October 28. H. 8. there was an Insurrection of the Lord Hussey and 20000 Men in Lincolnshire about Religion which was appeased by the Duke of Suffolk This was no sooner over but 40000 Men under Sir Robert Aske made a Commotion in Yorkshire Soon after was a great Rebellion in Lancashire Westmerland Cumberland and Northumberland which the Earl of Derby quieted Then Musgrave Tilby and others assaulted Carlisle Castle and were overthrown by the Duke of Norfolk Soon after Sir Francis Pigot Rebelled at Setrington in Yorkshire Soon after the Lord Darcy c. began a Commotion about Hull appeased by the Duke of Norfolk And all these Rebellions were between the 28. of and 30. of H. 8. in which time many of the Rebels were Executed And the King having effected in the 31 year of his Reign the Suppression of the greater Houses of Religion he establisht a Councel there for the quiet of the Counties of Yorkshire Northumberland Westmerland Cumberland Durham the Counties of the City of York Kingston upon Hull and Newcastle upon Tyâ—e for preventions of Ryots c. And in this time of Necessity the King Armed the President and Councel with two Authorities in one Commission The one A Commission of Oyer and Terminer de quibuscunque Congregationibus conventiculis illicitis coadjutoribus Lolardiis c. per quae pax tranquilitas subditorum nostrorum Comitatibus c. praedict gravat c. secundum legem coâ—suetudinem regni nostri Angliae c. The other Authority was Nec non quascunque actionesreales seu de libero tenemento personales causasque de bitorum demandorum quorumcunque in Com. c. praed quando ambae partes vel altera pars sic gravata paupertate fuerit quod commode Jus suum secundum legem Regni nostri aliter prosequi non possit c. And this was the Authority that the President and Councel had at first without any private Instructions as appears by the Commission under the Great Seal 31 H. 8. 6 pars Roberto Landavensi Episcopo Presidenti Consilii aliis out of which these things were observed 1. That the intention of the Commission was Quod pax subditorum tranquilitas preserventur 2. That they hear and determine Riots Routs c. according to Law or their Discretions which without question was no otherwise intended but that they should proceed according to Law for that is summa discretio and not according to private Conceits for talis discretio discretionem confundit so the other Clause concerning reall and personal Actions in all the Counties and Places aforesaid was onely ad faciendum populum for it was utterly void in Law 1. Because no such general Authority granted may be made by the Commission of the King to hear and determine all reall Actions within such a County according to Law as he may be Charter in a particular County or place As it was Resolved in Scrogges Case An. 2 Eliz. so 175. in Dyer Vid. Dyer 236. But the King by Letters-Patents may grant to a Corporation in such a Town Tenere placita realia personalia mixta And none can by this be prejudiced for the proceeding ought to be according to Law and if they erre a Writ of Errour lies See Magna Charta cap. 12. and Westm 2. cap. 30. which Acts give Authority to Justices of Assize in their proper Counties whereby it appears that without an Act of Parliament the King by Letters Patents cannot authorize Justices De Assize capiend to take them in another County As a Justice of one Bench or other ought to be made by Commission not by Writ yet he may be discharged by Writ 5 Ed. 4. 32. But Justices in Eyre are by Writ Bracton lib. 3. cap. 11. Britton fo 1. Also Westm 2. cap. 30. and of York cap. 4. sic de ceteris Also it was observed that at first the Commission extended onely when one or both Parties were so poor as they were not able to prosecute at Law Also they had no power to grant Injunctions and lastly their Commission was a Patent under the Great Seal and enrolled in Chancery And thus much was said concerning the first Institution of the Court 2. That our Proceedings in granting Prohibitions is for matter justifiable by Law As to this whereas at first their Authority was Patent it is now private for the Letters-Patent refer to private Instructions which are no where of Record Et de non apparentibus non existentibus eadam est ratio besides the danger to the Subject is great for if