of a Freeman be forfeit for his Fathers Banishment or not is the matter of my Case A Freeman of a City or Borough may be made divers maner of ways as appeareth in the Case of the City of London in Sir Edward Cooks 8 Report fol. 126. That is to say First by Service in his Apprentiship Secondly by Birth by being the Son of a Freeman Thirdly by Purchase and that is by the Common Councel of the City And at Bristol by Mariage In the Chronicles in the Raign of Richard the 2. it is said Freedom was obtained but by two means videlicet By Service and by Birth yet it seems it may be obtained by purchase because the Centurion claimed his Freedom thereby in the 22 Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles In the Irish Reports Acts 22. 8. fol. 12. it is said That one may be a Freeman by Birth Mariage and Service Saint Paul indeed was born at Tarsus in Cicilia which was under the obedience of the Romans he challenged therefore to be a citizen of Rome but I take it the text there took it but to be National Freedom which is such a general Freedom as Calvin being born in Scotland claimed had in England because he was born under the obedience of the King of England But that made not Saint Paul Free of the private Customs Priviledges and Franchises of Rome no more then Calvins birth made him a free Citizen of Lincoln to the peculiar Customs of that City If one be born in a City of Parents that are not free the childe hereby is no Citizen by birth and if one be born of Free Parents out of the place of Priviledges as out of Lincoln he yet is a Freeman by Birth Yet in the Charter Grant of Yarmouth the words were Concessimus Burgensibus de Magna Yermutha de villa predict ' oriundis that they should have such Liberties and such so that it may be the special words of the Charter may alter the case yet in the case of the City of London Cooks 8. Report the King Cooks 8 Rep. by his Letters Patents could not make one a Freeman of London yet he may thereby make him a Freeman of the Kingdom But whether those that are Free by Birth Service or Mariage be Freemen within my Statute or not is a question because the words thereof be absolutè posita to all purposes And therefore I take it that this Statute intends it of such as have challenged their Freedom and which have taken the Freemans Oath and are admitted into the Society and fellowship of the Freemen Citizens and Burgesses for in James Bags Case in the 11 Rep. such a one is taken for a perfect Freeman and no other So in my opinion E. the son of D. is no competent Freeman of the City of Lincoln within the branch of this Statute But admit he were then it may be objected to me that by the Exilement of the father the Freedom of the son was forfeit by reason he was by this Exilement become no free Citizen But in answer thereunto I say briefly That if theson had attained this Freedom by the death of his father as a thing descendible then it had been forfeit by his fathers Banishment but the son had this Freedom by his own birth as a purchase and not by the death of his father by descent Ergo it was not forfeited by his fathers Exilement Like to the case where I. S. hath many children and then he confesseth himself Villain to I. D. in a Court of Record yet his children formerly born are Freemen and no Villains because they were free by their own births but the Inheritance is inthralled because it is to come to the Heir by descent So that I am of opinion that if E. had otherwise been a competent Freeman as he was not then the Exilement of his father could not have disabled him Our Freeman which this Statute speaketh of must not only be Free of the City or Borough but he must also there be resciant for these words are materially placed in the said Law and here E. was the son of D. a Free Citizen of Lincoln who did there reside and dwell and every childe is part of the fathers family for the Husband and Wife Father and Children Master and Servant are of a Family and a Ward is part of his Gardians family But in our case when D. was Banished he then forewent his local Habitation and so his said son could not then be of his family nor could be intended to dwell with him who had no Habitation in the Realm And I am of opinion that this Statute requireth an actual habitation or resciancy and not a Mathematical or Imaginary resciancy such a one as was in Geffries Case in Cooks 5 Report for there the case was That one did personally and locally dwell and reside at Dale Jeffreys Case and occupied Lands in Sale here the party was in Law but not in fact an Inhabitant in Sale and was there assessed as an Inhabitant to the repair of that Church But this Commissioner of ours is bound to such resciancy as a Minister is to his resciancy which in Butler and Goodhals Case in Cooks Report ought to be locally and personally abiding in the Parish where his Parsonage or Vicarage house is for resciancy or residency have a like signification and be both of them words of that efficacy as they tie a man to his personal and actual abode and habitation with their family But put the case that in Lincoln there be places exempt out of the Freedom of the City and yet within the Circle of the Walls as Saint Martins doth in London I take it if a Freeman dwell there this is no resciancy intended within this Statute because the words of our Law be That he be Resciant and Free of the City which going together