where power and might of some potent persons oppressed iustice and faithfull Iudges for expounding the Law soundly and truely The first that I will remember is this In the Parliament 28. H. 6. 16. Ianuarij the Commons made suite That W. de la Poole Duke of Suffolke should bee committed to prison for many treasons and other hainous crimes committed by him The Lordes in Parliament were in doubt what answer to giue they demaunded the opinion of the Iudges Their opinion was That hee ought not to bee committed And their reason was for that the Commons did not charge him with anie particular offence but with generall slaunders and reports And therefore because the Specialties were not shewed hee was not to bee committed This opinion was allowed And thereupon 28. Ianuarij the Commons exhibited certaine speciall Articles against him viz. That hee conspired with the French King to inuade the Realme c. And thereupon hee was committed to the Tower 2 In the Parliament Anno 31. H. 6. in the vacation the Parliament being continued by prorogation Thomas Thorpe the Speaker was condemned in a thousand pounds dammages in an action of Trespasse brought against him by the Duke of Yorke and was committed to prison in Execution for the same After when the Parliament was re-assembled the Commons made suite to the King and the Lords to haue Thorpe the Speaker deliuered for the good exploite of the Parliament whereupon the Duke of Yorkes Counsell declared the whole Case at large The Lords demaunded the opinion of the Iudges whether in that Case Thorpe ought to bee deliuered out of prison by Priuiledge of Parliament The Iudges made this aunswere That they ought not to determine the Priuiledge of that high Court of Parliament But for the declaration of proceeding in lower Coutts in cases where Writtes of Supersedeas for the priuiledge of the Parliament be brought vnto them They aunswered That if any person that is a Member of the Parliament bee arrested in such cases as bee not for treason or felonie or for suretie of Peace or condemnation had before the Parliament it is vsed that such persons be released and may make Atturney so as they may haue their freedome and libertie freely to intend the Parliament Hereupon it was concluded That Thorpe should still remaine in prison according to the Lawe Notwithstanding the priuiledge of Parliament and that hee was the â—peaker Which resolution was declared to the Commons by Walter Moyle one of the Kings Serieants at Lawe And then the Commons were commaunded in the Kings name by the Bishop of Lincolne in the absence of the Archbishop of Canterbury then Chauncellor to choose another Speaker 3 In the Parliament An. 7. H. 8. a Question was moued Whether spirituall persons might bee conuented before temporall Iudges for criminall causes There sir Iohn Fineux and the other Iudges deliuered their opinion that they might and ought to bee so And their opinion was allowed and maintained by the King and the Lords And D. Standish who before had houlden the same opinion was deliuered from the Bishops And it is worth the noting what wordes passed in that Case betweene the Archbishop of Canterbury and that worthy Iudge Fineux 4 If a Writ of Errour bee brought in Parliament vpon a Iudgement giuen in the Kings Bench the Lords of the higher House alone without the Commons are to examine the Errours But that is by the aduise and Counsell of the Iudges who are to informe them what the Lawe is and so to direct them in their iudgement And if the iudgement bee reuersed then commaundement is to bee giuen to the Lord Chancellour to doe Execution accordingly And so it was in Anno 17. R. 2. in a Writte of Errour brought in Parliament by the Deane and Chapiter of Lichfield against the Prior and Couent of New-port-Panell as appeareth by the Record But if the iudgement bee affirmed then the Court of the Kings Bench are to proceede to execution of the Iudgement as it appeareth in Flowerdewes Case P. 1. H. 7. fol. 19. But it is to bee noted that in all such Writtes of Errour the Lords are to proceede according to the Lawe and for their iudgement therein they are informed and guided by the Iudges and doe not follow their owne opinions or discretions otherwise This extrauagant Discourse touching Proclamations and Iudges opinions deliuered in Parliament and how they ought to bee regarded I haue thought materiall and necessarie both in respect of the time wherein wee liue and the Matter which we haue in hand And these bee thinges which I thinke haue beene too lightly passed ouer But if you condemne it as impertinent I must then confesse I haue presumed too much vpon your patience I pray you beare with mee it is but my labour lost and a little time mis-spent if it seeme so vnto you You are wont to pardon greater faultes Call it either a Passe-time or Waste-time as pleaseth you Now to returne to the Case we haue in hand The generall Question hauing had this passage by Proclamation by Commission and by debating in Parliament remaineth yet without coÌ„clusion or iudgement And as euerie man abounds in his owne sence so euery one is left to his owne opinion Specially those that were not satisfied with the graue Resolution of the Iudges in Parliament which although some may tearme and accompt as bare opinions I must alwayes valew and