depending upon others and many such double contingents may be put The Case of Sir Edward Cook put in the end of the Rector of Cheddingtons Case out of 12 Lib. Ass pl. 5. in my 12 lib. Assize opinion doth not disalow the second Condition for there the Case is That A. Leased to B. upon condition That if A. or his heirs pay to B. Ten pounds within a certain day that they might re-enter and if A. nor his heirs should not pay the Ten pounds within the time Then if B. paid to A. Ten pounds at another day that he should have Fee Both A. and B. failed in payment and A. entred and being put out brought an Assize and nihil Caepit per breve this doth not prove that one condition cannot depend upon another neither can I see well what Exposition to make of so uncertain a Case so that I take this Case to be no evidence against mine But in the 14 H. 8. fol. 15. there is a Case which in my 14 H. 8. fol. 15. opinion makes more against my double condition then any other which is put by Brudnel Chief Justice that is If A. be bound in an Obligation to B. upon condition to infeoff I. S. before Easter ensuing then the Obligation to be void and if he do not infeoff him then to pay Ten pounds at Pentecost then the Obligation to be void The Feoffment is not made before Easter therefore Brudnel held the Obligation was forfeit and that the second Condition was not good But there is a Quaere set upon that Case and so it may well be for I see it commonly done that if a defesans be made of a Statute which is broken and so the Statute becomes forfeit yet a new defesans may defeat it and so in my opinion may the second Condition in this Case avoid the Obligation if the first conclusion had not been in the Case I shall adde this Case also as a conceit that is A. infeoffs B. upon condition if A. go to Lincoln he shall have the A Conceit Lands to him and the heirs of his body and if he go to Boston he shall have it for Ten years and he goes first to Boston I do here hold these Conditions being put promiscuously without distinction of the times of the Conditions which shall be first performed and which the second that the Fee is decreased into an Estate for years and can never increase into an Estate in tail by performing of the second Condition because the Livery out of which it should grow was quite destroyed by the first decreaser So that my intent Sâ—â—ond Point appears that one Condition may depend upon another upon the said distinction but whether by the performance of the first Condition in my Case there will an Estate come to B. or not I meant it for a question for B. had before an Estate for his own life then is it not possible that his Estate can hereby be increased by having the Land also for the life of C. if it be admitted argumenti gratia that B. shall or may have both these Estates stand in him both at one time for if C. dyed first then is B. never like to have any benefit thereof And if B. himself should dye before C. then also were it impossible for B. to make any use of this Estate for the life of C. unless it were in him to grant away to another as in the Case of the Office in the 1 H. 7. where an Office 1 H. 7. 29. Crofts Case is granted to the King the King could not have the Office himself and so in that point for the King to take by the grant he could not yet by that book it was in him to grant over to another which might have it And like to this is the Case where I. S. is Parson of the Church of Dale and the Patron grants the next avoidance this grant can he himself take no benefit by unless he resign yet if he dye it shall come to his Executors But I take the Law to be in my Case that B. shall not by the first Condition have both the Estates in him at once that is for his own life and after for the life of C. but that the Estate of B. by the first Condition shall be decreased or changed from his own life into the life of C. and shall be melted and newly molded by this Condition for an Estate may as well decrease as increase by a Condition and yet the Lord Staffords principal Case was That Queen Elizabeth did grant the Mannor to Tindal and the heirs of his body upon condition upon payment of Twenty shillings to her by Tindal that he should have the Reversion to him and his heirs and there it is holden for Law that by the payment of Twenty shillings the Reversion in Fee simple shall increase to Tindal and shall not alter or drown the Estate Tail which is an excellent Case but alter the putting of that Case and then it may alter the Law also that is I give Land to I. S. and the heirs of his body upon condition A Conceit if he pay me Twenty shillings that he shall have the said Lands to him and his heirs In my conceit by the performance of this condition the Estate Tail is by increase changed into a Fee simple in which note the difference between Tindals Case and this where upon payment of 20. s. the reversion is granted to him and his heirs and where the words be That upon payment of Twenty shillings he shal have the Lands to him and his heirs In the first Case the Fee-simple accrewing shall not alter the Estate Tail but in the second Case by the Fee increasing the Estate Tail is determined and changed into a Fee simple quod quaere Admitting the first condition did increase the Estate of B. from his own life to the life of C. and the second condition is performed by the which another Estate will accrew to B. as I take it will because an Estate decreased is parcel of the first Estate then what Estate B. hath got by this new Limitation is the question And in my Opinion he hath at the most but gotten an Estate again for his own life and that the Limitation to the heirs of the body of his father is utterly void be his father dead or alive for if his father be dead his elder brother is the heir of his body within these words of Limitation who cannot take the Lands by descent Littleton estate Tail from B. his Brother or from his Father but as the Case is put in Littletons Title Tail and in the 4 and 5 Ma. in Dier Ereswoulds 4 5 Ma. Dier Case where Lands were given to the eldest son and the heirs of the body of his father this is a good Estate in Tail being made to the eldest son because he is capable to take the Lands in
discretion omitting many other because I had rather trust to the worst certain Law then to give too much way to the uncertain discretion of the Commissioners according to the old saying Quoad fieri possit quà m plurima legibus ipsis definiantur Aristotle Ret. quam paucissima vero judicis arbitrio relinquantur and herein I suppose I have made good my word in this that I have proved by my Argument That the said new Bank and new River might well be decreed by the view and survey of the Commissioners and by their good discretion and so might the said old Sewer be repaired and therefore these being ended I will now proceed to the handling of the rest remaining My former labor hath been to expound and declare what defences as well against the overflowing of the sea as against the inundation of fresh waters were and be to be maintained and also new erected by the Tenor and power of these Laws So that now it comes very aptly to be handled for what causes considerations and matters one shall or may be tyed to the repairing and keeping thereof which I take to be these nine several ways 1. By Frontage 2. By Ownership 3. By Prescription 4. By Custome 5. By Tenure 6. By Covenant 7. Per usum rei 8. A Township 9. By these Laws of Sewers I suppose I shall produce sufficient Warrant and Authorities for to maintain all these distinctions wherein I am desirous that Commissioners of Sewers for whose learning and instruction I have taken these pains would apply themselves to do their duties and service herein carefully and advisedly and like to skilful Physitians would apply fitting Medicines to the curing of every disease else shall they oftentimes Opprimere insontes dimittere reos But if they will seriously cast their eyes upon these insuing Cases they will be very helpful to them in their proceedings Frontage FRontage is where the grounds of any man do joyn with the brow or front thereof to the Sea or to great or royal streams and in case of the sea or royal River the property of the Banks and grounds adjoyning are and belong to the subject whose lands do but and bound thereon but the soil of the sea and royal Rivers do appertain to the King as formerly in my Tractate of Rivers may appear But in case of petty and mean Rivers and streams the soil of them as well as the banks thereof do appertain to them whose grounds adjoyn thereto so that Frontage and Ownership in base inferior Rivers do not differ but in great streams and the sea they do vary as aforesaid And in 37 lib. Assiz plac 10. it seems that the Frontagers are bound to 37 assiz pl. 10. the repairs and in 8 H. 7. he whose grounds are next adjoyning to a Highway is bound to repair the same And by 8 H. 7. these cases there is no difference touching repairs of the High streams and the highways in my opinion Ownership THe Ownership of a Bank Wall or other Defence is a sufficient warrrant to impose the charge of the repairs thereof upon him without being tied thereto by prescription as appears in 8 H. 7. fol. 5. and it stands with 8 H. 7. reason that every man should be bound to repair his own and the consideration is also moving for that his grounds which lie nearest the waters are soonest subject to drowning and if any increase be upon the small Rivers it falls to his share Prescription and Custom PRescription and Custom are much of one quality for in both of them the efficient matter is use to repair and the Law hath taken notice of them in many of our books Prescription doth not binde or tie one to the repair of any thing unless it be ratione terrae and in this it doth differ from Custom for if it be presented that A. B. and his Ancestors have time out of memory used to repair such a Bank Wall or other Defence this Presentment is void and doth not binde the party pro ut constat in 21 E. 4. 38. 21 Ed. 4. 7 H. 4. 19 H. 7. 45 E. 3. 7 H. 4. 31. 19 H. 7. Kelwey fol. 52. and 45 E. 3. But bodies politique or coprorate may be by Custom bound to repairs without making mention in the Presentment or Indictment that they are to do the same ratione talis Messuagii terrae aut tenementi And to that purpose be the books of 21 E. 4. 38 and 44 Ed. 3. Fitzherb Title Bar. plac 103. for 21. E. 4. 44 E. 3. there a Prior was presented that he and his Predecessors had used time out of memory to repair such a Bridge which was in decay and this presentment though it charged no Land was good And in 19 Hen. 7. aforesaid it is 19 H. 7. said that one might be bound to repair a Bank or Wall ratione Resiantiae but this could not be otherwise taken but that he was charged to do the same for the house he dwelt in for Resiantia imports so much Also if a man and his Ancestors have voluntarily made a defence for a long season this will not binde his Heir thereto though he have assets descended to him in Fee-simple for descending charges will not binde the Heirs unless he descending have assets as an equal consideration to binde him thereto neither will descending assets of Land binde an Heir in this case unless the Land it self be really tyed and charged Tenure A Man by the Tenure of his Land may be bound to repair a Wall Bank or other Defence mentioned in this 11 H. 7. Law and in proof thereof the Book Case of 11 H. 7. fol. 12. is full in the point where it is said That if before the Statute of Westminster the Third a man had made a Feoffment in Fee or if since that Statute one had made a Gift in Tail to hold the same by repairing a Bridge the said Feoffee and Donee and his heirs should have been bound by the said Tenure to repair the said 12 H. 7. Bridge and with this agree the books of 12 H. 7. 18. and 24 H. 8. 24 H. Br. Case fel. 9. and in Porters Case in Sir Edward Cooks Porters Case first Report it is said That if Lands were given to repair Ways Bridges Calceys or such like this doth binde the Owners of those Lands to do those repairs in perpetuity And in the Case of 12 H. 4. fol. 7. the Prior of St. Marks in Bristol was obliged and bound by the tenor of his Land to repair a common Sewer and this enough to satisfie this point Covenant SO likewise a man may be bound by his Covenant to repair a Wall Bank Sewer or other such like matter and he may binde himself and his heirs to do the same but yet this Covenant will not binde his heirs after his death unless there be left assets in Fee simple to descend to the said
again to their Successors And in the Case of Sir Henry Nevil in Plo. Com. an Office of a Parker was granted to two and an Annuity for the exercise of it and it is there resolved that the Annuity might not be severed from the Office and so it might be said in my Case That the Mannor which belongs to the Office was at the first laid thereto or given therewithal for the maintenance of the Officer in his place by the Founder and so may not be severed therefrom without his consent And touching the intailing of the Office of the Ranger of a Forest it is held in Mancels Case in the Comment of Mr. Plowden that the Office of a Bayliff or Receiver of the Rents of a Mannor may be intailed So an use and a Copy-hold because these concerned and depended upon Land But the Office of the Master of the Hawks or the Mastership of the Horse could not be given in Tail within the Statute of West 2. de donis conditionalibus nor an Annuity which chargeth the person Yet all these may be given or granted within these intailed limitations but yet they are no intails within that Statute I am of opinion That the Office of a Ranger of a Forest cannot of it self be given in Tail but having a Mannor belonging to it make the question of more moment For as the Office Dese is not intailable so the Land per se may be intailed But Land in our case is not the principal but the accessary accessorium sequitur suum principale and therefore seeing the Land follows the Office as the shadow doth the body and passeth out of his own kinde by the ceremony belonging to the Office and not by the ceremony by which Land is transferred and passed I should therefore take it that the Estate of the Land should be such as the Office of it self might bear which could not be intailed yet because in the said Case of the Forester with Land belonging to it is taken to be in Tail in 1 H. 7. aforesaid with a remainder 1 H. 7. thereof over in Fee I am therefore concluded to make any further question of it and so I leave it as I found it and do passe to the argument of the other points Second Point The second Common Law Point is Whether this gift in my Case be a Frank-mariage or another intail I have observed in Books that there be five things incident to a gift in Frank-mariage viz. First it must be to or with a Cosin within the four degrees Secondly the word Frank-mariage must be literally expressed Thirdly the Reversion must be left at the time of the gift in the donor and then there be two other things follow as consequents Fourthly acquital of payment of Rents and services And Fiftly warranty to secure the Estate And the want of these or any of these in the creation doth destroy that Estate in the conception Here seems to be two Impediments in my Case to hinder this gift to take root as a Frank mariage It is made abnepti which is the Cosin in the fourth degree and the last in those gifts whereby the gift that way cannot have his full operation for that the first Heir of their bodies is out of the former priviledges But in regard I take it that a Frank mariage doth more respect his original creation In incepto then the descent of the priviledges to the Heirs In suo progressu I take this to be no impediment to hinder this from being a gift in Frank mariage But here the words in the gift preceding the words Frank mariage do differ much from it for by the special limitation the Heirs Females shall inherit with the Heirs Males Simul Semel as Heirs in common But in the Case of the Frank mariage Heirs Males shall first inherit single and for want of them then the Females I do agree the Law that in cases where the special words of limitation may in construction be made to agree with the word and limitation of Art contained in Frank mariage the gift shall be taken a Frank mariage as in the Case of 2 H. 3. It. suff Fitz. Mordanc plac 52. where Lands were given 2 H. 3. in Frank mariage to R. S. cum Alicia sorore le donor it a quod post mortem dictae Aliciae puerorum suorum the Land should revert to the donor and this was adjudged a Gift in Frank mariage and the words It a quod were holden of no validity neither will the words of Reservandum Redendum Tenendum or Warrantizandum though they vary from the nature of a Frank mariage yet they shall not destroy the same as an Habendum may do which is the word whose proper place is to create the Estate and therefore if any thing come therein which is repugnant thereunto the same will alter the quality of the gift And with this agreeth the Case in 45 Edward the 3. Title Tail 14 and 31. where Lands were given to I. S. in Frank mariage with B. the daughter 45 E. 3. of the donor Habendum to them and their heirs and this was held a Fee simple and no Frank mariage And the like Law is where Lands are granted in Frank mariage the remainder in Fee to I. S. and his heirs the Frank mariage is defeated by the opinion in Br. Cases and so in my Case because there can be no reconciliation between the special words of limitation in my Case and the word Frank mariage I am therefore of opinion that this gift is an Estate in Tail according to the special limitation and no Frank mariage Third Point Whether the Bastard shall inherit to have an Estate in Tail is the third Common Law question for I am clear of opinion that a Bastard cannot inherit to a gift in Frank mariage because adultery and fornication which is the seed of every Bastard is opposite to mariage and in breach of that powerful link and knot of Matrimony which is an Ordinance derived from the Divine power of the Almighty And therefore seeing mariage is the material consideration of such a gift Bastardy the opposite can never being out of the consideration come within the priviledges to inherit this Estate So if I give Lands to I. and S. and to the heirs of their two bodies lawfully begotten their Bastard cannot inherit to this gift because he is not heir of their two bodies lawfully begotten But if the word Lawfully had been out of the limitation then I see no reason but that a Bastard may inherit to an Estate in Tail as to a Fee simple conditional which he might have done at the Common Law seeing an Estate Tail may be made before mariage as expecting to be confirmed thereby and so a Bastard born before mariage is by the consummation of a succeeding Mariage made capable to inherit to them if his possession continue without disturbance to his death Yet in Plow Com.
