this Non obstante Matthew Paris calls a detestable addition against all Reason and Justice and when the year after King Henry urg'd the example of the Pope for Non obstantes The Prior of Jerusalem says God forbid you should use this unpleasant and absurd word as long as you observe Justice you may be King and as soon as you violate it you will cease to be King. Which shews how little Foundation in Law it then was thought to have and what the whole Nation thought of the Pope's use of it may be seen at large in Matthew Paris and Mr. Prin's Animadversions on the 4 th Institute Farther the Reasons given why the King ought to have this Power fail here upon many accounts 1. In that the Interest of the whole of which the Legislators are the best Judges when they make the Law without Exception ought to outweigh all private Inconveniences 2. The Law has provided a more certain and equal Remedy having taken as sufficient Care for the meeting of Parliaments once a Year at least and I may say sitting too as it has for the sitting of the Common Courts of Justice as appears from the several Statutes in Print and others in the Rolls which avoid the common Cavil upon the words Oftner if need be And these were like the famous Triennial Act Provisions for the greater certainty of meeting so often at least but no Recessions from the old Law which as appears both by the Mirrour and the Life of King Alfred was for the Great Council to meet twice a year at London 3. The great Reason assign'd in the Latin Quotation from the Lord Cook Propter impossibilitatem praevidendi de omnibus particularibus which is after distinguish'd as to Person Time and Place can by no means be applied to the Case in question For 1. The Law was made but very few Years before their Lordships Resolution and not grown more inconvenient by length of time to any particular Person than it was at the making of the Act. 2. The Law-makers had in their immediate prospect every particular Person of the Romish Communion and the Time when and Place where the Danger would happen if any such were Commissioned Let us now see what help he can have from his second Quotation from the Lord Cook which is 7 Rep. f. 73. but he intends I suppose f. 37. and would have it believ'd that it was the Opinion of all the Judges of England 2 Jac. 1. That the King may dispense with any particular Person that he shall not incur the Penalty of the Statute tho' it be an Act made pro bono publico and that this is a Trust and Confidence inseparably annex'd to the Royal Person of the King in which 1. He again overthrows his Distinction of malum in se and prohibitum making that Power at large in relation in any Statute pro bono publico 2. He manifestly perverts the Lord Cook 's sense whose Words are When a Statute is made pro bono publico and the King as Head of the Commonwealth and the Fountain of Justice and Mercy is by all the Realm trusted with it this is a Trust and Confidence inseparably adjoyn'd and annex'd to his Royal Person in so high a Point of Sovereignty that he cannot transfer it to the disposition or power of any private Person or to any private Use for this was committed to the King by all his Subjects for the Publick Good c. But true it is that the King can upon any cause moving him in respect of Time Place or Person c. make a Non obstante to dispense with any particular Person that he shall not incur the Penalty of the Statute Where the sole Question was of transferring over a Penalty granted to the King as entrusted by all the Realm to see the Statute put in execution by inflicting the Penalty This Trust is adjudged inseparable and not to be transferr'd over but that however the King may dispense with the Penalty granted to himself Upon which I must say our Chief Justice has made a very foul Stretch for what is this to the Informer's Part concerning which the Question before him was But surely there is a mighty difference between these two Propositions Where the Subjects have entrusted the King with a Statute made for the Publick Good this Trust is inseparable and cannot be transferr'd to another but the Statute so entrusted may be dispens'd with which is all that is to be gather'd from the Lord Cook and this Tho' an Act be made for the Publick Good yet the King may dispense with it and this is a Trust and Confidence inseparably annex'd to the Royal Person of the King which is Sir Herbert's perverse Comment In short Lord Cook says Where the King is entrusted with the Execution of a Statute made for the Publick Good he may dispense with that Statute Sir Edward Herbert says He may dispense with any Statute made for the Publick Good. Upon which 't is to be observ'd That the Question in the Lord Cook was not of Dispensing but granting over the Penalty which Penalty