THE RESOLUTIONS Of the JUDGES upon the several STATUTES Of Bankrupts: As also The like Resolutions Upon 13 Eliz. and 27 Eliz, Touching Fraudulent CONVEYANCES. By T. B. Esq;  
LONDON, Printed for T. Twyford, and are to be sold by Hen. Twyford and other Booksellers. 1670.   


Pasch. 4. Jacobi Regis.  
Ford and Sheldon's Case, upon Information in the Exchequer for the King.  
THomas Ford, a known Recusant b●fore the 23 of Eliz. for money lent to Sheldon; some before, and some after the said 23 Eliz. took Recognizance in the Names of others, and also a Rent-charge to them in Fee, with a Clause of Redemption by Deed; the Condition of the Recognizance, being for performance of the Covenanss in the Deeds; and afterward was made the Statute of the 28 Eliz. which was, That as often as any Failer was made, in the payment of 20 l. a Month, that so often the Queen, by Process out of the Exchequer, might take and enjoy all the Goods, and two Parts etc. And after the said Act, Ford lent the several Sums of Money, and took the Securities as aforesaid, amounting in all to 21000 l. which being to Ford's use, were all forfeited. Afterwards, 41 Eliz. was Convict of Recusancy, and did not pay the 20 l. a Month: If the King should have the Benefit of these Recognizances and Securities, was the Question.  
1. Upon Debate, it was objected by Ford's Council, That the Recognizances had not been Forfeited, though they had been made in Ford's Name; the Statute speaking only of Goods, which doth not include Debts. As if the King grant all the Goods of J. S. coming to him by Attainder, the Patentee shall not have Debts: And a Penal Law shall not be extended by Equity.  
Obj. 2. That three Recognizances are not within the Intention of the Act, being Saviours of the Realty, and acknowledged to perform Covenants, as to the Rent-charge.  
Ob. 3. No Fraud was in the Case: And then no Statute being in this Case, the Common-Law gives no benefit to the King. As if Cestuy que use had been Attaint of Treason, the Use being but a Trust could not be forfeited to the King: And it not a Use, A multo fortiori, a mere Trust.  
Ob. 4. What Forfeiture accrues to the King in this Case, must be by force of the words (Goods) in the Statute, which cannot be, Ford having no Goods but a mere Trust. Also, one Recognizance was taken in the Names of others before the Stature, and therefore cannot be thought to defeat the King of a Forfeiture which was not then in use.  
Resolved 1. By all the Barons, and Popham Chief Justice of England, and divers other Justices, that Personal Actions are as well included within this Word (Goods) in an Act of Parliament, as Goods in Possession: But because by Law, things in Action cannot be granted over; therefore by General Grant, without special words, can never pass. And where the Statute saith, Shall take, seize, and enjoy all the Goods, and two parts, etc. the King may well enjoy a Debt due to a Recusant, and by Process out of the Exchequer Levy it: and so take and seize, refers to Goods, and two Parts of Lands in Possession.  
Resolved 2. That it was Originally for the Loan of Money, and both the Recognizance and Annuity were to secure the said Money. And Recognizances fotfeited, are but Chattels Personal.  
Resolved 3. There was Covin apparent; for he being a Recusant always as aforesaid, and so chargeable to the King, his taking the Recognizances in the Name of others, shall be Construed with an Intent to prevent the King of his Forfeiture: And so shall all Recognizances taken in others Names, after the said Act, be presumed to be taken. As to Cestuy que use, who neither hath Jus in Re, nor Jus ad Rem, true it is, he cannot Forfeit; but an Act done, to defraud the King of his lawful Duty, the King shall not be barred thereof per obliquum, if the Act was made, de directo. And for this, If a man outlawed buy Goods in the Names of others, the King shall have them notwithstanding. So if an Accountant to the King purchase Lands in others Names, yet the King shall s●ze those Lands for Money due to him. And this appears by Walter Cherton's Case, Trin. 24. Ed. 3. Rot. 4. in Scaccario; for Re● fallere non vult, falli autem non potest. See another Precedent, Trin. 24. Ed. 3. Pot. 11.  
Resolved 4. No●resert, Whether the Duty do accrue to the King, by the Common-Law, or by the Statute: And though one of the Recognizances was taken before the Statute of the 28 of Eliz. yet that was to his use: And though Ford was not Convict till the 41 of Eliz. that is not material; for he was subject to a Forfeiture before.   

Pasch. 4 Jac. In Chancery, 27 Junii, 29 Eliz.  
The Case between the Lord St. John of Bletso, and the Dean of Gloucester.  
The Lord St. John brought a Quare Impedit in the Common-Pleas against the Defendant, for the Church of Penmark, in the County of Glamorgan, which Suit was stayed by Aid prayer, and the Record removed into the Chancery: The Plaintiff moved for a Procedendo and upon Oyer of Cause, before Sir Thomas Bromley Lord Chancellor, in the presence of Sir Gilbert Gerrard, Master of he Rolls, and Shute and Windham Justices; and Popham Attorney, and Egerton Solicitor of the Queen; the Plaintiff shown a Gift in Tail of the said Advowson made to his Anc stor in 18 R. 2. and a Verdict for the same in 12 H. 8. and a presentation by his Grandfather to the said Church, of a Clerk that was admitted, instituted, inducted, and had possession divers years, with other matters to prove the Plaintiffs T●tle, yet for that the Defendant, and those from whom he claims, had time out of mind possessed the said Parsonage as Impropriate; And for that it will be a dangerous Precedent to all Owners of Impropriations. It was Resolved by the Court of Chancery, by the advice of the Justices and Council Learned by the Queen aforesaid, That not Procedendo in loquela be granted. Vide Ridley, fol. 153, 154. the beginning of Appropriations and Annuities to be discharged of Tithes, Vide ibid. 155. That the Saxon Kings appropriated eight Churches to the Monastery of Croyland.   

Trin. 37 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber;  
Crimes and Smith.  
The Abbot of Sulby held the Parsonage of Iubbenh●m in Leicestershire to his proper use, which as impropriate came to H. 8. by the dissolution of Monasteries, 31 H. 8. who in the 37th. year of his Reign granted it in Fee-Farm; under which Grant the Plaintiff claimed: The Defendant obtained a Presentation of the Queen, and to destroy the said Impropriation, shown the Original Instrument of it, 22 Ed. 4. with Condition in it, That a Vicarage should be competently endowed, which was alleged never to be done.  
But for that the Rectory was reputed and taken to be appropriate, and a Vicar presented, admitted, instituted and inducted as a Vicar, lawfully endowed, and paid his first Fruits and Tenths.  
Resolved by all the Court, that it shall be presumed that the Vicarage was lawfully endowed. And that it is a dangerous Precedent to examine Originals of Impropriations and Endowments of Vicaridges: for that they may perish. And so it was decreed for the Plaintiff.   

Hill. 4. Jac. Regis.  
Bedle and Beard.  
Anno 31. Ed. 1. The King being seized of the Manor of K●mbolton, to which the Advowson of the said Church was appendent by Letters Patents, granted the said Manor, wish the App●●tenances, to Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford, in tail general. Humphrey de Bohun the Issue in tail by his Deed. 4 Ed. 3. granted the said Advowson, then full of an Incumbent, to the Prior of Stonely, and his Successors. And at next avoidance they held In proprios usus: Upon this Appropriation, Concurrentibus his quae in jure requiruntur, the Prior and his Successors held the same till the dissolution of the Monastery. 27. H. 8. The said Manor descended to Edward Duke of Buckingham, as Issue to the Estate Tayl. And the Reversion descended to H. 8. The Duke 13 H. 8. was attaint of High Treason. 14 H. 8. The King granted the said Manor, etc. with all Advousons' appendent etc. to Richard Wingfield, and his Heirs Males. 16 H. 8. It was Enacted, that the said Duke forfeit all Manors, etc. Advousons', &c. which he had, etc. in 4 H. 8. The King 37 H. 8. granted and sold the said Rectory of Kimbolton, as impropriate in Fee, which by mean conveyance came to the Plaintiff for 1200 li. 37 Eliz. Beard the Defendant got a Presentation of the Queen by Lapse, pretending the said Church was not lawfully impropriate to the Prior.  
1. For that Humphrey, who granted to the Prior, had nothing in it, nothing passing to his Ancestor by these words, Man●rium cum pertinentiis.  
2. Or for that having no more but an Estate tail by his death, his Grant was void.  
But Resolved by the Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, with the principal Judges, and upon consideration of Precedents, that the Plaintiff shall enjoy the Rectory: for though by any thing which can now be shown, the Impropriation is defective, yet it shall be now intended, in regard of the ancient and continual possession, that there was a lawful grant of the King to the said Humphrey who granted in Fee, so that he might lawfully grant it to the said Priory: Omnia p●●sumitur Sol●mniter esse acta. And all shall be presumed to be done, which might make the ancient Impropriation good; And ancient Grants and Acts shall not be drawn in question, though they cannot be shown: for Tempus ed●x rerum. Letters Patents and Writings may consume, be lost or imbezilled. And therefore the Church was allowed to be rightfully impropriate, and the rather, in regard of the ancient and long possession of the Owners of the said Rectory.   

Mich. 4. Jac. Regis.  
Case of Forfeiture by Treason.  
Hill 43 Eliz. A Case was moved to all the Justices: Tenant in tail before the Statute of 27 H. 8. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself, and his Wife in Tayl. And after the said Statute, the Husband was attaint of High Treason, 31 H. 8. and died. The Wife continued in possession and died, their Issue enter and die, and this descends to his Issue, and all this found by Office.  
The Question was, if the Issue in tail or the King shall have the Land.  
1. And it was objected, that the ancient Estate tail cannot be forfeited, because it was discontinued, and such right of Action cannot be forfeited. As was agreed in the Marquis of Winchester's Case.  
2. The Feoffor himself in this Case had not any right to the ancient Estate tail, (it being extinguished by his Feoffment) and therefore by his Attaint, could not forfeit what he had not.  
3. The Issue in tail in remitted to that ancient right which cannot be forfeited; And the new Estate tail derived under the discontinuance, which may be forfeited by the Statute 26 H. 8. cap. 13. is continued, and by Act in Law, viz. the descent and remitter avoided. And the King's Estate may be divested out of the King by remitter. As if Tenant in Tail grant Land to the King, etc. and the King grant the Land to the Tenant in Tail for life, the remainder to his Son and Heirs for life: Tenant for life dies, the Issue by and in Law is remitted, and the King's Estate is divested out of him. This accords with Blow. Com. 489. Nicols Case.  
1. Resolved that in this Case the Issue in Tail is barred: for though right of Action cannot be given to the King, by the 26 H. 8. yet when Tenant in Tail discontinues his Estate to the use of himself in Tail, and after is attaint of Treason, now by that Statute he doth not only forfeit the new Estate in Tail, but by this, the right of the ancient Estate is barred for ever. And so note, out of the said Statute, a diversity between a naked right of Action not forfeitable, and an Estate of Inheritance forfeitable, coupled with an ancient right, for which the Forfeiture of the possession is barred by the said Act: And i● is not like the Case in Blow. Com. of Remitter, for this is no bar of an ancient right.   

Pasch. 4 Jac. Regis.  
Case at a Committee aoncerning Bishops.  
At this Parliament held Pasch. 4 Jac. Regis, It was strongly urged at a Grand Committee of Lords and Commons in the Painted-Chamber, that such Bishops as were made after the first day of the Session, were not lawful Bishops.  
1. Admitting them Bishops, yet the manner and form of their Seals, Stiles, Process, and Proceeding, in their Ecclesiastical Courts, were not consonant to Law: Because by the Statute, 1 Ed. 6. cap. 2. it is provided, That thenceforth Bishops should not be Elective, but Donative, by Letters-Patents of the King. And for that at this day all Bishops were made by Election, not Donation of the King; therefore the sa●d Bishops are not lawful.  
2. By the same Act it is provided, That all Summons etc. and Process in Ecclesiastical Courts, shall be made in the King's Name and Style, and their Seals Engraven with the King's Arms, and Certificates made in the King's Name: It was therefore concluded, Th●t the said Statute being still in force, by Consequence all Bishops made after the Act, 1 Jac. were not lawful Bishops. And the Proceed being in the Name of the Bishop, makes them unlawful. Quia non obser●ata forma infertur ad●ullatio actus. Upon Consideration had of these Objections by the King's Commandment, it was Resolved by Popham, Chief Justice of England, ●nd Coke Attorney of the King; and after affirmed b● the Chief Baron, and the other Justices Attendant to ●he Parliament, that the said Act of the 1 Ed. 6. cap. 2. is not now in force, being repealed, annulled, and annihlated, by three several Acts of Parliament: Any whereof being in force, it makes that Act of 1 Ed. 6. that it cannot stand, Quia Leges Posteriores, Priores contrarias abrogant. And by the Act of the 25 H. 8. cap. 20. Is set forth the manner of Election and Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops. And also for the making and execution of all things which belongs to their Authority: within which words, the Style and Seal of their Courts, and the manner of their Proceed, are included. Which Act of 25 H. 8. is revived by 1 El. cap. 1. and consequently, that of 1 Ed. 6. cap. 2. is repealed.  
It appears by our Books, if a Deacon or Priest take a Wife, their Marriage is voidable not void, for they had not vowed Chastity. Otherwise, of a Monk or a Nun. And this appears 5 Ed 3. Title Nonability, 26. 19 H. ●. Title Bastardy, 33. 21 H. 7. 39 6.   

Mich. 4. Jac. Regis.  
Case of the Stannaries.  
It was Resolved this Term in the Star-Chamber, That the King had not the Emption of Tin in Cornwall by his Prerogative; for Stanni nec plumbi fodina, etc. or other safe Mineb, belong not to the King by his Prerogative, but to the Subject Owner of the Land. But the Emption of Tin in Cornwall belongs to the King, as an ancient Right and Inheritance: for though now a Reason cannot easily be rendered of things done time out of mind; yet it may well be, that all the Land in that County was the King Demesne; and upon Grant of the Land, the King reserved the Mines to himself. These Tin Mines being of great Antiquity; as appears, Ex Diodoro Siculo, Et certo certius est. That all the Land in England, is derived mediately or immediately from the Crown; and therefore such a Profit may have a reasonable Commencement; Usage also allowing it to the King: for all Cornwall was within the King's Forest, which by King John was disafforested; as by Cambden appears. And it is evident, that before 33 Ed. 1. all the Tin in Cornwall, and Devon also, was the Kings, whoever owned the Land. And this is proved by divers Records, and by an ancient Charter of King John, among the Bishop of Exeters' Records, In haec verba. Johannes Dei Gratia Rex Angliae, etc. Omnibus B●llivis salutem. Sciatis quod intuitu Dei, & pro salute animae nostrae, etc. dedimus etc. Deo & Ecclesiae Beati Petri Exon, & venerabili Patri Simoni Exon. Episcopo & successoribus, etc. decimam de antiqua firma Stanni in Com. Devon. & Cornub. Habendum sibi & successoribus, etc. cum omnibus libertatibus & liberis consuetudinibus ad eam pertinentibus, per manus illius vel illorum qui stannaria habuerint in custod. etc.  
Rex, Roberto de Courtney salutem, Mand●mus vobis quod sine dilatione & difficultate aliqua, habere facietis Dominae Johannae Reginae matri nostrae stannaria Com. Devon. etc. Paten. 1 H. 3. H. 4.  
Rex concessit Johanni filio Richardi stannaria in Cornubia reddendo 1000 marks. 4 H. 3. Fines. 5 H. 3.  
Rex, etc. Sciatis quod concessimus Richardo dilecto fratri n●stro stannariam nostram Cornubiae cum pertinen. Prohibiting Tin to be transported without the said Richard's Licence, 10 H. 3 M. 9  
See also 10 Ed. 2. Inqui. 2. Nu. 29.  
There are two several Charters, both dated 10 April 33 Ed. 1. One, ad emendationem stannariarum nostrarum in Cornub. The other, Ad emendationem stannariarum nostrarum in Devon. That of Cornwall hath these word, Concessimus eisdem stannatoribus quod fodere possint stannum, et turbus ad stannum fundendum ubisque in terris nostris et vastis nostris, et aliorum quorumcunque in Com. praedict. et Aquas, et aquarum cursus divertere, ubi et quoties opus fuerit, etc. ad sundaturam stanni sicut Antiquitus co●su●vit, sine impedimento nostro seu aliorum quorumcunque Ac quod omnes stannatores nostri praed. totum stannum suum ponderatum, etc. licitè vendere possint cuicunque voluerint, faciendo nobis et haeredibus nostris Cunageum, et alias Consuetudines debitas, nisi nos vel haerede nostri stannum illum emere volumus.  
This was confirmed 4 Ed. 2. And also 1 & 17 Ed. 3. De Advisamento consilii nostri ordinavimus, quod stannum in Com. Cornub. et Devon. ad opus nostrum capiatur pro defensione regni nostri, etc. Et ad partes marinas celeriter mittatur, etc. Ita quod hominibus quibus stannum illum capi contigerit de pretio ejusdem stami ad certos terminos solvend. sufficiens securitas per nos fiat, Assignavimus vos, etc. ad capiend. ad opus nostrum totum stannum in Com. praed. Cunitum et etiam Cuniend. cum cunitum fuerit: with Authority to take Carriages and Commandment to the Sheriff to pay for the same. Rot. Aml●yne An. 12. R. 2. part 1.  
Edward the black Prince grant, and the King, (21 E. 3.) confirmed to Tydman of Lymberge, Cunageum Stannariae, etc. nec non emptionem totius Stanni, etc. infra, etc. pro fine mille marcarum, et reddendo 3500 marcas. The like done to one Brockhouse, 7 Ed. 6. The Charter of 33 Ed. 1. was confirmed, 8 R. 2. 1 Ed. 4. 3 H. 7. The 11 H. 7. a certain weight and measure was ordained to be used through England; yet the weights belonging to the Carriage of Tin, were excepted in that Statute.  
The Style of the Court of Stannaries is, Magna Curia Domini Regis Ducatus sui Cornub. apud Cockerenton in Com. Devon. Johanne Comite Bedford Custode stannar. dicti Domini Regis aut Reginae in dicto Com. Devon. By which it appears, that all the Tin belonged to the King.  
For the Antiquity of Tin Mines in Cornwall, see Camd●n in Cornwell 121. And Diodorus Siculus, L. 5. c. 8. fo. 142. 6.  
Upon which it was resolved, 1. That the King hath all the Tin, as well in the Subject's Lands as his own.  
2. It is absurd for the King to reserve Emption of his own Tin.  
3. The King grants Stannatoribus divers liberties which are enjoyed by the Tinners, as well in the Subject's Lands, as the Kings own.   