perpetual charge by any power or authority given by this Statute but in the said case of Romney Marsh the Custom there maintained this point yet Not a bene verba hujus Statuti which be these viz. And to make and ordain Statutes Ordinances and Provisions from time to time as the case shall require for the safegard conservation redresse correction or reformation of the Premises and every of them and the parties liable to the same necessary and behoofful after the Laws Customs of Romney Marsh in the county of Kent or otherwise by any ways or means after their own wisdoms and discretions These be the words and this is the clause which must make good this perpetual charge for that it doth formerly appear that such like Laws and Customs there were in Romney Marsh as this is and therefore I may conclude this point that the Commissioners in imitation of the said Ordinance of Romney Marsh may make Decrees to binde Lands to perpetual charges Yet Sir Edward Cook in Keighlies case sets it down as resolved That the several Commissioners of Sewers throughout all England are not bound to pursue the Laws and Customs of Romney Marsh but in case where some particular place within their Commission have such Laws Customs as Romney Marsh hath there they might pursue them But in my own opinion the Commissioners may if they please make Ordinances and Laws like to those of Romney Marsh where there hath not been any such use and the words of the Statute as I take it will bear that construction and the said opinion of Sir Edward Cook is not directly against this And upon Decrees for sales of Land it is usual in these Decrees to binde those Lands to the perpetual repairs Sales of Lands THe words of the Statute which be made for sales of Lands be these Provided always That if any person or persons being assessed or taxed to any lot or charge for any Lands Tenements or Hereditaments within the Limits of any Commission hereafter to be directed do not pay the said lot and charge according to the Order and Assignment of the Commissioners having power of the execution of the said Commission c. by reason whereof if it shall happen the said Commissioners for lack of payment of such lot charge to Decree and Ordain the said Lands and Tenements from the owner or owners thereof and their heirs and the heirs of every of them to any person or persons for term of years term of life Fee simple or Fee tail for payment of the same lot and charge Then every such Decree and Ordinance so by them ingrossed into Parchment and certified under their seals into the Kings Court of Chancery with the Kings royal assent had to the same shal binde al and every person and persons that at the making of the same Decree had any interest in such Lands Tenements and Hereditaments in use posession reversion or remainder their heirs and Feoffee and every of them and not to be in any wise reformed unless it were by authority in Parliament hereafter to be summoned and holden within the Realm And also that the same Laws Ordinances and Decrees to be made and ordained by the Commissioners or any six of them by authority of the said Commission shall binde as well the Lands Tenements and Hereditaments of our Soveraign the King as all and every other person and persons and their heirs and such their interest as they shall fortune to have in any Lands Tenements and Hereditaments or other casual profit advantage or commodity whatsoever they be whereunto the said Laws Ordinances and Decrees shall in any wise extend according to the true purport meaning and intent of the said Laws This Clause or Proviso was strangely placed in this Statute as if this Statute had not been the first Father of it and as if this Law had made some addition to a former Law But I take it that this Statute was and is the first and only Law which gave sale of Lands in cases of Sewers and this Clause stands upon these four pillars Imprimis for what cause Lands may be sold by the Commissioners of Sewers Secondly what Lands are to be sold within these Laws Thirdly what persons what Estates and Interests are to be bound thereby Fourthly to what persons these Lands may be sold or decreed The Statute is If any person sessed do not pay whereby it is manifest that the Lands are to be sold for sesses and charges imposed by the Commissioners which lyeth in payment only and they may not be decreed away for any other cause or matter And therefore if one hold his Land to repair a Wall Bank Sewers or other work of Sewers and he neglect to repair the same the Commissioners of Sewers cannot for this cause decree the Lands away from the owner because this charge lay not in payment And I cannot gather out of the words of this Statute that Lands can be decreed for any cause then for Non-payment of a Lot Sess or Charge by reason this word Payment is reiterated three or four times in this branch of the Statute and no other words be coupled with it to infer any other or larger exposition If I. S. do hold his Lands of the Lord of a Manor by the payment of Twenty shillings yearly or other sum towards the repairs of a work of Sewers and he do neglect to pay the same whereby the work is unrepaired although this is a charge which lyeth in payment yet because it grows due by Tenure by the Common Law and was not imposed by the force of this Statute therefore the Lands of I. S. cannot be decreed from him by the Non-payment thereof by the tenor and vertue of this Law of Sewers But if the Lands of one be generally charged to repair such a Wall or other work of Sewers by Prescription Covenant or otherwise and the Commissioners impose a sesse and rate upon him to repair it and he do not there in this case although the charge was by the rules of the Common Laws yet because the sesse and rate was set upon him by the power of this Statute I am of opinion that for neglect of payment the said Lands may be sold by the decree of the Commissioners of Sewers So if one do hold his Lands for the payment of Twenty shillings to repair a Bank and the Commissioners of Sewers do order the party to pay the Twenty shillings at a time by them prescribed not being contrary to the usual days of payment and he do neglect to pay The Commissioners may decree his Lands from him because this charge by reason of the said Order had got the force and power of this Statute If a charge be generally laid upon a Township Hundred or Rape which is not paid according to the Commissioners Order no Lands can be decreed in this case because no persons or Lands be in this case particularly charged and the
decree of the sale must be directed by and depend upon the sesse But if after the general sesse be laid the same be after assessed upon particular persons by particular sums by the said Commissioners then upon default of payment their Lands making default may be decreed from them by the power of this Statute If an assesse or charge of payment be laid upon certain Lands without mentioning the Owner the Lands cannot be decreed from him by this Law for the words of the Statute be That if any person or persons assessed to any Lot or Charge do not pay So that I shall take it that no decree for sale of Land can be made but where there is a person certainly assessed by name Lands cannot be decreed away from the owners for default of payment of Fines Amerciaments or Pains for though these be sums of money or charges imposed by the Commissioners of Sewers of persons certain for matters touching these Laws yet because they were not sessed or rated towards the repairs of any works of Sewers but be set upon the parties as mulcts and punishments and be due to the King therefore no decree of Lands can be made for any of them Now the second part of this clause is what Lands may be decreed by the authority of the said Statute and thereby it appears they must be such Lands as lie and be within the power of this Commission of Sewers and herein rests a difference between the case of a Distresse for a sesse which may be taken in any place within this Realm and the decree of sale of Lands for Non-payment of a sesse which must lie within the bounds and extent of the Commission for this Distresse is circumscribed to the extent of the Statute which is over the whole Realm and the sale is tyed to the limits of the Commission And I am also of opinion that no Land can be sold away by the decree of the Commissioners of Sewers but such as were charged with the sesse If one hold his Lands in Comitat ' Eborum to repair a Sea-bank in the County of Lincoln and the Owner is assessed therefore and makes default of payment the Commissioners of Sewers in the county of Lincoln may give warrant to distrain for this sesse in the county of York but they cannot decree away by sale those Lands lying there which were charged with the sesse A Copyholders Land cannot be decreed against him by this Law for if it might then these customary Lands should be transferred from one to another contrary to the Customs of the Manors whereof they be parcel and it would infringe that rule which is delivered in Heidons Case Heidons Case in Cooks 3 Report which is when an Act of Parliament doth alter the service Tenure and interest of the Land or other thing in prejudice of the Lord or of the Custom of the Manor or of the Tenant there the general words of such a Statute doth not extend to Copyholds And in this case if any sale should be made by the Commissioners all the said rules should be infringed for it were contrary to the Custom to passe these Lands without surrender it were in prejudice of the Lord to have Copyhold-land passed and he to have no Fine And I am likewise of opinion that the Freehold of these Lands could not be passed away for a sesse or a lay because the Lord hath but the shadow and the Copyholder hath the substance But if the Lords Rents of Assize should be assessed as they ought to be and he do neglect to pay then these Rents might be decreed from him and so may all other Lands Tenements and Hereditaments decreed in respect whereof one is sessable and sessed by the Laws The third Branch of this clause is the direct point in my case viz. What persons what estates be bound by these decrees And first of the Heirs in Tail whether they be bound by a decree made against the Donees in Tail their Ancestors is the question In the handling whereof I hold it sitting to shew in what cases the Heirs in Tail have been bound by the act of their Ancestors and the reasons and causes thereof And therefore if a Disseisor make a Gift in Tail and the Donee in Tail grant a Rent to the Dissessee for release of his right this will binde the Heir in Tail for that by this release his Estate which before was defeisable is now confirmed as by the Books of 44 Ed. 3. 22. and 20 Ed. 4. 13. 44 Ed. 3. 20 Ed. 4. 46 Ed. 3. appeareth and so in 46 Ed. 3. a gift in Tail was made Ita quod the Donee might alien to the benefit of the Heirs in Tail and and this by Judge Welbey was held a condition which bound the Heir in Tail for his benefit And in 12. Ed. 4. 1. Tregouse and Taltarms Case was That a recovery against Tenant 12 Ed. 4. in Tail with a Voucher by him over did binde the heirs in Tail by the Common Law by reason of the intended recompence which was to come to him by the Voucher and so a lineal warranty with assets and a collateral warranty without assets were and be both of them bars to the Issues by reason also of the intended recompences and these are things which were originally tied to those Estates and were incidents to them ab initio And therefore this shall suffice to treat of bars to the Issues in Tail by the Common Laws and now I shall proceed to shew in what cases they were barred of their Estates by the Statutes of this Realm By the Statute of 16 R. 2. cap. 5. The Lands and Tenements 16 R. 2. of one attaint in a Premunire are to be forfeited to the King and in 21 Eliz. one Trudgin was Tenant in Tail 11 El. and was attainted in a Premunire and the question was Whether Intailed Lands were forfeited against the Issues in Tail or not And in Doctor Forsters case in Cooks 11 Report C. 11 Rep. it is there said to be resolved that the general words of that Statute did not repeal the Statute of Westminster 2. of Intails and so the forfeiture was there resolved to continue but for the life of Trudgin and did not binde the Issues in Tail A Judgement in Debt against Tenant in Tail or if he be bound in a Statute or in a Recognizance in the nature of a Statute the Lands Intailed were not extendable nor to be held in extent by the Statutes of Westminster 2. Acton Burnel or by the Statute de Mercatoribus by any of the general words of these Laws but the Statute of 33 H. 8. cap. 39. by expresse words bindeth the heir in Tail for their Lands 23 H. 8. whose Ancestors stood indebted to the King by Judgement Recognizance Obligation or other specialty But the Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. Enacts That every 26 H. 8. one which shall be
attainted of Treason shall forfeit the Lands whereof he is seized of any Estate of Inheritance and by this Statute Intailed Lands were forfeited and the words Of any Estate of Inheritance were the words which gave that forfeiture the one in Fee simple the other in Fee tail and the word any presupposeth more Estates of Inheritance then one But whether a Decree of sale of Lands made by Commissioners of Sewers shall binde the heirs in Tail is the point of my case and in my opinion I think they shall be barred for the causes and reasons following First the words of the Statute of Sewers be That such a Decree shall binde all and every person and persons that at the making of the same Decree had any interest in such Lands Tenements Hereditaments in Uso Possession Remainder or Reversion their heirs and assigns So that by expresse words it bindes the heirs and it would have bound the heirs of a Tenant in Fee simple without the word Heirs expressed in the Statute therefore the word Heirs needed not but onely for the binding of the heirs in Tail Also if these Lands were charged by Prescription as many Lands be then were the Lands originally bound and the heirs in Tail stand charged with these sesses as well as Land in Fee simple And lastly this is a Law enacted for the preservation of the Commonweal and is more to be favored then particular Estates of heirs in Tail But the case of the Premunire was penal in point of a forfeiture which is to be strictly taken for the King and favorably for the subject and therefore in my opinion the heirs in Tail shall be bound in these cases of sale and the rather because they be within the words of the Statute videlicet Heirs generally put which extends to heirs in Tail as well as to heirs in Fee simple and because the sesse and charge shall binde both alike so in my opinion the sale shall binde both in regard the sale depends upon the charge and sesse If a Prebend Parson or Vicar Dean Bishop or such like which be seized of Lands in their politique capacity be sessed to repairs of works of Sewers their Lands cannot be decreed away from them in such sort as to binde their successors for as this Statute of Sewers extend to binde Lands by decrees in perpetuity so the Statute of 1 and 13 and 14 Eliz. restrain Alienations and where those Statutes restrain them I am of opinion that this general Statute of Sewers doth not dispence with those Statutes In Croft Crofts and Howels Case and Howels Case in Plow Comment a fine with Proclamations and non-claim by five years did binde the Corporation of the Mystery of the Cooks in London for their right in Lands and so all other Corporations which are absolute of themselves and needed not the assent of any other as Majors and Commonalties Deans and Chapters Master and Fellows of Colledges But the Law is otherwise of Parsons Vicars Prebends and such like And the like exposition do I make of them in this Statute of Sewers But I will here make a distinction I am notwithstanding of opinion That the Parsons Vicars Prebends and such like for their own neglect are bound during their times but not their successors after them And note this Statute though it mention heirs yet it doth not at all mention successors which is worthy of consideration also And in my opinion this Statute as to Decrees to be made of Lands will binde women Covert Baron Infants persons that be non sanae mentis and such like because it is a Law made for the safety of the Commonwealth And so it is held in Zouches case in the Com. That the Statute of 4 H. 7. of fines had bound Infants Ideots and Women Court Baron had they not been excepted in that Statute A forciori Zouches Case shall they be comprised in this Statute for the Statute of fines was made for the peace of the Weal-publique but the Statute of Sewers was made for the safety thereof If there be two Tenants in Common which be sessed towards the repairs of a Wall Bank or such like work of Sewers and one of them do neglect to pay his proportionable part Whether Commissioners may decree a moyety without partition both of the sesse and Land is a question for their Estates are several though there be a community in taking of the profits And therefore the matter is whether the assesse shall attend upon the possession which is in Common or upon their Estates which be several And although Commissioners in assesse be not bound to take notice of their Estate yet if they take upon them to decree a mans Lands from him they are then to take notice of his Estate and of all other circumstances necessarily depending thereupon In 22 H. 6. fol. 12. if a Trespasse be done upon Lands which are held in Common they are to joyn in an Action but if one of them die that Action shall survive for though they were joynt in the personalty yet they disjoyned in the realty And if two Tenants in Common of Land joyn in a grant of Ten pounds rent charge out of their Lands the Grantee shall have Ten pounds yearly of either by the opinion of Mr. Perkins But if a sesse of Ten pounds be laid and imposed upon them by this Law of Sewers this sesse shall not double as the Rent should yet in this case of a joynt assess imposed upon Tenants in Common and one would pay his moyety and his companion refuseth the Commissioners of Sewers cannot sell a moyety of the Land for that it is a joynt sess and was not imposed by moyeties and the sale doth depend upon the sess and all may not be sold for that one Tenant in Common cannot prejudice his companion in things of Realty The fourth matter is to whom Lands may be decreed by this Law for by the words of the Statute it appeareth That the Commissioners have power to decree Lands for default of payment for years for life in Tail or in Fee simple whereby the Law intended they should make their decrees for sale according to the quantity of the sess and so should use moderation in the Estates they made or sold therefore and it was not intended they should sel the Feesimple away for sess which might be satisfied with the making of a less Estate And I am of opinion that this decree doth make the Estate with the help of this Statute according to the limitation which should therein be declared and that the party shall have Estate according as the same is thereby limited unto him and this is no equitable decree which bindes the person onely as Chancery decrees be but it bindes the Land and therefore the Commissioners may not decree Lands to a Corporation as to a Major and Commonalty Dean and Chapter or such like which be Mortmain for the general words of this Statute
the Exposition is not to be tyed hereto so notwithstanding this exception these grounds though gained since the Statute are within the relief thereof The second cause wherefore these new grounds should not be within this Law is Because these Lands be increased beyond the bounds since the making of these Laws and so it may be alleaged that they cannot extend to the new inlargement for Mr. Plow in his Com. fol. 129. saith That Laws Plow Com. and Priviledges tied to a certain Place or Precinct cannot be fol. 129. extended or inlarged beyond the ancient Bounds although the Predinct be inlarged As the Case in 7 H. 6. fol. 32. 7 H 6. fol. 32. where in a Nativo habendo a Villain had remained a yeer and a day in London which was ancient Demesn and there was a priviledge that every Villain and Bondslave which had remained a day and a year in London the Lord might not seize him and the Villain pleaded that he had remained a year and a day there and so took himself to be within that priviledge but because since the said liberty granted the bounds of London were much increased therefore it was there held that the said liberty and priviledge did not extend to the new inlargement And the Case is also put in the said Coment that the Bishop of Durham had divers liberties in his Lands lying between the two Rivers of Tyne and Tese and after he purchased other Lands there the said liberties did not extend to the said new purchased Lands and the like Law is if one have a Warren in his Mannor and Lands in Dale after he purchase more grounds there his Warren doth not extend unto them And so where one had by Charter the Lands of persons forfeited for Treason he could not have by the said ancient Charter Lands forfeited for Treason by Tenants in Tail because the forfeiture of them was given by a late Statute since the Charter but his non obstantibus I am of Opinion That this Statute I now treat on extendeth to these new gained grounds and I take a difference between a special Law of Priviledges and Liberties which is stinted or bounded either by Statute Charter or Custom the same can by no construction be made to exceed the bounds but the general Law of this Kingdom as this Law of ours is the extents thereof be as large as the whole Realm is and they be not tied to stinted limits as particular private Charters and Customs be and so I conclude That in point of extent this Statute of 23 H. 8. is tied to no other bounds then to the Kingdom of England Diversity between grounds gained and grounds left THe third matter is that which I have grounded the conclusion of my Case upon and that is Whether the grounds in my Case newly left by the sea to the shore and the shore be such grounds as be within this Commission And in my opinion they be not And therefore to maintain my opinion herein I take a difference between grounds left by the Sea and grounds gained from the sea for grounds left are of no value and bring forth no fruit or encrease at all but the uppermost part thereof are sand which these Laws take no hold of for the Commission extends only to grounds won and made profitable for the Commonwealth of this Realm which Terra relicta yield not for no profit at all thereof ariseth till the sand be inned and gained and these Laws made the Commissioners Savers and not Gainers and therefore did extend the Commission but to the utttermost banks and walls and left the shore as grounds possessed by the sea and so be put pro in defenso by this Law and therefore I do make my conclusion as followeth First That the Seas Creeks and Bays are all within this Statute in point of extent but that they and the shores and the relinquish'd grounds be all of them out of this Commission of Sewers to be dealt withal thereby Secondly That Ports and Havens are totally the waters as well as the walls and banks thereof within the Commission of Sewers Thirdly The shore and grounds left by the sea when they are put as in Gainage are then and not before within the power of the Commission of Sewers Fourthly although the grounds left by the sea are not in point of defence within the Commission of Sewers yet a wall or bank may be thereon raised for the aid and succor of the countrey but not for any cause where the defence extends but to themselves And although the grounds that have been gained from the sea in the county of Lincoln and elswhere in this Realm yet that was done at the labor of private men and not by the Commission of Sewers which aims at the general good and not at private Commodities So that Super totam materiam I am of opinion with the conclusion of my Case that is That the said new Island is the Kings the grounds left to the shore pertains to C. the subject and that because they are all of them within the Realm of England they are therefore within the extent of this Statute But in regard they are grounds left only and not gained nor made profitable for the Commonwealth of this Realm they are not therefore within this Commission And so I conclude my Argument as I did my Case in which I hope I have neither injured the Subject in his private Inheritance nor wronged Prerogative in any point Finis primae Lecturae Initium secundae Lecturae FOrasmuch as the first day I went perambulation about the Sea and of all which belong to her Empire and Dominion wherein I did survey her bounds her qualities and her government Now I do intend to go a progress through the Land and to take a view of the fair goodly Rivers which make their voyage to the Sea for these my Statute hath taken into her protection And this second day I purpose to call a Court of Oyer and Terminer And I do intend with your gentle patience to examine all the particulars there arising And because the said Statute of 23 H. 8. must be my chief guide to direct my fairest passage through these uncouth ways I will pray aid thereon and I will now proceed to declare what business on Land this Law hath undertaken to defend and what offences it purposeth to reform And accordingly the said Law doth distribute it self into these particular Branches I. First Into matters of defence this Statute maintaineth are these following viz. 1. Walls 2. Banks 3. Ditches 4. Gutters 5. Sewers 6. Goats 7. Calceys 8. Bridges Secondly Into matters of Offence which this Statute termeth Le ts Impediments and Annoyances which are to be put down or reformed as cause shall require 1. Streams 2. Mills 3. Ponds 4. Fishgarths 5. Mildams 6. Locks 7. Hebbingwers 8. Hecks 9. Floodgates 10. Other like Lets and Impediments And to the end I might fully
