October 28. H. 8. there was an Insurrection of the Lord Hussey and 20000 Men in Lincolnshire about Religion which was appeased by the Duke of Suffolk This was no sooner over but 40000 Men under Sir Robert Aske made a Commotion in Yorkshire Soon after was a great Rebellion in Lancashire Westmerland Cumberland and Northumberland which the Earl of Derby quieted Then Musgrave Tilby and others assaulted Carlisle Castle and were overthrown by the Duke of Norfolk Soon after Sir Francis Pigot Rebelled at Setrington in Yorkshire Soon after the Lord Darcy c. began a Commotion about Hull appeased by the Duke of Norfolk And all these Rebellions were between the 28. of and 30. of H. 8. in which time many of the Rebels were Executed And the King having effected in the 31 year of his Reign the Suppression of the greater Houses of Religion he establisht a Councel there for the quiet of the Counties of Yorkshire Northumberland Westmerland Cumberland Durham the Counties of the City of York Kingston upon Hull and Newcastle upon Tyâ—e for preventions of Ryots c. And in this time of Necessity the King Armed the President and Councel with two Authorities in one Commission The one A Commission of Oyer and Terminer de quibuscunque Congregationibus conventiculis illicitis coadjutoribus Lolardiis c. per quae pax tranquilitas subditorum nostrorum Comitatibus c. praedict gravat c. secundum legem coâ—suetudinem regni nostri Angliae c. The other Authority was Nec non quascunque actionesreales seu de libero tenemento personales causasque de bitorum demandorum quorumcunque in Com. c. praed quando ambae partes vel altera pars sic gravata paupertate fuerit quod commode Jus suum secundum legem Regni nostri aliter prosequi non possit c. And this was the Authority that the President and Councel had at first without any private Instructions as appears by the Commission under the Great Seal 31 H. 8. 6 pars Roberto Landavensi Episcopo Presidenti Consilii aliis out of which these things were observed 1. That the intention of the Commission was Quod pax subditorum tranquilitas preserventur 2. That they hear and determine Riots Routs c. according to Law or their Discretions which without question was no otherwise intended but that they should proceed according to Law for that is summa discretio and not according to private Conceits for talis discretio discretionem confundit so the other Clause concerning reall and personal Actions in all the Counties and Places aforesaid was onely ad faciendum populum for it was utterly void in Law 1. Because no such general Authority granted may be made by the Commission of the King to hear and determine all reall Actions within such a County according to Law as he may be Charter in a particular County or place As it was Resolved in Scrogges Case An. 2 Eliz. so 175. in Dyer Vid. Dyer 236. But the King by Letters-Patents may grant to a Corporation in such a Town Tenere placita realia personalia mixta And none can by this be prejudiced for the proceeding ought to be according to Law and if they erre a Writ of Errour lies See Magna Charta cap. 12. and Westm 2. cap. 30. which Acts give Authority to Justices of Assize in their proper Counties whereby it appears that without an Act of Parliament the King by Letters Patents cannot authorize Justices De Assize capiend to take them in another County As a Justice of one Bench or other ought to be made by Commission not by Writ yet he may be discharged by Writ 5 Ed. 4. 32. But Justices in Eyre are by Writ Bracton lib. 3. cap. 11. Britton fo 1. Also Westm 2. cap. 30. and of York cap. 4. sic de ceteris Also it was observed that at first the Commission extended onely when one or both Parties were so poor as they were not able to prosecute at Law Also they had no power to grant Injunctions and lastly their Commission was a Patent under the Great Seal and enrolled in Chancery And thus much was said concerning the first Institution of the Court 2. That our Proceedings in granting Prohibitions is for matter justifiable by Law As to this whereas at first their Authority was Patent it is now private for the Letters-Patent refer to private Instructions which are no where of Record Et de non apparentibus non existentibus eadam est ratio besides the danger to the Subject is great for if they lose their Instructions which hath and may happen all is Coram non Judice The second Reason is drawn from the contumacy of the Party supposed to be grieved by the Prohibition and against whom it is granted for if the Authority of the Councel be never so good yet being a late Jurisdiction the Party must of necessity plead it so as it may appear judicially for as we are Judges of Record so must we be informed of Record And no party prohibited ever yet moved in Court to have a consultation by which might be set forth the Jurisdiction of that Court and Councel so as the granting of Prohibitions hath been just The third Reason is drawn from the great Injury offered to the Defendants for it is a true Rule Misera servitus ubi jus est vagum aut incertum The Defendants by Law may in all Courts plead to the Jurisdiction of the Court but how can they do so when no man can possibly know what Jurisdiction they have And the keeping of them in such Secrecy bewrayeth that the Councel are afraid that they would not be justified if they were known 3. That the manner of our Proceedings was respectful for a Jury of Officers and Attorneys of our Court being according to an antient Custome time out of mind used sworn to present among other things all Defaults of Officers and Ministers in not executing the Process of this Couâ—t and all Impediments of the due Proceedings thereof And finding upon their Oaths divers unjust Impediments of the said Proceedings by the said Councel in particular thereupon a motion being made in open Court in Michaelmas Term last by the King 's Serjeant Philips of many Grievances done thereby prayed the Court according to Law and Justice to grant several Prohibitions in all those several Causes which we could not deny Yet first we conferred with Sir Cuthbert Pepper Attorney of the Wards and one of that Councel to let him understand the partâ—cular Gâ—ievances who upon Motion came to us to Seâ—geants Inne with whom we conferred who would not take upon him to justifie the same in no sort but said he would acquaint the President and Councel therewith and return their Answer Which for that it was neglected upon further Motion in Court we granted Prohibition as in Justice we ought 4. Now to answer all Objections And first where it was objected
shall be sufficient for him But if the Father by Writing declare that it is but part of a Childs portion then he shall have a full Childs part otherwise not Note It was holden by the Judges in the Kings-Bench That if a man be possessed of a House and Term for years doth devise for years does demise this to his Wife for Life the remainder over the dyes all his Debts being paid If the Widow enters generally and converts the profiâ—s to her own use and not to pious Works this is a Determination of her Election And this is the general case and therefore it is good that it be specially found Hâ—yn's Case In the Lent Assize holden at Leicester 11 and 12 Jac. the Case was One William Haynes had digged up the several Graves of three men and one Woman in the Night and had taken their Winding-Sheets from their Bodies and buryed them again And it was Resolved by the Justices at Sergeants Inne in Fleetstreet that the property of the Sheets remains in the Owners that is of him that had the property therein when the dead body was wrapped therewith as in 11 H. 4. If Apparel be put upon a Boy this is a Gift in Law for the Boy hath Capacity to take it but a dead Body being but a Lump of Earth hath no capacity Also it is not a Gift to the Person but bestowed on the Body for the Reverence towards it to express the hope of Resurrection And therefore at the second Assizes he was severally Indicted for taking these Sheets The first Indictment was of Petty-Larceny for which he was whipped And at the same Assizes he was Indicted for the Felonious taking the other three Sheets for which he had his Clergy and escaped Death Hill 11 Jacobi Regis Earl of Derby's Case In Chancery between Sir John Egerton Plaintiff and William Earl of Dirby Chamberlain of Chester and others Defendants It was Resolved by the Lord Chancellor the Chief Justice of England the Master of the Rolls Dodderidge and Winch Justices 1. That the Chamberlain of Chester being sole Judge of Equity cannot Decree any thing wherein himself is party but in such Case the Suit shall be heard here in Chancery coram Domino Rege 2. If the Defendants dwell out of the County Palatine he who hath to complain in Equity may complain here in Chancery And therefore the Suit shall be here in Chancery Ne Curia Domini Regis deficient in justitia exhibenda Else the Subject shall have good Right and yet have no Remedy And this pursues the Reason of the Common-Law 13 Ed. 3. Tit. Jurisdiction 8 Ed. 2. Ass 382. 5 Ed. 3. 30. 30 H. 6. 6. 7 H. 6. 37. For where the particular Courts cannot do Justice to the Parties they shall sue in the Kings general Courts at Westminster 11 H. 4. 27. 8 Ed. 4. 8. 