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
Mothers But if a fiction could make a natural Subject he hath two natural Princes one where he was born and the other where naturalized 3. If one naturalized in Ireland should in law make him naturally born there then one naturalized in Scotland after the Vnion should make him naturally born there consequently inheritable in England which is not contended 4. A naturalized person in a Dominion belonging to England is both the King 's Subject when he is King of England and inheritable in that his Dominion when naturaliz'd So the Antenati of Scotland are the King of England's Subjects when he is King of England and inheritable in that Dominion of his yet cannot inherit in England and being his Subjects before doth not make them less his Subjects when King of England Or if it did Nicholas Ramsey before he was naturalized in Ireland and became there a Subject to the King of England was a Subject in Scotland of the Kings There are four ways by which men born out of England may inherit in England besides by the Statute of Edward the Third De Natis ultra Mare 1. If they be born in any Dominion of the Kings when he is actually King of England 2. If they be made inheritable by Act of Parliament in England as by naturalization there 3. If they be born Subjects to a Prince holding his Kingdom or Territories as Homager and Liegeman to the King of England Calvins Case f. 21. b. during the time of his being Homager So the Welch were inheritable in England before 12 Ed. 1. though Subjects to the Princes of Wales who were Homagers to the King of England So were the Scotch in Edward the First 's time during the King of Scotlands Homage to him and to other Kings of England as long as it continued And that is the reason of the Case in 14. of Eliz. in the Lord Dyer Dyer 14 Eliz. f. 304. pl. 51. where a Scotch-man being arraign'd for a Rape of a Girl under Seven years of Age and praying his Tryal per medietatem Linguae because he was a Scot born it was denied him by the Opinion of the Iudges of both Benches for that among other reasons a Scot was never accounted an Alien here but rather a Subject So are the words of the Book But they did not consider that the Homage was determined then as it was consider'd after in Calvin's Case when only the Postnati of Scotland were admitted inheritable in England Vpon the same ground one Magdulph Subject to the King of Scots appeal'd from his Iudgment to Edward the First Pl. Parl. 21 E. 1. f. 152. 157. ut Superiori Domino Scotiae But this is to be understood where such Prince is Homager Subjectionis and not only Infeodationis for another King may hold of the King of England an Island or other Territory by Tenure and not be his Subject 4. If the King of England enter with his Army hostilly the Territories of another Prince and any be born within the places possessed by the Kings Army and consequently within his Protection such person is a Subject born to the King of England if from Parents Subjects and not Hostile 5 Eliz. Dyer f. 224. pl. 29. So was it resolved by the Iustices 5 Eliz. That one born in Tourney in France and conquered by Henry the Eighth being a Bastard between persons that were of the King's liegeance was enabled to purchase and implead within the Realm and was the same as if a French-man and French-woman should come into England and have a Son born there The like law if he had been born of French Parents in Tourney for it was part of the Dominions belonging to England pro tempore as Calice was Those under the King's Power as King of England in another Prince his Dominions are under his Laws Fleta l. 2. c. 3. 14 E. 1. King Edward the First being at Paris 14 E. 1. one Ingelram de Nogent stole silver Dishes in the King's House there and after dispute about his Tryal with the King of France and his Council he was convicted before the Steward of the King of England's House and executed though the Felony was done in France in Aliero Regno Fleta l. 2. c. 3. 12 E. 1. So Edmund de Murdak brought an Appeal in Gascoigne coram Seneschallo Hospitii Regis Angliae against one William de Lesnes of Robbery done to him 12 E. 1. infra metas Hospitii Regis infra quas invenit ipsum And the Defendant non potuit appellum illud per exceptionem alterius Regni declinare 1. Regularly who once was an Alien to England cannot be inheritable there but by Act of Parliament which is Common Experience But Ramsey was an Alien to England being Antenatus of Scotland and therefore cannot inherit here but by Act of Parliament If it be said there is an Exception to that viz. unless he be naturalized in Ireland that Exception must be well prov'd not suppos'd For the Question being Whether one naturalized in Ireland do thereby become as a Native of England must not be resolv'd by saying That he doth become as a Native of England otherwise it is prov'd only by begging the Question 2. The being no Alien in England belongs not to any made the King of