but for Churches only within the Lordships Marchers whether of the Kings Patronage or others for there it is certain according to the reason given in the Books that the Stewards of the Lordships Marchers to whomsoever they belonged could not write to the Bishops And Newton was right 19 H. 6. That if Action of Dower once brought in the Court of any Signiory real it should be Royal in Wales and there issue should be upon usque accouple in loyal Matrimony which must be tryed by the Bishop but the Court had no power to write to the Bishop but therefore saith he The King shall write to the Marshal to remove the Record hither and then we shall make Process to the Bishop But this is against the Resolution of all the Judges in Cr. 2 Car. 1. f. 34. So as either of Necessity this was a provision in the same Act That as well Quare Impedits should be brought in England of Churches in the Lordships Marchers of Wales as that Writs should be brought in England of Lordships Marchers or any part of them in question because Justice could not be had in Wales either concerning such Lordships or Churches or else Churches within Lordships Marchers being in the same Case for a failer of Justice they were comprehended and ought to be so within the equity of that Act of Parliament for Iustice to be had touching the Lordships themselves and that the Law was such appears 1. That only Quare Impedits for Churches in Lordships Marchers in Wales and not for Churches in the ancient Shires or of the Principality of Wales whereof submission and render was made to E. 1. were to be brought and tryed in England 2. That Tryals and Writs in England for Land in Wales were only for Lordships Marchers and not for any Land in Wales which was of the ancient Principality for the Lordships Marchers were or most of them of the Dominion of England and held of the King in chief as appears by the Statute 28 E. 3. c. 2. and by the Title of the Earl of March before the rendition of the Principality to E. 1. That the Law was so for the Quare Impedits appears in the first place by the Book before cited 11 H. 6. f. 3. where Danby Martin and Newton were of Opinion argued about a Church in Garnsey for the Case before them was not of a Church in Wales That Quare Impedits for Churches in Wales were to be brought in England which was true but not for Churches which were not in any Lordships Marchers Strange affirms positively in the same Case in these words It is frequent to have Quare Impedits in Wales Per Strange 11 H. 6. f. 3. and the Bishops there do serve the Writs directed to them which I my self have often seen And what he said was most true for Churches within the Principality as what the other Judges said was also true concerning Churches within the Lordships Marchers for those Courts had no power to write to the Bishops But this is most manifest by the Statute of Wales 12 E. 1. That the Kings Justiciar there had power within the County where he was Justiciar to write to the Bishops which the Lords Marchers could not do The words of the Law are upon demand of Dower in Wales before the Kings Justiciar Stat. Walliae f. 17. Si forte objiciat quare non debet dotem habere eo quod nunquam fuit tali quem ipsa vocat virum legitimo matrimonio copulata tunc mandabitur Episcopo quod super hoc inquirat veritatem inquisita veritate certificet Justitiarios Walliae secundum certificationem Episcopi procedatur ad judicium It is clear also 10 H. 4. f. 6. That the Bishops of Wales were originally of the Foundation of the Princes of Wales as is the Book of 10 H. 4. and their Courts did write to their own Bishops as the Courts in England did to the Kings Bishops And when the Dominion of Wales was lawfully vested in the King of England his Justices there must have the same power as to the Bishops that the Justices of the Courts of the Prince of Wales had before How the same stands in this point since the Statute of 27 of the Vnion of Wales with England shall be shewed after Besides what hath been already shewed That the Writs out of the Chancery in England issued not into Wales for Tryals of Land other than the Land of Lordships Marchers and by a special Law that was provided but neither for other Lands nor for other Issues arising in Wales Tryals were not to be in the English Counties 11 H. 6. f. 3. A B. In 11 H. 6. Danby saith That if a Church in Wales which is out of the Jurisdiction of the Common Law and a Franchise of the Prince cannot award a Writ to the Bishop and for this cause it must be brought here But other Actions are not maintainable here of a thing done in Wales which was true of a thing done within the Principality and of a Church within the Principality also a Quare Impedit was not to be brought in England 19 H. 6. f. 12. A. In 19 H. 6. Fortescue takes a difference between Wales which was once a Kingdom of it self and the Counties Palatine which were parcels of England and therefore saith The King may send a Record to be tryed in the Counties Palatine because he might do so at Common Law but could not into Wales because he could not at Common Law And then he saith That is the cause that the Statute wills that of things pleaded there as of a Release bearing date there it shall be tryed in the next adjoyning County What this Statute should be he means unless it be the same mentioned in the Case 18 E. 2. is not intelligible for the Statute of 9 E. 3. which speaks of Releases pleaded in Franchises within the Realm That they should be tryed in the County where the Action was brought he cannot intend for that Wales was no Franches nor Franchis of the Realm and Tryals where the Action is brought is not a Tryal in the next adjoyning County to the place where the Issue arises And by Ascue expresly in that Case that Statute proves in it self it doth not extend to a Deed bearing date in Wales but all such Deeds and all other things alledged in Wales shall be tryed in the County next adjoyning by the Common Law for so he adds which could not be So as an Action brought upon a Bond or Deed made in Wales Ireland Normandy Dutchland or upon a matter there alledged cannot possibly be for want of Tryal but a Plea in Barr to an Action brought arising there some question hath been Whether such a Plea shall not be tryed where the Action is brought and in such a Case if the Plea in Barr arise wholly out of the Realm of England the better Opinion is that such Plea
more Books Obj. 3 That by the Statute of 9 E. 3. Pleas of Releases or Deeds dated in Franchises within the Realm shall be tryed where the Action is brought Answ Wales is no Franchise or if it were not within the Realm for the questions concerning a Deed pleaded bearing date there but of Original Process for Causes arising and Tryals of them in the next County adjoyning and not in the County where the Action of a Deed dated in a Franchise of the Realm which do toto coelo differ and concerning Executions and Judgments here to be made in another Dominion The same may be said concerning the Statute of 12 E. 2. when Witnesses to Deeds in Forreign Franchises are to be summoned with the Iury and the Tryal notwithstanding their absence to proceed when the Writ is brought Obj. 4 Presidents of Process issued to the Sheriffs of Wales without a Judicial decision upon Argument are of no moment Many things may be done several ways as Bonds though they have regularly one common form yet they may be in other forms as well Presidents are useful to decide questions but in such Cases as these which depend upon Fundamental Principles from which Demonstrations may be drawn millions of Presidents are to no purpose Besides it is known that Officers grant such Process to one Sheriff or County as they use to another nor is it in them to distinguish between the power of the Court over a Sheriff in Wales from a Sheriff in England especially when they find some Writs of Execution going which are warranted by Acts of Parliament which they know not though they do know Process of Execution in fact runs thither as Capias utlagatum Extents upon Statute which are by Acts of Parliament And that other Mandatory Writs issue thither as well at Common Law as by a particular Clause concerning the Chancellor in the Act of 34 H. 8. c. 26. By the Register upon a Judgment had in the Common Pleas against a Clerk Regist f. 43. B Brevium Judicialium who was after made Archbishop of Dublin in Ireland upon a Fieri Facias issued to execute the Judgment to the Sheriff of Middlesex and his Retorn that he had no Lands or Goods in his Bayliwick but was Archbishop in Ireland upon a Testatum of it in the Common Pleas that he had Lands and Goods in Ireland a