3. It was Resolved That the King cannot grant a Commission to any to determine any matter of Equity but it ought to be determined in Chancery which hath had Jurisdiction in such case time out of mind and had allowance by Law whereas such new Commissions have been resolved to be against Law as was agreed in Pott's Case 4. Upon Consideration of the Lord Dyer and other Justices in Queen Elizabeth's time concerning the Jurisdiction of the County Palatine It was Resolved That for things Transitory though in truth they be in the County Palatine the Plaintiff may alleadge them to be done in any place of England and the Defendant may not plead to the Jurisdiction of the Court See Dyer 13 Eliz. sol 202 716. Forms and Orders of Parliament In the House of Commons when the Speaker is chosen he in his place where he shall first sit down shall disable himself and pray them to proceed a new Election But after he is put into the Chair then he shall pray them that he may disable himself to the King Note The King the first day of the Parliament shall sit in the Upper-House and there the King or Chancellor by his Command shall shew the Causes of Calling the Parliament and in Conclusion of the Oration the Commons are commanded to chuse a Speaker which after 2 or 3 dayes they present where He makes an Oration disabling himself c. In the Lower House when a Bill is read the Speaker opens the parts of it so that each Member may understand the intent thereof and the like is done by the Lord Chancellor in the Upper House Then upon the second Reading sometimes it is Engrossed without Commitment Then it is put to the Question and so in the Upper House But neither in the Upper or Lower House the Chancellor or Speaker shall not repeat a Bill or an Amendment but once When a Bill is committed to the second Reading then if Committees do amend it in any Point they shall write their Amendments in a Paper and shall direct to a Line and what Words shall be interlined and where and then all shall be ingrossed in a Bill And if a Bill pass the Commons House and the Lords amend it they do as before shew the Line c. and after the Amendments are ingrossed with particular References and the Bill sent down to the Commons the Amendments are road three times and so eâ—converso of a Bill passing the Upper House No Lord Knight Citizen or Burgess may speak above once to one Bill in one day No private Bill ought to be read before publike Bills In the Commons House those that are for the New Bill if there be a Question of Voyces shall go out of the House and who are against the Bill or for the Common-Law or any former shall fit still for they are in possession of the Old Law In the Upper House two Lords are appointed to number the Voyces In both Houses he that stands up first to speak shall speak first without difference of Persons When a Bill is ingrossed at the third Reading it may be amended in the same House in matter of substance â— fortiori the Errour of the Clerk in the ingrossing may be amended c. Pâ—sch 12. Jac. Regis Walter Chute's Case Walter Chute Sewer to the King exhibited a Petition to the King That for safety of the Realm c. that he would erect a new Office to Register all Strangers within the Realm except Merchant-Strangers to be kept at London and to grant it to the Petitioner with a Fee or without And all Strangers except Merchant-strangers to depart the Realm in a certain time unless they take a Billet under the said Registers Hand Which Petition the Lords of the Councel referred to Me by their Letters of the 13 Novemb. 1613. to consider what the Law is in that behalf c. And upon Conference with the Justices of the Common-Pleas and other Justices and Barons at Sergeants Inne in Fleetstreet It was Resolved That the Erection of such New Offices for the benefit of a private man was against all
Law of what nature soever Therefore when one Captain Lee made suit to the King to have an Office to inventory the Goods of those that dyed Testate or Intestate It was Resolved by my Lord Chancellor and my Self That such Grant shall be utterly void being both against the Common-Law and the Statute 21 H. 8. In like manner when another sued to have the Registring of Birth-dayes and the time of death c. So Mich. 19 Jac. To make a New Office in the Kings-Bench onely for making Lattitats was resolved void So Littletons Suit to name an Officer to be a Gen. Reg. c. But the Suit was rejected notwithstanding the fair Pretences of it by the two Chief Justices and others See Hill 12 Jac. Regis 2. Secondly It was Resolved That it was inconvenient for divers Causes 1. For a private man to have private ends 2. The numbring of Strangers by a private man would inâ—er a Terrour and other Kings and Princes will take offence at it 3. It is to be considered what breach it will be to former Treaties 3. As to the third It may be performed without any Inconvenience and so it was divided by the Lord Burleigh and other Lords of the Councel 37 Eliz. To write Letters to the Mayors Bayliffs c. of every City Borough c. where any strangers are resident to certifie how many and of what quality c. which they are to know in respect of their Inhabitants c. and this may be done without any Writing which being shewn to the Lords was by them well approved and the Suits utterly disallowed Decemb. 3. Anno 3 H. 8. Commission was granted to divers to certifie the number of Strangers Artificers c. within London and Suburbs according to the Statutes See Candish Case 29 Eliz. 13 Eliz. A Grant of an Office to Thomas Knivâ—t to examine his Majesties Auditors and Clerks of the Pipe c. Resolved by the Court to be against Law for it belongs to the Barons who are Judges 25 Eliz. A Grant of an Office to Thomas Lichfield to examine all Deceits c. of the Queens Officers for 8 years Resolved to be void Sub-poena's in Chancery belonged antiently to the Six Clerks Queen Elizabeth granted the same to a particular man Affidavits Filing and keeping belonged to the Register King James granted them to a particular man So the erecting and putting down Innes did belong to the Justice of Peace the same King granted it to a particular man So likewise the taking of Depositions c. The Office of Alneger granted by the King to Simon Darlington and the Fees limited The Drawing Ingrossing and Writing all Licences and Pardons granted to Edward Bacon with former Fees and a Restraint to all others The Spa Office granted to Thomas George and others during life with the Fee of 2 s. and a restraint to others The Office of making and Registring all manner of Assurances and Policies c. granted to Richard Gandler Gent. with such Fees as the Lord Mayor and others should rate and a Restraint to others c. The Office of writing Tallies and Counter-Tallies granted to Sir Vincent Skinner The Office of ingrossing Patents to the Great Seal with encrease of Fees granted to Sir Richard Young and Mr. Pye Sed de hoc quaere Sir Stephen Proctor's Case In an Information in the Star-Chamber against Stephen Proctor Berkenhead and others for Scandall and Conspiracy against the Earl of Northampton and the Lord Wooton At the Hearing of the Case were present eight Lords viz. the Chief Baron the two Chief Justices two Bishops one Baron Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord Chancellor And the three Chief Justices and the Temporal Baron condemned Sir Stephen Proctor and fined and imprisoned him But the Lord Chancellor the two Bishops and the Chancellor of the Exchequer acquiâ—ted him And the Question was if Sir Stephen Proctor shall be condemned or acquitted And the matter was referred to the two Chief Justices calling to their assistance the Kings Learned Councel And first they Resolved That this Question must be determined by the Presidents of the Court of Star-Chamber that Court being against the Rule and Order of all Courts For in all other Courts if the Justices are equally divided no Judgment can be given So also is it in the Parliament and therefore this course must be warranted by the Custom of the Court. And as to that two Presidents onely were produced viz. One in Hillary Term 39 Eliz. Gibson Plaintiff and Griffith and others Defendants for a Ryot where at Hearing 8 being present 4 gave Judgment that the Defendants were guilty and 4 â— contra and no Sentence of Condemnation was ever entred because the Lord Chancellor was one of the 4 that acquitted them The other was in Hillary 45 Eliz. in an Information against Katherine and others for Forging a Will c. where 4 finding the Defendants guilty of Forgery and 4 onely of Misdemeanour whereof the Lord Chancellor was one Sentence was entred according to the Chancellors Voyce and no other President could be found in this Case as I reported this Term. Concerning Benevolence Note The Exaction under the good Name of Benevolence began thus When King Edw. the 4th had a Subsidy granted him by Parl. in the 12th year of his Reign because he could have no more by Parl and with a Parl. he could not have a Subsidy he invented this Devise wherein observe 3 Things 1. The Cause 2. The Invention 3. The Success 1. The Duke of Burgundy who marryed Edw. the 4th Sister sollicited the King to joyn in War with him against the French King whereto he easily consented to be revenged of him for aiding the Earl of Warwick c. And this was the cause 2. The Invention was The King called before him several times many of his wealthiest Subjects to declare to them his Necessity and Purpose to levy War and demanded of each of them a Sum of Money which by the King 's extraordinary courtesie to them they very freely yielded to Amongst the rest there was a Rich Widow of whom the King merily asked what she would give him for maintenance of his Wars By my Faith quoth she for your lovely Countenance sake you shall have 20 l. which being more than the King expected he thanked her and vouchsafed to kiss her Upon which she presently swore he should have 20 l. more 3. The Success was That where the King called this a Benevolence yet many of the People did much grudge at it and called it a Malevolince Primo Ed. 5. The Duke of Buckingham in Guild-Hall London among other Things inveighed in his Speech against this Taxation and 1 R. 3. c. 2 a Statute is made against it 6 H. 7. The King declaring in Parl that he had just cause of War against the French King desired a Benevolence according to the Example of Edw. 4. and publish'd That he would by their open Hands measure their