they lose their Instructions which hath and may happen all is Coram non Judice The second Reason is drawn from the contumacy of the Party supposed to be grieved by the Prohibition and against whom it is granted for if the Authority of the Councel be never so good yet being a late Jurisdiction the Party must of necessity plead it so as it may appear judicially for as we are Judges of Record so must we be informed of Record And no party prohibited ever yet moved in Court to have a consultation by which might be set forth the Jurisdiction of that Court and Councel so as the granting of Prohibitions hath been just The third Reason is drawn from the great Injury offered to the Defendants for it is a true Rule Misera servitus ubi jus est vagum aut incertum The Defendants by Law may in all Courts plead to the Jurisdiction of the Court but how can they do so when no man can possibly know what Jurisdiction they have And the keeping of them in such Secrecy bewrayeth that the Councel are afraid that they would not be justified if they were known 3. That the manner of our Proceedings was respectful for a Jury of Officers and Attorneys of our Court being according to an antient Custome time out of mind used sworn to present among other things all Defaults of Officers and Ministers in not executing the Process of this Couâ—t and all Impediments of the due Proceedings thereof And finding upon their Oaths divers unjust Impediments of the said Proceedings by the said Councel in particular thereupon a motion being made in open Court in Michaelmas Term last by the King 's Serjeant Philips of many Grievances done thereby prayed the Court according to Law and Justice to grant several Prohibitions in all those several Causes which we could not deny Yet first we conferred with Sir Cuthbert Pepper Attorney of the Wards and one of that Councel to let him understand the partâ—cular Gâ—ievances who upon Motion came to us to Seâ—geants Inne with whom we conferred who would not take upon him to justifie the same in no sort but said he would acquaint the President and Councel therewith and return their Answer Which for that it was neglected upon further Motion in Court we granted Prohibition as in Justice we ought 4. Now to answer all Objections And first where it was objected
holden That if one were to sit in the Chancel and hath there a place his Carpet Livery and Cushion the Parson cannot claim them as Oblations for that they were hanged there in honour of the Deceased the same Reason of a Coat-Armour c. And the Chief Justice said the Lady might have a good Action during her Life in the Case aforesaid because she caused the things to he set up there and after her death the Heir shall have his Action they being in the nature of Hire-looms which belong to the Heir And with this agrees the Laws of other Nations Bartho Cassanâ—us sol 13. Coâ—cl 29. Actioâ— dat si aliquis arma in aliquo loco posita deleat aut abrasit c. and in 21 Ed. 3. 48. in the Bishop of Carlisle's Case Note That in Easter Term 10 Jacob. it was Resolved in the Star-Chamber in the Case between Hussâ—y and Katharine Leyton that if a man have a house in any Parish and that he and all those whose Estate he hath have used to have a certain Pew in the Church that if the Ordinary will displace him he shall have a Prohibition but where there is no such Prescription the Ordinary shall dispose of common and vulgar Seats Earl of Shrewes buryes Case Sir Humphry Winch Sir James Ley Sir Anthony St. Leger and Sir James Hullesâ—on certified the Lords of the Councel by Command from them by Letters dated 28. Martii 1612. of the Claim of Gilbert Earl of Shrewesbury to the Earldome of Waterford and Barony of Dungarvan in Ireland as followeth King Henry the Sixth by Letters-Patents in the 20th year of his Reign did Grant to his Cosin John Earl of Shrewsbury in consideration of his Loyal Services in the City and County of Waterford pro se c. ipsum in Comitem Waterford una cum stilo et titulo ac nomine ac honore eisdem debitis ordinamus creamus habendum to the said Earl and his Heirs-males of his Body and further did Grant the Castles Lordships c. of Dungarvan to the said Earl and the Heirs-males of his Body To hold c. of the King and his Heirs by Homage and Fealty and by the Service of being