was in a Formedon in remainder and it was moved now by Serjeant Harris if the partie against whom it was given may sue in the Exchequer Chamber by Bill or petition to the King in the nature of a writ of false judgement for the Reversal of that judgement Tanfield seemed that it is proper so to do for by 13. Rich. 2. if a false judgement be given in a base Court the partie grieved ought first to sue to the Lord of the Mannor by petition to reverse this judgement and here the King being Lord of the Mannor it is very proper to sue here in the Exchequer Chamber by petition for in regard that it concerneth the Kings Mannor the suit ought not to be in the Chancery as in case a Common person were Lord and for that very cause it was dismissed out of the Chancery as Serjeant Harris said and Tanfield said that he was of Councel in Pettishals case in the time of the Lord Bromley where it was debated at large if such a judgement ought to be reversed by petition in the Chancery in case where a Common person was Lord and at last it was decreed that it should be as in that case of Patshal and for the same reason here the King being Lord and therefore day was given till the next Term to shew their errours and Serjeant Harris said that the errors are in effect no others then were in the case 9. Eliz. Dyer fo 262. and in Godmanchesters case and it was adjourned Scot and his wife against Hilliar SCot and his wife Plantiffs against Hilliar for these words spoken of the wife viz. she would have cut her husbands throat and did attempt to do it Hutton Serjeant in arrest of judgement said that these words are not actionable for the will or attempt is not punishable by our Lawe and he vouched Cockains case Cook lib. 4. cited in Eaten and Allens case but by the Court an Action lies for the attempt is a cause for which the husband may be divorced if it were true and it is a very great slander and Baron Snig said that in the same Term a judgement was given in the Kings Bench and was affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber upon a writ of error for these words He lay in the high way to rob me and therefore let judgement be entred for the Plan̄tiffe but it was adjudged in the principal case that for the words she would have cut her husbands throat no Action would lie Gooches Case A Coppyholder surrenders into the hands of the Customary Tenants to the use of Anne his Wife and after before any Court the said Coppyholder surrenders the Land into the hands of other Customary Tenants to the use of the said Anne for her life the remainder to Percie in Fee upon condition that he in remainder his Heirs should pay 20. s. per annum at Michaelmas for ever the first payment to commence immediacely after the death of the said Anne viz. at the next feast of St. Michael and this to be paid in the Church Porch or D. to the Church Wardens of D. in the presence of four discreet Parishioners or otherwise that a stranger should re-enter and at the next Court both these surrenders were present and the Steward admitted the said A. according to the second surrender and she dyed and now upon pretence that the rent of 20. s. was not paid by the Heirs of him in remainder the Heir of Gooch who made the surrender had entred and thereupon an Action was brought and upon the evidence the Jury to the County of Bedford now at the Bar These matters were moved by Serjeant Nichols That a surrender into the hands of Customary Tenants cannot be Countermanded and therefore the second surrender void and the admittance shall work to such uses as the first surrender was made as in Anne Westwicks Case Cook Lib. 4. And to prove that a surrender into the hands of Customary Tenants is not countermandable he said that it is not countermandable by death nor surrender Cooke lib. 4. in his Coppyhold Cases That a presentment in the Court may be after the death of the surrenderer and the admittance thereupon is good and he compared it to the Case of the delivery of a Deed as an Escroll which may be delivered as his Deed after the death of the Maker as it is in Jennings and Braggs case Cook lib. 3. which was not denyed by the Court Serjeant Dodderidge said that when a surrender is made upon condition that he shall pay a summe of money to a stranger these words make an estate conditionall and give power implyedly to the Heirs of the party who did surrender to re-enter for non-payment and the words which give power to a stranger to re-enter are meerely void neverthelesse the precedent words shall stand and make the estate conditionall Tanfield Littleton saies that such a re-entry is void for a re-entry cannot be limited to a Stranger Nichols Serjeant said that if a surrender be made that he shall pay so much money that this makes the estate conditionall and gives a re-entry to the Heirs of him who did surrender But when it goes further and doth not leave the condition to be carried by the Law in such case all the words should be void because it cannot be according to the intent as in the case of a reservation of rent the Law will carry it to the Reversion but if it be particularly reserved then it will go according to the reservation or otherwise will be void and so here Tanfield Admit that here was a conditionall estate by vertue of the Surrender last made and this condition is also to be performed to a stranger which generally ought to be taken strictly yet as it is here he who will take advantage thereof ought to prove a voluntary neglect in the party in the not performance of the Condition and inasmuch as there is no certain time appointed when the payment of this Annuall rent should be made but generally at Michaelmas next after the death of the said Anne thereby in this case the Chuch-wardens ought to notifie the death of the said Anne before the first day of payment by reasonable space or otherwise the condition is not broken and also it is appointed here to be paid in the presence of four discreet Parishioners by the party who should perform the condition yet by intendment he hath no notice who are discreet or who are not especially he being an Infant as in our case he is and therefore although the condition is to be performed to a stranger which generally ought to be performed strictly according to 12. E. 3. Yet this is to be intended only in such cases where the party had certain notice of all circumstances requisite for payment thereof and therefore he directed the Iury that for want of knowledge of such circumstances they should give a Verdict that the condition was not broken And Dodderidge
and these words restituit Cancellandas are no new words but usually used in surrenders of Patents as it appears by 9. E. 4.7 and in Altonwoods case Cook lib. 1. and there the not entring of a Vacat doth not hurt for it was the fault of the Clark and Sir Maurice Barkleys case in 2. Eliz. 176. cited before doth not question it that the entring of a Vacat should be material but the question here is because he did not deliver them up to be cancelled in the Lord Darcies case Dyer 195. the jury did think that there was no surrender at all but the Book-doth not marrant but that there may be a surrender without a Vacat and he said that at this time the matter is depending for Saint Saviours in Southwark if it be a good surrender without a Vacat entred and no opinion as yet given in that case and where it hath been objected that there is no actual surrender until that the Queen hath agreed and 8. and 21. H. 7. cited that where a man pleads a surrender he must also plead an agreement yet because the agreement cannot appear by any Record that the partie can procure to be made of it it shall be good although there be no record made of that agreement yet in this case the Queen doth agree as appears by the words in the second Patent Quam quidem sursum redditionem acceptamus c. Secondly admitting there is no actual surrender in this case yet if when the Queen did recite the particular estate and that she had accepted the surrender thereof and in consideration of it she maketh a grant whether this second Patent shall be good and it seemeth that it shall and therefore it appeareth by 37. H. 6.18 that the taking of a second lease shall be a surrender of the former and in Corbets case 11. Eliz. Dyer 208. 4. Mar. Dyer 140. although the first lease be by deed indented and the second but by word and in Ives case Cook lib. 5.11 acceptance of a future lease is a surrender of a lease in possession and to that purpose is 21. H. 7.14 H. 8.15.31 Assises placito 26. and other Books and in 3. Eliz. Dyer 200. the King granted a house for years and after did grant to the Patentee the custody of the house with a fee and the Patentee accepted the fee and it is there doubtted it that shall be a surrender of the Term and the matter was Compounded but he said that he heard that the opinion of the Iudges was that the acceptance of the custodie and fee was a surrender of the Term by that I do infer that there shall be a surrender by implication aswell where the King is partie as where a common person only first if a surrender be effectual it is sufficient although it be not formal because it worketh as much profit to the King and the surrender in this case was at the same instant that the Queen did Seal the letters Patents for the estate passeth from the Queen without delivery and it appears that the intention of the Queen was not to have any actual possession of that by these words modo habens et gaudens but it hath been objected in as much as this surrender was at an instant that it should be void because that in instants the best shall be taken for the King yet it seemeth to me that it is good as in the case of 49. E. 3.5 a. a man deviseth Burgage land holden of the King and dieth without heir this devise is not good against the King because the devise taketh not effect until the instant of the devisors death and at that instant also doth the title of the King begin by death without heir and he cited Plowden 108 109. in Fusmerstons case for the exposition of these words not now in being within the Statute of Monasteries and if in that case issue had been taken whether it had been a surrender or not it should have been found to be a surrender because it is a surrender in the law as it was in Thetfores case in the Common Pleas p. 28. Eliz. Rot. 122. in wast Baron and Feme Donees in tail make a lease for life the husband dieth and the wife disagreeth to the lease and the issue was if the husband and wife did lease and it was found that they did not lease because now by her disagreement it is become in law not the lease of the wife Cook lib. 3. Butler and Bakers case accordingly fo 27. 28. but if the King be to sustain any loss by the consideration if that were false then shall it make the Patent void as it is in 9. H. 6. where the King was deceived in the value so 18. Eliz. Dyer 352. where there was a loss in esse but it is contrary where there grows no loss to the King as 26. 28. H. 8. of a thing passed because the King is not to have benefit of it the Lord Chandos case is not answered on the other side for there the King did intend to have the actual possession where in facto he had not yet because that was only a recital and Collection in the matter in law it doth no hurt so in the principal case and so if the King grant a Mannor although he hath but a reversion of it yet it shall pass without the word reversion 7. Eliz. Dyer 233. and the Kings Patent also shall be so construed that one part may stand with another viz. that the Lord Seymor now having the estate c. doth restore unto us c. the which we do accept c. as in Sir John Molins case 40. Eliz. Cook 6. Lord measne and Tenant the Tenant was attainted of Treason and the King did grant the laud tenendum de nobis c. suis noftris et aliis cap. dominis feodi illius per servitia inde debita et de jure consueta He shall in that case hold of the mesne as the Tenant held before for if he should hold of the King the words subsequent would be void and for that cause such a construction shall be made that all may stand together now for the third point admit that the surrender is not good yet it is aided by the Statute of 43. Eliz. cap. 1. which aides all grants and surrenders c. to or from the Queen the clauses for conveyances to the Queen are with restraint but for the conveyances of the Queen there are certain exceptions our case is within that part of the Statute which relates unto the 25th year of her Raign and our case is within the words of the Statute viz. surrenders and surrenders within the Statute are such as are surrenders to a common intent and therefore where the partie hath done that in him lieth but some thing is to the perfection of a surrender that is aided by the Statute also by this word assurance in the Statute a purchase
