The answer of the Iudges to the first part is that they confesse they take the Oath of Iudges which is specified amongst the statutes in 1â— Edw. 3. and 20. Edward 3 as I said before and that they may not stay hinder or delay the suite of any subject or his judgement or execution there upon otherwise then according to the law and course of the Court where they sit under pretence of any act of state proclamation writ letter or direction under the great Seale or privie Seale or privie Signet or Letter or other Commandement from the Lord Lieutenant Lord Deputy Iustice Iustices or other chiefe Governor of this kingdome most of which doth appeare by their Oath expressed expressed in the said statutes and the statute of 2. Edw. 3. c. 8. and the statute of 20. Edw. 3. as to the Barons of the Exchequer and as they know no punishments due to the Iudges for their deviations and transgressions without other aggravation so they know no punishment layd downe by any law against them for their deviations and transgressions in hindering staying or delaying of Iustice contrary to their said Oath other then what is declared in their said Oath and the statute of 20. Edw. 3. I conceive the answer is not a full and perfect answer to the Question For where the Question is whether the Iudges under pretext of any act of state proclamation writ Letter or direction under the great or privie Seale or privie Signet or Letter or other Commandement from the Lord Lieutenant Lord Deputie Iustice or Iustices or other chiefe Governor or Governors of this kingdome they may hinder stay or delay the suite of any subject or his judgement or execution thereupon if so in what cases and whether if they doe hinder stay or delay such suite judgement or execution thereupon what punishment doe they incurre for their deviations and transgressions therein To this they answer that they may not stay hinder or delay the suite of any subject or his judgement or execution therupon otherwise then according to the law course of the Court where they sit under pretence of any act of state proclamation writ letter or direction under the great or privie Seale or privie signet or letter or other commandement from the Lord Lieutenant Lord Deputy Iustice or Iustices or other chiefe Governor or Governors of this kingdome whereas they ought to have expressed the particular of this exception for by that clause it is supposed or may be strongly implyed that in some cases they may hinder stay or delay the suite of any subject or his judgement or execution therupon under pretext of any act of state proclamation letter or direction under the great or privie Seale or privie signet or other Commandement from the Lord Lieutenant Lord Deputy Iustice Iustices or other chiefe governor or governors of this kingdome which they ought to have expressely layd downe the question being if they may stay hinder or delay the suite of any subject upon any such pretext then to set forth in what Cases which ought to be particularly answered unto In the next place the Question is if they doe stay hinder or delay such suite judgement or execution therupon then to set forth what punishment they doe incurre for their deviation or transgression therein Vnto this they answer they know no punishment due to the Iudges for their deviation and transgressions without other aggravation This I conceive is an implication that there is a punishment where there is matter of aggravation and therefore it ought to be expressed what matter of aggravation they intend the same to be They further say they know no punishment layd downe by any law against them for their deviations or transgressions in hindering staying or delaying of Iustice contrary to their Oath other then what is declared in their said Oath and the statute of â—0 Edw. 3. This I conceive not to bee a full answer in respect the punishment layd downe in that Oath is in a generality viz. that the Iudges so offending contrary to their Oath are to be at the Kings will of body lands and goods which they should declare and expresse how farre that punishment extendeth in their bodies lands and goods Whether imprisonment of their bodies or in their lives and whether in forfeiture of their lands goods or how else The breach of an Oath is a very high offence and the higher it is that the matter it doth concerne is the greater and therefore it is much secundum subjectam materiam It is to be considered to whom the oath of a Iudge is made and what matter it doth concerne To the first the Oath is made to GOD the King and to the Common-wealth For the matter it is concerning the true and equall administration and distribution of Iustice to the people If the Iudge doe offend contrary to his Oath he commits breach of