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
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
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
sit Commissioners by this Statute for they have these Lands in eorum usu during the time they continue in their places which in intendment of Law is for their lives but yet by the intendment of Law they are not to sit in the execution of any humane affairs and therefore seeing their persons are out of the intendment of this Law so likewise should their Church livings be but this is but a conceit for although they be not persons having these Lands within the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Wills which is a having to dispose yet they may be within our Statute which is a having to retain If an Executor have a Villain for years which purchaseth Land of Forty Marks per annum he may sit in the execution of this Commission for till his Lord enter he hath them to his own use but if the Executor enter then neither the Villain nor Executor can sit a Commissioner by this Law If an Alien purchase Lands of sufficient value in Fee he in respect of his person is a disabled person to sit neither is he a person having Lands because he is not seised thereof to his own use but to the use of the King But if he be made a Denizen then in his person he is made capable The Warden of the Fleet who hath Lands belonging to his Office may in respect thereof sit a Commissioner by this Law But shall a Termor or Lessee for years of Land of good value be thrust out of Commission and be counted neither a sufficient Landed man nor his Term and Lease to be accepted moveable substance and not only so but that his Farm shall be a further disablement unto him as the Statute of 13 El. cap. 9. seemeth to purport the words of which Statute be That no Farmer or Farmers for Term of years of any Maners Lands or Tenements lying or being within the Precincts or Limits of any such Commission of Sewers which be or which hereafter may be ordered and chargeable by any Laws Ordinances and Constructions made or to be made by vertue of any such Commission wherein he or they shall be named or appointed Commissioner or Commissioners not having Estate in Freehold within the Realm of or in Manors Lands or Tenements of the yearly value of Forty pounds shall any time hereafter have power to sit or in any wise intermeddle with the execution of such Commission or Commissions during the time he or they shall continue or be such Farmer or Farmers of any such Maner Lands and Tenements and shall not have Estate of Freehold as aforesaid but that every such Commission having respect only to every such person or persons for such and so long time as he or they shall be or continue Farmer or Farmers of any such Manors Lands or Tenements shall be denied and judged in Law as void But yet in the closing up of that Statute of 13 El. there is a Proviso to this effect Provided always that it shall be lawful for any Commissioner being also a Farmer and not having Lands or Tenements to the clear yearly value of Forty pounds of Freehold to sit by vertue of the said Commission and have his voice and full authority with others to make and establish Ordinances for Sewers according to the Tenure of the Commission touching and concerning all Lands and Tenements within the Precinct of every such Commission other then such Lands and Tenements as he or they for the time hold and enjoy as Farmer as he or they might have done before the making of that Statute but he could not have sitten in execution of this Commission before the making of this Statute unless he had besides his lease Lands to the value of Forty Marks per annum And therefore a Lease for years is no inablement at all but a disablement as this Statute declares But the times when this having of Lands c. will suffice to qualifie a Commissioner to sit within this Law is now to be considered of wherein I am opinion that the When having must be referred to the Then sitting For the words of the Statute be That none take upon him to sit not having Lands to the yearly value of Forty Marks so that if he have not Lands of that value when he is first made a Commissioner yet if he have so much when he sitteth upon the Commission it will satisfie this Law and if once he have Land of that value and sitteth and after sell the Land away or if they be evicted from him he is then disabled to sit as a Commissioner by this Statute And so if he were but Tenant for the life of I. S. and I. S. dieth he ought not to sit In 12 H. 7. 7. a Juror which was to pass upon tryal of Land was to have Forty shillings per annum of Freehold and 12 H. 7. 7. after he was impanelled and before he was sworn he sold away his Land and when he came to be sworn he was challenged for want of Freehold but the chalenge was disalow'd for after he was impanelled his land though after sold away was chargeable with the issues which he after might lose in that matter and with this agreeth 14 H. 7. 2. by Frowick But our Statute is more precisely penned which is That none do presume to sit unless he have Lands of that value or be c. therefore when he sits he must have the Lands And if A. do bargain and sell his Lands to B. by Deed intended of that value and before the Inrolment of the Deed B. do sit as Commissioner and after the Deed is Inrolled yet this doth not qualifie his offence and the relation of the working of this Deed doth not assist him to take off the penalty of this Law Also a man disseised is during the Disseisin disabled to sit for he had not then power to devise the Lands by the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Wills for that Statute doth as ours doth use the word Having in presenti and not in futuro And thus much I thought convenient upon this occasion to deliver my opinion when the Commissioner must have his Lands of Forty Marks per annum to inable him to sit as a Commissioner within this Statute To Treat of the utter Barister I need not for when he hath taken the Oath mentioned in the Statute he is an absolute and compleat Commissioner within this Law to all purposes although he have neither Lands or Goods according as the Statute appointeth others to have The second question The second question in my case touching this Statute is Whether the Countess of Warwick be a compatible Commissioner within this Statute Although it is uncouth in our Law to have women Justices and Commissioners and to sit in places of Judicature yet by the Authorities ensuing you shall finde this a point worth insisting upon both in Humane and in Divine learning for in Genesis Chapter the first after the creation