the which the Lord chief Baron Tanfield said insist not upon a labour of that kinde for it is plain enough because the Queen being partie there can be no Estoppel as to any part in that case also as to that part of his argument Mr. Walter agreed on the other side and also he said that if a grant of the Queeen were void at the Common Law for default of want of consideration this Statute aids not Walter for the Defendant and he divided the case into foure points the first whether the Tenant for life by the Kings guift by surrendring his letters Patents hath also surrendred his estate Secondly if the surrender in this case made be defective only for want of matter of circumstance as the inrolment c. whether such defects are saved by the Statute 43. Eliz. Thirdly whether in this case an actual surrender be the consideration meerly which moveth the Queen to grant or what shall be intended the consideration in this case Fourthly admitting that an actual surrender is the sole consideration in this case then whether a Patent shall be adjudg'd void for default of such consideration for a false consideration doth not avoid a Patent but a false surmise doth first when the Kings Tenant for life doth surrender or give up his Patent although without deed yet with such circumstances as the law requireth the surrender is good for although a surrender of letters Patents made by the Kings Tenant in tail will not make estate tail void or determine as it appears by the book case of 35. H. 8. title surrender and Cook 6. the Lord Chandos case yet the bare giving up of the letters Patents by a Tenant for life is a surrender of his estate so here in this case is some proportion between a Tenant for life of the Queen and a Tenant for life of a Common person to amount to a surrender and therefore it appeareth by 43. E. 3. that a Tenant for life may surrender without deed and without livery and from the land but a Tenant in tail may not do so also if a Common person hath a rent or other thing which cannot pass but by deed yet a surrender of such a rent shall be good by a bare deliverie up of the deed if he hath but an estate for life in the Rent and this also although it be but to the disseissor of the land out of which c. the same Law he took it of a particular Tenant for life of years also 32. H. 8. Brook Patents 97. it is made a doubt whether the estate tail of the Kings Donee be determined and gone by surrendring of the letters Patent and he referred that if thought worthy of a doubt whether it should be a good surrender of an estate tail they would hade held it clearly a surrender for an estate for life and it was admitted 3. Eli 2. Dyer fo 193. Mack-Williams case that if in the principal case if a Vacat or cancellation had been the surrender had been good actually without question and Sir Maurice Barkleys case cited on the other part proves the same also for there it is admitted that if the letters Patents had been given up there had been a perfect surrender And 40. H. 3. fol. 5. Belknap held that a surrender may be by word which is to be intended by giving up the Patent and that appears by Rolfs case in Dyer that a voluntary surrender needs no Conftat also where it hath been objected that the special verdict in this case hath not found in what Court the surrender was made he answered that the Law shall intend it to be made in the same Court from whence the letters Patents did issue for a surrender cannot be good being made in another Court and therefore it must needs be intended the same Court and he vouched 11. Ed. 3. fo 1. and 18. Eliz. Plinies Case and Covel and Cabels Case in Banco Regis 38. Eliz. wherein a special verdict it was holden that all things necessary for the perfecting of that the Iury hath found to be done must be necessarily intended concurrent Secondly the want of circumstances in a surrender are perfected and supplied by the Statute of 43. Eliz. for although matters of substance are not aided within this Statute yet matters of circumstances are aided And he said that all the defects in this Case are matters of circumstance and to prove that the defects in this Case are only in circumstance he said that there are three principal defects in conveyances which are meerly matters of circumstance and aided within this Statute the first is meerly want of form in a conveyance and that such a defect is aided he cited Hussies Case to be adjudged accordingly the second is where words are wanting in a conveyance and that such a conveyance is aided by this Statute he cited the opinion of Popham and Gawdy in 44. Eliz. in a cause depending in the Chancery the third matter of circumstance is where there is want of some matter concerning the executing of an estate and that such defect is only matter of circumstance and aided within this Statute he cited Morley and Whartons Case to be adjudged 7. Eliz. in the Common Pleas that the default of not inrolling is aided by this Statute and Mack-Williams and Kemps Case cited in Dyer before proves this to be but matter of circumstance and for that he thought the surrender in the principal Case wanting nothing but inrolment is aided by this Statute also in the argument of the second point he shews what defects in conveyances should be accompted matter of substance and so not aided by this Statute of 43. Eliz. and to this purpose he held that all disabilities of the person in a grant is matter of substance and so not aided within this Statute and he cited Twynes Case 32. Eliz. in the Exchequer to be accordingly Secondly he held that the nature of an assurance is not aided by this Statute and therefore if a man hath power to grant an estate by fine and he doth it by Deed this is not aided by the Statute for this is defective in matter of substance and he cited Wisemans Case and Sir Hugh Cholmleys Case in Cook l. 2. also he said if a man give land to the King and his heirs to have ten years after such grant this is not made good by the Statute Thirdly whereas it may be Collected that because it is found in the special verdict that an actual surrender was the cause which moved the Queen to grant or that it appears to be the cause he held that no consideration plainly appeareth but only by relation to a consideration before mentioned and he said that these words used by the Queen viz. modo habens et gaudens shew that the Queen took notice the state was still injoyed notwithstanding the delivery up of the letters Patents and therefore it cannot be intended by the verdict that the Queen intended
the letters Patents is not material for he said it seemed to him that in rei veritate the particular estate cannot be sufficiently surrendred by this bare giving up of the letters Patents by the Tenant for life as it appears by Walshes Case cited in Altonwoods Case Cook lib. 1. and therefore he insisted not upon that Secondly he argued that a recital in the Kings Patents of a thing material if it be false and come by information of the partie is all one as a false Consideration and not otherwise and he said that it appears by Brook tit Patents pla 100. that all Considerations valuable although they are false do not avoid a Patent as where the King grants lands prodecem libris sibi solutis although that in facto this is false yet the grant is good also it appears by 26. H. 8. and Sir Thomas Wrothes Case and by 21. E. 4 fol. 48. that a consideration executed avoideth not a grant although it be false but he said that it appears by the Case of 18. Eliz. Dyer 352. that if the King make a lease in Consideration of a surrender of a precedent lease which in truth was void by some that the King may avoid the lease but others contrary because it was not done upon the suggestion of the partie but for a consideration executed and the surrender of the estate precedent was the material cause and consideration of the grant and he said that although in this Case there be not a good surrender of the letters Patents yet the Consideration being only the surrendring of the estate that is not material for as it is said in Altonwoods Case Cook lib. 1. if the King in Consideration only of the surrender of precedent Patents makes a grant in this Case there needs no averment of an estate for the surrender is not material of the letters Patents Also it appears Cholmleys Case Cook lib. 2. that if the King recite an estate to be made with Condition although that at the same time of the recital this is not Conditional yet if once this were Conditional the King is not deceived although the condition be now released and he cited also the Lord Chandos Case Cook lib. 6. where it appears that if the King recite a thing untruly which cometh not of the information of the partie this shall not hurt the Grant except it be part of the consideration and he said that Harris and Wings Case differs from this Case for there the King had a Tenant who held a Tenement by the yearly rent of six pounds and another Tenement of him by the yearly rent of nineteen pounds and he made a new lease of both those to the said Tenant without any recital of the former leases reserving but Nineteen pounds for both and there it was adjudged that the second lease was not good but he said that the reason of that judgement was not because the antient lease was not recited but by reason that a loss in the rent came to the King and so by intendment he was deceived and this was also upon the matter the reason of the resolution of Barwicks Case and also in Mack-Williams Case for there was not a surrender of the estate as the King intended which ought to be but in our Case the estate is well surrendred clearly and he thought that these words modo habens may well stand with the Kings intent aswel to a surrender in Law as to an actual surrender The Attorney generall to the contrary First for the recital that the information of the partie was that the King should have an actual surrender and so was the Kings intent collected upon the information of the partie Secondly that here is not any actual surrender Thirdly that by consequence it followeth that the Queen is deceived Fourthly here is no surrender in Law in this Case Fifthly although here were a surrender in Law yet that is not sufficient to make the grant good to the first point be said that alwayes a familiar construction ought to be made of the Kings grants and therefore if the King grant all his portion of Tithes in D. this doth not pass his Parsonage in D. although he had no other Tithes there so if the King grant all his Titheable lands within the Mannor of B. although the lands of Coppiholders are parcel of the demeasnes of the Mannor of B. yet these lands in such Case do not pass Cook lib. 1. Bozuns Case and Cook lib. 1. Altonwoods Case fo 46. aâ—so it appears by the pleading in Plowden in Wrothesleys case and in Adams case and also in Fulmerstons case that although the antient particular estate be gone in Law by the acceptance of a new estate yet it ought not to be pleaded as a surrender and therefore it shall not be construed that the King intended such a surrender which pleaders in their pleading do not accompt a surrender also he said that in regard that the Queen saith quam quidem sursum redditionem acceptamus it seems by that that she did not intend a surrender in Law and therefore accepted nothing but gave an estate c. and must be meant such a surrender to which she is partie by her acceptance also where the words are modo habens et gaudens and therefore it is inferred that the Queen intended an estate containing in the Patentee this is true for although that the Queen intended an actual surrender precedent to be made by the Patentee yet his estate continues against the Queen untill an acceptance of a surrender by her although also this may be called a surrender like unto a surrender of a benefice untill an acceptance by the ordinary also although it was found that the Queen made a new lease or letters Patents of the said Land to the said Lord Seymor yet it appears not that the new letters Patents were accepted by the Lord Seymor until a moneth after the making of them when he made a lease to Johnson and until that time without question there was no surrender either in fact or in Law and where it hath been objected that these words modo habens implie only the present time he said that the word modo will alwayes signifie such a time as the Verb with which it is joyned will signifie and therefore Cicero saith modo hoc malum in hanc Rempublicam invasit also the words Jam et nunc are of such signification as this word modo is and these words are alwayes governed by the Verb as Jam venit c. so in the Bible the story of Naaman and Gehesey Jam modo venerunt duo behold two young men are come to me c. and as to the second point it is clear that here is not any actual surrender for the King cannot take by an actual surrender without matter of Record And therefore it was holden in the Lord Stanleys Case that the King took nothing although his officers by his command did
