with other proofes is not materiall for other proofe will doe the deede without this bad concurrence and so will a violent presumption as if two goe safe into a Roome one of them is found stabbed to death the other may suffer this presumption is inevitable the law of God the lawes and statutes of the Realme protect and preserve the life of man it were therefore hard to take away by circumstance such a reall and noble essence This concurrence marrs the evidence it helps it not If one gives false testimonie once by the ancient law his testimonie shall never be received againe Leges Canuti Regis Lamb Saxons lawss fol. 113. p. 34. much lesse where they are notorious ill doers this and the reason and ground of this question already opened will I hope give your Lordships satisfaction For this question I will state it without any tenure reserved by expresse words as the question is put whether the reservation of rent or Annuall summe will rayse this to bee a tenure in capite I conceive it will not for sundrie reasons First from the beginning there have beene Fayres and Markets and no president booke-case or Record to warrant the new opinion in this Case before Trinitie terme 1639. in the Court of wards Secondly the practise of that Court was alwayes before to the contrary in the same and the like Cases Thirdly it is a thing as the question is of new creation and never in esse before for this see the Bookes of 3. Henr. 7. 4. 12. Henr. 7. 19. 15. E. 4. 14. 46. E. 3. 12. 21. Henr. 6. 11. Stamford prerogative 8. Therefore there is no necessitie of a tenure thereof upon the Conquest it was necessarie that all lands should be held by some tenure for the defence of the kingdome 1. The statute of Quia emptores terrarum c. praerogativa Regis speake of Feoffator Feoffatores c. therefore a tenure I meane this tacite or implyed tenure was originally onely intended of Land 2. The King may reserve a tenure in all things not mainerable by expresse reservation or Covenant 44. Edw. 3. 45. Fitz. natur brevium 263. c. but that is not our Case 3. Heere it is left to construction of Law which is aequissimus Iudex and lookes upon the nature of things and therefore in Cases that include Land or where land may come in liew therof a tenure may be by implication as a mesnalty a reversion expectant upon an intayle the like 10. Edw. 44. a. 42. Edw 3. 7. Fitz. Grants 102. and divers other bookes 4. No tenure can be implyed by reason of a rent if the rent be not distreynable by some possibility of its owne nature upon the thing granted as appeares by 5. Henr. 7. 36. 33. Henr. 6. 35. 40. Ed. 3. 44. 1. Henr. 4. 1. 2. 3. Fitz-cessabit 17. 5. The distresse upon other land is the Kings meere prerogative like the case of Buts Co. 6. 25. a distresse may be for rent in other land by Covenant 6. This is no rent because it issueth not out of land 7. If the Patentee here had no land there can be no distresse in this case 8. This is a meere priviledge it issueth out of no lands and participates nothing of the nature of land all the cases of tenures in our bookes are eyther of land or things arising out of land or some way or other of the nature of land or that may result into land or that land by some possibilitie may result into it Therefore I humbly conceive that new opinion is not warranted by law or president These My Lords are in part the things which satisfied the house of Commons in all the matters aforesaid they are now left to the judgement and Iustice of your Lordships QVESTIONS PROPOVNDED IN PARLIAMENT AND Declarations of the Law thereupon in Parliament WHither the Subjects of this kingdome bee a free people and to be governed onely by the Common-lawes of England and statutes of force in this kingdome The subjects of this his Majesties kingdome of Ireland are a free people and to be governed onely according to the Common-law of England and Statutes made established by Parliament in this kingdome of Ireland and according to the lawfull customes used in the same VVhither the Iudges of this land doe take the Oath of Iudges and if so whether under pretext of any Act of State Proclamation writ letter or direction under the great or privie Seale or privie Signet or Letter or other Commandment from the Lord Lieutnant Lord Deputy Iustice or other chiefe Governor or Governors of this kingdome they may hinder stay or delay the suite of any subject or his Iudgement or execution thereupon if so in what cases and whether if they doe hinder stay or delay such suite judgement or execution thereupon what punishment doe they incurre for their deviation and transgression therein That Iudges in Ireland ought to take the Oath of the Iustices or Iudges declared and established in severall Parliaments of force in this kingdome and the said Iudges or any of them by colour or under pretext of any act of state or proclamation or under colour or pretext of any writ Letter or direction under the great Seale privie Seale or privie Signet from the Kings most Excellent Majestie or by colour or pretext of any Letter or Commandement from the chiefe Governor or Governors of this kingdome ought not to hinder or delay the suite of any subject or his judgement or execution thereupon and if any letters writs or commaunds come from his Majestie or any other or for any other cause to the Iustices or to other deputed to doe the law and right according to the usage of the Realme in disturbance of the law or of the execution of the same or of right to the parties the Iustices and other aforesaid ought to proceed and hold their Courts and processes where the pleas and matters bee depending before them as if no such letters writs or commaundments were come to them and in case any Iudge or Iudges Iustice or Iustices bee found in default therein he or they so found in default ought to incurre and undergoe due punishment according the law and the former declarations and provisions in Parliament in the case made and of force in this kingdome or as shall be ordered adjudged or declared in Parliament And the Barons of the Exchequer Iustices of assize and Goale-delivery if they be found in default as aforesaid it is hereby declared that they ought to undergoe the punishment aforesaid VVhether the Kings Majesties privie Councell eyther with the chiefe Governor or Governors of the kingdome or without him or them be a place of Iudicature by the Common-lawes and wherein causes betweene party and party for debts trespasses accompts possession or title of Lands or any of them and which of them may bee heard and determined and
Common-wealth And they say that the matter manner restrictions limitations reservations and other clauses contayned in such grants or licences and the Commissions or Proclamations thereupon and undue execution thereof and severall circumstances may make the same lawfull or unlawfull whereof they are not able to give any certayne resolution before some particular commes in judgement before them neyther are they otherwise able to answer the generall in the particulars of the said question of what in what cases how where and by whom or which of them wherein whosoever desireth further satisfaction he may please to have recourse unto the knowne cases of Monoplies Printed authorities and written Reports and unto the statute of 21. Ia. in England concerning Monopolies and the severall exceptions and limitations therein 6. To the sixt they say they can no otherwise answer then they have already in their answer to the third question for the reasons therein setforth 7. To the seventh they say that a Proclamation or act of State cannot alter the common-law and yet Proclamations are acts of his Majesties prerogative and are and alwayes have beene of great use and that the contemners of such of them as are not against the law are and by the constant practise of the Star-chamber in England have beene punished according the nature of the contempt and course of the said Court and although acts of State are not of force to bind the goods possessions or inheritance of the subject yet they have beene of great use for the setling of the estates of very many subjects in this kingdome as may appeare in the Report of the case of Irish gavelkind in Print And further to that question they cannot answer for the reasons in their answer unto the third question set forth 8. To the eight they say that they know no ordinary rule of law by which the subjects of this kingdome are made subject to Marshall-law in time of peace and that they find the use thereof in time of peace in England complayned off in the petition of right exhibited to his Majestie in the third yeare of his raigne And that they conceive the granting of authority and Commission for execution thereof is derived out of his Majesties Regall and prerogative power for suppressing of suddaine and great insolencies and insurrections among armies or multitudes of armed men lawfully or unlawfully convented together the right use wherof in all times hath beene found most necessary in this kingdome And further to that question they cannot answer for that as they conceive it doth concerne his Majesties Regall power and that the answering of the other part of the question doth properly belong to another profession whereof they have no Cognizance 9. To the ninth they say that as the taking of any Oath before any but such Iudges or persons as have power to give or demaund an Oath for decision of controversies is by most Divinâ— in most cases counted to be a rash