draweth his Habitation to the place where his Freedom is And with this agreeth the Decree made for London touching Tithes in Anno Dom. 1535. which did not extend to Saint Martins because it was In but not Of London Doctor Graunts Case Cooks 11 Report Our Freeman must also have in clear moveable substance to the value of a hundred pounds this word Substance would have extended as well to ones real Estate as to his personal if it had gone alone but being coupled with the word Moveable declares plainly that it onely extends to the personal Estate And I take it that these words Moveable substance doth not onely contain and extend to such things Quae dese movere possint as live goods Horses Oxen Sheep and such like but also to such things quae de se movere non possint as Plate Jewels ready money Utensils of house Mercery Drapery and other wares and goods of value Hay Corn goods of Husbandry and Housewifery but Birds and Beasts of Parks and Warrens and Doves in Dovehouses be not valueable sustance a Hive of Bees
fol. 57. in Winbish and Tailboys Case it is said That if there be a Bastard Eigne and Mulier puisne and the Bastard after the death of the Ancestor entreth into intailed Lands and dyeth seized this doth not binde the Mulier in case of Estates Tail as it doth in an Estate of Fee simple and voucheth for Authority in the point 39 Ed. 3. plac ultimo where the Case is That Lands were given in Tail to I. S. the Remainder 39 Ed. 3. in Tail to C. and I. S. hath Issue by a woman a Bastard and dyeth seized and then the Bastard dyeth seized having Issue he in the Remainder may recover the Land against the Issue of the Bastard affirming That the continuance of possession in the Bastard shall not be prejudicial to him in Remainder To which Opinion I do subscribe because he in the Remainder is a stranger in blood and so cannot be concluded as the Mulier shall be for a Mulier indeed is like a graft drawn out of both the bloods of Father and Mother so the Bastard is a slip which is derived from the same Stock and had his being therefrom And for my own Opinion considering the Statute of Westminster 2. de Donis doth accept of Gifts in Tail made before Mariage upon the hope and expectation of a succeeding Mariage to perfect the same even so the Mariage succeeding to a Bastards birth gives him and his Issue a priviledge in these cases of descent which is denied to other Bastards or meer Strangers And I see no reason wherefore that maxime and principle of Law should be altered by the said Statute of West 2. but because Mountagues Opinion in Mr. Plow Com. sways the other way I will therefore submit this Point to men of greater judgement then my own So that if the Law fall out for the Bastard Issue then she should have title to the half part belonging to the Females and to no part belonging to the heirs Males And with this Conclusion I do here end my Common Law Points and will now resort to the handling of my Statute Points The Sewers are a Court of Iustice I Am desirous to attribute to this Law all the honor and dignity which may in any sort belong to it and therefore I am unwilling to forget any thing which may materially tend to the upholding and maintaining thereof wherein amongst the rest and the chiefest of them all it is To prove the Commissioners of Sewers a Court of Justice I know some Opinion hath been to the contrary and held That the Commissioners had only the power of a Commission and not any Court and I suppose much may be said to maintain that opinion First because in expressis terminis there is no Court ordained by this Statute or by any other and without words express in the point they can have no Court. Secondly by presidents in the like case it hath been held no Court as in the Case of the City of London in Sir Edward Cooks 8 Report The King granted to the Major and Commonalty Plenum integrum scrutinium gubernationem The Case of the City of London correctionem omnium singularum misteriarum and it was resolved That they had no Court in this case because no Court was granted to them by the Patent as it is holden in Doctor Bonhams Case fol. 119 in the same Report wherein the principal Case there put sways the same ways for there the Physitians had power to imprison and to fine offendors yet they had not any Court thereby And so if a Commission issue out of the Chancery to examine matters in a Suit there depending and to Oyer and Terminer the same yet hereby these Commissioners have not any Court for in that case the Commission is derived out of the proper power of the Chancery which is the Court for that cause eo instante when it is in Commission And one Cause cannot uno eodemque tempore depend in several Courts neither have the Commissioners upon the Statutes of Bankrupts and charitable uses any Courts nor the Commissioners in the Case of 1 2 Eliz. Dier fol. 175. which had power to hear and determine the Office of the Exigenter had not any Court but only the power of a Commission For in truth these are all of them rather Ministerial then Judicial Commissions and so a Court is not proper to them Yet I am of Opinion That the Commissioners of Sewers have an eminent Court of Record It is true that Courts had their beginnings in three sorts First by Prescription Secondly by Charter-grant from the Crown And Thirdly by Act of Parliament 1. The Courts Hundred and Leet began by custom and so did the eminent Courts