In the Session of Parliament h●ld in Decemb, An. 4. Jac. Regis.  
Case of the King's Prerogative in Saltpetre.  
All the Justices, viz. Popham Chief Justice of England, Coke, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Fleming, Chief Baron. Fenner, Searle, Yeluerton, Williams and Tanfield. Justices met at Sergeant's Inn, to consult what Prerogative the King had in digging and taking of Saltpetre to make, Gunpowder by the Law. And upon conference between them, these points were resolved by them all, 〈◊〉 voce.  
1. That in as much as Gunpowder concerns the defence of the Realm, and insomuch as Saltpetre (whereof Gunpowder is made) is within the Realm: the King shall not be driven to buy it, but may take it according to the Limitations following.  
2. That, though the King cannot take the Trees of his Subject growing upon his Freehold; nor Gravel in the Inheritance of his Subject for reparation of his houses: as 11 H. 4. 28. Yet 'tis resolved, that he may dig for Saltpetre, because the King's Ministers who dig for the same, are bound to leave the Inheritance of the Subject, in as good plight as they found it, which they could not do, if they should cut the Timber growing, which would be to the Subjects disinherison.  
The Case of Gravel for reparation of the King's Houses, may not be compared to this: for Saltpetre extends to the defence of the whole Realm, not so the reparation on of the King's Houses, 13 H. 4. The King may charge for Murage of a Town: And so for Portage; but not for making a Wall about his own House: When Enemies invade the Realm, it is lawful to come upon any Land adjoining to the invaded Coast, to make Trenches or Bulworks, 8 Ed. 4. 23. And in such Cases they may dig for Gravel. 3 H. 8. fo. 15. And in this Case the Rule is true: Princeps et republica ex justa causa possunt rem mean auferre.  
3. Resolved, That the taking of Saltpetre is a purveyance of it, for the making of Gunpowder, for the necessary defence of the Realm. And therefore is an incident inseparable from the Crown, and aught to be taken only by the King's Ministers, and not converted to any other use then the defence of the Realm: And 'tis not like Silver or Gold Mines; for there the King hath Interest in the Mettle, and may dig, Quia quando lex alicui concedit aliquid, Concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest: Vide: Blow. Com. in le Case de Mynes: so the King may dig for Treasure Trove eadem ratione.  
4. The Ministers of the King cannot undermine, weaken, or impair any the Walls of Foundations of any Houses or Buildings whatsoever. Nor dig in the Flore of a Mansion-house, which serves for the Habitation of a man: because it is his place of refuge and defence.  
There are two notable Precedents: that the King by his Prerogative, had power to prohibit Depopulation, and provide for Habitation.  
The one in the 43 Ed. 3. Rot. claus. in turri: num. 23. provillade Southampton.  
The other An. 21. R. 2. in dorso claus. par. 1. N. 15.  
Neither may the King's Ministers dig in any Barn-floore used for Corn, Hay, etc. but they may dig in the floors of Stables and Oxehouses, so that they leave room for the Horses and other cattle of the Owner, and put it in convenient time into as good plight as they found it. Also they may dig in Cellars and Vaults: and and Mud-walls, being not Walls of a Mansion-house, and in the ruins and decays of any Houses or Buildings.  
5. They ought to make the places where they dig, as commodious to the Owner as before.  
6. They may work in the possession of the Subject, but betwixt Sunrising, and Sun setting.  
7. They may not place any Furnace or other Vessels in any Subject's House, without consent, nor so near it, as to prejudice the same.  
8. They are not to stay over long in a place, nor to return thither again in a long time.  
9 Resolved, That the owner of the Land cannot be restrained from digging, and making Saltpetre, for the King hath no Interest in it, the property is in the owner of the Land. Before the 31 Eliz. no King or Queen of this Realm granted any Licence for taking Saltpetre; but in that 31 year, there were two, the one to George Constable Esque and the other general to George Evelin, Richard Hills, and John Evelin: And after Scilicet 18 Octob. 2. Jacob. Commission was granted to Evelin, and others, to take Saltpetre, etc. So that there were but three Licences ever made.   

Case of Treason.  
In this very Term, one George Leake, a Chancery Clark, had upon an ordinary piece of Parchment, by great deceit fixed with a kind of Glue, another Parchment so thin, that it appear but one piece. And upon the thin piece he writ by good Warrant a Li ense, which brought to the Chancellor, was sealed with the Great Seal. After the George took the thin piece upon which the writing was, from the other to which the Seal was fixed, and then all was blank, with the Great Seal annexed; upon which blank, the said George writ a Grant of the King of certain Lands; and what Offence this was, was the Question. And after a long debate upon the 25 Ed. 3. 2 H. 4. 25. Stamford l. 1. fol. 3. 40 Ass. pla. 33. 37 H. 8. Title Treason, 2 H. 4. Claus. 42 Ed. 3. memb. 8. in dorso, where the Case was, That King Richard the First by his Charter, granted divers Lands and Liberties, Abbati de Bruera, in which the Abbot razed out this word Fittetrida, and instead of it writ est leigh, and upon showing it, obtained a confirmation of it from King Ed. 3. And an allowance of it in Banco R. And for this Offence, the Abbot was called before the King and Council in the Star-Chamber, where the Abbot being Convict, it was part of the Sentence, That the Charter, confirmation, and allowance of it, should be brought in to be canceled; where note,  
1. The Antiquity of the Star-Chamber being then a Court.  
2. That the rasure was not any Counterfeit of the Great Seal; for if the Offence had been High Treason, it should not have been determined before the King and Council.  
3. That Spiritual Persons were then punishable before Temporal Judges.  
4. That if there be a rasure of a Deed between Subject and Subject in a place material, all the Deed becomes naught; so if a Patentee raze his Heirs Patents in a place material.  
Thence concluded, That if the rasing of a word in the King's Patent be not Treason, than the rasing of two or three, or all the words of the Patent, and writing a new Grant is not Treason.  
By the Statute of the 25 Ed. 3. it is provided, That because many other Cases of like Treason might happen in time to come, which men cannot think or declare at present. That if another Case suffered Treason, and not specified in the Act, shall come before any of the Justices, they shall stay without going to Judgement of Treason, until the Case be shown before the King in Parliament.  
1. That though a Case happen like to the Cases of Treason mentioned in the said Act; yet that the Judges ought not to judge it Treason, but it ought to be declared in Parliament.  
2. That when a particular Case was adjudged High Treason, (as the Case of murdering an Ambassador of a King) Et Legatos violare contra jus Gentium est.  
Afterwards George Leake, upon Examination before the chief Justice of England, made a clear Confession of of all the manner and circumstances of the Fact as aforesaid; whereupon Two Questions were moved,  
1. Whether this Offence were High Treason or no: And in this the Justices were divided; myself and divers others holding, That this Act was not Treason; but the chief Justice and divers others were against us.  
2. If it be High Treason, then whether he may be indicted generally for the Counterfeiting of the Great Seal, or else the special Fact must be expressed.  
By reason of diversity of Opinions, R●spectuatur, vid. Fleta lib. 1. cap. 22. Item crimen falsi dicitur, cum quis illicitus cui non fuerit ad haec data authoritas de sigillo Regis rapto vel invento et brevia Carteria: vide le Attainder de Elizabeth Barton, Edw. Bocking. by Parliament, etc. 25. H. 8. c. 12.   

Hill. 24 Eliz. In the Exchequer.  
A Merchant brought eighty weigh of Bay-Salt by Sea to a Haven in England, and out of the Ship sold 20 weighs, and discharged them to another Ship, wherein they were transported, being never actually put on shore: and for the residue, viz. 60 weigh, he agreed for the Custom, and put them upon Land; and now the d●nbt was, 1 Eliz. cap. 12. for the words of the Statute concerning Exportation, sent from the Wharfe, Key, or other place on the Land, and concerning Importation taken up, discharge, and lay on Land. If in this Case the said 20 weighs, which always were waterborn, and never touched the Land, aught to pay Custom as well inwards as outwards: And it was Resolved,  
That in both the Cases Custom ought to be paid; and forasmuch as no Custom was paid, It was Resolved, That the Goods were forfeited.  
Note, No Act of Parliament can bind the King from any Prerogative which is sole and inseparable to his person, but that he may dispense with it by a non obstante, (as his Sovereign Power of Commandines) his Subjects to serve him for the public Weal. See 23 H. 6. cap. 8. 2 H. 7. 66. 13 R. 2. Parl. 2. cap. 1. See also 4 H. 4. cap. 31. Coke l. 2. fol. 69.  
But in things which are not incident solely and inseparably to the person of the King, but belongs to every Subject, and may be severed there an Act of Parliament, may absolutely bind the King. As if an Act of Parliament do disable any Subjects of the King to take any Land of his Grant, or any of his Subjects (as Bishops) as it is done by the Statute, 1 Jac. cap. 3. to Grant to the King, this is good; for to grant or take Lands or Tenements, is common to every Subject.   

Hill. 4. Jac. Regis,  
Care of High Commissioners, If they have Power to Imprison.  
Mich. 4 Jac. post prand. There was moved a Question amongst the Judges and Sergeants at Sergeant's Inn; If the High Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes, may by force of their Commission imprison any man or not?  
First, Resolved by all, That before the Statute of the first of Eliz. the King might have granted a Commission to hear and determine Ecclesiastical Causes; yet the Commissioners ought to proceed according to the Ecclesiastical Law allowed within the Realm. Vide Caudrye's Case. 5 Report. Then all the Question rests upon the Act, 1 Eliz. which hath three Branches;  
1. Such Commissioners have power to exercise Jurisdiction Spiritual and Ecclesiastical.  
2. By force of Letters-Patents, they have power to visit, reform, etc. all Heresies, etc. which by any manner of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power, etc. can or lawfully may be Reform, etc. So that these Branches limit the Jurisdiction.  
3. That after such Commission delivered to them, shall have power by virtue of this Act, and the said Letters-Patents, to exercise, etc. all the Premises, etc. according to the Tenor, etc. This Branch gives them Power to execute their Commission.  
But it was Objected, That this Branch gave no power to the Queen, to alter the Proceed of the Ecclesiastical Law; or to prescribe what manner of proceed or punishment, concerning the Lands, Goods, or Bodies of the Subject. And this appears by the Title of the Act (Restoring) the intent being to make Restitution, not any Innovation.  
Vide, a notable Case adjudged in this Point, Hill. 42. El. ●o. 389. as to Imprisonment, Smith's Case: for at the last Consultation was granted: And at last, by the better Opinion, as to things committed to them by Commission, they may put Fine and Imprisonment.  
By the 3 H. 7. cap. 14. 'tis Ordained, where Women, as well Maids, as Widows and Wives, having substance, etc. for the lucre of such substance, be taken by Misdoers, contrary to their Wills, and after married, etc. or defiled.  
That what person henceforth so taketh, etc. against her will, etc. such taking, etc. to be Felony: And the Misd●ers, etc. to be reputed as Felons. Upon this, great question was moved, 4 & 5 Phil. & Mar. in the Star-Chamber, If the Eloyment against her without Marriage, or Carnal Copulation, be Felony or no: And the Opinion of Brook, and some other of the Justices was, that It was Felony. But Sanders, Lord Chief Justice, was against it; and afterwards, as Peryam's chief Baron did Report, It was Resolved by all the Justices, That such Eloynment only, is not Felony, by the intent of the Statute, without Marriage, or Carnal Copulation.  
Note, By the express purview of the Act, the Accessary both before and after is made Principal.   

Pasch. 4 Jac. Regis.  
By the Commandment of the King, it was referred to Popham Chief Baron, and myself, what Right the Queen, which now is, hath; and in what Cases to a Right claimed by her, called Aurum Reginae: that is to say, Pro centum marcis argenti, una marca Auri solvendum per illum qui se sponte obligat. And upon consideration had thereof, and view of Records and Precedents, viz. Librum Rubrum in Scaccario, fol. 56. de Auro Reginae; where it is said, that this is to be taken, De iis qui sponte se obligant Regi, etc. which is the Foundation of this Claim: And of a Record in the Tower, 52 H. 3. And a Record in the Exchequer, 4 Ed. 1. And a Record in the Exchequer, Hill. 12 Ed. 3. And in the Tower in the same year, in Rot. Claus. And of Acts of Parliament, 15 Ed. 3. cap. 6. and 31 Ed. 3. cap. 13. and 13 R. 2. in Turri: And divers other Precedents and Process out of the Exchequer, in the time of R. 2. H. 4. and other Kings, till H. 7.  
It was Resolved, that the Queen hath Right to it, but with these Limitations.  
1. It ought to be sponte, by the Subject, sine coactione: And for this, all Fines upon Judgements, or by Offer or Fine for Alienation, or any other Case, where the Subject doth it not sponte, sine aliqui coactione: That the King of Right aught to have it, there the Queen shall have nothing.  
2. It ought to be sponte, sine consideration alicujus reventionis seu interest: That the King hath in esse, in jure Coronae: As upon Sale or Demise of his Lands, Wards, etc. these are Contracts concerning the King's Revenues; and there it cannot be said, that the Subjects, sponte se obligant, as to purchase any the Revenues of the King.  
3. It ought to be sponte super considerationem & non ex mera gratia & benevolentia subditi, Hil. 4. Ed. 1. in Scaccario, etc.  
4. It ought to be sponte, super considerationem quae non lo●ge reventionem seu interesse Coronae, in any thing which the King hath. As if a Subject give the King a Sum of Money for Licence in Mortmain, or to create a Tenure of himself, to have a Fair, Market, Park, Chase, or Warren, in his Manor, there the Queen shall have it; for the Subject did this sponte: And this Resolution was reported to the King by Popham, in the Gallery at White-Hall.   

Pasch. 5 Jac. Regis.  
The Case of Forests.  
This Term it was informed to the King, that great wrongs were done in the Forest of Leicester, in the County of Leicester; and in his Forest of Bowland, in the County of Warwick, parcel of his Duchy of Lancaster. And upon this, by Warrant from the King under his Signet, all the Justices were assembled, to resolve certain Questions, to be moved concerning Forests, by the Attorney of the Duchy, and the Council of the other part; which were Forests and Chases: Which being matter in Fact, the Judges could not give their Resolutions, but by way of Directions. And it was Resolved,  
1. That if these are Forests, it will appear by matter of Record, as by Eyres of Justices of Forests, Swannimotes, Regardors, etc. But the calling it a Forest in Grants, etc. proveth it not a Forest in Law.  
2. Resolved by all the Justices, That if there be no Forests in Law, but Free-Chases; than who hath any freehold in them, may cut his Wood growing upon it, without view or Licence; leaving sufficient for Covert to maintain the King's Games: so a common person having Chase in another Soil, the Owner may not destroy the Covert, nor Browse-wood.  
3. Resolved, That in such a Chase, the Owner, by Prescription, may have Common for his Sheep, and Warren for his Coneys, by Grant or Prescription: but he must not surcharge or make Burrows in other places, than hath been used from the time of which: nor may he erect a new Warren without Charter.  
4. Resolved, That who hath such a Warren, may lawfully build a Lodge upon his Inheritance, for preservation of his Game.  
5. Popham, Chief Justice, said, That in the time of Chief Baron Bet, It was adjudged in the Exchequer, That a man may prescribe to cut his Wood upon his own Inheritance within a Forest, though it was against the Act, in the 43 Ed. 1. See the Abridgement, Title Forest 21. And this was the Case of Sellinger, vide 2 Ed. 2. Title Trespass, fol. 9 in the time of Ed. 1. Trespass, 239. ●low. Com. Dyer 72. 32. 2 Ed. 4. cap. 7. that the Subject may have a Forest. Consuetudo ex rationebili causa usitata privat communem Legem. And it was held by some, that this was but an Ordinance, not an Act of Parliament.   

Pasch. 5 Jacobi Regis.  
Case of Conspiracy.  
This Term, in the Case between Rice ap Evan ap Floyd, Plaintiff; and Richard Barker, one of the Justices of the Grand Sessions, in the County of Anglesey, and others, Defendants.  
1. Resolved by Popham and Coke, Chief Justices, the Chief Baron, and Egerton Lord Chancellor, and all the Court of Star-Chamber; That when a Grand Inquest indicts one of Murder or Felony, though the Party be acquitted; yet no Conspiracy lies for him against the In●ictors: for they are returned by the Sheriff by Law, to make Inquiry of Offences upon their Oath, for service of the King and Country, and are compellable to serve the Law, 10 Eliz. 265. And their Indictment or Verdict is matter of Record, and called Verum dictum, and shall not be avoided by Surmise, and no Attaint lies: And with this agrees the Books in 22 Assize 77. 27 Ass. 12. 21 Ed. 3. 17. 16 H. 6. 19 47 Ed. 3. 17. 27 H. 8. 2. F. N. B. 115. a. But otherwise of a Witness; for if he conspire out of the Court, and after swear in Court, his Oath shall not excuse his Conspiracy before, for he is a private person.  
2. Resolved, That when the party indicted, is convictd of Felony by another Jury, upon Not Guilty pleaded, there he shall never have a Writ of Conspiracy: But when he is upon his Arraignment, L●gitimo modo acquietatus. But in the Case at Bar, the Grand Jury who Indicted one William Price, for the Murder of Hugh ap William; the Jury, who, upon Not Guilty pleaded, convicted him, were Charged, Indicted, and Convict in the Star-Chamber, which was never seen before: For if the party shall not have a Conspiracy against the Indictors, when Acquitted, a multo fortiori, when he is lawful Convict, he shall neither charge the Grand Inquest nor Jury that convicted him. But when a Jury acquits a Felon or Traitor, against manifest Proof, there they may be charged in the Star-Chamber, ne maleficia remanerent impunita. But if such Supposals shall be admitted, after ordinary Judicial Proceed, it will be a means, ad detrahendos Juratores & deterrendos a servitio Regis.  
3. Resolved, That Barker who was Judge of Assize, and gave Judgement upon the Verdict of Death against the said W. P. and the Sheriff that executed him, nor the Justices of Peace that examined the offender, and the Witnesses for proof of the murder before the Indictment, were not to be drawn in question in the Star-Chamber for any conspiracy, nor aught to be charged there with any conspiracy, or elsewhere, when the party indicted is convicted, or Attaint of murder or Felony. And though such person were acquitted, yet the Judge, etc. being by Commission, and of Record, and sworn to do Justice, cannot be charged for conspiracy, for that he openly did in Court as Judge, Justice of Peace, etc. but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial, but subordinations of Witnesses, and false malicious prosecutions out of Court, etc. amounts to an unlawful conspiracy. And if Judicial matters of Record (which are of so high a nature, that for their sublimity, they import verity in themselves,) should be drawn in question by partial and sinister supposal and averments of offenders, there will never be▪ an end of Causes, but Controversies will be infinite, Et infinitum in jure rep●obatur, 47 Ed. 3. 15. 25. Ed. 4 67. and 27 Ass. pl. 12. But in a Hundred Court, or other Court which is not of Record, there averment may be taken against their proceed, 47 Ed. 3. 15.  
Also one shall never assign for Error, that the Jury gave Verdict for the Defendant, and the Court entered it for the Plaintiff, etc. Vide, 1 H. 6 4. 39 H. 6. 52. 7 H. 7. 4. 11 H. 7. 28. 1 Mar. Dyer 89. But in a Writ of false Judgement, the Plaintiff shall have direct averment, against what the Judges in the inferior Court have done as Judges, Quia Recordum non habent, 21 H. 6. 34. Neither shall a Judge in the Cases aforesaid, be charged before any other Judge at the Suit of the King, 27 Ass. pl. 18. & 23. 2. R. 3. 9 28 Ass. pl. 21. 9 H. 6. 60. Catlyn and Dyer, chief Justices, Resolved, That what a Judge doth as a Judge of Record, ought not to be drawn in Question in this Court.  
Nota bene, that the said matters at the Bar were not examinable in the Star-Chamber; and therefore it was Decreed by all the Court, That the said Bill, without any Answer to it by Barker, shall be taken off the File, and utterly canceled: And it was agreed, That the Judges of the Realm ought not to be drawn into question for any supposed Corruption, which extends to the annihilating of a Record, or tending to the slander of the Justice of the King, except it be before the King himself; for they are only to make an account to God and the King, otherwise this would tend to the subversion of all Justice, for which reason the Orator said well, Invigilandum est semper, multae invidiae sunt bonis; And the reason hereof is, the King himself being de jure, to deliver Justice to all his Subjects; and because himself cannot do it to all Persons, he delegates his Power to his Judges, who have the Custody and Guard of the King's Oath. Thorpe being drawn into question for Corruption before Commissioners, was held against Law, and he pardoned: Vide the conclusion of the Oath of a Judge, Stows ch●oi 18 Ed. 3. 312.  
Weyland, chie● Justice of the Common Bench, and Hengham, Justice of the King's Bench, and other Justices were accused of Bribery, and their Causes were determined in Parliament.  
Vide 2 Ed. 3. fol. 27. The Justices of Trayl-Baston, their Authority was grounded upon the Statute of Ragman, which you may see in old Magna Charta. Vide the form of the Commission of Trayle-Baston. Holinshed Chron. fol. 312. whereby it appears, That the Corruption of his Judges, the King himself examined in Parliaments and not by Commission. Absurdum est affirmare, recredendum esse non judici.   

