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
Fostér Justices That the Archbishop of Canterbury is restrained by the 23 H. 8. cap. 9. to câ—â—e any one out of his own Diocess for Diocâ—ses dicitur distinctio c. quae divisa vel diversa est ab Ecclesia alterius Episcopatus commissa gubernatio in unius and is derived a Di that signifies duo two et Electio quia separat duas Jurisdictiones And because the Archbishop of Canterbury hath a peculiar Jurisdiction in London for this cause it is fitly said in the Title Preamble and Body of the Act that when the Archbishop sitting in his exempt Peculiar in London cites one dwelling in Essex he cites him out of the Bishop of Londons Diocess ergo out of the Diocess And in the Clause of the Penalty of 10 l. it is said Out of the Diocess c. where the Party dwelleth which agrees with the signification of Diocess befóre And the words far off were put in the Preamble to shew the great mischief that was before the Act as the 32 H. 8 cap. 33. in the Preamble it is disseizins with strength And the Body of the Act saith such Disseizor the same extending to all Disseizors but Disseizin with force is the greatest mischief 4 and 5 Eliz. Dyer 219. So West 2. cap. 5. adjudged 44 Ed 3. 18. So 21 H. 8. cap. 15. In all which the Case is stronger than the Case at Barre there the word such in the Body of the Act referring to the Preamble which is not in our Case 2. The Body of the Act is No Person shall be henceforth cited before any Ordinary c. out of the Diocess or peculiar Jurisdiction where the Person shall be dwelling and if so then a fortiori the Court of Arches which sits in a Peculiar shall not cite oâ—hers out of another Diocess And the words out of the Diocess are meant of the Diocess or Jurisdiction of the Ordinary where he dwelleth 3. Observe the Preamble of the Act recites expresly That the Subjects were called by compulsory Process to appear in the Arches Audience and other Courts of the Archbishoprick of this Realm So that the Intention of the Act was to reduce the Archbishop to his proper Diocess unless in five Cases 1. For any Spiritual Offence or Cause committed or omitted contrary to Right and Duty by the Bishop c. which word omitted proves there ought to be a Default in the Ordinary 2. Except it be in Case of Appeal and other lawfull Cause where the Party shall find himself grieved by the Ordinary after the matter there first begun ergo it ought to be first begun before the Ordinary 3. In case the Bishop or Ordinary c. dare not or will not convent the Party to be sued before him 4. In case the Bishop or Judge of the place within whose Jurisdiction or before whom the Suit by this Act should be begun and prosecuted be party directly or indirectly to the Matter or Cause of the same Suit 5. In case any Bishop or other inferiour Judge under him c. make Request to the Archbishop Bishop or other inferiour Ordinary or Judge and that to be done in Cases onely where the Law Civil or Common doth affirm c. 1. Also there are two Provisoes which explain it also viz. That it shall be lawful for every Archbishop to cite any person inhabiting in any Bishop Diocess in his Province for matter of Heresie by which it appears that for all Causes not excepted he is prohibited by the Act. 2. There is a saving for the Archbishop calling any Person out of the Diocess where he shall be dwelling to the Probate of any Testament which Provisoe should be vain if notwithstanding that Act should have concurrent Authority with every Ordinary throughout his whole Province Wherefore it was concluded That the Arch-Bishop out of his Diocess unless in the Cases excepted is prohibited by the 23 H. 8. to cite any man out of any other Diocesse which Act is but a Law declaratory of the antient Canons and a true Exposition of them And that appears by the Canon Cap. Romana in sexto de Appellationibus Cap. de competenti in sexto And the said Act is so expounded by all the Clergy of England at a Convocation at London Anno 1 Jac. Regis 1603. Canon 94. And whereas it is said in the Preamble of the Act in the Arches Audience and other High-Courts of this Realm It is to be known that the Archbishop of this Realm before that Act had power Legantine from the Pope By which they had Authority not onely over all but concurrent Authority with every Ordinary c. not as Archbishop of Canterbury c. but by his Power and Authority Legantine Et tria sunt genera Legatorum 1. Quidam de latere Dom. Papae mittuntur c. 2. Dativi qui simpliciter in Legatione mittuntur c. 3. Nati seu nativi qui suarum Ecclesiarum praetextu legatione fingantur et sunt 4. Archiepiscopus Cant. Eboracensis Remanensis et Pisanis Which Authority Legantine is now taken away and abolished utterly 3. It was Resolved That when any Judges are by Act of Parliament if they proceed against the Act there a Prohibition lyes As against the Steward and Marshal of the Houshold Quod non teneant placita de libero tenemento de debito de Conventione c. So Articuli super Chartas cap. 3. Register fol. 185. So against the Constable of Dover So to Justices of Assize Quod inquisitiones quae sunt magni exactionis non capiantur in Patria So to the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequerâ— upon Art super Chart. c. 4. Stat Rutland cap. ult See F. N. B. 45. 