had been made his Visitatorial Power had been much larger yet since 't is limitted to once in five Years and his Acts to be with others consent 't is as much as if he had given the Colledge a priviledge of exemption by Words Express from any Visitation at all other times and in all other manners than those which are mentioned then was Cited the Case of Terry and Huntington in Scaccar ' Trin. 20 Car. II. in Hardres's Rep. 480. before Sir Matthew Hale Trover for Goods seized by Warrant of the Commissioners of Excise the Query was when they adjudged low Wines to be strong Wines perfectly made upon 12 Car. II. cap. 23. whether it might be drawn in Question again by an Action in Westminster-Hall and held it might though they were Judges and though the Statute gave an Appeal and the reasons given there seem to reach this Case because they had a stinted limitted Jurisdiction and that implies a Negative viz. that they shall not proceed at all in any other Cases and that special Jurisdictions might be and frequently were circumscribed 1. with respect to place as a Leet or a Corporation Court 2. with respect to persons as in the Case of the Marshalsea 3. with respect to the subject matter of their Jurisdiction And if Judgment be given in another place or upon other persons or about other matters that all was void and coram non judice and though 't was objected that strong Wines were within their Jurisdiction and that 't was only a mistake in their Judgment yet it appearing upon the special Verdict that they were low Wines the Action was held maintainable this is so plain it needs no Application Then it was argued that this Sentence was void 1. because there was no Authority to visit at this time there having been a Visitation by the Commissary within five Years before that no words in the Statute make him a Visitor generally but only secund ' stat ' i.e. upon request or without request a quinquennio in quinquenium Semel now here 's no request found then the Act of Dr. Masters as Commissary is an exercise of the Visitor's Office Colmer's Appeal was to the Bishop as Visitor Semel implies a negation of having it more frequent according to Grammar it signifies once and not often er or once for all If Semel comes alone without any other Particle then 't is but once and if with another as ne Semel 't is not once or never and the liceat Semel can have no other Construction it can't mean once at the least as was argued below especially as opposed to request and no Argument can be drawn from the necessity of frequent Visitations for that Evils are not to be presumed and over inferior Members there 's a Power in the Rector and four Seniors now Dr. Masters was not requested by the Colledge nay they protest against it in some Degree i. e. so far as relates to Colmer's restitution the Oath of a Scholar being against Appeals and the Oaths and the Contents of them are to be deemed part of their Constitution But supposing that Business might be examined as a thing proper for Consideration when an inquiry is made into the State of the College and the admission continuance and removal of the Members is certainly one Article of such inquiry yet that must be done in Visitation and as Visitor for there 's no other Power found in the serdict but that 2. Admitting that no Action of Dr. Masters to be Visitation yet this Sentence is void because it held above three days and the Statutes say after three days it shall be taken pro terminat ' dissolut ' On the 16. of June he comes with intention to visit doth an Act proper to his Office and Business examines the Summoner about the Citation if he had come and only examined and made no Decree it had been a Visitation and either 't is a quinquennial one of it self or it is a Commencement of one and either one way or other it makes the Deprivation void 't is afterwards entred as a Visitatorial Act Eundem actum pro parte hujusmodi negotii Visitationis
Demurrers to Declarations Pleas Replications quod Narr ' vel placit ' pred' Materia in eodem content ' minus sufficient ' in Lege existunt ad quam vel quod the party necesse non habet nec per Legem terrae Tenetur aliquo modo respondere i. e. 't is good for nothing 't is insufficient the Court in their Judgments upon the insufficiency of the Plea do always say quia minus sufficien ' existit Then it was argued That it is a good Plea to all intents and purposes from the nature of the thing and the impossibility of making it more particular and certain 2. From the sufficiency of it to all intents and purposes of Tryal 3. From the Precedents and those of Antiquity which warrant this form of pleading 4. From the mischiefs and inconveniencies which must follow and ensue if a greater particularity were required 1. From the nature of the thing and the impossibility of making it more particular and certain if the Bishop were bound to set down in particular and at large every point of Learning wherein this poor wretch was and is deficient 't would