whom of right it doth belong to grant that Office whensoever it shall be void It was then further insisted on and proved That there are in the nature of Clerks three considerable Officers of the Court of King's Bench The first and chiefest is the Clerk of the Crown called sometimes Coronator Attornat ' Domini Regis c. his Business is to draw all Indictments Informations c. in Pleas of the Crown This Officer being the chief Clerk in Court is always made by Patent under the Great Seal The second Officer is this the Prothonotary or chief Clerk for inrolling Pleas between Party and Party in Civil Matters He and his Under-Clerks do inroll all Declarations Pleadings c. in Civil Causes especially where the Proceedings are by Bill This Clerk files in his Office all Bills Declarations c. and all the Writs of this Court in Civil Matters are made by him and his Under-Clerks and tested by the Chief Justice And he hath the custody of all Returns of Elegits Executions Scire Facias's and the filing of all Villes every of which are in the Eye and Judgment of the Law in the hands of the Chief Justice whose Clerk this Officer is The third is the Custos Brevium who keeps all the Rolls and Records of Judgments in this Court which are also said to be in the custody of the Chief Justice And this Office when void is in his Gift and Disposal It was further shewn on the behalf of the Defendants That in the Statute of Edw. 6. against the Sale of Offices there is a Salvo to the two Chief Justices and Judges of Assize to dispose of the Offices in their disposition as they used formerly And ever since that Statute these two Offices of chief Clerk to inroll the Pleas c. and the Custos Brevium have without controul been disposed by the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench. And it is also observed That in the Grant of this Office to Mr. Bridgman the Plaintiff it is recited that Henly and Wightwick were debito modo admitted to this Office and yet they never had any Grant from the Crown nor any other Grant except that from the Chief Justice before mentioned Then to prove the Defendant's Title to the Office the Grant of the now Chief Justice to them for their Lives was produced and read and proved that they were admitted and sworn To answer all this Evidence there was produced the Copy of an Act of Parliament which was made in 15 Edw. 3. to this effect It is consented that if any of the Offices aforesaid which are other great Offices mentioned in the Act or the Controller or chief Clerk in the Common Bench or King's Bench by Death or other Case be ousted of their Office the King with the consent of the great Men c. shall put another fit person in such Office From whence the Plaintiff's Counsel would have inferred That the King had a right to grant this Office and that this Act was declaratory of such his Right and that all the Grants from the Chief Justices ever since that Act were but Usurpations on the Crown and that no Usage of granting it by the Chief Justices could prevail against the King's Right To this it was replied That the Act was repealed as did appear by the Record it self as well as by their own Copy produced And for a further Answer 't was said That the Office in question was not the Office mentioned in that Act for that Act mentions the chief Clerk of the King's Bench which is the Clerk of the Crown and so called in the 2 H. 4. the Statute against Extortion and he is in reality the chief Clerk in that Court and hath precedency of this Officer both in Court and elsewhere And that this Officer is not called chief Clerk in the King's Bench altho' he is the chief for inrolling of Pleas Civil in that Court And the constant Usage explains the meaning of that Act. And that the Officer called chief Clerk was meant to be the Clerk of the Crown for that that Office hath been always granted by Letters Patents according to that Act And the Office in question was never enjoyed one day by virtue of a Grant from the Crown The Defendants did further insist That it was a Scandalous Imputation upon all those chief Justices who were Persons of Probity and Virtue and had clear Reputations to surmise that they imposed and usurped upon the Crown as they must all have done if the right of granting this Place be in the King And Sir Robert Heath that was the King's Attorney took a Grant of the Office in question from the Chief Justice and upon his Admittance the right of the Chief Justice to grant it is affirmed upon Record Then all this Evidence on both sides being given and the same being strong on the Defendants behalf the Court proposed to the Plaintiff's Counsel to be Nonsuit which they would not but prayed the Court to direct the Jury some of them saying that they would take another Course And then the Court did briefly sum up the same and particularly the Evidence of the Act 15 Edw. 3. and what was urged from it by the Plaintiff and the Answers made thereto and left the Matter to the Jury upon the whole The Jury withdrew and after some time gave a Verdict for the Defendants Upon this Verdict the Counsel for the Plaintiff prayed leave to bring in a Bill of Exceptions and produced in Court and tendred to the three Judges to be sealed a Parchment Writing in form of such a Bill in which after a Recital of the Declaration and Issue in the Cause 't is alledged That the Plaintiff's Counsel produced in Evidence the Grant of the Office to the Plaintiff and that they shewed to the Court and Jury that the Office is of the Grant of the Crown And that to make out the Right of King Charles the Second to grant this Office to the Plaintiff they gave in Evidence the 15 Edw. 3. which in the Bill is set out at large and is in Substance as is before set forth And 't is further alledged in the Bill That the Justices refused to allow admit and receive the Allegations and Matters given in Evidence as sufficient to prove the Plaintiff's Title to this Office by reason whereof the Jury found That the Defendant did not disseize the Plaintiff and prays that the Justices would put their Seals to it according to the Statute of Westminster 2. cap. 31. The Justices upon reading this Bill did refuse to Seal it 1. Because 't is asserted therein That the Plaintiff's Counsel did show that this Office was of the Gift and Grant of the King whensoever it should be void whereas there was no such Evidence to show any such Right in the King offered or pretended to besides the Patent in question and the Act of Edw. 3. 2. That the Judges refused to allow admit and