Pasch. 4 Jacob. Regis,  
Case concerning the Oath ex officio.  
The Lords of the Council at Whitehall, sedente Parliamento, demanded of Popham, chief Justice, and myself, upon motion of the Commons in Parliament, In what cases the Ordinary may examine any person ex Officio, upon Oath; and upon Consideration and View of our Books, we answered the said Lords at another day in the Council Chamber.  
1. That the Ordinary cannot constrain any man to swear generally to Answer to such Interrogatories as shall be administered unto them, but aught to deliver them a Copy of the Articles in writings, that they may know whether they ought to answer them by Law or no, according to the Course of the Chancery and Star-Chamber.  
2. No man shall be examined upon the secret thoughts of his Heart, or of his secret Opinion, but of what he hath spoken or done. No Layman may be examined ex officio, nisi in causis matrimonialibus et Testamentariis, as appears by an Ordinance of Ed. 1. Title Prohibition, Rastal. See also the Register, fol. 366. the force of a Prohibition, and an Attachment upon it, by which it appears, That such Examination was not only against the said Ordinance, but also against the Custom of the Realm, which hath been time of which, etc. but also in prejudice of the Crown and Dignity of the King; and with this agrees F. N. B. fol. 41. And so the Case reported by my Lord Dyer, (not printed) Trin. 10 Eliz. One Leigh, an Attorney of the Common Pleas, was committed to the Fleet, because he had been at Mass, and refused to swear to certain Articles; and in regard they ought in such case to examine upon his Oath; and hereupon he was delivered by all the Court of Common-Pleas.  
The like in Mich. 18 Eliz. Dyer, fol. 175. in Hinds Case. Also vide de Statute 25 H. 8. cap. 14. which is declaratory as to this point. It stands not with the right order of Justice, that any person should be convict, and put to the loss of his Life, good Name, and Goods, unless by due Accusation and Witnesses, or by Presentment, Verdict, precess of Outlawry, etc. And this was the Judgement of all the said Parliament. See F. N. B. Justice of Peace, 72 Lam. 6. in his Justice of Peace 338. Crompton in his Justice of Peace 36. 6. In all which it appears, That if any be compelled to Answer upon his Oath, where he ought not by Law, this is oppression, and punishable before a Justice of Peace, etc.  
But if a Person Ecclesiastical be charged with any thing punishable by our Law, as for Usury, there he shall not be examined upon Oath, because his Oath is Evidence against him at the Common Law; but Witnesses may be cited. Register title Consult. F. N. B. 53. d. 2 H. 4. cap. 15. In H. 8. nor Ed. 6. time, no Layman was examined upon his Oath. except in the said two Cases. But in Queen Mary's Reign, 2 H. 4. was revived, but afterwards repealed, 10 Eliz.  
Note, King John, in the time of his Troubles, granted by his Charter. 13 Maii, Anno Regni 140. submitted himself to the Obedience of the Pope. And after in the same year by another Charter, he resigned his Crown and Realm to Pope Innocent and his Successors, by the hands of Pandulph his Legate, and took it of him again to hold of the Pope, which was utterly void; because the Dignity is an inherent, inseparable to the Royal Blood of the King, and descendable, and cannot be transferred. Also the Pope was an Alien born, and therefore not capable of Inheritance in England: By colour of which Resignation, the Pope and his Successors exacted great Sums of the Clergy and Laity of England pro commutandis paenitentiis. And to fill his Coffers, Pope Gregory the 9th. sent Otho Cardinalis de Carcere Tulliano into this Realm, to Collect Money, who did Collect infinite Sums, so that it was said of him, Quod Legatus saginatur bonis Angliae, which Legate held a Council at London, Anno Dom. 1237. & 22 H. 3. and for finding out Offences which should be redeemed with Money; with the assent of the English Bishops, he made certain Canons, among which, one was, Jusjurandi Calumniae in causis Ecclesiasticis cujus libet, & de veritate dicendi in spiritualibus quoque ut veritas facilius aperiatur, etc. Statuimus de Caetero praestari in reg●o Angliae secundum Canonicas & legitimas Sanctiones obtenta in contrarium, consuetudine non obstante, etc. By which Cannon it appears, That the Law and Custom of England was against such Examinations; so that this was a new Law, and took its effect de caetero.  
2. Ob●enta in contrarium, consuetudine non obstante: And this agrees with the Register and Treaties, de Regia prohibition, and the other Authorities. And it appears in Linwood, cap. jurejurandi, fol. 8. 9 That Boniface, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1272. & 57 H. 3. made this Cannon, Statuimus quod Laici de subditorum peccatis, etc. per praelatos & judices Ecclesiaslicos inquiratur ad praestandum de veritate dicenda Sa ramentum per excommunicationis sententias, si opusfuerit, compellantur impedientes; vero ne hujusmodi juramentum praestetur per interdict. est excommunicatio, etc. In which Cannon it is to be noted, That it extends to Lay-People: And note, Linwood saith, cap. Jurejurandi, fol. 6. litera, E. Hic dicitur causa editionis hujus, etc. Praelati, etc. procedebant ad inquirendum de criminibus, etc. & Laici (nota hic) suffult potestate dominorum in hujusmodi inquisitionibus noluerint jurare de veritate dicenda.  
1. Note, Why Lay-people refused to be examined for Crimes and Excess.  
2. The Judges of the Common-Law, by their Prohibition, did interdict, etc. as appears by their Register and other Authorities in Ed. 1. time, etc.  
3. That where by the Law they may examine Lay-people upon Oath, in causis matrimonialibus & testamentariis; Here Boniface makes the Canon to extend to Peccata & excessus, which Canon was utterly against the Law and Custom of England. See another at the same time in Linwood: Cap. de Benef. fo. 231. And this is declared by Act of Parliament, made 9 Ed. 2. called, Articuli Cleri; si Praelati imponant poenam pecuniariam alicui pro peccato, etc. Regis prohibitio locum habet.   

Trin. 5 Jac. Regis.  
Case concerning Pardons.  
The Law so regards the Weal-publike, that though the King shall have the Suit solely in his Name for the redress of it; yet by his Pardon he cannot discharge the Offender, because it is not only in prejudice of the King, but in damage of the Subjects: If a man ought to repair a Bridge, and for default of Reparation, it fall to decay; in this Case, the Suit ought to be in the King's Name, and he is sole Party to it, but for the benefit of his Subjects: And if the King pardon it, yet the Offence remains; but peradventure the Pardon shall discharge the Fine for the time past. And with this agrees 37 H. 6. 4. 6 Blow. Con. in Nichol's Case 487. A multo fortiori in case of Depopulation: for this is not only an Offenc: against the King, but against all the Realm; for by this the Realm is enfeebled, and therefore Depopulation and Diminution of Subjects, is a greater Nuisance than the hindrance of Subjects, in their good and easy passage by any Bridge or Highway. And for this, notwithstanding the King's Pardon, he shall be bound to re-edify the Houses of Husbandry which he depopulated; and though for the time before the Pardon, perchance he shall not be Fined, yet without doubt he shall for the time after: For the Offence itself cannot be pardoned, as in Case of a Bridge or Highway, because it is malum in se. But this continues as to the Fine and Imprisonment, at all times after the Pardon: But the Penalty insl●cted by the Statute may be discharged, Quia prohibitum, Vide 3 Ed. 3. Tit. Ass. 443. But when the King chargeth his Subjects for the making of a Bridge, or Cawsie, or Wall, etc. there the King may discharge the Pontage, Murage, etc.  
Note, If one be bound to the King in a Recognizance to keep the Peace, in this Case, the King, before the Peace broken, cannot pardon and release the Recognizance, as 'tis agreed 11 H. 4. 43. 37 H. 6. 4. 1 H. 7. 10. because it is made for the Safety of the King's Subjects.  
Note, No Licence can be made to do any thing that is Malum in se, but Malum prohibitum, 11 H. 7. 11. 3 H. 7. 39 H. 6. 39   

Trin. 5 Jacobi Regis,  
Case of Commissions.  
Note, Commissions in English, under the Great Seal, were directed to divers Commissioners in the Counties of Bedford, ●ucks. Huntingdon, Northampton, Leicester, and Warwick, to inquire of divers Articles annexed, which were also in English; to inquire of depopulation of Houses, converting Arable Land into Pasture, etc. the Commissioners only to have power to inquire, not to hear and determine: By colour whereof, many Presentments wiere taken in English, and returned into the Chancery; and after, viz. Trin. 5 Jac. It was Resolved by the two Chief Justices, Walmesly, Fenner, Yeluerton, Williams, Snig, Althum, and Foster, that the said Commissions were against Law, for three Reasons.  
1. Because they were in English.  
2. Because the Offences inquirable, were not certain in the Commission, but in a Schedule annexed.  
3. Because, that it was only to inquire, which is against Law; for so a man may be unjustly accused or defamed, and shall have no Remedy nor Traverse to it; for it is not within the Statute of the 5 Eliz. At Common-Law Assizes were not taken, but before Justices in Eyre (who sit virtute brevis, every seventh year, Vid. Britton. fo. 1. and Bracton, lib. 5. and 11. or in the Common-Pleas: And because this was a great trouble, it was provided by Magna Charta, cap. 30. Quod requisitiones de nova disseizina, & de mort' d'an cester non capientur nisi in propriis Comitatibus, etc. And after by the Statute of Westminster 2. cap. 30. it was provided, Quod assignentur duo Justiciarii jurati coram quibus et non aliis capiantur assiz. ad plus ter per annum. By which Act, justices of Nisi Prius were constituted of other Pleas, as well of one Bench as the other, Coram quibus, etc. And by the same Act, Justices of Nisi Prius may give Judgement in Assizes of Darreine presentment, and quare Impedit. Then came the Statute 21 Ed. 3. de fl●ibus, cap. 4. and provided, that inquisitio●es et recognitiones capiantnr tempore vacationis, generally before aliquo Justiciario de utroque Banco, coram quibus, etc. And after by the Statute of York, cap. 3. It is provided, That in Plea of Land, Nisi Prius shall be taken before one of the Justices, etc. and Cap. 4. That no other Pleas moved by Attachment or Distress, shall be taken before any Justice, etc. By the 14 Ed. 3 cap. 15. Nisi Prius may be taken in any Plea before two; so one be Justice of one Bench, or Chief Justice, or Sergeant sworn.  
By the Statute de finibus cap. 3. Justiciarii ad assizas capiend. assignati deliberant Gaolas in Com. illis, etc. vide de recitat. del Stat. 28 Ed. 1. de appellat. which recites the Statute def●lonia: Felony formerly included Trespass, vide Stamf. 57 3 H. 3. cap. 7. gives power to Justices of Assize, to hear and determine Treason, concerning false Money, 14 H. 6. cap. 1. gives Justices of Nisi Prius power in all Cases of Felony and Treason to give Judgement. 28 Ed. 1. De appellatis, gives Justices of Assize power to try Appeals of Approvers.  
They may also by the 34 and 35 H. 8. cap. 14. writ to the Clerk of the Crown, de Banco R. to certify the first Conviction in their own Name; otherwise the best Form is in the King's Nan●e, 2 and 3 Ed. 6. cap. 24.  
By Articuli super chartas, cap. 10. & 4 Ed. 3. cap. 11. & 7 R. 2. they may hear and determine Conspiracies, false Informations, etc. By the Statute of Northampton, 2 Ed. 3. cap. 3. they may hear and determine the Statute of Armour, and punish Justices of Peace and others, etc.  
They ought twice a year to proclaim the Statute, 32 H. 8. and other Statutes, against Champerty, Imbracery, and unlawful Retainers.  
By 3 H. 7. cap. 1. they may take Bail of one acquitted of Murder within the year, to answer the Appeal of the Party.  
By 33 H. 8. they must proclaim in their Circuit the Statute against unlawful Games. They make Execution of the Statute 13 H. 4. cap. 7. of Riots, etc. And by 2 H. 5. cap. 8. Commission shall be awarded, to inquire of the Defaults of Justices of Assize, and of the Peace.  
By Westminster 2 cap. 37. and 2 Ed. 3. c. 5. they ought also to inquire of the 23 H. 6. cap. 10. concerning Sheriffs, etc. Bailiffs, etc. and Guardians of Prisons, for their Extortion, and delivering who are not Bailable, and detaining who are, 2 Mariae, Dyer 99 they held Plea in Assize of Murder, by W. 2 and 3 H. 7. and of Robbery, by Commission of Gaol Delivery. By 23 Ed. 3. they may inquire of Default etc. punishment of Victuallers, etc.  
Note, Justices of Oyer and Terminer can only inquire of such who are indicted before themselves; But Justices of Goal-delivery may arraign a Prisoner indicted before others; the words of their Commission are, Ad Gaolas, Gaolam de B. de pe●sonaribus in ea existe●t. hac vice deliberand secund. leges, etc. Brook ti●. Commission, 3. Maii 24. 4 Ed. 3. cap. 2. Justices of Gaol-delivery deliver Prisoners indicted before Guardians of the Peace. And by 1 Ed. 6. cap. 7. new Commissioners of Gaol-delivery. This extends not to Indictments, etc. before Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer, because the proceed before Justices of O●er and Terminer, after the Oyer determined, aught to remain in the King's Bench: But the Records before Justices of Gaol-delivery remain with the Custos Rotulorum, vide Brook. tit. Commission 12. 38 H. 8. Title Oyer and Terminer, 44 Ed. 2. 31.   

Case of Customs, Subsidies, and Impositions.  
Upon Conference between Popham, chief Justice, and myself, upon a judgement lately given in the Exchequer, and upon Consideration of our Books and Statutes. It appeared, That the Rule of the Common-Law is the the Register; Title ad quod dampnum & F. N. B. 222. a. quod patria magis solito non o●eretur nec gravetur. Also another Rule, That the King may Charge his People to a thing which may be to their Profit, without assent of the Commons, but not to their Charge. As is held in 13 H. 4. 16. & Statutum de Tallagio non concedendo, & Mag. Chart. cap. 30. which hath been confirmed above 30 times, Vide le Stat. 25 Ed. 1. 3 Ed. 1. in turri, 9 Ed. 3. cap. 1. 2. 14 Ed. 3. 2. 25 Ed. 3. cap. 2. Queen May put an Imposition upon clothes, which 1 ●liz. Dyer, 165. was moved, but not Resolved: Vide 31 H. 8. Dyer, fol. 43. & 1 Eliz. Dyer, 165. Magna Custuma, & Parva Custuma: Vide 9 H. 12. & 35.  
Upon all which, and divers Records by us seen, it appeared to us, That the King cannot at his Pleasure put any Imposition upon any Merchandise to be Imported or Exported, unless for advancement of Trade, the life of the Island, Pro bono publico. As if in Foreign Parts any Imposition is put upon the Merchandise of our Merchants non pro bono publico; to make equality, and advance Trade, the King may put an Imposition upon their Merchandiz●s, for this is not against any of the said Statutes; which was the Case of Currant lately adjudge in the Exchequer. And also of Customer Smith in Queen Elizabeth's time.  
And it was clearly Resolved, That such Imposition, so put, cannot be demised or granted to any Subject, because it is to augment and decrease, or be quite taken away upon occasion.  
And though the King may prohibit any person, in some Cases, with some Commodities, to pass out of the Realm, yet this cannot be where the end is Private, but where it is public; because Quam plurima nobis et Coronae prejudicialia in partibus exteris prosequi intendit; and to restrain in time of Dearth or War for Necessitas est lex temporis.  
It appeared to us also, That at Common Law no Custom was paid, but only for Wools, wool-fells, and Leather, which is called in Magna Charta, Recta consuetudo, all others are called, Mala Tolneta; which in the Statute de Tallagio non concedendo, is called Male. And it hath of long time been used by Parliament, to Grant to the Kings, at the beginnings of their Reigns, certain Subsidies of Tonnage and Poundage for term of Life, which began 2 & 3 H. 5. 31 H. 6. cap. 8. and 12 Ed. 4. cap. 3. which proves the King, by his own Power, cannot impose it; and this may be granted by the King, but the other no●. Vide 31 H. 8. Dyer 43. 1 Ma. D. 92. 1. Eliz. D. 165. 2 and 3 P. and M. D. 128. 12 Eliz. D 296. 23 Eliz. D. 375. 45 Ed. 3. cap. 4. 27 Ass. pl. 44. Register 192, etc.  
Vide magna Charta, cap. 10. They are called Consuetudines; Et per vocabulum artis; they are called, Cu●uma: Vide Lestat. 51 H. 3. Titl. Exchequer in Rastall. and 9 Ed. 3. cap. 2.  
Vide Fortescue de laud. leg. Ang. cap. 36. fol. 48. & fol. 13. cap. 9  
And note, for the benefit of the Subject, the King may lay Imposition within the Realm, ●o repair Highways, Bridges, and Walls for defence. But the sum must be proportioned to the benefit. And this appears, 13 H. 4. 16. See also Charta mercatoria ex Rot. mercator. 31 Ed. 1. n. 42. Patents, 3 Ed. 1. n. 1. & 9 the sacco lanae dim. marcae lasta Coriorum 1 Mark, etc. Fines 3 Ed. 1. n. 24. intus et non in dorso: Vide Rot. Parl. an. 13 Ed. 3. And 22 Ed. ●. n. 8. And 8 H. 6. n. 29. 28 H. 6. n. 35. 9 R. 2. n. 30. 29 Ed. 3. 11. n. ex Rot. Parliam. 5 Ed. 3. n. 17, 18, 19 22 Ed. 3. n. 31. 5 Ed. 3. n. 163. 5 Ed. 3 n. 191. 38 Ed. 3. n. 26 Rot. Parl. 7 R. 2. n. 35. 36. 9 R. 2. n. 30. 2 R. 2. Parl. apud Glocestriam. Act. 25. 1 R. 2. Parl. accord. 1 R. 3. against Benevolence. Vide Claus. 4 Ed. 3. n. 22. bis.   