of Westminster-Hall 2. Courts in Corporations most of them took their beginnings by Charters And 3. The Courts of first Fruits and Tenths and the Court of Wards and Liveries were erected by Act of Parliament the one in 32 the other in 33 Hen. 8. But to bring the question nearer home to our Statute of Sewers which is but additamentum legibus antiquis Sewerarum for they have been used from the beginning of Laws though perhaps not known by that name And yet before the 6 H. 6. they were known by that name as by the perusal of that Statute may be collected And therefore for the causes and reasons hereafter ensuing I hold the same to be a Court. First for that the Statute of 12 Ed. 4. cap. 7. and our very Statute of 23 H. 8. calls the Commissioners of Sewers 12 Ed. 4. Justices and one cannot properly be a Justice or a Judge but in a Court. Secondly here be legal Proceedings and Process for this Statute saith That the Commissioners may make and direct all Writs Precepts Warrants and other Commandments to all Sheriffs Bailiffs and other Ministers c. And the Statute of 1 H. 4. cap. 12. hath these words in it That he that thinks 1 H. 4. himself grieved may pursue and he shall have right and where there be legal proceedings and where parties grieved may come in and have remedies for the wrongs and injuries done to them there is properly a Court of Justice to have them in But in Doctor Bonhams Case the Physitians had no legal proceedings and therefore parties grieved could have no remedy which was the reason they had not a Court. And thirdly the chief reason wherefore I take it that Commissioners of Sewers have a Court is Because the Commission of Sewers is a member of the ancient and renowned Court of Oyer and Terminer which was and is a Court of great esteem power and authority and so it was needless to erect a new Court in this case as it was needful to erect and found the Court of Wards and first Fruits the first would else have remained in the Chancery to the which primarily it did belong and the other was a new revenue and wanted a Court to direct or
the charge for the erecting maintaining of the new ones are to be laid on the Level So that it behoveth Commissioners to be careful in these affairs else things in the conclusion may fall out contrary to their expectations for it is well said That Rerum progressus ostendunt multa quae in initio nec praecaveri aut praevideri possunt In making new Laws and Ordinanes these things are also considerable First what the matter of the Law is which is to be Enacted Secondly when the matter is known then to weigh it well whether if it be made if then it will prove necessary and behoofful for the good of the people and this necessary point is to be scanned by the counsel and advise of the most discreet and experienced persons and of the best tryed judgements in matters of this native And thirdly to consider what charge the work will cost for the which this Law must be made for in Scriptures he is not counted sapient that before he build a house will not first count the charge of it And fourthly what persons must bear this charge least it prove too burthensome and this must be directed by the ability of the people which are to be charged and by the the safety and commodity they are to have by the work I observe also that this Statute useth three words which are all powerful in signification and operation videlicet Laws Ordinances and Decrees and I think it fitting for me so near as I can both to deliver the definitions of them and the differences between them A Law A Law is properly a matter which hath taken his essence and power by a Custom time out of memory as the Common Laws have done Or else is a matter Acted and Enacted in Parliament by the King and the great Counsel of the Realm and by the Authority thereof for the ordering of mens Bodies Lands and Goods and such a Law is hereby intended because the Laws which the Commissioners shall make have the power of an Act of Parliament to strengthen and assist them and they are to receive life and perfection from this Statute I read on Ordinance AN Ordinance is a word having a more private and less powerful signification then the word Law hath for it is a Law but of a secundary power enacted by a Corporation Company or Commission proceeding meerly out of the Power and Prerogative of the King by Charter Grant or Commission warranting the same as those Corporations Societies and Companies which have power by Charters or Patents to make the same as is set forth in the cases of the City of London and of the Chamberlain of Londons Case in Sir Edward Cooks Reports Also Ordinances may be made by the power of a Court as in a Court Baron to make Orders or by the Inhabitants of a Town by Custom for the ordering of their Commons Repairing of their Churches and Highways And these are more properly by-Laws then Laws for a Law is either the Common Law Customary Law or an Act of Parliament all which are of greater force then any Laws made by these secundary means which of themselves are of little or no strength but as they are assisted by other primary powers Decree A Decree is neither a Law nor Ordinance in proper definition but is only a Sentence or Judgement in a Court of Justice delivered or declared by the Judges there by and through the power strength of a general former Law for Decretum est Sententia lata super Legem So that a