Office our Common Law thought it fit to inable him to dispose of his Temporalties and in 21 H. 7. fol. 12 13. 11 H. 7. the case is put by Bridges and confirmed by Justice Sylliard and was not denied by any that an Obligation made by a Major and Commonalty Dean and Chapter Abbot and Covent shall not be avoided for the Nonage of the Major Dean or Abbot yet all these serve in place of government howbeit in the said matters their Nonages shall not impeach them And in the third of Isaiah it is said I will give them 3 Isa children to their Princes and babes to rule over them noting thereby an unfitness in them to govern but debarred them not of the place and of this matter this shall suffice But now admit as oftentimes it falls out that Commissioners shall sit in the execution of this Commission of Sewers which have not taken the Oath which have not Lands of value or which is not a free Citizen and yet there be Ordinances Decrees and Laws made at those times Now whether those Laws and Ordinances so made by a disabled Commissioner be void or not is the question or whether the disabled Commissioner shall only undergo the penalty of Forty pounds There was a Statute made in 6 H. 8. cap. 10. whereby it 6. H. 8. was Enacted That the Chancellor of England for the time being should make no Commission to any person or persons except he had Lands and Tenements of Estate of Freehold to the yearly value of Twenty pounds or else be Justice of the Quorum within any of the shires where he should be made a Commissioner and if any such Commission were directed to any person or persons not having Lands or Tenements to the yearly value of Twenty pounds or not being one of the Justices learned of the Quorum as aforesaid That then every such Commission and all Presentments and Accusations had and presented before any such Commissioners be utterly void and of none effect But this Statute is in time expired long ago and therefore it is no interruption to our Commissioner for although the Statute of 23 H. 8. which I read on hath a Clause in it in effect That all every Statute and Ordinance heretofore made concerning the Premises made in the time of the said King or of any of his Progenitors not being contrary to that Statute should stand in force yet these words do not set on foot a Statute expired in time as that of 6 H. 8. is Also in the said Statute of 13 Eliz. if a Termor or Lessee for years be in Commission all Laws made which concern Lands whereof he is a Farmer are void as to him vide antea But to relie on our Statute of 23 H. 8. in my opinion it 23 H. 8. doth not avoid any of the Laws and Ordinances made by disabled Commissioners but doth onely inflict the punishment and penalty of Forty pounds a piece upon every of them for every time they and every of them shall sit in or about the execution of this Commission yet it seemed in the case de Jure Regis Ecclesiastico That whereas the Statute of first of Elizabeth which authorized the Queen to grant Commissions to natural born subjects that if she had granted the same to an Alien that acts done by him had been void But now my case proceeds to the next point or step and that is touching the Law and Ordinance made to race the said Were I inferred this clause in my case because I had not formerly occasion or fit opportunity to treat of the Lets Impediments and Annoyances which be contained within this Statute of 23 H. 8. and therefore I took this occasion to close up this days exercise with the discourse of them These by name are such Impediments Annoyances as this Statute speaketh of 1. Streams 2. Mills 3. Bridges 4. Ponds 5. Fishgarths 6. Mildams 7. Locks 8. Hebbingweres 9. Hecks and 10. Floodgates And the rest must be cōprised within these general words videlicet Other like Lets and Impediments And the discourse upon all these will rest most upon the Statutes heretofore made touching the same And the first Statute thereof made is in Magna Charta Mag. Chart. cap. 23. cap. 23. Omnes kidelli deponantur de cetero penitus per Thamesiam Medweyam per totam Angliam nisi per costeram maris This extends not to the Kings keddles per keble in 13 H. 7. 35. what this word kidellum signifieth appeareh by the title of that Statute which is Weres The next Statute to this is 25 Ed 3. cap. 4. which doth Enact That all Mills Weres Stanks Stakes Kiddels were levied 25. E. 3. and set in the time of King Edward that Kings Grandfather and after whereby Ships and Boats were disturbed that they might not pass the Rivers as they were wont should be cut and pulled down without being relieved The said first Statute is general that all Weres should be put down but by the Seacosts yet this word All are intended of such only as were erected without lawful Warrant and the said Statute of 25 Ed. 3. doth explain the generality of the said former Statute For thereby it appears That Weres erected in Navigable Rivers where Ships and Boats were wont to sail should be extirped because they were a hinderance to Navigation but this extends only to Navigable Streams which have been Navigable by use and Custom and it is manifest by this Statute that these Weres which were so to be put down must be only such as were erected in the time of Ed. the first and sithence because those seemed to be erected without lawful authority and being but erected in those times they had not the countenance of Custom and Prescription to strengthen them The next Statute in time is that of 45 Ed. 3. cap. 2. which confirms the said Statute of 25. Ed. 3. and then adding thereto that if any such annoyance be done it shall be pulled down and that he which shall relevy such annoyance and be thereof duly attainted he shall incur the penalty of One hundred Marks to the King to be levied by the Estreats of the Exchequer and the penalty is thereby given for the inhauncing of such Weres Mills Stanks Stakes and Kiddels This Statute is in part a confirmation of the said Statute of 25 Ed. 3. and in other part thereof it is a new 45 Ed. 3. Act in these points First in the forfeiture of a Hundred Marks Secondly this is the first Statute in my opinion made against inhauncing of such things which are counted annoyances And Thirdly it gives the like penalty against him which shall relevy the annoyance as against the inhauncer And because this Statute depends upon the said Statute of 25 Ed. 3. it extendeth therefore but to Navigable Streams The Statute of 1 H. 4. cap. 12. is a Statute in these points of great
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
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
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
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
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
according to my said conclusion of my Case here the King hath a part the Prince a part and the Subject a part of the grounds left by the Sea My Tenets therefore be these First that the Subject may have the grounds of the Sea to the low-water mark and that no Custome can extend the ownership of a Subject further That a Subject cannot have the grounds to the low-water mark but by custom and prescription and I take it that it is very disputable whether grounds before they be relinquished by the Sea may be gained by Charter and grant from the Crown I suppose they may That the words incrementum decrementum maris are fully described by the said Record of 43 E. 3. of the Abbot of Ramsey that is That if the decrease of the Sea be by little and unperceiveable means and grown only in long tract of time whereby some addition is made to the Frontagers grounds these by these words may appertain to the subject and herein the said words have no other operation but Lands left to the shore by great quantities and by a sudden occasion and perceiveable means accrew wholly to the King That the increase to the said County Palatine for the causes aforesaid doth appertain to the Prince as Earl of Chester The Shore BUt now I am arrived at the continent and the first ground I set my foot on is the shore which in Latine is called Littus Maris it taketh the name wholly from the sea as partaking most with her nature and so Ex digniori parte appellatur yet it is not all one with the Sea nor with the Land but participates with them both And Mr. Bracton in his second Book Chap. 12. saith That Littora Maris Bracton accessoria what the shore is appears by Justinian the Emperor in his Institutes lib. 2. pag. 141. and is there thus defined Justinian Littus Maris est quousque maximus Hibernicus jus fluctus eluderet quousque fluctus Maris in estate longius exestuat and with this agreeth Cicero Topicorum The shore is not counted for lands or grounds gained from the Sea or left by it because at Cicero every full Sea it is covered with the waters thereof In the 13. Chapter of St. Matthews Gospel ver 2 3. it is said That Mat. 13. 