examine this part of the Statute which produceth these matters I have framed a Case which doth give occasion in this days exercise to dispute of all them The Case for the second Lecture A. Leaseth his Mannor in the county of Lincoln in which Second Case be Copyholds to B. a yonger Son for his life upon condition to have it for the life of C. upon condition to have it to him and the heirs of the body of his Father A Copyhold is forfeit the first Condition is performed the Commissioners of Sewers in that county upon view survey and by their discretion decree a new bank where none was before to resist the Sea and a new River to be cut to drain the superfluous waters in S. and an old Sewer in D. to be repaired and by inquisition assesses B. the Lessee for the Mannor the Copyholder for the Copyhold Land and the Town of S. and also the Parson there for his Tythes because they lie all in the Level the second condition is performed B. enters in the Copyhold My conclusion is That this new Bank new River and old Sewer be well decreed but the said sesse is void in toto in qualibet parte Points at the Common Law The Points of this Case are three at the Common Law and three upon this Statute but all of them are so woven within another that every one of them go hand in hand from the beginning to the end of the Case Imprimis Whether the Duplicate Condition be good or not Secondly What Estate B. the yonger Son hath by the first Condition and what Estate he hath got by the second Thirdly A Copyhold becomes forfeit to the Lord and before the Lord take advantage of it his Estate is changed Whether by the change of his Estate the benefit of the forfeiture be lost or not Points upon the Statute Imprimis Whether Commissioners have power to decree a new bank a new drain and other new defences or not And herein the qualities and properties of Rivers Streams and Banks and their dependants are to be treated of Secondly Whether they may decree the said new defences by view and survey And herein is to be handled What Commissioners of Sewers may do by survey and what they may do by their discretion and what they may do by Jury Thirdly in what cases Assesses and Taxes may be laid and imposed and on what things and in what maner they are to be imposed and whether the Rates set upon the persons in any case be well done or not and where the fault is if any be Argumentum Lectoris Seeing it hath been the ancient order for the Reader of this place to maintain the Conclusions of his Case I shall therefore endeavor my self to perform that order which Custom hath imposed upon me and accordingly as I have concluded so I take the Law to be And touching the first Point it hath been challenged and drawn in question upon some Opinion delivered in the Rector of Cheddingtons Case in Sir Edward Cooks first Report where it said That one contingent cannot depend upon another Sir Ed. Cooks 1 Report But more strictly it is called to an accompt in the Lord Staffords Case in Sir Edward Cooks eighth Report for there it is Cook Rep. 8. held That one possibility cannot depend upon another possibility and this Case is there put That if A. let Lands to B. for years upon condition to have it for life and upon condition to have Fee that the Fee simple can never increase by the second condition but as he saith in another Case Amicus Plato Amicus Socrates sed magis amica veritas his rule taken in the first Case is very general and the Lord Staffords Case admits distinctions which in my Argument I shall apply my self unto And some differences I shall take in this Point in question therefore I shall thus distinguish That if upon performance of the first Condition the Original Estate be determined upon which both the first and second Condition were built and grounded the second Condition and increase thereupon is utterly void but if the first Estate be not destroyed nor confounded upon the first Condition performed the second Condition and Estate thereof which shall be gotten thereby may then well grow upon the old stock To explain this by Example If A. give Land to B. in Fee simple upon condition to have the Land in Tail upon condition to have for Life here because the first Estate and Livery by the first Condition is not destroyed therefore the second Condition should well stand in force So I do make a Lease to A. for twenty years upon condition to have the Land for forty years upon condition to have Fee this first Condition and second Condition may have both their full operations for by the performance of the first Condition the lease of twenty years is not destroyed but stands on foot and therefore the original Estate remaining unconfounded the Fee simple may well increase by the performance of the second Condition But if a Lease be made to A. for his life upon condition to have in Tail upon condition to have Fee the second Condition here is utterly void because by the performance of the first Condition A. had an Estate in Tail which drowned and destroyed his Estate for life and so because every decreasing and increasing Estate is to depend upon the first Estate which receives the Livery which is the life of all therefore the second Estate can never accrew in this case and this is true reason as I take it of the said Case put in the Lord Staffords Case for there the Case for years was destroyed by the Lease for life which came by the first Lord Staffords Case Condition and so the Fee simple there could never accrew by the second Condition And in answer to the said general ground taken in the Rector of Cheddingtons Case That one Rector de Cheddingtons Case contingent or possibility cannot depend upon another under favor I take it not that I am bound thereby neither was it the meaning of Sir Edward Cook as I take it to extend the same so largely as they are there put because I finde many Authorities of great account which are against the said general position And first in the 38 H. 8. Br. Feoffments pl. 71. a Feoffment 38 H. S. was made to the use of A. and his heirs until I. S. paid him Ten pounds and then to I. S. and his heirs and so to the third person and what is this but one condition contingent and possibility to depend upon another for these contingents there were held good and were built upon a sure foundation And so in Digs Case in Sir Edward Cooks Reports where a Feoffment is made to the use of A. and his heirs with Digs Case power of Revocation and after of new Limitation of Estates these be also contingents and possibilities
both degrees And in 2 E. 3. the Case 2 E. 3. is famous and is known by the name of Roberges Case where Lands were given to her and to the heirs of the husband of her body begotten and it was there held That if her husband were then dead and left any heir which he had by her they might take joyntly with her for that it was not possible to take by descent from the said Roberges because he which takes it must not be heir to her but to the husband who never held any Estate therein And so to be short I am of Opinion That no estate of inheritance be gained by B. by these words The heirs of the body of his father The Case upon the third Point is this a Mannor is granted Third Point to one for his life upon condition to have it for the life of C. then a Copyhold is forfeit and before the Lord seize his Estate is altered or changed if now he can take advantage of this forfeiture or not wherein the altering of the Estate of one to another is of like force as where it alters in the parties self against which it may be said That if Tenant for life make waste and then he in the reversion grant over the reversion the Grantee shall not now punish this waste and so Mr. Perkins fol. 20. If a Tenant alien in Mortmain and Perkins so 20. then the Lord grant away his Signiory the Grantee shall not enter for this Mortmain so by Fitz. in his Nat. bre in his admeasurement Fitz. Har. Nat. brc. of Dower If a Garden assign to a woman more dower then she ought to have and then grant his Gardenship over the Grantee cannot have an admeasurement of Dower against her and so Binghams Case in Sir Edward Cook 2. Rep. where there was Tenant for life remainder in Fee of a Tenancy holden Binghams Case Cook 2 Rep. by Knights service and he in remainder died his heirs within age and then the Lord granted away his Signiory and then Tenant for life dyed by which the said heir was to have been in ward yet because the Signiory was granted away after the inception of the Wardship before it was perfectly due it was there held that neither the grant nor the grantee should have the same So Lessee for life without impeachment Bokenhams Case in Dicr of wast remainder for his own life the priviledge is lost but yet notwithstanding I do hold that in this Case B. after he hath by the performance of the Condition altered his Estate which he had when the forfeiture was committed yet shall he afterward take advantage thereof well enough As if there be Tenant for life the Remainder for life to I. S. and the first Tenant for life commit waste or forfeiture he in the reversion cannot punish this during the life of him in the remainder for life but after his death he may also if one make a Lease for years upon Condition to be void and the Lessor grant away his reversion the Grantee may enter for breach of this Condition by 11 H. 7. 17. and yet here the Estate in reversion is altered from 11 H. 7. 17. one to another and I doubt not but if a Tenant for life be the remainder in Fee to another of a Mannor and a Copyhold is forfeit and then Tenant for life dyed that he in remainder may enter into this Copyhold and yet this Estate is altered into a possession from a remainder and in the Case although the Estate in B. be altered yet it is by decreaser and so thereby it is parcel of the old Estate he had before and therefore it is like to a Case where the husband and wife were Tenants in special Tail and they recovered by Assize and then the husband dyed and after his death without issue the wives Estate being altered from an Estate Tail into an Estate of possibility of issue extinct was again put out and disseized and she brought a Writ of Redisseisin 2 H. 4. 17. 26 H. 6. title Ayd pl. 77. which will not lie but on the first Estate and against the first parties and yet it was maintained because it was parcel of her former Estate And so in this Case although the Estate of B. was altered from his own life into the life of C. yet I am of Opinion That he might take advantage of this forfeiture because the Customary Estate is utterly void thereby Points upon the Statute I am determined before I enter into the discourse of new defences in my Case to deliver my Opinion touching the Walls Banks and other ancient defences which have had their being time out of memory and in truth be the very materials and memorials of Antiquity And because Banks and Walls be the first named in the Commission they shall therefore have the first place in my argument being the most ancient and approved defences as well against the rage of the Seas as against the violence of fresh waters that either Art or Nature have produced Bank THe Bank of the sea is the utmost border of dry land and is of the same materials with the grounds wherein and whereon it standeth it is sometimes natural and in some places artificial Natural as Mountains raised higher then other grounds adjoyning as it pleased the Creator when the first huge Chaos was separated divided and distributed Artificial when it is cast by mans hand Justinian the Emperor treating of these in his Institutes and his title de rerum divisione describeth them in this maner Riparum usus est publicus illar ' verò domin ' ad eos pertinet qui proximior praediis domini sunt itaque naves ad eas appellere funes arboribus ibi natis Religare onus aliquod in his Reponere cuilibet liberum est by which authority it appeareth that the ownership and property of the sea bank and banks of great Rivers be to them whose grounds are next thereto adjoyning and the Trees Grass and other things thereon growing belong to the owner of the soil but the use of the banks is common to all the Kings liege people as to tie the ships and boats to the Trees and to tow them to and fro and to lade and unlade their Merchandizes thereon and for fishers to dry their nets on And as the owner of the soil and proprietor of the grounds cannot justifie the digging or casting of them down whereby the people shall be hindred of their necessary use thereof no more can the people which have but necessarium usum fell up the Trees or mow the grass thereon growing neither ought they to dig ballast there but every one as well owner as user Sic uti suo ut alienum non laedat I cannot more aptly compare a Bank of the Sea or of a navigable River then to a Highway for that the property thereof is to him whose ground is next adjoyning and the
Arguments as I did my Case that the new Bank new River and old Sewer were well decreed but that the assess is void in toto in qualibet parte Finis secundae Lecturae Lectura tertia IN my two preceding Cases the main body of this great Law were contrived and therefore I took a greater larger compass in my Arguments therein then otherwise I would have done and I am now come to the execution of these Laws wherein the life and livelihood of all Laws consist And it may well be said of execution as Mr. Plowden in Zouch and Stowels Case Plow com in his Commentaries fol. 358. saith of a fine that it is finis fructus exitus effectus Legis so is execution the fruit issue and end of the Law and without it nothing is effectual and till it come nothing is material for to begin a Suit and stay at the declaration were a fruitless enterprise and to proceed on to Judgement and to go no further were like a Traveller which undertook a journey and returns or sits down without further moving before he came at the end of his intended progress Law as Cicero saith is but mutus Magistratus the Magistrate is Lex loquens but I shall adde something which Cicero upon the matter is the sum of all things that is That executio est Lex agens And because I esteem the time to be almost lost or mispent which is prologued out in preambles I will therefore now briefly divide this part of this Statute into these insuing heads Either in punishing the body and person of the delinquent with Imprisonment Fine or Amerciament Or in doing execution upon the offendors goods By distress or by the Absolute sale thereof Or otherwise in extending upon the Real Estate By charging the Land in perpetuity or temporarily or by the absolute sale thereof The true and due execution of all these in a just legal equal and qualified decree requireth of all other parts of Law this greatest and truest discretion consideration wisdom and judgement of the Commissioners And I take it it may stand as a ground infallible that there be as many degrees of punishments as there be offences It behooveth therefore the Commissioners to be circumspect that they apply to every offence his due punishment for it is injustice to punish the offence committed in a wrong degree to pronounce a Traytors judgement upon a Fellon or a Fellons judgement upon a Traytor is grand misprision to imprison the body or to fine the person where an Amerciament is onely due is not onely injustice in the Commissioners but thereby also their discretions are to be drawn in question and censured And seeing the Statute doth so much lie upon discretion of the Commissioners as in many parts of this Law it is mentioned It seemeth the Parliament did give them to understand That such as were to meddle in those affairs should be both discreet and wise and should strive to become learned in those affairs And therefore for the better furnishing of them with the true understanding of the said parts of this Statute I have framed a Case thereupon which doth give just occasion to treat fully of them all The third Case A. Gave the Office of a Ranger of a Forest to which a Mannor is belonging to I. S. Abnepti and to the heirs males and females of their bodies in Franck mariage and dieth B. and C. their legitimate son and daughter and D. their bastard daughter enter and dieth in seisin and E. her daughter enters The Commissioners of Sewers at a Court make a Law That a Goat shall be repaired and assesse severally A. B. C. and E. to do it upon surmise that they all had benefit B. and C. refuse to obey for which B. is imprisoned and C. is fined A. and E. tender pleas of discharge which are refused and they are severally amerced and a Law made that A. should be distrained and for non-payment the distress to be sold without alowance of Replevin and the interest of E. should be also sold because she hath nothing to be distrained by I conclude the Commissioners of Sewers have done due Justice upon the Offenders in every part of this Law Argumentum Lectoris The passages of this Case are both at the Common Law and by this Statute The Common Law is the means but the Statute is the matter I must insist upon But seeing the Statute Law can receive no due construction but by the rules of the Common Law I have therefore made a harmonial composition of them both in my Case and I do distinguish and branch out my Case into these ensuing points Points at the Common Law Imprimis Whether this Office may be intailed or not Secondly Whether it be an ordinary Intail or a Frank-mariage Thirdly Whether the Bastard be inheritable to this Estate or not Points upon the Statute First Whether the Commissioners have a Court or only the strength of the Commission without a Court Secondly Whether Commissioners of Sewers have power to imprison and to fine if so then whether they have well behaved themselves in this Case or not Thirdly Whether this Law doth admit of any pleas and especially of pleas of discharge Fourthly Whether the Law made touching the distress be well made because it seemeth prima facie to oppose a main point of the Common Law in denying of Replevins Fifthly and lastly if the Law made for sale of Lands of Tenements in Tail be warranted by this Statute or not These be the materials of this Case wherein you may perceive by the beginning what you are to expect in the sequel and conclusion of my argument These Points upon the Statute are of great consequence and importance and tend much into the powers of these Laws In the handling whereof according to my wonted fashion I intend to maintain the Affirmatives of my Case First Point I did not intend it a point of any importance in my Case Whether Land might belong to an Office for that in the 1 H. 7. fol. 28. in Sir Robert Crofts Case it is resolved it might For there Land did belong to the Office 1 H. 7. of a Forester and might belong to the Office of the Warden of the Fleet and also to a Corody which was no Office and these as well as to a spiritual Office Parson Vicar Prebend or such like but whether or no these Lands might be parted from the office by alienation I thought that an argumentable point in 6 H. 8. Dyer f. 2. Empsons case it is said 6 H. 8. if the King create a Duke grant to him an anuity to maintain his Dignity that Annuity was so incident to his Dignity as it could not be severed therefrom and so of Lands belonging to a Parson Vicar Bishop or such like because they were given to the maintenance of them in their places and therefore if these were severed they might be recontinued
fol. 57. in Winbish and Tailboys Case it is said That if there be a Bastard Eigne and Mulier puisne and the Bastard after the death of the Ancestor entreth into intailed Lands and dyeth seized this doth not binde the Mulier in case of Estates Tail as it doth in an Estate of Fee simple and voucheth for Authority in the point 39 Ed. 3. plac ultimo where the Case is That Lands were given in Tail to I. S. the Remainder 39 Ed. 3. in Tail to C. and I. S. hath Issue by a woman a Bastard and dyeth seized and then the Bastard dyeth seized having Issue he in the Remainder may recover the Land against the Issue of the Bastard affirming That the continuance of possession in the Bastard shall not be prejudicial to him in Remainder To which Opinion I do subscribe because he in the Remainder is a stranger in blood and so cannot be concluded as the Mulier shall be for a Mulier indeed is like a graft drawn out of both the bloods of Father and Mother so the Bastard is a slip which is derived from the same Stock and had his being therefrom And for my own Opinion considering the Statute of Westminster 2. de Donis doth accept of Gifts in Tail made before Mariage upon the hope and expectation of a succeeding Mariage to perfect the same even so the Mariage succeeding to a Bastards birth gives him and his Issue a priviledge in these cases of descent which is denied to other Bastards or meer Strangers And I see no reason wherefore that maxime and principle of Law should be altered by the said Statute of West 2. but because Mountagues Opinion in Mr. Plow Com. sways the other way I will therefore submit this Point to men of greater judgement then my own So that if the Law fall out for the Bastard Issue then she should have title to the half part belonging to the Females and to no part belonging to the heirs Males And with this Conclusion I do here end my Common Law Points and will now resort to the handling of my Statute Points The Sewers are a Court of Iustice I Am desirous to attribute to this Law all the honor and dignity which may in any sort belong to it and therefore I am unwilling to forget any thing which may materially tend to the upholding and maintaining thereof wherein amongst the rest and the chiefest of them all it is To prove the Commissioners of Sewers a Court of Justice I know some Opinion hath been to the contrary and held That the Commissioners had only the power of a Commission and not any Court and I suppose much may be said to maintain that opinion First because in expressis terminis there is no Court ordained by this Statute or by any other and without words express in the point they can have no Court. Secondly by presidents in the like case it hath been held no Court as in the Case of the City of London in Sir Edward Cooks 8 Report The King granted to the Major and Commonalty Plenum integrum scrutinium gubernationem The Case of the City of London correctionem omnium singularum misteriarum and it was resolved That they had no Court in this case because no Court was granted to them by the Patent as it is holden in Doctor Bonhams Case fol. 119 in the same Report wherein the principal Case there put sways the same ways for there the Physitians had power to imprison and to fine offendors yet they had not any Court thereby And so if a Commission issue out of the Chancery to examine matters in a Suit there depending and to Oyer and Terminer the same yet hereby these Commissioners have not any Court for in that case the Commission is derived out of the proper power of the Chancery which is the Court for that cause eo instante when it is in Commission And one Cause cannot uno eodemque tempore depend in several Courts neither have the Commissioners upon the Statutes of Bankrupts and charitable uses any Courts nor the Commissioners in the Case of 1 2 Eliz. Dier fol. 175. which had power to hear and determine the Office of the Exigenter had not any Court but only the power of a Commission For in truth these are all of them rather Ministerial then Judicial Commissions and so a Court is not proper to them Yet I am of Opinion That the Commissioners of Sewers have an eminent Court of Record It is true that Courts had their beginnings in three sorts First by Prescription Secondly by Charter-grant from the Crown And Thirdly by Act of Parliament 1. The Courts Hundred and Leet began by custom and so did the eminent Courts of Westminster-Hall 2. Courts in Corporations most of them took their beginnings by Charters And 3. The Courts of first Fruits and Tenths and the Court of Wards and Liveries were erected by Act of Parliament the one in 32 the other in 33 Hen. 8. But to bring the question nearer home to our Statute of Sewers which is but additamentum legibus antiquis Sewerarum for they have been used from the beginning of Laws though perhaps not known by that name And yet before the 6 H. 6. they were known by that name as by the perusal of that Statute may be collected And therefore for the causes and reasons hereafter ensuing I hold the same to be a Court. First for that the Statute of 12 Ed. 4. cap. 7. and our very Statute of 23 H. 8. calls the Commissioners of Sewers 12 Ed. 4. Justices and one cannot properly be a Justice or a Judge but in a Court. Secondly here be legal Proceedings and Process for this Statute saith That the Commissioners may make and direct all Writs Precepts Warrants and other Commandments to all Sheriffs Bailiffs and other Ministers c. And the Statute of 1 H. 4. cap. 12. hath these words in it That he that thinks 1 H. 4. himself grieved may pursue and he shall have right and where there be legal proceedings and where parties grieved may come in and have remedies for the wrongs and injuries done to them there is properly a Court of Justice to have them in But in Doctor Bonhams Case the Physitians had no legal proceedings and therefore parties grieved could have no remedy which was the reason they had not a Court. And thirdly the chief reason wherefore I take it that Commissioners of Sewers have a Court is Because the Commission of Sewers is a member of the ancient and renowned Court of Oyer and Terminer which was and is a Court of great esteem power and authority and so it was needless to erect a new Court in this case as it was needful to erect and found the Court of Wards and first Fruits the first would else have remained in the Chancery to the which primarily it did belong and the other was a new revenue and wanted a Court to direct or
case and so the words of the Statute and of the Law may herein be satisfied Now I hope I have fully instructed the Commissioners wherein they may learn whom to Imprison when to Fine and how to Amerce in a legal and orderly sort and according to the ancient and approved Rules of Law and of the grand Charter for in those things they are to direct their discretions by the said Rules and they are to be guided thereby and are not to proceed therein according to their own wills And herein I shall conclude the second point of this part of the Law that is That Commissioners of Sewers have power to Imprison to Fine and to Amerce And that B. for refusing to obey their Order was justly imprisoned and C. was as justly fined And for the reasons and causes aforesaid the Commissioners in their discretions though the offences of both were alike yet they had power to imprison the one and to fine the other And now I do intend to proceed to the fourth point of my Case and the third point I intend to handle in a more convenient place Distress THe point of Distress in my Case is grounded upon these 4 Point words of this Law viz. And all those persons and every of them to tax assess distrain and punish as well within the metes limits and bounds of old time accustomed or otherwise or elswhere within the Realm of England Three sorts of Distresses First there be divers kindes of Distresses viz. Judicial which always issueth out of the Rolls of the Court. Secondly Ministerial and such Distresse is to be performed by the Officers of these Laws without any judgement directing the same Thirdly and there is a Distress of Common right not given nor awarded by Judgement in Court or by Warrant of the Commissioners but incident to the thing it self And first of the Iudicial Distress which is awarded by the Court upon a presentment found of a Nusans or in the recovery of an assize of Nusans or in an Action of the case as it appears by the 42 Assiz plac 15. 32 Ed. 3. 23. and 7 H. 4. 8. there a Distringas ad Amovendum shall be 32 Ed. 3. 7 H. 4. awarded to remove the Nusans and so in case of a decay presented As if I. S. suffer a Bank or Wall to decay and that be presented a Distringas ad reparandum shall be directed to the Sheriff to distrain I. S. to repair the same Secondly a Distress Ministerial is where one is assessed or rated to pay a certain sum of mony towards the repairing of a Wall Bank Sewer or Goat here upon Warrant from the Commissioners of Sewers the Officer expressed in that Warrant may distrain the cattel of the party which ought to pay the said Rate and Sess and which did neglect to pay the same And yet where there is a Rate and Sess imposed upon one by the Commissioners of Sewers I am of opinion that the Collector or Officer may distrain therefore without any express Warrant from the Commissioners so to do and my reason is grounded upon the Statute which is this because the Statute and Commission which be the general Laws do of themselves in this case give a distress And therefore in these cases the Warrant of the Commissioners is superfluous like to the Case in 20 Eliz. Dyer 20 Eliz. fol. 362. where a Fine was levied of Lands to the intent that I. S. should have and receive a yearly Rent thereout although in the conveyances there was no mention made that the party might distrain for the same Yet in that Book it is mentioned to be adjudged That the owner of that Rent might distrain for the same because the Statute of 27 H. 8. in 27 H. 8. that Case gave a distress Upon which Statute the said conveyance was grounded So if their be two coparceners to whom Land doth descend and they make partition and for more equality she that hath the better part doth grant to the other and her Heirs a yearly Rent out of her Land but limits no clause or power of distress she to whom this yearly Rent is granted may distrain therefore And so may a Bailiff distrain for an Amerciament in a Leet without a Warrant because the general Law gives a Distress in these cases Thirdly and as touching a Distress of common right It is in case where one doth hold his Land of his Lord as of his Mannor to repair a Bank Wall or other work of Sewers the Lord of whom these Lands be holden may distrain his Tenant of common right to compel him to make these repairs and the Distress given in the said Case of the coparceners and in the said Case of Amerciament in a Court of Leet seem both to be Distresses of Common right And that the Law is that a Distress lyeth for a Rate Lot or Tax imposed by the Commissioners of Sewers it is manifest by the Case of Rooks in Cooks 5 Report which is full and direct authority in the point In what place a Distress is to be taken NOw touching the place where these distresses are to be taken comes next into our consideration wherein the quality of the matter distrained for and the power from whence the distresses are derived are to be considered of And therefore if a Lord do distrain his Tenant Ratione tenurae for to repair a Wall Bank or other defence this Distress must be taken on the Ground holden by this Tenure and not elsewhere for these grounds are chargeable therewithal as the opinion of Iustice Sylliard is 21 Ed. 4. fol. 38. But not as that Case is but in point of Tenure 21 Ed. 4. for there the Case was That a presentment was found in hec verba videlicet Iuratores present ' quod est communis Regia via in Parochia Sancti Martini in Campis in Com' Middlesex inter Hospitia Epis ' Dunelmensis Epis ' Norwich totalitur superundat ' aquis quod tam domini spirituales quam temporales Justiciarii domini Regis Servientes ad legem omnes alii Legis ministri omnes alii per viam illam versus Westmonaster ' itinerantes pro legibus domini Regis ibidem ministrandis observandis sepius impediuntur per quod via illa totalliter superinundata existit excessu emanationis aquae pluvialis ibidem remanent ' quam quidem aquam Episcopus Norwicensis rationae tenurae suae ibidem evacuaere debuit quod ipse omnes predecessores sui ratione Tenurae suae ibidem evacuaere debent And in this case I take it the Land was charged not as in respect the Bishop of Norwich did hold the same of some Lord by the Tenure to repair the Sewer to avoid the water but his Land stood charged with the same as a charge imposed thereon by Custom or Prescription as by the president it self appeareth for if the Bishop of Norwich had been
