Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	case_n	great_a	king_n	2,323	5	3.6428	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64839	The reports of Sir Peyton Ventris Kt., late one of the justices of the Common-pleas in two parts : the first part containing select cases adjudged in the Kings-Bench, in the reign of K. Charles II, with three learned arguments, one in the Kings-Bench, by Sir Francis North, when Attorney General, and two in the Exchequer by Sir Matthew Hale, when Lord Chief Baron : with two tables, one of the cases, and the other of the principal matters : the second part containing choice cases adjudged in the Common-pleas, in the reigns of K. Charles II and K. James II and in the three first years of the reign of His now Majesty K. William and the late Q. Mary, while he was a judge in the said court, with the pleadings to the same : also several cases and pleadings thereupon in the Exchequer-Chamber upon writs of error from the Kings-Bench : together with many remarkable and curious cases in the Court of Chancery : whereto are added three exact tables, one of the cases, the other of the principal matters, and the third of the pleadings : with the allowance and approbation of the Lord Keeper an all the judges.	Ventris, Peyton, Sir, 1645-1691.; Guilford, Francis North, Baron, 1637-1685.; Hale, Matthew, Sir, 1609-1676.; England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.; England and Wales. Court of Common Pleas.	1696 (1696)	Wing V235; ESTC R7440	737,128	910

notice of any Title found for a Stranger Wherefore they held notwithstanding these Omissions in the Verdict that Judgment might be given for the Plaintiff And Tyrrell was of Opinion in the Principal Matter for the Plaintiff In his Argument he considered of divers kinds of Allegiance natural and acquired which was either local or legal As when a man is Sworn in the Leet Denizated by the Kings Letters Patents obtained by Conquest or Naturalized which Naturalization must be by Act of Parliament and cannot be limited 2 Cro. 539. 1 Inst 129. who is to all purposes a Natural born Subject An Indictment of Treason against such an one is contra naturalem ligeantiam Neither can it be confined to Place for 't is due to the Natural and not to the Politick person of the King Mo. 790. And the Plea of infra ligeantiam Regni sui Angliae was rejected in Calvin's Case in Co. and said to be never heard of before Idem est nasci idem naturalizari And he Argued That in regard Ireland hath the like Court of Parliament that England hath it hath also the same Power and conceived that the English Laws were introduced by Parliament in King John's time For in the Charter 11 H. 3. it is recited that Johannes quondam Rex Angliae duxit secum in Hiberniam Viros discretos legis peritos quorum Communi Concilio ad instantiam Hibernentium statuit c. ex diuturnitate temporis omnia praesumuntur solenniter esse acta In the 4 Inst 357. it appears that Parliaments were holden there before 17 E. 3. 2 R. 3. 12. Hibernia habet Parliamentum facium Leges And in 4 Inst 452. it is said they may Naturalize an Alien and if they do so he is all one with an Irish man born As one that purchaseth his Freedom in a Corporation hath all Immunities as amply as he that is born a Member of it Neither doth it follow from hence that an Act of Parliament in Ireland could bind England it is the Law of England Cooperating with the Act that gives the Naturalization an effect here The Act is but remotio Impedimenti As if one were Attainted by the Parliament there he should forfeit his Lands here and if that Act were Repealed he should be restored to them again yet neither Act were oligative to England The Act of Ireland is causa remota or sine qua non the Law of England is causa proxima and this of Naturalization was one of the Wonders of the Powers and Priviledges of Parliament As Legitimation of a Bastard and the like The other three Justices were of a contrary Opinion and Argued to this effect that Ireland was a Conquered Kingdom the Conquest compleated if not begun in K. Henry the Second's time in whose time there is no Record of any Establishment and being a Christian Kingdom they remained Governed by their own Laws until King John Anno 12 Regni sui by Charter for so they conceived it to be and not by Parliament for it appears that the Nobles were sworn which is not usual in Acts of Parliament neither is it Teste Rege in Parliamento introduced the English Laws yet it hath ever remained a distinct Kingdom viz. from the bringing in the Laws by King John M. Paris Hist 230. and Calvin's Case in 7 Co. 22 23. the Conquest brought it infra Dominium Regis sed non infra Regnum Angliae Oruke committed Treason in Ireland and it was held tryable by Commission by 33 H. 8. as a Treason out of the Realm 20 H 6. 8. the Judges here are not bound to take notice of the Laws of Ireland Fitzh tit Voucher 239. A man in Ireland cannot be Vouched Anders 262 263. 2 Inst 2. it is said Magna Charta nor the Statute Laws here did not extend to Ireland until Poinings Law 10 H. 7. tho' in truth it appears to be before by 8 E. 4. cap. 10. neither are they obliged by any Statute since unless named Dier 303. It is said of Lands holden in Capite in England and Ireland that there ought to be several Liverties and by several Seals 11 Ed. 4. 7. When the King went into Ireland it was held to be a Voyage Royal. And Wyld said Two Kingdoms could not be united but by Act of Parliament and there ought to be reciprocal Acts and so is my Lord Coke 4 Inst cap. Scotland But this the Chief Iustice said in his Argument was not requisite in case of a Conquered Nation which hereby had lost its Original Right of holding Parliaments but he agreed in case of Kingdoms independent one upon the other He said he had a Charter whereby Gascoigne Guyan and Callice were united to England in Ed. the 3ds time and recited to be by mutual pact upon a Peace concluded that Wales was fully conquered in Ed. 1st time whereupon they all submitted de alto basso to the King and it appears he abrogates some Laws makes some new and continues others and Wales was united and consolidated with England in H. 8 time by Act of Parliament here but there was no Act on their part neither is Ireland only a distinct Kingdom but also subordinate A Law enacted here to extend to all the Kings Dominions shall bind Ireland Writs of Error have been always brought here to reverse Iudgments in Ireland and they naturally lie as the Chief Iustice said into all subordinate Kingdoms Fitz. tit Ass 562. A Writ of Error to reverse a Iudgment given in an Assize in the County of Glamorgan and 21 H. 7. 31. B. it is said many Writs of Error have been brought to reverse Iudgments given in Callice tho' it was alledged the Civil Law there was in use So the Romans allowed Appeals out of every Province subordinate unto them as appears by the Case of St. Paul in the Acts and 't is against Nature that the Inferiour should have any influence upon the Superiour suppose a Bill of Naturalization were brought into Parliament here and rejected and after it should pass in Ireland should it have the same effect as if it had passed here If this might have been what needed the endeavours in the beginning of King James's Reign to obtain an Act for the Naturalization of all Scots and the Union of both Kingdoms when an Act in Ireland would have been as effectual and procured with much greater facility Neither is the Parliament of Ireland equal to that of England for that might be aliened by an Act of Parliament as Gascoigne and Guyan were by mutual Consent tho' the King cannot do it alone therefore King John's Grant to the Pope was held absolutely void but Ireland could not be transferred from the Sovereignty of England by any Act there for they cannot discharge themselves of their Subordination to England H. 3. granted to Ed. 1. Terrem Hibernicam and it was held to be void 40 Ed. 3. 4 Inst 357. And if they should make an Act