haberi decrevit and then he adjourns 't is no Argument to say that he was hindred for he might have proceeded in absentia and if the 16th of June be tacked to it 't is longer than the time There needed no formal adjournment for that he is Authorized to proceed in a Summary way 't is no such absurdity to call that a Visitation which was in some sort hindred since notwithstanding the obstruction some Acts were done and more might have been by adjourning to another place 3. Here was no such cause as could warrant a Deprivation it was not one of the causes mentioned in the Statutes which are not directions merely but they are the constituent Qualifications of the Power and Contumacy is none of the causes nay here is no Contumacy at all The Offence of the Suspended Fellows was only a mistake in their Opinions and the Doctors was no more and 't is not a Contumacy for refusing to answer to or for any Crime within the Statutes for there was none of the Crimes mentioned in the Statutes laid to the charge of the Rector if the Crime charged had incurred Deprivation perhaps a Contumacy might be Evidence of a Guilt of that Crime and so deserve the same Censure but Contumacy in not consenting to a Visitation can never be such especially when the consenting to a Visitation is not required under pain of Deprivation 4. Admitting the Visitor legally in the Exercise of his Office that here was cause of Censure that the Cause or Crime was deserving of that Punishment which was inflicted that Deprivation was a congruous Penalty for such an Offence yet t was argued That this Sentence was void for that the Visitor alone was in this Case minus competens judex because his Authority was particularly designed to be exercised with the consent of others which was wanting in this Case This was the same as if it had required the concurrence of some other Persons Extra Colleg ' then that such a concurrence was necessary appears from the words of the Statute his meaning seems plain upon the whole to require it A greater tenderness is all along shewn to the Rector then to the Scholars 't is sine quorum consensu irrita erit hujusmodi Expulsio vacua ipso facto and the Sentence it self shews it necessary because it affirms it self to be made with such consent and it cannot be thought that the Rector should be deprivable without their consent when the meanest Scholar could not Then here 's no such consent for 't is not of the four Seniors but of the four Seniors not Suspended now this doth not fulfil the Command of the Statute for the Suspension doth not make them to be no Fellows a Suspended Fellow is a Fellow though Suspended a Suspension makes no vacancy the taking off of the Suspension by Sentence or by Effluxion of time doth make them capable of acting still without the aid of any new Election and they are in upon their old choice and have all the priviledges of Seniority and Precedency as before If they ceased to be Fellows by the Suspension then they ought to undergo the Annum probationis again and to take the Oaths again In case of Benefices or Offices Religious or Civil Ecclesiastical or Temporal 't is so a Suspension in this Case is only a disabling them from taking the Profits during the time it continues And 't is no Argument to say That their Concurrence was not necessary for that they had withdrawn themselves and were guilty of Contumacy for that a Man guilty of Contumacy might be present if withdrawn from the Chapel he might be in the Colledge or in the University and 't is not found that they were absent and then their Consent not being had the Sentence was void and null and consequently no Title found for the Lessor of the Plaintiff in the Action below It was replied in behalf of the Plaintiff much to the same effect as 't was argued before and great weight laid upon the Contumacy which hindred the observance of the Statutes that by allowing such a Behaviour in a Colledge no Will of the Founder could be fulfilled no Visitation could ever be had and all the Statutes would be repealed or made void at once that tho' this Crime was not mentioned 't was as great or greater than any of the rest that here was an Authority and well executed and upon a just Cause and in a regular manner as far as the Rector's own Misbehaviour did not prevent it and therefore they prayed that the Judgment might be reversed And upon Debate the same was reversed accordingly Note That in this Case there was one Doubt conceived before and another after this hearing The first was If a Writ of Error lay in Parliament immediately upon a Judgment in the King's Bench without first resorting to the Exchequer Chamber but upon perusing the Statute which erects that Court for Examination of Errors it appeared plainly that that Act only gives the Election to the Party aggrieved to go thither that it did not take away the old Common Law method of Relief in Parliament and so hath the Practise been but upon Judgments in the Exchequer