Case of Libels between Edward's and Wooton.  
In Cam. Stellat.  
The Case was, That Doctor Wooton writ to Edmund's an infamous, malicious, scandalous, and obscene Letter, with his Name subscribed. And this he Sealed and directed to his Loving Friend, Mr. Edward Speed, this, and after the said Doctor dispersed to others a great number of Copies of the said Letter.  
And it was Resolved by the Lord Chancellor Egerton, the two chief Justices, et per totam curiam, That this was a subtle and a dangerous kind of Libel: For though the writing of a private Letter, without other Publicatior, the Party to whom it is directed cannot have an Action Sur le Case, but where it is published to others ' to the Plaintiffs Scandal, Action lieth.  
The Doctor thought this could not in any manner have been punished; but 'twas Resolved, That the infamous Letter, which in Law is a Libel, shall be punished in the Star-Chamber, being an Offence to the King, and a motive to breach of the Peace: And in the Case at Bar, the dispersing of Copies of it, aggravates the Offence, for which also the Party may have an Action Sur le Case.  
Note, By the Civil Law, a Person disabling himself to bear Office, or making a Libel against himself, shall be punished: And though the Doctor subscribed his Name to the said Letter, yet it importing matter Scandalous is in the Law a Libel.  
The Law of the Lydians is, That who slanders another, shall be let Blood in the Tongue; who hears it, and ascents to it in the Ear, etc.   

Mich. 5 Jac. Regis,  
Wooton and Edwins Case.  
In Replevin, the Defendant avowed, and the Plaintiff demurred, and the Case was thus;  
William Hawes was seized in Fee of a Message and 55 Acres of Land, five Acres of Meadow, and six Acres of Pasture, in Formanton in Com. Hereford. and 27. Junii, 28 H. 8. by Indenture, demised the Tenement aforesaid to N. Traheron for 79 years, Reddendo inde annuatim praefat. Gulielm. Hawes et assign. suis 26 s. 8 d. at the Feasts of the Annunciation, and St. Michael, by equal portions. And after the Lessor died, and the Reversion descended to William his Son, under whom the said John Edwin Claimed. And the sole Point was, If the Rend reserved in this Case shall go to the Heir, or be determined by the death of the Lessor.  
If the Lessor had reserved the Rent to him without more, this shall determine by the death of the Lessor. And the addition of the word Assigns shall not enlarge the reservation; for the Assigns cannot have the Rent longer than the Lessor himself should have it. Vide 18 Ed. 3. tit. Ass. 86. 10 Ed. 4. 18. 27 H. 8. 19 per Audl●y, et vide H●ll. 33 Eliz. Rot. 1341. In a Replevin, enter Richmond and Butcher; Butcher avowed for Rent as Heir to his Father; upon a Demise made by his Father of certain Lands, for 21 years, by these words, Reddendo proinde durant. termin. 21 annos praefat. (Patri) executor et assignat. suis 10 l. legalis, etc. ad festa, etc. And it was adjudged, That by this Reservation the Heir should not have the Rent, because the Reservation was to the Father, and his Executors, etc. not to his Heirs.   

Mich. 5 Jac. Regis,  
Case concerning Buggary.  
The Letter of the Statute, 25 H. 8. cap. 6. If any Person shall commit the detestable sin of Buggary with Mankind or Beast, etc. it is Felony; which Act being Repealed 1 Mar. is revived and made perpetual 5 Eliz. cap. 17. and he lose his Clergy.  
It appears by ancient Authorities of the Law, That this was Felony, but they vary in the punishment. For Britton, who writ 5 Ed. 1. cap. 17. saith, That Sorcerers, Sodomers, and Heretics, shall be burned: F. N. B. 269. agrees with it. But Fleta lib. 1. cap. 35. Christiani Apostati, etc. debent cumburi, (this agrees with Britton) but Pecorantes et Sodomitae terra vivis●ffodiantur. But in the Mirror of Justice, vouched in Blow. Com. in Fogosses Case; the Crime is more high, for there it is called Crimen laesae majestatis, a horrible Sin against the King, either Celestial or Terrestrial in three manners: 1. By Heresy, 2. By Buggary, 3. By Sodomy. Note, Sodomy is with mankind, and is Felony, and to make that Offence, Opertet rem penetrate et semen naturae emittere et effundere; for the Indictment is, Contra ordinationem Creatoris et naturae ordinem rem habuit veneream dictumque puerum carnaliter cognovit; and so it was held in the Case of Stafford, Paederastes ●mator puerorum, Vide Rot. Parl. 50 Ed. 3. 58. So in a Rape there must be penetration, and emission of Seed, Vide Stamf. fol. 44. which Statute makes the Accessary Guilty of Felony.  
West. 1. cap. 34. If a Man ravish a Woman, 11 H. 4. 18. If one Aid another in a Rape, or be present, he is principle in the Buggary, Vide Levit. 18. 22. et cap. 10. 13. 1 Cor. 6.   

Case of Praemunire.  
In Doctor Cosines Book, entitled, An Answer, etc. and published 1584. And a Pamphlet lately published by Doctor Ridley, they would obtrude upon the World, That in regard by the Act 10 Eliz. cap. 1. all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Power within the Realm is annexed to the Crown, and the Law thereof is the King's Ecclesiastical Law; That therefore no Praemunire lies against any Spiritual Judge for any cause whatsoever; And the Reasons some of their Profession give to confirm it are,  
1. That when the Statute of Praemunire was made, the Pope usurped Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, though the jure it belonged to the King: But now since the King as well de facto as de jure is Supreme Head of all; The cause being changed, the Law is changed also.  
2. ●T conclusion of the Writ of Praemunire is in Domini Regis contemptum et prejudicium et dictae Coronae et dignitatum suarum Laesionem et exhaeredationem manifestam et contra forman statuti, etc. which proves the Jurisdictions united to the Crown; and what is united to, and derived from the Crown, cannot be said contra Coronam et dignitatem Regis.  
3. The High Commission Court is the King's Court, and therefore though it may be said, The Consistory Courts are Curiae Episcoporum, yet that Court, by force of the High Commission, is the Kings, and so their Proceeding● shall not be liable to the Praemunire.  
4. This new Court is erected by Act of Parliament, etc. And because the Statute of R. 2. speaks de curia Romana seu alibi, etc. This (alibi) cannot extend to a Court erected by Act of Parliament, 10 Eliz. But to these Objections it was answered and resolved by divers Justices in this Term, That without Question the● Statutes of 27 Ed. 3. 16 R. 2. etc. the Praemunire, are yet in force. And all proceed before any Ecclesiastical Judge, that were in danger of Praemunire before 1 Eliz. are now in case of Praemunire after the said Act, the said Acts of Praemunire not being repealed by 1 Eliz.  
1. 2. And as to first and second Objections, it was answered, That true it is, The Crown of England hath as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal Jurisdiction annexed to it, as appears by the Resolution in Cawdryes' Case from Age to Age. And though this was de jure, yet where the Pope became so Potent, he usurped upon the King's Ecclesiastical Power in this Realm, but this was mere Usurpation. And therefore all the Kings of this Realm, Totis viribus proinde, for establishing of their Temporal Law, by which they inherit their Crown, and by which, etc. were always jealous in any part or point it should be encroached upon; And if the Ecclesiastical Law did usurp upon the Temporal, it was severely punished, and the Offender judged an Enemy to the King by the ancient Statutes; and every one might have killed him before the Statute of 5 Eliz. And this is the Reason, the Crown itself is directed descendable by the Common Law, and Treason against the Crown is punished by this Law. And therefore usurpation by an Ecclesiastical Judge upon it, is said to be contra Coronam et dignitatem Regis: And all Prohibitions since 1 Eliz. do conclude contra Coronam et dignitatem Regiam; for as 'twas resolved by all the Justices, Pasch. 4 Jac. Regis, est contra Coronam, etc. when any Ecclesiastical Judge doth usurp upon the Temporal Law, for the cause of the Subject is drawn ad aliud examen, when his Cause is not ended by the Common Law, whereto by Birthright he is inheritable.  
3. As to the Third, though the Court by force of High-Commission is the Court of the King, yet their proceed are Ecclesiastical: And therefore if they usurp upon the Temporal Law, this is the same offence which was before the Act, 10 Eliz.  
4. As to the Fourth, though it be a new Court, yet the ancient Statutes extend to it, in this word (Alibi) and in H. 8. times several new Bishoprics were erected; yet never any question, but the old Acts of Premuri did extend to them. But to answer all Objections at once, whereas the Act 1 Eliz. repealed the Statute 1 & 2 P. & M. cap. 8. yet there is an express Proviso in the said Act 1 Eliz. That it shall not extend to Repeal any Clause or Matter contained in the 1 et 2 P. M. which in any sort concerneth any matter or cause of Praemunire, but that all of that stand in force. See the said two Acts, and also 16 R. 2. Also the Act of 1 Eliz. revives the Act 25 H. 8. cap. 10. which makes a Praemunire in a Dean and Chapter, etc. for not electing, certifying, or admitting a Bishop elected; by all which, it appears the said Act of 1 Eliz. never intended to take away the offence of Praemunire.  
But note in what Cases a Praemunire lies, and in what not.  
1. In all Causes, when the Cause originally belongs to the Cognizance of the Ecclesiastical Court and Suit is prosecuted there, as belonging to their Cognizance, (though in truth (if rightly examined) it ought to be determined ●t Common Law) yet no Praemunire lies there, but a Prohibition. As if Tithes are severed from the nine parts, and are carried away; if the Parson sue for the Substraction of these Tithes in the Spiritual Court, this is not in the case of Praemunire, Vide 10 H. 4. 2. agreeing with this Opinion. So if a Parson sue for Tithes of surmising that they were Sylvae Caduae, under the age of 20 years, where in truth they were above; yet a Prohibition lieth, and no Praemunire.  
2. But though the Cause originally may appertain to the Cognizance of the Ecclesiastical Judge, yet if he sue for it in the nature of a Suit, which doth not belong to the Ecclesiastical Court, but to the Common Law, there a Praemunire lieth: As in the former Case, If the Parson after severing of Tithes, will in any Ecclesiastical Court sue for carrying away his Tithes from the 9 parts, which Action pertains to the Common Law: In such case both the Actor and Judge incur the danger of Praemunire. And so it was adjudged 17 H. 8. as Spillm●n Reports it: One Turb●rvile sued a Praemunire against a Parson, that convened him into the Ecclesiastical Court, and there libelled against him for taking of Tie hes which were sever from the nine parts, and the Parson was condemned to be out of the protection of the King, to forfeit all his Lands, Goods, and Chattels, and his Body to perpetual Imprisonment, and damages to the Party. So of a Mortuary delivered and retaken; if the Parson sue for this as for a Mortuary to him delivered, he is in case of Praemunire, 10 H. 4. 2. So in the case put for tithe of Wood, if it appear by the Libel that the Cognizance of the Case doth not belong to Court Christian, the Praemunire lies, as you may see in the Book of Entries▪ tit. Dimes, fol. 221. But the tit. Prohibition, fol. 449. Divisione Dimes, Ps. 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6. If the suit be pro Sylva caedua, etc. and the Suit be framed so as the Cognizance belongs to Court Christian, though the truth be otherwise; no Praemunire, but a Prohibition lies.  
3. When the cause originally belongs to the Cognizance of the Common Law, and not to the Ecclesiastical Court; there though they Libel for it according to the course of the Ecclesiastical Law, yet the Praemunire lieth, because that this draws the cause which is determinable at Common Law ad aliud examen, viz. to be decided by the Civil Law, and so deprives the Subject of the Common Law, his Birthright; and wi●h this agrees the Book of Entries, tit. Praemunire, fol. 229. b. & 430. a. So that if the Original cause be Temporal, though that they proceed by Citation, Libel, etc. in Ecclesiastical manner, yet this is in danger of Praemunire. And the reason of this is, because he endeavours to draw Cognitionem quae ad Curiam domini Regis pertinet ad aliud examen; that is, that the Debt, the Cognizance whereof belongs to the Court of the King; he intends by the Original Suit to draw it to be determined by the Ecclesiastical Court.  
And note, In the Indictment of Praemunire against Cardinal Wools●y, Mich. 21 H. 8. 14. it is said, Quod Praedictus Cardinalis intent. finaliter antiquissimas leges Angliae penitus subvertere et enervare, universumque hoc Regnum Angliae et ejusdem Angliae populum, legibus imperialibus, vuilgo dict. legibus Civilibus, et ●orum legum Canonibus isperpetuum subjurare, etc. And this included within these words, Ad aliud examen trahere, viz. to decide that by the Civil Law, which is determinable by the Common Law. And upon this was a notable Case in Hill. an. 25 H. 8. of Nicholas, Bishop of Norwich, against whom, he then being in the Custody of the Marshal, the King's Attorney did prefer a Bill of Praemunire, the matter whereof was this, In Thetford in Com. Norfolk hath been de tempore cujus, etc. such Custom that all Ecclesiastical Causes rising in that Town should be determined before the Dean of that Town, who hath particular Jurisdiction there, and that none in that Town shall be drawn in Plea in any other Court-Christian, unless before the same Dean: And if it ought to be done against the same Custom, this to be presented before the Mayor of the same Town, and the Party to forfeit 6 s. 8 d. That One such sued in the Consistory of the Bishop for a thing arising within the said Town, which was presented before the Mayor, for which he forfeited 6 s. 8 d. The Bishop cited the Mayor to appear before him at his House at Hoxin in Suffolk, generally pro salute animae, but upon appearances, 〈◊〉 upon all the Matter, and enjoined him on pain of Excommunication, to annul the said Presentment: The Bishop had Council assigned him, who objected, That as well the Presentment as Custom was void, and therefore not contra Coronam, etc. nor drawn by the Bishop ad aliud examen.  
2. They objected, That the Bishop's Court was not intended within the Act of 16 R. 2. but in Cur. Romana aut alibi, and this (alibi) ought not to be out of the Realm; but it was,  
Resolved by Fitz James, chief Justice, Et. per totam Curiam, that be the Custom or Presentment good or bad, this is a Temporal thing, determinable at Common Law, and not in Spiritual Court; and therefore the Bishop hath incurred the Praemunire.  
3. That alibi extends as well to the Bishop's Courts, etc. as well within the Realm, as elsewhere; and so the Court said it had been often adjudged: whereupon the Bishop confessed the Indictment. And Judgement was given, That he shall be out of the King's Protection, and that his Lands, Goods, and Chattels, should be forfeited, and his Body to be imprisoned ad voluntatem Regis; etc.   

Nicholas Fuller's Case.  
In the great Case of Nicholas Fuller of Grays-Inn, these Points were Resolved by all the Justices and Barons of the Exchequer.  
1. Resolved, That no Consultation can be granted out of Term, because it is a final award of the Court; and can neither be granted in Term nor out of Term by all the Judges, except in Court; the name of the Writ signifying the same.  
2. Resolved, That the Construction of the Statute 1 Eliz. cap. 1. and of the Letters Patents of High-Commission, in Ecclesiastical Causes, founded upon the said Act, belongs to the Judges of the Common Law: And therefore the Consultation which was granted with this restraint, Quatenus non agate de authoritate et validitate Literarum Patentium pro causis Ecclesiasticis, vobis vel aliquibus vestrum direct. aut de expesitione et interpretatione Statuti de anno primo nuper Reginae, etc. As if the King hath a Benefice donative, by Letters Patents; this shall not be visitable, nor deprivable by any Ecclesiastical Authority, but by the Chancellor of the King, or Commissioners under the Great Seal.  
3. Resolved, When there is any Question concerning what Power or Jurisdiction belongs to Ecclesiastical Judges in any such Case, the determination of this belongs to the Judges of the Common Law, in what cases they have Cognizance, and in what not; And according to this Resolution, Bracton, lib. 5. tract. de except. cap. 15. fol. 412. Vide also Entries, fol. 445. There was a Question, whether Court-Christian should have Cognizance of a Lamp, and a Prohibition was granted, Quod non procedant in Curia Christianitatis, quousque in Curiae ●ostra discussum fuerit utram cognitio placiti illius ad Curiam nostram, vel ad forum Ecclesiasticum pertineat. And all this appears in our Books, that the Judges of the Common Law shall determine in what Cases the Ecclesiastical Judges have Power to punish any pro Laesioae fidei, 2 H. 4. fol. 10. 11 H. 4. 88 22 Ed. 4. 20. or of the bounds of Parishes, 5 Ed. 3 8 8 Ed. 3. 69. 70. 18 Ed. 3. 58. 12 Ed. 4. 9 H. 7. 1. 10 H. 7. 9 And therefore in this Case of Fuller, one other Restraint was added in the Consultation, Et quatenus non agate de aliquibus scandalis, contemptibus s●u aliis rebus quae ad communen legem, aut Statuta Regni nostri Angliae suat pu●ienda et determinanda.  
4. Resolved, That if a Councillor at Law, in his Argument, shall scandal the King, or his Government, Temporal or Ecclesiastical, this is a misdemeanour, and and contempt to the Court; for which he shall be indicted, fined, and imprisoned, but not in Court Christian; but if he publish any Heresy, Schism, or erroneous Opinion in Religion, he may for this be punished by the Ecclesiastical Judges; for the Rule is, Quod non est juri consonum, quod quis pro aliis quae in Curiis nostris act a sunt, quorum cognitio ad nos pertinet, trahatur in placitum in Curia Christianitatis. See the Book of Entries, fol. 448. And for this cause a Consultation was granted, Quoad Schismata, Hereses, etc. Vide M●ch. 18 H. 8. Rot. 78. in Banco Regis. The Case was, a Leet was ●eld Jovis post Festum Sancti Mich. Arch. 17 H. 8. of the Prior of the House of St. John de Bethelehem de Shrine of this Manor of Levisham in Com. Surrey before John Bear, Steward there; a Grand Jury was charged to inquire for the King of all Offences inquirable within the said Leet, where one Philip Aldwin, who was a resident within the said Leet, appeared, Idemque, Phillippus sciens quandam Margaretam uxorem Johannis Aldwin apud East-Greenwich infra jurisdictionem Letae proed. pluries per antea corpus suum in adulterio viciose exercuissse, etc. eisdem sic juratis de dicta, etc. informationem veraciter dedit. Upon which the said Margaret drew the said Philip into the Archbishop of Canterbury his Court, and there libelled against him for defamation of Adultery; and that the Philip said in hisce Angl. verbis, [Margaret Allen is a Whore and a Bawd, and it is not yet three weeks ago since a man might take a Priest betwixt her Legs,] which words were parcel of the words by which he informed the Jury at the Leet: And upon this he had a Prohibition; and by this Record it appears, and by the Statute, 10 Ed. 3. c. 11. that Indictors of Lay-People, or Clerks, in Attorneys, and after delivering them before Justices, shall not be sued for Defamation in Court-Christian, but that the Plaintiff grieved shall have a Prohibition, Vide Pasch. 6 Eliz. In the Lord Dyers Reports (which Case is not Printed); John Halles in the Case of Marriage between the Earl of Hereford, and the Lady Katherine Grace, declared his Opinion against the Sentence given by Commissioners of the Queen in a Cause Ecclesiastical, under the Great Seal, [That the said Sentence was unjust and wicked, and that he thought the Delegates had done against their Conscience;] and what offence this was, was referred to divers Judges to consider, by whom it was Resolved, That this Offence was a contempt as well against the Queen as to the Judges, and punishable by the Common-Law, by Fine and Imprisonment.  
5. Resolved, When any Libel in Ecclesiastical Court, contains many Articles; if any of them do not belong to Court-Christian, a Prohibition may be generally granted, and upon motion, Consultation may be made as to things which belong to Spiritual Jurisdiction: And for these Reasons, it was Resolved by all, That the Prohibition in the case at Bar was well granted, which in truth was granted by Fenner and Crook, Justices, in the Vacation.  
Note these general Rules concerning Prohibitions, Quaesparsim inveniantur in libris nostris.  
Non debet dici tendere in praejudicinm Ecclesiasticae libertatis quod rege et repub. necessarium videtur, Artic. Cleri. c. 8.  
(2.) Non est juri consonum, quod quis, super iis quorum cognitio ad nos pertinet, in Curia Christianitatis trahetur in placitum, Entries 444. 447.  
(3.) Episcopus teneat placitum in Curia Christianitatis de iis quae mere sunt Spiritualia: Circumspect agatis, etc.  
(4.) Prohibeatur de caetero Hospitalariis et Templariis, ne de caetero trahunt aliquem in plac●tum coram conservatoribus privilegiorum de aliquare cujus cognitio ad Forum spectat Regium. West. 2. cap. 43.  
(5.) Non concedantur citationes priusquam exprimatur super quare fieri debet citatio. Ibidem.  
6. Resolved, That this special Consultation being only of Heresy, Schism, and erroneous Opinions, etc. that if they convict Fuller, and if he recant the same, etc. that he shall never be punished by Ecclesiastical Law: After the Consultation granted, the Commissioners proceeded, and convicted Fuller of Schism and erroneous Opinions, and imprisoned and fined him 200 l. And after in the same Term Fuller moved the Court of King's Bench, to have a Habeas Corpus, et ei conceditur; upon which Writ the Gaoler did return the cause of his detention.   