a Maxim in Law and is of mischievous consequence New inventions that are agreeable to Rules of Law I know have been always received and sometimes have proved of excellent use But New inventions that are framed to supplant Principles of Law have been always baffled and rejected The Maxim and Principle of Law that is overturned by this way of Pleading is That a Commoner cannot prescribe to exclude his Lord. This Maxim is one of the foundations of Law and depends upon the reason of the thing and not upon the sound of the word It will be objected that the reason is because ex vi termini the word Common implies that they are to Common with the Lord which they cannot do if the Lord does not feed But I conceive it is not so for it may be as well called a Common without a Solecism where the Tenants feed in common together and the Lord never feeds with them as where he does the true reason is from the nature of the thing for it is supposed the Lord has no need of his Waste and to make non-usage in such a case turn to a Prescription or Custom against him would be most unreasonable Vpon the creation of Mannors the Lords took as much as was for their own Use into their Demesns they distributed as much as was convenient amongst their Tenants what was left was called the Lords Waste which was neglected by the Lord because he had before taken into his Demesns what he had need of It were very hard that non-usage should turn to a Prescription against the Lord because he doth not feed his Wastes when he left them waste before because he had taken as much before as he had occasion to feed It is upon the same reason that the Law will not allow any Prescription for Commoners to exclude and not upon any Argument from the word Common Maxims in Law do not depend upon words but upon foundations of reason it is not for the honour of the Law that it should have its Maxims depend upon sounds and words and not upon solid reason That Commoners cannot prescribe to exclude their Lords if they call their Right by the term of Common but if they call it by another name tho' they claim the same kind of interest they may exclude them If you prescribe to have Communiam excludendo Dom ' that is not good but if you prescribe to have solam separalem Pastur ' in common amongst your selves for Beasts Levant and Couchant you may exclude him Vnder favour to have such a Maxim turned out of Doors and made Vseless there ought to be very good Authority for it such an Invention ought to be examined by strict Rules And the consequence of this Innovation will be great and general for there is no Common in England but this Plea will serve for if the Iury will find it and it is found by experience that many times though the Lord of the Mannor gives very good Evidence a Iury will find against him and if a Lord cannot prove an actual feeding a Iury will certainly incline to find it let the Court direct what they please The King and great Lords that have large Wastes that lie remote from their care seldom made any benefit by feeding and they must not expect hereafter to make any improvements if this pleading be allowed which will be very mischievous whereas if that Maxim of Law were observed and such an unreasonable Claim disallowed in Pleading it will not be in the power of Iuries to exclude Lords out of their own Wastes I conceive in this Case upon the matter disclosed in pleading the Court may discern judicially that this is but an Innovation and an Artifice to disguise a Common and to call it a Sole-pasture to enable the Commoners to prescribe to exclude the Lord which they cannot directly do by the Rules of Law Here first The Soil is the Lords of the Mannor and a parcel of the Mannor and a large quantity in truth 10000 Acres tho' the place assigned is but 100 Acres All the Free-holders and Copy-holders of ancient Houses or parcel of the Mannor are to feed and not to be excluded and in truth of 3 or 4 Messuages in the Town 'T is for Beasts Levant and Couchant 't is with an exception of Hoggs Sheep and Northern Steers which is like the regulation of Common if it were a Sole-pasture they might have put in what Cattle they pleased for it is all one to the Lord who is to be wholly excluded The Court may discern by all these Badges that it is in its nature but a Common by Art put into other words to oust the Lord. I shall now crave leave to offer to the view of the Court the Consequences and Inconveniences of this Prescription 1. If there be a Surplusage at any time the Lord cannot improve nor feed but it must be lost which is against the Publick Good 2. If a Stranger feeds and does a Petit Trespass as it is called in Robert Maries Case 9 Co. the Lord can have no Action for the feeding but the Tenants must and then they must either joyn or sever if they joyn what a number of Plaintiffs will there be and how shall the same recovered be divided in Equity or the Contribution for the Costs If they sever and be non-suit then there will be as many several Actions which will be vexatious according to Robert Maries Case 3. If a Freehold be purchased by the Lord or Escheat or a Copyhold Estate be determined what is become then of the share of the Sole feeding The Lord cannot joyn with them in the Prescription shall he have not benefit of the Soil If so what if all but one fail shall that one have all If on the contrary the Lord shall feed must he do it as the Owner of the Soil and have the Surplusage for the Levancy and Couchancy is not material among themselves And then they would become as Commoners again and this would be a strange Prescription that cannot be maintained if ever there were any Escheat of any Tenancy into the Lords hands 4. But the greatest mischief of all will be that this will be a ready way to enable Tenants to withstand all Improvements In Gatewards Case 6 Co. 60. it was a great reason against a Prescription that it was inconsistent with any improvement it would be a great mischief to this Kingdom where there are large Wastes and Commons Forrests and Fenns to take away all power of improving them for the same Land by improvement becomes able to support a great number of people which are the strength of the Kingdom And as there are great inconveniences on this side so the other way there will be none at all for they may enjoy the same Usages as Commoners if they prescribe the ordinary way and the Lord cannot do them any prejudice at all he can only take the Surplusage leaving them sufficient if he

the Sheriffs Farm but he made Bayliffs of his own there and they were within the Survey of the Court of Augmentations so I say it refers only to those Hundreds which made a part of the Sheriffs Farm 2. None of these Statutes extend to prohibit a Grant of an Hundred in Fee I apprehend my Lord meant a Regrant of an Hundred which before those Statutes had been granted out in a Fee for 2 E. 3. c. 12. rejoyns and prohibits the Grant of those Hundreds only which were set to Farm by the King for term of Life or otherwise The very words of the Statute 14. E. 3. c. 9. make provision for the Hundredors in Fee 't is said that they which have Bayliwicks or Hundreds c. shall answer for their Bayliffs Fitzh Petition 1. there is a complaint of one who is turned out of an Hundred he had in Fee because of the Statute called there the New Statute And perhaps these Hundreds were seised upon the like pretence and that was the matter of the Presentment mentioned in the Grant of E. 3. or rather Regrant 3. Neither this Statute nor the Decree or Report of the Case in this Court does extend to this Case for they are not to be understood of nor extended to a Case wherein Retorna Brevium is granted were not Retorna Brevium added 't is true the Grant of the Bayliwick might be void where an Hundred is granted at this day the Grant is good but by Virtue of this Statute the Sheriff may put in and use his Bayliffs there the collection of the Profits c. the Grantee shall have but the execution of Writs is in subserviency to the Sheriff still I speak where no Retorna Brevium is granted this Bayliff shall not be a Bayliff to the Sheriff in spight of his Teeth and this was the very Case of Fortescue he had a Grant of the Three Hundreds of Newport We find the Farm of these Hundreds formerly here in the Exchequer the Firma Ballivatus in Chiltern c. the Farm of the three Hundreds of Newport was 5 l then in 13 E. 3. 7 l then in 23 E. 3. 9 l then in R. 2. 10 l c. these were the ancient Farms Queen Elizabeth grants a Lease of these three Hundreds to Fortescue for three lives at a certain Farm but does not grant him Retorna Brevium This grant indeed was adjudged void viz. as to the excluding of the Sheriff observe what my Lord Coke saith in the Case by the Statute c. saith he Hundreds are rejoyned as to the Balywick of the same to the Counties and all grants made of the Balywicks of Hundreds since that Statute are void and the making of the Bayliffs thereof belong to the Sheriff for the better execution of Iustice and of his Office and so it was resolved c. the Grant at this day is good as to what belongs to the Lord of an Hundred but not as to the execution of Process which belongs to the Sheriff so that I say 1. Consider the Grantee as an Officer for the collection of the Profits c. and so it is a good Grant 2. Consider him as an Officer for the Kings Process and so 't is void because the Sheriff ought not to have a Bayliff put upon him and the Grantee shall not be the Sheriffs Bailiff whether the Sheriff will or no. But 3. I say if the Grant be with Retorna Brevium then it is a good Grant as to the Bayliwick and all for in that Case the Sheriff is at no inconvenience for the Grantee shall do all and shall be liaable to all the Escapes and all things done or suffered by him My Lord Coke was very wary in what he said about this matter for he knew and the truth is if this Statute should make the Grants of Hundreds void it would call in question most of the Hundreds in England and particularly would shake his own Grants of Hundreds which he passed