he says is not to be transferred over The other would make it of Dispensing and that that Power is inseparable and not to be transferr'd so apparently changes the State of the Question His next Step is to the Year-book of H. 7. f. 11 12. in which he leaves us to seek the Year which is 11. This he calls the first and great Case which he cites wherein the King 's Dispensing Power is described and limited There is a diversity says the Book between malum prohibitum and malum in se as a Statute forbids any Man to coin Money and if he does he shall be hang'd this is malum prohibitum for before the Statute Coining Money was lawful but now it is not so and therefore the King can dispense with it So if a Man ship Wooll in any place but Calice it is malum prohibitum because it is prohibited by Act of Parliament But that which is malum in se the King nor no other Person can dispense with as if the King would give a Man power to kill another or license one to make a Nusance in a High-way this were void and yet the King can pardon these things when they are done Upon this Case 't is observable That the Power of Dispensing is here asserted in relation to Things and not Persons Wherefore according to this taken in Sir Herbert's Latitude the King may grant Dispensations to all in general where the Matter is only malum prohibitum whereas he himself owns that the nature of a Dispensation is particular and given to particular Persons by name 2. Many things in Magna Charta nay the most are but mala prohibita and so Magna Charta its self may be dispensed with when he himself owns that the King cannot dispense with one Tittle of Magna Charta And
methinks he could not but observe this Contradiction Wherefore the Rule there admit it were a Judgment in Law as it was not being onely spoken obiter by one of the Judges can be applied onely to such Cases as are there cited The first is that of Coining Money which goes upon the ground in Moor's Reports where 't is said that such Statutes as give a Prerogative may be dispens'd with and that of shipping Woolls at Calice the King's Staple is of the same nature and both sufficiently shew the Distinction of malum prohibitum from malum in se to relate barely to such things as become evil by accident as they are against an accidental Prerogative Which no way interferes with the Rights of the Subjects in general or particular And I much wonder that Sir Edward Herbert should cite my Lord Vaughan in the Case of Thomas and Sorrel as confirming what he would infer from the Year-Book when Lord Vaughan says That old Rule has more confounded Mens Judgments on the Subject than rectified them and himself denies that the King can dispense with every malum prohibitum by Statute tho' prohibited by Statute onely Oh but my Lord Vaughan shews that a Dispensation does jus dare and makes the thing prohibited to all others lawful to be done by him that has it Does he say this of every malum prohibitum By no means Wherefore we must apply it to the Case then in question which concerned Wine-Licences about which the King had a Prerogative by Statute-Law And the dispensing with that falls within the Rule in Moor agreeing with the Lord Coke in the Case of Penal Statutes Yet even thus much was a Point gain'd by the Prerogative since the first of H. 7. for it is then made a Doubt before all the Judges of England in the Exchequer Chamber and adjourned over for the difficulty Whether the King could license the Shipping Woolls elsewhere than at Calice one of the very Instances which Sir Edward Herbert relies on And chief-Chief-Justice Hussey was positive that the King could not license it tho' indeed the Chief-Baron and some others held as Fineux did afterwards Wherefore no body of less assurance than our chief-Chief-Justice can say from these Cases results this plain Syllogism Whatever is not prohibited by the Law of God but was lawful before any Act of Parliament made to forbid it the King by his Dispensation may make lawful again to that Person who has such Dispensation tho' it continues unlawful to any body else c. In which if we grant his Major I will own the Conclusion to bring it to Sir Edward Hales his Case is not criminal Yet the Proposition is so pernicious striking at the very Foundations of our Government that if there were a Resolution in stead of an extrajudicial Opinion giving that Countenance which even that loose Opinion does not yet it ought to be rejected For if all Acts of Parliament contrary to Magna Charta are void as some have held I am sure much more so would such Resolutions of Judges be and that such an one would be contrary to that Great Charter is evident for no Man can say that all things prohibited by Magna Charta are prohibited by the Law of God. To come to Sir Edward's next