Fieri Facias issued in the King's name Justiciario suo Hiberniae to make Execution but it appears not whether this Writ issued from the Common Pleas or especially by the King's Direction out of the Chancery which possibly may be as a special Mandatory Writ of the Kings locum tenens there which varies in stile at the Kings pleasure anciently Justiciario suo Hiberniae at other times Locum tenenti nostro at other times Deputat or Capitaneo generali nostro which stiles are not regularly known to the Officers of the Courts at Westminster And perhaps by special Writs to the chief Officer and the King Execution may be made of Judgments given at Westminster in any of his Dominions which would be enquired of FINIS An Exact and Perfect TABLE TO THE REPORTS and ARGUMENTS OF Sir JOHN VAVGHAN Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas. Abatement of Writs See Writs 1. WHere a Writ is brought against an Executor in Debt upon a simple Contract he may abate it 94 2. Judges ought not Ex officio to abate Writs but it must come before them by Demurrer 95 Act of the Party 1. Every act a man is naturally enabled to do is in it self equally good as any other act he is so enabled to do 333 Actions and Actions upon the Case 1. Actions upon the Case are more inferior and ignobler than Actions of Debt 101 2. Actions of the Case are all Actiones Injuriarum contra Pacem and it is not a Debt certain but damages for the breach of the promise that must be recovered in it 101 3. Wheresoever the Debt grew due yet the Debtor is indebted to the Creditor in any place where he is as long as the Debt is unpaid 92 4. The Plaintiff must recover by his own strength and not by the Defendants weakness 8 58 5. If you will recover any thing against any man it is not enough for you to destroy his Title but you must prove your own better than his 60 6. In life liberty and estate every man who hath not forfeited them hath a property and a right which the Law allows him to defend and if it be violated it gives an Action to redress the wrong and punish the wrong-doer 337 7. There are several penal Laws by transgressing of which the Subject can have no particular damage and therefore no particular Action 341 8. All Actions brought against Officers within the Statute of the One and twentieth of K. James must be laid in the proper County 115 116 117 9. Case and not Debt lies for a Solicitor for Soliciting Fees 99 Ad quod dampnum 1. When the King can license without a Writ of Ad quod dampnum he may license if he will whatever the Return of the Writ be 341 345 2. Where the Writ of Ad quod dampnum informs the King better then a Non obstante 356 3. Though there be a Return upon an Ad quod dampnum that it is not ad dampnum yet there must be the Kings license afterwards 341 Administration and Administrator 1. How they are to administer the Intestates Estate 96 2 An Administrator hath a private office of trust he cannot assign nor leave it to his Executor 182 3. An Administrator must take an Oath to make a true accompt 96 4. An Action will not lye against them upon a Tally because it is no good Specialty 100 5. In an Action of Debt upon Bond or Contract brought against him he may confess Judgment if there is no fraud although he hath notice of a former Suit depending 95 100 6. If an Administrator durante minore Aetate brings an Action he must averr the Administrator or Executor to be under the Age of Seventeen years 93 7. The manner of pleading Plene administravit praeter ultra 154 Advowson See Quare Impedit 1. The rights of an Advowson 7 2. Where the Plaintiff and Defendant must alledge Seisin in an Advowson by a former Presentation 8 Agent and Patient 1. In a Quare Impedit both Plaintiff and Defendant are Actors and may have a Writ to the Bishop 6 7 58 Age See Infant Alien 1. The time of the birth is of the Essence of a Subject born for he cannot be a Subject unless at the time of his birth he was under the Kings Liegeance 286 287 2. Regularly who once was an Alien to England cannot be inheritable there but by Act of Parliament 274 282 3. He that is priviledged by the Law of England to inherit must be a Subject of the Kings 268 in loco 278 286 4. He must be more
said William Paul dyed at Oxford That after his death the Defendant was elected Bishop of Oxford and after and before the Writ purchased viz. the 27. of November 1665. Gilbert now Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of all England by his Letters of Dispensation according to the said Act and directed to the said Walter the Defendant now Bishop under his Seal then elect and upon the Bishops petition of the means of his Bishoprick Graciously dispensed with him together with his Bishoprick the Rectory of Whitney in the Diocess and County of Oxford which he then enjoyed and the Rectory of Chymer aforesaid which he by the Kings favour hoped shortly to have to receive hold retain and possess in Commendam as long as he lived and continued Bishop of Oxford with or without Institution and Induction or other solemnity Canonical and to take and receive the profits to his own use without Residence Quantum in eodem Archiepiscopo fuit jura regni paterentur The Letters of Dispensation not to be effectual without the Kings Confirmation That the King after the 28 of Novemb. 17. of his Reign under the great Seal to the said Church so void by Cession presented the Defendant then as aforesaid Bishop Elect and after that is the 28. of Novemb. 17. Car. 2. the King by his Letters Patents under the great Seal dated the same day and year and duly inrolled in the Chancery according to 25 H. 8. did confirm the Letters of Dispensation and that the said Bishop might enjoy all things contained in them according to the form and effect thereof with clauses of non obstante aliquo Statuto or other matter Then averrs that the cause of Dispensation was not contrary to the word of God and that the Pope in H. 8. time did use to grant the like Dispensations to the Kings Subjects which he is ready to averr c. The Plaintiff replys That true it is William Paul Praedict was elected Bishop of Oxford being Incumbent of Chymer but that after his election and before his creation he 2 Decemb. 1663. obtained Letters of the Archbishop under his seal of Faculties for causes therein mentioned of Dispensation to hold the Church of Brightwell and the Rectory of Chymer both which he then lawfully had and to retain the same with his Bishoprick after his consecration c. durant vita sua natural Incumbentiâ suâ in Episcopatu praedict quamdiu eidem Episcopatui praeesset The King 9. Decemb. 15. of his reign confirmed the Letters Patents under the great Seal with non obstante according to the Ordinary form 30. Decemb. 15. Car. 2. was created Bishop Vpon this Replication the Defendant demurs and the Plaintiff joyns in Demurrer Note the Defendant doth not shew to whom he was presented He doth not say that he enter'd by vertue of the Presentation of the King in Chymer In discussing the Case as it appears upon this Record I take it granted 1. If a person Incumbent of one or more Benefices with Cure be consecrated Bishop all his benefices are ipso facto void 2. Vpon such voidance the King and not the Patron is to present to the benefices so void by Cession 3. That any Dispensation after the Consecration comes too late to prevent the Voidance 4. That the Pope could formerly and the Arch-bishop now can sufficiently dispense for a Plurality by 25 H. 8. I shall therefore first make one general Question upon the Case as it appears Whither William Paul Rector of Chymer and elected Bishop of Oxford and before his Consecration dispensed with by the Archbishop to retain his said Rectory with the Bishoprick and having the said Letters of Dispensation confirmed by the King and inroll'd Modo forma prout by the Record did not by virtue of the said Dispensation and Confirmation prevent the voidance of his said Rectory by Cession upon his Consecration For if he did the Rectory became not void until his death and by his death the Plaintiff being Patron hath right to present To determine the General Question I shall make these Questions as arising out of it 1. Whether any Dispensation as this Case is be effectual to prevent an avoidance after Consecration 2. Whether the Archbishop hath power with the King's Confirmation to grant such a Dispensation 3. Whether this Dispensation in particular be sufficient to prevent a voidance of Chymer after Consecration of the late William Paul 1. This Case differs from the Bishop of Ossory's Case in Sir J. Davies's Reports who had a faculty accipere in Commendam with odd power and executed it by collating himself into a Living void by Lapse 2. It varies from the Case of Colt and Glover in the Lord Hobarts Reports and the Dispensation there to the Bishop elect of Lichfield and Coventry which was to retain one Benefice which he had and propria authoritate capere apprendere as many as he could under a certain value The defects of that Dispensation are numerous and excellently handled by the Lord Hobart in that Case of Colt and Glover But in our Case there is no affinity with the defects of those Dispensations but is barely to retain what legally was had before Obj. 1 Per Thyrning The Bp. of St. Davids Case 11 H. 4. f. 37. b. 38. a. Rolls f. 358. ob 1. 