holden That if one were to sit in the Chancel and hath there a place his Carpet Livery and Cushion the Parson cannot claim them as Oblations for that they were hanged there in honour of the Deceased the same Reason of a Coat-Armour c. And the Chief Justice said the Lady might have a good Action during her Life in the Case aforesaid because she caused the things to he set up there and after her death the Heir shall have his Action they being in the nature of Hire-looms which belong to the Heir And with this agrees the Laws of other Nations Bartho Cassanâ—us sol 13. Coâ—cl 29. Actioâ— dat si aliquis arma in aliquo loco posita deleat aut abrasit c. and in 21 Ed. 3. 48. in the Bishop of Carlisle's Case Note That in Easter Term 10 Jacob. it was Resolved in the Star-Chamber in the Case between Hussâ—y and Katharine Leyton that if a man have a house in any Parish and that he and all those whose Estate he hath have used to have a certain Pew in the Church that if the Ordinary will displace him he shall have a Prohibition but where there is no such Prescription the Ordinary shall dispose of common and vulgar Seats Earl of Shrewes buryes Case Sir Humphry Winch Sir James Ley Sir Anthony St. Leger and Sir James Hullesâ—on certified the Lords of the Councel by Command from them by Letters dated 28. Martii 1612. of the Claim of Gilbert Earl of Shrewesbury to the Earldome of Waterford and Barony of Dungarvan in Ireland as followeth King Henry the Sixth by Letters-Patents in the 20th year of his Reign did Grant to his Cosin John Earl of Shrewsbury in consideration of his Loyal Services in the City and County of Waterford pro se c. ipsum in Comitem Waterford una cum stilo et titulo ac nomine ac honore eisdem debitis ordinamus creamus habendum to the said Earl and his Heirs-males of his Body and further did Grant the Castles Lordships c. of Dungarvan to the said Earl and the Heirs-males of his Body To hold c. of the King and his Heirs by Homage and Fealty and by the Service of being his Majesties Seneschal in Ireland After in the Parliament called Des Absentees holden at Dublin in Ireland 10. Maii 28 H. 8. It was enacted by reason of the long absence of George Earl of Shrewesbury out of the said Realm That the King his Heirs c. shall enjoy in right of his Crown of England all Honors Mannors Castles c. and all and singular possessions c. as well Spiritual as Temporal which the said George Earl of Shrewesbury and VVaterford or any other Persons had to his Use c. King Henry the 8th by his Letters Patents dated 29th of his Reign reciting the said Statute Nos praemissa Considerantes c. did Grant to the said Earl and his Heirs the Abbey of Rufford with the Lands thereunto c. in the County of Nottingham and the Lordship of Rotheram in the County of York the Abbeys of Chestersteld Shirbrook and Glossaâ—dale in Derbyshire with divers other Lands c. to be holden in Capite And the Questions were as followeth 1. Whether by the long absence of the Earl of Shrewsbury out of Ireland the Title of the Honor be lost and forfeited he being a Peer of both Realms and refiding here in England 2. Whether by the Act Des absentâ—es 28 H. 8. the Title of Dignity of Earl of VVaterford be taken from the said Earl as well as the Land c. Afterwards by other Letters Patents dated 27th of Sept. 1612. the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron were required to consider of the Case and to certifie their Opinions which Case being argued by Councel learned in the Law in behalf the said Earl and they having taken great advisement It was unanimously Resolved by them all as followeth 1. As to the fiâ—st Resolved That since it does not appear what defence was requisite and that the Consideration Executory was not found by Office to be broken in that Point the said Earl of Shrewsbury notwithstanding does remain Earl of Waterford 2. As to the second It was Resolved That the said Act 28 H. 8. Des Absenteâ—s does not onely take away the Possessions given him at his Creation but also the Dignity it self for though one may have a Dignity without Possession yet is it very inconvenient that Dignity should be cloathed with Poverty and so it was resolved in the Lord Ogles Case in Edw. 6. Reign as the Baron of Burleigh 35 Elâ—z did report The cause of Degradation of George Nevil Duke of Bedford is worth observation which was done by Act of Parliament 16 June 17 Ed. 4. which Act reciting the making the said George Duke sets forth the cause of his Degradation in these words And for so much as it is openly known that the said George hath not or by Inheritance may have any livelyhood to support the said Name Estate and Dignity c. Therefore the King by Advice of his Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons c. Enacteth c. That from henceforth the same Creation of the said Duke and all Names of Dignity given to the said George or to John Nevil his Father be void and of none effect Wherein are to be observed 1. That though the Duke had not Possessions to maintain his Dignity yet it could not be taken from him but by Act of Parliament 2. Great Inconveniencies follow where there is great State and Dignity and no means to maintain it 3. It is good reason to take away such Dignity by Act of Parliament and then the Act shall be expounded to take away such Inconvenience And though the Earl of Shrewsbury be of great Honour Vertue and Possessions in England yet it was not the Intention of the Act to continue him Earl in Ireland when his Possessions there were taken away And where it was objected that the general words Honours and Hereditaments are explained and qualified by the said Relative subsequent which the said George or any to his use hath Now in regard no man can be seized of the said Digniâ—y therefore the Act doth not extend to it 'T is answered that is to be understood Reddendo singula singulis and these words which the said G. E. hath are sufficient to pass the Dignity and with this agrees all the Judges Opinions in England in Nevils Case upon the like in the Statute 28 H. 8. in 7th Part of my Reports sol 33 and 34. Hill 2 Jacob. Regis Jurisdiction of the Court of Common-Pleas In the last Term by the King's Commands the Justices of the Kings Bench and Barons of the Exchequer were assembled before the Lord Chancellor Ellesmere at York-house to deliver their Opinion Whether there was any Authority in our Books that the Justices of the Common-Bench may grant Prohibitions or whether every Plea ought to be pending
more Prohibitions had been granted of late than in many years before To this a Sixfold Answer was made 1. That they had exceedingly multiplyed the number of Causes they in five Counties and three Towns having at one sitting 450 Causes at Hearing whereas the Chancery that extends into all England and Wales had in Easter Term but 95. and in Trinity Term but 72. to be heard So that it is no wonder it in such a Multiplication of Causes the number of Prohibitions be increased 2. Besides the Multiplication they have innovated and taken upon them to deal in Causes which we know never any President could and we think never any President and Councel did usurp As first Suits upon Penal Laws As between Hâ—rison and Thurston upon the 39 of Eliz. of Tillage 2. In Hâ—rtley's Case after Indictment of Forcible Entry and Restitution according to the Statute upon English Bill dispossessed by the President 3. After a Recovery in Ejectione Firmae and Habere facias possessionem out of our Court they upon English Bill dispossessed the Plaintiff this was Hart's Case So in other Cases as between Jacksoâ— and Philips Stanton and Child and Binns and Collâ—t 4. They admit English Bills in nature of Writs of Errour Formedons and other reall Actions 5. They wiâ—l â—dmit no Plea of Outlary in disability of the Plaintiff 6. They usually granted Injunctions to stay the Common-Law which is utterly against Law and som times to stay Suits in Chancery and in the Exchâ—quer Chambâ—r for which in respect as well of the Multiplications of Suits as Innovations of others it may very well be that more Prohibitions and Habeas Corpus have been granted of late than in time past And yet there hath been more granted and more antient than is supposed For which see Mich. 7 Eliz. Rot. 31. and Mich. 7. and 8 Eliz. in libro de Habeas Corpus Also Trin. 20 Eliz. ibid. 3. The Judges never grant either Prohibition or Habeas Corpus but upon Motion or Complaint by the Party grieved and therefore as the Subject hath more cause to complain there must needs be more Prohibitions and Habeas Corpus than heretofore 4. The Proceedings there are by absolute Power and their Decrees uncontrollable and finall more than in a Judgment in a Writ of Right which makes them presume too much upon their Authority 5. These Suits grow more prejudicial to the King than ever because thereby the King loseth his Fines c. 6. Remedy for the time past if the Common-Bench erre Writ of Errour lies in Banco Regis if the Kings-Bench erre a Writ of Errour lyes in the Upper-House of Parliament 7. For the time to come 1. That the Instructions be inrolled in Chancery that the Subject may see and know their Jurisdiction 2. That the Presidents and Councels have some Councel Learned in the Court to inform us judicially of their true Jurisdiction and we will give them a day to shew cause that Justice may be done on both sides and if we erre the Law hath provided a Remedy by Writ of Errour And we are sworn to do Justice to all according to the Laws Upon this Answer of the Judges the Lords of the Councel upon Conference among themselves gave by the Earl of Salisbury then Lord Treasurer this Resolution 1. That the Instructions should be Recorded as far as they concerned Criminal Causes or Causes between Party and Party But as to State-Matters not to be published 2. That both Councels should be within the Survey of Westminster Hall viz. the Courts of Westminster 3. The Motion was well allowed that the Presidents and Councels should have Councel learned in every Court that day might be given c. And concerning the remotenesse of the place the Counties of Cornwall and Devon are more remote then York And this was the end of that Dayes Work Case of Heresy Note 2 Ma. title Heresy Brook per omnes Justiciarios et Baker et Hare The Archbishop in his Province in the Convocation may and doth use to convict Heresy by the Common-Law and then to put them convicted into Lay-hands and then by the Writ de Heretico comburendo they were burnt but because it was troublesome to call a Convocation It was ordained by the Statute 2 H. 4. cap. 15. That every Bishop in his Diocesse might convict Hereticks And if the Sheriff was present he might deliver such to be burnt without the Writ aforesaid but if the Sheriff were absent or he were â—o be burnt in another County then the said Writ ought to be had And that the Common-Law was such Vide lib. intra title Indictment pl. 11. Who are Hereticks See 11 H. 7. Book of Entries fol. 319. See Doct. Stud. lib. 2. cap. 29. Cosin 48. 2. 1 2 P. M. cap. 6. Also 3 F. N. B. fol. 269. And the Writ in the Register proves this directly 4 Bracton l. 3. cap. 9. fol. 123 124. And true it is That every Ordinary may convent any Heretick or Schismatick before him pro salute animae and may degrade him and enjoyn him penance according to Ecclesiastical Law but upon such Conviction the Party shall not be burnt Nota The makers of the Act of 1 Eliz. were in doubt what shall be deemed Heresy or Schisme c. and therefore the Statute of 10 Eliz. provides That nothing shall be deemed Heresy but what had been so determined by one of the four general Councels the Word of God or Parliament See Fox in Ed. 6. and Britton 5 Ed. 1. lib. 1. cap. 17. and with this agrees the Statute 2 H. 5. cap. 7. 23 H. 7. 9. 25 H. 8. cap. 14. or that the proceedings in the Commencement and end was altered by the Statute 25 H. 8. then came the Satute 1 Ed. 6. cap. 12. and that repealed 5 R. 2. 2 H. 5. 26 H. 8. and the 2 H. 4. and by general words all Statutes concerning matter of Religion then the 1 2 P. M. c. 6. revived the 2 H. 4. by which the 25 H. 8. lost its force but by the Act 1 2 P. M. cap. 8. expresly repealing 21 H. 8. 23 H. 8. 24 H. 8. 27 H. 8. but the 25 H. 8. cap. 14. was not repâ—aled being repealed before by 〈◊〉 1 Ed. 6. yet in the end of that long Act there is a general Clause sufficient of it self to repeal the Act 25 H. 8. cap. 14. without more then the 1 Eliz. cap. 1. repeals the 1 and 2 P. and M. is repealed except some Branches and in the same Act it is enacted That all other Statutes repealed by the said Act of Repeal 1 and 2 P. and M. and not in this Act specially revived shall remain repealed But the 25 H. 8. cap. 14. was not particularly revived and therefore remains repealed And after the said Statute 1 Eliz. repeals the Act 1 and 2 P. and M. of reviving of three Acts for punishment of Heresyes so that now at