2 3. our Savior Jesus went into a ship and sate there and the whole multitude stood on the shore and he spake unto them Hereby it appears that the shore was the dry land because they stood thereon and it was a great quantity of ground for thereon stood a multitude and it was near the brink of the water because they heard Jesus speak unto them out of the ship In point of property and ownership it is the Kings as Lord of the seas but as Sir Henry Constables Case is a subject may have the same as belonging to his Mannor by prescription In the Imperial Law which the Civilians use the sea shore is held to be common to all and that it is as lawful for Diogenes the poor Cinick as Cressus the rich King Casam 161. Ponere retia siccare but our Common Law of England doth in reason much surpasse either the Imperial Law or the Civil Law in distinguishing upon these for it is said Rex in ca habit proprietatem sed populus habet usum ibidem necessarium so that as to the lading and unlading of ships and for drying of Nets there and for other necessary businesses the subjects have these uses therein but the soil and grounds thereof belong properly dom ' Regi And a subject may have the same by prescription and therefore such as hold the shore to be the extreme point both of land and water be in a great error for as Iustinian saith in his Institutes Quod gemmae lapilli praeciosi inveniuntur which can be taken no otherwise sed super terram aqua relictam so that this shall suffice to have said concerning the sea shore Sea Coasts THe coasts of the sea come next in order to be treated of Costera maris be words well known but their confined definition is hard to be found out yet certainly they contain the shore and banks for by the Statute of 27. Eliz. Chap. 24. an Act was made for the mending of the banks and 27 Eliz. 24. sea works on the sea coasts but in the 7. Chap. of Maccabees coasts have a larger extent for there Demetrius Son of Seleucus departed from Rome and came to a city of the sea Maccabees 7. coasts here a whole city is set on the sea coasts and in Iustine treating of Alexander the great it is reported of him that he entred into Licia and Pamphilia and won and conquered all Justine the sea coasts this could be taken for no less then whole countreys for Alexanders great minde and huge Army could not march on a molehil or small tract of ground In St. Mark Chap. 7. it is thus written That Jesus departing from the Coasts of Tyre and Sydon came to Galile so that it may thereby be gathered That these coasts were neer the sea for our Savior was no sooner out of the coasts but he was on the sea which shews that sea and coasts be contiguè Iacentia yet no certain definition can I finde of the words Coasts of the Sea but by these and such like descriptions yet this I gather and collect thereby that in respect of the whole World a whole Kingdom lying next may be said to be a sea coast and a whole county in respect of a Kingdom and in my opinion the next town and territories thereof lying next to the seas be in our Law taken to be the sea coasts and no other and therefore some do much erre which take coast to be the edge of Land next the water and shore to be the brinks of the water next the Land quasi duo opposita And because Creeks Havens and Ports be all of them within the charge of this Law and this Statute was materially made in defence thereof and as they differ in appellation so they vary in definition yet they do in some things agree in the material I will therefore deliver my opinion of them Creeks CReeks of the sea is an Inlet of sea cornered into the main Land shooting with a narrow passage into some Angle of the Land and therein stretching it self more then ordinary into the Land and so holdeth not even quarter with the Levant sea and such Creeks or Inlets we commonly term in the Law to be arms of the sea for like as the arm of a man shooteth out from the body so by a metaphor the inlet or corner of the sea let into the Land is called an arm of the sea and although it go far into the land yet the points of land on both sides may well be discovered and this appears in that great arm of the sea on Humber where it
runs betwixt Lincolnshire and Yorkshire the points of either county may be seen at once and seem to stand even over the one to the other Arm of the Sea ANd an arm of the Sea is said to extend into the Land so far as the flow and reflow goeth In the Patent of the Admiral of England I finde this word Creek used for there the King granteth to him omnia bona mercimonia Catalla in vel super Mare littora crecas Costeras Maris but it differs much both from the shore and coast for a shore is sometimes dry Land and sometimes water a coast is always dry land but the Creek is always sea and new land In the Statute 28 H. 8. Chap. 15. Rastals tryal A. It is that all felonies c. done upon the Sea Haven or Creek where the Admiral hath Jurisdiction shall be tryed in such county which the King shall appoint by the Statute it is manifest that the Creek is not all one with the sea nor the same that a Haven is by the Statute made in the 4 H. 8. Chap. 20. Rastal ships 5. appoints 4 H. 8. cap. 20. that all Merchandizers entring in or going out of the Realm of England should be charged and discharged in Diversity between the shore great Ports and not in Creeks or small arrivals by which A Coast Statute it is apparant that a Creek is not all one that a Port is A Creek But yet here it seemeth to be an Inlet of the sea where ships may have their arrivals as at Fosdyke Stow Wainflet and Creek such like and I take it that a Bay and a Creek be all one Bay and that a Mere and a Fleet be also of that nature and that all these rather vary in words then in matter Fleet Mere. A Port. A Port is a harbor and safe arrival for ships boats and ballengers of burthen to fraught and unfraught them at as by the said Statute of 4 H. 4. appeareth In the Irish Reports Fol. 56. Ports be said to be Ostia Ianuae Regni I take a Port to be some special place in some great Borough where arrival of ships be as the Cinque Ports which be Dover Sandwich Rye Rumney and Winchesley the most famous in this Realm and these be places of great priviledges and Boston Hull Lyn and Plymouth be also Ports and Port Towns where special offices officers belonging to them touching Merchants Merchandizers And the said Statute of 4 H. 4. directed that Merchants should be charged and discharged at great Ports was for that there were Officers for the King deputed to receive His Highness customs and profits thereupon arising hereupon came that Officer called Portgreve Hollingshead which signifieth the Governor of the Port as Mr. Cambden Cro p. 120. 