processe of distringas out of the second remembrance Office to distrayne the tenants ad faciendum homagium or pro homagio suo respectuaÌ„do upon which processe the Shiriffes returneth issues And if the Tenant doe not therupon appeare and compound with the King to give a fine for respite of homage then the issues are forfeyted to the King for his contempt but if he appeare then the Court of Exchequer doth agree with him to respite his homage for a small fine wherein they regulate themselves under the rate expressed and set downe in England by vertue of a privie Scale in the 15. yeare of Queene Elizabeth whereby the rates are particularly set downe according to the yearely value of the Lands which rates are confirmed by act of Parliament in 1. Iacob Regis cap. 26. in England before which time there was not any such certayntie but the same rested in the discretion of the Court by the rule of Common-law and so it doth at this day in Ireland howbeit we conceive that the Court of Exchequer here doe well to regulate their discretions by those rates in England and rather to be under then to exceede the same which the Barons there doe as they doe informe us that are Iudges of the other Courts 13. To the 13. they say that they know no rule of Law or statute by which it should be ceÌ„surable in the subjects of this kingdome to repayre into England to appeale unto his Majesty for redresse of injuries or for other their lawfull occasions unles they be prohibited by his Majesties writ or proclamation or other his Command But they find that by the statute of 5. Rich. 2. the passage of the subject out of the Realme is prohibited without speciall licence excepting Noblemen others in the said statute specially excepted some inference to that purpose may be made upon the statute of 25. Hen 6 cap. 2. in this kingdome 14. To the 14. they say that some Deanries dignities not Deanes or dignitaries as the question propounds it are properly de mero jure donative by the King some Elective some Collative according to the first foundation usuage of such Churches they humbly desire that they may not be required to give any further answer to this question for that it may concerne many mens estates which may come judcially in question before them 15. To the 15. they say that they conceive that where priviledges are claymed by any body politicke or other the Kings Counsell may exhibite à quo-warranto to cause the parties clayming such priviledges to shew by what warrant they clayme the same that the Court cannot hinder the issuing of processe at the instance of the Kings Atturney or hinder the Kings Atturney to exhibite such informations But when the case shall upon the proceedings be brought to judgment then not before the Court is to take notice and give judgâ—ment upon the merite circuÌ„stances of the cause as upon due consideration shal be conceived to be according to law in which case the Iudges or the Kings Atturney as they conceive ought not to be punished by any ordinary rule of law or statute that they know But for the particular case of Quo-warranto for that it hath beene a great question in this present Parliament so concernes the highest Court of justice in this kingdome also concernes two other of his Majesties Courts of justice therin his Majesties prerogative in those Courts they say that they cannot safely deliver any opinion therein before it comes judicially before them and that they heare it argued and debated by learned Counsell on both sides 16. To the sixteenth they say that although the Iurors be sole Iudges of the matter of fact yet the Iudges of the Court are Iudges of the validitie of the evidence and of the matters of law arising out of the same wherein the Iury ought to be guided by them And if the Iury in any criminall cause betweene the King and party give their verdict contrary to cleere and apparent evidence delivered in Court they have beene constantly and still ought to be censured in the Star-chamber in England and Castle-chamber here for this misdemeanor in perverting the right course of justice in such fines and other punishment as the merites circumstances of the cause doth deserve according to the course of the said Courts for that their consciences ought to be directed by the evidence and not to bee misguided by their wills or affections And if the Iury know any matter of fact which may eyther better or blemish their evidence they may take advantage thereof but they ought to discover the same to the Iudges And they say that this proceeding in the Court of Castle-chamber is out of the same grounds that writs of attaint are against a Iury that gives a false verdict in a Court of Record at the Common-law betwixt partie and partie which false verdict being found by a Iury of twenty foure notwithstanding that the first Iurie were Iudges of the fact yet that infamous judgement was pronounced against the first Iury which is next or