the world if he will or inflict a pain upon any who shall Trade into such place inhibited so may he do upon any commoditie either inhibit it generally or upon a pain or Impost and if a subject use the Trade after such inhibition or import his wars and pay not the impost it is a contempt and the King shall punish him for it at his pleasure and as to that which is said that it is a burthen to the Merchant that is not so for the burthen layeth it only upon the better part of the subjects and if it were a burthen it is no more then they themselves imposed which was in their hands by commission in the time of Queen Eliz. and they have raised the prices to subjects more then the value of the Impost and it is not to be intended that the King by any Impost will prejudice the cause of Merchants for the Trade in general is to him more beneficial then any particular Impost the case of the 11. and 14. H. 4. of Aulnageor is not to be compared to this Case for there the King had made a grant to a subject and it was also of a thing which was granted before to a Maior and also of a commoditie within the land and not transported and for the case of Darcy for the monopoly of Cards it is not like for that is of a commoditie within the land and betwixt the Patentee and the King and not between the King and the subject and as to the exception taken to the Information that it is Vsitar and doth not prescribe this needeth not for it is a prerogative wherein lieth no prescription for every prerogative is as antient as the Crown and as to the conclusion of the Information it was objected that it is not good for the informer ought to pray the forfeiture but this belongs to the Court to Iudge of what shall be lost or forfeited the offence being a contempt and therefore the conclusion good enough and so for all these reasons judgement shall be given for the King Flemming chief Baron touching the exceptions to the Information they are of no force for the first Vsitat c. it hath been well said that the King needs not prescribe in any prerogative for it is as antient as his Crown is 2. E. 3. and for the conclusion viz. that he in contempt c. that deserves no other answer but that which hath been given before for it is enough without doubt warranted by infinite presidents but for the Bar it is an increase of the Defendants contempt and no sufficient matter to answer an indigested and confused tale with an improper and disobedient conclusion and there is in it multa non multum but the conclusion is without president or example for he saith that the imposition which the King had laid is indebite injuste et contra leges Angliae imposita and therefore he refused c. in the case of Smith for Allom the conclusion was moderate and beseeming a subject judgement if he shall have Impost by his grant and in the case of Mines the Defendant being a great Peer of the Realm concluded upon his grant and interest in the soyl and that he took the Mettal as it was lawful for him and did not confront his Soveraign with terms of injuste indebitè and the like and the King as it is commonly said in out Books cannot do wrong and it the King seise my land without cause I ought to sue to him in humble manner Humillimè supplicavit c. and not with such terms of opposition in the Information and all his matter had been saved to him then as well as now or he might have pleaded his matter and said wherefore he refused as it was lawful for him but for the matter it is of great consequence and hath two powerful objects which it principally respecteth the one is the King his power and prerogative his Treasure and the Revenues of his Crown and to impair and derogate from any of these was a part most undutiful in any subject the other is the Trade and Traffick of Merchantdise transportation in and out of the land of commodities which further publick benefit ought much to be respected and nourished as much as may be the state of the question is touching a new custome Impositions or customs are duties or summs of money newly imposed by the King without Parliament upon Merchantdise for the augmentation of his revenues all the questions arising in the case are aut de personis de rebus vel de actionibus viz. form and proceeding the persons are first the King his power and authoritie Secondly not Bates the Defendant nor the Venetians but all men who import Currants the imposition is properly upon Currants and for them and is not upon the Defendant nor his goods who is a Merchant for upon him no imposition shall be but by Parliament The things are Currants a forraign commoditie and a Victual the 5. s. for impost which is said to be great the action formed or Process is the command by the great Seal and the word therein are Petere et recipere if they be sufficient and if good without Proclamation or other notice and how notice shall be given and if it be good without an ad quod damnum and the case of Mines in Plowden which is the sole case in the printed Books of Law to this purpose hath in it foure reasons of the judgement First the excellency of the King or his person Secondly the necessitie of Coyn for his state Thirdly the utillitie of Coyn for commerce Fourthly the inconvenience if the subject should have such royal possessions and these reasons are not extracted out of the Books of Law but are only reasons of policy for Rex est legalis et politicus and reasons pollitick are sufficient to guide Iudges in their arguments and such cases and presidents are good directions in cases of judgement for they are Demonstrations of the course of antiquitie where upon my judgement shall consist upon reasons politick and presidents the case in Dyer 1. Eliz. fo 165. was not like to the case in question but only a conference and the case there was for an impost upon cloath a domestick commoditie in this case are recited their Grievances but it was paid and it is denied here but there was no resolution thereof at the same time was the impost of Wines increased and paid and no petition or complaint thereof and the custome of Englands commodities were at the first imposed by the Kings will for no Statute giveth them viz. for Wool Woolfels and Leather and it was called the great custome and that it was paid it will not be denied and yet now it is doubted if the King can impose it upon forraign commodities the King may restrain the person as it is in Fitz. Nat. Br. à fortiori he may restrain the goods there was no custom for home Commodities
but the great custom aforesaid which was after increased by Parliament which was called the petit custome it is a great grace in the King to the Merchants that he will command and permit this matter to be disputed between him and his subject and the most fit place is in this Court and the best rules herein are the presidents thereof and pollitick reasons which I shall give and apply them to the particulars before recited and first for the person of the King omnis potestas à deo et non est potestas nisi pro Bono to the King is committed the Government of the Realm and his people and Bracton saith that for his discharge of his office God had given to him power the Act of Government and the power to Govern the Kings power is double ordinary and absolute and they are several Lawes and ends that of the ordinary is for the profit of particular subjects for the Execution of Civil Iustice the determining of Meum and this exercised by equitie end Iustice in ordinary Courts and by the Civillians is nominated Jus privatum and with us Common Law and these Laws cannot be changed without Parliament and although that their form and course may be changed and interrupted yet they can never be changed in substance the absolute power of the King is not that which is converted or executed to private use to the benefit of any particular person but is only that which is applied to the general benefit of the people and is Salus populi as the people is the body and the King the head and this power is guided by the Rules which direct only at the Common Law and is most properly named pollicy and Government and as the constitution of this body varieth with the time so varieth this absolute Law according to the wisdome of the King for the Common good and these being general rules and true as they are all things done within these rules are Lawful the matter in question is material matter of state and ought to be ruled by the rules of pollicy and if it be so the King hath done well to execute his extraordinary power all customes be they old or new are no other but the effects and issues of Trades and commerce with forraign Nations but all commerce and affairs with forrainers all wars and peace all acceptance and admitting for Currant forrain Coyn all parties and Treaties whatsoever are made by the absolute power of the King and he who hath power of causes hath power also of effects no exportation or importation can be but at the Kings Ports they are the Gates of the King and he hath absolute power by them to include or exclude whom he shall please and Ports to Merchants are their Harvours and repose and for their better securitie he is compelled to provide Bulworks and Fortresses and to maintain for the collection of his customs and duties collectors and customers and for that charge it is reason that he should have this benefit he is also to defend the Merchants from Pirats at Sea in their passage also by the power of the King they are to be relieved if they are oppressed by forrain Princes and his Treaty and Embassage and he be not remedied thereby then lex Talionis shall be executed goods for goods and Tax for Tax and if this will not redress the matter then war is to be attempted for the cause of Merchants in all the Kings Courts and of other Princes the Iudges in them are paid by the King and maintained by him to do Iustice to the subjects and therefore he hath the profits of the said Courts it is reasonable that the King should have asmuch power over forrainers and their goods as upon his own subjects and if the King cannot impose upon forrain Commodities a custome aswel as forrainers may upon their own Commodities and upon the Commodities of this land when they come to them then forrain states shall be inriched and the King impoverished and he shall not have equal profit with them and yet it will not be denied but his power herein is equal with other states and so much for the person of Bates the subject