and yet ' t is there in the power of the Ancestor by good Pleading to have supported the Patent and by bad pleading to destroy it and therefore when the Foundation which is the Patent fails the Honour and whatever it be that is erected upon it shall fail also Every Estate by the consent of all Persons interested and concerned in the thing may be taken away for the Law is so set against Perpetuities that a Clause intimating it is void and tho' an Honour is not Jones Rep. 109 123. assignable yet it may be extinguished It 's true if a Man hath but a part of an Estate as only an Estate for Life he can't alone pass away the whole Estate but none who hath the Inheritance in Tail or in Fee but he may destroy the whole and tho' any one have but part yet by the concurrence of all that are concerned the whole may be destroyed It is admitted if he commit Treason and is attainted thereof he loseth the Honour for himself and his Posterity now 't was in his power to do this act overt and if by an act unlawful he hath power to defeat the descent of the Intail upon his Issue there is the same reason that by a lawful act he should part with it there are two Acts of Parliament in force which fortifie the Fine it must be granted that those Honours are within the Statute de Donis and then there can be no reason they should not be within the Statutes of Fines 4 Hen. 7. 34 H. 8. which say that Tenant in Tail may levie a Fine of all things that are intailable within the Statute de Donis whatever therefore is within the one is within both and it is not sufficient to alledge that it is inconvenient that it should be within the Statute of Fines for there is an Act of Parliament and without an Act of Parliament to exempt it it can't be exempted It may be proved by great variety of Precedents to have been the practise in former times anciently nothing more frequent than to release Hoours See Selden's Titles of Honours 730. it was as frequent as to grant them In latter times Delaval's Case 11 Rep. 1. it hath been the Judgment of the Lords that Honours may be extinguished which in 1668. was certified by all the King's Counsel Learned in the Law to be good Authority But to go a little higher Andrew Gifford Baron Pomfret in Fee 4 Hen. 3. Rot. 100. surrendred to the King so 23 Hen. 3. Simon Mountford Esq Earl of Leicester having a Mind to take an Honour from his eldest Son and confer it upon his younger and so it was surrendred and regranted accordingly Selden seems to construe this to be by way of Transmission and not Surrender yet others of later Authority as Cambden's Britan. Title Earl of Leicester say expresly that he did Surrender it and Selden himself says it was by Concurrence of the King King Hen. 3. Rot. Cr. 24. men E. 1. created one Earl of Richmond and he surrendred to the King Cambden's Brit. Title Earl of Richmond Roger de Bigod surrendred not only the Office of Earl Marshal but also the Earldom of Norfolk William Duke of Juliers whose Father came in with Edw. 3. was created Earl of Cambridge 40 Edw. 3. m. 21. in Fee his Son surrenders to the King which Record we have here So Edward the Third made his Son John of Gaunt See Cambden's ubi supra Earl of Richmond who surrendred it to the King And lastly in the Years 1639 1679. Roger Stafford whom the King intended to make a Viscount by the Advice of the Learned Men levied a Fine thereof by which 't is now enjoy'd Lastly he argued ab inconvenienti for no Lord in the House will be in safety if it should be other ways there being many sitting in this House by virtue of Surrenders from other Lords in former days and perhaps some of their Heirs are alive and so if these Surrenders be adjudged invalid it would shake your Lordships own Possessions and make it dubitable whether Forreigners and Persons unknown may not come and thrust them out but if not so it may cause Confusion amongst themselves their former Honours having been surrendred to accept of others and perhaps some not thinking their Titles secure will stick to the former and so occasion Dispute and Confusion about Precedency and lastly it will put a great Disgrace upon your Ancestors proceedings who deemed this Course legal and those must show very good Precedents that it hath been disavowed if they will encounter such constant Practises In the next place 't was answered to their Arguments and Objections and as for that first Argument That an Honour is inherent in the Blood he answered That this Inherency in the Blood is not essential to Honours for an Honour may be created for Life and then none of the Posterity or Blood of the Peer is thereby enobled It may be limited to the Heirs Males of the Body so that an Honour may touch and enter far into the Blood and yet not run with it and farther it may be limited to the Heirs by such a Wife there the Issue by the second