rather worse then judgment to death and did lay a perpetuall brand of perjury upon them for which reason it was anciently called the villanous judgement and they say that the law to direct the punishment for such offences is the course of the said Court which is a law as to that purpose the statute of 3. Henr. 7. cap. 1. and other statutes in force in this kingdome 17. To the seventeenth they say they can answer no otherwise then they have in their answer to the next precedent question 18. To the eighteenth they say that in a Legall construction the statute of Magna Charta in which the words Salvo contenemento are mentioned is only to be understood of amerciaments not of fines yet where great fines are imposed in terrorem upon the reducement of them regard is to be had to the abilitie of the persons 19. To the nineteenth they say that if one doth steale a sheepe or commit any other felony and after flyeth the course of justice or lyeth in woods or mountaynes upon his keeping yet doth he not thereby become a Traytor neyther doth a Proclamation make him so the chiefe use whereof in such a Case is to invite the partie so standing out to submit himselfe to justice or to forewarne others of the danger they may runne into by keeping him company or giving him mayntenance and reliefe whereby he may the rather submit to Iustice 20. To the twentieth they say that the testimony of Rebels or Traytors under protection of Theeves or other infamous persons is not to bee used or pressed as convincing evidence upon the tryall of any man for his life and so is his Majesties printed instructions as to persons condemned or under protectioÌ„ yet the testimony of such persons not condemned being fortified with other concurring
sine licentia Domini Regis Fitz. Natur. br fol. 85 the words of this writ cleares the Common-law in the point it begins with a datum est nobis intelligi c. The King being informed that such person or persons in particular doe intend to goe whether ad partes exteras viz. foraigne Countries to what purpose to prosecute matters to the prejudice of the King his Crowne the King in such a case by his writ warrant or Command under the great Seale privie Seale privy Signet or by proclamation may command any subject not to depart the kingdome without the Kings licence this writ is worthy to be observed for the causes aforesaid therein expressed the writ extendeth only to particular person or persons not to all the subjects of the kingdome no man can affirme that England is pars extera as to us Ireland is annexed to the Crowne of England and governed by the lawes of England our question set forth the cause viz. to appeale to the King for Iustice or to goe to England for other lawfull causes whereas the said writ intends practises with foraigne Princes to the prejudice of the King and his Crowne At the Common-law if a subject in contempt of this Command went ad partes exteras his Lands and goods ought to be seized 2. 3. Philip Mary Dy. 128. b. and yet if the subject went to the parts beyond the Seas before any such speciall inhibition this was not punishable before the statute of 5. Rich. 2. cap. 2. as appeares 12. 13. Elizab. Dy. 296. a. So that before the inhibition the law was indifferent now the question is at Common-law whether the subject of Ireland having no Office can be hindered to appeale or goe to the King for Iustice The King is the fountaine of Iustice and as his power is great to command so the Scepter of his Iustice is as great nay the Scepter hath the priority if any be for at his Coronation his Scepter is on his right side his Sword on his left side to his Iustice he is sworne therefore if any writ Commandement or proclamation bee obtayned from him or published contrary to his Iustice it is not the act of the King but the act of him that misinformed him then will I adde the other words of the question viz. or other his lawfull occasions as I said before in the case of a writ of error in the Kings Bench of England or in the Parliament of England which are remedies given by the law therefore the Common-law doth not hinder any man to prosecute those remedies which are given to everie subject by the same A scire facias may be brought by the King in England to repeale a patent under the great Seale of Ireland of lands in Ireland 20. Henr. 6. fol. a. An exchange of lands in England for lands in Ireland is a good exchange in law 8. ass placit. 27. 