understood of Treasons Misprision of Treason Petit Treason and Felony and their Accessaries c. But Premunire is but a contempt and Pardon of all Contempts pardons it Whereupon the Lord Vaux confessed the Indictment Vide Lamb Justice dâ—l Peace 520 Dallisons Report accordingly Vide Stamford c. Trin. 10 Jacob. Regis Countess of Shrewsbury's Case In this Term before a select Councel at York-house the Countess of Shrewsbury Wife of Gilbert Earl of Shrewsbury then Prisoner in the Tower was brought and by the Kings Attorney and Sollicitor was charged with a high Contempt of dangerous consequence declaring That the Lady Arbella being of the Blood-Royal had marryed Seymor the Earl of Hertford's second Son without the King's Consent for which he was committed to the Tower and had escaped and fled beyond the Seas And the Lady Arbella being under restraint escaped also and embarked her self on the Sea but was taken ere she got over of which flight of the Lady Arbella the said Countess well knew as is directly proved by Crompton and not denied by the Lady Arbella And admitting the Lady Arbella had no evil intent against the King yet when she fled and should be inviron'd with Evil Spirits cum perversis perverti possit Now the Charge was in two Parts 1. That the Countess of Shrewsbury being by the King's Command called to the Councel-Table and being required by the Lords to declare her knowledge touching the said Points she answered she would not answer particularly and being again by the King's Commands asked by the Councel at Lambeth she refused for two Causes 1. Because she had made a Vow that she would not declare any thing in particular touching the said Points and she said it was better to obey God than Man 2. She stood upon her Priviledge of Nobility viz. to answer when Judicially called before her Peers such Priviledge having been allowed to William Earl of Pembroke and the Lord Lumly 2. The second Point of the Charge was That when the Answer she had made was put in Writing and read to her yet she refused to subscribe the same Which Denial was urged by the King's Councel as a high contempt c. And the Countess hearing the Charge yet persisted in her obstinate Refusal for the same Reasons the insisted on as before And the Lord Chancellor began and the Archbishop and the other Lords adjudged it a great and high Contempt And that no such allowance was to the Earl of Pembroke or Lord Lumly as was supposed And the Archbishop and Earl of Northampton proved by Scripture that the said Case now was against the Law of God All that the Justices said was That they might well be silent but that silentium in Senatu est vitium and therefore they briefly speak of three things 1. Whâ—ther the Refusals aforesaid were Offences in Law against the King his Crown and Dignity 2. What Proceeding this is and if justifiable by President or Reason 3. What the Offences are and how punishable 1. As to the first It was resolved by the Justices and Master of the Rolls that the denying to be examined was a high Contempt against the King his Crown and Dignity and upon hope of Impunity it will be an encouragement to Offenders as Fleming Chief Justice said to enterprize dangerous Attempts The Master of the Rolls said the Nobility in this Case had no more priviledge to deny to be examined than any other Subject Also if one Noble be sued and a Peer be sued in Star-Chamber or Chancery they must answer upon their Oaths And if produced as a Witness they ought to be sworn And therefore for maintaining of Order the Chief Justice said he would recite some of those Honourable Priviledges which the Law of England attributes to Nobility 1. If a Baron Viscount Earl c. be Plaintiff in any Action and the Defendant will plead that the Plaintiff is not a Baron c. this shall be tryed onely by the Record in Chancery which imports by its self solid truth 2. Their Persons have many Priviledges in Law 1. At a Subjects Suit they shall not be arrested 2. Their Bodies are not subject to Torture in causa criminis â—aesae Majestatis 3. They are not to be sworn in Assizâ—s Juries or Inquests 4. It is Felony in any Servant of the King named in the Checquer Roll to compass or intend to kill any Lord of Parliament or of the King's Councel 5. In the Common-Pleas a Lord shall have Knights returned of his Jury 6. He shall have Day of Grace 7. Shall not be Tryed in case of Treason Felony or Miâ—prison of them but by those that are Nobles and Peers 8. In Tryal of a Peer the Lords of Parliament shall not swear but give their Judgment Super Fidem Ligeantiam Domino Regi debitam And the King honours with Nobility for two Causes 1. Ad consulendum and therefore he gives them a Robe 2. Ad Defendendum Regem Regnum and therefore he gives them a Sword And therefore as they derive their Dignities with those Honourable Priviledges from the King to deny to answer being required by the King is a high Contempt accompanied with great Ingratitude This Denial is contra Ligeantiam suam as appears by the Antient Oath of Allegeance And the Law hath greater account to a Noble-mans Allegeance then one of the Commons because the breach of their Allegeance is more dangerous for Corruptio optimorum est pessima 2. As to the second Point viz. concerning the manner of Proceedings 1. Privative It is not to fine imprison or inflict corporal punishment for that ought to be assessed in some Court Judicially 2. Positive The Fine is ad monendum or at most ad minandum it is ad instruendum non ad destruendum This selected Councel is to express what punishment this Offence justly deserved if judicially proceeded against in the Star-Chamber Therefore this Proceeding is out of the King's Mercy to this Lady that seeing her Offence she might submit to the King without any Judicial Proceedings against her And though the Law puts Limits to the King's Justice it doth not so to his Mercy Et ideo processus iste est regalis plane rege dignus And this manner of Proceeding is fortified by the President of the Earl of Essex against whom such Proceedings were in this very place 42 43 Eliz. As to the last Point It was resolved by all quasi una voce that if a Sentence should be given in the Star Chamber she should be fined 20000 l. and imprisoned during the Kings pleasure Trin. 10 Jacobi Regis Robert Scarlet 's Case Note That at the Sessions of Peace lately holden at Woodbridge in Suffolk the Sheriff returned a Grand Inquest of which one Robert Scarlet desired to be one But the Sheriff knowing the malice of the man refused to return him Yet by Confederacy with the Clark who read the Pannel he was sworn of the Grand Inquest
Nicholas Bishop of Norwich against whom he then being in the Custody of the Marshall the Kings Attorney did prefer a Bill of Premunire the matter whereof was this In Thetford in Com. Norfolke hath been de tempore cujus c. such Custom that all Ecclesiastical Causes rising in that Town should be determined before the Dean of that Town who hath particular Jurisdiction there and that none in that Town shall be drawn in Plea in any other Court-Christian unless before the same Dean And if it ought to be done against the same Custom this to be presented before the Mayor of the same Town and the Party to forfeit 6 s. 8 d. That One such sued in the Consistory of the Bishop for a thing arising within the said Town which was presented before the Mayor for which he forfeited 6 s. 8 d. The Bishop cited the Mayor to appear before him at his House at Hoxin in Suffolk generally pro salute animae but upon appearance◠〈◊〉 upon all the Matter and enjoyn'd him on pain of Excommunication to annul the said Presentment The Bishop had Council assigned him who objected That as well the Presentment as Custom was void and therefore not contra Coronam c. nor drawn by the Bishop ad aliud examen 2. They objected That the Bishop's Court was not intended within the Act of 16 R. 2. but in Cur. Romana aut alibi and this alibi ought not to be out of the Realm but it was Resolved by Fitz James chief Justice Et. per totam Curiam that be the Custom or Presentment good or bad this is a Temporal thing determinable at Common Law and not in Spiritual Court and therefore the Bishop hath incurred the Premunire 3. That alibi extends as well to the Bishop's Courts c. as well within the Realm as else-where and so the Court said it had been often adjudged whereupon the Bishop confessed the Indictment And Judgment was given That he shall be out of the King's Protection and that his Lands Goods and Chattels should be forfeited and his Body to be imprisoned ad voluntatem Regis c. Nicholas Fuller's Case In the great Case of Nicholas Fuller of Grays-Inn these Points were Resolved by all the Justices and Barons of the Exchequer 1. Resolved That no Consultation can be granted out of Term because it is a final award of the Court and can neither be granted in Term nor out of Term by all the Judges except in Court the name of the Writ signifying the same 2. Resolved That the Construction of the Statute 1 Eliz. cap. 1. and of the Letters Patents of High-Commission in Ecclesiastical Causes founded upon the said Act belongs to the Judges of the Common Law And therefore the Consultation which was granted with this restraint Quatenus non agat de authoritate et validitate Literarum Patentium pro causis Ecclesiasticis vobis vel aliquibus vestrum direct aut de expesitione et interpretatione Statuti de anno primo nuper Reginae c. As if the King hath a Benefice donative by Letters Patents this shall not be visitable nor deprivable by any Ecclesiastical Authority but by the Chancellor of the King or Commissioners under the Great Seal 3. Resolved When there is any Question concerning what Power or Jurisdiction belongs to Ecclesiastical Judges in any such Case the determination of this belongs to the Judges of the Common Law in what cases they have Cognizance and in what not And according to this Resolution Bracton lib. 5. tract de except cap. 15. fol. 412. Vide also Entries fol. 445. There was a Question whether Court-Christian should have Cognizance of a Lamp and a Prohibition was granted Quod non procedant in Curia Christianitatis quousque in Curiae â—ostra discussum fuerit utram cognitio placiti illius ad Curiam nostram vel ad forum Ecclesiasticum pertineat And all this appears in our Books that the Judges of the Common Law shall determâ—ne in what Cases the Ecclesiastical Judges have Power to punish any pro Laesioae fidei 2 H. 4. fol. 10. 11 H. 4. 88. 22 Ed. 4. 20. or of the bounds of Parishes 5 Ed. 3 8 8 Ed. 3. 69. 70. 18 Ed. 3. 58. 12 Ed. 4. 9 H. 7. 1. 10 H. 7. 9. And therefore in this Case of Fuller one other Restraint was added in the Consultation Et quatenus non agat de aliquibus scandalis contemptibus sâ—u aliis rebus quae ad communen legem aut Statuta Regni nostri Angliae suat puâ—ienda et determinanda 4. Resolved That if a Councellor at Law in his Argument shall scandal the King or his Government Temporal or Ecclesiastical this is a misdemeanor and and contempt to the Court for which he shall be indicted fined and imprisoned but not in Court Christian but if he publish any Heresy Schisme or erroneous Opinion in Religion he may for this be punished by the Ecclesiastical Judges for the Rule is Quod non est juri consonum quod quis pro aliis quae in Curiis nostris act a sunt quorum cognitio ad nos pertinet trahatur in placitum in Curia Christianitatis See the Book of Entries fol. 448. And for this cause a Consultation was granted Quoad Schismata Hereses c. Vide Mâ—ch 18 H. 8. Rot. 78. in Banco Regis The Case was a Leet was â—eld Jovis post Festum Sancti Mich. Arch. 17 H. 8. of the Prior of the House of St. John de Bethelehem de Shrine of this Mannor of Levisham in Com. Surrey before John Beare Steward there a Grand Jury was charged to inquire for the King of all Offences inquirable within the said Leet where one Phillip Aldwin who was a resident within the said Leet appeared Idemque Phillippus sciens quandam Margaretam uxorem Johannis Aldwin apud East-Greenwich infra jurisdictionem Letae proed pluries per antea corpus suum in adulterio viciose exercuissse c. eisdem sic juratis de dicta c. informationem veraciter dedit Upon which the said Margaret drew the said Phillip into the Archbishop of Canterbury his Court and there libelled against him for defamation of Adultery and that the Phillip said in hisce Angl. verbis Margaret Allen is a Whore and a Bawde and it is not yet three weeks agone since a man might take a Priest betwixt her Legs which words were parcel of the words by which he informed the Jury at the Leet And upon this he had a Prohibition and by this Record it appears and by the Statute 10 Ed. 3. c. 11. that Indictors of Lay-People or Clerks in Turneys and after delivering them before Justices shall not be sued for Defamation in Court-Christian but that the Plaintiff grieved shall have a Prohibition Vide Pasch 6 Eliz. In the Lord Dyers Reports which Case is not Printed John Halles in the Case of Marriage between the Earl of Hereford and the Lady Katharine Gray declared his Opinion against the
more Prohibitions had been granted of late than in many years before To this a Sixfold Answer was made 1. That they had exceedingly multiplyed the number of Causes they in five Counties and three Towns having at one sitting 450 Causes at Hearing whereas the Chancery that extends into all England and Wales had in Easter Term but 95. and in Trinity Term but 72. to be heard So that it is no wonder it in such a Multiplication of Causes the number of Prohibitions be increased 2. Besides the Multiplication they have innovated and taken upon them to deal in Causes which we know never any President could and we think never any President and Councel did usurp As first Suits upon Penal Laws As between Hâ—rison and Thurston upon the 39 of Eliz. of Tillage 2. In Hâ—rtley's Case after Indictment of Forcible Entry and Restitution according to the Statute upon English Bill dispossessed by the President 3. After a Recovery in Ejectione Firmae and Habere facias possessionem out of our Court they upon English Bill dispossessed the Plaintiff this was Hart's Case So in other Cases as between Jacksoâ— and Philips Stanton and Child and Binns and Collâ—t 4. They admit English Bills in nature of Writs of Errour Formedons and other reall Actions 5. They wiâ—l â—dmit no Plea of Outlary in disability of the Plaintiff 6. They usually granted Injunctions to stay the Common-Law which is utterly against Law and som times to stay Suits in Chancery and in the Exchâ—quer Chambâ—r for which in respect as well of the Multiplications of Suits as Innovations of others it may very well be that more Prohibitions and Habeas Corpus have been granted of late than in time past And yet there hath been more granted and more antient than is supposed For which see Mich. 7 Eliz. Rot. 31. and Mich. 7. and 8 Eliz. in libro de Habeas Corpus Also Trin. 20 Eliz. ibid. 3. The Judges never grant either Prohibition or Habeas Corpus but upon Motion or Complaint by the Party grieved and therefore as the Subject hath more cause to complain there must needs be more Prohibitions and Habeas Corpus than heretofore 4. The Proceedings there are by absolute Power and their Decrees uncontrollable and finall more than in a Judgment in a Writ of Right which makes them presume too much upon their Authority 5. These Suits grow more prejudicial to the King than ever because thereby the King loseth his Fines c. 6. Remedy for the time past if the Common-Bench erre Writ of Errour lies in Banco Regis if the Kings-Bench erre a Writ of Errour lyes in the Upper-House of Parliament 7. For the time to come 1. That the Instructions be inrolled in Chancery that the Subject may see and know their Jurisdiction 2. That the Presidents and Councels have some Councel Learned in the Court to inform us judicially of their true Jurisdiction and we will give them a day to shew cause that Justice may be done on both sides and if we erre the Law hath provided a Remedy by Writ of Errour And we are sworn to do Justice to all according to the Laws Upon this Answer of the Judges the Lords of the Councel upon Conference among themselves gave by the Earl of Salisbury then Lord Treasurer this Resolution 1. That the Instructions should be Recorded as far as they concerned Criminal Causes or Causes between Party and Party But as to State-Matters not to be published 2. That both Councels should be within the Survey of Westminster Hall viz. the Courts of Westminster 3. The Motion was well allowed that the Presidents and Councels should have Councel learned in every Court that day might be given c. And concerning the remotenesse of the place the Counties of Cornwall and Devon are more remote then York And this was the end of that Dayes Work Case of Heresy Note 2 Ma. title Heresy Brook per omnes Justiciarios et Baker et Hare The Archbishop in his Province in the Convocation may and doth use to convict Heresy by the Common-Law and then to put them convicted into Lay-hands and then by the Writ de Heretico comburendo they were burnt but because it was troublesome to call a Convocation It was ordained by the Statute 2 H. 4. cap. 15. That every Bishop in his Diocesse might convict Hereticks And if the Sheriff was present he might deliver such to be burnt without the Writ aforesaid but if the Sheriff were absent or he were â—o be burnt in another County then the said Writ ought to be had And that the Common-Law was such Vide lib. intra title Indictment pl. 11. Who are Hereticks See 11 H. 7. Book of Entries fol. 319. See Doct. Stud. lib. 2. cap. 29. Cosin 48. 