Great Case as he calls it but indeed the onely one which has colour'd the Resolution to the World which is that 2 H. 7. Notwithstanding his Promise he has not been so fair to give the Words of that Case or so much of them as is material lest every body might judge of how little use it would be to him nay lest Men should be for satifying their own Eyes he has not directed to the Folio The English of the material part is thus In the Exchequer Chamber all the Justices were shewn for the King how King Edward the Fourth by his Letters Patents had constituted the Earl of N Sheriff of the same County and had granted the said Earl the Office of Sheriff of the said County for the Term of his Life with all the other Offices thereto belonging rendring to the King at his Exchequer annually 100 l. without any Account or any other thing to be given for it c. Now 1. Whether this Patent was good And also 2. How this Patent shall be intended were the Points in question And as to the first Point the Justices held the Patent good for it is a thing which may well be granted for Term of Life or Inheritance as divers Counties have a Sheriff by Inheritance and this commenc'd by a Grant of the King. Then was shewn a Resumption and then was shewn a Proviso for H. Earl of N. so that the Patent remains in its force Radcliff shews the Statute of 28 E. 3. c. 7. and 24 E. 3. c. 5. That no Sheriff shall be more than one Year c. altho' he had a Non obstante And notwithstanding this that the King shall always have his Prerogative as of the Value and the Certainty of the Land and other things granted by the King and of Woolls shipp'd and of Charters of Murder and many other Cases where the Statutes are That Patents that want these things shall be void yet the Patenrs are good with a Non obstante But without a Non obstante the Patents are void by reason of the Statutes so here the Patent with a Non obstante c. This is all that is said in the Book upon the first Point upon which 't is observable 1. By the Book it would seem that this Radcliff was but a Serjeant at Law for at the end of the Case Brian Justice demands of Brian Radcliff c. Yet indeed I find upon search that he was a Baron of the Exchequer 2. What Radcliff says is after the Resolution of the Judges over and no way influenc'd that 3. Whereas Sir Edward Herbert says the Resolution was upon 23 H. 6. c. 1. Radcliff who should better know the Subject of Debate discourses only concerning the Statutes 28 E. 3. c. 7. and 12 E. 3. c. 5. which are barely prohibitory without any mention of Non obstantes or any voiding or disabling Clause Indeed Radcliff it being upon a sudden Discourse as the Book shews mistakes the Statutes as if they had such Clauses and Brook who cites part of the Patent which it seems he had seen says there was in it a Non obstante to the Statutes 28 E. 3. c. 7. and 12 E. 3. c. 9. Fitzherbert indeed says R. objected the 23 H. 6. but for that sit liber judex 4. But above all tho' our Chief-Justice calls them the Judges Enemies who say the Point of Non obstante is not resolv'd in this Case which he calls Confidence and that they may as well deny one of the ten Commandments 't is manifest beyond contradiction that the Resolution ended at issint que le Patent demurr en
the thing lawful nor could this in the least be inferr'd from the other because however an Act may be made void or tortious Indeed in the Reign of R. 3. whose Character blemishes the Judgments of his time it was held by all the Judges in the Exchequer-Chamber that the King might license the shipping of Wooll elsewhere than at the Staple yet even they were not of Opinion that the License made the thing lawful for then the Discoverer could not have had his share which they agreed that he ought to have and so the License was only as far as it concern'd the King. They also setled the other Point which before was a Doubt That a Pardon before an Information brought would defeat the Informer But then the Authority of the first Point is suspended by a Doubt remaining before all the Judges afterwards assembled upon a rehearing of this Cause in a more setled time Indeed they agreed the other of an Information after a Pardon but hitherto there is no manner of Proof of any Case wherein the King by his Dispensation could discharge the Penalty given not only to himself but also to an Informer who has his Action given by Statute But for this we must take a Leap downwards as far as 13 Jac. 1. which we may ballance with the 7th of his Reign when it is held by Lord Cook That where a Statute concerns the Benefit of the King alone he may dispense with it by a Non obstante And BY THE COURT that where it concerns the Benefit of the Subject the King cannot dispense 7. Whereas our Chief Justice thinks that a Statute's