the trust reposed in him by the King besides the violation of his Oath Looke upon trust betweene Common persons A man makes a Lease for yeares the Lessee makes a scoffment this is a forfeyture of his estate by the Common-law by reason of the breach of trust Lessee for life in an action brought against him prayes in ayde of a stranger this is a forfeyture of his estate A quid Iuris clamat brought against Lessee for life he claymes a fee which is found against him this is a forfeyture of his estate So much for breach of trust To come unto a false verdict given by a Iurie which is a breach of their Oath they being sworne ad veritatem dicendam For this false verdict an attaynt lyeth at Common law against the petit Iury The judgement at the Common-law in an attaynt importeth eight grievous punishments 1. Quod amittat liberam legem in perpetuum 2. quod forisfaciat omnia bona Catalla sua 3. quod terrae tenementa in manus Domini Regis capiantur 4. quod uxores liberi extradomus suas eijoiantur 5. quod domus suae prostrentur 6. quod arbores suae extirpentur 7. quod prata sua arentur 8 quod corpora sua Carceri mancipentur So odious is perjurie in the eye of the Common-law It followeth therefore that the breach of the Oath of a Iudge materia considerata in regard it tends to the subversion of Iustice is an offence of an higher nature deserving a farre greater punishment in his body lands and goods as I conceive This question is very short and as plaine it is no more then whether the Councell-table be a Iudicatorie in Civill causes betweene subject and subject for lands goods or Chattels and by what law The answer is wholly ad aliud But it is answered fully by the great Charter capit 11. 9. Henr. 3. Communia placita non sequantur Curiam nostram common-Common-pleas which are the pleas in question shall not follow the Kings Court againe cap. 29. No Freeman shall be taken imprisoned put off his freehold liberties free customes c. other then by the lawfull judgement of
processe of distringas out of the second remembrance Office to distrayne the tenants ad faciendum homagium or pro homagio suo respectuaÌ„do upon which processe the Shiriffes returneth issues And if the Tenant doe not therupon appeare and compound with the King to give a fine for respite of homage then the issues are forfeyted to the King for his contempt but if he appeare then the Court of Exchequer doth agree with him to respite his homage for a small fine wherein they regulate themselves under the rate expressed and set downe in England by vertue of a privie Scale in the 15. yeare of Queene Elizabeth whereby the rates are particularly set downe according to the yearely value of the Lands which rates are confirmed by act of Parliament in 1. Iacob Regis cap. 26. in England before which time there was not any such certayntie but the same rested in the discretion of the Court by the rule of Common-law and so it doth at this day in Ireland howbeit we conceive that the Court of Exchequer here doe well to regulate their discretions by those rates in England and rather to be under then to exceede the same which the Barons there doe as they doe informe us that are Iudges of the other Courts 13. To the 13. they say that they know no rule of Law or statute by which it should be ceÌ„surable in the subjects of this kingdome to repayre into England to appeale unto his Majesty for redresse of injuries or for other their lawfull occasions unles they be prohibited by his Majesties writ or proclamation or other his Command But they find that by the statute of 5. Rich. 2. the passage of the subject out of the Realme is prohibited without speciall licence excepting Noblemen others in the said statute specially excepted some inference to that purpose may be made upon the statute of 25. Hen 6 cap. 2. in this kingdome 14. To the 14. they say that some Deanries dignities not Deanes or dignitaries as the question propounds it are properly de mero jure donative by the King some Elective some Collative according to the first foundation usuage of such Churches they humbly desire that they may not be required to give any further answer to this question for that it may concerne many mens estates which may come judcially in question before them 15. To the 15. they say that they conceive that where priviledges are claymed by any body politicke or other the Kings Counsell may exhibite à quo-warranto to cause the parties clayming such priviledges to shew by what warrant they clayme the same that the Court cannot hinder the issuing of processe at the instance of the Kings Atturney or hinder the Kings Atturney to exhibite such informations But when the case shall upon the proceedings be brought to judgment then not before the Court is to take