without the assent of the Dominion Superiour And 2. Judgments or Decrees might be there made or given to the disadvantage or of lessening that Superiority which cannot be reasonable or to make the Superiority to be only in the King not in the Crown of England as King Jac. 1. would have had it and consulted Selden upon the point Now though the Writ of Error be only mentioned yet the same reason holds to both and the true cause why we have not so many Ancient precedents of Equity Cases as of Law ones is for that in Ancient time the Equity Courts were not so high meddled with few matters and in a Summary way but since their Authority is so advanced and their Jurisdiction so enlarged that most questions of property are become determinable there and almost every suit begins or ends with them to the entire subversion of the Old Common-Law It is and must now be reasonable to have the Examination of their final Sentences in the Parliament of England as well as of the other Suppose non-residence in Ireland should be pretended a Forfeiture of the Estate to the next remainder Man or to the King Can it be safe for to intrust them with a conclusive Opinion in this matter When Calais was in our hands Writs of Error lay thither 21 Hen. 7. fol. 3. As to the pretence that the orders of this House cannot be executed there 't is very vain for if the King's Bench Command their Judgments to be executed there this House may order theirs and in like manner as they do to the Chancery here In 15 Rich. 2. numb 17. in the Abbot of St. Osithe's Case the Lords here made an Order and charged the Lord Chancellor that he see it performed and this hath been constant practice It hath been imagined That the Jurisdiction of this House in matters of this kind is dated from the 21 Jac. 1. as to the proceedings in Chancery but that is not now to be disputed for the Commons in Parliament Assembled did agree it to be the Right of this House in the Case of Skinner and the East-India Company and in the Book about it supposed to be written by that Noble Lord the Lord Hollis 105. 't is said that where the King 's Sovereigntydoth not reach the Jurisdiction of this House cannot the contrary is implied that where the King of England's Sovereignty doth extend the Jurisdiction of this House doth so too and no Man will affirm That Ireland is out of or beyond the limits of the Sovereignty of the English Crown And as to the exercise of this Judicature by the Lords here nothing can be stronger for it then the 1 Hen. 4. numb 79. So 't is in the Record though in Cotton's Abridg 't is 80. the Commons declare that all Judgments Appertain to the King and Lords and not to them Skinner's Case 199 200. 4 Inst 349 353 354. It was further argued That Protection commands a due Subjection and that these people who insisted upon this independency had forgot the English Treasure and Bloud which had been spent for their preservation That they are part of England and subject to its Laws appears from the common Case of an incumbency here being made void by acceptance of a Bishoprick in that Colony Besides that in Ancient time the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was Primate of Ireland and had the Confirmation and Consecration of Bishops there Cambden's Britt pag. 735. and 765. 4 Inst 360. then 't was urged that the Question now was whether it were a Dominion inferiour or equal to and independant upon the Realm of England That the constant practice had been for the Lords here to examine the Decrees in their Court of Chancery that the refusing of this Appeal would shake all those Cases thus determined that every Appeal-here from their Equity Sentences which have been very many was an Argument against the Order of their Lords and for the receiving of this Appeal here That this thing hath been acknowledged even by the Rebels there for in Sir John Temple's History of the first Progress of the Irish Rebellion written 1641. pag. 141. amongst the several propositions made by the Irish then in a general Rebellion these two are mentioned 1. That by several Acts of Parliament to be respectively passed in England and Ireland it should be declared that the Parliament of Ireland had no subordination to the Parliament of England but should have supreme Jurisdiction in that Kingdom as Absolute as the Parliament of England here hath 2. That the Act of 10 Hen. 7. called Poyning's Act and all other Acts expounding or explaining that Law should be Repealed both which with their other dangerous propositions were justly rejected however it shews their Opinion that at that time the Law was or was taken and deemed to be against them in this point and there is as much reason for keeping the final Judicature here as there is for maintaining the Superiority and Obligatory Power over them in the legislature 'T was farther urged That the with holding the Irish Lords from having the like Jurisdiction in their Parliament as the Lords in England have in Judging upon Appeals and Writs of Error was absolutely necessary for the preserving of the Possessions of the English in Ireland for those of that Country must be suppos'd to incline to their own interest and cannot be suppos'd so much inclined to love and affect the English amongst them And that this Power of Judging here is Co-eval with the very Constitution of the Government 'T was further urged That their Precedents returned did or concern the point in Question except the two or three Cases in 1661 and 1662. and two Appeals lately in 1695. that their Case of the Prior of Lauthony in 8 Hen. 6. Prynnes Animadversions 313 314 was against them the Prior having removed a Judgment in the King 's Bench in Ireland into the Parliament there which affirmed it did bring a Writ of Error in the King 's Bench in England and they refused to meddle with it the reason was because the Writ of Error before the Lords there did not lie and that it ought to have come hither immediately and all the rest of their Quotations in their Printed Case either prove nothing at all or too much for they are against the allowance of Writs of Error in the King 's Bench in England and against the Legislature of England's being able to oblige the people of Ireland both which have been approved by constant practice and therefore it was prayed that the Appeal here might be allowed and the Order of the Irish Lords might be vacated On the other side it was argued from 1 Inst 141. Prynne's Animadversions 286. and 4 Inst 12. that their Parliaments had the same Authority there in respect of making Laws for that Country as the Parliaments have for England that they have ever since 10 Hen. 7. Re-enacted there such subsequent Acts of England as they thought