11 H. 4. f. 60. B. per Hill An Incumbent of a Church with cure being consecrated Bishop his Living was void by the Law of the Land therefore the Pope could not prevent the voidance after consecration for then the Pope could change the Law of the Land and if the Pope could not the Archbishop cannot The better opinion of that Book 11 H. 4. is contrary and Answ 1 so agreed to be in the Irish Case of Commendams and Rolls his opinion is grounded only upon 11 H. 4. If an Incumbent with cure take another Benefice with cure the first is void by the Law of the Land and the Patron hath right to present therefore the Pope could not grant a Dispensation nor the Arch-bishop now can to hold a Plurality for that were to alter the Law of the Land and to prejudice the Patron But the Law was and is otherwise therefore that reason concludes not in the case of a Bishop A second reason in that case of 11 H. 4. is that such a Dispensation Obj. 2 cannot prevent the avoidance 11 H. 4. f. 59. bi per Skreen because there is no use of it until Consecration for before the Incumbent retains his Living without any Dispensation and when consecrated his Benefices are void and then it is too late to dispense as is agreed This reason is as effectual against a Dispensation for a Plurality Answ 2 for before a man takes a second Living there can be no use of it and after by this reason it comes too late for the Patron hath right to present It was in that great Case endeavoured to avoid the pressure of
this Argument by saying the Dispensations in cases of Plurality were not alike with that of retaining the former Benefice when the Incumbent was created Bishop because in the case of Plurality there was no actual voidance and consequently no title to the Patron to present before Deprivation and that the Dispensation prevented the Deprivation which was a Spiritual Act wherewith the Patron had not to do and by a Consequent only prevented the voidance It is resolv'd in Holland's Case Digby's Case Hollands Case 4. Rep. Digby's Case 4. Rep. and many others that the Patron may present assoon as the Incumbent is Instituted in a second Living without deprivation and that the Law was anciently so therefore that evasion is not material Another answer hath been likewise offered and passeth in the New Books for current that in the case of Pluralities the voidance is by the Canon Law and therefore may be dispensed with by the same Law but in the case of a Bishop made the voidance is by the Common Law If Canon Law be made part of the Law of this Land then is it as much the Law of the Land and as well and by the same Authority as any other part of the Law of the Land And if it be not made the Law of the Land then hath it no more effect than a Law of Utopia therefore the Canon Law in force here is Law of the Land Besides their meaning is to be learn'd who say an Incumbents Benefice made a Bishop is void by the Common Law and not by the Canon Law The words of Thyrning in that case 11 H. 4. are who was then Chief Iustice 11 H. 4. f. 60. b. Da. Rep. f. 81. a. f. 68. b. I suppose that when a man Benefic'd is made a Bishop it is by the Law of holy Church that his Benefice becomes void and the same Law which gives the voidance may cause that it shall not be void and that concerns the power of the Apostle The Common Law doth not prohibit Pluralities nor make a voidance of his Benefice when the Incumbent is Bishop but the ancient Ecclesiastical Law of England Obj. 3 11 H. 4. f. 77. a. per Hill It is a Contradiction that the Incumbent being the Bishops Subject and the Bishop his Soveraign should be united the Servant qua Servant may as well be Master the Tenant qua Tenant Lord the Deputy the Deputor the Delegator the Delagated which is impossible Answ It is a Contradiction that a person Subject being so should not be Subject but no contradiction that a person Subject should cease to be so the subjection of the Incumbent ceaseth when the Rectory is in the Bishop the Deputy is not when the principal Officer executes the office in person and relation of Lord and Tenant destroy'd when the Lord occupies the Land himself If an Act of Parliament should enable every Bishop to hold his former Benefices no contradiction would follow nor doth now by the Dispensation And note all these Reasons deny the Popes power formerly the Arch-bishops now and the King 's also for they are not Reasons against the power of the party dispensing but that the Subject matter is capable of no dispensation There is no inconsistence for a Bishop to be an Incumbent for he is a Spiritual Corporation and being Patron of a Living might and may have it appropriate that is to be for him and his Successors perpetual Incumbents Da. Rep. f. 80. b. The Rectories of Eastmeane and Hambleden are appropriate ad Mensam of the Bishop of Winchester and many others in England and Ireland so appropriated Selden Hist of Tithes â— 6. par 3. f. 8â— b. c. 9. par 2. f. 253. Every Bishop many hundreds of years after Christ was universal Incumbent of his Diocess received all the profits which were but Offerings of Devotion out of which he paid the Salaries of such as officiated under him as Deacons or Curates in places appointed Quest 2 Second Question Whether the Pope formerly used to dispense in such a case and consequently the Arch-bishop now can by the Stat. of 25 H. 8. c. 21 1. Bishop of St. Davies Case The particular dispensation granted to the Bishop of St. Davies in 11 H. 4. is a full instance nor was it in the Argument of that case insisted that the Pope could not dispense with a Bishop to retain or receive a Benefice But the sole Question was Whether in that particular case because the Benefice to be retain'd belong'd to the presentation of a Church-man viz. the Bishop of Salisbury the Dispensation did not amount to a provision and so was within the Statute of Provisions 25 E. 3. 2. By the Statute of 28 H. 8. it appears the Bishop of Rome did grant Faculties and Dispensations to the King's Subjects 28 H. 8. c. 16. as Pluralities Unions Tryalities Appropriations Commendams Exemptions where Commendams are enumerated and by that Act all granted by the Pope are made void but to be renew'd in the Chancery 3. Procuring Commendams were so frequent in Ireland 7 E. 4. c. 2. that a special Act of Parliament was there made 7 E. 4. against all such as should purchase Bulls for any Commendam to put them out of the Kings protection 4. A Bastard instituted and inducted before Deprivation 11 H. 4. f. 78. a. f. 60. a. 11 H. 4. f. 76. b. a Secular Priest before he became regular whereof many were in England and Thyrning saith he knew that Edmond Monk of Berry who was with Edward the Third held many Benefices though a Monk and Pluralities were ordinarily dispensed with by the Pope 5. 11 H. 4. f. 38. a. Hankford saith he hath seen that the same man was Abbot of Glastenbury and Bishop of another Church simul semel Horton 11 H. 4. f. 76. a. The Pope may grant that one man may hold three Bishopricks at a time which Hankford agreed if with consent of the Patrons For if without their consent it was not dispensing to hold them but granting away the property of the Patrons which a Dispensation could not Henry Beaufort Vncle to Henry the Sixth Da. Rep. f. 80. 77. b. had a Dispensation to retain the Bishoprick of Winchester being Cardinal but it was ineffectual because obtained after he was Cardinal Cardinal Woolsey obtained before he was Cardinal a Dispensation to hold the Arch-bishoprick of York and the Abbey of St. Albans together with his Cardinalship Lindwood Titulo de Praebendis cap. Audistis Lindwood f. 100. b. Potestas quae secundum antiqua jura dabatur Episcopis ad dispensandum super pluralitate Beneficiorum restricta est saltem in dignitatibus Beneficiis curatis sed circa beneficia simplicia bene poterunt Episcopi dispensare And in the same Gloss In dignitatibus curatis solus Papa dispensat Authority in the point that a Rector of a Church dispens'd with according to 25 H.