2. 1 2 P. M. cap. 6. Also 3 F. N. B. fol. 269. And the Writ in the Register proves this directly 4 Bracton l. 3. cap. 9. fol. 123 124. And true it is That every Ordinary may convent any Heretick or Schismatick before him pro salute animae and may degrade him and enjoyn him penance according to Ecclesiastical Law but upon such Conviction the Party shall not be burnt Nota The makers of the Act of 1 Eliz. were in doubt what shall be deemed Heresy or Schisme c. and therefore the Statute of 10 Eliz. provides That nothing shall be deemed Heresy but what had been so determined by one of the four general Councels the Word of God or Parliament See Fox in Ed. 6. and Britton 5 Ed. 1. lib. 1. cap. 17. and with this agrees the Statute 2 H. 5. cap. 7. 23 H. 7. 9. 25 H. 8. cap. 14. or that the proceedings in the Commencement and end was altered by the Statute 25 H. 8. then came the Satute 1 Ed. 6. cap. 12. and that repealed 5 R. 2. 2 H. 5. 26 H. 8. and the 2 H. 4. and by general words all Statutes concerning matter of Religion then the 1 2 P. M. c. 6. revived the 2 H. 4. by which the 25 H. 8. lost its force but by the Act 1 2 P. M. cap. 8. expresly repealing 21 H. 8. 23 H. 8. 24 H. 8. 27 H. 8. but the 25 H. 8. cap. 14. was not repâ—aled being repealed before by 〈◊〉 1 Ed. 6. yet in the end of that long Act there is a general Clause sufficient of it self to repeal the Act 25 H. 8. cap. 14. without more then the 1 Eliz. cap. 1. repeals the 1 and 2 P. and M. is repealed except some Branches and in the same Act it is enacted That all other Statutes repealed by the said Act of Repeal 1 and 2 P. and M. and not in this Act specially revived shall remain repealed But the 25 H. 8. cap. 14. was not particularly revived and therefore remains repealed And after the said Statute 1 Eliz. repeals the Act 1 and 2 P. and M. of reviving of three Acts for punishment of Heresyes so that now at
Kings Bench because no Writ of Error lyes but in Plaint Robert Bankes Case Mich. 6 Jac. Regis Mich. 6 Jac. Rot. 639. Robert Bankes Gent. brought an Action upon the Statute of Winton 13 Ed. 1. against the Inhabitants of the Hundred of Burnham in the County of Bucks and counted that certain misdoers to the Plaintiff unknown at Hitcham the 22d of Nov. 5 Jac. assaulted the Plaintiff and robbed him of 25 l. 3 5. 2 d. ob and that he immediately after the robbery the same 22d of Nov. at Joplow and Maalow the next Towns to Hitcham in the said County made Hâ—e-and Cry c. and after the said Robbery and within 20 dayes before the purchase of the Writ viz. the 19 of Fâ—br Aâ— 5. at Dorney in Com. praed the Plaintiff before Sir William Gâ—rrard Knight then Justice of Peace in the said County and living next the said Hundred being examined upon Oath according to the Statute 27 Elâ—z the Plaintiff upon his Oath said He knew not the Parties who robbed him and since the said Robbery 40 dayes are past and the said Inhabitants of Burnham have not made him any amends nor the Bodies of the Felons or any of them have taken but suffered them to escape to which the Defendants plead Not Guiley and Vâ— fa. was awarded de vicineto c. And the Jury gave a special Verdict and found that the Plaintiff was robbed and made Hue-and-Cry as aforesaid and found over That the Plaintiff was sworn before Sir William Gerrard as aforesaid and said upon his Oath in these English words viz. That he on Thursday the 22 d. of Nov. 1604. riding under Hitcham wood c. was then and there set upoâ— by Horsemen which he knew not and robbed of 25 l. 3 s. 2 d. ob but whether the said Oath so taken be true according to the said Statute 27 Eliz. the Jurors pray the direction of the Court. Mouses Case Mich. 6 Jac. Regis In an Action of Trespass brought by Mouse for a Casket and 113 l. taken and carryed away the Case was the Ferryman of Gravesend took 47 Passengers into his Barge to pass to London and Mouse was one of them the Barge being upon the Water a great Tempest happened so that the Barge and all the Passengers were in danger to be drowned if a Hogshead of Wine and other pouderous things were not cast out And it was Resolved per totam Curiam That in a case of necessity for saving the Lives of the Passengers it was lawful to the Defendant being a Passenger to cast the Plaintiff's Casket out of the Barge with what was in it for quod quis ob tutelam corporis sui fecerit jure id fecissâ— videtur Upon the special matter pleaded and Reply De injuria sua propria absque tali causa the first day of this Term the Issue being tryed and it was proved directly That the Men had been drowned if the things had not been cast out The Plaintiff was Non-sult Resolved also That though when the Ferry-man surcharge the Barge yet to save the Passengers Lives in such a Necessity it is lawful for the Passengers to cast the things out of the Barge yet the Owners shall have their Remedy upon the surchage against the Ferry-man but if there was no surcharge but the danger came by the Act of God then every one must bear his own losse for Interest Râ—ipub quod homines conserventur â— Ed. 4. 23. Bull. c. 12 H. 8. 15. 28 H. 8. Dyer 36. Mich. 5. Jac. Regis Prohibitions del Roy. Noâ—e On Sunday the 10. of Nov. in this Term the King upon Complaint made by Bancroft Arch-Bishop of Canterbury concerning Prohibitions the King was informed That when Question was made of what matters the Ecclesiastical Judges have Cognâ—zance c. in any Case in which there is not express Authority in Law the King himself may decide in his Royal Person the Judges being but his Delegates c. And the Arch-Bishop said this was clear in Divinity To which it was answered by Mee in the presence and with the clear Consent of all the Justices of England and Barons of the Exchequer that the King in his own person cannot adjudge any Case either Criminal as Treason c. or betwixt party and party concerning Inheritance Goods c. But it ought to be determined in some Court of Justice according to the Law and Custome of England and all Judgments are given Ideo consideratum est per Curium And the King hath his Court in the Upper House of Parliament in which he with his Lords is the Supream Judge over all Judges And in this respect the King is called Chief Justice 20 H. 7. 7. a. by â—rudnel and it appears in our Bookes 2 R. 3. 9. 21 H. 7. 8. that that the King may sit in the Star-Chamber but this was onely to consult not in judicio So in the Kings-Bench but the Court gives Judgment And 't is commonly said in our Books the King is alwayes present in Court and therefore he cannot be Non-suit And it appears by the Acts of Parliament 2 Ed. 3. c. 9. 2 Ed. 3. c. 1. That neither by the Great Seal nor by the little Seal Justice shall be delayed ergo The King cannot take any Cause out of any of his Courts and give Judgment upon it but in his own Cause he may stay it as appears 11 H. 4. 8. And the Judges informed the King that no King after the Conquest ever assumed to himself to give Judgment in any Cause whatsoever which concerned the Administration of Justice within the Realm 17 H. 6. 14. 39 Ed. 3. 14. the King cannot Arrest any man 1 H. 7. 4. Hussey chief Justice Reports being Attorney to Ed. 4. That Sir John Markham chief Justice said to Ed. 4. That the King cannot Arrest a man for suspition of Treason or Felony as his other Leiges may And it was greatly marvailed That the Archbishop durst inform the King that such absolute Power as aforesaid belonged to him by the Word of God Vide 4 H. 4. cap. 22. Westm 2. cap. 5. vide le stat de Marlbridge cap. 1. stat de Magn. Chart. cap. 29. 25 Ed. 3. c. 5. 43 Ed. 3. c. 3. 28 Ed. 3. c. 3. 37 Ed. 3. c. 18. vide 17 R. 2. ex Rotulis Parliamenti in Turri act 10. A controversy of Land between Parties was heard by the King and Sentence given which was repealed because it did belong to the Common Law Then the King said That the Law was grounded upon Reason and that He and Others had reason as well as the Judges To which it was answered by Me That true it was God had endued his Majesty with excellent Science but his Majesty was not learned in the Laws of England and Causes which concern the Life or Inheritance or Goods of his Subjects which are not to be decided by natural Reason but artificial Reason and Judgment of Law which
same Term the said Judges of the Kings Bench Barons of the Exchequer and Justice Fenner and Yelverton who were omitted before and We the Justices of the Common-Bench were commanded to attend the Council And being all assembled We of the Common-Pleas were commanded to retire and then the King demanded their Opinions in certain Points touching the High-Commission wherein they unanimously agreeing We viz. Coke Walmesly Warberton and Foster were called before the King Prince and Council where the King declared That hy the Advice of his Council and the Justices of the Kings Bench and Barons he will reform the High-Commission in divers Points which after he will have to be obeyed in all Points Whereupon I said to the King That it was grievous to Us his Majesties Justices of the Bench to be severed from our Brethren but more grievous that they differed from us in Opinion without hearing one another especially since in what we have done in Sir VVilliam Chancys Case aud others the like concerning the Power of the High-Commissioners was done judicially in open Court upon argument at the Bar and Bench. And further I said to the King that when we the Justices of the Common-Pleas see the Commission newly reformed We will as to that which is of Right seek to satisfie the Kings expectation and so We departed c. Trin. 9 Jac. Regis Stockdale's Case in the Court of VVards The King by Letters Patents dated 9. April the ninth year of his Reign did Grant to VVilliam Stockdale in these words Such and so many of the Debts Duties Arrearages and Sums of Money being of Record in our Court of Exchequer Court of Wards Dutchy-Court or within any Court or Courts c. in any year or several years from the last year of the Reign of H. 8. to the 13th year of Our Dear Sister as shall amount to the sum of 1000 l. To have takâ— levy c. the said Debts c. to the said VVilliam Stockdale his Executors c. And in this Case divers Points were resolved 1. That the said Grant of the King is void for â—he incertainty for thereby no Debt in certain can pass As if the King have an 100 Acres of Land in D. and he Grants to a Man 20 Acres of the Lands in D. without describing them by the Rent Occupation or Name c. this Grant is void 2. When the Patentee Claims by force of this word Arreragia It was resolved clearly That he shall not have Arrearages of Rents Reliefs and mean Rates of Lands c. in the Court of Wards c. if the Patent go not further But the Proviso in the end of the Patent viz. Provided that the said VVilliam Stockdale shall take no benefit by any means of Arrearages of any Rents c. untill Sir Patrick Murrey and others be paid the sum of 1000 l. c. hath well explained what Arrearages the King intended But clearly mean Rates are not within the words for they are the Profits of Demesne Land Trin. 9 Jacobi Regis Divers men playing at Bowles at great Marlow in Kent two of them fell out and a third man who had not any quarrel in revenge of his Friend struck the other with a Bowl of which he dyed This was held Manslaughter because it happened upon a suddain motion In the same Term a special Verdict divers years past found in the County of Hertford which was That two Boyes fighting together one was seratched in the Face and bled very much at the Nose and so he run three quarters of a Mile to his Father who seeing his Son so abused he took a Cudgel and run to the place where the other Boy was and stroke him upon the Head upon which he dyed And this was held but Man-slaughter for the Passion of the Father was continued and no time to judge it in Law Malice prepense And this Case was moved ad mensam c. Mich. 9 Jac. Regis Memorandum upon Thursday in this Term a High Commission in Causes Ecclesiastical was published in the Archbishops great Chamber at Lambeth in which I with the Chief Justice Chief Baron Justice VVilliams Justice Crooke Baron Altham and Baron Bromly were named Commâ—ssioners among all the Lord of the Council divers Bishops Attorney and Sollicitor and divers Deans and Doctors in the Cannon and Civil Laws And I was commanded to sit by force of the said Commission which I refused for three Causes 1. Because neither I nor any of my Brethren of the Common-Pleas were acquainted with it 2. Because I did not know what was contained in the new Commission and no Judge can execute any Commission with a good Conscience without knowledg for Tantum sibi est permissum quantum est Commissum 3. That there was not any necessity of my sitting who understood nothing of it so long as the other Judges whose advise had been had in this new Commission were there 4. That I have endeavoured to inform my self of it by a Copy from the Rolls but it was not enrolled 5. None can sit by force of any Commission till he hath taken the Oath of Supremacy according to 1 Eliz. and if I may hear the Commission read and have a Copy to advise upon I will either sit or shew cause to the contrary The Lord Treasurer perswaded me to siâ— but I utterly refused it and the rest seemed to incline Then the Commission was openly read containing divers Points against the Laws and Statutes of England At hearing of which all the Judges rejoyced they sate not by it Then the Archbishop made an Oration during all which as the reading of the Commission I stood and would not sit and so by my Example did the rest of the Judges And so the Archbishop appointed the great Chamber at Lambeth in Winter and the Hall in Summer and every Thursday in the Term at two a clock Afnoon and in the Forenoon one Sermon Mich. 9 Jacob. Regis In this Term the Issue in an Information upon the 〈◊〉 2 H. 6. 15. was tryed at the Bar and upon Evidencâ— upon the words of the Statute which are That evâ—â—y person that sets or fastens in the Thames any Nets or Enâ—iâ—â—s called Trincks or any other Nâ—ts to any â—â—sts c. to stand continually day and night forfeits to â—he King 100 s. for every time c. And the Defendants having set and fastned Nets called Trincks in the Thames c. to Boats day and night as long as the Tide served and nor continually The Question was If this was within the Statute and it was clearly Resolved That it was within the Statute for the Nets called Trinks cannot stand longer than the Tyde serve and for this the word continually shall be taken for so long as they may stand to take Fish for lex non intendit aliquid impossibile Mich. 9 Jacob. Regis Shulters Case in the Star-Chamber The Case was such John Shulter of Wisbich of the age of 115 years