understood of Treasons Misprision of Treason Petit Treason and Felony and their Accessaries c. But Premunire is but a contempt and Pardon of all Contempts pardons it Whereupon the Lord Vaux confessed the Indictment Vide Lamb Justice dâ—l Peace 520 Dallisons Report accordingly Vide Stamford c. Trin. 10 Jacob. Regis Countess of Shrewsbury's Case In this Term before a select Councel at York-house the Countess of Shrewsbury Wife of Gilbert Earl of Shrewsbury then Prisoner in the Tower was brought and by the Kings Attorney and Sollicitor was charged with a high Contempt of dangerous consequence declaring That the Lady Arbella being of the Blood-Royal had marryed Seymor the Earl of Hertford's second Son without the King's Consent for which he was committed to the Tower and had escaped and fled beyond the Seas And the Lady Arbella being under restraint escaped also and embarked her self on the Sea but was taken ere she got over of which flight of the Lady Arbella the said Countess well knew as is directly proved by Crompton and not denied by the Lady Arbella And admitting the Lady Arbella had no evil intent against the King yet when she fled and should be inviron'd with Evil Spirits cum perversis perverti possit Now the Charge was in two Parts 1. That the Countess of Shrewsbury being by the King's Command called to the Councel-Table and being required by the Lords to declare her knowledge touching the said Points she answered she would not answer particularly and being again by the King's Commands asked by the Councel at Lambeth she refused for two Causes 1. Because she had made a Vow that she would not declare any thing in particular touching the said Points and she said it was better to obey God than Man 2. She stood upon her Priviledge of Nobility viz. to answer when Judicially called before her Peers such Priviledge having been allowed to William Earl of Pembroke and the Lord Lumly 2. The second Point of the Charge was That when the Answer she had made was put in Writing and read to her yet she refused to subscribe the same Which Denial was urged by the King's Councel as a high contempt c. And the Countess hearing the Charge yet persisted in her obstinate Refusal for the same Reasons the insisted on as before And the Lord Chancellor began and the Archbishop and the other Lords adjudged it a great and high Contempt And that no such allowance was to the Earl of Pembroke or Lord Lumly as was supposed And the Archbishop and Earl of Northampton proved by Scripture that the said Case now was against the Law of God All that the Justices said was That they might well be silent but that silentium in Senatu est vitium and therefore they briefly speak of three things 1. Whâ—ther the Refusals aforesaid were Offences in Law against the King his Crown and Dignity 2. What Proceeding this is and if justifiable by President or Reason 3. What the Offences are and how punishable 1. As to the first It was resolved by the Justices and Master of the Rolls that the denying to be examined was a high Contempt against the King his Crown and Dignity and upon hope of Impunity it will be an encouragement to Offenders as Fleming Chief Justice said to enterprize dangerous Attempts The Master of the Rolls said the Nobility in this Case had no more priviledge to deny to be examined than any other Subject Also if one Noble be sued and a Peer be sued in Star-Chamber or Chancery they must answer upon their Oaths And if produced as a Witness they ought to be sworn And therefore for maintaining of Order the Chief Justice said he would recite some of those Honourable Priviledges which the Law of England attributes to Nobility 1. If a Baron Viscount Earl c. be Plaintiff in any Action and the Defendant will plead that the Plaintiff is not a Baron c. this shall be tryed onely by the Record in Chancery which imports by its self solid truth 2. Their Persons have many Priviledges in Law 1. At a Subjects Suit they shall not be arrested 2. Their Bodies are not subject to Torture in causa criminis â—aesae Majestatis 3. They are not to be sworn in Assizâ—s Juries or Inquests 4. It is Felony in any Servant of the King named in the Checquer Roll to compass or intend to kill any Lord of Parliament or of the King's Councel 5. In the Common-Pleas a Lord shall have Knights returned of his Jury 6. He shall have Day of Grace 7. Shall not be Tryed in case of Treason Felony or Miâ—prison of them but by those that are Nobles and Peers 8. In Tryal of a Peer the Lords of Parliament shall not swear but give their Judgment Super Fidem Ligeantiam Domino Regi debitam And the King honours with Nobility for two Causes 1. Ad consulendum and therefore he gives them a Robe 2. Ad Defendendum Regem Regnum and therefore he gives them a Sword And therefore as they derive their Dignities with those Honourable Priviledges from the King to deny to answer being required by the King is a high Contempt accompanied with great Ingratitude This Denial is contra Ligeantiam suam as appears by the Antient Oath of Allegeance And the Law hath greater account to a Noble-mans Allegeance then one of the Commons because the breach of their Allegeance is more dangerous for Corruptio optimorum est pessima 2. As to the second Point viz. concerning the manner of Proceedings 1. Privative It is not to fine imprison or inflict corporal punishment for that ought to be assessed in some Court Judicially 2. Positive The Fine is ad monendum or at most ad minandum it is ad instruendum non ad destruendum This selected Councel is to express what punishment this Offence justly deserved if judicially proceeded against in the Star-Chamber Therefore this Proceeding is out of the King's Mercy to this Lady that seeing her Offence she might submit to the King without any Judicial Proceedings against her And though the Law puts Limits to the King's Justice it doth not so to his Mercy Et ideo processus iste est regalis plane rege dignus And this manner of Proceeding is fortified by the President of the Earl of Essex against whom such Proceedings were in this very place 42 43 Eliz. As to the last Point It was resolved by all quasi una voce that if a Sentence should be given in the Star Chamber she should be fined 20000 l. and imprisoned during the Kings pleasure Trin. 10 Jacobi Regis Robert Scarlet 's Case Note That at the Sessions of Peace lately holden at Woodbridge in Suffolk the Sheriff returned a Grand Inquest of which one Robert Scarlet desired to be one But the Sheriff knowing the malice of the man refused to return him Yet by Confederacy with the Clark who read the Pannel he was sworn of the Grand Inquest
of the Perjury by all the Lords in the Star-Chamber and it was Resolved by all That it was by the Common-Law punishable before any Statute Hayes Case in Cur-Wardorum By Inquisition in the County of Middlesex Anno 6 Jac. by vertue of a diem clausit extremum after the death of Humphry Willward it was found that the said Humphry died seized of a Messuage and 26 Acres of Land in Stepney and that John Willward was his Heir being 14 years and 9 days old and that the Land was held of the King in capite by Knights Service John Willward died within age and by Inquisition in Middlesex 8 Jun. Anno Jac. by vertue of a Writ of Deveneront after the said John's death it was found that John dyed seized in Ward to the King and that the said Messuage and Lands at the time of the said John's death were holden of the Dean of Pauls as of his Mannor of Shadwel All the mean Rates incurred in John's life-time are paid to the King 1. The Questions are 1. Whether by John's death and finding of the mean Tenure in the Deveneront the fiâ—st Office granted to Points be determined 2. Whether the Tenure found by the first Office may be traversed And as to these Questions it was Resolved by the two Chief Justices and chief Baron That where the said John dyed the Office found by force of the Diem clausit extremum after Humphries death whereby the King was entituled to the Guardianship of John hath taken its effect and is executed and does remain as Evidence for the King after Johns death but yet is not traversable for it is traversable during the time it remains in force onely and the Jurors upon the Deveneront after the death of the said John are at liberty to find the certainty of the Tenure and they are not concluded by the first Inquisition and with this agrees 1 H. 4. 