by the party This difference is very material for if the Father could devise the Land in trust for him until his Son came to One and twenty as he can grant the Custody then as in other Cases of Leases for years the Land undoubtedly should go to the Executor or Administrator of him whom the Father named for the tuition and the trust should follow the Land as in other Cases where Lands are convey'd in trust But when he cannot ex directo devise the Land in trust then the Land follows the Custody and not the Custody the Land and the Land must go as the Custody can go and not the Custody as the Land can go Coke Litt. f. 49. a. 1 H. 7. 28. 8 H. 7. 4. As where a House or Land belongs to an Office or a Chamber to a Corody the Office or Corody being granted by Deed the House and Land follows as incident or belonging without Livery because the Office is the principal and the Land but pertaining to it A second Consideration is That by this Act no new custody is instituted but the office of Guardian as to the duty and power of the place is left the same as the Law before had prescrib'd and setled of Guardian in Soccage But the modus habendi of that office is alter'd by this Act in two Circumstances The first 1. It may be held for a longer time viz. to the Age of the Heir of One and twenty where before it was but to Fourteen 2. It may be by other persons held for before it was the next of Kindred not inheritable could have it now who the Father names shall have it So it is as if an Office grantable for life only before should be made grantable for years by Parliament or grantable before to any person should be made grantable but to some kind of persons only The Office as to the Duty of it and its essence is the same it was But the Modus habendi alter'd If therefore this new Guardian is the same in Office and Interest with the former Guardian in Soccage and varies from it only in the Modus habendi then the Ward hath the same legal Remedy against this Guardian as was against the old But if this be a new Office of Guardianship differing in its nature from the other the Heir hath no remedy against him at all in Law For though this new Guardian be enabled to have such Actions as the old might have yet this Act enables not the Heir to have like Actions or any other against him as he might against the Guardian in Soccage The Intent of this Statute is to priviledge the Father against common right to appoint the Guardian of his Heir and the time of his Wardship under One and twenty But leaves the Heirs of all other Ancestors Wards in Soccage as before Therefore I hold 1. That such a Special Guardian cannot transferr the Custody of the Ward by Deed or will to any other 2. That he hath no different Interest from a Guardian in Soccage but for the time of the Wardship 1. When an Act of Parliament alteâ—s the Common Law the meaning shall not be strained beyond the words except in Cases of publick Vtility when the end of the Act appears to be larger than the enacting words But by the words the Father only can appoint the Guardian therefore the Guardian so appointed cannot appoint another Guardian 2. The Mother hath the same concern for her Heir as the Father hath But she cannot by the Act name a Guardian therefore much less can the Guardian named by the Father 3. The Father cannot by the Act give the custody to a Papist but if it may be transferr'd over by him whom the Father names or by Act in Law go to his Executor or Administrator it may come to a Papist against the meaning of the Act. 4. Offices or Acts of personal Trust cannot be assign'd for the Trust is not personal which any man may have Dyer 2 3 Eliz. f. 189. b. 5. At the Common Law none could have the Custody and Marriage of a mans Son and Heir apparent from the Father yet the Father could not grant or sell the Custody and Marriage of his Heir apparent though the marriage was to his own benefit as was resolved by the greater number of the Iudges in the Lord Bray's Case who by Indenture had sold for Eight hundred pounds the Custody and Marriage of his Son and Heir apparent in the time of Henry the Eighth to the Lord Audley Chancellor of England Lord Cromwell Lord Privy Seal Sir William Paulett Treasurer of the Houshold The Marquis of Winchester Lord Treasurer Dyer supra f. 190. b. pl. 19. The Reason given is That the Father hath no Interest to be granted or sold to a Stranger in his eldest Son but it is inseparably annex'd to the person of the Father Two Judges differ'd because an Action of Trespass would lye for taking away a mans Heir apparent and marrying him whence they conclude he might be granted as a Chattel 11 H. 4. f. 23. a. Fitz. N. Br. Tresp f. 90. b. Lett. G. f. 89. Lett. O. But an Action of Trespass will lye for taking away ones Servant For taking away a Monk where he was cloyster'd in Castigationem Pro Uxore abducta cum bonis Viri yet none of these are assignable West 1. c. 48. By the Statute of Westminster the First If the Guardian in Chivalry made a Feoffment of the Wards Lands in his Custody during his Minority the Heir might forthwith have a Writ of Novel Disseisin against the Guardian and Tenant and the Land recover'd should be deliver'd to the next of kinn to the Heir to be kept and accompted for to him at his full Age. This was neither Guardian in Soccage nor Chivalry Coke 2. Inst f. 260. b. By 4 5 P.M. c. 8. No woman child under 16. can be taken against his will whom the Father hath made Guardian by Deed or Will yet this is no Lease of the Custody till 16. nor is it assignable Ratcliffs C. 3. Rep. Shoplands C. 3 Jac. Cr. f. 99. but a special Guardian appointed by the Statute and such a Guardian could not assign over nor should it go to his Executors by the Express Book This Case likewise and common Experience proves That Guardian in Soccage cannot assign nor shall the Custody go to his Executors though some ancient Books make some doubt therein For expresly by the Statute of 52 H. 3. the next of kin is to answer and be accomptable to the Heir in Soccage as this special Guardian is here by Westminster the First These several sorts of Guardians trusted for the Heir could neither assign their Custody nor did it go to their Executors because the Trust was personal and they had no Interest for themselves The Trust is as personal in this new Guardian nor hath he any Interest in it for himself and
determine Whether the marriages mentioned within Leviticus 18. be only prohibited or marriages within the degrees there mentioned The Talmudists hold the first the Karaits the second strongly who in most concurr with our Parochial Table 5. This marriage not prohibited by the Canons 1 Jac. Can. 99. nor contained in the Parochial Table 6. Marriages between the Children and Parents in the ascending line intermediately prohibited and for what Reasons 7. How the words Gods Law except in the Act of 32 H. 8. and the words or otherwise by Holy Scripture in the Act of 28 H. 8. c. 16. are to be intended 8. The Defendant doth not Article That the Vncle Bartholomew Abbot did carnally know Jane his wife and then the marriage is not against Gods Law by 28 H. 8. c. 7 The mischief by the Act of 32 H. 8. was That the Bishop of Rome had always troubled the meer Iurisdiction and Regal Power of the Realm of England and unquieted the Subject by making that unlawful which by Gods word is lawful both in marriages and other things Therefore it is thought convenient for this time that two things be with diligence provided for The first was against dissolution of marriages consummate with bodily knowledge upon pretence of Pre-contracts The other by reason of other prohibitions to marry than Gods Law admitteth As in Kindred or Affinity between Cosen Germans and so to the fourth and fifth Degree which else were lawful and be not prohibited by Gods Law Again that freedom in them was given by Gods Law To remedy these two mischiefs All marriages consummate with bodily knowledge between lawful persons and all persons are declared to be lawful to marry which be not prohibited by Gods Law are made lawful by Authority of Parliament notwithstanding any Prae-contract c. But this part of the Clause to make good marriages notwithstanding pre-contracts is repeal'd 2 E. 6. c. 23. 