notice and give judgâ—ment upon the merite circuÌ„stances of the cause as upon due consideration shal be conceived to be according to law in which case the Iudges or the Kings Atturney as they conceive ought not to be punished by any ordinary rule of law or statute that they know But for the particular case of Quo-warranto for that it hath beene a great question in this present Parliament so concernes the highest Court of justice in this kingdome also concernes two other of his Majesties Courts of justice therin his Majesties prerogative in those Courts they say that they cannot safely deliver any opinion therein before it comes judicially before them and that they heare it argued and debated by learned Counsell on both sides 16. To the sixteenth they say that although the Iurors be sole Iudges of the matter of fact yet the Iudges of the Court are Iudges of the validitie of the evidence and of the matters of law arising out of the same wherein the Iury ought to be guided by them And if the Iury in any criminall cause betweene the King and party give their verdict contrary to cleere and apparent evidence delivered in Court they have beene constantly and still ought to be censured in the Star-chamber in England and Castle-chamber here for this misdemeanor in perverting the right course of justice in such fines and other punishment as the merites circumstances of the cause doth deserve according to the course of the said Courts for that their consciences ought to be directed by the evidence and not to bee misguided by their wills or affections And if the Iury know any matter of fact which may eyther better or blemish their evidence they may take advantage thereof but they ought to discover the same to the Iudges And they say that this proceeding in the Court of Castle-chamber is out of the same grounds that writs of attaint are against a Iury that gives a false verdict in a Court of Record at the Common-law betwixt partie and partie which false verdict being found by a Iury of twenty foure notwithstanding that the first Iurie were Iudges of the fact yet that infamous judgement was pronounced against the first Iury which is next or rather worse then judgment to death and did lay a perpetuall brand of perjury upon them for which reason it was anciently called the villanous judgement and they say that the law to direct the punishment for such offences is the course of the said Court which is a law as to that purpose the statute of 3. Henr. 7. cap. 1. and other statutes in force in this kingdome 17. To the seventeenth they say they can answer no otherwise then they have in their answer to the next precedent question 18. To the eighteenth they say that in a Legall construction the statute of Magna Charta in which the words Salvo contenemento are mentioned is only to be understood of amerciaments not of fines yet where great fines are imposed in terrorem upon the reducement of them regard is to be had to the abilitie of the persons 19. To the nineteenth they say that if one doth steale a sheepe or commit any other felony and after flyeth the course of justice or lyeth in woods or mountaynes upon his keeping yet doth he not thereby become a Traytor neyther doth a Proclamation make him so the chiefe use whereof in such a Case is to invite the partie so standing out to submit himselfe to justice or to forewarne others of the danger they may runne into by keeping him company or giving him mayntenance and reliefe whereby he may the rather submit to Iustice 20. To the twentieth they say that the testimony of Rebels or Traytors under protection of Theeves or other infamous persons is not to bee used or pressed as convincing evidence upon the tryall of any man for his life and so is his Majesties printed instructions as to persons condemned or under protectioÌ„ yet the testimony of such persons not condemned being fortified with other concurring
custome is here over all the kingdome And yet if any man aske the question by what law wee are governed there is no proper answer other then by the law of England And for the statutes of England generall statutes were received in this kingdome some at one time some at another and all generall statutes by Poynings Act anno 10. Henr. 7. but no other statute or new introducting law untill the same be first received and enacted in Parliament in this kingdome and this may appeare by two declarative statutes the one 10. Henr. 4. the other 29. of Henr. 6. The law of England as it is the best humane law so it is a noble and sociable law and for the more cleere discerning of the truth and equall administration of Iustice it referres many causes to their genuyn and naturall proceedings as Maritime causes to the Court of Admiralty Co. Institutes 260. 