Law is a general direction for a multitude An Ordinance is a subordinate direction proceeding out of a more general power And a Decree is a Sentence delivered for or against a particular person grounded upon the said Laws and Ordinances Continuance of Laws IT comes now fitly for me in turn and course to declare the continuance of these Laws Ordinances and Decrees for it is to be observed that some of them be but temporary though others perpetual The words in our Statute are That every Statute and Ordinance made before the Statute of 23 H. 8. concerning the things and matters therein mentioned as well in the time of H. 8. as of any of his Progenitors not being contrary to this Statute or heretofore repealed shall stand in force for ever and are commanded to be put in due Execution But this clause is intended of all Acts of Parliament made touching the Sewers and be not intended or meant of Laws and Ordinances made by the Commissioners of Sewers themselves Laws and Decrees made for sale of Lands by the Powers and Authorities of this Statute are to be made and ingrossed into Parchment and certified under the Seals of the Commissioners into the Chancery and the Kings Royal assent had thereto under the Privy Seal shall also stand good and effectual And all Laws and Ordinances written in parchment and indented and under the Seals of the Commissioners whereof the one part shall remain with the Clerk of the Sewers and the other part to remain in such places as the Commissioners should appoint notwithstanding the same be not certified into the Chancery nor the Kings Royal assent be had thereto shall continue in force till the same shall be altered 13 Eliz. cap. 9. repealed or made void by another Commission of Sewers although the former Commission by the which these Laws were made were determined by Supersedeas The Commission is to continue for ten years from the date thereof by force of the Statute of 13 Eliz. yet notwithstanding 13 El. all Laws and Ordinances which are written in parchment indented and sealed by the Commissioners of Sewers without certifying into the Chancery or the Kings Royal assent had thereto shall notwithstanding the determination of the Commission by the expiration of the said ten years continue in force for one whole year next insuing to be put in execution for that time by six Justices of the Peace whereof two to be of the Quorum but then the power of the Justices of the Peace is ceased by the corning of a new Commission of Sewers All other Laws and Ordinnces of Sewers which are but made and writ in paper or which be but in parchment and not Indented or which be indented also if not sealed continue in force no longer then that Commission continueth by the power whereof they were made And so by this short declaration I have made the Commissioners may the better observe how long time Laws and Ordinances of Sewers are to continue in force yet though they lose their vigor they may notwithstanding be revived by the power of a new Commission or remain for presidents for after ages to imitate Repealing of Laws IN this last place I intend to deliver my opinion what Laws Ordinances and Decrees may be repealed altered or made void by the Commissioners of Sewers Therefore it is first to be considered what grounds are to be observed in repealing or
high ways or streams as to erect Bridges or other Engines thereon without lawful Warrant Bridges in highways where there is no stream under but onely some petty Land stream at rain and wet seasons these be dry Bridges and be not within this Statute of Sewers but yet they be within the Statute of 22 H. 8. if they stand on highways In 14 Jacobi Regis it was found by inquisition taken at the city of Lincoln in the Guild-Hall there 14 Jac. before Sir Thomas Grantham Knight and my self and other Commissioners of the Sewers that the great Bridge at Bracebridge near the city of Lincoln and standing upon the River of Wytham thirty miles from the Sea was fallen into great decay whereby carts carriages men on horse-back could not pass over the same as in times past had been used in defect of Hen. Sapcots Esq who ought to repair a part thereof by reason of his Mannor of Bracebridge and of Bartholmew Gregge who by reason of his house standing at the Bridge foot called the Hermitage on the North side of the River ought to repair another part and of the Corporation of Lincoln who was to repair a part thereof and of the country of Moreland who used to repair another part And the same was decreed accordingly But Mr. Sapcot without cause finding himself grieved thereat preferred his Bill into the Exchequer Chamber against Sir Thomas Grantham and others to be relieved therein and did alleage That the same stood far from the sea pretending thereby that the Commissioners of Sewers had no power to deal with the same but at the hearing of the Cause in Anno 16. Jac. he was over-ruled in that and all other parts of this Suit A Calcey A Calcey or Calsway is a passage made by art of Earth Gravel Stones and such like on or over some high or Common way leading through surrounded grounds for the safe passage of the Kings liege people and these Calceys have always been expressed in the ancient Commissions of the Sewers in the Register Fitz. nat bre and in the Statute of 6 H. 6. cap 5. but not any Calceys be in these Laws but Register F. H. N. B. 6. H. 6. such as be over surrounded