The late Lord Chief Justice NORTH'S ARGUMENT In the CASE Between Sir WILLIAM SOAMES SHERIFF of SVFFOLK And Sir SAM BARNADISTON Bar. Adjudged in the COURT of Exchequer Chamber UPON A WRIT of ERROR CONTAINING The REASONS of that JUDGMENT LONDON Printed and are to be sold by Randal Taylor 1689. The late Lord Chief Justice North's Argument c. SIR Samuel Barnardiston brings an Action upon the Case in B. R. against Sir William Soame late Sheriff of Suffolk setting forth that a Writ issued for the chusing of a Knight for that County to serve in this Parliament instead of Sir Henry North deceased that at the next County Court the Freeholders proceeded to Election and although the Plaintiff was duly chosen per majorem numerum gentium tunc resident infra dict Comitat. quorum tunc quilibet expendere potuit 40 s. libri ten'ti ultra per annum infra Comitat. illud ac licet praedictus Willielmus praemissa satis sciens postea brevem praed in Cur. Cancellar returnavit simul cum quadam Indentura inter ipsum Vicecomitem praedict Electores ipsius Samuelis de praedicta Electione ipsius Samuelis fact secund Exigentiam brevis praedict praedictus tamen Willielmus ad tunc Vicecomes Officii sui debitum minime ponderans sed machinans maliriose intendens ipsum Samuelem in hac parte minus rite praegravare ac eundem Samuelem de fiducia officio unius Mil. Comitat. praedict in dict Parliamento exercend omnino frustrare deprivare Et praedict Samuelem ad diversas magnas grandes pecuniarum summas expend causare contra debitum officii sui praed falso malitiose scienter deceptive ad tunc in ead Cancellar apud Westmonast praedict retornavit una cum Indentura praedict quandam aliam Indenturam eidem brevi similiter annex specificant ' illam fore fact inter prefat Willielmum c. ex una parte diversas alias personas dict Comitat. in Indentura illa specificat continent quod dictae al. personae ut major pars totius Comitat. praedict in praedicto pleno Comitat. elegerunt quend Lionellum Talmash Bar. alias dict Lionell Dom. Huntingtowr in Regno Scotiae in loco praedicti Henrici North un Mil. Com. Suffolk praedict pro Parliamento praedicto adveniend eidem Parliamento pro Com. il Vbi revera praedictus Lionellus non fuit electus per majorem partem prout per ult Indent falso supponitur Ratione cujus quidem falsi retorn de praedicta al. Indent c. idem Samuel in Domum inferiorem pro Comitat. hujus Regni Angliae c. assemblat admitti non potuit quousque idem Samuel per petitionem suam Comitat. dicti Parliamenti pro remedio congruo exhibit post diversas ingentes denar summas in circa manifestationem verificationem dictae Electionis coram dict Comitat. expendit diversos labores in ea parte sustent postea scil c. per Comitat. in Domum Comitat. praedict admissus fuit electio ipsius Samuelis per Comitat declarat fuit fore bond unde deteriat est damnum habet ad Valenc ' 3000 l. There is a Verdict given for the Plaintiff and Damages found to the value of 800 l. and Judgment thereupon and a Writ of Error is brought to reverse that Judgment I have but little time left me to say what I have to offer it being very late and yet I must desire leave to produce these Reasons I have in maintenance of my Opinion I will be careful to detain you no longer then will be necessary And therefore I will not trouble you to State the Case again nor will I speak of any Exceptions that have been made to the Declaration for I love not the Niceties of the Law in Cases where they do prevail and in this Case I have only considered the foundations of the Action which if I had found well established upon Reason or the Grounds of Law I would have Examined what has been Objected to the Forms of the Declaration which must have brought great weight to have overturn'd those Proceedings But as to the point of the Action upon the most serious Consideration I could have of it and weighing what hath been before now and also at this time said in Support of it I am of Opinion that the Judgment ought to be reversed for that no such Action as this at Bar does lye by the Common Law. Because this is a Cause of considerable value great Damages being recovered because it is a Judgment of great Authority being upon a Cause tried at the King's Bench Bar and given upon deliberation there because it is a Case of extraordinary nature and of great import each Party pretending benefit to the Parliament by it because it is an Action primae impressionis that never was before adjudged the report of which will be listned after I have taken pains to collect and set down the Reasons that I must go upon in determining this Case That as the Judgment had the Countenance of some deliberation in the Court where it was given so the Reversal being with greater deliberation may appear grounded upon Reasons that ought to prevail I can say with my Brother Wyndham that I love rather to affirm Judgments than to reverse them but I can attribute nothing of Authority to the Judgment though it were given in a Superior Court and upon deliberation I must judge upon it as if the Case came to be Originally judged by me The Argument to support a Judgment from the Authority of its self is Exceptio ejusdem rei cujus petitur dissolutio which must not be admitted in Case of Writs of Error We are instructed to Examine and Correct the Errors of that Court and for