were High Treason or no And in this the Justices were divided my self and divers others holding That this Act was not Treason but the chief Justice and divers others were against us 2. If it be High Treason then whether he may be indicted generally for the Counterfeiting of the Great Seal or else the special Fact must be expressed By reason of diversity of Opinions Râ—spectuatur vid. Fleta lib. 1. cap. 22. Item crimen falsi dicitur cum quis illicitus cui non fuerit ad haec data authoritas de sigillo Regis rapto vel invento et brevia Carteria vide le Attainder de Elizabeth Barton Edw. Bocking by Parliament c. 25. H. 8. c. 12. Hill 24 Eliz. In the Exchequer A Merchant brought eighty weigh of Bay-Salt by Sea to a Haven in England and out of the Ship sold 20 weighs and discharged them to another Ship wherein they were transported being never actually put on shore and for the residue viz. 60 weigh he agreed for the Custome and put them upon Land and now the dâ—nbt was 1 Eliz. cap. 12. for the words of the Statute concerning Exportation sent from the Wharfe Key or other place on the Land and concerning Importation taken up discharge and lay on Land If in this Case the said 20 weighs which alwayes were waterborn and never touched the Land ought to pay Custome as well inwards as outwards And it was Resolved That in both the Cases Custome ought to be paid and forasmuch as no Custome was paid It was Resolved That the Goods were forfeited Note No Act of Parliament can bind the King from any Prerogative which is sole and inseperable to his person but that he may dispence with it by a non obstante as his Soveraign Power of Commandines his Subjects to serve him for the publick Weal See 23 H. 6. cap. 8. 2 H. 7. 66. 13 R. 2. Parl. 2. cap. 1. See also 4 H. 4. cap. 31. Coke l. 2. fol. 69. But in things which are not incident solely and inseparably to the person of the King but belongs to every Subject and may be severed there an Act of Parliament may absolutely bind the King As if an Act of Parliament do disable any Subjects of the King to take any Land of his Grant or any of his Subjects as Bishops as it is done by the Statute 1 Jac. cap. 3. to Grant to the King this is good for to grant or take Lands or Tenements is common to every Subject Hill 4. Jac. Regis Care of High Commissioners If they have Power to Imprison Mich. 4 Jac. post prand There was moved a Question amongst the Judges and Sergeants at Sergeants Inn If the High Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes may by force of their Commission imprison any man or not First Resolved by all That before the Statute of the first of Eliz. the King might have granted a Commission to hear and determine Ecclesiastical Causes yet the Commissioners ought to proceed according to the Ecclesiastical Law allowed within the Realm Vide Caudrye's Case 5 Report Then all the Question rests upon the Act 1 Eliz. which hath three Branches 1. Such Commissioners have power to exercise Jurisdiction Spiritual and Ecclesiastical 2. By force of Letters-Patents they have power to visit reform c. all Heresies c. which by any manner of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power c. can or lawfully may be Reformed c. So that these Branches limit the Jurisdiction 3. That after such Commission delivered to them shall have power by vertue of this Act and the said Letters-Patents to exercise c. all the Premisses c. according to the Tenor c. This Branch gives them Power to execute their Commission But it was Objected That this Branch gave no power to the Queen to alter the Proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Law or to prescribe what manner of proceedings or punishment concerning the Lands Goods or Bodies of the Subject And this appears by the Title of the Act Restoring the intent being to make Restitution not any Innovation Vide a notable Case adjudged in this Point Hill 42. El. â—o 389. as to Imprisonment Smith's Case for at the last Consultation was granted And at last by the better Opinion as to things committed to them by Commission they may put Fine and Imprisonment By the 3 H. 7. cap. 14. 't is Ordained where Women as well Maids as Widows and Wives having substance c. for the lucre of such substance be taken by Misdoers contrary to their Wills and after marryed c. or defiled That what person henceforth so taketh c. against her will c. such taking c. to be Felony And the Misdâ—ers c. to be reputed as Felons Upon this great question was moved 4 5 Phil. Mar. in the Star-Chamber If the Eloym ent against her without Mariage or Carnal Copulation be Felony or no And the Opinion of Brook and some other of the Justices was that It was Felony But Sanders Lord Chief Justice was against it and afterwards as Peryam chief Baron did Report It was Resolved by all the Justices That such Eloynment onely is not Felony by the intent of the Statute without Marriage or Carnal Copulation Note By the express purview of the Act the Accessary both before and after is made Principal Pasch 4 Jac. Regis By the Commandement of the King it was referred to Popham Chief Baron and my self what Right the Queen which now is hath and in what Cases to a Right claim'd by her called Aurum Reginae that is to say Pro centum marcis argenti una marca Auri solvendum per illum qui se sponte obligat And upon consideration had thereof and view of Records and Presidents viz. Librum Rubrum in Scaccario fol. 56. de Auro Reginae where it is said that this is to be taken De iis qui sponte se obligant Regi c. which is the Foundation of this Claim And of a Record in the Tower 52 H. 3. And a Record in the Exchequer 4 Ed. 1. And a Record in the Exchequer Hill 12 Ed. 3. And in the Tower in the same year in Rot. Claus And of Acts of Parliament 15 Ed. 3. cap. 6. and 31 Ed. 3. cap. 13. and 13 R. 2. in Turri And divers other Presidents and Process out of the Exchequer in the time of R. 2. H. 4. and other Kings till H. 7. It was Resolved that the Queen hath Right to it but with these Limitations 1. It ought to be sponte by the Subject sine coactione And for this all Fines upon Judgments or by Offer or Fine for Alienation or any other Case where the Subject doth it not sponte sine aliqui coactione That the King of Right ought to have it there the Queen shall have nothing 2. It ought to be sponte sine consideration alicujus reventionis seu interesse That the King hath in esse in jure Coronae As upon Sale
or Demise of his Lands Wards c. these are Contracts concerning the Kings Revenues and there it cannot be said that the Subjects sponte se obligant as to purchase any the Revenues of the King 3. It ought to be sponte super considerationem non ex mera gratia benevolentia subditi Hil. 4. Ed. 1. in Scaccario c. 4. It ought to be sponte super considerationem quae non loâ—ge reventionem seu interesse Coronae in any thing which the King hath As if a Subject give the King a Summe of Money for Licence in Mortmain or to create a Tenure of himself to have a Fair Market Park Chase or Warren in his Mannor there the Queen shall have it for the Subject did this sponte And this Resolution was reported to the King by Popham in the Gallery at White-Hall Pasch 5 Jac. Regis The Case of Forests This Term it was informed to the King that great wrongs were done in the Forest of Leicester in the County of Leicester and in his Forest of Bowland in the County of Warwick parcel of his Dutchy of Lancaster And upon this by Warrant from the King under his Signet all the Justices were assembled to resolve certain Questions to be moved concerning Forests by the Attorney of the Dutchy and the Councel of the other part which were Forests and Chases Which being matter in Fact the Judges could not give their Resolutions but by way of Directions And it was Resolved 1. That if these are Forests it will appear by matter of Record as by Eyres of Justices of Forests Swannimotes Regardors c. But the calling it a Forest in Grants c. proveth it not a Forest in Law 2. Resolved by all the Justices That if there be no Forests in Law but Free-Chases then who hath any Free-hold in them may cut his Wood growing upon it without view or Licence leaving sufficient for Covert to maintain the Kings Games so a common person having Chace in another Soil the Owner may not destroy the Covert nor Browse-wood 3. Resolved That in such a Chase the Owner by Prescription may have Common for his Sheep and Warren for his Coneys by Grant or Prescription but he must not surcharge or make Burrows in other places than hath been used from the time of which nor may he erect a new Warren without Charter 4. Resolved That who hath such a Warren may lawfully build a Lodge upon his Inheritance for preservation of his Game 5. Popham Chief Justice said That in the time of Chief Baron Bett It was adjudged in the Exchequer That a man may prescribe to cut his Wood upon his own Inheritance within a Forest though it was against the Act in the 43 Ed. 1. See the Abridgement Title Forest 21. And this was the Case of Sellenger vide 2 Ed. 2. Title Trespass fol. 9. in the time of Ed. 1. Trespass 239. â—low Com. Dyer 72. 32. 2 Ed. 4. cap. 7. that the Subject may have a Forest Consuetudo ex rationebili causa usitata privat communem Legem And it was held by some that this was but an Ordinance not an Act of Parliament Pasch 5 Jacobi Regis Case of Conspiracy This Term in the Case between Rice ap Evan ap Floyd Plaintiff and Richard Barker one of the Justices of the Grand Sessions in the County of Anglesey and others Defendants 1. Resolved by Popham and Coke Chief Justices the Chief Baron and Egerton Lord Chancellor and all the Court of Star-Chamber That when a Grand Inquest indicts one of Murder or Felony though the Party be acquitted yet no Conspiracy lyes for him against the Inâ—ictors for they are returned by the Sheriff by Law to make Inquiry of Offences upon their Oath for service of the King and Country and are compellable to serve the Law 10 Eliz. 265. And their Indictment or Verdict is matter of Record and called Verum dictum and shall not be avoided by Surmise and no Attaint lyes And with this agrees the Books in 22 Assise 77. 27 Ass 12. 21 Ed. 3. 17. 16 H. 6. 19. 47 Ed. 3. 17. 27 H. 8. 2. F. N. B. 115. a. But otherwise of a Witness for if he conspire out of the Court and after swear in Court his Oath shall not excuse his Conspiracy before for he is a private person 2. Resolved That when the party indicted is convictd of Felony by another Jury upon Not Guilty pleaded there he shall never have a Writ of Conspiracy But when he is upon his Arraignment Lâ—gitimo modo acquietatus But in the Case at Bar the Grand Jury who Indicted one William Price for the Murther of Hugh ap William the Jury who upon Not Guilty pleaded convicted him were Charged Indicted and Convict in the Star-Chamber which was never seen before For if the party shall not have a Conspiracy against the Indictors when Acquitted a multo fortiori when he is lawful Convict he shall neither charge the Grand Inquest nor Jury that convicted him But when a Jury acquits a Felon or Traytor against manifest Proof there they may be charged in the Star-Chamber ne maleficia remanerent impunita But if such Supposals shall be admitted after ordinary Judicial Proceedings it will be a means ad detrahendos Juratores deterrendos a servitio Regis 3. Resolved That Barker who was Judge of Assize and gave Judgement upon the Verdict of Death against the said W. P. and the Sheriff that executed him nor the Justices of Peace that examined the offender and the Witnesses for proof of the murther before the Indictment were not to be drawn in question in the Star-Chamber for any conspiracy nor ought to be charged there with any conspiracy or elsewhere when the party indicted is convicted or Attaint of murther or Felony And though such person were acquitted yet the Judge c. being by Commission and of Record and sworn to do Justice cannot be charged for conspiracy for that he openly did in Court as Judge Justice of Peace c. but if he hath conspired before out of Court this is extrajudiciall but subordinations of Witnesses and false malicious prosecutions out of Court c. amounts to an unlawfull conspiracy And if Judicial matters of Record which are of so high a nature that for their sublimity they import verity in themselves should be drawn in question by partiall and sinister supposall and averments of offenders there will never be an end of Causes but Controversies will be infinite Et infinitum in jure repâ—obatur 47 Ed. 3. 15. 25. Ed. 4 67. and 27 Ass pl. 12. But in a Hundred Court or other Court which is not of Record there averment may be taken against their proceedings 47 Ed. 3. 15. Also one shall never assign for Error that the Jury gave Verdict for the Defendant and the Court entred it for the Plaintiff c. Vide 1 H. 6 4. 39 H. 6. 52. 7 H. 7. 4. 11 H. 7. 28. 1 Mar. Dyer
89. But in a Writ of false Judgement the Plaintiff shall have direct averment against what the Judges in the inferior Court have done as Judges Quia Recordum non habent 21 H. 6. 34. Neither shall a Judge in the Cases aforesaid be charged before any other Judge at the Suit of the King 27 Ass pl. 18. 23. 2. R. 3. 9. 28 Ass pl. 21. 9 H. 6. 60. Catlyn and Dyer chief Justices Resolved That what a Judge doth as a Judge of Record ought not to be drawn in Question in this Court Nota bene that the said matters at the Bar were not examinable in the Star-Chamber and therefore it was Decreed by all the Court That the said Bill without any Answer to it by Barker shall be taken off the File and utterly cancelled And it was agreed That the Judges of the Realm ought not to be drawn into question for any supposed Corruption which extends to the annihilating of a Record or tending to the slander of the Justice of the King except it be before the King himself for they are only to make an account to God and the King otherwise this would tend to the subversion of all Justice for which reason the Orator said well Invigilandum est semper multae invidiae sunt bonis And the reason hereof is the King himself being de jure to deliver Justice to all his Subjects and because himself cannot do it to all Persons he delegates his Power to his Judges who have the Custody and Guard of the Kings Oath Thorpe being drawn into question for Corruption before Commissioners was held against Law and he pardoned Vide the conclusion of the Oath of a Judge Stowes châ—oi 18 Ed. 3. 312. Weyland chieâ— Justice of the Common Bench and Hengham Justice of the Kings Bench and other Justices were accused of Bribery and their Causes were determined in Parliament Vide 2 Ed. 3. fol. 27. The Justices of Trayl-Baston their Authority was grounded upon the Statute of Ragman which you may see in old Magna Charta Vide the form of the Commission of Trayle-Baston Hollingshead Chron. fol. 312. whereby it appears That the Corruption of his Judges the King himself examined in Parliamentâ— and not by Commission Absurdum est affirmare recredendum esse non judici Pasch 4 Jacob. Regis Case concerning the Oath ex officio The Lords of the Council at Whitehall sedente Parliamento demanded of Popham chief Justice and my self upon motion of the Commons in Parliament In what cases the Ordinary may examine any person ex Officio upon Oath and upon Consideration and View of our Books we answered the said Lords at another day in the Council Chamber 1. That the Ordinary cannot constrain any man to swear generally to Answer to such Interrogatories as shall be administred unto them but ought to deliver them a Copy of the Articles in writings that they may know whether they ought to answer them by Law or no according to the Course of the Chancery and Star-Chamber 2. No man shall be examined upon the secret thoughts of his Heart or of his secret Opinion but of what he hath spoken or done No Lay-man may be examined ex officio nisi in causis matrimonialibus et Testamentariis as appears by an Ordinance of Ed. 1. Title Prohibition Rastal See also the Register fol. 366. the force of a Prohibition and an Attachment upon it by which it appears That such Examination was not only against the said Ordinance but also against the Custome of the Realm which hath been time of which c. but also in prejudice of the Crown and Dignity of the King and with this agrees F. N. B. fol. 41. And so the Case reported by my Lord Dyer not printed Trin. 10 Eliz. One Leigh an Attorney of the Common Pleas was committed to the Fleet because he had been at Mass and refused to swear to certain Articles and in regard they ought in such case to examine upon his Oath and hereupon he was delivered by all the Court of Common-Pleas The like in Mich. 18 Eliz. Dyer fol. 175. in Hinds Case Also vide de Statute 25 H. 8. cap. 14. which is declaratory as to this point It stands not with the right order of Justice that any person should be convict and put to the losse of his Life good Name and Goods unless by due Accusation and Witnesses or by Presentment Verdict precess of Outlawry c. And this was the Judgment of all the said Parliament See F. N. B. Justice of Peace 72 Lam. 6. in his Justice of Peace 338. Crompton in his Justice of Peace 36. 