a Colony or Plantation and that imports rather the contrary and by such Names these Plantations have always gone in Letters Patents Proclamations and Acts of Parliament But whatsoever may by some be said as to Statutes in particular binding there the Common Law must and doth oblige there for 't is a Plantation or new Settlement of English-men by the King's Consent in an uninhabited Country and so is the History of Barbadoes written by Richard Ligon Printed at London 1673. pag. 23. says he 'T was a Country not inhabited by any but overgrown with Woods And pag. 100. They are governed by the Laws of England And Heylin in his Geography lib. 4.148 says The English are the sole Colony there they are called the King's Plantations and not his Conquests and he neither could nor can now impose any Laws upon them different from the Laws of England 'T was argued that even our Statutes do bind them and many of them name these Plantations as English they have some Municipal Rules there like our By-laws in the Stanneries or Fenns but that argues nothing as to the general which shall prevail when the one contradicts the other may be a Query another time By the 22 23 Car. 2. cap. 26. against the planting of Tobacco here and for the Regulation of the Plantation Trade the Governours of those Plantations are once a Year to return to the Custom-house in London an Account of all Ships laden and of all the Bonds c. And they are throughout the whole Act called the King's English Plantations Governours of such English Plantations to some of the English Plantations And Paragr 10. 't is said Inasmuch as the Plantations are inhabited which his Subjects of England and so 't is in 15 Car. 2. cap. 7. sect 5. and in 12 Car. 2. cap. 34. they are called Colonies and Plantations of this Kingdom of England From all which 't is natural to infer That the Rules in case of conquered Places cannot prevail here Conquest est res odiosa and never to be presumed besides 't is the People not the Soil that can be said to be conquered The reason of a Conquerour's Power to prescribe Laws is the Conqueror's Clemency in saving the Lives of the conquered whom by the strict right of War he might have destroyed or the presumed Chance of Subjection which the conquered Prince and People threw themselves upon when they first engaged in the War But this is not pretended to here tho' all the Cases about this Subject were put below stairs Then taking it as the truth is certain Subjects of England by consent of their Prince go and possess an uninhabited desert Country the Common Law must be supposed their Rule as 't was their Birthright and as 't is the best and so to be presumed their Choice and not only that but even as obligatory 't is so When they went thither they no more abandoned the English Laws then they did their Natural Allegiance nay they subjected themselves no more to other Laws than they did to another Allegiance which they did not This is a Dominion belonging not only to the Crown but to the Realm of England tho' not within the Territorial Realm Vaughan 330. says That they follow England and are a part of it Then 't was argued further If 't were possible that it should be otherwise when did the Common Law cease On the Sea it remained in all Personal Respects If Batteries or Wounds on Ship-board Actions lay here Then the same held when they landed there and no new Laws could be made for them but by the Prince with their consent Besides Either the Right of these Lands was gained to the Crown or to the Planters by the Occupancy and either way the Common Law must be their Rule It must be agreed that the first Entry gained the right and so is Grotius de jure Belli Pacis lib. 2. cap. 8. sect 6. and these Lands were never the Kings tho' they afterwards submitted to take a Grant of the King 'T is true in case of War what is gained becomes his who maintained the War and doth not of right belong to that Person who first possessed it Grot. lib. 3. cap. 6. sect 11. But in case it be not the effect of War but only by force of their first Entry it must be considered what Interest they did acquire and certainly 't was the largest that can be for an Occupant doth gain an Inheritance by the Law of Nations and the same shall descend then by the Rules of what Law shall the Descent be governed it must be by the Laws of the Country to which they did originally and still do belong But then supposing the Lands gained to the Crown and the Crown to distribute these Lands the Grant of them is to hold in Soccage and that is a common Law Tenure why are not their Persons in like manner under the Common Law When a Governour was first received by or imposed upon them 't was never intended either by King or People that he should Rule by any other Law than that of England And if it had been known to be otherwise the number of Subjects there would have been very small In these Cases their Allegiance continues and must be according to the Laws of England and 't was argued that ex consequenti the protection and rule of them ought to be by the same Laws for they are mutual and reciprocal unum trahit alterum and that Law which is the Rule of the one should be the Rule of the other besides 't is the Inhabitants not the Country that are capable of Laws and those are English and so declared and allowed to be and consequently there 's no reason why the English Laws should not follow the Persons of English-men especially while they are under the English Government and since the Great Seal goes thither And further a Writ of Error lies here upon any of their ultimate Judgments so says Vaughan 402. and 21 Hen. 7.3 that it doth so to all Subordinate Dominions and tho' the distance of the Place prevents the common use of such Writ yet by his Opinion it clearly lies and he reckons the Plantations part of those Subordinate Dominions Now a Writ of Error is a remedial Writ whereon Right is to be done and that must be according to the Laws of England for the King's Bench in case of a Reversal upon such Writ is to give a new Judgment as by Law ought to have been first given Vaughan 290 291 says It lies at Common Law to reverse Judgments in any inferiour Dominions for if it did not inferiour and Provincial Governments might make what Laws they please for Judgments are Laws when they are not to be reversed It lay to Ireland by the Common Law says Coke 7 Rep. 18. tho' there had been no Reservation of it in King John's Charter Then 't was inferred that the lying of a Writ of Error proves the Laws