that purpose we are made Superior to it We must proceed according to our own Knowledge and Discretion else we do not perform the Trust reposed in us I must needs say this is a Cause that imports it more than any Cause I have known come before us for it is a Cause primae impressionis and the Question is whether by this Judgment a change of the Common Law be introduced It is the principal use of Writs of Error and Appeals to hinder the change of the Law and therefore Writs of Error in our Law and Appeals in the Civil Law do carry Judgments and Decrees to be Examined by Superior Courts until they come to the highest who are intrusted that they will not change the Law. Therefore do Writs of Error lie from Ireland which is a Subordinate Kingdom to England by whose Laws it is Governed that they might not be able to change the Law by their Judgments and not so much for the particular right of the Party For otherwise it would be very easie for Judges by Construction and Interpretation to change even a Written Law and it would be most easie for the Judges of the Common Laws of
the Parliament have already taken care of and prescribed Remedies by the several Statutes that have been made concerning them I say in such a Case there is little need to strain the Law. The Judges in all times have been very tender of medling with matters relating to the Parliament I do not find that ever they tried Elections but where Statutes give them express power or that they ever examined the behaviour of a Sheriff or any Officer of the Parliament in relation to any service performed to the Parliament but upon the Statutes and in Brouncker's Case Dyer 168. The Statute was their Rule in the Star-Chamber and they inflicted the same Punishment that is appointed by the Statute If we shall allow general Remedies as an Action upon the Case is to be applied to Cases relating to the Parliament we shall at last invade Priviledge of Parliament and that great Priviledge of Judging of their own Priviledges Suppose an Action should be brought in time of Prorogation against a Member of Parliament for that he falsly and maliciously did exhibit a Complaint of Breach of Priviledge to the Parliament whereby the party was sent for in custody and lost his liberty and was put to great charges to acquit himself and was acquitted by Parliament If upon such a Case the Jury should find the Defendant guilty why should not that Action be maintained as well as this at Bar It may be said for that Action that the Judgment of the Parliament is followed and the Priviledge is not tried at Law but determined first in the House 2. It may be said that the party hath no other way to recover his Charges It would be dangerous to admit such an Action for then there would be peril in claiming Priviledge if the party complained of had the fortune to be acquitted by the House the Member that made the complaint will be at the mercy of the Jury as to the point of Malice and quantity of Damages Such a Precedent I suppose would not please the Parliament and yet it may with more justice be the second Case than this Case at Bar the first Actions may be brought for giving Parliament-Protections wrongfully Actions may be brought against the Clark of the Parliament Serjeant at Arms and Speaker for ought I know for executing their Offices amiss with Averments of Malice and Damage and then must Judges and Juries determine what they ought to do by their Offices and in effect give Rules to them It cannot be seen whither we shall be drawn if we meddle with Matters of Parliament in Actions at Law therefore in my judgment the only safety is in those bounds that are warranted by Acts of Parliament or constant Practice Suppose this Action had been brought before the Election decided in the House and the Jury had found one way and the Parliament had determined contrary how inconsistent has this been But it was said in the Kings-Bench that the Court would not try it before the Parliament had determined the Election and then that cannot be contested but the Judgment of the Parliament must be followed and my Brother but now said Sure no Man will be so indiscreet as to bring such an Action before the Parliament have determined it and the Court will not try it before such time as the Election be decided in a proper way In my opinion this was not rightly consider'd for how can the Court stay any Suit to expect the Determination of the Parliament And what reason or justice is there that the Sheriff who is no party called to answer in the Parliament should be concluded in any thing by a Judgment between other parties to defend himself from a demand of Damages in a Course of Law where Witnesses are examined upon Oath which they cannot be in the Commons House There is no reason the Suit at Law should stay till the House have determined if the determination of the House be not conclusive in that Suit. And for the discretion of the persons that are like to bring such Actions I cannot depend upon it for I see in this Age some Men will insist upon their Private Rights to the hindrance of Publick Affairs of higher consequence than any that can come before the Courts in Westminster-hall It may be there will not want men that will press us to judge in such cases not only before the Parliament have determined but against what the