10. Edw. 3. fol. 42. tempor Edw. 1. Fitz voucher 239. What law therefore can prohibit any subject for to attend this scire facias in England or to make use of his freehold got by exchange The law being thus then it was considered what alteration was wrought by one branch of the statute of 5 Rich. 2. cap. 2. by which the passage is stopped out of the kingdome Lords notable Marchants and the Kings souldiers excepted I conceive this statute doth not include Ireland I never heard any Irishman questioned upon this statute for going into England nor any Englishman for comming into Ireland untill the late proclamation by the statute 34. Edw. 3. c. 18. in England all persons which have their heritage or possessions in Ireland may come with their beasts corne c. to and fro paying the Kings dues The statute of 5. Rich. 2. did never intend by implication to avoyde the said expresse statute of Edw. 3. betweene the Kings two kingdomes being governed by one law in effect the same people the words of the statute of 5. Rich. 2. are observable the principall scope of it is against the exportation of Bullion in the later part there is a clause for licences to be had in particular Portes by which I conceive that the Customers of those Portes may grant a let passe in such Cases It is therefore to be considered whether that branch of the said statute of 5. Rich. 2. was received in Ireland I thinke it is cleare it was not for by the statute 10. Henr. 7. cap. 22. in Ireland all the generall statutes of England were received in Ireland with this qualification viz. such as were for the Common and publicke weale c. And surely it cannot be for the weale of this kingdome that the subjects here be stayed from obtayning of Iustice or following other lawfull causes in England The statute of 25. Henr. 6. cap. 2. in Ireland excuseth absentes by the Kings command and imposeth no other penaltie so that upon the whole matter this question is not answered For so much as they doe answer of this question the answer is good for there is no doubt to be made but Deaneries are some donative some elective and some may be presentative according to the respective foundations I will only speake of a Deane de facto if a Deane bee made a Bishop and hath a dispensation Decanatus dignitatem in commenda in the retinere the confirmation of such a Deane is good in law This was the case of Evans and Acough in the Kings Bench in England Ter. 3. Caroli where Doctor Thornbow Deane of Yorke was made Bishop of Limmericke with a dispensation to hold in the retinere after his patent and before consecration it was adjudged his confirmation was good and yet if a Deane be made a Bishop in any part of the world this is a Cession Co. 5. 102. a. VVindsors case Davis Rep. 42. 43. c. The Deane of Fernes his case 18. Elizab. Dy. 346. the confirmation of a meere Laicus being Deane is good though he be after deprived 10. Eliz. Dy. 273. 12. 13. Elizab. Dy. 293. although the Deane be after deprived by sentence declaratorie yet his precedent confirmations are good So I conceive that a Deane who hath stallum in Choro vocem in Capitulo during all the time of his life and never questioned and usually confirmed all Leases without interruption is good And to question all such acts 40. 50. 100. yeares after is without president especially in Ireland untill of late yeares and in this kingdome few or no foundations of Bishopricks or Deaneries can bee found upon any Record therefore I conceive the Iudges ought to answer this part of the question My Lords I know you cannot forget the grounds I layd before for this question nor the time nor the occasion of the issuing of Quo warrantoes nor what was done thereupon in the Court of Exchequer Now remayneth to consider of the answer
Common-wealth And they say that the matter manner restrictions limitations reservations and other clauses contayned in such grants or licences and the Commissions or Proclamations thereupon and undue execution thereof and severall circumstances may make the same lawfull or unlawfull whereof they are not able to give any certayne resolution before some particular commes in judgement before them neyther are they otherwise able to answer the generall in the particulars of the said question of what in what cases how where and by whom or which of them wherein whosoever desireth further satisfaction he may please to have recourse unto the knowne cases of Monoplies Printed authorities and written Reports and unto the statute of 21. Ia. in England concerning Monopolies and the severall exceptions and limitations therein 6. To the sixt they say they can no otherwise answer then they have already in their answer to the third question for the reasons therein setforth 7. To the seventh they say that a Proclamation or act of State cannot alter the common-law and yet Proclamations are acts of his Majesties prerogative and are and alwayes have beene of great use and that the contemners of such of them as are not against the law are and by the constant practise of the Star-chamber in England have beene punished according the nature of the contempt and course of the said Court and although acts of State are not of force to bind the goods possessions or inheritance of the subject yet they have beene of great use for the setling of the estates of very many subjects in this kingdome as may appeare in the Report of the case of Irish gavelkind in Print And