Englands Subject by Act of Law when he is King of England but to such as are born so Natural legitimation respecteth actual Obedience to the Soveraign at the time of the birth Calvins Case f. 27. for the Antenati remain Aliens because they were born when there were several Kings of the several Kingdoms not because they are not by act of law afterwards become Subjects to the King of England by the Union of the Crowns But he that is naturaliz'd in Scotland or Ireland is not a Subject born to the King of England but made by a subsequent Act in law 3. And chiefly the manner of subjection of a Stranger naturaliz'd in Scotland or Ireland doth exactly agree with that of the Antenatus and not of the Postnatus For 1. The Antenatus was another Prince his Subject before he was the King of Englands 2. The Antenatus might have been an Enemy to England by a war between the several Kings before the Vnion So a Stranger naturalized in Scotland or Ireland was the natural Subject of some other Prince necessarily before he was naturaliz'd and then might have been an Enemy to the King of England by a war between his natural Soveraign and the King of England before he was naturalized But the Postnatus was never subject to any before he was the King of Englands nor ever in possibility of being an enemy to England both which are the properties of subjection in the native English Subject and is the reason why the Postnatus in England is as the Natives of England No fiction of Law can make a man a Natural Subject that is not for a Natural Subject and a Natural Prince are
eas in omnibus sequantur In cujus c. T. R. apud Wadestocks ix die Septembris Out of the Close Rolls of King Henry the Third his Time Clause 1 H. 3. dorso 14. The Kings thanks to G. de Mariscis Justice of Ireland The King signifies that himself and other his Lieges of Ireland should enjoy the Liberties which he had granted to his Lieges of England and that he will grant and confirm the same to them Clause 3. H. 3. m. 8. part 2. The King writes singly to Nicholas Son of Leonard Steward of Meth and to Nicholas de Verdenz and to Walter Purcell Steward of Lagenia and to Thomas the son of Adam and to the King of Connage and to Richard de Burgh and to J. Saint John Treasurer and to the other Barons of the Exchequer of Dublin That they be intendant and answerable to H. Lord Arch-bishop of Dublin as to the Lord the King's Keeper and Bailiff of the Kingdome of Ireland as the King had writ concerning the same matter to G. de Mariscis Justice of Ireland Clause 5. H. 3. m. 14. The King writes to his Justice of Ireland That whereas there is but a single Justice itinerant in Ireland which is said to be dissonant from the more approved custome in England for Reasons there specified two more Justices should be associated to him the one a Knight the other a Clerk and to make their Circuits together according to the Custome of the Kingdom of England Witness c. The Close Roll. 5 H. 3. m. 6. Dorso The King makes a Recital That though he had covenanted with Geoffrey de Mariscis That all Fines and other Profits of Ireland should be paid unto the Treasure and to other Bailiffs of the Kings Exchequer of Dublin yet he receiv'd all in his own Chamber and therefore is removed by the King from his Office Whereupon the King by advise of his Council of England establisheth that H. Arch-bishop of Ireland be Keeper of that Land till further order And writes to Thomas the son of Anthony to be answerable and intendant to him After the same manner it is written to sundry Irish Kings and Nobles there specially nominated Clause 7. H. 3. m. 9. The King writes to the Arch-bishop of Dublin his Justice of Ireland to reverse a Judgment there given in a Case concerning Lands in Dalkera between Geoffrey de Mariscis and Eve his wife Plaintiffs and Reignald Talbott Tenant By the Record of the same Plea returned into England the Judgment is reversed upon these two Errors The first because upon Reignald's shewing the Charter of King John the King's Father concerning the same Land in regard thereof desiring peace it was denyed him The second Because the Seisin was adjudged to the said Geoffrey and Eve because Reynald calling us to warranty had us not to warranty at the day set him by the Court which was a thing impossible for either Geoffrey or the Court themselves to do our Court not being above us to summon us or compel us against our will Therefore the King writes to the Justice of Ireland to re-seise Reynald because he was disseised by Erroneous Judgment Clause 28. H. 3. m. 7. The King writes to M. Donenald King of Tirchonill to aid him against the King of Scots Witness c. The like Letters to other Kings and Nobles of Ireland Clause 40. E. 3. m. 12. Dorso The King takes notice of an illegal proceeding to Judgment in Ireland Ordered to send the Record and Process into England It was objected by one of my Brothers That Ireland received not the Laws of England by Act of Parliament of England but at