Mich. 5 Jac. Regis.  
The Case of First-Fruits and Tenths.  
Note, Annates, Primitiae and First-Fruits are all one: It was the value of every Spiritual Liv●ng by the year, which the Pope, claiming the disposition of all Ecclesiastical Live, reserved. And those, and Impropriations began about the time that Polidore Virgil, lib. 8. cap 2. saith, Vide Concilium Viennense quod Clemens quintus indixit pro annatibus.  
These First-Fruits were given to the Crown, 26 H. 8. cap. 3.  
Note, Hill. 34 Ed. 1. An. 1307. At a Parliament held at Carlisle, great Complaint was made of Oppressions of Churches, etc. by William Testa (called Mala Testa) and Legate of the Pope; in which Parliament, the King, with his Baron's assent, denied payment of First-Fruits; And to this effect he writ to the Pope: whereupon the Pope relinquished his Demand, and the First-Fruits for Two years were by that Parliament given to the King.  
Decimae, id est, Tenths of Spiritualties were perpetual, and paid to the Pope, till Pope Urban gave them to R. 2. to aid him against Charles, King of France, and others who supported Clement the 7th. against him.  
5 H. 3. By the Pope's Bulls all Tenths were paid to H. 3. for years: These were given to the King, 26 H. 8. cap. 6.  
Vide Dambert de priest Anglor. etc. fol. 128. cap. 10. et ibidem inter leges Juae, fol. 78. cap. 4.   

Sir Anthony Roper's Case.  
In the Case of Sir Anthony Roper, drawn before the High Commissioners, at the Suit of one Bullbrook, Vicar of Bently, for a Pension out of a Rectory Impropriate, whereof Sir Anthony was seized in Fee: And the High-Commissioners sentenced the said Sir Anthony to pay it, which he refused; whereupon they committed him to Prison, who appeared in Court this Term by Habeas Corpus; upon the return of which Writ, the matter did appear: And it was well debated by the Justices, and Resolved:  
1. That the said Commissioners had not Authority in the said Case; for when the Acts of the 27 H. 8. and 31 H. 8. of Monasteries, had made Parsonages Impropriate, etc. although that Pensions were saved, yet by the Preamble of the Act, 34 H. 8. cap. 16. those to whom the Pensions appertain, had not remedy for the said Pensions, etc. And if the King covenanted to discharge the Patentee, etc. of Pensions, the Suit shall be made for the same in the Court of Augmentations, and not elsewhere: And if High-Commissioners will determine of Pensions, they must do it by that Act, 34 H. 8. which expressly gives it to Ordinaries, and their Officials; the High-Commissioners Power being granted long after by the Act, 1 Eliz.  
But it was Objected, That that Act of 1 Eliz. gave the Queen and her Successors Power to assign Commissioners, etc. And it was said, That such Spiritual Jurisdiction which the Bishop should have, is transferred to the High Commissioners.  
But it was unanimously resolved by Coke, Walmesly, Warberton, Daniel, and Foster, Justices, That the Act 1 Eliz. extends not to this Case for divers Causes.  
1. Because the Act of the 1 Eliz. doth not take away nor alter any Act of Parliament; but those only which are expressly named therein: And it was Resolved, That the High-Commissioners cannot hold Plea for the double value of Tithes carried away before severance.  
2. Because the words in the 1 Eliz. are [which by any manner of Spiritual Jurisdiction can or lawfully may be reform.] And it appears, That these words extend to Crime only, and not to Cases of Interest betwixt Party and Party.  
3. Because this Jurisdiction was given to the Bishops by Act of Parliament, viz. 34 H. 8. which is more Temporal than Spiritual, as all of Parliament are.  
4. It was not the intent of the Act 1 Eliz. which revived the Statute, 23 H. 8. cap. 9 That the High-Commissioners, for private Causes, shall send for Subjects out of any part of the Realm; and so in effect confound the jurisdiction of the Ordinary, an Officer so necessary, that the King's Courts cannot be without him in divers Cases.  
5. If that Act 1 Eliz. had extended to give High-Commissioners power to determine meum et tuum, as Pensions, Tithes, etc. the Party thereby also should have benefit to appeal, otherwise this should be dissolve the Court of the Ordinary, which is so ancient and necessary in many Cases, that without it Justice cannot be administered.  
6. The High-Commissioners cannot extend themselves but only to Crime.   

Mich. 5 Jac. Regis, Rot. 2254.  
Precept. fuit Guardiano prison. Domini Regis de Flecte, quod haberet qpud ●estm. immediate, etc. Co●pus Anthonii Roper Mil. inprison. praed. sub custodia sua detent. quocunque nomin● cens reretur una cum die & causa, etc. Et iidem Justiciarii hic visa causa illa, ulterius fieri fecerint quod etc. Et modo hic ad hunc diem, viz. diem Sab. prox. Oct. Sanct. Mich. isto eo●um termino venit praed. Antonius' in propria persona sua● sub custod. praed. Guard. ad Barr. hic. praed & idem Guardianus tunc hic manned. Quod ante advent. brevis praed. v●z. 9 die Oct. ult. praeter. praed. Anthonii Roper mil. reducit se prison. praed. perantea Commissus virtute cujusdam ●arranti dat. 30 die Junii ult. praeter. quod sequitur in haec verba, viz.  
These are in his Majesty's Name to require and charge you by Vertute of his High-Commission, for causes Ecclesiastical, under the Great Seal of England to us and others directed, that herewith you receive and take into your Custody the Body of Sir Anthony Roper Knight, and him safely detain, etc. signifying unto you, That the cause of his Commitment, for that there being a certain cause, etc. betwixt him the said Sir Anthony Roper and John Bullbrooke Vicar of Bently, for that he detained wrongfully from him the said Vicar, a certain yearly Pension, etc. Given at Lambeth, this thirtieth of June, 1607.  
Et quod haec suit causa captionis et detentionis praed. Anthonii in prison. praed. corpus tamen praed. Anthonii modo hic paratus h●bet prout & ●▪ super quo visis praemissis & per Justiciurios hic plenius examinatis, videtur iisdem Justiciariis hic quod praed. causa Commissionis praed. Anthonii prison. de Fleet prae●, in return. sp●cificat. minus sufficiens in lege existit, etc. Idco prad. Antonius' a prisona prad. per-Cur. hic dimittitur, ac idem Guardianus de hujusmodi Custodia per eand. Cur. hic plene exoneretur. And this was resolved una voce by Coke, chief Justice, Walmesly, Warberton, Daniel, and Foster, Justices.  
And in the same Term in I am's Case, A Parson in No●folk, that sued one of his Parishioners before the High-Commissioners for Scandal, in saying only in the Church on a Sabbath day, That he was a wicked man, and an arrant Knave. Prohibition lies for this, That it was not so enormous as the Statute intended.   

Hill. 5 Jac. Regis.  
Note, It was moved to the Justices this Term, upon consideration of the Acts of 34 H. 8. and 18 Eliz. If the Justices in Wales may be Constituted by Commission, and it was conceived they could not, but that it ought to be by Patent, as hath been ever used since 34 H. 8. Then it was moved, If the King by force of a Clause there in might do it; which Clause is, That the King's most Royal Majesty shall and may at all times hereafter change, add, altar, minish, and reform all manner, etc. And it seemed to divers of the Justices, that this Power given to the King, determined by his Death for divers Causes.  
1. Because it wants these Words, His Successors; and to draw it in Succession, by Construction, would be against the Intention of the Maker of the Act: For they gave this high Power of Alteration, etc. of Laws, to the King, as to his most Excellent Wisdom shall be thought most meet; which words want His Successors: For they well knew, his Wisdom did not go in Succession, so the Power went not in Succession: And for this that Eorum progressus ostendent multa quae ab initio provideri non possunt: And what ensues upon this, concerning this uniting of Wales and England none could divine. But it was never the Intention of the said Act, to give Power to the King and his Successors for ever to alter, etc.  
2. Power of Alteration of Laws, etc. is a Point of Confidence, concerning the Administration of Justice; which the Act, by omitting of his Successors, intended to unite this Confidence to the Person of H. 8. and not to extend it without Limitation of time to his Successors, 1 Ed. 5. 1. 1 H. 7. 1. 14 Ed. 4. 44. All Commissions concerning Administration of Justice, determine by the King's Death: Not so, if he make a Lease durante bene placito, or present one to a Church; these are not void by his Death, until revoked by his Successor. And upon Certificate of the Justice's Opinion, That the Justices of Wales cannot be Constituted by Commission, Baron Snig had a Patent for the Circuit of Wales, as others before him had.   

Trin. 6 Jac. Regis.  
This Term it was Resolved, per totam Curiam in Communi Banco, viz. Coke Chief Justice, Walmesly, Warberton, Daniel, and Foster, in the Case of Allan Ball, That the High-Commissions cannot be force of the Act, 1 Eliz. cap. 1. send a Pursuivant to Arrest any Person subject to their Jurisdiction, to answer to any matter before them: But they ought to proceed according to Ecclesiastical Law by Citation: And in the Circuit of Northampton, when the Lord Anderson and Glanvile were Justices of Assize, a Pursuivant was sent by the Commissioners to Arrest the Body of a Man to appear before them; and in resistance of the Arrest, and striving among them, the Pursuivant was killed. And if this was Murder, or not, was doubted: and it was Resolved, that the Arrest was tortuous, and by consequence, that this was not Murder, (though the kill of an Officer of Justice (whose Authority is lawful) in Execution of his Office is Murder. But they may send Citation by a Puisivant, and upon default proceed to Excommunication, and then to have a Capias Excommunicatum; which Writ, de excommunicato capiendo, is preserved and returnable by the Statute 5 Eliz. See Magna Charta, and all the ancient Statutes: Vid. Rast. Title Accusation.   

Marmaduke Langdale's Case.  
In the Case of Marmaduke Langdale of Leventhorp, in the County of York, by Joan his Wife, being sued for maintenance before the Bishop of Canterbury, and others High-Commissioners: It was Resolved, per totam Curiam, praeter Walmesly, that a Prohibition before granted, was well maintainable; because it was not any Enormity nor Offence within the Statute, but a neglect of his duty, and a Breach of his Vow of maintenance: And the Rule of the Court was, That the Plaintiff shall count against the High-Commissioners, and upon Demurrer joined the Case to be argued and adjudged; and the Party grieved, to have a Writ of Error, si sibi viderit expedire, etc. Upon Complaint made to the King and Council, by the Lord Precedent of Wales, and the Lord Precedent of York, against the Judges of the Realm; and the King's Pleasure signified to them: Upon Consideration had of the parts of the Complaint, they Resolved upon these Answers: And because of the Lord Precedent of York first opened the Cause of his Grief more amply, they first answered those Objections, made on the behalf of that Council: And first, as to the Institution of that Court.  
1. After the Suppression of all Religious Houses, Anno 27. H. 8. in 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 Ask, made a Commotion in Yorkshire. Soon after was a great Rebellion in Lancashire, Westmoreland; 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, etc. 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 established a Council there for the quiet of the Counties of Yorkshire, Northumberland, Westmoreland, Cumberland, Durham, the Counties of the City of York, Kingston upon Hull, and Newcastle upon Ty●e, for preventions of Riots, etc. And in this time of Necessity, the King Armed the Precedent and Council with two Authorities in one Commission. The one, A Commission of Oyer and Terminer, de quibuscunque Congregationibus & conventiculis illicitis coadjutoribus, Lolardiis, etc. per quae pax & tranquilitas subditorum nostrorum Comitatibus, etc. praedict. gravat. etc. secundum legem & co●suetudinem regni nostri Angliae, etc.  
The other Authority was, Nec non quascunque actionesreales seu de libero tenemento, & personales, causasque de, bitorum & demandorum quorumcunque in Com. etc. praed. quando ambae partes vel altera pars sic gravata paupertate fuerit quod commode Jus suum secundum legem Regni nostri aliter prosequi non possit, etc. And this was the Authority that the Precedent and Council 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, etc. according to Law, or their Discretions; which without question was not 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 real and personal Actions, in all the Counties and Places aforesaid, was only 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 real 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 aught to be according to Law; and if they err, a Writ of Error 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 authorise Justices De Assize capiend. to take them in another County. As a Justice of one Bench, or other, aught 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, foe. 1. Also, Westm. 2. cap. 30. and of York, cap. 4. & sic de ceteris.  
Also it was observed, that at first the Commission extended only 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 enroled in Chancery. And thus much was said concerning the first Institution of the Court:  
2. That our Proceed 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 Council 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 Council; 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 Council are afraid, that they would not be justified if they were known.  
3. That the manner of our Proceed was respectful: for a Jury of Officers and Attorneys of our Court being according to an ancient Custom, time out of mind used, sworn to present, among other things, all Defaults of Officers and Ministers, in not executing the Process of this Cou●t, and all Impediments of the due Proceed thereof: And finding upon their Oaths, divers unjust Impediments of the said Proceed by the said Council in particular, thereupon a motion being made in open Court in Michaelmas Term last, by the King's Serjeant Philip's, 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 Council, to let him understand the particular Grievances; who, upon Motion, came to us to Sergeant's Inn, with whom we conferred, who would not take upon him to justify the same in no sort, but said he would acquaint the Precedent and Council 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, more Prohibitions had been granted of late, than in many years before: To this a Sixfold Answer was made.  
1. That they had exceedingly multiplied 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 Precedent could, and we think, never any Precedent and Council did usurp: As first, Suits upon Penal Laws; As between H●rison and Thurston, upon the 39 of Eliz. of Tillage. 2. In H●rtley's Case, after Indictment of Forcible Entry, and Restitution according to the Statute upon English Bill, dispossessed by the Precedent. 3. After a Recovery in Ejectione Firmae, and Habere facias possessionem, out of our Court, they upon English Bill dispossessed the Plaintiff; this was Heart's Case. So in other Cases; as between Jackso● and Philips, Stanton and Child, and Binns and Coll●t. 4. They admit English Bills, in nature of Writs of Error & Formedons, and other real Actions. 5. They will admit 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 some times to stay Suits in Chancery, and in the Exchequer Chamber: 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 ancient 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 Proceed there are by absolute Power, and their Decrees uncontrollable and final, more than in a Judgement 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, etc.  
6. Remedy for the time past; if the Common-Bench err, Writ of Error lies in Banco Regis; if the Kings-Bench err, a Writ of Error lies in the Upper-House of Parliament.  
7. For the time to come: 1. That the Instructions be enrolled in Chancery, that the Subject may see and know their Jurisdiction. 2. That the Precedents and Counsels, have some Council Learned in the Court, to inform us judicially of their true Jurisdiction, and we will give them a day to show cause, that Justice may be done on both sides; and if we err, the Law hath provided a Remedy by Writ of Error: And we are sworn to do Justice to all, according to the Laws.  
Upon this Answer of the Judges, the Lords of the Council, upon Conference among themselves, gave (by the Earl of Salisbury, than 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 Counsels should be within the Survey of Westminster Hall, viz. the Courts of Westminster.  
3. The Motion was well allowed, that the Precedents and Counsels should have Council learned in every Court, that day might be given, etc.  
And concerning the remoteness of the place, the Counties of Cornwall and Devon, are more remote than York: And this was the end of that Days 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 Diocese might convict Heretics. 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 ●o be burnt in another County, than the said Writ aught to be had: And that the Common-Law was such, Vide lib. intra, title Indictment, pl. 11. Who are Heretics, See 11 H. 7. Book of Entries, fol. 319. See Doct. & Stud. lib. 2. cap. 29. Cousin. 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 Heretic or Schismatic before him pro salute animae, and may degrade him, and enjoin 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 Schism, etc. 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 Counsels, 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 proceed in the Commencement and end was altered by the Statute, 25 H. 8. than came the Statute 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, than 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. expressly repealing. 21 H. 8. 23 H. 8. 24 H. 8. 27 H. 8. but the 25 H. 8. cap. 14. was not repealed, being repealed before by 〈◊〉 1 Ed. 6. yet in the end of that long Act, there is a general Clause sufficient of itself 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 heresies; so that now at Common-Law none can be burnt for Heresy, but by Conviction at a Convocation.  
Note, The High Commission may punish Heresies, and upon their Conviction, a Writ de Haeretico cumburendo. See 6 R. 2. by which the Commons disavowed their assent to the Act of the 5 R. 2. which was contrived by the Prelates in the Name of the Commons, whereas they never assented.   