his Majesties Seneschal in Ireland After in the Parliament called Des Absentees holden at Dublin in Ireland 10. Maii 28 H. 8. It was enacted by reason of the long absence of George Earl of Shrewesbury out of the said Realm That the King his Heirs c. shall enjoy in right of his Crown of England all Honors Mannors Castles c. and all and singular possessions c. as well Spiritual as Temporal which the said George Earl of Shrewesbury and VVaterford or any other Persons had to his Use c. King Henry the 8th by his Letters Patents dated 29th of his Reign reciting the said Statute Nos praemissa Considerantes c. did Grant to the said Earl and his Heirs the Abbey of Rufford with the Lands thereunto c. in the County of Nottingham and the Lordship of Rotheram in the County of York the Abbeys of Chestersteld Shirbrook and Glossaâ—dale in Derbyshire with divers other Lands c. to be holden in Capite And the Questions were as followeth 1. Whether by the long absence of the Earl of Shrewsbury out of Ireland the Title of the Honor be lost and forfeited he being a Peer of both Realms and refiding here in England 2. Whether by the Act Des absentâ—es 28 H. 8. the Title of Dignity of Earl of VVaterford be taken from the said Earl as well as the Land c. Afterwards by other Letters Patents dated 27th of Sept. 1612. the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron were required to consider of the Case and to certifie their Opinions which Case being argued by Councel learned in the Law in behalf the said Earl and they having taken great advisement It was unanimously Resolved by them all as followeth 1. As to the fiâ—st Resolved That since it does not appear what defence was requisite and that the Consideration Executory was not found by Office to be broken in that Point the said Earl of Shrewsbury notwithstanding does remain Earl of Waterford 2. As to the second It was Resolved That the said Act 28 H. 8. Des Absenteâ—s does not onely take away the Possessions given him at his Creation but also the Dignity it self for though one may have a Dignity without Possession yet is it very inconvenient that Dignity should be cloathed with Poverty and so it was resolved in the Lord Ogles Case in Edw. 6. Reign as the Baron of Burleigh 35 Elâ—z did report The cause of Degradation of George Nevil Duke of Bedford is worth observation which was done by Act of Parliament 16 June 17 Ed. 4. which Act reciting the making the said George Duke sets forth the cause of his Degradation in these words And for so much as it is openly known that the said George hath not or by Inheritance may have any livelyhood to support the said Name Estate and Dignity c. Therefore the King by Advice of his Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons c. Enacteth c. That from henceforth the same Creation of the said Duke and all Names of Dignity given to the said George or to John Nevil his Father be void and of none effect Wherein are to be observed 1. That though the Duke had not Possessions to maintain his Dignity yet it could not be taken from him but by Act of Parliament 2. Great Inconveniencies follow where there is great State and Dignity and no means to maintain it 3. It is good reason to take away such Dignity by Act of Parliament and then the Act shall be expounded to take away such Inconvenience And though the Earl of Shrewsbury be of great Honour Vertue and Possessions in England yet it was not the Intention of the Act to continue him Earl in Ireland when his Possessions there were taken away And where it was objected that the general words Honours and Hereditaments are explained and qualified by the said Relative subsequent which the said George or any to his use hath Now in regard no man can be seized of the said Digniâ—y therefore the Act doth not extend to it 'T is answered that is to be understood Reddendo singula singulis and these words which the said G. E. hath are sufficient to pass the Dignity and with this agrees all the Judges Opinions in England in Nevils Case upon the like in the Statute 28 H. 8. in 7th Part of my Reports sol 33 and 34. Hill 2 Jacob. Regis Jurisdiction of the Court of Common-Pleas In the last Term by the King's Commands the Justices of the Kings Bench and Barons of the Exchequer were assembled before the Lord Chancellor Ellesmere at York-house to deliver their Opinion Whether there was any Authority in our Books that the Justices of the Common-Bench may grant Prohibitions or whether every Plea ought to be pending