further to that question they cannot answer for the reasons in their answer unto the third question set forth 8. To the eight they say that they know no ordinary rule of law by which the subjects of this kingdome are made subject to Marshall-law in time of peace and that they find the use thereof in time of peace in England complayned off in the petition of right exhibited to his Majestie in the third yeare of his raigne And that they conceive the granting of authority and Commission for execution thereof is derived out of his Majesties Regall and prerogative power for suppressing of suddaine and great insolencies and insurrections among armies or multitudes of armed men lawfully or unlawfully convented together the right use wherof in all times hath beene found most necessary in this kingdome And further to that question they cannot answer for that as they conceive it doth concerne his Majesties Regall power and that the answering of the other part of the question doth properly belong to another profession whereof they have no Cognizance 9. To the ninth they say that as the taking of any Oath before any but such Iudges or persons as have power to give or demaund an Oath for decision of controversies is by most Divinâ— in most cases counted to be a rash Oath and so an offence against God within the third Commandement so the prescribing and demaunding of a set Oath by any that cannot derive power so to doe from the Crowne where the fountaine of Iustice under God doth reside is an offence against the law of the Land and as for voluntary and extra judiciall Oathes although freely taken before arbitrators or others they say as this kingdome is composed in many particulars as the nature consequence of the cause or the quality of the person who taketh or before whom the same is taken may concerne the Common-wealth or the members therof such taking of such Oathes or proceeding or grounding on such Oath in deciding of controversies according to the severall circumstances that may occurre therein or the prejudice it may introduce to the Common-wealth may be punishable by the Common-law or if it grow unto an height or generall inconvenience to the common-wealth or members thereof in the Castle-chamber For though such an Oath be voluntary yet in most cases it is received by him that doth intend to ground his Iudgment thereon and after the Oath is taken the arbitrator or he that intends to yeeld faith to the party that tooke the Oath doth examine him upon one or more questions upon the said Oath unto the answer whereof hee doth give faith and assent trusting on the said Oath And whereas Oathes by Gods institution were chiefly allowed to bee taken before lawfull Magistrates for ending of controversies yet common experience doth teach in this kingdome that oftentimes orders and acts grounded on such voluntary Oathes beget strife and suits and commonly such orders when they come to bee measured by rules of law or equitie in the Kings Courts become voyde after much expence of time and charge that we say nothing of that that thereby many causes proper to the Kings Courts are drawn ad aliud examen and thereby the Kings justice and Courts often defrauded and declined 10. To the tenth they say that they are not Iudges of rules of policie but of law and that they know no certayne rule of law concerning reducement of fines The same being matters of his Majesties own meere Grace after a man is censured for any offence And that they know no law that none shall be admitted to reducement of his fines or other penalties in the Courts in the question specified untill he confesse the fact for which he was censured But forasmuch as the admittance to a reducement after conviction for an offence is matter of Grace and not Iustice It hath beene the constant course of these Courts both here and in England for cleering of his Majesties justice where the partie will not goe about to cleere himselfe by reversall of the censure or decree not to admit him to that grace untill he hath confessed the justnesse of the sentence pronounced by the Court against him And that the rather for that commonly the ability and disabilitie of the partie doth not appeare in judgement before them but the nature and circumstances of the offence according to which they give sentence against him or them in terrorem after which when the partie shall make the weaknesse of his estate appeare or that the Court is otherwise ascerteyned that they doe of course proportion the censure or penaltie having regard to his estate 11. To the eleventh they say That neither the Iudges of the Kings Bench as they informe us that are of that Court or Iustices of Gaole delivery or of any other Court doe or can by any law they know deny the copies of Indictments of Felony or Treason to the partie only accused as by the said question is demanded 12. To the twelfth they say that where lands are holden of the King by the Knights service in Capite the tenant by the strict course of Law ought in person to doe his homage to the King and untill he hath done his homage the ancient course of the Exchequer hath beene yet is to issue
