Trees and Clay c. which he had not but as things annexed to the Land and therefore he could not have them when he had departed with his whole interest nor he could not take them either for Reparations or otherwise But when Tenant for life Leaseth for years except the Timber Trees the same remaineth yet annexed to his Freehold and he may command the Lessee to take them for necessary Reparations of the Houses And in the said case of Saunders a Iudgment is cited between Foster and Miles Plaintiffs and Spencer and Bourd Defendants That where Lessee for years assigns over his term except the Trees that Waste in such case shal be brought against the Assignee but in this case without question Waste lieth against the Tenant for life and so there is a difference c. XXVIII Mich. Term 7 Jacobi Regis In the Court of Wards Hulmes Case THe King in the right of his Dutchy of Lancaster Lord Richard Hulm seised of the Mannor of Male in the County of Lancaster holden of the King as of his Dutchy by Knights service Mesne and Robert Male seised of Lands in Male holden of the Mesn as of his said Mannor by Knights service Tenant Richard Hulm dyed after whose death 31 Hen. the eight it was found that he dyed seised of the said Menalty and that the same descended to Edward his Son and Heir within age and found the Tenure aforesaid c. And during the time that he was within age Robert Male the Tenant dyed after which in anno 35 H. 8. it was found by Office That Robert Male dyed seised of the said Tenancy peravail and that the same descended to Richard his Son and Heir 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 Hulm then in Ward of the King as of his Menalty for which the King seised the Ward of the Heir of the Tenant And afterwards anno quarto Jacobi Regis that now is after the death of Richard Male who was lineal Heir of the said Robert Male by another Office it was found That the said Richard dyed seised of the said Tenancy and held the same of the King as of his Dutchy by Knights service his Heir within age whereupon Richard Hulm Cosin and Heir of the said Richard Hulm had preferred a Bill to be admitted to his Traverse of the said Office found in quarto Jacobi Regis And the Question was Whether the Office found in 35 H. 8. be any estoppel to the said Hulm to Traverse the said last Office or if that the said Hulm should be driven first to Traverse the Office of 35 H. 8. And it was objected That he ought first to Traverse the Office of 35 H. 8. as in the Case of 26 E. 3. 65. That if two Fines be levyed of Lands in ancient Demesn the Lord of whom the Land is holden ought to have a Writ of Deceit to reverse the first Fine and in that the second Fine shall not be a Bar And that the first Office shall stand as long as the same remains in force To which it was answered and resolved by the two Chief Iustices and the Chief Baron and the Court of Wards That the finding of an Office is not any estoppel for that is but an enquest of Office and the party grieved shall have a Traverse to it as it hath been confessed and therefore without question the same is no estoppel 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 sueth a general Livery now it is holden in 46 E. 3. 12. by Mowbray and Persey that he shall not after add that the Land is not holden of the King but that is not any estoppel to the Heir himself who sueth the Livery and shall not conclude his Heir for so saith Mowbray himself expresly in 44 Assis pl. 35. That an Estoppel by suing of Livery shall estop onely himself the Heir during his life And in 1 H. 4. 6. b. there the case is put of express confession and suing of Livery by the issue in tayl upon a false Office and there it is holden that the Iurors upon a new Diem clausit extremum after the death of such special Heir are at large according to their conscience to finde that the Land is not holden c. for they are sworn ad veritatem dicendum and their finding is called veredictum quasi dictum veritatis which reason also shall serve when the Heir in Fee-simple sueth Livery upon a false Office and the Iurors after his death ought to finde according to the truth So it is said 33 H. 6. 7. by Laicon that if two sisters be found Heirs whereof the one is a Bastard if they joyn in a Suit of Livery she which joyneth with the Bastard in the Livery shall not alledg Bastardy in the other but there is no Book that saith that the Estoppel shall endure longer then during his life and when Livery is sued by a special Heir the force and effect of the Livery is executed and determined by his death and by that the Estoppel is expired with the death of the Heir but that is to be intended of a general Livery but a special Livery shall not conclude one But as it is expressed the words of a general Livery are When the Heir is found of full age Rex Escheatori c. Scias quod cepimus homigium I. filii haeredis B. defuncti de omnibus terris tenementis quae idem B. Pater suus tenuit de nobis in capite die quo obiit ei terras tenement illa reddidimus ideo tibi praecipimus c. And when the Heir was in Ward at his full age the Writ of Livery shall say Rex c. Quia I. filius haeres B. defuncti qui de nobis tenuit in capite aetatem suam coram te sufficienter probavit c. Ceperimus homagium ipsius I. de omnibus terris tenementis quae idem B. Pater suus tenuit de nobis in capite die quo obiit ei terras tenement illa reddidimus ideo tibi praecipimus ut supra c. Which Writ is the Suit of the Heir and therefore although that all the words of the Writ are the words of the King as all the Writs of the King are and although that the Livery be general de omnibus terris tenementis de quibus B. pater I. tenuit de nobis in capite die quo obiit without direct affirmation that any Mannor in particular is holden in capite and notwithstanding that the same is not at the prosecution of the Kings Writ and no Iudgment upon it yet because the general Livery is founded upon the Office and by the Office it was found That divers Lands or
were meer Spirituall such a Defamation is not examinable before the high Commissioners As to the last Article It appeareth now by the Iudgment of this Court that he might well justifie the said words Also the high Commissioners shall not have Conusance of any Scandall to themselves for Judex non potest injuriam sibi datam punire Vi. the Stat. of 23 H. 8. c. 9. that they are parties and such Scandall is punishable by the Common Law as it was resolved in Hales Case which see in the Book of the Lord Dyers Reports and see in my Book of Presidents the Copy of the Indictment of Hales for scandaling of the Ecclesiasticall Commissioners Note the Bishop of Winchester being Visiter of the School of Winchester of the Foundation of Wickam Bishop of Winchester and the Bishop and Cant. and other his Colleagues An. 5 Car. cited the Vsher of the said School by force of the said Commission to appear before them and proceed there against him for which they incurred the danger of a Premunire And so did the Bishop of Canterbury and his Colleagues by force of a high Commission to them directed cite one Humphrey Frank Master of Arts and Schoolmaster of the School of Sevenock of the Foundation of Sir William Sevenock in the time of King Henry the sixth to appear before the high Commissioners at Lambeth the sixth day of December last past which citation was subscribed by Sir John Bennet Doctor of Law Doctor James and Doctor Hickman three of the high Commissioners and Sir Christopher Perkins procured the said Citation to be made and when the said Frank appeared the Archbishop being associated with Sir Christopher Perkins and Doctor Abbot Dean of Winchester made an Order concerning the said School scil That the said Frank shall continue in the said School untill the Annunciation and that he should have twenty pounds paid to him by Sir Ralph Bosoile Knight IV. Mich. 6 Jacobi Regis Taylor and Shoiles Case TAylor informed upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 4. Tam pro Domino Reg. quam pro seipso in the Exchequer That the Defendant had