Helenam ideo ipsi c. Out of which Record these things are to be observed 1. Though it is Enacted by the Stat. West 2. cap. 21. That in this Case Justiciarii c. puniant appellatorem per prisonam unius Anni c. so that they were not Bailable yet quia eadem Helena praegnans fuit in periculo mortis she was let to Bayl to have her Body 15 Mich. ad satisfaciendum praedicto Laurentio et aliis c. And the Reason of this is because the Common-Law requires in every Case conveniency and it is inconvenient a Woman with Child should remain in Common-Gaol And the Judges of the Common-Law ought to know what the Moral Poet spoke Redâ—ere personae sit convenientia cuique and agrees with Advice of Bracton lib. 2. cap. 2. 2. That the Defendants recover their Damages either wholly against the Principle or wholly against the Abettors and with this agrees Ed. 4. 3. 3. Though the Statute saith Restituant Appellatores damna c. yet the Damages shall be singulatim assessed for as the Defamation of one may be greater than another so the Damages of one may be greater than another 4. Though the Appellor be not sufficient to pay yet his body shall be taken ad satisfaciendum Quia qui non habet in aere luat in corpore 5. Though the Jurors in the Appeal have found the Defendants Abettors yet insomuch as they are strangers to the Original they shal not be concluded Quia res inter alios actae alteri nocere non debent Vide the Book of Entries Title Appeal Divisione Damages 1 2. Vide Placita coram rege apud Ebor. in Crast Sancti Trin. 7 Ed. 3. 44. Divisione Indictments are very well worth observing Duresse per Gaoler See there divers sorts of Presentments as of Wollingover John Alnner Thomas Ballivus de Flaxwel Laughton Thomas de Mandon Ballivus de Boby of Grafton Thomas Carleton Under-Sheriff of the County of Lincoln and Hugo de Baxter c. False Affidavits In an Action suâ—le case it was Resolved per totam Curiam That iâ— a Sumner return one certified upon his Oath in Court-Christian where in truth he was not and thereon he is pronounced contumax and so becometh excommunicate he shall have his Action sur le case for here is damaum et injuria And it was Resolved That Perjury by which Damages do accrew may be punished as a Misuemeanour at the Suit of the King and also the Party may have his Action upon the Case for Perjury may not be committed with Impunity And for that Reason If Jurors themselves use Perjury an Attaint â—yes by the Common-Law as appears by Glanvil lib. 2. cap. 29. 15 H. 8. Title Attaint 75. 6 H. 3. ibid. 73 75. and in the time of Ed. 1. â—ttaint 70. West 1 cap. 38. Vide F. N. B. 109 Vid. 27 H. 6. 25. In like manner it was agreed That if one make a false Affidavit by which the Party is Arrested with Process of Contempt he may have an Actioâ— sur le case and recover Damage And though the Court-Christian may punish pro salute animae yet they cannot award Damages to he party And though the matter be meerly Ecclesiastical yet if the Party grieved hath Damages either by wrongful Proceedings of the Judge or Mâ—sfeasans or Nonfeasans or falsity of any Minister c. the Party grieved may have an Action sur le câ—se and recover Damages Doctor and Stud. 118 119. Action sur le Case lyes against the Ordinary for a wrongful Excommunication touching any thing out of his Jurisdiction c. So in Fitz. 47 H. 6. 8. If an Arch-Deacon refuse to induct the Clerk c. he shall have Action sur le case Which was affirmed for good Law by all the Court with which agrees 26 H. 8. 