be a Pleading like to a justification of an Action done by a private Person and not like to the Pleading of the Act of a Judge which this is 't would be so large as to render it impossible for to joyn an Issue thereupon and then they would have demurred with a Cause because multiplex duplex incertum perplex ' and the rest of our usual Adjectives upon those occasions the Assignment of several and many particulars would have been double and good cause of Exception because one particular might be found true and another not and the Assignment of one particular would have been adjudged insufficient for then they would have said that Learning is of a Complex nature and if a Man should fail in answering any one particular tho' common Question yet he might be qualified in general And therefore the Assignment of one defect tho' never so gross shall not make a Clerk minime capax and therefore no good Plea For if a particular be Assigned that would not prove a general Defect of knowledge according to the words of the Law which is the only thing that could make him incapable ad habend ' beneficium cum Curia Animar ' and therefore the Bishop as a Judge returns him in literatura insufficiens ea de causa minime capax and the special instances would have been Evidences upon a new Tryal or Examination before the Arch-Bishop Now this cause of refusal distinguishes the case from all others that they can insist upon all other inabilities of a Clerk depend upon one single point as Bastardy Villenage Outlawry Excommunication Lay-man Under-age or Ecclesiastical Infancy So all Crimes must have their foundation from a particular Act as Adultery Perjury Simony c. In these it shall not be enough to Plead that he was inhabilis generally or criminosus generally ideo inhabilis because no body can be criminosus but he that hath done some particular Crime and that is to have a several Tryal according to its respective nature if it be an Ecclesiastical Offence then there is a particular method of Tryal if a Temporal then another and so says Coke 2 Inst 632. and therefore a particularity is required there but here 't is all tryable by the same way viz. a new Examination before the Arch-Bishop Here the matter it self admits of no greater certainty for that 't is a general deficiency of Learning only which can make an incapacity of discharging the Pastoral Office it is a matter that must appear by a variety of Questions and cannot be proved by any one single instance whatsoever This is the true reason and difference why in several Cases general Pleading hath been denied and why in this Case it hath been always used and never excepted against Then it was argued That this Plea was sufficient to all the intents and purposes of Tryal and Determination By our Law that Plea is sufficiently certain which may be Tryed without inveigling either Court or Jury that is it must be intelligible and plain and this surely is plain enough the Ordinary had a Power to refuse him for want of Learning sufficient to enable him to discharge his Pastoral Office he Pleads that he was Minus sufficien ' in Literatura this is to be tried by the Certificate of the Arch-Bishop or the Guardian of the Spiritualities during a vacancy and that is evident by 39 Edw. 3.1 2. 40 Edw. 3.25 and from Speccot's Case 5 Rep. 7. There never was an Objection made to the uncertainty of any Plea if the Matter could be fairly reduced to an Issue for a Trial now here the Court might certainly have written to the Archbishop to have known utrum this Creature were minus sufficiens in Literatura ea Ratione inhabilis and the actus Curiae of the Bishop would have been Evidence before his Grace and he might have certified that he was or that he was not sufficiently Learned No say they the Court must not write to the Archbishop to know that till it be said in what Points of Learning he was defective and if these shall be thought material Parts of Learning for a Rector then they must write to know if Hodder had them or not but if they think them not material for the Qualifications of a Pastor they must not write at all This is the true English of the Argument But it was argued That the Temporal Court is only to judge that the Cause of Refusal if true was a sufficient Cause and the Books are that a general default of Learning is a good Cause and this the Archbishop is to try And this is certain enough for to make an Issue or Question proper for that Trial. Besides A greater Latitude and Generality hath of late been allowed in pleading of Proceedings in Courts and before Judges then formerly In ancient days if a Man pleaded a Judgment in a Court in Westminster-hall they set forth the whole then they came to allow of a taliter fuit processum and an Abridgment of the Proceedings then came a Recuperavit only And this was because that all Proceedings in the Superiour Courts were to be presumed regular till the contrary were shewn But this was denied a long while to Inferiour Courts because these were tied to stricter forms and therefore were still forced to set forth the whole then they allowed a taliter fuit processum for them provided still they were Courts of Record But now they allow it in pleading of a Justification upon a Recovery in an Hundred Court because the whole must be given in Evidence so that such a formal Nicety in Pleading is not generally required now as was formerly Besides In Matters triable by the Spiritual Law there is always less particularity required in Pleading then in others triable in Courts Temporal as in Bastardy Divorce