Venter shall never inherit the Dignity and yet is as near to the Father as those that are by the first so that 't is no true ground that they go upon that Nobility is inherent in the Blood and for what was alledged as to the Inconveniency of Surrendering Dignities he answered That there may be necessary Reasons for the extinguishment of an Honour and it may be for the benefit and advantage of the Party and his Posterity as if it do happen that the Family do fall into Poverty and be not able to support the Honour of Peerage with decency and so this Honour would perhaps be a Disgrace to the rest of the Lords and in a Child's Case it may happen to a Noble Family to have those Afflictions that to continue the Honour would expose the Family to Infamy and therefore some times to prevent the Son of Adultery from his succeeding to the Dignity it may be convenient to surrender it and yet this cannot be without the concurrence of the Prince who being the Source of Honour can best judge of the Reasons for stopping the Stream and it cannot seem an harder Case to disinherit him of the Honour then of the Estate which he may do and if he leave his Honour without his Estate it will be a Burden on his Shoulders which he will be unable to bear and seeing it 's necessary that there be a concurrence of the Prince it is undecent to suppose so vile a thing of the Crown as to comply with the Peevishness and Simplicity of the Parents where there is no reason for it And as for what hath been alledged for the Invalitity of those Precedents that they were in Cases of New Creations and were in nature of Transmissions he answered That when an
contra ligeantie sue debitum and as to this it was argued That it was not necessary to use those very Words That they are not Terms of Art such as are absolutely necessary they are not like to the Words Burglariter Felonice Murdravit and the like That proditorie implies it that 't is plainly apparent to be contrary to his Allegiance That all the whole Indictment shews it to be so 't is not weighing his Allegiance 't is against his true natural Liege Lord and Sovereign That it appears he was a natural born Subject That the very Words themselves are only of Aggravation That they may as well be laid precedent to the Fact as in the Conclusion That here is that which is Tantamount That Sir Henry Vane's Indictment was thus Cotton and Messingers Sid. 328. The Scotch Officers in Suffolk Lamberts Hackshams Titchburns and many more That 't is true the Fact in the Indictment ought not to be made good by Intendment or Inference but if there be Words which shew that the Party owed Allegiance it s enough An alien Enemy is not indictable in this manner but here 't is shewn That he is a Person capable of committing Treason and that the Act done was against his Duty and Obedience which he owed as a Subject That many Precedents have been thus That nimia subtilitas in jure reprobatur That a Certainty to a common Intent is sufficient Longs case That in 2 Rolls abr 82. contra coron ' et dignitat ' suas is held not necessary wherefore and for other Reasons then urged 't was prayed That the Reversal might be reversed and the King restored c. On the other side it was argued That this Reversal was just That this Arraignment being Joint for want of separatim makes the Proceeding Erroneous That the Precedents do use the Word separatim and abundance of Entries were mentioned as Leach and Ruthford et al' 28 Hen. 8. Dudely Gates and Palmer 1 and 2 Phil. and Mar ' Throgmorton and Weddall 2 and 3 Ph. and M. Peckham and Daniel eodem Anno. Blunt and Danverse 44. Eliz. Earl of Ess and S. eodem Anno. Guy Fawks and Sir Everard Digby 3 Jac. 1. Harrison Scot and the other Regicides 12 Car. 2. 1660. Green Berry and Hill for the Murder of Sir E. Godfrey 1678. Ireland Pickering and Grove 31 Car. 2. rot ' 242. Whitebread Fenwick et al' 32 Car. 2. rot ' 224. Johnson et al' 2 Will. et Mar. num ' 57. and Lord Preston and Ashton Trin. 3 Will. et Mar. n. 16. separatim allocut ' and many more Besides the Nature of the thing is such as requires a several Arraignment because they may plead several Pleas and they are several Offences and tho' they plead in this Case severally that 's not enough for they ought to be askt severally But this was not so much insisted on as the next Error the Omission of secreta in the Judgment 't is part of the Judgment upon the 25 Edw. 3. for compassing c. tho' for coining 't is only to be drawn and hanged according to Morgan's Case Cro. Car. 383 Stamp 182. 