when Attorney General and some of which his Posterity enjoy at this day 8 H. 7. fol. 1 2 3 4 5. and 13 H. 7. fol. 19 20. Pl. 2. is a great Case concerning an Hundred granted by Ed. 4. and afterwards by R. 3. wherein there are many Questions much argued whereof the chief is whether a Leet may be granted and pass as part and parcel of a Hundred and 't is adjudged that it may but it is the Opinion of all on all sides that the Grant of an Hundred is good and so much is implied and concluded in the Iudgment Coke upon Amerediths Case 9. Co. 29 30. there Iudgment is given that the Grant of the Hundred is good I know that in 11 H. 4. by Special Act of Parliament vid. 1 H. 4. c. 11. the Sheriffs had an allowance made to them for several Hundreds which had been parcel of their Farms and were granted away which could not have been if this Statute had made the Grants void I think there ought to be Judgment for the Plaintiff Nevertheless I am glad with all my heart that we are delivered of this Case for truly if I could have found any Thing to satisfie my Iudgment I would have given Iudgment another way both for the General Concern and for the sake of the County of Gloucester which I know will suffer much by this thing One short Act of Parliament of three Lines viz. That all Process should go with a non omittas propter aliquam libertatem saving still the Liberty of a Mans House which indeed the Law in all such Cases saves now would avoid a great delay of Justice many Suits and Vexations grievous Wrongs and oppressions and would do more good to the Kingdom than all the Liberties of Retorna Brevium have been worth these 100 years for as they are used now they are nothing but a foundation of Brocage and Mischief they are a Feather in his Cap that has them but they are a Thorn in the Foot of every one that has to do with them For first the Party must go to the Undersheriff and there he is handled then through another Purgatory to the Bayliff of the Liberty and there he is handled and then to the Underbayliff and there he is handled and then to the Sheriff again I confess I drew a short Act once and I wish some good man would now promote it It is adjourned into the Exchequer Chamber THE CASE OF COLLINGWOOD and PACE IN THE Exchequer Chamber The Lord Chief Baron HALE's Argument IN the Argument of this Case I shall suppose as clear and unquestionable these three things viz. First That Patrick the Son and William the Grandson of Nicholas the elder Brother are not inheritable to John the Earl because though they are both Denizens born yet Nicholas their Father thorough whom they must convey their Pedigree was an Alien Secondly That as Patrick and William cannot inherit so neither can they obstruct the Discent to John the Son of

IN an Assumpsit in Consideration that he paid him so much Money he promised to pay a like Sum into the Court and appear Object That there is no benefit as if it were in Consideration that he deposited so much Corn he promised to deliver it over 3 Cro. Cur ' This is not like for here he was benefit by the use of the Money but in the other case he is to deliver the Corn in specie Anonymus IT was moved that where the Defendant was a Constable and a Verdict for him being in the Execution of his Office and no Memorandum appeared as was usual upon the Postea to give him Double Costs according to the Statute of 7 Jac. that it must be now supplied But per Curiam We cannot do it because the Statute says the Judge before whom the Cause was tryed should allow double Costs and the Court cannot do it unless the Judge of Assize had ordered the Postea to be marked Anonymus IT was pleaded in Abatement that the Declaration varied from the Original in the Name of the Defendant and his Addition 'T was said that in such case the Cursitor or Clerk that made out the Writ may be ordered to attend and if his Instructions were right to amend the Writ by the Instructions Anonymus WHere a man was Outlawed after the Plaintiff had him in Prison a Reversal was Ordered at the Charge of him that prosecuted the Outlary it appearing to be an Abuse Anonymus COvenant that he shall Have and Enjoy and a Breach was assigned that such an one brought Trespass and Recovered And after Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that it does not appear that he which recovered in Trespass had a Title Serjeant Levins Here is an express Covenant that he should quietly hold the Possession and he is disturbed in his Possession tho' upon no Title And so is Dyer 328. a. Vaughan 120. Vide Hob. 35. Et Adjornatur Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 1 W. M. In Communi Banco Anonymus A Motion was made to change a Venue where an Attorney was Plaintiff Object He has priviledge to lay it in Middlesex because of his Attendance Answ But here he has laid it within London Curia Then let the Venue be changed for then he is to be considered as a person at Large Anonymus A Motion was made for a Prohibition to a Suit for Tythe Lamb upon a Suggestion of a Modus to pay 2 d falling in the Plaintiffs Farm in the Parish Object A Prohibition was granted before to stop this Suit upon a Suggestion which was tryed and found for the Plaintiff and a Consultation granted Answ That Suggestion was for 2 d to be paid for every Lamb which fell in the Parish and this only to a particular Farm and so not within the Statute of 50 Ed. 3. that a second Prohibition shall not be granted after a Consultation awarded in the same Suit Vid. 1 Cro. 151. Stroud and Hoskins 1 Roll. Rep. 378. Note here If this Matter had been found by the Verdict no Consultation had been granted Hob. 192. But here the Court inclined against a Prohibition by reason of the said Statute of 50 Ed. 3. Anonymus A Fine was acknowledged before Herbert Chief Justice by a Man and his Wife 7 Decemb. 1689. and by reason that the late King James had deserted the Kingdom and taken away the Great Seal there followed a step of Proceedings at Law and the Woman died thy 20th of February following and upon the 22th of February the Kings Silver was paid as upon a Writ of Covenant in King James's time tho' no Writ was then sued out But afterwards a Writ of Covenant was taken out Returnable in Michaelmass Term last which was sealed with the Seal of King William and Queen Mary and the Fine was Engrossed and made as a Fine in Michaelmass Term. And this present Term it was moved that the Fine might be vacated and the Book of 1 H. 7. fo 9. was cited where the Cognizance of the Fine was in the time of R. 3. and afterwards a Writ of Covenant was sued in the time of Henry the Seventh which being shewn to the Court they stopped the Fine tho' 't is said in that Case that 't is the common course to take the Acknoweldgment of Fines and then to sue out a Writ of Covenant But they said they would not permit a President That an Acknowledgment of a Fine should be in the Predecessor King and the Writ of Covenant in the time of the Successor But the Court after the Cause had been twice moved and full Consideration of it gave their Opinions seriatim that the Fine should stand For the Entring of the Kings Silver after the parties death could not be now Examined in regard the Fine was engrossed and compleated as a Fine of Michaelmass Term. And so was Farmer 's Case Hob. 330. and Carill's Case Dyer 220. b. The Court would not stop a Fine taken of a Feme Covert when she was dead 1 Roll. Rep. 114. Note Several Presidents were shewn where Fines were set aside for undue Practice in the Passing of them viz. in case of Personating Fines taken by Commissioners of Infants c. Anonymus IN an Action of Trespass Quare clausum fregit and putting Stakes upon his Ground it was held that this was within the late Statute which Enacts That the Plaintiff shall recover no more Costs than Damages but if any thing had been taken away of how little value soever it had not been within the Statute Anonymus A Prohibition was granted to a Suit for Tythes upon a Suggestion that the Tythes were set out and it was moved for a Consultation that he did not alledge Notice given to the Parson And the Bishop of Catlisle's Case Hob. 107. was cited where a Custom was laid to set out Tythe Wool absque aliquibus visu tactu Roll. Abr. 2. pl. 19. of the Nine parts by the Parson c. But the Court were all of Opinion that Case having been twice moved that no Notice need be given to the Parson And so it is said to be Adjudged in Noy 19. tho' the Ecclesiastical Law is otherwise So is the Case of Chase and Ware Rolls tit Tythes 643. Style 342. where 't is held that if an Action be brought against the Parson for not taking away his Tythe after set out Notice must be given before such Action For the Bishop of Carlisle's Case in Hobart does not make against this for there a Custom was laid to exclude the Parson from seeing the Tythe which is to be set out which Custom is not to be omitted Vid. Rolls Abridg. tit Dismes 647. And the 2 of E. 6. cap. 13. Enacts That it shall be lawful for every person to whom Tythe ought to be paid to view his Tythe set forth and severed from the Nine parts Massingburn versus Durrant IN an Action of Trespass for breaking of his Close and cutting of