it is said that an imposition may not be upon a subject without Parliament that the King may impose upon a subject I omit for it is not here the question if the King may impose upon the subject or his goods but the impost here is not upon a subject but here it is upon Bates as upon a Merchant who imports goods within this land charged before by the King and at the time when the impost was imposed upon them they were the goods of the Venetians and not the goods of a subject nor within the land but only upon those which shall be after imported and so all the arguments which were made for the subject fail and where it is said that he is a Merchant and that he ought to have the Sea open and free for him and that Trades of Merchants and Merchandise is necessary to export before the Surplus of our commodities and then to import other necessaries and so is favourably to be respected as to that it is well known that the end of every private Merchant is not the common good but his particular profit which is only the means which induceth him to Trade and Traffick and the impost to him is nothing for he rateth his Merchandise according to that the impost is imposed upon Currants and he who will buy them shall have them subject to that charge and it is a great contempt to denie the payment and so much for the person I will give a brief answer to all the Statutes alledged on the contrary part with this exposition that the subjects and Merchants are to be freed of Maletolt and this was Toll unjustly exacted by London Southampton and other Ports within this Realm but they are with this saving that they pay the duties and customes due or which hereafter shall be due to the King which is a full answer to all the Statutes the commoditie of Currants is no commoditie of this land but forrain and whereas it is said that it is Victual and necessary food it is no more necessary then Wine and impost for that hath been alwayes paid without contradiction and without doubt there are many drinkers of Wine who are also eaters of Currants that which should be said Victual for the common-wealth is that which ariseth from Agriculture and of the earth within this land and not nice and delicate things imported by Merchants such as these Currants are and are rather delicacy or Medicine then a Victual and it is no reason that so many of our good and staple Commodities should be exported to Venice for such a slight delicacy and that all the impost shall be paid to the Venetians for them and the King should have none for their Commoditie and although that the price be thereby raised this
it seems to me it is apparant by the Statute of the 26. H. 8. Cap. 10. which gives power to the King by his letters Patents to limit the time for importing of Wines against the Statute of 23. H. 8. Cap. 7. which was no more but a restoring of his power abridged before and so was the Statute of 31. E. 3. for otherwise the Parliament would never have given him Authoritie to contradict an Act of Parliament by his letters Patents or to revive these Acts Impositions are meerly a new custome and so are they stiled in the Margent of the Roll of the 3. E. 1. in this Court where it is Recorded that the King had assigned Merchants to receive using the same words which are used here half a Mark for every Sack of Wool and a Mark of every Last of Leather and that if the Merchant who is so appointed Transport any after that it shall be forfeited and out of this record I observe that three hundred Pelts make a Sack of Wooll from the 21. Ed. 1. unto the 28. E. 1. the customs for Wools was 40. s. a Sack and in 25. E. 1. the Imposition of Maletolt was repealed by Act of Parliament which Maletolt was an increase of Impost upon staple commodities and therfore was given to the King a great subsidie with this cause that it should never be drawn into president which shews that this Maletolt was rightly imposed otherwise the Parliament would never have given him so great a Recompence for the Abrogation of it but after in the 13. of E. 3. because it was a thing of so great consequence to the Crown it was revived and made 40. s. for Wool and Woolfels and 3. l. for Leather for denizens and double for strangers in the 14. Ed. 3. a Petition in Parliament to abate it and for a great subsidie it was released and in the 18. of Ed. 3. it was again revived and a new petition was made in Parliament and this petition was continued until the 36. of Ed. 3. and then it was abated and also by the 45. E. 3. it was again abated so that it seem that between these times it was revived but after it did not continue long for in 48. E. 3. it was again revived and for Wool the Impost was 50. s. et sic de singulis and in 1. R. 2. after it was answered to the King as it appears in the accompts here and in 5. R. 2. it was again suppressed by Parliament for a subsidie granted to the King with a saving of antient rights all these Statutes prove expresly that the King had power to increase the Impost and that upon commodities of the land and that he continually used this power notwithstanding all Acts of Parliament against it and so much for commodities of this land but for forrain commodities it appears by no Act of Parliament or other president that never any petition or suit was made to abate the Impost of forrain commodities but of them the Impost was paid without denial as for example for Wines in the 16. E. 1. as appears in this Court upon Record it was commanded to the Bailiff of Dover to levie and Gollece of every Tun of Wine of a stranger 4. s. and in the 22. E. 1.2 s. thereof was released at the suit of the French Ambassador in the 26. of E. 3. the King granted priviledges to Merchants strangers but there was given for it an increase of custome and this was answered as it appears upon accompt in the times of E. 1. and E. 2. the case of Allom was as it hath been recited by my brother Clark it is objected that the Merchant ought to have free passage upon the Sea but that both not conclude the King but that he shall have his Impost if he cometh into his Ports and here the question is for Merchandise after that they are brought into the Port but it is said that they cannot come into the Port but by the Sea that is true but if this reason should hold then the King could not grant Murage Pontage and the like because the common Channel to them is free and Average is for securitie aswel as Ports another objection that the Defendant here is not restrained but that is answered for if a pain be inflicted upon them who import this is an inhibition upon a pain to all another objection was that there was no consideration of the Imposition and if it be demanded what differences between the cases I answer as much as is between the King and a subject and it is not reasonable that the King should express the cause and consideration of his Actions for they are arcana Regis and no satisfaction needeth for if the profits to the Merchant faileth he will not trade and it is for the benefit of every subject that the Kings Treasure should be increased an objection was made against the form of proceeding because it was by the great Seal to the Treasurer and that he by the customers Peteret et reciperet and this could not be better as it was answered before it was objected that it should be by Proclamation and that needs not for it toucheth not all the subjects but only those who are Traders in Merchandising the best and aptest means to give them notice by the customers and it is alledged by the information expresly that he had notice It was lastly objected that there ought to be a quod damnum in the case before the grant that is not so for that shall be only when the King granteth any thing which appertaineth to his prerogative and not when he maketh Charters to his servants to levy his duties due to his Crown wherefore I think that the King ought to have judgement which was after given accordingly 6. Jac. in the Exchequer An Information against Sir Edward Dimock THe Bishop of Carlisle called John May in A. 26. Eliz. made a lease in reversion to Queen Eliz. of the Mannor of Horncastle whereof the Bishop was seised in right of his Bishoprick and this was for 4. years and it was acknowledged before Commissioners appointed for this purpose and the Bishop prayed it to be inrolled and this prayer is indorsed but not inrolled and in 37. Eliz. this lease was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter in the life of the lessor and in 44. Eliz. the successor Bishop leased this land to Sir Edward Dimock the Statute of the 43. of Eliz. hath a proviso that it shall not extend to any lease before made by the Bishop of Carlisle to Queen Eliz. then not inrolled and after the death of the Queen viz. 5. Jac. this lease in 26. Eliz. is returned and certified to be acknowledged and is then also inrolled and Sir Edward Dimock had entred and was in possession by vertue of his lease in the 3. Jac. and the information was for entrie and intrusion in 3. Jac. and upon the Bar all this matter was discovered and a
because nothing vested in the Queen nothing can vest in the King as successor for a thing cannot be vested in one as heir or successor which was never vested in the Ancestor and he vouched Bullocks case in 10. Eliz. Dyer 21. Ed. 4. of election also it cannot vest in the King Primarily because he was never partie to the Iudenture of lease and he cited a case to be adjudged accordingly betwixt Founds and 29. Eliz. 11. H. 7. that he who is not partie to the Indenture shall not be primarily bound nor shall primarily take by the same Indenture and it is inconvenient that this should be a good inrolment and where it was said of the other part that a bargain and sale is good enough although it be not inrolled in the life of the parties so that it be inrolled within 6. moneths to that he well agreed for by the bargain and sale an use passeth at the Common Law without help of the Statute and this without inrolment and the Statute of inrolments restraineth it not but that it may pass well enough at this day and so the Statute perfects it so that it be within 6. moneths indifferently and therefore it is good notwithstanding the death of the parties and he concluded with the Book of the 19. Eliz. Dyer fol. and wheras it was said to be resolved contrary in an authoritie not printed he said that he believed the printed Book and vouched also the case cited before in Butlers and Bakers Case Cook lib. 3. to the third point it seemed to him that although the inrolment be good yet that should not avoid the estate by relation for a relation is not good to avoid mean conveyances without an antient right as if the Kings Villein purchase lands the King now hath right and therefore an office found after shall relate to avoid all mean conveyances and he said that relations are not so certain wherefore a man may make a ground for every case hath his particular reason and therefore to some purposes an attornament ought to relate but to other purposes it ought not to relate and therefore an attornament cannot relate to intitle a grantee to rents due between the grant and the attornament and so in this case if the inrolment had been in the life of the Bishop and of the Queen yet it could not have given to her the mean profits between the grant and the inrolment and he vouched a case in Butlers and Bakers case and the 11. H. 7. that a relation shall never be prejudicial to a stranger for his estate lawfully executed and therefore if a feofment be made to a husband and wife and to a third person and after the husband and wife are divorced for a precontract yet they shall take but a Moitie as if they were married also it is a rule that an estate vested cannnot be made Tortious by relation see Butlers and Bakers Case and he vouched a case to be adjudged betwixt Wind gate and Hall in the Kings Bench Mich. 31. 