Mich. 6 Jac. Regis,  
Langdale's Case.  
In Langdales' Case this Term, in a Prohibition to the High Commissioners, two Points were moved: 1. If a Feme Covert may sue for Alimony before the High-Commissioners. 2. If the Court of Common Pleas may grant a Prohibition when there is no Plea pendant there: This concerning the Jurisdiction of the Court was first debated, and divers Objections were made against it.  
1. That this Court hath not Jurisdiction to hold Plea, without an Original, unless by Privilege of an Attorney, Officer, or Clerk of the Court, and unless it be in a special Case, viz. when there is an Action there depending for the same Cause; than it was agreed, that a Prohibition ought to recite, Quod cum tale Placitum pendet, etc. And it was said, That F. N. B. 43. g. agrees with this. But a man ought to have his Prohibition out of Chancery, or the King's Bench, upon surmise that he is sued in Court Christian for a Temporal Cause, and the 2 Ed. 4. 11. 6. was cited.  
To this it was answered and Resolved by Coke, chief Justice, Warberton, Daniel, and Foster, Justices, That the Common Pleas may award a Prohibition, though no Suit be there pendent; for it is the principal Court of Common Law for Common Pleas, Quia Communia Placita non sequantur Curiam nostram, as it is Enacted by Magna Charta, thirty times confirmed by Parliament; then if the Ecclesiastical Judges encroach upon the Jurisdiction of the Common Pleas, there the Court shall Grant a Prohibition, and that without Original Writ, for divers Causes:  
1. Because no Original Writ issuing out of Chancery is retornable into the King Bench or Common Pleas, but is directed to a Judge, or Party, or both, and is not retornable. And upon contempt of the Prohibition, the Chancellor may award an Attachment, retornable either in the King's Bench, or Common Pleas, which in such case is but a Judicial Writ. And if such Attachment be retornable in the Common Pleas, etc. the Plaintiff in the Declaration shall make mention of an Original in Chancery, and of the contempt, etc. as appears in a notable Precedent.  
2. There was great reason that no Original Writ of Prohibition shall be retornable, for the Common-Law was a Prohibition in itself, and encroachment upon it incurred a contempt, and with this agrees our Books, 9 H. 6. 56. And there 'tis held, That the Statute of the 45 Ed. 3. and the Common Law also was a Prohibition in itself: and thus the Rule of the Book, 19 H. 6. 54. so is it held in 8 R. 2. Title Attachment Sur Prohibition 15.  
Note, By Clopton a Sergeant, at the Common Pleas, That if a Plea be held in Court-Christian, which belongs to the Court of the King, without a Prohibition in facto, the Plaintiff shall have an Attachment upon a Prohibition; Quod fuit concessum, etc. Register 77. Estrepement, Praecipimus quod inhibeas, etc. F. N. B. 259. Register 112. A Consultation is as much an Original, as a Prohibition: And the Court hath granted a Consultation, ergo Prohibitions. Qui habet jurisdictionem absolvendi, habet juris dictionem Ligandi.  
There are several sorts of Prohibitions; one sort with this word, Probibemus vobis, and Letters in nature thereof, as Supersedeas. And Injunction is a Prohibition; and Prohibition of Waste out of Chancery etc.  
Express Prohibition are in two manners; the one, founded upon a Suggestion; the other, upon Record: Upon Suggestion, where Plea is pendent, and yet the Suggestion is the Foundation; but it is founded upon Record, where no Plea is pendent: for Prohibitions founded upon Record, Ne admittas, aught to recite the Plea pendent. So a Writ to the Bishop, to admit a Clerk, is a Judicial Latitat, as Dyer defends it. As to the pendency of a Plea, or not pendency, it is not material for divers causes.  
1. The pendency of the Plea may give a privilege to the party, but no Jurisdiction to the Court in a Collateral Suit; between which there is great diversity.  
2. The Prohibition, where Plea is pendent, is no process Judicial upon Record, for it is a Collateral Suit.  
3. If the Common-Pleas cannot grant a Prohibition, without a Plea pendent, than the Kings which only holds Plea of Common-Pleas by second means cannot. But inasmuch as the Common-Law is instead of an Original, as hath been said, both Courts may grant it.  
4. Infinite Precedents may be shown of Prohibition out of the Common Pleas, without recital of any Plea pendent: And true it is, That it ought to be, if the Court hath not Jurisdiction to grant any without Plea-pendant; every petty-Clerk of the Common-Pleas shall have by his Privilege a Prohibition without Plea-pendent. A fortiori, the Common Law itself may prohibit any one, 4 Ed. 4. 37. 37 H. 8. 4.  
5. A Precedent is in the 22 Ed. 4. where a Prohibition was granted, for that the Plaintiff might have a Writ of false Judgement at the Common Law. The Record and Report agree, the words of the Record are:  
6. That Officers and Clerks as well in the Common-Pleas as in the Exchequer, etc. may have by Privileng of Court a Prohibition without Original; a fortiori, the Law itself shall have greater Privilege than an Officer or Clerk, and to enforce the party to bring an Action, will be a means to multiply Suits to no end, 4 Ed. 4. fol. 37. every Prohibition is as well at the King's Suit, as at the Parties, 28 Ed. 3. 97. false Latin shall not abate, nor excommunication in the Plaint is no Plea, 15 Ed. 3. Title Corrody 4.  
Note, Though the Original cause was in the King's Bench, for Corrody Excommunication is no Plea in disability of the Plaintiff: Vide 21 H. 7. 71 Kelway 6. quare non admissit, 4 Ed. 4. 37. for not delivery of a Libel in the Common Pleas, he shall have a Prohibition by all the Justices. So upon 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. See 38 H. 6. 14. 22. Ed. 6. 20. 13 Ed. 3. Title Prohibition 11.  
32 H. 6. 34. An Attorney in the Palace assaulted and menaced, the Court shall take a Bill and inquire of it, 4 Ed. 4. 36, 37. Statham Prohibition 3.  
Prohibition super articulos, title Prohibition, pl. 5. gives a Prohibition before, Scil. coram Justicia●iis nostris apud Westm. Vide F. N. P. fol. 69. b. in a Writ of Pone: Register. indic. coram Justicia iis nost is apud Westm. is the Common Pleas, F. N. B. 64. d. 38 Ed. 3. 14. Statute 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. Hales Case in my Reports. Many Prohibitions were granted in the King's Bench, because no Writ of Error lies but in Plaint.   

Robert Banks Case,  
Mich. 6 Jac. Regis.  
Mich. 6 Jac. Rot. 639. Robert Banks Gent. brought an Action upon the Statute of Winton 13 Ed. 1. against the Inhabitants of the Hundred of Burnham in the County of Bucks, and counted that certain misdoers, to the Plaintiff unknown, at Hitcham the 22d. of Nou. 5 Jac. assaulted the Plaintiff, and rob him of 25 l. 3 5. 2 d. ob. and that he immediately after the robbery, the same 22d. of Nou. at Joplow and Maalow, the next Towns to Hitcham in the said County, made H●e-and Cry, etc. and after the said Robbery, and within 20 days before the purchase of the Writ, viz. the 19 of F●br. A●. 5. at Dorney in Com. praed. the Plaintiff before Sir William G●rrard Knight, than Justice of Peace in the said County, and living next the said Hundred, being examined upon Oath, according to the Statute 27 El●z. the Plaintiff upon his Oath said, He knew not the Parties who rob him; and since the said Robbery 40 days are past, and the said Inhabitants of Burnham have not made him any amends, nor the Bodies of the Felons, or any of them, have taken, but suffered them to escape; to which the Defendants plead, Not Guiley; and V●. fa. was awarded the vicineto, etc. And the Jury gave a special Verdict, and found that the Plaintiff was rob, and made Hue-and-Cry as aforesaid, and found over, That the Plaintiff was sworn before Sir William Gerrard as aforesaid, and said upon his Oath in these English words, viz. That he on Thursday the 22 d. of Nou. 1604. riding under Hitcham wood, etc. was then and there set upo● by Horsemen, which he knew not, and rob of 25 l. 3 s. 2 d. ob. but whether the said Oath so taken be true according to the said Statute 27 Eliz. the Jurors pray the direction of the Court.   

mouse's Case,  
Mich. 6 Jac. Regis.  
In an Action of Trespass brought by Mouse for a Casket, and 113 l. taken and carried away; the Case was, the Ferryman of Gravesend took 47 Passengers into his Barge to pass to London, and Mouse was one of them; the Barge being upon the Water, a great Tempest happened, so that the Barge and all the Passengers were in danger to be drowned, if a Hogshead of Wine and other pouderous things were not cast out: And it was Resolved per totam Curiam, That in a case of necessity for saving the Lives of the Passengers, it was lawful to the Defendant, being a Passenger, to cast the Plaintiff's Casket out of the Barge with what was in it; for quod quis ob tutelam corporis sui fecerit, jure id feciss● videtur. Upon the special matter pleaded, and Reply, De injuria sua propria absque tali causa; the first day of this Term, the Issue being tried, and it was proved directly, That the Men had been drowned, if the things had not been cast out: The Plaintiff was Non-sult.  
Resolved also, That though when the Ferryman surcharge the Barge, yet to save the Passengers Lives in such a Necessity, it is lawful for the Passengers to cast the things out of the Barge: yet the Owners shall have their Remedy upon the surchage against the Ferryman; but if there was no surcharge, but the danger came by the Act of God, than every one must bear his own loss; for Interest R●ipub. quod homines conserventur, ● Ed. 4. 23. Bull. etc. 12 H. 8. 15. 28 H. 8. Dyer 36.   

Mich. 5. Jac. Regis.  
Prohibitions' del Roy.  
No●e, On Sunday the 10. of Nou. in this Term, the King, upon Complaint made by Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, concerning Prohibitions, the King was informed, That when Question was made of what matters the Ecclesiastical Judges have Cognizance, etc. in any Case in which there is not express Authority in Law, the King himself may decide in his Royal Person, the Judges being but his Delegates, etc. And the Archbishop said this was clear in Divinity. To which it was answered by Me, in the presence, and with the clear Consent of all the Justices of England, and Barons of the Exchequer, that the King in his own person cannot adjudge any Case either Criminal, as Treason, etc. or betwixt party and party, concerning Inheritance, Goods, etc. But it ought to be determined in some Court of Justice, according to the Law and Custom of England, and all Judgements are given Ideo consideratum est per Curium. And the King hath his Court in the Upper House of Parliament, in which he with his Lords is the Supreme Judge over all Judges. And in this respect, the King is called Chief Justice, 20 H. 7. 7. a. by ●rudnel; and it appears in our Books, 2 R. 3. 9 21 H. 7. 8. that that the King may sit in the Star-Chamber; but this was only to consult, not in judicio. So in the Kings-Bench; but the Court gives Judgement. And 'tis commonly said in our Books, the King is always present in Court; and therefore he cannot be Nonsuit: And it appears by the Acts of Parliament, 2 Ed. 3. c. 9 2 Ed. 3. c. 1. That neither by the Great Seal, nor by the little Seal, Justice shall be delayed, ergo, The King cannot take any Cause out of any of his Courts, and give Judgement upon it; but in his own Cause he may stay it, as appears 11 H. 4. 8. And the Judges informed the King, that no King after the Conquest, ever assumed to himself, to give Judgement in any Cause whatsoever, which concerned the Administration of Justice within the Realm, 17 H. 6. 14. 39 Ed. 3. 14. the King cannot Arrest any man, 1 H. 7. 4. Hussey, chief Justice, Reports, being Attorney to Ed. 4. That Sir John Markham, chief Justice, said to Ed. 4. That the King cannot Arrest a man for suspicion of Treason or Felony, as his other Liege's may. And it was greatly marvailed, That the Archbishop durst inform the King that such absolute Power as aforesaid belonged to him by the Word of God. Vide 4 H. 4. cap. 22. Westm. 2. cap. 5. vide le stat. de Marlbridge, cap. 1. & stat. de Magn. Chart. cap. 29. 25 Ed. 3. c. 5. 43 Ed. 3. c. 3. 28 Ed. 3. c. 3. 37 Ed. 3. c. 18. vide 17 R. 2. ex Rotulis Parliamenti in Turri act. 10. A controversy of Land between Parties was heard by the King; and Sentence given, which was repealed, because it did belong to the Common Law. Then the King said, That the Law was grounded upon Reason, and that He and Others had reason as well as the Judges. To which it was answered by Me, That true it was, God had endued his Majesty with excellent Science, but his Majesty was not learned in the Laws of England, and Causes which concern the Life or Inheritance, or Goods of his Subjects, which are not to be decided by natural Reason, but artificial Reason and Judgement of Law, which Judgement requires long Study and Experience. With which his Majesty was greatly Offended, and said, Then he should be under the Law, which was Treason to be said; To which I said, that Bracton saith, Quod Rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et jege.   

Mich. 8 Jacob. Regis.  
Robert's Case.  
In this Term, in the Case of one Roberts, a Prohibition had been granted in a Case upon Substraction of Tithes, upon surmise that the Plaintiff being Defendant in the Spiritual Court, had but one Witness there to prove his Demise: to which the Court said, That singugaris Testis is not allowable: And upon sight of a Prohibition in the same Case in Hill. 3 Eliz. in Ban●o Regis. It was Resolved by Coke, chief Justice, Et totam Curiam in Communi Banco, that Consultation should be granted for divers Reasons.  
1. It appears by the Register, fol. 5. that it is put for a Rule, Quod non est consonum rationi, quod cognitio accessorii in Curia Christianitatis impediatur, ubi cognitio causae principalis ad forum Ecclesiasticum ●●scitur pertinere; and with this agrees 1 R. 3. 4.  
2. If such a surmise shall be allowed, then in every Case, for mere delay, such a surmise may be made. And when the spiritual Court hath Jurisdiction of the principal Cause, they determine the accessary: But it was objected, That if A. claiming a Lease by B. of a Rectory, Libels for substraction of Tithes, and the Defendant pleads a former Lease made by B. and C. and the Defendant hath but one Witness in the Case to prove the former Lease; if no Prohibition shall be granted, the Defendant shall be charged. And if C. sue him upon the Statute 2 Ed. 6. the testimony of one only shall be then sufficient, and so he shall he twice charged.  
To which it was answered, That first the fault was the Defendants, that he would not set forth his Tithes, and then he shall be charged whosoever takes them. But in such the Ecclesiastical Court will upon one good Witness, and any concurrent v●hement presumption, allow of such a proof. But if a question arise upon construction of a Statute, and the Ecclesiastical Court will Judge of it against the Rule of Law, there upon special surmise of it, a Prohibition lies.  
And Coke, chief Justice, cited a notable Judgement, Pasch. 35 Eliz. in Bank le Roy. Fuller brought a Prohibition against Clements, and Wiskard; and Fuller counted that himself was Owner of the Rectory of Longham in the County of Norfolk, and libelled against Clements before the Bishop of Norwiches Official, for substraction of Tithes, scil. Wheat pendent; which Suit Wiskard intervening pro intercesse suo, made there allegations against Fuller:  
1. That the said Rectory was impropriate to the Monastery of Windling, and by dissolution thereof, came to H. 8. and conveyed it by mean Descent to Queen Elizab. who by Letters Patents granted it to Min and Hall, who enfeoffed Bosom, who let it to Wiskard for four years; and upon proof of his allegations; in fine, Sentence was given against Full●r, and several Costs given to Clements and Wiskard: Fuller appeals to the Court of the Arches, and there Claims the said Rectory from Hall's being seized of it, who by his Deed granted the same to Sir Edward Clere, (before Bosom's Feoffment,) and that Sir Edward did enfeoff Fuller, and offered to prove the Deed made to Sir Edward by one sole Witness, which the Ecclesiastical Court would not allow of. And Fuller further said, That though he had alleged these matters were determinable at Common Law, yet they gave Sentence: The Defendants to have a Consultation pleaded, That Fuller proved the delivery of the Deed by Clere and Mouse, but could not prove Livery and Seisin according to the Deed; and that therefore Sentence was given without that, that the Judges would not admit the proof without other Witnesses; upon this Fuller demurred, and his Council objected.  
1. That Wiskard pleads matter determinable merely at Common Law, viz Letters Patents, etc. and on the other part Fuller Claims an Estate in the Rectory, by conveyance at Common Law: And the Question in the Court Ecclesiastical being? Who hath the best Estate in the Rectory; this aught to be tried by the Common Law, for this is the Birthright of the Subject.  
2. It was Objected, That all matters in Law ought to be determined by the Judges of the Law: And in this Case matters of Law arising, as if a Rectory be granted by Deed with all Tithes, etc. and no Livery is made. If the Tithes may pass with any Livery; this is a question to be decided by the Judges of the Common Law: Quod quisque novit in hoc se exerceat.  
3. It was objected, That Wiskard was a mere stranger to the Suit, and all his Allegation is Temporal; and for that it is a stronger Case to maintain a Prohibition.  
4. It was Objected, That Fuller had but one Witness to prove the delivery of the Deed, and in the Ecclesiastical Law Unus Testis et nullus Testis, for which causes it was prayed the Prohibition might stand.  
To which it was answered by Sir Christopher Wray, chief Justice, Et per totam Curiam, to the first Objection, That;  
1. Where the original belongs to the Ecclesiastical Court, the determination of all that depends on it belongs to the same Court, though the matter be tryable at Law; but where the Original matter belongs to the Common Law, and there commenced, and issue taken upon matter tryable by the Ecclesiastical Law, there the Judges of our Law shall write to the Judges of the Ecclesiastical Court to try it, and to certify. As in action Ancestral, if Bastardy▪ be pleaded in the Demandant, and upon this Issue is joined, this shall be tried by the Bishop, and his Certificate shall bind; So in a Quare Impedit: But though such issues are in their nature Tryable by the Law Ecclesiastical, yet if the Case was such, that the Ecclesiastical Court could not try it, than (that Justice be not wanting) such Ecclesiastical matter shall be tried by the Common Law, as 4 Ed. 3. 26. But against this was objected the Statute de Articulis Cleri, cap. 13. Quod de Idoneitate person● perso●atae ad beneficium Ecclesiasticum pertineat examinatio ad Judicom Ecclesiasticum; upon which it was concluded, That the Trial de idomeitate personae in all Cases belong to Court-Christian: To which it was answered and resolved. That the Trial of ability belongs to them; but this Trial must be by examination of the Party. 〈◊〉 39 Ed 3. 2. That Earl of Arund●ll'● Case, and 4 Ed. 3. 25. 16 Eliz. Dyer 327. So if Bastardy be alledg●d in one who is dead, Vide 17 Ed. 3. 5. where Bastardy is alleged in the Tenant, and one who is a stranger to the Writ, who are S●sters. Vide 32 Ed. 3. Trial 59 where the Tenant doth allege Bastardy in himself, and the Demandant doth aver him Mulier, Vide 29 Ass. pl. 14. b. Eliz. Dyer 226. 228. If the issue be Quod vacavit p●r resignationem, part of which is Spiritual, part Temporal; this shall be tried per paiis, vide 9 H. 7. But admission and in i●ution, though it be alleged in a stranger to the Writ, yet this shall be tried by the Ordinary, as appears 7 Ed. 6. 78. 6. in Dyer, & similia.  
2. To the second: answered and resolved, That if upon Consultation with men learned in the Law, they give Sentence according to Law; this is well done, and no Prohibition ought to granted: but if they draw the interest of any man ad alîud examen, there Prohibition lies. And in the Case at the Bar, they well resolved the Law; for by the said Livery of the Charter, the Tithes do not pass as in gross, because the intention of Parties was to pass the entire Rectory by the Feoffment, and to pass the Tithes, and so dismember the Rectory.  
3. As to the third, Resolved, That by the Ecclesiastical Law a stranger may come in pro interesse suo, and when they have Jurisdiction of the Original cause of a Suit, we ought not to question their proceeding, unless they proceed inverso ordine, and this aught to be▪ redressed by appeal.  
4. As to the fourth, Resolved, That such a surmise, That he hath but one Witness, is not sufficient to have a Prohibition, because the Court Ecclesiastical hath jurisdiction of the Principle. And if such surmise shall be sufficient, all Suits in the Ecclesiastical Court shall be delayed, or quite taken away, for such surmise may be made in every Case.  
It was Resolved upon Evidence, by Coke, chief Justice, de Banco, inter J. S. who informed upon the Statute of Usury and Smith, that the Parties to the supposed Usurious Contract, shall not be admitted Witnesses, because upon the matter they were Testes in propria causa.   