Oath and so an offence against God within the third Commandement so the prescribing and demaunding of a set Oath by any that cannot derive power so to doe from the Crowne where the fountaine of Iustice under God doth reside is an offence against the law of the Land and as for voluntary and extra judiciall Oathes although freely taken before arbitrators or others they say as this kingdome is composed in many particulars as the nature consequence of the cause or the quality of the person who taketh or before whom the same is taken may concerne the Common-wealth or the members therof such taking of such Oathes or proceeding or grounding on such Oath in deciding of controversies according to the severall circumstances that may occurre therein or the prejudice it may introduce to the Common-wealth may be punishable by the Common-law or if it grow unto an height or generall inconvenience to the common-wealth or members thereof in the Castle-chamber For though such an Oath be voluntary yet in most cases it is received by him that doth intend to ground his Iudgment thereon and after the Oath is taken the arbitrator or he that intends to yeeld faith to the party that tooke the Oath doth examine him upon one or more questions upon the said Oath unto the answer whereof hee doth give faith and assent trusting on the said Oath And whereas Oathes by Gods institution were chiefly allowed to bee taken before lawfull Magistrates for ending of controversies yet common experience doth teach in this kingdome that oftentimes orders and acts grounded on such voluntary Oathes beget strife and suits and commonly such orders when they come to bee measured by rules of law or equitie in the Kings Courts become voyde after much expence of time and charge that we say nothing of that that thereby many causes proper to the Kings Courts are drawn ad aliud examen and thereby the Kings justice and Courts often defrauded and declined 10. To the tenth they say that they are not Iudges of rules of policie but of law and that they know no certayne rule of law concerning reducement of fines The same being matters of his Majesties own meere Grace after a man is censured for any offence And that they know no law that none shall be admitted to reducement of his fines or other penalties in the Courts in the question specified untill he confesse the fact for which he was censured But forasmuch as the admittance to a reducement after conviction for an offence is matter of Grace and not Iustice It hath beene the constant course of these Courts both here and in England for cleering of his Majesties justice where the partie will not goe about to cleere himselfe by reversall of the censure or decree not to admit him to that grace untill he hath confessed the justnesse of the sentence pronounced by the Court against him And that the rather for that commonly the ability and disabilitie of the partie doth not appeare in judgement before them but the nature and circumstances of the offence according to which they give sentence against him or them in terrorem after which when the partie shall make the weaknesse of his estate appeare or that the Court is otherwise ascerteyned that they doe of course proportion the censure or penaltie having regard to his estate 11. To the eleventh they say That neither the Iudges of the Kings Bench as they informe us that are of that Court or Iustices of Gaole delivery or of any other Court doe or can by any law they know deny the copies of Indictments of Felony or Treason to the partie only accused as by the said question is demanded 12. To the twelfth they say that where lands are holden of the King by the Knights service in Capite the tenant by the strict course of Law ought in person to doe his homage to the King and untill he hath done his homage the ancient course of the Exchequer hath beene yet is to issue
processe of distringas out of the second remembrance Office to distrayne the tenants ad faciendum homagium or pro homagio suo respectuaÌ„do upon which processe the Shiriffes returneth issues And if the Tenant doe not therupon appeare and compound with the King to give a fine for respite of homage then the issues are forfeyted to the King for his contempt but if he appeare then the Court of Exchequer doth agree with him to respite his homage for a small fine wherein they regulate themselves under the rate expressed and set downe in England by vertue of a privie Scale in the 15. yeare of Queene Elizabeth whereby the rates are particularly set downe according to the yearely value of the Lands which rates are confirmed by act of Parliament in 1. Iacob Regis cap. 26. in England before which time there was not any such certayntie but the same rested in the discretion of the Court by the rule of Common-law and so it doth at this day in Ireland howbeit we conceive that the Court of Exchequer here doe well to regulate their discretions by those rates in England and rather to be under then to exceede the same which the Barons there doe as they doe informe us that are Iudges of the other Courts 13. To the 13. they say that they know no rule of Law or statute by which it should be ceÌ„surable in the subjects of this kingdome to repayre into England to appeale unto his Majesty for redresse of injuries or for other their lawfull occasions unles they be prohibited by his Majesties writ or proclamation or other his Command But they find that by the statute of 5. Rich. 2. the passage of the subject out of the Realme is prohibited without speciall licence excepting Noblemen others in the said statute specially excepted some inference to that purpose may be made upon the statute of 25. Hen 6 cap. 2. in this kingdome 14. To the 14. they say that some Deanries dignities not Deanes or dignitaries as the question propounds it are properly de mero jure donative by the King some Elective some Collative according to the first foundation usuage of such Churches they humbly desire that they may not be required to give any further answer to this question for that it may concerne many mens estates which may come judcially in question before them 15. To the 15. they say that they conceive that where priviledges are claymed by any body politicke or other the Kings Counsell may exhibite à quo-warranto to cause the parties clayming such priviledges to shew by what warrant they clayme the same that the Court cannot hinder the issuing of processe at the instance of the Kings Atturney or hinder the Kings Atturney to exhibite such informations But when the case shall upon the proceedings be brought to judgment then not before the Court is to take notice and give judgâ—ment upon the merite circuÌ„stances of the cause as upon due consideration shal be conceived to be according to law in which case the Iudges or the Kings Atturney as they conceive ought not to be punished by any ordinary rule of law or statute that they know But for the particular case of Quo-warranto for that it hath beene a great question in this present Parliament so concernes the highest Court of justice in this kingdome also concernes two other of his Majesties Courts of justice therin his Majesties prerogative in those Courts they say that they cannot safely deliver any opinion therein before it comes judicially before them and that they heare it argued and debated by learned Counsell on both sides 16. To the sixteenth they say that although the Iurors be sole Iudges of the matter of fact yet the Iudges of the Court are Iudges of the validitie of the evidence and of the matters of law arising out of the same wherein the Iury ought to be guided by them And if the Iury in any criminall cause betweene the King and party give their verdict contrary to cleere and apparent evidence delivered in Court they have beene constantly and still ought to be censured in the Star-chamber in England and Castle-chamber here for this misdemeanor in perverting the right course of justice in such fines and other punishment as the merites circumstances of the cause doth deserve according to the course of the said Courts for that their consciences ought to be directed by the evidence and not to bee misguided by their wills or affections And if the Iury know any matter of fact which may eyther better or blemish their evidence they may take advantage thereof but they ought to discover the same to the Iudges And they say that this proceeding in the Court of Castle-chamber is out of the same grounds that writs of attaint are against a Iury that gives a false verdict in a Court of Record at the Common-law betwixt partie and partie which false verdict being found by a Iury of twenty foure notwithstanding that the first Iurie were Iudges of the fact yet that infamous judgement was pronounced against the first Iury which is next or rather worse then judgment to death and did lay a perpetuall brand of perjury upon them for which reason it was anciently called the villanous judgement and they say that the law to direct the punishment for such offences is the course of the said Court which is a law as to that purpose the statute of 3. Henr. 7. cap. 1. and other statutes in force in this kingdome 17. To the seventeenth they say they can answer no otherwise then they have in their answer to the next precedent question 18. To the eighteenth they say that in a Legall construction the statute of Magna Charta in which the words Salvo contenemento are mentioned is only to be understood of amerciaments not of fines yet where great fines are imposed in terrorem upon the reducement of them regard is to be had to the abilitie of the persons 19. To the nineteenth they say that if one doth steale a sheepe or commit any other felony and after flyeth the course of justice or lyeth in woods or mountaynes upon his keeping yet doth he not thereby become a Traytor neyther doth a Proclamation make him so the chiefe use whereof in such a Case is to invite the partie so standing out to submit himselfe to justice or to forewarne others of the danger they may runne into by keeping him company or giving him mayntenance and reliefe whereby he may the rather submit to Iustice 20. To the twentieth they say that the testimony of Rebels or Traytors under protection of Theeves or other infamous persons is not to bee used or pressed as convincing evidence upon the tryall of any man for his life and so is his Majesties printed instructions as to persons condemned or under protectioÌ„ yet the testimony of such persons not condemned being fortified with other concurring
