or custome can fetch lands further then the low water-mark Grounds left But now what grounds shall be said a leaving by the Sea is a point in my Case also for it is certain that at spring-tides the Sea useth to overflow the Marshes in Lincolnshire and Norfolk and returneth within a short space again these being usual and annual be not accounted grounds left or gained from the sea so because the Marshes in Lincolnshire and the Sands in Lincolnshire be overflown every twelve hours and then dry again are not accounted grounds left or gained from the sea because the sea hath daily her recourse thereon and therefore in 15 and 16 Eliz. in Dier fo 326. 15. Eliz. Dyer 326. in the Case there was a quantity of ground was left by the Sea and whether the King or he whose grounds were adjoyning should have them was there made a question but in that Case there is an excellent president set down very apt for the handling of this point put in 43 E. 3. Contra 43. E. 3. Abbot'de Ramsey de quodam processu in Scacario facto versus dict' Abbot ad ostendendum quare Sexagint ' acrae marisci in manus dom ' Regis non debent sesiri quas predict ' Abbas appropriavit sibi domui suae sine licentia Regis super quandam presentation virtute cujusdam generalis Commission ' de terris à Rege detentis concelatis Abbas respondit quod ipse tenet maner ' de Brauncest quod scituatum est juxta mare et quod est ibid quidam mariscus qui aliquando per fluxum maris minoratur aliquando per de fluxum maris augetur absque hoc quod appropriavit sibi prout per presentation ' predic ' supponebatur And the Attorney of the King maintained the contrary and therupon the King and the Abbot were at an issue so by the Case I gather these matters First That if by little the Sea sometimes decrease and leave some parcel to the Land and some other times run over the same again this ground belongs not to the King for these be grounds whereto the subject may have a property as in the grounds of the shore but otherwise it is where great quantity of ground which had always been drowned before is left that belongs to the King Also by this president the Law was taken to be that these grounds left by the Sea to the Land were in the County of Norffolk whereto they did adjoyn and in my opinion within that Parish whereto they lay for there was a Presentment which was by a Jury of Nofolk and the Jury taken to try an Issue must be de viceneto ejusdem commitatus but note there the Presentment was by a Jury de Corpore Commitatus in 22. lib. Assis pl. 93. The Case was That 22. lib. Ass pl. 93. a River of water did run between two Lordships and the soil of one side together with the River of water did wholly belong to one of the said Lordships and the River by little and little did gather upon the soil of the other Lord but so slowly that if one had fixed his eye a whole day thereon together it could not be perceived by this petty and unperceivable increase the increasement was got to the owner of the River but if the River by a sudden and unusuall flood had gained hastily a great parcel of the other Lords ground he should not thereby have lost the same and so of petty and unperceivable increasements from the sea the King gains no property for De minimis non Curat Rex but put the case the sea overflow a field where divers mens gounds lye promiscuously and there continueth so long that the same is accounted parcel of the sea and then after many years the sea goes back and leaves the same but the grounds are so defaced as the bounds thereof be clean extinct and grown out of knowledge it may be the King shall have those grounds yet in Histories I finde that Nilus every year so overflows the grounds adjoyning that their bounds are defaced thereby yet they are able to set them out by the Art of Geometry These grounds in my Case which are left by the sea and The Prince count Palatine of Chester lye from the haven next to the shore are as I have formerly delivered it within the county Palatine of Chester and therefore whether the Prince or the King shall have them is now my question The Prince hath not only Jura Regalia but also Escheta Regalia within his said Palatinate and so in my opinion is not only owner of the county but Lord of the Prerogatives there and all Jurisdiction is to the Prince only a Writ of Error lieth in the Kings Bench of a Judgement there like an Appeal to Caesar then he is Lord of those Laws by which the Freehold and Inheritance of those lands be ruled wherefore then should not these lands belong to his Grace And first it is usual to have a Commission directed to enquire of these Lands ut de terris concelatis and this inquiry shall be by Commission if that Commission be to issue out of the county Palatine of Chester then the Lands would questionless fall to the Prince and the inquiry to be made of the Freeholders of the said county Palatine The Case put in Barkleys Case in the Comment of Mr. Plowden fo 129. doth force much against the Princes Title for there it is put that the Bishop of Durham had Liberties and Priviledges in Terris suis inter Fluvios de Tyne de Tese and afterward purchased moe Lands between these two Rivers the said Liberties and Priviledges shall not extend thereto and so if one have a Warren in his Lands in Dayle and he purchaseth other Lands there his Warren cannot be extended upon these new purchased Lands for saith the Book Things or Priviledges confined to certain Precincts or Dominions cannot be extended further though the Dominion be inlarged and that they shall not be inlarged with the inlargement but