68. And this appears by the diversity between the Writ of Diem clausit extremum and the Deveneront which is but in one Point to wit the Diem clausit extremum is general And the Deveneront is not general but does restrain onely the Lands and Tenements quod deveneront c. And thus it was Resolved nono Jacobi in the Court of Wards in the Case of Dune Lewis Award of Capias Uâ—lagatum by Justices of the Peace In this same Term the Opinion of all the Court of Common-Pleus was That if one be out-lawed before Justices of Assize or Justices of Peace upon an Indictment of Felony that they may award a Capias Utlagatum and so was the Opinion of Pâ—riam Chief Baron and all the Court of Exchequer as to Justices of Peace for they that have power to award process of Outlawry have also power to award a Capias utlagatum See 34 H. 8. c. 14. See Lamb. Justice of Peace fol. 503. contra But see 1 Ed. 6. cap. 1. Justices of Peace in case of Profanation of the Sacrament shall award a Capias Utlagatum throughout all England Hersey's Case Star-Chamber John Hersey Gent exhibited his Bill in the Star-chamber against Anthony Barker Knight Thomas Barker Councellor at Law Robert Wright Doctor of Divinity Ravenscroft Clerk and John Hai is and thereby charged the Defendants with forging the Will of one Margery Pain and the Cause came to Hearing ad requisitionem defendentium and upon hearing the Plaintiffs Councel there appeared no Presumption against any of the Defendants but that the Testament was duly proved in the Ecclesiastical Court and upon an Appeal was also affirmed before Commissioners Delegates and Decreed also in Chancery So that it appeared to the Court that the said Bill was preferred of meer malice to slander the Defendants Now because the Defendants had no Remedy at Law for the said Slander and if it should pass unpunished it may encourage men It was Resolved by the Court That by the course of the Court and according to former Presidents the Court may give Damages to the Defendants and so it was done viz. 200 l. to the Doctor of Divinity 200 Marks to the Knight 40 l. to the Clerk 120 l. to the Woman And it was said that Creare ex ihilo quando bonum est est divinum sed creare aliquid ex nihilo quando est malum est diabolicum et plus Maledicite nocâ—nt quam Benedicite docent Hill 2 Jac. Regis Theodore Tomlinson brought an Action of account for Goods against one Philips in the Common Pleas and thereupon Philips sued Tomlinson in the Admiralty supposing the Goods to have been received in Forraign Parts beyond Sea and Tomlinson being committed for refusing to answer upon his Oath to some Interrogatories brought his Habeas Corpus Upon which it was resolved by the Court of Common plea in thrâ—e Points viz. 1. That the Court of Admiralty hath no Cognizance of things done beyond Sea and this appears plainly by the Statute 13 R. 2. cap. 5. and the 19 H 6. fol. 7. 2. That the Proceedings in the Court of Admiralty are according to the Civil Law and therefore the Court is not of Record and so cannot assess a Fine as the Judges of a Court of Record may 3. It doth appear that the Interrogatories were of such things as were within their Jurisdiction and the Parry ought by Law to answer This Case was intended by my Lord Coke to be inserted into his 7th Report but that the King commanded it should not be Printed but the Judges resolved ut supra Corven's Case Right to Sâ—ats in the Church Corven did Libel against Pym for a Seat in a Church in Dâ—vonshire And Pym by Sergeant Hutton moved for a Prohibition upon this Reason that himself is seized of a House in the said Parish and that he and all whose Estates he hath in the House have had a Seat in an Isle of the Church And it was Resolved by the Court that if a Lord of a Mannor or other Person who hath his House and Land in the Parish time out of mind and had a Seat in an Isle of the same Church so that the Isle is proper to his Family and have maintained it at their Charges that if the Bishop would dispossess him he shall have a Prohibition But for a Seat in the Body of the Church iâ— a Question ariseth it is to be decided by the Ordinary because the Freehold is to the Parson and is common to all the Inhabitants And it is to be presumed that the Ordinary who hath Cure of Soules will take Order in such Cases according to right and conveniency and with this agrees 8 H. 7. 12. And the Chief Justice Dame Wick her Case 9 H. 4. 14. which was The Lady brought a Bill in the Kings-Bench against a Parson Quare Tunicam unam vocatam A Coat Armor and Pennons with her Husband Sir Hugh Wick his Arms and a Sword in a Chappel where he was buried and the Parson claimed them as Oblations And it is there
in the Court for such cause And the King would know their Opinions The Judges took time till this Term and then Fleming Chief Justice Tanfield Chief Baron Saig Altham Crook Bromley and Dodderidge Yelverton and Williams Justices being dead since last Term did deliver their Opinions to the Lord Chancellor That the Presidents of each Court are sufficient Warrant for their Proceedings in the same Court and for a long time and in many Successions of Reverend Judges Prohibitions upon Information without any other Plea pending have been granted Issues tryed Verdicts and Judgments given upon Demurrer All which being in force they unanimously agreed to give no Opinion against the Jurisdiction of the Common-Bench in this Case See my Treatise of the Jurisdiction of the Common-Bench in this Point Hill 10 Jac. Regis Parliament in Ireland The Lords of the Councel did write to the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron to look into Poynings Act made 10 H. 7. in Ireland and to consider thereof and certifie what shall be fit to be held concerning the same their Letter bore date Ultimo Janii 1612. Upon which in this Term the said Chief Justices Chief Baron Attorney and Sollicitor General were assembled two days at Sergeants Inne And they considered not onely of the said Act 10 H. 7. c. 4. called Poynings Act but also of an Act made in Ireland 3 4 P. M. c. 4. Entituled An Act declaring how Poynings Act shall be expounded and taken for by the said Act 10 H. 7. it is provided That no Parliament be hereafter holden in Ireland but when the Kings Lieutenant and Councell there first certifie the King under the Great Seal of that Land the causes c. and such causes c. affirmed by the King and his Councel to be good and expedient for the Land and his Licence thereupon c. A Parliament to be holden after the former before c. And any Parliament holden contrary c. to be void in Law Upon which Act divers Doubts were conceived 1. And first Whether the said Act 10 H. 7. does extend to the Successors of H. 7. the Act speaking onely of the King generally and not his Successors 2. If the Queen Mary were within the word King and both were held affirmatively for the word King being spoke indefinitely does extend in Law to all his Successors And this is so expounded by the Act 3 and 4 P. and M. viz. That the said Act 10 H. 7. shall extend to the King and Queens Majesty her Heirs and Successors Secondly where Povnings Act sayes the Kings Lieutenant and Councel the said Act 3 and 4 P. and M. explains it to extend to all other Officers the King shall Depute by what Name soever 3. The greatest Doubt was upon these words of Poynings Act And such Causes Considerations and Acts affirmed by the King and his Councel to be good and expedient for the Land c. Whether the King may make any change or alteration of the Causes c. which shall be transmitted hither from the Lieutenant and Councel of Ireland for that it is not affirmative but correction and alteration of them and therefore it was necessary to explain that the Act 3 and 4 P. and M. was in these words Either for the passing of the said Acts and in such form and tenor as they should be sent into England or else for the change or alteration of them or any part of them 4. Another Doubt arose from these words That dâ—ne a Parliament to be had If at the same Parl. other Acts which have been affirmed or altered here may be Enacted there which is explained by the said last Act in these words viz. For passing and agreeing upon such Acts and no others as shall be returned c. 5. A fifth Doubt arose from the same words Whether the Lieutenant and Councel of Ireland after the Parliament begun and pendente Parliamento may upon debate there transmit any other Considerations c. the which said Act 3 and 4 P. and M. is by express words explained they may And it was unanimously Resolved That the Causes Considerations and Acts transmitted hither under the Great Seal of Ireland ought to be kept in the Chancery in England and not be remanded 2. Iâ— they be affirmed they must be transcribed under the Great Seâ—l and so returned into Ireland 3. If the Acts transmitted hither be in any part altered or changed here the Act so altered must forthwith be returned under the Great Seal of England for the Transcript under the Irish Great Seal to remain in Chancery here shall not be amended but the Amendment shall be under the English Great Seal See 10 H. 6. 8. which begins Mich. 18 H. 6. Rot. 46. coram Rege how a Parliament was holden there before Poynings Act. See also another Act made in Ireland the same 10 H. 7. c. 22. vide R. 3. 12. Hibernia habet Parliamenta faciunt leges nostra statuta non ligant â—os quia non mittunt milites ad Parliamentum sed personae coâ—um sunt subjecti Regis sicut inhabitantâ—s Calinae Gascogniae Guienae But question is made of this in some of our Books vid. 20 H. 6. 8. 32 H 6 25. 1 H. 7. 3. 8 H. 7. 10. 8 R. 2. Precess 204. 13 Ed. 2. Tit. Bastard 11 H. 47. 7 Ed. 4. 27. Plow Comment 368. 13 Eliz. Dyer 35. 2 Eliz. Dyer 366. Calvins Case 7th of my Reports 226. 14 Ed. 3. 184. A Prâ—bend in England made Bishop of Dublin in Ireland his Prebendary is voâ—d See the Sâ—atute of Ireland c. That the Acts of Parliament made in England since the 10 H. 7. do not hind them in Ireland but all made in England before the 10 H. 7. by the Act made in Ireland 10 H. 7. c. 22. do bind them in Ireland Note Cambden King at Arms told me that some held if a Baron dyes having Issue divers Daughters the King confer the Dignity to him who marryes any of them as hath been done in divers Cases viz. In the case of the Lord Cromwel who had Issue divers Daughters And the King did confer the Dignity upon Burchier who marryed the youngest Daughter and he was called Cromwel and so in other Cases Note by Linwood it appears by the Canons Ecclesiastick none may exercise Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction unless he be within the Orders of the Church because none may pronounce Excommunication but a Spiritual Person But now by the 37 H. 8. c. 17. a Doctor of Law or Register though a Lay-man may execute Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction No Ecclesiastical may cite a Church-Warden to the Court but so as he may return home the same day Also the Canons limit how many Courts Ex Officio they may have in a year Mich. 11 Jac. Regis Note If a man give to one of his Children a certain sum in his life and after dyes though this is not given as a Child 's full Portion yet it
