haberi decrevit and then he adjourns 't is no Argument to say that he was hindred for he might have proceeded in absentia and if the 16th of June be tacked to it 't is longer than the time There needed no formal adjournment for that he is Authorized to proceed in a Summary way 't is no such absurdity to call that a Visitation which was in some sort hindred since notwithstanding the obstruction some Acts were done and more might have been by adjourning to another place 3. Here was no such cause as could warrant a Deprivation it was not one of the causes mentioned in the Statutes which are not directions merely but they are the constituent Qualifications of the Power and Contumacy is none of the causes nay here is no Contumacy at all The Offence of the Suspended Fellows was only a mistake in their Opinions and the Doctors was no more and 't is not a Contumacy for refusing to answer to or for any Crime within the Statutes for there was none of the Crimes mentioned in the Statutes laid to the charge of the Rector if the Crime charged had incurred Deprivation perhaps a Contumacy might be Evidence of a Guilt of that Crime and so deserve the same Censure but Contumacy in not consenting to a Visitation can never be such especially when the consenting to a Visitation is not required under pain of Deprivation 4. Admitting the Visitor legally in the Exercise of his Office that here was cause of Censure that the Cause or Crime was deserving of that Punishment which was inflicted that Deprivation was a congruous Penalty for such an Offence yet t was argued That this Sentence was void for that the Visitor alone was in this Case minus competens judex because his Authority was particularly designed to be exercised with the consent of others which was wanting in this Case This was the same as if it had required the concurrence of some other Persons Extra Colleg ' then that such a concurrence was necessary appears from the words of the Statute his meaning seems plain upon the whole to require it A greater tenderness is all along shewn to the Rector then to the Scholars 't is sine quorum consensu irrita erit hujusmodi Expulsio vacua ipso facto and the Sentence it self shews it necessary because it affirms it self to be made with such consent and it cannot be thought that the Rector should be deprivable without their consent when the meanest Scholar could not Then here 's no such consent for 't is not of the four Seniors but of the four Seniors not Suspended now this doth not fulfil the Command of the Statute for the Suspension doth not make them to be no Fellows a Suspended Fellow is a Fellow though Suspended a Suspension makes no vacancy the taking off of the Suspension by Sentence or by Effluxion of time doth make them capable of acting still without the aid of any new Election and they are in upon their old choice and have all the priviledges of Seniority and Precedency as before If they ceased to be Fellows by the Suspension then they ought to undergo the Annum probationis again and to take the Oaths again In case of Benefices or Offices Religious or Civil Ecclesiastical or Temporal 't is so a Suspension in this Case is only a disabling them from taking the Profits during the time it continues And 't is no Argument to say That their Concurrence was not necessary for that they had withdrawn themselves and were guilty of Contumacy for that a Man guilty of Contumacy might be present if withdrawn from the Chapel he might be in the Colledge or in the University and 't is not found that they were absent and then their Consent not being had the Sentence was void and null and consequently no Title found for the Lessor of the Plaintiff in the Action below It was replied in behalf of the Plaintiff much to the same effect as 't was argued before and great weight laid upon the Contumacy which hindred the observance of the Statutes that by allowing such a Behaviour in a Colledge no Will of the Founder could be fulfilled no Visitation could ever be had and all the Statutes would be repealed or made void at once that tho' this Crime was not mentioned 't was as great or greater than any of the rest that here was an Authority and well executed and upon a just Cause and in a regular manner as far as the Rector's own Misbehaviour did not prevent it and therefore they prayed that the Judgment might be reversed And upon Debate the same was reversed accordingly Note That in this Case there was one Doubt conceived before and another after this hearing The first was If a Writ of Error lay in Parliament immediately upon a Judgment in the King's Bench without first resorting to the Exchequer Chamber but upon perusing the Statute which erects that Court for Examination of Errors it appeared plainly that that Act only gives the Election to the Party aggrieved to go thither that it did not take away the old Common Law method of Relief in Parliament and so hath the Practise been but upon Judgments in the Exchequer Court the Writ of Error must first be brought before the Lord Chancellor and cannot come per saltum into Parliament because the Statute in that case expresly ordains That Errors in the Court of Exchequer shall be examined there and so held in the Case of the Earl of Macclesfield and Grosvenor The other Doubt was raised by a Motion in B. R. for the Court to give a new Judgment upon the Reversal above and insisted on that it ought so to be as was done in the Case of Faldo and Ridge Yelv. 74. entred Trin. 2 Jac. 1. Rot. 267. Trespass and Special Plea and Judgment in B. R. for the Defendant and upon Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber the Judgment was Reversed and upon the Record returned into the King's Bench they gave Judgment that the Plaintiff should recover contrary to the first Judgment for otherwise they said the Law would prove defective and a Precedent was shewn in Winchcomb's Case 38 Eliz. where the same Course was taken and the like Rule was made Mich. 1 W. Mar. upon the Reversal of the Judgment inter Claxton vers Swift which is entred Mich 2 Jac. 2. B. R. Rot. 645. the like between Sarsfield vers Witherley 'T was argued on the other side That the Court which reverses the Judgment ought to give the new Judgment such as ought to have been given at first that in the Exchequer Chamber it may be otherwise because they have only power to affirm or reverse for yet in the Case of King and Seutin the Exchequer Chamber gave a new Judgment tho' they cannot inquire of Damages and that is a kind of Execution which must be in B.R. In Omulkery's Case 1 Cro. 512. and 2 Cro. 534. the Court here sends a Mandatory Writ to
receive the Allegations and Matters given in Evidence for the Plaintiff as sufficient to maintain his Title whereas they were given in Evidence and considered and if it be meant as a sufficient Evidence to controul and over-rule all other that doth not belong to the Court in Trials to determine unless referred to them upon demurrer to Evidence but is the proper business of the Jury and if the Party be aggrieved the Remedy is an Attaint Nor can it be pretended that the Defendants Evidence was admitted to over-rule the Record produced because no Objection was made to the Defendants Evidence at the Trial and the same was all given before the Record of 15 Ed. 3. was produced and consequently the Jury must consider the force of it for Evidence on both sides being given by the Law of England the Decision of the Right belongs to the Jury and the Act of Edw. 3. being repealed 't is no Matter of Law but the most which could be made of it was that it was Evidence which must be left to the Jury together with the Defendants Evidence But no Bill of Exception will lye in such a Case by the Statute when the Evidence given is admitted as Evidence and left to a Jury and where no Opposition was made to the Defendants Evidence as here in this Case and therefore in this Case a Bill of Exception could not be warrantable because the Plaintiff's Evidence was not refused or over-ruled nor was the Defendant's Evidence fit to be rejected or so much as opposed by the Plaintiff And as to the Allegations made by the Counsel and not proved those never could be an Exception And for these and other Reasons the Judges refused to Seal their Bill Upon this a Writ of Error is brought and a Petition was exhibited to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled in the Name of the Lady Isabella Dutchess of Grafton and William Bridgman her Trustee showing that King Charles the Second granted the Office in question to W. B. for the Lives of Henry Earl of Arlington Henry Duke of Grafton and of the Petitioner the Lady Isabella in Trust for the Duke his Executors and Administrators to commence after the Death of Sir Robert Henly that upon the death of Sir Robert Henly the Petitioner by virtue of the said Grant was well intituled to the said Office but was interrupted in receiving the Profits by Rowland Holt Esq Brother to the Lord Chief Justice Holt and by Edward Coleman Gent. who pretended to be admitted thereto by some Grant from the Chief Justice that thereupon an Assize was brought for the said Office which came to Trial and the Petitioners Counsel insisted upon an Act of Parliament proving the King to have the Right of granting the said Office which the Judges would not admit to be sufficient to prove the King's Right to grant the same That the Petitioners Counsel did thereupon pray the benefit of a Bill therein to be allowed and sealed by the Judges according to Law And the Petitioner's Counsel relying upon the said Act of Parliament as sufficient proof of the King 's Right duly tendred a Bill of Exceptions before Judgment in the Assize which the Judges upon the Trial said they would Seal yet when tendred to them in Court before Judgment would not Seal the same Thereupon Judgment was entred against the Petitioners Title in the Assize by default of the Judges not allowing and sealing the said Bill according to the Duty of their Office by Law whereby they are hindred from making the Matter of the said Bill part of the Record of the said Judgment now brought and depending before your Lordships upon a Writ of Error in Parliament for reversing the said Judgment in the Assize and so are precluded from having the full benefit of the Law by the said Writ of Error to examine reverse and annul the said Judgment Wherefore the Petitioners prayed that their Lordships would be pleased to order the said Judges or some of them to Seal the said Bill of Exceptions to the end the said Case might as by Law it ought come intirely before their Lordships for Judgment c. Upon reading this Petition 't was ordered that the Lord Chief Justice and the rest of the Judges of the Court of King's Bench should have Copies of the Petition and put in their Answer thereunto in Writing on ..... next At the Day appointed there was deliver'd an Answer in these or the like words The Answer of William Dolben William Gregory and Giles Eyre Knights three of their Majesties Justices assigned to hold Pleas in their Court of King's Bench at Westminster to the Petition of the most noble Isabella Dutchess of Grafton and William Bridgman exhibited by them to your Lordships THese Respondents by Protestation not owning or allowing any of the Matters of the Petition to be true as they are therein alledged and saving to themselves the benefit of all the several Statutes herein after mentioned and all the Right they have as Members of the Body of the Commons of England to defend themselves upon any Trial that may be brought against them for any thing done contrary to their Duty as Judges according to the due Course of the Common Law which Right they hold themselves obliged to insist upon in answer to the said Petition think themselves bound to shew and offer to your Lordships consideration That the Petition is a Complaint against them for refusing to Seal a pretended Bill of Exceptions contrary to a Statute in that behalf as the Petition pretends without setting forth the tenour of the said Statute or what that pretended Bill was whereas that Statute is the Statute of Westminster 2. cap. 31. and doth enact That if any impleaded before any Justices doth offer an Exception and pray the Justices to allow the same and they refuse so to do the Party offering the Exception is thereby to write it and pray the Justices to Seal it which they or one of them are thereby enjoyned to do So that if the pretended Bill was duly tendred to these Respondents and was such as they were bound to Seal these Respondents are answerable only for it by the Course of the Common Law in an Action to be brought on that Statute which ought to be tried by a Jury of Twelve honest and lawful Men of England by the Course of the Common Law and not in any other manner And the Respondents further shew and humbly offer to your Lordships consideration That the Petition is a Complaint in the nature of an Original Suit charging those Respondents with a Crime of a very high Nature in acting contrary to the Duty of their Office and so altogether improper for your Lordships Examination or Consideration not being any more triable by your Lordships then every Information or Action for breach of any Statute Law is all which Matters are by the Common Law and Justice of the Land of Common Right to be
Justice Dyer reports 228. the promoted Incumbent was dispensed with to retain for a term of years within which term he resigned and there upon the Avoidance the Prerogative was not admitted to take place because the Avoidance was by the Resignation and not by the Promotion Now if this Prerogative is to be interpreted stricto Jure it will have no place in this Case where the Incumbent promoted is dispensed with to retain for a term of time which is elapsed For The King's Prerogative will have a very Natural Construction by admitting his Title to present to all such Avoidances as commence immediately from and by the promotion This is the Avoidance which the Law intends and which the Law would always cause if not hindred to operate by Dispensation and this Avoidance is that therefore which the Prerogative must most principally respect and only that if it be to be strictly taken insomuch that were it in the sole power of the Archbishop to grant this Dispensation it seems the King's Title would clearly be set aside by it much more therefore should it be so when what the Law designs is prevented by the Act of the King himself For tho ' the Lord Vaughan saith That the King's Concurrence to the Dispensation is only for formality yet 't is plain that the King may force the Archbishop to grant it Now this Interpretation of the Prerogative seems to be already made in the Case cited upon a Resignation of the Incumbent dispensed with for as it is there intimated if the King's Title was not supposed to be gone by the defeating of the immediate Avoidance which the Law intended but the King would not permit It would be very strange that it should be eluded by the Resignation of the Incumbent to which the King was no Party for if the King had a Prerogative to present to this new this deferred this adjourned Avoidance it would be more reasonable to allow it to be hastened then defeated by such a Resignation before the time This Prerogative ought to admit such a Restriction from the reason of the thing and from the consideration of the Inconveniencies which may otherwise follow To the Subject A Patron might be content to let the King exchange a single Life and put in a Clerk in the place of one removed much rather then that the Living should be held on by one in Commendam that from thenceforth would be sure to leave it and be absent for a better Residence in a Palace yet they may as they have reason think it too hard that the King should as it were let a Lease of it first and afterwards put in his Clerk for Life and tho' the King doth commend here but for a small time yet he may for a longer He may perhaps as the Pope did often dispence with the Bishop to hold durante beneplacito and when the Incumbent is in danger of Death then present another so as the Patron may have his own Clerk not removed as was first intended but dispensed with to wear out his Life in the Benefice and yet after all have another put in The Crown may have Inconvenience by the straining of it further than this for all strains weaken if not break the thing it self This Opinion of theirs arises from the Principle my Lord Vaughan lays down That a Commendam neither gives nor takes away Right but only is a Dispensation to hold and he continues Incumbent still and it prevents an Avoidance and if so why should it not also prevent the operation of the Prerogative too As to the Case of Woodley 2 Cro. 691. they say 't is Law to prove the other Point for them If it be Law for them in that Point 't is Law against them in this That a Dispensation ad retinend ' prevents the Grantee of the next Avoidance The Case was thus A Man hath a Grant of the next Avoidance the Incumbent is promoted but with a Commendam Retinere for six years and dies the Grantee shall not present because he is to have the next Avoidance only and no other 'T is the words of the Book that when the Incumbent is created a Bishop and the King presents or grants that he shall hold it in Commendam which is quasi a Presentation and he is thereby full Incumbent and may plead as an Incumbent if the Grantee of the next Avoidance do not then present he hath lost his Presentation for he ought to have the next and he cannot have any other Now if this be so that a Commendam Retinere hath so much of a Grant in it and is so equivalent to a Commendam ad recipiend ' that it will set aside and frustrate a Grant of the next Avoidance and be it self taken for a presentation to the next Avoidance against the Grantee by the same reason it must be taken so against the King as a Presentation to an Avoidance and consequently his turn is served by it Much might be said against those Commendams as promotive of Pluralities and tending to the ruine of the Church and this out of our own Law-Books but it is not material at present 't is however to be observed that this is not a Commendatory for six Months during the time that the Patron may forbear to present such Person continued then is only commendatorius under the Bishop to provide for the Church as 't is his Duty to take care of it during that time 3. Admitting that the King hath such a Prerogative and that this Commendam tho' it gives the full perception of the Profits is not a fulfilling of the King's turn nor doth any way distinguish the Case or exempt it from the Prerogative yet this is a Case not within it and this doth appear of Mr. Attorney's own shewing in his Declaration upon the King's behalf He hath set it forth to be a Parish newly created by Act of Parliament a thing not in esse before It appears by the Declaration what that Act is it must be taken as 't is there set forth To this Declaration the Bishop hath demurred Now if by that Declaration it appears that the Bishop and not the King is rightfully intituled to present upon this Avoidance the Judgment will and must be accordingly for the Defendants Mr. Attorney by his Count doth agree an Avoidance within this Act of Parliament by the Promotion of Dr. Tennison and Mr. Attorney doth likewise admit and agree That the King is not Patron of this Benefice called St. James's he doth agree too That the King hath no Right given to have any Turn or Presentment by this Act for he saith 't is to be by the Bishop of London and the Lord Jermyn he doth also admit by this Declaration That Dr. Tennison was never presented to this Living that he came not into it by Virtue of any Presentation from any particular Patron nay That he did not come into it by any sort of Presentation whatever nay he