1 El. c. 1. The other Clause remains which declares all persons lawful to marry who are not prohibited by Gods Law but is of no use to remedy the second mischief For if the Pope shall expound what persons of Consanguinity or Affinity are prohibited by Gods Law to marry he will expound Gods Law as the Canons and Popes formerly did That by the Word of God no man is to uncover the nakedness of the Kindred of his Flesh and therefore marriage is prohibited as farr as there are names of Kindred and memory which is the reason of the Old Canon Law to prohibit to the Seventh Degree for further they had not names of Kindred And if it would have remedied the Inconvenience to say in the Act That all marriages were lawful not prohibited by Gods Law and leave the Pope then to resolve what was prohibited by Gods Law it was to no purpose to have added more words to the Act but to have ended ther and the inconvenience of prohibiting marriages for Consanguinity or Affinity when God did not prohibit had still remain'd But the Act goes on And that no Prohibition or Reservation Gods Law except should impeach any marriage for Consanguinity or Affinity for so it must be understood without the Levitical Degrees for that was the second thing specially to be provided for as the Act saith Not that no marriage should be impeached without the Levitical Degrees which the Act intended not at all nor was it the thing to be provided for but not to be impeached for Kindred or Affinity without the Levitical Degrees as in Cosen Germans and so forth For who will say That by those words no marriage shall be impeached without the Levitical Degrees the Act intended that no marriage for natural Impotency for plurality of Husbands or Wives for Adultery and the like should not be impeached though it were out of the Levitical Degrees For the Act had no aspect upon such marriages but to hinder impeaching marriages for Consanguinity or Affinity without the Levitical Degrees which was the second thing by the Act to be at that time diligently provided for Therefore those words Gods Law except must referr to such other marriages as by Gods Law might be impeach'd and not to any for Consanguinity or Affinity for had not those words been the generality of the Expression No marriage shall be impeach'd without the Levitical Degrees had excluded the impeaching marriages for plurality of Wives or Husbands at a time for Impotency and for Adultery as Sir Edward Coke observes at the end of his Comment upon this Statute in his Second Institutes But if those words No marriage shall be impeach'd Gods Law except shall be understood That no marriage should be impeach'd not prohibited by the Scripture viz. Gods Law Then 1. There was no use of naming the Levitical Degrees at all 2. The Pope would have interpreted the Scripture which belong'd to him to have prohibited all marriages between Kindred as anciently and then the end of the Act had been frustrate 3. Wherein was the Kings Iurisdiction and Regal Power righted if prohibiting of marriage for Consanguinity or Affinity were to be proceeded in as formerly But all marriages without the Levitical Degrees being made lawful because the Secular Iudges by the Act of 28 H. 8. c. 7. had certain Conizance of them both expresly and in Consequence they were no more of Ecclesiastical Conizance than Contracts concerning Land or Lay Chattels were and therefore the questioning of them to be prohibited as the other This was to complain of the Pope as a wrong doer against the Law of God viz. Holy Scripture and diligently to provide remedy for it according to the Scripture whereof the wrong doer was the only decisive and infallible Interpreter as the Church then believed which is redressing a wrong by the Iudgment of the wrong doer Anciently before any Act of Parliament alter'd the Law the lawfulness or unlawfulness of marriages and which were incestuous which not were only of Ecclesiastical Conuzance and the Temporal Courts medled not to ratifie or prohibit any marriage The Statute de Circumspecte agatis 13 E. 1. Circumspecte agatis de Negotiis tangentibus Episcopum Norwic ejus Clerum non puniendo eos si placitum tenuerint in Curia Christianitatis de his quae mere sunt spiritualia viz. de Correctionibus quas faciant pro mortali peccato viz. pro fornicatione adulterio hujusmodi Mag. Chart. Cok. f. 488. upon that Statute Sir Edward Coke in his Comment upon this Statute and those words viz. pro fornicatione adulterio hujusmodi which by the express words of the Statute are said to be mere Spiritualia saith and truly That the word hujusmodi must be understood of offences of like nature with Fornication and Adultery as for solicitation of a womans Chastity which is less than Fornication or Adultery and for Incest which is greater So as the Conuzance of Incest was meerly Spiritual and concern'd not the lay Law at all originally 2. There was no time
Ne Exeat Regnum de Leproso amovendo de Apostata Capiendo ad quod damnum and Writs to call persons thence as hath been done before they had Burgesses to the Parliament of England And Writs of Error into all Dominions belonging to England lye upon the ultimate Iudgments there given into the Kings Courts of England to reverse Judgments or affirm which is the only Writ which concerns Right and Property between the Subjects that lies The Reasons are First for that without such Writ the Law appointed or permitted to such inferiour Dominion might be insensibly changed within it self without the assent of the Dominion Superiour Secondly Judgments might be then given to the disadvantage or lessening of the Superiority which cannot be reasonable or to make the Superiority to be only of the King not of the Crown of England as King James once would have it in the Case of Ireland ex relatione J. Selden mihi whom King James consulted in this Question The practice hath always been accordingly as is familiarly known by reversal or affirmance of Judgments given in the Kings Bench in Ireland in the Kings Bench here which is enough alone to prove the Law to be so to other subordinate Dominions 21 H. 7. f. 3. And it is as clear That Writs of Error did lye in the Kings Bench to reverse Judgments in Calais and the reason is alike per Curiam for which were divers Presidents This being the state of Wales when it first became an Accession to the Dominion of England under E. 1. and when it was far from the Jurisdiction of the Courts of Justice in England as before it was added to the Dominion of the Crown of England And as other Dominions added to it were 7 H. 4. f. 14. it was questioned only Whether a Protection quia moratur in obsequio nostro in Wallia were good because saith the Book it is within the Realm of England it may be as in the Case of Bastardy the Husband being infra quatuor maria which doubtless was the Isle of Brittain so the Primacy of Bishops in Scotland and Wales was that of England Qu. about this but that gives no Jurisdiction to the Courts There were two ways by which alteration might be wrought The first by Act of Parliament in England making Laws to change either the Laws or Jurisdictions of Wales or both The second by Alterations made in the Laws formerly by him established by E. 1. himself and perhaps by his Successors Kings of England without Parliament by a Clause contained in the Close of that Statute or Ordinance called Statutum Walliae in these words Et ideo vobis Mandamus quod premissa de caetero in