to receive no reward Sixtly to take no Fee of any other then the King Seventhly to commit such as breake the peace in the face of Iustice Eightly not to mantayne any suite Ninthly not to deny Iustice notwithstanding the Kings Letters or Commandements and in that Case to certifie the King of the truth Tenthly by reasonable wages to procure the profits of the Crowne Eleventhly if he be found in default in any the matters aforesaid to bee in the Kings mercie body Lands and goods The second reason principally moveth from the following particulars In the Kings Bench the Major-part of the Iudges denyed his Majesties writ of prohibition to the late Court called the high Commission in a cause meerely temporall The foure Courts of Iustice durst not proceede in any cause depending before the chiefe Governor or at the Counsell-board upon paper petitions or rather voyde petitions these paper-petitions being the oblique lines aforesaid grave Iudges of the law were commonly assistants and more commonly referrees in the proceedings upon these paper-petitions in what causes in all causes proper for the Cognizance of the Common-law and determinable by writs of right and petitions of right and so to the most inferior action the like of the Courts of equitie whether this be lawfully to serve the King and his people or whether the King was at losse by the non-prosecuting of the causes aforesaid in their proper orbes by originall writs which might afford the King a lawfull revenue and likewise by the losse of fines and amerciaments naturall to actions at the common-Common-law or whether the losse aforesaid was made knowne to his Majestie or who consented to the Kings damage therein or whether this be a denyall of justice to deferre it upon paper Orders or Commaunds be conformable to that Oath I will pretermit yet your Lordships may even in this mist discerne a cleere ground for the second question The motive which in part stirred the third and fourth questions was the infinity of Civill causes of all natures without exception of persons without limitation of time proceeded in ordered decreed and determined upon paper-petitions at Counsell-board by the chiefe Governor alone The Commons of this kingdome observing the Iudges of the law who were Counsellors of estate to have agreed and signed unto such Orders the Iudges of the foure Courts and Iustices of Assize in all the partes of the kingdome to bee referrees upon such proceedings wherby these new devises were become so notorious that as all men heavily groaned under them so no man could bee ignorant of them By the colour of Proclamations more more frequent and of the Orders and Acts of state at Counsell-board which were in a manner infinite and other proceedings mentioned in these questions these effects were produced First imprisonment close imprisonment of such numbers that a great defeate in a battle could hardly fill more gaoles and prisons then by these meanes were surcharged in Ireland Secondly by seizures made by crewes of Catchpoles and Caterpillers his Majesties Leige people lost their goods as if lost in a battaile nay worse without hope of ransome Thirdly possessions were altered and that so often and so many that more possessions were lost by these courses in a few yeares then in all the Courts of Iustice in Ireland in an age or two The fourth effect was this after liberty was taken away propertie altered and possession lost by the wayes aforesaid that was not sufficient the subject must be pillored papered stigmatized and the image of God so defaced with indignities that his life became a continuing death the worse of punishments in these feates were advising and concurring some grave and learned Iudges of the Land who were Counsellors of estate as by their signatures may appeare The house of Commons finding as yet no warrant of president nor countenance of example in the law of England to beare up the courses aforesaid have drawne the said Questions from the effects aforesaid My Lords the liberty estate in lands or goods the person of the subject nay his honor and spirit being invaded altered and debased in manner aforesaid there remayned yet one thing his Life See how this is brought into play nothing must escape were not the Gates of Ianus shut up was not the Kings peace universall in his three kingdomes when a Peere of this Realme a Counsellor of the Kings a great Officer of state was sentenced to be shot to death in a Court Marshall what the cause was what defence was permitted what time given and what losse sustayned I submit to your Lordships as therein most neerely concerned were not others actually executed by Marshall law at such time as the Kings Iustice in his Courts of law was not to be avoyded by any person whatsoever This was in part the ground of the eight question This question is plaine a late introduced practise here contrary to former use and no appearing president to warrant such prosecution for a voluntary Oath and the great benefit and quiet accrewed to his Majesties people by arbiterments conceived by consent of parties hath in part occasioned this question Heretofore this Confession was not required for the Iustnesse of the Iudgements was then able enough to beare them up and if the judgement in some Case had beene otherwise what force can the confession of a delinquent add to a Iudiciall act this is part of the reason for this question A complaint exhibited in the house of Commons touching the denyall of the Copy of a Record which the complaynant undertooke to Iustifie in part raised this question In King Iames his time by an order conceived in the Court of Exchequer upon great debate and warranted by ancient presidents the respite of homage was reduced to a certaintie viz. two shillings sixe pence sterling For a Mannor yearly and so for Townes and other portions of Land this course was alwayes held untill now of late the respite is arbitrarily raysed as appeares by the second remembrances certificate viz. I finde that anciently before the beginning of King Iames his raigne every Mannor payed three shillings foure pence Irish per annum every Towne-land twentie pence Irish per à nnum as a fine for respite of homage but cannot finde any order or warrant for it untill the fifth yeare of the said Kings raigne and there in Easter Terme 1607. I finde an order entred directing what homage every man should pay a Copy whereof you have already from mee the preamble of which orders sheweth that that matter had beene long depending in the Court undecided which induceth me to beleeve that there was no former president or order in it About three yeares after the freeholders of the Countie of Antrim as it should seeme finding this rate to be too heavy for them they petitioned to the Lord Chichester then Lord Deputy for reliefe therein I finde his Lordships opinion to the
answer is insufficient as in the case of a new invention of manufactory or the like in such cases a Patent may be good they say for certaine yeares whereas the yeares ought to be competent ten thousand years are certaine but not competent and they who offend are to give damage in an ordinary Court of Iustice to the Patentee unto which they adde or otherwise Oh this arbitrary word the like arbitrary advice of others I feare hath occasioned this Question Where Monopolies were clearly voyde punishments were inflicted upon The honest man and the Monopolist escaped they answer nothing to the losse of goods heavy fines mutillation of members the before recited statutes direct cleare answers to these particulars My Lords the statute of Magna Charta cap. 30. quod omnes Mercatores tam indigenae quam alienigenae have free passage sine omnibus malis tolnetis consuetudinibus ex Anglia in Anglia nisiantea publicè prohibiti fuerunt the subsequent statutes declaring many oppressions and grievances occasioned by restraints in trade and Commerce made trade free for victuall and merchandises and in them Nisi c. is omitted as the statute of 9. Edw. 3. c. 1. 25. Edw. 3. cap. 2. 2. Rich. 2. cap. 1. 11. Rich. 2. cap. 7. 