Helenam ideo ipsi c. Out of which Record these things are to be observed 1. Though it is Enacted by the Stat. West 2. cap. 21. That in this Case Justiciarii c. puniant appellatorem per prisonam unius Anni c. so that they were not Bailable yet quia eadem Helena praegnans fuit in periculo mortis she was let to Bayl to have her Body 15 Mich. ad satisfaciendum praedicto Laurentio et aliis c. And the Reason of this is because the Common-Law requires in every Case conveniency and it is inconvenient a Woman with Child should remain in Common-Gaol And the Judges of the Common-Law ought to know what the Moral Poet spoke Redâ—ere personae sit convenientia cuique and agrees with Advice of Bracton lib. 2. cap. 2. 2. That the Defendants recover their Damages either wholly against the Principle or wholly against the Abettors and with this agrees Ed. 4. 3. 3. Though the Statute saith Restituant Appellatores damna c. yet the Damages shall be singulatim assessed for as the Defamation of one may be greater than another so the Damages of one may be greater than another 4. Though the Appellor be not sufficient to pay yet his body shall be taken ad satisfaciendum Quia qui non habet in aere luat in corpore 5. Though the Jurors in the Appeal have found the Defendants Abettors yet insomuch as they are strangers to the Original they shal not be concluded Quia res inter alios actae alteri nocere non debent Vide the Book of Entries Title Appeal Divisione Damages 1 2. Vide Placita coram rege apud Ebor. in Crast Sancti Trin. 7 Ed. 3. 44. Divisione Indictments are very well worth observing Duresse per Gaoler See there divers sorts of Presentments as of Wollingover John Alnner Thomas Ballivus de Flaxwel Laughton Thomas de Mandon Ballivus de Boby of Grafton Thomas Carleton Under-Sheriff of the County of Lincoln and Hugo de Baxter c. False Affidavits In an Action suâ—le case it was Resolved per totam Curiam That iâ— a Sumner return one certified upon his Oath in Court-Christian where in truth he was not and thereon he is pronounced contumax and so becometh excommunicate he shall have his Action sur le case for here is damaum et injuria And it was Resolved That Perjury by which Damages do accrew may be punished as a Misuemeanour at the Suit of the King and also the Party may have his Action upon the Case for Perjury may not be committed with Impunity And for that Reason If Jurors themselves use Perjury an Attaint â—yes by the Common-Law as appears by Glanvil lib. 2. cap. 29. 15 H. 8. Title Attaint 75. 6 H. 3. ibid. 73 75. and in the time of Ed. 1. â—ttaint 70. West 1 cap. 38. Vide F. N. B. 109 Vid. 27 H. 6. 25. In like manner it was agreed That if one make a false Affidavit by which the Party is Arrested with Process of Contempt he may have an Actioâ— sur le case and recover Damage And though the Court-Christian may punish pro salute animae yet they cannot award Damages to he party And though the matter be meerly Ecclesiastical yet if the Party grieved hath Damages either by wrongful Proceedings of the Judge or Mâ—sfeasans or Nonfeasans or falsity of any Minister c. the Party grieved may have an Action sur le câ—se and recover Damages Doctor and Stud. 118 119. Action sur le Case lyes against the Ordinary for a wrongful Excommunication touching any thing out of his Jurisdiction c. So in Fitz. 47 H. 6. 8. If an Arch-Deacon refuse to induct the Clerk c. he shall have Action sur le case Which was affirmed for good Law by all the Court with which agrees 26 H. 8. 3. a. If a man proceed against a Prohibition the Party may have an Action upon the Case against him for prosecuting in Court-Christian Vid. Trin. 20 Ed. 3. Rot. 46. in the Treasury Richard Tresil's Case So the like Pasch 13 Ed. 3. Rot. 78. Philip de Harâ—eshals Case Hill 32 Ed. 3. Rot. 78. and Trin. 37 Ed. 1. and Mich. 29 Ed. 3. Rot. 19. similiter and divers other Records you may have See in my Book of Presidents Pasch 14 Jac. Regis An Habeas Corpus to the Marshal of the Admiralty granted in Hillary Term last past for Haukridge Prisoner in the custody of the said Marshal who did return Quaedâ—m causa spolii c. contra Haukridge pendet indecisa pro judicio sententia paratus c. Qui quidem Will Haukridge remanet donec antedict causa per praefat Daniel Dun suerit hoc est causa And also upon another Habeas Corpus he made such a Return and otherwise Parata sit c. Which the Court took to be very insufficient and gave divers days to amend the Return and to shew the cause of Delay and why Sentence was not given and the Marshal would not amend his Return Upon which the Party being in Prison 16 or 18 Weekes always the Return was est parata c. And after in another Writ returnable Crast Ascentionis was another Return of Parata c. without shewing cause of Delay The Return also was insufficient because Quaedam causa spolii civilis maritima quae coram c. which is too general for two Causes 1. Because spolii is uncertain and ought to be specified in some more certainty besides it shews not the value of the Goods 2. That Maritima est super littus or in portu maris and yet the Admiral hath not Jurisdiction Super littus maris or in portu because they are infra corpus comitat And so it was adjudged in Lacies Case Dyer 15 Eliz. the Abbot of Ransey's Case 15 Eliz. Dyer fol. 236. Pasch 17 Eliz. in Scaccar ac contra Digges for which cause he ought to have said Super altum mare intra Jurisdictionem Admiralli See the Stat. 13 R. 2. c. 5. 2 H. 4. c. 11 19 H. 6. 7. For the first all the Court Resolved that it was insufficient also there was shewn no time of the spoyl And for this in the same Term the said Haukridge was bailed in open Court till the next Term according to the Books 6 H. 6. 44. 28 H. 8. c. 15. Note It was said by some That when Judgment is given that one shall be hanged till he be dead the King cannot alter the Judgment and command that he shall be beheaded for the Execution ought to be conform to the Judgment and with this accords 35 H. 6. fol 58. and Stamf. lib. 1. fol. 13. Vide 27 Ass pl. 41. F. N. B. 144. 22 Ass pl. 49. Duke of Somersets Case and the Lord Sturtons Case in Queen Mary's time and the Lord Datres his Case in H. 8. both which were hanged for Felony It was Resolved also That King H. 8. could not by
all his Right Estate c. The Plaintiff surjoyneth and saith that the said sum of 5 l. 6 s. 8 d. c. was not rationabilis finis as the said Thomas Bradley above hath alleadged c. Upon which the Defendant doth demur in Law c. And in this Case these Points were Resolved by Coke Chief Justice Walmesly Warberton Daniel and Foster Justices 1. If the Fine had been reasonable yet the Lords ought to have set a certain time and place when the same should be paid because it stands â—â—on the point of Forfeiture As if a man assures Lands to one and his Heirs upon condition to pay to the Bargainee and his Heirs 10 l. at such a place or that he and his heirs shall re-enter there because no time is limited the Bargainor ought to give notice to the Bargainee c. when he will tender the money and he cannot tender it when he pleaseth and with this agrees 19 Eliz. Dyer 244. So in the Case at the Bar the Copyholder is not bound to carry his Fine alwayes with him c. And though that the Rejoynder is that the Plaintift refused to pay the Fine so he might well do when the Request is not lawful or reasonable And he that is to pay a great Fine as 100 l. or more it is not reasonable that he carry it always with him And the Copyholder was not bound to do it because the Fine was incertain and arbitrable as was Resolved in Hulbarts Case in the 4th Part of my Reports among the Copy-hold Cases 2. It was Resolved That though the Fine be uncertain and arbitrable yet it ought to be secundum arbitrium boni viri and it ought to be reasonable because Excessus in re qualibet jure reprobatur communi for the Common-Law forbids any excessive Distress as appears 41 Ed. 3. 26. And this doth appear to be the Common-Law for the Statute of Articuli super Chartas extends onely for a grievous Distress taken for the Kings Debt See F. N. B. 147. a. and 27 Ass 51. 28 Ass 50. 11 H. 4. 2. and 8 H. 4. 16. c. And so if an excessive Amerciament be imposed in any Couâ—t-Baron or other Court not of Record the Party shall have Moderata mis ericordia And Magna Charta is but an Affirmance of the Common-Law in this Point See F. N. B. 75. And the Common-Law gives an Assize of Sovient Distress and multiplication of Distress found which is Excess And with this agrees 27 Ass 50 51. F. N. B. 178 b. And if Tenant in Dower hath Tenants at Will that are rich and makes them poor by excessive Tallages and Fines this is wast F. N. B. 61. b. 16 H. 3. Wast 135. and 16 H. 7. Vide also the Register Judicial fol. 25. B. Waste lyeth in Exulando Henricum Hermanum c. Villeynes Quorum quilibet tenet unum messuagium unam Virgat terrae in Villenagio in Villa praed c. By all which it appears the Common-Law forbids excessive oppressing of Villains c. So in the Case at Bar though the Fine is uncertain yet it ought to be reasonable and so it appears by the Custome alleadged by the Defendant See Hubbard's Case before in the 4th Part of my Reports And when reasonableness concerning a Fine is in question the same shall be determined by the Court in which the Action depend 21 H. 6. 30. 22 Ed. 4 27. and 50 29 H. 8. 32. c. 3. It was Resolved That the Fine in the Case at the Bar was unreasonable being for the admittance of a Copy-holder in Fee-simple upon a Surrender made for this is not like a voluntary Grant c. for there Arbitrio Domini res estimari debet But when the Lord is compellable to admit him to whose use the Surrender is And when Câ—stuy que use is admitted he shall be in by him who made the Surrender and the Lord is but an Instrument to present the same 4. It was Resolved That the Surjoinder is no more than what the Law saith And for the Causes aforesaid Judgment was given for the Plaintiff And Coke Chief Justice said in this Case That if the Court of Admiralty amerce the Defendant excessively at discretion as seems by 19 H. 6. 7. the same shall not bind the Party and be it excessive or not it shall be determined in the Court where the Action shall be brought And a Writ of Account against a Bayliff or Guardian Quod reddat â—i rationabilem compâ—tum c. for the Law requires Reason and no excuse or extremity in any thing Mich. 6 Jac. Regis in the Common-Pleas Porter and Rochester's Case This Term Lewis and Rochester who dwelt in Essex in the Diocess of London were sued for subtraction of Tythes growing in B. in the said County of Essex by Porter in the Court of the Arches of the B. of Canterbury in London And the Case was The Archbishop of Canterbury â—ath a peculiar Jurisdiction of 14 Parishes called a Deanry exempt from the Authority of the Bishop of London whereof the Parish of St. Mary de Arcubus is the chief And the Court is called the Arches because it is holden there And a great Question was moved If in the said Court of Arches holden in London he might cite any dwelling in Essex for substraction of Tythes growing in Essex or if he be prohibited by the Statute 23 H. 8. cap. 9. which after Debate at Bar by Councel and also by Dr. Ferrard Dr. James and others in open Court and lastly by all the Justices of the Common-Pleas A Prohibition was granted to the Court of Arches And in this Case divers Points were Resolved by the Court. 