custome is here over all the kingdome And yet if any man aske the question by what law wee are governed there is no proper answer other then by the law of England And for the statutes of England generall statutes were received in this kingdome some at one time some at another and all generall statutes by Poynings Act anno 10. Henr. 7. but no other statute or new introducting law untill the same be first received and enacted in Parliament in this kingdome and this may appeare by two declarative statutes the one 10. Henr. 4. the other 29. of Henr. 6. The law of England as it is the best humane law so it is a noble and sociable law and for the more cleere discerning of the truth and equall administration of Iustice it referres many causes to their genuyn and naturall proceedings as Maritime causes to the Court of Admiralty Co. Institutes 260. 361. Stamford 57. b. Co. 5. 106. 107 Constables Case and there the proceeding is by the Civill law Co 8 47. b. Matters beyond the Seas are determined in the Court of constable and Marshall Cookes institutes 391. b. matters of Latin the law referres to Grammarians Com. fol. 122. matters meerely Ecclesiasticall to bee tryed and determined in the proper Courts Coke 7. 43 b 8. Co. 68. 5. Co. 57. 1. R. 3. 4. matters of merchandize to Marchants 34. Henr. 8. Dy 52 54. Many other cases upon this learning are to be found Co. 9. fol. 30. 31. 32. Strat. Marclads case Yet in all these and the like Cases the tryall and determination thereof are bounded and controuled by the rules of the Common-law they are as Rivers which are necessary to run through the land to helpe the inhabitants thereof but if they overflow the bankes the bankes are made higher and stronger to suppresse their violent current so in all the cases aforesaid and the like The Common-law hath limitted the proceedings if they exceede their bounds witnesse the prohibitions in all our Bookes and the statutes of Provision and praemunire and cases there upon in many ages by which it is manifest that the Supreame and governing law are the Common-law Common-customes and statutes of the Realme and the rest but ministers and servants unto it brevia remediana are onely by the Common-law mandatoria may bee in the said other cases 7. Co. Calvins case Dy. 176. So that the answer as to the words in the generall is short and ought to be positive As to the Courtes of equitie they have beene ancient in England and the Courts of eqnity here ought to bee guided by the constant proceedings in England in ages past I meane not by this or that Chancellor but by that naturall and just equity in the Courts here observed This equitie is of absolute necessitie in many cases ipsae etenim leges capiunt ut jure regantur and therefore is included within the law of the Land and not to bee devided from it as out of this writing it may bee inferred As to the case of killing in rebellion to operate an Attaynder if this bee no law in England it cannot bee law here vide Dame-hales case com 263. a. 8. Edw. 3. 20. fitz Dower 106. Cromptons Iurisdiction fol. 84. a. by which it may be urged that it is an Attaynder for that hee prevented the judgement of law by fighting against the Crowne and by his killing therein which ensued his unlawfull and trayterous act but I observe to the contrary the books of 7. Henr. 4. 32 b. Cook 4. 57. Sadlers case I doe confesse that in England statutes may be obsolete as the statute of VVilliam Butler by which the heire may have an action of wast Rastall 5. 21. all the books are contrary and so is the statute of Merton of disparagment as to an action to bee brought for the same so are some antiquated lawes 40. Edw. 3. 42. 42. ass 8. 25. one present aiding to murder was accessary but now is principall 4. Hen. 7. 18. Com. 99. 100. a Vicar could not anciently have an action against a Parson 40. Edw. 3. 28. Finchden the law is now otherwise and so of an entry upon a feoffee with warranty sit fol. 23. 24. in the case of disparagement give the reason because that those statutes and lawes were never used therfore obsolete our case is nothing like for life liberty and propertie being in debate but an obsolete law is no law in force Therefore the answer as to that is defective As to the case of a fellon upon his keeping and terrifying of the people I conceive the answer is uncertaine and dangerous if such a fellon raise an armed power against the Crowne and terrifie that way no doubt this is treason within the statute of 25. Edw. 3. or the equity of it and by the statute of 10. Hen. 7. cap. 13. in Ireland statuto Hiberniae fol. 62. but if such terrifying be without raising armes or by committing the same or the like fellonies it is no more then the case of