to be the same i.e. in general the Common Law to govern in both places from the difference assigned between Ireland and Scotland it lies not to Scotland because a distinct Kingdom and governed by distinct Laws and it lies to Ireland because ruled by the same and consequently if a Writ of Error lies on the final Judgment there it 's a good Argument that the same Law prevails there These Plantations are parcel of the Realm as Counties Palatine are Their Rights and Interests are every day determined in Chancery here only that for necessity and encouragement of Trade and Commerce they make Plantation-Lands as Assets in certain Cases to pay Debts in all other things they make Rules for them according to the common Course of English Equity The distance or the contiguity of the thing makes no alteration in the Case And then 't was said as at first That this then was the same case as if the Imprisonment had been in England or on Shipboard as to the Rules of Justification that if there were another Law which could justifie it the same ought to have been certainly pleaded As to the Instructions those do not appear and therefore are not to be considered in the Case and they should have been set forth and no extraordinary Power is to be presumed unless shewn for every Man in pleading is thought to make the best of his own Case and consequently that if 't would have made for him the same would have been shewn and because they are not shewn they must be thought directive of a Government according to the Laws of England since 't is to a Subject of this Realm to govern other Subjects of this Realm living upon a part of this Realm and from the King thereof who must be supposed to approve those Laws which make him King and by which he reigns Then 't was argued Suppose this Governour had borrowed Money of a Man in the Island and then had returned to England and an Action had been brought for it and he had pretended to ustifie the receipt of it as Governour he must have shewn his Power the Law and how he observed that Law the like for Goods the same reason for Torts and Wrongs done vi armis Now the Court below could consider no other Power or Law to justifie this act but the Common Law of England and that will not do it for the Reasons given and if it be justifiable by any other it must be pleaded and what he hath pleaded is not pursued c. As to the Commitment by a Council of State what it means is hardly known in the Law of England and that Authority which commits by our Law ought to be certain and the Cause expressed as all the Arguments upon the Writ of Habeas Corpus in old time do shew but here 's no Councel and 't is not said so much as that he was debito modo onerat ' And as to the Demurr ' that confesses no more then what is well pleaded And as to Consequences there 's more danger to the Liberty of the Subject by allowing such a Behaviour then can be to the Government by allowing the Action to lye And therefore 't was prayed that the Judgment might be affirmed It was replyed on behalf of the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error That notwithstanding all that had been said the Laws there were different tho' the Foundation of them was the Common Law that they would not enter into that Question What sort of Title at first gave Right to these Lands but that this was a Commitment by a Councel of State And as to the Objection of too general Pleadings in male arbitrarie exercendo c. tho' the inducement of the Plea was so There were other Matters more particularly pleaded the altering the Decrees in his Chamber which was sufficient And as to the Objection That 't is not alledged in the Pleadings that the Charge in Councel against Wytham was upon Oath they answered That 't is not effential tho' prudent to have the Charge upon Oath before Commitment Matters may be otherwise apparent And as to the Objection That the Warrant of the Councel for the Commitment was not shewn they said that it lay not in their power because 't was delivered to the Provost Marshal as his Authority for the Capture and Detention of him and therefore did belong to him to keep And that the Councel tho' they were not a Court yet they had Jurisdiction to hear the Complaint and send him to another Court that could try the Crime and tho' it did not appear that the King gave any Authority to the Governour and Councel to commit yet 't is incident to their Authority as being a Councel of State the Councel here in England commit no otherwise and where the Commitment is not authorized by Law the King's Patent gives no power for it But the Government must be very weak where the Councel of State cannot commit a Delinquent so as to be forth-coming to another Court that can punish his Delinquency And therefore prayed that the Judgment should be reversed and the same was accordingly reversed Philips versus Bury WRit of Error to reverse a Judgment given for the Defendant in the Court of King's Bench where the Case upon the Record was thus Ejectione firme on the Demise of Painter as Rector and the Scholars of Exeter Colledge in Oxon for the Rector's House The Defendant pleads specially That the House in question is the Freehold of the Rector and Scholars of the Colledge but he says That he the said Dr. Bury was then Rector of that Colledge and that in right of the Rector and Scholars he did enter into the Messuage in question and did Eject the Plaintiff and so holds him out absque hoc That Painter the Lessor of the Plaintiff was at the time of making the Lease in the Declaration Rector of that Colledge hoc paratus est verificare c. The Plaintiff replys That the Messuage belongs to the Rector an Scholars but that Painter the Lessor was Rector at the time of the Lease hoc petit quod inquiratur per Patriam c. and thereon Issue is joyned and a Special Verdict The Jury find that Exeter Colledge is and was one Body Politick and Corporate by the Name of Rector and Scholars Collegij Exon ' infra Vniversitat ' Oxon ' that by the Foundation of the Colledge there were Laws and Statutes by which they were to be governed and that the Bishop of Exeter for the time being and no other at the time of founding the Colledge was constituted by virtue of the Statute concerning that Matter hereafter mentioned ordinary Visitor of the same Colledge secundum tenorem effectum statut ' eam rem concernent ' That the Bishop of Exeter who now is is Visitor according to that Statute Then they find the Statute for the Election of a Rector prout c. Then they find