matters doth contain in it these words viz. That if any person or persons of what Estate or Degree soever he or they be of that from henceforth do take upon him or them to sit by vertue of the said Commissions not being first sworn according to the Tenor of the Oath expressed in the Statute or if any person so named and sworn do sit not having Lands Tenements or other Hereditaments in Fee-simple Fee tail or for term of life to the clear yearly value of Forty Marks above all charges to his own use Except he be Resciant and Free of any City Borough or Town Corporate have moveable substance of the clear value of One hundred pounds or else be learned in the Laws of this Realm in and concerning the same That is to say admitted in one of the principal Inns of Court for an utter Barrister shall forfeit Forty pounds for every time that he shall attempt so to do the one moyety to the King the other moyety to the party that will sue therefore c. So that by this clause it is manifest that every one that is not qualified in one of these degrees is no competent Commissioner within this Statute First that he be an utter Barrister in one of the four Inns of Court Secondly or have Lands Tenements or Hereditaments of the clear yearly value of Forty Marks above all charges in Fee simple Fee tail or for life Thirdly or be Free or Resciant in some City Borough or Town Corporate and have moveable substance of the clear value of One hundred pounds And that person which is not within one of the said three parts and yet doth take upon him to sit in the execution of this Commission incurs two penalties The one the forfeiture of his discretion for his presumption The other of Forty pounds for his contempt And therefore for the more clear examination of these things I will observe that method in my Argument which my Case hath formerly prescribed to me And first of all I shall proceed to the personal abilities and first of the son of the free Citizen of Lincoln I am of opinion that every Commissioner of this kinde must be indowed with these three qualities First he must be free of a City c. If he want any of these then he is out of this Branch of this Statute Secondly he must be there Resciant and Thirdly he must have in clear moveable Substance One hundred pounds and Therefore what person is such a Freeman is now to be handled I am of opinion that every Subject born within the Kings Dominion is a Freeman of this Realm as appeareth by the Grand Charter cap. 14. yea though he be a Bondslave to a Subject but a stranger born is no Freeman of the Kingdom till the King have made him Denizen in whose power alone without the help of any other one may be made free And to be a Freeman of the Realm the place of his birth is held more material then the quality of his Parents for if Aliens have a childe in England it is free of the Kingdom yet by the Opinion of Hussey Chief Justice in 1 R. 3. fol. 4. and in Calvins case of the Post Nati it is holden for Law That if Ambassadors of this Realm have children born in France or elswhere where the Father and Mother be natural born Subjects the children are free of the Realm of England but if either the Father or the Mother of such children were an Alien then are not those children free One out of the Kings protection is as I take it for that time no Freeman of the Realm But in what case a man Exiled is in sorteth the nearest to our question Exile is one of the Eight Punishments which the Roman Laws did inflict upon Strangers which be videlicet 1. Damnum 2. Imprisonamentum 3. Plagae 4. Compensatio 5. Ignominia 6. Exilium 7. Servitudo 8. Mors. Mr. Bracton doth in this maner describe Exile that is Certi loci interdictio and doth distribute it into Four heads That is to say 1. Specialis hoc est interdictio talis provinciae Civitatis Burgi aut villae 2. Generalie Interdictio totius Regni aliquando est 3. Temporaria pro duobus tribus quatuor aut pluribus annis aut c. 4. Perpetua pro termino vitae Exilium est aliquando ex arbitrio principis sicut in exiliando Duces Hertferdiae Norfolciae per Regem Richardum secundum Et aliquando per Judicium terra ut sit in casu Piers de Gaveston etiam in casu Hugonis de le Spencer junioris qui ambo fuorunt exilit ' per Judicium in Parliamento Abjuration also was a legal Exile by the Judgement of the Common Law as also by the Statute Law and in the Statute of Westminster the Second Cap. 35. He which ravisheth a Ward and cannot render the Ward unmarried or the value of his Mariage must abjure the Realm and this is a general Abjuration And by a Statute made in 31 Ed. 1. 31 Ed. 1. Butchers are to be abjured the Town if they offend the fourth time in selling measled flesh and this is a special Abjuration But I must put this Case to a further question which is What a man Exiled doth forfeit thereby And in my opinion he forfeits these things following First he loseth thereby the freedom and liberty of the Nation out of which he is Exiled Secondly he forfeits his Freedom in the Borough or City where he was free for he which forfeits the Freedom of the whole Realm by consequence forfeits his Freedom in every part thereof Thirdly he is of as little esteem in our Law as if he were dead for his Heir may enter and so may his Wife enter into her own Lands and may sue an Action as a woman sole by 31 Ed. 1. 1 H. 4. 31 Ed. 1. 1 H. 4. 1. And fourthly in my opinion he shall forfeit those Lands to the King which he shall purchase in the Realm during his Banishment qued vide 15 Ed. 3. Fitz. Petition ' plac 2. But there in that case Hugh Spencer was banished by a Judgement in Parliament which gave a forfeiture of his Lands howsoever I take him as strongly barred from purchasing in the Realm during his Banishment as an Alien is for fit alienigina by his Banishment and he is in a worse case then an Alien because he taketh with him Indignatio principis But a banished man forfeits neither Title of Honor as Knighthood which is de jure gentium nor the Lands he had before he was Exiled unless by special Judgement given in a legal course they be so decreed Then our case goes further That E. is not Exiled himself but D. his Father was Exiled whose Heir E. is now whether by the Exilement of the Father the liberty and freedom which E. might claim in the City of Lincoln by being the Son and Heir
THE READING OF That Famous and Learned Gentleman Robert Callis Esq Sergeant at Law Upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. Cap. 5. OF SEWERS As it was delivered by him at Grays-Inn in AUGUST 1622. Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus supportari debet LONDON Printed for William Leak and are to be sold at his Shop at the Sign of the Crown in Fleetstreet between the Temple-Gates MDCXLVII READER AMongst other Decays in the Common-wealth those of Bridges Calceys Havens and Ports are not of the least Consideration as the Gates that open and let in Commerce and the ways that convey and lead it through the Kingdom And it seemed to me to be of so Publique a Necessity that I did conceive this Learned Piece upon the Laws of Sewers would come seasonably abroad and finde an Entertainment sutable to the usefulness of it at this time when the Countrey is almost become Vnpassable by the late Troubles wherein the endeavor was more to be secured at home from them that were abroad then to Traffique with them If you can sit down to a cold Reading here is one served out to you at my cost all that I shall adde to your Cheer is That I had publique allowance to make the Invitation If the Printer have committed Infanticidium lay the blame upon him but if he have delivered the press of it so imperfectly that it will be only fit to move Pity and to Beg withall the misfortune is mine and I must Keep it Farewel ⧠The chiefest matters in this Book as they lie disposed in each days work of the Reading In the first Lecture THe Readers grave Speech The Causes wherefore he read on this Statute Antiquity of the Laws of Sewers The Extent of this Law The necessary use of this Law The Division of this Law The first Case put for tbe first Lecture The Points of the first Case The Readers Argument upon the first Case The Readers Argument upon this Statute and Commission The Definition of Islands c. What grounds shall be said to be left by the Sea The Readers Tenets thereupon The Shore what Sea-Coasts what Creeks what Arm of the Sea what Diversity between a Shore Coast and Creek Bay Fleet and Mere what A Port what Diversity between Creek Haven and Port. Diversity between grounds gained and grounds left The Conclusion of the Reader upon his first Lecture In the second Lecture VVHat businesses on Land this Law doth Defend and what Offences it Reformeth The Case for the second Lecture The Points thereof both at the Common Law and on the Statute The Argument on the second Case Two Conceits of the Readers Bank what Wall what River what The property of running waters in whom A Sewer what A Gutter what Ditches Pools Ponds what Streams Conduits Springs what Cases put by the Reader upon them Bridges and provision for them Calcey what Goats for what use New Defences Arguments pro con for New Defences The Kings Councels Order What View and Survey is What may be done by Officers of Sewers by Survey only What may be done by Jury What may be done by their Discretion The several degrees of Discretion In what things Commissioners are to be ruled by good Discretion Nine several ways for keeping and repairing Defences 1. Frontage 2. Ownership 3. Prescription 4. Custom 5. Tenure 6. Covenant 7. Vsus rei 8. Township 9. This Law of Sewers Whether one may be Taxed for Tythes by the Law of Sewers or not Whether a Copyholder for his Copy-hold and a Lord for his Freehold of that Soil shall be assessed Four tenets concerning Copyholders What Lands and other things and what persons and in what degree they are to be assessed towards Repairs by this Law in this case 1. High Mountainous grounds by Prescription Custom and Tenure 2. Dean and Chapter c. for an Annuity 3. For Common of Pischary in Fens c. 4. For a Ferry 5. For Herbage 6. For free passage on a River Parks Warrens cum multis aliis The large Extent of the word Tenement Charge on the Level by Commissioners of Sewers nine several ways The Readers Conclusion of the second Lecture In the third Lecture VVHat Law is The Case for the third Lecture This Case divided into three Points at the Common Law and five upon the Statute 1. Point Whether an Office may be Intailed or not 2. Whether it be an ordinary Intail or franck-Mariage and what things incident to franck-Mariage 3. How a Bastard may inherit Land The Sewers a Court of Justice How Courts had their beginning The Reasons that Sewers are a Count. Imprisonment by Commissioners of Sewers In what case Commissioners may Imprison Fine and Amerce The qualities of a Fine Amerciaments what A Distress and the several kindes of it In what place a Distress may be taken Whose goods may be distrained Where property of Goods is alterable without consent Sale of Goods by the Law of Sewers Whose Goods may be sold by this Law Where a Replevin lieth and where not Cases reconciled concerning Replevins A perpetual charge upon Land Sales of Lands For what cause Lands may be sold What Lands are to be sold What Persons and Estates are bound hereby To whom Lands may be decreed by this Law Legal proceedings where Traversable and where not Whether the Laws of Sewers will permit any Exemptions The Readers Conclusion on the third Lecture In the fourth Lecture THree Points at the Common Law and four upon the Statute How a competent Commissioner must be qualified and if not how punished What qualities makes a free Citizen a competent Commissioner The Punishment the Roman Laws did inflict upon Strangers Exile described Abjuration a legal Exile What a man Exiled forfeiteth How many ways a Freeman of a City or Borough may be made What kindes of Habitation the Freeman should be of What be and what be not valueable Substance What Goods will enable one to be a Commissioner and what not What are Hereditaments in this Law An utter Barrister is a fit Comissioner Whether a Woman may be a competent Commissioner within this Statute An Infant above Fourteen and under Twenty one years a Commissioner Whether Laws and Ordinances made by a disabled Commissioner be void or not Ten Impediments or Annoyances this Statute speaketh of viz. 1. Streams 2. Mills 4. Bridges 3. Ponds 5. Fishgarths 6. Mildams 7. Locks 8. Hebbingweres 9. Hecks and 10. Floodgates These Impediments and Annoyances discoursed of To make a Stream Navigable The Readers Conclusion on the fourth Lecture In the fifth Lecture A Short Speech of the Readers A brief Repetition what is handled in the four former Lectures Commissioners of Sewers have power to make constitute and ordain Laws Ordinances and Decrees and the same to amend or make new Things considerable in making new Laws and Ordinances A Law Ordinance and Decree what they are and their difference Laws and Ordinances for sale of Lands how to be perfected and in
left to the King Ratione regiae dignitatis suae whose Office doth as the Philosopher truly saith contain in it great Vertue high Understanding and Divine Wisedom to whose high Government as well our Persons as our Laws be committed and the defence thereof is applied to his grave foresight And truly I have taken upon me to reade on those Laws of Sewers as Mr. Marrow did in former times take upon him to Expound in his reading the Laws of the Justices of Peace hoping this work of mine may prove as acceptable to the Commissioners of Sewers as that of his was beneficial to the Justices of Peace the use whereof being no less commodious to the Commonwealth then that of the Peace being both general Laws of great use and esteem and my self being for many years past a Commissioner in the County of Lincoln I found that these Laws were dark and intricate and came not usually within the reach and understanding of such as were not well seen and studied in the Laws And because I found the use of them to be wondrous necessary I did intend when occasion served me to break the Ice and enter seriously into the Exposition of them And therefore seeing these Laws being in time most ancient in extent most large and for the use most necessary I have with your kinde favor made choise of them to frame my Reading upon wherein if upon your perusal you finde any scapes or errors which may soon fall from Opinion haec amice corrige and such of them as you shall bestow your liking upon hiis utere mecum and this shall suffice touching my choise made of this Statute And as I have formerly declared and delivered the causes which stirred me up and the reasons which confirmed me to read upon this Statute Now I do intend to break it up and I do divide it into these several branches or parts First to make provision to resist the over flowing of the Sea upon the large Marsh grounds lying in the Maritine Countreys which commonly be the surest for soundness the greatest for compass and the best for profit of all the Sheep-walks and Commons of this Realm which take prejudice and loss only by the rage of the Sea Secondly to provide also that the great fresh Rivers and Streams may have their passages made clear and that their Walls Banks and other Defences be repaired kept and maintained whereby the fair delightful pleasant and fruitful Meadows and Pasture grounds which lie in the greatest abundance upon or near the Rivers Brooks and Streams may be preserved from the inundation of fresh Waters which many times annoy them to the great and inestimable damage of His Majesties Subjects which be Owners and Farmers thereof Thirdly whereas Navigation both for the Exporting of our Homebred Commodities and for the Importing of Foraign Merchandizes is the chief inriching of this Nation therefore Ports Havens Rivers and other Navigable Streams and their dependencies be put within the defence of this Law being Ostia janua Regni for that by the maintenance of these the wealth of the Realm is increased and the Inland Cities Boroughs and Towns are made partakers with ease and small cost of the Seas Commodities Fourthly likewise this Law giveth redress and remedy for the removing of such lets and impediments as are either hinderances to Navigation or stops whereby the abundant Waters cannot have their free passage to the Sea And fifthly because in the surrounded grounds there be most commonly the greatest use of Bridges Calceys Passages and Ways therefore this Statute hath taken order for them also whereby his Majesties people may in those places for their persons and their goods have both Salvum securum conductum In these five parts be all the whole materials of this great and worthy Law contained and therefore according to the said division I have framed a Case for the first Lecture upon this Law The first Case A. Leaseth to B. a Mannor on the Sea Coasts for years which hath incrementum decrementum maris by prescription in the County of Chester and the City there where a Commission of Sewers is remainder to C. in Fee Livery is given and taken by Attorneys at full Sea within the view the Sea then leaves One hundred Acres of Land with the Shore divided in part from the continent by a Navigable Haven The Lease expired C. enters the Prince ejects him and the King seizeth this Relinquished ground My Opinion is That the King hath a part the Prince a part and the Subject a part of this ground and that it is all within this Statute but no part thereof within this Commission Points of the Common Law The Points of this Case be three at the Common Law and five by this Statute First Whether Livery of Lands may be made within the view in another County or not Secondly Whether Livery by the view may be given or taken by Attorneys or not Thirdly Whether in this case Livery and Seisin may be made by Attorneys or that of necessity it must be made to the Lessee for years and who must joyn in making of the Letter of Attorney to take the Livery All which Points I must maintain Affirmatively else C. the Subject cannot have any Lands at all Points on this Statute First Whether the English Seas be within this Realm of England and what Interest the King hath there and what Interest a Subject may have therein by custom and prescription and what is meant by the said words Incrementum Decrementum maris Secondly Whose these new Islands be which arise there and wherher they be said to be within the Realm and what Laws govern the same for that it appears in my Case that the ground left between the Sea and the Haven is an Island Thirdly Whether the King shall have all the grounds by His Prerogative or the Subject by the said Prescription or the Prince as participating of both or whether every one shall have a part thereof according to my Conclusion Fourthly Whether the grounds left by the Sea be within this Statute and Commission both or either of them or neither of them Fifthly What a Haven a Shore and the Coasts be in definition and the several properties thereof The Readers Argument And as it comes to my turn I intend to maintain the conclusion of my Case And first of the first Point Livery and Seisin is one of the most ancient approved Ceremonies of the Law which hath been used for conveying of Lands and the Law hath a more respect thereto then to any other And it cannot be denied but that it is the most perfect form of any by the which the Freehold and Inheritance of Lands is transferred from one to another and all Subjects may give and take Lands by this Ceremony but the King only is excepted whose Prerogative is such That as Lands cannot be taken from him as King but by Record so Lands cannot be given
or granted to him as King but by Record And in the same degree is a County Palatine in his County because he hath there Jura Regalis And this Livery and Seisin may be actually and really done and performed or else it may be done within the view of the Lands intended to be conveyed And as touching Livery and Seisin to be actually effected if the Feoffment contain Lands in two several Counties and Livery and Seisin be made in one County in name of both this will not pass the Lands in another county because the Land passeth by the Livery which is local and not by the Deed. But in an exchange of Land in two several Counties by Deed the same is good for there the Land passeth by the Deed. But if one make a Feoffment of a Mannor lying in Demesn in the County of L. and in services in the County of M. these services and so Rents will pass by attornment of the Tenants though they lye in a foraign County and so of an Advowson appendant and such like because those rents and services pass not by the local ceremony of Livery and Seisin but by the ceremony of Attornment which is personal and depends upon the person which is transitory wherein I take this difference That if a Feoffment be made of a Mannor by Parol the Advowson appendant Villains Regardant and Rents and Services by Attornment of Tenants will not pass to the Feoffee till the demesns and Lands be first conveyd But if the Feoffment be by Deed then the Rents and Services will pass by Attornment of the Tenants and delivery of the Deeds before Livery and Seisin be made to pass the demesns Then seeing that Land in one County will not pass by Feoffment by express Livery made in an other County if then the same may be passed and conveyed by Livery within the view is the question of our Case And in my opinion they may because it is a ceremony performed by the eye which is a member or instrument which hath his operation by aspect Tam procùl quam propè But express Livery and Seisin which is done by the hand cannot in reason be extended to another place then where the body is And although the eye be fixed in the head annexed to the body yet like the Sun his beams are carried afar of And this Livery by the view is not a Livery in the County where the body is but properly in the County where the Land lay which was the object of the eye and in this case it is said to be Livery onely and not Livery and Seisin because the Seisin is properly when the party enters and the entry of the party is that which perfects the work which is in proprio commitatu And for authority in the point 28. Ed. 3. fo 11. there is a Case according to my opinion where the Husband at the Church door when 18. E. 3. fo 11. he was to take one to wife he made a Deed of Feoffment of Lands lying in another County to the said woman and then delivered the Deed to her and shewed her the Land then they married and he entred in claiming to her use and these Lands were thereby well conveyed to the said woman by this Livery within the veiw in another County Now it is fit to be declared what view is sufficient for there be two maner of views The one general the other special In the special view every particular piece of ground is to be seen but in the general view it sufficeth to take notice of the grounds by the place they lie in and in my opinion The general view in my Case will suffice For if one make a Feoffment in Fee of a whole Island or of a whole Mannor or Town and make Livery thereof within the view this is good and yet it is not possible to view every particular piece of ground at once for Trees Houses and Hills might so be interposed that the view could not be taken of some part thereof yet notwithstanding veiw of the rest will pass Also if Lands be covered with Water Ice or Snow these will pass well in a Feoffment or Livery in the veiw In Brook Title View plac 101. the Case there may give Brook 101. the rule to our Case for there it is said in a Writ of view It is not necessary that all particulars in Specie should be put in view but to see the fields where the grounds lie promiscuously it will suffice and is a good and perfect veiw Sed est vn auter diversitie concernant veiwe Carsi vn fait Feoffment de B. acre que gist del auter parte dam Mountaine tout hors del veiwe la Liuerey de ceo nest bone sans expres veiwe tamen tout voile passer per veiwe de parte sic in mon case on part ' gist south le floud del mere ceo non obstant passe vt parcel del mannor Ascuns aver teneus ceo Knightley pur vn in 28. H. 8. in 28. H. 8. Dier que Liuercy deins le veiwe doit touts foits este fait in cases de necessity ceo vrging in respect del chose ou del person del chose quia leterre gist del furder side dun grand ewe ou in le ewe ou ne puit oste facile accesse del person quia que le Feoffor ou Feoffee soit lame ou infirme detraher ceo in question Jeo aye mist mon case quia le Feoffment Liuerey fuit ad plenitudinem maris tamen Jeo sue de opinion que Liuerey deins le veiwe puit este fait sans ascun matter de necessity ceo vrging ceo Jeo collect per le liuer de 42. Ed. 3. Fitz. Feoffments 54. when the Son did give back the Lands to his Father as freely as his Father had 42. Ed. 3. formerly given the same to him and this was within the view and it doth not appear that either this Livery or the other made to the said woman in 28. Ed. 3. were made of any necessity urging the same And there be some persons which can neither give nor take by Livery within the view and that is where the Feoffor or Feoffee is blinde So a Major and Commonalty Dean and Chapter or other corporate and politique capacities cannot give or take within the view Some have held a difference that a Parson of a Church might not take by Livery within the view to him and his Successors because that came to him in his politique capacity which had no Eyes but if he were seized in the right of his Church that he might infeoff I. S. thereof by Livery within the view because this was a wrong to the Church and therefore A Conceit was in the power of his natural capacity which had Eyes But the main Point in my Case is Whether Livery within the view may be given and taken by Attorneys and whether the view is so incident to the person that it