the Common Law by King John's Charter If his meaning be that the Fact was so I agree it but if he mean they could not receive them by Act of Parliament of England as my Brother Maynard did conjecturally inferr for his purpose then I deny my Brothers Assertion for doubtless they might have received them by Act of Parliament And I must clear my Brother Maynard from any mention of an Union as was discoursed of England and Ireland Nor was it at all to his purpose If any Union other than that of a Provincial Government under England had been Ireland had made no Laws more than Wales but England had made them for Ireland as it doth for Wales As for the Judgment Obj. One of my Brothers made a Question Whether George Ramsey the younger Brother inheriting John Earl of Holdernes before the naturalization of Nicholas Whether Nicholas as elder Brother being naturalized should have it from him Doubtless he should if his Naturalizing were good He saith the Plaintiff cannot have Iudgment because a third person by this Verdict hath the Title Answ If a Title appear for the King the Court ex Officio ought to give Iudgment for him though no party But if a man have a prior Possession and another enters upon him without Title I conceive the priority of Possession is a good Title against such an Entry equally when a Title appears for a third that is no party as if no Title appear'd for a third But who is this third party For any thing appears in the Verdict George Ramsey died before the Earl 2. It appears not that his Son John or the Defendant his Grand-child were born within the Kings Liegeance Patient appears to be born at Kingston and so the Daughters of Robert by the Verdict The Acts of Ireland except all Land whereof Office was found before the Act to entitle the King but that is in Ireland for the Act extends not to England If Nicholas have Title it is by the Law of England as a consequent of Naturalization So it may be for the Act of 7 Jac. cap. 2. he that is Naturalized in England since the Act must receive the Sacrament but if no Alien by consequent then he must no more receive the Sacrament than a Postnatus of Scotland Obj. Ireland is a distinct Kingdom from England and therefore cannot make any Law Obligative to England Answ That is no adequate Reason for by that Reason England being a distinct Kingdom should make no Law to bind Ireland which is not so England can naturalize if it please nominally a person in Ireland and not in England But he recover'd by saying That Ireland was subordinate to England and therefore could not make a Law Obligatory to England True for every Law is coactive and it is a contradiction that the Inferior which is civilly the lesser power should compel the Superior which is greater power Secondly He said England and Ireland were two distinct Kingdoms and no otherwise united than because they had one Soveraign Had this been said of Scotland and England it had been right for they are both absolute Kingdoms and each of them Sui Juris But Ireland far otherwise For it is a Dominion belonging to the Crown of England and follows that it cannot be separate from it but by
Act of Parliament of England no more than Wales Gernsey Jersey Barwick the English Plantations all which are Dominions belonging to the Realm of England though not within the Territorial Dominion or Realm of England but follow it and are a part of its Royalty Thirdly That distinct Kingdoms cannot be united but by mutual Acts of Parliament True if they be Kingdoms sui Juris and independent upon each other as England and Scotland cannot be united but by reciprocal Acts of Parliament So upon the Peace made after Edward the Third's war with France Gascoign Guien Calais were united and annext to the Crown of England by the Parliaments of both Nations which is a secret piece of Story and mistaken by Sir Edward Coke who took it as a part of the Conquest of France and by no other Title But Wales after the Conquest of it by Edward the First was annext to England Jure Proprietatis 12 Ed. 1. by the Statute of Ruthland only and after more really by 27 H. 8. 34. but at first received Laws from England as Ireland did but not proceeded by Writs out of the English Chancery but had a Chancery of his own as Ireland hath was not bound by the Laws of England unnamed until 27 H. 8. no more than Ireland now is Ireland in nothing differs from it but in having a Parliament Gratiâ Regis subject to the Parliament of England it might have had so if the King pleas'd but it was annext to England None doubts Ireland as conquer'd as it and as much subject to the Parliament of England if it please The Court was divided viz. The Chief Justice and Tyrrell for the Plaintiff Wylde and Archer for the Defendant Trin. 25 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 1488. Thomas Hill and Sarah his Wife are Plaintiffs Thomas Good Surrogat of Sir Timothy Baldwyn Knight Doctor of Laws and Official of the Reverend Father in God Herbert Bishop of Hereford