esteeme as a reall and absolute iudgement Now I say this generall Question is reduced to two particular Cases and is iudicially depending in two the highest Courts of Iustice in this Realme and that is by one Complainant against seuerall Defendants for the freehoulde and inheritance of seuerall parcells of Land and as M. Solicitor said well is a Case not fained nor surmised but a true Case betweene true parties And being Quaestio iuris non facti is by both these Courts adiourned hither to bee decided and determined by all the Iudges of England as the rarenesse of the Case and the weight and importaunce of it both for the present and the future doth require And the Case being of this nature and qualitie it is not amisse to obserue the proceeding in it for it is woorth the obseruing and not to bee forgotten The Defendants counsell men of great learning and in their profession inferiour to none of their qualitie and degree men conuersant and well exercised in the Question and such as in the great conference in parliament most of them were specially selected choseÌ„ for so they wel deserued as most sufficient able and fit as well for Learning and Knowledge as for all other giftes of Witte and Nature to handle so great and rare a Question And although it hath pleased them of their good discretion to vse the paines but of a few in the debating and arguing of the Case at the Barre yet no doubt that was done vpon mature deliberation and conference with all the residue
a le plaintife but it is not so now In auncient time one present aiding comforting and assisting to a murder was taken to bee no principall but an accessorie as it appeareth M. 40. Edw. 3. fol. 42. 40. li. Ass p. 8. p. 25. But now in that case hee is iudged a principall And so it was ruled by all the Iustices M. 4. H. 7. 18. and so Plowden affirmeth the Lawe to be in his Commentaries fol. 99. 100. In ciuile causes in auncient time the Lawe was houlden That hee in Remainder in Taile could not haue an action of Waste nor bee receiued vpon default of tenant for life But afterwards the Lawe was often iudged otherwise and so is the common experience and practise at this day In Anno 40. Ed. 3. 28. Fynchden chiefe Iustice of the common place saith that in ancient time the Vicar could not haue an Action against the Parson But hee saieth the contrarie is vsed at this day which is the better In ancient time a Disseisee could not enter vpon the feoffee of the Disseisor for sauing of the warranty but for many yeeres the Lawe hath beene houlden otherwise and so the common practise yet remaineth By this Rule it is also that words are taken and construed sometimes by Extension sometimes by Restriction sometimes by Implication sometimes a Disiunctiue for a Copulatiue a Copulatiue for a Disiunctiue the present tense for the future the future for the present sometimes by equity out of the reach of the wordes sometime words take in a contrary sence sometime figuratiuely as Continens pro contento and many other like And of all these examples be infinite as well in the ciuile lawe as common lawe And oftentimes the reuerend Iudges haue had a graue regarde in their proceeding that before they would resolue or giue iudgement in such new Cases they desired to consult with the Kings priuie Counsell as appeareth in diuerse Cases in King Edward the third his time R. VV. assaulted Adam Brabson in presence of the Iustices of Assise at VVinchester for which A. B. complained by Bill before the said Iustices alledging this offence to bee in despite of the King and his Iustices to his dammage of an hundred pounds R. VV. pleaded Not guiltie and was found guiltie and dammages taxed to tenne pounds Thereupon the Iudges awarded him to prison in the Sherifes keeping And for the Fine and that which should be further done for the King for the assault done in the presence of the Iudges they would haue the aduise of the Kings Counsell For in a like case because R. C. did strike a Iurour at VVestminster which passed in an Enquest against one of his friends It was adiudged by all the Counsell that his right hand should be cut off and his lands and goods forfeited to the King These be the words in the Booke In this case I note three things 1. The Iudges consulted with the Counsell 2. They haue a like case before when the Counsell was also consulted with viz. Anno 19. E. 3. and yet they would not proceede in this case before they had againe consulted with the Counsell 3. That before Anno 19. Edw. 3. there was no like case nor precedent for such a Iudgement And therefore the Iudges would not of themselues pronounce that heauy iudgement before they had conferred with the Counsell touching the same And after they had the opinion and aduise of the Kings Counsell they proceeded to that Iudgement Thomas Vghtred Knight brought a Forme-done against a poore man and his wife They came and yeelded to the Demaundant which seemed suspitious to the Court whereupon they examined the Matter and staied Iudgement because it was suspitious And Thorpe saide that in the like Case of Giles Blacket it was spoken of in Parliament And wee were commaunded that when any like Case should come we should not go to iudgement without good aduise Wherefore sue to the Counsell and as they will haue vs to doe wee will and otherwise not