361. Stamford 57. b. Co. 5. 106. 107 Constables Case and there the proceeding is by the Civill law Co 8 47. b. Matters beyond the Seas are determined in the Court of constable and Marshall Cookes institutes 391. b. matters of Latin the law referres to Grammarians Com. fol. 122. matters meerely Ecclesiasticall to bee tryed and determined in the proper Courts Coke 7. 43 b 8. Co. 68. 5. Co. 57. 1. R. 3. 4. matters of merchandize to Marchants 34. Henr. 8. Dy 52 54. Many other cases upon this learning are to be found Co. 9. fol. 30. 31. 32. Strat. Marclads case Yet in all these and the like Cases the tryall and determination thereof are bounded and controuled by the rules of the Common-law they are as Rivers which are necessary to run through the land to helpe the inhabitants thereof but if they overflow the bankes the bankes are made higher and stronger to suppresse their violent current so in all the cases aforesaid and the like The Common-law hath limitted the proceedings if they exceede their bounds witnesse the prohibitions in all our Bookes and the statutes of Provision and praemunire and cases there upon in many ages by which it is manifest that the Supreame and governing law are the Common-law Common-customes and statutes of the Realme and the rest but ministers and servants unto it brevia remediana are onely by the Common-law mandatoria may bee in the said other cases 7. Co. Calvins case Dy. 176. So that the answer as to the words in the generall is short and ought to be positive As to the Courtes of equitie they have beene ancient in England and the Courts of eqnity here ought to bee guided by the constant proceedings in England in ages past I meane not by this or that Chancellor but by that naturall and just equity in the Courts here observed This equitie is of absolute necessitie in many cases ipsae etenim leges capiunt ut jure regantur and therefore is included within the law of the Land and not to bee devided from it as out of this writing it may bee inferred As to the case of killing in rebellion to operate an Attaynder if this bee no law in England it cannot bee law here vide Dame-hales case com 263. a. 8. Edw. 3. 20. fitz Dower 106. Cromptons Iurisdiction fol. 84. a. by which it may be urged that it is an Attaynder for that hee prevented the judgement of law by fighting against the Crowne and by his killing therein which ensued his unlawfull and trayterous act but I observe to the contrary the books of 7. Henr. 4. 32 b. Cook 4. 57. Sadlers case I doe confesse that in England statutes may be obsolete as the statute of VVilliam Butler by which the heire may have an action of wast Rastall 5. 21. all the books are contrary and so is the statute of Merton of disparagment as to an action to bee brought for the same so are some antiquated lawes 40. Edw. 3. 42. 42. ass 8. 25. one present aiding to murder was accessary but now is principall 4. Hen. 7. 18. Com. 99. 100. a Vicar could not anciently have an action against a Parson 40. Edw. 3. 28. Finchden the law is now otherwise and so of an entry upon a feoffee with warranty sit fol. 23. 24. in the case of disparagement give the reason because that those statutes and lawes were never used therfore obsolete our case is nothing like for life liberty and propertie being in debate but an obsolete law is no law in force Therefore the answer as to that is defective As to the case of a fellon upon his keeping and terrifying of the people I conceive the answer is uncertaine and dangerous if such a fellon raise an armed power against the Crowne and terrifie that way no doubt this is treason within the statute of 25. Edw. 3. or the equity of it and by the statute of 10. Hen. 7. cap. 13. in Ireland statuto Hiberniae fol. 62. but if such terrifying be without raising armes or by committing the same or the like fellonies it is no more then the case of purse-takers by force in the high wayes of England many a man was terrified thereby in Salisbury-plaine and yet no treason and if there be no statute here which is not in England to make it treason certainly it cannot be treason since the Conquest writ of error have been brought for to reverse Iudgments given in the Kings Bench here in the Court of Kings Bench in England no course here which is contrary to law can alter the law of England therefore to what purpose is a declaration of Iudges here contrary to the law there This writ of error is a writ framed in the Register and appeares by common experience I will offer a notable case which I saw adjudged in the Kings Bench in England Pasc 18. Iacobi for Stafford against Stafford in a writ of error for to reverse a Iudgment given in the Kings Bench in Ireland when Sir VVilliam Iones was Chiefe Iustice here in an