46 c. 17 H. 6. 54. vide 13 Ed. 3. Title Prohibition So against all Ecclesiastical Judges upon 2 H. 5. 3. and therewith agrees 4 Ed. 4. 37. and F. N. B. 43. c. So the Case upon the Stat. 2 H. 5. c. 15. as appears by the President 5 Ed. 4. Keysons Case 10 H. 7. 17. See Paston's Opinion 9 H. 6. 3. See the 35 H. 6. 6. when any things is prohibited by a Statute if the Party be convicted he shall be fined for the Contempt to the Law And if every person should be put to his Action upon the Statute it would encrease Suits and a Prohibition is the shorter and easier way And the Rule of the Court was Fiat prohibitio Curiae Cantuar. de Arcubus Inter partes praedict per Curiam And Sherly and Harris jun. Sergeants at Law were at Councel of the Case Mich. 6 Jac. Reges Edward's Case The High-Commissioners in Causes Ecclesiastical objected divers English Articles against Thomas Edwards of Exeter As 1. That Mr. John Walton being trained up in Oxferd University was there worthily admitted to several Degrees of Schools and deservedly took upon him the Degree of Dr. of Physick 2. That he was a Reverend and well-practised man in the Art of Physick 3. That
you the said Thomas Edwards are no Graduate 4. That you knowing the Premisses notwithstanding you the said Edwards c. of purpose to disgrace the said Dr. Walton c. did against the Rules of Charity write and send to the said Dr. Walton a leud and uncharitable Letter taxing him therein of want of Skill and Judgment in his Profession c. And so far you exceeded in your said uncivil Letter that you told him therein in plain terms He may be crowned for an Ass c. 5. And further to disgrace the said Mr. Dr. Walton in the said University did publish a Copy of the said Letter to Sir William Courtney and others and in your Letter was contained Sipsâ—lam lichenen mentegram Take that for your Inheritance and thank God you have a good Father And did you not covertly imply thereby that the said Dr. Waltons Father late Bishop of Exeter was subject to the French Pox and Leprosie c. 6. That in another Letter you sent to Dr. Maders Dr. in Physick also you named Dr. Walton and made a Hoâ—n in your Letter Whether you meant not thereby that they were both Cuckolds or what other meaning you had 7. You knowing Dr. Walton to be one of the High-Commission in the Diocess of Exeter and having obtained a Sentence against him in the Star-Chamber for contriving and publishing a Libel did triumphingly say You had gotten on the Hip a Commissioner for Causes Ecclesiastical c. which you did to disgrace him and in him the whole Commission in those Parts 8. That after the Letter Missive sent to you you said arrogantly That you cared not for any thing this Court can do for that you can remove this Matter at your pleasure And this Term it was moved to have a Prohibition in this Case and the matter was well argued And at last it was Resolved by Coke Chief Justice Warberton Daniel and Foster Justices That the first six Articles were meerly Temporal and in truth is in the nature of an Action upon the Case for Scandal of Dr. Walton in his Profession of Physick and therefore for them a Prohibition doth lye for divers Causes 1. Because the Persons and Matters are Temporal 2. Because it is for Defamation which if any such shall be for the same it ought to begin before the Ordinary because it is not such an enormous Offence which is to be determined by the High-Commissioners nor doth Suit lye before them for calling the Doctor Cuckold as in the seventh Article And 't was said the Commissioners ought to incur the danger of Praemunire 2. It was Resolved That the Ecclesiastical Judge cannot examine any man upon his Oath upon the Intention and Thought of his Heart for cogitationis poenam nemo â—moret for the Proverb saith Thought is free And therefore for the 6th and 7th were Resolved as well for the Matter as for the Form to be such to which the Defendant was not compelled to answer And that to the 7th he might justifie the same because it appears upon his own shewing that the Doctor was sentenced in the Star Chamber Also the Libel is meer Temporal and if it were Spiritual such a Defamation is not examinable before the High-Commissioners As to the last Article it appeareth now by the Judgment of this Court that he might well justifie the said Words Also the Commissioners shall not have any Conuzance of Scandal to themselves they being Parties and such Scandal punishable by the Common-Law as was resolved in Hales Case in Dyer and in my Book of Presidents Hales Indictment c. The Bishop of Winchester