the County Palatine vested in the Prince is prescribed within no other bounds then the word County doth confine it and therefore this falling to be within the county should be properly his and as I am imformed the Prince hath special words therefore in his Charters if it were granted that these grounds could be claimed by Charters but I am clear of Opinion That no increase of the new left grounds can possibly become within the county of the city of Chester for the bounds thereof cannot extend over that circle which their Charter hath confined them to and so for the causes and reasons formerly declared I take it That the said Island is the Kings the ground left between the haven and the ancient shore belongs to the Prince as Earl of Chester and the shore because of the said prescription appertains to C. the Subject as parcel of the said Mannor and so
according to my said conclusion of my Case here the King hath a part the Prince a part and the Subject a part of the grounds left by the Sea My Tenets therefore be these First that the Subject may have the grounds of the Sea to the low-water mark and that no Custome can extend the ownership of a Subject further That a Subject cannot have the grounds to the low-water mark but by custom and prescription and I take it that it is very disputable whether grounds before they be relinquished by the Sea may be gained by Charter and grant from the Crown I suppose they may That the words incrementum decrementum maris are fully described by the said Record of 43 E. 3. of the Abbot of Ramsey that is That if the decrease of the Sea be by little and unperceiveable means and grown only in long tract of time whereby some addition is made to the Frontagers grounds these by these words may appertain to the subject and herein the said words have no other operation but Lands left to the shore by great quantities and by a sudden occasion and perceiveable means accrew wholly to the King That the increase to the said County Palatine for the causes aforesaid doth appertain to the Prince as Earl of Chester The Shore BUt now I am arrived at the continent and the first ground I set my foot on is the shore which in Latine is called Littus Maris it taketh the name wholly from the sea as partaking most with her nature and so Ex digniori parte appellatur yet it is not all one with the Sea nor with the Land but participates with them both And Mr. Bracton in his second Book Chap. 12. saith That Littora Maris Bracton accessoria what the shore is appears by Justinian the Emperor in his Institutes lib. 2. pag. 141. and is there thus defined Justinian Littus Maris est quousque maximus Hibernicus jus fluctus eluderet quousque fluctus Maris in estate longius exestuat and with this agreeth Cicero Topicorum The shore is not counted for lands or grounds gained from the Sea or left by it because at Cicero every full Sea it is covered with the waters thereof In the 13. Chapter of St. Matthews Gospel ver 2 3. it is said That Mat. 13. 2 3. our Savior Jesus went into a ship and sate there and the whole multitude stood on the shore and he spake unto them Hereby it appears that the shore was the dry land because they stood thereon and it was a great quantity of ground for thereon stood a multitude and it was near the brink of the water because they heard Jesus speak unto them out of the ship In point of property and ownership it is the Kings as Lord of the seas but as Sir Henry Constables Case is a subject may have the same as belonging to his Mannor by prescription In the Imperial Law which the Civilians use the sea shore is held to be common to all and that it is as lawful for Diogenes the poor Cinick as Cressus the rich King Casam 161. Ponere retia siccare but our Common Law of England doth in reason much surpasse either the Imperial Law or the Civil Law in distinguishing upon these for it is said Rex in ca habit proprietatem sed populus habet usum ibidem necessarium so that as to the lading and unlading of ships and for drying of Nets there and for other necessary businesses the subjects have these uses therein but the soil and grounds thereof belong properly dom ' Regi And a subject may have the same by prescription and therefore such as hold the shore to be the extreme point both of land and water be in a great error for as Iustinian saith in his Institutes Quod gemmae lapilli praeciosi inveniuntur which can be taken no otherwise sed super terram aqua relictam so that this shall suffice to have said concerning the sea shore Sea Coasts THe coasts of the sea come next in order to be treated of Costera maris be words well known but their confined definition is hard to be found out yet certainly they contain the shore and banks for by the Statute of 27. Eliz. Chap. 24. an Act was made for the mending of the banks and 27 Eliz. 24. sea works on the sea coasts but in the 7. Chap. of Maccabees coasts have a larger extent for there Demetrius Son of Seleucus departed from Rome and came to a city of the sea Maccabees 7. coasts here a whole city is set on the sea coasts and in Iustine treating of Alexander the great it is reported of him that he entred into Licia and Pamphilia and won and conquered all Justine the sea coasts this could be taken for no less then whole countreys for Alexanders great minde and huge Army could not march on a molehil or small tract of ground In St. Mark Chap. 7. it is thus written That Jesus departing from the Coasts of Tyre and Sydon came to Galile so that it may thereby be gathered That these coasts were neer the sea for our Savior was no sooner