purse-takers by force in the high wayes of England many a man was terrified thereby in Salisbury-plaine and yet no treason and if there be no statute here which is not in England to make it treason certainly it cannot be treason since the Conquest writ of error have been brought for to reverse Iudgments given in the Kings Bench here in the Court of Kings Bench in England no course here which is contrary to law can alter the law of England therefore to what purpose is a declaration of Iudges here contrary to the law there This writ of error is a writ framed in the Register and appeares by common experience I will offer a notable case which I saw adjudged in the Kings Bench in England Pasc 18. Iacobi for Stafford against Stafford in a writ of error for to reverse a Iudgment given in the Kings Bench in Ireland when Sir VVilliam Iones was Chiefe Iustice here in an ejectione firme for that in the declaration there was contained among other things ducentas acras Montani Sir VVilliam Iones being in England affirmed the course here to have been so and vouched many notable Presidents thereupon an order was conceived that Sir Iames Ley Sir Humphry VVinch and Sir Iohn Denham knights who were formerly Chiefe Iustices here should certifie the course who made report that the course in Ireland was and ought to be in writts originall and Iudiciall to be directed by the Register in pleading to be guided by the books of entries and thereupon the Iudgement was reversed And the Chiefe Iustice Mountague said that if they did not proceed in Ireland according to law they should learne it And so I conclude that the answer to the first Question is insufficient As touching the second Question which is concerning the Oath which this Iudges doe take the question is whether the Iudges of the land doe take the Oath of Iudges And if so c.
takes away the Kings prerogative for cutting woodes where he pleased many other cases there are upon this learning By this great Iustice and bounty of the Kings of England the Kings grew still greater and more permanent The people became free and wealthy no King so great as a King of rich free people If the Councell-table may retaine cognizance of causes coÌ„trary to the Law to so many Acts of Parliament why may they not avoyde all Acts of Parliament aswell This no man will affirme nor they intend My Lords two objections seeme to stand in my way First the multitude of presidents countenancing the cognizance of the Councell-board in the matter aforesaid some in ancient times and of late in great clusters throngs Secondly that in book Cases it appeares the Iudges of Law did take advice in their Iudgements with the Kings Counsell as 40 Ed. 3. fol. 34. 39. Ass placito primo 35. Edw. 3. fol. 35. 19. Edw. 3. fitz Iudgement 174. In answer to the first as for the multitude of presidents hinc illae lachrymae there is our griefe I find in our Bookes that presidents against Law doe never bind there is no downe right mischiefe But a president may be called upon to beare it up Iudicandum est legibus non exemplis Cooke 4. fol. 33. Mitâ—ons case Cooke 11. fol. 75. Magdalen Colledges case Cooke 4. fol. 94. Slades case multitudo errantium non parit errori patrocinium I answer to the second that in those yeare books of Edw. 3. It is true that the Iudges appealed to the Kings Councell for advice in law but who gave the Iudgment the Iudges and what Iudgement a legall Iudgement and no paper or arbitrary Iudgment If this objection were materiall I might answer further that the Councell here may bee understood the great Councell viz. the Parliament propter excellentiam vide Cooke 6. 19. 20. Gregories case By the stat of 4. Edw. cap. 3. 14. and 36. Edw. 3. c. 10. Rastall fol. 316. Parliaments were then to be held once a yeare the booke of 39. Edw. 3. fol. 35. in the case of a formedon may well warrant this explanation of those books the Bishops Abbots Earles and Barons mentioned in the said books may be well taken to be the Lords house which might sit by adjournements in those times of frequent Parliaments My Lords I kept you too long upon this Question I will be as short in the next And so I conclude the answer as to this point is no answer and whether the matters therein comprized be of dangerous consequence I submit to your Lordships If the Chiefe Governor and Councell of this kingdome cannot heare or determine the causes aforesaid surely the Chiefe Governor alone cannot doe it all I have said to the third I doe apply to this Question together with one president worthy your observation in 25. Edw. 1. Claus. m. 20. where I have an authenticke coppie viz. Claus. vicessimo quinto Eaw primi m. 20. Rex dilecto fideli suo Iohanni VVogan Iusticiario suo Hiberniae salutem cum intellexerimus quod vos comunia placita quae totis temporibus retroactis per brevia originalia de Cancellaria nostra Hiberniae placitari deberent consueverunt per billas petitiones vacuas jam