32. Eliz. that if a Statute be acknowledged to a Common person and another Statute to the King by the same Conusor and after the Statute acknowledged to the common person is extended and the Conusee in possession and also the King sues execution of his Statute he shall not avoid the estate lawfully executed in the first Conusee as it was there holden but the Barons said una voce that if such a case should come in question before them they would hold the contrary for the King and for the fourth point viz. if the confirmation were good being made before inrolment of the lease and so upon the matter before any lease in being to which the Counsel of the one part nor of the other were provided to speak Walter said that the confirmation was not good for Littleton saith that a thing or estate which is not in being cannot be confirmed and Tanfield chief Baron said and others also that this was the principal point of the case and the great doubt is of the other part viz. that this is not good and therefore advised them to argue it at another day and Walter said that the confirmation is not good in regard it is not of record nor inrolled and he vouched the 26. of E. 3. fo 20. that the King cannot take notice of any thing without record the next Term upon the first Tuesday it was appointed to be argued again and Doddridge the Kings Serjeant observed foure points First if any inrolment be necessary in the case Secondly admitting that the inrolment be requisite if here be a good inrolment being made after the Kings death Thirdly if the confirmation of the Dean and Chapter be of necessitie to be inrolled Fourthly admit that the confirmation need not to be inrolled and that the lease ought to be inrolled then if this confirmation be good because it was before the inrolment of the lease as to the first he conceived that aswel a Chattel real as a thing personal may vest in the King without Record for it should be inconvenient that Chattels should be inrolled First for the infinitness Secondly for the small value of them in the judgement of Law and he vouched 40. Assises pla 35. of a Legacy devised to the King and 37. H. 6. fo 10. if a Chattel be given to the King there needeth no record and the 28. E. 3. fo 23. the King brings a quare impedit upon a grant of the next presentation without record and yet it was good 21. H. 7. fo 19. an obligation may be granted to the King without record 35. H. 8. Brook prerogative and 33. H. 6. the Baily shall have aid of the King and he vouched also 2. E. 6. Brook prerogative and 35. H. 6. fo 3. Fitz. villinage and Brook prerogative and the 21. H. 7. fo 8. if a man possest of a Term be outlawed this Term is in the King by outlawry without Record to the second point he thought that the inrolment was good after the Queens death for the inrolment ought to relate as it appears by 1. H. 7. fo 28. and this relation disaffirmeth the mean estate and gives also the mean profits and as to the point of relation he vouched Nichols Case Plowden where the entrie of the heir once lawful was made unlawful by relation and he vouched also 14. H. 8. fo 18. in the end of Wheelers Case and by the 4. H. 7. fo 10. a man seised of land is attainted of Treason the King grants this land to A. the person attainted commits a Trespass and is restored by Parliament the Patentee shall never have an action of Trespass because this restitution takes away the cause of action and to prove that the inrolment may be well enough after the Queens death he said that the said case put to be resolved in the 19th of Eliz. Dyer fo 355. concerning the Duke of Somerset was after adjudged contrary to
Woods case in Cook lib. 4. Tanfield chief Baron it is true that the issue should be better if it were general not guiltie of the Trespass aforesaid but yet it is good enough in this case for the special words comprehend as much as the words not guiltie of the practice and agreement aforesaid c. and the word Practizatione comprehends aswel the subsequent Acts of execution as the precedent combination and therefore Tantamounts a general issue and it was good by the Court and as to the action Altham Baron conceived that it lieth although it be for a lawful cause for the Law abhoreth fraud and conspiracy as if two conspire to vex me for my land by suit an action lieth F. N. B. yet it is lawful for every man to sue me without title and he vouched 16. Assise and here it is laid that the Defendants indeavoured to make the Plantiff forfeit his goods which are worth 5000. l. and this is reasonable that it should lie and 9. E. 2. Fitz. discents 52. is our case directly upon the matter and therefore it seemeth to me that it lies Tanfield chief Baron said that 9. E. 2. crosseth this case in part and yet he thought that the action lies to which Snig agreed and it seemed the cases of appeal put by Godfrey did lie well enough without aid of the Statute of W. 2. if there be such a conspiracy Tanfield chief Baron accordingly if it be legally thought without cause yet if without conspiracy the action lieth not for it as it appears in Owen Woods case Cook lib. 4. and in all cases where strangers have nothing to do with the suit brought for the conspiracy and yet combine with the Plantiff in the suit an action upon the case lieth for this vexation and judgement was entred for the Plantiff by the Court. An inquisition for the King was returned here and it was found that Fleet-wood the Kings debtor for his office of receiver for the Court of Wards did purchase a certain Term and interest of and in the rectory of Yeading for divers years then to come and that being so possessed he became indebted to the King and that this term is now in the hands of the Lady Edmonds and by colour of this inquisition the land is extended for the Kings debt Harris Serjeant moved that this inquisition is insufficient to extend the land but good to sell a term and he vouched Palmers case Cook lib. 4. to which the Court inclined but it was adjourned If a Bishop becomes indebted to the King for a subsidie and dieth his successors shall not be charged upon the lands of the Bishoprick but the executors of the predecessor or his heir and if they have nothing the King shall lose it as chief Baron Tanfield said which the Court granted upon the motion of Bridgman for the Bishop of Saint Davids Trallops case A Scire facias issued against Trallop the father and Trallop the son to shew cause wherefore they did not pay to the King 1000. l. for the mean profits of certain lands holden by them from his Majesty for which land judgement was given for him in this Court and the mean rates was found by inquisition which returned that the said mean profits came to 1000. l. upon which inquisition this scire facias issued whereupon the Sheriff returned Trallop the father dead and Trallop the son now appeared and pleaded that he took profits but as a servant to his father and by his commandment and rendred an accompt to his father for the said profits and also the judgement for the said land was given against his father and him for default of sufficient pleading and not for the truth of the fact and he shewed the Statute of the 33 H. 8. cap. 39. which as he pretended aided him for his equitie whereupon the King demurred Hitchcock for Trallop seemed that the Statute did aid him by equity and he moved two things the one that if here be such a debt that the Statutes intends to aid it the other if the Defendant hath shewed sufficient matter of equitie within the intent of the Act and he thought that it is such a debt as the Statute will aid for although that here be au uncertainty of the time of the judgement given for the King that being reduced to a certainty by the inquisition after it shall be within the intent of the Statute for id certum est quod certum reddi potest and the words of the Statute are if any judgement be given for any debt or duty c. and here although that there was no certainty unto how much these mean rates extended at the time of the judgement given yet it is clear that it was a duty at the time of the judgement and then it is within the Statute also he said that the words in the proviso of that Statute explain that the intent of the makers of the Act was so for the words are for any thing for which the partie is chargable and the mean rates are a thing for which he is chargable see Cook lib. 7. fo 20. and the Lord Andersons case there fo 22. as to the point of equitie there seem to be two causes First he shewed that he was but a servant to his father and had given an accompt to him Secondly the judgement was given against him upon a point of mispleading Tanfield chief Baron said that the matter in equitie ought to be sufficiently proved and here is nothing but the allegation of the partie and the demurrer of Mr. Attorney for the King and if this be in Law an admittance of the allegation and so a sufficient proof within the Statute it is to be advised upon and for that point the case is but this a scire facias issueth out of this Court to have Execution of a recognizance which within this Act ought by pretence and allegation of the Defendant to be discharged for matter in equitie and the Defendant pleads his matter of equitie and the King supposing this not to be equity within this Statute demurreth in Law whether that demurrer be a sufficient proofe of the allegation within the Statute or not and it was adjourned Trin. 7. Jac. in the Exchequer Doillie and Joiliffs case again Trin. 7. Jac. in the Exchequer CRessey for the Plantiff said that the Plea in Bar is not good because the Defendant justified by force of a Capias ad satisfaciendum and pleads no return thereof and moved that it is not justifiable without returning of the writ but the Court seemed the plea to be good notwithstanding that but if it were a mean process then it ought to be pleaded to be returned see Cook lib. 5. Hoes case fol. 19. according to this diversitie Tanfield chief Baron thought that the Plantiff shall recover for first the writ of error here is not a writ but a commission and therefore false lattin shall not abate it as it hath been
adjudged in the Exchequer chamber and in this case the scire facias ad audiendum errores and all the writ and this scire facias in our case ought to have been made against the said Julian as against a married woman and the writ of execution which is the warrant to the Sheriff is not in such words as the judgement in the Kings Bench is upon which it is founded viz. that he should take the aforesaid Julian c. but that he take the said Julian Goddard then the Sheriff shall not say in his defence that all the proceeding in the writ of error was against the person and aided himself by entrie in the roll of the Court viz. quod praedict Julianum capiat c. but he ought to rely only upon the writ and if in this case he would save himself then he should have inquired upon the delivery of the writ unto him by Lovies who was that Julian Goddard and if thereupon Lovies had informed him that it was Julian Doillie then the Sheriff should have an action upon the case against Lovies upon this false information viz. if A. prosecute a replevin to replevy his Cattle and thereupon he cause the Sheriff to deliver unto him the Cattle of B. for this here B. hath his remedy against the Sheriff and the Sheriff against A. for this false information also he said that if a fieri facias cometh to make execution of the goods of B. if the Sheriff take others goods in execution a Trespass lieth and therefore to secure himself he ought to impannel an inquest to finde if they be the goods of B. or not and then as he conceived it is good but the opinion of the Iudges in the Kings Bench in Mich. 5. Jac. in Trespass between Rookwood and Beal was to the contrary for there a Trespass was brought by Rookwood and the Defendant justified the taking and so forth as Sheriff by vertue of a fieri facias as of the goods of Edward Rookwood father of the Plantiff and upon the execution of this writ the Defendant impannelled a Iury who found the goods to be the goods of the said Edward Rookwook for which c. the Plantiff in the replication Traversed that they were his goods absque hoc that the Iury found that they were the goods of Edward Rookwood c. whereby it seemeth that the finding of