3. a. If a man proceed against a Prohibition the Party may have an Action upon the Case against him for prosecuting in Court-Christian Vid. Trin. 20 Ed. 3. Rot. 46. in the Treasury Richard Tresil's Case So the like Pasch 13 Ed. 3. Rot. 78. Philip de Harâ—eshals Case Hill 32 Ed. 3. Rot. 78. and Trin. 37 Ed. 1. and Mich. 29 Ed. 3. Rot. 19. similiter and divers other Records you may have See in my Book of Presidents Pasch 14 Jac. Regis An Habeas Corpus to the Marshal of the Admiralty granted in Hillary Term last past for Haukridge Prisoner in the custody of the said Marshal who did return Quaedâ—m causa spolii c. contra Haukridge pendet indecisa pro judicio sententia paratus c. Qui quidem Will Haukridge remanet donec antedict causa per praefat Daniel Dun suerit hoc est causa And also upon another Habeas Corpus he made such a Return and otherwise Parata sit c. Which the Court took to be very insufficient and gave divers days to amend the Return and to shew the cause of Delay and why Sentence was not given and the Marshal would not amend his Return Upon which the Party being in Prison 16 or 18 Weekes always the Return was est parata c. And after in another Writ returnable Crast Ascentionis was another Return of Parata c. without shewing cause of Delay The Return also was insufficient because Quaedam causa spolii civilis maritima quae coram c. which is too general for two Causes 1. Because spolii is uncertain and ought to be specified in some more certainty besides it shews not the value of the Goods 2. That Maritima est super littus or in portu maris and yet the Admiral hath not Jurisdiction Super littus maris or in portu because they are infra corpus comitat And so it was adjudged in Lacies Case Dyer 15 Eliz. the Abbot of Ransey's Case 15 Eliz. Dyer fol. 236. Pasch 17 Eliz. in Scaccar ac contra Digges for which cause he ought to have said Super altum mare intra Jurisdictionem Admiralli See the Stat. 13 R. 2. c. 5. 2 H. 4. c. 11 19 H. 6. 7. For the first all the Court Resolved that it was insufficient also there was shewn no time of the spoyl And for this in the same Term the said Haukridge was bailed in open Court till the next Term according to the Books 6 H. 6. 44. 28 H. 8. c. 15. Note It was said by some That when Judgment is given that one shall be hanged till he be dead the King cannot alter the Judgment and command that he shall be beheaded for the Execution ought to be conform to the Judgment and with this accords 35 H. 6. fol 58. and Stamf. lib. 1. fol. 13. Vide 27 Ass pl. 41. F. N. B. 144. 22 Ass pl. 49. Duke of Somersets Case and the Lord Sturtons Case in Queen Mary's time and the Lord Datres his Case in H. 8. both which were hanged for Felony It was Resolved also That King H. 8. could not by
Service Tenant Richard Hulme dyed after whose death 31 H. 8. it was found that he dyed seized of the said Mesnalty and that the same descended to Edward his Son and Heir within Age and found the Tenure aforesaid c. And during nonagâ— Robert Male dyed seized of the said Tenancy peravail and that the same descended to Richard his Son and Meir as was found by Office 25 H. 2. within age and that the said Tenancy was holden of the King as of his said Dutchy by Knights Service whereas in truth the same was holden of Edward Hulme then in Ward of the King as of his Mesnalty for which the King seized the Ward of the Heir of the Tenant And afterwards Anno quarto Jacobi Rogis nunc after the death of Richard Male the lineal Heir of Robert Male by another Office it was found that Richard dyed seized of the Tenancy and held the same of the King as of his Dutchy c. his Heir within age Whereupon Richard Hulme Cozen and Heir of the said Richard Hulme preferred a Bill to be admitted to traverse the Office found 4 Jac. Regis And the Question was Whether the Office found 35 H. 8. be any Estoppel to the said Hulme or if that the said Hulme should be first driven to Traverse that And it was objected That he ought first to traverse the Office of 35 H. 8. as in the Case 26 E. 65. And that the first Office shall stand as long as the same remaines in force To which it was Answered and Resolved by the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron and Court of Wards That the finding of an Office is not any Estoppel for that is but an Inquest of Office and the party grieved shall have a Traverse to it But when an Office is found falsly that Land is holden of the King by Knights Service in capite or of the King himself in Socage if the Heir fueâ—h a general Livery it is holden 46 Ed. 3. 12. by Mowbray and Persey that he shall not after adde that the Land is not holden of the King But that is not any Estoppel to the Heir himself and shall not conclude his Heir for so saith Mowbray himself expresly 44 Ass pl. 35. See 1 H. 4. 6. b. So 33 H. 6. 