de novo coram vobis deduci facitis etiam terminari per quod feodum sigilli nostri quo utimur in Hibernia fines pro breuibus dandis ad alia commoda quae nobis inde solent accrescere di versimode subtrabuntur in nostri incolarum partium illarum damnum non modicum gravamen nolentes igitur hujusmodi novitates fieri per quas nobis damna gravia poterunt evenire vobis mandamus quod si ita est tunc aliqua placita comunia quae per brevia originalia de Cancellaria nostra praedictâ— de jure consuetudine hucusque visitata habent terminari per petitiones billas coram vobis deduci placitari aut terminari de caetero nullatenus praesumatis per quod vobis imputari debeat aut possit novum incommodum in hac parte Teste Rege apud Shestoniam xxiij die Martij Convenit cum Recorda VVilliam Collet Your Lordships may see that in Edward the firsts time the King took notice First that the said petitions were void Secondly that his revenues were thereby impaired Thirdly that it was against the Custome of the land of Ireland Fourthly that it was to the grievance of the people of Ireland Fifthly he comanded Iohn VVogan then Chiefe Governor not to presume to deale in the like proceedings thereafter I marvaile not a little wherefore the Iudges in our time after so many acts of Parliament since 25. Edw. 1. should make any doubt or question to answer this cleerly My Lords I humbly desire not to be misconstrued in the debate of this Question my meaning is not to pry into his Majesties just prerogatives Qui enim majestatem scrutatur Principis corruet spelndore ejus the old saying in English is as good he that hewes a block above his head the chipps will fall into his eyes The Question warrants no such scrutinie I may not officiously search into it The Question is onely whether grants made of monopolies to a subject be good in law And whether by pretext of such grants the Kings free people may loose their goods by seisures or may be fined imprisoned pillored papered c. Those things have been done and acted in many cases where the Monopolites were Iudges and parties in which case if an act of Parliament did erect such a Iudicatorie it were void as against naturall Iustice Cooke 8. 118. a Doctor Bonhams case I speake to that thing that odious thing Monopolie which in law is detestable Cooke 11. 53. b. the Taylors of Ipswich case by which any subject is hindered to exercise his lawfull trade or lawfully to acquire his living and the Condition of a bond being to restraine any man from his trade the bond is void in law 2 Hen. 5. 5. b. In this case the Iudge Hull swoare par Dieu if hee who tooke this bond were present he would fine him to the King and commit him to prison by which case I observe that the consent of the partie cannot make it good That a Patent of any such Monopolies is a grievance against the Common wealth and consequently voyd in law the case was of Cards which is observable Cook 11. 85. 86. 87 c. Darcy Allens Case There is a Condition tacite or expresse in every grant of the Kings Ita quod patriamagis solito non gravetur vel oneretur vid. Fitz. N. br fol. 222. Cod. ad quod damnum This learning is so cleare as to Monopolies thus stated that I will dwell no longer upon them as I hope they may no longer reside among us The
No Freeman shall be taken imprisoned put off his freehold liberties free customes c. other then by the lawfull judgement of his Peeres as by the law of the land This great assurance in the 38. Chap. of the same statute was granted for the King and his successors to all his people and was confirmed in thirty Parliaments as I said before Cooke 8. the Princes Case by the statute of 5. Edw. 3. cap. 9. 25. Edw. 3. Cap. 4. 28. Edw. â— cap. â— 42. Edw. 3. cap. 1 â— The great Charter is againe confirmed and not onely so but proceedings contrary to the same before the King or his Counsell are declared voyde The King is to observe and mantayne the law the Iudge by his Oath 18. Edward â— is bound to doe right betweene the King and his people and that right strengthens the Kings prerogative presidents or practise contrary to so many statutes are of no use in many ages past encroachments were made upon these just liberties which were alwayes removed by Parliaments Yet I must confesse that of all antiquity some pleas have beene held in the Kings Royall house as in the Court held by the Marshall of the Kings houshold for things arising within the Verge Fleta lib. 2. cap. 2. but when that Court exceeds its due bounds declaratory statutes were alwayes made to meete them as mischiefes in the common-wealth when they medled with land or the like as appeares by the statute of Articule super Chartam 28. Edw. 1. 