hath well observed Vide Dyer 298. vide le Stat. 27 Eliz. Pasch 9 Jacobi Regis Sir William Chancâ—ys Case In this Term Sir William Chancy having the priviledg of this Court and being a Prisoner in the Fleet was brought to â—he Bar by Habeas Corpus by the Guardian of the Fleet who returned That the said Sir William was committed to the Fleet by Warrant from the High-Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes which Warrant follows in these words viz. These are to Will and Require you in his Majesties Name by Vertue of his Hâ—gh-Commission c. to Us and others directed c. That herewithal you take and receive into your Custody the Body of Sir William Chancy Knight whom we will that you keep c. untill further Order c. letting you know the cause of his Committment to be for that being at the Suit of his Lady convented bâ—fore c. for Adultery and expelling her from his Company and Co-habiting with another Woman without allowing her any competent Maintenance and by his own Confession convict thereof he was thereupon enjoyned to allow his Wife a competent Maintenance c. and to perform such Submission and other order for his Adultery as by Law should be enjoyned him which he expresly refused to do in contempt c. Given at London 19 Martii 1611. subscribed Henry Mountague George Overall Thomas Morton Zach. Paâ—field And it was moved by Nicholas Serjeant a Councel with Sir William that this return was insufficient 1. Because Adultery ought to be punished by the Ordinary and not by the High-Commâ—ssioners on which the Offender is remediless and can have no appeal Quod fuit concessum per Coke Warberton and Foster but Walmesly doubted of Adultery 2. That by force of the Act of the 1. of Eliz. the High-Commissioners cannot imprison Sir William for Adultery nor for denying Alimony to his Wife And Doderidge the Kings Sâ—rjeant of Council on the other side did not defend the Imprisonment to be lawful And it was clearly agreed by Coke Walmesly Warberton and Foster That the Commissioners had not power to imprison in this Case And Walmâ—sly said That though they have used this Power for twenty years without any exception yet when it comes before them judicially they ought to Judge according to Law and upon this Sir William Chancy was Bailed And it was resolved per totam Curiam That when it appears upon the Return that the Imprisonment is not lawful the Court may discharge him of Imprisonment Also it was Resolved That the Return was insufficient in form 1. It is not shewn when the Adultery was committed 2. He was enjoyned to allow his Wife a competent Maintenance without any certainty and to perform such submission c. as by Law shall be enjoyned which is all infuturo and uncertain Vide in my Treatise at large the Reasons and Causes why the High-Commissioners may sue and imprison Vide Pasch 42 Eliz. Rot. 1209. Pasch 9 Jacobi Regis Empringham's Case In this Term a Case was moved in Star-Chamber upon a Bill exhibited by the Attorney-General against Robert Empringham Vice-Admiral in the County of York Marmaduke Ketthewell one of the Marshals of the Admiralty and Thomas Haâ—rison an Informer in the same Court for Oppression and Extortion in Fining and Imprisoning divers of the Kings Subjects in the said County which no Judge of the Admiralty can justifie because it is not a Court of Record but they proceed according to the Civil Law and upon their Sentence no Writ of Error lyeth but an Appeal Also the said Empringham hath caused divers to be cited to appear before him for things done in the Body of the County which were determinable by the Common Law and not before the Admiralty whose authority is limited to the High Sea And for these and other Oppressions they were fined and imprisoned and sentenced beside to make Restitution c. Trin. 9 Jacobi Regis Memorandum That upon the Thursday before this Term all the Justices of England by the Kings Command were assembled in the Council-Chamber at Whitehall where was Abbot Archbishop of Canterbury and with him two Bishops and divers Civillians the Archbishop complained of Prohibitions out of the Common-Pleas and delivery of Persons by Haheas Corpus but chiefly of Sir William Chancy I defended our proceedings according to my Treatise thereof which I delivered before the High-Commissioners And after great dispute between the Archbishop and Me at last he said He had a Point not yet touched upon in my Treatise which would give satisfaction to the Lords and Us also and upon which he would rely And that the Clause of Restitution and Annexation viz. And that all such Jurisdictions c. Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any power Spiritual hath heretofore or hereafter lawfully may be used c. for visitation of the Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for Reformation Order and Correction of the same and of all Errors Heresies Schismes c. shâ—ll for ever by authority of this present Parliament be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And it was said That H. 8. and Ed. 6. did give Power by their Commissions to divers to impose Mulcts c. in Ecclesiasticall Causes c. and upon this he concludes That this having been used before 1 Eliz. this is given to Queen Eliz. and her Successors Also inasmuch as by 2 H. 4. and 2 H. 7. the Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical may Fine and Imprison in particular Causes therefore Power to Fine and Imprison in all Ecclesiastical Causes is given to the King And this he said he uttered that it might be answered 1. To which I for a time gave this Answer That it was good for the Weal-publick that the Judges at the Common-Law should interpret the Statutes within this Realm 2. It was said by me That before the Statute of 1 Eliz. no Ecclesiastical Judge may impose a Fine or Imprison for any Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Offence unless there be Authority by Act of Parliament And this was so affirmed by all the Justices Vide my Book of Presidents the Commission at large to Cromwel to be Vicegerent Afterwards in this very Term the Privy-Council sent for the Justices of the Common-Pleas only and there the Reasons of the said Resolution were largely debated and strong Opposition made hy Egerton Lord Chancellor but the Justices of the Common-Pleas remained constant in their Resolution Afterward the Council sent for the chief Justice of the Kings Bench Justice Williams Justice Crook Chief Baron Taâ—field Snig Althan and Bromly who were not acquainted with the Reasons of the said Rule of the Common-Pleas nor knew why they came before the Council And hearing the Lord Chancellor affirm That the High-Commissioners have alwayes by the Act 1 Eliz. imposed Fines and Imprisonments for exorbitant Crimes without any Conference with us or among then selves or hearing the matter debated were of Opinion with us And after at another day this