in this Case Greene and Thorpe were sent by the Iudges to the Kings Counsel where there were 24. Bishops and Earles to demand of them whether by the Statute 14. Ed. 3. ca. 6. a word may be amended in a Writ aswel as a letter or a sillable for the statute speakes but of a letter or a sillable it was answered That it may well be amended For there cannot be a Word without a Sillable and that it was a nice question of so sage men Thus Arbitria Iudicum and Responsa prudentum haue beene receiued allowed and reuerenced in all times as Positiue Lawe and so it must be still For otherwise much mischiefe and great inconuenience will ensue for new Cases happen euery day No lawe euer was or euer can be made that can prouide remedie for all future cases or cōprehend all circumstances of humane actions which Iudges are to determine Therfore when such happen and complaint is made what shall Iudges doe Shall they giue no remedie to the partie grieued Shall they stay for a Parliament Interim patitur iustus They must therefore follow Dictamen rationis and so giue speedie iustice And in many matters of materiall circumstauces they must guide themselues by discretion As in iudging vpon Presumptions To discerne which be Presumptiones temerariae which Probabiles which violentae So for Time what is a conuenient Time and what not So for Waste what is Waste punishable and what not So for Tenders of money what is a conuenient place for tender of mony and what not and what is a lawfull Tender and what not So for Disparagement what is a disparagement and what not And so of other the like cases which are infinite If it be said for so some haue said That if this be thus then the common Lawe of England is vncerten and so the rule of Iustice by which the people are gouerned is too pliable and too weake and vncerten By the same reason it may be said That all the Lawes of all Nations are vncerten For in the Ciuile Lawe which is taken to be the most vniuersall and generall Lawe in the world they hould the same rule and order in all cases which be out of the direct words of the Lawe and such cases be infinite For as I saide new cases spring euery day as malice and fraude increaseth And since the Roman Impire beganne most of their Lawes bee either Edicta Principum or Arbitria Iudicum or Responsa prudentum And in their Iudgements they are guided by Arrests and former Iudgements as may appeare in the Books of many that haue collected such Arrests And they attribute so much to such former Iudgements That as Prysot equalleth them to a Positiue Lawe so they hould that Sententia facit Ius res iudicata pro veritate accipitur legis interpretatio legis vim obtinet Nay which is more vncerten sometimes they
relie vpon Doctours opinions deliuered in their Prelections and Treatises And when they finde them varying and differing one from another as sometimes they doe then they preferre that which is Communior opinio And so in good reason they may For Pluralitas idem sentientium semper superat quia faciliùs inuenitur quod à pluribus quaeritur But to conclude this point I would aske of these Nouelists what they would haue done in Sibill Belknappes case if they had liued in Henry the fourths time Sir Robert Belknappe that reuerend and learned Iudge of whome sundrie noble and worthy persons and some now of great eminent place in England are descended was banished out of the Realme Relegatus in vasconiam not for any desert or offence of his but by the might of his potent enemies and malice of the time The Lady his wife continued in England she was wronged she brought a Writ in her owne Name alone not naming her Husband Exception was taken against it because her husband was liuing and it was adiudged good and shee recouered and the Iudge Markeham said Ecce modo mirū quòd foemina fert breue regis Non nominando virum coniunctū robore legis Here was a rare and a new case yet it was not deferred vntill a Parliament it was iudged and her wrong was righted by the common Law of England and that Ex arbitrio Iudicum ex responsis prudentum and yet it was counted Mirum with an Ecce Now to apply this to R. Caluines case his case is rare and new so was that There is no direct Law for him in precise and expresse tearmes There was neuer iudgement before touching any borne in Scotland since King Iames beganne his happie raigne in England Hee is the first that is brought in question So there was no direct Lawe for Sibill Belknap to sue in her owne name without her husband who was then liuing nay rather there was direct Lawe against it yet by the Lawe of England shee had iudgement to recouer with an Ecce modo mirum So by the lawe of England iudgement ought to bee giuen for Robert Caluine but not with an Ecce modo mirum but vpon strong Arguments deduced à similibus and ex dictamine rationis But before I come to those arguments I wil vse a few words more touching some Rules which I haue read for the interpretation of lawes There is a graue and learned Writer in the Ciuile Lawe that setteth downe foure waies formes of interpretation of lawes that is first Interpretatio historica secondly Etymologica thirdly Analogica fourthly Practica In the Argument of this Case all these formes haue beene vsed and largely handled and the two first be those that seeme but light to me and therefore in