preferr'd and the reason is because it is a new Right which the Act gave to present to the Church to which the Union was and consequently it must be taken as 't is given And so was it held by the Civilians at Doctors Commons before the Chancellour of London and several assistant Delegates upon a Caveat there against Institution and on Advice of the Lawyers the King 's Presentee acquiesced and never brought any Quare Impedit The Argument now is only as to this one first Presentation there 's no flat Contradiction between the use of the Prerogative and My being Patron for ever but 't is a Contradiction to say the King and I shall both have the same Presentation To say That he shall have a Prerogative here is to say That he shall do a wrong to his Subject for the Bishop can have no other than this one Presentation he can have no other in lieu of it and has no Advantage or Recompence antecedent or subsequent from this Prerogative First-Fruits and Tenths are not demandable from this Parish because no saving of them in the Act to the King upon passing the Act 't is known That in the Commons House the same was press'd to be inserted but denied and the Clause rejected the same Attempt was made in this House but to no purpose In other Acts for the Erecting of new Parishes there is generally such a saving as for St. Ann's and St. John's of Wapping and the Act for uniting of Parishes upon Rebuilding the City hath a Clause of saving to this Effect All which shews That such a saving is necessary tho' the First-Fruits and Tenths being formerly enjoyed by the Popes might have been pretended by Construction of Law to be a Profit annexed to the Crown by Stat. of 26 Hen. 8. cap. 1. all Payments to the Pope having been prohibited by 25 Hen. 8. cap. 21. and all Profits and Commodities enjoyed by the Popes thereby annexed to the Crown Yet neither that Act nor that other in the same Year whereby the First-Fruits and Tenths of all Ecclesiastical Livings that then or thereafter should belong from any Parsonage or Vicarage were granted to the Crown were ever intended to reach this Parish of St. James's it being a new Creation by Act of Parliament and because in the Act no First-Fruits or Tenths are given or saved and there 's as much Reason to argue in that case for an implied saving as there is for this Prerogative Suppose it should be admitted That a presentable Benefice created by Act of Parliament should be subject to the same Rules as others are yet that will not reach this because not like other Benefices till once presented to 't is a peculiar singular Case by 2 Roll. abr 342. and 1 Inst 344. If a Patron present to a Donative it becomes presentative ever after which shews That 't is the Presentation which makes it presentative in its Nature now here 't is plainly a Donative till once presented to Then it was said That it is not needful to engage in the Dispute whether this Prerogative shall prevail against the Grantee of the next Avoidance according to Woodley's Case 2 Cro. 695. or whether that case be Law for that the same is plainly distinguishable from our Case for there the Grantee comes in the place of the Grantor quoad that Avoidance and he can have no better or greater Right than his Grantor would have had if no such Grant had been made Here ours is a first Presentation granted by Act of Parliament Suppose the Donors of this Presentation to the Bishop had named a Person in Esse to have succeeded upon the Death or Avoidance of Dr. Tennison no Man will pretend that this Prerogative should have prevented him the reason given in the Books cited for that Case of the Grantee of the next Avoidance is That the Patron could not grant more or otherwise than under the Contingency of this Prerogative Surely they will not say That the King Lords and Commons were such feeble qualified restrained Donors then the Parliament being the Donors the Prerogative insisted upon and the express Gift to the Bishop are contradictory and repugnant and cannot both be fulfilled It is no Argument to say That if a Vacancy had been in the See and the Temporalties in the King's hands then the King must have presented and not the Bishop and that would have contradicted the Act as much as this for that had been the same as if the Bishop had presented himself for the King during that time was in loco ordinarij To say That the Bishop of London hath no more right by the Act of Parliament then a Grantee of the next Avoidance hath by the Common Law this surely is no very close reasoning for there is some difference between the one and the other Here the Act of Parliament which hath the King's Consent gives a particular and express Right and an Act of Parliament may as Coke saith alter change annul abridge diminish qualifie enlarge or transferr any Common Law nay it hath the Common Law and the Prerogative too under its Controul Upon the whole it was concluded That by this Judgment a new Prerogative is affirm'd to belong to the Crown and this is extended to a turn after a Commendam which may be a prejudice to all the Patrons in England 2. It destroys and makes useless the plain and express Words and Meaning of the Act of Parliament which gives the first Presentation to the Bishop of London and 3. It confirms the old Non obstante Doctrine of Commendams which hath always been acknowledged to be to the prejudice of the Church wherefore it was prayed That the said Judgment might be revers'd On the other side it was argued That this Judgment ought to be affirmed for that as to the first pont tho' it hath been said to be a new thing and grounded upon late Presidents yet it hath been so often adjudged that it doth not now deserve a Debate 't was solemnly settled in Wright's Case and upon Consideration 2 Rolls Abridg. 343 344. 3 Cro. 526. Moore 399. That tho' many ancient Authorities have been lost yet in Brooke Presentment al Esglise 61. there is the Opinion of the Bishop of Ely for it And as to the old Presidents there 's no need of Recourse to them because continual Usage hath been with the King in this matter a settled Opinion for an hundred years is surely enough to declare the Law as to this particular This is sufficient Evidence to prove this Right in the Crown there being no Judicial Opinion against it The reason for this Prerogative is because the King by the exercise of his prerogative in the promotion hath made the Avoidance and it is but changing one Life for another and possibly the Patron is as near the having another presentation as before It was agreed that this is none of the prerogatives mentioned in the Statute de Prerogativa Regis but
command them in Ireland to do Execution there St. John vers Cummin Yelv. 118 119. 4 Inst 72. If Writ be abated in C. B. and Error brought in B. R. and the Judgment be reversed shall proceed in B. R. and 1 Rolls 774. to the same effect Green vers Cole 2 Saund. 256. The Judges Commissioners gave the new Judgment 'T is true in Dyer 343. the opinion was that he was only restored to his Action and then Writs of Error were not so frequent The Judgment may be erroneous for the Defendant and yet no reason to give a Judgment for the Plaintiff as in Slocomb's Case 1 Cro. 442. the Court gave a new Judgment for the Defendant therefore it properly belongs to the Court which doth examine the Error to give the new Judgment the Record is removed as Fitzh Nat. Brev. 18 19. on false Judgment in ancient Demesne v. 38 Hen. 6.30 and Griffin's Case in Error on a quod ei deforceat in 2 Saunders 29 30. new Judgment given here In the Case of Robinson and Wolley in 3 Keeble 821. Ejectment Special Verdict Judgment reversed in the Exchequer Chamber and they could never get Judgment here the Court of Exchequer Chamber not having given it and in the principal Case after several Motions in the Court of King's Bench the Remittitur not being entred there a Motion was made in Parliament upon this Matter and a new Judgment was added to the Reversal that the Plaintiff should recover c. Dr. William Oldis Plaintiff Versus Charles Donmille Defendant WRit of Error to Reverse a Judgment in the Court of Exchequer affirmed upon a Writ of Error before the Lord Chancellor c. The Case upon the Record was thus Donmille declares in the Exchequer in placito transgr ' contempt ' c. for a Prosecution contra regiam prohibit ' and sets forth Magna Charta that nullus liber homo c. that the Plaintiff is a Freeman of this Kingdom and ought to enjoy the free Customs thereof c. that the Defendant not being ignorant of the Premisses but designing to vex and aggrieve the Plaintiff did in Curia militari Henrici Ducis Norfolk ' coram ipso Henrico Com' Mareschal ' Exhibit certain Articles against the Plaintiff c. that Sir Henry St. George Clarencieux King at Arms was and is King at Arms for the Southern Eastern and Western Parts of the Kingdom viz. from the River of Trent versus Austrum and that the Conusance Correction and Disposition of Arms and Coats of Arms and ordering of Funeral Pomps time out of mind did belong to him within that Province and that the Plaintiff having notice thereof did without any Licence in that behalf had and obtained paint and cause to be painted Arms and Escutcheons and caused them to be fixed to Herses that he provided and lent Velvet Palls for Funerals that he painted divers Arms for one Berkstead who had no right to their use at the Funeral and did lend a Pall for that Funeral and paint Arms for Elizabeth Godfrey and marshalled the Funeral and the like for Sprignall and that he had publickly hanging out at his Balcony Escutcheons painted and Coaches and Herses and other Publick Processions of Funerals to entice People to come to his House and Shop for Arms c. That the Defendant compelled the Plaintiff to appear and answer the Premisses c. The Defendant in propria persona sua venit dicit That the Court of the Constable and Marshal of England is an ancient Court time out of mind and accustomed to be held before the Constable of England and the Earl Marshal of England for the time being or before the Constable only when the Office of Earl Marshal is vacant or before the Earl Marshal only when the Office of Constable is vacant which Court hath time out of mind had Conusance of all Pleas and Causes concerning Arms Escutcheons Genealogies and Funerals within this Realm and that no other Person hath ever intermeddled in those Pleas or Affairs nor had or claimed Jurisdiction thereof and that the Suit complained of by the Plaintiff was prosecuted in the said ancient Court of and for Causes concerning Arms Escutcheons and Funerals That by the 13 Rich. 2. 't was enacted that if any Person should complain of any Plea begun before the Constable and Marshal which might be tried by the Common Law he should have a Privy Seal without difficulty to be directed to the Constable and Marshal to Supersede that Plea till discussed by the King's Counsel if it belongs to that Court or to the Common Law prout per Statut ' ill ' apparet and that the said Court time out of mind hath been tant ' honoris celsitudinis that it was never prohibited from holding any Pleas in the same Court aliter vel alio modo quam juxta formam Statut ' praed ' Et hoc parat ' est verificare unde non intendit quod Curia hic placitum praed ' ulterius cognoscere velit aut debeat c. The Plaintiff demurs and the Defendant joyns From the Exchequer Court this was adjourned propter difficultatem into the Exchequer Chamber and afterwards by advice of the Judges there the Court gave Judgment for the Plaintiff which was affirmed by the Chancellor and Treasurer c. And now it was argued on the behalf of the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error that this Judgment was erroneous and fit to be reversed And first to maintain the Court as set forth 't was insisted on 1. That when there was a Constable and Marshal the Marshal had equal Power of Judicature with the Constable as each Judge hath in other Courts 2. That the Constable had in that Court power of Judicature alone when there was no Marshal And 3. That the Marshal had the like when there was no Constable That they had both equal power of Judicature appeared by all their Proceedings by their Libels or Bills in the Case of John Keightley Esq against Stephen Scroop The Libel is In the Name of God Amen Before you my Lords the Constable and Marshal of England in your Court of Chivalry and prays that the said Stephen by their Sentence definitive may be punisht 1 pars Pat. 2 Hen. 4. m. 7. And the same Stephen libelled against Keightley to the thrice Honourable Lords the Constable and Marshal of England So the Libels were directed to both and both sate judicially The same appears by the Sentence or Judgment given in that Court Bulmer libelled against Bertram Vsau coram Constabulario Mareschallo qui duellum inter partes allocaverunt assignaverunt locum tempus Rot. Vascor ' 9 H. 4. m. 14. It doth likewise appear to be so by the Appeals from their Judgments to the King they are both sent to to return the Rolls of their Judgments Rot. Claus 20 Edw. 1. m. 4. In the Appeal brought by Sir Robert Grovesnor against Richard Scroop 't is upon
without the assent of the Dominion Superiour And 2. Judgments or Decrees might be there made or given to the disadvantage or of lessening that Superiority which cannot be reasonable or to make the Superiority to be only in the King not in the Crown of England as King Jac. 1. would have had it and consulted Selden upon the point Now though the Writ of Error be only mentioned yet the same reason holds to both and the true cause why we have not so many Ancient precedents of Equity Cases as of Law ones is for that in Ancient time the Equity Courts were not so high meddled with few matters and in a Summary way but since their Authority is so advanced and their Jurisdiction so enlarged that most questions of property are become determinable there and almost every suit begins or ends with them to the entire subversion of the Old Common-Law It is and must now be reasonable to have the Examination of their final Sentences in the Parliament of England as well as of the other Suppose non-residence in Ireland should be pretended a Forfeiture of the Estate to the next remainder Man or to the King Can it be safe for to intrust them with a conclusive Opinion in this matter When Calais was in our hands Writs of Error lay thither 21 Hen. 7. fol. 3. As to the pretence that the orders of this House cannot be executed there 't is very vain for if the King's Bench Command their Judgments to be executed there this House may order theirs and in like manner as they do to the Chancery here In 15 Rich. 2. numb 17. in the Abbot of St. Osithe's Case the Lords here made an Order and charged the Lord Chancellor that he see it performed and this hath been constant practice It hath been imagined That the Jurisdiction of this House in matters of this kind is dated from the 21 Jac. 1. as to the proceedings in Chancery but that is not now to be disputed for the Commons in Parliament Assembled did agree it to be the Right of this House in the Case of Skinner and the East-India Company and in the Book about it supposed to be written by that Noble Lord the Lord Hollis 105. 't is said that where the King 's Sovereigntydoth not reach the Jurisdiction of this House cannot the contrary is implied that where the King of England's Sovereignty doth extend the Jurisdiction of this House doth so too and no Man will affirm That Ireland is out of or beyond the limits of the Sovereignty of the English Crown And as to the exercise of this Judicature by the Lords here nothing can be stronger for it then the 1 Hen. 4. numb 79. So 't is in the Record though in Cotton's Abridg 't is 80. the Commons declare that all Judgments Appertain to the King and Lords and not to them Skinner's Case 199 200. 4 Inst 349 353 354. It was further argued That Protection commands a due Subjection and that these people who insisted upon this independency had forgot the English Treasure and Bloud which had been spent for their preservation That they are part of England and subject to its Laws appears from the common Case of an incumbency here being made void by acceptance of a Bishoprick in that Colony Besides that in Ancient time the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was Primate of Ireland and had the Confirmation and Consecration of Bishops there Cambden's Britt pag. 735. and 765. 