1. That â—â—l Acts of Parliament made by the King Lords and Commons in Parliament are parcel of the Laws of England and therefore shall be expounded by the Judges of the Laws of England and not by the Civillians Cannonist although the Acts concern Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction And in 10 H. 7. the Bishop of London caused onâ— to be imprisoned because the Plaintiff said he ought not to pay his Tythes to his Curate And the imprisoned Party brought his Action of false Imprisonment against those that arrested him by the Bishops Command and there the Matter is well argued what words are within the Statute and what words are not So upon the same Statute was Resolved in 5 Ed. 4. in Keysar's Case in the Kings Bench which see in my Book of Presidents And so the Statutes of Articuli Cleri de Prohibitione regiâ De Circuâ— spâ—cte agitis of 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. c. have alwayes been expounded by the Judges of the Common-Law as was adjudged in Wood's Case Pasch 29 Eliz. So 21 H. 8. cap. 13. See 7 Eliz. Dyâ—r 233. 15 Eliz. Dyer 251. 14 Eliz. Dyer 312. 15 Eliz. Dyâ—r 327. 18 Eliz. Dyer 352 347. 22 Eliz. Dyer 377. 2. Resolved by Coke Chief Justice Warbâ—â—ton Daniel and
such a Custom in non Decimando for all Lay-people within the said Weild were lawful or not was the Question And to have a Prohibition it was said That though one particular man shall not prescribe in non Decimando yet such a general Custom within a great Countrey might well be as in 43 Ed. 3. 32. And the 45 Ed. 3. Custome 15. where an Abbot purchased Tenements after the Statute c. and saith That being Lord of the Town c. there was a Custom in the said Town that when Tenant cesseth for 2 years the Lord may enter c. And that his Tenant cessed for 2 years and he entred And the Rule of the Court is Because it was an usage only in that Town he was put to answer by which appears that a Custom was not good in a particular Town that perhaps might be good in a Countrey c. See 40 Ass 21. 27. 39 Ed. 3. 2. See also 7 H 6. 26. b. 16 Ed. 2. Prescription 53. Dyer 363. 22 H. 6. 14. 21 Ed. 4. 15. and 45 Ass 8. Doct. Stud. lib. 2. cap. 55 A particular Country may prescribe to pay no Tythes for Corn c. but with this Caution that the Minister hath sufficient portion besides to maintain him to celebrate Divine Service And fol. 172. it is holden That where Tythes have not been paid to Under-â—oods under 20 years growth that no Tythes shall be paid for the same And fol. 174. that such a Custome of a whole Country that no Tythes of a Lordship shall be paid is good But the Court would advise Whether such a Custom of a Town or Country be good But in anâ—ient times the Parishioners have given or procured to the Parson a Wood or other Lands c. To hold to him and his Successors in satisfaction of all Tythes of Wood in the same Parish the Parson so seized of the same that without question is a good discharge of his Tythes and if he sue for the same a Prohibition lyes I will cite an antient Judgment many years past Mic. 25 H. 3. Wilts Rot. 5. before the King at Westminster Samson Folyet brought an Attaint upon a Prohibition against Thomas Parson of Swindon because he sued him in the Spiritual Court for a Layâ—ee of the said Samson in Draycot contrary to the Kings Prohibition c. and the Parson was condemned in 20 Marks c. which agrees with the Rule and Reason of the Law continued unto this day For Presidents in Ed. 2. Ed. 1. H. 3. and King John and more antient are not to be now followed unless they agree with the Law and practice at this day Statutes having changed some and Desuetudo antiquated others There are two Points adjudged by the said Record 1. That satisfaction may be given in discharge of payment of Tythes And if the Successor of the Parson enjoy the thing given in satisfaction of the Tythes and yet sueth for Tythes in kind he shall have a Prohibition because that he chargeth his Layfee with Tythes which is discharged of them By which it doth appear that Tythes cannot be discharged and altogether taken away and extinâ— And herewith agrees the Register which is the most ancient Law-Book fol. 38. By which also it appears That Tythes may be discharged and that the matter of discharge ought to be determined by the Common-Law and not in the Spiritual Court Also by the Act of Circumspecte agatis made 13 Ed. 1. It is said S. Rector petat versus Paroâ—hianos oblationes decimas debitaâ— consuetas c. Which proves there are Tythes in kind and other Tythes due by Custom as a Modus Decimandi c. And yet it is Resolved 19 Ed. 3. Jurisdiction 28. the Ordinance of Circumspecte agatis is not a Statute and that the Prelates made the same and yet then the Prelates acknowledged That there were Tythes due by Custome which â—is a Modus Decimandi By which it appears also that Tythes by Custom may be altered to another thing See 8 Ed. 4. 14. F. N. B. 41. g. vide 3 Ed. 3. 17. 16 Ed. 3. Annuity 24. 40 Ed. 3. 3. b. and F. N. B. 152. And if the Lord of a Mannor hath alwayes holden his Mannor discharged of Tythes and the Parson had before time of memory divers Lands in the same Parish of the Gift of the Lord of which the Parson is seized at this in Fee in respect of which the Parson nor any of his Predâ—cessors ever had received any Tythes of the said Mannor If the Parson now sue for Tythes of the said Mannor the Owner of the Mannor may shew that special Matter c. And the Proof that the Lord of the Mannor gave the Lands that Tythes should never be paid at this day is good Evidence to prove the surmise of the Prohibition 19 Ed. 3. Tit. Jurisdiction 28. It is adjudged That Title of Prescription shall be 〈◊〉 in the Kings Court And therefore a Medus Lecimandi which accrues by Custam and Prescription likewise It appears 6 H. 4. cap. 6. that the Pope by his Bulls discharged divers from payment of Tythes against which the Act was made 31 H. 8. cap. 13. Possessions of Religious Persons given to the King were discharged of payment of Tythes in certain Cases 32 H. 8. cap. 7. provides all Tythes to be set as formerly except such as are discharged So 2 Ed. 6. c. 13. by which appears one may be discharged of Tythes five wayes 1. By the Law of the Realm viz. the Common-Law as Tythes shall not be paid of Coales Quarries Bricks Tyles c. F. N. B. 53. and Reg. 54. nor of the after-Pasture of a Meadow c. nor of Rakings nor of Wood to make Pales or Mounds or Hedges c. 2. By the Statutes of the Realm as 31 H. 8. 13. 45 Ed. 3. c. 3. By Priviledge as those of St. Johns of Jerusalem in England the Cistertians Temptors c. as appears 10 H. 7. 277 Dyer 4. By Prescription as by Modus Decimandi annuall recompence in satisfaction as aforesaid 5. By reall Composition as appears by the Writ cited out of the Register By all which appears That a man may be discharged of payment of Tythes as aforesaid So as now it is apparent by the Law of England both Antient and Modern that a Lay-man ought to prescribe in Modo Decimandi not in non Decimando and that in effeâ—â— agrees with Thomas Aquinas in his secunda secundae Quaest 86. ar ultimo See Doct. Stud. Lib. 2. cap. 55. fol. 164. That the Tenth Part is not due by the Law of God nor by the Law of Nature which he calls the Law of Reason And he cites John Gerson a Doctor of Divinity in a Treatise which he calleth Regulae morales viz. Solutio Decimarum Sacerdotibus est de Jure Divino quatenus inde sustenteâ—tur sed quoad tam hanc vei illam assignare aut in alios reditus commutarâ—
Ayd Hill 6 Jacob. Regis Prohibitions Upon Ashwednesday in Feb. 1606. A great Complaint was made by the President of York to the King That the Judges of the Common-Law had in Contempt of the Kings Command last Term granted 50 or 60 Prohibitions out of the Common-Plâ—as to the President and Councel of York after the 6th of February and named 3 in particular 1. Between Bell and Thawptes 2. Another between Snell and Huâ—t 3. And another in an Information of a Riotous Rescue by English Bill by the Attorney-General against Christopher Dickenson one of the Sheriffs of York and others in rescuing one William Watson out of the Custody of the Deputy of one of the Purseyvants of the said Councel who had Arrested the said Watson by force of a Commission of Rebellion by the said President and Councel awarded Which Prohibition upon the Information was as was said denyed upon a Motion in the Kings-Bench the last Term but granted by Us. And the King sent for me to answer the Complaint and I onely all the rest of the Justices being absent waited upon the King who in the presence of Egerton Lord Chancellor and others of the Privy-Councel rehearsed to me the Complaint aforesaid And I perceived well that the King had thereupon conceived great displeasure against the Judges of the Common-Pleas but chiefly against Me To which I having the Copy of the Complaint sent me by the Lord Treasurer answered in this manner That I had made search in the Office of Prothonotaries of the Common-Pleas and as to the Cases between Bell and Thawpts and Snell and Huet no such could be found but I would not take advantage of a Misprisal And the truth was the 6th of February the Court of Common-Pleas had granted a Prohibition to the President and Councel of York between Lock Plaintiff and Bell and others Defendants and that was a Replevin in English was granted by the said President and Councel which I affirmed was utterly against Law for at Common-Law no Replevin ought to be made but by Original Writ directed to the Sheriff and the Statute of Marlbridge cap. 21. and West 1. cap. 17. authorize the Sheriff to make a Replevin So 29 Ed. 3. 21. 