6. In all which it appears That if any be compelled to Answer upon his Oath where he ought not by Law this is oppression and punishable before a Justice of Peace c. But if a Person Ecclesiastical be charged with any thing punishable by our Law as for Usury there he shall not be examined upon Oath because his Oath is Evidence against him at the Common Law but Witnesses may be cited Register title Consult F. N. B. 53. d. 2 H. 4. cap. 15. In H. 8. nor Ed. 6. time no Lay-man was examined upon his Oath except in the said two Cases But in Queen Maries Reign 2 H. 4. was revived but afterwards repealed 10 Eliz. Note King John in the time of his Troubles granted by his Charter 13 Maii Anno Regni 140. submitted himself to the Obedience of the Pope And after in the same year by another Charter he resigned his Crown and Realm to Pope Innocent and his Successors by the hands of Pandulph his Legate and took it of him again to hold of the Pope which was utterly voyd because the Dignity is an inherent inseparable to the Royal Blood of the King and descendable and cannot be transferred Also the Pope was an Alien born and therefore not capable of Inheritance in England By colour of which Resignation the Pope and his Successors exacted great Sums of the Clergy and Layety of England pro commutandis paenitentiis And to fill his Coffers Pope Gregory the 9th sent Otho Cardinalis de Carcere Tulliano into this Realm to Collect Money who did Collect infinite Sums so that it was said of him Quod Legatus saginatur bonis Angliae which Legate held a Councel at London Anno Dom. 1237. 22 H. 3. and for finding out Offences which should be redeemed with Money with the assent of the English Bishops he made certain Canons among which one was Jusjurandi Calumniae in causis Ecclesiasticis cujus libet de veritate dicendi in spiritualibus quoque ut veritas facilius aperiatur c. Statuimus de Caetero praestari in regâ—o Angliae secundum Canonicas legitimas Sanctiones obtenta in contrarium consuetudine non obstante c. By which Cannon it appears That the Law and Custom of England was against such Examinations so that this was a new Law and took its effect de
one Bellingham 2 Jac. in Westminster-Hall Sedentibus Curiis with his Elbow and Shoulder out of malice justled Anthony Dyer of the Temple that he overthrew him and spurned him with his Feet upon the Legs but smote him not in any other manner And yet it was held That his right hand should be cut off c. upon which Bellingham was indicted in Banke le Roy and after got his Pardon A Case was put to all the Justices of England viz. The Bishopricks of Waterford and Lismore originally two Bishopricks by lawful Authority in the time of H. 3. were united but the Chapters yet remain several After which Union the Bishop aliened Lands of the Sea of Waterford and also of the Sea of Lismore with confirmation of the Chapter of Lismore 1. The Question was Whether such Alienations are not voydable by the Successor being with the Confirmations of both the Deans and Chapters 2. The second Question was Whether the Queen might avoid such alienations by seizure or otherwise The Justices demanded a View of the Union to which it was answered That it was not extant then was it Resolved by the Justices That inasmuch as the Usage hath been after the Union that the several Deans and Chapters have severally made Confirmations ut supra it shall be intended that the Union notwithstanding yet for avoiding Confusion and in respect of the remoteness of the Deans and Chapters that Estates made shall be severally confirmed as before the Union and then such Confirmations shall be good for in such Case Modus conventiovincunt Legem 50 Ed. 3. Title Assize Statham Ri. 2. Title Grant 27 H. 8. Dyer 58. 11 Eliz. Dyer 33 H. 8. 2. It was Resolved That upon a lawful Alienation made with Confirmation of the Dean and Chapter no contraformam collationis lyes upon the Statute of Westm â— See my 7th Reports Trin. 8 Jacobi Regis Convocation Case It was Resolved by the two Chief Justices and divers other Justices at a Committee before the Lords of Parliament concerning the Authority of a Convocation 1. That a Convocation cannot assemble without the assent of the King 2. That after their Assembly they cannot confer to Constitute any Cannons without Licence d l Roy. 3. When upon Conference they conclude any Cannons yet they cannot exâ—cute any of them without Royal assent 4. They cannot execute any after Royal assent but with these Limitations 1. That they be not against the Kings Prorogative 2. Nor against the Common Law 3. Nor against Statute Law 4. Nor against any Custom of the Realm And all this appears by 25 H. 8. cap. 19. 19 Ed. 3. Title Quare non admisit 7. 10 H. 7. 17. Merton cap. 9. 2 H. 6. 13. A Convocation may make Constitutions to bind the Spiritualty because they all in person or by representation are present but not the Temporality 21 Ed. 4. 47. The Convocation is Spiritual and so are all their Constitutions Vide the Records in Turri 18 H. 8. 8 Ed. 1. 25 Ed. 1. 11 Ed. 2. 15 Ed. 2. Prohibitio Regis ne Clerus in Congregatione sua c. attemptet contra jus seu Coronam c. by which it appears they can do nothing against the Law of the Land or the Kings Prerogative Case of Piracy Trin. 8 Jacobi Regis In this Term the King referred the Consideration of Letters Patents of the Lord Admiral of England to the two Chief Justices and the Chief Baron whether by the said Letters Patents the Goods which Pirates should take from Others by Robbery and Piracy did pass to the Lord Admiral or no. And upon Consideration thereof it appeared to us That he had Bona et Catalla Piratorum and also Bono et Catalla depraedata Goods robbâ—d from others which did not pass for two Causes 1. If the King Grant Bona et Catalla Felonum the Patentee shall have the Goods and Chattels of the Felon himself but not the Goods and Chattels which the Felon stealeth from others 2. The Goods taken from Others the King cannot Grant for it appears by the Statute 27 Ed. 3. cap. 8. St. 2. That the Merchant c. so robbed shall be received to prove that the Goods and Chattels belong to him by his Cockâ—â— or other lawful Proof c. the said Goods shall be delivered without any Suit at Common Law But it was Resolved That till such proof be made the King may seize the Goods for Goods of which the property is unknown the King may seize And if they are bona peritura the King may sell them and upon proof c. restore the value And the Owner is not limited to any time by the Statute 31 H. 6. cap. 4. 2 R. 2. cap. 2. 13 Ed. 4. 9 10. a good resolution of the Justices and the Register 179. F. N. B. 114. when a Subject of the King spoiled beyond Sea shall have a Writ c. for to take Goods within England c. Case of Simony Trin. 8 Jacob. Regis It was agreed ad mensam by all the Justices and Barons in Fleet-street That if the Patron for any Money present any Parson to a Benefice with Cure c. then every such Presentation c. thereupon are void though the Presence be not party not privy to it for the Statute intends to punish such wicked avarice and gives the Presentation to the Queen And this per verba Statuti penned strongly enough against corrupt Patrons Proclamations Mich. 8 Jacobi Regis On Thursday the 20th of Sept. 8 Regis Jacobi I was sent for to attend the Lord Chancellor the Lord Treasurer Lord Privy-Seal and Chancellor of the Dutchy the Attorney Sollicitor and Recorder being present And two Questions were moved to me by the Lord Treasurer 1. If the King by his Proclamation may prohibite new Buildings in and about London 2. If the King may prohibite the making of Starch of Wheat The Treasurer said These were preferred to the King as Grievances and against the Law and Justice To which the King Answered That he will conferr with his Privy-Council and Judges and then he will do them right To which I answered That these Questions being of great Importance I did desire that I might have Conference with my Brethren the Judges To which the Chancellor said Every President had first a Commencement and that he would advise the Judges to maintain the Kings Prerogative and where there was no President to leave it to the King and all concluded it should be necessary to confirm the Kings Prerogative with our Opinions To which I answered True it is every President hath a Commencement but when Authority and President is wanting there needs great Considerations before any Novelty be established For I said The King cannot change any part of the Common-Law nor create any offence by his Proclamation But I desired to Confer with my Brethren for Deliberandum est diu quod Statuendum est semel To which Mr. Sollicitor said Dâ—vers Sentences were given
in the Star-Chamber upon the Proclamation against Building and that I had given Sentence against the said Proclamation To which I answered That Presidents were to be seen and Considerations to be had upon Conference with my Brethren for Melius est recurrere quam male currere and Indictments conclude contra leges statuta never contra regiam Proclamationem At last my motion was allowed and the Lords appointed the two Chief Justices Chief Baron and Baron Altham to consider of it Note the King by his Proclamation or otherwise cannot change any part of the Common-Law Statute-Law or Customs of the Realm 11 H. 4. 37. Fortescue in laudibus legum Ang. cap. 9. 18 Ed. 4. 35 36 c. 31 H. 8. cap. 8. ubi non est lex ubi non est transgressio ergo That which cannot be punished without Proclamation cannot be punished with it Vide le Stat. 31 H. 8. cap. 8. But if a man be indicted upon a Contempt against a Proclamation he shall be Fined anâ— imprisoned Vide Fortescue cap. 9. 18 34 36 37 c. In all Cases the King out of his Providence and to prevent dangers may prohibite them before which will aggravate the Offence if it be afterwards committed And as it is a Grand Prerogative of the King to make Proclamations 22 H. 8. Procl B. yet we find Presidents of Proclamations utterly against Law and Reason and therefore void For Quae contra rationem Juris introducta sunt non debent trahi in sequentiam An Act made to License Forreiners to Merchandize in London H. 4. by Proclamation prohibited the Execution of it usque ad prox Parliament which was against Law Vide doâ—s claus 8 H. 4. Proc. in London but 9 H. 4. An Act was made That all Irish should depart the Realm before the Feast of the Nativity this only was in terrorem being utterly against Law Hollingshead 772. Anno Dom. 1546. 37 H. 8. The Whorâ—-houses vulgo Stews were suppressed by Proclamation and found of Trumpet In the same Term Râ—solved by the two Chief Justices Chief Baron and Baron Altham upon Conference between the Lords of the Privy-Council and them That the King by his Proclamation cannot create any Offence which was not an Offence before for then he may alter the Law And the Law of England is divided into three parts 1. Common-Law 2. Statute-Law 3. Custom But the Kings Proclamation is none of them Resolved also That he hath no Prerogative but what the Law of the Land allows him but he mry by Proclamation admonish his Subjects that they keep the Laws upon pain to be inflicted by Law c. Lastly If the Offence be not punishable in the Star-Chamber Prohibition by Proclamation cannot make it punishable there And after this Resolution no Proclamation imposing Fine and Imprisonment was made c. Mich. 8 Jac. Regis Prohibitions It was Resolved in this Term That if a man be excommunicated by the Ordinary where he ought not as after a general Pardon c. and the Defendant being Negligent doth not sue a Prohibition but remains excommunicate by 40 dayes and upon Certificate in Canc is taken by the Kings Writ de excommunicato capiendo no Prohibition lies in this Case because he is taken by the Kings Writ Then it was moved what remedy the Party hath who is wrongfully excommunicate to which it was answered he hath three Remedies 1. He may have a Writ out of Chancery to absolve him 14 H. 4. fol. 14. and with this agrees 7 Ed. 4. 14. 2. When he is excommunicate against the Law of this Realm so that he cannot have a Writ de Cauâ—fone admittenda then he ought Parere mandatis Ecclesiae in sorma Juris i. e. Ecclesiastici where in truth it 's Excommunicatio contra jus forman Juris i. e. Communis Juris But if he shew his Cause to the Bishop and Request him to assoyl him either because he was excommunicate after the Offence pardoned or that the Cause did not appear in Ecclesiastical Cognizance and he refuse he may have an Action Sur le Case against the Ordinary and with this agrees Dr. St. lib. 2. cap. 32. fol. 119. 3. If the Party be excommunicate for nonâ—e of the Causes mentioned in the Act 5 Eliz. cap. 23. then he may plead this in the Kings Bench and so avoid the Penalties in the Act. Note It was Resolved by the Court c. That where one is cited before the Dean of the Articles in cause of defamation for calling the Plaintiff Where out of the Diocess of London against the Statute of 23 H. 8. And the Plaintiff hath Sentence and the Defendant is excommunicated and so continues 80 dayes And upon Certificate into the Chancery a Writ of Excommunicato capiendo is granted and the Defendant taken and imprisoned thereby that he shall not have a Prohibition upon the Statute 23 H. 8. for no Writ in the Register extends to it but there is a Writ there called de cautione admittenda when the Defendant is taken by the Kings Writ de excommunicato capiendo de parendo mandatis Ecclesiae and to assoyl and deliver the Defendant But in the Case at Bar it does not appear to us judicially without Information that the Citation is against the forme of the Statute And the Information comes too late in this Case after the Defendant hath persisted so long in his Contumacy and is taken by the Kings Writ and imprisoned Admiralty It was Resolved per totam Curiam That if One be sued in the Admiralty-Court for a thing alledged to be done upon the High-Sea within the Admirals Jurisdiction and the Defendant plead and confess the thing done and after Sentence the Court will be advised to Grant a Prohibition upon surmise That it was done infra corpus comitatus against their own confession unless it can be made appear to the Court by matter in Writing or other good matter that this was done upon the Land for otherwise every one will stay till after Sentence and then for vexation only sue out a Prohibition And admonition was given to them that sue out Prohibitions That they should not keep them long in their Hands or untill they perceive they cannot prevail in the Ecclesiastical Court then to cast in their Prohibition for if they abuse that liberty to the vexation of the Party we will take such order as in case of a Writ of Priviledge if the Defendant keep it till the Jurors are ready c. it shall not be allowed Hill 8 Jacob. Regis In this Term in Doctor Trevor's Case who was Chancellor of a Bishop in Wales It was Resolved That the Office of a Chancellor and Register c. in Ecclesiastical Courts are within the Statute 5 Ed. 6. cap. 16. which Act being made for avoiding corruption of Officers c. and advancement of worthy Persons shall be expounded most beneficially to suppress Corruption And because the Law allows Ecclesiastical Courts to
