dispose of them Fourthly the Commissioners have a Clerk proper to themselves to Register their Laws Fifthly the Commissioners have power to make Orders and Decrees which are Judgements in effect and some of them cannot be reversed but by Act of Parliament And lastly Writs of Error have been brought to reverse Judgement given in that Court For all which causes I do conclude That the Commissioners of Sewers have a Court of Record although it be not holden in aliquo loco certo So was the Kings Bench a Court of more Eminency then this But ubicunque fuerimus in Angliae and for express Authority in the point of Gregories Case in the 6 Report of Cook chief Justice that the Sewers is a Court of Record Imprisonment imposed by the Commissioners of Sewers IT is a point of high consequence whether Commissioners of Sewers have power by these Laws to Imprison the body of a man for any thing touching the same for that Imprisonment of the body seemeth to sway somewhat against the grand Charter of England and against the liberty of a free-born Subject and it is said in Bonhams case 28 H. 8. in Dyer that liberty is a thing which the Law much favoreth and I finde in our Books of Law That the Judges have been very careful and curious in not extending words contained in Charters to the Imprisonment of mens bodies unless they were express in the point And therefore in Clerks case in Sir Ed. Cooks 5 Report fol. 64. Clarks Case The case is That the Term was to be kept at St. Albans and the Major there and his brethren did assess every townsman towards erecting and building of the Courts of Justice and made an Order That he which should refuse to assist and pay should be imprisoned and one being Arrested and imprisoned brought his Action of false imprisonment against the Major who pleaded in effect That they were incorporate by King Edward 6. and had power granted to them in their Major of St. Albans Charters to make Ordinances by reason whereof they made the said Order and so justified the imprisonment But it was adjudged against the Major for that by the said Charter they had not any power to make an Ordinance to imprison a mans body for that were against the grand Charter in Magna Charta cap. 29. Quod nullus liber homo imprisonetur Magna Charta nisi per legem terrae But by that Book they might have inflicted a penalty and have distrained or brought an Action of Debt for it In Doctor Bonhams case in the 8. Report King Hen. 8. incorporated the Physitians of London and gave them power by Charter to examine the Imperites to finde out the defects Et pro delictis suis in non bene exequendo faciendo utendo illos per punitionem eorum delinquentium per fines amerciamentum imprisonomentum corporum suorum So hereby it appears that by the Kings Letters Patents they had power to imprison the Body but I finde their Charters confirmed by Act of Parliament Yet in 2 Eliz. Dier fol. 175. the Case is That the Queen did award a Commission directed to certain Commissioners to Hear and Determine the controversies betwixt Scrogs and Colshil touching the Office of the Exigenter and that if Scrogs should refuse to obey to make answer before them they should commit him to Prison but the validity of this last Commission I much doubt of I am of Opinion That the Commissioners of Bankrupts and charitable uses have no power to commit any man but if any abuse or misdemeanor be committed in contempt or derogation of their Authorities they may make Certificate thereof into the Chancery and refer the punishment thereof to the will and discretion of the Lord Chancelor or Lord Keeper for the time being In Godfreys Case in the 11 Report there is a discourse what Godfreys Case Courts have power to Imprison and which not and there it is said Some Courts may Fine but not Imprison as the Courts Leet and Sheriff turn some others could neither Fine nor Imprison as Courts Baron and County Courts and some could neither Fine Imprison nor Amerce as Ecclesiastical Courts And some may Imprison and not Fine as chief Constables at their Petty Sessions for an affray done in disturbance of them And other Courts there were which might Fine Imprison and Amerce as the eminent Courts of Westminster So that Imprisonment is not incident to every Court nor to every offence Yet I am of opinion that the Commissioners of Sewers may Imprison the body for it is not only a Court of Record but is authorized by Act of Parliament and I suppose that there be words in the Commission and Statute which will bear this construction which are as follow viz. And all such as ye shall finde negligent gainsaying or rebelling in the works reparation or reformation of the premises or negligent in the due execution of the Commissioners That ye Compel them by Distress Fines and Amerciaments and by other Punishments ways or means c. Which words are strong and large enough to authorize the Commissioners of Sewers upon just Cause to Imprison the body But here they are to be careful and not to think that they may Imprison Fine or Amerce in any case because the words be generally put together But this construction must be thereof made That they may Imprison where Imprisonment is due and Fine in cases Fineable and Amerce in cases Amerciable and Distrain where a Distress properly lyeth by the Rules of Law and they may not Imprison where by the Laws Imprisonment is not due but every one of the said punnishments is to be used in its proper kinde for these words promiscuously put together must be ordered by a just and legal construction according to the Rules of Law and Reason And I have known the words of a Statute generally and promiscuously put together have been marshalled according to their distributive operations as the Statute of 1 Rich. 3. which is That all Feoffments Gifts Grants Releases and Confirmations of Lands made by Cestui que use should be good Yet though these words were generally put together notwithstanding the wise and discreet Sages and Expositors of our Laws have so Marshalled the words of this Statute that they made construction thereof according to the Rules and reason of the Laws That is That Cestui que use in Possession might make a Feoffment and that Cestui que use in Reversion or Remainder might grant the Land and Cestui que use of a discontinued Estate might release or confirm and yet the words of this Statute were general howsoever Reason must be the Expositor that every thing be done in due form of Law and not in preposterous maner And these matters being thus passed over I shall endeavor my self to declare in what cases Commissioners of Sewers may Imprison Fine and Amerce and where not Imprisonment Fine and Amerciament Fines IF one