6. noteth page 244. the difference between a Creek a Haven Cambden 244. and a Port be these Diversity between a Creek Haven and Port. A Creek is a corner of the sea let into the land farther then ordinary and more then the sea is but it is no usual or accustomed place of arrival for ships and commonly it hath neither safe harbor nor legal priviledge A Haven is properly a safe place of harbor for ships but may be without any priviledge at all of which kinde I know some And a Port is not onely a safe harbor for ships of the greatest burthen but it is also always graced with legal priviledges and this appears so by the Statute of Magna Charta Magna Charta cap. 9. cap. 9. Quod omnes Communitates Barones dequinque portibus omnes alii portus habeant omnes libertates liberas Consuetudines which proveth my former difinition of Ports to be true After all these difinitions and distinctions I have now prepared my Case ready to receive his censure upon the last conclusion that is That all the said grounds were within this Statute but no part thereof within this Commission of Sewers and therefore it is first to be noted That these grounds were left by the sea since the awarding of this Commission and the words of the Preamble of this Statute speaks of grounds heretofore won which word Heretofore won seemeth to tie the Statute and Commission both to grounds left or won before the said Statute and not such as be won after like to the Statute of West 2. de Donis conditionalibus quod ad dona prius facta non extenditur which excludeth out of that Statute all gifts made before And the words Heretofore and hereafter are words of consequence in point of time and wheresoever they are spoken they come with an Emphasis as if they required express observance and so is the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 28. of Leases that Statute is of all Leases hereafter to be made by Covenant in tail with such cautions and proviso's as be limited and set down in that Statute should be good Leases formerly made though all the proviso's in the said Statute were observed were notwithstanding by reason of the said word Hereafter out of the relief of that Statute And so in the Statute of Wills 32. H. 8. which had these words in it All persons having Lands or which hereafter should have might devise this did not make good any devises of Lands made before but if this should pass for currant then I should not perform my word in my conclusion which puts it all within the Statute and this exception if it were material would not put it onely out of the Commission but the Statute also yet notwithstanding though the construction made of all the said former Statutes stand with Law by reason of the said words Heretofore and hereafter yet in this Statute of Sewers the same be not material neither be the said words Heretofore won to be precisely observed because they be placed in the Preamble of the Statute and not in the enacting part of the Law as in the said former Statute they were And Expositions are not tyed to Titles and Preambles which many times comes short of the parts of the Law but to the body and enacting part of the Statute which is the matter and substance And hereupon the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 15. of Leases recites in the Preamble thereof That whereas divers Leases had aforetime been made for Incomes and great Fines and yet after the Lessors did suffer Recoveries if at this day a Lease be made and that without Fine or Income yet such a Lessee shall be received to falsifie the recovery had against his Lessor notwithstanding The Preamble of that Statute seems to remedy no Lessees but such as made Fines and were made before that Statute but the said words were not put in the body or enacted part of the Statute and so it is in our Statute the words Heretofore won be only put in the preamble and not in the material part of the Law and so
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
and discretion The words of this Commission upon which I framed this part of the Case be these videlicet We have assigned you Theophilus Earl of Lincoln Robert Lord Willoughby of Earsby Sir George Manners Knight Sir Philip Tyrwhit and Sir John Wray Knights and Baronets Sir William Pelham Sir John Read Sir Edward Ascough Sir Hamond Knights Anthony Erby Esq Quor ' the said Earl Lord and Sir George Manners we will to be three to survey the Walls Banks Drains Sewers c. and the same to cause to be repaired amended or put down as cause shall require after your wisdom and discretions and to do after our Statutes as also to inquire by the oathes of lawful and honest men of those places where such default be By the Tenor of which words I conceive That Commissioners of Sewers have power by their Commission to proceed three maner of ways viz. first By Survey 2. By Jury 3. By discretion wherein it behoveth Commissioners of Sewers to know perfectly how to use and dispose of their powers with due understanding of these parts of this Commission and Law And the better to prepare them herein I shall take some pains to declare unto them what they may do by survey without a Jury and what by Jury and what by their discretion without both Survey and Jury View and Survey VIew is the primary part of Survey and Survey is much but not altogether directed by view It is true that view is of great use in the Common Law and it is to be done and performed in person and such views are taken in Tryals of Assizes yet by the 36 Hen. 8. in Dyer fol. 61. Peningtons Case a very personal view needeth not in an Assize if upon examination of the Jurors it may appear that a competent number of them know the grounds in question in such sort as they can put the party in possession if he recover but in an Action of Waste an express personal view is both required and requisite for the words of that Writ directs the Sheriff Accedere ad locum vastatum In a word there is a diversity between a view and a survey for by the view one is to take notice only by the eye but to survey is not only to take notice of a thing by the eye but also by using other ceremonies and circumstances as the hand to measure and the foot to pace the distances And the Commissioners Surveyors have power to take information by examination of others And although Judge Fitz. in 27 H. 8. fol. 27. holds a Surveyor of very small esteem in his power and authority that is That he may hear see and say nothing Oier voier rien dier Yet under the favor of that book I take a Surveyor to be of more esteem and authority for by an old Statute made in 4 Edw. 1. Rastal Surveyors first he is there described to be a man which is to view the work and to make inquity 4 Ed. 1. and to set down which be Copyholds which be Freeholds c. whereby it appeareth that a Surveyor is an actor and not a looker on as Mr. Fitzherbert would have him so by these descriptions the Commissioners may inform themselves what is meant by the word Survey put in the Statute And many of our Statutes take notice of such an Officer as a Surveyor For in the Statute of Bridges and highways there be such Officers appointed and in the Statute made for the erection of the Court of Wards and Liveries there is a grave Officer appointed who is called the Surveyor general of that Court and he is a Judge in matters there handled And there is also an Officer in this Statute of Sewers called a Surveyor who hath no judicial power but is meerly an Officer What things Officers of Sewers may do by Survey onely EVery thing which Commissioners of Sewers are to do must be by true understanding of their authorities and this must be so done that they make such distinctions differences and applications as may stand with knowledge skil and learning or otherwise their proceedings will prove irregular And therefore it is not only meet to describe the Officer Surveyor as formerly I have done but also his Office which I now mean to do First Commissioners of Sewers may view the Defences and thereby may inform themselves which stands in need of repairing and amending and which not and wherein the defaults and defects appear to be and what they be Secondly they may by survey take notice and knowledge by conference with Carpenters Masons Smiths and other Officers what things are fitting to be provided for effecting the works