omnibus observetis ita tantum quod quotiescunque quandocunque ubicunque nobis placuerit possimus predicta Statuta eorum partes singulas declarare interpretari addere sive diminuere pro nostrae libito voluntatis prout securitati nostrae terrae nostrae predictae viderimus expediri This seems to extend but to the person of E. 1. and not to his Successors and however no such change was made by Him or his Successors But the first remarkable Alteration made seems to have been by Act of Parliament and probably in the time of E. 1. who reigned long after the Statute of Wales but the Act it self is no where extant that I could learn But great Evidence that such there was which in some measure gave a Jurisdiction to the Kings Courts of England in Wales not generally but over the Lordships Marchers there This appears clearly by a Case Fitz. Ass 18 E. 2. pl. 382. not much noted nor cited by any that I know to this purpose being out of the printed Year-Books but printed by Fitz-herbert out of the Reports he had of E. 2. as he had of E. 1. and H. 3. all which we want wholly though some Copies are extant of E. 2. which Case is the only light that I know to clear the Question in hand An Assise of Novel Disseisin was brought against C. de libero tenemento in Gowre and the Writ was directed to the Sheriff of Glocester and the Plaint was made of two Commots which is mis-printed Commons and comprehends all Gouers-land now part of the County of Glamorgan by 27 H. 8. but was not so then the Assise past against the Tenant before the Iustice assigned to take Assises in the Marches of Wales The Tenant brought his Writ of Error and Assignes for Error 1. That the Writ was directed to the Sheriff of Glocester and the Land put in view was in Wales 2 That the Land was out of the Power and Bayliwick of the Sheriff of Glocester 3 That the Assise ought to be taken in the County where the Land lies and that Goures-land was in no County 4 That the Writ was de libero tenemento in villa sive Hamletto de Gouerse and Gouer was no Village or Hamlet but an entire Country consisting of two Commots To these Errors assigned Scroope then Chief Justice made Answer 1. That Gower is a great Barony in the Marches of Wales and That every Barony of the Marches hath a Chancellor and its own Writs whereby one Tenant wronged by another may be righted But when the Lord is outed of his intire Barony he can have no remedy by his own Writ for he is outed of all his Jurisdiction And it is repugnant to demand Iustice of him whose Iurisdiction is questioned that is to give it ut mihi videtur That therefore it was ordained by Parliament when the Baron or Marcher is outed of his Barony in the Marches of Wales he ought to go to the King for Remedy and have a Writ in the Kings Chancery directed to the Sheriff of the next English County and the Sheriff of Glocester served the Writ as being the next English Sheriff This being the most material the other Errors were also answered and the Judgment was affirmed From this Case we may learn and from no other as I believe at least with so much clearness That the Summons of Inhabitants in Wales and the tryal of an Issue there arising should be by the Sheriff of and in the next adjoyning English County was first ordained by Parliament though the Act be not extant now nor is it conceived how it should be otherwise it being an empty Opinion that it was by the Common Law as is touched in several Books who knew the practice but were strangers to the reasons of it For if the Law had been that an Issue arising out of the Jurisdiction of the Courts of England should be tryed in that County of England next to the place where the Issue did arise not only any Issue arising in any the Dominions of England out of the Realm might be tryed in England by that rule but any Issue arising in any Forreign parts as France Holland Scotland or elsewhere that were not of the Dominions of England might pari
the Lords of Wales if it be not of Lands between the Lords themselves There is an ancient Book remarkable to the same purpose 8 E. 3. Term. Mich. 59. speaking of the Common Pleas This Court hath more Conuzance of Pleas of the Welch Shires than it hath of Pleas of the County of Chester for the Pleas of Quare Impedits and of Lands and Tenements held of the King in chief in Wales shall be pleaded here and they shall not be so of the County of Chester Fitz. Jurisdiction p. 34. 6 H. 5. Land in Wales immediately held of the King is pleadable in England per Haukford 6 H. 5. no such Book at large The Law and doubtless the Ordinance made by Parliament mentioned in 18 E. 2. concerning Lordships Marchers was the same concerning Land held in chief of the King and are mentioned in the Books as synonimous and were so for all Lordships Marchers were held from the Crown in chief nor could the King probably have other Lands in chief in Wales beside the Lordships Marchers for all was either of Lordships Marchers or Lands belonging to the Principality and held from it and not from the Crown in chief To this purpose there is an ancient Statute 28 E. 3. very convincing 28 E. 3. c. 2. All the Lords of the Marches of Wales shall be perpetually Attendants and annexed to the Crown of England as they and their Ancestors have been at all times before this in whose hands soever the same principality be or shall come And they being no part of the Principality and consequently not under the Statute and Ordinance of Wales 12 E. 1. It was provided by a Law That they should be impleaded in England and the Summons and Tryal to be by the Sheriff of and in the next adjoyning County Accordingly you find the practice was by many ancient Cases remembred but the Year-Books of E. 2 being never printed wherein only that Statute is mentioned otherwise than in Fitz-herbert's Abridgment and the Statute it self not extant gave occasion to men obiter in the time of H. 6. H. 7. long after to say that such impleading for matters arising in Wales in the Courts of England and the Tryals to be in the adjacent Counties because they knew not it came to pass by Act of Parliament was by the Common Law on which had they reflected with seriousness they had found it impossible For that Tryals concerning Lands in Wales quatenus particularly Wales after it became of the Dominion of England should by the Common Law be differing from other Tryals in England and in the adjacent Counties could not possibly be for Wales was made of the Dominion of England within time of memory viz. 12 E. 1. and whatever Tryal was at Common Law must be beyond all memory Therefore no such Tryal for Land in Wales particularly could be by the Common Law It remains then That if such were at Common Law it must be for Lands in all Dominions of the Acquisition of England consequently for Ireland Garnsey and Jersey Gascoign Guyen Calais Tournay as well as Wales but it was never in practice or pretence that any such Tryals should be for any Land in these places Therefore it is evident That it was and it could be no otherwise than by Act of Parliament that Wales differed from the other Dominions belonging to England in these Tryals Nor was it by any new Law made by E. 1. or any his Successors by the Clause in the end of the Statute of Rutland which hath nevâ—r been pretended For by that Clause power was given to change Laws simply for Wales but this way of Tryals changes the Law of England in order to Tryals for Land in Wales which that Clause neither doth nor could warrant Besides this new way of Tryals concerning Lordships Marchers held in chief from the King the Books are full that in Quare Impedits for disturbance to Churches in Wales the Summons and Tryal must be by the Sheriff of and in the adjacent Counties which is often affirmed and agitated in the Books but with as much confusion and as little clearness as the other concerning Land To this purpose is the Case before 8 E. 3. the Pleas of Quare Impedits 8 E. 3. 