went out upon such particular direction and recommendation 'T is some mitigation that they had such advice of Counsel otherwise I should not stick to fine them 100 l apiece We are bound to take care of the support of the Government I agree the Fines Keeling Chief Justice It is provided by 23 H. 8. cap. 5. that the Laws Acts c. to be made by the Commissioners of Sewers should stand good and effectual c. no longer than the Commission endured except they were Engrossed in Parchment and certified under their Seals into the Kings Court of Chancery and then the Kings Royal Assent to be had to the same c. But that was altered by this of 13 Eliz. whereby it is Enacted That their Laws c. should stand and continue in force without any such Certificate to be made thereof into the Chancery and then a little after in this Statute follows the Clause which hath been read and that refers wholly to Certificates or Returns to be made into the Chancery for the purpose aforementioned 'T is plain the Clause refers not to this Court for it speaks of returning their Comissions now their Commissions were never returnable into this Court this Court cannot be ousted of its Jurisdiction without special words here is the last Appeal the King himself sits here and that in person if the pleases and its Predecessors have so done and the King ought to have an account of what is done below in inferiour Jurisdictions 'T is for the avoiding of oppressions and other mischiefs To deny and oppose this and to set up uncontrolable Jurisdictions below tends manifestly to a Commonwealth and we ought and we shall take care that there be no such thing in ours days I know there is a great clamour so soon as an inferiour Jurisdiction is touched and t is thought we deal hardly with them But unless we will suffer this Court to be dissolved and the Prerogative of the King to be encroached upon we must oppose our selves to these Proceedings I have a great respect for these persons the Commissioners but 't is but usque ad aras When the Jurisdiction of the Crown the Justice of the Kingdom and the Duty of my place is concerned I ought not to spare my best Friends Some Presidents have been cited in this Case and many more might there are two memorable Records cited 1 Cro. concerning persons which contemned the Kings Writ and their Penalties I agree the Fines and hereby we do not go so high as our Predessours have gone Hundreds of years ago Nota This Proceeding and Sentence of the Court was upon Confession of the Commissioners the Court forthwith making an Entry and Record of their Confession In an Assize only where the Writ is Returnable into this Court it is apud Westmonaster ' but in all other cases where Writs are Returnable out of Chancery into this Court they are Returnable Ubicunque c. The King versus Jane D SHe was Indicted for Stealing of several things and pleading Not Guilty and a Jury sworn to try her the Witnesses not appearing were suspected to be tampered with by the Prisoner and the Jury were discharged and the Trial put off Vid. 1 Inst 227. b. Wise's Case AN Order of the Justices of the Peace for the maintenance of a Poor Woman was Confirmed tho' it appeared she was able of Body to work But the Justices of the Peace are Iudges of that Cousin's Case ERror to Reverse a Fine for Infancy Now 't was moved that the party being in Court she might be inspected and the Inspection Recorded and there was produced and read a Copy of the Register Book sworn to be a true one and several Affidavits of her Age. Curia Let the Inspection be now Recorded the Issue of her Infancy may be tryed at any time hereafter tho' she comes of Age. Nota A Prisoner in the Kings-Bench that lyes in the Common Side pays no Fees for his Lodging Anonymus IT was said by Twisden That if two submit to an Award this contains not a Reciprocal Promise to perform but there must be an Express Promise to ground an Action upon Nota A Fine which was set two or three Terms since was this Term set aside because of some surreptitious Practice and Misinformation to the Judge Auberie versus James ASsault Battery and Wounding The Defendant Iustified for that he being Master of a Ship commanded the Plaintiff to do some Service in the Ship which he refusing to do he moderate castigavit the Plaintiff prout ei bene licuit The Plaintiff maintains his Declaration absque hoc quod moderate castigavit and Issue was taken thereupon Negativum infinitum After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Issue was not well joyned for non moderate castigavit doth not necessarily imply that he did Beat him at all and so no direct Traverse to the Defendants Iustification which immoderate castigavit would have been But De injuria sua propria absque aliqua tali causa would have been the most formal Replication But the Justices held that it would serve as it was after a Verdict tho' the Statute at Oxford 16 Car. 2. the last and most aiding Act of Jeofails be * Which was a mistake expired and that de injuria sua propria not adding absque aliqua tali causa hath been held good after a Verdict Green versus Cubit ERror to Reverse a Judgment given in the Court at Norwich in Debt upon a Bond where the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant per scriptum suum Obligatorium at a certain place there became bound c. The Defendant pleaded that he was in Prison scriptum praedictum was obtained by Duress which was found against the Defendant and Judgment given accordingly The Errors assigned were first Because he declares of a Writing Obligatory and both not say sigillo Defendentis sigillat ' 3 Cro. 571. Declaration in Covenant was held Insufficient for the same cause Secondly There is no place where the Defendant alledgeth himself to be in Prison and being in an Inferiour Court it shall not have any aid of Intendment But the Court Over-ruled the first because the Plea of the Defendant confesses the Deed and the second because the Imprisonment must of necessity refer to the place where the Plaintiff declares the Bond to be made For the Defendant pleaded that he was then in Prison wherefore they affirmed the Judgment 3 Cro. 55. 2 Cro. 420. 3 Cro. 737. 19 H. 6. 15. 19. Baldway and Ouston DEbt upon a Bond the Condition was That the Defendant should pay such Costs as should be stated by two Arbitrators by them chosen He pleaded that none were Stated The Plaintiff Replied That the Defendant did not bring in his Bill To which it was Demurred For tho' if the Defendant were the cause that no Award was made it was as much a forfeiture of his Bond as not to perform

Cirencestrensi dudum spectantia c. omnia Letas executiones Brevium retorna eorundem Sect ' Hundred ' c. reputat ' spectant ' pertinent ' Hundredis praedictis c. They find that the Lord Seymour being seised c. was Attainted of Treason by Act of Parliament 2 3 Ed. 6. cap. 18. and that thereby his Lands and Hereditaments were forfeited and vested in the King They find that 6 Octob. Anno 6 Ed. 6. the King grants the Hundreds by his Letters Patents to Kingston and his Heirs and therein grants omnia amerciamenta Heriotta emolumenta haereditamenta c. dictis Hundredis quoquo modo spectant ' aut ut membrum sive pars eorundem antetunc cognit ' reputat ' vel usitat ' vel habit ' aut accept ' ut pars parcell ' vel membrum And further grants by another Clause Tot talia tanta consimilia Jurisdictiones Privilegia Libertates Franchesias c. quae quot qualia quanta adeo plene integre as Thomas Lord Seymour or any Abbot c. had c. ratione vel praetextu Hundred ' praedict ' virtute vel colore alicujus doni Chartae Praescriptionis c. They find that the Estate which Kingston had came to the Plaintiff and that the Defendant entred into the Hundreds where the Liberty is claimed and executed several Writs c. Et si c. Baron Wyndham had Argued and was of Opinion for the Plaintiff and Baron Littleton for the Defendant Now Argued Baron Turner and my Lord Chief Baron Hale Turner I am of Opinion for the Defendant At the last Arguing my Opinion was for the Plaintiff but upon something which fell from my Brother Littleton I am altered The Case arises upon the Patents I take it to be clear that Retorn ' brevium did not pass by the Patent of King John there is indeed some implication of such a Franchise but it is nothing like a Grant of it 'T is true we must put that Exposition upon Ancient Charters as should have been put in those days wherein they were made But I say this Patent would not have been expounded to have amounted to such a Grant in diebus illis If there had been an Usage of such a Franchise in pursuance of this Patent tho' made since Richard the First 's time I think it might have been allowed to have given the Return of Writs Vid. 2 Inst 282. But here has been no such Usage 'T is true in the Patent of E. 3. it is recited that there was an Usage and that the Franchise was granted by Richard the First and confirmed by King John but the Juries finding of that Patent is no finding of the things recited in it as in the 10 Co. 56. q. the finding of Evidence of a Conversion scil Refusal to deliver on Request upon a Trover is no finding of the Conversion In 17 E. 3. 