exercised the Art and Mystery of a Brewer c. and averreâ— that Shoile the Defendant did not use or exercise the Art or Mystery of a Brewer at the time of the making of the Act nor had been Apprentice by seven years at least according to the said Act c. The Defendant did demur in Law upon the Information and Iudgment was given against him by the Barons of the Exchequer And now in this Terme upon a Writ of Error the matter was argued at Serjeants-Inne before the two chief Iustices and two matters were moved The One That a Brewer is not within the said Branch of the said Act For the words are That it shall not be lawfull to any person or persons other then such as now lawfully use or exercise any Art Mystery or manuall Occupation to set up use or exercise any Art Mystery or manuall Occupation except he shall have been brought up therein seven years at the least as an Apprentice And it was said That the Trade of a Brewer is not any Art Mystery or manuall Occupation within the said Branch because the same is easily and presently learned and he needs not to have seven years Apprentiship to be instructed in the same for every Huswife in the Country can do the same and the Act of Henry the eighth is That a Brewer is not a Handycraft Artificer 2. It was moved That the said Averment was not sufficient for the Averment ought to be as generall as the exception in the Statute is scil That the Defendant did not use any Art Mystery or Occucupation at the time of the making of the same Act for by this pretence if any Art c. then as a Taylor Carpenter c. he may now exercise any other Art whatsoever As unto the first It was resolved That the Trade of a Brewer scil to hold a common Brewhouse to sell Beer or Ale to another is an Art and Mystery within the said Act for in the beginning of the Act It is enacted That no person shall be retained for lesse time then a whole year in any of the Services Crafts Mysteries or Arts of Cloathing c. Bakers Brewers c. Cooks c. So as by the judgment of the same Parliament The Trade of a Brewer is an Art and Mystery which words are in the said Branch upon which the said Information is grounded Also because that every Huswife brews for her private use so also she bakes and dresseth Meat And yet none can hold a common Bakehouse or a Cooks Shop to sell to others unlesse that he hath been an Apprentice c. for they are expresly named also in the Act as Arts and Mysteries And the Act of 22 H. 8. cap. 13. is explained That a Brewer Baker Surgeon and Scrivener Alien are not handycrafts mentioned within certain penall Lawes But the same doth not prove but that they are Arts or Mysterys for Art or Mystery is more generall then Handycrafts for the same is restrained to Manufactures As to the second Point It was resolved That the intention of the Act was That none should take upon him any Art but he who hath skill or knowledge in the same And therefore the Statute intendeth That he who useth any Art or Mystery at the time of the Act might use the same Art or Mystery for Quod quisque norit in hoc se exerceat And the words of the Act are As now do lawfully use c. And it was said That it was very necessary that Brewers should have knowledge and skill in brewing good and wholsome Beer and Ale for that the same doth greatly conduce to mens healths And so the first Iudgment was affirmed V. Mich. 6 Jacobi In the Common Pleas. The Case of Modus Decimandi SHerley Serjeant moved to have a Prohibition because that a person Tithes sued to have Tithes of Silva Cedua under twenty years growth in the Weild of Kent where by the Custome of it which is a great part of the County Tithes of any Wood was never paid And if such a Custome in non Decimando for all Lay people within the said Weild were lawfull or not was the question And to have a Prohibition it was said That although one particular man shall not prescribe in non decimando yet such a generall Custome within a great Country might well be as in 43 E. 3. 32. and 45 E. 3. Custome 15. It was presented in the Kings Bench That an Abbot had purchased Tenements after the Statute c. And the Abbot came and said That he was Lord of the Town c. And the custome of the Town was That when the Tenant cesseth for two years that the Lord might enter untill agreement be made for the Arrerages And that he who held these Tenements was his Tenant and cessed for two years and he entred and
shillings eight pence for the Admittance of a Copyholder in Fee-simple upon a Surrender made For this is not like to a voluntary Grant as when the Copyholder hath but an Estate for life and dieth Or if he hath an Estate in Fee-simple and committeth Felony there Arbitrio Dom. res estimari debet but when the Lord is compellable to admit him to whose use the Surrender is And when Cestui 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 And therefore in such Case the value of two years for such an Admittance is unreasonable especially when the value of the Cottage and one acre of Pasture is a Rack at fifty three shillings by the year 5. It was resolved That the Surjoynder is no more then what the Law saith For in this Case in the Iudgment of the Law the Fine is unreasonable and therefore the same is but ex abundanti and now the Court ought to judge upon the whole speciall matter And for the Causes aforesaid Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff And Coke chief Iustice said in this Case That where the usage of the Court of Admiralty is to amerce the Defendant for his default by his discretion as it appeareth in 19 H. 6. 7. That if the Amerciament be outrageous and excessive the same shall not bind the party and if it be excessive or not it shall be determined in the Court in which the Action shall be brought for the levying of it And the Writ of Account is against the Bayliff or Guardian Quod reddat ei rationabilem Computum de exitibus Manerii And the Law requireth a thing which is reasonable and no excesse or extremity in any thing II. Mich. 6 Jacobi in the Common Pleas. Porter and Rochesters Case THis Term Lewis and Rochester who dwelt in Essex within the The Statute of 23 H 8. of citing out of Dioces Dioces of London were sued for substraction of Tithes growing in B. within the County of Essex by Porter in the Court of the Arches of the Bishop of Canterbury in London And the Case was That the Archbishop of Canterbury hath a peculiar Iurisdiction of fourteen Parishes called a Deanry exempted from the Authority of the Bishop of London whereof the Parish of S. Mary de Arcubus is the Chief And the Court is called the Arches because the Court is holden there And a great question was moved If in the said Court of Arches holden in London within his Peculiar he might cite any dwelling in Essex for substraction of Tithes growing in Essex Or if he be prohibited by the Statute of the twenty third year of King Henry the eighth cap. 9. And after that the matter was well debated as well by Councell at the Bar as by Dr. Ferrard Dr. James and others in open Court and lastly by all the Iustices 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 all Acts of Parliament made by the King Lords and Commons of Parliament are parcell of the Laws of England and therefore shall be expounded by the Iudges of the Laws of England and not by the Civilians and Commonists although the Acts concern Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall Iurisdiction And therefore the Act of 2 H. 4. cap. 15. by which in effect it is enacted Quod nullus teneat doceat informet c. clam vel publice aliquam nefandam opinionem contrariam sidei Catholicae seu determinationi Ecclesiae sacro-sanctae nec de hujusmodi secta nephandis Doctrinis Conventiculas faciat And that in such Cases the Diocessan might arrest and imprison such Offender c. And in 10 H. 7. the Bishop of London commanded one to be imprisoned because that the Plaintiff said that he ought not to pay his Tithes to his Curat and the party so imprisoned brought an Action of False Imprisonment against those who arrested him by the commandment of the Bishop and there the matter is well argued What words are within the said Statute and what without the Statute So upon the same Statute it was resolved in 5 E. 4. in Keysars case in the Kings Bench which you may see in my Book of Presidents And so the Statutes of Articuli Cleri de Prohibitione regia De Circumspecte agatis of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. and all other Acts of Parliament concerning Spirituall Causes have alwaies been expounded by the Iudges of the Common Law as it was adjudged in Woods Case Pasch 29 Eliz. in my Notes fol. 22. So the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. hath been expounded by the Iudges of the Realm concerning Pluralities and the having of two Benefices Common Laws and Dispensations see 7 Eliz. Dyer 233. The Kings Courts shall adjudge of Dispensations and Commendams See also 17 Eliz. Dyer 251. 