16. Rich. 2. cap. 1. these statutes give double damage to the party and the offender to be imprisoned The statute of 21. Iacob c. 3. in England against Monopolies in the exception of new inventions limits the time to a reasonable number of yeares viz. fourteene yeares or under whether the heavie punishments aforesaid can be in this case especially the private interest of a subject being therein onely or mainly concerned Magna Charta cap. 29. gives me a cleere answer and satisfactory Nullus liber homo capiatur imprisonetur disseifietur vel aliquo modo destruatur c. nisi per judicium parium legem terrae if this be law or a lawfull statute as no doubt it is the question is soone answered My Lords by this time you know how the Innocent was actually punished in these cases Now it is time and not improper to shew how the Nocent ought to be punished who tooke unlawfull Monopolies seised the subjects goods by violence imprisoned fined mutilated and destroyed the Kings people and caused all the evils that depended therevpon For that my Lords it is not within my charge yet I hope it shall not remaine unrepresented by the house of Commons nor unremembred by your Lordships in due time To this the Iudges answered nothing but with a reference to their answer to the third whereas in truth this comprehends two matters besides of great weight and consideration first whereas the third question concerneth the decision at Counsell-board of matters of interest onely This question is of matters of punishment in an extrajudiciall way secondly this question demands knowledge of the punishment due to such as vote for such extrajudiciall punishments to these mayne matters there is no answer at all My Lords the statutes and authorities before mentioned upon the third and fourth questions against the determination at Councell-board or before the chiefe Governor in matters of interest do cleare this businesse as to the punishments depending upon those interests although not è converso And as for such as voted and acted therein if they besworne Iudges of the law the before recited Oath of 18. Edw. 3. declares enough His Majesty at his Coronation is bound by Oath to execute justice to his people according to the lawes this great trust the King commits to his Iudges who take a great Oath to discharge this trust if they fayle therein Sir VVilliam Thorp in Edward the 3. time for breaking this oath in poore things was indicted thus Quia praedictus VVillielmus Thorp habuit Sacramentum Domini Regis erga populum suum ad custodiendum illud fregit malitiosè falsé rebellitèr quantum in ipso fuit this extends to a Iudge onely who tooke that Oath habuit leges terrae ad custodiendum The trust betweene the King and his people is threefold First as betweene Soveraigne and Subject Secondly as betweene a Father and his Children under Pater Patriae Thirdly as betweene Husband and Wife this trust is comprehensive of the whole body politicke And for any Magistrate or private person to advise or contrive the breach of this trust in any part is of all things in this world the most dangerous vae homini illi First I doe conceive that an act of state or Proclamation cannot alter the Common-law nor restrayne the old nor introduce a new law and that the same hath no power or force to bind the goods lands possessions or inheritance of the subject but that the infringing thereof is onely a contempt which may bee punished in the person of the delinquent where the Proclamation is consonant and agreeable to the lawes and statutes of the kingdome or for the publicke good and not against law and not otherwise punishable I do conceive that a Proclamation is a branch of the Kings prerogative and that the same is usefull and necessary in some cases where it is not against the law wherein the publicke weale is interested or concerned but that any clause therein contayning forfeyture of the goods lands or inheritance of the subjects is meerely voyde for otherwise this inconvenience will ensue That Proclamations or acts of state may bee made in all cases and in all matters to bind the libertie goods and lands of the subjects and then the Courts of Iustice that have flourished for so many ages may be shut up for want of use of the law or execution thereof and there is no case where an offence is committed against law but the law will find out away to punish the delinquent The King by his proclamation may inhibit his subject that he shall not goe beyond Sea out of this Realme without his licence and this without any writt or other Commandement to his subject for perchance the King may not finde his subject or know where he is And if the subject will goe out of the Kings Realmes contrary to this proclamation this is a contempt and he shall be fined to the King for the same as saith Fitz-Herbert that such a proclamation can prohibit the Kings subjects to repayre into England for England is our Mother and though the Sea divide us that Sea is the Kings and therefore it is not pars extra in this sense It seemes by the Lord Chauncellor Egertons argument upon the case of post nati that a proclamation cannot binde the goods lands or inheritance of the subjects A provision was made in haec verba Promissum est coram Domino Rege Archiepiscopus Comitibus Baronibus quod nulla assis ultimae praesentationis de caetero capiatur de Ecclesiasticis praebendatis nec de praebendis but I doe not finde any forfeyture
or penaltie upon the libertie goods or lands of him that would bring an assize of Daren presentment for a prebendary I doe finde that a provision was made in haec verba Promissum est à Consilio Regis quod nullus de potestate Regis Franciae respondeat in Anglia antequam Anglici de jure suo in terra Regis Franciae c. Yet by that provision no forfeyture upon the lands or goods of him who sued a Frenchman in England at that time It is true that a Custome may bee contrary to the law and yet allowable because that it may have a lawfull commencement and continuall usage hath given it the force of a law Consuetudo ex certa rationabili causa vsitata privat communem legem but no proclamation or act of state may alter law For example sake at Common-law a Proclamation cannot make lands devisable which are not devisable by the law nor alter the course of descent The King by his Letters-patents cannot doe the same nor grant lands to bee ancient demesne at this day nor make lands to be descendible according the course of Gavelkind or Borrough English unlesse that the custome of the place doth warrant the same nor Gavelkind land to be descendible according the course of law à fortiori an act of state or proclamation which I hold to bee of lesse force then the Kings patent under the great Seale cannot doe it And in the case of Irish Gavelkind it is not the proclamation or act of state that did abolish or alter it but the very custome was held to be unreasonable and repugnant to law If an act of state bee made that none within the kingdome shall make Cards but Iohn at Stile this act is voyde for the King himselfe cannot grant a Patent under his great Seale to any one man for the sole feazance of Cards So it is of all proclamations or acts of state that are to the prejudice of Trafficke trade or Merchant affaires or for raysing of Monopolies or against the freedome and libertie of the subjects or the publicke good as I said before Also if proclamations or acts of state may alter the law or bind the libertie goods or lands of the subjects then will acts of Parliaments bee to no purpose which doe represent the whole body of the kingdome and are commonly for creating of good and wholesome lawes Therefore I conceive that all proclamations made against law are absolutely voyde and that the infringers thereof ought not to loose or forfeyte their liberty goods or lands And for the punishment of such Iudges that vote herein I referre to the sixt they deny to answer to this question This answer is generall and dangerous withall it is generall viz. they know no ordinary rule of law for it they ought to declare the law against it the right use of it here they commend and yet they doe not describe that right use therefore they commend two things the one the life of a subject to be left to Marshall law in time of peace the other they leave it likewise discretionary when they describe not the right use their last resort is to the Kings prerogative I have said before that Lawyers write the King can doe no wrong and sure I am our King meanes no wrong the Kings of England did never make use of their prerogative to the destruction of the subject nor to take away his life nor libertie but by lawfull meanes I conceive this advise should become the Iudges other advise they find not in their law Bookes The statute of Magna Charta cap. 29. and 5. Edw. 3. cap. 9. the petition of right the third of King Charles in full Parliament declared Tell them nay doe convince them that no man in time of peace can bee executed by Marshall law My Lords I could wish the Iudges had timely stood in the right opposition to the drawing of causes proper for the Kings Courts to an aliud examen the improper and unlawfull examen thereof on paper petitions whereby the Kings Iustice and Courts were most defrauded whereas an arbitrement being a principall meane to compose differences arising betweene neighbours and to settle amitie betweene them without expence of time or money was a course approved by law all our Bookes are full of this It is by consent of parties by arbitrators indifferently chosen bonds for performance thereof are not voyde in law and Iudgements given upon arbitrements and such bonds in our Bookes without question or contradiction to the lawfullnesse of an arbitrement or bond in proper Cases the principall good wrought by them was the hindering of suites debates at law therfore that exception fals of it selfe then I am to consider how far an Oath in the particular is punishable I will not speake of an Oath exacted or tendered that is not the question the question is of a voluntary Oath which the arbitrator cannot hinder I speake not to the commendation of any such Oath nor doe I approve of any Oath other then that which is taken before a Magistrate who derives his authoritie from the King the fountaine of Iustice but onely how farre this Oath is punishable by the late statute 10. Caroli fol. 109. a prophane Oath is punished by the payment of twelve pence no more vide stat of Marl. cap 23. 