Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	chancellor_n	great_a	seal_n	2,853	5	8.3166	4	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A35589	The Case between Sir Jerom Alexander, Knight ... and Sir William Ashton, Knight ... concerning precedency	Alexander, Jerome, Sir.; Ashton, William, Sir.	1661 (1661)	Wing C853; ESTC R7783	21,183	14

England and Ireland have constantly and continually used to swear the Judges to exercise their Offices according to that Oath prescribed by the Statute of 18. E. 3. Before they enter upon the execution of their places So that Albeit it be the Letters Pattents which makes him a Judge yet without this ceremony of first swearing him to be faithful to his trust c. He cannot take upon him the execution of that Office The King is Fons Justitiae and as Kitchin sayes at first did justice to his people in his own person As Moses did in the time of the old Law until Jethro The King is Fons Justitiae Kitchin advised him to depute Judges under him for lesser matters to ease him ofso great a burthen Thus our Kings of England and Ireland of their Prerogative Royal have the The King have the sole nomination and appointment of his Judges sole denomination and appointment of their Judges Whose Offices being granted to them by Letters Pattents under the Great Seal Yet the Lord Chancellor delivers them to them and not before they have taken the Oaths of Judges as a Feoffment in Fee without livery and Seizin takes no effect So this Oath is as a Livery and Seizin to give them possession of their places A feoffment in fee without livery seizin takes no effect The Lord Chancellor may perform this office as he pleases yet most regularly 't is done in that Court where the party is made a Judge The Lord Chancellor sitting there in person and calling the party before him advertising him of the Kings favour and pleasure causes the Letters Pattents to be read then The manner how Judges ars ussually sworn gives him the Oath then admonisheth him concerning his trust how he ought to be faithful in that and how to carry himself then sets him in his seate and there leaves him My Lord Chancellor of England too is the prime Agent in making of Serjeants The Lord Chancellor of England a prime agent in making of Serjeants at Law at Law out of which the Judges there are still chosen by the King and there he cannot be a Judge that is not first a Serjeant Fortescue 120. Fortescue some times Lord Chancellor of England describes the manner of calling of Serjants in those daies The Lord chief Justice of the common Bench by the councel and assent of all the rest of the Judges have used to chose seven or eight of the discrÃ©etest persons that Fortescue de laudibus legum Angliae 117. have most profited in the study of the Laws to be called Serjeants presenting their names unto the Lord Chancellor in writing who by vertue of the Kings writ which he issueth he chargeth every of the persons elect to be before the King at a day by him assigned to take upon him the state and degrÃ©e of a Serjeant The manner of calling of Serjeants at Law under a penalty in the Writ mentioned at which day the Lord Chancellor swears them c and so invests them in their degrees of Serjeants And afterwards they are presented at the Common Bench bar unto the Judges in their Fortescue supra 120. Brook 1. par R. 84 party coloured robes Where they are admitted to plead and none but Serjeants Thus the Lord Chancellor hath the sole power by antient usage and custom which is the Law of the land investing every Serjeant and every Judge in taking The Lord Chancellors have the power of order in these cases their degrees and places According to their Seniorities as they are in their degrees one before another Neither in any Country in the world is there any special degree given in the Laws of the same lands but only in the Realme of England Then my Lord Chancellor having made this saving in the Case to preserve Fortescue 120. my right of Precedency I shall in the next place indeavour to proove that it is No degrees given in the law of the same land but in England â—aliâ— and of force to preserve it to me A Saving is the preserving of a right from being lost by an act which otherwise would destroy it And therefore Savings are most frequent in Acts of Parliament to preserve mens rights that they be not lost Which to pass without a Saving were A Saving what it is otherwise extinguished Several kinds of rights Cook 1. Instit 345. Now there are several kinds of Right As. 1 Jus recuperandi 2 Jus intrandi 3 Jus habendi 4 Jus retinendi 5 Jus percipiendi 6 Jus possedendi So that this worâ—â— Right is of a large extent and in a Saving doth include Plow Com. 487. b. 488. a. every one of these Rights And more And as it is said in that Case that it stands with reason and justice that that Right shouldbe alwaies preserved to him to whom it doth belong And therefore this word Saving saith Plowden extendeth to preserve unto a man everything that is his It is a general word and shall in the Saving be extended to that thing which a man pretends right unto or in which he hath an estate Thus in Fiâ—eâ— the right of the Land includeth and passeth the state of the Land Cooks Instit 1. 345. esse jus Stat. West 2. 3. jus summum As cognovâ—t tenementum Praed esse Jus ipsins B. And so in the Statute of West 2. ca. 3. The Statute saith defendere Jus suum which is Statum suum Then the Case of my Lord Dyer concerning the Deanary of the Cathedral Dyer 10. Eliz. 273. Church of Wells which was first surrendred and afterwards extinct by Act Parliament Saving to all strangers their rights c. and this adjudged a preserving of all the rights of strangers whatsoever that had any estates made them by the Deane or Chapter before Then in Pophams Reports Pophams Rep. 16. there is a Case to this effect viz. The Town of Gloster made a County with a Saving that the Justices c. may sit there That King R. 3. by his Letters Pattents doth grant to the Burgesses of Gloster and unto their successors that the Town of Gloster shall be a County of it self several and distinct from the County of Gloster Saving to the King His Heirs and Successors that the Justices of Assize and Gaol Delivery and Justices of the Peace of the said County may at all times enter into the said Town and hold and kÃ©ep the Assizes and Sessions there for the said county And it was adjudged by all the Justices that this was a good saving whereby the Judges of Assizes and Justices of the Peace might enter into the Town and kÃ©ep the Assizes and Sessions there for the County at large For as the King by his Letters Patents may make a County and except this from any County so in the making of it he may except and save to himself what part of the jurisdiction and priviledge