14 Eliz. Dyer 312. 15 Eliz. Dyer 327 18 Eliz. Dyer 352. and 347. 22 Eliz. Dyer 377. Construction of the Statute cap. 12. Smiths Case concerning Subscription which is a meer Spirituall thing Also it appeareth by 22 Eliz. Dyer 377. That for want of subscription the Church was alwaies void by the said Act of 23 Eliz. and yet the Civilians say that there ought to be a Sentence Declaratorie although that the Act maketh it void 2. It was resolved by Coke chief Iustice Warberton Daniel and Foster Iustices That the Archbishop of Canterbury is restrained by the Act of 23 H. 8. cap. 9. to cite any one out of his own Diocesse or his Peculiar Iurisdiction although that he holdeth his Court of Arches within London And first it was objected That the Title of the Act is An Act that no person shall be cited out of the Diocess where he or she dwelleth except in certain Cases And here the Archbishop doth not cite the said Party dwelling in Essex out of the Diocesse of London for he holdeth his Court of Arches within London 2. The Preamble of the Act is Where a great number of the Kings Subjects dwelling in divers Diocesses c. And here he doth not dwell in divers Diocesses 3. Far out of the Diocesse where such men c. dwell and here he doth not dwell far out c. 4. The body of the Act is No manner of person shall be cited before any Ordinance c. out of the Diocesse or peculiar Iurisdiction where the person shall be inhabiting c. And here he was not cited out of the Dioces of London To which it was answered and resolved That the same was prohibited by the said Act for divers Causes 1. As to all the said Objections One answer makes an end of them all For Diocesis dicitur distinctio vel divisio sive gubernatio quae divisa diversa est ab Ecclesia alterius Episcopatus Commissa Gubernatio in unius and is derived a Diâ— quod est duo electio id est
seperatio quia seperat duas Jurisdictiones So Dioces signifies the Iurisdiction of one Ordinary seperated and divided from others And because the Archbishop of Canterbury hath a peculiar Iurisdiction in London exempt out of the Dioces or Iurisdiction of the Ordinary or Bishop of London For that cause it is fitly said in the Title Peramble and body of the Act That when the Archbishop sitting in his exempt Peculiar in London cites one dwelling in Essex he cites him out of the Dioces or Iurisdiction of the Bishop of London ergo he is cited out of the Dioces And in the clause of the penalty of ten pounds It is said out of the Dioces or other Iurisdiction where the party dwelleth which agreeth with the signification of Dioces before And as to the words Far off c. they were put in the Preamble to shew the great mischief which was before the Act As the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 33. in the Preamble it is Disseisins with strength and the body of the Act saith such Disseisor yet the same extendeth to all Disseisors but Disseisin with force was the greatest mischief as it is holden in 4. and 5 Eliz. Dyer 219. So the Preamble of the Statute of West 2. cap. 5. is Heirs in Ward and the body of the Act is Hujusmodi praesentat as it is adjudged in 44 E. 3. 18. That an Infant who hath an Advowson by discent and is out of Ward shall be within the remedy of the said Act but the Frauds of the Guardians was the greater mischief So the Preamble of the Act of 21 H. 8. cap. 15. which gives falsifying of Recoveries recites in the Preamble That divers Lessees have paid divers great Incomes c. Be it enacted That all such Termors c. and yet the same extends to all Termors and yet all these Cases are stronger then the Case at Bar for there that word such in the body of the Act referreth the same to the Preamble which is not in our Case 2. The body of the Act is No manner of person shall be henceforth cited before any Ordinary c. out of the Dioces or peculiar Iurisdiction where the person shall be dwelling And if he shall not be cited out of the Peculiar before any Ordinary a Fortiori the Court of Arches which sits in a Peculiar shal not cite others out of another Dioces And these words Out of the Dioces are to be meant out of the Dioces or Iurisdiction of the Ordinary where he dwelleth but the exempt Peculiar of the Archbishop is out of the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of London as S. Martins and other places in London are not part of London although they are within the circumference of it 3. It is to be observed That the Preamble reciting of the great mischief recites expresly That the Subjects were called by compulsary proces to appear in the Arches Audience and other high Courts of the Archbishoprick of this Realm So as the intention of the said Act was to reduce the Archbishop to his proper Dioces or peculiar Iurisdiction unlesse it were in five Cases 1. For any Spirituall Offence or cause committed or omitted contrary to the right and duty by the Bishop c. which word omitted proves that there ought to be a default in the Ordinary 2. Except it be in case of Appeal and other lawfull cause wherein the party shall find himselfe greived by the Ordinary after the matter or cause there first begun ergo the same ought to be first begun before the Ordinary 3. In case that the Bishop of the Dioces or other immediate Iudge or Ordinary dare not or will not convent the party to be sued before him where the Ordinary is called the immediate Iudge as in truth he is and the Archbishop unlesse it be in his own Dioces these speciall Cases excepted mediate Iudge scil by Appeal c. 4. Or in case that the Bishop of the Dioces or the Iudge of the place within whose Iurisdiction or before whom the Suit by this Act should be begun and prosecuted be party directly or indirectly to the matter or cause of the same suit Which clause in expresse words is a full exposition of the body of the Act scil That every suit others then those which are expressed ought to be begun and prosecuted before the Bishop of the Dioces or other Iudge of the same place 5. In case that any Bishop or any inferiour Iudge having under him Iurisdiction c. make request or instance to the Archbishop Bishop or other inferiour Ordinary or Iudge and that to be done in cases only where the Law Civill or Common doth affirm c. By which it fully appeareth That the Act intendeth That every Ordinary and Ecclesiasticall Iudge should have the Conusance of Causes within their Iurisdiction without any Concurrent Authority or Suit by way of prevention And by this the Subject hath great benefit as well by saving of travell and charges to have Iustice in his place of habitation as to be judged where he and the matter is best known As also that he shall have many Appeals as his Adversary in the highest Court at the first Also there are two Provisoes which explains it also scil That it shall be lawfull to every Archbishop to cite any person inhabiting in any Bishops Diocesse within his Province for matter of Heresie which were a vain Proviso If the Act did not extend to the Archbishop But by that speciall Proviso for Heresie it appeareth that for all causes not excepted is prohibited by the Act Then the words of the Proviso go further If the Bishop or other Ordinary immediatly