providing against Non obstante's shews that the King could otherwise have dispens'd with the Act by a Non obstante it is not onely unconcluding because it might be no more than an Argument of an Abuse of the Law but turns very strong against him For admit the Resolution of the Judges 2 H. 7. were as he contends yet he who makes so much of a Concession of the Commons of England assembled in Parliament when he thinks it of his Side ought surely to yield that the Judgment of King Lords and Commons is of uncontrollable Authority Wherefore when not only one but several Parliaments provide that all Non obstantes shall be void is it not plain that their Judgment was that such Non obstantes could not be set up by any Resolution of Judges And for this we have the Judgment of King Lords and Commons and that of but late days That even where a Grant is made to the King where 't will be said he is solely entrusted for the Publick Good yet it may be out of his power to defeat it by a Non obstante This appears by the Statute 19 Car. 2. c. 8. which provides That no Letters Patents granted to any Person of Exemptions from Subsidies c. shall free them from the Charges of any Sum granted by that Act and all Non obstantes in Letters Patents made or to be made in bar of any Act or Acts of Parliament for the Supply or Assistance of his Majesty are thereby declared to be void and of none effect And even where Statutes have not expresly provided against Non obstante's tho' the Statutes were such as restrain what many take to be the King's Prerogative yet if we receive the Sense of Lords and Commons the King has no Prerogative warranting Non obstante's to them as appears by the Articles against King Richard the Second one of which is For that the King contrary to the Laws and Wills of the Justices suffer'd Sheriffs to continue longer than one Year c. This were enough to set aside all Pretences taken from Calvin's Case tho' as Sir Edward Herbert pleasantly suggests it were resolv'd there That that was resolv'd 2 H. 7. which was never mention'd till after the Resolution Here is the Authority of Lords and Commons in competition with that of Mercenary Judges And if the Concessions of the Commons alone assembled in Parliament are of weight with him I know not why their Denials ought not as well to be urg'd against him which if we may do not onely the Fictions and loose Reasonings in Calvin's Case but the main Resolution there may be justly call'd meer Court-Law Such I am sure it is that the honest House of Commons 4 Jac. 1. would not bear it and any one that reads the Arguments of those Learned Men who manag'd the Conference with the Lords upon the Question of the Union of the two Kingdoms may easily see how inexcusable the Judges of that time were to proceed to the Judgment in Calvin's Case after they had been so enlightned Nor could they but know that the then Parliament was broke up because they were not so complying as the Judges shew'd themselves both then and afterwards But they secur'd their Cushions by it while Sir John Bennet Father of the present Lord Oswalston lost his in the Prerogative-Court and had a swinging Fine impos'd upon him into the Bargain several Years after upon pretence of Extortion but as I am well inform'd the real ground was his disrellishing Speech in Parliament upon this Subject 'T is well known some Princes us'd to have good Memories that way Manet altâ mente repostum c. 8. Non obstante's having no other Foundation than in the Encroachments of Princes and Servility of Judges especially if we except Cases concerning the King alone they ought not to be strain'd to any new Case The Advice of Bracton will rise up in Judgment against such Men who tells them If such things never hapned before and the Judgment is without Light from former Cases and difficult let it be adjourn'd to the Great Court. According to which Adjournments to ensuing Parliaments have been frequent in former days when there were more Learned Judges and that as often for the weightiness of the Matter as intricacy of the Points 9. But for the closing Aggravation Whereas our Chief Justice denies all indirect means for procuring Opinions and stands upon his Innocence challenging the World to lay any thing of that kind to his charge I think by this time few will the less suspect him because of his Assurance if either Threats or Sollicitations can be prov'd upon him the World will judge either of them indirect Means and I am much misinform'd if both cannot be justly charg'd If after all he can excuse himself with renouncing Infallibility and making Asseverations of keeping to the clear Dictates of his Conscience I must say Judges in former Ages have had hard luck and been made Examples to little purpose King Alfred would lose the Reputation of his Justice in hanging above thirty Judges and Parliaments have been very barbarous to proceed against others as Traytors who yet either were so ingenuous to confess their Faults or at least not so provoking as to