Fostér Justices That the Archbishop of Canterbury is restrained by the 23 H. 8. cap. 9. to câ—â—e any one out of his own Diocess for Diocâ—ses dicitur distinctio c. quae divisa vel diversa est ab Ecclesia alterius Episcopatus commissa gubernatio in unius and is derived a Di that signifies duo two et Electio quia separat duas Jurisdictiones And because the Archbishop of Canterbury hath a peculiar Jurisdiction in London for this cause it is fitly said in the Title Preamble and Body of the Act that when the Archbishop sitting in his exempt Peculiar in London cites one dwelling in Essex he cites him out of the Bishop of Londons Diocess ergo out of the Diocess And in the Clause of the Penalty of 10 l. it is said Out of the Diocess c. where the Party dwelleth which agrees with the signification of Diocess befóre And the words far off were put in the Preamble to shew the great mischief that was before the Act as the 32 H. 8 cap. 33. in the Preamble it is disseizins with strength And the Body of the Act saith such Disseizor the same extending to all Disseizors but Disseizin with force is the greatest mischief 4 and 5 Eliz. Dyer 219. So West 2. cap. 5. adjudged 44 Ed 3. 18. So 21 H. 8. cap. 15. In all which the Case is stronger than the Case at Barre there the word such in the Body of the Act referring to the Preamble which is not in our Case 2. The Body of the Act is No Person shall be henceforth cited before any Ordinary c. out of the Diocess or peculiar Jurisdiction where the Person shall be dwelling and if so then a fortiori the Court of Arches which sits in a Peculiar shall not cite oâ—hers out of another Diocess And the words out of the Diocess are meant of the Diocess or Jurisdiction of the Ordinary where he dwelleth 3. Observe the Preamble of the Act recites expresly That the Subjects were called by compulsory Process to appear in the Arches Audience and other Courts of the Archbishoprick of this Realm So that the Intention of the Act was to reduce the Archbishop to his proper Diocess unless in five Cases 1. For any Spiritual Offence or Cause committed or omitted contrary to Right and Duty by the Bishop c. which word omitted proves there ought to be a Default in the Ordinary 2. Except it be in Case of Appeal and other lawfull Cause where the Party shall find himself grieved by the Ordinary after the matter there first begun ergo it ought to be first begun before the Ordinary 3. In case the Bishop or Ordinary c. dare not or will not convent the Party to be sued before him 4. In case the Bishop or Judge of the place within whose Jurisdiction or before whom the Suit by this Act should be begun and prosecuted be party directly or indirectly to the Matter or Cause of the same Suit 5. In case any Bishop or other inferiour Judge under him c. make Request to the Archbishop Bishop or other inferiour Ordinary or Judge and that to be done in Cases onely where the Law Civil or Common doth affirm c. 1. Also there are two Provisoes which explain it also viz. That it shall be lawful for every Archbishop to cite any person inhabiting in any Bishop Diocess in his Province for matter of Heresie by which it appears that for all Causes not excepted he is prohibited by the Act. 2. There is a saving for the Archbishop calling any Person out of the Diocess where he shall be dwelling to the Probate of any Testament which Provisoe should be vain if notwithstanding that Act should have concurrent Authority with every Ordinary throughout his whole Province Wherefore it was concluded That the Arch-Bishop out of his Diocess unless in the Cases excepted is prohibited by the 23 H. 8. to cite any man out of any other Diocesse which Act is but a Law declaratory of the antient Canons and a true Exposition of them And that appears by the Canon Cap. Romana in sexto de Appellationibus Cap. de competenti in sexto And the said Act is so expounded by all the Clergy of England at a Convocation at London Anno 1 Jac. Regis 1603. Canon 94. And whereas it is said in the Preamble of the Act in the Arches Audience and other High-Courts of this Realm It is to be known that the Archbishop of this Realm before that Act had power Legantine from the Pope By which they had Authority not onely over all but concurrent Authority with every Ordinary c. not as Archbishop of Canterbury c. but by his Power and Authority Legantine Et tria sunt genera Legatorum 1. Quidam de latere Dom. Papae mittuntur c. 2. Dativi qui simpliciter in Legatione mittuntur c. 3. Nati seu nativi qui suarum Ecclesiarum praetextu legatione fingantur et sunt 4. Archiepiscopus Cant. Eboracensis Remanensis et Pisanis Which Authority Legantine is now taken away and abolished utterly 3. It was Resolved That when any Judges are by Act of Parliament if they proceed against the Act there a Prohibition lyes As against the Steward and Marshal of the Houshold Quod non teneant placita de libero tenemento de debito de Conventione c. So Articuli super Chartas cap. 3. Register fol. 185. So against the Constable of Dover So to Justices of Assize Quod inquisitiones quae sunt magni exactionis non capiantur in Patria So to the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequerâ— upon Art super Chart. c. 4. Stat Rutland cap. ult See F. N. B. 45. 46 c. 17 H. 6. 54. vide 13 Ed. 3. Title Prohibition So against all Ecclesiastical Judges upon 2 H. 5. 3. and therewith agrees 4 Ed. 4. 37. and F. N. B. 43. c. So the Case upon the Stat. 2 H. 5. c. 15. as appears by the President 5 Ed. 4. Keysons Case 10 H. 7. 17. See Paston's Opinion 9 H. 6. 3. See the 35 H. 6. 6. when any things is prohibited by a Statute if the Party be convicted he shall be fined for the Contempt to the Law And if every person should be put to his Action upon the Statute it would encrease Suits and a Prohibition is the shorter and easier way And the Rule of the Court was Fiat prohibitio Curiae Cantuar. de Arcubus Inter partes praedict per Curiam And Sherly and Harris jun. Sergeants at Law were at Councel of the Case Mich. 6 Jac. Reges Edward's Case The High-Commissioners in Causes Ecclesiastical objected divers English Articles against Thomas Edwards of Exeter As 1. That Mr. John Walton being trained up in Oxferd University was there worthily admitted to several Degrees of Schools and deservedly took upon him the Degree of Dr. of Physick 2. That he was a Reverend and well-practised man in the Art of Physick 3. That
in force it makes that Act of 1 Ed. 6. that it cannot stand Quia Leges Posteriores Priores contrarias abrogant And by the Act of the 25 H. 8. cap. 20. Is set forth the manner of Election and Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops And also for the making and execution of all things which belongs to their Authority within which words the Stile and Seal of their Courts and the manner of their Proceedings are included Which Act of 25 H. 8. is revived by 1 El. cap. 1. and consequently that of 1 Ed. 6. cap. 2. is repealed It appears by our Books if a Deacon or Priest take a Wife their Marriage is voidable not void for they had not vowed Chastity Otherwise of a Monk or a Nun. And this appears 5 Ed 3. Title Nonability 26. 19 H. â— Title Bastardy 33. 21 H. 7. 39. 