High-Commissioners.  
Trin. 8 Jacobi Regis.  
Upon a Ha. Cor. by Eliz. Lady Throgmorton Prisoner in the Fleet; the Return was, The Lady Throgmorton was committed by George, Bishop of London, and other Ecclesiastical Commissioners, till further Order should be taken for her enlargement. And the Cause of Commitment was, That she had done many evil Offices between Sir James Scudamore, and her Daughter the Lady Scudamore, Sir James his Wife, to make separation between them, and detained her from her Husband; and upon her Departure after Sentence, for Contemptuous words against the Court, saying, She had neither Law nor Justice. And it was Resolved,  
1. That for detaining the Wife, and endeavouring to make separation, no Suit can be before the High-Commissioners.  
2. For detaining the Wife, there is remedy by the Common Law.  
3. That for such an Offence they cannot imprison the Wife.  
4. It doth not appear, that the words were spoken in Court.  
Secondly, It is no Court of Record, because they proceed according to the Civil Law; so the Admiralty Court and none can be committed for misdemeanour in Court, unless the Court be of Record.  
5. It doth not appear by the Return what that Court was, which is uncertain; and upon this, upon good Consideration, she was Bailed.  
But Randall and Hickins were this Term committed by the High-Commissioners, because they were vehemently suspected for Brownists. And they obtained a H●beas Corpus, and were remanded for this, that the High-Commissioners have Power to commit for Heresy. See my Treatise of the High-Commissioners Power.   

The Lord Aburgavennye's Case.  
In the Parliament a Question was moved by the Lord of Northampton, Lord Privy-Seal, in the Upper-House; That one Edward Nevil, Father of Edward Nevil, Lord of Aburgavenny, which now is, in the 2 and 3 of Queen Mary, was called by Writ to Parliament, and died before the Parliament: If he was a Baron or no, and so ought to be named, was the Question. And it was  
Resolved by the Lord Chancellor, the two chief Justices, chief Baron, and divers other Justices there present, That the direction and delivery of the Writ did not make a Baron or Noble, until he did come to the Parliament, and then sit according to the Commandment of the Writ; for until that, the Writ did not take its effect. And in the 35 H. 6. and other Books, he is called a Peer of Parliament, which he cannot be, until he sit in Parliament, which cannot be before the Parliament begin. And the Command of the King by such his Writ may by his Supersedeas be countermanded, or else the said. Edward might have excused himself, or waved it, or submitted to his Fines: And when one is called by Writ to Parliament, the Order is, That he be apparelled in his Parliament Robes, and his Writ is openly read in the Upper-House, and he brought into his place by Two Lords of Parliament; and then he is adjudged in Law, Inter pares Regni, ut cum olim Senatores cens● eligebantur, sic Barones apud nos habiti fuerint, qui per integram Baroniam terras suas tenebant, sive 13. feoda militum et terti●m partem unius Feodi militis, quolibet Feodo computo ad 20 l. etc. So that by this appears, That every one who hath an entire Barony, may have of right a Writ to be summoned to Parliament; and with this agree our Books una voce, That none can si● in Parliament as Peer of the Realm, without matter of Record, 35 H. 6. 46. 48 Ed. 3. 30. b. 48 Ass. pl. 6. 22 Ass. pl 2 4. Register. 287. but now none can be summoned to Parliament by Writ, without the Kings Warrant under the Privy-Seal at least. But if the King create any Baron by Letters Patents under the Great-Seal to him and his Heirs, or to him and to his Heirs of his Body, or for life, etc. there he is a Nobleman presently, and he ought to have a Writ of Summons to Parliament of Course, and shall be tried by his Peers, if, etc.  
Richard the Second created John Beauchampe of Holt, Baron of Kidderminster by Letters Patents, dated 10. Octob. eleventh year of his Reign, where all others before him were created by Writ.   

Trin. 8 Jac. Regis.  
Oldfield and Gerlins' Case.  
In this Term Thomas Oldfield came out of the Duchy Court, and before he came into Westminster-Hall, with a Knife, stabbed one Ferra●, a Justice of Peace, of which he died. And if Oldfield should have his right hand cut off, was the question before the two Chief Justices, chief Baron Walmesly, Warberton, Foster, and divers other Justices. And it was Resolved, No; for it ought to be in Westminster-Hall, Sedentibus Curiis, as appears, 3 Eliz. Dyer 188. 41 Ed. 3. Title Coron. 280. And a Precedent was shown, An. 9 Eliz. in Bank le Roy, where one Robert Gerlin smote one in Whitehall, sitting in the Court of Requests, and was Fined, and Ransomed. But if one smite another before the Justices of Assize, there his right hand shall be cut off; as appears, 22 Ed. 3. fol. 13. & 19 Ed. 3. Title Judgement. And one Bellingham, 2 Jac. in Westminster-Hall, Sedentibus Curiis, with his Elbow and Shoulder, out of malice justled Anthony Dyer of the Temple, that he overthrew him, and spurned him with his Feet upon the Legs; but smote him not in any other manner: And yet it was held, That his right hand should be cut off, etc. upon which Bellingham was indicted in Bank le Roy, and after got his Pardon.  
A Case was put to all the Justices of England, viz. The Bishoprics of Waterford and Lismore, originally two Bishoprics by lawful Authority, in the time of H. 3. were united, but the Chapters yet remain several. After which Union, the Bishop aliened Lands of the Sea of Waterford, and also of the Sea of Lismore, with confirmation of the Chapter of Lismore.  
1. The Question was, Whether such Alienations are not voidable by the Successor, being with the Confirmations of both the Deans and Chapters.  
2. The second Question was, Whether the Queen might avoid such alienations by seizure, or otherwise.  
The Justices demanded a View of the Union, to which it was answered, That it was not extant; then was it Resolved by the Justices, That inasmuch as the Usage hath been after the Union, that the several Deans and Chapters have severally made Confirmations ut supra; it shall be intended, that the Union notwithstanding, yet for avoiding Confusion, and in respect of the remoteness of the Deans and Chapters, that Estates made shall be severally confirmed as before the Union, and then such Confirmations shall be good, for in such Case, Modus & conventiovincunt Legem, 50 Ed. 3. Title Assize. Statham, Ri. 2. Title Grant, 27 H. 8. Dyer 58. 11 Eliz. Dyer, 33 H. 8.  
2. It was Resolved, That upon a lawful Alienation made, with Confirmation of the Dean and Chapter, no contraformam collationis lies upon the Statute of Westm. ●. See my 7th. Reports.   

Trin. 8 Jacobi Regis.  
Convocation Case.  
It was Resolved by the two Chief Justices, and divers other Justices, at a Committee before the Lords of Parliament, concerning the Authority of a Convocation.  
1. That a Convocation cannot assemble, without the assent of the King.  
2. That after their Assembly, they cannot confer to Constitute any Cannons, without Licence d l Roy.  
3. When upon Conference they conclude any Cannons, yet they cannot execute any of them without Royal assent.  
4. They cannot execute any after Royal assent, but with these Limitations.  
1. That they be not against the King's Prorogative.  
2. Nor against the Common Law.  
3. Nor against Statute Law.  
4. Nor against any Custom of the Realm: And all this appears by 25 H. 8. cap. 19 19 Ed. 3. Title Quare non admisit 7. 10 H. 7. 17. Merton, cap. 9  
2 H. 6. 13. A Convocation may make Constitutions to bind the Spiritualty, because they all in person, or by representation, are present, but not the Temporality.  
21 Ed. 4. 47. The Convocation is Spiritual, and so are all their Constitutions: Vide the Records in Turri, 18 H. 8. 8 Ed. 1. 25 Ed. 1. 11 Ed. 2. 15 Ed. 2. Prohibitio Regis ne Clerus in Congregatione sua, etc. attemptet contra jus seu Coronam, etc. by which it appears, they can do nothing against the Law of the Land, or the King's Prerogative.   

Case of Piracy,  
Trin. 8 Jacobi Regis.  
In this Term the King referred the Consideration of Letters Patents of the Lord Admiral of England, to the two Chief Justices, and the Chief Baron: whether by the said Letters Patents the Goods which Pirates should take from Others by Robbery and Piracy, did pass to the Lord Admiral or no. And upon Consideration thereof, it appeared to us, That he had Bona et Catalla Piratorum, and also Bono et Catalla depraedata; Goods rob from others, which did not pass for two Causes.  
1. If the King Grant Bona et Catalla Felonum, the Patentee shall have the Goods and Chattels of the Felon himself, but not the Goods and Chattels which the Felon stealeth from others.  
2. The Goods taken from Others, the King cannot Grant; for it appears by the Statute, 27 Ed. 3. cap. 8. St. 2. That the Merchant etc. so rob shall be received to prove that the Goods and Chattels belong to him by his Cock●●, or other lawful Proof, etc. the said Goods shall be delivered without any Suit at Common Law. But it was Resolved, That till such proof be made, the King may seize the Goods; for Goods, of which the property is unknown, the King may seize: And if they are bona peritura, the King may sell them, and upon proof, etc. restore the value. And the Owner is not limited to any time by the Statute 31 H. 6. cap. 4. 2 R. 2. cap. 2. 13 Ed. 4. 9, 10. a good resolution of the Justices, and the Register 179. F. N. B. 114. when a Subject of the King spoiled beyond Sea shall have a Writ, etc. for to take Goods within England, etc.   

Case of Simony.  
Trin. 8 Jacob. Regis.  
It was agreed ad mensam, by all the Justices and Barons in Fleetstreet, That if the Patron for any Money present any Parson to a Benefice with Cure, etc. then every such Presentation etc. thereupon are void, though the Presence be not party not privy to it; for the Statute intends to punish such wicked avarice, and gives the Presentation to the Queen: And this per verba Statuti penned strongly enough against corrupt Patrons.   

Proclamations.  
Mich. 8 Jacobi Regis.  
On Thursday the 20th. of Sept. 8 Regis Jacobi, I was sent for to attend the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Treasurer, Lord Privy-Seal, and Chancellor of the Duchy; the Attorney, Solicitor, and Recorder being present. And two Questions were moved to me by the Lord Treasurer;  
1. If the King by his Proclamation may prohibit new Buildings in and about London?  
2. If the King may prohibit the making of Starch of Wheat?  
The Treasurer said, These were preferred to the King as Grievances, and against the Law and Justice; To which the King Answered; That he will confer with his Privy-Council and Judges, and then he will do them right. To which I answered, That these Questions being of great Importance, I did desire, that I might have Conference with my Brethren the Judges; To which the Chancellor said, Every Precedent had first a Commencement, and that he would advise the Judges to maintain the King's Prerogative, and where there was no Precedent, to leave it to the King; and all concluded it should be necessary to confirm the King's Prerogative with our Opinions.  
To which I answered, True it is, every Precedent hath a Commencement, but when Authority and Precedent is wanting, there needs great Considerations before any Novelty be established; For I said, The King cannot change any part of the Common-Law, nor create any offence by his Proclamation: But I desired to Confer with my Brethren, for Deliberandum est diu, quod Statuendum est semel; To which Mr. Solicitor said, D●vers Sentences were given in the Star-Chamber upon the Proclamation against Building, and that I had given Sentence against the said Proclamation: To which I answered, That Precedents were to be seen, and Considerations to be had upon Conference with my Brethren, for Melius est recurrere quam male currere, and Indictments conclude, contra leges & statuta, never contra regiam Proclamationem. At last my motion was allowed, and the Lords appointed the two Chief Justices, Chief Baron, and Baron Altham to consider of it.  
Note, the King by his Proclamation, or otherwise, cannot change any part of the Common-Law, Statute-Law, or Customs of the Realm, 11 H. 4. 37. Fortescue in laudibus legum Ang. cap. 9 18 Ed. 4. 35, 36, etc. 31 H. 8. cap. 8. ubi non est lex, ubi non est transgressio; ergo, That which cannot be punished without Proclamation, cannot be punished with it. Vide le Stat. 31 H. 8. cap. 8. But if a man be indicted upon a Contempt against a Proclamation, he shall be Fined an● imprisoned. Vide Fortescue, cap. 9 18, 34, 36, 37, etc.  
In all Cases, the King out of his Providence, and to prevent dangers, may prohibit them before, which will aggravate the Offence, if it be afterwards committed: And as it is a Grand Prerogative of the King to make Proclamations, 22 H. 8. Procl. B. yet we find Precedents of Proclamations utterly against Law and Reason, and therefore void: For Quae contra rationem Juris introducta sunt, non debent trahi in sequentiam. An Act made to Licence Foreigners to Merchandise in London, H. 4. by Proclamation prohibited the Execution of it, usque ad prox. Parliament. which was against Law. Vide do●s. claus. 8 H. 4. Proc. in London; but 9 H. 4. An Act was made, That all Irish should departed the Realm before the Feast of the Nativity; this only was in terrorem, being utterly against Law.  
Holinshed, 772. Anno Dom. 1546. 37 H. 8. The Whore-houses, vulgo Stews, were suppressed by Proclamation, and found of Trumpet.  
In the same Term Resolved by the two Chief Justices, Chief Baron, and Baron Altham, upon Conference between the Lords of the Privy-Council and them, That the King by his Proclamation cannot create any Offence, which was not an Offence before, for than he may alter the Law. And the Law of England is divided into three parts: 1. Common-Law. 2. Statute-Law. 3. Custom: But the King's Proclamation is none of them.  
Resolved also, That he hath no Prerogative, but what the Law of the Land allows him; but he mry by Proclamation admonish his Subjects, that they keep the Laws, upon pain to be inflicted by Law, etc.  
Lastly, If the Offence be not punishable in the Star-Chamber, Prohibition by Proclamation cannot make it punishable there. And after this Resolution, no Proclamation imposing Fine and Imprisonment was made, etc.   

Mich. 8 Jac. Regis.  
Prohibitions.  
It was Resolved in this Term, That if a man be excommunicated by the Ordinary, where he ought not, as after a general Pardon, etc. and the Defendant being Negligent, doth not sue a Prohibition, but remains excommunicate by 40 days, and upon Certificate in Canc▪ is taken by the King's Writ de excommunicato capiendo; no Prohibition lies in this Case, because he is taken by the King's Writ. Then it was moved what remedy the Party hath, who is wrongfully excommunicate; to which it was answered, he hath three Remedies.  
1. He may have a Writ out of Chancery to absolve him, 14 H. 4. fol. 14. and with this agrees 7 Ed. 4. 14.  
2. When he is excommunicate against the Law of this Realm, so that he cannot have a Writ de Cau●fone admittenda, than he ought Parere mandatis Ecclesiae in sorma Juris, i. e. Ecclesiastici, where in truth it's Excommunicatio contra jus & foreman Juris, i. e. Communis Juris: But if he show his Cause to the Bishop, and Request him to assoil him, either because he was excommunicate after the Offence pardoned, or that the Cause did not appear in Ecclesiastical Cognizance, and he refuse, he may have an Action Sur le Case against the Ordinary; and with this agrees Dr. & St. lib. 2. cap. 32. fol. 119.  
3. If the Party be excommunicate for non●e of the Causes mentioned in the Act, 5 Eliz. cap. 23. then he may plead this in the King's Bench, and so avoid the Penalties in the Act.  
Note, It was Resolved by the Court, etc. That where one is cited before the Dean of the Articles in cause of defamation, for calling the Plaintiff Where, out of the Diocese of London, against the Statute of 23 H. 8. And the Plaintiff hath Sentence, and the Defendant is excommunicated, and so continues 80 days; And upon Certificate into the Chancery, a Writ of Excommunicato capiendo is granted, and the Defendant taken and imprisoned thereby, that he shall not have a Prohibition upon the Statute 23 H. 8. for no Writ in the Register extends to it; but there is a Writ there called the cautione admittenda, when the Defendant is taken by the King's Writ de excommunicato capiendo de parendo mandatis Ecclesiae, and to assoil and deliver the Defendant. But in the Case at Bar, it does not appear to us judicially, without Information, that the Citation is against the form of the Statute: And the Information comes too late in this Case, after the Defendant hath persisted so long in his Contumacy, and is taken by the King's Writ, and imprisoned.   

Admiralty.  
It was Resolved per totam Curiam, That if One be sued in the Admiralty-Court, for a thing alleged to be done upon the High-Sea, within the Admiral's Jurisdiction, and the Defendant plead and confess the thing done; and after Sentence, the Court will be advised to Grant a Prohibition, upon surmise, That it was done infra corpus comitatus, against their own confession, unless it can be made appear to the Court by matter in Writing, or other good matter, that this was done upon the Land; for otherwise every one will stay till after Sentence, and then for vexation only sue out a Prohibition. And admonition was given to them that sue out Prohibitions, That they should not keep them long in their Hands, or until they perceive they cannot prevail in the Ecclesiastical Court, then to cast in their Prohibition; for if they abuse that liberty to the vexation of the Party, we will take such order, as in case of a Writ of Privilege, if the Defendant keep it till the Jurors are ready, etc. it shall not be allowed.   

Hill. 8 Jacob. Regis.  
In this Term, in Doctor Trevor's Case, who was Chancellor of a Bishop in Wales; It was Resolved,  
That the Office of a Chancellor and Register, etc. in Ecclesiastical Courts, are within the Statute 5 Ed. 6. cap. 16. which Act, being made for avoiding corruption of Officers, etc. and advancement of worthy Persons, shall be expounded most beneficially to suppress Corruption. And because the Law allows Ecclesiastical Courts to proceed in Blasphemy, Heresy, Schism, etc. loyalty of Matrimonies, probate of Wills, etc. and that from these proceed depends not only the Salvation of Souls, but the legitimation of Issues, etc. and other things of great Consequence. It is most reason that such Officers shall be within the Statute, than Officers which concern Temporal ma●ters, the Temporal Judge committing the Convict only to the Gaoler, but the Spiritual Judge, by excommunication, to the Devil: And there is a Proviso in ●he Statute for them.  
It was Resolved, That such Offices were within the Purview of the said Statute.   