hath well observed Vide Dyer 298. vide le Stat. 27 Eliz. Pasch 9 Jacobi Regis Sir William Chancâ—ys Case In this Term Sir William Chancy having the priviledg of this Court and being a Prisoner in the Fleet was brought to â—he Bar by Habeas Corpus by the Guardian of the Fleet who returned That the said Sir William was committed to the Fleet by Warrant from the High-Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes which Warrant follows in these words viz. These are to Will and Require you in his Majesties Name by Vertue of his Hâ—gh-Commission c. to Us and others directed c. That herewithal you take and receive into your Custody the Body of Sir William Chancy Knight whom we will that you keep c. untill further Order c. letting you know the cause of his Committment to be for that being at the Suit of his Lady convented bâ—fore c. for Adultery and expelling her from his Company and Co-habiting with another Woman without allowing her any competent Maintenance and by his own Confession convict thereof he was thereupon enjoyned to allow his Wife a competent Maintenance c. and to perform such Submission and other order for his Adultery as by Law should be enjoyned him which he expresly refused to do in contempt c. Given at London 19 Martii 1611. subscribed Henry Mountague George Overall Thomas Morton Zach. Paâ—field And it was moved by Nicholas Serjeant a Councel with Sir William that this return was insufficient 1. Because Adultery ought to be punished by the Ordinary and not by the High-Commâ—ssioners on which the Offender is remediless and can have no appeal Quod fuit concessum per Coke Warberton and Foster but Walmesly doubted of Adultery 2. That by force of the Act of the 1. of Eliz. the High-Commissioners cannot imprison Sir William for Adultery nor for denying Alimony to his Wife And Doderidge the Kings Sâ—rjeant of Council on the other side did not defend the Imprisonment to be lawful And it was clearly agreed by Coke Walmesly Warberton and Foster That the Commissioners had not power to imprison in this Case And Walmâ—sly said That though they have used this Power for twenty years without any exception yet when it comes before them judicially they ought to Judge according to Law and upon this Sir William Chancy was Bailed And it was resolved per totam Curiam That when it appears upon the Return that the Imprisonment is not lawful the Court may discharge him of Imprisonment Also it was Resolved That the Return was insufficient in form 1. It is not shewn when the Adultery was committed 2. He was enjoyned to allow his Wife a competent Maintenance without any certainty and to perform such submission c. as by Law shall be enjoyned which is all infuturo and uncertain Vide in my Treatise at large the Reasons and Causes why the High-Commissioners may sue and imprison Vide Pasch 42 Eliz. Rot. 1209. Pasch 9 Jacobi Regis Empringham's Case In this Term a Case was moved in Star-Chamber upon a Bill exhibited by the Attorney-General against Robert Empringham Vice-Admiral in the County of York Marmaduke Ketthewell one of the Marshals of the Admiralty and Thomas Haâ—rison an Informer in the same Court for Oppression and Extortion in Fining and Imprisoning divers of the Kings Subjects in the said County which no Judge of the Admiralty can justifie because it is not a Court of Record but they proceed according to the Civil Law and upon their Sentence no Writ of Error lyeth but an Appeal Also the said Empringham hath caused divers to be cited to appear before him for things done in the Body of the County which were determinable by the Common Law and not before the Admiralty whose authority is limited to the High Sea And for these and other Oppressions they were fined and imprisoned and sentenced beside to make Restitution c. Trin. 9 Jacobi Regis Memorandum That upon the Thursday before this Term all the Justices of England by the Kings Command were assembled in the Council-Chamber at Whitehall where was Abbot Archbishop of Canterbury and with him two Bishops and divers Civillians the Archbishop complained of Prohibitions out of the Common-Pleas and delivery of Persons by Haheas Corpus but chiefly of Sir William Chancy I defended our proceedings according to my Treatise thereof which I delivered before the High-Commissioners And after great dispute between the Archbishop and Me at last he said He had a Point not yet touched upon in my Treatise which would give satisfaction to the Lords and Us also and upon which he would rely And that the Clause of Restitution and Annexation viz. And that all such Jurisdictions c. Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any power Spiritual hath heretofore or hereafter lawfully may be used c. for visitation of the Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for Reformation Order and Correction of the same and of all Errors Heresies Schismes c. shâ—ll for ever by authority of this present Parliament be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And it was said That H. 8. and Ed. 6. did give Power by their Commissions to divers to impose Mulcts c. in Ecclesiasticall Causes c. and upon this he concludes That this having been used before 1 Eliz. this is given to Queen Eliz. and her Successors Also inasmuch as by 2 H. 4. and 2 H. 7. the Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical may Fine and Imprison in particular Causes therefore Power to Fine and Imprison in all Ecclesiastical Causes is given to the King And this he said he uttered that it might be answered 1. To which I for a time gave this Answer That it was good for the Weal-publick that the Judges at the Common-Law should interpret the Statutes within this Realm 2. It was said by me That before the Statute of 1 Eliz. no Ecclesiastical Judge may impose a Fine or Imprison for any Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Offence unless there be Authority by Act of Parliament And this was so affirmed by all the Justices Vide my Book of Presidents the Commission at large to Cromwel to be Vicegerent Afterwards in this very Term the Privy-Council sent for the Justices of the Common-Pleas only and there the Reasons of the said Resolution were largely debated and strong Opposition made hy Egerton Lord Chancellor but the Justices of the Common-Pleas remained constant in their Resolution Afterward the Council sent for the chief Justice of the Kings Bench Justice Williams Justice Crook Chief Baron Taâ—field Snig Althan and Bromly who were not acquainted with the Reasons of the said Rule of the Common-Pleas nor knew why they came before the Council And hearing the Lord Chancellor affirm That the High-Commissioners have alwayes by the Act 1 Eliz. imposed Fines and Imprisonments for exorbitant Crimes without any Conference with us or among then selves or hearing the matter debated were of Opinion with us And after at another day this
and being amongst them of the Grand Inquest though not returned as one of them of his malice and upon his own knowledge as he pretended indicted 17 honest men upon divers penal Laws Some of the Justices looking over the Bills and seeing so many honest men indicted as they supposed malitiously demanded what Evidence they had to find the said Bills and they answered By the Testimony and Cognizance of one of themselves viz. Robert Scarlet And upon Examination it appeared that the said Robert Scarlet was not returned but had procured himself to be sworn by Confederacy as aforesaid For which Offence he was indicted at the Summer Assizes following 10 J c. held at Buâ—y upon the Statute 11 H. 4. c. 9. And he pleaded not guilty All the especiall Matter aforesaid being proved he was found guilty by a substantial Jury And in this Case divers Points were considered 1. Whether Justices of Assize have power to punish this offence or no And it was held affirmatively scil by force of their Commission of Oyer and Terminer And if the Act be indefinite or general and doth not give Jurisdiction to any Courts in special the general words of Commission of Oyer and Terminer extends to it Vide 7 Eliz. Dyer Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer may inquire of Offences against Penal Statutes unless the Statute appoint them to be determined in any Court of Record And the Opinion there that in any Courts of Record are restrained to the four ordinary Courts at Westminster is not held for Law as the Statute 5 Ed. 6. 14. against Forestallers c. gives the Penalty to be recovered in any Court of Record And Justices of Assize in regard of their Commission of Oyer and Terminer have always enquired thereof So the 33 H. 8. 9. of unlawful Games And of Woods 35 H. 8. c. 17. and many others 2. The second consideration was upon the Statute 11 H. 4. cap. 9. and it was held that Robert Scarlet was an Offender within that Statute because knowing he was not returned of the Grand Inquest procured himself by false Conspiracy to be sworn as aforesaid 3. The third Consideration was had of 3 H. 8. 10. which alters the Act of the 11 H. 4. in part as to denomination But in regard that still by that Act none can be of any Grand Inquest but by Return of the Sheriff And for this the Act 3 H. 8. 10. hath not altered the Law as to the Offence of Robert Scarlet 4. The said Act 11 H. 4. hath made a new Law viz. That any Indictment found against the said Act shall be void So that this may draw in Question all the Indictments found at the same Sâ—ssions And for this Judgment was given that he should be fined and imprisoned Trin. 10 Jac. Regis Baker and Hall's Case Note Upon Consideration of the Statute 3 H. 7. c. 14. It was Resolved by Coke Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas Yelverton Williams Snig and others That whereas it is provided that what person soever takes a Woman so against her Will c. in respect of this Word So which hath relation to the Preamble It was agreed by all that if the Wife hath nothing nor is Heir apparent it is out of the Statute for iâ— would not have been so curious in describing the Person and all in vain And Clergy is taken away by the 38 Eliz. cap. 9. for Principals or Procurers before Vide Stamf. so 37. b. and so was the Law taken 3 4 P. M. Vide Lamb 252. Note Receivers of the Woman are Principals but not the Receivers of them who took the Woman Vide Lamb. bid Note I saw a Report in Queen Mary's time upon the 50 Ed. 3. cap. 5. and 1 R. 2. cap. 15. concerning arresting Priests in Holy Church that the said Statutes are but in affirmance of the Common-Law and 't is there held that eundo redeundo morando for to celebrate Divine Service the Priest ought not to be arrested nor any who aid him in it and that the Party grieved may have an Action upon the Statute 50 Ed. 3. For though an Act doth not give an Action yet Action lyeth upon it 7 H. 6. 30. c. 2 H. 5. and 4 Ed. 4. 37. Vide Register in breve super Stat. Note If a man be convicted or hath Judgment of Death for Felony he shall never answer by the Common Law to any Felony done before the Attainder so long as the Attainder remains in force Vide 8 Eliz. c. 4. 18 Eliz 7. And at this day if a man be adjudg'd to be hang'd and hath his Pardon he shall never answer to any Felony before for he cannot have two Judgments to be hang'd Aliter If the first Attainder by Errour be reversed Vide 10 H. 4. Coroâ— 227. Case del Appeal c. A man seized of a Mannor to which he hath stray appendant by Prescription c. by his Bayley he seizeth an Ox as a Stray in the Mannor and makes Proclamation according to Law and within the Year and Day le ts the Mannor with all Royalties c. And Dyâ—r Sergeant moved the Court who should have the Stray And Brown Justice was of Opinion that the Lâ—ssor should have it But all the Justices were against him that the Lessee shall have it because the property of the Stray is not altered before the Year and Day and till then the Lord or the Mannor hath but the custody of it In Dr. Hutchinson's Case Parson of Kenn in Devonshire It was Resolved per totam Curiam That if any shall receive or take Money Fee Reward or other Profit for any Presentation to a Benefice with Cure although in truth he which is presented be not knowing of it yet the Presentation Admission and Induction are void per expressa verba Statuti 31 H. 8. cap. 6. and the King shall have the Presentation hac vice But if the Presence be not cognizant of the Corruption then he shall not be within the Clause of Disability in the same Statute and so it was Resolved by all the Justices in Fleetstreet Mich. 8. Jac. so 7. vide verba statuti Hugh Manneyes Case In an Information in the Exchequer against Hugh Manney Esque the Father and Hugh Manney the Son for Intrusion and cutting a great number of Trees in Merionâ—th shire the Defendants plead not guilty and one Rowland ap Eliza produced as a Witness for the King deposed upon his Oath that Hugh the Father and Son joyned in sale of the said Trees and commanded the Vendees to cut them down The Jury found upon this great Damages for the King and Judgment was given and Execution had of a great part Hugh Manney the Father exhibited a Bill in the Star-Chamber at Common-Law against Rowland ap Eliza and assigns the Perjury in this That the said Hugh the Father did never joyn in Sale nor command the Vendees to cut the Trees and Rowland ap Eliza was convict
holden That if one were to sit in the Chancel and hath there a place his Carpet Livery and Cushion the Parson cannot claim them as Oblations for that they were hanged there in honour of the Deceased the same Reason of a Coat-Armour c. And the Chief Justice said the Lady might have a good Action during her Life in the Case aforesaid because she caused the things to he set up there and after her death the Heir shall have his Action they being in the nature of Hire-looms which belong to the Heir And with this agrees the Laws of other Nations Bartho Cassanâ—us sol 13. Coâ—cl 29. Actioâ— dat si aliquis arma in aliquo loco posita deleat aut abrasit c. and in 21 Ed. 3. 48. in the Bishop of Carlisle's Case Note That in Easter Term 10 Jacob. it was Resolved in the Star-Chamber in the Case between Hussâ—y and Katharine Leyton that if a man have a house in any Parish and that he and all those whose Estate he hath have used to have a certain Pew in the Church that if the Ordinary will displace him he shall have a Prohibition but where there is no such Prescription the Ordinary shall dispose of common and vulgar Seats Earl of Shrewes buryes Case Sir Humphry Winch Sir James Ley Sir Anthony St. Leger and Sir James Hullesâ—on certified the Lords of the Councel by Command from them by Letters dated 28. Martii 1612. of the Claim of Gilbert Earl of Shrewesbury to the Earldome of Waterford and Barony of Dungarvan in Ireland as followeth King Henry the Sixth by Letters-Patents in the 20th year of his Reign did Grant to his Cosin John Earl of Shrewsbury in consideration of his Loyal Services in the City and County of Waterford pro se c. ipsum in Comitem Waterford una cum stilo et titulo ac nomine ac honore eisdem debitis ordinamus creamus habendum to the said Earl and his Heirs-males of his Body and further did Grant the Castles Lordships c. of Dungarvan to the said Earl and the Heirs-males of his Body To hold c. of the King and his Heirs by Homage and Fealty and by the Service of being his Majesties Seneschal in Ireland After in the Parliament called Des Absentees holden at Dublin in Ireland 10. Maii 28 H. 8. It was enacted by reason of the long absence of George Earl of Shrewesbury out of the said Realm That the King his Heirs c. shall enjoy in right of his Crown of England all Honors Mannors Castles c. and all and singular possessions c. as well Spiritual as Temporal which the said George Earl of Shrewesbury and VVaterford or any other Persons had to his Use c. King Henry the 8th by his Letters Patents dated 29th of his Reign reciting the said Statute Nos praemissa Considerantes c. did Grant to the said Earl and his Heirs the Abbey of Rufford with the Lands thereunto c. in the County of Nottingham and the Lordship of Rotheram in the County of York the Abbeys of Chestersteld Shirbrook and Glossaâ—dale in Derbyshire with divers other Lands c. to be holden in Capite And the Questions were as followeth 1. Whether by the long absence of the Earl of Shrewsbury out of Ireland the Title of the Honor be lost and forfeited he being a Peer of both Realms and refiding here in England 2. Whether by the Act Des absentâ—es 28 H. 8. the Title of Dignity of Earl of VVaterford be taken from the said Earl as well as the Land c. Afterwards by other Letters Patents dated 27th of Sept. 1612. the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron were required to consider of