out of the coasts but he was on the sea which shews that sea and coasts be contiguè Iacentia yet no certain definition can I finde of the words Coasts of the Sea but by these and such like descriptions yet this I gather and collect thereby that in respect of the whole World a whole Kingdom lying next may be said to be a sea coast and a whole county in respect of a Kingdom and in my opinion the next town and territories thereof lying next to the seas be in our Law taken to be the sea coasts and no other and therefore some do much erre which take coast to be the edge of Land next the water and shore to be the brinks of the water next the Land quasi duo opposita And because Creeks Havens and Ports be all of them within the charge of this Law and this Statute was materially made in defence thereof and as they differ in appellation so they vary in definition yet they do in some things agree in the material I will therefore deliver my opinion of them Creeks CReeks of the sea is an Inlet of sea cornered into the main Land shooting with a narrow passage into some Angle of the Land and therein stretching it self more then ordinary into the Land and so holdeth not even quarter with the Levant sea and such Creeks or Inlets we commonly term in the Law to be arms of the sea for like as the arm of a man shooteth out from the body so by a metaphor the inlet or corner of the sea let into the Land is called an arm of the sea and although it go far into the land yet the points of land on both sides may well be discovered and this appears in that great arm of the sea on Humber where it
or granted to him as King but by Record And in the same degree is a County Palatine in his County because he hath there Jura Regalis And this Livery and Seisin may be actually and really done and performed or else it may be done within the view of the Lands intended to be conveyed And as touching Livery and Seisin to be actually effected if the Feoffment contain Lands in two several Counties and Livery and Seisin be made in one County in name of both this will not pass the Lands in another county because the Land passeth by the Livery which is local and not by the Deed. But in an exchange of Land in two several Counties by Deed the same is good for there the Land passeth by the Deed. But if one make a Feoffment of a Mannor lying in Demesn in the County of L. and in services in the County of M. these services and so Rents will pass by attornment of the Tenants though they lye in a foraign County and so of an Advowson appendant and such like because those rents and services pass not by the local ceremony of Livery and Seisin but by the ceremony of Attornment which is personal and depends upon the person which is transitory wherein I take this difference That if a Feoffment be made of a Mannor by Parol the Advowson appendant Villains Regardant and Rents and Services by Attornment of Tenants will not pass to the Feoffee till the demesns and Lands be first conveyd But if the Feoffment be by Deed then the Rents and Services will pass by Attornment of the Tenants and delivery of the Deeds before Livery and Seisin be made to pass the demesns Then seeing that Land in one County will not pass by Feoffment by express Livery made in an other County if then the same may be passed and conveyed by Livery within the view is the question of our Case And in my opinion they may because it is a ceremony performed by the eye which is a member or instrument which hath his operation by aspect Tam procùl quam propè But express Livery and Seisin which is done by the hand cannot in reason be extended to another place then where the body is And although the eye be fixed in the head annexed to the body yet like the Sun his beams are carried afar of And this Livery by the view is not a Livery in the County where the body is but properly in the County where the Land lay which was the object of the eye and in this case it is said to be Livery onely and not Livery and Seisin because the Seisin is properly when the party enters and the entry of the party is that which perfects the work which is in proprio commitatu And for authority in the point 28. Ed. 3. fo 11. there is a Case according to my opinion where the Husband at the Church door when 18. E. 3. fo 11. he was to take one to wife he made a Deed of Feoffment of Lands lying in another County to the said woman and then delivered the Deed to her and shewed her the Land then they married and he entred in claiming to her use and these Lands were thereby well conveyed to the said woman by this Livery within the veiw in another County Now it is fit to be declared what view is sufficient for there be two maner of views The one general the other special In the special view every particular piece of ground is to be seen but in the general view it sufficeth to take notice of the grounds by the place they lie in and in my opinion The general view in my Case will suffice For if one make a Feoffment in Fee of a whole Island or of a whole Mannor or Town and make Livery thereof within the view this is good and yet it is not possible to view every particular piece of ground at once for Trees Houses and Hills might so be interposed that the view could not be taken of some part thereof yet notwithstanding veiw of the rest will pass Also if Lands be covered with Water Ice or Snow these will pass well in a Feoffment or Livery in the veiw In Brook Title View plac 101. the Case there may give Brook 101. the rule to our Case for there it is said in a Writ of view It is not necessary that all particulars