hereunto consent or if the same Bishop or other immediate Ordinary or Iudge do not his duty in punishment of the same which words immediatly and immediate expound the intent of the makers of the Act. 2. There is a saving for the Archbishop the calling any person out of the Dioces where he shall be dwelling to the probate of any Testaments which Proviso should be also in vain if the Archbishop notwithstanding that Act should have concurrent Authority with every Ordinary through his whole Province Wherefore it was concluded that the Archbishop out of his Dioces unlesse in the Cases excepted is prohibited by the Act of 23 H. 8. to cite any man out of any other Dioces And in truth the Act of 23. of Henry the eighth is but a Law declaratory of the ancient Canons and of the true exposition of them The Act of 23 H. 8. is a Declaration of the old Canon Law And that appeareth by the Canon Cap. Romana in sexto de Appellationibus and Cap. de Competenti in sexto And the said Act is so expounded by all the Clergy of England at a Convocation in London An. 1 Jac. Regis 1603. Canon 94. Where it is decreed ordained and declared That none should be cited to the Arches or Audience but the Inhabitants within the Archbishops Dioces
Iudg of the Prerogative Dr. James Dr. Martin and divers other Doctors of the Civil and Canon Law came attending upon them to the King to Whitehall the Thursday Friday and Saturday after Easter-Term in the Councel-Chamber where the Cheif Iustice and I my self Daniel Iudg of the Common-Pleas and Williams Iudg of the Kings-Bench by the command of the King attended also where the King being assisted with his Privy Councel all sitting at the Councel-Table spake as a most gracious good and excellent Soveraign to this effect As I would not suffer any novelty or Innovations in my Courts of Iustice Ecclesiastical and Temporal so I will not have any of the Laws which have had judicial allowances in the times of the Kings of England before him to be forgotten but to be put in execution And for as much as upon the contentions between the Ecclesiastical and Temporal Courts great trouble inconvenience and loss may arise to the subjects of both parts namely when the controversie ariseth upon the jurisdiction of my Courts of ordinary Iustice and because I am the head of Iustice immediately under God and knowing what hurt may grow to my Subjects of both sides when no private case but when the Iurisdictions of my Courts are drawn in question which in effect concerneth all my Subjects I thought that it stood with the Office of a King which God hath committed to me to hear the controversies between the Bishops and other of his Clergy and the Iudges of the Laws of England and to take Order that for the good and quiet of his Subjects that the one do not encroach upon the other but that every of them hold themselves within their natural and local jurisdiction without encroachment or usurpation the one upon the other And he said that the onely question then to be disputed was If a Parson or a Vicar of a Parish sueth one of his Parish in the Spiritual Court for Tythes in kinde or Lay-fee and the Defendant alledgeth a custom or prescription De modo Decâ—mandi if that custom or prescription De modo Decimandi shall be tryed and determined before the Iudg 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 Iudges should declare the reasons and causes of our proceedings and that he would hear the authorities in the Law which we had to warrant our proceedings in granting of Prohibition in cases of Modo Decimandi But the Archbishop of Canterbury kneeled before the King and desired him that he would hear him and others who are provided to speak in the case for the good of the Church of England and the Archbishop himself inveighed much against two things 1. That a Modus Decimandi should be tryed by a Iury because that they themselves claim more or less modum Decimandi so as in effect they were Tryors in their own cause or in the like cases 2. He inveighed much the precipitate and hasty Tryals by Iuries and after him Doctor Bennet Iudg of the Prerogative Court made a large Invection against Prohibitions in Causis Ecclesiasticis and that both Iurisdictions as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal were derived from the King and all that which he spake out of the Book which Dr. Ridley hath lately published I omit as impertinent and he made five Reasons why they should try Modum Decimandi And the first and principal Reason was out of the Register fo 58. quia non est consonans rationi quod cognitio accessarii in Curia Christianitatis impediatur ubi cognitio Causae principalis ad forum Ecclesiasticum noscitur pertinere And the principal cause is Right of Tythes and the Plea of Modo Decimandi sounds in satisfaction of Tythes and therefore the Conusance of the original cause scil the Right of Tythes appertaining to them the Conusance of the bar of Tythes which he said was but the accessary and as it were dependant upon it appertained also to them And whereas it is said in the Bishop of VVinchesters Case in the second part of my Reports and 8 E. 4. 14. that they would not accept of any Plea in discharge of Tythes in the Spiritual Court he said that they would allow such Pleas in the Spiritual Court and commonly had allowed them and therefore he said that that was the Mystery of iniquity founded upon a false and feigned foundation and humbly desired the reformation of that Error for they would allow Modum Decimandi being duly proved before them 2. There was great inconveniency that Lay-men should be Tryers of their own Customs if a Modus Decimandi should be tryed by Iurors for they shall be upon the matter Iurors in their own cause 3. That the custom of Modo Decimandi is of Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction and Conusance for it is a manner of Tything and all manner of Tything belongs to Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction and therefore he said that the Iudges in their Answer to certain Objections made by the Archbishop of Canterbury have confessed that suit may be had in Spiritual Courts pro modo Decimandi and therefore the same is of Ecclesiastical Conusance and by consequence it shall be tryed before the Ecclesiastical Iudges for if the Right of Tythes be of Ecclesiastical Conusance and the satisfaction also for them of the same Iurisdiction the same shall be tryed in the Ecclesiastical Court 4. In the Prohibitions of Modus Decimandi averment is taken That although the Plaintiff in the Prohibition offereth to prove Modum Decimandi the Ecclesiastical Court doth refuse to allow of it which was confessed to be a good cause of Prohibition But he said they would allow the Plea De Modo Decimandi in the Spiritual Court and therefore cessante causa cessabit effectus and no Prohibition shall lie in the Case 5. He said that he can shew many consultations granted in the cause De Modo Decimandi and a Consultation is of greater force then a Prohibition for Consultation as the word imports is made with the Court with consultation and deliveration And Bacon Solicitor-General being as it is said assigned with the Clergy by the King argued before the King and in effect said less then Doctor Bennet said before but he vouched 1 R. 3. 4. the Opinion of Hussey when the Original ought to begin in the Spiritual Court and afterwards a thing cometh in issue which is tryable in our Law yet it shall be tryed by their Law As if a man sueth for a Horse devised to him and the Defendant saith that the Devisor gave to him the said Horse the same shall be tryed there And the Register 57 and 58. If a man be condemned in Expences in the Spiritual Court for laying violent hands upon a Clark and afterwards the Defendant pays the costs and gets an Acquittance and yet the Plaintiff sueth him against his Acquittance for the Costs and he obtains a Prohibition for that Acquittances and Deeds