the Iury in this case is not material and so the Court then conceived therefore quaere the opinion of Tanfield chief Baron in that point and see the 17. E. 2. pl. 373. and 31. E. 3. Assise pla 378. and 7. H. 4. fo 27. Trespass pla 279. what acts a Sheriff may justifie by reason of a commandment and authoritie from the Court which commanded him Snig Baron seemed that the action did lie for the writ of capias ad satisfaciendum maketh no mention that Julian Doillie is the same person against whom judgement was given in the Kings Bench by the name of Julian Goddard and although that the entrie in the Roll is against the said Julian c. yet the writ is directed that he should take Julian Goddard and then the Sheriff had not done according to the writ in the taking of Julian Doillie and he said that if A. binde himself by the name of I. and judgement is given against him by the name of I. without appearing in person and execution is granted against him by the name of I. in this case an action lies against the Sheriff if he take the said A. in execution for it appears not to him that it is the same person but for the other cause it seemeth that the Plantiff shall not have judgement for the Sheriff is no such person who ought to be priviledged here and therefore the Plantiff should have his remedy else where and he said that such a case hath been reversed in the Exehequer Chamber for error for the under-Sheriff is but an Attorney for a partie priviledged that is for the Sheriff but all the Clarks of the Court and the other Barons were against him in that and also all the presidents Altham Baron had never heard it argued before and therefore he respited his opinion till another day at which day he said that the arrest is not justifiable and so for the matter an action well lieth for by him the arrest ought to be in this case with a special recital that whereas judgement was given and so forth as in the 1. and 2. H. 6. if an Abbot hath judgement to recover and after he is deposed a scire facias lieth not against him as Abbot to reverse this judgement and see 10. E. 4. a capias against A. the son of R. c. see the 19. of H. 6. fo 12. Summons against Iohn S. c. see 18. H. 8. fo 1. a replevin was brought in the Countie Palatine against A. widdow and after she married D. and the plaint was removed into the Common Pleas mentioning her marriage c. and so here the scire facias ought to mention all the special matter and thereupon the writ of execution upon the reversal of the judgement ought to be against Iulian Doillie and not being so the Sheriff is punishable c. but it seemed to him that in this action the wife ought to have joyned with her husband for the false imprisonment or at the least if the husband had brought the action alone there ought to have been a special mention of the loss which the husband particularly had sustained as per quod consortium uxoris suae amisit or otherwise clearly it lieth not for the husband alone and he resembled this case to the cases in the 9th of E. 4. fo 51.22 Assise pla 87.46 E. 3. fo 3. where husband and wife ought to joyn in an action or at the least the declaration ought to be special as aforesaid and so are the books of the 20. H. 7. and Kellaway to be intended and for this cause he thought the Plantiff shall not have jugement here Tanfield chief Baron as I conceived said unto him that the writ ought to have been with a special averment but a surmise ought to have been made against Iulian Doillie as she now is for as the writ is the Sheriff may safely return she is not to be found and thereupon c. quaere if he intended the writ of scire facias ad audiendum errores or the writ of execution awarded upon the judgement in the Kings Bench for he did not mention any particularity of the writ but it seemeth that he intended the writ of execution and then the surmise whereof Tanfield spoke ought to be made upon the roll of the judgement given upon the writ of error and Tanfield chief Baron said as to the joyning in action that clearly for a battery made upon the wife the husband and wife ought to joyn in the action as the books are cited before by Baron Altham and so
his successor may present anew and seemed to him no question and to this purpose he vouched 12. Eliz. Dyer fo 292. that he may repeale and it is not of necessity that this instrument which purporteth the repeale should be shewed to the Gardian of the Spiritualties and by the 19. Eliz. fo 360. in Coleshils case if it is said that when the King hath presented a Repeale by him ought not to be admitted after institution see for such matters in the Book also he vouched Dyer 339. Yattons case to prove that the King may repeale his presentation by a new presentation without mention made of the former except that the second presentation be obtained by fraud as there it is and he vouched Dyer 294. Goodmans case and so he concluded Damport to the contrary there are two points The first is the Patron and a stranger corruptly agree to present Kitchin whereupon he is presented if this shall be void against Kitchin 2. admitting that the Queen had title to present and she presents and dyes before admittance if the King may present a stranger without mentioning the other presentation to be repealed As to the first he said that at the common Law so if one be simoniacally presented yet this is not void untill the Presentee be deprived and if before this Statute such a corrupt presentment had been made the incumbent and ordinary being free then no presentment should ensue and he vouched the saying of Linwood an Author of the Civill Law to be accordingly but if money be given by the friends of the Presentee and after the King had notice thereof and assent then it is not punishable but pardonable at the discretion of the King and now by him the Statute provides no punishment for the person when the Patron only consents to the Simonie for he observed that after the said Statute of 31. Eliz. had appointed a punishment for the Patron then in the last part of this branch the words are the persons so corruptly taking c. shall be incapable of the Benefice aforesaid and so it seemeth that the intent of the Statute is not to punish any party but he that is to the Simonie and this is also explained to be so by other Clauses in the Statute for another Clause inflicts punishment upon him who is party to a corrupt resignation and so in all the clause those only who are partakers of the Crime shall be punished and to prove that such comstruction hath been made upon penall Statutes that he only shall be punished who had notice of the crime he vouched Littleton who saith that upon the Statute of Gloucester notice was requisite or otherwise no default also he vouched to this purpose the case of Pickering in 12. Eliz. Dyer fo 292. a Lay Person presents a Bastard to a Benefice who was admitted accordingly c. and in a suite thereupon issue was admitted to be taken if the Patron knew that he was a Bastard so if he had no notice thereof then there is no default in him and he vouched 43. E. 3. to this purpose 22. E. 4. tit consultation and he well agreed Closse and Pomcoyes case now lately adjudged which was that Sir George Cary being seised of aâ— Advowson granted the next avoidance to his second sonne and dyed and after the Sonne corruptly agreed with I. S. to procure the said I. S. to be presented to this Benefice and the second brother knowing thereof it was agreed that for the perfecting of the agreement the second Brother should surrender his Grant and interest to the elder brother which elder brother not knowing of the said corrupt agreement presented the said I. S. who was instituted c. all shall be void for he is presented here by reason of this corrupt agreement between the Patron who then was and the parson and the elder Brother was only used to convey a bad gift by a good hand and all had reference to the corrupt agreement with the assent of the Patron who then was but here in our case was no agreement assented unto by the Parson and this diversity also seems to be good that if A. hath the presentation and B. the nomination to a Benefice and the Presentor upon a corrupt agreement makes a presentation unknown to the Nominator here the Nominator shall not be preâ—udiced within this statute As to the second matter it seemes that by the demise of the Queen this presentation is not countermanded or repealed in Law and therefore he said that he would agree that if the Qeen had made such an Act which was only a bare Authority without interest this will determine by her death as it was ruled for a Letter of Atturney to execute livery of Dutchy Lands for this is a bare Authority and is a means to do a thing to her prejudice and he agreed that by implication or without cause a common person could not vary from his presentation as if a Feme sole present and intermarry this is not controuled by her marriage for it is a thing which is not to her prejudice and he vouched Cook lib. 4. Forse and Hemlins case and one Marke Ogles case proveth that the death of a Common Patron is no revocation of his presentation for if a man present and dye if it be a disturbance his Executors may have a Quare impedit and much more in the case of the King who dyeth but he well agreed that the King might have repealed his presentation and after have resumed it again which proveth that it is not a meere Authority but mixt with an interest for an Authority revoked cannot be revived but without Actuall repealing it is not to be avoided and therefore he vouched Sir Thomas Wrothes case in Plowden fo 457. That if the King grant to one licence to purchase Land in respect that by a means this doth acquire an interest to a party this doth not determine by the demise of the King although the Grant be not for the King and his Successors so here this presentation is a meanes to give an interest to the Party and therefore is not determined by the Demise of the King and he vouched 1. Ma. Dyer fol. 92. and so if it be a Licence dispensative this is not determined by her death and he vouched 3. E. 3. fo 29. cited in Sir Thomas Wrothes case see more after Mich. 7. Jacobi in the Exchequer Sir Daniel Nortons case IN Sir Daniel Nortons case it was agreed that where one Oglander was chargable to the King for 27. l. for an Amercement for which Processe issued out of this Court to Sir Daniel Norton Sheriff of Hampshire to levie it and his under Sherif being Chamberlain came to Oglander upon another occasion and Oglander said unto him Chamberlain you do owe vnto me 30. l. by bond I pray you pay me whereunto Chamberlain said you are to pay me 27. l. for an Amercement which I ought to Levy against you by