in Specie should be put in view but to see the fields where the grounds lie promiscuously it will suffice and is a good and perfect veiw Sed est vn auter diversitie concernant veiwe Carsi vn fait Feoffment de B. acre que gist del auter parte dam Mountaine tout hors del veiwe la Liuerey de ceo nest bone sans expres veiwe tamen tout voile passer per veiwe de parte sic in mon case on part ' gist south le floud del mere ceo non obstant passe vt parcel del mannor Ascuns aver teneus ceo Knightley pur vn in 28. H. 8. in 28. H. 8. Dier que Liuercy deins le veiwe doit touts foits este fait in cases de necessity ceo vrging in respect del chose ou del person del chose quia leterre gist del furder side dun grand ewe ou in le ewe ou ne puit oste facile accesse del person quia que le Feoffor ou Feoffee soit lame ou infirme detraher ceo in question Jeo aye mist mon case quia le Feoffment Liuerey fuit ad plenitudinem maris tamen Jeo sue de opinion que Liuerey deins le veiwe puit este fait sans ascun matter de necessity ceo vrging ceo Jeo collect per le liuer de 42. Ed. 3. Fitz. Feoffments 54. when the Son did give back the Lands to his Father as freely as his Father had 42. Ed. 3. formerly given the same to him and this was within the view and it doth not appear that either this Livery or the other made to the said woman in 28. Ed. 3. were made of any necessity urging the same And there be some persons which can neither give nor take by Livery within the view and that is where the Feoffor or Feoffee is blinde So a Major and Commonalty Dean and Chapter or other corporate and politique capacities cannot give or take within the view Some have held a difference that a Parson of a Church might not take by Livery within the view to him and his Successors because that came to him in his politique capacity which had no Eyes but if he were seized in the right of his Church that he might infeoff I. S. thereof by Livery within the view because this was a wrong to the Church and therefore A Conceit was in the power of his natural capacity which had Eyes But the main Point in my Case is Whether Livery within the view may be given and taken by Attorneys and whether the view is so incident to the person that it
runs betwixt Lincolnshire and Yorkshire the points of either county may be seen at once and seem to stand even over the one to the other Arm of the Sea ANd an arm of the Sea is said to extend into the Land so far as the flow and reflow goeth In the Patent of the Admiral of England I finde this word Creek used for there the King granteth to him omnia bona mercimonia Catalla in vel super Mare littora crecas Costeras Maris but it differs much both from the shore and coast for a shore is sometimes dry Land and sometimes water a coast is always dry land but the Creek is always sea and new land In the Statute 28 H. 8. Chap. 15. Rastals tryal A. It is that all felonies c. done upon the Sea Haven or Creek where the Admiral hath Jurisdiction shall be tryed in such county which the King shall appoint by the Statute it is manifest that the Creek is not all one with the sea nor the same that a Haven is by the Statute made in the 4 H. 8. Chap. 20. Rastal ships 5. appoints 4 H. 8. cap. 20. that all Merchandizers entring in or going out of the Realm of England should be charged and discharged in Diversity between the shore great Ports and not in Creeks or small arrivals by which A Coast Statute it is apparant that a Creek is not all one that a Port is A Creek But yet here it seemeth to be an Inlet of the sea where ships may have their arrivals as at Fosdyke Stow Wainflet and Creek such like and I take it that a Bay and a Creek be all one Bay and that a Mere and a Fleet be also of that nature and that all these rather vary in words then in matter Fleet Mere. A Port. A Port is a harbor and safe arrival for ships boats and ballengers of burthen to fraught and unfraught them at as by the said Statute of 4 H. 4. appeareth In the Irish Reports Fol. 56. Ports be said to be Ostia Ianuae Regni I take a Port to be some special place in some great Borough where arrival of ships be as the Cinque Ports which be Dover Sandwich Rye Rumney and Winchesley the most famous in this Realm and these be places of great priviledges and Boston Hull Lyn and Plymouth be also Ports and Port Towns where special offices officers belonging to them touching Merchants Merchandizers And the said Statute of 4 H. 4. directed that Merchants should be charged and discharged at great Ports was for that there were Officers for the King deputed to receive His Highness customs and profits thereupon arising hereupon came that Officer called Portgreve Hollingshead which signifieth the Governor of the Port as Mr. Cambden Cro p. 120. 