Authority of Lord Cook pleading expresly and unanswerably for that injur'd Hero of whom the Age was not worthy the Lord Russel Nor was the Proof in Lord Brandon's Case less defective than the Matter for besides the scandalous Sexton who swore to Designs against another King there was but one Witness in the Eye of the Law he indeed so far Legal as that he might be heard being an Approver but no way credible considering how far he had been drawn with his Fetters about his Heels even to contradict himself The other by no means Legal being under an Outlawry for High Treason unrevers'd For tho' the Execution of that Judgment for so in Law it is was pardon'd by the King yet the Crime was by no means purg'd to set him right to Fame Which tho' the Counsel offer'd to make good they were not suffer'd to speak to it and yet the Point is very clear by ancient Authorities and confirm'd by later without any thing really to the contrary Nay farther tho' besides all these things another Matter was urg'd in Arrest of Judgment upon which Judgment had formerly been arrested yet without enquiring whether the Fact were true or the Book Law that with the rest was over-rul'd to come at the Life of a Person obnoxious to the Government as some call'd themselves Such was Sir Edward's great scrupulousness and tenderness where the Life of Man was concern'd He adds a Scruple in a Case before himself and the other Usurpers of the High-Commission Court but his singularity therein can be no Excuse for his acting at all upon a Commission apparently against the Statute which took away not onely the Power of Fining and Imprisoning which that Court illegally pretended to but the Spiritual Authority which it really had and such a Commission it was as never receiv'd countenance till the Act long since repeal'd which not onely made H. 8. Head of the Church but gave him Power which he afterwards delegated to Lord Cromwel to redress all Errors Heresies and Abuses by Spiritual Authority I suppose it is by this time pretty evident that Sir Edward's Crime will admit of no Extenuation but the Aggravations are many it appearing 1. That he and his Brethren were the Inventers of this Dispensing Power in such extent as he contends for in the Print but much more in his real Resolution 2. That the Error was not an Error in that single Case but of large and mischievous Consequences and if the King could dispense with that Statute upon the Reasons given and Circumstances appearing in Sir Edward Hales his Case others may well conclude from thence That therefore he has a Power to dispense with all other Statutes even such as confer or vest in any of the Subjects any manner of Interest whatsoever in their Lives Liberties and Estates and there being a Conviction and consequently a Disability actually incurred before the Dispensation therefore by reason of this Case the King may dispense with such Statutes where a precedent Disability is actually laid upon a Man as there is upon the Members of both Houses till they have taken the Oaths and Tests prescrib'd These are not Consequences which may flow from the heated Imaginations of angry Men but such as have Warrant and Foundation from their Judgment 3. His so far undervaluing the Wisdom of the Nation as to make the benefit of a Law against the undue continuance of Sheriffs equal nay go beyond what they could devise for the security of their Religion or rather so to undervalue the Holy Religion which I think he yet professes when however it would not come up to the Point according to the Differences which himself receives Speaking of the Statute 23 H. 6. c. 1. he says The Recital in the Preamble and the whole Purview if compar'd with our Statute of 25 Car. 2. c. 2. equals it in every Particular and in some goes beyond it For the Mischiefs recited in this latter Statute are onely in these Words For preventing Dangers which may happen from Popish Recusants and quietting the Minds of his Majesty's Good Subjects The other for preventing the importable Damage of the King and his People by Perjury Manslaughter and great Oppression Then he goes to the Purview express against Non obstante's and creating a Disability but according to his usual haste he stays not here to make the Comparison but hastens to his Sham-Resolution as has been sufficiently evinc'd already The Questions here will be 1. Whether the Mischiefs intended to be prevented are equal in both 2. Admit they were equal in Degree whether they are in Extent which if they are not still the Resolution if real will fail him