4 Inst 360. then 't was urged that the Question now was whether it were a Dominion inferiour or equal to and independant upon the Realm of England That the constant practice had been for the Lords here to examine the Decrees in their Court of Chancery that the refusing of this Appeal would shake all those Cases thus determined that every Appeal-here from their Equity Sentences which have been very many was an Argument against the Order of their Lords and for the receiving of this Appeal here That this thing hath been acknowledged even by the Rebels there for in Sir John Temple's History of the first Progress of the Irish Rebellion written 1641. pag. 141. amongst the several propositions made by the Irish then in a general Rebellion these two are mentioned 1. That by several Acts of Parliament to be respectively passed in England and Ireland it should be declared that the Parliament of Ireland had no subordination to the Parliament of England but should have supreme Jurisdiction in that Kingdom as Absolute as the Parliament of England here hath 2. That the Act of 10 Hen. 7. called Poyning's Act and all other Acts expounding or explaining that Law should be Repealed both which with their other dangerous propositions were justly rejected however it shews their Opinion that at that time the Law was or was taken and deemed to be against them in this point and there is as much reason for keeping the final Judicature here as there is for maintaining the Superiority and Obligatory Power over them in the legislature 'T was farther urged That the with holding the Irish Lords from having the like Jurisdiction in their Parliament as the Lords in England have in Judging upon Appeals and Writs of Error was absolutely necessary for the preserving of the Possessions of the English in Ireland for those of that Country must be suppos'd to incline to their own interest and cannot be suppos'd so much inclined to love and affect the English amongst them And that this Power of Judging here is Co-eval with the very Constitution of the Government 'T was further urged That their Precedents returned did or concern the point in Question except the two or three Cases in 1661 and 1662. and two Appeals lately in 1695. that their Case of the Prior of Lauthony in 8 Hen. 6. Prynnes Animadversions 313 314 was against them the Prior having removed a Judgment in the King 's Bench in Ireland into the Parliament there which affirmed it did bring a Writ of Error in the King 's Bench in England and they refused to meddle with it the reason was because the Writ of Error before the Lords there did not lie and that it ought to have come hither immediately and all the rest of their Quotations in their Printed Case either prove nothing at all or too much for they are against the allowance of Writs of Error in the King 's Bench in England and against the Legislature of England's being able to oblige the people of Ireland both which have been approved by constant practice and therefore it was prayed that the Appeal here might be allowed and the Order of the Irish Lords might be vacated On the other side it was argued from 1 Inst 141. Prynne's Animadversions 286. and 4 Inst 12. that their Parliaments had the same Authority there in respect of making Laws for that Country as the Parliaments have for England that they have ever since 10 Hen. 7. Re-enacted there such subsequent Acts of England as they thought
upon grievous pain sometimes before the King himself sometimes before the King's Council sometimes to the Parliament to answer thereof anew to the grievance of the Parties and in Subversion of the Common-Law of the Land 't is Enacted that after Judgment the Parties shall be in Peace until the Judgment be undone by Attaint or Error this is agreed and amplified 3 Bulst 47.115 Here is mention even of the Parliaments Summoning persons to Answer in Subversion of the Laws There are other Statutes not Printed as 4 Edw. 3. numb 6. Cotton's Abridg. 7. and the same in 2 Inst 50. The Lords gave Judgment of Death without Indictment upon some who were not their Peers and agreed in full Parliament that they should be discharged of so doing for the future and that it should not be drawn in President that the like should not be done on any but their Peers 't is a Declaration of the Lords nay 't is an Act of Parliament and penned in the same manner as 29 Edw. 1. Statute del Estoppel at a Parliament agreed 33 Edw. 1. by common accord and 9 Edw. 2. the King in Parliament by Advice of his Council and these are held to be Statutes This was not only an acquittal from the trouble but a clear denial of the Power as appears by the words before that they had assumed upon themselves and the words subsequent that the like should not be done again The Complaint was because it was intermedling with Commoners after that manner Suppose this House should make an Order upon this matter which is a Law business and not of Equity no Execution can be made of it but Commitment There is the 15 Edw. 3. now insisted on Printed in the Old Statute Book but omitted in this 't is in Cotton 28.33 and 't is thus the Commons complained of breaches of Magna Charta c. and pray remedy with this Conclusion That every Man may stand to the Law according to his Condition and the Lords pray that Magna Charta may be observed and further that if any of what Condition soever should break it he should be adjudged by the Peers of the Realm in Parliament the next Parliament and so from Parliament to Parliament and it was Enacted accordingly This was Specious the same being only for the breakers of Magna Charta but in 17 Edw. 3. that whole Parliament i. e. all the Acts of it are Repealed which Repeal seems designed for the Petitioners for it Repeals the supposed Laws which make both their Title and this Jurisdiction which they would support 'T is observable what is said in the Repeal that the Act was contrary to the King's Oath in prejudice of his Crown and Royalty and against the Ancient Law And such is this for here 's no use of the King 's Writ no Address to or Command by the King for this Proceeding nor any mention of his name in the Petition By 1 Hen. 4. cap. 14. Appeals in Parliament for Offences are declared against as contrary to Reason and the Constitution this is such This is not incident to the Power of Hearing and Determining upon the Writ of Error because as was said before it belongs properly to the Chancery to Issue a Writ Commanding it to be done Si ita est as is Suggested By 12 Rep. 63. the King himself cannot take any Cause out of the Court where it depends and give Judgment on it himself And this House can make no Order upon this Petition that will be a Record as in Hob. 110. The Petition is in the name of a Person not party to the Record which seems very new for 't is by a Stranger in the eye of the Law to the Cause and consequently ought not to be joyned in any legal proceeding if this be such This is not incident to the Jurisdiction of the Error no more than Amendment of an Error in the Court from whence the Record comes or the filing of a Baile a Declaration or a Warrant of Attorney or the Sueing out another Process in Defect of one lost or the like These things are never Examinable in the Superior Court for in these Collateral things the other are intrusted Here 's no Hardship upon the Petitioner for he might have been Non-suite or have given this Repeal'd Act in Evidence at first and then have demurr'd on the Defendant's Evidence or might have Sued a Writ on the Statute of Westminster 2. But suppose this House should Examine this matter and find the Petition to be groundless will such Determination prevent the Judges from being troubled by Sueing of the Writ afterwards Suppose it E contra that this House should punish the Judges and commit them and award Damages or make other Order in favour of the Petitioners would such Order bar or stop the legal process afterwards can any Order made here be used below as a Recovery or Acquittal as an Auterfoits Convict or Auterfoits Acquitte If there be any thing in it 't is a breach of a Statute Law for which they are punishable at the King's Suit will the proceeding here save them from the trouble of answering to an Indictment or Information for the same thing Then since a Writ lies to Command them to Seal this Bill and since an Act of Parliament directs it if it were a true one perhaps it may be Questionable if they do not break their Oaths in case they Sign it in Obedience to any other direction If they did it in Obedience to the Royal Word Signet or Privy Seal of the King their Master 't would be a breach of their Oath Then as to presidents of the Exercise of such a Jurisdiction none come near this And abundance of particular Cases were put and answered but the considerable one was Jeffery Stanton's Case 14 Edw. 3.31 Cot. 30. The Case is odd 't is in Fits Abridgment tit voucher 119. there is a Writ directory to the Judges to proceed to Judgment or to bring the Record before the Parliament that they might receive an Averment c. To this Case it was Answered That the same was long before most of the Statutes aforementioned and in full Parliament and in that Case Stone would not agree to it but adhered to the Law according to his Opinion 't is true Shard in the absence of Stone gave Judgment according to that Advice but a Writ of Error was afterwards brought in the King 's Bench and the Judgment was Reversed 15 Edw. 3. B. R. even contrary to the Advice of Parliament to the other Judges As to the other Cases of Property Examined here either the Parties submitted to Answer or they were at the Suit or Complaint of the Commons or by Consent of the King and Commons but none of them carry any resemblance to this where the Judges insist upon it that there is another and a proper Remedy All the Cases in Ryley's Placita Parliamentaria are either Ordinances of Parliament or directions to follow
cum aggravatione pene corporalis somewhat more than Death Then this being a Common Law Punishment and not prescribed by any Statute the knowledge of it must be fetcht from our Law-Books and from Presidents for the General Practise of the Realm is the Common Law 't is describ'd with an ipso vivente in Smith's Republica Anglic. p. 28. lat Edit pag. 245. Stamf. 182. en son view which is tantamount and Stamford wrote 2 Eliz. In Coke's 3 Inst 210. 't is ipsoque vivente comburentur Pulton de Pace Regni 224. and many other Books were cited to the same effect And 't was affirmed that there was no Book which recited the Judgment at large but had this Particular in it Several Books do in short put it That for Treason the Party shall be Drawn and Hanged and Quartered but those are only Hints of the Chief Parts not Recitals of the Judgment it self In the English Book of Judgments printed 1655. pag. 292. 't is mentioned particularly as the Kings Bench have adjudged it should be The Duke of Buckingham's was so 13 Hen. 8. Stow's Chronicle 513. shews that he was the Person Then 't was said they have been thus in every Age without interruption 'till 26 Car. 2. Humfrey Stafford's Case 1 H. 7.24 which was per consensum omnium Justiciariorum tho' quoted on the other side as shortly stated in the Year-Book yet on the Roll which hath been seen and perused 't is with an ipso vivente Plowden 387. and Rastal's Entries 645. the same Case is thus Coke's Ent. 699. is so likewise John Littleton in 43 Eliz. Coke's Ent. 422 423 and 366. is so In the Lord Stafford's Case 33 Car. 2. by the Direction of this House and with the Advice of all the Judges was the Judgment so given by the Earl of Nottingham then Lord High Steward In the Lord Preston's Case 't is so which was drawn by Advice of the then Attorney and Sollicitor the present Keeper and Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. As to the Objection That vivens prosternatur doth imply it and that 's enough It was answered That ipso vivente comburentur implies both but not e contra and all the Presidents shew the latter to be requisite And as to the Case of David Prince of Wales mentioned in Fleta there 's only a Relation of what was the Execution not of what was the Judgment And Coke 2 Inst 195. says That the Judgment was in Parliament and therefore the same can be no President to this purpose and any one that runs over Cotton's Records will find the Judgments in Parliament to be different as the Nature of the Case required No Argument can be drawn from the Acts of the Legislature to govern Judiciary Proceedings however John Hall's Case 1 Hen. 4. Cott. 401. is as now contended for Before the 1 Hen. 7. there were some Erroneous Attainders and the 29 Eliz. takes notice of them as so errneous The Judgments against Benson and Sir Andrew Helsey cited below are plainly erroneous they dispose of the Quarters which they ought not but leave the same to the King's pleasure Sir Andrew's President is a monstrous arbitrary Command by Writ to Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer ordering them to Examine him and to give Judgment in manner as in the Writ is directed that therefore is not to be justified and 't was before 25 Edw. 3. Henry Ropers 21 Rich. 2. doth dispose of the Quarters and hath other Errors in it and so have William Bathurst's and Henry South's which were in 3 Hen. 4. But from that time to 26 Car. 2. there 's none which do omit it The four Presidents at the Old Baily were against Popish Priests and what private politick Reasons or Commands might occasion the omission is unknown and Hampden was not Executed but his Judgment was upon a Confession and his Life saved the reason of which is also unknown So that there have been none Executed upon such Erroneous Judgments And that there are no more Presidents with the Omission is a good Argument that those many which have this Particular in them are good and legal the constant Current having been this way proves the same to be the Common Law And this is the most severe part of the Punishment to have his Bowels cut out while alive and therefore not to be omitted As to the Earl of Essex's Case in Moore and Owen's Case in Roll's Rep. the first is only a Report of the Case and the last a descant upon the Judgment but neither do pretend to recite the whole Judgment Then to pretend that this Judgment cannot be Executed is to arraign the Wisdom and Knowledge of all the Judges and Kings Counsel in all Reigns And Tradition saith that Harrison one of the Regicides did mount himself and give the Executioner a Box on the Ear after his Body was opened c. Then 't was argued That if it be a necessary part of the Judgment and be omitted it is a fatal Error and doth undoubtedly in all Cases give a good reason for the Reversal of such Judgment as in the Common Case of Debt where dampna are omitted in the Judgment tho' for the Advantage of the Defendant as is Beecher's Case and Yelv. 107. Besides if this be legal then all those Attainders in which this Particular is inserted must be illegal for 't is impossible that both the Judgments should be right for either those are more severe than they should be or this is more remiss To say that 't is discretionary is to give the Judges a power which they themselves have disclaimed and to Reverse this Reversal is to tell the Court of Kings Bench that they are not obliged to follow the General Practise of their Predecessors that they are obliged to no form in their Judgment for Treason that nothing but Death and being Drawn to it are essential and according to that Doctrine a Woman might receive the Judgment of Quartering and a Man might be Burnt and both according to Law But the Constitution of this Kingdom hath prescribed and fixed Rules and Forms which the Executive Power is obliged and bound to follow that as nothing can be made or construed to be an Offence at the Pleasure of the Court so no Judgment can be given for any known Offence at Pleasure But the Law either Statute or Common hath established what is an Offence and what is its Punishment and there is nothing of Arbitrary Power allowed in respect of either Wherefore upon the whole it was prayed that the Reversal might be affirmed and it was affirmed accordingly Sir Evan Lloyd Baronet and Dame Mary his Wife and Sidney Godolphin Esq and Susan his Wife Appellants Versus Sir Richard Carew Baronet an Infant the Son and Heir of Sir John Carew Baronet deceased Respondent APpeal from a Decree of Dismission in Chancery The Case was thus Rice Tannott died seized in Fee of several Lands in the several Counties of Salop