for a Distresse taken in the Kings Court for that they be of a superior authority and jurisdiction to these inferior Courts of Sewers And therefore the Replevins which our Statute aims to give way to are intended to be taken out of the Kings Courts which in Law and Justice ought to be obeyed and not from the Sheriff or his Officers by vertue of their Office only But in my case the Commissioners made a Law that the goods of A. should be sold without allowance of Replevin which is a good Law upon the distinctions and diversities aforesaid that is that A. who was the person assessed might not have or take a Replevin because he was a person bound expresly by the Law nor that the Sheriff or his Officers Ex Officio might grant a Replevin to deliver the same being under the power of this Law of Sewers But the Kings Courts at Westminster may in those cases of Sewers deliver the Distresses and this construction made of this Statute as I take it stands with Law and reason And in the 31 Ed. 3. Brook Replevin plac 60. the Case is put a man did grant to A. B. a rent out of his grounds 13 Ed. 3. with power that if it were behinde that he might distrain therefore and detain the Distresse against gages and pledges and yes it was adjudged that if the Rent were behinde and the grantor distrained he could not detain this Distresse against the Replevin Yet here were the direct words of the party himself to the contrary but his words could not overrule the Law So that upon all these matters I hold these Tenents following Imprimis To make a general Law to restrain all Replevins granted either from the Sheriff or the Kings Courts is no good Law or Ordinance of Sewers for that Replevins de jure are in such cases grantable out of the Kings Courts and such a general Law savors too much of oppression in stopping up the Gates of Justice Secondly for a Sheriff or his Deputy to grant and award Warrants of Replevin Ex officio to deliver goods or cattle distrained and detained for a Tax and Law of Sewers is in my opinion against Law and need not to be obeyed for that the Distres was Sub protectione superioris Curiae which is of a higher degree then a Sheriffs Ministerial Warrant Thirdly if a Distresse be taken and sold for a Sesse of Sewers a Replevin lyeth against the buyer for by the sale the goods and cattel were put out of the protection of the Court of Sewers Fourthly if a Rate or Tax be imposed by the Laws of Sewers upon I. S. the goods of Iohn a Downs be taken therefore on the ground of I. S. which were charged I. D. may sue a Replevin of his said cattel from the Sheriff for that he nor his goods were not expresly bound by the Laws of Sewers Fifthly a Replevin lyeth out of the Kings Courts of Westminster to deliver a Distresse taken and detained by the Laws of Sewers for that they be Courts de altiore natura Sixthly a Distresse taken by a Lord on his Tenant for not repairing a work of Sewers which by the Tenure of his Land he ought to do and repair the Tenant may sue a Replevin from the Sheriff Ex officio to deliver the Distresse for that this Distresse was not taken or detained by Warrant Judgement or Decree of Sewers Seventhly If upon a Judgement given in the Kings Court or upon a Decree made in this Court of Sewers a Writ or Warrant of Distringas ad Reparandum or of that nature be awarded and the parties goods be thereby taken these goods ought not to be delivered by Replevin to be taken either out of this Court or out of any other Court of the Kings because it is an Execution out of a Judgement Eighthly although one grant a Rent out of his Land with clause of Distresse and with Grant or Covenant that the Grantee may distrain and detain this Distresse till he shall be satisfied his Rent Yet a Replevin lieth in that Case A perpetual charge SO now I have fully and at large declared my opinion touching Distresses and Replevins wherein I hope I have fully satisfied the first point of my Case I intend therefore now to proceed to the sixth point which concerns charges and sales of Lands to be made by the Commissioners of Sewers by the power and authority of this Law And first I suppose the question may be extended to this that is Whether the Commissioners of Sewers can impose a perpetual charge upon Land to repair a work of Sewers for ever by the power of these Laws I do here acknowledge that this is a knotty Point yet something may be alleaged in maintenance of this Opinion Affirmatively For in the parts of Holland in the County of Lincoln almost every one knows which part he is to repair and maintain in perpetuity And Experientia est optima interpres rerum And it appeareth by the Charter of Romney Marsh pag. 12. That the use there was to impose perpetual charges on singular persons Char. Romney Marsh pag. 12. For the words there be these Juratores per eor ' sacrament ' mensur abunt per perticam omnes terr as Tenementa quae infra dictum Mariscum periculo subiacent quibus mensueration ' factis viginti quatuor per communitatem prius electi jurati habito respectu ad quantitatem Walliar ' terrar ' Tenement ' quae periculo subiacent per eor ' Sacramentum ordinabunt quantum ad predictarum Walliar ' sustentationem reperationem faciend ' sustinend ' ad quemlibet pertineat ita quod proportion ' acrar ' terrar ' periculo subiacent ' singulis assignetur sua portio perticar ' predict ' assignatio fiat per locos certos ita ut scietur ubi per quae loca ad quantum singuli defendere teneantur These words in this Charter seem to be plain That by the Laws established in Romney Marsh the Commissioners had power to assign to every man his portion to repair in perpetuity but I finde no such words in our Statute And whereas it may be said that our Commissioners have power to make sale of the Lands Ergo They may charge them perpetually but this is a non sequitur for that for the sale they have expresse Warrant but not so for the charge And powers and authorities must be duly pursued and are not to be taken by equitable or argumentable collections or implications so that it may seem the Laws of Sewers were never held so perdurable as to binde mens Lands with perpetual charges And therefore this difference I take That by the Custom of a town or country every one may know his particular portion which the owners of grounds are obliged and bound to repair perpetually but without such a Custom it hath been held That the Commissioners of Sewers cannot binde any mans inheritance to a