according to the Difference which he himself receives of pro bono populi complicati and singulorum populi 1. For the first I suppose he thinks the Epethite importable gives the odds as if Popery wanted an Epethite to represent it to Protestants for what they ought to do their utmost to prevent as if it did not carry in the Belly of it Perjuries Manslaughters and great Oppressions by whole-sale or that Mischefs more remote and accidental as the Continuance of Sheriffs may habituate to Corruption and that occasion the other fatal Train could equal the more immediate and certain Consequences unless by good Laws prevented of French Conversions proceeding from fixt Principles But then to give Judgment to frustrate this necessary Law at a time when the Papists had a King of their own Superstition to head them is to make the King as much above the Law as our ancient Lawyers tell us the Law and his Court by way of Eminence that is the Great Council or Parliament are above him 2. As this proves the Interest of the Subject in the Law about Sheriffs to be neither equal nor so immediate as in our Statute there needs not many words to shew the difference of the extent the Peace only of particular Counties and thaâ— by small insensible degrees is there concern'd nay admit the King had this Power and should so violate that Trust which Sir Edward will have to be repos'd in him as to extend it to all Counties where he puts in the Sheriffs yet this could not affect all the People because there might be a Retreat to London Middlesex and Westmorland in neither of which has it been pretended that the King had such a Power till the late Violence of some and Treachery of others gave that unhappy Inlet of Perjury Manslaughter I may say Murder and Oppression before which London was a perfect Goshen in an Egyptian Kingdom 4. But what can excuse our Justice's so apparent falsifying both Records and Law-books or if not at least his shameful Negligence in not going to the Fountain-heads but setting up the Recitals of Cases against the Cases themselves and the extrajudicial Opinions or Arguments of Judges nay the very Annotations of
26. Moor sup f. 714. Hobart f. 146. Vid. Vaughan f. 57. speaking of Lord Hobart's Judgment which is always accurate for the Reason of the Law. Account p. 27. Vid. Grebner cited in the Northern Star. Vid. Nostredamus Cent. 1.33.35.2.68.87.3.16.4.75.89.5.24.26.34.87.6.7.13.28.8.58.9.38.64.10.7.26.56.12.80 5th Stanza at the end Vid. Lord Cook 's c. of Penal Statutes 7 Rep. f. 36. Vid. Grot. de Jure Belli Pacis Vid. Falkner's Christian Loyalty p. 544 545. speaking of the Parisian Massacre c. But if ever any such strange Case as is proposed should really happen in the World I confess it would have its great Difficulties Grotius thinks that in this utmost Extremity the use of such Defence as a last Refuge ultimo necessitatis praesidio is not to be condemned provided the Care of the Common Good be preserv'd And if this be true it must be upon this ground that such Attempts of Ruining do ipso facto include a disclaiming the Governing those persons as Subjects and consequently of being their Prince or King. V. Bishop Bilson of Christian Subjection Ed. 1586. p. 280. I never deny'd that the People might preserve the Foundation Freedom and Form ef their Commonwealth which they forepriz'd when they first consented to have a King. Account p. 24. Rot. Parl. 1 H. 5. n. 22. Qe Dieu assoille A aucuny fait un affair a contre A nully Pur null Vid. Account p. 10. Vid. Serjeant Glanvil's Speech Rushworth's Coll. part 1. f. 573. 575. Account p. 25. Vid. Dr. Stillingst against Cressy from p. 426. to p. 461. Account p. 19. Account p. 19. Sir Matthew Mints Case Crook Car. f. 597. Account p. 31. p. 32. Vid Vaughan's Rep. f. 20. Edes v. Evesque d' Oxford 4 Rep. f. 78. b. Account p. 38. pag. 5. Vid. Rolls Abr. Brook. Fitzh tit Estoppel particularly Statham Si home soit oblige de garder le Peace puis Scire facias issist vers luy de ceo qil bat uneqe viet est trove coup puis cet port brief de trans vers luy de mesm le batie il pled de rien coup il luy estoppera per matter trove al suit le Roy c. So Brook. n. 59. Vaughan f. 358. Account p. 14. Vid. 7 Rep. p. 36. Account p. 21. Vaugh. p. 342. Account p. 27 28. Account p. 11. Supr p. 12. Thomas v. Sorrel f. 350. Ib. f. 347. Vaugh. f. 346. Account p 31. Supr p. 30. Vid. Lord Vaughan f. 339 340. L. Vaughan f. 344 345 346 347. Account p. 22. 2 Inst f. 559. 2 dly So Sibthorp Rushworth vol. 1. p. 422. V. Case of Resistance p. 200. See there such a Sovereignty as makes laws can repeal and dispense with them Fortescue p. 32. Ad tutelam namque legis subditorum ac eorum corporum bonorum rex hujâ—smodi erectus est ad hanc potestatem a populo effluxam ipse habet quo ei non licet potestate aliâ suo populo dominari See this condemn'd 13 14 Car. 2. c. 29. V. Bushw part 2. f. 608. Vid. Account p. 37. Account p. 8. Vid. Grot. de Jure Belli Pacis l. 1. c. 1. Sicut ut bis duo non sint quatuor ne a Deo quidem effici potest ita ne hoc quidem ut quod intrinsecâ ratione malum est malum non sit Account p. 37. 