the Alienation even of an Ideot and then after Office the Practise is to Issue a Scire facias to him in possession or to the Alienee and so is Fitzh tit Scire facias pl. 2. 106. All these Methods prescribed by the Law would be useless if the Acts themselves were void Then 't is as certain that the Office must be found during the Parties Life and during the insanity and not afterwards If there had been an Office 't would only avoid it with a prospect as it would be in case of an Heir after death Even after an Office the King cannot have the Profits from the time of the Alienation which shews it not it not void from the beginning If a Suit be against an Ideot after Inquisition the Ideot cannot plead it but the King shall send a Supersedeas to the Judges suggesting the Inquisition so that even then the Party himself cannot avoid it As to the other way of avoiding it by the Heir it must be by Writ or Entry and till Entry or Writ the Act remains good But here 's no Contest with the Party himself or with his Heirs but with a Remainder Man This Act of Surrender was no tortious Act it wrought no discontinuance there was no Trust in him to preserve the Contingent Remainder A Feoffment with livery is allowed not to be void and yet that may do a wrong by discontinuance c. As to the pretence that a Warrant of Attorney to make livery is void that doth not reach this Case for here 's an Act done by himself which would have passed the Estate as by and from himself if he had been of sound Mind Then 't was desired that the other side would shew any such Case as this whereas multitudes of Gifts Grants Releases Bonds and other Specialties sealed and delivered by the Party himself are allowed to be good and the same reason holds for a Surrender made in Person and there 's no difference between a livery made in Person and a Surrender the Act being Personal and not by another under his Authority makes the livery good and so it ought to be here 18 Ed. 4.2 Perkins sect 139. And 't is observable in 39 Hen. 6.42 per Priscott upon the Inquisition 't is reseized and revested into the Interest of the Ideot and consequently of the King and if revested 't was once out of him Now here 's no prejudice to the Man himself by this Opinion he is taken care of and his Acts avoided by the King on his behalf and his Heirs may avoid them But that Strangers should take notice of them as void was denied and therefore prayed that the Judgment should be reversed On the other side it was argued with the Judgment That this never was a Surrender that 't was against sense and reason to allow the Acts of a Madman a Person distracted to be valid to any purpose that in case of livery it had been allowed to be only voidable by reason of the solemnity and notoriety of the thing but in case of a Deed or a Thing passing only by Deed 't was otherwise and Bracton Britton Fleta and the Register were cited where 't is declared who can take and who can alien and that a Madman cannot alien and Fitzh is of Opinion that the Writ of dum non fuit compos may be brought by himself that there was a notion scattered in the Books that such Acts are only voidable but the reason of the Law is otherwise 39 Hen. 6.42 hath the distinction that Feoffment with livery is good but if livery be by Warrant of Attorney 't is void If it be a Feoffment with Warranty by Deed and possession delivered with his own hands yet the warranty is void because the Deed is void Perk. 5. The Deed of a Mad-man is void if he grants a Rent 't is void If an Infant makes a Warrant of Attorney 't is void so is Whittingham's Case A Deed and a Will are not to be distinguished and by the same reason that the one is void the other is so Finch 102. is general All Deeds of a Man of non sane memorie are null 12 Rep. Shulter's Case 'T is an offence to procure a Deed from him The Civil Law makes all his Acts which he doth without consent of his Curator to be void A Madman is taken pro absente 'T is a Rule unaccountable That a Man shall not stuitifie himself that he shall not be able to excuse himself by the Visitation of Heaven when he may plead Duress from Men to avoid his own Act. 'T is absurd to say That a Deed procured from a Man in a Fever or in Bethlehem shall be valid to any purpose Fitzherbert who was a good Lawyer ridicules the pretence and maintains That he himself may avoid such Act. Then were cited 2 Inst 14. Lloyd and Gregory 1 Cro. 501 502. Perkins tit Grant 13. Then it was said That in this Case there needs not much Argument the Reason of the Thing exposes the pretended Law And the Judges have declared that this Surrender is void the word amens or demens imply that the Man hath no Mind and consequently could make no Conveyance Wherefore 't was prayed that the Judgment should be affirmed and without much debate it was accordingly affirmed Henry Earl of Lincoln by Susanna Countess of Lincoln his Mother and Procheine Amye Appellant Versus Samuel Roll Esq Vere Booth Hugh Fortescue Esq and Bridget his Wife al' Respondents AApeal from a Decree of Dismission in Chancery The Case was thus Edward late Earl of Lincoln who was Son and Heir of Edward Lord Clinton the only Son of Theophilus Earl of Lincoln deceased being seized in Fee of the Mannors of c. after his Mothers decease who is yet living and of other Lands of about 3000 l. per Annum part of the ancient Estate of the Family And designing that in default of Issue-Male by himself his Estate should go with the Honour made his Will 20 Sept. 34 Car. 2. and thereby devised the Premisses to Sir Francis Clinton for Life Remainder to his first and other Sons in Tail-Male with many Remainders over to such Persons in Tail-Male to whom the Honour might descend and directed that his Houshold Goods at ...... should remain there as Heir Loomes to be enjoyed by the next Heir-Male who should be Heir of Lincoln and made the said Sir Francis the Appellants Father and after his Death Earl of Lincoln Executor On the sixth of Novemb. 36 Car. 2. Earl Edward made another Will in writing in like manner with the alteration of some Personal Legacies and afterwards in April 1686. and in Dec. 1690. did republish his Will Then Earl Edward sold part to Richard Wynne Esq for 24491 l. 3 s. 6 d. and mortgaged the Premisses in question to him for 12200 l. Then Earl Edward by Deeds of Lease and Release dated the 27th and 28th of April 1691. conveys his whole Estate to
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
Grant of the Town of Haverfordue the King afterwards inclining to dignifie his Son with that Title procured him to Surrender by Deed and bestowed on him another Title and gave a greater Estate and an ancienter Honour Here was an Estate Tail surrendred by Deed it might work a kind of Discontinuance but no legal effectual Surrender And for the Case of Ch. Brandon who in the time of H. 8. was created Viscount Lisle afterwards he surrendred that and got a Dukedom now no Man ever questioned the efficacy of this Surrender for he himself had no reason to question it for 't was to his advantage and none other could question it for he died without Issue and his Honour with him And so in the Case of my Lord Stafford he surrendred and got a new Honour So that it appeared all these Cases were either Honours referring to Offices and Lands or else such as were for the re-granting of greater Dignities which they had no reason to question and so they passed sub silentio But here is not one Precedent that they did ever Surrender to the Prejudice of their Blood or move themselves quite out of the House by Fine or Deed. And further If Precedents be good for the Surrender of an Honour by Fine why not also for Transferring of it to another for of this we have some Precedents Daincourt's Case 4 Inst 126. One Branch of the Family sat in the House by virtue of a Grant from the other Branch from the Reign of Ed. 2. to Hen. 6. and the Case of the Earldom of Chester first granted 17 H. 3. n. 25. and transferred 39 H. 3. And there was an Attempt made in the Lord Fitzwater's Case to make a Baron by transferring of the Dignity but you will find all these Precedents disallowed And 't was said that no Man ever met with any Case where any Nobleman by Fine levied or other Conveyance became a Yeoman or Ignoble 'T was argued by another much to the same effect That Baronage and Peerage is to be determined by the Records of the Lords House and if any other way be given as there must be if a Fine be allow'd to barr then the old true way is gone This was not a Fine Conditional at the Common Law and therefore not within the Statute De donis Conditionalibus and an Honour being a Personal Dignity is not to be barred Jones Rep. 123. by Fine being inherent in the Blood c. The Duke of Bedford was by Authority of Parliament degraded and that was for Poverty and by Act of Parliament and not by Surrender Therefore Judgment was prayed for the Petitioner The Attorney General argued pro Domino Rege upon these Reasons 1. There is but a defective Proof of the Creation of this Honour no Letters Patents no Records of the Inrollment produced nor any Entry in any Office of such a Patent as is usual all that is pretended is That he sate in some Parliaments afterwards as Viscount Purbeck but that will not be accepted for proof for no Man can be created Viscount but by Letters Patents a Writ of Summons will be an Evidence of a Creation but will not amount to a Creation there is a Ceremony equal almost to that of an Earl there must be a Coronet all which must be performed or he must have Letters Patents to dispense with it which being Matter of Record must be produced 18 Hen. 6. Beaumont was the first created Viscount but there was never any since nor then without Letters Patents for he is to take place of some and therefore he must have something to show for his Precedency but a Baron is the lowest Dignity and therefore may be created by Writ Neither can it be presumed that they were lost for except it be produced it makes no Title except they be produced it shall not be intended there was any neither can it be help'd by any concurrent Evidence for if there were Page's Case 5 Rep. 53. a true Creation there would be some Evidence in some of the Offices but there is not in any of them the least vestigia of proof to ground a presumption 2. Dignities as well as other Inheritances must be limited according to the Rules of Law the Dukedom of Cornwal in 8 Rep. the 1. the Prince's Case was limited according to the strictest Rules of Law And whereas it hath been said that Dignities differ from other Inheritances that is where there is some particular reason for it as in the case of Transmission or Alienation which depends not upon the Manner of Creation as shall be shewn afterwards And for the Case of 1 Inst 27. which was that an Inheritance of a Dignity may be created by other words than other Inheritances are as an Estate Tail without the words of this body there 's not any such thing in the Book 'T is said indeed that if the King for reward of Services done do grant Armories to a Man and his Heirs Males 't is an entail of the Coat without saying of his body but I think that will not be taken for the Case of a Dignity the Statute De donis Conditionalibus extends to Honours the word terram would be thought an improper word to comprehend all things tailable yet said to extend to all and to Honours too 1 Inst 20. and if an Honour can't be entailed then no Remainder can be limited and yet there be many Lords that sit in this House by Remainder by good Title The Statute of 26 Hen. 8.17 saith That if a Man be Attainted of Treason he shall forfeit his Lands Tenements and Hereditaments Now 't is adjudged that the word Hereditaments comprehends Honours which show that they are subject to the same Rules of Law that govern other kind of Inheritances and are comprehended with other Particulars without general words This being premised it 's a known Maxim in all Laws Nihil rationi magis consentaneum quam rem eodem modo dissolvi quo constituitur which Rule is so general that the highest Authority i. e. the Parliament is not exempt from it for 't is not possible to establish any thing so firm by Statute which cannot by another Statute be annulled Now in the Creation of a Peer there are three things the Person that creates the Person that is created the Matter of Record whereby he is created Now if the King who is the Person that creates and his Successors agree with the Person that is created Peer and his Successors the one to undo their parts and the other to give away their parts and there is a Matter of Record of as high a nature concurring to effect this Dissiolution c. in some Cases 't is in the power of an Ancestor by his own act to destroy a Patent as if a Scire Facias in Chancery be brought against his Patent and Matter is suggested whereby to avoid it this shall Bro. tit Patent 37 97. vacate whatsoever was created by the Patent
Court recommitted which is the same Assault Taking and Imprisonment and Traverses absque hoc that he was guilty of the Assaulting Taking or Imprisoning him within the time last mentioned at London or elsewhere then in the Isle of Barbadees or otherwise or in other manner then as before The Plaintiff demurred and the Defendant joyn'd in Demurrer and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff and a Venire awarded tam ad triand ' exitum quam ad inquirend ' de dampnis c. and the Issue was found pro quaerent ' and 6 d. Damages and on the Demurrer 500 l. Damages and Judgment for Damages and Costs amounting in the whole to 590 l. The Plaintiff Sir J. Witham dying Trin. 2 Wil. Mar. the Judgment was revived by Scire Facias brought by Howel Gray and Chaplain Executors of Sir J. W. quoad omnia bona catalla sua except one Debt due by Bond from Henry Wakefield And at the Return of the Scire Fac ' the Defendant appears and demurs to the Scire Facias and there is an Award of Execution and thereupon a Writ of Error is brought in the Exchequer Chamber and the Judgment was affirmed Then a Writ of Error is brought in Parliament and the General Error assigned And here it was argued on the behalf of the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error that this Action did not lye against him because it was brought against him for that which he did as a Judge and so it appeared on the Record according to 12 Rep. 25. that the Rule seems the same for one sort of Judge as well as for another that this Person was lawfully made a Governour and so had all the Powers of a Governour that this was a Commitment only till he found Security tho' not so Expressed that this is not counsable here in Westminster-hall that he was only censurable by the King that the Charge is sufficient in that Sir J. W. had not taken the Oaths that male arbitrarie executus fuit is Charge enough to warrant a Commitment that this was a Charge before a Councel of State and there need not be all the Matters precisely alledged to justifie their Acts and by the same reason Actions may lye against the Privy Counsellors here and enforce them to set forth every particular which would be of dangerous Consequence the Plea might have been much shorter as only that he was committed by a Counsel of State and the addition of the other Matters shall not hurt and that the Charge was upon Oath shall be intended no Presumption shall be that the Supream Magistracy there did irregularly 't is a power incident to every Council of State to be able to commit This action cannot lye because the Fact is not triable here the Laws there may be different from ours Besides no Action lies unlefs 't were a malicious Commitment as well as causeless and that no Man will pretend that an Action can lye against the chief Governour or Lieutenant of Ireland or Scotland and by the same reason it ought not in this Case he had a power to make Judges and therefore he was more than a Judge and they have confessed all this Matter by the Demurrer The Statute of Car. 1. which restrains the power of our Councel of State supposes that they could Commit that in case of Crimes there they are punishable in that place and in Sir Ellis Ashburnham's Case there was a Remanding to be tried there and if so it can't be examinable here and if not this Action will not lye And further that what was done here was done in a Court for so is a Councel of State to receive Complaints against State Delinquents and to direct their Trials in proper Courts afterwards that there was never such an Action as this maintain'd and if it should it would be impossible for a Governour to defend himself First For that all the Records and Evidences are there 2. The Laws there differ from what they are here and Governments would be very weak and the Persons intrusted with them very uneasie if they are subject to be charged with Actions here for what they do in those Countries and therefore 't was prayed that the Judgment should be reversed On the other side 't was argued for the Plaintiff in the Original Action That this Action did lye and the Judgment on 't was legal That supposing the Fact done in England the Plea of such Authority so executed at Plymouth or Portsmouth or the like had been ill for that Liberty of Person by our Law is so sacred that every Restraint of it must be justified by some lawful Authority and that Authority must be expresly pursued That here was no Authority to commit for that must be either as a Court of Record or as Justices of Peace Constable or other Officer constituted for that purpose that the Letters Patents are the only Justification insisted on and that gives none 't is true the power of Committing is incident to the Office of a Court here 's only the Government of the Place committed to Sir Richard Dutton with a power to erect Courts and appoint Officers but none to himself He in Person is only authorized to manage and order the Affairs and the Law of England takes no notice of such an Officer or his Authority and therefore a Court of Law can take notice of it no further or otherwise then as it doth appear in pleading The Councel is not constituted a Court they are by the Letters Patents only to advise and assist the Governour and the Governour hath no power to commit or punish but to form and establish Courts to do so which imports the direct contrary that he had no such power The Ends of appointing the Councel as mentioned in the Letters Patents are quite different viz. to aid the Regent by their Advice not to act as of themselves and if neither the Governour of himself nor the Councel of it self had such a power neither can both together have it A Court of Justice is not to be intended unless the same be specially shewn Excepting the Case of the common known general Courts of Justice in Westminster-hall which are immemorial if any thing be justified by the Authority of other Courts the same must be precisely alledged and how their Commencement was either by Custom or Letters Patents Here it appears by the Plea it self that they had Justices of Oyer and Terminer appointed It doth not appear that he or the Councel were Judges of things of this kind Besides when a Councel is constituted as here was Twelve by Name that must be the Majority as is the Dean and Chapter of Femes Case Davis's Rep. 47. and that 's Seven at least which are not in this Case There must be a Majority unless the Erection did allow of a less Number The practise of the Courts of Westminster-hall do not contradict this for there 't is a Court whether more or less and so