the words of this Statute are sufficient to yield the party the benefit of a Traverse if there be cause and for president in the point Chart. of Romney Marsh pag. 23 and 24. one Godfrey Ro. Marsh being presented that he ought to repair a Bank or Wall and that he did neglect to do the same and he came in and pleaded a Plea thereto before the said Commissioners and in 19 lib. Assiz plac 6. there were divers Presentments before Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer for Nusances done in the River of Lee and the same were there traversed and tryed And the Statute of 1 H. 4. cap. 12. 1 H. 4. doth plainly admit of a Traverse wherein the words be That in case if any feel himself greived by execution or otherwise against right and reason let him pursue and he shall have right But I verily suppose that those things which the Justices of Sewers do by their view or by survey and discretion are so binding as in those cases no Traverses are to be admitted because these things are meerly the acts of the Court and of the Justices themselves and if they Fine a man for his contempt in Court by a Record of their own view and not upon a Presentment the party shall not be received to Traverse this and in Doctor Bonhams Case it is said That the act of a Judge is not Traversable if he be the absolute Judge of the Cause But in cases done or certified by such as be no absolute Judges of the Cause as Commissioners of Bankrupts which certifie one a Bankrupt he may Traverse this in an action brought as was done in the Case of Cut and Delaber in 7 Jac. in the Cut and Delaber 7 Jac. common place and Vernies Case 1 Mar. Dier fol. 89. no Averment could be taken to the certificate of a Judge and with this agreeth 7 H. 7. fol. 4. 7 H. 7. But although a Traverse may be taken to a Presentment in the Court of Sewers yet times and seasons must be observed for if a Presentment be there made it may be Traversed for the reasons cause presidents formerly mentioned Yet if the cause have been there so far proceeded in as the Commissioners make a decree thereupon I take it then no Traverse at all can be taken because a decree is the final Judgement of the Court and is an act Judicial which cannot be traversed and tryed by a Jury for that were to refer the Judgement of the Court to be examined by a Jury which may not be admitted and at the Common Law after Judgement no Traverse can be taken And if one be Indicted at the general Session of the Peace this is traversable but if the party suffer himself to be Outlawed upon the said Indictment there no Traverse lieth but a Writ of Error So if in our Sessions of the Sewers the cause proceed to a decree the party grieved is to take his way by preferring a Bill of Reversal in maner as is done in the High Court of Chancery and so he may have the cause here throughly examined Other legal proceedings THe words of the Statute which give the legal proceedings be these viz. That the Commissioners of Sewers may hear and determine all and singular the Premises as well at our suit as at the suit of any other complaining before them after the Laws and Customs aforesaid or otherwise by any other ways or means these words give the party remedy to sue before the Justices of Sewers for such things as are contained within these Laws and which have their dependency thereon In Colshils case in Dier fol. 175. the party preferred his Colshils case Bill of complaint to the Commissioners containing the effect of his Title to the Office in question and these were special Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer Justices of the general Oyer and Terminer may hear and determine Usury by the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 8. yet if I. S. be bound 13 Eliz. in a Bond of Ten pounds principal debt and for Forty shillings for Interest although this Bond be for payment for usury yet an Action of Debt doth not lie thereupon before the said Commissioners but an information may be preferred against the lender there to punish him So by our Statute of Sewers an Action of Trespass lieth not for a Trespass done within the reach of this Commission yet Distinguendum est for put the case a sesse is laid upon a man and the goods of I. S. not chargeable thereto be taken and distrained who is not chargeable to the payment thereof I. S. in my opnion though this case have but the countenance of this Commission may have his Action or prefer his complaint before the Commissioners in this Court of Sewers for the recovery of his damages And although this be but a private Action yet the Distress being taken by an authority drawn from the power of this Commission the party distrained may have his remedy in this Court by his private Action because it sprung by the colour of the general power of this Court If A. B. have a several Pischary in the River of Witham which is a River within the Commission of Sewers and the said Pischary by these Laws is chargeable to the repairs thereof if C. D. disseiz him thereof or commit a Trespasse by Fishing therein A. B. can neither have an Assize nor Action of Trespasse within this Court So if a Royal or common River hath his current through the town of Dale and one A. B. is tyed to repair the Banks there by Tenure Prescription or otherwise which notwithstanding in his default are broken down and the waters breaking out overflow the grounds of C. D. thereto adjoyning yet C. D. hath not any remedy to recover his damages against A. B. in this Court for the losse of