6. Mich. 4. Jac. Regis Case of the Stannaries It was Resolved this Term in the Star-Chamber That the King had not the Emption of Tin in Cornwal by his Prerogative for Stanni nec plumbi fodina c. or other sase Mineb belong not to the King by his Prerogative but to the Subject Owner of the Land But the Emption of Tin in Cornwal belongs to the King as an antient Right and Inheritance for though now a Reason cannot easily be rendred of things done time out of mind yet it may well be that all the Land in that County was the King Demesne and upon Grant of the Land the King reserved the Mines to himself These Tin Mines being of great Antiquity as appears Ex Diodoro Siculo Et certo certius est That all the Land in England is derived mediately or immediately from the Crown and therefore such a Profit may have a reasonable Commencement Usage also allowing it to the King for all Cornwal was within the King's Forest which by King John was disafforested as by Cambden appears And it is evident that before 33 Ed. 1. all the Tin in Cornwal and Devon also was the Kings whoever owned the Land And this is proved by divers Records and by an antient Charter of King John among the Bishop of Exeters Records In haec verba Johannes Dei Gratia Rex Angliae c. Omnibus Bâ—llivis salutem Sciatis quod intuitu Dei pro salute animae nostrae c. dedimus c. Deo Ecclesiae Beati Petri Exon venerabili Patri Simoni Exon. Episcopo successoribus c. decimam de antiqua firma Stanni in Com. Devon Cornub. Habendum sibi successoribus c. cum omnibus libertatibus liberis consuetudinibus ad eam pertinentibus per manus illius vel illorum qui stannaria habuerint in custod c. Rex Roberto de Courtney salutem Mandâ—mus vobis quod sine dilatione difficultate aliqua habere facietis Dominae Johannae Reginae matri nostrae stannaria Com. Devon c. Paten 1 H. 3. H. 4. Rex concessit Johanni filio Richardi stannaria in Cornubia reddendo 1000 marks 4 H. 3. Fines 5 H. 3. Rex c. Sciatis quod concessimus Richardo dilecto fratri nâ—stro stannariam nostram Cornubiae cum pertinen Prohibiting Tin to be transported without the said Richards Licence 10 H. 3 M. 9. See also 10 Ed. 2. Inqui. 2. Nu. 29. There are two several Charters both dated 10 April 33 Ed. 1. One ad emendationem stannariarum nostrarum in Cornub. The other Ad emendationem stannariarum nostrarum in Devon That of Cornwall hath these word Concessimus eisdem stannatoribus quod fodere possint stannum et turbus ad stannum fundendum ubisque in terris nostris et vastis nostris et aliorum quorumcunque in Com. praedict et Aquas et aquarum cursus divertere ubi et quoties opus fuerit c. ad sundaturam stanni sicut Antiquitus coâ—suâ—vit sine impedimento nostro seu aliorum quorumcunque Ac quod omnes stannatores nostri praed totum stannum suum ponderatum c. licitè vendere possint cuicunque voluerint faciendo nobis et haeredibus nostris Cunageum et alias Consuetudines debitas nisi nos vel haerede nostri stannum illum emere volumus This was confirmed 4 Ed. 2. And also 1 17 Ed. 3. De Advisamento consilii nostri ordinavimus quod stannum in Com. Cornub. et Devon ad opus nostrum capiatur pro defensione regni nostri c. Et ad partes marinas celeriter mittatur c. Ita quod hominibus quibus stannum illum capi contigerit de pretio ejusdem stami ad certos terminos solvend sufficiens securitas per nos fiat Assignavimus vos c. ad capiend ad opus nostrum totum stannum in Com. praed Cunitum et etiam Cuniend cum cunitum fuerit with Authority to take Carriages and Commandment to the Sheriff to pay for the same Rot. Amlâ—yne An. 12. R. 2. part 1. Edward the black Prince grant and the King 21 E. 3. confirmed to Tydman of Lymberge Cunageum Stannariae c. nec non emptionem totius Stanni c. infra c. pro fine mille marcarum et reddendo 3500 marcas The like done to one Brockhouse 7 Ed. 6. The Charter of 33 Ed. 1. was confirmed 8 R. 2. 1 Ed. 4. 3 H. 7. The 11 H. 7. a certain weight and measure was ordained to be used through England yet the weights belonging to the Carriage of Tin were excepted in that Statute The Stile of the Court of Stannaries is Magna Curia Domini Regis Ducatus sui Cornub. apud Cockerenton in Com. Devon Johanne Comite Bedford Custode stannar dicti Domini Regis aut Reginae in dicto Com. Devon By which it appears that all the Tin belonged to the King For the Antiquity of Tin Mines in Cornwall see Camdâ—n in Cornwell 121. And Diodorus Siculus L. 5. c. 8. fo 142. 6. Upon which it was resâ—lved 1. That the King hath all the Tin as well in the Subjects Lands as his own 2. It is absurd for the King to reserve Emption of his own Tin 3. The King grants Stannatoribus divers liberties which are enjoyed by the Tinners as well in the Subjects Lands as the Kings own In the Session of Parliament hâ—ld in Decemb An. 4. Jac. Regis Case of the Kings Prerogative in Saltpeter All the Justices viz. Popham Chief Justice of England Coke Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Fleming Chief Baron Fenner Searle Yelverton Williams and Tanfield Justices met at Sergeants Inne to consult what Prerogative the King had in digging and taking of Saltpeter to make Gunpowder by the Law And upon conference between them these points were resolved by them all 〈◊〉 voce 1. That in as much as Gunpowder concerns the defence of the Realm and insomuch as Saltpeter whereof Gunpowder is made is within the Realm the King shall not be driven to buy it but may take it according to the Limitations following 2. That
shall be sufficient for him But if the Father by Writing declare that it is but part of a Childs portion then he shall have a full Childs part otherwise not Note It was holden by the Judges in the Kings-Bench That if a man be possessed of a House and Term for years doth devise for years does demise this to his Wife for Life the remainder over the dyes all his Debts being paid If the Widow enters generally and converts the profiâ—s to her own use and not to pious Works this is a Determination of her Election And this is the general case and therefore it is good that it be specially found Hâ—yn's Case In the Lent Assize holden at Leicester 11 and 12 Jac. the Case was One William Haynes had digged up the several Graves of three men and one Woman in the Night and had taken their Winding-Sheets from their Bodies and buryed them again And it was Resolved by the Justices at Sergeants Inne in Fleetstreet that the property of the Sheets remains in the Owners that is of him that had the property therein when the dead body was wrapped therewith as in 11 H. 4. If Apparel be put upon a Boy this is a Gift in Law for the Boy hath Capacity to take it but a dead Body being but a Lump of Earth hath no capacity Also it is not a Gift to the Person but bestowed on the Body for the Reverence towards it to express the hope of Resurrection And therefore at the second Assizes he was severally Indicted for taking these Sheets The first Indictment was of Petty-Larceny for which he was whipped And at the same Assizes he was Indicted for the Felonious taking the other three Sheets for which he had his Clergy and escaped Death Hill 11 Jacobi Regis Earl of Derby's Case In Chancery between Sir John Egerton Plaintiff and William Earl of Dirby Chamberlain of Chester and others Defendants It was Resolved by the Lord Chancellor the Chief Justice of England the Master of the Rolls Dodderidge and Winch Justices 1. That the Chamberlain of Chester being sole Judge of Equity cannot Decree any thing wherein himself is party but in such Case the Suit shall be heard here in Chancery coram Domino Rege 2. If the Defendants dwell out of the County Palatine he who hath to complain in Equity may complain here in Chancery And therefore the Suit shall be here in Chancery Ne Curia Domini Regis deficient in justitia exhibenda Else the Subject shall have good Right and yet have no Remedy And this pursues the Reason of the Common-Law 13 Ed. 3. Tit. Jurisdiction 8 Ed. 2. Ass 382. 5 Ed. 3. 30. 30 H. 6. 6. 7 H. 6. 37. For where the particular Courts cannot do Justice to the Parties they shall sue in the Kings general Courts at Westminster 11 H. 4. 27. 8 Ed. 4. 8. 