Suspended were Seniors to the Consenting Scholars Then they find that after this Sentence Painter was elected into the Rectorship Concurrentibus omnibus requisitis si praedict ' Officium Rectoris eo tempore fuit vacans and that Dr. Bury 1 June Anno Jac. 2. semper postea usque sententiam praedict ' si sententia in contrar ' non valeat semper postea fuit adhuc est verus legitimus Rector Collegij praedict ' That William Painter as Rector and the Scholars of the said Colledge did make the Demise in the Declaration and thereon the Plaintiff entred and Dr. Bury enters on him and holds and yet doth hold him out modo forma prout in nar ' c. sed utrum super totam materiam praedict ' locus Rectoris per privation ' praedictam praed ' Arthuri legitime vacavit nec ne the Jury are ignorant si per inde locus praedict ' legitime vacavit tunc pro quaerent ' si non tunc pro Defendent ' It was argued on the behalf of the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error That this Judgment was illegal and the general Question was Whether this Sentence of Deprivation thus given by the Visitor against Dr. Bury did make the Rectorship void as to him and so consequently gave a Title to the Lessor of the Plaintiff But upon this Record the Questions were two 1. Whether or no by the Constitution of this Colledge the Bishop had a Power in this Case to give a Sentence 2. Supposing that he had such a Power Whether the Justice of that Sentence were examinable in Westminster-hall upon that Action And 1. 't was argued That the Bishop had such a Power to give a Sentence and it was agreed that he could make his Visitation but once in five Years unless he be called by the Request of the Colledge and if he comes uncalled within the five Years his Visitation would be void But yet the Visitation of the 24th of July was a good Visitation and consequently the Sentence upon it is good that there was no colour to make Dr. Masters's coming in March to examine Colmer's Appeal upon the Visitor's Commission to be a Visitation and that because it was a Commission upon a particular Complaint made by a single expelled Fellow for a particular Wrong and Injury supposed to be done to him and not a general Authority to exercise the Visitatorial Power which is to inquire into all Abuses c. Colmer complains that he was expelled without just Cause and seeks to the Visitor for redress they having expelled him for an Offence of which he thought himself innocent and the Visitor sends his Commissary to examine this particular matter Then 't was urged That tho' a Visitor be restrained by the Constitutions of the Colledge from visiting ex officio but once in five Years yet as a Visitor he had a constant standing Authority at all times to hear the Complaints and redress the Grievances of the particular Members and that is part of the proper Office of a Visitor to determine particular Differences between the Members and thus is Littleton's Text sect 136. that complaint may be made to the Ordinary or Visitor praying him that he will lay some Correction and Punishment for the same and that such Default be no more made c. And the Ordinary or Visitor of right ought to do this c. and so was it held in Appleford's Case in the Court of King's Bench who was expelled upon a like occasion as Colmer was he appealed to the Bishop of Winton who was Visitor and he confirmed the Expulsion and held to be good upon the Appeal for the hearing of Appeals is a standing fixed constant Jurisdiction Visiting is one Act or Exercise of his Power in which he is limited as to time but redressing of Grievances is another and his proper Office and Business at all times 'T is the Case of all the Bishops of England they can visit by Law but once in three years but their Courts are always open to hear Complaints and Determine Appeals so that here tho' but one Visitation can be in five years without request yet the Power and Authority to hear and examine any difference between the Members and to relieve against any particular Injury that 's continual and not limited Then 't was argued That tho' what was done upon the 16th of June was with an Intention to Visit yet being denied to enter the Chappel where the Visitation was appointed to be held it was none and his Calling over the Names was only to know who hindred the Visiting and his making an Act of it afterwards or administring an Oath at the time can never be called one tho' it hath been below said to be a tacking that of June to that of July but that cannot be for then it continued much longer than was intended nay much longer then it can by the Statutes of the Colledge for that is to cease in three days It turns rather the other way having been hindred in June he makes an Act of it in July in order to call them to an account for it as for a Conturnacy and to bring them to Judgment at his Visitation 'T was no more then taking an Affidavit of the Service of a Citation The appointment of a Visitation in the Hall was occasioned by the Obstruction met with at the Chappel and 't would be a very strange Construction that when he designed a Visitation and was hindred that the Hinderance and his Inquiry about it should be called a Visitation and a former Contumacy in opposing an intended Visitation should prevent their being subject to an actual true one Then 't was argued That there was no necessity that there should be the Consent of the four Senior Fellows to the Deprivation of the Rector and by one of the Counsel 't was owned that if such Consent had been necessary the Sentence had been a Nullity But as this Statute is framed 't was argued that the Bishop might deprive tho' they did not concur for these Reasons 1. By the Statutes the Bishop for the time being is made the ordinary Visitor of Exeter Colledge and that where any one is Visitor of a Colledge he hath full and ample Authority to Deprive or Amove any Member of the Colledge quatenus Visitor 2. There is an express Power given to the Bishop to proceed to the Deprivation of the Rector or the Expulsion of a Scholar and this in his Visitation And 3. The qualifying words do not restrain it to be with the Consent of the four Fellows the word is Deprivatio as to the Rector and Expulsio as to the Scholar tho' they are synonymous as to real Sense yet by this Statute they are differently applied Then it says If the Bishop do proceed c. that only relates to the Case of a Scholar because the word there used is Expulsio which is never applied but to the amotion