Parliament have determined and will tell us that the Sheriff was no party that Witnesses were not there examined upon Oath and produce Arguments from Antiquity which we shall be very loth to judge of I can see no other way to avoid consequences derogatory to the Honour of Parliament but to reject the Action and all others that shall relate either to the Proceedings or Priviledge of Parliament as our Predecessors have done For if we shall admit general Remedies in Matters relating to the Parliament we must set bounds how far they shall go which is a dangerous province for if we err Priviledge of Parliament will be invaded which we ought not any way to endamage This I speak for general Remedies Now I will consider this particular Case which in my opinion would bring danger and dishonour to the Parliament It is dishonourable to the Parliament that there should be no protection in their Service I have shewn that the Sheriff can be safe in no case if he shall be sued in such a case as this and can there be a greater reproach than that there is no safety in their Service no body can serve them cheerfully or willingly at that rate It has been objected that the Sheriff is not their Officer but is the Officer of the Court of Chancery which sends forth the Writs and receives the Returns The Argument is plausible but will not pass in the Parliament for there they say the Court of Chancery is the Repository of their Writs and will not allow them to issue without Warrant from the House they will not suffer the Court of Chancery to meddle with the Returns or the Sheriff the Parliament sends immediate Orders to the Sheriff if the Return be too slow they direct the Sheriff to amend his Return they punish the Sheriff where they find him faulty so that it appear they exercise an immediate Jurisdiction over the Sheriff and I suppose they would judge it very false Doctrine to say that the Court of Chancery can any way meddle with the Returns or the Officer Admitting the Sheriff to act in Returns as the Officer of the Parliament it concerns them that he should be liable to no other punishment but what they inflict otherwise they cannot expect to be obeyed To have others Judge when their Servants do well will be to have others give Rules to their Servants and Service which they will think inconvenient Let it be considered how hard a Task Sheriffs have in Elections of Knights to the Parliament the Appearance is commonly
as we call it of Declarations in Actions of the Case if they be skilful in their Art will be sure to put in the words falso malitiose let the Case be what it will they are like Pepper and Vinegar in a Cook 's hand that help to make Sauce for any Meat but will not make a Dish of themselves Falso malitiose will not enable an Action against a Judge nor against a Indictor or Witness nor where words are not actionable though the Plaintiff have a Verdict and Damages found nor for a breach of a Trust which is alieni fori The reason of every one of these Cases holds in the Case at Bar and therefore it ought to have the same Resolution As to the word scienter it hath weight sometimes as if an Action be brought for keeping a Dog that worried another's Sheep Sciens Canem ad mordendum oves esse consuetum or for detaining the Servant or Wife of another scienter In these Cases if the Defendant have been told that the Dog did worry Sheep or that it was the Servant or Wife of another though it may be he did not believe it yet it was scienter for the word implies no more than having notice And in those Actions he must inform himself at his peril and may if he doubts avoid danger by putting away those things which give offence But in this Case he could receive Information by none and is not to believe or disbelieve any body but is bound to judge of the thing himself and to act according to his judgment So that no proof could be made of the scienter for one side tells him the Election is one way the other side tells him it is the other way but he being present to the whole Action must follow the dictates of his own judgment Hence it appears scienter in this Case is an empty word not referring to Notice of a Fact but to Matter of Judgment which cannot any way be proved It has been often urged that this Case is stronger being after a Verdict and Damages found by the Jury and it has been said that perhaps upon Demurrer it might have been more doubtful The Case is the same to me upon a Verdict that it would have been upon a general Demurrer and no stronger for a Demurrer is the Confession of the Party of all that can be proved or can possibly be found upon that Declaration It is my Lord Cooke's advice in Cromwell's Case 4 Part 14. a. never to Demur to a Declaration if there be any hopes of the Matter of Fact for the Matter in Law will as well serve after Verdict as upon Demurrer It had been a very odious Case if the Sheriff should have admitted all this Fact to be true by a Demurrer The finding the Plaintiffs Damages adds no strength to the Case for we see every day upon Actions for Words though the Jury find the Defendant guilty of speaking words falso malitiose and find it to be to the Plaintiffs great damages yet if the words are not such as will bear an Action the Court stays Judgment and if Judgment happen to be given it is reversable for Error which