Court the Writ of Error must first be brought before the Lord Chancellor and cannot come per saltum into Parliament because the Statute in that case expresly ordains That Errors in the Court of Exchequer shall be examined there and so held in the Case of the Earl of Macclesfield and Grosvenor The other Doubt was raised by a Motion in B. R. for the Court to give a new Judgment upon the Reversal above and insisted on that it ought so to be as was done in the Case of Faldo and Ridge Yelv. 74. entred Trin. 2 Jac. 1. Rot. 267. Trespass and Special Plea and Judgment in B. R. for the Defendant and upon Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber the Judgment was Reversed and upon the Record returned into the King's Bench they gave Judgment that the Plaintiff should recover contrary to the first Judgment for otherwise they said the Law would prove defective and a Precedent was shewn in Winchcomb's Case 38 Eliz. where the same Course was taken and the like Rule was made Mich. 1 W. Mar. upon the Reversal of the Judgment inter Claxton vers Swift which is entred Mich 2 Jac. 2. B. R. Rot. 645. the like between Sarsfield vers Witherley 'T was argued on the other side That the Court which reverses the Judgment ought to give the new Judgment such as ought to have been given at first that in the Exchequer Chamber it may be otherwise because they have only power to affirm or reverse for yet in the Case of King and Seutin the Exchequer Chamber gave a new Judgment tho' they cannot inquire of Damages and that is a kind of Execution which must be in B.R. In Omulkery's Case 1 Cro. 512. and 2 Cro. 534. the Court here sends a Mandatory Writ to
of the greatest Members of the House Selden Hollis Maynard Palmer Hide c. that the Earl Marshal can make no Court without the Constable and that the Earl Marshal's Court is a grievance Rushworth 2 Vol. 1056. Nalson's 1 Vol. 778. Spelman in his Glossary verbo Mareschallus seems to say 't was officium primo Servile and that he was a meer Servant to the Constable and gives much such another account of it as Cambden doth and pag. 403. is an Abstract or rather Transcript of all that is in the Red Book in the Exchequer about the nature of this Office and there 't is said that if the King be in War then the Constable and Marshal shall hold Pleas and the Marshal shall have the Amerciaments and Forefeitures of all those who do break the Commandments of the Constable and Marshal and then it was further alledged by the Councel for the Defendant in the Writ of Error that they knew of no Statute Record or Ancient Book of Law or History that ever mentioned the Earl Marshal alone as having Power to hold a Court by himself So that taking it as a Court held before an incompetent Judge a Prohibition ought to go and the Party ought not to be put to his Action after he has undergone imprisonment and paid his Fine since it hath the semblance of a Court and pretends to act as such and if it be a Court before the Earl Marshal alone in case it exceeds the Jurisdiction proper to it a Prohibition lies either by force of the Common-Law which states the boundaries and limits of that Jurisdiction or by force of the Statute of 8 Rich. 2. which is not repealed by the subsequent Law in that Reign and if such Prohibition do lie in any Case that here was cause for it the subject matter of the Articles being only a wrong if any to a private Officer who had his proper remedy at the Common-Law and therefore it was prayed that the Judgment should be affirmed and it was affirmed Smith Vx ' Versus Dean and Chapter of Paul 's London and Lewis Rugle APpeal from a Decree of Dismission made by the Lord Jeffreys the Bill was to compel the Dean and Chapter as Lord of the Mannor to receive a Petition in nature of a Writ of false Judgment for Reversing a common recovery suffered in the Mannor Court in 1652. whereby a Remainder in Tail under which the Plaintiff claimed was barred suggesting several Errors in the proceeding therein And that the said Lord might be commanded to examine the same and do Right thereupon To this Bill the Defendant Rugle demurred and the Dean and Chapter by Answer insisted That 't was the first Attempt of this kind and of dangerous consequence and therefore conceived it not fit to proceed on the said Petition unless compelled thereto by course of Law That Rugle being the Person concerned in interest to contest the sufficiency of the Common-recovery they hoped the Court would hear his defence and determine therein before any Judgment were given against them and that they were only Lords of the Mannor and ready to Obey c. and prayed that their rights might be preserved This demurrer was heard and ordered to stand And now it was insisted on by the Council with the Appellant that this was the only Remedy which they had that no Writ of Error or false Judgment lies for Reversing of a recovery or Judgment obtained in a Copyhold Court that the only method was a Bill or Petition to the Lord in nature of a Writ of false Judgment which of common right he ought to receive and to cause Errors and defects in such recovery or Judgment to be examined and for this were Cited Moore 68. Owen 63. Fits N. B. 12. 1 Inst 60. 4 Rep. 30. is such a Record mentioned to have been seen by Fenner where the Lord upon Petition to him had for certain Errors in the proceedings Reversed such Judgment given in his own Court 1 Roll's Abridg. 600. Kitchin 80. 1 Roll's Abridg. 