Suspended were Seniors to the Consenting Scholars Then they find that after this Sentence Painter was elected into the Rectorship Concurrentibus omnibus requisitis si praedict ' Officium Rectoris eo tempore fuit vacans and that Dr. Bury 1 June Anno Jac. 2. semper postea usque sententiam praedict ' si sententia in contrar ' non valeat semper postea fuit adhuc est verus legitimus Rector Collegij praedict ' That William Painter as Rector and the Scholars of the said Colledge did make the Demise in the Declaration and thereon the Plaintiff entred and Dr. Bury enters on him and holds and yet doth hold him out modo forma prout in nar ' c. sed utrum super totam materiam praedict ' locus Rectoris per privation ' praedictam praed ' Arthuri legitime vacavit nec ne the Jury are ignorant si per inde locus praedict ' legitime vacavit tunc pro quaerent ' si non tunc pro Defendent ' It was argued on the behalf of the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error That this Judgment was illegal and the general Question was Whether this Sentence of Deprivation thus given by the Visitor against Dr. Bury did make the Rectorship void as to him and so consequently gave a Title to the Lessor of the Plaintiff But upon this Record the Questions were two 1. Whether or no by the Constitution of this Colledge the Bishop had a Power in this Case to give a Sentence 2. Supposing that he had such a Power Whether the Justice of that Sentence were examinable in Westminster-hall upon that Action And 1. 't was argued That the Bishop had such a Power to give a Sentence and it was agreed that he could make his Visitation but once in five Years unless he be called by the Request of the Colledge and if he comes uncalled within the five Years his Visitation would be void But yet the Visitation of the 24th of July was a good Visitation and consequently the Sentence upon it is good that there was no colour to make Dr. Masters's coming in March to examine Colmer's Appeal upon the Visitor's Commission to be a Visitation and that because it was a Commission upon a particular Complaint made by a single expelled Fellow for a particular Wrong and Injury supposed to be done to him and not a general Authority to exercise the Visitatorial Power which is to inquire into all Abuses c. Colmer complains that he was expelled without just Cause and seeks to the Visitor for redress they having expelled him for an Offence of which he thought himself innocent and the Visitor sends his Commissary to examine this particular matter Then 't was urged That tho' a Visitor be restrained by the Constitutions of the Colledge from visiting ex officio but once in five Years yet as a Visitor he had a constant standing Authority at all times to hear the Complaints and redress the Grievances of the particular Members and that is part of the proper Office of a Visitor to determine particular Differences between the Members and thus is Littleton's Text sect 136. that complaint may be made to the Ordinary or Visitor praying him that he will lay some Correction and Punishment for the same and that such Default be no more made c. And the Ordinary or Visitor of right ought to do this c. and so was it held in Appleford's Case in the Court of King's Bench who was expelled upon a like occasion as Colmer was he appealed to the Bishop of Winton who was Visitor and he confirmed the Expulsion and held to be good upon the Appeal for the hearing of Appeals is a standing fixed constant Jurisdiction Visiting is one Act or Exercise of his Power in which he is limited as to time but redressing of Grievances is another and his proper Office and Business at all times 'T is the Case of all the Bishops of England they can visit by Law but once in three years but their Courts are always open to hear Complaints and Determine Appeals so that here tho' but one Visitation can be in five years without request yet the Power and Authority to hear and examine any difference between the Members and to relieve against any particular Injury that 's continual and not limited Then 't was argued That tho' what was done upon the 16th of June was with an Intention to Visit yet being denied to enter the Chappel where the Visitation was appointed to be held it was none and his Calling over the Names was only to know who hindred the Visiting and his making an Act of it afterwards or administring an Oath at the time can never be called one tho' it hath been below said to be a tacking that of June to that of July but that cannot be for then it continued much longer than was intended nay much longer then it can by the Statutes of the Colledge for that is to cease in three days It turns rather the other way having been hindred in June he makes an Act of it in July in order to call them to an account for it as for a Conturnacy and to bring them to Judgment at his Visitation 'T was no more then taking an Affidavit of the Service of a Citation The appointment of a Visitation in the Hall was occasioned by the Obstruction met with at the Chappel and 't would be a very strange Construction that when he designed a Visitation and was hindred that the Hinderance and his Inquiry about it should be called a Visitation and a former Contumacy in opposing an intended Visitation should prevent their being subject to an actual true one Then 't was argued That there was no necessity that there should be the Consent of the four Senior Fellows to the Deprivation of the Rector and by one of the Counsel 't was owned that if such Consent had been necessary the Sentence had been a Nullity But as this Statute is framed 't was argued that the Bishop might deprive tho' they did not concur for these Reasons 1. By the Statutes the Bishop for the time being is made the ordinary Visitor of Exeter Colledge and that where any one is Visitor of a Colledge he hath full and ample Authority to Deprive or Amove any Member of the Colledge quatenus Visitor 2. There is an express Power given to the Bishop to proceed to the Deprivation of the Rector or the Expulsion of a Scholar and this in his Visitation And 3. The qualifying words do not restrain it to be with the Consent of the four Fellows the word is Deprivatio as to the Rector and Expulsio as to the Scholar tho' they are synonymous as to real Sense yet by this Statute they are differently applied Then it says If the Bishop do proceed c. that only relates to the Case of a Scholar because the word there used is Expulsio which is never applied but to the amotion
Inst 125. though the Statutes of Hen. VIII impower Commissions for trial of Treasons Committed beyond the Seas yet this Court doth and may still take Conusance of such Causes 4 Inst 124. Its Sentences are only reversable by and upon Appeal to the King no Writ of Error or false Judgment lies upon any of them which shews the greatness of the Court and the difference of its Jurisdiction from other Courts which may be some of thereasons why no Prohibition was ever granted to it and why the Parliament of Rich. II. gave the Remedy of a Privy Seal wherefore it was prayed that the Judgment should be Reversed On the other side it was argued by the Council in behalf of the Plaintiff in the Original Action that this Judgment ought to be affirmed and it was after this manner there seem three Queries in the Case 1. If any Prohibition lies to that Court 2. If any Cause here for a Prohibition and 3. If there be any such Court as that before the Earl Marshal but another doubt was raised whether any of these Questions could be such upon this plea which is concluded to the Jurisdiction for that seems to make only one doubt whether the Court of Exchequer could hold Plea of an Action for proceeding contrary to a Prohibition already granted but this was waved and then it was argued 1. That a Prohibition doth lie to this Court of Chivalry in case it exceeds the Jurisdiction proper to it and it was agreed that the Office of Constable is Ancient and by Cambden is held to have been in Ure in this Kingdom in the Saxon's time though the Office of Marshal is but of a puisne date but however Great and Noble the Office is however large and Extensive the Jurisdiction is yet 't is but limitted and Coke in 4 Inst 123. says that 't is declared so by the Statute of Rich. II. where 't is said that they incroached in great prejudice of the King's Courts and to the great grievance and oppression of his people and that their proper Business is to have conusance of Contracts and Deeds of Arms and of War out of the Realm which cannot be determined or discussed by the Common-Law which other Constables have heretofore duly and reasonably used in their time now by this Act 't is plain what the Jurisdiction is Contracts and Deeds of Arms and War out of the Realm are the subject matter of it and by Coke 't is called curia militaris or the Fountain of Marshal Law which shews it a Court that hath its boundaries a Court that may incroach nay which hath incroach'd in diverse instances belonging to the Common-Law And that 't is a Court that ought to meddle with nothing that may be Determined in Westminster-Hall then there must be some way of restraining this excess and these incroachments and if the Statute of Rich. II. had not been made it must be agreed that a Prohibition would have lain for else there had been no remedy which is absurd to affirm 'T is no Objection that Prohibitions are only grantable to Inferiour Courts and that this is one of the greatest Courts in the Realm for if a Court Marshal intermeddle with a Common-Law matter ea ratione it becomes inferior and may be controwled There needs no contest about the Superiority of Courts in this matter 't is the same here as among private Persons he that offends becomes inferior and subject to the Censure of his equal by offending though that Court should be reckoned so noble and great as hath been represented yet 't is only so while it keeps within its Jurisdiction Prohibitions are grantable to almost all sort of Courts which differ from the Common-Law in their proceeding to Courts Christian to the Admiralty nay to the Delegates and even to the Steward and Marshal upon the Statute of Articuli super Chartas Cap. 3. That they shall not hold Plea of Freehold or of Trespass Fits ' N.B. 241 242. is an express Writ of Prohibition though the Statute gave no such Writ but only did restrain the Jurisdiction of the Court which in truth is the Case in Question antecedent to the Statute pleaded No Argument can be raised from the subject matter of the Jurisdiction of this Court that 't is different from the Common-Law for so is the Admiralty and the Prerogative Courts nor is it any Objection that upon any Grievance in this Court the Appeal must be to the King for that holds in the other Courts with equal reason Nay Prohibitions lie from Westminster-Hall to hinder proceeding in Causes which the Courts that grant such Prohibitions cannot hold Plea of as to the Ecclesiastical Court which grants probate of a Will made within a Mannor to the Lord whereof such probate belongs 5 Rep. 73. to the Marches of Wales if hold Plea of what belongs to Court Christian 2 Roll's Abridg. 313. are several Cases to this purpose there were also Cited 1 Roll's Rep. 42. 2 Roll's Abridg. 317. Sid. 189. 1 Brownl 143 144. and Herne 543. 't was further urged that there neither was nor could be any reason assigned why a Prohibition should not be grantable to the Court of Chancery when by English Bill it meddles with the Common-Law in other manner than its Ancient and proper Jurisdiction doth allow and several Authorities were Cited to countenance that Assertion Then was considered the reason of Prohibitions in general that they were to preserve the right of the King's Crown and Courts and the ease and quiet of the Subject that 't was the Wisdom and Policy of the Law to suppose both best preserved when every thing runs in its right Channel according to the Original Jurisdiction of every Court that by the same reason one Court might be allowed to incroach another might which could produce nothing but confusion and disorder in the Administration of Justice that in all other Writs of Prohibition the suggestion is and with Truth in prejudicium corone Regis Gravamen partis and both these are declared to be the consequent of this Courts excess or incroachment of Jurisdiction even by their own Statutes and when the reason is the same the remedy ought to be so But it hath been pretended That the Statute appoints a Privy Seal for to supersede c. and therefore no Prohibition to this it was answered That this Act doth not take away the force of the 8 Rich. II. mentio ned in 4 Inst 125. which restrains the Constable and Marshal from medling with any Plea which concerns the Common Law and if it had a limitted Jurisdiction by the Common-Law or by that Statute the subsequent Statute which gave a further Remedy for to restrain them did not take away that which they had before and every Body must agree that where an Act of Parliament restrains a Jurisdiction such Act warrants a Prohibition in case that restraint be broken or exceeded 't is so in case of a limited Power at
of the greatest Members of the House Selden Hollis Maynard Palmer Hide c. that the Earl Marshal can make no Court without the Constable and that the Earl Marshal's Court is a grievance Rushworth 2 Vol. 1056. Nalson's 1 Vol. 778. Spelman in his Glossary verbo Mareschallus seems to say 't was officium primo Servile and that he was a meer Servant to the Constable and gives much such another account of it as Cambden doth and pag. 403. is an Abstract or rather Transcript of all that is in the Red Book in the Exchequer about the nature of this Office and there 't is said that if the King be in War then the Constable and Marshal shall hold Pleas and the Marshal shall have the Amerciaments and Forefeitures of all those who do break the Commandments of the Constable and Marshal and then it was further alledged by the Councel for the Defendant in the Writ of Error that they knew of no Statute Record or Ancient Book of Law or History that ever mentioned the Earl Marshal alone as having Power to hold a Court by himself So that taking it as a Court held before an incompetent Judge a Prohibition ought to go and the Party ought not to be put to his Action after he has undergone imprisonment and paid his Fine since it hath the semblance of a Court and pretends to act as such and if it be a Court before the Earl Marshal alone in case it exceeds the Jurisdiction proper to it a Prohibition lies either by force of the Common-Law which states the boundaries and limits of that Jurisdiction or by force of the Statute of 8 Rich. 2. which is not repealed by the subsequent Law in that Reign and if such Prohibition do lie in any Case that here was cause for it the subject matter of the Articles being only a wrong if any to a private Officer who had his proper remedy at the Common-Law and therefore it was prayed that the Judgment should be affirmed and it was affirmed Smith Vx ' Versus Dean and Chapter of Paul 's London and Lewis Rugle APpeal from a Decree of Dismission made by the Lord Jeffreys the Bill was to compel the Dean and Chapter as Lord of the Mannor to receive a Petition in nature of a Writ of false Judgment for Reversing a common recovery suffered in the Mannor Court in 1652. whereby a Remainder in Tail under which the Plaintiff claimed was barred suggesting several Errors in the proceeding therein And that the said Lord might be commanded to examine the same and do Right thereupon To this Bill the Defendant Rugle demurred and the Dean and Chapter by Answer insisted That 't was the first Attempt of this kind and of dangerous consequence and therefore conceived it not fit to proceed on the said Petition unless compelled thereto by course of Law That Rugle being the Person concerned in interest to contest the sufficiency of the Common-recovery they hoped the Court would hear his defence and determine therein before any Judgment were given against them and that they were only Lords of the Mannor and ready to Obey c. and prayed that their rights might be preserved This demurrer was heard and ordered to stand And now it was insisted on by the Council with the Appellant that this was the only Remedy which they had that no Writ of Error or false Judgment lies for Reversing of a recovery or Judgment obtained in a Copyhold Court that the only method was a Bill or Petition to the Lord in nature of a Writ of false Judgment which of common right he ought to receive and to cause Errors and defects in such recovery or Judgment to be examined and for this were Cited Moore 68. Owen 63. Fits N. B. 12. 1 Inst 60. 4 Rep. 30. is such a Record mentioned to have been seen by Fenner where the Lord upon Petition to him had for certain Errors in the proceedings Reversed such Judgment given in his own Court 1 Roll's Abridg. 600. Kitchin 80. 1 Roll's Abridg. 539. Lanc. 98. Edward's Case Hill 8. Jac. 1. by all which it appears that this is an allowed and the only remedy Then it was argued That in all Cases where any Party having a Right to any Freehold Estate is barred by Judgment Recovery or Fine such Party of common Right may have a Writ of Error if the same be in a Court of Record and a Writ of false Judgment if in a Court Baron or County Court and reverse such Judgment Recovery or Fine for Error or Defect and there can be no reason assigned why a Copyholder especially considering the great quantity of Land of that Tenure in England should be without remedy when a false Judgment is given and the rather for that in Real Actions as this was the Proceedings in the Lord's Courts are according to those in Westminster-hall and now tho' a Common Recovery be a Common Assurance yet it was never pretended that a Writ of Error to Reverse it was refused upon that pretence and if the Lord of a Mannor deny to do his Duty the Chancery hath such a Superiour Jurisdiction as to enjoyn him thereto 'T is the Business of Equity to see that Right be done to all Suitors in Copyhold Courts Fitsh Abridg. Subpena 21. 2 Cro. 368. 2 Bulstr. 336. 1 Rolls Abridg. 373. If an Erroneous Judgment be given in such Court of a common Person 's in an Action in the Nature of a Formedon a Bill may be in Chancery in nature of a false Judgment to Reverse it and Lanc. 38. Tanfield says that he was of Counsel in the Case of Patteshall and that it was so decreed which is much more then what is here contended for and tho' Common Recoveries are favoured and have been supported by several Acts of Parliament yet no Parliament ever thought fit to deprive the Parties bound by such Recoveries of the benefit of a Writ of Error On the other side 't was urged in defence of the Dismission That the Person who suffered this Recovery had a power over the Estate that she might both by Law and Conscience upon a Recovery dispose of it as she should think fit that she hath suffered a Recovery and that it was suffered according to the custom of the Mannor tho' not according to the form of those suffered in Westminster-hall That the suffering of Recoveries in any Court and the Methods of proceeding in them are rather notional then real things and in the Common Law Courts they are taken notice of not as Adversary Suits but as Common Assurances so that even there few Mistakes are deemed so great but what are remedied by the Statute of Jeofailes or will be amended by the Assistance of the Court And if it be so in the Courts at Westminster where the Proceedings are more solemn and the Judges are Persons of Learning and Sagacity how much rather ought this to stand which was suffered in 1652. during the Times of