his grounds but he is put to his private Action therefore at the Common Law and with this agreeth the Case of Keighley But if A. B. be presented therefore before our Commissioners of Sewers they may order A. B. to repair the breach but cannot award damages to C. D. for our Commissioners of Sewers are herein like to Justices of Peace and to Stewards of Leets and Law-days which have power originally to meddle only with the publike wrong Yet by the power of their Commission and of this Statute they many times accidentally meet with private injuries as by the insuing cases may appear If a Township be assessed by a Law of Sewers and the goods of one of the Inhabitants be taken for the sesse that party upon his complaint to these Justices of Sewers may have processe out of this Court to call before them the rest of the Inhabitants which were subject to the said sess to cause them to contribute towards the parties damage who was solely distrained for them all for otherwise this Court should fail of justice in his own proper materials the Statute of 1
further in proof of my said opinion the Case of the Lord Cromwel in 15 El. in Dier fol. 322. doth come fully thereto which is That a Replevin in an Avowry was made for a pain and forfeiture of Ten shillings due for the breach of a By-law Contra ordinem Curiae and alleaged to make By-laws within the Manor by the Custom thereof In which Case it is apparant that the proper goods of the party are to be distrained therefore and not the goods of a Stranger Levant and Couchant on the grounds And in the 47 Ed. 3. fol. 12. the Prior of Tindals Case 47 Ed. 3. where the Prior was amerced and another mans goods were taken and distrained on the grounds of the Prior for the said Amerciament and the Distress was not well taken and so my opinion may be conceived that for an assess the goods of a Stranger may be distrained on the grounds charged but may not there be taken for a Fine or Amerciament which be collateral duties and attends upon the person and do not charge the Soil This discourse being thus ended I shall now enter into a matter of greater moment and yet because these matters be frequent in businesses of the Sewers that which I shall here pretermit I will in some other place more fully discourse of Goods sold THe further matter of this point will rest upon this whether goods distrained and taken for a Sess and Rate of Sewers may be sold or not which point hath been oftner practised then the Law truly decided But before I shall touch upon the main I will make an Ingresse to treat of such matters whereby the property of a mans goods may be altered without his consent And first at the Common Law if a mans goods be wrecked waived or taken as strays or sold in Market overt the property may be altered Secondly by Custom as in London upon a Foraign attachment goods may be attached and sold to another and in 10 El. Dyer fol. 279. B. a Custom is alleaged to be in York of Foraign goods there bought and sold are seizeable by the Corporation and so in case of a Heriot Custom Thirdly But the King by his Charter cannot take the properties of my goods from me as in the Case of London Cooks Rep. the Case of Austen and Waltham where King Henry the 6. granted to the Corporation of Dyers there by Charter That if upon search they should finde any Clothes died with Logwood that they seized them as forfeit but resolved that this Grant was in that point void Fourthly by a By-law in a Court Leet or Baron the property of my goods cannot be taken from me And fifthly by a Judgement against one at the Common Law although a mans person nor his Lands were lyable thereto yet his goods were These five grounds being first taken I shall now examine the particular of our Case in question touching the Law made by the Commissioners for sale of goods and against this sale many things may be alleaged First this Statute I read on gives a Distresse and a Distresse is but a gage or pledge and cannot be sold for if a Lord distrain his Tenants Cattel for Rent and Services he cannot sell the Distresse And although in 10 11 El. Dier fol. 280. a return irreplevisable was awarded to the Lord or Avowant yet he cannot sell this Distresse nor work them by the opinion of that Book Secondly the Statute of 7 Jac. cap. 20. Rastal Marshes and Fens doth enact that a Commission in the nature of this of ours should be directed to the Bishop of Norwich and others for the Recovery of Fen-grounds where for an assess imposed and for Fines and Amerciaments expresse power is given by that Statute to sell the parties goods which doth refuse to pay Ergo without such an expresse clause a sale of goods could not have been lawful And by the Statute of 1 and 3 Jac. the forfeitures of Alehousekeepers 1 3 Jac. may be levied by sale of their goods by the expresse letter of these Laws and so it may be inferred that our Statute wanting such an express clause to authorize a sale therefore no sale can be But much may be said to the contrary for although in cases of sale the Laws be tender yet it is plain that both our Common Law Customs and Courts of Justice daily use them and are frequent in those sales And we know that a Distresse is properly a pledge to be detained till satisfaction be made and then to be restored and is not to be sold Yet in 3 H. 7. fol. 4. a Distresse taken for an Amerciament 3. H. 7. in a Leet or Law-day may be sold as well in the case where the Subject hath by Charter or Prescription the profits of the said Courts as where the King himself hath them and all the reason which that Book yieldeth for it is because they be the Kings Courts But a Distress taken for an Americament in a Court Baron cannot be sold and in 22 Assiz plac 72. it is said That if one recover a Debt in a Court Baron the goods of the Debtor could not be sold therefore 22 Assiz Yet I have seen always in practise that for Debts and Damages recovered in the County Courts the goods of the Debtors have and be usually sold for them by Levarifacias and in my opinion this is used per totam Angliam and a sale in such a case in a Court Baron by Custom is good and with this agreeth the Book of 7 H. 4. fol. 27. and 21 H. 7. fo 40. in a Leet Court one prescribed and alleaged a Custom to 7 H. 4. 