3. Inst 15 17. Finch's Law lib. 2. cap. Treason they are all secreta membra abscindant ' as well as interiora all common Books have it as Bolton's Justice of the Peace tit Prefidents of Indictments for High Treason 38 42. Dalton's Justice p. 335. Sheppard's Epitome tit Crown and all those common Abridgments c. Lord Preston and Ashton's was drawn by good Advice Harrison and al' 12 Car. 2. Ireland Pickering and Grove 1678. Whitehread's 1679. Walcott's 1683. Langhorn's 31. Car. 2. Colonel Sidney's 1683. The Earl of Stafford's in 1680. was thus upon Debate and Consultation with all the Judges Dominus Rex versus Owen 1 Rolls Rep 185 186. there 't is mentioned But then it was chiefly insisted on That the Reversal was to be maintained for the Error in the Indictment that contra ligeantie sue debitum was the general Form that all the great Men in all Ages who had been of Counsel for the Crown had inserted it That all the Indictments the first Assizes after Monmouth's Rebellion which were drawn or perused by Sir H. Poll ' had this Conclusion That Ashtons Crosses Gaunts Cornishes Earl of Staffords Batemans Ayliffs Goodenoughs Hone Blague Rowse Armstrong Sir Robert Peyton Langhornes Lord Bellasis Venner Harrisons Faukes Sir Everard Digbyes Patricius Dolphie Pasch 41 Eliz. John Tipping 34 Eliz. are all thus and the Prints are so likewise 3 Inst 214. Fitzh Justiee pag. 218. Plowd 387. Coke's Entries 361. Cro. Car. 120 122 123. and a great number of Particulars more which might be cited Then 't was urged that Reason doth require this for that Treason is punishable as a Breach of Allegiance that that is the very Essence of Treason that if the Fact be not alledged to be against his Allegiance 't is not Treason that 't is by reason of his Allegiance that he can commit Treason and therefore 't is that an Alien Enemy who was never protected can't commit Treason because he owed no Allegiance and there may be many Acts done which look like a levying of War without any Breach of Allegiance and for that was quoted King John's Charter made at Rumney Mead 18 die Junii Anno Regni 17 Rot. Pat. 17. m. 13. a Transcript whereof is in Matthew Paris 245. Anno 1215. which Charter was ratified four times within nine years after The first Confirmation was granted 1 Hen. 3. and probably at his Coronation for there was a Charter dated at Glocester 6 Febr. Rot. Pat. 1 Hen. 3. m. 13. that they should enjoy Libertatibus Regno nostro Anglie a Patre nostro et nobis concessis In the second year of his Reign he sends a Mandate to the several Sheriffs to proclaim this Charter amongst others Rex c. Salutem Mittimus tibi Chartas de Libertatibus c. Mandantes quatenus eas legi facias in pleno comitatu tuo Dat' 22 Febr. Rot. Claus 2 Hen. 3. Then was cited Fox's Acts and Monuments ad Ann. 1218. That after Michaelmas this King held a Parliament at Westminster wherein he confirmed and ratified by his Charter all the Franchises and Liberties which were made and given by King John his Father In the seventh year of his Reign viz. the Sixteenth of his Age he took the Government into his own Hands and then the Archbishop of Canterbury in open Parliament doth mind him of the Oath sworn in his Name by the Earl of Pembroke Rectore Regis Regni and others at the Pacification between him and the Dauphin that he would restore and confirm those Liberties to his Subjects for which the War broke out between his Father and the Barons Then was quoted what Henry the Third promised when he invited Henry de Lucy to come in to him 1 Hen. 3. m. 16. which is in very strange language if his Allegiance had been broken Then was cited Sadler
Feodary and Officiary as Earl Marshal of England which have a Relation to an Office or Land for such are Transferrable over and such Dignities as are only Personal Inherent in the Blood and only favour quasi of the Reality of which no Fine can be levied as 't is of an Annuity to a Man and his Heirs no Fine can be levied 2. A Dignity was neither subject to a Condition at the Common Law nor intailable by the Statute de Donis c. nor barrable by the Statute of Fines Indeed in Nevil's Case something which favours of the contrary Opinion is said but the Question there was Whether 't was forfeitable by Treason And therefore the present Question is very forreign to the Matter there debated A Dignity differs from other Inheritances being an Honour Personal affixed to the Blood cannot be forfeited by a Non-performance of a Condition except that Tacite Condition in Law and consequently cannot be intailed and tho' the Title of a Viscount be of a Place yet it is only Titular for it is often taken from the Sirnames of Families 3. The Title of Viscount c. is not so much a private Interest as a publick Right for Peers are born Counsellors of State and one part of a Senatory Body and therefore cannot be renounced without the Consent of all those who have interest in it they cannot without the Consent of the whole Body whereof they are so considerable Members cut themselves off from the Body and so the Objection of quilibet potest Juri suo renuntiare is easily answered 'T was further argued on the same side That 