cannot be imparted to another It is true that the personal view cannot be lent to another or divided from the person no more can the personal touch or act of my hand be imparted to another and yet express Livery which is the deed and act of the hand may be done per auter maine Sir Francis Englefields Case in the seventh Report of Sir 7. Reports Englefields Case Edward Cook gives us a pretty difference where the act to be done is unseparably tied to ones person and where not as in the Case of Thomas Duke of Norfolk where upon conveyance of divers Mannors to Philip Earl of Arundel his Son there was a Proviso That the Duke might revoke the same upon signifying of his minde under his own proper hand in writing c. This power of Revocation was not transferred to the Queen by the Attainder of the Duke because it was inseparably tied to his own proper hand But the principal Case there of Englefield where the Canc. in Combs Case Lands were setled upon his Kinsman with power That upon tender of a Ring by him he might revoke the uses and this was forfeit by his attainder and the Queen by a Letter of Attorney made to two did tender the Ring for this was not precisely or literally tied to Englefields person no more then payment of Money or such like And so in our Case though by the Law I take it that Livery within the view must be in the view of both the parties yet this may be done by Attorneys for as my own hand is not precisely tied by the Law to an express Livery no more is my own eye expresly tied to this view And we see in views in an Assize the under Sheriff or 36. H. 8. Dier the Sheriffs Bailiffs by his direction may make the view and yet the Writ is direct to the Sheriff to do the same Morse Penningtons Case and in those Cases an intellectual view will serve as if the Jurors know the Land but such an intellectual view will not serve in a Feoffment but there the view must be actual Yet I take this difference that if a Letter of Attorney be directed to A. B. to make Livery and Seisin he cannot do the same within the view for therein he doth not pursue his warrant but if the Letter of Attorney be special to give or take Livery within the view I am of Opinion then the Livery may in such a Case be given and taken by Attorneys within the view as well as in Combes Case in Sir Edwards Cooks 9. Report where it is affirmed that a surrender of a Copy-hold may be given and taken by Attorneys which is as personal as this is in the taking part because Fealty ought to be made Some things may in this Case be further aleaged in this third point which I now have in hand that is Who must make the Letter of Attorney on the Feoffees part whether the Lessee for years or he in the remainder or both of them For Lessee for years it is to be noted that his Estate hath not any perfection thereby and he seems himself but a Deputy and if so then a Deputy cannot make a Deputy but yet he is not meerly a Deputy for if there be two Lessees the Remainder in Fee to I. S. one of the Lessees may take the Livery and Seisin yet if a letter of Attorney be made to two joyntly one of them cannot take it and if in our Case the Lessee had dyed before entry the Livery might have been made to his Executors and powers and authorities cannot be apportioned and come to Executors in such maner Ergo It is more then a power of a Letter of Attorney for the reasons aforesaid and for these insuing For the Lessee for years cannot be prohibited from taking his Livery by the Lessor but a Letter of Attorney may be countermanded yet the Lessee alone cannot make this Letter of Attorney neither can he in the remainder make the same because he could not himself accept of the present Livery neither can he meddle with the present possession which a Livery and Scisin yields But I am of Opinion That Lessee for years and he in remainder must joyn in the Letter of Attorney for these Reasons First they were both one party to the Deed so ought they to be to the Letter of Attorney which is to give life thereunto Secondly they be but in Law one Tenant Thirdly they should joyn in Advoury And in many Cases the Lessee shall have ayd of him in remainder for the privity between their Estates and although the Lessee gets no Estate by the Livery yet he assists himself thereby with the ayd and strength of him in the remainder and the Livery goes through his Estate and so passeth into the remainder Therefore my conclusion is that they shall joyn in this Letter of Attorney and hereby I suppose I have conveyed a good Estate in the maner to I. S. in the remainder to maintain my position for him in the end of my Case and here I end my three Common Law points and now am come to the Statute The Readers Argument upon the Statute and Commission The Sea within the Realm of England FIrst touching our Mare Anglicum in whom the interest therein is and by what Law the Government thereof is is a fit question and worth the handling And in my Argument therein I hope to make it manifest by many proofs and precidents of great worth and esteem that the King hath therein these powers and properties videlicet 1. Imperium Regale 2. Potestatem legalem 3. Proprietatem tam soli quam aquae 4. Possessionem Proficuum tam Reale quam Personale And all these he hath by the Common Laws of England in the 6. R. 2. Fitz. Prot. 46. it is said That the Sea is within 6. R. 2. the Legiance of the King as of his Crown of England This proves that on the Seas the King hath Dominationem Imperium ut Rex Angliae and this by the Common Law of England The Charter of the Admiral of England hath these words Admirals Charter in it Quod habeat potestatem in causis maritimis ac omnia bona waviata Flotsan Ietsan Lagan ac omnia bona Mercimonia catalla in mare depordita seu extra mare projecta ac omnia singula casualia tam in vel super mare vel littora crecas vel coster as maris quam in vel super aquas dulces portus flumina rivos aut alios locos superinundatos quoscunque inter Fluxum refluxum maris ceu aquae ad plenitudinem à quibuscunque primis pontibus versus Mare per totum Regnum Angliae Imprimis this Charter is under the great Seal of England quod est Lex Angliae The King grants to the Admiral thereby power in Maritine Causes which proves the Kings legal power and jurisdiction on
the Seas He grants to him bona in mare deperdita super mare emergentia extra mare projecta which be Profits arising on the Sea And all these are said to be per totum Regnum Angliae Ergo the Seas be infra Regnum Angliae In the Eleventh Chapt. de Prerogativa Regis it is declared Quod Rex habebit wreccum Maris per totum Regnum Prerogativa Regis cap. 11. Balenas Sturgiones captos in Mari vel alibi infra Regnum Angliae and this was by the Common Laws before ever this Statute was made for as the King was and is rhe most Excellent Creature within his Realm so the most Excellent things which Land and Sea afford are appropriate unto him And this Statute also proves the Sea to be infra Regnum Angliae and that the profits therein and thereon arising belong to the King by the temporal Laws of England In the Case of Sir Henry Constable in the Fifth Report of Sir E. Cook it is said That Flotsan Jetsan and Lagan are goods Sir Henry Constables Case on or in the Sea and that they belong to the King and the King by his Charter granted them to the Admiral The Statute of the 18. Edward 3. Let the Sea be open to all Stat 18. E. 3. 28. H. 8. Strangers and the Statute of 28. H. 8. Chapt. 15. If any Treason Murther or other Felony be done on the sea coast the Offendors shall be tryed in such county as the King shall appoint by Commission to be directed to the Admiral and others to try the same per Sacramentum duodecem which is by Jury And the Statute 31. H. 6. Chapt. 4. there is a Restraint 31. H. 6. That no Subject do attache any Stranger in amity within this Realm on the Sea Here the Statute Laws are in force on the Seas as appears by the examples but these seem to tye the person only Sir John Davies And in the Irish Reports of Sir John Davies in the Case of the Royal Pischary of the Banne it is said That the Sea is the Kings proper Inheritance And Mr. Bracton lib. 2. Chap. 12. in his Title de acquirendo Bracton L. 2. Ch. 12. rexum dominio setteth forth a prescription in these words Quod I. S. antecessores sui fuerunt quiet ' de Theolonio aliis consuetudinibus dandis per totum Regnum Angliae tam per terram quam per mare and many times in that Chapter he reiterates the same words which is a strong proof that the Sea is infra Regnum Angliae and that the King Governs there by his Common Laws of England for that prescription is a main and material point of the Common Law And the like is alleaged in Sir Henry Constables Case by way of Custome in the Citizens as of Bristol to have Flotsan on the Seas between the high water and the low water marks So I take it I have proved the King full Lord and owner of the Seas and that the Seas be within the Realm of England and that I have also proved it by Ancient Books and Authorities of the Laws and by Charters Statutes Customes and Prescriptions that the Government therein is by the Common Laws of this Realm One Case and one Statute seem to sway to the contrary Lacies Case and that is Lacyes Case where one was stricken on the Seas and dyed on the Land that the Common Law could not try this murther It is true because that tryal was to be by Jury which must come out of a proper county which could not in this case because the Sea was not within county ground and so no Jury could be summoned there And I acknowledge that the King ruleth on the Sea by the Laws Imperial as by the Roll of Oleron and other but that Le Roll de Oleron is only in the particular Case of Shipping and for Merchants and Mariners But the King hath neither the properties of the Sea nor the real and personal profits there arising but by the Common Laws of England and in proof thereof the Book 15. and 16. Eliz. in Dyer where the grounds gained from the Sea pertained to the Queen which must 15. 16. Eliz. Dyer needs be by the Common Law of England for no Law gives the King any soil but only the Common Laws of England so this is sufficient proof for the real profits and for the personal profit the Charter of the Admiralty and other Cases aforesaid make it manifest And there is a Statute made in 1. R. 2. Chapt. which restrains 1 R. 2. Rast Admiralty the Admiral that he do not meddle with any thing done within the Realm but on the Seas by which it may be collected that the Seas be not within the Realm of England But in my opinion the intent of that Statute did rather limit the Admiral how far he should extend his Jurisdiction then any way to set forth the bounds of this Realm wherein my conclusion herein is That my Statute hath his extent within all the Realm of England and that English Seas being within the Realm be within the bounds of my said Statute of Sewers and that Statute Law is in full power on the Seas as by the Cases and Statutes mentioned formerly doth appear Of Islands BEcause in my Case in matter though not in express De Insulis words there is an Island therefore it comes now fitly in turn to declare whose the same is in ownership and what Laws the same is to be governed by And first of the definition thereof Justinian in Suis Institutionibus saith that Difinitio Insule Insula est locus undique circumdatus aquis pag. 153. And with this agreeth Britton in his Title of Purchase England of Anglia it self is not Insula because it is not undique circumdatus aquis But England and Scotland be one intire Island and the most Scotia famous in the whole world England take it per se est peninsula that is penè Insula almost an Island for on all parts it Peninsula joyns to the Sea but towards some parts of Scotland Gernsey and Jernsey be Islands on the Sea but it seems by the Resolutions in Calvins Case 7. Report That they be Gernsey Jernsey not within the Realm nor governed by these Laws because the King hath them by His Title of France The Isle of Man was in times past a petty Kingdom and had a King but he was onely as a Viceroy and under the Man King of England as by a Record Where Artold King of Man made suit to the King of England to come into England but whether Man be within the Realm or not seems to be put without question in Sir Edward Cooks Case of Calvin and by Kelwayes Reports 11. H. 8. that it is not for there an office found after the death of the Earl of Darby by a Writ out of the
or custome can fetch lands further then the low water-mark Grounds left But now what grounds shall be said a leaving by the Sea is a point in my Case also for it is certain that at spring-tides the Sea useth to overflow the Marshes in Lincolnshire and Norfolk and returneth within a short space again these being usual and annual be not accounted grounds left or gained from the sea so because the Marshes in Lincolnshire and the Sands in Lincolnshire be overflown every twelve hours and then dry again are not accounted grounds left or gained from the sea because the sea hath daily her recourse thereon and therefore in 15 and 16 Eliz. in Dier fo 326. 15. Eliz. Dyer 326. in the Case there was a quantity of ground was left by the Sea and whether the King or he whose grounds were adjoyning should have them was there made a question but in that Case there is an excellent president set down very apt for the handling of this point put in 43 E. 3. Contra 43. E. 3. Abbot'de Ramsey de quodam processu in Scacario facto versus dict' Abbot ad ostendendum quare Sexagint ' acrae marisci in manus dom ' Regis non debent sesiri quas predict ' Abbas appropriavit sibi domui suae sine licentia Regis super quandam presentation virtute cujusdam generalis Commission ' de terris à Rege detentis concelatis Abbas respondit quod ipse tenet maner ' de Brauncest quod scituatum est juxta mare et quod est ibid quidam mariscus qui aliquando per fluxum maris minoratur aliquando per de fluxum maris augetur absque hoc quod appropriavit sibi prout per presentation ' predic ' supponebatur And the Attorney of the King maintained the contrary and therupon the King and the Abbot were at an issue so by the Case I gather these matters First That if by little the Sea sometimes decrease and leave some parcel to the Land and some other times run over the same again this ground belongs not to the King for these be grounds whereto the subject may have a property as in the grounds of the shore but otherwise it is where great quantity of ground which had always been drowned before is left that belongs to the King Also by this president the Law was taken to be that these grounds left by the Sea to the Land were in the County of Norffolk whereto they did adjoyn and in my opinion within that Parish whereto they lay for there was a Presentment which was by a Jury of Nofolk and the Jury taken to try an Issue must be de viceneto ejusdem commitatus but note there the Presentment was by a Jury de Corpore Commitatus in 22. lib. Assis pl. 93. The Case was That 22. lib. Ass pl. 93. a River of water did run between two Lordships and the soil of one side together with the River of water did wholly belong to one of the said Lordships and the River by little and little did gather upon the soil of the other Lord but so slowly that if one had fixed his eye a whole day thereon together it could not be perceived by this petty and unperceivable increase the increasement was got to the owner of the River but if the River by a sudden and unusuall flood had gained hastily a great parcel of the other Lords ground he should not thereby have lost the same and so of petty and unperceivable increasements from the sea the King gains no property for De minimis non Curat Rex but put the case the sea overflow a field where divers mens gounds lye promiscuously and there continueth so long that the same is accounted parcel of the sea and then after many years the sea goes back and leaves the same but the grounds are so defaced as the bounds thereof be clean extinct and grown out of knowledge it may be the King shall have those grounds yet in Histories I finde that Nilus every year so overflows the grounds adjoyning that their bounds are defaced thereby yet they are able to set them out by the Art of Geometry These grounds in my Case which are left by the sea and The Prince count Palatine of Chester lye from the haven next to the shore are as I have formerly delivered it within the county Palatine of Chester and therefore whether the Prince or the King shall have them is now my question The Prince hath not only Jura Regalia but also Escheta Regalia within his said Palatinate and so in my opinion is not only owner of the county but Lord of the Prerogatives there and all Jurisdiction is to the Prince only a Writ of Error lieth in the Kings Bench of a Judgement there like an Appeal to Caesar then he is Lord of those Laws by which the Freehold and Inheritance of those lands be ruled wherefore then should not these lands belong to his Grace And first it is usual to have a Commission directed to enquire of these Lands ut de terris concelatis and this inquiry shall be by Commission if that Commission be to issue out of the county Palatine of Chester then the Lands would questionless fall to the Prince and the inquiry to be made of the Freeholders of the said county Palatine The Case put in Barkleys Case in the Comment of Mr. Plowden fo 129. doth force much against the Princes Title for there it is put that the Bishop of Durham had Liberties and Priviledges in Terris suis inter Fluvios de Tyne de Tese and afterward purchased moe Lands between these two Rivers the said Liberties and Priviledges shall not extend thereto and so if one have a Warren in his Lands in Dayle and he purchaseth other Lands there his Warren cannot be extended upon these new purchased Lands for saith the Book Things or Priviledges confined to certain Precincts or Dominions cannot be extended further though the Dominion be inlarged and that they shall not be inlarged with the inlargement but the County Palatine vested in the Prince is prescribed within no other bounds then the word County doth confine it and therefore this falling to be within the county should be properly his and as I am imformed the Prince hath special words therefore in his Charters if it were granted that these grounds could be claimed by Charters but I am clear of Opinion That no increase of the new left grounds can possibly become within the county of the city of Chester for the bounds thereof cannot extend over that circle which their Charter hath confined them to and so for the causes and reasons formerly declared I take it That the said Island is the Kings the ground left between the haven and the ancient shore belongs to the Prince as Earl of Chester and the shore because of the said prescription appertains to C. the Subject as parcel of the said Mannor and so
a Sewer is common and of a Gutter peculiar and by express words also a Gutter is within these Laws ceo est sic mention ' 39 H. 6. 31. Ditches A Ditch Fossa is also described in our Books as in 12 H. 4. 7. where an Action upon the Case was brought against the Mr. of S. Marks in Bristol for that he was bound by the tenure of his Land to cleanse a Ditch there he did neglect to do the same by means whereof the waters therein were stopped and did thereby surround the Plaintiffs grounds so that hereby it is apparent That a Ditch is a kinde of current of waters in infimo gradu And Mr. Cambden in Sua Lincolniensi Historia doth there describe Fosdyke to be Fossa incibis Cambden quam Henricus Prinus per septem miliaria à Withania in Trentum perduxit ut Lincolniensibus ad subvehenda necessaria usui esset this Ditch is at this day a current and passage for Boats of small burthen in Winter but in Summer none at all though of late great sums of money hath been expended thereupon Sed tamen ad huc nihil inde boni venit at the best it is the worst in all that countrey and is of so slow a current ut non videtur currere omnino It serves in many places for a fence to divide Lordships and is a great trough to swallow up waters thereabouts which otherwise would lie upon the Level and of it I say no more but Spero meliora expecto Other famous Ditches there be as that in the North-East part of the city of York which is in a maner a standing Water And there is an old forlorn Dike on the Fen sides in the county of Lincoln called Caredike more ancient then profitable for it doth as many other of those unusual Ditches do run cross to the ordinary currents of waters in those parts For where the Seas for example stand East from the main Land and so the ordinary currents run all from West to East directly towards the Sea this runs North and South obvious and cross to the natural current of the waters which is the true cause wherefore their currents be so slow small or none at all There is another of them on Newmarket Heath quae admiranda Fossa vocat ' the Devils Dike and in Wiltshire there is a Ditch famous called Wansdike or Mercurii Fossa which serves for a division of countreys and so be Fossa Limitania and are either altogether dry Dikes and contain commonly no more waters then those that fall into them None of these Ditches be within these Laws but such of them which have a kinde of current and which in some sort partake with the Rivers Pools A Pool is a meer standing water without any current at all and hath seldom or never any issue to convey away the waters but a Ditch hath no constant standing nor any apparent current A Pool is properly the Inheritance of some private but a Fosse or Ditch is in use common Pools be not within this Law for two causes the one Because both in property and use they be private and peculiar The other is Because these Laws seem to extend to grounds casually and not continually drowned ad eaquae frequentius accidunt Jura ad aptantur yet all Pools be not excluded from the helps of these Laws for such as adjoyn to great Rivers and lie upon the sides thereof without division they are in a maner part of the Rivers and of their kinde is the two famous Pools called Brayford and Swanpool both near unto the city of Lincoln Ponds A Pond is a standing Ditch cast by labor of mans hand in his private grounds for his private use to serve his house and houshold with necessary waters but a Pool is a low plat of ground by nature and is not cast by mans hand I finde a Pond within my Law I read on in expressis terminis not as a thing defended thereby but as a Let and Impediment And had I not found him therein named I should not by any Exposition have here brought it in amongst the water Instruments for I much marvel what impediment a Pond can be at all unless by casting of Trenches from the River to the same it shall be a means to take thereinto some of the waters of the River and may thereby hinder Navigation but this is far fetcht Streams STreams be not any of these for all these have their proper peculiar Banks Bounds and Channels and are put in amongst them but a Stream is properly a current of waters running over the Level at random and be not kept in with Banks or Walls and so Linwood saith that Flumen which is a Stream nihil aliud est quam ipsa aqua Conduits A Conduit or ought thereto belonging is not within these Laws in any sort whether it pertain to a private person or to a Town or Corporation Springs SPrings I finde within this Statute but coupled with such a word that they thereby seem to be excluded and exiled quite from claiming any priviledge of defence by these Laws for the word Outragious being joyned therewith doth signifie the meaning of these Laws to take them to be hurtful and not helpful but all this cometh of the word Outragious which being but a quality annexed upon accident may upon just occasion be taken away And the word Springs of it self is both in appellation and operation very beneficial for the Commonwealth for I may justly term them the vital Spirits of many the great and Royal Rivers of this Kingdom as of Thames Trent and such like And therefore I am willing to let such of them as be not outragious and hurtful to take up a place of defence within these Laws for the Trent at the head is derived from Springs as many other Rivers be and I give both the essence and assistance to them and so in my opinion they are worthy the protection of these Laws and I doubt not but the waters issuing and gushing from the outragious Springs may by the provident discreet care of the Commissioners be so ordered as the same may be applyed imployed to necessary uses So now I have run through like a swift stream the qualities of these Rivers Gutters Sewers and Ditches and of all their dependancies and wherein they are to have aid and assistance of these Laws of Sewers being in truth the very materials of these Laws yet for a little better explanation of their several natures and kindes I shall therefore put these Cases First If the Town of A. want water by the driness of the season for the use of their cattel or for other houshould affairs as for brewing washing and such like and in the Town of B. which doth adjoyn thereto there is plenty of waters more perhaps then is necessary for use there the Commissioners of Sewers have no power by any of these Laws for any of the said
in other Cases of like quality as in 22 H. 6. fo 18. where it is said 2â— H. 6. That if Lessee for years suffer a house to fall down and before an Action of Waste be brought against him he buildeth another in the same place where the former stood of the same quality and quantity that shall excuse him in the Action of Waste but so would it not have done if he had builded the same in all points answerable in another place for the one is renewed the other a new one and in the 10 H. 7. fol. 18. in the 10. H. 7. fol. 18. Abbot of Thorntons Case the words in a Lease were That the Lessee should repair a Chappel leased to him and the same de novo construere constructam curare which words there bear the same sence in exposition And the Statute of Magna Charta cap. 16. seemeth touching Banks to sway Magna Charta Cap. 16. the same way for there the Statute is Quod nullae repariae defendantur nisi illae quae fuerunt in defenso tempore Henrici Regis avi nostri per eosdem locos eosdem terminos sicut esse consueverunt tempore suo this makes much against erecting of new Banks if it be in force for if no person should be bound to repair such as were built since that time then were it vain to build new ones Sir Edward Cook in his Case of the Isle of Ely is strongly of the same opinion Case of the Isle of Ely That no new River should be made and cast by the power of this Commission for the case there is That the Commissioners of Sewers in those parts made an order and decree That a new River should be cut out of the old River there called Owse through the main Land seven Miles unto another part of the said River And the question there was Whether the Commissioners of Sewers had any such power or not and he there delivered his opinion expresly That they had not and affirms it That it was dangerous and incovenient that Commissioners of Sewers should have any such Power and Authority for then they might thereby stop up the Havens which are the Ports of the Realm And for the justifying of this opinion therein he alleageth Fitzher Na. Bre. fol. 225. and the Register fol. Fitz. Na. 13. Fol. 225. Regist 252. 252. that in case where a new River or Stream was desired to be made the Writ of Ad quod damn ' was to be awarded which should first be directed to the Escheator of that county to the end he must enquire and certifie what damage it might be if such a cut should be made or a new Trench cast and so concluded directly against the making of new Rivers and drains by the Commissioners of Sewers And truly there is one thing more which makes strong on that side which is That a new River drain or cut cannot be made but through some mans private Inheritance and to the prejudice thereof which is a matter very considerable So that all these things laid together might very well move Sir Edward Cook to be of the said opinion That no such new River or drain could be made by the Commissioners of Sewers by the power of these Laws Argumentum in contrarium The reasons and authorities put on the other part are weighty and ponderous and require a very good answer which I shall endeavor to give thereto It is true that the words of this Statute and Commission bear much with the said former exposition So I hope to finde words in this The Law it self in words extend to it Statute also which will tend as much the other way And they be in the fore-part thereof viz. That daily considering the great damages and losses which have happened in many and divers parts of this Realm as well by the contagious flowing surges and course of the sea in and upon Marsh grounds and other low places heretofore through politique wisdom won and made profitable for the Commonwealth of this Realm c. And these grounds which have been so won could not be so kept and preserved but by banking and new fencing in which proves directly that the said new Banks and new fencing might be made for the inning and keeping of the said new won grounds And also the Statute The expired Law of H. 6. giveth aid to this exposition of 6 Hen. 6. Cap. 5. gave the Commissioners of Sewers power to repair the ancient Banks and Walls and fences eadem alia de novo construere by which words the Commissioners which had their power from that Statute might make new defences as Banks Walls and such like And so is the opinion of Sir Edward Cook delivered upon the said Statute of H. 6. in his Case of the Isle of Ely which being observed and granted makes strongly for this part for that the Statute of 23 H. 8. doth not only confirm all former Statutes of the Sewers then in Esse but also gives authority to the Commissioners to do after the Tenure and effect of all and singular the Statutes and Ordinances before that time made And although the said Statute of H. 6. was in time then expired yet the form and effect of it may be followed and observed And to that end I take this diversity between a Law repealed and a Law expired for a repealed Law is made void and frustrate as either unworthy or unnecessary for some respects to be any longer continued or put in execution and therefore was forbidden to be used or practised but a Law expired in time though it hath lost his vigor and force yet it is like a vertuous man deceased his life and actions may be worthy imitation though the date of days be at an end but a Law repealed is like a man condemned for some offence whose life and actions are neither of them worthy imitation unless it be to do the contrary And the said Statute of H. 6. was a worthy Law which this Statute intended not to come short on but to extend further then the Limits of that Law did reach unto also the said Statute of H. 6. is used by Sir Edward Cook in the pleading of Rooks Case in his 15. Rep. where he could Rooks Case make there no other use of it seeing it was in time expired then only by way of imitation Also we must conceive that these Laws of Sewers are of great and urgent necessity and use for the good of the whole The equity of this Law will help this exposition Commonwealth of the Realm and therefore the intent thereof may be extended in exposition beyond the letter of the words for the words be and the same to make new which according to the bare words in a literal construction cannot extend to new ones where none was before but to the reedifying of the decayed old ones but the learned expositor whose