be construed to be conditionall because the consideration intended is executed viz. that he hath assumed c. Dyer 76. and 44. Eliz. in the Kings Bench Sir William Lees case in consideration that he had assumed to make a release another promised to pay him 10 l. an action may be brought for the 10 l. without averment of making the release because the consideration is a thing executed viz. the Assumpsit c. but if Executory then the Grant is conditionall as 9. E. 4.19 15. E. 4.9 If an Annuity be granted pro concilio impendendo this makes the Grant conditionall and void for not giving counsell but otherwise it is if it be pro consilio impenso 4. But admitting that here it was conditionall yet the Queen cannot avoid it without Office and so the Plaintiff had no title to enter for an avoidance which was before his grant and so the lease is in esse at the time of the Grant made to the Plaintiff your Grant is without recitall thereof and therefore is void see Knights case Coo. lib. 5. If there be a condition to re-enter for non-payment an Office ought to be found but if it be upon condition to cease for non-payment then it is void to the King without Office as it was agreed in this Court in Sir Moyle Finches case and he vouched Cook lib. 1. Altonwoods case to prove that the lease ought to be recited in the Grant of the reversion or future interest and here although there be a non abstante in your Patent this doth not aid you because it is not found in the speciall Verdict Also for another cause the Plaintif shall not have judgement here for it is not found that the Queen died seised neither that it came to the King that now is and so it cannot come to the Plaintiff and although a fee-simple shall be intended to continue in the same person yet without shewing it shall not be intended to come to the heir 7. H. 7. 3. and so he prayed judgement for the Defendant Tanfield chief Baron said that the case here is by Verdict therefore we ought to intend such circumstances if they be not expressed to the contrary also the seisin of the Queen is shewed to be in Jure Coronae and therefore the intendment that it may be devised by disseisin or abatement between common persons holdeth not here Carew against Braughton Mich. 7. Jacobi in the Exchequer THomas Carew Exequetor of William Carew brought debt against Morgan Broughton Sherif of the County of Cardigan and the case was that John Wyner was in execution upon a Iudgement for William Carew and that after William Carew dyed and that John Wyner brought an Audita querela against Carew Executor of William Carew and upon that Writ he had a venire facias against Thomas Carew and thereupon as the Stat. apoints of 11. H. 6. cap. 10. he put in baile by recogni-zance in the Chancery to the said Thomas Carew and one of the parties for his baile was Thomas Wyner and after upon the Audita Quaerela Iudgment was given against the said Wyner and a Scire facias awarded issued against Thomas Wyner as Bail and after the said Thomas Winer was in execution upon this Recognizance as Bail to the said Thomas Carew and the said Morgan Broughton being Sheriff suffered him to escape upon which escape Thomas Carew brought debt against the Sherif in the debet and detinet and had a verdict to recover and now in arrest of judgement it was moved by Jefferies that the action ought to be brought in the detinet only and he said that if an Action be brought as Executor this alwaies ought to be in the detinet only and he vouched Hitchcock and Browns case remembred at the end of Hargraves case lib. 5. where the case was that one Anthony Brown Executor brought debt against one Lister and that Lister being in execution the wife entermarried the said Lister escaped the Husband and Wife brought debt for his escape in the debet and detinet and there it was resolved that it ought to be in the detinet only and so here and see the custome to plead mentions that the Recognizance acknowledged was to the use of the Executor and not to the use of Thomas Carew by his name but Wild of the Inner Temple prayed judgement and said that the Action is well brought in the debet and detinet and he vouched 9. H. 6. and 20. H. 6. if an Executor recover and after upon the Iudgement he brings debt it ought to be in the detinet but if an Executor sels goods of the Testator and takes an Obligation in his name as Executor yet here the Action upon this Obligation ought to be in the debet and detinet because it is upon his own contract and 1. E. 3. Brooke Executor pla 287. although it appears there and so by 9. H. 6. fo 11. That is good either way and 41. E. 3. Brook pla 545. that if a debt be brought against the Executor upon a contract made by them it ought to be in the debet and detinet or otherwise the Writ shall abate and as 9. H. 6. is at his pleasure to name him Executor or not and therefore c. Snig the second Baron if the Executors bring an Action of goods carried away in the life of the Testator c. and hath judgement to recover 20 l. and dammages for them and upon this judgement he brings debt this shall be in the detinet Altham 3. Baron if an Executor sells the goods of the Testator and an Obligation is made to him for the money for which they were sold without doubt this action shall be in the debet and detinet for the action concerns him in his person and so if he with his own money redeem goods which was pawned by the Testator c. and the Stat. of the 11. H. 6. cap. 10. is that upon an Audita Querela the party who sueth it shall put in Bond to the party c. and the Testator is not party at the time of this Audita Querela but Thomas Crew who is the Executor and it is not as a Proces of execution pursuant c. but is a new thing and so for his opinion suddenly it is good in the debet and detinet Bromley the 4. Baron seemed cleer that if a Bond be made to an Executor upon a simple Contract made with him for the goods of Testator there the action ought to be brought in the debet and detinet but this account is conceived upon a dependency of a duty to the Testator and therefore it ought to be detinet only Tanfield chief Baron the case is doubtfull and therefore it is good to be advised but for this time it seemeth there is a diversity where the Recognizance is Legally forced and where it is voluntary for in our case the Law compels this Recognizance upon the suite which the
will speak to such things which in my opinion will not avoid the Patent First it seems that this want of not assuring doth not vitiate the Patent for the word Assumpsit supposeth matter of Fact executed and whether it be true or false it cannot be now examined no more then in the Cases put 21. Ed. 4. and 26 H. 8. In consideration of service done although there was no service done yet that shall not avoid the Patent Sir Hugh Cholmlies case Cook lib. 2. Recitall of a matter in Pais and not of Record which is not materiall nor valuable doth not vitiate the Patent 37. H. 6.27 The King in his Privie Seale suggests a matter in Fact this doth not destroy the Patent also although that the consideration is aswell for that he assumed to repair as c. and it is found that he hath not repaired yet this fault shall not avoid the Patent for as it seems here it is not in nature of a conditionall estate or Grant as if it had been in consideration he shall repaire for as the words are here placed it is intended that the Queen will relie upon the Assumpsit and not upon the condition and grant and it seems that the Patent is void only upon the misrecitall and the false suggestion which is the first Point for it appears by the misrecitall that the Queen was deceived in a thing materiall and valuable and therefore the Patent void and yet I agree that every false ricitall or suggestion doth not avoid a Patent as in 9. Ed. 4. Baggots Ass 29. Ed. 3.7 if the King recite in his Patent that he had made a precedent Grant upon a Petition yet this falsity doth not avoid the Patent and in 27. Ed. 4. although that this falsity be in point of consideration yet if it be not for matter of profit and valuable to the King it doth not avoid the Patent but if it appear that the Kings intention was grounded upon a matter of value and substance and that he was therein deceived the Patent is for that cause void as in 9. H. 6. fo 2.8 H. 7. fo 3.21 Ed. 4.9 H. 7. fo 2. and 11. H. 4. fo 1. and this is all one as if it should appear in the Recitall or consideration that the Kings intention was grounded upon a matter of value and the King therein deceived therefore in Altonwoods case Cooke lib. 1. If the King recite that A. is indebted unto him as Executor of B and he release to him all demands generally yet nothing shall be released but that which he owed as Executor and so if the King recite that whereas an Advowson is holden of I. S. and he gives Licence to appropriate if the Advowson be holden of the King this is void 19. E. 3. Fitzh Grants 58. It seems cleerly that if it appear by the Patent expresly that the intent of the King was deceived and abused the Patent shall be void although it be not in matter of recitall or in matter of consideration neither as in 9. Ed. 4. fo 6. and 8. by Neale 21. Ass pla 15.40 Ass pla 36. The King gives Licence to his Tenant to aften in Fee and afterwards it appears that this Tenant was but Tenant in Lail and so in the case of the Market or Fair of Torrington cited in Altonwoods case and in our Case the Queen is deceived and misinformed in two Circumstances materiall and of value First for that she conceived that a greater quantity of the thing demised to Potter is surrendred then in truth there was and therein she is deceived for part of the thing is not come to her hands by the surrender Secondly the Queens intent was to make an intire Lease of all in possession and this cannot be for part of the thing it enures but as a Lease in reversion or future interest and therefore void as it is in Altonwoods case Cook Lib. 1. and the Queen hath a double prejudice hereby First because she cannot distrain for her rent reserved in that part which is not surrendred Secondly she cannot enter therein for the condition broken wherefore c. Tanfield accordingly that judgement should be given for the Plaintiff The Patent recites That all the Term-which Potter had surrendred c. where in truth it was not so and therefore it is cleere that the Queen is deceived therein and the Grant void for it was the very inducement which procured the new Patent and this recital is grounded upon the words of the deed of surrender so yâ— the surren is grounded upon the information of Hitchmore contained the surrender And if in that Clause Hitchmore had been well advised the Lease to him ought to have been A. having of the Mills in possession and A. having the Messuage and Garden after the Term which Wilkinson had should be expired and the reservation of the Rent ought to have been expressed accordingly for as it is shuffled together the condition cannot avoid the surrender nor the rent cannot issue out thereof Therefore it was adjudged in 9. Eliz. in the Common-Bench in the Bishop of Salisburies case B. seised of two Acres one whereof was in Lease to A. for years B. makes a Lease of both to a Stranger to have yâ— one in possession the other in reversion rendring 20. s. rent entirely now this rent shall issue out of that in possession during the Term in A. and after it shall issue out of the whole as one intire rent and so it is in our Case for default of severall reservations for this is one intâ—erent and then the Queen cannot distrain upon all the Land as she intended so in our Case wherefore I adjudge the Patent void not upon the point of recitall that is not for the not recitall of a Subjects Lease viz. the Lease of one Wilkinson but it is for the cause of misinforming the Queen in the matter of value and by consequence as hath been said Nemo tenetur informare qui nescit sed quisquis scire quod informat And where Snig hath said that this Patent is made Ex certa scientià mero motu And for this it cannot be intended that the Queen was gull'd upon the information of the party I say that there are not any words in the Grant to prove that it was Ex mero mortu c. And for that it seems Snig had no true Copy of the Case yet if these words were in the Patent it is not void for a triviall and petry mistaking yet in matter substantiall it will not help it as if the King be misinformed of his estate in such a thing to be granted or of estates which are in Lease for these are matertall things 21. Ed. 4. by Huffey and Briant if the King recite that whereas I have given my Land of 100. l. value to him or whereas I have given to him the Mannor of D. and he grants to me the Mannor of S. if this recitall be