3 dly Account p. 1. Account p. 28. The Case Crook Car. 51. Hutton 134. is of one prest to serve beyond Sea. Witness the great endeavours to make him confess a Plot while he lay under Sentence of death Vid. 14 Eliz. c. 1. Rastal f. 411. * L. Russel's Trial f. 57. Sol. To conspire to levy War is an Overt Act to testifie the Design of the Death of the King and the Errour of my Lord Cook has possibly misled my Lord. This he goes to refute by the Cases of Story and Lord Cobham which were not of levying War within the Kingdom and besides were express'd by the Overt Act of Writing Vid. 3 Inst f. 14. Hales his Pleas of the Crown p. 13. Dyer f. 298. b. Sanderson's Hist of K. James f. 283. * Lib. Assiz 27. pl. 29. Of an Approver Shar'd says Il ne duist passer sans estre duement purge car tout sont en male * At Lord Russel 's Trial I am not certain whether I did hear something about a Declaration c. Trial f. 39. At Mr Cornish 's è contra †That such are not probi legales for Witnesses or Juries vid. 2 Bulst f. 144. alias 154.1 Brownlow p. 34. part 2.47 Rolls Ab. tit Chal. 657. Brook tit Tesmoins penult Fitzher tit Process 208. Dyer f. 34. a. Owen f. 22. Castle main's Trial f. 38.11 H. 4. 41. b. Godbolt 288. Fortescue p. 60. b. Fleta lib. 4. c. 8. Bracton de Coronâ cap. 3. p. 118. b. Rolls Ahr. tit Prer f. 222. Vid. de eodem Baluzium Tom. 1. f. 887.2.362 * Arundel's Case 6 Rep. f. 14. 26 H. 8. c. 1. repeal'd 1 2 P.M. V. 31 H. 8. c. 10. 4 thly Account p. 37. Vid. ib. Account p. 37. Vid. supr p. 40 41. Account p. 9. pag. 10. Vid. sup p. 43. Bracton l. 2. c. 16. Rex habet Superiorem Deum S. item legem per quam factus est Rex item Curiam suam viz. Comites Barcnes quia Comites dicuntur quali socii c. Fleta l. 1. c. 17. p. 17.2 has Superiores Which avoids the Cavil in the Royal Apol. ed. Anno 1684. p. 36. suppos'd to be Dr. Ashtons V. Account p. 23. V. Sup. p. 6. Plowden of Mines f. 322.10 Vaugham f. 419. Nota this was in a Case of less consequence the sending Process into Wales Brook Prescrip n. 6. Stat. West 1.3 E. 1. c. 39. Stat. de quo Warranto 18 E. 1. Prin's Animad f. 133. Vaughan f. 356. Vid. è cont Dr. Brady's compleat Hist dedicated to K. James 2. Pref. All the Liberties and Priviledges the People can pretend to were the Grants and Concessions of the Kings of this Nation and were derived from the Crown Founded upon his suppos'd proofs that W. 1. obtain'd this Land by conquest and govern'd it accordingly V. Brady's first Book p. 23. in Marg. refuted in Jus Anglorum Account p. 8. V. Sup. p. 5. V. Rolls ab tit Prer f. 180. 34 E. 3. c. 21. Nota This is one of the Cases mentioned by Fineux Sup. p. 12. Anno 1667. V. 3 Jac. c. 6. forbidding Trade to the Dominions of Spain 3. Inst f. 186. Rot. Parl. 50. E 3. n. 17 24 28. 51. E. 3. n. 75. V. Account p. 8. 37 H. 6. f. 4. This notrightly abridg'd by Brook tit Charter de Pardon n. 24.37 H. 6. f. 5. a. adjornatur 37 H. 6. 46. V. 5 E 4 f. 34. a. Where a Statute concerns only the King himself which the King may chuse to use at his Will c. 3 H. 7. f 15. b. Chief Justice Hussey citing Fortescue 2 R. 3. f. 12. If any one doubt this upon the words of the Book it appears beyond contradiction from its being brought about again by the Merchants whose Goods were seized 1 H. 7. f. 2. b. 3. a. V. Sup. p. 13. 3 Inst 154. Rolls Ab. tit Prcr. f. 179. Account p. 10. V. Sup. p. 36. Account p. 25. According to Kieble c. 7. but not printed there Vid. the Stat. barely prohibitory 28 E. 3. c. 7. 12 E. 3. c. 9. supr p. 16. V. Knighton Account p. 18. Account p. 25. See them censur'd in Vaughan f. 227 285 401. Moor a. f. 790 to 805. Vid. his Censure 4 Inst f. 336. 2 Inst f. 408. Bracton l. 1. c. 2. Si autem talia nunquam prius evenerint obscurum difficile sit eorum judicium tunc ponantur judicia in respectum usque ad Magnam Curiam Vid. 1 E. 3. 7. b 33 H. 6. 18. a Cest un Act de Parlement nos voilomus estre bien avis devant que nous adnullamus ascun act fait en le Parlement peradventure le matter doit attender jusque al prochein Parlement Account p. 34. Account p. 35. pag. 36. V. Mirrour a. p. 296. to 300. Tresylian Bealknappe c. Knighton f. 2726 2727. ib. f. 2695. Regaliam Ib. f. 2694. V. Glanvil p. 1. Crimen laesae Majestatis ut de nece vel seditione personae Domini Regis vel Regni Exact Collect ed. Anno 1643. p. 35. V. Dugdale's cron Ser. Account n. 33 39. Bilson of Christian Subjection p. 280. Glanvil Prol. Bracton v. l. 3. c. 9. Fleta lib. 1. c. 17. Fortescue c. 9. Mirror p. 9.