3. It was Resolved That the King cannot grant a Commission to any to determine any matter of Equity but it ought to be determined in Chancery which hath had Jurisdiction in such case time out of mind and had allowance by Law whereas such new Commissions have been resolved to be against Law as was agreed in Pott's Case 4. Upon Consideration of the Lord Dyer and other Justices in Queen Elizabeth's time concerning the Jurisdiction of the County Palatine It was Resolved That for things Transitory though in truth they be in the County Palatine the Plaintiff may alleadge them to be done in any place of England and the Defendant may not plead to the Jurisdiction of the Court See Dyer 13 Eliz. sol 202 716. Forms and Orders of Parliament In the House of Commons when the Speaker is chosen he in his place where he shall first sit down shall disable himself and pray them to proceed a new Election But after he is put into the Chair then he shall pray them that he may disable himself to the King Note The King the first day of the Parliament shall sit in the Upper-House and there the King or Chancellor by his Command shall shew the Causes of Calling the Parliament and in Conclusion of the Oration the Commons are commanded to chuse a Speaker which after 2 or 3 dayes they present where He makes an Oration disabling himself c. In the Lower House when a Bill is read the Speaker opens the parts of it so that each Member may understand the intent thereof and the like is done by the Lord Chancellor in the Upper House Then upon the second Reading sometimes it is Engrossed without Commitment Then it is put to the Question and so in the Upper House But neither in the Upper or Lower House the Chancellor or Speaker shall not repeat a Bill or an Amendment but once When a Bill is committed to the second Reading then if Committees do amend it in any Point they shall write their Amendments in a Paper and shall direct to a Line and what Words shall be interlined and where and then all shall be ingrossed in a Bill And if a Bill pass the Commons House and the Lords amend it they do as before shew the Line c. and after the Amendments are ingrossed with particular References and the Bill sent down to the Commons the Amendments are road three times and so eâ—converso of a Bill passing the Upper House No Lord Knight Citizen or Burgess may speak above once to one Bill in one day No private Bill ought to be read before publike Bills In the Commons House those that are for the New Bill if there be a Question of Voyces shall go out of the House and who are against the Bill or for the Common-Law or any former shall fit still for they are in possession of the Old Law In the Upper House two Lords are appointed to number the Voyces In both Houses he that stands up first to speak shall speak first without difference of Persons When a Bill is ingrossed at the third Reading it may be amended in the same House in matter of substance â— fortiori the Errour of the Clerk in the ingrossing may be amended c. Pâ—sch 12. Jac. Regis Walter Chute's Case Walter Chute Sewer to the King exhibited a Petition to the King That for safety of the Realm c. that he would erect a new Office to Register all Strangers within the Realm except Merchant-Strangers to be kept at London and to grant it to the Petitioner with a Fee or without And all Strangers except Merchant-strangers to depart the Realm in a certain time unless they take a Billet under the said Registers Hand Which Petition the Lords of the Councel referred to Me by their Letters of the 13 Novemb. 1613. to consider what the Law is in that behalf c. And upon Conference with the Justices of the Common-Pleas and other Justices and Barons at Sergeants Inne in Fleetstreet It was Resolved That the Erection of such New Offices for the benefit of a private man was against all
Law of what nature soever Therefore when one Captain Lee made suit to the King to have an Office to inventory the Goods of those that dyed Testate or Intestate It was Resolved by my Lord Chancellor and my Self That such Grant shall be utterly void being both against the Common-Law and the Statute 21 H. 8. In like manner when another sued to have the Registring of Birth-dayes and the time of death c. So Mich. 19 Jac. To make a New Office in the Kings-Bench onely for making Lattitats was resolved void So Littletons Suit to name an Officer to be a Gen. Reg. c. But the Suit was rejected notwithstanding the fair Pretences of it by the two Chief Justices and others See Hill 12 Jac. Regis 2. Secondly It was Resolved That it was inconvenient for divers Causes 1. For a private man to have private ends 2. The numbring of Strangers by a private man would inâ—er a Terrour and other Kings and Princes will take offence at it 3. It is to be considered what breach it will be to former Treaties 3. As to the third It may be performed without any Inconvenience and so it was divided by the Lord Burleigh and other Lords of the Councel 37 Eliz. To write Letters to the Mayors Bayliffs c. of every City Borough c. where any strangers are resident to certifie how many and of what quality c. which they are to know in respect of their Inhabitants c. and this may be done without any Writing which being shewn to the Lords was by them well approved and the Suits utterly disallowed Decemb. 3. Anno 3 H. 8. Commission was granted to divers to certifie the number of Strangers Artificers c. within London and Suburbs according to the Statutes See Candish Case 29 Eliz. 13 Eliz. A Grant of an Office to Thomas Knivâ—t to examine his Majesties Auditors and Clerks of the Pipe c. Resolved by the Court to be against Law for it belongs to the Barons who are Judges 25 Eliz. A Grant of an Office to Thomas Lichfield to examine all Deceits c. of the Queens Officers for 8 years Resolved to be void Sub-poena's in Chancery belonged antiently to the Six Clerks Queen Elizabeth granted the same to a particular man Affidavits Filing and keeping belonged to the Register King James granted them to a particular man So the erecting and putting down Innes did belong to the Justice of Peace the same King granted it to a particular man So likewise the taking of Depositions c. The Office of Alneger granted by the King to Simon Darlington and the Fees limited The Drawing Ingrossing and Writing all Licences and Pardons granted to Edward Bacon with former Fees and a Restraint to all others The Spa Office granted to Thomas George and others during life with the Fee of 2 s. and a restraint to others The Office of making and Registring all manner of Assurances and Policies c. granted to Richard Gandler Gent. with such Fees as the Lord Mayor and others should rate and a Restraint to others c. The Office of writing Tallies and Counter-Tallies granted to Sir Vincent Skinner The Office of ingrossing Patents to the Great Seal with encrease of Fees granted to Sir Richard Young and Mr. Pye Sed de hoc quaere Sir Stephen Proctor's Case In an Information in the Star-Chamber against Stephen Proctor Berkenhead and others for Scandall and Conspiracy against the Earl of Northampton and the Lord Wooton At the Hearing of the Case were present eight Lords viz. the Chief Baron the two Chief Justices two Bishops one Baron Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord Chancellor And the three Chief Justices and the Temporal Baron condemned Sir Stephen Proctor and fined and imprisoned him But the Lord Chancellor the two Bishops and the Chancellor of the Exchequer acquiâ—ted him And the Question was if Sir Stephen Proctor shall be condemned