Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	manor_n	meadow_n	pasture_n	1,600	5	9.7852	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36769	An argument delivered by Patrick Darcy, esquire by the expresse order of the House of Commons in the Parliament of Ireland, 9 iunii, 1641.	Darcy, Patrick, 1598-1668.	1643 (1643)	Wing D246; ESTC R17661	61,284	146

Let us therefore examine the course alleadged here in both those points and if it be found to faile in eyther of them it is to be rejected As to the first I cannot find or read any president of it untill of late and the usage of it for a few yeares cannot make it to be cursus Curiae which ought to bee a custome used time beyond the memory of man As to the second it is confessed by the Iudges that they know no law to warrant this course let us see then whether it be against law or standeth with the law and I conceive it is against law for divers reasons First by the Common-law if a judgement be given against a man after a verdict of twelve men which is the chiefe and cleare proofe which the law looketh upon or upon a demurrer after solemne argument he shall in the one case have an attainte against the Iury in the other a writ of error to reverse the judgement but in this case by the confession of the justnesse of the sentence all the meanes to reverse the sentence is taken away and therefore contrary to law and reason Whereas by the Common-law fines ought to bee moderate secundum quantitatem delicti in reformationem non in destructionem of late times the fines have beene so high in destruction of the party in the Castle-chamber as his whole family and himselfe if hee did pay the fine should bee driven to begge and without performance of the sentence hee could not be admitted to reverse the sentence in respect of all which howbeit in his conscience he is not guiltie yet to gaine his libertie and save part of his estate hee is necessitated to acknowledge the justnesse of the sentence so that the confession is extorted from him and consequently is against law Third reason if the fine were secundum quantitatem delicti as it ought to be without danger of destruction the reducement of the fine had not been so necessarie and therefore no just ground for this confession Lastly the confession of the party after sentence doth rather blemish the sentence then any way cleare it for the confession comming after the sentence which ought to be just in it selfe can adde nothing to it but draw suspition upon it and in that respect a confession is strayned the racke used by the course of the Civill law in criminall causes to cleare the conscience of the Iudge to proceede to sentence is intollerable in our Common-law And therefore this course being an innovation against law without any reasonable ground the said Iudges ought in their said answer to declare so much to the end a course might bee taken for abolishing the same This answer I will not now draw into question I could wish the rest were answered no worse What power have the Barons of the Court of Exchequer to rayse the respite of homage arbitrarily c. Vnto this they answer that untill the Kings Tenant by knights service in capite hath done his homage the ancient course of the Exchequer hath beene and still is to issue processe to distrayne the tenants ad faciendum homagium or ad faciendum finem pro homagio suo respectuando upon which processe the Sheriffe returnes issues and if the tenant doe not appeare and compound with the King to give a fine for respite of homage then the issues are forfeyted to the King But if the Kings tenant will appeare the Court of the Exchequer doth agree with him to respite his homage for a small fine They say further that it resteth in the discretion of the Court by the rule of the Common-law to lay downe a fine for respite of homage according to the yearely value of the said lands which I conceive to be very unreasonable and inconvenient that it should lye in the power of any to assesse a fine for respite of homage such as to him shall be thought meete in discretion for if so hee may raise the fine to such a summe as may exceed the very value of the lands Neyther hath the same beene the ancient course for it appeares by severall ancient Records and by an Order of the Court of Exchequer made Termino pascae 1607. that there should be payed for respiting of homage for every Towneship xx d. Irish and for every Mannor xxxx d. Irish and that such as hold severall houses acres or parcels of land which are not Mannors nor Towneship shall pay for everie hundred and twentie Acres of Land Meadow and pasture or of any of them xx d. Irish and no more and according to that rate and proportion if a greater or lesser number of Acres and for every house without ground iiij d. Irish and of Cottages or Farme houses which bee upon the Lands no fine to bee payed for them solely alone And I conceive where a man holdeth severall parcels of land of the King by severall homages that in such case he is to pay but for one respite of homage onely and no more for that a man is to doe homage but once and consequently to pay for one respite of homage onely The late course in the Exchequer here hath been contrary whereas in their answer they goe in the Exchequer according to the statute of primo Iacobi cap. 26. in England under their favour they goe cleare contrary for that statute was made in confirmation and pursuance of former Orders in the Exchequer Whereas the Barons here goe directly contrary to the ancient course and Order of the Exchequer in this kingdome more of this in my reason or ground for this question So I conclude their answer to this is short My Lords the question contaynes two points First whether the subject of this kingdome is censurable for to repayre into England to appeale to his Majesty for redresse of injuries or for his lawfull occasions Secondly why what condition of persons and by what law The first part of the Iudges their answer is positive and full viz. They know no law or statute for such censure nor I neyther and could wish they had stayed there In the second part of their answer they come with an if viz. unlesse they be prohibited by his Majesties writ proclamation or command and make mention of the statute of 5. Rich. 2. cap. 2. in England and 25. Henr. 6. cap. 2. in Ireland I will onely speake to the second part of this answer My Lords the house of Commons in the discussion of this point tooke two things into consideration First what the Common-law was in such cases Secondly what alteration was made of the Common-law by the statute of 5. Rich. 2. cap. 2. in England and 25. Henr. 6. cap. 2. in Ireland as to the subjects of Ireland As for the first the Register hath a writ framed in the point viz. the writ De securitate in venienda quod se non divertat ad partes extras