21 H. 7. have of every one which made an affray within his Liberty a certain sum of money and prescribed also to distrain for it and to sell the Distresse and with this agreeth 11 H. 4. 14. and 11 H. 4. fol. 2. A Distresse taken for the Knights Fees of the Parliament was sold Therefore now let us see and examine well by what authority our Officers of Sewers may sell the Distresses taken The words in our Statute which are most powerful in this point be these viz. To depute and assign diligent faithful and true Keepers Bailiffs Surveyors Collectors Expenditors and other Officers for the safety conservation reparation and making repairing reforming and amending of the Premises and every of them and to hear the accompt of the Collectors and other Ministers of and for the receipt and laying out of the money that shall be levied and paid in and about the same Here is the word Levy used and money levied is properly upon a Sale Execution or Forfeiture And the words of our Statute go furthet viz. And to distrain or otherwise to punish the debtors and distrainers of the same by Fines Amerciaments Pains or other like means after their good discretious and no likelier means to these is there any then to make sale of the
Gen. cap. 1. of all other creatures being finished the Heavens adorned and the Earth replenished God said Let us make man in our own Image after our likeness and let him have Dominion over the fish of the Sea and over all the Earth and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the Earth So God Created man in his own Image in the Image of God Created he him Male and Female Created he them and said unto them Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it and have Dominion over the fish of the Sea and over the foul of Heaven and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth This was the first Commission that ever was granted and it passed under the Divine immediate Seal of the Almighty extended over the whole world and by the vertue of the word Dominamini in the Plural number God coupled the woman in Commission with the man But in the 18 Chapter of Exodus Verse 21. Jethro adviseth and counselleth Exodus 18. Moses his Son in law to provide out of all the people men of truth hating covetousness and place such over them to be Rulers of Thousands Rulers of Hundreds and over Fifties Tens where by the word Men twice repeated by Jethro and this place of Scripture seemed to exclude wholly from Government and the former Commission extended over Fishes Birds and Beasts and neither over men nor women And in the first of the Corinthians Chapter 14. it is said by Saint Paul Let the women keep silence in the Churches for it is not permitted to them 1 Cor. 14. to speak And in Grendons Case in the Comment fol. 497. Dyer saith That women could not administer the Sacraments nor were they permitted to say Divine Service And in the second Chapter of Timothy Verse 12. he saith We suffer not the woman 2 Tim. to rule over the man but this last of Timothy may be most aptly applyed to husband and wife I remember out of the Abbey Book of Evesham this Note worthy of observation Quod Alicia Peeres Regis miniona supra modum mulierum nimis supergressa sui etiam sexus fragilitatis feminiae Immemor nunc Justiciarios Regis nunc in foro ecclesiastico juxta doctores sedendo pro defensione causarum suadere etiam contra jus postulare minime verebatur unde propter scandalum petierunt à rege in Parliament ' tent ' An. 50. Ed. 3. penitùs amoveri but hereby I collect that she was not in Commission with the Judges Temporal or Spiritual but was a favorite of the Kings and took upon her to intermeddle in businesses nothing concerning her But whether the Text meant it for a woman to sit Judge in a Court of Justice was contra modum mulierum or because she sate there to wrest righteous Judgement I refer to the readers of that History For Debora was Judge of Israel and Judged the people as the fourth of Judges hath it Dyer indeed saith in Grendons Case That divers Churches were appropriated to Prioresses and Nanneries whereof women were the Governesses whereby and by the said Chapter of the Corinthians it appears that women might be admitted to have Rule and Government over the possessions and persons Temporal and Ecclesiastical but were not admitted to have curam animarum nor to meddle with the administration of the Service or Sacraments And for Temporal Governments I have observed women to have from time to time been admitted to the highest places For in ancient Roman Histories I finde Endochia and Theodora admitted at several times into the sole Government of the Empire and here in England our late famous Queen Elizabeth whose Government was most renowned And Semiramis governed Syria and the Queen of the South which came to visit Solomon for any thing that appears to the contrary was a sole Queen And to fall a degree lower we have presidents that King Richard the first and King Henry the fifth appointed and deputed by Commissions their Mothers to be Regents of this Realm in their absence in France And the wise and renowned Lady Margaret Countess of Richmond was put in Commission and Humfrey de Bohune Earl of Hereford was by Tenure Constable of England which is a Judge in Martial affairs and he died without issue Male by reason whereof the Office amongst other things descended to his two Daughters and Co-heirs And in the 12 of Elizabeth in Dier it is holden for Law That although this was an Office of Justice yet they might execute the same by deputy for in truth women were unfit Martialists to judge of matters of that nature and yet it is clear a deputy doth nothing in his own name but in the name of his Master or Mistriss therefore the Martial Court was to be kept in their names But yet I will descend a step lower doth not our Law Temporal and Spiritual admit of women to be Executrixes and Administratrixes and hereby they have the rule or ordering of great Estates and many times they are Gardianesses in Chivalry and have thereby also the government of many great Heirs in the Kingdom and of their Estates And in 10 H. 7. a man devised his Lands to be sold by a 10 H. 7 