being Visitor of Winchester-School and other his Collegues Anno 5 Car. cited the Usher of the said School by force of the said Commission to appear before them c. for which they incurred the danger of Praemunire So did the Bishop of Canterbury and his Collegues for citing one Humphry Frank Master of Arts and School-Master of Sevennock School c. and proceeding c. Mich. 6 Jac. Regis Taylor and Shoyl's Case Taylor informed upon the Statute 5 Eliz. cap. 4. Tam pro Dom. Râ—ge quaâ— prose in the Exchequer That the Defendant had used the Art and Mystery of a Brewer c. and averred That Shoyl the Defendant did not exercise the Art or Mystery of a Brewer at the time of making the Act nor had been Apprentice 7 years c. The Defendant demurred in Law upon the Informaâ—â—on and Judgment was given against him by the Barons And now in this Term upon a Writ of Errour the Matter was argued at Sergeants Inne before the two Chief Justices And two matters were moved 1. One That a Brewer is not within the said Branch of the said Act for the words are That it shall not be lawful to any Persons other than such as now use lawfully any Art Mystery or Manual Occupation to set up or use any Art Mistery or Manual Occupation except he shall have been brought up therein 7 years at least as an Apprentice And 't was said That the Trade of a Brewer is not any Air Mistery or Manual Occupation within the said Branch because it is easily and presently learned and needs not 7 years Apprenticeship to learn the samâ— it being every Country Housewifes Work And the Act of H. 8. is That a Brewer is not a Handicraft Artificer 2. It was moved That the said Averment was not sufficient for it ought to be as general as the Exception in the Statute is 1. To the first it was Resolved That the Trade of a Brewer viz. To hold a Common Brewhouse to sell Beer or Ale to another is an Art and Mystery within the said Act for in the beginning of it it is Enacted That no Person shall be retained for less time than a whole year in any the Services Grafts Mysteries or Arts of Cloathing c. Bakers Brewers c. Cooks c. Upon which words in the said Branch the Information is grounded Also because every Housewife brews for her private use so also she bakes and dresseth meat yet none can hold a Common Bakehouse or Cooks Shop to sell to others unless he hath been an Apprentice c. And the Act 22 H. 8. c. 13. is explained That a Brewer Baker Surgeon and Scrivener are not Handicrafts mentioned in certain penal Laws but the same doth not prove but they are Arts or Mysteries 2. As to the second it was Resolved That the Intention of the Act was that none should take upon him any Art but he who hath Skill or knowledg in the same for Quod quisque norit in hoc se exerceat And so the first Judgment was affirmed Mich. 6 Jac. Regis In the Common-Pleas The Case of Modus Decimandi Sherly Sergeant moved to have a Prohibition because a Parson sued to have Tythes of Sylva Coedua under 20 years growth in the Weild of Kent where by the Custom no Tythes were ever paid of any Wood And if
Ayd Hill 6 Jacob. Regis Prohibitions Upon Ashwednesday in Feb. 1606. A great Complaint was made by the President of York to the King That the Judges of the Common-Law had in Contempt of the Kings Command last Term granted 50 or 60 Prohibitions out of the Common-Plâ—as to the President and Councel of York after the 6th of February and named 3 in particular 1. Between Bell and Thawptes 2. Another between Snell and Huâ—t 3. And another in an Information of a Riotous Rescue by English Bill by the Attorney-General against Christopher Dickenson one of the Sheriffs of York and others in rescuing one William Watson out of the Custody of the Deputy of one of the Purseyvants of the said Councel who had Arrested the said Watson by force of a Commission of Rebellion by the said President and Councel awarded Which Prohibition upon the Information was as was said denyed upon a Motion in the Kings-Bench the last Term but granted by Us. And the King sent for me to answer the Complaint and I onely all the rest of the Justices being absent waited upon the King who in the presence of Egerton Lord Chancellor and others of the Privy-Councel rehearsed to me the Complaint aforesaid And I perceived well that the King had thereupon conceived great displeasure against the Judges of the Common-Pleas but chiefly against Me To which I having the Copy of the Complaint sent me by the Lord Treasurer answered in this manner That I had made search in the Office of Prothonotaries of the Common-Pleas and as to the Cases between Bell and Thawpts and Snell and Huet no such could be found but I would not take advantage of a Misprisal And the truth was the 6th of February the Court of Common-Pleas had granted a Prohibition to the President and Councel of York between Lock Plaintiff and Bell and others Defendants and that was a Replevin in English was granted by the said President and Councel which I affirmed was utterly against Law for at Common-Law no Replevin ought to be made but by Original Writ directed to the Sheriff and the Statute of Marlbridge cap. 21. and West 1. cap. 17. authorize the Sheriff to make a Replevin So 29 Ed. 3. 