tried by a Jury And the Petition is wholly of a new Nature and without any Example or Precedent being to compel Judges who are by the Law of the Land to act according to their own judgments without any Constraint or Compulsion whatsoever and trenches upon all Mens Rights and Liberties tending manifestly to destroy all Trials by Jury And it is further manifest That this Complaint is utterly improper for your Lordships Examination for that your Lordships cannot apply the proper and only Remedy which the Law hath given the Party in this Case which is by awarding Damages to the Party injured if any Injury be done for these are only to be assessed by a Jury And they these Respondents are so far from apprehending they have done any wrong to the Petitioners in this Matter that they humbly offer with your Lordships leave to wave any Priviledge they have as Assistants to this Honourable House and appear gratis to any Suit that shall be brought against them in Westminster-hall touching the Matter complained of in the Petition And they further with all humility offer to your Lordships Consideration That as they are Judges they are under the Solemn Obligation of an Oath to do Justice without respect of Persons and are to be supposed to have acted in this Matter with and under a due regard to that Sacred Obligation and therefore to impose any thing contrary upon them may endanger the breaking of it which they humbly believe your Lordships will be tender of And they further humbly shew to your Lordships That by a Statute made in the 25th of Edw. 3. cap. 4. it is enacted That from thenceforth none shall be taken by Petition or Suggestion to the King or his Councel unless by Indictment or Presentment of good and lawful People of the Neighbourhood or by Process by Writ Original at Common Law and that none shall be put out of his Franchise or Freehold but by the Course of the Common Law And by another Statute in the 28th of Edw. 3. cap. 3. it is expresly provided that no Man shall be put out of his Lands and Tenements nor imprisoned or disinherited but by due Process of Law And by another Statute made in the 42 Edw. 3. cap. 3. it is enacted That no Man shall be put to answer without Presentment before Justices or Matter of Record on due Process and Original Writ according to the old Law of the Land And the Respondents further say That inasmuch as the Petition is a Complaint in the nature of an Original Cause for a supposed Breach of an Act of Parliament which Breach if any be is only examinable and triable by the Course of the Common Law and cannot be so in any other manner and is in the Example of it dangerous to the Rights and Liberties of all Men and tends to the Subversion of all Trials by Juries these Respondents conceive themselves bound in Duty with regard to their Offices and in Conscience to the Oaths they have taken to crave the benefit of defending themselves touching the Matter complained of in the Petition by the due and known Course of the Common Law and to rely upon the aforesaid Statutes and the Common Right they have of Free-born People of England in Bar of the Petitioners any further proceeding upon the said Petition and humbly pray to be dismissed from the same Then it was after Debate ordered That Counsel be heard at the Bar of the House on the said Petition And afterwards upon the Day appointed for the hearing of Counsel it was insisted on in the behalf of the Petitioners That here was a Right and a Right proved and no ways to come at it but this that if a Bill of Exceptions be tendred and refused this House can command them to do it that this proceeding of the Judges is to stifle the Matter of Law the Writ upon the Statute must be returnable here and cannot be otherwise that this follows the Judgment into Parliament that this House is to judge of every thing belonging to that Judgment that if this cannot be done there will be a failure of Justice that there have been Writs of Error upon Judgments with the Bill of Exceptions annexed that Damages to be recovered in an Action gives no Reparation for the Office that the Action must be brought before the Judges and so it must be a Dance in a Circle that as to the Judges Oaths the Justices of Peace are upon their Oaths and yet they may be committed that this is not fit for a Jury to try Whether the Judges have done well or ill in refusing to Seal this Bill of Exceptions This Refusal