and what sums of money will be spent for the finishing thereof Thirdly the Commissioners may by view and survey take knowledge of the lets impediments and annoyances in the Banks Walls Rivers Streams Gutters Sewers and of the height and lowness of the said Banks and Walls and may thereby discover and finde out the wants imperfections weakness and strength of them and so may cause the lets and impediments to be removed and the wants to be supplied and the weak places strengthned as cause shall require Fourthly also by survey onely they may sufficiently inform themselves of the incroachment and of the straitness depth wideness and shallowness of the Rivers Streams Gutters and Sewers and may view the defects in these kindes These things I have produced as proper to be performed by view and survey of the Commissioners and now I shall proceed to the rest Things to be done by a Iury. FIrst what person or persons did erect and set up any let and impediments as a Floodgate Mill-dam or such like must be found by Jury for here the words of the Statute are to be observed which are these And also to inquire by the oathes of good and lawful men of the said shire or shires place or places where such defaults or annoyances be as well within liberties as without by whom the truth may rather be known through whose default the said hurts and damages have happend or who hath or holdeth any Lands or Tenements or Common of pasture or profit of fishing or hath or may have any hurt loss or disadvantage by any maner of means in the said places as well near to the said Dangers Lets or Impediments as inhabit or dwell thereabouts by the said Walls Ditches c. So that the first Article is full within the words of this Statute and therefore it must be done by Jury and no other accusation is of sufficient strength in the Law to put a man to his answer And herein the makers of these Laws did sagely for how should Commissioners of Sewers take notice by view or survey of such things as are done or committed in their absence Secondly if any Wall Bank River Sewer or other defence be defective by neglect or sufferance of such as should repair the same the Commissioners of Sewers are to inquire by
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
Sesse every person according to his several quantity of Estate which may be done in this maner when the Commissioners be agreed how much to lay upon such a town then to send for three or four of the Inhabitants and cause them to give in every mans Estate and to make and appoint them Sessors to rate every man or else the Commissioners themselves having true intelligence of every mans Land may easily set the rate and charge upon every particular person in an even and proportionable sum and thus every man at the first shall know his own rate as in the assessing of the Subsidy and no man shall be burthened with his Neighbors charge and these were good courses to be used within both the letter and sence of these Laws And this course was used by the Four and twenty Jurators in Kent in Rumney Marsh who always upon their Oaths set Chart. of Rumney down every particular mans ground in certain and their just pag. 50. quantities and accordingly were the parties severally taxed Howsoever the Tax in my opinion generally imposed upon the town is good as appears by many Authorities and Books before remembred even by this Statute as well as by Custom for in the said Book of the 37 and 38 lib. Assiz 37 and 31 lib. Assiz it doth not appear that the Townships there rated were so taxed by any Custom but meerly by the Law of the Land and so is the learning delivered to be in the Councels Order aforesaid And I do remember that at the Assizes held at Lincoln in Anno 12. Jacobi in a Tryal before Sir Edward Cook then Judge of Assize in the Case of Sir Philip Conisby Knight the town of Mauton was assessed five pounds and Twigmore as much and a distress was taken for non-payment thereof and was justified in a Replevin and the verdict passed for the distrainer and no great scruple was then made of the said Assess laid and imposed generally upon the towns which Case I specially noted because it was tryed and passed for current before the said Sir Edward Cook who had the year before reported the Law in his Tenth Report to the contrary And I am also of Opinion that if a new defence be agreed to be made as a Wall Bank Sewer or any other and a Sesse is appointed for this work and laid upon a town That the same is a good Sesse and well laid as well as in the Case of old repairs where Custom may give Warrant unto it and the Commissioners in their discretion may so do in imitation of the said former rules and presidents and it stands with good wisdom and discretion to imitate and follow ancient and approved Laws and Statutes made in Parliament which are done by the wisdom of the whole Realm And in my conceit a decree made which hath no reference or dependency to former presidents may be doubted whether it be legitimate or not having no ancient Laws to patronize it And thus I conclude my third point of my Case That a Township may be taxed by the Laws of Sewers Tythes HEre is likewise in my Case a Parson Rated and Sessed for his Tythes and is now to be put to the question whether by these Laws he may be taxed for them or not The ancient Commissions of this kinde have very strict words in them to tie every one to the charge of these defences being for the preservation of the Commonweal and this Statute extends it self with a long and large arme to fetch and reach every man that hath grounds lying within the Level and which partake of the good which the defences brings to them to be contributory to the charge It is true that Ecclesiastical and Spiritual persons as Parsons Vicars hold their Ecclesiastical living exempt ab omni onere seculari for they do not hold their Churches of any Lord but of the Lord of Heaven in respect of the spiritual service they do therefore And I take it that Parsons and Vicars hold not their Churches in free alms for then the Founder should be their Lord in point of Tenure and service which I have not observed to be so in any And in our Law Books it appears that Spiritual persons were exempted from Lay and Temporal charges as in Magna Charta cap. 14. A Spiritual person shall not be amerced according to his Spiritual living In Fitz. Nat. bre fol. 228. there Fitz. Nat. bre is a Writ directed by the King to his Officers and Ministers forbidding them that they take not any Toll Murage or Pontage of Ecclesiastical Parsons Vicars and such like and the said Writ sheweth that by the Custom of the Realm no such exactions ought to be taken of them And there is another Writ there to discharge them for paying Customs de bonis suis Ecclesiasticis vel de aliis pro sustentatione sua emptis And also they have this priviledge That the Sheriff nor any Lay-Officer are not permitted to meddle with their Ecclesiastical possessions for in 20 H. 6. fol. 20. and in many other Books it is held that in a Writ of Summons the Sheriff may not Summon a Spiritual person on his Spiritualities but he must rather that he is Clericus beneficiatus non habens laicum feodum and upon this return the party is to take a Writ directed to the Bishop to Summon him on his Spiritualties And therefore if the possessions of Spiritual persons are had in such great esteem in our Law what then shall be done with Tythes which are said to be due Iure Divine I have not read that they shall be charged to any thing but to the repair of the Temple in the 18 chapt of Numbers the 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 and 28 verses The Lord said I have given to the Children of Levi all 18 chapt Numbers the Tenth in Israel for an Inheritance and yet the Levites paid a Tenth thereout to the Priests and so Clergymen in times past paid a Tenth to the Pope and in imitation or rather in reformation thereof by the Statute of 26 H. cap. 3. the 26 H. 8. like is now paid to the King as Supreme head and Governor of the Church here on earth So here be charges paid out of the Tythes but they be Spiritual charges And in Mr. Seldens History of Tythe pag. 13. it appears by Collection and Connexion of Stories divine That the first or Selden the first year Tythe was paid to the Levite The second to Feast at Jerusalem and the third to the Poor And had not the Statute of 43 of Eliz. cap. 2. made the Parson and the Vicar liable and chargeable to the relief of the Poor which was in imitation as it seemeth of the Mosaical Law they had not been bound or tyed to do the same for it is held to be more charity to relieve the Church then the Poor And in payment of Taxes and Subsidies they are granted