are to be determined in our Law he shall have a Consultation because that the principal belongeth to them 38 E. 3. 5. Right of Tythes between two spiritual persons shall be determined in the Ecclesiastical Court And 38 E. 3. 6. where the Right of Tythes comes in debate between two spiritual persons the one claiming the Tythes as of common Right within his Parish and the other claiming to be discharged by real composition the Ecclesiastical Court shall have Iurisdiction of it And the said Iudges made humble suit to the King That for as much as they perceived that the King in his Princely Wisdom did detest Innovations and Novelties that he would vouchsafe to suffer them with his gracious favor to inform him of one Innovation and Novelty which they conceived would tend to the hinderance of the good administration and execution of Iustice within his Realm Your Majesty for the great zeal which you have to Iustice and for the due administration thereof hath constituted and made fourteen Iudges to whom you have committed not onely the administration of Ordinary Iustice of the Realm but crimina laesae Majestatis touching your Royal person for the legal proceeding also in Parliament we are called by Writ to give to your Majesty and to the Lords of the Parliament our advice and counsel when we are required We two chief Iustices sit in the Star-Chamber and are oftentimes called into the Chancery Court of Wards and other High Courts of Iustice we in our Circuits do visit twice in the year your Realm and execute Iustice according to your Laws and if we who are your publique Iudges receive any diminution of such reverence and respect in our places which our predecessors had we shall not be able to do you such acceptable service as they did without having such reverence and respect as Iudges ought to have The state of this Question is not in statu deliberativo but in statu judiciali it is not disputed de bono but de vero non de Lege fienda sed de Lege lata not to frame or devise new Laws but to inform your Majesty what your Law of England is and therefore it was never seen before that when the Question is of the Law that your Iudges of the Law have been made Disputants with him who is inferior to them who day by day plead before them at their several Courts at Westminster and although we are not afraid to dispute with Mr. Bennet and Mr. Bacon yet this example being primae impressionis and your Majesty detesting Novelties and innovations we leave it to your Grace and Princely consideration whether your Majesty will permit our answering in hoc statu judiciali upon your publique Iudges of the Realm But in Obedience to your Majesties command We with your Majesties gracious favor in most humble manner will inform your Majesty touching the said Question which we and our predecessors before us have oftentimes adjudged upon judicial proceedings in your Courts of Iustice at Westminster which Iudgments cannot be reversed or examined for any Error in Law if not by a Writ of Error in a more high and supream Court of Iustice upon legal and judicial proceedings and that is the ancient Law of England as appeareth by the Statute of 4 H. 4. cap. 22. And we being commanded to proceed all that which was said by us the Iudges was to this effect That the Tryal De Modo Decimandi ought to be by the Common Law by a Iury of twelve men it appeareth in three manners First by the Common Law Secondly by Acts of Parliament And lastly by infinite judgments and judicial proceedings long times past without any impeachment or interruption But first it is to see What is a Modus Decimandi Modus Decimandi is when Lands Tenements or Hereditaments have been given to the Parson and his successors or an annual certain sum or other profit always time out of minde to the Parson and his successors in full satisfaction and discharge of all the Tythes in kinde in such a place and such manner of Tything is now confessed by the other party to be a good bar of Tythes in kinde I. That Modus Decimandi shall be tryed by the Common Law that is that all satisfactions given in discharge of Tythes shall be tryed by the Common Law and therefore put that which is the most common case That the Lord of the Mannor of Dale prescribes to give to the Parson 40 s. yearly in full satisfaction and discharge of all Tythes growing and renewing within the Mannor of Dale at the Feast of Easter The Parson sueth the Lord of the Mannor of Dale for his Tythes of his Mannor in kinde and he in Bar prescribes in manner ut supra The Question is if the Lord of the Mannor of Dale may upon that have a Prohibition for if the Prohibition lyeth then the Spiritual Court ought not to try it for the end of the Prohibition is That they do not try that which belongs to the Tryal of the Common Law the words of the Prohibition being that they would draw the same ad aliud examen First the Law of England is divided into Common-Law Statute-Law and Customs of England and therefore the Customs of England are to be tryed by the Tryal which the Law of England doth appoint Secondly Prescriptions by the Law of the Holy Church and by the Common Law differ in the times of limitation and therefore Prescriptions and Customs of England shall be tryed by the Common Law See 20 H. 6. fo 17. 19 E. 3. Jurisdiction 28. The Bishop of Winchester brought a Writ of Annuity against the Archdeacon of Surry and declared how that he and his successors were seised by the hands of the Defendant by title of Prescription and the Defendant demanded Iudgment if the Court would hold Iurisdiction being between spiritual persons c. Stone Iustice Be assured that upon title of prescription we will here hold Iurisdiction and upon that Wilby chief Iustice gave the Rule Answer Vpon which it follows that if a Modus Decimandi which is an annual sum for Tythes by prescription comes in debate between spiritual persons that the same shall be tryed here For the Rule of the Book is general scil upon title of prescription we will hold Iurisdiction and that is fortified with an Asseveration Know assuredly as if he should say that it is so certain that it is without question 32 E. 3. Jurisd 26. There was a Vicar who had onely Tythes and Oblations and an Abbot claimed an Annuity or Pension of him by prescription and it was adjudged that the same prescription although it was betwixt spiritual persons should be tryed by the Common Law Vide 22 H. 6. 46. and 47. A prescription that an Abby time out of minde had found a Chaplain in his Chappel to say Divine Service and to minister Sacraments tryed at the Common Law 3. See the Record of 25 H. 3. cited
in the case of Modus Decimandi before and see Register fo 38. when Lands are given in satisfaction and discharge of Tythes 4. See the Statute of Circumspecte agatis Decimae debitae seu consuetae which proves that Tythes in kinde and a Modus by custom c. 5. 8 E. 4. 14. and Fitz. N. B. 41. g. A Prohibition lieth for Lands given in discharge of Tythes 28 E. 3. 97. a. There Suit was for Tythes and a Prohibition lieth and so abridged by the Book which of necessity ought to be upon matter De Modo Decimandi or discharge 7. 7 E. 6. 79. If Tythes are sold for mony by the sale the things spiritual are made temporal and so in the case De modo Decimandi 42 E. 3. 12. agrees 8. 22 E. 3. 2. Because an Appropriation is mixt with the Temporalty scil the Kings Letters Patents the same ought to be shewed how c. otherwise of that which is meer Temporal and so it is of real composition in which the Patron ought to joyn Vide 11 H. 4. 