1. An Honour goes not according to the Rules of the Common Law nor is it governable by them it is not therefore pertinent to argue from those Rules which hold in Cases of other Inheritances for a Dignity descends to the Half-blood there is no Coparcinership of it but the Eldest takes the whole a Fee-simple will go to a Noble-man without the word Heirs 1 Inst 27. It differs from Estates in Land in the Intrinsick Matter as well as the Manner of the Limitation because it is given for two Reasons for Counsel and Defence and it is a Civil Interest appointed by the Civil Constitution of the Realm which goes with the Blood and is inherent in the Blood insomuch that it is agreed on all hands that it can't be transferred to a Stranger and till Nevil's Case 't was doubted whether forfeitable for Treason if a Lord die his Son shall be introduc'd without the Ceremony usual at the first Creation a Peer's eldest Son and all Minors sit behind the Chair of State to prepare them for the Sitting in the House as Members and because they have some Title to the Honour they are called Nobiles Nati for the first time they fetch breath they have Nobility in them So that he that Surrenders by Fine must not only extinguish his Estate in the Honour but also the Nobility of his Blood 2. Every Lord is not only a Lord for himself but also hath a Right of Peerage and is a Peer of the Realm and therefore a Peer for every one of the House and therefore hath the Priviledge to demand his Writ Ex debito Justitiae and is to be tried by his Peers in Capital Crimes and that appears farther from a Matter which happened in this House 16 Car. 2. There was an Order mentioning the Bishops to be Lords of Parliament not Peers at which the Lords wondering ordered a Committee to examine the reason of it which proves that Lord is not so high nor inclusive as Peers So that if the Fine have any Operation it takes away not only his Right but also the Right of the House of Lords 3. The trial of Baron or no Baron upon Issue in any Court of Judicature is by the Records of Parliament but if a Fine may be levied in the Common Pleas the Trial is drawn ad aliud Examen and must then be by the Records of that Court The Clerk of the Parliament always certifies if he be a Baron because he hath the Record before him but he cannot certifie he is no Baron because he hath not the Record thereof before him 4. No Fine can be levied of a thing Personal as an Annuity to a Man and his Heirs but a Dignity is a thing Personal and so he took notice of the difference betwixt the Honours of Peerage which are Personal and the Honours that are Feodary and Officiary which have reference to an Office or Land 5. He did argue ab inconvenienti that this Opinion can be no Inconveniency to the Crown but the contrary makes Nobility a meer Pageantry by putting it into the Hands of a weak and angry Father to dispossess an hopeful Son of that which is his Birth-right The Titles of Esquire and Gentleman are drowned in the greater Dignity of that of a Peer and when the greater are gone the other must go with it And then from being a Nobleman to day he and the rest of his Family must be below all Nobility and be called Yeomen or Goodman Villers to morrow which may bring great Confusion to a Noble Family and all its Relatives and surely this House will not put such a publick Disrespect on such a Family by agreeing to so unjust an act of one Man And that which was most relied upon was a Resolution of this House in Stafford's Case Anno 1640. which no Man without Indecency can question it passed not sub silentio or obiter but upon debate neither could it be any way invalid upon account of the Times for it was in the Infancy of that Parliament and that wherein a Peer's Case who sits now in this House was judicially before them and therefore there is no reason to shake that Judgment more than any other Judgment of that time My Lord Cooke in his 4 Inst Chapt. of Ireland is of Opinion that Honours cannot be extinguished but by Act of Parliament Then as to the Precedents that have been urg'd on the other side there are none directly to the Point for as to Nevil's Case there are very few Cases cited there aright and are not to be look'd upon as Law The Case of my Lord of Northumberland in 3 4 Phil. Mar. was by way of Creation and so was the Case of Dudley And Dugdale in his Baronage of England pag. 270. gives an account of it and the rest of the Precedents are above Two hundred years old which passed sub silentio and are not to be vouched unless they were disputed The first is Bigod's who in the time of Edw. 1. surrendred the Honour of Earl-Marshal of England to the King who granted it to him in Tail This Honour is Officiary and therefore nothing to the purpose and the Surrender was made thro' fear Walsingham 95. The next is the Earl of Pembroke's Case who in 8 Edw. 4. was made Earl in Tail and by this he had the