heir from the said Ancestor which made the Covenant 28 29 H. 8. Dier fol. 33. Wherein I take this difference between a Covenant to binde an Heir and a Prescription for by Covenant the Heir shall be bound to the repairs if he have assets descended to him from that Ancestor but the Heir shall not be bound by prescription to repair though he have assets descended from his Ancestor who repaired the said defences But if Land be charged therewithal by Tenure or otherwise as a charge imposed upon Land by prescription then the said Lands are therewithal chargeable in cujuscunque manus devenerint quod nota It appears by the Statute of 43 El. cap. 4. That if Lands Rents Annuities Goods or Chattels be given towards 43 El. 4. the repairing of Bridges Ports Havens Calceys or Sea banks that the same shall be so imployed by that Statute So that Goods Chattels and Annuities be chargeable to these repairs by the force of that Statute as well as Lands Houses and Grounds in case any such thing shall happen to come before the Commissioners of Sewers But note besides all the former matter That an Heir shall not be bound by the Covenant of his Ancestor though he have assets descended unless he be bound expresly by the word Heirs in the Covenant Vsus rei I Now intend to declare where use shall tie one to the repairs of the defences mentioned in this Law I do not hereby mean that use which I have formerly mentioned in Prescription and Custom which is use to repair but the use I intend in this place is the use which one is to have of the defence or thing which is to be repaired As where one and his Ancestors have used to have the use of the River or waters by sailing up and down the same or have used to have a Ferry on or over them or a Staith to go up and down or a Crane to draw up waters or some other Engine to draw up the waters for the use of their houses These uses which men have of these things may be causes and considerations sufficient to tie them to the repairs of the Walls Banks and Rivers 37 lib. Assiz And for warrant in this learning is the Book of 37 lib. Assiz plac 10. for there were some persons which were bound to repair the River because they had passage on it with their boats and others were charged because they had free fishing in the River and in my opinion it stands with good reason and agreeable to Law That those persons before others should be bound and tied to the repairs of such things whereof they have peculiar and several profits and use of more then others have And it is manifest that this very Statute aims full at this point when it directed that such persons should be rated taxed and sessed towards the repairs which had profit of fishing and other commodities in the Rivers But least some may mistake my meaning and learning also in the said former Cases I will therefore make the same plain by distinction which is this That Frontage Ownership and this use I last spake of do not binde any to the repairing and maintaining of Walls Banks Bridges Sewers or other Defences when and where any other man or Corporation be bound to do the same by Prescription Custom Tenure or Covenant For the said three parts Frontage Ownership and Usus rei be but implicite ties onely in construction of Laws and serve the turn onely when no other person or persons are bound expresly thereunto and this distinction may be maintained by the Book of 8 H. 7. 8. H. 7. fol. 5. and other Books where it is said That he whose grounds is next adjoyning is bound to repair unless some other be bound to do the same by Tenure or Prescription Whereby it followeth that if one be bound to do the same by special Tenure or Prescription it freeth the Frontager Note also another difference that in cases where a Frontager and one who hath liberum passagium on the River and a man which hath a free Pischary there are not any one of them bound to make the repairs alone but all alike together and so is the Book of 37 Assiz plac 10. and I suppose the Book of 38 Assiz plac 15. maintains this point with me for there the Law is declared to be That he which 37 38 Assiz is bound by prescription to repair is bound peremptorily alone to do the work and not any other and if no such person can be found then the parties whose grounds do adjoyn and those which have free fishing in the River and free passage thereon be all of them to do and perform the same joyntly and no one of them is a discharge for the other because they shall be in consimili casu So by this which hath been said touching these matters the Commissioners may see and behold how carefully and understandingly the Laws of this Realm have indeavored to do equal Justice and my desire is that they would as carefully put them in execution A Township Assessed IT hath been held for a great question Whether a Township or Hundred in general might be assessed and taxed to the Sewers without imposing the same on particular persons And Sir Edward Cook in the Case of the Isle of Ely is of opinion directly That a Tax Rate or a Sesse Case of the Isle of Ely could not nay might not be set or imposed upon a Town or upon the Inhabitants of a Town for saith he The taxation sessment or charge ought to have these qualities It ought to be according to the quantity of their lands by number of Acres and Pearches or by the tenor of profit of fishing and Common of pasture which if it should be laid upon a Town it would hold none of those proportions and his opinion is not alone in this very point for in the ancient Charter of Rumney Marsh Rumney Marsh Case pag. 50. it is said Quod unusquisque proportione ac periculo incumbentium aequae contribuat And page 12 and 39 of the same Charter the Taxations is expressed to be Acres Perches and Carucates and our Statute in express wordsis And all those persons and every of them to tax and assess charge distrain and punish as well within the Limits Leets and Bounds of old time accustomed or otherwise or elswhere within this Realm of England after the quantities of their Lands Tenements and Rents and by the number of Acres and Perches and after the rate of every persons portion tenure or profit or after the quantity of their Common of pasture or fishing by such ways and means as you the Lord Fitz williams Sir Francis Vane and Sir Thomas Mounson Knight and Baronet Sir Edward Dimock Sir William Armin Sir Thomas Grantham Sir George Ftiz williams Knights Richard Totheby and Edward King Esquires whereof three to be of the Quorum shall
in their Convocation house a Councel meerly consisting of the Clergy and then are confirmed in Parliament of which house also they are a Member And therefore in my opinion seeing Tythes are so sacred a duty that a Lay-man could not have any help for at the Common Law and were exempt from temporal and prophane uses I am therefore of opinion That they are not to be rated or taxed by the general words of these Laws Yet I am of opinion that Tythes in the hand of a Temporal or Lay-man are to be rated by these Laws for when they are come into his hands Tunc res spirituales fiunt temporales transeunt decimae in Catalla But I must here leave these Ecclesiastical persons and their Church livings There is another point of this Law will reach unto some of their possessions as to their Gleab Lands which belong to their Churches and their Meadow and Pasture grounds for these be not sacred as Tythes be But came to them by the benevolent gifts of Laymen and not ex duo dei evangelii as Tythes did and so they took that burthen with them from the Lay-donor which after may be imposed upon them And therefore such Parsons Vicars or other Spiritual persons which hold a plough Land in Culture are chargable by the Statute of 2 Mar. towards the repair of the highways as other Lay men be But in that Statute there be Ecclesiastical Officers used as Churchwardens whereby it was conceived that that Statute had an eye to bring Ecclesiastical persons within the reach of it And so for their houses and grounds I take them to be within these Laws of the Sewers for the own Lands are also chargeable thereunto and yet on earth within His Dominions He is said to be caput Ecclesiae and as much reason were it to exempt His possessions as theris if the respect of the person should bear any such sway in the Case Also I do finde by divers ancient Records That Abbeys Priories and other Spiritual possessions have been chargeable to the repair of Bridges Calceys Banks and High-ways by Custom and Prescription as appeareth also by the Books of 11 H. 4. fol. 82 83. and 44 Ed. 3. Fitz. 11 H 4. 44. E. 3. Title Bar. pl. 301. and I take it that by a very express and special Custom or Prescription a portion of Tythes in a Clergy mans hand may be charged with the the repairs of Bridges Ways Walls or Sea Banks but not without a direct affirmative Custom for I suppose that they may as well indure a charge in this kinde as a charge in a Modus decimandi And so I conclude this part of the Case That the person was not to be sessed for his Tythes by the general words of of this Law A Copyholder HEre is also a Copyholder taxed within my Case for his Copyhold Land and whether he for his Copy-hold and the Lord for the Freehold of that soil shall be assessed therefore is another question A Copyhold by the Custom of the Manor yieldeth and affordeth to the Lord Seigniory Rent Fines due upon admittances and such like duties but the Copyholder hath the real and visible profits of the soil therefore both Lord Copyholder receive Et commodum salvationem by the said defences And therefore the words of this Law be exceeding copious and full in this point of sesse viz. To inquire who hath and holdeth any Lands or Tenements or Common of pasture or fishing or hath or may have any hurt or damage or losse by any means in or near the said places and in this case the Lord holdeth the said Land in Tenure though not in Culture and many ways may have hurt and damage As if the Copyhold were overflowed by the Sea the Lord should lose his Freehold of the soil his Seigniory yearly Rents and Fines for admittances and all other perquesites So that the said words of this Stature beat mainly upon him But as there be reasons to be urged against him so there be matters to exempt him from this charge and to lay the burthen on the Copyholder First though he be Lord of the Copyhold yet he is seized of the Freehold thereof but in Imagination and construction of the Law for the Copyholder is pernor and taker of the visible and substantial profits Secondly the charge of repairs respect the possessioner in presenti which is easie to be found out and not imaginary owners as the Lord is And Thirdly if the Lord owner should both be charged pro una eademque re which the Law doth never permit for this is not like the Case of Lord and Commoner they there shall be charged the one for his Soil and the other for his Common for in this case the Lord is the immediate proprietor of the Soil and he hath the present and real occupation thereof as well as the Commoner hath the use of his Common and therefore they shall both be taxed to these repairs diversis tamen respectis But for the Copyholder it may be objected that he is not within this Statute for in Heidons Case in Sir Edward Hcidons Case Cooks 3 Report it is truly said That a Copyholder is not within the Laws and Statutes which alter the Service Tenure Interest of the Land or other thing in prejudice of the Lord and this is the cause that a Copyholders Lands cannot be extended or put in execution upon the Statute of Westminster the Second nor in extent upon the Statute of Acton Burnel and De mercatoribus for if they should then might the Sheriff make the Lord new Tenants without surrender and admittances which is contrary to Custom the life and essence of all Copyholds yet there is another good rule put in the said Case of Heidon that is That where a Statute is made for the general good and wealth of the Realm and that no prejudice can come to the Lord by alteration of Tenure Service Estate or Custom there Copyholds may well be within those Statutes Therefore now it is to be considered whether this Statute of Sewers will in any sort hurt or prejudice the Lord or no for it is certain that these Laws tend as much to the wealth and welfare of this Realm as any can do and in rating and assessing these Copyholds to the repairs of Banks Walls and Sewers c. it alters neither the Copyholders interest nor the Lords Tenure nor doth it in any sort prejudice the custom of the Manor But then it may be objected That if sesse be imposed upon a Copyholder for his Land and be not paid these Laws gives sale of Lands which indeed is the onely clause of this Statute which is material to exempt a Copyholder out of these Laws for clearly I take it That Commissioners of Sewers have no power to decree the Copyhold Land away for non-payment of the sesse Yet I am of opinion that a Copyholder though he be not within
that part of the Statute which giveth sale of Lands yet he is within the other part thereof for divers Reasons One I finde by experience and in divers presidents that many Copyholds have been and be charged with repairs of Bridges and other defences in divers parts of this Realm by customs Also if a Lord grant a Copyhold to I.S. and his heir by Copy Tenendum by the repairs of such a Wall Bank or Bridge this bindes this Copyhold thereto in point of charge And lastly this Statute bindes such to the repairs which may have good by the doing or hurt by the neglect And it is apparant that by over flowing or inundation a Copy-holders Land sustains equal damage with other Lands and for these Reasons I resolve that a Copyhold is within these Laws And shortly touching Copyholds I do confine them to these four heads My four Tenents concerning Copyholds First a Copyhold is sessable towards these repairs for his Copyhold Secondly that the Lord of the Copyhold is not to be taxed for the Soil of the Copyhold for although he might come to it by forfeiture committed yet that is a forain possibility and although he be seized in Law of the Freehold yet because the Issues and Profits go with the Copy-holder this Law therefore will not charge him for the Soil Thirdly in respect the Copyhold rent is a rent of Assize and rents be within the express letter of this Statute and because his rents by the overflowing of the Sea be lost therefore the Lord shall be assessed for it if it be of value Fourthly I am of opinion that a Copyhold may not be sold by the Commissioners of Sewers and yet Copy-holders be within other parts of this Law Now because it is a high point in this Statute in what maner to rate tax and assesse by the judicious power of these Laws and in regard my Case toucheth all maner of Sesses and Rates which be or may be imposed by these Laws I will therefore spread it abroad and I do intend to treat of what Lands and other things are to be assessed towards the repairs in my Case and what persons to be assessed and in what degree Wherein first I am of opinion that one is not to be assessed for his high and descending grounds for so it appears Register was the opinion of Brudnel in the 12 H. 8. fol. 3. where he saith That if a mans ground be surrounded with waters he may make a trench in his own grounds to let the waters run downwards and to descend upon his neighbors grounds for water is an element descendable jure naturae And also high descending grounds can have no such use of Walls and Banks as other grounds scituate lower may have for the waters can have no force against them and therefore the owner is not chargeable therefore and the words of the Commission expressed in the Register be Qui defentionem Commodum salvationem per Predict as Wallias Guttur as pontes Calceta gurgites habere poterint nullatènus parcantur And the Charter of Rumney Marsh seems to bear the same sence viz. Quod pro securitate dicti Marisci districtiones fiant ita quod aequè fiant secundum portiones majores minores quas homines habent in eodem Marisco But high grounds by nature need not Engines of art to defend them And in Rooks case in Sir Rooks Case Edward Cooks 5. Report and Keighleys Case it is truly declared That the grounds lying on the Level which are in apparant danger subject to surrounder are only chargeable to repairs by this Law But yet grounds lying on high Mountainous places may be by Custom Prescription or Tenure liable and stand chargeable to repairs of Walls Banks Sewers Goats and other Defences And in such cases though they be never so high yet these Laws will reach unto them but no charge is to be imposed on them by this Statute and by force thereof onely without a special Custom or Prescription to warrant the same Annuity IF a Dean and Chapter or other Corporate persons or Body Politique be by Prescription to pay a yeerly Annuity to I. S. and his Heirs I. S. is not sessable for his Annuity yet the said Corporate or Politique persons pay the same in respect of their Lands which lie in danger of surrounding and so the grounds be subject to these Laws but it issueth not thereout And the said Corporate and Politique persons are not charged in their Lands but in respect of their Lands to pay the same Commons THose persons which have Common of Pischary Turbary or of Pasture in great Fens Marishes and Wastes may be charged but Commoners in agris seminatis after the corn severed as stock Commons which be of a smal value are not to be charged for their Commons but for their Lands Ferry HE which had a Ferry over a River was in 37 lib. Assiz pl. 10. charged to repair the River and so for a Ferry one may be charged by this Law Herbage HE which hath the Vesture or Herbage of grounds as Prima tonsura vel vestura terrae may be charged to the repairs Free passage IT appears likewise that those persons which had passage for their Boats on the River were to be rated towards the repairs in 37 Lib. Assiz pl. 10. but this is to be intended of those persons which had free and customary passage thereon as a liberty and inheritance and was not meant nor intended of poor Boatmen which come thereon with their Boats accidentally by the general Custom of the Realm Parks Warrens Chases A Man for his Park of Dear and Warren of Conies shall be charged if these liberties lie within the Level but for Chases I suppose one is not chargeable onely for Dear which be ferae naturae not bound to certain precincts but in that case the owner is onely to be taxed for the Soil Mart Fair or Market ALso if one have only the liberty of a Mart Fair or Market to be kept in a place which is subject to surrounder In my Opinion because they are but casual in their profits and not continuall in their being although they be conscribed to place and circuit yet being no part of the Soil nor of the issues and profits thereof they are not taxable within these Laws Offices THe Office of the Clerk of the Market Town Clerk or such like although these Officers be confined to a certain place and precincts within the Level which is subject to surrounder are notwithstanding exempt from these taxations Proxies Synods HE which hath Proxies or Synods of Annual sums of money such as was in the Case of Proxies in the Irish Reports is not sessable within this Law for although the person is charged therefore in respect of the grounds yet the same doth not issue thereout The Morgager for the Title he hath by the Condition to reduce the Lands back again to him or he which hath
petty matters the Lessee for years shall be at the sole charge for these may be spent in his own time So I suppose my meaning is herein well perceived which is That in petty annual and ordinary repairs the Lessee alone shall do the same but where the same wants in great timber or when a new defence is to be built they shall both be at the charge And with this the Statute of 7 Jac. cap. 20. doth directly in reason agree withal out of 7 Jac. cap. 20. which Statute it is plainly to be observed that in the great repairs as also in the new building as well the Lessor as the Lessee shall be both at the charge Yet in the Statute of 3 Ed. 6. cap. 8. there is a clause in effect That all Lots Scots and sums of money hereafter to be rated by the Commissioners of Sewers upon the Kings Lands shall be gathered or levied by distress on those grounds as in case of other persons and that all Bills of acquittance signed with the hand of such Receiver or Collector shall be a sufficient Warrant to the Auditors and Receivers and other the Kings Officers for allowance to the Farmer or Tenant to the Kings Majesty Whereby it appeareth that the Farmer of the King shall not be at the charge but His Majesty yet by the Statute 13 Eliz. cap. 9. it may be collected that the Lessor for years shall be charged but all 13 Eliz cap. 9. these are to be reconciled with my said diversity But now it may be objected to me Sir do you think it reasonable or possible for Commissioners of Sewers to take notice at the Nota. first of every private mans inheritance and the several Estates which the parties have therein when it will scarce be possible by private search to finde them out To this I answer That it is not reasonable to tie the Commissioners to such difficult and obscure businesses but it is sufficient for the Commissioners to impose or lay the rate tax or sesse on the grounds or on the visible possessors thereof and if the money so rated be demanded on the Lessee for years or for life or if the goods be distrained therefore or they be compelled to pay the same then they may come before the Commissioners and shew forth their lease and make it appear that I. S. hath the Reversion and as the case is to be charged as well as himself and upon due proof thereon made the Commissioners upon hearing the parties on both sides may apportion the tax on either of them as in Justice Discretion and true Judgement is requisite And so if a tax be set upon Land the owner may come in before the Commissioners and make it to appear before them that I. D. hath a common and Rent thereout and upon proof thereof made the Commissioners are to lay the charge accordingly And so it shall not tie the Commissioners at the first to lay the charge upon every particular person for that were opus in finitum impossibile but to relieve the parties upon their complaint and this may be easily done and it stands with the Justice of these Laws so to do And if the parties grieved will not complain for relief let it be justly accompted their own folly and no injustice of the Commissioners for the very Statute directs that such as are 1 H. 4. ch 12. grieved shall have relief upon their complaints which confirms my opinion in this point Taxes Rates and Sessments imposed meerly by the Laws of Sewers I Have formerly put nine several matters to tie men to the repairs and this by the Laws of Sewers is the last but not the least of them I propose these to be by the Laws of Sewers because they be not backed helped aided or assisted by Customs Prescriptions Common right or by any other Rule of the Common Law or by Tenure or Covenant or any act of the party as all the rest be but are only composed made ordered and directed by the sole power and authority of these Laws of Sewers and these are such as fall out of all the fomer rules and therefore in nova causa novum remedium est adhibendum But yet before I enter into my own works I will set down and declare the opinions delivered in Rooks and Keighleys Case which seemed one of them opposite to the other for in Rooks Case it is said That if one be bound in respect of his Lands to repair a Wall or Bank by Tenure Prescription or otherwise that yet the Commissioners of Sewers could not assess the said party alone to repair the same and said that the Commissioners were not tied to the Rules of Prescription Tenure Custom or otherwise but ought to assess all the Level to do the same which are to have good thereby But this being mistaken is very justly and discreetly altered in the said Case of Keighley by the Author himself for how could it be presumed that the learned makers of this worthy Law would have stricken down at one blow so many thousand Prescriptions Customs Tenures Covenants and uses as be within this Realm which be tied and bound to do and make the repairs in this kinde some in consideration of houses and land others for yearly Rents and for other causes which to have set at liberty and to have imposed the charge on the Levellers would have wrought and brought a wondrous innovation change and alteration in these works all which by this exposition are freed and saved But yet there be certain Cases which of meer necessity lay the charge upon the Level which are as follows The charge upon the Level FIrst if any grounds were heretofore by Custom Prescription Tenure or otherwise obliged and bound to repair any Wall Bank River Sewer Goat Sluce Jetty or other Defence which grounds so charged have been of late devoured and overflown by the Sea and so remain The Commissioners of Sewers are in that case tied to lay the charge now upon the Level which stand in danger of taking hurt by the not making the repairs or which are to receive good by the doing thereof Secondly also if A. B. be bound by the Tenure of his land to repair a Bridge Calcey or Bank and he dieth without heirs whereby the Land escheateth to the Lord of the Fee in this Case the Tenure is ended and the chief Lord is not bound to the repairs and therefore now the charge must lie on the the Level and so is the Law if this Tenure had been in other sort extinguished Thirdly where no persons or grounds can be known which ought to make the repairs by Tenure Prescription Custom Covenant or otherwise then the Commissioners of Sewers are to lay the charge on the Level Fourthly if John à Stile be chargeable to make the repairs and be not able to do the same here the Level are to be charged to assist him therein as appears in Keighleys