title to Land by Action Condition or Entry or he which hath a contingent use shall not be taxed for them Neither was Cestui que use at the Common Law before the Statute of 27 H. 8. of uses nor is the Bargainee of Land before the Deed be inrolled sessable by this Law Neither is one who hath the presentation or nomination to a Church as Patron or he which is Founder for his foundership Taxable within this Statute yet they be Tenements the largest words of charge within this Law but the Law intends the immediate possession of such Tenements which be proficuous and not these things which be Tenements in Law and which be but conveyances and their fruit is Ceremony without Substance This Law setteth down such things for the which one is chargeable viz. He which hath Lands Tenements Rents Commons of Pasture Profit of Fishing or other Commodities and such as have Safety Profit Defence or any other Commodity These be the words of charge recited by this Law This word Land is of large extent for it reacheth to house Arrable Pasture Meadow Mills Tofts and to all other Edifices Moors Marishs Woods Wood grounds for all these the earth is the substance Et omne solo cedet and the several increases thereof be but qualities The word Tenements is of larger extent then Lands for it containeth all which the word Lands doth and all things else which lyeth in Tenure so that I think it shall be but labor lost to enter further into the particulars thereof Lord and Tenant IF there be Lord and Tenant and the Tenant holdeth of the Lord by yearly Rent services the Lord may be rated as well for his Rent as the Tenant for his Land to Annual repairs as well as to accidental by reason of these words in the Statute that is That every one be rated and taxed according to the rate of every persons Rent Tenure or profit here be full words to charge the Lord for his Rent and so Rent charges and Rent seck shall be subject to sesses in this kinde for otherwise the Tenant of the grounds may be undone thereby in regard the Rents going and issuing out of the grounds may amount to as much almost as the yearly value of the grounds do But if the Rents be so smal as they are scarce worth the gathering then in discretion the Commissioners may spare them for De minimis non Curat Lex Also whether the remainder man and he in Reversion depending upon an Estate in Tail shall be rated and taxed or not by the power of these Laws is an apt question for this place and therein my opinion is That being dry and fruitlesse Remainders and Reversions they shall not be sessed to the repairs but the Tenant in Tail in possession shall be solely charged for it is more to be feared that Tenant in Tail will cut off the Remainder and Reversion by a Recovery then that the Sea shall drown his Estate by an overflow Lessee for years and he in Reversion IN the Case of the Lessee for years and for life and those in Reversion and Remainder there is a greater cause of dispute then between Tenant in Tail and he in the Reversion And because it is an often Case I have therefore taken the more pains to resolve the same First the Lessee is in the present possession and so is subject to all ordinary charges and with this agreeth Jeffrays Jeffrays Case Case in Sir Edwards Cook 5 Report for there the Case was resolved that where the Inhabitants of a Town were assessed towards the repair of a Church there the Lessee for years was charged and not the Lessor though he had a yearly Rent reserved For in point of the Rent this Case and that will differ by reason Rents be expresly within this Law but I now speak of a Lessee where no Rent is reserved In 17 Ed. 4. fol. 6 a Tenth was granted to the 17 Ed. 4. King by Parliament of the value of their Lands and the Lessee for years was charged therewithal and so was the Law there taken if the Parliament had given the Tenth part of the issues and profits of the Lands The Case of the Proxies in the Irish Reports doth in my Opinion in reason resemble this Case for the Case was Case of Proxies there That the Bishop of Meath in Ireland had a Proxy of fifteen shillings payable out of the Commandry of Kells then parcell of the possessions of St. Johns all which came to the Crown by the dissolution of Monasteries in that Kingdom and after the said Bishop granted the said Proxies to Queen Elizabeth and after Q. Elizabeth made a Lease of the Commandry to Dr. Forth reserving a yearly Rent without mentioning the Proxy And it was there resolved That Doctor Forth the Lessee for years should be at the charge to pay the said Proxy with all the arrerages thereof which did incur in his time And so in the case of a Rent charge the Lessee is chargeable and he is to pay the Tythes and the Composition money due therefore So that these Cases sway strongly against the Lessee for years to lay the whole charge upon him and to exempt the Lessor But yet we must here distinguish and make a difference between Annual repairs in ordinary things and extraordinary repairs for to furnish the defence with petty reparations they shall be laid only upon the Lessee for years or for life but if a new Wall Bank or Goat or Sewer be to be built new and erected or if the ancient defences be decayed in the main timber or in the principal parts thereof here as well the Lessor as the Lessee shall be put to the charge for these things be not ordinary and annual charges but do reach from the beginning of the Lease to the top of the Inheritance as for petty reparations they are by intendment to continue but for a short time which are likely to be spent during the term and lease but these new defences are apparantly done to save the Inheritance And this difference holds good correspondency with other Cases in our Law as in 49 Ed. 3. fol. 1. and 3 Eliz. in Dyer fol. 198. and in 49 Ed. 3. 3 Eliz. Dier that Book again fol. 134. and in divers other Books it is holden for Law That if a house in Lease decay in the Groundsels Post or Balk in the great timber in direct wearing by tract of time and not in default of the Lessee the Lessee may take and cut up timber growing on the grounds leased to repair the same and the Lessee shall be at charges of workmanship for the repairs are in matter of right and do the Lessee good during his Lease and the Lessor after the expiration thereof And because these great repairs extend to both their goods therefore they shall both be contributory thereto But if a house be decayed in splinting thack walling or in such
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
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.