mine opinion haue beene too much stoode vpon and ouer-weighed For the Historicall interpretation it is alwaies darke obscure and vncerten of what kingdome countrey or place soeuer you speake I doe alwaies and onely except the diuine Histories written in the Bible Liuy saith In tanta rerum vetustate multi temporis errores implicantur Saint Augustine speaking of the supposed Bookes of Henoch saieth Libri isti ob nimiam antiquitatem reijciuntur Wherefore for this parte let this suffice whether in the beginning there were one or seuerall Kingdomes in great Britaine or one or seuerall Monarches and Kings of these two great famous Kingdomes in great Britaine The King our Soueraigne is lawfully and lineally descended of the first great Monarchs and Kings of both the Kingdomes and that by so long a continued line of lawfull discent as therein he exceedeth all the Kings that the world now knoweth and therefore to inquire further of Historicall knowledge in this Case I hould it needelesse For the Etymologicall interpretation there hath beene very much saied euen as much as Wit and Art could deuise There haue beene alleadged manie Definitions Descriptions Distinctions Differences Diuisions Subdiuisions Allusion of wordes Extension of wordes Construction of words and nothing left vnsearched to finde what is Ligeantia Allegiantia Fides Obedientia Subiectio Subditi And who bee Aborigines Indigenae Alienigenae Aduenticij Denizati c. And much of this hath beene drawne out of some Writers of the Ciuile Lawe amongst whome the Etymologicall interpretation of the words Ligeus and Ligeantia is as vncerten and doubtfull as it is with our common Lawyers And so vpon any of these there cannot be any certen Rule found for Iudges to iudge by especially in new and rare Cases As for Definition Vlpian teacheth vs Omnis definitio in iure Ciuili est periculosa and it is said that Definitio est duplex Propria quae constat ex genere differentia Impropria quae descriptio vocatur est quaelibet rei designatio So Definition and Description are often confounded and both vncerten Then since both be vncerten and dangerous I will leaue both and seeke a more certen Rule to iudge by As for Etymologie of words I agree with him which saieth It is Leuis fallax plerumque ridicula It is a Pedant Grammarians fault Marcus Varro and others haue beene noted for it And if you examine the Examples which some doe bring you will perceiue how ridiculous and vaine it is So this Rule will not serue to finde out that which wee seeke for These bee but Tendiculae verborum Aucupationes syllabarum as one calleth them It may haue some vse and serue a turne in Schooles but it is too light for iudgements in Lawe and for the seates of Iustice Aquinas setteth downe a more certen Rule In vocibus videndum non tà m à quo quà m ad quid sumantur And words should be taken Sensu currenti for Vse Custome is the best Expositor both of Lawes and Wordes Quem penes arbitrium ius norma loquendi Wherefore of the many and diuerse distinctions diuisions and subdiuisions that haue beene made in this Case I will say no more but Confusum est quicquid in puluerem sectum est and will conclude with Bishop Iuel A man may wander and misse his way in Mists of Distinctions Then leauing these Historicall and Etymologicall interpretations and these curious and subtile Distinctions and Diuisions I say Ligeantia or Allegiantia vnderstood Sensu currenti is vinculum fidei obedientiae as Iustice Daniel said well And hee that is borne in any of the Kings Dominions and vnder the Kings obedience is the Kings liege subiect and borne Ad fidem Regis for that is the proper and ancient word which the lawe of England hath vsed Ad fidem Regis Angliae Ad fidem Regis Franciae and therefore hee cannot bee a Stranger or Alien to the King or in any of his Kingdomes and by consequence is inhabled to haue lands in England and to sue and be sued in any Reall action for the same And Ligeantia hath
will spare to speake vvhat I thinke For Chrysostome teacheth mee Qui laudatur infacie flagellatur in corde In seeking out this depth of Reason the same Author giueth a caution which is this Vitium quod in hoc genere fugi debet est ne si Rationē non inuenias mox legem sine ratione esse clames And in 36. H. 6. Fortescue saieth the same in effect which is thus We haue many Courses and Formes which bee houlden for Lawe and haue beene houlden and vsed because of Reason and notwithstanding the reason be not ready in memory yet by study and labour a man may finde it Now when wee come to examine by reason whether Post-nati in Scotland shall be disabled as Aliens or shall be capable of lands in England as naturall borne subiects there wee are first to consider vvhat is the reason whie Aliens in the Dominions and vnder the obedience of other forraine Princes are nor capable of landes in England And surely the true reason is that which was noted by baron Altham and hath since beene ofte remembred viz. The danger that might thereby come to the king and the common-weale Specially by drawing hither too great multitudes of them for so the Treasure of the Realme might bee transported by them into other forraine Kingdomes and Countries whereby it might bee vsed against the King and to the preiudice of the State And besides they might vnder-hand practise