59. and of Land and Tenements held in chief of the King in Wales shall be pleaded there A Quare Impedit brought by the King against an Abbot 15 E. 3. Fitz. Jurisdiction p. 24. exception taken that the Church was in Wales where the Kings Writ runs not non allocatur for the King was party by the Book as a reason A Quare impedit cannot be brought in Wales 11 H. 6. f. 3. A B. because a Writ to the Bishop cannot be awarded for they will not obey it and so was the Opinion in that Case of Danby Morton and Newton that Quare Impedits for Churches in Wales must be brought only in the Kings Courts and the Opinion is there that the Prince could not direct a Writ to the Bishops in Wales upon Quare Impedits there brought So is the Book of 30 H. 6. of Churches in Wales 30 H. 6. f. 6. B. a Quare Impedit shall be brought in England the Case was cited before concerning Tryals of Lands in Wales A Quare Impedit was brought in the County of Hereford of a disturbance in Wales to present to a Church 35 H. 6. f. 30. A B. exception was taken by Littleton only to this that the Plaintiff did not shew in his Count or Writ that Hereford was the next adjoyning County but by the Book it was well enough for if Hereford were not the next adjoyning County the Defendant might shew it but no exception was taken to the bringing of the Writ into the County of Hereford if it were the next County 36 H 6. f. 33. A B. Quare Impedits shall be brought here of Churches in Wales and shall be sued in the Counties adjoyning for that the Justices read it Bishops will not obey any man there If a Quare Impedit be brought here of a Church in Wales it shall be tryed in the County adjoyning The reason there given is the same as in many other Books Car nous avomus power ad escrier al Evesque mes ils voylont parront ceo disobeyer It is manifestly mis-printed Car nous navomus power ad escrier al Evesque mes ils voylont parront ceo disobeyer which is not sense By these Books and many other it is clear Quare Impedits were formerly brought in England for Churches in Wales as real Writs were for Land and the Tryal was in the next adjoyning English County But as those Tryals for Land were only for Lordships Marchers held of the King in chief or part of them and that by special Act of Parliament as hath been opened So the Quare Impedits brought in England and Tryals there had upon them were not for all Churches in Wales
Courts upon the insufficiency of the Return only and not for priviledge 154 5. Where a man is brought by Habeas Corpus and upon the Return it appears that he was imprisoned illegally though there is no cause of priviledge for him in the Court yet he shall not be remanded to his unlawful Imprisonment 156 6. The Kings Bench may bayl if they please in all Cases but the Common Bench must remand if the cause of the imprisonment returned is just 157 Heir 1. Children shall inherit their Ancestors without limitation in the right ascending Line and are not inherited by them 244 2. In the collateral Lines of Uncle and Nephew the Uncle as well inherits the Nephew as the Nephew the Uncle ibid. 3. The Heir shall never be disinherited by an Estate given by Implication in a Will if such Implication be only constructive and possible but nor a necessary Implication viz. such an Implication that the Devisee must have the thing devised or none else can have it 262 263 268 4. He that is priviledged by the Law of England to inherit there must be a Subject of the Kings 268 5. The four several ways that a man born out of England may inherit in England 281 6. How long the Heir shall continue in Ward upon the Devise of his Father and a full Exposition of the Statute of 12 Car. 2. 178 7. The Heir of the Conizee of a Fine only shall take nothing by Discent 41 Husband and Wife See Baron Feme  Imprisonment See Title Habeas Corpus  Incest 1. INcest was formerly of Spiritual Conuzance 212 2. The primitive Christian Church could punish incestuous marriages no other way than only by forbidding them communion with them 313 3. The Judges have now full conuzance of what Marriages are incestuous and what not 207 209 210 4. Among the Hebrews there was no Divorce for Incest but the Marriage was void and the Incest punished as in persons unmarried ibid. Incumbent 1. One Incumbent may sue a Writ of Spoliation against the other where the Patrons right comes in question 24 2. If an Incumbent with Cure take another Benefice with Cure the first is void and the Patron may present 21 3. A Bishop may be an Incumbent after Consecration 24 4. The Kings Confirmation of the Commendam transfers no right into the Incumbent 26 5. Where the Incumbent doth not read the Articles according to the Statute he stands ipso facto deprived 131 132 6. And if he had not subscribed the Articles he had been never Incumbent 133 Infant 1. Where the Gardianship of an Infant is devised since the Statute of 12 Car. 2. what passes thereby together with a full Exposition of that Statute from 177 to 186 2. He is capable at Seventeen years of Age of taking Administration in his own name 93 Institution and Induction 1. By Induction into the Rectory the Parson is seised of all the possessions belonging to his Rectory 198 2. Institution and Induction is a good Title until a better appears 7 8 3. Where after Institution and Induction the party inducted may bring his Ejectment and shall not be put to his Quare Impedit 129 130 131 Iointenants 1. There can be no Jointenants in Occupancy 189 2. They may release or confirm to each other and thereupon those priviledges which did belong to both shall pass to one of them 45 Ireland See Alien Error 1. Ireland is a conquer'd Kingdom and appears so by the express words of an Act of Parliament there 292 2. Though Ireland hath its own Parliament yet it is not absolute sui Juris ibid. 3. What things the Parliament of Ireland cannot do ibid. 4. When Ireland received the Laws of England 293 298 5. What Laws made in the Parliament of England are binding in Ireland 293 Issue 1. No Issue can be joyned of matter in Law 143 Iudges of Iustices 1. Where the Law is known and clear although it is unequitable and inconvenient yet Judges must adjudge it as it is 37 285 2. But where it is doubtful and not clear there they must Interpret it to be as is most consonant to equity 38 3. Defects in the Law can only be remedied in Parliament 38 285 4. Judges must judge according as the Law is not as it ought to be but if inconveniences necessarily follow out of the Law the Parliament only can cure them 285 5. An Opinion given in Court if not necessary to the Judgment given upon Record is no Judicial Opinion no more than a gratis dictum 382 6. But an Opinion though erroneous concluding to the Judgment is a Judicial Opinion because delivered under the Sanction of the Judges Oath upon deliberation which assures it is or was when delivered the Opinion of the Deliverer 382 7. When the King hath constituted any man a Judge his Ability Parts and Fitness for the place are not to be reflected upon or censured by any other person being allowed by the King who only is to judge of the fitness of his Ministers 138 8. We must not upon supposition only admit Judges deficient in their Office for so they should never do right Nor on the other side must we admit them unerring in their places for so they should never do any thing wrong 139 9. Judges have in all Ages been complained of and punished for giving dishonest and corrupt judgments 139 10. A Judge cannot Fine and Imprison a Jury for giving a Verdict contrary to his Directions 146 147 148 149 11. Judges ought not to abate Writs ex officio 95 97 12. The Judges direction to the Jury ought to be upon Supposition and not Positive viz. if you find the Fact thus then it is for the Plaintiff if you find it thus then for the Defendant 144 13. The Judge can never direct what the Law is in any controverted matter until he first knows the Fact 147 Iudgment See Error 1. A Judgment is the Act of the Court and compulsory to the Defendant 94 95 2. Where the Plaintiff makes it appear to the Court that the Defendants Title is not good but doth not set forth a good Title for himself the Court shall never give Judgment for him 60 3. An ill Declaration will not avoid the Judgment it only makes it erroneous 93 94 4. An erroneous Judgment is a good barr for an Executor in an Action brought against him 94 5. A Judgment given in England ought not to be executed in Wales 398 6. In a Quare Impedit where the Bishop disclaims and the Parson loseth by Default there shall go a Writ to the Bishop Non obstante Reclamatione to remove the Incumbent but with a Cessat Executio until the Plea is determined between the Plaintiff and Patron 6 Iurisdiction See Courts Prohibition 1. When the Question is of a Jurisdiction in a Dominion belonging to England how to be determined 418 2. Where ever a Debt grows due yet the Debtor is indebted to the Creditor