539. Lanc. 98. Edward's Case Hill 8. Jac. 1. by all which it appears that this is an allowed and the only remedy Then it was argued That in all Cases where any Party having a Right to any Freehold Estate is barred by Judgment Recovery or Fine such Party of common Right may have a Writ of Error if the same be in a Court of Record and a Writ of false Judgment if in a Court Baron or County Court and reverse such Judgment Recovery or Fine for Error or Defect and there can be no reason assigned why a Copyholder especially considering the great quantity of Land of that Tenure in England should be without remedy when a false Judgment is given and the rather for that in Real Actions as this was the Proceedings in the Lord's Courts are according to those in Westminster-hall and now tho' a Common Recovery be a Common Assurance yet it was never pretended that a Writ of Error to Reverse it was refused upon that pretence and if the Lord of a Mannor deny to do his Duty the Chancery hath such a Superiour Jurisdiction as to enjoyn him thereto 'T is the Business of Equity to see that Right be done to all Suitors in Copyhold Courts Fitsh Abridg. Subpena 21. 2 Cro. 368. 2 Bulstr. 336. 1 Rolls Abridg. 373. If an Erroneous Judgment be given in such Court of a common Person 's in an Action in the Nature of a Formedon a Bill may be in Chancery in nature of a false Judgment to Reverse it and Lanc. 38. Tanfield says that he was of Counsel in the Case of Patteshall and that it was so decreed which is much more then what is here contended for and tho' Common Recoveries are favoured and have been supported by several Acts of Parliament yet no Parliament ever thought fit to deprive the Parties bound by such Recoveries of the benefit of a Writ of Error On the other side 't was urged in defence of the Dismission That the Person who suffered this Recovery had a power over the Estate that she might both by Law and Conscience upon a Recovery dispose of it as she should think fit that she hath suffered a Recovery and that it was suffered according to the custom of the Mannor tho' not according to the form of those suffered in Westminster-hall That the suffering of Recoveries in any Court and the Methods of proceeding in them are rather notional then real things and in the Common Law Courts they are taken notice of not as Adversary Suits but as Common Assurances so that even there few Mistakes are deemed so great but what are remedied by the Statute of Jeofailes or will be amended by the Assistance of the Court And if it be so in the Courts at Westminster where the Proceedings are more solemn and the Judges are Persons of Learning and Sagacity how much rather ought this to stand which was suffered in 1652. during the Times of
Disorder and most Proceedings informal and in the English Tongue in such a mean Court where are few Precedents to guide them where the Parties themselves are not empowered to draw up their own Proceedings as here above but the whole is left to the Steward who is a Stranger to the Person concerned and therefore 't is hard and unreasonable that Mens Purchases should be prejudiced by the Ignorance Unskilfulness or Dishonesty of a Steward or his Clerks that there is scarce one Customary Recovery in England which is exactly agreeable to the Rules of the Common Law that the questioning of this may in consequence endanger multitudes of Titles which have been honestly purchased especially since there can be no aid from the Statutes of Jeofailes for they do not extend to Courts Baron 'T was further urged That there was no Precedent to enforce Lords of Mannors to do as this Bill desired that the Lords of Mannors are the ultimate Judges of the Regularity or Errours in such Proceedings that there 's no Equity in the Prayer of this Plaintiff that if the Lord had received such Petition and were about to proceed to the Reversal of such Recovery Equity ought then to interpose and quiet the Possession under those Recoveries That Chancery ought rather to supply a Defect in a Common Conveyance if any shall happen and decree the Execution of what each Party meant and intended by it much rather than to assist the annulling of a Solemn Agreement executed according to Usage tho' not strictly conformable to the Rules of Law For which Reasons it was prayed that that Appeal might be dismissed and the Dismission below confirmed and ' was accordingly adjudged so The Countess of Radnor versus Vandebendy al. APpeal from a Decree of Dismission in Chancery the Case was to this effect The Earl of Warwick upon Marriage of his Son settles part of his Estate upon his Lady for a Jointure and after failure of Issue Male limits a Term for 99 years to Trustees to be disposed of by the Earl either by Deed or Will And for want of such Appointment then in trust for the next in Remainder and then limited the whole Estate in such manner as that a third part of a Moiety thereof came to the Lord Bodmyn the Appellants late Husband in Tail general with the Reversion in Fee to the Earl and his Heirs The Son died without Issue the Earl by his Will appoints the Lands to his Countess for so many years of the Term as she should live and to her Executors for one year after her Death and charges the Term with several Annuities some of which remain in being The Respondent's Father purchased part of these Lands from the Lord Bodmyn after his Marriage and had the Term assigned to him The Lord Bodmyn dyes the Appellant brings her Writ of Dower in C. B. the Respondent pleads the Term for 99 years and she Exhibits her Bill praying that she may after the discharge of the Earls Incumbrances have the benefit of the Trust as to a third of the Profits of this Term and upon hearing the Cause the Lord Chancellor saw no cause to give Relief but dismissed her Bill There were many Particulars in the Case and many Proceedings before both in Law and Equity but this was the whole Case as to the general Question Whether a Tenant in Dower shall have the benefit of the Trust of a Term which is ordered to attend the