Sedition and Rebellion in the kingdome and cause many other daungers and inconueniences but that reason cannot serue against Post-nati in Scotland now that there is but one King of both the kingdomes no more than it can serue against those that are borne in Ireland or Gernesey or Iersey and therefore in reason they are as capable of landes in England as the kings subiects of Ireland and Gernesey and Iersey are Against this there haue also beene many Obiections made and Reasons deuised that seeme witty and haue some shew of probability to proue that Post-nati in Scotland are Aliens and ought not in reason to bee capable of landes in England videlicet 1. That England and Scotland were two ancient seuerall kingdomes vnder seuerall kings and seuerall crownes 2. That they continue yet seueral kingdomes 3. That they haue yet seuerall Lawes seuerall Seales seuerall Crownes and seuerall Kings For it is said though king Iames be king of both and hath but one naturall body yet in iudgement of Law he is in respect of his two seuerall kingdomes as two seuerall kings and the subiects of ech seuerall kingdome are bound to him by distinct allegeance according to the seuerall Lawes of the kingdome where they were borne And all this is grounded vpon this rule or fiction in Lawe Quando duo iura concurrunt in vna persona aequum est ac si essent in diuersis And vpon this ground is this new form of pleading deuised which the Defendants haue vsed in this Case such as cannot be found in any Record euer to haue beene pleaded before and may as well serue against the Kinges subiectes of Ireland as against the Post-nati of Scotland And sithence in former times the like forme of pleading vvas neuer seene against any of the Kings of Englandes subiects which were borne in any of his dominions out of England as in Normandie or Aquitanie or in France I meane such part of it as was in the Kinges possession and in subiection and obedience to him and not in that parte of France which his enemies helde it may be probably inferred That it was then generally houlden that neither such a forme of pleading nor the Matter it selfe was sufficient in Lavve to disable anie such Plaintife for against French-men that vvere not vnder the Kings obedience wee finde it often pleaded And as those that were not subiects to the King nor borne vnder his obedience did then presume to bring suites and actions in England So it can not bee thought but that the king hauing then so large and ample Dominions beyond the Seas as Normandy and Aquitany and many other partes of France some of his subiects borne there had cause to haue and did bring the like suites in England And sithence no such Plea is found to haue beene then vsed against them it can not in Lawe and Reason bee now allowed against the Post-nati in Scotland For I may say as Ascue saied in 37. H. 6. Our Predecessors were as sage and learned as we be And I see not but that in this Case a good Argument may bee reasonably deduced from the Negatiue as it was in the Case reported by the great learned and most graue and reuerend Iudge sir Iames Dyer chiefe Iustice of the Common pleas Anno 23. Elizab. The Question there was Whether an erroneous iudgement giuen in Rie which is a member of the Cinqueportes might bee reuersed in the kinges Bench or Common place at Westminster And it was thus resolued Sed pro eo quod nullū tale breue in Registro nec in aliquibus Praecedentibus curiarum praedictarū inueniri potuerat dominus Cancellarius Bromley per opinionem Capitalium Iusticiariorum vtriusque Banci denegauit tale breue concedere And so Iustice Fenners argument houldeth well viz. There is in this Case no lawe to exclude the Complainant Ergo hee is a liege and a naturall borne subiect But the forme of pleading in the time of king Ed. 1. in Cobledickes case which was cited out of Hengam and the Booke shewed heere by the Lord chiefe Iustice Coke is so direct and plaine for this our Question as nothing can be more plaine and therefore I thinke it not amisse to report it againe That Case was in effect and substaunce thus A woman brought a Writte of Ayel against Roger Cobledicke and declared of the seisin of Roger her Grand-father and conueied the discent to Gilbert her father and from him to the Demaundant as his daughter and heire The Tenant pleaded that the Demaundant was a French-woman and not of the ligeance nor of the fidelitie of England and demaunded iudgement if shee ought to haue the action against him This plea vvas houlden to bee insufficient and thereupon the tenant amended his plea and pleaded further That the Demaundant was not of the ligeance of England nor of the fidelitie of the King and demaunded iudgement c. And against that plea none exception was taken but thereupon the Demaundant prayed licence to depart from her Writ By this it appeareth plainely that the first plea alleadging that she was a French-woman and not of the ligeance nor of the fidelitie of England was insufficient and so declared by Berreford the chiefe Iustice For there can bee no fidelitie nor allegeance due to England respecting the land and soile without a Soueraigne and King But the second Plea alledging that shee was not of the ligeance of England nor of the fidelitie of the King was good and sufficient For to the King fidelitie and