shews that the finding of Damages by the Jury cannot make an Action better than if it were to be adjudged upon Demurrer I shall now consider what has been said to maintain this Action upon the main substance and foundation of it They say this is a Case within the general reason of the Common Law for here is Malice Falsity and Damage and where they concur there ought to be remedy and although this be a new Case yet it ought not to be rejected for other kind of Actions have been newly introduced and this is as sit to be entertained as any My Brothers that argued even now for the Action shewed great Learning and great Pains and certainly have said all that can be invented in support of this Case but as far as I could perceive they have spoken only upon general Notions to that purpose I just now mentioned but nothing that I could observe applicable to the reasons and differences I go upon As for the Rule they go upon that where Malice Falsity and Damage do concur there must be remedy I confess it is true generally but not universally for it holds not in the Case of a Judge nor an Indicator nor a Witness nor of words that import not legal slanders through they are found to bring damage as I have shewn before and the reasons that exempt these Cases from the general Rule have the same force in the Case at Bar. I must confess the Judges have sometimes entertained new kinds of Actions but it was upon great deliberation and with discretion where a general inconvenience required it If Slade's Case were new for my Brother Thâ— land observes truly it was said in that Case that there were infinite number Precedents that Case imported the common course of Justice Actions for words that are said to be new though they have been used some hundreds of Years are a necessary means to preserve the Peace of the Kingdom The Case of Smith and Crasshaw Cro. Car. 15. was a Case of general concern being that Prosecutions for Treason may be against any man and at any time But in the case at Bar neither the Peace of the Kingdom nor the Course of Justice is concerned in general but only the Administration of Officers of the Parliament in the Execution of Parliamentary Writs and can never happen but in time of Parliament and must of necessity fall under notice of the Parliament so that if the Law were deficient it is presumed the Parliament would take care to supply it discretion requires us rather to attend that than to introduce new Precedents upon such general Notions that cannot govern the course of Parliaments My Brother said the Common Law complied with the Genius of the Nation I do not understand the Argument Does the Common Law Are we to judge of the changes of the Genius of the Nation whether may general Notions carry us at that rate for my part I think though the Common Law be not written yet it is certain and not arbitrary we are sworn to observe the Laws as they are and I see not how we change them by our Judgments and as for the Genius of the Nation it will be best considered by the Parliament who have Power of the Laws In the Case at Bar I look upon the Sheriff as a particular Officer of the Parliaments for the managing Elections and if he were not Sheriff I look upon the Writ as if it were an Order of Parliament and had not the Name of a Writ I look upon the Course of Parliament which we pretend not to know to be incident to the Consideration of it so that it stands not upon the general Notion of Remedy in the common course of Justice The Arguments of the Falling of the Value of Money whereby the Penalty of 100 l. provided by the 23 H. 6. is become inconsiderable and the encrease of the estimation of being a Member of Parliament if they were true are Arguments to the Parliament to change the Law by encreasing the Penalty but we cannot do it My Brother in his Argument at the Bar would embolden us telling us we are not to think the Case too hard for us because of the Name or Course of Parliament for Judges have punished Absentees they may determine what is a Parliament what is an Act of Parliament how long an Ordinance of Parliament shall continue and may punish Trespasses done in the very Parliament I will not dispute the truth of what hath been said in this but if his Arguments were artificial he might have spared them for they have no manner of effect to draw me beyond my sphear I will not be afraid to determine any thing that I think proper for me to judge but seeing I cannot find the Courts of Justice have at any time medled with Cases of this nature but upon power expresly given them by Acts of Parliament I cannot consent to this Precedent I am confident when there is need the Parliament will discern it and make Laws to enlarge our Power so far as they shall think convenient I see no harm that Sheriffs in the mean time should be safe from this new devised Action which they call the Common Law if they misdemean themselves they are answerable to the Parliament whose Officers they be or may be punished by the Statutes made for the regulating Elections It is time for me to conclude which I shall do by repeating the Opinion I at first delivered viz. That this Judgment is not warranted by the Rules of Law that it introduceth Novelty of dangerous consequence and therefore ought to be reversed Saepe Viatorem nova non vetus orbita fallit FINIS