Case Fifthly if I. S. by reason of his Lands or otherwise be tied to repair the Sea bank but the hazard is so apparant dangerous to the country that I. S. in all likelihood cannot repair the same and so the country might be in danger to be overflown ere I. S. alone could do it here also the country on that Level are to be rated and taxed towards the same Keighleys Case Sixthly if the Sea at the Spring tides or at extraordinary casual swelling Tides or Floods have broke down the fences and overthrown the Banks and drowned the country without any default in the party who was tied to have repaired the same the Level shall in this case make up the breach for things which happen extraordinarily by the Sea or great waters which neither policy of man could prevent nor industry or force could resist are counted irevitable and undefenceable and so is the Law in the Case of Lessee for years or for life if they suffer by neglect their Banks or Walls to be broken down and their grounds surrounded they be punishable in an Action of Waste But if those grounds by the extraordinary rage and violence of the Sea or waters be born down and their grounds surrounded thereby they are in this case freed from all Wastes and in proof thereof the Case in 28 and 29 H. 8. Dier fol. 33. is much to this purpose where one 28 H. 8. Dier made a Lease for years of grounds to I. S. lying near the River of Eye and the Lessee covenanted to repair the Banks of the River to preserve the Meadow from surrounder yet after an extraordinary flood the Banks were broken down and the Meadows were surrounded and it was there holden to be no breach of Covenant Nota this was in ☞ the Case of a fresh River whereby in this Case the Law must lay the charge of the Level if any danger be likely to ensue by the protracting of time Seventhly if one do hold his Land by the yearly payment of Ten shillings towards the repair of a Wall if this money will not defray the charge the rest must be laid on the Level Eighthly if a new Wall or Bank be to be erected or a new Sewer Trench or River to be cast or Sluce or new Goat to be built in these cases the Commissioners must lay the charge on the Level which are to take benefit thereby as well for new building thereof as with the maintaining of them for in the Case of new defences there can be no Prescription Custom or Tenure bound to do the same And lastly In case there be a great Port in the country by the which the whole country hath benefit for the Ports and Havens as hath been said be Ostia januae Regni and are the defences to the whole country tempore pacis tempore belli and are these places by means whereof the upland countreys be made partakers of the sea Commodities therefore in my opinion the extraordinary repairs of these be not altogether tyed to the Level as in other cases nor to Prescription or Custom of repairing which extends but to ordinary defects but upon great and urgent necessities for the safety of the Port upon the welfare whereof the safety of the country doth depend the whole country are obliged and bound to contribute towards the repairs for these reasons following First for that in time of peace it is the Gate which openeth it self to let in from Foraign parts the Ships and Barques which bring hither to this Island such Merchandizes Wares and Commodities both for our profit and pleasure as we have need to use Secondly at these Ports we ship out to Foraign Nations our excess of Corn Cloth Skins Lead and other Wares wherewithal we do abound and receive in truck therefore other things more useful and necessary for us Thirdly in time of War we have shipping here for our Soldiers and means at the easiest charge to Transport them to such places as the King and Councel shall direct Fourthly in those Ports are commonly great Havens which are the chief receptacles of all our fresh waters into which the waters which drown the grounds of the countreys adjoyning are conveyed And lastly it appears by divers Authors that a country well furnished with Ports and Havens is not more strengthned then honored thereby and if it be as lawful as convenient to put a case of Chronicle Law upon it in the 28 year Eliz. in Holingshead Chronicles it appeareth what great care the Queen and the Lords of the Privy Counsel and the Hol. Cron. Knights and Gentlemen of Kent took for the repairing of Dover Haven what preparation was made for it what moneys Levied and how forward all the country was to effect that work may be a Spectacle to others for to lend their helping hands to the maintaining of such worthy works being of all other the most Honorable to our Nation and the most useful to the inriching thereof for which causes in my opinion because the Mountains as well as the Valleys have both Salvationem defentionem commodum thereby therefore in time of need the one as well as the other should be charged by the power of this Commission to contribute to the extraordinary repairing of the same I have now proceeded in this point of Sess so far that I take it I may justly here make my full period of this days exercise and I have taken up the more time herein because thereupon a main part and strength of this Law consists And therefore I will now apply my self to my conclusion in the which I have already proceeded so far that I have made it in some sort to appear that some of the Sesses in particular are not well imposed as the Lessee in case of the new defences was not alone chargeable for that he in the reversion was to contribute thereto and that no imposition ought to have been laid upon the Parson for his Tythes but the owner of the Soil was to be charged for all so that these two be already ruled for me But yet if any of the Sesses should be good then I should fail in my conclusion I shall therefore set forth in few words that all the Sesses are void And the cause is this That the draining of the superfluous waters in S. appeareth by my Case to be only commodious for S. and that D. the other town had no good thereby And it appears also that by the repairing of the ancient Sewer in D. that town only had benefit thereby therefore to assess S. to repair in D. and D. to contribute to S. where in those Cases there could be no benefit is directly against the letter and sence of these Laws but herein either of them ought to have been at charge with that by the which it took benefit and that not otherwise and therefore the mixture marred all the matter And so upon all this I conclude my
by the Tenure of his house or lands bound to avoid the waters there needed no Prescription to have been alleaged Also in 5 H. 7. fol. 3. there is a like Presentment made 5 H. 7. against an Abbot Quod ipse predecessores sui ought to repair a gutter ratione tenurae terrar ' suar ' but because in that case the Presentment did not set forth where those Lands lay which were charged the Presentment for that cause was holden to be void So that there is a great difference between a Tenure charge and a charge imposed upon Land by Prescription For in the case where a Tenant holdeth his Land to repair a Bridge Wall or Bank of the Lord of the Fee The Lord in this case may distrain the Tenant of Common right by the Common Laws of England But where ones Land is charged by Prescription and Custom there is no remedy to force and compel the Tenant to do the repairs but by Presentment and upon a Presentment process may be awarded against him to distrain him to make the repairs And if upon a Presentment made by the Laws of Sewers I. S. is charged to repair a Sewer and a Distringas ad reparandum be awarded against him the Sheriff may distrain the party in any place within the power of the Commission of Sewers But this being a judicial Distress which issueth out of the Rolls the Justices are tied to the limits and bounds of the Commission Yet in 19 H. 6. fol. 7. the 19 H. 6. Case was That the Admiral of England hath jurisdiction in causes arising onely on the Seas and he hath no jurisdiction or power to meddle with any thing done upon the Land Yet upon a Presentment made in the Admiral Court one was Presented and Amerced and a Distress for this Amerciament was taken on the Land and exception was thereto taken that the Distress was taken out of the jurisdiction of that Court But there Newton chief Justice and the rest of the Iustices said That the power of the Admiral to hold plea was restrained by Statute to matters arising on the Seas but Executions were not so And I have further observed by the Book of 8. R. 2. Fitzher 8. R. 2. Avoury 253. that where no place is certainly prescribed to distrain in that in such a case the Distress may be taken in any place within the power and jurisdiction of the Court out of which the Writ or Warrant of Distress doth issue As if one be amerced in a Court Leet or in a Court Baron he may be distrained for these Amerciaments in any place within the jurisdiction of these Courts and for an Amerciament set and imposed in the Sheriffs Turn a Distress may be taken for it in any place of the county for so far the power of that Court doth extend it self But in the case of a sess rate or tax imposed by the Commissioners of Sewers a Distress for any of those may be taken in any place within the Realm of England for in this case the Distress is meerly grounded upon the Statute and is bounded by the same limits which is as large as the Realm of England And hereupon by this construction made in this legal maner all the words in the said clause of this Statute have their full operation And although in Rooks case the Distress was there taken on the ground charged yet that doth not prove but that a Distress might have been taken in any other place for I verily take it that the place where the distress was taken in that case was not intended any material point though in my succeeding argument for another purpose I shall make it one So that my opinion touching distresses to be taken in cases of Sewers appears to stand upon these three distinctions First that the Lord of whom the grounds be holden to make the repairs must distrain on the the grounds so holden and not elswhere Secondly that upon a Distringas ad reparandum or Amovendum upon a Presentment which issueth out of the Rolls of that Court and is a judicial process a Distress must thereupon be taken within the bounds of the Commission of Sewers Ex congruitate Thirdly a Distress for a rate or sesse or tax assessed and imposed by the Commissioners of Sewers may be taken in any part or place within the Realm of England for this is a Distress grounded upon the Statute and is as large as the extent thereof And so the difference appears where the Distress is guided by the Commission and where by the Statute Whose goods may be distrained IT comes now in turn to be handled whose goods may be distrained and taken within these Laws For the words of Distress be put so generally in this Statute that they must receive their exposition by the Rules of the Common Law in regard these Laws do give no special direction therein and therefore the Distress mentioned in Rooks case may in this place be questioned For there Carter was assessed but the goods of Rooks were distrained and taken for the said Assess and no challenge or exception was there made of it and no marvel for it was specially found that the goods were taken and distrained on the grounds charged for otherwise that Distress had been tortious wherein I take this diversity That where grounds are chargeable to repairs of defences and a Sess is thereon imposed by the Commissioners of Sewers the goods of a Stranger may be taken therefore on the grounds Sessed and this is warranted by Rooks Case But Rooks being a Stranger his goods could not in any sort have been taken for the Sess imposed upon Carter but on the grounds charged and the like Law for Rents and Services issuing out of Lands the goods of a Stranger Levant and Couchant on the grounds so holden may be distrained for Rents and Services by 7 H. 7. 2. and 11 H. 7. 4. 7 H. 7. 11 H. 7. But put the case a little further that in the Sessions Court of the Sewers A. B. is amerced for Non-payment of his Sesse towards the repairs of a work of Sewers and in this case I am of opinion that the proper goods of A. B. are to be distrained for this Amerciament and not the goods of a stranger going on his grounds charged to the said assess because this Amerciament is a collateral charge which falls on the person of the offendor who was to pay the Assels and doth not in any sort charge the grounds and this opinion hath warrant from the Case in 41 Ed. 3. fol. 26. Br. Leet 4. for there A. B. was amerced in a 41 Ed. 3. Court of Leet for receiving and keeping one in his house which was not sworn to the King in which Case it was holden that no goods could be distrained for this Amerciament but only the proper goods of the party amerced although the goods of others were Levant and Couchant on his ground And
for a Distresse taken in the Kings Court for that they be of a superior authority and jurisdiction to these inferior Courts of Sewers And therefore the Replevins which our Statute aims to give way to are intended to be taken out of the Kings Courts which in Law and Justice ought to be obeyed and not from the Sheriff or his Officers by vertue of their Office only But in my case the Commissioners made a Law that the goods of A. should be sold without allowance of Replevin which is a good Law upon the distinctions and diversities aforesaid that is that A. who was the person assessed might not have or take a Replevin because he was a person bound expresly by the Law nor that the Sheriff or his Officers Ex Officio might grant a Replevin to deliver the same being under the power of this Law of Sewers But the Kings Courts at Westminster may in those cases of Sewers deliver the Distresses and this construction made of this Statute as I take it stands with Law and reason And in the 31 Ed. 3. Brook Replevin plac 60. the Case is put a man did grant to A. B. a rent out of his grounds 13 Ed. 3. with power that if it were behinde that he might distrain therefore and detain the Distresse against gages and pledges and yes it was adjudged that if the Rent were behinde and the grantor distrained he could not detain this Distresse against the Replevin Yet here were the direct words of the party himself to the contrary but his words could not overrule the Law So that upon all these matters I hold these Tenents following Imprimis To make a general Law to restrain all Replevins granted either from the Sheriff or the Kings Courts is no good Law or Ordinance of Sewers for that Replevins de jure are in such cases grantable out of the Kings Courts and such a general Law savors too much of oppression in stopping up the Gates of Justice Secondly for a Sheriff or his Deputy to grant and award Warrants of Replevin Ex officio to deliver goods or cattle distrained and detained for a Tax and Law of Sewers is in my opinion against Law and need not to be obeyed for that the Distres was Sub protectione superioris Curiae which is of a higher degree then a Sheriffs Ministerial Warrant Thirdly if a Distresse be taken and sold for a Sesse of Sewers a Replevin lyeth against the buyer for by the sale the goods and cattel were put out of the protection of the Court of Sewers Fourthly if a Rate or Tax be imposed by the Laws of Sewers upon I. S. the goods of Iohn a Downs be taken therefore on the ground of I. S. which were charged I. D. may sue a Replevin of his said cattel from the Sheriff for that he nor his goods were not expresly bound by the Laws of Sewers Fifthly a Replevin lyeth out of the Kings Courts of Westminster to deliver a Distresse taken and detained by the Laws of Sewers for that they be Courts de altiore natura Sixthly a Distresse taken by a Lord on his Tenant for not repairing a work of Sewers which by the Tenure of his Land he ought to do and repair the Tenant may sue a Replevin from the Sheriff Ex officio to deliver the Distresse for that this Distresse was not taken or detained by Warrant Judgement or Decree of Sewers Seventhly If upon a Judgement given in the Kings Court or upon a Decree made in this Court of Sewers a Writ or Warrant of Distringas ad Reparandum or of that nature be awarded and the parties goods be thereby taken these goods ought not to be delivered by Replevin to be taken either out of this Court or out of any other Court of the Kings because it is an Execution out of a Judgement Eighthly although one grant a Rent out of his Land with clause of Distresse and with Grant or Covenant that the Grantee may distrain and detain this Distresse till he shall be satisfied his Rent Yet a Replevin lieth in that Case A perpetual charge SO now I have fully and at large declared my opinion touching Distresses and Replevins wherein I hope I have fully satisfied the first point of my Case I intend therefore now to proceed to the sixth point which concerns charges and sales of Lands to be made by the Commissioners of Sewers by the power and authority of this Law And first I suppose the question may be extended to this that is Whether the Commissioners of Sewers can impose a perpetual charge upon Land to repair a work of Sewers for ever by the power of these Laws I do here acknowledge that this is a knotty Point yet something may be alleaged in maintenance of this Opinion Affirmatively For in the parts of Holland in the County of Lincoln almost every one knows which part he is to repair and maintain in perpetuity And Experientia est optima interpres rerum And it appeareth by the Charter of Romney Marsh pag. 12. That the use there was to impose perpetual charges on singular persons Char. Romney Marsh pag. 12. For the words there be these Juratores per eor ' sacrament ' mensur abunt per perticam omnes terr as Tenementa quae infra dictum Mariscum periculo subiacent quibus mensueration ' factis viginti quatuor per communitatem prius electi jurati habito respectu ad quantitatem Walliar ' terrar ' Tenement ' quae periculo subiacent per eor ' Sacramentum ordinabunt quantum ad predictarum Walliar ' sustentationem reperationem faciend ' sustinend ' ad quemlibet pertineat ita quod proportion ' acrar ' terrar ' periculo subiacent ' singulis assignetur sua portio perticar ' predict ' assignatio fiat per locos certos ita ut scietur ubi per quae loca ad quantum singuli defendere teneantur These words in this Charter seem to be plain That by the Laws established in Romney Marsh the Commissioners had power to assign to every man his portion to repair in perpetuity but I finde no such words in our Statute And whereas it may be said that our Commissioners have power to make sale of the Lands Ergo They may charge them perpetually but this is a non sequitur for that for the sale they have expresse Warrant but not so for the charge And powers and authorities must be duly pursued and are not to be taken by equitable or argumentable collections or implications so that it may seem the Laws of Sewers were never held so perdurable as to binde mens Lands with perpetual charges And therefore this difference I take That by the Custom of a town or country every one may know his particular portion which the owners of grounds are obliged and bound to repair perpetually but without such a Custom it hath been held That the Commissioners of Sewers cannot binde any mans inheritance to a
Disposition and of good Estate should be put into these Commissions of Sewers the Statute did make choice of four Honorable persons to have and take the nomination of such as should for their Integrity Learning Wealth Wisdom and Experience be worthy to be put into this Commission And therefore the Lord Chancellor Lord Treasurer and the two Lord chief Justices for the time being have by this Statute the nomination of our Commissioners But as these great persons of Honor by their high places are most commonly busied in matters of great importance they many times refer these matters to others by means whereof divers persons in some countreys have of late years crept into Commission which this Statute doth not allow of which do not only want knowledge and experience but which are also transported and carried away with selfwill and serve most commonly to make a faction of the greater number to carry away businesses when the graver and wiser sort are forced being overladen with popular voices to give way to run into contrary courses and are made to surcease from making good and wholsom Laws and Ordinances and sometimes are as it were forced to agree to those which are whose even as the Roman Dictator Fabius having joyned to him the froward Minutius was by the violent stream of his colleague so crossed and overswayed not out of judgement but selfwill that he was forced to give way to Minutius frowardness though it tended almost to the hazard and the overthrow of the whole Roman Army And because the Commissioners are the persons through whose hands the execution of all these Laws must passe I thought it therefore very convenient to take into examination this part of the Statute which touch and concern them And I intend to purge the Commission of such of them as these Laws have disalowed and to that purpose I have framed this insuing case which I take it will give us occasion to call them all into question and to sever the just from the unjust the sufficient from the unsufficient and the learned from the illiterate The Case A. demiseth to B. and C. Land of the yearly value of Sixty pounds cum stauro of the value of Two hundred pounds for their lives the Remainder to D. a free Citizen of Lincoln B. and D. disseise C. of the Land and take the stock C. releaseth to D. the goods absolutely and the Land upon Condition D. dieth in Exile E. his son and heir enters B. and C. who enter for the Condition broken E and Francis Countes Dowager of Warwick and three other Commissioners of the Quorum of Sewers make a Law to raise a Were erected upon a River navigable at the costs of the party because it hindred the current of waters My conclusion is That here be competent Commissioners in number and in Estate which made this Law and that this Law is well decreed within this Statute The case I do distribute in these points viz. Three at the Common Law and four upon this Statute the points I intend by the Common Law are these First whether the Sixty pounds stock can be demised and letten for life with the Remainder over as this case is Secondly whereas B. and C. be two Joyntenants in possession whether one of the Joyntenants and a stranger can so disseise the other Ioyntenant as to transfer thereby an interest and Estate to the stranger Thirdly because the Release dependeth upon the disseisin the question is in what maner it doth inure and whether it shall expel B. out of that moyety because it is made to the stranger and then what is reduced by the Condition whether a possession action or a right Points upon this Statute First whether the Son of the free Citizen exiled is a disabled Commissioner in respect of his person and whether he hath such an Estate either in Lands or goods as will satisfie this Law Secondly whether the Countess may be a competent Commissioner within this Statute Thirdly whether a joynt interest in Lands or goods will make the Ioyntenant a sufficient inabled Commissioner within this Statute Fourthly whether the Were as this case is be raced down or not And hereupon I intend to lay open the whole division touching the Lets Impediments and Annoyances which this Statute speaketh of Argumentum Lectoris I meant it not for a point in this case whether goods might be let with Land nor whether a stock might be leased with a Farm because I finde the Books of 1 H. 6. 1. and many others full in the point that they may And although by the taking of them back again by the Lessor they will thereby suspend no rent yet in the original demise they may be a cause to increase the rent but my point herein is double First whether they will passe in Remainder as my case doth limit them Secondly whether they will inable B. and C. to be Commissioners of Sewers alowed by this Statute I do not onely finde stock let with Farms but also joyned in Real actions with Land for in the Writ of Assize the words be Quod vicecomes faciat Tenement ' illud reseisiri de catallis quae in ipso capta fuerint ipsum Tenement ' cum catallis esse in pace usque c. These doubtless were such goods as stocked the grounds and which usually went with the same for in ancient times when any farmed grounds they usually farmed the stock thereon going and this appears by ancient presidents Sed nunc aliud tempus In the Writ of Ejectione firmae in the Register be contained these words Ostensum quare vi armis manerium de Dale quod C. prefat ' A. dimisit ad terminum qui nondum preteriit intravit bona catalla ejusdem A. ad valentiam c. in eodem manerio inventa caepit asportavit So that in those Writs of Assize and Exjectione firmae the one to recover the Freehold the other the Leasehold We finde goods which went with the Manor or Farm made parcel of the plaint and I take it damages shall be increased therefore for these were such goods as stockt the Farms And in Wrotsly and Adams Case in Plo. Com. Exception was Wrotsley and Adams Case taken in abatement of the Writ because the words bona Catalla were left out of the same Yet in my opinion no estate neither in presenti nor in remainder can be made of Goods or Cattel neither shall they go with the Land in point of Estate but shall passe to the Lessee and after to him in the remainder as a dependancy upon the Farm And the Heir shall have Heir-looms together with the Mansion House as things necessary concurrent therewithal yet the Heir-looms have no descending qualities but they do go with and wait upon the house as necessary Instruments fitting to be used therewith neither can it be gathered by the Book of 37 H. 6. fol. 30. that the Book called The Grail which