85. Composition by writing that the one shall have the Tythes and the other shall have mony the Suit shall be at the Common Law Secondly By Acts of Parliament 1. The said Act of Circumspecte agatis which giveth power to the Ecclesiastical Iudg to sue for Tythes due first in kinde or by custom i. e. Modus Decimandi so as by authority of that Act although that the yearly sum soundeth in the Temporalty which was payd by Custom in discharge of Tythes yet because the same cometh in the place of Tythes and by constitution the Tythes are changed into mony and the Parson hath not any remedy for the same which is the Modus Decimandi at the Common Law for that cause the Act is clear that the same was a doubt at the Common Law And the Statute of Articuli Cleri cap. 1. If corporal pennance be changed in poenam pecuniariam for that pain Suit lieth in the Spiritual Court For see Mich. 8 H. 3. Rot. 6. in Thesaur A Prohibition lieth pro eo quod Rector de Chesterton exigit de Hagone de Logis de certa portione pro Decimis Molendinarium so as it appeareth it was a doubt before the said Statute if Suit lay in the Spiritual Court de Modo Decimandi And by the Statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 20. it is provided and enacted That every of the subjects of this Realm according to the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Church and after the laudable usages and customs of the Parish c. shall yield and pay his Tythes Offerings and other duties and that for substraction of any of the said Tythes offerings or other duties the Parson c. may by due Proces of the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws convent the person offending before a competent Iudg having authority to hear and determine the Right of Tythes and also to compel him to yeild the Duties i. e. as well Modus Decimandi by laudable usage or Custom of the Parish as Tythes in kinde and with that in effect agrees the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 7. By the Statute of 2 E. 3. cap. 13. it is enacted That every of the Kings Subjects shall from henceforth truly and justly without fraud or guile divide c. and pay all manner of their predial Tythes in their proper kinde as they rise and happen in such manner and form as they have been of Right yielded and payd within forty years next before the making of this Act or of Right or Custom ought to have been payd And after in the same Act there is this clause and Proviso Provided always and be it enacted That no person shall be sued or otherwise compelled to yield give or pay any manner of Tythes for any Mannors Lands Tenements or Hereditaments which by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm or by any priviledg or prescription are not chargeable with the payment of any such Tythes or that be discharged by any compositions real And afterwards there is another Branch in the said Act And be it further enacted That if any person do substract or withdraw any manner of Tythes Obventions Profits Commodities or other Duties before mentioned which extends to Custom of Tything i. e. Modus Decimandi mentioned before in the Act c. that then the party so substracting c. may be convented and sued in the Kings Ecclesiastical Court c. And upon the said Branch which is in the Negative That no person shall be sued for any Tythes of any Lands which are not chargeable with the payment of such Tythes by any Law Statute Priviledg Prescription or Real Composition And always when an Act of Parliament commands or prohibits any Court be it Temporal or Spiritual to do any thing temporal or spiritual if the Statute be not obeyed a Prohibition lieth as upon the Statute de articulis super Cartas ca. 4. Quod Communia Placita non tenentur in Scaccario a Prohibition lieth to the Court of Exchequer if the Barons hold a Common-Plea there as appeareth in the Register 187. b. So upon the Statute of West 2. Quod inquisitiones quae magnae sunt examinationis non capiantur in patria a Prohibition lieth to the Iustices of Nisi Prius So upon the Statute of Articuli super Cartas cap. 7. Quod Constabularius Castr Dover non teneat Placitum forinsecum quod non tangit Custodiam Castri Register 185. So upon the same Statute cap. 3. Quod See Lib. Entr. 450. a Prohibition was upon the Statute that one shall not maintain and so upon every penal Law See F. N. B 39. b. Prohibition to the Common Pleas upon the Stat. of Magna Charta that they do not proceed in a Writ of Praecipe in Capite where the Land is not holden of the King 1 2 Eliz. Dy. 170 171. Prohibition upon the Statute of barrenes and pettit is onely prohibited by implication Senescallus Mariscallus non teneant Placita de libero tenemento de debito conventione c. a Prohibition lieth 185. And yet by none of these Statutes no Prohibition or Supersedeas is given by express words of the Statute So upon the Statutes 13 R. 2. cap. 3. 15 R. 2. cap. 2. 2 H. 4. cap. 11. by which it is provided That Admirals do not meddle with any thing done within the Realm but onely with things done upon the Seas c. a Prohibition lieth to the Court of Admiralty So upon the Statute of West 2. cap. 43. against Hospitalers and Templers if they do against the same Statute Regist 39. a. So upon the Statute de Prohibitione regia Ne laici ad citationem Episcopi conveniant ad recognitionem faciend vel Sacrament praestanda nisi in casubus matrimonialibus Testamentariis a Prohibition lieth Regist 36. b. And so upon the Statute of 2 H. 5. cap. 3. at what time the Libel is grantable by the Law that it be granted and
delivered to the party without difficulty if the Ecclesiastical Iudg when the cause which depends before him is meer Ecclesiastical denyeth the Libel a Prohibition lieth because that he doth against the Statute and yet no Prohibition by any express words is given by the Statute And upon the same Statute the Case was in 4 E. 4. 37. Pierce Peckam took Letters of Administration of the Goods of Rose Brown of the Bishop of London and afterwards T. T. sued to Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury That because the said Rose Brown had Goods within his Diocess he prayed Letters of Administration to be committed to him upon which the Bishop granted him Letters of Administration and afterwards T. T. libelled in the Spiritual Court of the Archbishop in the Arches against Pierce Peckam to whom the Bishop of London had committed Letters of Administration to repeal the same and Pierce Peckam according to the said Statute prayed a Copy of the Libel exhibited against him and could not have it and thereupon he sued a Prohibition and upon that an Attachment And there Catesby Serjeant moved the Court that a Prohibition did not lie for two causes 1. That the Statute gives that the Libel shall be delivered but doth not say that the Plea in the Spiritual Court shall surcease by Prohibition 2. The Statute is not intended of matter meer spiritual as that case is to try the Prerogative and the Liberty of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London in committing of Administrations And there Danby Chief Iustice If you will not deliver the Libel according to the Statute you do wrong which wrong is a temporal matter and punishable at the Common Law and therefore in this case the party shall have a special Prohibition out of this Court reciting the matter and the Statute aforesaid commanding them to surcease until he had the Copy of the Libel delivered unto him which case is a stronger case then the case at the Bar for that Statute is in the Affirmative and the said Act of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. is in the Negative scil That no Suit shall be for any Tythes of any Land in kinde where there is Modus Decimandi for that is the effect of the said Act as to that point And always after the said Act in every Term in the whole Reigns of King E. 6. Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth until this day Prohibitions have been granted in Causa Modi Decimandi and Iudgments given upon many of them and all the same without question made to the contrary And accordingly all the Iudges resolved in 7 E. 6. Dyer 79. Et contemporanea expositio est optima fortissima in lege a communi observantia non est recedendum minime mutanda sunt quae certam habuerunt interpretationem And as to the first Objection That the Plea of Modus Decimandi is but accessary unto the Right of Tythes it was resolved that the same was of no force for three causes 1. In this case admitting that there is Modus Decimandi then by the Custom and by the Act of 2 E. 6. and the other Acts the Tythes in kinde are extinct and discharged for one and the same Land cannot be subject to two manner of Tythes but the Modus Decimandi is all the Tythe with which the Land is chargeable As if a Horse or other thing valuable be given in satisfaction of the Duty the Duty is extinct and gone and it shall be intended that the Modus Decimandi began at the first by real composition by which the Lands were discharged of the Tythes and a yearly sum in satisfaction of them assigned to the Parson c. So as in this case there is neither Principal nor Accessary but an Identity of the same thing 2. The Statute of 2 E. 6. being a Prohibition in it self and that in the Negative If the Ecclesiastical Iudg doth against it a Prohibition lieth as it appeareth clearly before 3. Although that the Rule be general yet it appeareth by the Register it self that a Modus Decimandi is out of it for there is a Prohibition in Causa Modi Decimandi when Lands are given in satisfaction of the Tythes As to the second Objection it was answered and resolved That that was from or out of the Question for status Quaestionis non est deliberativus sed judicialis what was fit and convenient but what the Law is and yet it was said It shall be more inconvenient to have an Ecclesiastical Iudg who is not sworn to do Iustice to give sentence in a case between a man of the Clergy and a Lay-man then for twelve men sworn to give their Verdict upon hearing of Witnesses viva voce before an indifferent Iudg who is sworn to do Right and Iustice to both parties But convenient or inconvenient is not the Question Also they have in the Spiritual Court such infinite exceptions to Witnesses that it is at the Will of the Iudg with which party he shall give his sentence As to the third Objection it was answered and resolved First That satisfactio pecuniaria of it self is Temporal But for as much as the Parson hath not remedy pro Modo Decimandi at the Common Law the Parson by force of the Acts cited before might sue pro Modo Decimandi in the Ecclesiastical Court but that doth not prove That if he sueth for Tythes in kinde which are utterly extinct and the Land discharged of them that upon the Plea de Modo Decimandi that a Prohibition should not lie for that without all question appeareth by all that which before hath been said that a Prohibition doth lie See also 12 H. 7. 24. b. Where the original cause is Spiritual and they proceed upon a Temporal a Prohibition lieth See 39 E. 3. 22 E. 4. Consultation That Right of Tythes which is meerly Ecclesiastical yet if the question ariseth of the limits of a Parish a Prohibition lieth and this case of the limits of a Parish was granted by the Lord Chancellor and not denyed by the other side As to the Objection That an Averment is taken of the refusal of the Plea de Modo Decimandi it was answered and resolved That the same is of no force for divers causes 1. It is onely to inforce the contempt 2. If the Spiritual Court ought to have the Tryal de Modo Decimandi then the refusal of acceptance of such a Plea should give cause of Appeal and not of Prohibition as if an Excommunication Divorce Heresie Simony c. be pleaded there and the Plea refused the same gives no cause of Prohibition as if they deny any Plea meer spiritual Appeal and no Prohibition lieth 3. From the begining of the Law no Issue was ever taken upon the refusal of the plea in Causa Modi Decimandi nor any Consultation ever granted to them because they did not refuse but allowed the plea. 4. The refusal is no part of the matter issuable or material in
of them to the use of himself for the term of his life and after to the use of his eldest sonne and to such a woman which he shall marry and to the heirs males of the body of the son and afterwards the father dieth and after the son taketh a wife and dieth if the wife shall take an Estate for life and the doubt was because the wife of the son was not within the Considerations and the use was limited to one who was capable scil the son and to another who was not capable and therefore the son should take an estate in tail executed But it was resolved by the said two chief Iustices and chief Baron That the Wife should take well enough and as to the first Reason they resolved That the Wife was within the consideration for the consideration was for the advancement of his posterity and without a Wife the Son cannot have posterity also when the Wife of the Son is sure of a Ioynture the same is for the advancement of the Son for thereby he shall have the better marriage And as to the second it was resolved That the Estate of the Son shall support the use to the Defendant and when the contingent happeneth the Estate of the Son shall be changed according to the limitation scil to the Son and the woman and the Heirs of the body of the Son And so it was resolved in the Kings-Bench by Popham chief Iustice and the whole Court of the Kings-Bench in the Reign of Queen Eliz. in Sheffields Case for both points XVIII Trinit 7 Jacobi Regis In the Court of Wards Sparies Case JOhn Spary seised in fee in the right of his Wife of Lands holden of the Crown by Knights service had issue by her and 22 Decemb. anno 9 Eliz. aliened to Edward Lord Stafford the Wife dyed the issue of full age the Lands continue in the hands of the Alienee or his Assigns and ten years after the death of the Father and twelve years after the death of the Mother Office is found 7 Jacobi finding all the special matter after the death of the Mother the Question was Whether the mean profits are to be answered to the King and it was resolved by the said two chief Iustices and the chief Baron That the King should not have the mean profits because that the Alienee was in by title and until Entry the Heir hath no remedy for the mean profits but that the King might seise and make Livery because that the Entry of the Heir is lawful by the Statute of 32 H. 8. XIX Trinit 7 Jacobi Regis In the Court of Wards IT was found by force of a Mandamus at Kendal in the County of VVestmerland the 21 of December 6 Jacobi Regis That George Earl of Cumberland long before his death was seised in tayl to him and to the Heirs males of his body of the Castles and Mannors of Browham Appleby c. the Remainder to Sir Ingram Clifford with divers Remainders over in tayl the Remainder to the right Heirs of Henry Earl of Cumberland Father of the said George and that the said George Earl so seised by Fine and Recovery conveyed them to the use of himself and Margaret his Wife for their lives for the Ioynture of the said Margaret and afterwards to the Heirs males of the body of George Earl of Cumberland and for want of such issue to the use of Francis now Earl of Cumberland and to the Heirs males of his body begotten and for want of such issue to the use of the right Heirs of the said George and afterwards by another Indenture conveyed the Fee-simple to Francis Earl By force of which and of the Statute of uses they were seised accordingly and afterwards 30 Octob. anno 3 Jacobi the said George Earl of Cumberland dyed without Heir male of his body lawfully begotten and further found that Margaret Countess of Cumberland that now is was alive and took the profits of the premisses from the death of the said George Earl of Cumberland until the taking of that inquisition and further found the other points of the Writ And first it was objected that here was no dying seised found by Office and therefore the Office shall be insufficient But as to that it was answerod and resolved That by this Office the King was not entitled by the common Law for then a dying seised or at first a dying the day of his death was necessary But this Office is to be maintained upon the Statute of 32 and 34 H. 8. by force of which no dying seised is requisite but rather the contrary scil If the Land be as this case is conveyed to the Wife c. And so it was resolved in Vincents case anno 23 Eliz. where all the Land holden in Capite was conveyed to the younger Son and yet the eldest Son was in Ward notwithstanding that nothing descended The second Objection was It doth not appear that the Estate of the Wife continued in her