the Case and to certifie their Opinions which Case being argued by Councel learned in the Law in behalf the said Earl and they having taken great advisement It was unanimously Resolved by them all as followeth 1. As to the fiâ—st Resolved That since it does not appear what defence was requisite and that the Consideration Executory was not found by Office to be broken in that Point the said Earl of Shrewsbury notwithstanding does remain Earl of Waterford 2. As to the second It was Resolved That the said Act 28 H. 8. Des Absenteâ—s does not onely take away the Possessions given him at his Creation but also the Dignity it self for though one may have a Dignity without Possession yet is it very inconvenient that Dignity should be cloathed with Poverty and so it was resolved in the Lord Ogles Case in Edw. 6. Reign as the Baron of Burleigh 35 Elâ—z did report The cause of Degradation of George Nevil Duke of Bedford is worth observation which was done by Act of Parliament 16 June 17 Ed. 4. which Act reciting the making the said George Duke sets forth the cause of his Degradation in these words And for so much as it is openly known that the said George hath not or by Inheritance may have any livelyhood to support the said Name Estate and Dignity c. Therefore the King by Advice of his Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons c. Enacteth c. That from henceforth the same Creation of the said Duke and all Names of Dignity given to the said George or to John Nevil his Father be void and of none effect Wherein are to be observed 1. That though the Duke had not Possessions to maintain his Dignity yet it could not be taken from him but by Act of Parliament 2. Great Inconveniencies follow where there is great State and Dignity and no means to maintain it 3. It is good reason to take away such Dignity by Act of Parliament and then the Act shall be expounded to take away such Inconvenience And though the Earl of Shrewsbury be of great Honour Vertue and Possessions in England yet it was not the Intention of the Act to continue him Earl in Ireland when his Possessions there were taken away And where it was objected that the general words Honours and Hereditaments are explained and qualified by the said Relative subsequent which the said George or any to his use hath Now in regard no man can be seized of the said Digniâ—y therefore the Act doth not extend to it 'T is answered that is to be understood Reddendo singula singulis and these words which the said G. E. hath are sufficient to pass the Dignity and with this agrees all the Judges Opinions in England in Nevils Case upon the like in the Statute 28 H. 8. in 7th Part of my Reports sol 33 and 34. Hill 2 Jacob. Regis Jurisdiction of the Court of Common-Pleas In the last Term by the King's Commands the Justices of the Kings Bench and Barons of the Exchequer were assembled before the Lord Chancellor Ellesmere at York-house to deliver their Opinion Whether there was any Authority in our Books that the Justices of the Common-Bench may grant Prohibitions or whether every Plea ought to be pending
in the Court for such cause And the King would know their Opinions The Judges took time till this Term and then Fleming Chief Justice Tanfield Chief Baron Saig Altham Crook Bromley and Dodderidge Yelverton and Williams Justices being dead since last Term did deliver their Opinions to the Lord Chancellor That the Presidents of each Court are sufficient Warrant for their Proceedings in the same Court and for a long time and in many Successions of Reverend Judges Prohibitions upon Information without any other Plea pending have been granted Issues tryed Verdicts and Judgments given upon Demurrer All which being in force they unanimously agreed to give no Opinion against the Jurisdiction of the Common-Bench in this Case See my Treatise of the Jurisdiction of the Common-Bench in this Point Hill 10 Jac. Regis Parliament in Ireland The Lords of the Councel did write to the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron to look into Poynings Act made 10 H. 7. in Ireland and to consider thereof and certifie what shall be fit to be held concerning the same their Letter bore date Ultimo Janii 1612. Upon which in this Term the said Chief Justices Chief Baron Attorney and Sollicitor General were assembled two days at Sergeants Inne And they considered not onely of the said Act 10 H. 7. c. 4. called Poynings Act but also of an Act made in Ireland 3 4 P. M. c. 4. Entituled An Act declaring how Poynings Act shall be expounded and taken for by the said Act 10 H. 7. it is provided That no Parliament be hereafter holden in Ireland but when the Kings Lieutenant and Councell there first certifie the King under the Great Seal of that Land the causes c. and such causes c. affirmed by the King and his Councel to be good and expedient for the Land and his Licence thereupon c. A Parliament to be holden after the former before c. And any Parliament holden contrary c. to be void in Law Upon which Act divers Doubts were conceived 1. And first Whether the said Act 10 H. 7. does extend to the Successors of H. 7. the Act speaking onely of the King generally and not his Successors 2. If the Queen Mary were within the word King and both were held affirmatively for the word King being spoke indefinitely does extend in Law to all his Successors And this is so expounded by the Act 3 and 4 P. and M. viz. That the said Act 10 H. 7. shall extend to the King and Queens Majesty her Heirs and Successors Secondly where Povnings Act sayes the Kings Lieutenant and Councel the said Act 3 and 4 P. and M. explains it to extend to all other Officers the King shall Depute by what Name soever 3. The greatest Doubt was upon these words of Poynings Act And such Causes Considerations and Acts affirmed by the King and his Councel to be good and expedient for the Land c. Whether the King may make any change or alteration of the Causes c. which shall be transmitted hither from the Lieutenant and Councel of Ireland for that it is not affirmative but correction and alteration of them and therefore it was necessary to explain that the Act 3 and 4 P. and M. was in these words Either for the passing of the said Acts and in such form and tenor as they should be sent into England or else for the change or alteration of them or any part of them 4. Another Doubt arose from these words That dâ—ne a Parliament to be had If at the same Parl. other Acts which have been affirmed or altered here may be Enacted there which is explained by the said last Act in these words viz. For passing and agreeing upon such Acts and no others as shall be returned c. 5. A fifth Doubt arose from the same words Whether the Lieutenant and Councel of Ireland after the Parliament begun and pendente Parliamento may upon debate there transmit any other Considerations c. the which said Act 3 and 4 P. and M. is by express words explained they may And it was unanimously Resolved That the Causes Considerations and Acts transmitted hither under the Great Seal of Ireland ought to be kept in the Chancery in England and not be remanded 2. Iâ— they be affirmed they must be transcribed under the Great Seâ—l and so returned into Ireland 3. If the Acts transmitted hither be in any part altered or changed here the Act so altered must forthwith be returned under the Great Seal of England for the Transcript under the Irish Great Seal to remain in Chancery here shall not be amended but the Amendment shall be under the English Great Seal See 10 H. 6. 8. which begins Mich. 18 H. 6. Rot. 46. coram Rege how a Parliament was holden there before Poynings Act. See also another Act made in Ireland the same 10 H. 7. c. 22. vide R. 3. 12. Hibernia habet Parliamenta faciunt leges nostra statuta non ligant â—os quia non mittunt milites ad Parliamentum sed personae coâ—um sunt subjecti Regis sicut inhabitantâ—s Calinae Gascogniae Guienae But question is made of this in some of our Books vid. 20 H. 6. 8. 32 H 6 25. 1 H. 7. 3. 8 H. 7. 10. 8 R. 2. Precess 204. 13 Ed. 2. Tit. Bastard 11 H. 47. 7 Ed. 4. 27. Plow Comment 368. 13 Eliz. Dyer 35. 2 Eliz. Dyer 366. Calvins Case 7th of my Reports 226. 14 Ed. 3. 184. A Prâ—bend in England made Bishop of Dublin in Ireland his Prebendary is voâ—d See the Sâ—atute of Ireland c. That the Acts of Parliament made in England since the 10 H. 7. do not hind them in Ireland but all made in England before the 10 H. 7. by the Act made in Ireland 10 H. 7. c. 22. do bind them in Ireland Note Cambden King at Arms told me that some held if a Baron dyes having Issue divers Daughters the King confer the Dignity to him who marryes any of them as hath been done in divers Cases viz. In the case of the Lord Cromwel who had Issue divers Daughters And the King did confer the Dignity upon Burchier who marryed the youngest Daughter and he was called Cromwel and so in other Cases Note by Linwood it appears by the Canons Ecclesiastick none may exercise Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction unless he be within the Orders of the Church because none may pronounce Excommunication but a Spiritual Person But now by the 37 H. 8. c. 17. a Doctor of Law or Register though a Lay-man may execute Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction No Ecclesiastical may cite a Church-Warden to the Court but so as he may return home the same day Also the Canons limit how many Courts Ex Officio they may have in a year Mich. 11 Jac. Regis Note If a man give to one of his Children a certain sum in his life and after dyes though this is not given as a Child 's full Portion yet it
Law of what nature soever Therefore when one Captain Lee made suit to the King to have an Office to inventory the Goods of those that dyed Testate or Intestate It was Resolved by my Lord Chancellor and my Self That such Grant shall be utterly void being both against the Common-Law and the Statute 21 H. 8. In like manner when another sued to have the Registring of Birth-dayes and the time of death c. So Mich. 19 Jac. To make a New Office in the Kings-Bench onely for making Lattitats was resolved void So Littletons Suit to name an Officer to be a Gen. Reg. c. But the Suit was rejected notwithstanding the fair Pretences of it by the two Chief Justices and others See Hill 12 Jac. Regis 2. Secondly It was Resolved That it was inconvenient for divers Causes 1. For a private man to have private ends 2. The numbring of Strangers by a private man would inâ—er a Terrour and other Kings and Princes will take offence at it 3. It is to be considered what breach it will be to former Treaties 3. As to the third It may be performed without any Inconvenience and so it was divided by the Lord Burleigh and other Lords of the Councel 37 Eliz. To write Letters to the Mayors Bayliffs c. of every City Borough c. where any strangers are resident to certifie how many and of what quality c. which they are to know in respect of their Inhabitants c. and this may be done without any Writing which being shewn to the Lords was by them well approved and the Suits utterly disallowed Decemb. 3. Anno 3 H. 8. Commission was granted to divers to certifie the number of Strangers Artificers c. within London and Suburbs according to the Statutes See Candish Case 29 Eliz. 13 Eliz. A Grant of an Office to Thomas Knivâ—t to examine his Majesties Auditors and Clerks of the Pipe c. Resolved by the Court to be against Law for it belongs to the Barons who are Judges 25 Eliz. A Grant of an Office to Thomas Lichfield to examine all Deceits c. of the Queens Officers for 8 years Resolved to be void Sub-poena's in Chancery belonged antiently to the Six Clerks Queen Elizabeth granted the same to a particular man Affidavits Filing and keeping belonged to the Register King James granted them to a particular man So the erecting and putting down Innes did belong to the Justice of Peace the same King granted it to a particular man So likewise the taking of Depositions c. The Office of Alneger granted by the King to Simon Darlington and the Fees limited The Drawing Ingrossing and Writing all Licences and Pardons granted to Edward Bacon with former Fees and a Restraint to all others The Spa Office granted to Thomas George and others during life with the Fee of 2 s. and a restraint to others The Office of making and Registring all manner of Assurances and Policies c. granted to Richard Gandler Gent. with such Fees as the Lord Mayor and others should rate and a Restraint to others c. The Office of writing Tallies and Counter-Tallies granted to Sir Vincent Skinner The Office of ingrossing Patents to the Great Seal with encrease of Fees granted to Sir Richard Young and Mr. Pye Sed de hoc quaere Sir Stephen Proctor's Case In an Information in the Star-Chamber against Stephen Proctor Berkenhead and others for Scandall and Conspiracy against the Earl of Northampton and the Lord Wooton At the Hearing of the Case were present eight Lords viz. the Chief Baron the two Chief Justices two Bishops one Baron Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord Chancellor And the three Chief Justices and the Temporal Baron condemned Sir Stephen Proctor and fined and imprisoned him But the Lord Chancellor the two Bishops and the Chancellor of the Exchequer acquiâ—ted him And the Question was if Sir Stephen Proctor shall be condemned or acquitted And the matter was referred to the two Chief Justices calling to their assistance the Kings Learned Councel And first they Resolved That this Question must be determined by the Presidents of the Court of Star-Chamber that Court being against the Rule and Order of all Courts For in all other Courts if the Justices are equally divided no Judgment can be given So also is it in the Parliament and therefore this course must be warranted by the Custom of the Court. And as to that two Presidents onely were produced viz. One in Hillary Term 39 Eliz. Gibson Plaintiff and Griffith and others Defendants for a Ryot where at Hearing 8 being present 4 gave Judgment that the Defendants were guilty and 4 â— contra and no Sentence of Condemnation was ever entred because the Lord Chancellor was one of the 4 that acquitted them The other was in Hillary 45 Eliz. in an Information against Katherine and others for Forging a Will c. where 4 finding the Defendants guilty of Forgery and 4 onely of Misdemeanour whereof the Lord Chancellor was one Sentence was entred according to the Chancellors Voyce and no other President could be found in this Case as I reported this Term. Concerning Benevolence Note The Exaction under the good Name of Benevolence began thus When King Edw. the 4th had a Subsidy granted him by Parl. in the 12th year of his Reign because he could have no more by Parl and with a Parl. he could not have a Subsidy he invented this Devise wherein observe 3 Things 1. The Cause 2. The Invention 3. The Success 1. The Duke of Burgundy who marryed Edw. the 4th Sister sollicited the King to joyn in War with him against the French King whereto he easily consented to be revenged of him for aiding the Earl of Warwick c. And this was the cause 2. The Invention was The King called before him several times many of his wealthiest Subjects to declare to them his Necessity and Purpose to levy War and demanded of each of them a Sum of Money which by the King 's extraordinary courtesie to them they very freely yielded to Amongst the rest there was a Rich Widow of whom the King merily asked what she would give him for maintenance of his Wars By my Faith quoth she for your lovely Countenance sake you shall have 20 l. which being more than the King expected he thanked her and vouchsafed to kiss her Upon which she presently swore he should have 20 l. more 3. The Success was That where the King called this a Benevolence yet many of the People did much grudge at it and called it a Malevolince Primo Ed. 5. The Duke of Buckingham in Guild-Hall London among other Things inveighed in his Speech against this Taxation and 1 R. 3. c. 2 a Statute is made against it 6 H. 7. The King declaring in Parl that he had just cause of War against the French King desired a Benevolence according to the Example of Edw. 4. and publish'd That he would by their open Hands measure their