6. noteth page 244. the difference between a Creek a Haven Cambden 244. and a Port be these Diversity between a Creek Haven and Port. A Creek is a corner of the sea let into the land farther then ordinary and more then the sea is but it is no usual or accustomed place of arrival for ships and commonly it hath neither safe harbor nor legal priviledge A Haven is properly a safe place of harbor for ships but may be without any priviledge at all of which kinde I know some And a Port is not onely a safe harbor for ships of the greatest burthen but it is also always graced with legal priviledges and this appears so by the Statute of Magna Charta Magna Charta cap. 9. cap. 9. Quod omnes Communitates Barones dequinque portibus omnes alii portus habeant omnes libertates liberas Consuetudines which proveth my former difinition of Ports to be true After all these difinitions and distinctions I have now prepared my Case ready to receive his censure upon the last conclusion that is That all the said grounds were within this Statute but no part thereof within this Commission of Sewers and therefore it is first to be noted That these grounds were left by the sea since the awarding of this Commission and the words of the Preamble of this Statute speaks of grounds heretofore won which word Heretofore won seemeth to tie the Statute and Commission both to grounds left or won before the said Statute and not such as be won after like to the Statute of West 2. de Donis conditionalibus quod ad dona prius facta non extenditur which excludeth out of that Statute all gifts made before And the words Heretofore and hereafter are words of consequence in point of time and wheresoever they are spoken they come with an Emphasis as if they required express observance and so is the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 28. of Leases that Statute is of all Leases hereafter to be made by Covenant in tail with such cautions and proviso's as be limited and set down in that Statute should be good Leases formerly made though all the proviso's in the said Statute were observed were notwithstanding by reason of the said word Hereafter out of the relief of that Statute And so in the Statute of Wills 32. H. 8. which had these words in it All persons having Lands or which hereafter should have might devise this did not make good any devises of Lands made before but if this should pass for currant then I should not perform my word in my conclusion which puts it all within the Statute and this exception if it were material would not put it onely out of the Commission but the Statute also yet notwithstanding though the construction made of all the said former Statutes stand with Law by reason of the said words Heretofore and hereafter yet in this Statute of Sewers the same be not material neither be the said words Heretofore won to be precisely observed because they be placed in the Preamble of the Statute and not in the enacting part of the Law as in the said former Statute they were And Expositions are not tyed to Titles and Preambles which many times comes short of the parts of the Law but to the body and enacting part of the Statute which is the matter and substance And hereupon the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 15. of Leases recites in the Preamble thereof That whereas divers Leases had aforetime been made for Incomes and great Fines and yet after the Lessors did suffer Recoveries if at this day a Lease be made and that without Fine or Income yet such a Lessee shall be received to falsifie the recovery had against his Lessor notwithstanding The Preamble of that Statute seems to remedy no Lessees but such as made Fines and were made before that Statute but the said words were not put in the body or enacted part of the Statute and so it is in our Statute the words Heretofore won be only put in the preamble and not in the material part of the Law and so
again to their Successors And in the Case of Sir Henry Nevil in Plo. Com. an Office of a Parker was granted to two and an Annuity for the exercise of it and it is there resolved that the Annuity might not be severed from the Office and so it might be said in my Case That the Mannor which belongs to the Office was at the first laid thereto or given therewithal for the maintenance of the Officer in his place by the Founder and so may not be severed therefrom without his consent And touching the intailing of the Office of the Ranger of a Forest it is held in Mancels Case in the Comment of Mr. Plowden that the Office of a Bayliff or Receiver of the Rents of a Mannor may be intailed So an use and a Copy-hold because these concerned and depended upon Land But the Office of the Master of the Hawks or the Mastership of the Horse could not be given in Tail within the Statute of West 2. de donis conditionalibus nor an Annuity which chargeth the person Yet all these may be given or granted within these intailed limitations but yet they are no intails within that Statute I am of opinion That the Office of a Ranger of a Forest cannot of it self be given in Tail but having a Mannor belonging to it make the question of more moment For as the Office Dese is not intailable so the Land per se may be intailed But Land in our case is not the principal but the accessary accessorium sequitur suum principale and therefore seeing the Land follows the Office as the shadow doth the body and passeth out of his own kinde by the ceremony belonging to the Office and not by the ceremony by which Land is transferred and passed I should therefore take it that the Estate of the Land should be such as the Office of it self might bear which could not be intailed yet because in the said Case of the Forester with Land belonging to it is taken to be in Tail in 1 H. 7. aforesaid with a remainder 1 H. 7. thereof over in Fee I am therefore concluded to make any further question of it and so I leave it as I found it and do passe to the argument of the other points Second Point The second Common Law Point is Whether this gift in my Case be a Frank-mariage or another intail I have observed in Books that there be five things incident to a gift in Frank-mariage viz. First it must be to or with a Cosin within the four degrees Secondly the word Frank-mariage must be literally expressed Thirdly the Reversion must be left at the time of the gift in the donor and then there be two other things