52. Hen. 3. viz. Nullus de caetero possit distringere liber ' tenentes suos c. nec jurare faciat libere tenentes suos contra voluntatem suam quia nullus facere potest sine praecepto Domini Regis which statute teacheth us that an exacted or compulsive Oath is by the Kings authority a voluntarie Oath is not reprehended 19. Edw. 4. 1. a. It was not reprehended in the case of an arbitrement this voluntarie Oath is punishable in the Star-chamber as the Iudges would affirme which I conceive to bee against the law First for that wee cannot learne any president in England for it It was but lately introduced here therefore the house of Commons is unsatisfied with the answer to this question in Boyton and Leonards case in the Star-chamber in Ireland Boyton was dismissed in a Case to this purpose about the yeare 1630. or 1631. It hath beene the late introduced course of the Castle-chamber and Councell-table not to admit the party censured to the reducement of his fine before hee acknowledged the justnesse of the sentence pronounced against him and that for divers reasons First the course of a Court being as ancient as the Court and standing with law is Curiae lex as appeareth by our bookes 2. Co. 16. b. Lanes case 17. Long 5. Edw. 4. 1. but if it be a course introduced de novo in mans memorie or a course that is against law it cannot be said to be lex Curiae for consuetudo licet sit magnae authoritatis nunquam tamen praejudicat manifestae veritati
sine licentia Domini Regis Fitz. Natur. br fol. 85 the words of this writ cleares the Common-law in the point it begins with a datum est nobis intelligi c. The King being informed that such person or persons in particular doe intend to goe whether ad partes exteras viz. foraigne Countries to what purpose to prosecute matters to the prejudice of the King his Crowne the King in such a case by his writ warrant or Command under the great Seale privie Seale privy Signet or by proclamation may command any subject not to depart the kingdome without the Kings licence this writ is worthy to be observed for the causes aforesaid therein expressed the writ extendeth only to particular person or persons not to all the subjects of the kingdome no man can affirme that England is pars extera as to us Ireland is annexed to the Crowne of England and governed by the lawes of England our question set forth the cause viz. to appeale to the King for Iustice or to goe to England for other lawfull causes whereas the said writ intends practises with foraigne Princes to the prejudice of the King and his Crowne At the Common-law if a subject in contempt of this Command went ad partes exteras his Lands and goods ought to be seized 2. 3. Philip Mary Dy. 128. b. and yet if the subject went to the parts beyond the Seas before any such speciall inhibition this was not punishable before the statute of 5. Rich. 2. cap. 2. as appeares 12. 13. Elizab. Dy. 296. a. So that before the inhibition the law was indifferent now the question is at common-Common-law whether the subject of Ireland having no Office can be hindered to appeale or goe to the King for Iustice The King is the fountaine of Iustice and as his power is great to command so the Scepter of his Iustice is as great nay the Scepter hath the priority if any be for at his Coronation his Scepter is on his right side his Sword on his left side to his Iustice he is sworne therefore if any writ Commandement or proclamation bee obtayned from him or published contrary to his Iustice it is not the act of the King but the act of him that misinformed him then will I adde the other words of the question viz. or other his lawfull occasions as I said before in the case of a writ of error in the Kings Bench of England or in the Parliament of England which are remedies given by the law therefore the Common-law doth not hinder any man to prosecute those remedies which are given to everie subject by the same A scire facias may be brought by the King in England to repeale a patent under the great Seale of Ireland of lands in Ireland 20. Henr. 6. fol. a. An exchange of lands in England for lands in Ireland is a good exchange in law 8. ass placit. 27. 10. Edw. 3. fol. 42. tempor Edw. 1. Fitz voucher 239. What law therefore can prohibit any subject for to attend this scire facias in England or to make use of his freehold got by exchange The law being thus then it was considered what alteration was wrought by one branch of the statute of 5 Rich. 2. cap. 2. by which the passage is stopped out of the kingdome Lords notable Marchants and the Kings souldiers excepted I conceive this statute doth not include Ireland I never heard any Irishman questioned upon this statute for going into England nor any Englishman for comming into Ireland untill the late proclamation by the statute 34. Edw. 3. c. 18. in England all persons which have their heritage or possessions in Ireland may come with their beasts corne c. to and fro paying the Kings dues The statute of 5. Rich. 2. did never intend by implication to avoyde the said expresse statute of Edw. 3. betweene the Kings two kingdomes being governed by one law in effect the same people the words of the statute of 5. Rich. 2. are observable the principall scope of it is against the exportation of Bullion in the later part there is a clause for licences to be had in particular Portes by which I conceive that the Customers of those Portes may grant a let passe in such Cases It is therefore to be considered whether that branch of the said statute of 5. Rich. 2. was received in Ireland I thinke it is cleare it was not for by the statute 10. Henr. 7. cap. 22. in Ireland all the generall statutes of England were received in Ireland with this qualification viz. such as were for the Common and publicke weale c. And surely it cannot be for the weale of this kingdome that the subjects here be stayed from obtayning of Iustice or following other lawfull causes in England The statute of 25. Henr. 6. cap. 2. in Ireland excuseth absentes by the Kings command and imposeth no other penaltie so that upon the whole matter this question is not answered For so much as they doe answer of this question the answer is good for there is no doubt to be made but Deaneries are some donative some elective and some may be presentative according to the respective foundations I will only speake of a Deane de facto if a Deane bee made a Bishop and hath a dispensation Decanatus dignitatem in commenda in the retinere the confirmation of such a Deane is good in law This was the case of Evans and Acough in the Kings Bench in England Ter. 3. Caroli where Doctor Thornbow Deane of Yorke was made Bishop of Limmericke with a dispensation to hold in the retinere after his patent and before consecration it was adjudged his confirmation was good and yet if a Deane be made a Bishop in any part of the world this is a Cession Co. 5. 102. a. VVindsors case Davis Rep. 42. 43. c. The Deane of Fernes his case 18. Elizab. Dy. 346. the confirmation of a meere Laicus being Deane is good though he be after deprived 10. Eliz. Dy. 273. 12. 13. Elizab. Dy. 293. although the Deane be after deprived by sentence declaratorie yet his precedent confirmations are good So I conceive that a Deane who hath stallum in Choro vocem in Capitulo during all the time of his life and never questioned and usually confirmed all Leases without interruption is good And to question all such acts 40. 50. 100. yeares after is without president especially in Ireland untill of late yeares and in this kingdome few or no foundations of Bishopricks or Deaneries can bee found upon any Record therefore I conceive the Iudges ought to answer this part of the question My Lords I know you cannot forget the grounds I layd before for this question nor the time nor the occasion of the issuing of Quo warrantoes nor what was done thereupon in the Court of Exchequer Now remayneth to consider of the answer