to receive no reward Sixtly to take no Fee of any other then the King Seventhly to commit such as breake the peace in the face of Iustice Eightly not to mantayne any suite Ninthly not to deny Iustice notwithstanding the Kings Letters or Commandements and in that Case to certifie the King of the truth Tenthly by reasonable wages to procure the profits of the Crowne Eleventhly if he be found in default in any the matters aforesaid to bee in the Kings mercie body Lands and goods The second reason principally moveth from the following particulars In the Kings Bench the Major-part of the Iudges denyed his Majesties writ of prohibition to the late Court called the high Commission in a cause meerely temporall The foure Courts of Iustice durst not proceede in any cause depending before the chiefe Governor or at the Counsell-board upon paper petitions or rather voyde petitions these paper-petitions being the oblique lines aforesaid grave Iudges of the law were commonly assistants and more commonly referrees in the proceedings upon these paper-petitions in what causes in all causes proper for the Cognizance of the Common-law and determinable by writs of right and petitions of right and so to the most inferior action the like of the Courts of equitie whether this be lawfully to serve the King and his people or whether the King was at losse by the non-prosecuting of the causes aforesaid in their proper orbes by originall writs which might afford the King a lawfull revenue and likewise by the losse of fines and amerciaments naturall to actions at the Common-law or whether the losse aforesaid was made knowne to his Majestie or who consented to the Kings damage therein or whether this be a denyall of justice to deferre it upon paper Orders or Commaunds be conformable to that Oath I will pretermit yet your Lordships may even in this mist discerne a cleere ground for the second question The motive which in part stirred the third and fourth questions was the infinity of Civill causes of all natures without exception of persons without limitation of time proceeded in ordered decreed and determined upon paper-petitions at Counsell-board by the chiefe Governor alone The Commons of this kingdome observing the Iudges of the law who were Counsellors of estate to have agreed and signed unto such Orders the Iudges of the foure Courts and Iustices of Assize in all the partes of the kingdome to bee referrees upon such proceedings wherby these new devises were become so notorious that as all men heavily groaned under them so no man could bee ignorant of them By the colour of Proclamations more more frequent and of the Orders and Acts of state at Counsell-board which were in a manner infinite and other proceedings mentioned in these questions these effects were produced First imprisonment close imprisonment of such numbers that a great defeate in a battle could hardly fill more gaoles and prisons then by these meanes were surcharged in Ireland Secondly by seizures made by crewes of Catchpoles and Caterpillers his Majesties Leige people lost their goods as if lost in a battaile nay worse without hope of ransome Thirdly possessions were altered and that so often and so many that more possessions were lost by these courses in a few yeares then in all the Courts of Iustice in Ireland in an age or two The fourth effect was this after liberty was taken away propertie altered and possession lost by the wayes aforesaid that was not sufficient the subject must be pillored papered stigmatized and the image of God so defaced with indignities that his life became a continuing death the worse of punishments in these feates were advising and concurring some grave and learned Iudges of the Land who were Counsellors of estate as by their signatures may appeare The house of Commons finding as yet no warrant of president nor countenance of example in the law of England to beare up the courses aforesaid have drawne the said Questions from the effects aforesaid My Lords the liberty estate in lands or goods the person of the subject nay his honor and spirit being invaded altered and debased in manner aforesaid there remayned yet one thing his Life See how this is brought into play nothing must escape were not the Gates of Ianus shut up was not the Kings peace universall in his three kingdomes when a Peere of this Realme a Counsellor of the Kings a great Officer of state was sentenced to be shot to death in a Court Marshall what the cause was what defence was permitted what time given and what losse sustayned I submit to your Lordships as therein most neerely concerned were not others actually executed by Marshall law at such time as the Kings Iustice in his Courts of law was not to be avoyded by any person whatsoever This was in part the ground of the eight question This question is plaine a late introduced practise here contrary to former use and no appearing president to warrant such prosecution for a voluntary Oath and the great benefit and quiet accrewed to his Majesties people by arbiterments conceived by consent of parties hath in part occasioned this question Heretofore this Confession was not required for the Iustnesse of the Iudgements was then able enough to beare them up and if the judgement in some Case had beene otherwise what force can the confession of a delinquent add to a Iudiciall act this is part of the reason for this question A complaint exhibited in the house of Commons touching the denyall of the Copy of a Record which the complaynant undertooke to Iustifie in part raised this question In King Iames his time by an order conceived in the Court of Exchequer upon great debate and warranted by ancient presidents the respite of homage was reduced to a certaintie viz. two shillings sixe pence sterling For a Mannor yearly and so for Townes and other portions of Land this course was alwayes held untill now of late the respite is arbitrarily raysed as appeares by the second remembrances certificate viz. I finde that anciently before the beginning of King Iames his raigne every Mannor payed three shillings foure pence Irish per annum every town-Towne-land twentie pence Irish per ànnum as a fine for respite of homage but cannot finde any order or warrant for it untill the fifth yeare of the said Kings raigne and there in Easter Terme 1607. I finde an order entred directing what homage every man should pay a Copy whereof you have already from mee the preamble of which orders sheweth that that matter had beene long depending in the Court undecided which induceth me to beleeve that there was no former president or order in it About three yeares after the freeholders of the Countie of Antrim as it should seeme finding this rate to be too heavy for them they petitioned to the Lord Chichester then Lord Deputy for reliefe therein I finde his Lordships opinion to the