yet where it was good at Law and no Cheat or Imposition upon the Party but he meant as he had undertaken to pay this Money and was not deceived in his Expectation as to the Success of the Respondent's Endeavours 't would be hard in Equity to damn such a Security and therefore 't was prayed that the Decree should be affirmed It was replied That Marriages ought to be procured and promoted by the Mediation of Friends and Relations and not of Hirelings that the not vacating such Bonds when questioned in a Court of Equity would be of Evil Example to Executors Trustees Guardians Servants and other People having the Care of Children And therefore 't was prayed that the Decree might be reversed and it was reversed accordingly The Society of the Governour and Assistants London of the new Plantation of Ulster in the Kingdom of Ireland Versus William Lord Bishop of Derry APpeal from a Judgment by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of Ireland in Parliament assembled upon the Bishop's Petition and Appeal to their Lordships form an Order in the Chancery touching certain Lands in the County and Liberties of London-Derry It sets forth amongst other things after a recital of the Proceedings in Chancery and the Merits of the Cause that the Appellants were advised that no Appeal lyes to the House of Lords in Ireland from the Court of Chancery there but that all Appeals from thence ought to be immediatly to their Lordships here the Supreme Judicature as well for Matters arising in Ireland as in this Kingdom and therefore in the Conclusion prays that an Order might be made for the said Bishop to appear and put in his Answer thereto that the Matter might be heard before their Lordships here when it should be thought fit and that the Petitioners might receive such relief as should be agreeable to their Lordships great Wisdom and Justice c. Upon presenting this Appeal to the Lords here the House appointed Lords Committees to consider the proper method of Appealing from the Decrees made in the Court of Chancery in Ireland and to report c. Then pursuant to an Order made by the Lords Committees and a Letter sent to the Lords Justices of Ireland by Order of the House of Lords here Some Precedents or Cases from Ireland relating to the method of appealing from the Chancery there were brought before the said Committee and reported to the House whereupon the House ordered that both Parties might have Copies of the same Then the Society took Copies and preferred a short Petition to the House setting forth the said matter and that they were ready by their Councel to offer several things in order to their Lordship's receiving and proceeding upon their said Appeal whereupon a day was appointed for the hearing of Councel on both sides with regard to Jurisdiction And It was accordingly argued on behalf of the said Society that the Judgments in Ireland whether in Law or Equity were not to be finally Determined there that Ireland was dependant upon England 't was urged to prove it that our Money was to be Current there that our Laws did oblige them that they were governed secundum leges consuetudines anglicanas Davis 21. in which Book 24. that the Easterlings in England who first made the Money of this Standard and from whose Name comes that of Sterling were the first Founders of the four Principal Cities of Ireland Dublin Waterford Corke and Limrick and the other Maritime Villes in that Country and were the sole Maintainers of Traffick and Commerce there which were all utterly neglected by the Irish These Cities and Villes were under the Protection of King Edgar and Edward the Confessor before the Norman Conquest and these Easterlings in Ancient Record are called Ostmanni and therefore when Hen. 2. Upon the first Conquest after their Apostacy thought fit to People those Cities and Villes with English Colonies drawn from Exeter Bristol and Chester c. he assigned to them a certain proportion of Land next adjoyning to each of those Cities which Portion is called in the Records in Ancient time Cantreda Ostmannorum Davis 25. says further that Ireland is a Member of England Inhabitantes ibidem legibus Angliae subjiciuntur utuntur In the Statute of Faculties 28 Hen. 8. cap. 19. 't is mentioned to be the King's Land of Ireland and that this the King's Land of Ireland is a Member Appendant and rightfully belonging to the Imperial Crown of the Realm of England and united to the same And in the 33 Hen. 8. cap. 1. by which the Stile and Title of King of Ireland was given to Hen. 8. his Heirs and Successors 't is further Enacted that the King shall enjoy this Stile and Title and all other Royal preeminences Prerogatives and Dignities as united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of England Nay It may be compared to a County-Palatine Created by the King of England for Davis 62. speaking of that he says that a County-Palatine hath in it jura regalia which consists in Royal Jurisdiction and Royal Seignory By the first it hath all its High Courts and Officers of Justice which the King hath and by the latter it hath Royal Services and Royal Escheates as the King hath and therefore in some respects 't is separated and disjoyned from the Crown as is Plowd 215. yet 't is subordinate and dependant though it be said that breve Dom ' Regis non Currit there yet the Writ of Error which is the dernier resort and in like manner an Appeal is excepted out of their Charters so is Dyer 321. and 345.34 Hen. 6.42 and it would be excepted if it were not so expressed for to have the ultimate Judgment is that which the King cannot grant for such grant would if allowed alter the fundamental constitution of the Realm So in Ireland which is a Realm of it self as Consisting of many Counties Erroneous Judgments given in the chief place there shall be reversed in the King's Bench in England Davis quotes Bracton lib. 3. tit ' coron ' cap. 8. that Comites Palatini habent regalem jurisdictionem in omnibus Salvo Dominio Regi sicut principi so that by his Opinion they are much the same and no Man will deny but that in all Proceedings in Law or Equity the last resort is to the Parliament of England there it is that the King 's supreme Authority is exercis'd It must not be said to be a Conquered Country for the Earl of Stassord's sake though Coke and Vaughan have affirmed it so But it may be called a Plantation or Colony dependant upon England and to many purposes parcel of it This hath not only the same person for their King but 't is under the Crown and Government of England there must be in all these Cases a Superiority or superintendency over inferiour Dominions for otherwise as Vaughan puts it 401. the Law appointed or permitted to such places might be insensibly changed within it self
good for them and that they had the like Power of Appeals Writs of Error and Impeachments c. and that the Cognizance of such Appeals in England would produce great inconveniencies by making poor people to attend here whereas they might with less trouble and expence have Justice at home that this did agree with the reasons of that Ancient Statute 4 Inst 356. that persons having Estates in Ireland should Reside in that Kingdom else half of their Estates should go to maintain the Forts there That this practice of receiving Appeals here would be vexatious to the people of that place and that no Court could have Jurisdiction but by grant or prescription and that there could be no pretence for either in this place Then was it ordered in these or the like Words Whereas a Petition and Appeal was offered to the House the Day of last from the Society of the Governour and Assistants London of the New Plantation in Ulster in the Kingdom of Ireland against a Judgment given by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of Ireland in Parliament there Assembled on the day of last upon the Petition and Appeal of William Lord Bishop of Derry against the Decree or Orders made in the said Cause in the Court of Chancery there Whereupon a Committee was appointed to consider of the proper method of Appealing from Decrees made in the Court of Chancery in Ireland and that pursuant to the Orders of the said Committee and a Letter sent to the Lords Justices of Ireland by Order of this House several precedents have been transmitted to this House by the said Lord Justices Copies whereof were ordered to be delivered to either side After hearing Counsel upon the Petition of the said Society of London presented to this House praying that they might be heard as to the Jurisdiction of the House of Lords in Ireland in receiving and judging Appeals from the Chancery there as also Counsel for the Bishop of Derry after due Consideration of the Precedents and of what was offered by Counsel thereupon It is ordered and adjudged by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled That the said Appeal of the Bishop of Derry to the House of Lords in Ireland from the Decree or Orders of the Court of Chancery there made in the Cause wherein the said Bishop of Derry was Plaintiff and the said Society of the Governour and Assistants London of the New Plantation in Ulster in Ireland were Defendants was coram non judice and that all the proceedings thereupon are null and void and that the Court of Chancery in Ireland ought to proceed in the said Cause as if no such Appeal had been made to the House of Lords there and if either of the said Parties do find themselves Agrieved by the said Decree or Orders of the Chancery of Ireland they are at liberty to pursue their proper Remedy by way of Appeal to this House Sir Caesar Wood alias Cranmer versus Duke of Southampton APpeal from a Decree in Chancery the Case was thus Sir Henry Wood the Appellant's Unkle makes a Settlement in Consideration of a Marriage to be had between his Daughter Mary and the Duke c. to the uses following i.e. in Trust to Receive and Pay out of the Profits 450 l. a Year to the Lady Chester for the Education and Maintenance of his Daughter till twelve years of Age then 550 l. a year till Marriage or Seventeen years of Age which should first happen and in Trust to pay the Residue of the Profits to the Duke after Marriage he first giving Security to the said Trustees to provide Portions and Maintenance for the Daughters of the Marriage equal to the Sum he should receive and in case there should be none then the same Money to remain to the Respondent and if the said Mary should die before Marriage or Age of Seventeen years to such Uses as Sir H. W. should appoint And if Mary after Sir Henry's death die under Sixteen the Respondent then unmarried to any other Woman or after and before Seventeen the Respondent then living and unmarried or if before Seventeen she should marry any other or if she should refuse the Respondent then 20000 l. out of the Profits to the Duke But if the said Marriage shall take effect after Mary's Age of Sixteen years and she shall have Issue Male by the Respondent then for the better Settlement of the Premisses upon the Issue Male and a more ample Provision and Maintenance for the Respondent and his Wife and the longest Liver of them in Trust for the said Duke and Mary for and during their Lives and the Life of the longer liver of them and after their Deaths to the first Son c. in Tail Male and for default of Issue Male to the Daughters And for default of such Issue in Trust for such Persons only as Sir Henry should appoint and in default thereof to the right Heirs of Sir Henry Sir Henry W. at the same time makes his Will tho' dated after the Settlement reciting that he had settled the Premisses upon the Duke and Mary for their Lives and the Life of the Longer liver of them c. and confirms it and in Case the said Martiage should not take effect according to the Limitations of the Settlement or if the said Respondent should die without Issue by Mary or if he have Issue by her and that Issue die without Issue then the Remainder to Mary for Life and afterwards to her first Son and after several mediate Remainders then to the Appellant for Life c. and after to Thomas Webb c. Sir Henry Wood dies the Marriage between Mary and the Duke afterwards takes effect upon her arrival to years of Consent and they lived in that state till she was near Seventeen years of Age and then she dies without Issue The Court of Chancery decreed the Profits of the Estate to the Duke for Life It was argued for the Appellant That here was a precedent Copulative Condition that if the Marriage take effect after Sixteen and there be Issue then to the Duke and neither of these being in the Case the Decree is not consistent with the positive words of the Settlement for that the Duke was to have it upon no other terms That by this Settlement the Duke was thus provided for 1. If the Marriage did not take effect by Mary's refusal or taking another Husband the Duke was to have 20000 l. 2. If the Marriage did take effect and Issue was had then the Duke was to have an Estate for Life but not otherwise that the words are plain and certain that there must not only be a Marriage but Issue Male between them that tho' it should be agreed to be a good Marriage within the intention of the Settlement she living till after Sixteen years of Age yet when a Condition Copulative consisting of several Branches as this doth is made precedent to any Use or
behalf of the Appellants That the half Blood ought to have but a half share That in the Case of Inheritances the whole Blood was preferred and that tho' such Rule could not govern intirely in this Case yet it shewed which ought to have the preference that the true Reason of Distribution was this The Law was to give in like manner as he might reasonably be supposed willing to have given his Estate in case he had made a Will and had not been surprised by a sudden Death that every Man was supposed to favour his next of Kin that the Statute of Distributions did the same thing and then that the whole Blood was nearer of Kin because did partake of both the Stocks from whence he came that the Relation or Kindred in this Case intirely came from the Parents that this was not an Alliance by his own Contract as Marriage or the like that the Inclination was supposed to arise to them from the Natural Love he bore to the Common Ancestors that such Inclination could never be supposed equal where the Party was only of the half Blood And much to this effect and many Arguments drawn from the Civil Law were urged in favour of the Appellant and several Presidents cited where it had been judged since the Statute for the half Blood to have but a half share by Sir Richard Lloyd On the other side it was argued That the half Blood is as near a Kin to the Intestate as the whole Blood and ought to have an equal Share of the Personal Estate with the whole Blood that the Party must be presumed equally inclined to each Parent that the Brother of the half Blood was as much a Brother as one of the whole that the whole Blood was preferrable in Descents but that was only upon account of a Maxim in the Law whereas here they are equally of Kin the whole Blood is no more a Brother than the half in the same Relation there can be no difference or degree it might as well be pretended to have a difference allowed upon the account of Seniority that Opinions and Practise had been with the Decrees that this hath been taken to be the Law in Westminster-hall Before the Statute 't was held that a Sister of the half Blood is in equal degree with the whole Brown versus Wood Allen's Rep. 36. and so cited in Smith's Case Mod. Rep. 209. So in the Case of Milborne and Milborne 30 March 1671. before the Lord Keeper Bridgman W. M. had by Will devised all his Lands in Trust to pay every Brother and Sister he had living 40 l. per Annum each and he had several Brothers and Sisters both of the half and whole Blood the Brothers of the whole Blood did oppose the payment of the 40 l. per Annum to those of the half Blood but 't was adjudged and decreed that they are equally entituled to the 40 l. per Annum a piece and enjoyed accordingly Farmer versus Lane and Nash in Chancery 26 Octob. 