woman and died and she sold the same to her husband So by these Cases it appeareth that the Common Law of this Kingdom submitted and committed many things to their government yet the Statute of Justices of the Peace is like to Jethroes counsel to Moses for there they speak of men to be Justices and seemeth thereby to exclude women But our Statute of Sewers is Commission of Sewers shall be granted by the King to such person and persons as the said Lords should appoint So the words persons stands indifferently for either Sex And therefore although by the weakness of their Sex they are unfit to travel and they be for the most part uncapable of learning to direct in matters of Judicature for which causes they have been discreetly spared yet I am of opinion for the authorities reasons and causes aforesaid that this honorable Countess being put into Commission of the Sewers the same is warrantable by the Law and the Ordinances and Decrees of Sewers made by her and the other Commissioners of Sewers are not to be impeached for that cause of her Sex And I conclude here that although in discretion women have been secluded as unfit yet they are not in Law to be excluded as uncapable If an Infant above the age of Fourteen and under the age of One and twenty be made a Commissioner his infancy shall be no cause to disable the Laws made by him yong Daniel was Judge over both the Elders And in Little Brook fol. The case is a Parson or Prebend being within age made a Lease for years of his benefice and would but could not after avoid it for his Nonage for seeing the Church had made him of full age to discharge the spiritual
been always before covered with waters But shores and such grounds which Alternis vicibus were wet and dry were not accounted relinquished grounds and that relinquished grounds belonged to the King but the shore and casual drowned grounds might belong to a subject The Personal Profits of the Sea did consist in Wreck Flotsan Jetfan Ligan and great fishes which are due to the King by the Royal Prerogative of his Crown But subjects might have the Inheritance of the first four by Prescription and of the last by Charter from the King Then I descended into Islands Which are of two sorts First on the sea old ones and new ones That both were within the Kings power and the new ones His in property Fresh Islands in the Land might belong to subjects The nature of them all were that they were undique circumdatae aquis I then landed at the shore which in definition containeth those grounds which extend from the lowest Ebb to the highest Flood That the King had the property thereof de Jure a subject might have it ex perquisito and the people had their usum necessarium I proceeded further to the Coasts whose content and contingent I described so near as by Histories I could inform my self And shores and coasts I held them to be Maris accessoria From these I proceeded to Creeks Havens and Ports and these I set forth in their several kindes And I concluded with the compass of my Statute and my Commission and with the diversity thereof That within the circle of my Statute Seas Isses Shores Coasts Ports Havens Creeks gained and relinquished grounds were comprehended because that might depend in posse but yet the Commissioners which was in presenti operative did extend but to the utmost Banks and Walls towards the seas And I concluded the points of my Case with the difference between grounds left and grounds gained from the seas and thus I ended my first Lecture The second Lecture IN my second Lecture I came on Land and took upon me to set forth her friends from her foes her friends I counted such as had defended her from the violence of the seas and from inundation of salt waters And these were her friends viz. Banks Sewers Goats Calceys and Bridges these are to be maintained and repaired and are the Defences which I fully treated of And these were the enemies Streams Mills Ponds Fishgarths Mildams Locks Hebbingweres Hecks and Floodgates These are Lets and Impediments which this Statute speaketh of and are to be corrected reformed or put down as cause shall require I shewed then that Rivers were of two kindes Royal and Common Rivers That there were other inferior kindes of those watery instruments which might take place after Rivers as Ditches Gutters Sewers Pools Ponds Springs That water is the substantive of all these and if it be a running water at random then it is a stream if it be a running water and pent within Walls or Banks then it is a River Gutter Ditch or Sewer These in their several kindes I did distinguish And Springs I held to be the vital spirit of them all I then described the Commissioners maner of proceedings which might be three maner of ways By view and survey and wherein they consisted By Jury and on what parts that stood By discretion and the diversities and definition thereof After these I took upon me by how many several ways the defences might be maintained which were nine in in number 1. Frontage 2. Ownership 3. Prescription 4. Custom 5. Tenure 6. Covenant 7. Usus Rei 8. A Township and 9. By the Laws of Sewers All these I proved by Reasons Presidents and Authorities and did at large discourse of them Then I came by the course of this Case to treat of Sesses Taxes and Lays set by Commissioners of Sewers whereby I found some Inheritances there were which were subject to these sesses as those that follow Houses Land Meadow Pasture Woods Heaths Furs Moors Marishes Rents Ferries Pischaries Commons Free passage Parks Warrens And many Inheritances I found in reason freed from these Taxes and Lays as Tythes in Spiritual hands Annuities Chases Pensions Proxies Portions Marts Fairs Markets Offices things in Action Conditions Contingents Uses Presentations Founderships I also found these Sesses of three kindes viz. Customary and then they may binde the Mountains as well as the Valleys Hereditary and then the particular Tenant and the Reversion must both contribute Temporary which bound the Possessor And here I ended my second days Lecture The third Lecture MY third Lecture I did distribute into three general heads which were meerly the grounds of the execution of these Laws Which consisted