ejectione firme for that in the declaration there was contained among other things ducentas acras Montani Sir VVilliam Iones being in England affirmed the course here to have been so and vouched many notable Presidents thereupon an order was conceived that Sir Iames Ley Sir Humphry VVinch and Sir Iohn Denham knights who were formerly Chiefe Iustices here should certifie the course who made report that the course in Ireland was and ought to be in writts originall and Iudiciall to be directed by the Register in pleading to be guided by the books of entries and thereupon the Iudgement was reversed And the Chiefe Iustice Mountague said that if they did not proceed in Ireland according to law they should learne it And so I conclude that the answer to the first Question is insufficient As touching the second Question which is concerning the Oath which this Iudges doe take the question is whether the Iudges of the land doe take the Oath of Iudges And if so c.
his Peeres as by the law of the land This great assurance in the 38. Chap. of the same statute was granted for the King and his successors to all his people and was confirmed in thirty Parliaments as I said before Cooke 8. the Princes Case by the statute of 5. Edw. 3. cap. 9. 25. Edw. 3. Cap. 4. 28. Edw. â— cap. â— 42. Edw. 3. cap. 1 â— The great Charter is againe confirmed and not onely so but proceedings contrary to the same before the King or his Counsell are declared voyde The King is to observe and mantayne the law the Iudge by his Oath 18. Edward â— is bound to doe right betweene the King and his people and that right strengthens the Kings prerogative presidents or practise contrary to so many statutes are of no use in many ages past encroachments were made upon these just liberties which were alwayes removed by Parliaments Yet I must confesse that of all antiquity some pleas have beene held in the Kings Royall house as in the Court held by the Marshall of the Kings houshold for things arising within the Verge Fleta lib. 2. cap. 2. but when that Court exceeds its due bounds declaratory statutes were alwayes made to meete them as mischiefes in the common-wealth when they medled with land or the like as appeares by the statute of Articule super Chartam 28. Edw. 1. 15. R. 2. cap. 12. all these statutes My Lords and many more to this purpose are undenyably of force in this kingdome and none of them can be with impunitie said to be obsolete or antiquated My Lords they raise another doubt viz that as the King may grant cognizance of pleas to Corporations or the like and therefore to the Councell-table if this neede an answer I will answer it thus that a grant of cognizance never was neyther can it be otherwise then to proceede per legem terrae or per judicium parium in the same manner as Courts doe proceede at Common-law and not upon paper petitions or summary hearings such cognizance was never granted the King is at losse by such proceedings he looseth fines upon originals he looseth amerciaments and fines incident to every judgement at Common-law as I said before I he subject undergoeth an inconvenience First the law will decline writs originall will by disuse be forgotten Clerks who should draw them discouraged to learne legall proceedings out of doores being the foundation of the law and in stead of regular and orderly proceeding rudenesse and barbarisme introduced the subject will loose the benefit of his attaynte and writ of error by which the law might relieve him against false verdicts or erroneous judgments he will loose the benefit of his warranty which might repaire a purchaser in case his acquired purchase were not good Whereas if a Iudge or Iuror doe wrong the remedy is at hand but against the Lord Deputy and Councell who will seeke for it therefore the countenance of this Iudicature in Common-pleas is against the Kings prerogative and the peoples just rights both which the Iudges ought to maintaine and likewise against the intent of your Lordships order My Lords as in England the said severall statutes were made to prevent the inconveniences aforesaid one good statute was made in Ireland 28. Henr. 6. cap. 2. Irish statut fol. 15. which directs matters of Interest to be determined in the Common-pleas matters of the Crowne in the Kings-bench matters of equity in the Chancery This law if there were no more regulates the proceedings in this kingdome The Iudges insist upon the words in the end of that statute viz. Saving the Kings prerogative My Lords this was stood upon at the late great tryall in England and easily answered for by the Common-law the King may by his prerogative sue in any of the foure Courts for his particular interest although it be contrary to the nature of that Court for he may sue à