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
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
I take it these few distinctions do fully declare my opinion touching those matters The Statute of 23 H. 8. which I read on touching and concerning Lets Impediments and Annoyances hath these words in it in effect And the Commission giveth Authority to Edmond Lord Sheffield Sir Philip Tyrwhit Sir Nicholas Sanderson Knights and Baronets Sir Richard Aurcots Sir John Thorold Sir John Read Sir Charls Bouls Sir Ralph Maddison Sir William Hansord Sir Francis South Knights Thomas Tyrwhit John Bolles and Nicholas Hamerton Esquires whereof the said Baronet and Baronets were of the Quorum to survey the Walls Streams Ditches Banks Gutters Sewers Goats Calceys Bridges Trenches Mills Mildams Floodgates Ponds Locks Hebbingweres and other Impediments Lets and Annoyances and the same to cause to be made corrected repaired amended put down or reformed as cause shall require after their wisdoms and discretions and therein to ordain and do after the form tenor and effect of all and singular the Statutes or Ordinances made before the first day of March in the 23 year of H 8. touching the Premises or any of them as also to inquire by the Oaths of honest and lawful men of the said shire or shires place or places where such defaults or annoyances be as well within liberties as without by whom the truth may rather be known through whose default the said hurt and damages have happened and who hath or holdeth any Lands or Tenements or Common of Pasture or profit of fishing or hath or may have any hurt loss or disadvantage by any maner of means in the said places as well near to the said Dangers Lets and Impediments as inhabiting or dwelling near about the said Walls c. and Impediments aforesaid and all those persons to tax assess and distrain In a former clause of this Statute the Commission giveth power to survey the Walls Banks Ditches Gutters Sewers Goats Calceys Bridges Streams In which clause these as necessary Defences are ordered to be repaired Then comes another clause wherein these things are recited as Lets and Impediments videlicet Streams Mills Bridges Ponds Fishgarths Mildams Locks Hebbingweres Hecks and Floodgates So that by these two clauses the first sort were to be maintained and not destroyed and the second sort should have been destroyed and not repaired And if these two first clauses had been alone then the Commissioners had been bound to maintain the one and destroy the other without any toleration but then came in the said third clause which is the clause of moderation and therein as well the Defences as the Lets and Impediments come all in one clause promiscuously put together and so the words amend correct repair and put down is therein referred to them all so as in my opinion all defences as Walls Banks Sewers Calceys Goats c. be not to be maintained because in tract of time some may prove unnecessary and unuseful which for that cause may be pulled down so all Mills Mildams Floodgates Weres Stanks Stakes Kiddels and such like are not to be put down and overthrown but such as are ancient and are thereby grown to be the proper inheritances of men and such also which are useful and necessary are to be maintained kept and repaired for in some great Havens and Ports great abundance of Piles and Timberposts are set in the waters to stay the rage force and violence of the waters for the safegard of the Port and Haven It were a very ridiculous exposition of this Law to urge the Commissioners to overthrow those things which are helpful and not hurful for this Statute did foresee that these Mildams Stakes Stanks Floodgates Weres c. were not at all times and in all places hurtful and therefore was the said clause of the Statute inserted which gave the Commissioners power to put down such as were Lets and Annoyances in truth and where they were used for strengths and were of good use to maintain the same And this construction I take it is fully maintained by this Statute but more especially by the Statute of 7 Jacobi cap. 20. where Peres Piles Jetties and the like set for fortifications 7 Jac. Reg. cap 20. and strengths are expresly ordered to be maintained And upon this part of this Law I do collect these insuing matters First that if one do erect and build a Were Mill Mildam or other thing on a River Navigable to the hinderance of Navigation or if there was an ancient Were which was inhaunced of late years the Commissioners of Sewers are to order him that did erect the one and he which did inhaunce the other to pull down the first and to abate the excess of the other at the Costs and charges of the owner and if he or his Assigns or Heir shall contrary to the Decree Order or Judgement of the Commissioners after the same hath been reformed relevy the same again or do continue the same contrary to order the punishment of One hundred Marks is to be imposed upon the offendors as by the Statute of 1 H. 4. and 12 H. 4. formerly appeareth And if one which is a stranger of his meer malice or own 1 H. 4. 12 H. 4. wrong doth pitch down Piles or set down Stakes in the Rivers and Streams he is to be fined or amerced for this offence as the case shall require and he is to be ordered to remove the Nusans at his own costs and charges and if it cannot be found out who did the Nusans then the Commissioners of Sewers are to order those to remove that annoyance which in all likelyhood are to sustain most damage thereby Et ita factum fuit in 42 lib. Assiz plac 15. and 42 lib. Assiz this Statute extendeth to Rivers and Streams Navigable as well as to such as be not Navigable And touching the removing of Nusances I shall put the Commissioners some presidents ruled and adjudged in our Books of Law which come fully to the purpose of the matters and things I now treat of In 32 Ed. 3. fol. 8. an assize of Nusans was brought by A. against B. for that B. had made a Trench over a River 32 Ed. 3. and drew away thereby part of the waters and stream another way then that which it did formerly use to run and thereby surrounded the grounds of A. and the assize passed for the Plaintiff it was adjudged that the waters should be removed into the ancient current channel at the costs of the Defendant and the Plaintiff recovered his damages Et quod defendens capiatur out of which case I observe these things First though an assize was a private Action yet the Nusans was tam querenti quam populo to the Plaintiff for drowning and surrounding of his grounds to the people in changing or diverting the ancient course of the waters so that for the people the offendor was ordered to reform the Nusans to the King he was fined and the Plaintiff for his own private