the Law behead his Wives for Treason for judicandum est legibus non exemplis Tâ—iâ— 9 Jacob. Regis In this Term I moved the Justices in Sergeants Inne in Fleetstreet upon the Stat. 27 Jac. cap. 6. If the Justices of Peace may make a special Warrant to Constables c. to have the bodies of parties who are to take the Oath according to the Statute before them And it was Resolved by all unâ voce that they may and that for two Reasons 1. When the Statute gave power to Justices of the Peace to require any persons c. to take the Oath the Law implicite gave power to make a Warrant to have the body for Quando lex aliquid alicui concedit conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest 2. It is against the Offices of the Justices and the Authority given them by that Statute that they shall go and seek the parties Then I moved if in such case the Constables may break the Houses of the Parties named in their Warrants and it seemed to Us all that they cannot because they are not Offenders till they refuse to take the Oath before them or commit some Contempt to the King Note If the person be fugitive in another County he evades the Statute for the present but he may be indicted for Recusancy and the Indictment be removed into the Kings-Bench and they may make Process against them into any County of England Also if they are in their Houses the Door being shut c. they may be indicted before the Justices of Assize or Quarter-Sâ—ssions and then after a Venire Facias c. by force of a Capias their Houses may be broken by the Sheriff 10 Eliz. cap. 2. to which the 23 Eliz. refers Memorandum Hill 9 Jac. All the Justices of England by the Kings Command were assembled to consider of these two Statutes And in the beginning of this Term they were recited and debated and after good consideration and Conference together It was Resolved by all That if one be indicted for Recusancy the Court may proceed by Process upon the Stat. 23 Eliz. or by Proclamation according to 28 Eliz. And that the Process upon the Indictment and Venire Facias and Capias c. and upon the Capias the Sheriff upon Request made to open the Door as in Seymans Case and when by the Sheriff brought into Court he may upon refusal of taking his Oath be generally indicted c. But the Justices upon the second day of Conference did not speak to the other Point And this Resolution being reported to the Lords of the Councel aâ— Whitehall all the Judges being present 7 Feb. Hill 9 Jacob. Regis We were desired to put our Resolution into Writing I answered The Judges never used so to do But if the Attorney or Sollicitor came to us we will deliver our Opinions to them ore tenus but not in Writing At thâ— third day upon the Conference in this Term it seemed upon the Statute 3 Jac. If Justices of Peace upon Refusal before them commit any person to Gaol with Bayâ— and mention in their Warrant the Tender and Refusal then the Oath ought to be tendred again But if the Mittimus do not comprehend the Tender and Refusal then they may be generally indicted as upon Refusal in â—pon Court And it was Resolved That the major number of Justices of Peace who commit the Parties have Election to commit to the next Assizes or the next Sâ—ssions And observe that two Justices whereof one of the Quorum by the Stat. 7 Jac. may commit any person above the Age of 18. and under the Degree of Nobility altâ—ough he be not indicted or convict And it was Resolved by all That if the Indictment be commenced upon the Stat. 3 Jac. upon Refusal in open Court then the Indictment may be short and general c. Not so if the Indictment be upon the Commitment made by two Justices of the Peace This is good of any person whatsoever Mich. 10 Jac. Regis The Earl of Northampton's Case 1. The Attorney-General informed against Thomas Goodrick Gent. Sir Richard Cox Kt. Henry Vernon Gent. Henry Minors Thomas Lake Gent. and James Ingrum Merchant ore tâ—nus in the Star-Chamber and charged Goodrick that he had spoken and published of the E. of Northampton a Peer of the Realm c. divers false and horrible Scandals scil That more Jesuits Papists c. have come into England since the Earl of Northampton was Guardian of the Cinque-Ports then before 2. That the said Earl had writ a Book openly against Garnet c. but secretly had writ a Letter to Bellarmine intimating that he writ the said Book ad placandum regem sive ad faciendum populum and requested that his Book â—ight not be answered and that the Archbishop of Canterbury had told it the King and that the said Goodrick told it to one Deusbery who acquainted the Earl with it Goodrick being examined vouches Sir Richard Cox for Author Sir Richard Cox vouched the said Vernon Vernon cited Lake Lake that he heard it from Sergeant Nichols Nichols said one Speaket related it to him and that he heard it from James Ingrum and James Ingrum said that in October he heard the said words of two English Fugitives at Ligorn but never published them till the Earl of Salisbury's death in May last And all the Defendants confâ—ssed at Bar all that they were charged with and at the Hearing of this Case were 11 Judges Fleming being absenâ— propter aegritudinem And so it was Resolved That the publishing of false Rumours concerning the King or the Peers was in some Cases punishable by the Common-Law But of this were divers Opinions 1. And first as to Rumors themselves 1. They ought to be fase and horrible 2. Such of which Discord may arise betwixt the King and his People c. West 2. c. 24. 2 R. 2. cap. 53. 3. The Subversion and Destruction of the Realm ibidem 2. As to Persons they declared to be Prelates Dukes Earls Barons c. Justice of the one Bench or other or any great Officers c. 2 R. 2. c. 5. And the King is contained within West 1. c. 34. as appears in Dyer 5 Mary 155. 3. As to the third Point it was Resolved That if one hear such false and horrible Rumors it is not lawful to relate them to others And this appears by the Stat. viz. That the Party shall be imprisoned until he find out the party who spoke them Which proves it was an Offence else he should not be punish'd by Fine and Imprisonment It was also Resolved That the Offenders at the Bar if against them the Proceedings had been by Indictment upon these Statutes no Judgment could be had against them that they should be imprisoned till they found their Author for Goodrick did not relate to Deusbery that he heard from Sir Richard Cox but he related the same as of himself
all his Right Estate c. The Plaintiff surjoyneth and saith that the said sum of 5 l. 6 s. 8 d. c. was not rationabilis finis as the said Thomas Bradley above hath alleadged c. Upon which the Defendant doth demur in Law c. And in this Case these Points were Resolved by Coke Chief Justice Walmesly Warberton Daniel and Foster Justices 1. If the Fine had been reasonable yet the Lords ought to have set a certain time and place when the same should be paid because it stands â—â—on the point of Forfeiture As if a man assures Lands to one and his Heirs upon condition to pay to the Bargainee and his Heirs 10 l. at such a place or that he and his heirs shall re-enter there because no time is limited the Bargainor ought to give notice to the Bargainee c. when he will tender the money and he cannot tender it when he pleaseth and with this agrees 19 Eliz. Dyer 244. So in the Case at the Bar the Copyholder is not bound to carry his Fine alwayes with him c. And though that the Rejoynder is that the Plaintift refused to pay the Fine so he might well do when the Request is not lawful or reasonable And he that is to pay a great Fine as 100 l. or more it is not reasonable that he carry it always with him And the Copyholder was not bound to do it because the Fine was incertain and arbitrable as was Resolved in Hulbarts Case in the 4th Part of my Reports among the Copy-hold Cases 2. It was Resolved That though the Fine be uncertain and arbitrable yet it ought to be secundum arbitrium boni viri and it ought to be reasonable because Excessus in re qualibet jure reprobatur communi for the Common-Law forbids any excessive Distress as appears 41 Ed. 3. 26. And this doth appear to be the Common-Law for the Statute of Articuli super Chartas extends onely for a grievous Distress taken for the Kings Debt See F. N. B. 147. a. and 27 Ass 51. 28 Ass 50. 11 H. 4. 2. and 8 H. 4. 16. c. And so if an excessive Amerciament be imposed in any Couâ—t-Baron or other Court not of Record the Party shall have Moderata mis ericordia And Magna Charta is but an Affirmance of the Common-Law in this Point See F. N. B. 75. And the Common-Law gives an Assize of Sovient Distress and multiplication of Distress found which is Excess And with this agrees 27 Ass 50 51. F. N. B. 178 b. And if Tenant in Dower hath Tenants at Will that are rich and makes them poor by excessive Tallages and Fines this is wast F. N. B. 61. b. 16 H. 3. Wast 135. and 16 H. 7. Vide also the Register Judicial fol. 25. B. Waste lyeth in Exulando Henricum Hermanum c. Villeynes Quorum quilibet tenet unum messuagium unam Virgat terrae in Villenagio in Villa praed c. By all which it appears the Common-Law forbids excessive oppressing of Villains c. So in the Case at Bar though the Fine is uncertain yet it ought to be reasonable and so it appears by the Custome alleadged by the Defendant See Hubbard's Case before in the 4th Part of my Reports And when reasonableness concerning a Fine is in question the same shall be determined by the Court in which the Action depend 21 H. 6. 30. 22 Ed. 4 27. and 50 29 H. 8. 32. c. 3. It was Resolved That the Fine in the Case at the Bar was unreasonable being for the admittance of a Copy-holder in Fee-simple upon a Surrender made for this is not like a voluntary Grant c. for there Arbitrio Domini res estimari debet But when the Lord is compellable to admit him to whose use the Surrender is And when Câ—stuy que use is admitted he shall be in by him who made the Surrender and the Lord is but an Instrument to present the same 4. It was Resolved That the Surjoinder is no more than what the Law saith And for the Causes aforesaid Judgment was given for the Plaintiff And Coke Chief Justice said in this Case That if the Court of Admiralty amerce the Defendant excessively at discretion as seems by 19 H. 6. 7. the same shall not bind the Party and be it excessive or not it shall be determined in the Court where the Action shall be brought And a Writ of Account against a Bayliff or Guardian Quod reddat â—i rationabilem compâ—tum c. for the Law requires Reason and no excuse or extremity in any thing Mich. 6 Jac. Regis in the Common-Pleas Porter and Rochester's Case This Term Lewis and Rochester who dwelt in Essex in the Diocess of London were sued for subtraction of Tythes growing in B. in the said County of Essex by Porter in the Court of the Arches of the B. of Canterbury in London And the Case was The Archbishop of Canterbury â—ath a peculiar Jurisdiction of 14 Parishes called a Deanry exempt from the Authority of the Bishop of London whereof the Parish of St. Mary de Arcubus is the chief And the Court is called the Arches because it is holden there And a great Question was moved If in the said Court of Arches holden in London he might cite any dwelling in Essex for substraction of Tythes growing in Essex or if he be prohibited by the Statute 23 H. 8. cap. 9. which after Debate at Bar by Councel and also by Dr. Ferrard Dr. James and others in open Court and lastly by all the Justices of the Common-Pleas A Prohibition was granted to the Court of Arches And in this Case divers Points were Resolved by the Court. 1. That â—â—l Acts of Parliament made by the King Lords and Commons in Parliament are parcel of the Laws of England and therefore shall be expounded by the Judges of the Laws of England and not by the Civillians Cannonist although the Acts concern Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction And in 10 H. 7. the Bishop of London caused onâ— to be imprisoned because the Plaintiff said he ought not to pay his Tythes to his Curate And the imprisoned Party brought his Action of false Imprisonment against those that arrested him by the Bishops Command and there the Matter is well argued what words are within the Statute and what words are not So upon the same Statute was Resolved in 5 Ed. 4. in Keysar's Case in the Kings Bench which see in my Book of Presidents And so the Statutes of Articuli Cleri de Prohibitione regiâ De Circuâ— spâ—cte agitis of 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. c. have alwayes been expounded by the Judges of the Common-Law as was adjudged in Wood's Case Pasch 29 Eliz. So 21 H. 8. cap. 13. See 7 Eliz. Dyâ—r 233. 15 Eliz. Dyer 251. 14 Eliz. Dyer 312. 15 Eliz. Dyâ—r 327. 18 Eliz. Dyer 352 347. 22 Eliz. Dyer 377. 2. Resolved by Coke Chief Justice Warbâ—â—ton Daniel and
Ayd Hill 6 Jacob. Regis Prohibitions Upon Ashwednesday in Feb. 1606. A great Complaint was made by the President of York to the King That the Judges of the Common-Law had in Contempt of the Kings Command last Term granted 50 or 60 Prohibitions out of the Common-Plâ—as to the President and Councel of York after the 6th of February and named 3 in particular 1. Between Bell and Thawptes 2. Another between Snell and Huâ—t 3. And another in an Information of a Riotous Rescue by English Bill by the Attorney-General against Christopher Dickenson one of the Sheriffs of York and others in rescuing one William Watson out of the Custody of the Deputy of one of the Purseyvants of the said Councel who had Arrested the said Watson by force of a Commission of Rebellion by the said President and Councel awarded Which Prohibition upon the Information was as was said denyed upon a Motion in the Kings-Bench the last Term but granted by Us. And the King sent for me to answer the Complaint and I onely all the rest of the Justices being absent waited upon the King who in the presence of Egerton Lord Chancellor and others of the Privy-Councel rehearsed to me the Complaint aforesaid And I perceived well that the King had thereupon conceived great displeasure against the Judges of the Common-Pleas but chiefly against Me To which I having the Copy of the Complaint sent me by the Lord Treasurer answered in this manner That I had made search in the Office of Prothonotaries of the Common-Pleas and as to the Cases between Bell and Thawpts and Snell and Huet no such could be found but I would not take advantage of a Misprisal And the truth was the 6th of February the Court of Common-Pleas had granted a Prohibition to the President and Councel of York between Lock Plaintiff and Bell and others Defendants and that was a Replevin in English was granted by the said President and Councel which I affirmed was utterly against Law for at Common-Law no Replevin ought to be made but by Original Writ directed to the Sheriff and the Statute of Marlbridge cap. 21. and West 1. cap. 17. authorize the Sheriff to make a Replevin So 29 Ed. 3. 21. 