Quare impedit in the Kings Bench the like yet so as the said suite be bounded by the rules of law I will demaund a question whether the King may bring à Quare impedit in paper at the Councell-board the Kings now Atturney I am confident will answer me he cannot The word salvo or saving is in construction of law of a thing in esse or existente and no creative word 26. Ass pla 66. and cannot in the Kings Case be construed to overthrow the law nor many expresse and positive acts of Parliament My Lords in all humblenesse and dutie I will and must acknowledge his Majesties Sacred and lawfull prerogative whereof the King himselfe is the best expositor in his answer to the Petition of right Poltons stat fol. 1433. he declares that his prerogative is to defend the peoples libertie and the peoples libertie strenghtens the Kings prerogative the answer was a Kingly answer and More â—ajorum this is conformable to the great Charter and to all the statutes before recited The government of England being the best in the world was not onely Royall but also politicke some other princes like Cain Nemrod Esau and the like hunters of men subverted lawes The Kings of England maintayned them and did never assume the power to change or alter the lawes as appeares by Fortescue that grave and learned Lord Chancellor in King Henry the sixts time de laudibus legum Angliae cap. 9. fol. 25. and in the same Booke cap. 36. fol. 84. nor to take his peoples goods nor to lay taxe nor tallage upon them other then by their free consent in Parliament this appeares by the Booke Cases in 1â— Henr. 4. fol. 14. 15. 16. the great case of the Awlnage of London and in the Case of toll-travers and toll-through 14. Henr. 4. 9 37. Henr. 6. 27. 8. Henr. 6. 19 all agreeing nor to alter the nature of land as by converting land at Common-law to Gavelkind or Borrough English or e conuerso as to the estate otherwise as to the person of the King Ple. Com. the Lord Barclyes Case fol. 246. 247. Yet it is most true that the law of the land gives the King many naturall and great prerogatives farre beyond all other men as may appeare in the said Case fol. 243. but not to doe wrong to any subject Com. 246. The person of the King is too sacred to doe a wrong in the intention of Law if any wrongs bee done his ministerâ— are Authors and not the King And the Kings just prerogatives by the Kings Royall assent in Parliament were bounded limited and qualified by severall Acts of Parliament as if Tenant in cap. did alien at Common-law without licence this was a forfeyture of his estate Plo Com. case of mines fol. 332. the statutes of 2. Edw. 3. cap 14. makes this only finable the statute of Magna Charta cap. 21.
Common-wealth And they say that the matter manner restrictions limitations reservations and other clauses contayned in such grants or licences and the Commissions or Proclamations thereupon and undue execution thereof and severall circumstances may make the same lawfull or unlawfull whereof they are not able to give any certayne resolution before some particular commes in judgement before them neyther are they otherwise able to answer the generall in the particulars of the said question of what in what cases how where and by whom or which of them wherein whosoever desireth further satisfaction he may please to have recourse unto the knowne cases of Monoplies Printed authorities and written Reports and unto the statute of 21. Ia. in England concerning Monopolies and the severall exceptions and limitations therein 6. To the sixt they say they can no otherwise answer then they have already in their answer to the third question for the reasons therein setforth 7. To the seventh they say that a Proclamation or act of State cannot alter the common-law and yet Proclamations are acts of his Majesties prerogative and are and alwayes have beene of great use and that the contemners of such of them as are not against the law are and by the constant practise of the Star-chamber in England have beene punished according the nature of the contempt and course of the said Court and although acts of State are not of force to bind the goods possessions or inheritance of the subject yet they have beene of great use for the setling of the estates of very many subjects in this kingdome as may appeare in the Report of the case of Irish gavelkind in Print And further to that question they cannot answer for the reasons in their answer unto the third question set forth 8. To the eight they say that they know no ordinary rule of law by which the subjects of this kingdome are made subject to Marshall-law in time of peace and that they find the use thereof in time of peace in England complayned off in the petition of right exhibited to his Majestie