afterwards the 20 Aug. 25 Car. 2. he being so seized did Make Seal and as his Deed deliver a certain Writing purporting a Surrender of the said Lands to the said Sir Simon Leach which Writing was prout c. Then they find that the said Simon Leach the Brother non fuit compes mentis sue tempore confectionis sigillationis deliberationis scripti illius c. That afterwards viz. 10 Nov. 25 Car. 2. the said Simon the Brother had Issue of his Body on the Body of the said Anne his Wife Charles Leach that the said Simon died and Charles Leach the Lessor of the Plaintiff is eldest Son and Heir of the said Simon c. Et si videbitur Cur ' quod c. Upon this Verdict there was Judgment for the Plaintiff And now it was argued That the said Judgment was Erroneous and said that in the Case there were two Queries 1. If this were a good Surrender there being no Acceptance or Agreement by Sir Simon before the Birth of the first Son Charles But this was not insisted on before and therefore waived here the same having been adjudged by the Lords to be a good Surrender even to an Infant without Acceptance in another Action between the same Parties which you may see reported in 2 Ventris 198 208. Then it was argued on the second Query That the Lessor of the Plaintiff in the Ejectment being a Remainder Man in Tail cannot take any Advantage of his Father's Lunacy That in this Case he could claim no Title as Heir at Law to his Father or Uncle because of the intermediate Remainder to the Defendant in Tail so that quoad this Estate he is as a meer Stranger and not as Heir and tho' he were able to avoid it by Writ or the like yet it being once good the particular Estate of Simon the Father of Charles was determined before the Contingent Remainder to the first Son could take place and consequently it can never after revive Then the Question is Whether this Surrender by a Non compos being an act done by himself and not by Attorney be void or only voidable There 's no express Case that a Surrender by one who is Non compos to him in Remainder is void Perhaps 't will be said as it hath been That the Acts of a Madman are meer Nullities by all Laws in the World But to this 't is an Answer That the Laws of England have made good and honest Provisions for them so as to avoid their Acts for the Benefit of the Party of the King and of the Heir But it was repeated that this was a Contingent Remainder and if it could not vest when the particular Estate did determine whether by Death or Surrender it never could vest at all for a future Right to defeat the Surrender as Heir cannot support such a Contingency a present right of Entry would but if no such present right the Remainder is gone for ever and here was no such in Charles If Tenant for Life make a Feoffment with condition of Re-entry the Contingent Remainder shall never arise again tho' the Condition be broken and a Re-entry were made So is the Case of Purefoy versus Rogers 2 Saund. 380. Wigg versus Villers 2 Rolls Abridg. 796. and then Charles cannot avoid this Deed for the avoiding of a Deed is to take somewhat out of the way in order to the revesting of somewhat but here was nothing to work upon for if the Surrender were good for a Moment the particular Estate for Life was once gone and consequently for ever and this must hold unless the Act were totally void Then 't was argued That during the Life of the Party 't was only voidable for the King by Office no Man can Stultifie himself and so is the great Resolution in Beverly's Case 4 Rep. and 1 Inst 247. and Whittingham's Case 8 Rep. and if it be not void as to himself it cannot be void as to others And tho' Fitzh in his N. B. says that he himself may have a dum non fuit compos that is not agreeable to the received Law for Beverly's Case was never shaken till now and Fitzh supposes it only voidable by saying that Writ doth lye There is also a Reason for this Rule of Law that a Man shall not disable himself by pretence of Distraction because if the Pretence were true he had no memory and consequently could not know or remember that he did such an Act and therefore 't is as it were impossible for him to be able to say that he was so distracted when he did it 't is for him to say what 't is not possible for him to know But they would compare this to the Case of an Infant yet even there all his Acts are not void his Bond is only avoidable he cannot plead that 't is not his Deed 'T is true that Acts apparently to his prejudice cannot be good as 1 Cro. 502. Suppose a Non compos Signs Seals and Delivers such a Deed and after recovers his Senses and agrees to it would not this be a good Surrender from the first Perkins sect 23. 1 Inst 2. and if it can be made good by a subsequent Agreement 't was not totally void and if not totally void 't is with the Plaintiff in Error The Law besides is very tender in case of Freeholds to make Conveyances void by bare Averments and this would be of dangerous Consequence if when there was no Inquisition or Commission of Lunacy during Life that thirty or forty years after a Conveyance it should be in the power of a Stranger to say that the Vendor was mad 't will make Purchasors unsafe Acts solemnly done ought to have a solemn Avoidance The 1 Hen. 5. cap. 5. Fine to be void 't is void as a Bar but yet it makes a Discontinuance and must be solemnly avoided Lincoln Colledge Case 3 Rep. Stroud and Marshal 3 Cro. 398. Dett sur Oblig ' The Defendant pleads that at the time he was of non sane memory and on demurrer adjudged no Plea and the Opinion of Fitzh held not to be Law And 3 Cro. 622. 50 Assis 2. Fitzh Issue 53. a Release by a Non compos which is much the same with a Surrender only one works upwards and the other downwards and after Recovery the Party agrees to it the same is binding 39 Hen. 6.42 and 49 Edw. 3.13 Then was mentioned the Provision of the Law in these Cases besides the Care of the Court of Chancery which protects the weak and unwary by Rules of Equity There 's a Writ de Ideota Inquirend ' and the express direction of the Writ is to enquire quas terras alienavit which shews that 't is not void The Statute of Prerogativa Regis is express Authority for it the Reason given is that such Persons Lands should not be aliened to their hurt or the King 's It must be agreed that before Office found the King cannot avoid