't is true the Hundreds and the Returns of Writs therein are granted But since my Brother Littleton's Argument I have been and am of Opinion that that Grant is void and that as he observed because of the Statute 2 Ed. 3. cap. 12. Ordaining That henceforth Hundreds and Wapentakes should not be given nor severed from the Counties And 14 Ed. 3. cap. 9. Ordaining That henceforth all the Wapentakes and Hundreds which were severed from the Counties should be rejoyned to the same Counties as before that time had been established by another Statute meaning I suppose the said Statute of 2 E. 3. cap. 12. And thereupon my Lord Coke in the 4 Inst 267. gives his Opinion That all the Grants made of the Bailywicks of Hundreds since this Statute are void and that the making the Bayliffs thereof belong to the Sheriff for the better Execution of Justice and of his Office And for that he cites a Resolution in his own Case for he it was that was the Sheriff of Bucks mentioned in the Case there Fitzh Petition 1. 18 E. 3. is a Case of a man who by colour of the New Statute 't is said was ousted of his liberty of Retorna Brevium which was granted to him and his Heirs by the King in Parliament My Brother Littleton cited a good Opinion of three Judges that an Hundred could not be granted without a Non obstante to the Statute and here is no Non obstante Now a man cannot have the Return of Writs without the Hundred Vid. 2. Inst 452. 2. H. 4. pl. 12. But admitting it did pass and was granted before the Statute then the Statute doth not extend to avoid that Grant But then the Question will be when the Liberties return to the Crown Whether the Crown can grant them out again And therein it will be considerable Whether they are extinct in the Crown or no I think they are not extinct In 9 Co. 25. b. 't is said that all Liberties Franchises c. which were at first created and erected by the King and were not Liberties c. in the hands of the King as Flowers of the Crown are not by their accession to the King drowned in the Crown and there Hundreds and Leets are instanced in and allowed to be such And now the Liberty of Retorna Brevium is more strongly such for that all Jurisdictions of which Hundreds c. are a Branch were once in the Crown But Retorna Brevium is but a Ministerial thing It is expresly Adjudged in the Kings-Bench Keilway 72. pl. 16. that the Liberties of Retorna Brevium are not extinct by coming to the Kings hands But however if they were or were not extinct and drowned I think that they could not because of the Statute be severed and granted to Kingston Lord Chief Baron Hale I am of another Opinion but I am very glad that two of my Brothers are against me and my other Brother I would have been glad to have been excused in this Matter First Because the Case relates to my own Country and is much to the prejudice of it Secondly Because it relates to Retorna Brevium which I always took to be one of the most ●●●nicious Liberties to the Common Justice of the Kingdom Thirdly Because it is a Case full of difficulty but We that are Judges must satisfie our Judgments and come to a Resolution and I must Argue as the Law is and not as I wish it I Argue according to my Conscience tho' somewhat against my desire and I am sure against my particular Interest I shall be somewhat long because the Case is very Intricate and requires an Explication of many things In the first place I shall explain three Terms in the Case First The Monastery of Cirencester Secondly An Hundred Thirdly Retorna Brevium First As to the Monastery of Cirencester I shall speak a little Historically to shew the traduction and derivation of this Matter It was a Monastery time out of Mind but in 30 H. 1. it was translated to the Canons Regular

Heir in England or to have one My third and last Reason is indeed more general tho' not so conclusive as the two former were upon the particular Reason of the Case tho' not altogether to be neglected viz. The Law of England which is the only ground and must be the only measure of the incapacity of an Alien and of those consequential results that arise from it hath been always very gentle in the construction of the disability and rather contracting than extending it so severely For Instance The Statute de natis ultra Mare 25 E. 3. declares that the Issue born beyond Sea of an English Man upon an English Woman shall be a Denizen yet the construction hath been tho' an English Merchant marries a Foreigner and hath Issue by her beyond the Sea that Issue is a natural born Subject In 16 Cro. Car. in the Dutchy Bacons Case per omnes Justic ' Angl ' And accordingly it hath been more than once Resolved in my Remembrance Pround's Case of Rent The Case of the Postnati commonly called Calvin's Case the Report is grounded upon this gentle Interpretation of the Law tho' there were very witty Reasons urged to the contrary and surely if ever there were reason for a gentle Construction even in the Case in question it concerns us to be guided by such an Interpretation since the Vnion of the two Kingdoms by which many perthance very Considerable and Noble Families of a Scottish Extract may be concerned in the consequence of this Question both in England and Ireland that enjoy their Inheritances in peace I spare to mention particulars So far therefore as the parallel Cases of Attainder warrant this extent of this Ability I shall not dispute but further than that I dare not extend Now as touching the Authorities that favour my Opinion I shall not mention them because they have been fully Repeated and the later Authorities in this very Case are not in my Iudgment to be neglected Touching the Case of Godfrey and Dixon it is true it doth differ from the Case in question and in that the Father was made a Denizen and then had Issue a younger Son who inherited the elder Son an Alien born but Naturalized after the death of his Father yet there is to be observed in that Case either the Naturalization of the elder Son relates to his Birth or relates only to the Time of his Naturalization whether it did relate or not depends upon the words of the Act of Naturalization which I have not seen If it did relate the Cause in effect will be no more but an Alien hath Issue a Natural born Son for so he is as I have Argued by his Naturalization and then is made a Denizen and hath Issue and dies the elder Son purchaseth Lands and dies without Issue the younger Son shall inherit the elder should not have inherited his Father by reason of the Incapacity of the Father But it doth not relate further than the Time of his Naturalization which was after the time of the Death of his Father and consequently he could not divest the Heirship of his younger Brother yet if he purchaseth and dies without Issue his younger Brother shall inherit him tho' there was never Inheritable Blood between the elder Son and his Father so much as in fiction or relation Vpon the whole Case I conclude First That there be two Brochers Natural born in England the Sons of an Alien the one shall inherit the other Secondly That the Naturalization puts them in the same Condition as if born here tho' it does not more Thirdly That John the Son of George stands in the same Condition of inheriting his Vncle the Earl as George should have done had he survived the Earl Fourthly But if the Disability of Robert the Father had disabled the Brothers to have inherited one the other the Naturalization of the Earl or George had not removed that Disability Fifthly But no such Disability of the Father doth disable the Brother George to inherit the Earl it neither doth Consequentially disable John the Son of George to inherit the Earl Consequently as to the Point referred to our Iudgment John the Son of George is Inheritable to the Land of John his Vncle. The End of the First Volume A TABLE OF THE Principal Points Argued and Resolved in the First PART OF THESE REPORTS A. Abatement See Pleadings IN the Ecclesiastical Court a Suit does not abate by the Death of either Party Pag. 134 A Baronet is Sued by the Addition of Knight and Baronet the Action shall abate 154 In all Actions where one Plaintiff of several Dyes the Writ shall abate save in an Action brought by an Executor 235 Acceptance Where Acceptance of Rent from the Assignee shall discharge the Lessee 99 Action See Bail Whether an Action of Debt qui tam upon the Stat. 5 El. c. 4. lies in B. R. 8 Action brought de uxore abducta and concludes contra forman Statuti where there is no Statute in the case yet good 104 Action for a Nusance in stopping of the Lights of his House p. 139 237 248 Action upon the Stat. 13 Car. 2. by one Bookseller against another for Printing his Coppy p. 253 Where the Matter consists of