until the death of the Earl for the Husband and Wife had aliened the same to another and then no primer seisin shall be as it is agreed in Binghams case As to that it was answered and resolved That the Office was sufficient prima facie for the King because it is a thing collateral and no point of the Writ and if any such alienation be which shall not be intended then the same shall come in of the other part of the Alienee by a Monstrans de droit and the case at Bar is a stronger case because it is found that the said Countess took the profits of the premisses from the death of George the Earl until the finding of the Office XX. Trinity Term 7 Jacobi In the Court of Wards Wills Case HEnry Wills being seised of the fourth part of the Mannor of Wryland in the County of Devon holden of Queen Elizabeth in Socage-tenure in capite of the said fourth part enfeoffed Zachary Irish and others and their Heirs to the use of the said Henry for the term of his life and afterwards to the use of Thomas Wills his second son in tayl and afterwards to the use of Richard Wills his youngest son in tayl and for default of such issue to the use of the right Heirs of the said Henry and afterwards the said Henry so seised as abovesaid dyed thereof seised William Wills being his Son and Heir of full age Thomas the second son entered as into his Remainder All this matter is found by Office and the question was If the King ought to have primer seisin in this case and that Livery or Ouster le main shall be sued in this case by the Statutes of 32 and 34 H. 8. And it was resolved by the two chief Iustices and the chief Baron that not if in this case by the common Law no Livery or Ouster le main shall be sued and that was agreed by them all by the experience and course of the
Tenements were holden of the King in capite for this cause the suing of the Writ shall conclude the Heir onely which sueth the Livery and after his death the Iurors in a new Writ of Diem clausit extremum are at large as before is said And if that Iury finde falsly in a Tenure of the King also the Lord of whom the Land is holden may traverse that Office Or if Land be holden of the King c. in Socage the Heir may traverse the last Office for by that he is grieved onely and he shall not be driven to traverse the first Office and when the Father sueth Livery and dyeth the conclusion is executed and past as before is said And note that there is a special Livery but that proceeds of the Grace of the King and is not the Suit of the Heir and the King may grant it either at full age before aetate probanda c. or to the Heir within age as it appeareth in 21 E. 3. 40. And that is general and shall not comprehend any Tenure as the general Livery doth and therefore it is not any estoppel without question And at the Common Law a special Livery might have been granted before any Office found but now by the Statute of 33 H 8. cap. 22. it is provided That no person or persons having Lands or Tenements above the yearly value of 20 l. shall have or sue any Livery before inquisition or Office found before the Escheator or other Commission But by an express clause in the same Act Livery may be made of the Lands and Tenements comprized or not comprized in such Office so that if Office be found of any parcel it is sufficient And if the Land in the Office doth exceed 20 l. then the Heir may sue a general Livery after Office thereof found as is aforesaid but if the Land doth not exceed 5 l. by the year then a general Livery may be sued without Office by Warrant of the Master of the Wards c. See 23 Eliz. Dyer 177. That the Queen ex debito Justitiae is not bound at this day after the said Act of 33 H 8 to grant a special Livery but it is at her election to grant a special Livery or to drive the Heir to a general Livery 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 cometh to the possession by a false Office or other means upon a pretence of right where in truth he hath no right if it appeareth that the King hath any other right or interest to have the Land there none shall traverse the Office or Title of the King because that the Iudgment in the Traverse is Ideo consideratum est quod manus Domini Regis a possessione amoveantur c. which ought not to be when it appeareth to the Court that the King hath right or interest to have the Land and to hold the same accordingly See 4 H. 4. fo 33. in the Earl of Kents Case c. XXIX Mich. 7 Jacobi Regis NOte The Priviledg Order or Custom of Parliament either Parliament of the Vpper House or of the House of Commons belongs to the determination or decision onely of the Court of Parliament and this appeareth by two notable Presidents The one at the Parliament holden in the 27 year of King Henry the sixth There was a Controversie moved in the Vpper House between the Earls of Arundel and of Devonshire for their seats places and preheminences of the same to be had in the Kings presence as well in the High Court of Parliament as in his Councels and elsewhere The King by the advice of the Lords spiritual and temporal committed the same to certain Lords of Parliament who for that they had not leisure to examine the same it pleased the King by the advice of the Lords at his Parliament in anno 27 of his Reign That the Iudges of the Land should hear see and examine the Title c. and to report what they conceive herein The Iudges made report as followeth That this matter viz. of Honor and precedency between the two Earls Lords of Parliament was a matter of Parliament and belonged to the Kings Highness and the Lords spiritual and temporal in Parliament by them to be decided and determined yet being there so commanded they shewed what they found upon examination and their Opinions thereupon Another Parliament in 31 H. 6. which Parliament begun the sixth of March and after it had continued sometime it was prorogued until the fourteenth of February and afterwards in Michaelmas Term anno 31 H. 6. Thomas Thorp the Speaker of the Commons House at the Suit of the Duke of Buckingham was condemned in the Exchequer in 1000 l. damages for a Trespass done to him The 14 of February the Commons moved in the Vpper House That their Speaker might be set at liberty to exercise his place The Lords refer this Case to the Iudges and Fortescue and Prisoit the two chief Iustices in the name of all the Iudges after sad consideration and mature deliberation had amongst them answered and said That they ought not to answer to this question for it hath not been used aforetime That the Iustices should in any wise determine the Priviledg of this High Court of Parliament for it is so high and mighty in its nature that it may make Laws and that that is Law it may make no Law and the determination and knowledg of that Priviledg belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament and not to the Iustices But as for proceedings in the lower Courts in such cases they delivered their Opinions And in 12 E. 4. 2. in Sir John Pastons case it is holden that every Court shall determine and decide the Priviledges and Customs of the same Court c. XXX Hillary Term 7 Jacobi Regis In the Star-Chamber Heyward and Sir Iohn Whitbrokes Case IN the Case between Heyward and Sir John Whitbroke in the Star-Chamber the Defendant was convicted of divers Misdemeanors and Fine and Imprisonment imposed upon him and damages to the Plaintiff and it was moved that a special Proces might be made out of that Court to levy the said damages upon the Goods and Lands of the Defendant and it was referred to the two chief Iustices whether any such Proces might be made who this Term moved the Case to the chief Baron and to the other Iudges and Barons and it was unanimously resolved by them That no such Proces could or ought to be made neither for the damages nor for the costs given to the Plaintiff for the Court hath not any power or Iurisdiction to do it but onely to keep the Defendant in prison until he pay them For for the Fine due to the King the Court of Star-Chamber cannot make forth any Proces for the levying of the