or acquitted And the matter was referred to the two Chief Justices calling to their assistance the Kings Learned Councel And first they Resolved That this Question must be determined by the Presidents of the Court of Star-Chamber that Court being against the Rule and Order of all Courts For in all other Courts if the Justices are equally divided no Judgment can be given So also is it in the Parliament and therefore this course must be warranted by the Custom of the Court. And as to that two Presidents onely were produced viz. One in Hillary Term 39 Eliz. Gibson Plaintiff and Griffith and others Defendants for a Ryot where at Hearing 8 being present 4 gave Judgment that the Defendants were guilty and 4 â— contra and no Sentence of Condemnation was ever entred because the Lord Chancellor was one of the 4 that acquitted them The other was in Hillary 45 Eliz. in an Information against Katherine and others for Forging a Will c. where 4 finding the Defendants guilty of Forgery and 4 onely of Misdemeanour whereof the Lord Chancellor was one Sentence was entred according to the Chancellors Voyce and no other President could be found in this Case as I reported this Term. Concerning Benevolence Note The Exaction under the good Name of Benevolence began thus When King Edw. the 4th had a Subsidy granted him by Parl. in the 12th year of his Reign because he could have no more by Parl and with a Parl. he could not have a Subsidy he invented this Devise wherein observe 3 Things 1. The Cause 2. The Invention 3. The Success 1. The Duke of Burgundy who marryed Edw. the 4th Sister sollicited the King to joyn in War with him against the French King whereto he easily consented to be revenged of him for aiding the Earl of Warwick c. And this was the cause 2. The Invention was The King called before him several times many of his wealthiest Subjects to declare to them his Necessity and Purpose to levy War and demanded of each of them a Sum of Money which by the King 's extraordinary courtesie to them they very freely yielded to Amongst the rest there was a Rich Widow of whom the King merily asked what she would give him for maintenance of his Wars By my Faith quoth she for your lovely Countenance sake you shall have 20 l. which being more than the King expected he thanked her and vouchsafed to kiss her Upon which she presently swore he should have 20 l. more 3. The Success was That where the King called this a Benevolence yet many of the People did much grudge at it and called it a Malevolince Primo Ed. 5. The Duke of Buckingham in Guild-Hall London among other Things inveighed in his Speech against this Taxation and 1 R. 3. c. 2 a Statute is made against it 6 H. 7. The King declaring in Parl that he had just cause of War against the French King desired a Benevolence according to the Example of Edw. 4. and publish'd That he would by their open Hands measure their
such a Custom in non Decimando for all Lay-people within the said Weild were lawful or not was the Question And to have a Prohibition it was said That though one particular man shall not prescribe in non Decimando yet such a general Custom within a great Countrey might well be as in 43 Ed. 3. 32. And the 45 Ed. 3. Custome 15. where an Abbot purchased Tenements after the Statute c. and saith That being Lord of the Town c. there was a Custom in the said Town that when Tenant cesseth for 2 years the Lord may enter c. And that his Tenant cessed for 2 years and he entred And the Rule of the Court is Because it was an usage only in that Town he was put to answer by which appears that a Custom was not good in a particular Town that perhaps might be good in a Countrey c. See 40 Ass 21. 27. 39 Ed. 3. 2. See also 7 H 6. 26. b. 16 Ed. 2. Prescription 53. Dyer 363. 22 H. 6. 14. 21 Ed. 4. 15. and 45 Ass 8. Doct. Stud. lib. 2. cap. 55 A particular Country may prescribe to pay no Tythes for Corn c. but with this Caution that the Minister hath sufficient portion besides to maintain him to celebrate Divine Service And fol. 172. it is holden That where Tythes have not been paid to Under-â—oods under 20 years growth that no Tythes shall be paid for the same And fol. 174. that such a Custome of a whole Country that no Tythes of a Lordship shall be paid is good But the Court would advise Whether such a Custom of a Town or Country be good But in anâ—ient times the Parishioners have given or procured to the Parson a Wood or other Lands c. To hold to him and his Successors in satisfaction of all Tythes of Wood in the same Parish the Parson so seized of the same that without question is a good discharge of his Tythes and if he sue for the same a Prohibition lyes I will cite an antient Judgment many years past Mic. 25 H. 3. Wilts Rot. 5. before the King at Westminster Samson Folyet brought an Attaint upon a Prohibition against Thomas Parson of Swindon because he sued him in the Spiritual Court for a Layâ—ee of the said Samson in Draycot contrary to the Kings Prohibition c. and the Parson was condemned in 20 Marks c. which agrees with the Rule and Reason of the Law continued unto this day For Presidents in Ed. 2. Ed. 1. H. 3. and King John and more antient are not to be now followed unless they agree with the Law and practice at this day Statutes having changed some and Desuetudo antiquated others There are two Points adjudged by the said Record 1. That satisfaction may be given in discharge of payment of Tythes And if the Successor of the Parson enjoy the thing given in satisfaction of the Tythes and yet sueth for Tythes in kind he shall have a Prohibition because that he chargeth his Layfee with Tythes which is discharged of them By which it doth appear that Tythes cannot be discharged and altogether taken away and extinâ— And herewith agrees the Register which is the most ancient Law-Book fol. 38. By which also it appears That Tythes may be discharged and that the matter of discharge ought to be determined by the Common-Law and not in the Spiritual Court Also by the Act of Circumspecte agatis made 13 Ed. 1. It is said S. Rector petat versus Paroâ—hianos oblationes decimas debitaâ— consuetas c. Which proves there are Tythes in kind and other Tythes due by Custom as a Modus Decimandi c. And yet it is Resolved 19 Ed. 3. Jurisdiction 28. the Ordinance of Circumspecte agatis is not a Statute and that the Prelates made the same and yet then the Prelates acknowledged That there were Tythes due by Custome which â—is a Modus Decimandi By which it appears also that Tythes by Custom may be altered to another thing See 8 Ed. 4. 14. F. N. B. 41. g. vide 3 Ed. 3. 17. 16 Ed. 3. Annuity 24. 40 Ed. 3. 3. b. and F. N. B. 152. And if the Lord of a Mannor hath alwayes holden his Mannor discharged of Tythes and the Parson had before time of memory divers Lands in the same Parish of the Gift of the Lord of which the Parson is seized at this in Fee in respect of which the Parson nor any of his Predâ—cessors ever had received any Tythes of the said Mannor If the Parson now sue for Tythes of the said Mannor the Owner of the Mannor may shew that special Matter c. And the Proof that the Lord of the Mannor gave the Lands that Tythes should never be paid at this day is good Evidence to prove the surmise of the Prohibition 19 Ed. 3. Tit. Jurisdiction 28. It is adjudged That Title of Prescription shall be 〈◊〉 in the Kings Court And therefore a Medus Lecimandi which accrues by Custam and Prescription likewise It appears 6 H. 4. cap. 6. that the Pope by his Bulls discharged divers from payment of Tythes against which the Act was made 31 H. 8. cap. 13. Possessions of Religious Persons given to the King were discharged of payment of Tythes in certain Cases 32 H. 8. cap. 7. provides all Tythes to be set as formerly except such as are discharged So 2 Ed. 6. c. 13. by which appears one may be discharged of Tythes five wayes 1. By the Law of the Realm viz. the Common-Law as Tythes shall not be paid of Coales Quarries Bricks Tyles c. F. N. B. 53. and Reg. 54. nor of the after-Pasture of a Meadow c. nor of Rakings nor of Wood to make Pales or Mounds or Hedges c. 2. By the Statutes of the Realm as 31 H. 8. 