and low grounds as that of Barston Bank Southy Bank and such like but touching Calceys lying in Towns and Villages which be in the high uplandish Countries this Law doth not in any sort extend unto them but all Calceys leading over the said Bridges and near unto them are provided for by this Law yet no private Calceys are to be dealt withal by the said Commissioners Goats GOats be usual Engines erected and built with Percullesses and doors of timber stone or brick invented first in Lower Germany and after brought into England and used here by imitation and experience hath given so great approbation of them as they are now and that with good reason and cause inducing the same accounted the most useful instruments for draining the waters out of the Land into the Sea There is a twofold use made of them the one when fresh waters flows and descends upon the low grounds where these Engines are always placed and whereto all the channels where they stand have their currents and drains directed the same is let out by these into some creek of the Sea and if at some great floods the Seas break into the Lands the salt water usually have their returns through these back to the Sea Many of these Goats which are placed on highways serve also for Bridges This Goat is no such imaginary Engine as the Mills be which some rare wise men of late have invented but this Invention is warranted by experience the other is rejected as altogether chargeable and illusory Yet these Engines seems to me not to be very ancient here in this Kingdom for that I do not finde them mentioned in any of the ancient Cōmissions granted before this statute did express the same and surely this Statute was so curious in the special repetition of such defences in specie as it intended to defend and maintain that I am of Opinion it can scarce be drawn to extend to any other And therefore I do agree with the Opinion of Sir Edward Cook in his Case of the Isle of Ely that an artificial Mill and such like new invented Engines are not to be erected by the power of these Laws but being once erected and proved by experience to be beneficial to the publique State they may be continued and maintained by the authority of this Statute New defences HItherto I have proceeded onely in the handling and discoursing of the old and ancient defences which be helpful both to Sea and Land And therefore I am now desirous to enter into the argument of new defences being a matter very fit and apt to be disputed on And to give some warrant to my argument therein I have so composed my Case as both old and new be therein contained wherein the point will be shortly this Whether the new River and new Bank mentioned in my Case could be ordered to be made by the power and authority of these Laws And those which would take a part to argue on the contrary may alleage much matter and many reasons to make good their arguments first out of the words of the Law it self for thereby it seemeth that this Statute can bear no such exposition by reason the words thereof literally taken seem to extend onely to the old and ancient defences and not to the erecting of new And the words thereof in this point be these Forasmuch as the Walls Banks Ditches c. by the rage of the Seas and by the fresh waters descending be so lacerate dirupt and broken the Commission therefore doth authorize the Earls of Lincoln Rutland and Exeter Robert Lord Willoughby of Grimsthrop Sir William Welby Sir Thomas Grantham and Sir John Hatcher Knights whereof three to be of the Quorum to survey and amend the said Walls and Banks Ditches c. in all places necessary and the same as oft as need shall be to make new Upon these words of the Statute do those which argue against the new Defences infer That the Commissioners have not any power to cause new Banks new Walls or other defences to be erected and so take a difference between the words nova construere de novo construere the first extending to erect new ones where none were before and the other purporting the erecting of a new one where before an old one stood and the words which inforce this exposition be penned strongly to that purpose for first they have power to repair and amend What such Walls and Banks as were before and the same to build new which words The same literally taken must needs extend to such old fences as were before and the construction being so made excludes clearly the power to make new ones where none was before and this exposition may be exampled
matters doth contain in it these words viz. That if any person or persons of what Estate or Degree soever he or they be of that from henceforth do take upon him or them to sit by vertue of the said Commissions not being first sworn according to the Tenor of the Oath expressed in the Statute or if any person so named and sworn do sit not having Lands Tenements or other Hereditaments in Fee-simple Fee tail or for term of life to the clear yearly value of Forty Marks above all charges to his own use Except he be Resciant and Free of any City Borough or Town Corporate have moveable substance of the clear value of One hundred pounds or else be learned in the Laws of this Realm in and concerning the same That is to say admitted in one of the principal Inns of Court for an utter Barrister shall forfeit Forty pounds for every time that he shall attempt so to do the one moyety to the King the other moyety to