either in punishing the body and person of the Delinquent with 1. Imprisonment 2. Fine and 3. Amerciament Or in doing Execution upon the Offendors Estate 1. By Distress or 2. By sale thereof Or otherwise in extending it upon a mans personal Estate by 1. Charging of the Land perpetually or 2. By the absolute sale thereof And under these general Rules I comprised these particulars which follow First for the Honor of this Commission and for the more necessary execution of these Laws I found them out a Court wherein I set forth in what cases Commissioners might Imprison the Bodies of Delinquents and in what cases they might impose a fine and when Amerciaments be due and then I shewed that for some transgressions neither Imprisonment Fine nor Amerciament was to be imposed I then came to Distresses and held a treble distinction of them videlicet that some were 1. Judicial and issued out of the Judicial Records of this Court 2. Other Ministerial 3. The third Legal wherein all these Diversities I screwed out by proved Authorities Then I shewed in what places these Distresses might be taken when upon the Land charged when within any place within the extent of this Commission and sometimes within any place of this Realm And when the proper goods of the party might be taken and when the goods of strangers and when goods may be sold by this Law Afterwards according to the order prescribed me by my Case I declared that there were some Interrupters to the Execution of these Distresses The one was by suing Replevins wherein I took these diversities That a Sheriff being an inferior Officer could not of his own power deliver a distress taken by warrant of Sewers But that the Commissioners of Sewers are bound to obey a Replevin coming out of the Kings Courts at Westminster Quia de altiori natura Thus yet notwithstanding goods taken by a Judgement were exempted from that Replevin Then I proceeded to the charge of Lands whether a perpetual charge might be imposed or not And from thence I came to Sales and those I distributed into four points First for what cause 2. What Lands 3. Whose Lands 4. To whom these Lands might be sold I after came into the Tractate of Legal proceedings which may be used in our Court of
altering former Laws It appears in Esther that the Laws of the Medes and Persians were so perdurable as they could never be changed And in my opinion there is required as great foresight judgement and as sound discretion and mature deliberation in repealing of old Laws as in making new ones For Quae preter consuetudinem morem major ' fiunt neque placent neque recta videmur I have noted how carefully and constant the Lords of the Parliament House were in the 20 year of H. 3. when they all cried out aloud Nolumus leges Angliae mutare Seeing therefore there ought to be great care in making Laws so must there be great heed taken in repealing of Laws And because Commissioners of Sewers have power herein I will therefore deliver my opinion how far that power will extend And if one note this Branch of the Statute well he shall well perceive the Judicious care taken by the Parliament in penning of it For the words be That the Commissioners of Sewers should have Power and Authority to make constitute and ordain Laws Ordinances and Decrees and the same Laws and Ordinances omitting the word Decrees to alter repeal and make void for a Decree is a Judgement and is Finis operis and a Judgement cannot be reversed without a Writ of Error Neither can a Sentence or a Decree in Chancery be reversed without a Bill of Review neither can the Commissioners of Sewers reverse a Judgement or Decree of Sewers Judiciously pronounced which is a Judgement upon a Tryal betwixt the King and the party or betwixt party and party without a Bill of Reversal for it is truly said Quod naturale est unum quodâ— dissolvi eo ligamine quo ligatum est A Writ of Error lay at the Common Law for to reverse a Judgement given by Commissioners of Sewers when the Commission was in Latine as is set forth in the Register being then one of the special Commissions of Oyer and Terminer but since the Commission was put into the English frame the Writs of Error ceased A Law for sale of Lands ingrossed into parchment and certified into the Kings Court of Chancery with the Kings Royal assent had thereto is not reversable without an Act of Parliament but then the said sale must be made according to the form frame and power of this Statute For put the Case that A. B. holdeth his Lands of I. S. by the payment of Twenty shillings yearly towards the repair of such a Bridge Bank or Wall it fortuneth that A. B. paid the Twenty shillings yearly to his Lord for that purpose who neglecteth to pay it though he be thereto Ordered and Assessed to pay the same to the said repairs by the Commissioners of Sewers the seigniory of Twenty shillings yearly is to be decreed and not the Land for that the fault was in I. S. and not in A. B. the owner of the Land If any persons be by Prescription Custom Tenure Covenant or otherwise bound to repair Walls Banks or other defences of Sewers the Commissioners have not any power by their Commission to repeal alter or make void any of these because these are establisht by the Common Law and Customs of the Realm and not by the power of the Commission of Sewers But their power is to repeal alter or make void Laws and Ordinances made by themselves or by the power of their Commission And so the words of their Commission plainly describe it For thereby they have power to make Laws and Ordinances and the same to repeal alter and make void so they must be the same and no other And herein I end all my Arguments and discourse upon this Statute for I accompt all the rest which remaineth unspoken of not to be worthy of a Readers dialect because I have fully handled all the materials of this worthy Law And therefore I may justly â—â—â—clude my Argument with this That Finitum est hoc opus â— consumatum FINIS