proofe or apparant circumstances may be pressed upon any tryall and for discovering of their fellowes abetors or relievers as the circumstances may offer themselves in their examinations especially if before they confesse themselves guiltie of the offence in imitation of the approver at the Common-law whereof no certaine rule may be given And it neede not be made a question here whether the Iurors or Iudges ought to be Iudges of the matter of fact it being positively layd downe in the sixteenth question that they are And though their false verdict doth convince or not convince the prisoner yet they may be questioned and punished for a false verdict as in their answer to the sixteenth is already declared 21. To the twentie one they say that that question is now judicially depending and hath beene already solemnely argued in his Majesties Court of VVardes in which Court their assistance for declaration of the law therein is already required And therefore they humbly desire they may not be compelled to give any opinion touching that point untill it be resolved there 22. To the twentie two they say that they doe conceive that there is no matter of Law contayned in the said question yet for the further satisfaction of your Lordships they say that upon view of an Act of state bearing Date at his Majesties Castle of Dublin the twenty fourth of December 1636. grounded upon his Majesties Letters of the fift of Iuly then last past it appeared unto them that foure shillings in the pound as of his Majesties free gift and reward out of the first payment of the increase of rent reserved to his Majestie was allowed to the Iudges that were Commissioners and attended that service And we humbly conceive that the receiving of that foure shillings in the pound of his Majesties bountie stands well with the integrity of a Iudge and those Iudges did informe them that they did not avoyde any Letters-Patents upon the Commission of Defective Titles but received such to compound as submitted for the strengthning of their defective Patents and Titles and such as would stand upon the validity of their grants were left to the tryall at law And that the Compositions made after the said grants of the foure shillings in the pound were made according to rules and rates agreed upon by all the Commissioners before his Majesties said Letters or the said Act of State and not otherwise George Shurley Hu. Cressy VVilliam Hilton Edw. Bolton Iames Barry Sa. Mayars Iam. Donellan Copia vera Extract per Phil Percivall Mr DARCIES REPLY TO THE ANSWER OF THE IVDGES MY LORDS His Majesties most humble and faithfull subjects the Knights Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament assembled representing the whole Commons of this Realme calling to mind the late invasion made upon the Lawes and just rights have heretofore presented unto the Lords House certaine questions of great weight and moment to the end their Lordships might thereunto require the answer of the Iudges in writing which being long sithence accordingly commaunded by their Lordships the Iudges have of late delivered in a writing to the Lords House by them styled an Answer unto the said Questions which being sent to the Commons house to be taken into consideration and the same all the partes thereof being weighed in the ballance of the grave judgement and knowledge of the said house of Commons the said answer was upon question voted to be minus pondus habens and not to merit the name of an answer This my Lords being the occasion of this conference the house of Commons appointed me a feeble Organ to utter part of their sense of the style and manner of this writing and to declare part of those reasons which satisfied their judgements that the said writing was short and insufficient o utinam that were all My Lords the Iudges had divers Moneths time to answer plaine questions plaine I speake of those who would be plaine the house of Commons a few dayes onely to consider of that intricate writing My powers are weake and the infirmities of my body are visible both in part occasioned by an high hand I should therefore faint under the weight of this burden but that the taske is not great I doe represent to your Lordships by way of rehearseall onely some partes of those reasons and authorities which were gathered and ripened to my hands by the house of Commons My Lords in matters of importance the course hath beene ancient and not yet deserted to begin with Prologues or Exordiums the worke is not mine I will onely In nomine sanctissimae Trinitatis make my entrance upon the matter of this Conference which is a generall concernment a great concernment of the whole kingdome And to that purpose I will declare the causes and reasons which moved or rather inforced the house of Commons for to disgest and propound the said Questions and to make it appeare that none of them is Idea Platonica none of them circumventing and all depending now or of late To mantayne the preamble to Questions viz. That this Nation ought to bee governed by the Common-lawes of England that the great Charter and many other beneficiall statutes of England are here of force by reasoning or argumentation were to alter a foundation layd 460. yeares past and to shake a stately building thereon erected by the providence and industrie of all the ensuing times and ages This is so unanswerable a truth and a principle so cleere that it proveth all it needeth not to be proved or reasoned Reasons why the Questions were propounded The reason for the first was the late introduction of an arbitrary government in many cases by some Ministers of estate contrary to the lawes and statutes aforesaid a government contrary to the just freedome property of his Majesties people in their lives estates and liberties whereas the subjects governed by the lawes of England are and ought to be free subjects the late disuse therefore of those lawes in execution and the measure of justice being squared by the Lesbian line of uncertaintie as contrary to the lawes aforesaid as any oppositum is in objecto produced the first question and I hope not improperly The reason for the second in part ariseth out of the Oath of a Iudge 18. Edw. 3. to be found among the Printed statutes Polton fol. 144. and out of the statutes of 20. Edw. 3. cap. 1. 2. 3. Polton fol. 145. This Oath is comprehensive and extends to the Iudges the Barons of the Exchequer and Iustices of Gaole-delivery and their associats This great and sacred Oath contaynes severall branches First well lawfully to serve the King his people in the Office of a Iustice Secondly not to Counsell or consent unto any thing tending to the Kings damage or disinherison Thirdly to warne the King of his damage when hee knowes it Fourthly to doe equall Iustice to rich and poore c. without respect of persons Fiftly
custome is here over all the kingdome And yet if any man aske the question by what law wee are governed there is no proper answer other then by the law of England And for the statutes of England generall statutes were received in this kingdome some at one time some at another and all generall statutes by Poynings Act anno 10. Henr. 7. but no other statute or new introducting law untill the same be first received and enacted in Parliament in this kingdome and this may appeare by two declarative statutes the one 10. Henr. 4. the other 29. of Henr. 6. The law of England as it is the best humane law so it is a noble and sociable law and for the more cleere discerning of the truth and equall administration of Iustice it referres many causes to their genuyn and naturall proceedings as Maritime causes to the Court of Admiralty Co. Institutes 260. 361. Stamford 57. b. Co. 5. 106. 107 Constables Case and there the proceeding is by the Civill law Co 8 47. b. Matters beyond the Seas are determined in the Court of constable and Marshall Cookes institutes 391. b. matters of Latin the law referres to Grammarians Com. fol. 122. matters meerely Ecclesiasticall to bee tryed and determined in the proper Courts Coke 7. 43 b 8. Co. 68. 5. Co. 57. 1. R. 3. 4. matters of merchandize to Marchants 34. Henr. 8. Dy 52 54. Many other cases upon this learning are to be found Co. 9. fol. 30. 31. 32. Strat. Marclads case Yet in all these and the like Cases the tryall and determination thereof are bounded and controuled by the rules of the Common-law they are as Rivers which are necessary to run through the land to helpe the inhabitants thereof but if they overflow the bankes the bankes are made higher and stronger to suppresse their violent current so in all the cases aforesaid and the like The Common-law hath limitted the proceedings if they exceede their bounds witnesse the prohibitions in all our Bookes and the statutes of Provision and praemunire and cases there upon in many ages by which it is manifest that the Supreame and governing law are the Common-law Common-customes and statutes of the Realme and the rest but ministers and servants unto it brevia remediana are onely by the Common-law mandatoria may bee in the said other cases 7. Co. Calvins case Dy. 176. So that the answer as to the words in the generall is short and ought to be positive As to the Courtes of equitie they have beene ancient in England and the Courts of eqnity here ought to bee guided by the constant proceedings in England in ages past I meane not by this or that Chancellor but by that naturall and just equity in the Courts here observed This equitie is of absolute necessitie in many cases ipsae etenim leges capiunt ut jure regantur and therefore is included within the law of the Land and not to bee devided from it as out of this writing it may bee inferred As to the case of killing in rebellion to operate an Attaynder if this bee no law in England it cannot bee law here vide Dame-hales case com 263. a. 8. Edw. 3. 20. fitz Dower 106. Cromptons Iurisdiction fol. 84. a. by which it may be urged that it is an Attaynder for that hee prevented the judgement of law by fighting against the Crowne and by his killing therein which ensued his unlawfull and trayterous act but I observe to the contrary the books of 7. Henr. 4. 32 b. Cook 4. 57. Sadlers case I doe confesse that in England statutes may be obsolete as the statute of VVilliam Butler by which the heire may have an action of wast Rastall 5. 21. all the books are contrary and so is the statute of Merton of disparagment as to an action to bee brought for the same so are some antiquated lawes 40. Edw. 3. 