Inheritance against a Purchaser after the Marriage The Lord Chancellor Jeffryes had been of opinion with the Appellant but the Cause coming to be heard again a Dismission was decreed and now it was argued against the Decree on behalf of the Appellant that Equity did entitle her to the Thirds of this Term that a Tenant by the Curtesie is intitled to it and br the same reason a Tenant in Dower that the Term created by the Settlement was to attend all the Estates limited by that Settlement and in Trust for such Persons as should claim under it which the Appellant doth as well as the Respondents that it was in consequence to attend all the particular Estates carved or derived from the others the Term was never in its creation designed for this purpose to prevent or protect against Dower that in the Case of Snell and Clay the Tenant in Dower had it in Chancery against the Heir at Law and that this was the same Case a Purchaser with notice of that Incumbrance of Dower the Vendor being then married this was an Estate of which the Husband was full Owner and received the whole Profits that in proportion 't is as much a Trust for her for her Thirds during Life as it is a Trust for the Respondents for the Inheritance she claims under her Husband who had the benefit of the whole Trust If there be a Mortgage by an Ancecestor upon the whole Eqinty will permit her to redeem paying her proportion according to the value of her Thirds for Life and the same reason holds in this Case and there 's no Precedent in Equity to the contrary And many Precedents in favour of Tenant in Dower were cited and much Reason well urged from parallel Cases to entitle the Lady to her proportion of the Trust of this Term. On the other side 'T was said that Dower is an Interest or Right at the Common Law only that no Title can be maintained to have Dower but where the Common Law gives it and that is only to have the Thirds of that which the Husband was seized of and if a Term were in being no Feme was ever let in but after the determination of that Term that this is the first pretence set up for a Dower in Equity the Right is only to the Thirds of the Rent reserved upon any Term and 't is a new thing to affirm that there shall be one sort of Dower at Law and another in Chancery that 't is and always hath been the common received Opinion of Westminster-hall and of all Conveyancers that a Term or Statute prevents Dower that if a Purchaser can procure it the same becomes his Defence that this is what the Wisdom of our Forefathers thought fit to use and tho' some Mens reasoning may render it in appearance as absurd yet the consequence of an alteration will be much more dangerous than the continuance of the old Rules that tho' this Lady's Case be unfortunate yet the multitude of Purchasors who have bought upon full consideration and have been advised and still conceive themselves safe under this Law will be more unfortunate if the Law be broken Then ' was argued That there could be no Equity in this Case for it must be not only from the Party Appellant but also against the Respondent and that 't is not because he bought the whole Her Portion her Quality and her being a Wife create no Equity as to the Purchaser 't would perhaps be prevalent against an Heir but
Ordinary thought him able to take Orders and Preach in his Diocess therefore another must deem him able and sufficiently Learned tho' he knows the contrary to accept a Benefice in his Diocess 't is Absurd that upon a Presentation he is to be Examined but not refused tho' found inhabilis and this because he was in Orders and he could not be Presented unless in Orders and yet tho' in Orders if he be Presented he must be Examined but to what purpose passeth all understanding if his Priesthood or Orders presumes him to be qualified 'T is likewise to suppose Learning and Ability to be an inseparable quality That an ordinary Scholar can never become less so By the Old Law the Bishop had two Months time to Examine 2 Roll's Abr. 354. by Hob. 317. He hath a convenient time and by Can. 1 Jac. 1 cap. 95. the two Months is reduced to 28 Days And the Ordinary both in Conscience and by the Obligations which his very Order doth import is obliged to Judge for himself as well as to Examine the contrary is repugnant to his Office of a Judge to be forced or compelled to institute every Presentee fit or unfit Besides the Ordinary pro Tempore hath the particular care of all the Diocess and during a vacancy is to take care of supplying every particular Cure within his District then when he admits and institutes the very form of Words is Accipe curam meam tuam which renders it more Absurd that nolens volens he must transfer his Cure to a Man not able in his Judgment to execute it 'T is against the Rule of Law for that the Words of it are express articuli Cleri cap. 13. and this Cooke declares to be Affirmative of the Common-Law Item petitur quod personae Ecclesiast ' quas Dominus Rex ad beneficia presentet Ecclesiastica si Episcopus eas non Admittat ut puta propter defectum Scientiae vel aliam causam rationabilem non Subeant examinationem Laicar ' personar ' in casibus antedictis prout his temporibus attentetur de facto contra Canonitas sanctiones sed adeant Judicem Ecclesiasticum ad quem de jure pertinet pro Remedio prout justum fuerit consequendo respons ' de Idonietate persone presentate ad beneficium Ecclesiasticum pertinet Examinatio ad Judicem Ecclesiasticum ita est hactenus usitatum fiat in futurum Here is Idoneitas persone praesentate and the words of the Writ are quod permittat praesentare Idoneam personam And if the Presentee were not a fit person no such Writ can be maintained Then my Lord Coke in his Comment upon that Statute in 2 Inst 