is the way to keep the Law within the Bounds or Walls of Westminster-hall and effectually to prevent its ever coming hither that this was not a Complaint of the Judges that as yet they would not accuse them of a Crime they only said fac hoc vive that the Court of King's Bench below doth the same thing to the Judges in Ireland they command others and ought to be commanded that they themselves send Mandatory Writs as the Cases are in Yelvert ' Cro. Car. That the Lords had directed the Judges in many things and so they did in Jeffrey Stanton's Case that by Command under the Privy Seal things have been done which otherwise would not and my Lord Shaftsbury was remanded to the Tower upon the Authority of that Case 15 Edw. 3. the Statute says that the Peers shall Examine for by great Men are meant the Peers Then were urged certain Cases where the Lords had commanded the Chancery to proceed speedily and to give Judgment c. Earl of Radnor's Case Englefield and Englefield and other like Cases were quoted and from thence they argued the Power of the Lords to command the Judges to do the thing desired 'T was argued on the other side against the Petition to this effect That this was a Cause of great consequence in respect of the Persons concerned as also of the Subject Matter it being the Complaint of a Noble Peeress against three of the Judges before whom she was lately a Suitor and concerning the Jurisdiction of this House That this Petition was the most artificial which could be contrived to hinder the Justice of the Law and to procure a Determination in prejudice of Two hundred thirty five years enjoyment that it is designed to get a Cause to be heard and adjudged on a Writ of Error by the Evidence onone side only or rather by that which was no Evidence at all if the Copy produced at the Trial was true for now upon the return of what they desire nothing of the Defendants Evidence would or could appear When a Bill of Exceptions is formed upon the Statute it ought to be upon some point of Law either in admitting or denying of Evidence or a Challenge or some Matter of Law arising upon Fact not denied in which either Party is over-ruled by the
the Plaintiffs Title or Charge This is no more then if they had traversed the Grant which they could not do In the Case of a common Person suppose the Defendant's Title not full yet if he traverses the Plaintiffs that 's enough Form requires an Inducement to a Traverse but the latter is only material for the Plaintiff to answer to for nothing can be traversed but what is material now why should it not have been a good answer to their Declaration to have said that Car. 2. presented by Lapse absque hoc that Car. 1. died seized for by this the Seisin or Presentation of Car. 2. had been avoided and there 's nothing else material in the Declaration for the Seisin of Queen Elizabeth and Jac. 1. are not to the purpose and if answered by the Defendant it must have been against him there had been a good Title for the King without it then supposing it necessary to shew how it came out of Car. 1. the Attorney General can only take Issue on the Traverse of his dying seized for that denies the whole Title that is material to be answered to Now whatsoever shews that the Plaintiff hath no right to the thing in demand is a good Plea let who will have the true right The true Title upon this Declaration is that Car. 1. presented and thereby became seized and died seized and the denying him to dye seized is a denial of this Title for if K. Car. 2. did present by Lapse and K. Car. 1. did not die seized 't is with the Defendant no Man is bound to answer that which if he do 't will still be against him but if a Man makes such an answer as if true the present Plaintiff hath no Title 't is enough Then if it be true that no Right descended from Car. 1. to Car. 2. and that Car. 2. presented only by Lapse what Right can his present Majesty have and all this is confessed by the Demurrer if well pleaded and 't is no Objection to say that the dying seized ought not to be traversed but only the Presentation for that is a mistake in case of Land 't is good and an Advowson is an Inheritance descendible in like manner and Mr. Attorney thinks it a good Traverse for he all along in his Declaration alledges a dying feized from Queen Elizabeth downward and there are several Presidents thus Winch's Ent. 661 662. and Winch. 912 686 692. and Buckler and Symonds Winch. 911 912. is of an Advowson in gross and in the same Book 35 59 are thus A man may die seized of an Advowson as well as of Land and if he doth not dye seized it doth not descend and the Seisin in gross is not to be traversed as is 1 Anderson 269. and Hob. 102. ' Then 't was said that the true Reason and Nature of a material good Traverse is well explained in Vaughan's first Case of Tufton and Sir Rich. Temple and 1 Saund. 