preferr'd and the reason is because it is a new Right which the Act gave to present to the Church to which the Union was and consequently it must be taken as 't is given And so was it held by the Civilians at Doctors Commons before the Chancellour of London and several assistant Delegates upon a Caveat there against Institution and on Advice of the Lawyers the King 's Presentee acquiesced and never brought any Quare Impedit The Argument now is only as to this one first Presentation there 's no flat Contradiction between the use of the Prerogative and My being Patron for ever but 't is a Contradiction to say the King and I shall both have the same Presentation To say That he shall have a Prerogative here is to say That he shall do a wrong to his Subject for the Bishop can have no other than this one Presentation he can have no other in lieu of it and has no Advantage or Recompence antecedent or subsequent from this Prerogative First-Fruits and Tenths are not demandable from this Parish because no saving of them in the Act to the King upon passing the Act 't is known That in the Commons House the same was press'd to be inserted but denied and the Clause rejected the same Attempt was made in this House but to no purpose In other Acts for the Erecting of new Parishes there is generally such a saving as for St. Ann's and St. John's of Wapping and the Act for uniting of Parishes upon Rebuilding the City hath a Clause of saving to this Effect All which shews That such a saving is necessary tho' the First-Fruits and Tenths being formerly enjoyed by the Popes might have been pretended by Construction of Law to be a Profit annexed to the Crown by Stat. of 26 Hen. 8. cap. 1. all Payments to the Pope having been prohibited by 25 Hen. 8. cap. 21. and all Profits and Commodities enjoyed by the Popes thereby annexed to the Crown Yet neither that Act nor that other in the same Year whereby the First-Fruits and Tenths of all Ecclesiastical Livings that then or thereafter should belong from any Parsonage or Vicarage were granted to the Crown were ever intended to reach this Parish of St. James's it being a new Creation by Act of Parliament and because in the Act no First-Fruits or Tenths are given or saved and there 's as much Reason to argue in that case for an implied saving as there is for this Prerogative Suppose it should be admitted That a presentable Benefice created by Act of Parliament should be subject to the same Rules as others are yet that will not reach this because not like other Benefices till once presented to 't is a peculiar singular Case by 2 Roll. abr 342. and 1 Inst 344. If a Patron present to a Donative it becomes presentative ever after which shews That 't is the Presentation which makes it presentative in its Nature now here 't is plainly a Donative till once presented to Then it was said That it is not needful to engage in the Dispute whether this Prerogative shall prevail against the Grantee of the next Avoidance according to Woodley's Case 2 Cro. 695. or whether that case be Law for that the same is plainly distinguishable from our Case for there the Grantee comes in the place of the Grantor quoad that Avoidance and he can have no better or greater Right than his Grantor would have had if no such Grant had been made Here ours is a first Presentation granted by Act of Parliament Suppose the Donors of this Presentation to the Bishop had named a Person in Esse to have succeeded upon the Death or Avoidance of Dr. Tennison no Man will pretend that this Prerogative should have prevented him the reason given in the Books cited for that Case of the Grantee of the next Avoidance is That the Patron could not grant more or otherwise than under the Contingency of this Prerogative Surely they will not say That the King Lords and Commons were such feeble qualified restrained Donors then the Parliament being the Donors the Prerogative insisted upon and the express Gift to the Bishop are contradictory and repugnant and cannot both be fulfilled It is no Argument to say That if a Vacancy had been in the See and the Temporalties in the King's hands then the King must have presented and not the Bishop and that would have contradicted the Act as much as this for that had been the same as if the Bishop had presented himself for the King during that time was in loco ordinarij To say That the Bishop of London hath no more right by the Act of Parliament then a Grantee of the next Avoidance hath by the Common Law this surely is no very close reasoning for there is some difference between the one and the other Here the Act of Parliament which hath the King's Consent gives a particular and express Right and an Act of Parliament may as Coke saith alter change annul abridge diminish qualifie enlarge or transferr any Common Law nay it hath the Common Law and the Prerogative too under its Controul Upon the whole it was concluded That by this Judgment a new Prerogative is affirm'd to belong to the Crown and this is extended to a turn after a Commendam which may be a prejudice to all the Patrons in England 2. It destroys and makes useless the plain and express Words and Meaning of the Act of Parliament which gives the first Presentation to the Bishop of London and 3. It confirms the old Non obstante Doctrine of Commendams which hath always been acknowledged to be to the prejudice of the Church wherefore it was prayed That the said Judgment might be revers'd On the other side it was argued That this Judgment ought to be affirmed for that as to the first pont tho' it hath been said to be a new thing and grounded upon late Presidents yet it hath been so often adjudged that it doth not now deserve a Debate 't was solemnly settled in Wright's Case and upon Consideration 2 Rolls Abridg. 343 344. 3 Cro. 526. Moore 399. That tho' many ancient Authorities have been lost yet in Brooke Presentment al Esglise 61. there is the Opinion of the Bishop of Ely for it And as to the old Presidents there 's no need of Recourse to them because continual Usage hath been with the King in this matter a settled Opinion for an hundred years is surely enough to declare the Law as to this particular This is sufficient Evidence to prove this Right in the Crown there being no Judicial Opinion against it The reason for this Prerogative is because the King by the exercise of his prerogative in the promotion hath made the Avoidance and it is but changing one Life for another and possibly the Patron is as near the having another presentation as before It was agreed that this is none of the prerogatives mentioned in the Statute de Prerogativa Regis but