follow as consequents Fourthly acquital of payment of Rents and services And Fiftly warranty to secure the Estate And the want of these or any of these in the creation doth destroy that Estate in the conception Here seems to be two Impediments in my Case to hinder this gift to take root as a Frank mariage It is made abnepti which is the Cosin in the fourth degree and the last in those gifts whereby the gift that way cannot have his full operation for that the first Heir of their bodies is out of the former priviledges But in regard I take it that a Frank mariage doth more respect his original creation In incepto then the descent of the priviledges to the Heirs In suo progressu I take this to be no impediment to hinder this from being a gift in Frank mariage But here the words in the gift preceding the words Frank mariage do differ much from it for by the special limitation the Heirs Females shall inherit with the Heirs Males Simul Semel as Heirs in common But in the Case of the Frank mariage Heirs Males shall first inherit single and for want of them then the Females I do agree the Law that in cases where the special words of limitation may in construction be made to agree with the word and limitation of Art contained in Frank mariage the gift shall be taken a Frank mariage as in the Case of 2 H. 3. It. suff Fitz. Mordanc plac 52. where Lands were given 2 H. 3. in Frank mariage to R. S. cum Alicia sorore le donor it a quod post mortem dictae Aliciae puerorum suorum the Land should revert to the donor and this was adjudged a Gift in Frank mariage and the words It a quod were holden of no validity neither will the words of Reservandum Redendum Tenendum or Warrantizandum though they vary from the nature of a Frank mariage yet they shall not destroy the same as an Habendum may do which is the word whose proper place is to create the Estate and therefore if any thing come therein which is repugnant thereunto the same will alter the quality of the gift And with this agreeth the Case in 45 Edward the 3. Title Tail 14 and 31. where Lands were given to I. S. in Frank mariage with B. the daughter 45 E. 3. of the donor Habendum to them and their heirs and this was held a Fee simple and no Frank mariage And the like Law is where Lands are granted in Frank mariage the remainder in Fee to I. S. and his heirs the Frank mariage is defeated by the opinion in Br. Cases and so in my Case because there can be no reconciliation between the special words of limitation in my Case and the word Frank mariage I am therefore of opinion that this gift is an Estate in Tail according to the special limitation and no Frank mariage Third Point Whether the Bastard shall inherit to have an Estate in Tail is the third Common Law question for I am clear of opinion that a Bastard cannot inherit to a gift in Frank mariage because adultery and fornication which is the seed of every Bastard is opposite to mariage and in breach of that powerful link and knot of Matrimony which is an Ordinance derived from the Divine power of the Almighty And therefore seeing mariage is the material consideration of such a gift Bastardy the opposite can never being out of the consideration come within the priviledges to inherit this Estate So if I give Lands to I. and S. and to the heirs of their two bodies lawfully begotten their Bastard cannot inherit to this gift because he is not heir of their two bodies lawfully begotten But if the word Lawfully had been out of the limitation then I see no reason but that a Bastard may inherit to an Estate in Tail as to a Fee simple conditional which he might have done at the Common Law seeing an Estate Tail may be made before mariage as expecting to be confirmed thereby and so a Bastard born before mariage is by the consummation of a succeeding Mariage made capable to inherit to them if his possession continue without disturbance to his death Yet in Plow Com.
matters doth contain in it these words viz. That if any person or persons of what Estate or Degree soever he or they be of that from henceforth do take upon him or them to sit by vertue of the said Commissions not being first sworn according to the Tenor of the Oath expressed in the Statute or if any person so named and sworn do sit not having Lands Tenements or other Hereditaments in Fee-simple Fee tail or for term of life to the clear yearly value of Forty Marks above all charges to his own use Except he be Resciant and Free of any City Borough or Town Corporate have moveable substance of the clear value of One hundred pounds or else be learned in the Laws of this Realm in and concerning the same That is to say admitted in one of the principal Inns of Court for an utter Barrister shall forfeit Forty pounds for every time that he shall attempt so to do the one moyety to the King the other moyety to the party that will sue therefore c. So that by this clause it is manifest that every one that is not qualified in one of these degrees is no competent Commissioner within this Statute First that he be an utter Barrister in one of the four Inns of Court Secondly or have Lands Tenements or Hereditaments of the clear yearly value of Forty Marks above all charges in Fee simple Fee tail or for life Thirdly or be Free or Resciant in some City Borough or Town Corporate and have moveable substance of the clear value of One hundred pounds And that person which is not within one of the said three parts and yet doth take upon him to sit in the execution of this Commission incurs two penalties The one the forfeiture of his discretion for his