21 22. and it is this especially in a Quare Impedit If any thing in the Count be travers'd it must be such Part as if true is inconsistent with the Defendants Title and if false or found against the Plaintiff doth absolutely destroy his Title nay if the Traverse leaves no Title in the Plaintiff then 't is good whatsoever comes of the Defendants Then the Difficulty is If the King by his Prerogative may waive his own Title which is traversed and insist upon the Deficiency of that which the Defendant alledges and in the Case of the King and the Bishop of Worcester and Jervis in Vaughan 53. there 't is said That the King ought to maintain his own and not to question the Defendants he cannot desert that which he hath alledged for himself and fall upon the Defendants Title and Reason warrants such Rule for tho' the King hath no Damages in a Quare Impedit notwithstanding his laying it ad dampnum Hob. 23 yet the Suit supposes an Hindrance and Damage to the King and if the Right be not his he hath no Cause to complain of the Defendant tho' another hath Every Man is to recover by his own Strength and not by the Weakness of the Defendants Pretensions and if the Law be thus then how can Mr. Attorney-General take Advantage of this upon Demurrer after Oyer for now upon Oyer 't is as they say become Part of the Defendants Plea and consequently it must be part of the Inducement and if so he ought in that Case to have taken Issue upon the Traverse which denied his Master's Title Wherefore upon the whole Matter it was prayed That the Judgment should be reversed On the other side 't was argued for the King That this Judgment ought to stand and as to the last point 't was said That taking it for granted the King could not traverse any Point of the Defendants Plea yet certainly he might demurr upon the whole in case it were insufficient That now Oyer was craved and had the Deed did become part of the Defendants Plea and must be taken as such That tho' there had been no need of a Profert yet when 't is produced 't is such as he hath pleaded and upon the whole the Court is to judge there being a Demurrer That as the Case stood the King might take advantage of both the Exceptions That the Declaration of it self was good and if the Plea be naught the King ought to have Judgment for him That every Plea is to be taken most strongly against the Party that pleads it That here the Defendant had admitted K. Car. 1. well seized that he ought to shew it out of him otherwise the Plea was ill that every Traverse must have an Inducement That if upon the whole Plea it did not appear that King Car. 1. parted with this Advowson 't is naught That if by the Parties own shewing it was manifest to the Court That the King continued seized and what he doth further shew no ways contradicts it he could not traverse the dying seized and therefore a Demurrer was most proper and consequently upon this Demurrer they were let in to affirm that nothing passed from the King by these Letters Patents of Car. 1. Then it was argued That this Grant was void because it was to a Person then Esq that Tunc Armigero can have Reference only to the time of the Letters Patents that a Man cannot be a Knight and an Esq at the same time that Knight is part of his Name and the Title of Esq is drowned in that of Knight that the old Books are thus 7 Hen. 4.7 14 Hen. 6.15 21 Edw. 4.72 2 Inst. 594. 666. Hutt 41. Bro. Tit. nosme 33. 1 Cro. 372. That 't is true if a Deed of Feoffment be made to a Man by a wrong Name and Livery be thereupon had 't is good but all the Books make a difference between that Case and where it is by Deed where the Operation is altogether by Deed Then was cited
the Earl of Pembroke's Case in Littleton's Rep. 181. and in Jones 215 223. the Court went upon the Reason that the Jury found him to be the same Person Latch 161. there they would intend him an Esq at the time of the Commission and a Knight at the time of the Return and it was for Necessity-sake for to prevent the avoiding of so many Trials as had been upon that Commission Lord Ewre's Case 2 Cro. 240. there 't was held well enough because sufficiently described so in a Grant if it cannot be intended otherwise than to the same Person there 't is well enough but here they can never be the same In Case of an Earl or Bishop there 't is understood who is meant by the Description there can be but one of that Title but here the Plea saith That he was not a Knight at the time and Sir Thomas Ormond was attainted by the Name of Thomas Ormond Esq and ill for that Reason 2 Rolls Abr. 43.198 Dyer 150.1 Leon. 159.160 the highest and lowest Dignity are universal and the same in every Kingdom 7 Rep. 16.20 Edw. 4.6 can any body say upon this Grant That the King intended to pass this Advowson to a Man that then was only an Esq Selden 682. the Addition of Esq is drowned and merged in that of Knight and Selden was a very competent and good Judge of this Matter Then 't was said that the only way to salve this which had not been urged for the Plaintiff was that he might be reputed a Knight and a Name of Reputation will be sufficient