Court. If such Bill be tendred and the Exceptions in it are truly stated then the Judges ought to set their Seal in testimony that such Exceptions were taken at the Trial But if the Bill contain Matters false or untruly stated or Matters wherein they were not over-ruled then they are not obliged to affix the Seal for that would be to command them to attest a falsity a Bill is not to draw the whole Matter into Examination again 't is only for a single point and the truth of it can never be doubted after the Bill is sealed for the adverse Party is concluded from averring the contrary or supplying an Omission in it This Bill was without Foundation the Plaintiff was not over-ruled in any one Point of Law 'T is true the Counsel desired the Opinion of the Court after all the Defendant's Evidence had been heard concerning their Record and the Judges did declare that they thought it did not extend to the Office in question but to the Clerk of the Crown who is the chief Clerk in Court and hath precedency and the Grant of that Office by the King both before and since that supposed Act proves that to be meant and not the Office in question which hath always been granted by the Chief Justice and this was afterwards left to the Jury Here was no cause for a Bill of Exceptions the Judges at the Counsels desire gave their Opinion upon the thing but did not over-rule them for that the Act being repealed could make no Point of Law but only be Evidence for the Jury to consider Besides this Act tho' repealed is inserted in the Bill as an Act in force And if an Act be set out and no repeal appears it must be understood to be in force and if the Bill had been sealed it must have been taken as in force and the Defendants could not here upon the Writ of Error have shewn the repeal which was in the 17 Edw. 3. and appeared so upon the Evidence from whence 't was inferred That this Bill was too artificial If any point of Law had arisen upon the whole Evidence and a particular point there was none the whole ought to have been inserted in the Bill or at least all that which concerned that Matter If this should be allowed 't would be in the power of any Counsel to destroy any Verdict as in case of a Title by Descent from Father to Son and a Will of the Father had been produced and proved at the Trial and a Bill had been sealed only shewing the Seisin and Descent the Son must prevail tho' he had no Title This is enough to shew that the Judges are not obliged nay are obliged not to Seal this Bill Then it was argued That the present Complaint is beneath the Honour and besides the Jurisdiction of the House of Peers that this was a Complaint of a Default in the Judges which cannot be tried in this place that MagnaCharta was made for them as well as for others that if they offend against any Rule of the Common Law or particular Statute whether in their Personal behaviour or as Judges they are triable only by their Peers that Peers are only such qui pari conditione lege vivunt that the Crown and Constitution of England had so far exalted their Lordships in their State and Condition that 't is beneath them to judge or try Commoners that all Powers and Priviledges in this Kingdom even the highest are circumscrib'd by the Law and have their limits That this is a Complaint of a great Crime in the Judges a Breach of their Oaths and with the insinuation of Partiality to one of themselves which if true incurs loss of their Offices and Forfeiture of their Estates by Fine and of their Liberty by Imprisonment and all this to the King besides Damages to the Party grieved and therefore it concerns them to have the benefit of the Law That this comes not regularly into the House 't is not any matter of Advice to the King nor of Priviledge nor of Contempt to this Court because the Matter complained of was before any Judgment below or any Jurisdiction could be attached here by pretence of the Writ of Error 'T is brought hither by way of Complaint for a supposed Miscarriage in Westminster-hall in a private Cause between Bridgman and Holt two Commoners It presumes the Lords to be proper Judges in the first Instance for the hearing and punishing of all Offences committed by the Judges and that in a Summary way upon a Petition and without that due Process of Law which is established under our Government Either this Refusal is punishable or not If not the Petition ought to be rejected If it be 't is either by the Common Law or by Act of Parliament but neither do warrant this Practise of Petitioning and the old Law is that which past Ages have approved and that by which Justice is to be administred and whatsoever is done by way of Judgment in a different manner than the Law allows is against that Law The proceeding in this manner is against