631 632. saith that there may be diverse Exceptions to Persons presented as Bastardy Villenage Outlawry Excommunication Laity Under age or Criminal and Lewd in his Conversation or inability to discharge his Pastoral duty as if he be Unlearned and the Examination of the Ability and Sufficiency of the Person presented belongs to the Bishop who is the Ecclesiastical Judge and not a Minister and may and ought to refuse the Person presented if he be not Idonea persona And if the cause of refusal be default of Learning Heresie or the like belonging to the knowledge of the Ecclesiastical Law then he must give notice to the Patron so that default of Learning is by him who was no great friend to the Jurisdiction of Court Christian agreed to be Subject to the Ecclesiastical inquiry and then in Pleading he must show the cause of refusal and the Party may deny the same and then the Court shall write to the Metropolitan or to the Guardian of the Spiritualities sede vacante to certifie if the cause be thus and his Certificate is conclusive if the Presentee be Dead it shall be tried by a Jury 15 Hen. 7.7 the Bishop is declared to be a Judge and not a Minister in this case of Examining a Man's Ability he is a Judge in this case as he is in case of a Resignation for an Ordinary may refuse it and without his acceptance 't is no Resignation and must be so Pleaded Noy 147. Bro. tit Bar. 81. 2. Cro. 197. and so agreed even in the Case of Leach and Thompson in Reg. 53. is a Consultation upon this very surmise that inability ad Retinend ' beneficium propter Crimina belongs to Court Christian and that the Ordinary is Judge thereof which is much stronger than our case because there was a Freehold vested by induction But this hath been agreed by that Court from whose Judgment the present Appeal is that a refusal may be upon insufficiency appearing upon an Examination upon a new Presentation and constant practise proves it The greater if any doubt is upon the Plea if good it says that he was Examined and upon Examination was found incapable The Exception taken to it is that it doth not set forth the particular parts of Learning in which he is deficient that the Temporal Court may Judge if it were a sufficient cause of refusal which is to change and turn it ad aliud examen that Learning is requisite for a Presentee to be Benefic'd they would not have the Ordinary to determine what Qualifications a person ought to have in order to take a Benefice but the Judges in Westminster-Hall They can have no colour for this pretence but that the Ordinary may have refused when competently Learned in their Opinions and they cannot say that the Law hath settled any Rules or measures of Learning requisite Some say Latin is not requisite since the Liturgy is now in English and therefore they would Judge of it others say the less Learning the better Preacher if can Read and Pray and Preach and be indued with Spiritual Gifts and so is their Replication others say that the Ordinary's Judgment must be submitted to the Judge's Opinion of the proportion of Knowledge necessary then they have a Popular pretence that this will give the Bishops too great a Power of refusal and so restrain Patrons from their privilege of Presenting and thereby make themselves Collators But there 's no danger of that because there must be notice and a convenient time for another Presentation and the danger of this restraint is as much the other way for then the Temporal Courts are to do it and it s much at one to the Patron which is to declare the inability the Ordinary or the Temporal Courts On both sides it must be agreed that default of Literature is a good and just cause of refusal the Question is who shall judge of it it is said minus Sufficiens in Literatura ca ratione inhabilis i.e. it being indefinite in omni Literatura necessaria But they Cavil at the Word minus sufficiens as if that agreed him somewhat Learned and forget that 't is said ac perinde incapax And minus sufficiens is in Lawyer 's Latin totally insufficient and so 't is used in all
yet then they would have over-ruled the Plea and not have wrote to the Arch-Bishop at all This is the sole cause of that Judgment and then the consequence will be as was observed before But their own reason fails in this Case for here the sufficiency of Learning is Traversable for as hath been shewn it hath often been Traversed and as to the ea Ratione inhabilis no Objection can be to that for the old Authorities Cited do warrant nay require it and all Pleas of Special non est fact ' as by breaking of a Seal and the like are in the same manner Then besides the very words of the Law of Articuli Cleri are very much worthy of consideration it impowers the Bishop to refuse a Clerk propter defectum scientiae alias Causas rationabiles now all these Causes of Refusal mentioned in their cases comes under the causas Rationabiles and causa vaga in certa estnon Rationabilis now want of Learning is not included by intendment but by express words and therefore need not otherwise be set forth take it for granted that as they would have it the Temporal Judges are to Judge what is a reasonable cause of Refusal yet they are not to Judge if defect of Learning be a cause or not for in that the Statute is positive then if said to be deficient in Learning ea ratione inhabilis they had nothing to Judge upon they were only to write to the Arch-Bishop to know if the Fact were true if he were deficient and therefore it need not be set forth any otherwise then as the Statute expresses it tho' in that case they say there are divers sorts of Schisms and Heresies in Doctrines on which the Bishop might warrant his Refusal yet 't is not so much as once pretended there are any Opinions delivered