8 Eliz. Dyer 245. And the King by his Instructions neither had made the President and Councel Sheriffs nor could grant them Power to make a Replevin against Law which the Lord Chancellor affirmed for very good Law and it may well be we have granted others in the like Case Another Prohibition I confess we have granted between Sir Bethel Knight now Sheriff of the County of York as Executor to one Stephenson who made him and another his Executors and preferred an English Bill against Chambers and others in nature of an Action of the Case upon a Trover and Conversion of Goods and Chattels in the Testators Life to the value of 1000 l. And because the other Executor would not joyn with him he had no remedy at Common-Law but was forced to pray remedy there in Equity And I say the President and Councel have not any Authority to proceed in that Case for divers causes 1. Because there is an express Limitation in their Commission that they shall not hold Plea between Party and Party c. unless both or one of the Parties tanta paupertate sunt gravati that they cannot sue at Common-Law and in that Case the Plaintiff was a Knight Sheriff and man of great quality 2. Because by that Suit the King was deceived of his Fine which was 200 l. because the Damages amounted to 4000 l. And that was one of the Causes that the Sheriff began his Suit there and not at Common-Law Another Cause was that their Decrees which they take upon them are final and uncontroulable either by Errour or any other Remedy which is not so in the Kings Courts where there are five Judges for they can deny Justice to none who hath Right nor give any Judgment but what is controulable by Errouâ— c. And if we shall not grant Prohibitions in Cases where they hold Plea without Authority then the Subjects shall be wrongfully oppressed without Law and we denyed to do them Justice And their Ignorance in the Law appeared by allowing that Suit viz. That the one Executor had no Remedy at Common Law because the other would not joyn in Suit with him whereas every one Learnâ—d in the Law knows that Summons and Severance lyeth in any Suit brought as Executors And this was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor Another Prohibition I confess we granted between the L. Wharton who by English Bill before the Councel sued Bank S. Buttermere and others for fishing in his several Fishings in Darwent in the County of C. in nature of an Action of Trespass at Common-Law to his Damages of 200 l. and for the Causes before recited and because the same was meerly determinable at Common-Law we granted a Prohibition And that also was allowed by the Lord Chancellor Then the King asked me the Case of Information upon the Riotous Rescous To which I answered That one exhibited a Bill there in the nature of an Action of Debt upon a Mutuatus against Watson who upon his Oath affirmed that he had satisfied the Plaintiff and owed him nothing yet because he did not deny the Debt the Councel Decreed the same against him And upon that Decree the Pursuyvant was sent to Arrest the said Watson who Arrested him upon which the Rescous was made And because the Action was in the nature of an Action of Dâ—bâ— upon a Mutuatus where the Defendant at Common Law might have waged his Law the Prohibition was granted and that was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor Also I affirmed it was Rescous because the principal cause belonged not to them but it might be a Riot yet not punishable by them but by course of Law by a Commission of Oyer and Terminer Also I confess that we have granted divers Prohibitions to stay Suits there by English Bill upon penal Statutes for the manner of prosecution as well for the Action Process c. as for the Count is to be pursued and cannot be altered and therefore without question the Councel in such Cases cannot hold Plea which was affirmed also by the Lord Chancellor And I said no Court of Equity can be Erected at this day without Act of Parl as was Resolved in Q. Eliz. time in Parots Case and lately in the Case of the President and Councel of Wales And the King was well satisfied with these Reasons who gave me his Royal Hand and I departed from thence in his favour Pasch 7 Jac. Regis This Term a Question was moved at Sergeants Inne who by the Common-Law ought to repair the Bridges common Rivers and Sewers and the High-ways and by what means they shall be compelled to it and first of Bridges And as to them it is to be known that of common right all the Country shall be
Service Tenant Richard Hulme dyed after whose death 31 H. 8. it was found that he dyed seized of the said Mesnalty and that the same descended to Edward his Son and Heir within Age and found the Tenure aforesaid c. And during nonagâ— Robert Male dyed seized of the said Tenancy peravail and that the same descended to Richard his Son and Meir as was found by Office 25 H. 2. within age and that the said Tenancy was holden of the King as of his said Dutchy by Knights Service whereas in truth the same was holden of Edward Hulme then in Ward of the King as of his Mesnalty for which the King seized the Ward of the Heir of the Tenant And afterwards Anno quarto Jacobi Rogis nunc after the death of Richard Male the lineal Heir of Robert Male by another Office it was found that Richard dyed seized of the Tenancy and held the same of the King as of his Dutchy c. his Heir within age Whereupon Richard Hulme Cozen and Heir of the said Richard Hulme preferred a Bill to be admitted to traverse the Office found 4 Jac. Regis And the Question was Whether the Office found 35 H. 8. be any Estoppel to the said Hulme or if that the said Hulme should be first driven to Traverse that And it was objected That he ought first to traverse the Office of 35 H. 8. as in the Case 26 E. 65. And that the first Office shall stand as long as the same remaines in force To which it was Answered and Resolved by the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron and Court of Wards That the finding of an Office is not any Estoppel for that is but an Inquest of Office and the party grieved shall have a Traverse to it But when an Office is found falsly that Land is holden of the King by Knights Service in capite or of the King himself in Socage if the Heir fueâ—h a general Livery it is holden 46 Ed. 3. 12. by Mowbray and Persey that he shall not after adde that the Land is not holden of the King But that is not any Estoppel to the Heir himself and shall not conclude his Heir for so saith Mowbray himself expresly 44 Ass pl. 35. See 1 H. 4. 6. b. So 33 H. 6. 7. And there is no Book that saith that the Estoppel shall endure longer than his life but that is to be intended of a general Livery but a special Livery shall not conclude one And if a Jury find falsly in a Tenure of the King the Lord of whom the Land is holden may traverse that Office Or if Land be holden of the King in Socage c. the Heir may traverse the last Office for by that he is grieved and he shall not be driven to traverse the first Office And when the Father sues Livery and dyes the Conclusion is executed and past as is aforesaid And note there is a special Livery but that proceeds of the King's Grace and is not the Suit of the Heir and the King may grant it either at full age before aetate probanda or to the Heir within age as appears 21 E. 3. 40. And then is general and shall not comprehend any Tenure as the several Livery doth and therefore it is not any Estoppel without question See the 33 H. 8. cap. 22. 23 Eliz. Dyer 177. It was also Resolved in this Case that the Office of 35 H. 8. was not traversable for his own Traverse shall prove that the King had cause to have Wardship by reason of Ward And when the King comes to the Possession by a false Office or otherwise if it appears the King have any other Right to have the Land there none shall traverse the Office or Title of the King because the Judgment in the Traverse is Ideo consideratum est quod manus Domini Râ—gis amoveantur c. See 4 H. 4. fol. 33. in the Earl of Kents Case c. Mich. 7 Jacobi Regis Note The Priviledge Order or Custom of Parliament either of the Upper-House or House of Commons belongs to the Determination of the Court of Parliament and this appeareth by two notable Presidents 1. The one at the Parliament holden in the 27 H. 6. There was a Controversie moved in the Upper-House between the Earles of Aâ—undel and Devonshire for their Seats Places and Pre-eminences of the same to be had in the King's Presence as well in Parliament as in Councels and elsewhere The King by the Advice of Lords Spiritual and Temporal committed the same to certain Lords of Parliament who not having leisure to examine the same by the said Lords Advice referred it to the Judges of the Land to hear see and examine the Title c. and to report what they conceive herein The Judges reported as followeth That this matter viz. of Honour and Pre-eminency between the two Earles Lords of Parliament was a matter of Parliament and belonged to the King and his Lords in Parliament to be decided Yet being so commanded they shewed what they found upon Examination and their Opinions thereon Another Parliament 31 H. 6. 6th of March begun and after some continuance was prorogued to the 14 of February and afterwards in Michaelmas Term the same 31 H. 6. Thomas Thorpe Speaker of the Commons House was condemned in the Exchequer in 1000 l. Damages at the Duke of Buckingham's Suit for a Trespass done to him The 14th of Feb. the Commons mâ—ved in the Upper-House that their Speaker might be set at liberty to exercise his Place c. The Lords refer it to the Judges and Fortâ—scue and Prisoit the two Chief Justices in the Name of all the Judges answer'd That they ought not to consider this Question c. but it belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament and not to the Justices But as to their Proceedings in the Lower-Courts in such Cases they deliver'd their Opinions See 12 E. 4. 2. Hill 7 Jac. Regis In Cam. Stâ—ll Heyward and Sir John Whitbrook's Case In the Case between Hyward and Sir John Whitbrook in the Star-Chamber the Defendant was convicted of divers Misdemeanours and Fine and Imprisonment imposed on him and Damages to the Plaintiff And it was moved that a special Process might be made out of that Court to levy the said Damages upon the Lands and Goods of the said Defendant And it was referred to the two Chief Justices whether any such Process might be made who this Term moved the Case to the Chief Baron and the rest of the Judges and Barons and it was unanimously by them all Resolved That no such Process could or ought to be made neither for the Damages nor for the Costs given to the Plaintiff the Court having no such power but onely to keep the Defendant in Prison till he pay them For for a Fine due to the King they can make no Process to levy it but they estreat it into the Exchequer which hath power by Law to write forth Process