13. 45 Ed. 3. c. 3. By Priviledge as those of St. Johns of Jerusalem in England the Cistertians Temptors c. as appears 10 H. 7. 277 Dyer 4. By Prescription as by Modus Decimandi annuall recompence in satisfaction as aforesaid 5. By reall Composition as appears by the Writ cited out of the Register By all which appears That a man may be discharged of payment of Tythes as aforesaid So as now it is apparent by the Law of England both Antient and Modern that a Lay-man ought to prescribe in Modo Decimandi not in non Decimando and that in effeâ—â— agrees with Thomas Aquinas in his secunda secundae Quaest 86. ar ultimo See Doct. Stud. Lib. 2. cap. 55. fol. 164. That the Tenth Part is not due by the Law of God nor by the Law of Nature which he calls the Law of Reason And he cites John Gerson a Doctor of Divinity in a Treatise which he calleth Regulae morales viz. Solutio Decimarum Sacerdotibus est de Jure Divino quatenus inde sustenteâ—tur sed quoad tam hanc vei illam assignare aut in alios reditus commutarâ—
Ayd Hill 6 Jacob. Regis Prohibitions Upon Ashwednesday in Feb. 1606. A great Complaint was made by the President of York to the King That the Judges of the Common-Law had in Contempt of the Kings Command last Term granted 50 or 60 Prohibitions out of the Common-Plâ—as to the President and Councel of York after the 6th of February and named 3 in particular 1. Between Bell and Thawptes 2. Another between Snell and Huâ—t 3. And another in an Information of a Riotous Rescue by English Bill by the Attorney-General against Christopher Dickenson one of the Sheriffs of York and others in rescuing one William Watson out of the Custody of the Deputy of one of the Purseyvants of the said Councel who had Arrested the said Watson by force of a Commission of Rebellion by the said President and Councel awarded Which Prohibition upon the Information was as was said denyed upon a Motion in the Kings-Bench the last Term but granted by Us. And the King sent for me to answer the Complaint and I onely all the rest of the Justices being absent waited upon the King who in the presence of Egerton Lord Chancellor and others of the Privy-Councel rehearsed to me the Complaint aforesaid And I perceived well that the King had thereupon conceived great displeasure against the Judges of the Common-Pleas but chiefly against Me To which I having the Copy of the Complaint sent me by the Lord Treasurer answered in this manner That I had made search in the Office of Prothonotaries of the Common-Pleas and as to the Cases between Bell and Thawpts and Snell and Huet no such could be found but I would not take advantage of a Misprisal And the truth was the 6th of February the Court of Common-Pleas had granted a Prohibition to the President and Councel of York between Lock Plaintiff and Bell and others Defendants and that was a Replevin in English was granted by the said President and Councel which I affirmed was utterly against Law for at Common-Law no Replevin ought to be made but by Original Writ directed to the Sheriff and the Statute of Marlbridge cap. 21. and West 1. cap. 17. authorize the Sheriff to make a Replevin So 29 Ed. 3. 21. 8 Eliz. Dyer 245. And the King by his Instructions neither had made the President and Councel Sheriffs nor could grant them Power to make a Replevin against Law which the Lord Chancellor affirmed for very good Law and it may well be we have granted others in the like Case Another Prohibition I confess we have granted between Sir Bethel Knight now Sheriff of the County of York as Executor to one Stephenson who made him and another his Executors and preferred an English Bill against Chambers and others in nature of an Action of the Case upon a Trover and Conversion of Goods and Chattels in the Testators Life to the value of 1000 l. And because the other Executor would not joyn with him he had no remedy at Common-Law but was forced to pray remedy there in Equity And I say the President and Councel have not any Authority to proceed in that Case for divers causes 1. Because there is an express Limitation in their Commission that they shall not hold Plea between Party and Party c. unless both or one of the Parties tanta paupertate sunt gravati that they cannot sue at Common-Law and in that Case the Plaintiff was a Knight Sheriff and man of great quality 2. Because by that Suit the King was deceived of his Fine which was 200 l. because the Damages amounted to 4000 l. And that was one of the Causes that the Sheriff began his Suit there and not at Common-Law Another Cause was that their Decrees which they take upon them are final and uncontroulable either by Errour or any other Remedy which is not so in the Kings Courts where there are five Judges for they can deny Justice to none who hath Right nor give any Judgment but what is controulable by Errouâ— c. And if we shall not grant Prohibitions in Cases where they hold Plea without Authority then the Subjects shall be wrongfully oppressed without Law and we denyed to do them Justice And their Ignorance in the Law appeared by allowing that Suit viz. That the one Executor had no Remedy at Common Law because the other would not joyn in Suit with him whereas every one Learnâ—d in the Law knows that Summons and Severance lyeth in any Suit brought as Executors And this was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor Another Prohibition I confess we granted between the L. Wharton who by English Bill before the Councel sued Bank S. Buttermere and others for fishing in his several Fishings in Darwent in the County of C. in nature of an Action of Trespass at Common-Law to his Damages of 200 l. and for the Causes before recited and because the same was meerly determinable at Common-Law we granted a Prohibition And that also was allowed by the Lord Chancellor Then the King asked me the Case of Information upon the Riotous Rescous To which I answered That one exhibited a Bill there in the nature of an Action of Debt upon a Mutuatus against Watson who upon his Oath affirmed that he had satisfied the Plaintiff and owed him nothing yet because he did not deny the Debt the Councel Decreed the same against him And upon that Decree the Pursuyvant was sent to Arrest the said Watson who Arrested him upon which the Rescous was made And because the Action was in the nature of an Action of Dâ—bâ— upon a Mutuatus where the Defendant at Common Law might have waged his Law the Prohibition was granted and that was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor Also I affirmed it was Rescous because the principal cause belonged not to them but it might be a Riot yet not punishable by them but by course of Law by a Commission of Oyer and Terminer Also I confess that we have granted divers Prohibitions to stay Suits there by English Bill upon penal Statutes for the manner of prosecution as well for the Action Process c. as for the Count is to be pursued and cannot be altered and therefore without question the Councel in such Cases cannot hold Plea which was affirmed also by the Lord Chancellor And I said no Court of Equity can be Erected at this day without Act of Parl as was Resolved in Q. Eliz. time in Parots Case and lately in the Case of the President and Councel of Wales And the King was well satisfied with these Reasons who gave me his Royal Hand and I departed from thence in his favour Pasch 7 Jac. Regis This Term a Question was moved at Sergeants Inne who by the common-Common-Law ought to repair the Bridges common Rivers and Sewers and the High-ways and by what means they shall be compelled to it and first of Bridges And as to them it is to be known that of common right all the Country shall be