the Consent of the Respondents for they have Pleaded to the Jurisdiction of this House as to this matter c. and therefore it differs from all Cases where the Parties concerned have Answered the Complaint and thereby submitted the same to an Examination and this will prevent the force of many presidents which may be Cited on this occasion Some Persons perhaps have from a confidence of Success or from a slavish Fear or private Policy forborn to Question the Power of their Superiors but the Judges must betray their Reputation and their Knowledge of the Laws if they should own a Jurisdiction which former times and their Predecessors were unacquainted with 'T is necessary to answer the pretence of a failure of Justice in case this method be Rejected and therefore it must be observed That our Law knows nothing of extraordinary means to redress a Mischief but that upon a defect of ordinary ones recourse is to be had to the Legislature and to that only either to explain and correct in reference to things past or to provide remedies for the future But here is a common easie means of relief if there had been occasion By the Statute of Westminster 2 cap. 31. In case the Judge refuses then a Writ to Command him which is to issue out of Chancery quod apponat sigillum suum and then a Writ to own or deny his Seal By 2 Inst 426. the party grieved by the denial may have a Writ upon the Statute Commanding the same to be done juxta formam Statuti Reg. 182. Fitch Natura brevium 21. and 11 Hen. 4.51 62 63. there 's the form of the Writ set out at large It recites a surmise of an Exception taken and over-ruled and it follows vobis precipimus quod si ita est tunc sigilla vestra apponatis Si ita 't is conditional if the Bill
be affirmed and it was affirmed Sir Edward Hungerford and John Hill Executors and Devisees of Sir William Basset deceased Plaintiffs versus Edward Nosworthy Defendant WRit of Error to Reverse a Judgment in B. R. upon a Special Verdict in Ejectment by Hitchins the Lessee of Nosworthy against Sir William Basset Defendant for the Mannor of Lanrock and other Lands in Cornwall wherein upon Not Guilty pleaded and a Trial at Bar the Jury find That Sir Henry Killegrew was seized in Fee of the Lands in question and on the 12th of November 1644. made his Will in writing which follows in these words I Henry Killegrew c. and so they set forth the Will whereby Sir Henry Killegrew devised the Premisses to Mrs. Jane Berkley his near Kinswoman for Life with Remainder over to Henry Killegrew alias Hill Sir Henry's Natural Son in Tail and makes Mrs. Berkley sole Executrix They further find that after the making of that Testament and before the time when c. viz. about the Feast of St. Michael in the Year 1645. Condidit fecit aliud Testamentum in scriptis sed quid fuit content ' in eodem ult ' mentionat ' Testamento vel quale fuit purportum sive effectus inde juratoribus praed ' non constat And that Sir Henry on the 29th of September 1646. died seized of the said Lands that Mrs. Jane Barkley Devisee of the said Will in 1644. by Lease and Release conveyed to Mr. Nosworthy's Father and that the Father died in 1684. that Mr. Nosworthy is Son and Heir to him that Sir William Basset is Cosin and Heir to Sir Henry viz. Son and Heir of Elizabeth Basset Daughter and Heir of Sir Joseph Killegrew elder Brother of Sir Henry the Testator that Nosworthy the Lessor of the Plaintiff entred and made the Lease in the Declaration c. But upon the whole Matter whether the Said Testament made in writing 1645. was a Revocation in Law of the said Devise of the said Lands to Mrs. Berkley they are ignorant and pray the Judgment of the Court Et si And upon this Judgment was given for the Plaintiff in the Ejectment And now it was argued That the Judgment was Erroneous that this last Will could not be taken to be a duplicate of the former but must be deemed a Revocation that no Will is good but the last that every Will is revokable till death that the making of another doth import a Revocation of all former ones tho' it be not so expresly declared in writing for it must be the last or nothing that this Conveyance by Will was anciently a Priviledge by the Civil Law for People in Extremis who had not the time or assistance necessary to make a formal Alienation and chiefly intended for Military Men who were always supposed to be under those Circumstances and therefore the Ceremonies and number of Witnesses required of others were dispensed with as to Soldiers but now the Rules for Military Testaments as they are called are allowed in most Cases that as to Lands by our Law was a Priviledge only given to some Boroughs and Places within the Kingdom and particular Custom gave the liberty of disposing Lands or Houses by Will and that by nuncupative Will or Parol without writing so is Bracton lib. 4. fol. 