42. 42. ass 8. 25. one present aiding to murder was accessary but now is principall 4. Hen. 7. 18. Com. 99. 100. a Vicar could not anciently have an action against a Parson 40. Edw. 3. 28. Finchden the law is now otherwise and so of an entry upon a feoffee with warranty sit fol. 23. 24. in the case of disparagement give the reason because that those statutes and lawes were never used therfore obsolete our case is nothing like for life liberty and propertie being in debate but an obsolete law is no law in force Therefore the answer as to that is defective As to the case of a fellon upon his keeping and terrifying of the people I conceive the answer is uncertaine and dangerous if such a fellon raise an armed power against the Crowne and terrifie that way no doubt this is treason within the statute of 25. Edw. 3. or the equity of it and by the statute of 10. Hen. 7. cap. 13. in Ireland statuto Hiberniae fol. 62. but if such terrifying be without raising armes or by committing the same or the like fellonies it is no more then the case of purse-takers by force in the high wayes of England many a man was terrified thereby in Salisbury-plaine and yet no treason and if there be no statute here which is not in England to make it treason certainly it cannot be treason since the Conquest writ of error have been brought for to reverse Iudgments given in the Kings Bench here in the Court of Kings Bench in England no course here which is contrary to law can alter the law of England therefore to what purpose is a declaration of Iudges here contrary to the law there This writ of error is a writ framed in the Register and appeares by common experience I will offer a notable case which I saw adjudged in the Kings Bench in England Pasc 18. Iacobi for Stafford against Stafford in a writ of error for to reverse a Iudgment given in the Kings Bench in Ireland when Sir VVilliam Iones was Chiefe Iustice here in an ejectione firme for that in the declaration there was contained among other things ducentas acras Montani Sir VVilliam Iones being in England affirmed the course here to have been so and vouched many notable Presidents thereupon an order was conceived that Sir Iames Ley Sir Humphry VVinch and Sir Iohn Denham knights who were formerly Chiefe Iustices here should certifie the course who made report that the course in Ireland was and ought to be in writts originall and Iudiciall to be directed by the Register in pleading to be guided by the books of entries and thereupon the Iudgement was reversed And the Chiefe Iustice Mountague said that if they did not proceed in Ireland according to law they should learne it And so I conclude that the answer to the first Question is insufficient As touching the second Question which is concerning the Oath which this Iudges doe take the question is whether the Iudges of the land doe take the Oath of Iudges And if so c.
The answer of the Iudges to the first part is that they confesse they take the Oath of Iudges which is specified amongst the statutes in 1â— Edw. 3. and 20. Edward 3 as I said before and that they may not stay hinder or delay the suite of any subject or his judgement or execution there upon otherwise then according to the law and course of the Court where they sit under pretence of any act of state proclamation writ letter or direction under the great Seale or privie Seale or privie Signet or Letter or other Commandement from the Lord Lieutenant Lord Deputy Iustice Iustices or other chiefe Governor of this kingdome most of which doth appeare by their Oath expressed expressed in the said statutes and the statute of 2. Edw. 3. c. 8. and the statute of 20. Edw. 3. as to the Barons of the Exchequer and as they know no punishments due to the Iudges for their deviations and transgressions without other aggravation so they know no punishment layd downe by any law against them for their deviations and transgressions in hindering staying or delaying of Iustice contrary to their said Oath other then what is declared in their said Oath and the statute of 20. Edw. 3. I conceive the answer is not a full and perfect answer to the Question For where the Question is whether the Iudges under pretext of any act of state proclamation writ Letter or direction under the great or privie Seale or privie Signet or Letter or other Commandement from the Lord Lieutenant Lord Deputie Iustice or Iustices or other chiefe Governor or Governors of this kingdome they may hinder stay or delay the suite of any subject or his judgement or execution thereupon if so in what cases and whether if they doe hinder stay or delay such suite judgement or execution thereupon what punishment doe they incurre for their deviations and transgressions therein To this they answer that they may not stay hinder or delay the suite of any subject or his judgement or execution therupon otherwise then according to the law course of the Court where they sit under pretence of any act of state proclamation writ letter or direction under the great or privie Seale or privie signet or letter or other commandement from the Lord Lieutenant Lord Deputy Iustice or Iustices or other chiefe Governor or Governors of this kingdome whereas they ought to have expressed the particular of this exception for by that clause it is supposed or may be strongly implyed that in some cases they may hinder stay or delay the suite of any subject or his judgement or execution therupon under pretext of any act of state proclamation letter or direction under the great or privie Seale or privie signet or other Commandement from the Lord Lieutenant Lord Deputy Iustice Iustices or other chiefe governor or governors of this kingdome which they ought to have expressely layd downe the question being if they may stay hinder or delay the suite of any subject upon any such pretext then to set forth in what Cases which ought to be particularly answered unto In the next place the Question is if they doe stay hinder or delay such suite judgement or execution therupon then to set forth what punishment they doe incurre for their deviation or transgression therein Vnto this they answer they know no punishment due to the Iudges for their deviation and transgressions without other aggravation This I conceive is an implication that there is a punishment where there is matter of aggravation and therefore it ought to be expressed what matter of aggravation they intend the same to be They further say they know no punishment layd downe by any law against them for their deviations or transgressions in hindering staying or delaying of Iustice contrary to their Oath other then what is declared in their said Oath and the statute of â—0 Edw. 3. This I conceive not to bee a full answer in respect the punishment layd downe in that Oath is in a generality viz. that the Iudges so offending contrary to their Oath are to be at the Kings will of body lands and goods which they should declare and expresse how farre that punishment extendeth in their bodies lands and goods Whether imprisonment of their bodies or in their lives and whether in forfeiture of their lands goods or how else The breach of an Oath is a very high offence and the higher it is that the matter it doth concerne is the greater and therefore it is much secundum subjectam materiam It is to be considered to whom the oath of a Iudge is made and what matter it doth concerne To the first the Oath is made to GOD the King and to the Common-wealth For the matter it is concerning the true and equall administration and distribution of Iustice to the people If the Iudge doe offend contrary to his Oath he commits breach of the trust reposed in him by the King besides the violation of his Oath Looke upon trust betweene Common persons A man makes a Lease for yeares the Lessee makes a scoffment this is a forfeyture of his estate by the Common-law by reason of the breach of trust Lessee for life in an action brought against him prayes in ayde of a stranger this is a forfeyture of his estate A quid Iuris clamat brought against Lessee for life he claymes a fee which is found against him this is a forfeyture of his estate So much for breach of trust To come unto a false verdict given by a Iurie which is a breach of their Oath they being sworne ad veritatem dicendam For this false verdict an attaynt lyeth at Common law against the petit Iury The judgement at the Common-law in an attaynt importeth eight grievous punishments 1. Quod amittat liberam legem in perpetuum 2. quod forisfaciat omnia bona Catalla sua 3. quod terrae tenementa in manus Domini Regis capiantur 4. quod uxores liberi extradomus suas eijoiantur 5. quod domus suae prostrentur 6. quod arbores suae extirpentur 7. quod prata sua arentur 8 quod corpora sua Carceri mancipentur So odious is perjurie in the eye of the Common-law It followeth therefore that the breach of the Oath of a Iudge materia considerata in regard it tends to the subversion of Iustice is an offence of an higher nature deserving a farre greater punishment in his body lands and goods as I conceive This question is very short and as plaine it is no more then whether the Councell-table be a Iudicatorie in Civill causes betweene subject and subject for lands goods or Chattels and by what law The answer is wholly ad aliud But it is answered fully by the great Charter capit 11. 9. Henr. 3. Communia placita non sequantur Curiam nostram Common-pleas which are the pleas in question shall not follow the Kings Court againe cap. 29.