THE CASE BETWEEN Sir Jerom Alexander Knight second Justice of His Majesties Court of Common Pleas in Ireland And Sir William Ashton Knight second Justice of His Majesties Court of Kings Bench in Ireland CONCERNING PRECEDENCY THE CASE as Sir William Ashton puts it is viz. Sir William Ashton hath a Letter from his Majesty to the Lords Justices Letter dated 3. Novemb. 1660. of Ireland to pass Letters Patents under the great Seal to make him second Justice of the Kings Bench there Dated the 3 Novem. 1660. Sir Jerom Alexander hath a like Letter to make him second Justice of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland Dated 30 Novemb. 1660. Several Letters Pattents pass to each accordingly both Dated the 19 of Letter dated 30. Novemb. 1660. January 1660. Both Letters Pattents are presented to the Lord Chancellor at the same time Both Letters Patents dated 30. Jan. 1660. both being in place Sir Jerom Alexander demands Precedency and to be first sworn as Antient to Sir William Ashton in the Inns of Court in England and an utter Barrester before him Sir William Ashton demands Precedency and to be first sworn as he was made second Justice of the Court of Kings Bench as having a Precedency before the Court of Common Pleas and as his Letter from the King was of a prior date The Lord Chancellor inquires of the Officers of the Courts then attending his Lordship what the practise therein had formerly been and being informed by them Mr. Patrick Tallant one of whom was the most eminent Attorney in the Court of Common Pleas that the Precedency had alwaies been given formerly to the second Justice of the Kings Bench. Thereupon ordered Sir William Ashton to be first sworn with a salvo Jure to Sir Jerom Alexander if any he had The first question is to whom the right of Precedency belonged at first To Sir Jerom Alexander as antient to Sir William Ashton in the Inns of Court or to Sir William Ashton either in respect of being second Justice of the Kings Bench or as having his Majesties Letter of a Prior date The second question is whether Sir William Ashton being de facto first sworn ought not to have the Precedency as Senior Judge notwithstanding the Salvo Jure to Sir Jerom Alexander WILLIAM ASHTON The Argument for Precedency by Sir Jerom Alexander First I shall agree it to be the Case in all things but in this one thing only which is matter of Fact and resteth in Proof And I do affirm that it was not all the Officers of the Courts there present that did affirm that the Precedency had alwaies bÃ©en formerly given to the second See Mr. Tallants testimony under his hand of the 20 of Decem. 1661. in haec verba When the Right Honorable the Lord Chancelor demanded of me who should be first sworn Sir Jer. Alexander or Sir William Ashton I repaired down the stairs to enquire of those whom I conceived better to give an account of that matter then myself And meeting below the stairs with Coll. William Knight I put the question unto him Who answered me that the second Judge of the Kings Bench was alwaies sworn before the second Judge of the Common Pleas. And thereupon I came up again and informed his Lordship the same Pa. Tallant Justice of the Kings Bench nor is it so but the contrary But my Lord Chancellor directed Mr. Tallant who is that Eminent officer of the Court of Common Pleas mentioned by Sir William Ashton in the draught of his Case to inquire how the practise had formerly bÃ©en And he mÃ©eting with one Collonel Knight inquired of him who told him so and upon that single discourse with Collonel Knight without any conference had with any other of the Officers there present and without any knowledge that he had thereof himself Mr. Tallant returns my Lord Chancellor that answer And thereupon my Lord swears Sir William Ashton first with a Salvo Jure to me Now albeit this makes nothing for Sir William Ashton in the Case When I shall make the contrary to appear Yet I cannot admit of it because it is not the truth And therefore if my Lord Chancellor shall not upon hearing what we can say for ourselves be pleased to determine the difference but shall think fit to transmit it for England I shall humbly desire those words may be left out and the Ease made no otherwise then as it was and that Mr. Tallant may be called to declare his testimony to this relation in the Case But if in the Course of my Argument I make the contrary to appear all that allegation of Sir William Ashtons will be out of doors and fall of itself without any more ado So I shall proceed to argue the points of his Case And shall begin to argue his second point first as most material For if the Salvo Jure to me shall operate nothing we are at an end The first point will never come in question For if Sir William Ashton being de facto first sworn therefore ought to have the Precedency as Senior Judge Notwithstanding the Salvo Jure to me Then the controversie is at an end Therefore I shall indeavour in the first place to probe that this Salvo Jure doth sÃ©eme to me my right of Precedency Notwithstanding that de facto Sir William Ashton was first sworn As this Case is And howsoever Sir William Ashton have made this a question in the Case Yet I presume he is so much a Gentleman and so conscientions of his waies that if he shall be satisfied that the right of Precedency did belong to me to be first sworn as we stood unsworn that he will not take advantage of his own wrong and kÃ©ep that right from me which he should so gain by a false suggestion But I doubt not but to make it clearly to appear 1 First that the Salvo Jure in the Case have secured unto me what right of Precedency I had to be first sworn as we stood unsworn 2 Secondly That the right of Precedency to be first sworn did properly belong to me as we stood unsworn Notwithstanding his being made second Judge of the Kings Bench And notwithstanding the Prior date of his letter My Lord Chancellor the proper Judge of this controversie And first I conceive that Sir William Ashton will not deny but that my Lord Chancellor is the proper Judge of this controversie and so have power of doing right unto us both This is so undeniable a truth as it nÃ©eds no other proof but aconstant usage and custom as through all England so throughout all Ireland which is the Common Law For those customs and usages which are used and accostomed Per totam Angliam per totam Hiberniam are the Common Laws of England and Ireland Then the usual practise and course in these Cases have bÃ©en That the Lords The Judges Oath settled by the Stat. of 18. E. 3. Chancellors of

Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Text snippets containing the quad