8 Eliz. Dyer 245. And the King by his Instructions neither had made the President and Councel Sheriffs nor could grant them Power to make a Replevin against Law which the Lord Chancellor affirmed for very good Law and it may well be we have granted others in the like Case Another Prohibition I confess we have granted between Sir Bethel Knight now Sheriff of the County of York as Executor to one Stephenson who made him and another his Executors and preferred an English Bill against Chambers and others in nature of an Action of the Case upon a Trover and Conversion of Goods and Chattels in the Testators Life to the value of 1000 l. And because the other Executor would not joyn with him he had no remedy at Common-Law but was forced to pray remedy there in Equity And I say the President and Councel have not any Authority to proceed in that Case for divers causes 1. Because there is an express Limitation in their Commission that they shall not hold Plea between Party and Party c. unless both or one of the Parties tanta paupertate sunt gravati that they cannot sue at Common-Law and in that Case the Plaintiff was a Knight Sheriff and man of great quality 2. Because by that Suit the King was deceived of his Fine which was 200 l. because the Damages amounted to 4000 l. And that was one of the Causes that the Sheriff began his Suit there and not at Common-Law Another Cause was that their Decrees which they take upon them are final and uncontroulable either by Errour or any other Remedy which is not so in the Kings Courts where there are five Judges for they can deny Justice to none who hath Right nor give any Judgment but what is controulable by Errouâ— c. And if we shall not grant Prohibitions in Cases where they hold Plea without Authority then the Subjects shall be wrongfully oppressed without Law and we denyed to do them Justice And their Ignorance in the Law appeared by allowing that Suit viz. That the one Executor had no Remedy at Common Law because the other would not joyn in Suit with him whereas every one Learnâ—d in the Law knows that Summons and Severance lyeth in any Suit brought as Executors And this was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor Another Prohibition I confess we granted between the L. Wharton who by English Bill before the Councel sued Bank S. Buttermere and others for fishing in his several Fishings in Darwent in the County of C. in nature of an Action of Trespass at Common-Law to his Damages of 200 l. and for the Causes before recited and because the same was meerly determinable at Common-Law we granted a Prohibition And that also was allowed by the Lord Chancellor Then the King asked me the Case of Information upon the Riotous Rescous To which I answered That one exhibited a Bill there in the nature of an Action of Debt upon a Mutuatus against Watson who upon his Oath affirmed that he had satisfied the Plaintiff and owed him nothing yet because he did not deny the Debt the Councel Decreed the same against him And upon that Decree the Pursuyvant was sent to Arrest the said Watson who Arrested him upon which the Rescous was made And because the Action was in the nature of an Action of Dâ—bâ— upon a Mutuatus where the Defendant at Common Law might have waged his Law the Prohibition was granted and that was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor Also I affirmed it was Rescous because the principal cause belonged not to them but it might be a Riot yet not punishable by them but by course of Law by a Commission of Oyer and Terminer Also I confess that we have granted divers Prohibitions to stay Suits there by English Bill upon penal Statutes for the manner of prosecution as well for the Action Process c. as for the Count is to be pursued and cannot be altered and therefore without question the Councel in such Cases cannot hold Plea which was affirmed also by the Lord Chancellor And I said no Court of Equity can be Erected at this day without Act of Parl as was Resolved in Q. Eliz. time in Parots Case and lately in the Case of the President and Councel of Wales And the King was well satisfied with these Reasons who gave me his Royal Hand and I departed from thence in his favour Pasch 7 Jac. Regis This Term a Question was moved at Sergeants Inne who by the Common-Law ought to repair the Bridges common Rivers and Sewers and the High-ways and by what means they shall be compelled to it and first of Bridges And as to them it is to be known that of common right all the Country shall be
c. Mills c. and to correct repair or pull down c. as cause requireth according to their discretions c. after the effect of the Statute made before the 1. of March 23 H. 8. By which appears that the Commissioners discretion was limited viz. to proceed according to the Statutes and Ordinances before made c. And the said Act provides That all and every Statute Act and Ordinance heretofore made concerning the Premises not contrary to this Act nor repealed shall stand good and be effectual for ever But the said Acts 25 Ed. 3. and 1 H. 4. are not contrary to the said Act nor repealed and always such construction ought to be made that one part of the Act may agree with another And according to this Resolution We certified the Lords of the Councel that the said Star 25 E. 3. 1 H. 4. remained yet in force and that the Authority given by the Commission of Sewers did not extend to Mills Mill-stanks Cawseys c. erected before Ed. 1. unless they have been inhanced and then they are not to be subverted but reformed by abating the Inhancement onely Trin. 7 Jacobi Regis The Case de modo Deciâ— andi and of Prohibitions Richard Archbishop of Canterbury with the Bishops of London Bath and Wells and Rochester divers Doctors of the Civil and Canon-Law as Dr. Dun Judge of the Arches Dr. Rennet Judge of the Prerogative Dr. James Dr. Martin and others came and attended the King at White-Hall the Thursday Friday and Saturday after Easter Term in the Councel-Chamber where the Chief Justice and I my self Daniel Judge of the Common-Pleas and Williams Judge of the Kings-Bench by the King's Command attended also where the King assisted with his Privy-Councel all sitting at the Councel-Table spake as a most Gracious Soveraign to this effect As He would not suffer any Novelties or Innovations in his Courts of Justice Ecclesiastical and Temporal so he would not have any the Laws which had Judicial Allowances in the Times of his Predecessors Kings of England to be forgotten And forasmuch as Contentions between the Temporal and Ecclesiastical Courts cannot but breed great Inconvenience to the Subjects especially when the Controversie ariseth upon the Jurisdiction of his Ordinary Courts of Justice And because he was the Head of Justice immediately under God and knowing what hurt may grow to his Subjects when the Jurisdiction of his Courts are drawn in question He thought it concerned him as a King to hear the Controversies between the Bishops and Clergy and the Judges of his Laws of England and to take Order that the one do not encroach upon the other And He said The onely Question then to be disputed was If a Parson or Vicar of a Parish sues one of his Parish in the Spiritual Court for Tythes in Kind or Layfee and the Defendant alleadgeth a Custom or Prescription de modo Decimandi if that Custom or Prescription shall be tryed and determined before the the Judge Ecclesiastical where the Suit is begun or a Prohibition lyeth to try the same by the Common-Law And the King directed that We who were Judges should declare the Reasons of our Proceedings and what Authorities in the Law we had to warrant our Proceedings in granting Prohibitions in Cases de modo Decimandi But the Archbishop of Canterbury kneeled before the King and desired he would hear him and others provided to speak in the Case for the good of the Church of England And the Archbishop inveighed chiefly against two things 1. That a Modus Decimandi should be tryed by a Jury because they themselves claim more or less modum Decimandi so as in effect they were Tryers in their own Cause or in the like Cases 2. He inveighed much the precipitate and hasty Tryals by Juries and after him Dr. Bennet made a large Invection against Prohibitions in causis Ecclesiasticis and he made five Reasons why they should try modum Decimandi 1. The first and principal was out of the Register fol. 58. quia non est consonans rationi quod cognitio accessarii in Curiae Christianitatis impâ—diatur ubi cognitio causae principalis ad forem Ecclesiasticum noscitur peâ—tinere And the principal cause is Right of Tythes and the Plea of Modus Decimandi sounds in satisfaction of Tythes and therefore the Conuzance of the Original Cause viz. the Right of Tythes belonging to them the Conuzance of the Bar of Tythes belonged to them And whereas it is said in the second Part of my Reports in the Bishop of Winchesters Case and 8 Ed. 4. 14. that they would not accept of any Plea in discharge of Tythes in the Spirituall Court he said they would allow such Pleas and had allowed them being duly proved before them 2. There was great inconveniency that Lay-men should be Tryers of their own Customs for they shall be Jurors in their own Cause 3. That the Custom of Modo Decimandi is of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for it is a manner of Tything and all manner of Tything belongs to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and therefore he said if the Right of Tythes be of Ecclesiastical Conuzance and the Satisfaction also for them of the same Jurisdiction the same shall be tryed in the Ecclesiastical Court 4. In the Prohibitions of Modus Decimandi Averment is taken that though the Plaintiff in the Prohibition offer to prove Modum Decimandi the Ecclesiastical Court doth refuse to allow it but he said they would allow such Plea and therefore Cessante causa cessabit et effectus and no Prohibition shall lye 5. He said he can shew many Consultations granted in the Cause de modo Decimandi and a Consultation is of greater force then a Prohibition And Bacon Sollicitor General being as is said assigned with the Clergy by the King said less then Dr. Bennâ—t but he vouched 1 R. 3. 4. the Opinion of Hussey when the Originall ought to begin in the Spiritual Court and afterwards a thing cometh in Issue and is Tryable by our Law yet it shall be tryed by their Law See the Register 57 58. 38 Ed. 3 5. and 38 Ed. 3. 6. And the Judges made humble Suit to the King That in regard they perceived his Majesty in his Princely Wisdom derested Novelties and Innovations that He vouchsafe to suffer them to inform him of one Innovation which they did conceive would tend to hinder the Administration of Justice within his Realm Your Majesty for the due Administration of Justice hath made 14 Judges to whom you have committed not onely the Administration of ordinary Justice but crimina Laesae Majestatis Also in Parliament we are called by Writ to give our Advice and Councel to your Majesty and the Lords when we are required We two Chief Justices sit in the Star-Chamber Chancery Court of Wards and other High-Courts of Justice We in our Circuits do visit twice in the Year your Realm and execute Justice according to your Laws and if We
Service Tenant Richard Hulme dyed after whose death 31 H. 8. it was found that he dyed seized of the said Mesnalty and that the same descended to Edward his Son and Heir within Age and found the Tenure aforesaid c. And during nonagâ— Robert Male dyed seized of the said Tenancy peravail and that the same descended to Richard his Son and Meir as was found by Office 25 H. 2. within age and that the said Tenancy was holden of the King as of his said Dutchy by Knights Service whereas in truth the same was holden of Edward Hulme then in Ward of the King as of his Mesnalty for which the King seized the Ward of the Heir of the Tenant And afterwards Anno quarto Jacobi Rogis nunc after the death of Richard Male the lineal Heir of Robert Male by another Office it was found that Richard dyed seized of the Tenancy and held the same of the King as of his Dutchy c. his Heir within age Whereupon Richard Hulme Cozen and Heir of the said Richard Hulme preferred a Bill to be admitted to traverse the Office found 4 Jac. Regis And the Question was Whether the Office found 35 H. 8. be any Estoppel to the said Hulme or if that the said Hulme should be first driven to Traverse that And it was objected That he ought first to traverse the Office of 35 H. 8. as in the Case 26 E. 65. And that the first Office shall stand as long as the same remaines in force To which it was Answered and Resolved by the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron and Court of Wards That the finding of an Office is not any Estoppel for that is but an Inquest of Office and the party grieved shall have a Traverse to it But when an Office is found falsly that Land is holden of the King by Knights Service in capite or of the King himself in Socage if the Heir fueâ—h a general Livery it is holden 46 Ed. 3. 12. by Mowbray and Persey that he shall not after adde that the Land is not holden of the King But that is not any Estoppel to the Heir himself and shall not conclude his Heir for so saith Mowbray himself expresly 44 Ass pl. 35. See 1 H. 4. 6. b. So 33 H. 6. 7. And there is no Book that saith that the Estoppel shall endure longer than his life but that is to be intended of a general Livery but a special Livery shall not conclude one And if a Jury find falsly in a Tenure of the King the Lord of whom the Land is holden may traverse that Office Or if Land be holden of the King in Socage c. the Heir may traverse the last Office for by that he is grieved and he shall not be driven to traverse the first Office And when the Father sues Livery and dyes the Conclusion is executed and past as is aforesaid And note there is a special Livery but that proceeds of the King's Grace and is not the Suit of the Heir and the King may grant it either at full age before aetate probanda or to the Heir within age as appears 21 E. 3. 40. And then is general and shall not comprehend any Tenure as the several Livery doth and therefore it is not any Estoppel without question See the 33 H. 8. cap. 22. 23 Eliz. Dyer 177. It was also Resolved in this Case that the Office of 35 H. 8. was not traversable for his own Traverse shall prove that the King had cause to have Wardship by reason of Ward And when the King comes to the Possession by a false Office or otherwise if it appears the King have any other Right to have the Land there none shall traverse the Office or Title of the King because the Judgment in the Traverse is Ideo consideratum est quod manus Domini Râ—gis amoveantur c. See 4 H. 4. fol. 33. in the Earl of Kents Case c. Mich. 7 Jacobi Regis Note The Priviledge Order or Custom of Parliament either of the Upper-House or House of Commons belongs to the Determination of the Court of Parliament and this appeareth by two notable Presidents 1. The one at the Parliament holden in the 27 H. 6. There was a Controversie moved in the Upper-House between the Earles of Aâ—undel and Devonshire for their Seats Places and Pre-eminences of the same to be had in the King's Presence as well in Parliament as in Councels and elsewhere The King by the Advice of Lords Spiritual and Temporal committed the same to certain Lords of Parliament who not having leisure to examine the same by the said Lords Advice referred it to the Judges of the Land to hear see and examine the Title c. and to report what they conceive herein The Judges reported as followeth That this matter viz. of Honour and Pre-eminency between the two Earles Lords of Parliament was a matter of Parliament and belonged to the King and his Lords in Parliament to be decided Yet being so commanded they shewed what they found upon Examination and their Opinions thereon Another Parliament 31 H. 6. 6th of March begun and after some continuance was prorogued to the 14 of February and afterwards in Michaelmas Term the same 31 H. 6. Thomas Thorpe Speaker of the Commons House was condemned in the Exchequer in 1000 l. Damages at the Duke of Buckingham's Suit for a Trespass done to him The 14th of Feb. the Commons mâ—ved in the Upper-House that their Speaker might be set at liberty to exercise his Place c. The Lords refer it to the Judges and Fortâ—scue and Prisoit the two Chief Justices in the Name of all the Judges answer'd That they ought not to consider this Question c. but it belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament and not to the Justices But as to their Proceedings in the Lower-Courts in such Cases they deliver'd their Opinions See 12 E. 4. 2. Hill 7 Jac. Regis In Cam. Stâ—ll Heyward and Sir John Whitbrook's Case In the Case between Hyward and Sir John Whitbrook in the Star-Chamber the Defendant was convicted of divers Misdemeanours and Fine and Imprisonment imposed on him and Damages to the Plaintiff And it was moved that a special Process might be made out of that Court to levy the said Damages upon the Lands and Goods of the said Defendant And it was referred to the two Chief Justices whether any such Process might be made who this Term moved the Case to the Chief Baron and the rest of the Judges and Barons and it was unanimously by them all Resolved That no such Process could or ought to be made neither for the Damages nor for the Costs given to the Plaintiff the Court having no such power but onely to keep the Defendant in Prison till he pay them For for a Fine due to the King they can make no Process to levy it but they estreat it into the Exchequer which hath power by Law to write forth Process