to take by and to this it was answered That he who is reputed a Knight and is none cannot take by that Name And besides if he could it should have been pleaded by a per Nomen in case of a Bastard the Reputative Name must be shewn to make the Grant good the Degree of Knight was formerly of Esteem in the Law as upon a Writ of Right if the Mise be joyned and if a Peer be Party to any Issue at Law triable by Jury c. As to the Objection that a Grant to one by a Name of Dignity which he really had not viz. The Eldest Son of a Duke as a Marquess and that a Grant to him by that Name is good 't was answered That there was a real Reputation he takes place after all real Marquesses as a Marquess by the Rules of Heraldry There 's a ground for it from the Precedency given him by the common Use and Custom of the Realm and they are named so now-a-days in Deeds but anciently Conveyancers were more Cautinos and named them Esquires commonly called Marquesses and even now careful Men call them eldest Sons of such Dukes c. If a Reputation would have done it the pleading should have been with a Cognit ' et Reputat ' per Nomen It is the name which intitles the Grantees to take and otherwise they have no pretence to claim by such Letters Patents no more than John or Thomas Theckston and if the Person hath any other Name of Reputation that ought to be shewn wherefore it was hoped That this was cause enough to affirm the Judgment Then it was argued That this Grant was void as a Grant of an Advowson appendant when upon the Record it appeared to be an Advowson in gross that the Defendant had admitted it an Advowson in gross in Queen Elizabeth that he hath not only admitted but confess'd it in almost direct terms by saying Bene Verum est that Car. 1. became and was seized in manner as in the Declaration this is a full Confession That the Queen was seized in gross 't was said to come to that King by Descent and so there is no room left for Presumption or Intendment that it was by any wrongful or other Seisin Then 't was urged That nothing passed to the Earl of Warwick because not appendant but in gross and for this was cited Moor 45. Hob. 322 323. and other Books so that it doth not appear that the King did intend to pass this Advowson for in the Grant to the Earl of Warwick there 's no Grant of it by any express Name which its probable would have been had the same been intended now to suppose it appendant is to suppose against the Record against both the Averment in the Count and the Confession in the Plea 't is in general Words una cum Advocationibus c. nor does it pass by the Letters Patents of Car. 1. because it did not pass to the Earl by those of Queen Eliz. this Grant is ushered in after all the Recitals and those suppose the Advowson to have passed by the first Igitur wherefore it must be upon Consideration of what is before alledged this is at least an illative Word and cannot begin an independent Substantive Clause of it self so is Vlterius 2 Browt 132. If this Granting Part should be taken to be Substantive and to have no Reference to what is precedent all those Recitals would be vain and insignificant and the King might as well have begun with the Words of the Grant The King's Grants are to be taken according to his Intentions and those are to be expounded by the Recitals then were quoted many Cases as 5 Rep. 93. Hob. 120.203 Hutt 7.2 Rolls Abr. 189.11 Rep. 93. and it was said That here are many false Recitals Sir Will Theckston claims that must be intended a lawful Claim whereas he could not lawfully challenge any Right to this Advowson That the King presented Wilson by lapse The King was deceived in thinking that this passed to the Earl The Agreement between Dr. Wickham and Sir William Theckston was only to deceive the King Here 's no notice taken of the Advowsons being in gross The Quality and Nature of the Advowson is totally concealed from the King the Words notwithstanding any Defect helps only want of Form Here was a plain Artifice in the Matter in Queen Elizabeth's Grant it was Advowsons in General c. but when Car. 1. is to confirm that Grant 't is of that Church by Name all the intermediate Recitals between that of the first Grant and the words of this new Grant are dependent on that first The King's Intention That Theckston should have it is not absolutely but secund ' Thenorem Intentionem of the former Patent the King meant only to restore to him his old Right which he had by that Patent notwithstanding the Presentations 10 Rep. 110. all Facts recited in the King's Grant shall be intended to be of the Suggestion of the Patentee If there be several Considerations and one false and the King deceived thereby it shall viciate the Grant 3 Leon. 249. Voers Case cited in Legates Case Fits Tit. Grant 58. 3 Leon. 119. If the Granting Words had stood alone the Case had been more doubtful but here they are all coupled In all the King's Grants there must be some Considerations for his Favour and abundance