the party that will sue therefore c. So that by this clause it is manifest that every one that is not qualified in one of these degrees is no competent Commissioner within this Statute First that he be an utter Barrister in one of the four Inns of Court Secondly or have Lands Tenements or Hereditaments of the clear yearly value of Forty Marks above all charges in Fee simple Fee tail or for life Thirdly or be Free or Resciant in some City Borough or Town Corporate and have moveable substance of the clear value of One hundred pounds And that person which is not within one of the said three parts and yet doth take upon him to sit in the execution of this Commission incurs two penalties The one the forfeiture of his discretion for his presumption The other of Forty pounds for his contempt And therefore for the more clear examination of these things I will observe that method in my Argument which my Case hath formerly prescribed to me And first of all I shall proceed to the personal abilities and first of the son of the free Citizen of Lincoln I am of opinion that every Commissioner of this kinde must be indowed with these three qualities First he must be free of a City c. If he want any of these then he is out of this Branch of this Statute Secondly he must be there Resciant and Thirdly he must have in clear moveable Substance One hundred pounds and Therefore what person is such a Freeman is now to be handled I am of opinion that every Subject born within the Kings Dominion is a Freeman of this Realm as appeareth by the Grand Charter cap. 14. yea though he be a Bondslave to a Subject but a stranger born is no Freeman of the Kingdom till the King have made him Denizen in whose power alone without the help of any other one may be made free And to be a Freeman of the Realm the place of his birth is held more material then the quality of his Parents for if Aliens have a childe in England it is free of the Kingdom yet by the Opinion of Hussey Chief Justice in 1 R. 3. fol. 4. and in Calvins case of the Post Nati it is holden for Law That if Ambassadors of this Realm have children born in France or elswhere where the Father and Mother be natural born Subjects the children are free of the Realm of England but if either the Father or the Mother of such children were an Alien then are not those children free One out of the Kings protection is as I take it for that time no Freeman of the Realm But in what case a man Exiled is in sorteth the nearest to our question Exile is one of the Eight Punishments which the Roman Laws did inflict upon Strangers which be videlicet 1. Damnum 2. Imprisonamentum 3. Plagae 4. Compensatio 5. Ignominia 6. Exilium 7. Servitudo 8. Mors. Mr. Bracton doth in this maner describe Exile that is Certi loci interdictio and doth distribute it into Four heads That is to say 1. Specialis hoc est interdictio talis provinciae Civitatis Burgi aut villae 2. Generalie Interdictio totius Regni aliquando est 3. Temporaria pro duobus tribus quatuor aut pluribus annis aut c. 4. Perpetua pro termino vitae Exilium est aliquando ex arbitrio principis sicut in exiliando Duces Hertferdiae Norfolciae per Regem Richardum secundum Et aliquando per Judicium terra ut sit in casu Piers de Gaveston etiam in casu Hugonis de le Spencer junioris qui ambo fuorunt exilit ' per Judicium in Parliamento Abjuration also was a legal Exile by the Judgement of the Common Law as also by the Statute Law and in the Statute of Westminster the Second Cap. 35. He which ravisheth a Ward and cannot render the Ward unmarried or the value of his Mariage must abjure the Realm and this is a general Abjuration And by a Statute made in 31 Ed. 1. 31 Ed. 1. Butchers are to be abjured the Town if they offend the fourth time in selling measled flesh and this is a special Abjuration But I must put this Case to a further question which is What a man Exiled doth forfeit thereby And in my opinion he forfeits these things following First he loseth thereby the freedom and liberty of the Nation out of which he is Exiled Secondly he forfeits his Freedom in the Borough or City where he was free for he which forfeits the Freedom of the whole Realm by consequence forfeits his Freedom in every part thereof Thirdly he is of as little esteem in our Law as if he were dead for his Heir may enter and so may his Wife enter into her own Lands and may sue an Action as a woman sole by 31 Ed. 1. 1 H. 4. 31 Ed. 1. 1 H. 4. 1. And fourthly in my opinion he shall forfeit those Lands to the King which he shall purchase in the Realm during his Banishment qued vide 15 Ed. 3. Fitz. Petition ' plac 2. But there in that case Hugh Spencer was banished by a Judgement in Parliament which gave a forfeiture of his Lands howsoever I take him as strongly barred from purchasing in the Realm during his Banishment as an Alien is for fit alienigina by his Banishment and he is in a worse case then an Alien because he taketh with him Indignatio principis But a banished man forfeits neither Title of Honor as Knighthood which is de jure gentium nor the Lands he had before he was Exiled unless by special Judgement given in a legal course they be so decreed Then our case goes further That E. is not Exiled himself but D. his Father was Exiled whose Heir E. is now whether by the Exilement of the Father the liberty and freedom which E. might claim in the City of Lincoln by being the Son and Heir