1677. declared and adjudged by the Lord Chancellor Nottingham That the half Blood are in equal degree of Kindred with the whole Blood and ought to have an equal Share of the Personal Estate The like was in the Case of Stapleton and the Lord Merion against the Lord Sherrard and his Lady in Chancery by Judge Windham 13 June 1683. the Case was thus Robert Stapleton had a Sister of the whole Blood and a Brother and Sister of the half Blood and died Intestate Administration was granted to his Wife the Lady Sherrard who claimed a Moiety of the Personal Estate by the Custom of the Province of York and a quarter of the other Moiety by force of the Act for Distribution of Intestates Estates and adjudged that the Wife should have only one Moiety and the other Moiety to be divided equally between the Brothers and Sisters both of the whole and half Blood This Cause was Reheard the Seventh of May 1685. by the Lord Guilford upon the Certificate of his Grace the Lord Archbishop to whom it was referred to certifie the Custom of the Province of York who certified that the Wife shall have only a Moiety and the other Moiety shall be divided amongst the next of Kindred and adjudged that the half Blood shall have an equal Share with the whole and so the former Decree was confirmed The same was adjudged by Mr. Justice Charlton June 30. 1685. in the Case of Pullen and his Wife against Serjeant in the Court of Chancery The like was amongst other things declar'd and decreed by the Lord Jessryes Febr. 19. 1686. in the Case of the late Lord Winchelsea against Noraliff and Wentworth upon which Hearing were present and assisting the then Lord Chief Baron Atkyns and Mr. Justice Lutwich and so was it Nov. 20. 1689. between Stephens and Throgmorton in Chancery It hath likewise been held so in the Ecclesiastical Court and accordingly adjudged by Sir Richard Raynes upon Solemn Argument by the most eminent Counsel both of the Civil and Common Law in the Case of James Storey Febr. 26. 1685. and in the Case of George Hawles by the same Judge upon June 1. 1687. Then it was urged That the Statute of Jac. 2. for reviving and continuance of several Acts of Parliament therein mentioned proves this for 't is enacted That if after the Death of the Father any of his Children shall die intestate without Wife or Children in the life time of the Mother every Brother and Sister and the Representatives of them shall have an equal share and that a Brother of the half Blood is a Brother to the Intestate as well as a Brother of the whole Blood and therefore ought to have a share and an equal share with the rest And upon consideration of all those Presidents and there being no Practise against it except that of Sir Richard Lloyd's it was prayed that the Decree might be confirmed and it was confirmed Lee Warner Versus William North. APpeal from a Decree of the Lord Chancellor which over-ruled the Exceptions taken by the Appellant to a Decree made by Commissioners for Charitable Uses concerning a Gift by Bishop Warner's Will and the same was received and the Parties ordered to answer And each side being heard by their Counsel the Decree was affirmed Vide the Statutes concerning Charitable Uses and the Delegates and query how they differ And whether an Appeal doth not lye upon a Sentence by Delegates as well as on a Decree of Chancery upon a Decree of Commissioners for Charitable Uses Briggs versus Clarke WRit of Error on a Judgment in B. R. affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber upon a Verdict in Debt for the Escape of one Cook and none appearing for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error the Judgment was affirmed with the increase of Forty pounds in Costs Vide the Case of Ellison and Warner Mich. 18 Car. 2. B. R. 2 Keeble 91. Whether a Writ of Error lyes in Parliament
after Judgment affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber Or if that proceeding in the Exchequer Chamber doth not come in lieu of Error in Parliament according to the Statute of Eliz. William Bridgman al' Versus Rowland Holt al' A Writ of Error and Petition in Parliament The Case below was thus William Bridgman brings an Assize for the Office of chief Clerk for inrolling of Pleas in the Court of King's Bench and the Plaintiff declares that the Office of chief Clerk for inrolling of Pleas in the Court of King's Bench was time out of mind granted and grantable by the Kings and Queens of this Realm and that King Charles the Second by Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England Dated the Second of June in the Five and twentieth Year of his Reign after a Recital that Robert Henley and Samuel Wightwick were duly admitted to this Office for their Lives granted this Office upon the Petition of Eliott to Silas Titus so soon as it should become void and that Wightwick was dead and Titus had surrendred his Patent did in consideration of Service done by the Earl of Arlington grant this Office to the Plaintiff and his Heirs for the Lives of the Earl of Arlington Duke of Grafton and Dutchess of Grafton and the longer liver of them from and after the Death Forfeiture or Surrender of Sir Robert Henley and that Sir Robert Henly was dead and that thereupon the Plaintiff became seized and was seized of the Office till the Defendants did disseize him c. The Defendants pleaded that they did not wrong or disseize the Plaintiff Upon the Trial of this General Issue at the Bar of the King's-Bench before the three puisne Judges the Chief Justice then sitting near the Defendant's Counsel upon a Chair uncovered the Plaintiff gave in Evidence the Letters Patents of 2 June 25 Car. 2. Then it was proposed by the Counsel for the Defendant That they would prove their Allegation that the Office was anciently granted by the Kings and Queens of England as was declared but no Evidence was given besides this Patent of Car. 2. Then the Counsel for the Defendant waving the just Exception which they might have taken to the Plaintiff's Grant as to him and his Heirs which ought not to be of such an Office for that by that means it might come to an Infant They insisted upon the meer right of Granting the said Office viz. that it was not grantable by the Crown but was an Office belonging to the Chief Justice of the King's Bench and grantable by him Then to prove this it was shewn That this Officer is to Inroll Pleas between Party and Party only and had nothing to do with any Pleas of the Crown or Criminal Matters that all the Rolls and Records in this Office were in the Custody of the Chief Justice that all the Writs to certifie or remove the Records in this Clerk's Office are directed to the Chief Justice and from the nature of the Imployment 't was insisted that in truth he was but the Chief Justices Clerk and that consequently the same must be granted by the Chief Justice And for further proof it was shown by the Records of the Court that for the space of Two hundred thirty five years past this Office when void had been granted by the Chief Justice and enjoy'd accordingly under such Grants In Trin. 36 Hen. 6. Rot. 36. inter placita Reg. Anno Dom. 1458. It is inrolled thus Be it remembred that the Tenth of July this Term in the Court of our Lord the King at Westminster came William Sond chief Clerk of our Lord the King for inrolling Pleas before the King himself in his proper Person and in the same Court of his Free-will did surrender his said Office into the hands of Sir John Fortescue Kt. Chief Justice of that Court to whom of right it doth belong to grant that Office to whomsoever he pleaseth whensoever that Office shall be void during the time that the said Sir John Fortescue shall be Chief Justice and that Office doth resign and relinquish to the use of William Brome and the said Chief Justice doth accept the said Surrender and doth the same day grant the said Office to the said William Brome who is presently admitted into the said Office for his Life and sworn accordingly Mich. 1. Edw. 4. Rot. 51. Upon Brome's Surrender to Sir John Markham then Chief Justice the Chief Justice grants it to Mr. Sonde who is admitted for Life and sworn Mich. 8 Edw. 4. Rot. 26. 1467. Upon the Surrender of William Sonde to the said Sir John Markham then Chief Justice he grants it to Reginald Sonde who is admitted and sworn Reginald Sonde enjoyed this Office till the time of Henry the Seventh and then Bray came in and was Clerk till the 13 H. 7. and then came in Roper Hill 9 Hon. 8. Rot. 3. Anno 1518. Upon the Surrender of this place to Sir John Fineux Chief Justice by John Roper the Chief Justice grants the Office to Sir John Roper and William Roper who are admitted for their Lives and sworn Hill 1 2 Edw. 6. Anno 1547. Upon the Surrender of William Roper Sir John being then dead to Sir Richard Lister then Chief Justice he grants the Office to William Roper and Rute Heywood and they are admitted and sworn Hill 15 Eliz. 1573. Upon the Surrender of William Roper Heywood being dead to Sir Robert Catlin then Chief Justice he granted this Office to John Roper and Thomas Roper for their Lives and they are admitted and sworn Mich. 14 Jac. 1 Rot. 2. Anno 1616. Upon the Surrender of John Roper Thomas being dead to Sir Henry Mountagne then Chief Justice he grants the Office to Robert Heath and Robert Shute for their Lives who are admitted and sworn thereupon Hill 18 Jac. 1. 1620. Shute being dead upon Sir Robert Heath's Surrender to Sir James Leigh then Chief Justice he grants the Office to Sir Robert Heath and George Paul for their Lives and they are sworn and admitted in Court Mich. 5 Car. 1. Upon the Surrender of Sir Robert Heath and Sir George Paul to Sir Nicholas Hide then Chief Justice he grants it to Robert Henley and Samuel Wightwick for their Lives and they are admitted and sworn Trin. 1654. Upon Wightwick's Surrender to H. Roll then Chief Justice Henly being then under Sequestration the Chief Justice grants it to Sam. Wightwick and to Robert Henly Junior for their Lives and they are admitted and sworn Mich. 12 Car. 2. Upon the Surrender of Samuel Wightwick and Robert Henly to Sir Robert Foster then Chief Justice he grants it to Henly and Wightwick for their Lives and they are sworn Wightwick died soon after and Sir Robert Henly enjoy'd it under that Grant 32 years And it was observed on behalf of the Defendant That in all these Records produced and read in Court after the mention of the Surrender to the Chief Justice there are these words To
tried by a Jury And the Petition is wholly of a new Nature and without any Example or Precedent being to compel Judges who are by the Law of the Land to act according to their own judgments without any Constraint or Compulsion whatsoever and trenches upon all Mens Rights and Liberties tending manifestly to destroy all Trials by Jury And it is further manifest That this Complaint is utterly improper for your Lordships Examination for that your Lordships cannot apply the proper and only Remedy which the Law hath given the Party in this Case which is by awarding Damages to the Party injured if any Injury be done for these are only to be assessed by a Jury And they these Respondents are so far from apprehending they have done any wrong to the Petitioners in this Matter that they humbly offer with your Lordships leave to wave any Priviledge they have as Assistants to this Honourable House and appear gratis to any Suit that shall be brought against them in Westminster-hall touching the Matter complained of in the Petition And they further with all humility offer to your Lordships Consideration That as they are Judges they are under the Solemn Obligation of an Oath to do Justice without respect of Persons and are to be supposed to have acted in this Matter with and under a due regard to that Sacred Obligation and therefore to impose any thing contrary upon them may endanger the breaking of it which they humbly believe your Lordships will be tender of And they further humbly shew to your Lordships That by a Statute made in the 25th of Edw. 3. cap. 4. it is enacted That from thenceforth none shall be taken by Petition or Suggestion to the King or his Councel unless by Indictment or Presentment of good and lawful People of the Neighbourhood or by Process by Writ Original at Common Law and that none shall be put out of his Franchise or Freehold but by the Course of the Common Law And by another Statute in the 28th of Edw. 3. cap. 3. it is expresly provided that no Man shall be put out of his Lands and Tenements nor imprisoned or disinherited but by due Process of Law And by another Statute made in the 42 Edw. 3. cap. 3. it is enacted That no Man shall be put to answer without Presentment before Justices or Matter of Record on due Process and Original Writ according to the old Law of the Land And the Respondents further say That inasmuch as the Petition is a Complaint in the nature of an Original Cause for a supposed Breach of an Act of Parliament which Breach if any be is only examinable and triable by the Course of the Common Law and cannot be so in any other manner and is in the Example of it dangerous to the Rights and Liberties of all Men and tends to the Subversion of all Trials by Juries these Respondents conceive themselves bound in Duty with regard to their Offices and in Conscience to the Oaths they have taken to crave the benefit of defending themselves touching the Matter complained of in the Petition by the due and known Course of the Common Law and to rely upon the aforesaid Statutes and the Common Right they have of Free-born People of England in Bar of the Petitioners any further proceeding upon the said Petition and humbly pray to be dismissed from the same Then it was after Debate ordered That Counsel be heard at the Bar of the House on the said Petition And afterwards upon the Day appointed for the hearing of Counsel it was insisted on in the behalf of the Petitioners That here was a Right and a Right proved and no ways to come at it but this that if a Bill of Exceptions be tendred and refused this House can command them to do it that this proceeding of the Judges is to stifle the Matter of Law the Writ upon the Statute must be returnable here and cannot be otherwise that this follows the Judgment into Parliament that this House is to judge of every thing belonging to that Judgment that if this cannot be done there will be a failure of Justice that there have been Writs of Error upon Judgments with the Bill of Exceptions annexed that Damages to be recovered in an Action gives no Reparation for the Office that the Action must be brought before the Judges and so it must be a Dance in a Circle that as to the Judges Oaths the Justices of Peace are upon their Oaths and yet they may be committed that this is not fit for a Jury to try Whether the Judges have done well or ill in refusing to Seal this Bill of Exceptions This Refusal is the way to keep the Law within the Bounds or Walls of Westminster-hall and effectually to prevent its ever coming hither that this was not a Complaint of the Judges that as yet they would not accuse them of a Crime they only said fac hoc vive that the Court of King's Bench below doth the same thing to the Judges in Ireland they command others and ought to be commanded that they themselves send Mandatory Writs as the Cases are in Yelvert ' Cro. Car. That the Lords had directed the Judges in many things and so they did in Jeffrey Stanton's Case that by Command under the Privy Seal things have been done which otherwise would not and my Lord Shaftsbury was remanded to the Tower upon the Authority of that Case 15 Edw. 3. the Statute says that the Peers shall Examine for by great Men are meant the Peers Then were urged certain Cases where the Lords had commanded the Chancery to proceed speedily and to give Judgment c. Earl of Radnor's Case Englefield and Englefield and other like Cases were quoted and from thence they argued the Power of the Lords to command the Judges to do the thing desired 'T was argued on the other side against the Petition to this effect That this was a Cause of great consequence in respect of the Persons concerned as also of the Subject Matter it being the Complaint of a Noble Peeress against three of the Judges before whom she was lately a Suitor and concerning the Jurisdiction of this House That this Petition was the most artificial which could be contrived to hinder the Justice of the Law and to procure a Determination in prejudice of Two hundred thirty five years enjoyment that it is designed to get a Cause to be heard and adjudged on a Writ of Error by the Evidence onone side only or rather by that which was no Evidence at all if the Copy produced at the Trial was true for now upon the return of what they desire nothing of the Defendants Evidence would or could appear When a Bill of Exceptions is formed upon the Statute it ought to be upon some point of Law either in admitting or denying of Evidence or a Challenge or some Matter of Law arising upon Fact not denied in which either Party is over-ruled by 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