the Plaintiff entitle himself to an Advowson as appendant to a Mannor and sheweth a presentment as appendant for so are the words and the Defendant shews another Presentment without that that the Advowson is appendant this Traverse is good for if it be not appendant as the Plaintiff declares it is sufficient to destroy his Declaration and so there both are traversable but otherwise as the Case is here viz. the principal Case first cited I conceive the meaning clearly to be that in the principal case the Seisin in gross of the Advowson alledged in the Declaration was not traversable but the presentation which might be by Vsurpation and made a good Title though the Plaintiff were not seised in gross of the Advowson But if the Plaintiff declare the Advowson to be appendant to a Mannor and withal sets forth in his Declaration the Letters of Presentation to the Church as appendant there the Defendant may traverse either the appendency or the Presentation for though the Advowson were appendant yet if the Plaintiff presented not he had no Title Whence I infer that if the Plaintiff had only counted a Seisin of the Mannor to which the Advowson was appendant without shewing the presentment to be to the Church by vertue of the appendency the traverse of the appendency had not been good but it must have been of the Presentation which might have been by Usurpation notwithstanding the alledging barely of the appendency as is resolved before in the point in the Lord Buckhursts Case in Anderson and in the principal Case of 10 H. 7. But when the Count is of the appendency of the Advowson and also of the Presentation to it as appendant there there could be no Usurpation according to the Resolutions in Sir Henry Gaudies Case in the Lord Hobart before cited and in Greens Case in the 6th Report of the Lord Cook And the not observing of this difference made the Reporter at the end of thâ— L. Buckhursts Case deny this latter part of the Case in 0 H. 7. because it was clearly against the reason of the principal Case in 10 H. 7. and against the Resolution of the L. Buckhursts Case if the words of shewing the presentment to have been as appendant had been omitted in the Case But those words make the latter Case in 10 H. 7. exactly to agree with the Judgments both in Sir Henry Gaudies Case in Hob. and Greens Case in the 6th Rep. 15 H. 6. Fitzh Quare Imped num 77. To the 4 first Cases may be added the Case of 15. H. 6. where the Plaintiff counts in a Quare Impedit that his Ancestor was seised of a Mannor to which the Advowson is appendant and presented and dyed and that the Mannor descended to the Plaintiff and the Church became void whereby he ought to present the Defendant pleads that long after the Presentation alledged by the Plaintiff the Defendant was seised of the Advowson in Fee and presented such a one and after the Church became void and he presented the present Incumbent and this Plea was allowed a good plea by the Court without answering to the appendency alledged by the Plaintiff which was in effect avoided by the Defendants Presentation after And in this Case the Plaintiff was without remedy unless he could traverse the Presentation alledged by the Defendant otherwise than by his Writ of Droit d'Advowson Crook 2. Car. f. 61. Sir Greg. Fenner vers Nicholson Pasfield As also the Case in Crook If the Plaintiff make Title to present as being seised of an Advowson in gross or as appendant and the Defendant make Title as presented by reason of a Simoniacal presentation made by the Plaintiff and thereby a Devolution to present to the King under whom the Defendant claims because the Defendant doth admit the Advowson to be in gross or appendant in the plaintiff and that neither of them is inconsistent with the Title made by the Defendant he shall not traverse the Seisin in gross nor the appendency but because somewhat else is necessary to give the plaintiff right to present that is the vacancy of the Church either by death or resignation or deprivation which the plaintiff must alledg and which are inconsistent with the Defendants Title who claims not by vacancy by death resignation or deprivation but by the Simony therefore he shall traverse the vacancy alledged either by death resignation or deprivation as the Case falls out without one of which the plaintiff makes no Title and if the present vacancy be by either of them the Defendant hath no Title Now to apply these Cases to the question before us whether the Defendant should have traversed the Presentation of the Lord Wootton alledg'd by the plaintiff or the appendency which he hath done to the third Part of the Mannor and third Part of the Rectory of Burton Basset It seems clear That in all Cases of Quare Impedits the Defendant may safely traverse the Presentation alledged in the Plaintiffs Count if the matter of fact will admit him so to do for the Plaintiff hath no Title without alledging a Presentation in himself his Ancestor or those from whom he claims the Advowson but the Defendant must not traverse that is deny the Presentation alledged when there was a Presentation for then the issue must be found against him The Lord Wootton therefore having presented by what right soever it was there was no traversing his Presentation But by what right soever the Lord Wootton presented the Plaintiff hath no right to present unless the Lord Woottons Presentation were by the appendency to the third part of the mannor for he deriving no title to the Advowson as in gross nor any other way but as belonging to the third part of the Mannor which he derives from the Lord Wootton Therefore nothing is traversable by the Defendant but the appendency which if found against the Plaintiff he hath no colour of Title Pasc 19. Car. 2. Rot. 484. C. B. Henry Edes Plaintiff in a Quare Impedit against Walter Bishop of Oxford THat he was and is seised of the Advowson of the Church of Chymer in gross in Fee and thereto presented Will. Paul his Clerk who was instituted and inducted accordingly That after the Church becoming void and so remaining by the death of the said William Paul and it belongs to him to present he is hindred by the Defendant The said Bishop by Protestation saying the Church did not become void by death of the said William Paul pleads that the said Church was full of the said Paul The said W. Paul was created Bishop of Oxford whereby the said Church became void and the right of presentation devolv'd to the King by Prerogative 25 H. 8. c. 21. Then pleads the clause of the Act of 25 H. 8. which impowrs the Archbishop of Canterbury to give faculties and dispensations as the Pope did at large That after and before the Writ purchased Decimo of the King the