272. Fleta lib. 5. cap. 5. Potest legari catallum tam hereditas quam perquisitum per Barones London Burgenses Oxon 1 Inst 111. that then came the Statute of Hen. 8. and impowers a Devise by a Man's last Will and Testament in writing but still 't is by his last Will. And so is Littleton sect 168. If divers Wills the latter shall stand and the others are void 1 Inst 112. In truth 't is plain Law the first Grant and the last Testament In Swinb 1 part sect 5. p. 14. no Man can die with two Wills but he may with divers Codicils and the latter doth not hinder the former so long as they be not contrary Another difference there is between Wills and Codicils If two Testaments be found and it can't be known which is first or last both are void but the latter countermands the first tho' there be a Clause in the first that it shall not be revoked and tho' an Oath were taken not to revoke because the Law is so that the very making of a latter doth revoke the former So is Liuwood's Provincial ' de Testamentis Justice Dodderidge's Office of Executor published by Wentworth 29. A verbal Will revokes a former written Will Forse and Hembling 4 Rep. 60 61. Plowd 541. Perkins sect 178 179. and sect 478. The 2 Hen. 5.8 is full to this purpose There 's an Action by an Executor against two Executors and they plead a Testament whereby they are made Executors and the Plaintiff replys that he afterwards made another and himself Executor and held that by the second the first became void Now the meaning of these Books cannot be that a Will expresly revoking is the only Will that can make a Revocation nor is it that a Contrariety or Repugnance between the one and the other is necessary to make a Revocation for tho' there be no new Will made yet a Revocation may be by word of Mouth as 2 Cro. 49.115 1 Cro. 51.3 Cro. 781. nay a void Bequest shall revoke a Will so shall a Deed that hath no effect as Feoffment without livery a Devise to J.S. or to a Corporation when there is no such will do it so that 't is not the Contradiction between the disposal which revokes for that which is no disposition at all will do it wherefore the meaning of the Authors cited is somewhat else and it can only be this That there is somewhat particular in a Will to that Instrument of Conveyance more than to any other that even the making of a new Will is a sufficient Revocation the words are plain by the making a new Will the former are all destroyed for there can be but one last And when a Man makes and declares a new Will that new Will must be presumed to contain his whole Mind concerning the disposition of his Estate declaring his Will imports thus much and excludes all other When a Man would alter part of his Will there 's a proper Instrument for it called a Codicil which is known in the Law as well as that of a Will here 's nothing found of a reference to the former to judge it otherwise would confound the use of Wills and Codicils and the difference between them 'T is true that a Man may make partial Wills of several parts of his Estate and all may stand together but then they must be declared to be Wills concerning particular things and they are but several pieces of the same Will tho' written in different Papers but then in pleading one of them you must not generally say he made ult ' voluntatem but ultimam voluntat ' of such a thing but here 't
afterwards the 20 Aug. 25 Car. 2. he being so seized did Make Seal and as his Deed deliver a certain Writing purporting a Surrender of the said Lands to the said Sir Simon Leach which Writing was prout c. Then they find that the said Simon Leach the Brother non fuit compes mentis sue tempore confectionis sigillationis deliberationis scripti illius c. That afterwards viz. 10 Nov. 25 Car. 2. the said Simon the Brother had Issue of his Body on the Body of the said Anne his Wife Charles Leach that the said Simon died and Charles Leach the Lessor of the Plaintiff is eldest Son and Heir of the said Simon c. Et si videbitur Cur ' quod c. Upon this Verdict there was Judgment for the Plaintiff And now it was argued That the said Judgment was Erroneous and said that in the Case there were two Queries 1. If this were a good Surrender there being no Acceptance or Agreement by Sir Simon before the Birth of the first Son Charles But this was not insisted on before and therefore waived here the same having been adjudged by the Lords to be a good Surrender even to an Infant without Acceptance in another Action between the same Parties which you may see reported in 2 Ventris 198 208. Then it was argued on the second Query That the Lessor of the Plaintiff in the Ejectment being a Remainder Man in Tail cannot take any Advantage of his Father's Lunacy That in this Case he could claim no Title as Heir at Law to his Father or Uncle because of the intermediate Remainder to the Defendant