County of Hereford in his Denâ—esne as of Free and found the other Points of the Writ and it was holden by the two Chief Justices and the Chief Baron 1. That Mâ—ssâ—agium vel Tenementum is uncertain for Tenementum is nomen collectivum and may contain Land or any thing that is holden 2. It was holden That it was void for the whole because no Town is mentioned in the Office where the Mâ—ssuage or Tenement c. lyeth and it was holden that no melius inquirendum shall issue forth because the whole Office is incertain and void Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards The Attorney of the Court of Wards moved the two Chief Justices and the Chief Baron in this Case A man seized of Lands in Fee-simple covenants for the advancement of his Son and his Name Blood and Posterity that he will stand seized of them to the use of himself for life and after to the use of his eldest Son and to such Woman as he shall marry and the Heir-males of the body of the Son and afterwards the Father dyeth and after the Son takes a Wife and dyeth if the Wife shall take an Estate for Life And it was Resolved by the said two Chief Justices and Chief Baron That the Wife should take well enough being within the consideration which was for the advancement of his Posterity and without a Wife the Son cannot have Posterity Secondly It was Resolved that the Estate of the Son shall support the use to the Defendant and when the Contingent happeneth the Estate of the Son shall be changed according to the Limitation viz. to the Son and the Woman and the Heirs of the Body of the Son And so it was Resolved in the Kings-Bench by Popham Chief Justice and the whole Court in Sheffields Case in Q. Elizabeths time Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards Spary's Case John Spary seized in Fee in the Right of his Wife of Lands holden by Knight-service had Issue by her and 22 Dec. 9 Eliz. alienated to Edward Lord Stafford The Wife dyed the Issue of full age the Alienee holds the Lands And 10 years after the Fathers death and 12 years after the Mothers Office is found 7 Jac. finding all the special Matter after the Mothers death The Question was Whether the mean Profits are to be answer'd to the King And it was Resolved by the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron that the King should have the mean Profits because the Alienee was in by Title and untill Entry the Heir has no Remedy for the mean Profits but that the King might seize and make Livery because the Entry of the Heir is lawful by the Stat. 32 H. 8. Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards It was found by force of a Mandamus at Kendal in Westmerland 21 Dec. 6 Jac. that George Earl of Cumberland long before his death was seized in Tail to him and to the Heirs-male of his body of the Castles and Mannors of Browham Applâ—by c. the remainder to Sir Ingram Clifford with divers Remainders in Tail the remainder to the right Heirs of Henry Earl of Cumberland Father of the said George and that the said George Earl so seized by Fine and Recovery conveyed them to the use of himself and Margaret his Wife for their Lives for the Joynture of Margaret and after to the Heir-males of the body of George Earl of Cumberland and for want of such Issue to the use of Francis now Earl of Cumberland and the Heir-males of his body and for want of such Issue to the use of the right Heirs of the said George And after by another Indenture conveyed the Fee-simple to Francis Earl By force of which and of the Statute of Uses they were seized accordingly and afterwards the 30 of Octob. 3 Jac. George Earl of Cumberland dies without Heirs male of his body c. And found further that Margaret Countess of Cumberland that now is was alive and took the profits of the Premisses from the death of the said George Earl till the taking the Inquisition and further found the other Points of the Writ 1. And first it was objected Here was no dying seized found by Office and therefore the Office shall be insufficient But to that it was Resolved That by this Office the King was not intitled by the Common-Law for then a dying seized was necessary But this Office is to be maintained upon the Stat. 32 and 34 H. 8. by force of which no dying seized is necessary and so it was Resolved in Vincents Case Anno 23 Eliz. 2. The second Objection was It doth not appear that the Wives Estate continued in her till the Earles death for the Husband and Wife had aliened the same to another and then no primer seizin shall be as is agreed in Binghams Case And to that it was Resolved That the Office was sufficient prima facie for the King because it is a thing collateral and no point of the Writ And if such Alienation be the same shall come in of the other part of the Alienee by a Monstrans de droit And the Case at Bar is a stronger Case because it is found the Councess took the Profits from the death of George the Earl till the finding the Office Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards Wills Case Henry Wills seized of the 4th Part of the Mannor of Wryland in the County of Dâ—von holden of Q. Eliz. iâ— Socage Tenure in capite of the said 4â—h part enfeoffed Zathary Irish and others and their Heirs to the use of the said Henry for his Life and after his Decâ—ase to Thomas Wills his second Son in Tail and after to the use of Richard Wills his youngest Son in Tail and after the said Henry so seized as aforesaid dyed All this Matter is found by Office And the Question was If the King ought to have primer seizin in this Case that Livery and Ouster le mayne should be sued by the Statutes of the 32 and 34 H. 8. And it was Resolved by the two Chief Justices and the Chief Baron that not if in this Case by the Common-Law no Livery or Ouster le main shall be sued and that was agreed by them all by the experience and couâ—se of the course See 21 Eliz. Dyer 362. and 4 Eliz. Dyer 213. And two Presidents were shâ—wed which were Decreed in the same Court by the Advice of the Justices Assistants to the Court. One in Trin. 16 Eliz. Thomas Stavely enfeoffed William Strelley and Thomas Law of the Mannor of Ryndly in Nottingh â—shire on condition that they re-enfeoffe the Feoffor and his Wife for their Lives the remainder to Thomas Stavely Sâ—n and Heir apparent of the Feoffer in Fee Which Mannor was holden of Q. Elizabeth in Socage Tenure in capite And it was Resolved That no Livery or Ouster le maine shall be sued in such Case because of the saving of the Stat. 32 H. 8.