and there bought Currants and imported them into England and he recited the Statute of the first of King James cap. 33. which grants 2. s. 6. d. for Poundage and he said that he had paid that and therefore he had refused to pay the 5. s. because it was imposed unjustly and unduly against the Lawes of the land whereupon the Kings Attorney demurred in Law this matter had been divers times argued at the Bar and at the Bench by Snig and Savil Barons and now by Clark and Flemming chief Baton whose arguments I only heard and Clark who argued first this day said that this Case being of so great consequence great respect and consideration is to be had and it seemeth to me strange that any subjects would contend with the King in this high point of Prerogative but such is the Kings grace that he had shewed his intent to be that this matter shall be disputed and adjudged by us according to the antient Law and custome of the Realm and because that the judgement of this matter cannot be well directed by any learning delivered in our Books of Law the best directions herein are presedents of antiquitie and the course of this Court wherein all actions of this nature are to be judged and the Acts of Parliament recited in arguments of this Case prove nothing to this purpose the best case in Law is the Case of Mines in Mr. Plowden Com. where this ground is put that the precedents of every Court ought to be a direction to that Court to judge of matters which are aptly determinable therein as in the Kings Bench for matters of the Crown in the Common Pleas for matters of inheritance and Civil contracts and in the Exchequer for matters of the Kings Prerogative his revenues and government and as it is not a Kingdome without subjects and government so he is not a King without revenues for without them he cannot preserve his dominions in peace he cannot maintain war nor reward his servants according to the state and honor of a King and the revenue of the Crown is the very essential part of the Crown and he who rendeth that from the King pulleth also his Crown from his head for it cannot be separated from the Crown and such great Prerogatives of the Crown without which it cannot be ought not to be disputed and in these cases of Prerogative the judgement shall not be according to the rules of the Common Law but according to the Presidents of this Court wherein these matters are disputable and determinable as for Example an action of accompt lies not by the Common Law against him who had the land of the accomptant by mean conveyance but if one be an accomptant to the King and had land in fee and alien it unto A. who alien it unto B. B. by reason of this land shall be charged with this accompt in 14. E. 3. a Coroner was elected by the Kings writ as he ought to be by the Countie and after be was amerced and because he was not sufficient to answer the Amercement the Countie was charged therewith and that appears of Record here and in 30. E. 3. Rot. 6. as appears also of Record in this Court one William Porter was Magister monetae and had received Bullien of divers Merchants and Coyned it in the Kings Mint and did not restore the Coyne to the Merchants but was insufficient and the King paid the Merchants and inquired of the suerties for the Coyne and it was found that he had none then it was inquired who recommended him unto the King and it was found by whom he was recommended and they who only recommended him as friends were charged with the Debt and if one be outlawed in a personal action and Debt is due to him upon a contract this shall be forfeited to the King and this is ordinary by the Presidents of this Court and yet this seems to be contrary to Law and is against our Books and the Kings Debtor shall have a quo minus against Executors upon a simple contract and therein he cannot release nor be non-suited and I put these cases to prove that the presidents of this Court ought to be pursued and observed although they seem to cross the Common Law and the Books thereof a case was here betwixt the King and Jourden Jourden was receiver and sold his office to one D. and he not being able to pay Jourden for his office at the day limited it was agreed that Jourden should come to the next receipt and when D. received the Kings money that Jourden should take it for his office which was done accordingly after D. was indebted to the King and this matter appearing as above c. Jourden was charged with the money which he had received and as Stamford in his first cap. of Prerogative saith that the King is the most worthy part of a Common-wealth so is he the preserver nourisher and defender of the people and true it is that the weal of the King is the publick weal of the people and he for his pleasure may a forrest the word of any subject and he thereby shall be subject to the Law of the Forrest and be may take the provision of any man by his Purvieour for his own use but at reasonable prizes and without abuse the abuse of which officer hath been restrained by divers Statutes and the King may take wines for his provision and also Timber for his Ships Castles or houses in the wood of any man and this is for publick benefit and the King may allay or inhaunce Coyne at his pleasure for the plentie of the King is the peoples peace and these imposts are not only for the benefit of the people and for the Kings profit but are also imposed many times for the increase of Merchandise and Commerce as the Statute of Aulnageors made in the 2. E. 3. cap. 14. which was made principally to make cloathes more Vendible and so Corporations are granted by the King with immunities and priviledges and to seclude other subjects from them are well limited and good for it is for the increase of the peoples wealth and thereby the Kings revenue is increased and sometimes there is contained in grants a Prohibition to other subjects that they usury not upon the priviledges of such Corporations upon a pain as in the custome of Forraign bought and Forraign sold in London and York and divers customes are permitted to such Corporations as in the Chamberlain of Londons Case Cook 5. and the breach or violation of these customes is a decay of the Corporations and so an impairing of the revenues of the Crown and therefore the King may make them and also give them priviledges and make inhibitions to others not to Vsurp upon them King Edward the third in the sixteenth year of his Raign proclaimed that no man should sell Wool-fels or Leather under such a price so that these staple commodities might not be
debased and this at no place but at Northampton and Anwick and this proclamation was the cause wherefore the Merchant in 43. Assise 38. was punished for using the slight to abate the prices and for presidents in this matter of Impost there are many of antiquitie and first for Wines in 16. E. 1. the custome for a Tun of Wine was 4. s. and 21. and 24. E. 3. it was increased to and 12.13 14. of H. 8. it was increased to 17. s. the Tun and after in the 4th of Mary it was increased to 4. Marks and as it appears by the Records of this Court it was answered upon accompt for all this time according to that rate and it is apparant that no act of Parliament gave this to the King but that it was imposed by his absolute power and shall it now be doubted if it be lawful God defend Prisage that the King shall have one Hogs-head before the Mast and another Hogs-head behinde is not given to the King by any Statute but was only an Impost by the Kings power the Impost upon cloathes in 31. E. 1. was two shillings for a Scarlet and 18. d. for other cloathes in Grain and after in the 37th year of E. 3. it was raised again and in the 37. E. 3. an Act was made for the length of cloathes in the 33. H. 8. it was raised again and in the time of Queen Mary because that the making of so many cloathes made the Impost of Wooll to be of so small value therefore the Impost of every cloath was raised by her to a noble and in the first of Eliz. an Impost was imposed for the overlength of cloathes and it appears in 30. E. 3. that the Impost of one Cloath was for a stranger 2. s. 8. d. and for a denizen 1. s. and all for cloathes another Impost was for Woolfels and Leather the 31. E. 1. it was for Wooll half a Mark for a Sack and after that to 10. s. and in the time of E. 3. to 20. s. and after to 40. s. and after to 3. l. and so of Woolfels and Leather and as the benefit and price of commodities did rise so was the Impost raised and no Act of Parliament for the first imposing and increase thereof and so much for Woolfels and Leather Now for allom upon every kintal of allom was imposed 3. s. 4. d. which was answered upon accompt and in the case of Smith it was not doubted if it shall be paid as here it is but if it were contained in Smiths Patent or not the imposition imposed upon Coles now the 1. s. increase is paid the imposition upon Tobacco was never doubted to be unjust as this is and so much for presidents And now for Statutes the Statute of Magna Charta cap. 30. which was objected that thereby all Merchants may have safe c. to buy and sell without all Tolluets but there is a saving viz. by the antient and old customs the Statute of Articuli super chartas cap. 2. hath a saving in the end of it that the King or his Councel did not intend thereby to increase the antient prices due and accustomed so are all the other Statutes of Purveyors the Statute of the 45. E. 3. cap. 4. which hath been so much urged that no new imposition shall be imposed upon Woolfels wooll or Leather but only the custome and subsidie granted to the King this extends only to the King himself and shall not binde his successors for it is a principal part of the Crown of England which the King cannot diminish and the same King 24. of his Raign granted divers exemptions to certain persons and because that it was in derogation of his state imperial he himself recalled and adnulled the same as to that which was objected that the Defendant had paid poundage granted by the Statute of the first to the King that is nothing to this purpose for that is a subsidie and not a custome for when any imposition is granted by Parliament it is only a subsidie and not a custome for the nature thereof is changed and the impost of Wine is paid over and above the poundage and so should it be here and whereas it was objected that if it were in the time of war it is sufferable but in peace not this seems no reason for the King cannot be furnished to make defence in war if he provide not in peace and the provision is too late made when it ought to be used and as to that which was said that the subject ought to have recompence and valuable satisfaction it seemeth to me that he had for he hath the Kings protection within his Ports and his safe conduct upon the land and his defence upon the Sea and all the Ports of the Realm belong to the King and in this Court there is a president where one in the time of Queen Eliz. claimed to have a Port to himself as his own and it was adjudged that he could not for it belonged to the Queen and it could not be severed and the King only shall have the customes for landing throughout all the land and in the 17. of E. 3. there is a notable president where he reciteth all the benefits which the subject had in his forraign Traffick by the Kings power and protection and therefore he imposed a new Impost the writ of ne exeat Regnum comprehends a probabition to him to whom it is directed that he shall not go beyond the Seas and this may be directed at the Kings pleasure to any man who is his subject and so consequently may he prohibite all Merchants and as he may prohibite the persons so may he the goods of any man viz. that he shall export or import at his pleasure and if the King may generally inhibite that such goods shall not be imported then by the same reason may he prohibite them upon condition or sub modo viz. that if they import such goods that then they shall pay c. and if the general be lawful the particular cannot be unjust and the words in the writ of ne exeat Regnum viz. et quam plurima nobis et Coronae nostrae praejudicialia ibidem prosequi intendis are not traversable by the subject but he ought dutifully to obey his Soveraign as to that which is said that this command to the Treasurer is not sufficient under the great Seal that is otherwise for before the Statute of R. 2. for matter of customes no command was directer to the Treasurer but alwayes the King signified his pleasure to his customers under his privie Seal and this gave authoritie to them to collect customes and the same authoritie is given now to the Treasurer and derived from him to the customers as to that which is said that the conclusion is evil because it is in contempt of the King without doubt it is a contempt for the King may inhibit Traffick into any part of