two parts in several Counties the Plaintiff may bring his Action in which he pleases p. 344 Where several Causes may be joyned in one Action and where not 365 366 Action upon the Case See Jurisdiction Way In the Nature of Conspiracy a-against three for Arresting without Cause and only one found Guilty 12 Such an Action lies against one p. 19 Lies for a Justice of Peace against one who Indicts him for Matters in the Execution of his Office p. 23 25 For taking his Wife from him brought against the Womans Father p. 37 Lies not against a Justice of Peace for causing one to be Indicted who was after accquitted 47 Where it lies for Suing one in the Ecclesiastical Court and where not 86 For erecting a Market 7 miles off 98 Upon the Custom of Merchants for a Bill of Exchange accepted 152 For not Grinding at his Mill 167 Where it lies against a Master of a Ship for Goods lost out of the same 138 190 191 Against the Mayor of L. for not Granting a Poll upon a doubtful Election 206 For not repairing a Fence 264 Against a Taylor for Spoiling his Coat in making 268 For Riding over the Plaintiff with an unruly Horse 295 Where Action lies for Defaming the Wife whereby the Husband loses his Customers 348 Action upon the Case For Slander You are a Forger of Bonds a Publisher of Forgery and Sue upon forged Bonds These last Words not Actionable 3 She was with Child by J. S. whereof she miscarried 4 Thou hast received stoln Goods and knew they were stolen J. S. Stole them and thou wert Partner with her 18 Of a Midwife She is an Ignorant Woman and of small Practice and very unfortunate in her Way there

there that no Writ of Error should lie into England the Chief Iustice said it would be void for their Power is merely precarious as to the Parliament of England though not to the King in regard of his Charter Wherefore he said it might be questioned whether they could Naturalize at all for the King cannot alone and their Power is wholly derived from this Charter neither hath it been attempted by them until 10 Car. 1. when the Earl of Strafford was Lieutenant there Whereas it was said on the other side that to be Naturalized in Ireland was the same thing as to be born in Ireland he denied it unless they added by the Laws of Ireland i. e. the Law gives him there all the Priviledges a Native hath but this was not ligeantia nata sed data and therefore can extend no further than the Power of them that gave it and tho' it be said an Act of Parliament can do any thing that must be understood as to civil things which are but the Creatures of Men therefore may be altered and disposed at the will of the Supream Authority but natural things are not within its Power For an Act of Parliament cannot make a Man a Woman or a Man to be born in any other place than where he was really born tho' it may give him such priviledges as one hath that is born there viz. such as are within their Power and none else and 7 Co. 18. B. The time of the Birth is of the essence of a Subject born and after in Calvins Case 27. it is said natural Ligeance respecteth the time of the Birth and he cannot be a Natural Subject who was born under the Allegiance of another King for a Natural Subject is the correlative to a Natural Prince and one naturalized there might in all respects be compared to an antenatus who differed from a postnatus in these two things First He was another Princes Subject before a Subject to the King of England Secondly Such an one might have been an Enemy whereas a born Subject may be Traitor but can never be an Enemy Now the Subjects of a Prince that conquers another Kingdom become immediately Denizens of that Kingdom But not è converso as was held in Calvins Case of the antenati in Scotland But the Subjects of a King who is Homager to that King shall not be Aliens in any of his Dominions as in Wales before the Conquest of it in Edw. the 1st Time the like in Scotland as appears Dier 304. Pl. 57. A Scot was indicted of a Rape who pleaded not guilty and prayed a Tryal per medietat ' Linguae and it was denied for that a Scot was never accounted an Alien sed potius Subject ' tho' the Chief Iustice was of Opinion they ought not to have judged so there because the Homage of Scotland had been lost so long before The Statute of 5 Eliz. is that none shall set up a Trade unless he hath been an Apprentice to it by the space of seven years Suppose an Act were made in Ireland that it should be lawful for J. S. to set up a Trade tho' he had never been an Apprentice this would enable him there but no man would say that thereby he should have liberty to set up here No tho' the words of the Act were as if he had served seven years So the Law is that no man can be naturalized here but by Act of Parliament here Naturalization is a great point of State-interest therefore the King cannot do it by his Charter And the inconvenience would be very great if naturalization in Ireland should extend hither for tho' it was objected we might obviate it if found to be so by disallowing their Acts which before they pass there are sent hither and remitted under the Great Seal and so we may repeal their Acts yet it was said the like Power by consequence must be yielded to Scotland and we cannot disannul their Acts so they shall introduce what Aliens they please amongst us without controll And tho' it was said a naturalization there would do us no harm for it could never be made appear because no Certiorari could be awarded from hence thither yet it is manifest there are ways of making it appear In 42 Ed. 3 2. Lord Beaumonts Case Vide 2 Cro. 484. a Certiorari to remove a Record taken at Callis it is said that part of Scotland was within the Kings Ligeance and part without and that the King kept a Roll of such Places as he had under his Subjection and the Party was directed to petition the King to certifie whether Rosse were so or no so the King must be Party to their Acts there and therefore may certifie them or they may be given in Evidence as Foreign Laws or the Sentences in the Ecclesiastical or Civil Law Courts Now we must not always conclude a thing not to be Law because it is inconvenient but that for which there is neither Practical Custom Judicial Precedent or Act of Parliament to warrant may be well judged to be so Wyld and Archer in their Arguments did much insist upon the particular penning of this Act where the Makers did seem to intend that the effect of this Naturalization should be confined to Ireland for the Preamble recites this Your Majesties Realm of Ireland will be much impaired for want of Scottish Planters and that 100000 were planted in the Province of Vlster there it enacts That they and all Scottish shall be deemed Your Majesty's liege Subjects of this Your Realm of Ireland and this your Realm repeated almost in every Clause which would lose its force if the naturalization should be construed to have a larger extent They also took notice of the Proviso of the Act That it should not extend unto any Lands whereof any Office was found for the King and seised into his hands And here was an Office found 17 Jacobi they also mentioned the Statute of 7 Jacobi c. 2. which Enacts That the Bill of Naturalization shall be twiced read unless the Person hath received the Sacrament within a Month before and also taken the Oaths of Allegience and Supremacy To the first Tyril answered First That Naturalization could not be restrained at least not by affirmative words for it doth not say Your Realm of England and not elsewhere the Act hath also these words as born of Irish Parents as natural born Subjects and other words as full as may be also the Act of Naturalization of John and George in England hath the same words mutatis mutandis viz. of this Your Realm and in others they are more restrictive viz. from henceforth shall be deemed c. the Irish Act is that they shall be deemed Natural Subjects that they shall inherit such Lands as have descended after the first day of King Jame's coming to the Crown of England this hath no such restraint As to the Second he answered it was the Rectory only which