presumption The other of Forty pounds for his contempt And therefore for the more clear examination of these things I will observe that method in my Argument which my Case hath formerly prescribed to me And first of all I shall proceed to the personal abilities and first of the son of the free Citizen of Lincoln I am of opinion that every Commissioner of this kinde must be indowed with these three qualities First he must be free of a City c. If he want any of these then he is out of this Branch of this Statute Secondly he must be there Resciant and Thirdly he must have in clear moveable Substance One hundred pounds and Therefore what person is such a Freeman is now to be handled I am of opinion that every Subject born within the Kings Dominion is a Freeman of this Realm as appeareth by the Grand Charter cap. 14. yea though he be a Bondslave to a Subject but a stranger born is no Freeman of the Kingdom till the King have made him Denizen in whose power alone without the help of any other one may be made free And to be a Freeman of the Realm the place of his birth is held more material then the quality of his Parents for if Aliens have a childe in England it is free of the Kingdom yet by the Opinion of Hussey Chief Justice in 1 R. 3. fol. 4. and in Calvins case of the Post Nati it is holden for Law That if Ambassadors of this Realm have children born in France or elswhere where the Father and Mother be natural born Subjects the children are free of the Realm of England but if either the Father or the Mother of such children were an Alien then are not those children free One out of the Kings protection is as I take it for that time no Freeman of the Realm But in what case a man Exiled is in sorteth the nearest to our question Exile is one of the Eight Punishments which the Roman Laws did inflict upon Strangers which be videlicet 1. Damnum 2. Imprisonamentum 3. Plagae 4. Compensatio 5. Ignominia 6. Exilium 7. Servitudo 8. Mors. Mr. Bracton doth in this maner describe Exile that is Certi loci interdictio and doth distribute it into Four heads That is to say 1. Specialis hoc est interdictio talis provinciae Civitatis Burgi aut villae 2. Generalie Interdictio totius Regni aliquando est 3. Temporaria pro duobus tribus quatuor aut pluribus annis aut c. 4. Perpetua pro termino vitae Exilium est aliquando ex arbitrio principis sicut in exiliando Duces Hertferdiae Norfolciae per Regem Richardum secundum Et aliquando per Judicium terra ut sit in casu Piers de Gaveston etiam in casu Hugonis de le Spencer junioris qui ambo fuorunt exilit ' per Judicium in Parliamento Abjuration also was a legal Exile by the Judgement of the Common Law as also by the Statute Law and in the Statute of Westminster the Second Cap. 35. He which ravisheth a Ward and cannot render the Ward unmarried or the value of his Mariage must abjure the Realm and this is a general Abjuration And by a Statute made in 31 Ed. 1. 31 Ed. 1. Butchers are to be abjured the Town if they offend the fourth time in selling measled flesh and this is a special Abjuration But I must put this Case to a further question which is What a man Exiled doth forfeit thereby And in my opinion he forfeits these things following First he loseth thereby the freedom and liberty of the Nation out of which he is Exiled Secondly he forfeits his Freedom in the Borough or City where he was free for he which forfeits the Freedom of the whole Realm by consequence forfeits his Freedom in every part thereof Thirdly he is of as little esteem in our Law as if he were dead for his Heir may enter and so may his Wife enter into her own Lands and may sue an Action as a woman sole by 31 Ed. 1. 1 H. 4. 31 Ed. 1. 1 H. 4. 1. And fourthly in my opinion he shall forfeit those Lands to the King which he shall purchase in the Realm during his Banishment qued vide 15 Ed. 3. Fitz. Petition ' plac 2. But there in that case Hugh Spencer was banished by a Judgement in Parliament which gave a forfeiture of his Lands howsoever I take him as strongly barred from purchasing in the Realm during his Banishment as an Alien is for fit alienigina by his Banishment and he is in a worse case then an Alien because he taketh with him Indignatio principis But a banished man forfeits neither Title of Honor as Knighthood which is de jure gentium nor the Lands he had before he was Exiled unless by special Judgement given in a legal course they be so decreed Then our case goes further That E. is not Exiled himself but D. his Father was Exiled whose Heir E. is now whether by the Exilement of the Father the liberty and freedom which E. might claim in the City of Lincoln by being the Son and Heir
sit Commissioners by this Statute for they have these Lands in eorum usu during the time they continue in their places which in intendment of Law is for their lives but yet by the intendment of Law they are not to sit in the execution of any humane affairs and therefore seeing their persons are out of the intendment of this Law so likewise should their Church livings be but this is but a conceit for although they be not persons having these Lands within the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Wills which is a having to dispose yet they may be within our Statute which is a having to retain If an Executor have a Villain for years which purchaseth Land of Forty Marks per annum he may sit in the execution of this Commission for till his Lord enter he hath them to his own use but if the Executor enter then neither the Villain nor Executor can sit a Commissioner by this Law If an Alien purchase