is Defendant In a Prohibition THE Plaintiffs who prosecute as well for the King as themselves set forth That all Pleas and Civil Transactions and the Exposition and Construction of all Statutes and all Penalties for the breach of them pertain only to the King and his Crown Then set forth the time of making the Act of 32 H. 8. c. 38. and the Act it self at large and that thereby it was enacted That from the time limited by the Act no Reservation or Prohibition Gods Law excepted should trouble or impeach any marriage without the Levitical Degrees And that no person shall be admitted after the time limited by the Act in any the Spiritual Courts within this Kingdom to any Process Plea or Allegation contrary to the Act. They set forth That after the making of the said Act and the time thereby limited the Plaintiffs being lawful persons to contract marriage and not prohibited by Gods Law and being persons without the Levitical Degrees the Twentieth day of September in the Four and twentieth year of the King at Lemster in the County of Hereford contracted matrimony in the face of the Church and the same consummated and solemninized with carnal knowledge and fruit of Children at Lemster aforesaid That by reason thereof the said Marriage is good and lawful and ought not to be null'd in Court Christian That notwithstanding the Defendant praemissorum non ignarus fraudulently intending to grieve and oppress the Plaintiffs unduly draws them into question before him in the Court Christian for an unlawful marriage as made within the Degrees prohibited by Gods Laws and there falso caute subdole libelling and supposing that whereas by the Laws and Canons Ecclesiastical of this Kingdom it is ordained That none should contract matrimony within the Degrees prohibited by Gods Law and expressed in a certain Table set forth by Publique Authority Anno 1563. and that all marriages so contracted should be esteemed incestuous and unlawful and therefore should be dissolved as void from the beginning And also That whereas by a certain Act of Parliament made and published in the Eight and twentieth year of King Henry the Eighth It is enacted That no person or persons subject or residing within the Realm of England or within the Kings Dominions should marry within the Degrees recited in the said Act upon any pretence whatsoever And That whereas the said Thomas Hill had taken to wife one Elizabeth Clark and for several years cohabited with her as man and wife and had carnal kdowledge of her He the said Thomas notwithstanding after the death of the said Elizabeth had married with and took to wife the said Sarah being the natural and lawful Sister of the said Elizabeth against the form of the said last mentioned Statute and them the said Thomas and Sarah had caus'd unjustly to appear before him in Court Christian to Answer touching the Premisses although the said marriage be lawful and according to Gods Law and without the Levitical Degrees And That although the Plaintiffs have for their discharge in the said Court Christian pleaded the said first recited Act yet the Defendant refuseth to admit the same but proceeds against them as for an incestuous marriage against the form of the Statute And that notwithstanding he was served with the Kings Writ of Prohibition to desist in that behalf in contempt of the King and to the Plaintiffs damage of One hundred pounds The Defendant denies any prosecution of the Plaintiffs contrary to the Kings Writ of Prohibition and thereupon Issue is joyn'd and demurrs upon the matter of the Declaration and prays a Consultation and the Plaintiffs joyn in Demurrer In the Argument upon Harrisons Case I said and still say That if granting Prohibitions to the Spiritual Courts in Cases of Matrimony were res integra now I saw no reason why we should grant them in any Case The matter being wholly of Ecclesiastick Conizance my Reasons were and are 1. Because in all times some marriages were lawful and others prohibited by Divine and Ecclesiastick Laws or Canons yet the Temporal Courts could not prohibit the impeaching of any marriage how lawful soever nor take notice of it 2. If by Act of Parliament anciently all marriages not prohibited by Gods Law or Canons of the Church had been declared lawful the Temporal Courts thereby had no power to prohibit the questioning of any marriage more than before for it had said no more than what the Law was and did say before such Act. So had it been enacted That all marriages should be lawful not prohibited by the Levitical Law the Church had retain'd the judging which were against the Levitical Law as they did when the unlawfulness was not confin'd only to the Levitical Law And the Question now concerning what are the Levitical Degrees whereof we assume the Conizance is but the same as the question would be concerning what marriages were prohibited in the Eighteenth of Leviticus For though such Acts of Parliaments had been yet they had given no new Iurisdiction or