in those cases that deficiency of Learning is subject to the same Rules of Pleading Then the Plea is in the Negative as was shewed before which is more than enough to make a good difference and Negatives in a Bar are always allowed to be more general because most favoured and especially here where the matter and person to which the words are applied do sufficiently restrain and determine the seeming uncertainty of it Nothing can be pretended to reduce this to a greater certainty but the Canons or the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 12. or other Laws of the same nature 1 Canons of King Jac. 1. made in 1602. and they were made pursuant to Canons made 1562. by which no Man was to be admitted nisi rationem fidei juxta Articulos Religionis in Synodo Episcoporum Cleri Anno 1562. approbatos Latine reddere eandem Scripturae testimonio Corroborare possit Can. 3 4. Conditiones in ordinandis requisit ' this is merely a Negative injunction on the Bishop never to confer Orders upon any Man that cannot do this it is not mandatory upon him to ordain every Man that can do this nor does it any way lessen or diminish the Authority or Judgment of the Ordinary in Examination of the fitness and Learning requisite So is the Statute of 13 Eliz. the same induces an incapacity on those that shall not subscribe the Articles but it leaves all things else to the Ecclesiastical Law neither the Canon nor the Statute are Derogatory from the Old Ecclesiastical Law they both leave it in Statu quo to the Ecclesiastical Judges no Man will pretend that these are a Repeal of the Statute of Articuli Cleri so that the Law remained as it did with more Latitude indeed to the Bishop but not with more favour to the Clerk They objected that here was not convenient notice to the Patron and the usual pleading of it is the same day But surely that 's well enough and so was it held by all the Judges that favoured their side in this case and 't is apparent that he had above four Months time to have presented another besides the Judges declared below that if not a convenient time it ought to have come on their side but they admit notice by their Replication and insist upon his Orders as an Estoppel to say that he was Illiterate They pretend That he is still under the Bishop's Jurisdiction and that he may deprive him for the same Cause if sufficient after Institution but that 's a great mistake for there may be a cause of Refusal which is not of Deprivation for he may become Learned that was not so and besides the Rule is false after induction they would then be discoursing about Freehold c. a Man may be refused because non compos but he cannot be deprived for that Cause though the Bishop may provide a Curate c. As to the pretence of six Months notice from the time of the Refusal 't was never insisted on at the Bar in C. B. or B. R. and the Judge who doubted did only say he was not fully satisfied with the current Opinion of the Books his doubt arose upon this That the cause of Refusal was not within the Partron's knowledge Suppose the Man had not Episcopal Orders but pretended to them and the Patron knew nothing of the matter should this Presentation prevent lapse and the rest were all of another Opinion and the Books are full to this effect for the Patron ought to present a Man qualified otherwise 't is as no Presentation and then lapse in course Suppose he had presented a mere laicus 't is as none suppose he had presented a Woman as idonea persona 't is as none and these instances may seem Trivial but our Books do mention them 2 Roll's Abridg. 364. Kelway 49.59 34 Hen. 7.21 14 Hen. 7.21 and Dyer 227. and Sir Symon Degges Parson's Gounsellor Upon the whole the Question is whether a Court of Law shall Repeal the Statute of Articuli Cleri whether the Plea shall be adjudged ill which is in the very words of that Statute when the same Fact was never pleaded otherwise nay when it hath been pleaded thus often times and never excepted against till now Wherefore it was prayed that the Judgment might be Reversed On the other side 't was argued That the Bishop's Plea below was too general and the Plaintiffs Replication good that his being Ordained a Priest and a Licensed Preacher is enough that this is an Answer to the Allegation of the Minus Literatus his being a Priest is a kind of a supersedeas to his Examination that there was no Learning requisite to his having a Cure of Souls which was not Antecedently necessary to his receiving of Orders That he ought not to be admitted into Orders unless he be assured of or named to some Curacy all which supposes the Qualifications Requisite for a Benefice with Cure of Souls then 't was urged that here was not notice sufficient for 't is not till many days after the Refusal for this might have put Hele the Patron beyond the possibility
Denbigh and Montgomery leaving three Daughters and Coheirs Mary Penelope and Susan Susan married Sidney Godolphin one of the present Appellants In July 1674. Mary and Penelope in consideration of 4000 l. paid to the said Mary by Richard Carew Esq and in consideration of a Marriage to be had and which was afterwards had between Penelope and the said Richard Carew by Lease and Release convey all those their two Parts of the said Lands in Denbigh Salop and Montgomery to Trustees and their Heirs to the use of Richard Carew for Life then to Penelope for Life for her Jointure then to the said Trustees and their Heirs during the Lives of Richard and Penelope to preserve contingent Remainders then to the first and other Sons of Richard and Penelope in Tail-Male successively And in default of Issue-Male to the Daughters of Richard and Penelope in Tail And in default of such Issue as to one Moiety of the