was devised by will to A. one of the executors 37 H. 6. to have the occupation during his life the remainder thereof in like maner to B. for his life and after to be disposed by the executors to the Churchwardens of Dale that it did passe to A. and B. in point of Estate but only the use and occupation thereof was disposed to be ruled according to the said Limitations but the property remained in the executors So in Paramore and Yardleys Case in the Com. and Paramore Yardleys case Mannnings case in Matthew Mannings Case in Cooks Reports a Term of years could not be devised to A. for life the Remainder thereof to B. for his life to passe in this maner in point of Estate neither could these Estates be made thereof but by construction the same was disposed of to go by way of executory devise and so the stock in my case was not transferred in point of Estate with the Land but in point of executory disposition of the Occupation and use thereof onely and therefore if one let a stock of cattel or sheep with grounds at the end of the Term the goods as accessary with the Land as principal shall return to the Lessor and during the Term the Lessor hath the property of them and the Lessee the possession thereof and the Lessee shall have the yearly profits thereof for his Rent and here I do end this first point and will proceed to the rest The second Point There be two Joyntenants and one of them and an estranger do disseise the other what interest the stranger gaineth thereby is the question I am clear of Opinion as many books be That one Joyntenant may disseise his companion by an expresse Ouster but when a stranger joyneth therein in what part that doth alter the case is the matter for if the stranger should get a joynt Estate in possession with the Joyntenant whom he joyned withal that were to make a double Joynt-tenancy in uno eodemque gradu for the Joyntenant which committed the disseisin which hath the possession and the Joyntenant which was disseised and which hath the right do hold Joyntenancy still for by 36 Ed. 3. right may hold 36 Ed. 3. Ioyntenancy with a possession and the one may take by survivor from the other in 9 H. 7. fol. 23. That he in Remainder and a stranger may disseise Tenant for life and shall be both disseisors but in that case they were both strangers to the particular Estate Also it is manifest that one Ioyntenancy may be built upon another As if two Joyntenants be disseised by other two Joyntenants of the right semel but not simul But in our principal case Whether one Ioyntenant might hold the possession of a Moyety with his first companion in Ioynture with his moyety in right and can also uno tempore hold Ioyntenancy in possession with a stranger of the moyety upon which the disseisin was committed I suppose he cannot because then he should hold partnership with both of one thing And therefore in my opinion the stranger getteth nothing in my case but is onely a Coadjutor and no Disseisor which gets the Tenancy The third Point But admit the stranger did get a moyety of a moyety by joyning in the disseisin then what alteration this release will work in my case is the next question It is true as Mr. Littelton saith That if there be two Littleton Disseisors and the Disseisee release to one of them he shall hold his companion out of all the like Law is in my case of two abaters and two intruders but if two disseisors be and they make a Lease for years rendring Rent and then the Disseisee releaseth to one of the Disseisors I suppose this release shall inure to both because the Lessee for years whose Estate shall be strengthned by this release is in by the Title under both of them and now they are Tenants of a Reversion onely and of a Rent thereto incident which was not got by the disseisin but was composed by the Legal contract of the parties So if two be admitted to a Copyhold by Tort or to an Office in a Court of Justice unlawfully though their entry be unlawful yet because they came in by admittance which is at the door of Justice I suppose therefore that if a release be made to one of them by the disseisee it shall inure to both because they had some colour and countenance to enter more then expresse disseisors or intrudors have But if a Son and a Stranger disseise the Father and after the Father dyeth and the right descend to the son by this release in Law and by the accession of the right by descent to the tortious possession it doth inure only to the son and although this release was upon condition which by the breach thereof seemeth to set the Relessor in the same state he was before yet it doth not admit the Joynt disseisor which was expelled thereby to become a copartner again with his fellow As if the son and a stranger disseise the father and the father dyeth the stranger hereby is expelled by the descent of this right to the son yet if after a more near Heir is born as the Elder brother dyed his wife Einsent with a son which after the decease of the Grandfather is born whereby the Inheritance of this Land is his yet the other Joynt disseisor which was expelled by the descent of the right of his fellow disseisor by the departure of the right with the possession cannot enter upon his fellow disseisor in my opinion But now the question is further what is reduced by this condition the right only which was released or the possession together with this right for if but a right be reduced then a descent hapning may perchance Toll the entry of the Relessor and so he may be put to his Writ of right in Fee And if it be a right of an inferior degree as in our case it was but for life then he should be with out remedy But in my opinion where the release doth inure by way of 17 Assiz pl. 2. 17. Ed. 3. entry and Feoffment being upon condition it may in that case by the breach of the condition reduce the possession and give the Relessor a Re-entry because in Intelligenti a legis the Land was passed thereby and not a right only But if it had inuted by way of Mitter le droit only I take it Bevils Case 4 Report then it would reduce but a right But in our case I suppose if it had had any working at all it was by Entry and Feoffment yet I think nothing did inure thereby to the stranger which in my case is called D. because he wanted the Freehold whereupon it should inure And so I end my Common Law points and I will now in hand with my Statute The parts of the Statute whereupon I do ground my subsequent
of a Freeman be forfeit for his Fathers Banishment or not is the matter of my Case A Freeman of a City or Borough may be made divers maner of ways as appeareth in the Case of the City of London in Sir Edward Cooks 8 Report fol. 126. That is to say First by Service in his Apprentiship Secondly by Birth by being the Son of a Freeman Thirdly by Purchase and that is by the Common Councel of the City And at Bristol by Mariage In the Chronicles in the Raign of Richard the 2. it is said Freedom was obtained but by two means videlicet By Service and by Birth yet it seems it may be obtained by purchase because the Centurion claimed his Freedom thereby in the 22 Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles In the Irish Reports Acts 22. 8. fol. 12. it is said That one may be a Freeman by Birth Mariage and Service Saint Paul indeed was born at Tarsus in Cicilia which was under the obedience of the Romans he challenged therefore to be a citizen of Rome but I take it the text there took it but to be National Freedom which is such a general Freedom as Calvin being born in Scotland claimed had in England because he was born under the obedience of the King of England But that made not Saint Paul Free of the private Customs Priviledges and Franchises of Rome no more then Calvins birth made him a free Citizen of Lincoln to the peculiar Customs of that City If one be born in a City of Parents that are not free the childe hereby is no Citizen by birth and if one be born of Free Parents out of the place of Priviledges as out of Lincoln he yet is a Freeman by Birth Yet in the Charter Grant of Yarmouth the words were Concessimus Burgensibus de Magna Yermutha de villa predict ' oriundis that they should have such Liberties and such so that it may be the special words of the Charter may alter the case yet in the case of the City of London Cooks 8. Report the King Cooks 8 Rep. by his Letters Patents could not make one a Freeman of London yet he may thereby make him a Freeman of the Kingdom But whether those that are Free by Birth Service or Mariage be Freemen within my Statute or not is a question because the words thereof be absolutè posita to all purposes And therefore I take it that this Statute intends it of such as have challenged their Freedom and which have taken the Freemans Oath and are admitted into the Society and fellowship of the Freemen Citizens and Burgesses for in James Bags Case in the 11 Rep. such a one is taken for a perfect Freeman and no other So in my opinion E. the son of D. is no competent Freeman of the City of Lincoln within the branch of this Statute But admit he were then it may be objected to me that by the Exilement of the father the Freedom of the son was forfeit by reason he was by this Exilement become no free Citizen But in answer thereunto I say briefly That if theson had attained this Freedom by the death of his father as a thing descendible then it had been forfeit by his fathers Banishment but the son had this Freedom by his own birth as a purchase and not by the death of his father by descent Ergo it was not forfeited by his fathers Exilement Like to the case where I. S. hath many children and then he confesseth himself Villain to I. D. in a Court of Record yet his children formerly born are Freemen and no Villains because they were free by their own births but the Inheritance is inthralled because it is to come to the Heir by descent So that I am of opinion that if E. had otherwise been a competent Freeman as he was not then the Exilement of his father could not have disabled him Our Freeman which this Statute speaketh of must not only be Free of the City or Borough but he must also there be resciant for these words are materially placed in the said Law and here E. was the son of D. a Free Citizen of Lincoln who did there reside and dwell and every childe is part of the fathers family for the Husband and Wife Father and Children Master and Servant are of a Family and a Ward is part of his Gardians family But in our case when D. was Banished he then forewent his local Habitation and so his said son could not then be of his family nor could be intended to dwell with him who had no Habitation in the Realm And I am of opinion that this Statute requireth an actual habitation or resciancy and not a Mathematical or Imaginary resciancy such a one as was in Geffries Case in Cooks 5 Report for there the case was That one did personally and locally dwell and reside at Dale Jeffreys Case and occupied Lands in Sale here the party was in Law but not in fact an Inhabitant in Sale and was there assessed as an Inhabitant to the repair of that Church But this Commissioner of ours is bound to such resciancy as a Minister is to his resciancy which in Butler and Goodhals Case in Cooks Report ought to be locally and personally abiding in the Parish where his Parsonage or Vicarage house is for resciancy or residency have a like signification and be both of them words of that efficacy as they tie a man to his personal and actual abode and habitation with their family But put the case that in Lincoln there be places exempt out of the Freedom of the City and yet within the Circle of the Walls as Saint Martins doth in London I take it if a Freeman dwell there this is no resciancy intended within this Statute because the words of our Law be That he be Resciant and Free of the City which going together draweth his Habitation to the place where his Freedom is And with this agreeth the Decree made for London touching Tithes in Anno Dom. 1535. which did not extend to Saint Martins because it was In but not Of London Doctor Graunts Case Cooks 11 Report Our Freeman must also have in clear moveable substance to the value of a hundred pounds this word Substance would have extended as well to ones real Estate as to his personal if it had gone alone but being coupled with the word Moveable declares plainly that it onely extends to the personal Estate And I take it that these words Moveable substance doth not onely contain and extend to such things Quae dese movere possint as live goods Horses Oxen Sheep and such like but also to such things quae de se movere non possint as Plate Jewels ready money Utensils of house Mercery Drapery and other wares and goods of value Hay Corn goods of Husbandry and Housewifery but Birds and Beasts of Parks and Warrens and Doves in Dovehouses be not valueable sustance a Hive of Bees
and a Villain for years and a Captive taken in the Wars be for there shall be paid for him a Ransom as is mentioned in the Register fol. 102. Moneys due upon Statutes Judgements Recognizances Bonds Bills or Contracts be not valueable substances within this Statute for by this Statute it must be clear and not doubtful or accidental as Moneys out of hand be which is like to a Bird in the Bush yet these be all valueable and are valued in Inventories taken in the Ecclesiastical Courts But yet the Executors or Administrators shall not be charged for assets for them till they have received them And in 25 H. 8. in Dier fol. 5. Obligations are not held valueable but things in action and if one 25 H. 8. have got goods by tort and wrong to the value of One hundred pounds yet this is clear valueable substance within this Law for although the word clear be inserted into the Statute yet that relates to the value and not to the title of those goods And if one have goods as Executor or Administrator these are not his own and therefore do not inable him to be a Commissioner within this Law Neither do the goods of the Church inable the Parson Vicar or Curate nor the goods of a Corporation do not inable the Major and Aldermen or Citizens of a City or Town Corporate for these do not belong to their particular persons neither did this stock in my case which is demised to B. and C. make them competent Commissioners within this Statute because they had not the property therein but onely the use and occupation thereof And although in this Statute it is not declared in what place these goods which should inable a man to be a Commissioner of Sewers should be in it will suffice if the party have them in any place within the Realm for this very Law calls them Moveable substance And herein I end my Free Citizen and in my opinion E. had neither Freedom in his person nor real Estate in Land nor moveable substance in any sort to make him a competent Commissioner within this Law yet if a Freeman be destitute of goods or want perfection in his Freedom if notwithstanding he have Lands to the value of forty Marks per annum then he shall be allowed a Commissioner within this Statute Touching which point of Lands I now intend to proceed in In the handling of this matter it is to be considered which be Hereditaments within this Law for the other two words Lands and Tenements need no exposition wherein I am of opinion That Messuages Cortages Toâ—â—s Crofts Houses Land Meadow Pasture Feedings Moors Marishes Heaths Furs Mills Orchards Gardens Hopyards Rents of Annuities Prima vestura terrae Pischaries Tythes Pensions Portions Proxies Parks Warrens are all of them Hereditaments within this part of this Law for the word Hereditament is a word of the larger size and largest extent in our Law being Omne quod Haereditari potest and yet every Hereditament is not within this branch for it hath two other words joyned therewithal videlicet yearly value And therefore Franchises and Liberties as Waifs Strayes Felons goods Deodans Fines Amerciament Profits of Courts Fairs Markets Ferries Hundreds Leets and such like are all of them out of this Statute in this point because they be not of a certain yearly value but be accidental and depend in contingency by the opinion in Butler and Bakers Case Cooks 3 Report But as it is there said If these things have heretofore been usually letten and demised for certain yearly Rents then they may be Hereditaments of clear yearly value within this Law All Offices and Vocations as Physitians Chyrurgions or Trades as Merchants Mercers Grocers Drapers and such like be neither Hereditary nor of certain yearly value and therefore they be not within this Law though perhaps one gain thereby Five hundred pounds per annum Also dry reversions or remainders depending upon Estates for lives are out of this branch for the words of the Statute be having which is in praesenti and not futuro Neither is an Advowson of force in this point though it be assets in a Formdon yet it is no assets in an Action of debt brought against Executors Homages Fealties Escuages Heriots Reliefs Nomine paenes and such like be Hereditaments but because they are not of yearly value they are not therefore within this Law Also if a Commissioner of Sewers be seised of a Rent or Annuity payable every second year it doth not inable him to sit because it is not Annual which is intended yearly and every year as the Pryor of Plymptons Case in Dier fol. 133. is but if one do grant to I. S. an Annuity or Rent of Forty Marks in Fee payable at the feast of Easter yearly if the grantee will then come for it to such a place is of certain yearly value within this Law But put the case that A. is seised of Land in Fee and grant to B. Forty Marks per annum for his life only I am of opinion that B. is no sufficient qualified Commissioner within this Law But if A. be seised of a Rent of Forty Marks per annum in Fee and he grant the same to B. for his life he is a competent Commissioner within this Law differentia apparet Our Statute goeth on in these words That the Commissioner which would sit without exception must have in Lands Tenements or Hereditaments of the clear yearly value of Forty Marks to his own use Therefore a man seised of Lands to that value in the right of his wife although he take the Rents and Profits to his own use yet this will not inable him to be a Commissioner within this Law but he must have them in ejus usu ad ejus usum A Feoffee to a use before the Statute of 27 H. 8. of uses was no competent Commissioner within our Statute for he had the Land then to another mans use Neither was Cestui que use sufficiently qualified to be a Commissioner Two Tenants in common or coparceners of Forty pounds Lands per annum are neither of them of sufficient ability to be Commissioners within this Law And the like Law is of two Joyntenants of Land of that yearly value for though they be seised per my and per tout yet in truth and in a legal construction either of them be seised but of a moyety So that if two Joyntenants Tenants in common or coparceners be seised of Lands of the yearly value of Threescore pounds either of them may sit by this Commission A Dean and Chapter Major and Commonalty Master of a Colledge and Fellows which be seised of Lands and Tenements of the yearly value of a Hundred pounds per annum are not in respect thereof to sit If a Bishop Dean Chancellor Archdeacon Prebend Parson or Vicar be seised of Lands in Jure Ecclesiae of the clear yearly value of Forty Marks I suppose these may
been always before covered with waters But shores and such grounds which Alternis vicibus were wet and dry were not accounted relinquished grounds and that relinquished grounds belonged to the King but the shore and casual drowned grounds might belong to a subject The Personal Profits of the Sea did consist in Wreck Flotsan Jetfan Ligan and great fishes which are due to the King by the Royal Prerogative of his Crown But subjects might have the Inheritance of the first four by Prescription and of the last by Charter from the King Then I descended into Islands Which are of two sorts First on the sea old ones and new ones That both were within the Kings power and the new ones His in property Fresh Islands in the Land might belong to subjects The nature of them all were that they were undique circumdatae aquis I then landed at the shore which in definition containeth those grounds which extend from the lowest Ebb to the highest Flood That the King had the property thereof de Jure a subject might have it ex perquisito and the people had their usum necessarium I proceeded further to the Coasts whose content and contingent I described so near as by Histories I could inform my self And shores and coasts I held them to be Maris accessoria From these I proceeded to Creeks Havens and Ports and these I set forth in their several kindes And I concluded with the compass of my Statute and my Commission and with the diversity thereof That within the circle of my Statute Seas Isses Shores Coasts Ports Havens Creeks gained and relinquished grounds were comprehended because that might depend in posse but yet the Commissioners which was in presenti operative did extend but to the utmost Banks and Walls towards the seas And I concluded the points of my Case with the difference between grounds left and grounds gained from the seas and thus I ended my first Lecture The second Lecture IN my second Lecture I came on Land and took upon me to set forth her friends from her foes her friends I counted such as had defended her from the violence of the seas and from inundation of salt waters And these were her friends viz. Banks Sewers Goats Calceys and Bridges these are to be maintained and repaired and are the Defences which I fully treated of And these were the enemies Streams Mills Ponds Fishgarths Mildams Locks Hebbingweres Hecks and Floodgates These are Lets and Impediments which this Statute speaketh of and are to be corrected reformed or put down as cause shall require I shewed then that Rivers were of two kindes Royal and Common Rivers That there were other inferior kindes of those watery instruments which might take place after Rivers as Ditches Gutters Sewers Pools Ponds Springs That water is the substantive of all these and if it be a running water at random then it is a stream if it be a running water and pent within Walls or Banks then it is a River Gutter Ditch or Sewer These in their several kindes I did distinguish And Springs I held to be the vital spirit of them all I then described the Commissioners maner of proceedings which might be three maner of ways By view and survey and wherein they consisted By Jury and on what parts that stood By discretion and the diversities and definition thereof After these I took upon me by how many several ways the defences might be maintained which were nine in in number 1. Frontage 2. Ownership 3. Prescription 4. Custom 5. Tenure 6. Covenant 7. Usus Rei 8. A Township and 9. By the Laws of Sewers All these I proved by Reasons Presidents and Authorities and did at large discourse of them Then I came by the course of this Case to treat of Sesses Taxes and Lays set by Commissioners of Sewers whereby I found some Inheritances there were which were subject to these sesses as those that follow Houses Land Meadow Pasture Woods Heaths Furs Moors Marishes Rents Ferries Pischaries Commons Free passage Parks Warrens And many Inheritances I found in reason freed from these Taxes and Lays as Tythes in Spiritual hands Annuities Chases Pensions Proxies Portions Marts Fairs Markets Offices things in Action Conditions Contingents Uses Presentations Founderships I also found these Sesses of three kindes viz. Customary and then they may binde the Mountains as well as the Valleys Hereditary and then the particular Tenant and the Reversion must both contribute Temporary which bound the Possessor And here I ended my second days Lecture The third Lecture MY third Lecture I did distribute into three general heads which were meerly the grounds of the execution of these Laws Which consisted either in punishing the body and person of the Delinquent with 1. Imprisonment 2. Fine and 3. Amerciament Or in doing Execution upon the Offendors Estate 1. By Distress or 2. By sale thereof Or otherwise in extending it upon a mans personal Estate by 1. Charging of the Land perpetually or 2. By the absolute sale thereof And under these general Rules I comprised these particulars which follow First for the Honor of this Commission and for the more necessary execution of these Laws I found them out a Court wherein I set forth in what cases Commissioners might Imprison the Bodies of Delinquents and in what cases they might impose a fine and when Amerciaments be due and then I shewed that for some transgressions neither Imprisonment Fine nor Amerciament was to be imposed I then came to Distresses and held a treble distinction of them videlicet that some were 1. Judicial and issued out of the Judicial Records of this Court 2. Other Ministerial 3. The third Legal wherein all these Diversities I screwed out by proved Authorities Then I shewed in what places these Distresses might be taken when upon the Land charged when within any place within the extent of this Commission and sometimes within any place of this Realm And when the proper goods of the party might be taken and when the goods of strangers and when goods may be sold by this Law Afterwards according to the order prescribed me by my Case I declared that there were some Interrupters to the Execution of these Distresses The one was by suing Replevins wherein I took these diversities That a Sheriff being an inferior Officer could not of his own power deliver a distress taken by warrant of Sewers But that the Commissioners of Sewers are bound to obey a Replevin coming out of the Kings Courts at Westminster Quia de altiori natura Thus yet notwithstanding goods taken by a Judgement were exempted from that Replevin Then I proceeded to the charge of Lands whether a perpetual charge might be imposed or not And from thence I came to Sales and those I distributed into four points First for what cause 2. What Lands 3. Whose Lands 4. To whom these Lands might be sold I after came into the Tractate of Legal proceedings which may be used in our Court of
altering former Laws It appears in Esther that the Laws of the Medes and Persians were so perdurable as they could never be changed And in my opinion there is required as great foresight judgement and as sound discretion and mature deliberation in repealing of old Laws as in making new ones For Quae preter consuetudinem morem major ' fiunt neque placent neque recta videmur I have noted how carefully and constant the Lords of the Parliament House were in the 20 year of H. 3. when they all cried out aloud Nolumus leges Angliae mutare Seeing therefore there ought to be great care in making Laws so must there be great heed taken in repealing of Laws And because Commissioners of Sewers have power herein I will therefore deliver my opinion how far that power will extend And if one note this Branch of the Statute well he shall well perceive the Judicious care taken by the Parliament in penning of it For the words be That the Commissioners of Sewers should have Power and Authority to make constitute and ordain Laws Ordinances and Decrees and the same Laws and Ordinances omitting the word Decrees to alter repeal and make void for a Decree is a Judgement and is Finis operis and a Judgement cannot be reversed without a Writ of Error Neither can a Sentence or a Decree in Chancery be reversed without a Bill of Review neither can the Commissioners of Sewers reverse a Judgement or Decree of Sewers Judiciously pronounced which is a Judgement upon a Tryal betwixt the King and the party or betwixt party and party without a Bill of Reversal for it is truly said Quod naturale est unum quodâ— dissolvi eo ligamine quo ligatum est A Writ of Error lay at the Common Law for to reverse a Judgement given by Commissioners of Sewers when the Commission was in Latine as is set forth in the Register being then one of the special Commissions of Oyer and Terminer but since the Commission was put into the English frame the Writs of Error ceased A Law for sale of Lands ingrossed into parchment and certified into the Kings Court of Chancery with the Kings Royal assent had thereto is not reversable without an Act of Parliament but then the said sale must be made according to the form frame and power of this Statute For put the Case that A. B. holdeth his Lands of I. S. by the payment of Twenty shillings yearly towards the repair of such a Bridge Bank or Wall it fortuneth that A. B. paid the Twenty shillings yearly to his Lord for that purpose who neglecteth to pay it though he be thereto Ordered and Assessed to pay the same to the said repairs by the Commissioners of Sewers the seigniory of Twenty shillings yearly is to be decreed and not the Land for that the fault was in I. S. and not in A. B. the owner of the Land If any persons be by Prescription Custom Tenure Covenant or otherwise bound to repair Walls Banks or other defences of Sewers the Commissioners have not any power by their Commission to repeal alter or make void any of these because these are establisht by the Common Law and Customs of the Realm and not by the power of the Commission of Sewers But their power is to repeal alter or make void Laws and Ordinances made by themselves or by the power of their Commission And so the words of their Commission plainly describe it For thereby they have power to make Laws and Ordinances and the same to repeal alter and make void so they must be the same and no other And herein I end all my Arguments and discourse upon this Statute for I accompt all the rest which remaineth unspoken of not to be worthy of a Readers dialect because I have fully handled all the materials of this worthy Law And therefore I may justly â—â—â—clude my Argument with this That Finitum est hoc opus â— consumatum FINIS