fol. 57. in Winbish and Tailboys Case it is said That if there be a Bastard Eigne and Mulier puisne and the Bastard after the death of the Ancestor entreth into intailed Lands and dyeth seized this doth not binde the Mulier in case of Estates Tail as it doth in an Estate of Fee simple and voucheth for Authority in the point 39 Ed. 3. plac ultimo where the Case is That Lands were given in Tail to I. S. the Remainder 39 Ed. 3. in Tail to C. and I. S. hath Issue by a woman a Bastard and dyeth seized and then the Bastard dyeth seized having Issue he in the Remainder may recover the Land against the Issue of the Bastard affirming That the continuance of possession in the Bastard shall not be prejudicial to him in Remainder To which Opinion I do subscribe because he in the Remainder is a stranger in blood and so cannot be concluded as the Mulier shall be for a Mulier indeed is like a graft drawn out of both the bloods of Father and Mother so the Bastard is a slip which is derived from the same Stock and had his being therefrom And for my own Opinion considering the Statute of Westminster 2. de Donis doth accept of Gifts in Tail made before Mariage upon the hope and expectation of a succeeding Mariage to perfect the same even so the Mariage succeeding to a Bastards birth gives him and his Issue a priviledge in these cases of descent which is denied to other Bastards or meer Strangers And I see no reason wherefore that maxime and principle of Law should be altered by the said Statute of West 2. but because Mountagues Opinion in Mr. Plow Com. sways the other way I will therefore submit this Point to men of greater judgement then my own So that if the Law fall out for the Bastard Issue then she should have title to the half part belonging to the Females and to no part belonging to the heirs Males And with this Conclusion I do here end my Common Law Points and will now resort to the handling of my Statute Points The Sewers are a Court of Iustice I Am desirous to attribute to this Law all the honor and dignity which may in any sort belong to it and therefore I am unwilling to forget any thing which may materially tend to the upholding and maintaining thereof wherein amongst the rest and the chiefest of them all it is To prove the Commissioners of Sewers a Court of Justice I know some Opinion hath been to the contrary and held That the Commissioners had only the power of a Commission and not any Court and I suppose much may be said to maintain that opinion First because in expressis terminis there is no Court ordained by this Statute or by any other and without words express in the point they can have no Court. Secondly by presidents in the like case it hath been held no Court as in the Case of the City of London in Sir Edward Cooks 8 Report The King granted to the Major and Commonalty Plenum integrum scrutinium gubernationem The Case of the City of London correctionem omnium singularum misteriarum and it was resolved That they had no Court in this case because no Court was granted to them by the Patent as it is holden in Doctor Bonhams Case fol. 119 in the same Report wherein the principal Case there put sways the same ways for there the Physitians had power to imprison and to fine offendors yet they had not any Court thereby And so if a Commission issue out of the Chancery to examine matters in a Suit there depending and to Oyer and Terminer the same yet hereby these Commissioners have not any Court for in that case the Commission is derived out of the proper power of the Chancery which is the Court for that cause eo instante when it is in Commission And one Cause cannot uno eodemque tempore depend in several Courts neither have the Commissioners upon the Statutes of Bankrupts and charitable uses any Courts nor the Commissioners in the Case of 1 2 Eliz. Dier fol. 175. which had power to hear and determine the Office of the Exigenter had not any Court but only the power of a Commission For in truth these are all of them rather Ministerial then Judicial Commissions and so a Court is not proper to them Yet I am of Opinion That the Commissioners of Sewers have an eminent Court of Record It is true that Courts had their beginnings in three sorts First by Prescription Secondly by Charter-grant from the Crown And Thirdly by Act of Parliament 1. The Courts Hundred and Leet began by custom and so did the eminent Courts of Westminster-Hall 2. Courts in Corporations most of them took their beginnings by Charters And 3. The Courts of first Fruits and Tenths and the Court of Wards and Liveries were erected by Act of Parliament the one in 32 the other in 33 Hen. 8. But to bring the question nearer home to our Statute of Sewers which is but additamentum legibus antiquis Sewerarum for they have been used from the beginning of Laws though perhaps not known by that name And yet before the 6 H. 6. they were known by that name as by the perusal of that Statute may be collected And therefore for the causes and reasons hereafter ensuing I hold the same to be a Court. First for that the Statute of 12 Ed. 4. cap. 7. and our very Statute of 23 H. 8. calls the Commissioners of Sewers 12 Ed. 4. Justices and one cannot properly be a Justice or a Judge but in a Court. Secondly here be legal Proceedings and Process for this Statute saith That the Commissioners may make and direct all Writs Precepts Warrants and other Commandments to all Sheriffs Bailiffs and other Ministers c. And the Statute of 1 H. 4. cap. 12. hath these words in it That he that thinks 1 H. 4. himself grieved may pursue and he shall have right and where there be legal proceedings and where parties grieved may come in and have remedies for the wrongs and injuries done to them there is properly a Court of Justice to have them in But in Doctor Bonhams Case the Physitians had no legal proceedings and therefore parties grieved could have no remedy which was the reason they had not a Court. And thirdly the chief reason wherefore I take it that Commissioners of Sewers have a Court is Because the Commission of Sewers is a member of the ancient and renowned Court of Oyer and Terminer which was and is a Court of great esteem power and authority and so it was needless to erect a new Court in this case as it was needful to erect and found the Court of Wards and first Fruits the first would else have remained in the Chancery to the which primarily it did belong and the other was a new revenue and wanted a Court to direct or