said two Parts to the first and other Sons of the said Penelope by any other Husband in Tail the Remainder of all and singular the Premisses to the said Richard Carew and his Heirs for ever subject to this Proviso That if it should happen that no Issue of the said Richard upon the Body of the said Penelope should be living at the decease of the Survivor of them and the Heirs of the said Penelope should within Twelve Months after the decease of the Survivor of the said Richard and Penelope dying without Issue as aforesaid pay to the Heirs or Assigns of the said Richard Carew the Sum of 4000 l. that then the Remainder in Fee-simple so limited to the said Richard Carew and his Heirs should cease and that then and from thenceforth the Premisses should remain to the use of the right Heirs of the said Penelope for ever After this Mary intermarried with the Appellant Sir Evan Lloyd and a Partition was made of the Premisses and the same had been enjoyed accordingly ever since and Mr. Carew and his Lady levied a Fine to Mr. Godolphin and his Lady of his part who did thereupon by their Deed dated 23 Sept. 1676. covenant to levy a Fine of Mr. Carew's two Parts to such uses as he and his Lady should limit and appoint but have not yet levied the said Fine Richard Carew and Penelope his Wife to avoid all Controversies that might happen whereby the Estate of the said Richard Carew or his Heirs might be question'd or incumbred by the Heirs of Penelope and to the End to extinguish and destroy and barr all such Estate Right Title Equitable or other Interest as the said Penelope then had or her Issue and Heirs might have or claim to the same by any Power Settlement or Condition on payment of 4000 l. or otherwise to the Heirs of Richard Carew by the Heirs of the said Penelope and for the settling of the same on the said Richard Carew and his Heirs did in Michaelmas Term 1681. levy a Fine of the Share and Part allotted to them and by Deed of 10 Decemb. 1681. declare that the said Fine should be to the use of the said Richard for Life Remainder to Penelope for Life the Remainder to the said Richard Carew his Heirs and Assigns for ever And do further declare That the Fine agreed to be levied by the Appellants Sidney Godolphin and Susan his Wife by their Deed dated the 23 Sept. 1676. should be to the same uses and then direct the Trustees by the first Settlement to convey to those uses Penelope died without Issue in 1690. Richard Carew made his Will in Aug. 1691. and devised the said Lands to Sir John Carew Baronet his Brother subject to pay all his Debts and Legacies and made Sir John Carew his Executor In Decemb. 1691. Richard Carew died without Issue and Sir John Carew entred and was seized and possessed of the Premisses and paid 4855 l. for the Debts of Richard Carew Sir John Carew died and the Respondent Sir Richard Carew an Infant is his Son Heir and Executor The Appellants Mary and Susan claiming the Lands as Heirs to Penelope by virtue of the said Proviso in the first Settlement upon payment of the 4000 l. exhibited their Bill in Chancery to compel the Trustees to convey the Estate to them upon such payment Upon hearing of this Cause on Bill and Answer the Court ordered a State of the Case to be drawn which was as above and afterwards the Court assisted by the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Mr. Justice Rooksby seeing no Cause to relieve the Plaintiffs dismissed their Bill And now it was argued on behalf of the Appellants That such Dismission ought to be set aside and amongst other things it was insisted on in favour of the Appeal that this Proviso was not void that it was within the reason of the Contingent Limitations allowed by the late Lord Chancellor Nottingham in the Case of the Duke of Norfolk and there were quoted several Paragraphs in the Argument made by the said Lord Chancellor as that future Interests springing Trusts or Trusts Executory Remainders that are to emerge or arise upon Contingency are quite out of the Rules and Reasons of Perpetuities nay out of the Reason upon which the Policy of the Law is founded in those Cases especially if they be not of remote or long Consideration but such as by a natural and easie Interpretation will speedily wear out and so things come to the right Channel again That tho' there can be no Remainders limited after a Fee-simple yet there may be a Contingent Fee-simple arise out of the first Fee that the ultimum quod sit or the utmost Limitation of a Fee upon a Fee is not yet plainly determined that tho' it be impossible to limit a Remainder of a Fee upon a Fee yet 't is not impossible to limit a Contingent Fee upon a Fee that no Conveyance is ever to be set aside in Chancery where it can be supported by a reasonable Construction especially where 't is a Family Settlement Then these Paragraphs were applied and further urged That there could not in reason be any difference between a Contingency to happen during Life or Lives or within one year afterwards that the true reason of such Opinions which allowed them if happening within the time of the Parties lives or upon their deceases was because no Inconvenience could be apprehended thereby and the same Reason will hold to one year afterwards and the true Rule is to fix Limits and Boundaries to such Limitations when so made as that they prove Inconvenient and not otherwise That this Limitation upon this Contingency happening was the considerate Intention of the Family the Circumstances whereof required Consideration and this Settlement was the Result of it and made by good Advice That the Fine could not barr the Benefit of this Proviso for that the same never was nor ever could be in Penelope who levied the Fine As to the Pretence That if the