not parcel Wales thereof till the Statute of 12. E. 1. so made it and although that Statute so annexed Wales to England yet being but by the word or figure adjuncta the Laws of England were not totally in force there till the Statute 27. H. 8. so declared them as is holden in Rice Thomas Case in Plo. Com. but notwithstanding whether Wales be within my Statute or not is questionable for these Reasons following First it is clear that a general Law unstinted and unbounded shall extend to Wales as well as to England but our Law grants Commissions within the Realm of England and so precisely prescribes it to bounds and it may seem that the Parliament took it so in 1. Mar. Cap. 11. where Commissioners of Sewers were authorized in the county of Glamorgan which as may be objected need not if Wales had bin formerly comprised and some new Statutes as that of Alehouses in 1. Ja. Cap. 9. and that of Rogues 1. Ja. Cap. 7. extend the same to the Realm of England and Dominion of Wales as if Wales should not be contained in the words the Realm of England yet notwithstanding in my opinion this Statute of 23. H. 8. extends to Wales for although the Statute of the 1. Mar. gave power to Commissioners in Glamorganshire that was for a special purpose which as was conceived the Statute of 23. H. 8. did not in England extend thereunto that as for the carrying away of the sand which was thrown upon their grounds but in that Statute it may well be perceived that the Statute of 23. H. 8. was of force there and inserting the words Dominion of Wales in the said Statute of Poor and Rogues was rather of superabundance to satisfie some which might nodum in scirpo querere make a doubt where none was then that they were there put for any necessity requiring the same But I am of opinion that in this new sprung up Island the Laws of England are there in force because when it was Sea the same was under the Government of these Laws and although the nature and quality thereof be changed viz. Dry Land for full sea yet the same Laws and Government remain in force so that I hold this new Island within the Statute and that the property thereof is the Kings Now occasion and time gives me fit opportunity to treat of Grounds which be newly gained from the Seas If as I have formerly declared the Grounds be the Kings when they be covered with Waters it must needs be held an infallible ground that they be also the Kings when the Waters have left them dry and when the Waters had their being on the same the whole Profit there arising did appertain to the King yet I have known in some Countries where the Frontagers have claimed those grounds so left by a pretended Custome of Frontagers and some probable reason might be shown wherefore they should have the same for as their grounds was nearest the Sea and so next to the charge to repair the defence and next to the loss where any overflow happened it might therefore seem reasonable that as they were put to the greatest charge and in peril of the loss of their Lands that so if Lands were left by the Sea affront them that these Lands might accrew unto them as a reciprocal consideration for their charge and loss but I take it that of late the Law hath in these Cases been often-times ruled for the King against the Subject for at Crost in the county of Lincoln 1600. Acres were gained from the Sea affront the Mannor of sir Valentine Brown there yet he was put to obtain a grant from the King thereof and one Bushey of St. Kegneys claimed grounds left by the Sea by the said pretended Custome of Frontage but they were decreed against him in the Court of Wards in 12. Jac. R. in which Case I was of Counsel For it were inconvenient that the subject should have Frontage and yet no bounds prescribed thereto so that Ten thousand Acres might be left affront a mans Mannor which were not fit a subject should have this large Inheritance by pretence of such allowed Custome and I suppose I may herein say in this Case as Mr. Plowden doth of his silver Mines That it is inconvenient a subject should have the silver Mines in his grounds for so might he become richer then the King So it is not fitting that a subject should have the grounds left by the Sea when so much may happen to be left as the Kings own Lands in the Realm come to and so because nimium se exaltat in prerogativam Regis I am of opinion the new gained grounds from the Sea appertain to the King as a Royal Escheat and not to the subject but in my Case here is a prescription where the owner of the Mannor hath Incrementum decrementum Maris of what force this is of is now to be argued therefore I will now declare what interest a subject can or may challenge in the seas in grounds gained therefrom Personal profits arising on the sea subjects may have and challenge by custom and prescription as to have free Pischary on the sea and a Parson had Tythes of Fish gotten in the sea by the inhabitants of his parish yet the sea nor any part thereof is not in any Parish but it followed the person In Sir Henry Constables Case the Citizens of Bristol Sir Henry Constables Case claimed Flotsan which be goods floating in the sea by custom in Bracton Chap. 12. one aleaged to be discharged Bracton of Toll or Custom on the seas by prescription in the Case of the Swans in Sir Edward Cooks 7. Report one prescribed to have a game of wilde Swans at Abbotberry in a Creek of the sea which is a member or arm of Case of Swans the sea and in Sir Henry Constables aforesaid it is taken and received for Law that a Subjects Mannor may extend to the low water-mark by prescription and seeing all these a subject may have in and on the Sea wherefore then should he not have all the grounds left by the Sea by prescription To that I answer That he cannot have claim in any thing by prescription and custome but that which lyeth in use which is the life of them both but lands and grounds which have always been Sea could not be nor lye in use and therefore they cannot be claimed nor the same can be bounded out by prescription or custome yet lands between the high-water mark and low-water mark the bounds thereof may be prescribed to belong to or to be parcel of the Mannor because in every twelve hours or in every day they lie dry and so a Subject all that time may have use of them and so of all the rest of the said things but in that which never lay in use no custom or prescription could take hold on insomuch that in my Opinion no prescription