21. 8 Eliz. Dyer 245. And the King by his Instructions neither had made the President and Councel Sheriffs nor could grant them Power to make a Replevin against Law which the Lord Chancellor affirmed for very good Law and it may well be we have granted others in the like Case Another Prohibition I confess we have granted between Sir Bethel Knight now Sheriff of the County of York as Executor to one Stephenson who made him and another his Executors and preferred an English Bill against Chambers and others in nature of an Action of the Case upon a Trover and Conversion of Goods and Chattels in the Testators Life to the value of 1000 l. And because the other Executor would not joyn with him he had no remedy at Common-Law but was forced to pray remedy there in Equity And I say the President and Councel have not any Authority to proceed in that Case for divers causes 1. Because there is an express Limitation in their Commission that they shall not hold Plea between Party and Party c. unless both or one of the Parties tanta paupertate sunt gravati that they cannot sue at Common-Law and in that Case the Plaintiff was a Knight Sheriff and man of great quality 2. Because by that Suit the King was deceived of his Fine which was 200 l. because the Damages amounted to 4000 l. And that was one of the Causes that the Sheriff began his Suit there and not at Common-Law Another Cause was that their Decrees which they take upon them are final and uncontroulable either by Errour or any other Remedy which is not so in the Kings Courts where there are five Judges for they can deny Justice to none who hath Right nor give any Judgment but what is controulable by Errouâ— c. And if we shall not grant Prohibitions in Cases where they hold Plea without Authority then the Subjects shall be wrongfully oppressed without Law and we denyed to do them Justice And their Ignorance in the Law appeared by allowing that Suit viz. That the one Executor had no Remedy at Common Law because the other would not joyn in Suit with him whereas every one Learnâ—d in the Law knows that Summons and Severance lyeth in any Suit brought as Executors And this was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor Another Prohibition I confess we granted between the L. Wharton who by English Bill before the Councel sued Bank S. Buttermere and others for fishing in his several Fishings in Darwent in the County of C. in nature of an Action of Trespass at Common-Law to his Damages of 200 l. and for the Causes before recited and because the same was meerly determinable at Common-Law we granted a Prohibition And that also was allowed by the Lord Chancellor Then the King asked me the Case of Information upon the Riotous Rescous To which I answered That one exhibited a Bill there in the nature of an Action of Debt upon a Mutuatus against Watson who upon his Oath affirmed that he had satisfied the Plaintiff and owed him nothing yet because he did not deny the Debt the Councel Decreed the same against him And upon that Decree the Pursuyvant was sent to Arrest the said Watson who Arrested him upon which the Rescous was made And because the Action was in the nature of an Action of Dâ—bâ— upon a Mutuatus where the Defendant at Common Law might have waged his Law the Prohibition was granted and that was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor Also I affirmed it was Rescous because the principal cause belonged not to them but it might be a Riot yet not punishable by them but by course of Law by a Commission of Oyer and Terminer Also I confess that we have granted divers Prohibitions to stay Suits there by English Bill upon penal Statutes for the manner of prosecution as well for the Action Process c. as for the Count is to be pursued and cannot be altered and therefore without question the Councel in such Cases cannot hold Plea which was affirmed also by the Lord Chancellor And I said no Court of Equity can be Erected at this day without Act of Parl as was Resolved in Q. Eliz. time in Parots Case and lately in the Case of the President and Councel of Wales And the King was well satisfied with these Reasons who gave me his Royal Hand and I departed from thence in his favour Pasch 7 Jac. Regis This Term a Question was moved at Sergeants Inne who by the Common-Law ought to repair the Bridges common Rivers and Sewers and the High-ways and by what means they shall be compelled to it and first of Bridges And as to them it is to be known that of common right all the Country shall be
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-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
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