so a man cannot be Child and Husband c. because there is a repugnancy in the Offices A Parent cannot obey a Child and therefore 't is unnatural a Parent should be Wife to a Child A Parent as a Parent may Command and Correct a Child and there there a Child as Husband should Command and Correct the same Parent is utterly repugnant Vnder the Law the Son that Cursed his Father or Mother Levit. 20. ver 9. and also he that was Disobedient to either of them Deut. 21. ver 18 19 20 21. was to be put to death And as there is a Reverence and Obedience due to the Immediate Parents so there is to Grand Parents if the Immediate Parent have an absolute or qualified Power over the Son the Grand Parent has the like over the Son too because the Grand Parent hath it over the Immediate Parent Now I will cite a Case in our Law somewhat to the purpose I have been speaking 't is in Platt's Case Pl. Com. 37. a. If a Woman be Warden of the Fleet and one that is in Prison there marry her he is thereby out of Prison and the Law does adjudge him to be Enlarged because 't is repugnant that he as Husband should have the Custody of her and she as Gaoler the Custody of him And the like Reason at least in some degree is against Parents marrying their Daughters c. And now as to all this I will cite one of the greatest Human Authorities It is the Opinion of Hugo Grotius the Learnedest man of his time De jure Belli ac Pacis lib. 2. cap. 5 12. Ab hac generalitate says he eximo matrimonia parentum cujuscunque gradus cum liberis quae quo minus licita sunt rati ni fallor satis apparet nam nec maritus qui superior est lege matrimonii eam reverentiam potest praestari matri quam natura exigit nec patri filia quia quanquam inferior est in matrimonio ipsum tamen matrimonium talem inducit societatem quae illius necessitudinis reverentiam excludit The Reverence on each side is inconsistent But this Reason holds not against the marriage of a man's Uncles Wife and the same very Great Person gives his Opinion to this purpose a little before De conjugiis eorum qui sanguine aut affinitate junguntut satis gravis est quaestio non rato magnis motibus agitata nam causas certas ac naturales cur talia conjugia ita ut legibus aut moribus vetantur illicita sint assignate qui voluerit experiendo discet quam id sit difficile imo praestari non possit Thirdly Another Reason of the Vnlawfulness or Prohibition of Marriages of the first kind which holds not in this Case is the inconsistence absurdity and monstrousness of the Relations to be begotten by them the Son would be his Fathers Brother his Mothers Grandson his own Uncle c. Object In the Civil Law Uncles are Loco Parentum Answ They were so estimated there but thence it doth not follow that they are so But I will give the true Reason why they were so called viz. They the agnati are legitimi Tutores of the Brothers Children and this appears by Justinian But how absurd is it to apply this to the Matter Why by the same Reason the Guardian in our Law can't marry his Ward let the Degree be what it will Object The Canon Law does prohibit the same also because they are Loco Parentum Answ The Reason is borowed from the Civil Law and must have the same Answer There is another thing very remarkable as to this distinction viz. that our Law puts a great difference between Parents and Uncles the Father can't inherit the Son but the Uncle may So that the measure to be taken by and from the Laws of one Kingdom to another is quite different In the Synod held by the Province of Canterbury Anno 1603. there were certain Canons made The Synod was called by the Kings Writ and the Canons ratified as they ought to be In the 99th Canon of those it is Ordained That no person shall marry within any Degrees expressed in the Table there mentioned This Table was first set up after this Canon but it had been published by Proclamation c. in the Queens time This Canon is so penned that it must be understood that all the Degrees are expressed there within which Marriage was intended to be prohibited but now there is no such Degree as this in the present Case there I do not take the Pleading in this Case to be good because here it is not said she was Carnally known as before I observed it ought to be to bring him within the Statute then there is a Fault in the Plaintiffs for tho' they have set down the Case so that we can see what it is yet they ought to have averred that it was not within the Levitical Degrees because that then they might have given opportunity to the Defendant to assign some other Cause Bene verum est c. but she had married a former Husband before c. Now I come to the other sort of Objections which I promised to give some Reasons in answer of for the satisfaction of of People abroad I did say That it were very difficult without this Statute to make it out that we were bound to observe this part of the Iudaical Law And we are not bound to observe any part of the Iudaical Law except those particulars where there is a Natural Reason too Acts Apost 15. There is the account of a Council held concerning the keeping of the Mosaical Law and the result is That it seems good to the Holy Ghost and the Apostles to lay upon their Brethren which were of the Gentiles in Antioch c. no greater burthen than these necessary things That the abstained from Meats offered to Idols Blood things strangled and Fornication A man can't say that all these were Mosaical neither but it is plain these were all they would lay upon them and the Corinthians 'T is clear they were not given as Precepts but Counsels that the Communion between the two Churches which were then coming together might not be interrupted Cor. 10. ver 17 c. Whatsoever is set before you eat asking no Question for Conscience sake But if any man say unto you This is offered in sacrifice unto Idols eat not for his sake that shew'd it and for Conscience sake c. Conscience I say not thine own but the others c. Give none offence neither to the Jews c. Rom. 2. ver 14. does clearly affirm that the Law of Moses was not given to the Gentiles And Rom. 3. v. 2. shews that this Law called there the Oracle of God was committed to the Jews only Object And this is the great Objection against our Prohibitions This Law depends upon the Original Tongues and Tradition and History and Laymen cannot know the Secret of

that King James came to the Crown and the time is supposed to have influenced the Opinion of the Court and the Plaintiff had Iudgment After having heard the Case several times spoken to the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff principally for the words that he went to Mass for by the Statute of 23 Eliz. cap. 4. the Offender is to Forfeit 100 l and he imprisoned for a year so that they expose him to Corporal Punishment It is held that to say a Man committed petit Larceny is Actionable Allens Rep. 11. The Chief Justice here said That where a Man had been in an Office of Trust to say that he behaved himself corruptly in it as it imported great Scandal so it might prevent his coming in to that or the like Office again and therefore was Actionable Note The time these words were spoken was taken notice of viz. between King James the Second's Desertion of the Kingdom and the Proclaiming of the King and Queen when to call a Man Papist would have exposed to him the danger of the Rabble whereupon Judicium pro Quer. Lade versus Parker VIde ante Termino Michal ' ult It was this Term moved again That the pleading dedit concess ' Nicholao Marsh filio suo Annuitatem praed ' habend ' praed ' Nicholao heredibus assignat ' suis ad opus usum dicti Nicholai haered ' assign ' suor ' per quod vigore Statuti de usibus in possession ' transferen ' the said Nicholas became seised c. was sufficient and the words quae quidem concessio c. quod vide ante were to be rejected as Surplusage And of that Opinion were Powell Rokeby and Ventris But Pollexfen Chief Justice held strongly to the contrary and he agreed this Deed being to the Son with an express Consideration of natural affection tho' Money was also part of the Consideration mentioned that it would work as a Covenant to stand seised But then the Parties ought to have pleaded it as a Covenant to stand seised according to the legal construction of such a Deed where there is no Execution at Law whereas here they have pleaded it as a Grant at the Common-Law The other Judges differing in their Opinion said it was sufficient to plead the Deed as it was worded and if there were sufficient matter to intitle the Avowant Iudgment ought to be given accordingly and then the Avowant concludes that he became seised by the Statute of Vses which shews he intended to take the operation of the Deed that way so Iudgment was given for the Avowant Chief Justice contra Note Serjeant Levins cited the Pleading in Foxes Case 8 Co. where the words Demise and Grant in consideration of Money amounted to a Bargain and Sale it being of an Estate for years without enrolment it was pleaded dimisit concessit ad firmam tradidit non Barganizavit Woodward c. versus Fox IN an Action sur Assumpsit for 200 l received to his use Vpon non Assumpsit a Special Verdict was found quod vide ante Term ' Trin ' ult ' and the Case this Term came to have the resolution of the Court The case upon the Special Verdict is to this effect an Arch-deacon maketh a Register of the Court belonging to his Arch-deaconry in Consideration of 100 l The Bishop of the Diocess who was also Patron to the Archdeacon supposing the Office to have been void by the Statute of 5 and 6 Edw. 6. against the Sale of Offices relating to the Administration of Iustice granted the said Office of Register to the Defendant and the said Grant was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter The Archdeacon after the Death of that person to whom he had sold the Office ut supra Grants the said Office to the three Plaintiffs for their Lives and the Life of the longer liver of them the