in the third yeare of his raigne And that they conceive the granting of authority and Commission for execution thereof is derived out of his Majesties Regall and prerogative power for suppressing of suddaine and great insolencies and insurrections among armies or multitudes of armed men lawfully or unlawfully convented together the right use wherof in all times hath beene found most necessary in this kingdome And further to that question they cannot answer for that as they conceive it doth concerne his Majesties Regall power and that the answering of the other part of the question doth properly belong to another profession whereof they have no Cognizance 9. To the ninth they say that as the taking of any Oath before any but such Iudges or persons as have power to give or demaund an Oath for decision of controversies is by most Divinâ— in most cases counted to be a rash Oath and so an offence against God within the third Commandement so the prescribing and demaunding of a set Oath by any that cannot derive power so to doe from the Crowne where the fountaine of Iustice under God doth reside is an offence against the law of the Land and as for voluntary and extra judiciall Oathes although freely taken before arbitrators or others they say as this kingdome is composed in many particulars as the nature consequence of the cause or the quality of the person who taketh or before whom the same is taken may concerne the Common-wealth or the members therof such taking of such Oathes or proceeding or grounding on such Oath in deciding of controversies according to the severall circumstances that may occurre therein or the prejudice it may introduce to the Common-wealth may be punishable by the Common-law or if it grow unto an height or generall inconvenience to the common-wealth or members thereof in the Castle-chamber For though such an Oath be voluntary yet in most cases it is received by him that doth intend to ground his Iudgment thereon and after the Oath is taken the arbitrator or he that intends to yeeld faith to the party that tooke the Oath doth examine him upon one or more questions upon the said Oath unto the answer whereof hee doth give faith and assent trusting on the said Oath And whereas Oathes by Gods institution were chiefly allowed to bee taken before lawfull Magistrates for ending of controversies yet common experience doth teach in this kingdome that oftentimes orders and acts grounded on such voluntary Oathes beget strife and suits and commonly such orders when they come to bee measured by rules of law or equitie in the Kings Courts become voyde after much expence of time and charge that we say nothing of that that thereby many causes proper to the Kings Courts are drawn ad aliud examen and thereby the Kings justice and Courts often defrauded and declined 10. To the tenth they say that they are not Iudges of rules of policie but of law and that they know no certayne rule of law concerning reducement of fines The same being matters of his Majesties own meere Grace after a man is censured for any offence And that they know no law that none shall be admitted to reducement of his fines or other penalties in the Courts in the question specified untill he confesse the fact for which he was censured But forasmuch as the admittance to a reducement after conviction for an offence is matter of Grace and not Iustice It hath beene the constant course of these Courts both here and in England for cleering of his Majesties justice where the partie will not goe about to cleere himselfe by reversall of the censure or decree not to admit him to that grace untill he hath confessed the justnesse of the sentence pronounced by the Court against him And that the rather for that commonly the ability and disabilitie of the partie doth not appeare in judgement before them but the nature and circumstances of the offence according to which they give sentence against him or them in terrorem after which when the partie shall make the weaknesse of his estate appeare or that the Court is otherwise ascerteyned that they doe of course proportion the censure or penaltie having regard to his estate 11. To the eleventh they say That neither the Iudges of the Kings Bench as they informe us that are of that Court or Iustices of Gaole delivery or of any other Court doe or can by any law they know deny the copies of Indictments of Felony or Treason to the partie only accused as by the said question is demanded 12. To the twelfth they say that where lands are holden of the King by the Knights service in Capite the tenant by the strict course of Law ought in person to doe his homage to the King and untill he hath done his homage the ancient course of the Exchequer hath beene yet is to issue