Ancient Legislators The wise Solon who founded that Popular Government of Athens was not so fond of his own Frame as to recommend it to other places tho' he believed that it suited best with the Infirmities of the People And even in Rome before she acquired any great Reputation there was a Senate under Kings it had one nor doth it appear that a Senate was adjudged useless when it became and was called a Common-wealth And as soon as the Senate lost its Authority a Tyranny was set up This may be called their Aristocratical Part and whosoever reads the Lives of those Roman Worthies Cato Vticensis c. that nobly attempted to defend the Liberties of their Country will find That it was for the upholding the Authority of the Senate that they contested fought and died Machiavel indeed in his Discourses upon the Decades of Titus Livius has strained almost every thing in favour of Democracy and with extream Art and Labour hath illustrated a Popular State and made Rome the Example of it and yet even in those Discourses he sometimes shews the Necessity of an Aristocratical Mixture to make a just and regular and happy and lasting Government Nay Algernoon Sydney himself that famous Assertor of Liberty doth almost every where prefer the Aristocracy and he was confirmed in that Sentiment by the Views he had taken of former and present Governments and by the Knowledge he had of what formerly was our own Constitution till Henry the Sevenths Reign For that Prince as the Lord Bacon rightly observes was rather cunning in relation to his own Times then a Person that had a full prospect of what would afterwards be the Consequence of his Measures or that had a due regard to Posterity No Man can wish that the House of Lords should be made Cyphers if they could once again be made the Natural Balance between the King and People There drop even from Mr. Sidney's Pen Expressions enough to prove that a just Composition of the Three Powers Monarchical Aristocratical and Democratical would have been reckoned even by him an equal Government Such a Mixture even our Government was and tho' some perhaps out of meer Ignorance have disputed the Democratical and others the Monarchical part of our Constitution yet no Body ever to this day could pretend that our Barons those Majores Regni had not originally a Share both in the Legislature and Administration within this Kingdom The Fact is not necessary to be proved because 't is not denied and the reasonableness of it is apparent There 's no occasion to Complement them for what their Ancestors did in procuring of Magna Charta which the judicious and indefatigable Antiquary Sir Henry Spelman saith was only an Ascertainment or Recompilement of our Old Laws It would be of Publick Service to have a just State of the true Powers of the House of Lords in their Judicial and Legislative Capacities according to the true English Constitution that we might be familiarized to the almost antiquated Notions of the Aristocratical part of our Government and so may neither be over-run with the Schemes of Absolute Monarchy-Men who would have all Judicial Power even the Dernier Resort lodged in the Crown or in Delegates appointed by it and not in the Parliament nor be crumbled into the Disorders which must follow the Notions of those who aim at a pure Democracy But to write an Exact Discourse upon this Head would require more Lines then can become a Preface The Reader therefore must not here expect an Account of the Growth and Decays of their Power and the true Reasons of Each and the Regulations or Restrictions that will be needful if they ever happen in any degree to be restored to the Preheminence and Authorities which they formerly enjoyed among us It is enough for the present to say That all the Measures taken and used in the Exercise of their Judicature are observed without Doors especially by the Persons concerned their Relations and Friends That the Errors in such Exercise if any are only to be corrected by themselves and no ways proper or fit to be suggested by any private Person much less to be published in Print However it may be hoped that these Reports may probably convince the young Nobles of this Realm and all who are imployed in and about their Education that some general Knowledge of the Laws of England and some Acquaintance with History and other Learning cannot be unworthy the Ambition of every Noble-man's Son who has any hopes to sit as Judge in that August Assembly where the nicest of Questions in Cases of the greatest Consequence and between the greatest of Subjects and many times between the King and his People do frequently come under Consideration And these Papers may likewise remember them what just Liberty of Arguing and Debating hath been allowed to Counsel and with what Candour and Patience they have been heard even in the most tender Points As also shew them what Resolutions were taken upon those Debates and Arguments that the Law may be consistent with it self and remain as it is a certain Rule of doing Right As to the present Performance the Reader is desired to pardon all Mistakes in Grammar and in the Figures of Folio's and Pages and other common Errata of the Press which by reason of multiplicity of other Business could not easily be attended to and observed Omari Res ipsa negat THere will shortly be Printed The Historical Library of Diodorus the Sicilian the whole Fifteen Books Translated from the Greek with all the Fragments And will be Sold by Awnsham and John Churchill in Pater-noster-row Dominus Rex Viscount Purbeck UPON a Petition the Question was in the House of Lords Whether the Dignity of a Viscount could be surrendred to the King by a Fine And it was Argued at the Bar by three Counsel for the Petitioner and by the Attorney General for the King It was urged on behalf of the Petitioner That a Dignity cannot be surrendred to the Crown and that for these Reasons 1. It is a Personal Dignity annexed to the Blood and so inseparable and immoveable See Ratcliff's Case 3 Rep. Rutland's Case 6 Rep. 53. that it cannot be either transferred to any other Person or surrendred to the Crown it can neither move forward nor backward but only downward to Posterity and nothing but a Deficiency or a Corruption of the Blood can hinder the Descent as if the Ancestor be Attainted of Treason or Felony c. For in that Case the Heir conveying no Inheritable Blood cannot make any Claim to that which is annexed to the Inheritable Blood and besides there is a tacite Condition of Forfeiture annexed to those Dignities by the Breach of which Condition the Dignity is determined but by the Act of the Party there can be no Determination of it unless there be an Attainder which corrupts the Blood And he took a difference between Ancient Honours and Dignities which were