Plaintiffs before any Office found for the King or any Record shewing the Sale of this Office obtains a Grant of it from the now King and Queen The Court were all of Opinion for the Plaintiffs The Court did not speak to two Points stirred in the case viz Whether this Office could be granted for three Lives or whether it was within the said Statute of 5 and 6 Edw. 6. because they were in a manner agreed at the Bar and the Points setled But the two main Points in the Case which were spoken to are First Where an Archdeacon sells the Office of Register in the Court of the Archdeaconry whether by the Statute of 5 and 6 Edw. 6. the Grant and Nomination to this Office shall come to he Crown or whether it shall go to the Bishop of the Diocess Secondly Admitting the Right to be in the Crown whether the King and Queen can make a Register till Office found or that the Title appeareth by some matter of Record 1. It was resolved that the Right of appointing the Register it being Forfeited by the said Statute of 5 and 6 Edw. 6. did come to the King and Queen It is a Rule laid down by Manwood Chief B. Mo. 238. That where a Statute giveth a Forfeiture either for Nonfesans or Mis-fesans the King shall have it so in 11 Co. 68. This follows the Reason of the Common-Law in case of things which are nullius in bonis where no visible Right appears the Law giveth them to the King Siderfin 148 86. As Derelict Land Treasure Trove and a great number of such like instances may be cited from the Books so it is in Extraparochial Tithes tho' things of an Ecclesiastical nature 2 Inst 646. Cawdry's Case 5 Co. 18. Nay if the Right lie equal between the King and Subject the Kings Title hath the preference by Law Detur digniori is a Rule 9 Co. 24. In case of concurrence of Titles between the King and Subject It was objected That this held in valuable things and matters of profit to the Crown But the Court said there was no such distinction made in the Books and many Prerogatives c. were given to the King for the publick good and interest of the Government as well as for encrease of the King's Treasure There is no exception out of this construction of Forfeitures upon Penal Statutes unless they are in recompence for the Damage suffered by a Subject as the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. that giveth the Forfeiture of the treble value for not setting out of Tithes 2 Inst 650. And this follows the Reason of the Common Law that Fines and Penalties for Offences at Law go to the King as the Head of the Government and that was the second Reason the Court went upon that the Offence for which this Forfeiture is inflicted is principally against the King By the preamble of the Statute it appears to be made for avoiding of corruption in Offices and abuses in the Administration of Justice Now the King is the Fountain of Justice and that Ecclesiastical as well as Civil in

then it has a Proviso That if any Subject of this Realm has committed any Capital Crime in Scotland or other Foreign parts of the King's Dominions he may be sent from hence to be Tryed in such Foreign place Vpon Consideration of which Proviso the Judges unanimously gave their Opinion That there was nothing in the Habeas Corpus Act supposing he had committed a Capital Crime by Law Martial in Ireland to hinder his being sent thither to be tryed thereupon and subscribed their Names to the said Opinion and certified the same to the Privy Council Note That it was said while my Lord Hale was Chief Justice of the King-Bench that one who had committed Murther in the Barbadoes and taken here was sent over to be Tryed there But was before the Habeas Corpus Act. Patrick Harding's Case HE was Indicted at the Sessions in the Old Baily Anno primo Willielmi Mariae for High Treason The Indictment sets forth that the said Patrick Harding machinans proditorie intendens pacem communem tranquillitatem hujus regni Angl ' destruere Gubernationem dictorum domini Regis dominae Reginae infra hoc regnum Angl ' subvertere ac caedes destructiones desolationes infra hoc regnum procurare 23 Novembr ' anno regni domini nostri Willielmi Mariae c. primo apud paroch ' sanctai Martini in Campis in Com' Middlesex ' praedict ' malitiose proditorie compassavit imaginat ' fuit intendebat dict' dom ' Regem dom ' Reginam adtunc supremos veros indub ' dom ' suos non solum à statu titulo potestate imperio regimine regni sui Angl ' penitus deponere deprivare verum etiam eosdem dom ' Regem dom ' Reginam interficere ad mortem finalem destructionem ponere adducere stragem miserabilem inter subditos per totum hoc regnum alia Dominia sua causare quodque ipse praedict ' Patrick Harding ad nequissimas proditiones proditiosas intentiones suas praedict ' perimplend ' eodem vicesimo tertio die Novembr ' apud paroch ' praedict ' proditorie vi armis c. bellum rebellionem contra dictos dom ' Regem dom ' Reginam nunc ordinavit levavit gerebat ac diversos milites viros armatos armaturos ad mil ' ac bellum contra dictos Regem Reginam nunc gerend ' congregavit levavit procuravit ac viros milites sic ut praefertur levat ' extra hoc regnum Angl ' misit iter suum suscipere procuravit ad sese jungen ' aliis hostibus inimicis rebellionibus dictorum Regis Reginae bellum contra eosdem gerend ' ulterius quod ipse Patricius Harding ad nequissimas suas proditiones perimplend ' perficiend ' eodem 23 Novembr ' apud paroch ' praedict ' ut falsissimus proditor dictor ' Regis Regin ' cum quodam Johanne Taaf adtunc subdito dictor ' Regis Reginae existen ' proditorie se assembl ' consultavit ac easdem proditiones suas praed ' adtunc ibid ' eidem Johanni Taaff malitiose proditorie advisat ' loquend in auditu divers subditor ' dictor ' Regis Reginae publicavit declaravit ad suadend ' eundem Johannem Taaff adjutan ' assisten ' esse in iisdem proditionibus magnum praemium stipend ' eidem Johanni Taaff adtunc ibidem obtulit Si ipse praed ' Johannes Taaff adjutans assistens in iisdem esse vellet contra ligeantiae suae debitum contra pacem dictor ' dom ' Regis dom ' Regin ' nunc coron ' dignitat ' suas necnon contra formam Statut ' in hujusmodi casu edit ' provis ' c. Vpon Not guilty pleaded the Jury found a Special Verdict Viz. That Patrick Harding to the intent to Depose the King and Queen and deprive them of their Royal Dignity and restore the late King James to the Government of this Kingdom did for Money by the said Patrick paid list hire raise and procure Sixteen men Subjects of this Kingdom at the time and place in the Indictment mentioned to fight and wage war against the King and Queen and those Sixteen men so listed hired raised and procured did send out of this Kingdom into the Kingdom of France to assist and aid the French King then and yet an Enemy to the King and Queen and in open war with Their Majesties and to joyn themselves with the Enemies and Rebels of and against the King and Queen in waging war against the King and Queen And if upon this matter the said Patrick Harding be guilty of Treason prout the Indictment then we find him Guilty prout c. and if Not guilty c then not Guilty c. Vpon this Special Verdict found the Lord Chief Justice Justice Gregory and Justice Ventris who were then present at the Sessions conceived some Doubt for they were of Opinion that it did not come within the Clause of the Statute of 25 Ed. 3. of Levying War For that Clause is That if a man levy War against our Sovereign Lord the King in his Realm and by the Matter found in the Special Verdict it appears that these Men were listed and sent beyond Sea to aid the French King It was also Doubted whether it were a good Indictment within the Clause of the Statute of adhering to the King's Enemies the Fact found in the Verdict comes fully within that Clause viz. the sending Men to aid the French King then an Enemy to the King and Queen in open War against them But the Indictment is short as to this matter for 't is quod milites sic ut praefertur levatos extra hoc regnum Angl ' misit ad sese jungend ' aliis hostibus inimicis rebellat ' dict' Regis Regin ' whereas it should set have forth who the Enemies were that the Court might take notice whether they were Enemies as the Law intends 33 H. 6. 1. b. If the Indictment had been That he sent them to the French King then in open War c. it had been well And upon these Doubts the Case was Adjourned for further Consideration In Michaelmass Vacation the greater part of the Judges were assembled at the Lord Chief Justices Chamber and having debated the Matter amongst themselves they all except Justice Dolben agreed that the said Patrick Harding was guilty of High Treason within the Clause of the Statute for Compassing the Death of the King it being found by the Verdict That the said Patrick Harding to the intent to depose the King and Queen and deprive them of their Dignity c. did for Money hire list c. and an intent to Depose the King proved by an Overt act hath been always taken to be within the Clause of Compassing the Death of the King So is Hales's Pleas