The words whereof are Saving c. to the King c. all his Right c. of primer seizin and relief c. for Tenure in Socage or of the nature of Tenure in Socage in chief as heretofore hath bin used But there was no Custom before the Act for the King to have primer seizin c. Another President was in Pasch 37 Eliz. in the Book of Orders fol. 444. where the Case was That William Allet was seized of certain Lands in Pitsey called Lundsey holden of the Queen in Socage Tenure in chief and by Deed covenanted to stand seized to the use of his wife for life and afterwards to the use of Richard his younger Son in Fee and dyed and all was found by Office and it was Resolved ut supra But the Doubt oâ— the Case at Bar was because Henry the Feoffor had a Reversion in Fee which descended to the said William his eldest Son Trin. 7 Jacobi Regis The Case of the Admiralty A Bâ—ll was preferred in the Star-Chamber against Sir Richard Hawkins Vice-Admiral of the County of Devon and was charged that one William Hull and others were notorious Pyrates upon the High Seas and shewed in certain what Pyracy they had committed That the said Sir Richard Hawkins knowing the same did receive them and abet comfort them and for Bribes suffered them to be discharged And what Offence that was the Court referred to the consideration of the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron who heard Councel of both sides divers days at Sergeants Inne And it was Resolved by them 1. That the Admirals by the common-Common-Law ought not to meddle with any thing done within the Realm but onely with things done upon the Sea and that appeareth fully by the 13 R. 2. cap. 5. and therewith agrees 2 H. 4. c. 11. and 15 H. 2. c. 3. So also 2 H. 5. c. 6. 5 Eliz. c. 5. and this agrees with Stamf. fol. 51. 8 Ed. 2. Coron 399. See Plo. Com. 37 b. 2 R. 3. 12. 30 H. 6. 6. by Prisoit 2. It was Resolved That the Statutes are to be intended of a Power to hold Plea not of a Power to award Execution for notwithstanding the said Statutes the Judge of the Admiralty may do Execution within the Body of the County And therefore 19 H. 6. 7. the Case was W. T. at Southwark affirmed a Plaint of Trespass in the Admiralty against J. B. of a Trespass done upon the High-Sea Whereupon J. B. was cited to appear at the common day next ensuing at which day the said J. B. made default And according to the usage of the Court the said J. B. was amerced to 20 Marks Whereupon Command was made to P. as Minister of the said Court to take the Goods of the said J. B. to make agreement with the aforesaid W. T. by force of which he for the said 20 Marks took 5 Cowes and 100 Sheep in Execution for the said Money in the County of Ieicester And there it is holden by Newton and the whole Court That the Statutes restrain the power of the Court of Admiralty to hold Plea of a thing done within the body of the County but they do not restrain the Execution of the same Court to be served upon the Lands In which Case these Points were Resolved 1. Though the Court of Admiralty is not a Court of Record see Brooks Error 77. acc yet by Custom of the Court they may amerce the Defendant for his default by their discretion 2. That they may make Execution for the same of the Goods of the Defendant in corpore Comitatus and if he have not Goods may arrest his Body But the great question between them was If a man commit Pyracy upon the Sea and one knowing thereof receive and comfort the Defendant in the Body of the County if the Admiral and other the Commissioners by the Act 28 H. 8. cap. 16. may proceed by Indictment and Conviction against the Receiver and Abetter the Offence of the Accessary having his beginning within the Body of the County And it was Resolved by them That such a Receiver and an Abetter by the Common-Law could not be indicted and convicted because the Common-Law cannot take Cognizance of the Original Offence being done out of the Jurisdiction of the Common-Law and where it cannot punish the Principal it cannot punish the Accessary And therefore Coke Chief Justice reported to them a Case which was in Suffolk 28 Eliz. where Butler and others upon the Sea next to the Town of Iaystoff robbed divers of the Queens Subjects of their Goods which they brought into Norfolk and there were apprehended and brought before Me then a Justice of Peace in the same County and upon Examination they confessed a cruel and barbarous Pyracy and that the Goods then in their Custody were part of the Goods which they had so robbed And I was of Opinion that in that Case it could not be Felony punishable by the Common-Law because the Original Act was not offence whereof the Common-Law taketh knowledge and then the bringing them into the County could not make the same Felony punishable by our Law Yet I committed them to the Gaol untill the coming of the Justices of the Assizes And at the next Assizes the Opinion of Wray Chief Justice and Perian Justices of Assize was agreeing with Me ut supra and thereupon they were committed to Sir Robert Southwel then Vice-Admiral for those Countieâ— and this in effect agrees with Lacies Case which see in my Reports cited in Bingham's Case 2 Rep. 93. and in Constables Case C. 5. Rep. 107. See Pyracy was Fâ—lony 40 Ass 25. by Schard where a Captain of a Ship with some English-men robb'd the Kings Subjects upon the High Seas and the saith 't was Felony in the Norman Captain and Treason in the English-men which is to be understood of Petit-Treason and therefore in that Case the Pyrates being taken the Norman Captain was hang'd and the English drawn c. hang'd as appears by the same Book See Stamford 10. Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Common-Pleas Pettus and Godsalve's Case In a Fine levyed Trinity Term Anno quinto of this King between John Pettus Esq Plaintiff and Richard Godsalve and others Deforceants of the Mannor of Castre c. in Norfolk where in the â—hird Proclamation upon the Foot of the Fine the said Proclamation is said to be made in the sixth year of the King that now is which ought to have been Anno quinto And the fourth Proclamation is altogether left out because upon view of the Proclamations upon Dorsis upon Record not Finis ejusdem Termini per Justiciarios remaining with the Chirographer c. it appeareth the said Proclamations were duly made therefore it was adjudged that the Errours aforesaid should be amended and made to agree as well with the Prâ—clamation upon Record of the Fine and Entry of the Book as with the other Proclamations in Dorsis c. And