Feodary and Officiary as Earl Marshal of England which have a Relation to an Office or Land for such are Transferrable over and such Dignities as are only Personal Inherent in the Blood and only favour quasi of the Reality of which no Fine can be levied as 't is of an Annuity to a Man and his Heirs no Fine can be levied 2. A Dignity was neither subject to a Condition at the Common Law nor intailable by the Statute de Donis c. nor barrable by the Statute of Fines Indeed in Nevil's Case something which favours of the contrary Opinion is said but the Question there was Whether 't was forfeitable by Treason And therefore the present Question is very forreign to the Matter there debated A Dignity differs from other Inheritances being an Honour Personal affixed to the Blood cannot be forfeited by a Non-performance of a Condition except that Tacite Condition in Law and consequently cannot be intailed and tho' the Title of a Viscount be of a Place yet it is only Titular for it is often taken from the Sirnames of Families 3. The Title of Viscount c. is not so much a private Interest as a publick Right for Peers are born Counsellors of State and one part of a Senatory Body and therefore cannot be renounced without the Consent of all those who have interest in it they cannot without the Consent of the whole Body whereof they are so considerable Members cut themselves off from the Body and so the Objection of quilibet potest Juri suo renuntiare is easily answered 'T was further argued on the same side That 1. An Honour goes not according to the Rules of the Common Law nor is it governable by them it is not therefore pertinent to argue from those Rules which hold in Cases of other Inheritances for a Dignity descends to the Half-blood there is no Coparcinership of it but the Eldest takes the whole a Fee-simple will go to a Noble-man without the word Heirs 1 Inst 27. It differs from Estates in Land in the Intrinsick Matter as well as the Manner of the Limitation because it is given for two Reasons for Counsel and Defence and it is a Civil Interest appointed by the Civil Constitution of the Realm which goes with the Blood and is inherent in the Blood insomuch that it is agreed on all hands that it can't be transferred to a Stranger and till Nevil's Case 't was doubted whether forfeitable for Treason if a Lord die his Son shall be introduc'd without the Ceremony usual at the first Creation a Peer's eldest Son and all Minors sit behind the Chair of State to prepare them for the Sitting in the House as Members and because they have some Title to the Honour they are called Nobiles Nati for the first time they fetch breath they have Nobility in them So that he that Surrenders by Fine must not only extinguish his Estate in the Honour but also the Nobility of his Blood 2. Every Lord is not only a Lord for himself but also hath a Right of Peerage and is a Peer of the Realm and therefore a Peer for every one of the House and therefore hath the Priviledge to demand his Writ Ex debito Justitiae and is to be tried by his Peers in Capital Crimes and that appears farther from a Matter which happened in this House 16 Car. 2. There was an Order mentioning the Bishops to be Lords of Parliament not Peers at which the Lords wondering ordered a Committee to examine the reason of it which proves that Lord is not so high nor inclusive as Peers So that if the Fine have any Operation it takes away not only his Right but also the Right of the House of Lords 3. The trial of Baron or no Baron upon Issue in any Court of Judicature is by the Records of Parliament but if a Fine may be levied in the Common Pleas the Trial is drawn ad aliud Examen and must then be by the Records of that Court The Clerk of the Parliament always certifies if he be a Baron because he hath the Record before him but he cannot certifie he is no Baron because he hath not the Record thereof before him 4. No Fine can be levied of a thing Personal as an Annuity to a Man and his Heirs but a Dignity is a thing Personal and so he took notice of the difference betwixt the Honours of Peerage which are Personal and the Honours that are Feodary and Officiary which have reference to an Office or Land 5. He did argue ab inconvenienti that this Opinion can be no Inconveniency to the Crown but the contrary makes Nobility a meer Pageantry by putting it into the Hands of a weak and angry Father to dispossess an hopeful Son of that which is his Birth-right The Titles of Esquire and Gentleman are drowned in the greater Dignity of that of a Peer and when the greater are gone the other must go with it And then from being a Nobleman to day he and the rest of his Family must be below all Nobility and be called Yeomen or Goodman Villers to morrow which may bring great Confusion to a Noble Family and all its Relatives and surely this House will not put such a publick Disrespect on such a Family by agreeing to so unjust an act of one Man And that which was most relied upon was a Resolution of this House in Stafford's Case Anno 1640. which no Man without Indecency can question it passed not sub silentio or obiter but upon debate neither could it be any way invalid upon account of the Times for it was in the Infancy of that Parliament and that wherein a Peer's Case who sits now in this House was judicially before them and therefore there is no reason to shake that Judgment more than any other Judgment of that time My Lord Cooke in his 4 Inst Chapt. of Ireland is of Opinion that Honours cannot be extinguished but by Act of Parliament Then as to the Precedents that have been urg'd on the other side there are none directly to the Point for as to Nevil's Case there are very few Cases cited there aright and are not to be look'd upon as Law The Case of my Lord of Northumberland in 3 4 Phil. Mar. was by way of Creation and so was the Case of Dudley And Dugdale in his Baronage of England pag. 270. gives an account of it and the rest of the Precedents are above Two hundred years old which passed sub silentio and are not to be vouched unless they were disputed The first is Bigod's who in the time of Edw. 1. surrendred the Honour of Earl-Marshal of England to the King who granted it to him in Tail This Honour is Officiary and therefore nothing to the purpose and the Surrender was made thro' fear Walsingham 95. The next is the Earl of Pembroke's Case who in 8 Edw. 4. was made Earl in Tail and by this he had the