7. And there is no Book that saith that the Estoppel shall endure longer than his life but that is to be intended of a general Livery but a special Livery shall not conclude one And if a Jury find falsly in a Tenure of the King the Lord of whom the Land is holden may traverse that Office Or if Land be holden of the King in Socage c. the Heir may traverse the last Office for by that he is grieved and he shall not be driven to traverse the first Office And when the Father sues Livery and dyes the Conclusion is executed and past as is aforesaid And note there is a special Livery but that proceeds of the King's Grace and is not the Suit of the Heir and the King may grant it either at full age before aetate probanda or to the Heir within age as appears 21 E. 3. 40. And then is general and shall not comprehend any Tenure as the several Livery doth and therefore it is not any Estoppel without question See the 33 H. 8. cap. 22. 23 Eliz. Dyer 177. It was also Resolved in this Case that the Office of 35 H. 8. was not traversable for his own Traverse shall prove that the King had cause to have Wardship by reason of Ward And when the King comes to the Possession by a false Office or otherwise if it appears the King have any other Right to have the Land there none shall traverse the Office or Title of the King because the Judgment in the Traverse is Ideo consideratum est quod manus Domini Râ—gis amoveantur c. See 4 H. 4. fol. 33. in the Earl of Kents Case c. Mich. 7 Jacobi Regis Note The Priviledge Order or Custom of Parliament either of the Upper-House or House of Commons belongs to the Determination of the Court of Parliament and this appeareth by two notable Presidents 1. The one at the Parliament holden in the 27 H. 6. There was a Controversie moved in the Upper-House between the Earles of Aâ—undel and Devonshire for their Seats Places and Pre-eminences of the same to be had in the King's Presence as well in Parliament as in Councels and elsewhere The King by the Advice of Lords Spiritual and Temporal committed the same to certain Lords of Parliament who not having leisure to examine the same by the said Lords Advice referred it to the Judges of the Land to hear see and examine the Title c. and to report what they conceive herein The Judges reported as followeth That this matter viz. of Honour and Pre-eminency between the two Earles Lords of Parliament was a matter of Parliament and belonged to the King and his Lords in Parliament to be decided Yet being so commanded they shewed what they found upon Examination and their Opinions thereon Another Parliament 31 H. 6. 6th of March begun and after some continuance was prorogued to the 14 of February and afterwards in Michaelmas Term the same 31 H. 6. Thomas Thorpe Speaker of the Commons House was condemned in the Exchequer in 1000 l. Damages at the Duke of Buckingham's Suit for a Trespass done to him The 14th of Feb. the Commons mâ—ved in the Upper-House that their Speaker might be set at liberty to exercise his Place c. The Lords refer it to the Judges and Fortâ—scue and Prisoit the two Chief Justices in the Name of all the Judges answer'd That they ought not to consider this Question c. but it belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament and not to the Justices But as to their Proceedings in the Lower-Courts in such Cases they deliver'd their Opinions See 12 E. 4. 2. Hill 7 Jac. Regis In Cam. Stâ—ll Heyward and Sir John Whitbrook's Case In the Case between Hyward and Sir John Whitbrook in the Star-Chamber the Defendant was convicted of divers Misdemeanours and Fine and Imprisonment imposed on him and Damages to the Plaintiff And it was moved that a special Process might be made out of that Court to levy the said Damages upon the Lands and Goods of the said Defendant And it was referred to the two Chief Justices whether any such Process might be made who this Term moved the Case to the Chief Baron and the rest of the Judges and Barons and it was unanimously by them all Resolved That no such Process could or ought to be made neither for the Damages nor for the Costs given to the Plaintiff the Court having no such power but onely to keep the Defendant in Prison till he pay them For for a Fine due to the King they can make no Process to levy it but they estreat it into the Exchequer which hath power by Law to write forth Process