Lands of sufficient value in Fee he in respect of his person is a disabled person to sit neither is he a person having Lands because he is not seised thereof to his own use but to the use of the King But if he be made a Denizen then in his person he is made capable The Warden of the Fleet who hath Lands belonging to his Office may in respect thereof sit a Commissioner by this Law But shall a Termor or Lessee for years of Land of good value be thrust out of Commission and be counted neither a sufficient Landed man nor his Term and Lease to be accepted moveable substance and not only so but that his Farm shall be a further disablement unto him as the Statute of 13 El. cap. 9. seemeth to purport the words of which Statute be That no Farmer or Farmers for Term of years of any Maners Lands or Tenements lying or being within the Precincts or Limits of any such Commission of Sewers which be or which hereafter may be ordered and chargeable by any Laws Ordinances and Constructions made or to be made by vertue of any such Commission wherein he or they shall be named or appointed Commissioner or Commissioners not having Estate in Freehold within the Realm of or in Manors Lands or Tenements of the yearly value of Forty pounds shall any time hereafter have power to sit or in any wise intermeddle with the execution of such Commission or Commissions during the time he or they shall continue or be such Farmer or Farmers of any such Maner Lands and Tenements and shall not have Estate of Freehold as aforesaid but that every such Commission having respect only to every such person or persons for such and so long time as he or they shall be or continue Farmer or Farmers of any such Manors Lands or Tenements shall be denied and judged in Law as void But yet in the closing up of that Statute of 13 El. there is a Proviso to this effect Provided always that it shall be lawful for any Commissioner being also a Farmer and not having Lands or Tenements to the clear yearly value of Forty pounds of Freehold to sit by vertue of the said Commission and have his voice and full authority with others to make and establish Ordinances for Sewers according to the Tenure of the Commission touching and concerning all Lands and Tenements within the Precinct of every such Commission other then such Lands and Tenements as he or they for the time hold and enjoy as Farmer as he or they might have done before the making of that Statute but he could not have sitten in execution of this Commission before the making of this Statute unless he had besides his lease Lands to the value of Forty Marks per annum And therefore a Lease for years is no inablement at all but a disablement as this Statute declares But the times when this having of Lands c. will suffice to qualifie a Commissioner to sit within this Law is now to be considered of wherein I am opinion that the When having must be referred to the Then sitting For the words of the Statute be That none take upon him to sit not having Lands to the yearly value of Forty Marks so that if he have not Lands of that value when he is first made a Commissioner yet if he have so much when he sitteth upon the Commission it will satisfie this Law and if once he have Land of that value and sitteth and after sell the Land away or if they be evicted from him he is then disabled to sit as a Commissioner by this Statute And so if he were but Tenant for the life of I. S. and I. S. dieth he ought not to sit In 12 H. 7. 7. a Juror which was to pass upon tryal of Land was to have Forty shillings per annum of Freehold and 12 H. 7. 7. after he was impanelled and before he was sworn he sold away his Land and when he came to be sworn he was challenged for want of Freehold but the chalenge was disalow'd for after he was impanelled his land though after sold away was chargeable with the issues which he after might lose in that matter and with this agreeth 14 H. 7. 2. by Frowick But our Statute is more precisely penned which is That none do presume to sit unless he have Lands of that value or be c. therefore when he sits he must have the Lands And if A. do bargain and sell his Lands to B. by Deed intended of that value and before the Inrolment of the Deed B. do sit as Commissioner and after the Deed is Inrolled yet this doth not qualifie his offence and the relation of the working of this Deed doth not assist him to take off the penalty of this Law Also a man disseised is during the Disseisin disabled to sit for he had not then power to devise the Lands by the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Wills for that Statute doth as ours doth use the word Having in presenti and not in futuro And thus much I thought convenient upon this occasion to deliver my opinion when the Commissioner must have his Lands of Forty Marks per annum to inable him to sit as a Commissioner within this Statute To Treat of the utter Barister I need not for when he hath taken the Oath mentioned in the Statute he is an absolute and compleat Commissioner within this Law to all purposes although he have neither Lands or Goods according as the Statute appointeth others to have The second question The second question in my case touching this Statute is Whether the Countess of Warwick be a compatible Commissioner within this Statute Although it is uncouth in our Law to have women Justices and Commissioners and to sit in places of Judicature yet by the Authorities ensuing you shall finde this a point worth insisting upon both in Humane and in Divine learning for in Genesis Chapter the first after the creation