Exception to all Grants for Lives but Credit ought to be given to the Honour Wisdom and Judgment of former as well as present Officers in respect of such Nominations 'till some Misbehaviour shews the Choice to have been ill and when that appears the Persons are removable and then the Inconvenience is likewise removed Here the Jury have found the Plaintiff in the Action below to be able and sufficient and well qualified for the Office and to have done his Duty in the Office while he had it Wherefore it was prayed that the Judgment might be affirmed and it was affirmed Henry Lord Bishop of London and Peter Birch D.D. Plaintiffs versus Attorney General pro Domino Rege Regina WRit of Error to Reverse a Judgment given in B. R. in a Quare Impedit The Case upon Record was thus The Declaration sets forth the Act of Parliament which Erects and Constitutes the Parish of St. James's within the Liberty of Westminster out of the Parish of St. Martyns c. prout that by force and virtue of that Act the said Parish was made and the District therein named became a Parish and Dr. Tennison Rector of the same that he was afterwards Rite et Canonice consecratus Episcopus Lincoln ' and that thereby the said Church became void and thereupon it belonged to the King and Queen to present a fit Person ratione Prerogative sue Regie Corone sue Angl ' annex ' and that the Defendants hindred c The Defendants crave Oyer of the Writ and it is general Vic' Com' Midd ' salut ' precipe Henric ' Episcopo Lond ' Petro Birch Sacre Theologie Professor ' quod juste et sine Dilatione permittant nos prefentare idoueam personam ad c. que vacat et ad nostram spectat dâ—mationem Et unde pred' Episcopus et Petrus nos injuste c. And then they pray Judgment of the Writ and Declaration because that between the Writ and Declaration there is a material variance iâ— hoc viz. quod ubi per Breve pred' pred' Dom ' Rex et Regine â—â—â—itulant se ad Donationem pred' c. pleno Jure tamen per Narr ' pred' iidem Dominus Rex et Domina Regina intitulant se ad c. Sec â—â—â—tione Prerogative sue Regie Corone sue Anglie annex ' unde pro variatione pred' inter Breâ—e et Narr ' pred' they pray Judgment of the Writ and Declaration aforesaid and that the said Writ may be quash'd c. The Attorney General Demurs and the Defendants Joyn and there 's Judgment to answer over Then the Bishop Demurs generally and Mr. Attorney Joyns and Dr. Birch pleads that he is Incumbent and then sets forth the Statute of Hen. 8. concerning Dispensations and that after Dr. Tennison was elected Bishop the Archbishop granted to him a Commendam Retinere with power to take and enjoy the Profits to his own use by the space of seven Months That this Commendam was confirmed under the Great Seal according to the Statute and the said Dr. Tennison did enjoy the same accordingly c. Mr. Attorney Demurs and Dr. Birch joyns in Demurrer and Judgment was given for the King c. And now it was argued in the first place That the Plea in Abatement was good and if so all that followed was Erroneous And to make that Plea good it was said that there is a variance between the Writ and Declaration that they are founded upon several Rights that upon arguing the Merits of the Cause it must be owned to be so on the other side That no Argument can be urged to maintain the Declaration in general but the Jure Prerogative and consequently it must be different from the Title or Interest pleno Jure They have said below that tho' the King's Interest is bound by Statutes yet his Prerogative is not This Distinction of the Rights must be allowed or else the main Judgment is not justifiable and that there is such a Distinction appears in Gaudy and the Archbishop of Canterbury's Case in Hob. 302. by the Presentation there recited which was drawn by the King's Counsel 't is ad nostram Presentation ' pertinet sive ex pleno Jure sive ratione Prerogative By Bracton 415. If the Writ be founded on one Right and the Declaration on another the Writ must be abated as in Case of Executors and Corporations In some Cases it must be agreed That the Writ may be General and the Count Special but none of those Cases will reach to this where several Rights are pretended 'T is no Objection to say That there is no Writ in the Register for this for that 's rather an Argument against their Prerogative Besides this Prerogative was never allowed till Dyer's time and in the old Books 't is denied where the King was not Patron In the Register 30. is a Writ Special quod permittant nos presentare idoneam personam ad Ecclesiam de c. que vacat et ad nostram spectat Donationem ratione Archiepiscopatus Cant ' nuper vacantis in manu existentis And another Sine titulo ut de jure and that is General ad nostram spectat Donationem Another Writ is there Ratione custodie terre et heredis upon a Tenure in capite And another Ratione foris facture unius et ratione custodie terre et heredis alterius per servitium Another Writ pro Domino Rege et aliis conjunctim Register 32. is another such by reason of the Vacancy of the Archbishoprick 'T is not an Answer That the Writ of Waste is General and the Count Special because that is not en auter droit Then it was said that it is true That where another Writ cannot be had a General Writ and Special Count are allowable but here a Special Writ might have been sued And there were cited the 1 Inst. 26 53 54 235 344 3 Cro. 185 829. And as to the Queen and the Archbishop of York's Case 3 Cro. 340. that doth not come up to this Case for tho' the Writ were General and the Count in Right of the Dutchy of Lancaster yet both were as Patron pleno jure and the Count did only shew how the Plaintiff came to be Patron but here they were several Rights as dictinct as a Claim by a Man singly and a Claim as Executor or in jure Vxoris In Answer to this were cited the Presidents in Mich. 31 Hen. 6. Rot. 65. Pasch 9 Eliz. Rot. 1408. or 1410. Hill 13 Car. 1. Rot. 486. Trin. 31 Car. 2. Dominus Rex versus Episcop ' de Worcester Writ General and Count Special Rastal 528 530. Then it was argued upon the Merits of the Cause as it was appearing upon the Declaration and Plea and Demurrer and therein three Queries were made as had been by the King's Counsel below 1. If the King hath any Prerogative to present upon an Avoidance by Promotion where neither himself nor the Bishop was Patron but
yet doth further agree That this Parish-Church was never presented to by any Person at all But he insists upon it That now it is void the King hath a Right to present to it by force of his Prerogative upon this Avoidance tho' the Act saith That the Bishop shall present after the Decease of Dr. Tennison or the next Avoidance The Query is whether the King's Prerogative can operate upon this Vacancy of this Benefice thus filled and thus avoided against the express Words of an Act of Parliament It will be necessary to repeat the Words of the Act and they are to this Effect That all that Precinct or District of Ground within the Bounds and Limits there mentioned from thenceforth should be a Parish of it self by the Name of the Parish of St. James's within the Liberties of Westminster and a Church thereupon built is dedicated by the Act to Divine Service and that there should be a Rector to have the Care of Souls inhabiting there and then after a full Commendation of the Merits and Services of Dr. Tennison in that Place the now Reverend the Bishop of Lincoln It doth Enact and Ordain him to be the first Rector of the same and that the said Doctor and his Successors Rectors of the said Parish should be incorporated and have a perpetual Capacity and Succession by the Name of the Rector of the said Parish Church and by Virtue of that Act should be enabled by the Name aforesaid to sue and be sued to plead and to be impleaded in all Courts and Places within this Kingdom and should have Capacity to hold and enjoy purchase and acquire Lands Tenements and Hereditaments to him and them Rectors thereof for ever over and above what is given and settled by that Act to any Value not exceeding 200 l. per Annum Then it Enacts That the Patronage Advowson or Presentation after the Decease of the said first Rector or Avoidance thereof shall or should belong and appertain and by that Act shall or should be vested in the said Bishop of London for the time being and his Successors and in Thomas Lord Jermyn and his Heirs for ever Then it Enacts That the first Rector after such Decease or Vacancy shall be presented or collated by the Bishop of London for the time being and the next to succeed him shall be presented by the Lord Jermyn and his Heirs and the two next succeeding turns by the Bishop and his Successors and the next turn to the Lord Jermyn and his Heirs and then the like Succession of two turns for one to the Bishop and his Succession and of one turn to the Lord Jermyn and his Heirs for ever after This is the Act. Now 't is to be considered That this Law doth bind the King and would bind him in point of Interest if he had been Patron of St. Martins in Right of his Crown and if a Right or Interest of the Crown shall be bound by an Act of Parliament a Prerogative shall be in no better plight It cannot be said That he shall not be obliged by it because not named for tho' and where he is not named he is bound by Multitudes of Statutes according to the 5 Rep. 14 and 11 Rep. 68. He is bound by all Acts generally speaking which are to prevent a Decay of Religion and so he is bound by Acts which are for further Relief or to give a more speedy Remedy against Wrong It is no Objection that this Law is in the Affirmative for that it is introductive of a new Law in the very Subject that is created de novo Then before this Act the King had no Right over this and if he hath now any over it he can only have it how when and as the Act gives it not contrary to it then the Bishop was Patron of the Place out of which the Parish is created And the Bishop can claim no other Right than what the Act gives him Bro. tit Remitter 49. 't is so agreed 1 Rep. 48. and in 2 Rep. 46. if Lands be given in Fee to one who was Tenant in Tayle his Issue shall not be remitted because the latter Act takes away the force of the Statute de donis Suppose he had been Enacted to be Patron of a Living to which he had a former Right there could be no Remitter because as to particulars the Act is like a Judgment and estops all Parties to claim any thing otherwise than according to the Act and yet Remitter is a Title favoured in the Law then if he have this only by force of this New Act and another Person should present in his turn so given 't would be an Injury if a Subject did it and consequently the King cannot do it for the Prerogative which this Act gives or which the Common Law gives is not yet come to take place Tho' this be an Affirmative Law yet according to the Rule taken and agreed in Slade's and Drake's Case Hob. 298. being introductive or creative of a new thing implies a Negative of all that is not in the purview and many Cases are there put to this purpose Then also it being particular and express it implies a Negative because this and the other are inconsistent But First 'T is observable all Prescriptions and Customs are fore-closed by a New Act of Parliament unless saved Suppose there was an Act of Parliament in Force before this viz. That the King should present yet another Statute Enacting somewhat new and inconsistent will carry a Negative and if so in Case of a former Act there 's almost as much Reason for a Prerogative It must be agreed That a Man may prescribe or alledge a Custom against an Act of Parliament when his Prescription or Custom is saved or preserved by that or another Act but regularly a Man cannot prescribe or alledge a Custom against any Act of Parliament because 't is matter of Record and the highest and greatest Record which we know of in the Law 1 Inst 115. Suppose Money were by the Law payable annually and an Act comes and says it shall be paid Quarterly by even and equal Portions at the four Feasts for the first Year this will certainly alter the Law 'T is true That a consistent Devife or Statute is no Repeal or Revocation but if a new Act gives a new Estate different from the former this amounts to a Repeal Fox and Harcourt's Case The same Rule holds even in Case of the King as in the Archbishop of Canterbury's Case 2 Rep. 46. and agreed to in Hob. 310. the Query was if the Lands came to the King by 31 H. 8. cap. 13. or by the Stat. of Edw. 6. and objected That the latter was in the Affirmative yet held That it came by the latter because tho' they were Affirmative Words yet they were differently penn'd and the last being of as high an Authority as the first and providing by express Words That by Authority of that Parliament
there could be no colour for a Doubt By 1 Inst 42. 'T is an Estate for Life determinable upon Misbehaviour for during good Behaviour is during Life 't is so long as he doth behave himself well i.e. If he behaves himself well in it so long as he lives he is to have it so long as he lives during Life and during good Demeanour are therefore synonymous Phrases the same thing when used with relation to Offices the Condition annexed if observed continues it during Life the contrary determines it This is the Rule and Law in case of Offices in general and must hold in this for this is an Office 2 Hen. 7.1 He is called Att ' Domini Regis 'T is capable of being enjoyed for Life and consequently of being granted so especially when an Act of Parliament declares it shall be so There 's nothing in the nature of the Employment that hinders it and there can be no doubt but that a Statute may impower a Custos in possession who hath only an Estate at will to name a Clerk to hold during Life or good Behaviour The Justices are at pleasure Suppose then the Act had said That they should name him in this manner he must have continued tho' they had died or had been removed the Case is the same here he is as much intrusted with the Acts of the Justices as with the Records belonging to the keeping of the Custos Then there 's nothing in the Act that savours of an Intention to make him dependent on the Custos's Office The Custos is to name him but the Justices have the controul over him he is an Officer to the Sessions and the Justices only can remove him The Limitation of the Interest of the Custos in his Office and that of the Clerk are different and that shews that the duration of the one was not to depend on the other Besides the Custos is to name not when he shall be made Custos as it would have been worded if the intention advanced on the other side had been true but whensoever it shall be void It doth not say Every new Custos shall or that every Custos shall name but generally when 't is void he shall c. Then as to the Objection That this new Act is consistent with the 37 Hen. 8. and therefore that is still in force 'T was answered That by the former Act he was intirely placed under the Custos who had power to displace him upon Miscarriage the Sessions then could not do it tho' a Court and a Court of Record they might suspend him but could not deprive him of his Office even for ill Demeanour This was that Act. Now the present Law abridges the power of the Custos he must name a Resident before he might appoint any able Person the Person was then removable by the Custos now only by the Justices Care is taken that nothing is to be given for the Office and now he may make a Deputy without the approbation of the Custos Here 's plainly a different Jurisdiction over him and a different Estate vested in him this express Limitation of the Interest to him is an Exclusion of the former Estate as dependant upon that of the Custos And besides this is a Substantive distinct enacting Clause of it self and no ways relating to the Statute of Hen. 8. Why was this Limitation penned differently from that unless to give another sort of Interest As to the Cases of new Laws which repeal former 't was said That the Rule was certain that whatsoever Statute is introductive of a new Law tho' penned in the affirmative is a Repeal of the former as implying a negative i. e. the latter ought to be observed if it concerns the same Matter The Statute of Edw. 6. controuled the Statute of Hen. 8. One directed the Keeper to name the other the King and both are in the affirmative yet the latter must be observed And if this be a new Estate as it hath been adjudged below then the Party ought to enjoy it And for this was cited 1 Sid. 55. Plowd 113. and other Books Then 't was said That the Clerk of the Peace named by the Justices in default of the Custos would have an Estate for Life and by the same reason it ought to be so here Tho' the Custos be to be named according to the Statute of Hen. 8. yet he is not to execute his Power of Custos according to that Act but is tied to a Resident hath not the Approbation of a Deputy and cannot remove By the Statute of Hen. 8. the Clerk had but an Estate at the will of the King the Custos having no other This is so long as he doth well in his Office these are different and when the Custos hath named him he is in by the Statute If what they on the other side contend for had been intended there was no need of these words of Limitation at all and the words in like manner as by the former act had fulfilled the intention if such had been As to the word only that would make no Alteration in the Case of any other Office Suppose an Office granted to a Man quamdiu tantum or solummodo se bene gesserit would that give less then an Estate for Life The word only was added not to abridge the Estate of the Clerk but rather to restrain the Power of the Custos that he should have Authority only to limit it during good Behaviour and not for a less Interest or Estate The Custos is confined that he shall not grant it for Years or at Pleasure Besides only is but just so long and no longer or so long as and 't is the same thing with the word as without it Dummodo sola vixerit is during all her Widowhood Suppose a power to make Leases to hold only for and during the term of 21 Years the same would be good for the whole Term. Then 't is no Objection That the Estate of the Clerk is greater than his is who names him for that may be by Custom as in the Offices in Westminster-hall Hobart 153. and the Clerks of Assize where usage fixes the Estate And the like in Case of Power to make Leases upon Family Settlements to Uses where Tenant for Life grants larger Interests then his own 'T is true the Powers and Estates raised by them issue out of the Inheritance but the Tenant for Life only names them as the Custos doth here tho' the Statute gives the Interest As to the Inconvenience That dependent Offices should continue against the will of their Superiours that can be no Objection since there are few great Officers in the Realm but have many Substitutes and Inferiours under them which were named by their Predecessors and are not removable almost every Bishop in England is under these Circumstances with respect to the Register of his own Court who notes and records his Acts c. This is an