takes away the Kings prerogative for cutting woodes where he pleased many other cases there are upon this learning By this great Iustice and bounty of the Kings of England the Kings grew still greater and more permanent The people became free and wealthy no King so great as a King of rich free people If the Councell-table may retaine cognizance of causes coÌ„trary to the Law to so many Acts of Parliament why may they not avoyde all Acts of Parliament aswell This no man will affirme nor they intend My Lords two objections seeme to stand in my way First the multitude of presidents countenancing the cognizance of the Councell-board in the matter aforesaid some in ancient times and of late in great clusters throngs Secondly that in book Cases it appeares the Iudges of Law did take advice in their Iudgements with the Kings Counsell as 40 Ed. 3. fol. 34. 39. Ass placito primo 35. Edw. 3. fol. 35. 19. Edw. 3. fitz Iudgement 174. In answer to the first as for the multitude of presidents hinc illae lachrymae there is our griefe I find in our Bookes that presidents against Law doe never bind there is no downe right mischiefe But a president may be called upon to beare it up Iudicandum est legibus non exemplis Cooke 4. fol. 33. Mitâ—ons case Cooke 11. fol. 75. Magdalen Colledges case Cooke 4. fol. 94. Slades case multitudo errantium non parit errori patrocinium I answer to the second that in those yeare books of Edw. 3. It is true that the Iudges appealed to the Kings Councell for advice in law but who gave the Iudgment the Iudges and what Iudgement a legall Iudgement and no paper or arbitrary Iudgment If this objection were materiall I might answer further that the Councell here may bee understood the great Councell viz. the Parliament propter excellentiam vide Cooke 6. 19. 20. Gregories case By the stat of 4. Edw. cap. 3. 14. and 36. Edw. 3. c. 10. Rastall fol. 316. Parliaments were then to be held once a yeare the booke of 39. Edw. 3. fol. 35. in the case of a formedon may well warrant this explanation of those books the Bishops Abbots Earles and Barons mentioned in the said books may be well taken to be the Lords house which might sit by adjournements in those times of frequent Parliaments My Lords I kept you too long upon this Question I will be as short in the next And so I conclude the answer as to this point is no answer and whether the matters therein comprized be of dangerous consequence I submit to your Lordships If the Chiefe Governor and Councell of this kingdome cannot heare or determine the causes aforesaid surely the Chiefe Governor alone cannot doe it all I have said to the third I doe apply to this Question together with one president worthy your observation in 25. Edw. 1. Claus. m. 20. where I have an authenticke coppie viz. Claus. vicessimo quinto Eaw primi m. 20. Rex dilecto fideli suo Iohanni VVogan Iusticiario suo Hiberniae salutem cum intellexerimus quod vos comunia placita quae totis temporibus retroactis per brevia originalia de Cancellaria nostra Hiberniae placitari deberent consueverunt per billas petitiones vacuas jam de novo coram vobis deduci facitis etiam terminari per quod feodum sigilli nostri quo utimur in Hibernia fines pro breuibus dandis ad alia commoda quae nobis inde solent accrescere di versimode subtrabuntur in nostri incolarum partium illarum damnum non modicum gravamen nolentes igitur hujusmodi novitates fieri per quas nobis damna gravia poterunt evenire vobis mandamus quod si ita est tunc aliqua placita comunia quae per brevia originalia de Cancellaria nostra praedictâ— de jure consuetudine hucusque visitata habent terminari per petitiones billas coram vobis deduci placitari aut terminari de caetero nullatenus praesumatis per quod vobis imputari debeat aut possit novum incommodum in hac parte Teste Rege apud Shestoniam xxiij die Martij Convenit cum Recorda VVilliam Collet Your Lordships may see that in Edward the firsts time the King took notice First that the said petitions were void Secondly that his revenues were thereby impaired Thirdly that it was against the Custome of the land of Ireland Fourthly that it was to the grievance of the people of Ireland Fifthly he comanded Iohn VVogan then Chiefe Governor not to presume to deale in the like proceedings thereafter I marvaile not a little wherefore the Iudges in our time after so many acts of Parliament since 25. Edw. 1. should make any doubt or question to answer this cleerly My Lords I humbly desire not to be misconstrued in the debate of this Question my meaning is not to pry into his Majesties just prerogatives Qui enim majestatem scrutatur Principis corruet spelndore ejus the old saying in English is as good he that hewes a block above his head the chipps will fall into his eyes The Question warrants no such scrutinie I may not officiously search into it The Question is onely whether grants made of monopolies to a subject be good in law And whether by pretext of such grants the Kings free people may loose their goods by seisures or may be fined imprisoned pillored papered c. Those things have been done and acted in many cases where the Monopolites were Iudges and parties in which case if an act of Parliament did erect such a Iudicatorie it were void as against naturall Iustice Cooke 8. 118. a Doctor Bonhams case I speake to that thing that odious thing Monopolie which in law is detestable Cooke 11. 53. b. the Taylors of Ipswich case by which any subject is hindered to exercise his lawfull trade or lawfully to acquire his living and the Condition of a bond being to restraine any man from his trade the bond is void in law 2 Hen. 5. 5. b. In this case the Iudge Hull swoare par Dieu if hee who tooke this bond were present he would fine him to the King and commit him to prison by which case I observe that the consent of the partie cannot make it good That a Patent of any such Monopolies is a grievance against the Common wealth and consequently voyd in law the case was of Cards which is observable Cook 11. 85. 86. 87 c. Darcy Allens Case There is a Condition tacite or expresse in every grant of the Kings Ita quod patriamagis solito non gravetur vel oneretur vid. Fitz. N. br fol. 222. Cod. ad quod damnum This learning is so cleare as to Monopolies thus stated that I will dwell no longer upon them as I hope they may no longer reside among us The