in Tail so that quoad this Estate he is as a meer Stranger and not as Heir and tho' he were able to avoid it by Writ or the like yet it being once good the particular Estate of Simon the Father of Charles was determined before the Contingent Remainder to the first Son could take place and consequently it can never after revive Then the Question is Whether this Surrender by a Non compos being an act done by himself and not by Attorney be void or only voidable There 's no express Case that a Surrender by one who is Non compos to him in Remainder is void Perhaps 't will be said as it hath been That the Acts of a Madman are meer Nullities by all Laws in the World But to this 't is an Answer That the Laws of England have made good and honest Provisions for them so as to avoid their Acts for the Benefit of the Party of the King and of the Heir But it was repeated that this was a Contingent Remainder and if it could not vest when the particular Estate did determine whether by Death or Surrender it never could vest at all for a future Right to defeat the Surrender as Heir cannot support such a Contingency a present right of Entry would but if no such present right the Remainder is gone for ever and here was no such in Charles If Tenant for Life make a Feoffment with condition of Re-entry the Contingent Remainder shall never arise again tho' the Condition be broken and a Re-entry were made So is the Case of Purefoy versus Rogers 2 Saund. 380. Wigg versus Villers 2 Rolls Abridg. 796. and then Charles cannot avoid this Deed for the avoiding of a Deed is to take somewhat out of the way in order to the revesting of somewhat but here was nothing to work upon for if the Surrender were good for a Moment the particular Estate for Life was once gone and consequently for ever and this must hold unless the Act were totally void Then 't was argued That during the Life of the Party 't was only voidable for the King by Office no Man can Stultifie himself and so is the great Resolution in Beverly's Case 4 Rep. and 1 Inst 247. and Whittingham's Case 8 Rep. and if it be not void as to himself it cannot be void as to others And tho' Fitzh in his N. B. says that he himself may have a dum non fuit compos that is not agreeable to the received Law for Beverly's Case was never shaken till now and Fitzh supposes it only voidable by saying that Writ doth lye There is also a Reason for this Rule of Law that a Man shall not disable himself by pretence of Distraction because if the Pretence were true he had no memory and consequently could not know or remember that he did such an Act and therefore 't is as it were impossible for him to be able to say that he was so distracted when he did it 't is for him to say what 't is not possible for him to know But they would compare this to the Case of an Infant yet even there all his Acts are not void his Bond is only avoidable he cannot plead that 't is not his Deed 'T is true that Acts apparently to his prejudice cannot be good as 1 Cro. 502. Suppose a Non compos Signs Seals and Delivers such a Deed and after recovers his Senses and agrees to it would not this be a good Surrender from the first Perkins sect 23. 1 Inst 2. and if it can be made good by a subsequent Agreement 't was not totally void and if not totally void 't is with the Plaintiff in Error The Law besides is very tender in case of Freeholds to make Conveyances void by bare Averments and this would be of dangerous Consequence if when there was no Inquisition or Commission of Lunacy during Life that thirty or forty years after a Conveyance it should be in the power of a Stranger to say that the Vendor was mad 't will make Purchasors unsafe Acts solemnly done ought to have a solemn Avoidance The 1 Hen. 5. cap. 5. Fine to be void 't is void as a Bar but yet it makes a Discontinuance and must be solemnly avoided Lincoln Colledge Case 3 Rep. Stroud and Marshal 3 Cro. 398. Dett sur Oblig ' The Defendant pleads that at the time he was of non sane memory and on demurrer adjudged no Plea and the Opinion of Fitzh held not to be Law And 3 Cro. 622. 50 Assis 2. Fitzh Issue 53. a Release by a Non compos which is much the same with a Surrender only one works upwards and the other downwards and after Recovery the Party agrees to it the same is binding 39 Hen. 6.42 and 49 Edw. 3.13 Then was mentioned the Provision of the Law in these Cases besides the Care of the Court of Chancery which protects the weak and unwary by Rules of Equity There 's a Writ de Ideota Inquirend ' and the express direction of the Writ is to enquire quas terras alienavit which shews that 't is not void The Statute of Prerogativa Regis is express Authority for it the Reason given is that such Persons Lands should not be aliened to their hurt or the King 's It must be agreed that before Office found the King cannot avoid