15. R. 2. cap. 12. all these statutes My Lords and many more to this purpose are undenyably of force in this kingdome and none of them can be with impunitie said to be obsolete or antiquated My Lords they raise another doubt viz that as the King may grant cognizance of pleas to Corporations or the like and therefore to the Councell-table if this neede an answer I will answer it thus that a grant of cognizance never was neyther can it be otherwise then to proceede per legem terrae or per judicium parium in the same manner as Courts doe proceede at Common-law and not upon paper petitions or summary hearings such cognizance was never granted the King is at losse by such proceedings he looseth fines upon originals he looseth amerciaments and fines incident to every judgement at Common-law as I said before I he subject undergoeth an inconvenience First the law will decline writs originall will by disuse be forgotten Clerks who should draw them discouraged to learne legall proceedings out of doores being the foundation of the law and in stead of regular and orderly proceeding rudenesse and barbarisme introduced the subject will loose the benefit of his attaynte and writ of error by which the law might relieve him against false verdicts or erroneous judgments he will loose the benefit of his warranty which might repaire a purchaser in case his acquired purchase were not good Whereas if a Iudge or Iuror doe wrong the remedy is at hand but against the Lord Deputy and Councell who will seeke for it therefore the countenance of this Iudicature in Common-pleas is against the Kings prerogative and the peoples just rights both which the Iudges ought to maintaine and likewise against the intent of your Lordships order My Lords as in England the said severall statutes were made to prevent the inconveniences aforesaid one good statute was made in Ireland 28. Henr. 6. cap. 2. Irish statut fol. 15. which directs matters of Interest to be determined in the Common-pleas matters of the Crowne in the Kings-bench matters of equity in the Chancery This law if there were no more regulates the proceedings in this kingdome The Iudges insist upon the words in the end of that statute viz. Saving the Kings prerogative My Lords this was stood upon at the late great tryall in England and easily answered for by the Common-law the King may by his prerogative sue in any of the foure Courts for his particular interest although it be contrary to the nature of that Court for he may sue à Quare impedit in the Kings Bench the like yet so as the said suite be bounded by the rules of law I will demaund a question whether the King may bring à Quare impedit in paper at the Councell-board the Kings now Atturney I am confident will answer me he cannot The word salvo or saving is in construction of law of a thing in esse or existente and no creative word 26. Ass pla 66. and cannot in the Kings Case be construed to overthrow the law nor many expresse and positive acts of Parliament My Lords in all humblenesse and dutie I will and must acknowledge his Majesties Sacred and lawfull prerogative whereof the King himselfe is the best expositor in his answer to the Petition of right Poltons stat fol. 1433. he declares that his prerogative is to defend the peoples libertie and the peoples libertie strenghtens the Kings prerogative the answer was a Kingly answer and More â—ajorum this is conformable to the great Charter and to all the statutes before recited The government of England being the best in the world was not onely Royall but also politicke some other princes like Cain Nemrod Esau and the like hunters of men subverted lawes The Kings of England maintayned them and did never assume the power to change or alter the lawes as appeares by Fortescue that grave and learned Lord Chancellor in King Henry the sixts time de laudibus legum Angliae cap. 9. fol. 25. and in the same Booke cap. 36. fol. 84. nor to take his peoples goods nor to lay taxe nor tallage upon them other then by their free consent in Parliament this appeares by the Booke Cases in 1â— Henr. 4. fol. 14. 15. 16. the great case of the Awlnage of London and in the Case of toll-travers and toll-through 14. Henr. 4. 9 37. Henr. 6. 27. 8. Henr. 6. 19 all agreeing nor to alter the nature of land as by converting land at Common-law to Gavelkind or Borrough English or e conuerso as to the estate otherwise as to the person of the King Ple. Com. the Lord Barclyes Case fol. 246. 247. Yet it is most true that the law of the land gives the King many naturall and great prerogatives farre beyond all other men as may appeare in the said Case fol. 243. but not to doe wrong to any subject Com. 246. The person of the King is too sacred to doe a wrong in the intention of Law if any wrongs bee done his ministerâ— are Authors and not the King And the Kings just prerogatives by the Kings Royall assent in Parliament were bounded limited and qualified by severall Acts of Parliament as if Tenant in cap. did alien at Common-law without licence this was a forfeyture of his estate Plo Com. case of mines fol. 332. the statutes of 2. Edw. 3. cap 14. makes this only finable the statute of Magna Charta cap. 21.