Hill. 8 Jac. Regis.  
Admiralty.  
It is to be understood, That the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty is more ancient than Mr. Lambert, in his Jurisdiction of Courts, doth affirm, which was the time of Edward the Third. But without question, the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty is more ancient; for I find a notable Book in the time of Ed. 1. Title Avowry, 192. which proves it more ancient than Mr. Lambert speaks: The Case was, One brought a Replevin of his Ship taken on the Coast of Scarbrough upon the Sea, and carried into Norfolk, and there detained; the plaint of taking in the Coast of S. which is no Town nor Place certain by which the Paiis m●y be taken, for the Coast contains four Leagues. And also a thing done at Sea, this Court cannot have Cognizance; for this Judgement is given to Mariners. Beresford, who gave the Rule in this Case; The King W●lls, That the Peace be kept as well upon the Sea as the Land-And we find, that you come by due Process, and we see nothing why you ought not to answer; upon which Book I observe five things:  
1. That of things done upon the Sea, Judgement is given to Mariners, id est, to Admirals, as shall appear, and belongeth not to the King's Court, because no Paiis may be taken there; for where the Paiis or Jury may come, the Admiral hath no Jurisdiction.  
2. This proves directly, That there the Admiral hath Jurisdiction to adjudge things done upon the Sea, from whence no Paiis may come. And this did nor begin then, for questionless ever since there was Trade or Traffic (which is the Life of every Island) there was Marine Jurisdiction, to redress Depraedations, Piracies, Murders, and other Offences upon the Sea.  
3. The third thing is, That if part of the matter be done on the Sea, and part in the Country, that the Common-Law shall have all the Jurisdiction.  
4. The Sea within the Jurisdiction of the Admiral, is described to be out of every County.  
5. If a thing be done upon the Sea, horse deal County, the Party may plead it to the Jurisdiction of the Court.  
And it is to wit, that in ancient time the Jurisdiction of Admiral was called Maritina Angliae, and sometimes Marina Angliae, which signifies the Admiralship or Marinship of England; for Marinus is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is of the Sea, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Admiral or General of the Fleet; and Almarath is corruptly Admiral. And anciently, sometimes one was Admiral of all England, and sometime the Office was divided. And for this, see ex Rot. Patentium de An. 6 H. 3. de Maritina Custodiend. 29 Aug. ex Rot. Pat. An. 9 H. 3. 3. Octob. Charta 15 H. 3. 28 Junii, 25 Ed. in. 14. Claus. in Dorso in 18. William teyborne Capitaneus Marinariorum.  
At this time there were two Admirals, the one had the Government of all the Fleet from the Thames mouth versus Boream, the other from the Thames mouth versus occidentem, 1 Pars. Patent. 25 Ed. 1. 25 Martii in 9 & 1 Pars. Patent. 10 Ed. 2. 8. Decem. And so in the time of R. 2. H. 4. H. 5. H. 6. during whose Reigns there was like unus qui fuit Admirallus Angliae.  
3 Ed. 2. Coron 399. where a man may see what is done of one part, and the other of the Water, etc. in that place the County may have Cognizance, and it may be tried by a Jury. And Stamford's Pleas of the Crown, lib. 1. fol. 51. citing this Book, says thus: So this proves, That by the Common-Law, before the Statute, etc. the Admiral shall not have Jurisdiction, unless upon the High-Sea; which proves his Jurisdiction by the Common-Law upon the High-Sea. Ex quo sequitur, that his Jurisdiction was by the Common-Law, and then 'tis so ancient, that the Commencement cannot be known. Whence I conclude, that this Authority did not begin of King Edw. 3. as Monsieur Lambert upon uncertain Conjectures supposeth.   

Pasch. 9 Jac. Regis.  
It was Resolved by the two Chief Justices, Chief Baron, the Attorney and Solicitor, That the King may erect any Name of Dignity which was not before; and for that Reason the King may Create a Baronet, to him and his Heirs-males of his Body issuing.  
It was Resolved, That if he Create him not of some Place, he shall not have an Estate Tail, but Fee-simple conditional, forfeitable for Felony; but if he Create him Baronet of a Place, than he shall have an Estate-Tail within the Statute, West. 2. And the King may Grant to such Precedency before Knights Bannerets, Knights of the Bath, and Kinghts-Batchelors: And also he may Grant Precedency to their Wives, Sons, and Daughters, etc.  
The King cannot Create any Dignity above the Dignity of a Baronet, and under the Dignity of a Baron: And the creation of this Dignity of a Baronet shall not discharge the Heir to be in Guard.   

Pasch. 9 Jacobi Regis.  
Accessary in Treason, etc.  
Note, That in Trespass and Treason, there are no Accessaries, but all are Principles: But in Felony, above the sum of 12 d. there, and in case of death, etc. there may be Accessary as well before as after. In Petit larceny there can be no Accessaries, for the smallness of the Felony: Then the Case is, A. Counterfeits the Great Seal of England, and B. knowing that he did Sergeant it, receives, abets, and comforts him. If B. in this Case be Guilty of Treason, is the Question: And it seems he is not; for though A. by the Counterfeiting be a Traitor, yet the abetting, &c. cannot make B. an Accessary, because at the time of Counterfeiting it, he did not know it; but if one before the Act be done, procure another to Sergeant the Great-Seal, there it is High-Treason; and in the Indictment he may be charged with the Fact. And this appears to me very evident in Reason, and agrees with our Books; as 19 H. 6. 47. 6. he who is consenting to the making of false Money, commits High-Treason, for he is Particeps Criminis before the Fact: But it is held in Conyers Case, Mich. 13 & 14 Eliz. Dyer 296. that in the same Case, if one after the Fact done know thereof, and receive the Party, this is but Misprision of Treason; and with this accords 3 H. 7. 10. which diversity Stam. Pleas of the Crown, fol. 3. hath well observed. Vide Dyer 298. vide le Stat. 27 Eliz.   

Pasch. 9 Jacobi Regis.  
Sir William Chanc●ys Case.  
In this Term Sir William Chancy having the privilege of this Court, and being a Prisoner in the Fleet, was brought to ●he Bar by Habeas Corpus, by the Guardian of the Fleet; who returned, That the said Sir William was committed to the Fleet by Warrant from the High-Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes, which Warrant follows in these words, viz.  
These are to Will and Require you in his Majesty's Name, by Virtue of his High-commission etc. to Us and others directed, etc. That herewithal you take and receive into your Custody the Body of Sir William Chancy Knight, whom we will that you keep, etc. until further Order, etc. letting you know the cause of his Committment to be, for that being at the Suit of his Lady convented b●fore etc. for Adultery, and expelling her from his Company, and Co-habiting with another Woman, without allowing her any competent Maintenance; and by his own Confession convict thereof, he was thereupon enjoined to allow his Wife a competent Maintenance, etc. and to perform such Submission and other order for his Adultery as by Law should be enjoined him, which he expressly refused to do in contempt, etc. Given at London 19 Martii, 1611. subscribed Henry Montague, George Overall, Thomas Morton, Zach. Pa●field.  
And it was moved by Nicholas Sergeant, a Council with Sir William, that this return was insufficient.  
1. Because Adultery ought to be punished by the Ordinary, and not by the High-Comm●ssioners, on which the Offender is remediless, and can have no appeal; Quod fuit concessum per Coke, Warberton and Foster, but Walmesly doubted of Adultery.  
2. That by force of the Act of the 1. of Eliz. the High-Commissioners cannot imprison Sir William for Adultery, nor for denying Alimony to his Wife: And Doderidge, the King's S●rjeant, of Council on the other side, did not defend the Imprisonment to be lawful.  
And it was clearly agreed by Coke, Walmesly, Warberton, and Foster, That the Commissioners had not power to imprison in this Case. And Walm●sly said. That though they have used this Power for twenty years without any exception; yet when it comes before them judicially, they ought to Judge according to Law; and upon this Sir William Chancy was Bailed.  
And it was resolved per totam Curiam, That when it appears upon the Return, that the Imprisonment is not lawful, the Court may discharge him of Imprisonment.  
Also it was Resolved, That the Return was insufficient in form.  
1. It is not shown when the Adultery was committed.  
2. He was enjoined to allow his Wife a competent Maintenance without any certainty, and to perform such submission, etc. as by Law shall be enjoined, which is all infuturo, and uncertain. Vide in my Treatise at large the Reasons and Causes why the High-Commissioners may sue and imprison, Vide Pasch. 42 Eliz. Rot. 1209.   

Pasch. 9 Jacobi Regis.  
Empringham's Case.  
In this Term a Case was moved in Star-Chamber upon a Bill exhibited by the Attorney-General against Robert Empringham Vice-Admiral in the County of York, Marmaduke Ketthewell, one of the Marshals of the Admiralty, and Thomas Ha●rison, an Informer in the same Court for Oppression and Extortion, in Fining and Imprisoning divers of the King's Subjects in the said County, which no Judge of the Admiralty can justify, because it is not a Court of Record; but they proceed according to the Civil Law, and upon their Sentence no Writ of Error lieth, but an Appeal. Also the said Empringham hath caused divers to be cited, to appear before him for things done in the Body of the County, which were determinable by the Common Law, and not before the Admiralty, whose authority is limited to the High Sea. And for these and other Oppressions they were fined and imprisoned, and sentenced beside to make Restitution, etc.   

Trin. 9 Jacobi Regis.  
Memorandum, That upon the Thursday before this Term, all the Justices of England, by the King's Command, were assembled in the Council-Chamber at Whitehall, where was, Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, and with him two Bishops, and divers civilians; the Archbishop complained of Prohibitions out of the Common-Pleas, and delivery of Persons by Haheas Corpus, but chief of Sir William Chancy. I defended our proceed according to my Treatise thereof, which I delivered before the High-Commissioners: And after great dispute between the Archbishop and Me, at last he said, He had a Point not yet touched upon in my Treatise, which would give satisfaction to the Lords and Us also, and upon which he would rely; And that the Clause of Restitution and Annexation, viz. And that all such Jurisdictions, etc. Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, as by any power Spiritual hath heretofore, or hereafter lawfully may be used, etc. for visitation of the Ecclesiastical State and Persons, and for Reformation, Order, and Correction of the same, and of all Errors, Heresies, Schisms, etc. sh●ll for ever by authority of this present Parliament, be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. And it was said, That H. 8. and Ed. 6. did give Power by their Commissions to divers, to impose Mulcts, etc. in Ecclesiastical Causes, etc. and upon this he concludes, That this having been used before 1 Eliz. this is given to Queen Eliz. and her Successors. Also inasmuch as by 2 H. 4. and 2 H. 7. the Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical may Fine and Imprison in particular Causes, therefore Power to Fine and Imprison in all Ecclesiastical Causes is given to the King: And this he said he uttered, that it might be answered.  
1. To which, I for a time gave this Answer, That it was good for the Weal-public that the Judges at the Common-Law should interpret the Statutes within this Realm.  
2. It was said by me, That before the Statute of 1 Eliz. no Ecclesiastical Judge may impose a Fine, or Imprison for any Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Offence, unless there be Authority by Act of Parliament: And this was so affirmed by all the Justices.  
Vide my Book of Precedents, the Commission at large to Cromwell to be Vicegerent.  
Afterwards in this very Term the Privy-Council sent for the Justices of the Common-Pleas only, and there the Reasons of the said Resolution were largely debated, and strong Opposition made hy Egerton Lord Chancellor, but the Justices of the Common-Pleas remained constant in their Resolution: Afterward the Council sent for the chief Justice of the King's Bench, Justice Williams, Justice Crook, Chief Baron Ta●field, Snig, Althan, and Bromly, who were not acquainted with the Reasons of the said Rule of the Common-Pleas, nor knew why they came before the Council; And hearing the Lord Chancellor affirm, That the High-Commissioners have always by the Act 1 Eliz. imposed Fines and Imprisonments for exorbitant Crimes, (without any Conference with us, or among then selves, or hearing the matter debated,) were of Opinion with us: And after at another day this same Term, the said Judges of the King's Bench, Barons of the Exchequer, and Justice Fenner and Yeluerton, who were omitted before, and We the Justices of the Common-Bench were commanded to attend the Council. And being all assembled, We of the Common-Pleas were commanded to retire, and then the King demanded their Opinions in certain Points touching the High-Commission, wherein they unanimously agreeing, We, viz. Coke, Walmesly, Warberton, and Foster, were called before the King, Prince and Council, where the King declared, That by the Advice of his Council, and the Justices of the King's Bench and Barons, he will reform the High-Commission in divers Points, which after he will have to be obeyed in all Points.  
Whereupon I said to the King, That it was grievous to Us, his Majesty's Justices of the Bench, to be severed from our Brethren, but more grievous, that they differed from us in Opinion, without hearing one another, especially since in what we have done in Sir William Chancies Case, and others the like concerning the Power of the High-Commissioners, was done judicially in open Court, upon argument at the Bar and Bench. And further I said to the King, that when we the Justices of the Common-Pleas see the Commission newly reform, We will, as to that which is of Right, seek to satisfy the King's expectation; and so We departed, etc.   

Trin. 9 Jac. Regis.  
Stockdale's Case in the Court of Wards.  
The King by Letters Patents dated 9 April, the ninth year of his Reign, did Grant to William Stockdale in these words.  
Such, and so many of the Debts, Duties, Arrearages, and Sums of Money being of Record in our Court of Exchequer, Court of Wards, Dutchy-Court, or within any Court or Courts, etc. in any year, or several years, from the last year of the Reign of H. 8. to the 13th. year of Our Dear Sister, as shall amount to the sum of 1000 l. To have, tak●, levy, etc. the said Debts, etc. to the said William Stockdale his Executors, etc.  
And in this Case divers Points were resolved:  
1. That the said Grant of the King is void for ●he incertainty, for thereby no Debt in certain can pass: As if the King have an 100 Acres of Land in D. and he Grants to a Man 20 Acres of the Lands in D. without describing them by the Rent, Occupation, or Name, etc. this Grant is void.  
2. When the Patentee Claims by force of this word Arreragia.  
It was resolved clearly, That he shall not have Arrearages of Rents, Reliefs, and mean Rates of Lands, etc. in the Court of Wards, etc. if the Patent go not further.  
But the Proviso in the end of the Patent, viz. Provided, that the said William Stockdale shall take no benefit by any means of Arrearages of any Rents, etc. until Sir Patrick Murrey and others be paid the sum of 1000 l. etc. hath well explained what Arrearages the King intended: But clearly mean Rates are not within the words, for they are the Profits of Demesne Land.   

Trin. 9 Jacobi Regis.  
Divers men playing at Bowls at great Marlowe in Kent, two of them fell out; and a third man, who had not any quarrel, in revenge of his Friend, struck the other with a Bowl, of which he died: This was held Manslaughter, because it happened upon a sudden motion.  
In the same Term a special Verdict divers years passed found in the County of Hertford, which was, That two Boys fight together, one was seratched in the Face, and bled very much at the Nose, and so he run three quarters of a Mile to his Father, who seeing his Son so abused, he took a Cudgel and run to the place where the other Boy was, and struck him upon the Head, upon which he died. And this was held but Manslaughter, for the Passion of the Father was continued, and no time to judge it in Law Malice prepense: And this Case was moved ad mensam, etc.   

Mich. 9 Jac. Regis.  
Memorandum upon Thursday in this Term, a High Commission in Causes Ecclesiastical was published in the Archbishop's great Chamber at Lambeth, in which I, with the Chief Justice, Chief Baron, Justice William's, Justice Crook, Baron Altham, and Baron Bromly were named Commissioners among all the Lord of the Council, divers Bishops, Attorney and Solicitor, and divers Deans and Doctors in the Cannon and Civil Laws: And I was commanded to sit by force of the said Commission, which I refused for three Causes.  
1. Because neither I nor any of my Brethren of the Common-Pleas, were acquainted with it.  
2. Because I did not know what was contained in the new Commission; and no Judge can execute any Commission with a good Conscience, without knowledge; for Tantum sibi est permissum, quantum est Commissum.  
3. That there was not any necessity of my sitting, who understood nothing of it, so long as the other Judges, whose advice had been had in this new Commission, were there.  
4. That I have endeavoured to inform myself of it, by a Copy from the Rolls, but it was not enroled.  
5. None can sit by force of any Commission, till he hath taken the Oath of Supremacy according to 1 Eliz. and if I may hear the Commission read, and have a Copy to advise upon, I will either sit, or show cause to the contrary. The Lord Treasurer persuaded me to si●, but I utterly refused it, and the rest seemed to incline. Then the Commission was openly read, containing divers Points against the Laws and Statutes of England: At hearing of which, all the Judges rejoiced they sat not by it. Then the Archbishop made an Oration; during all which, as the reading of the Commission, I stood, and would not sit; and so by my Example, did the rest of the Judges. And so the Archbishop appointed the great Chamber at Lambeth in Winter, and the Hall in Summer; and every Thursday in the Term at two a clock Afnoon, and in the Forenoon one Sermon.   

Mich. 9 Jacob. Regis.  
In this Term, the Issue, in an Information upon the 〈◊〉 2 H. 6. 15. was tried at the Bar; and upon Evidenc● upon the words of the Statute, which are, That ev●●y person that sets or fastens in the Thames, any Nets or En●i●●s called Trincks, or any other N●ts, to any ●●sts, etc. to stand continually day and night, forfeits to ●he King 100 s. for every time, etc. And the Defendants having set and fastened Nets called Trincks in the Thames, etc. to Boats, day and night, as long as the Tide served, and nor continually.  
The Question was, If this was within the Statute; and it was clearly Resolved, That it was within the Statute; for the Nets called Trinks cannot stand longer than the Tide serve; and for this the word continually shall be taken for so long as they may stand to take Fish; for lex non intendit aliquid impossibile.   

Mich. 9 Jacob. Regis.  
Shulters' Case in the Star-Chamber.  
The Case was such; John Shulter of Wisbich, of the age of 115 years, had Issue John his eldest Son, and others, viz. Christopher, Richard, etc. and being seized of Land in Fee o● 100 Marks, per annum, value, his eldest Son being dead, and his Grandchild John with●n age, he gave direction for a Lease to be made of a Farm called Roushal, to Christopher during the minority of his Grandchild, rendering the ancient Rent, with power of Revocation, and of Lands in Yatesbury to Richard in the same manner; and the same time Chr●stopher and Richard, by the Covin of one Woodruff a Serivener, 25 Eliz. drew two Leases to Christopher and Richard for 51 years, rendering 4 d. per annum, and without any power of Revocation; John Shulter the Grandfather being blind with age, and Woodruff telling him they were according to his direction. And thereupon John Shulter th● Grandfather sealed and delivered them. And it was resolved by the Lord Ellesmere Chancellor, and two Chief Justies, That the said Indentures could not bind the said John Shulter, because he was blind: and the effect was declared to him other than in truth it was. I● fully agreed with Mansers' Case, in the second part of my Reports, fol. 4.   

Mich. 9 Jacobi Regis.  
Sir Anthony Ashley's Case.  
The Case was this; Sir James Creyton had bought a pretended Right of and in the Manor of giddy and Millicent, and divers o●her Lands, of which Sir Anthony had long possession: Upon which, divers Motions were made concerning Fines, acknowledged to be stayed, etc. in the Common-Bench; and Sir James not prevailing in it, entered into a wicked Conspiracy, with several other Defendants in the Cause, to accuse the said Sir Anthony of some Capital Crimes, whereby he should forfeit all his Lands, Goods, and Chattels, which they should share amongst them; and in the end Henry Smith, formerly a Servant to Sir Anthony, was suborned to accuse the said Sir Anthony, of the Mu●ther of William Rice, late Husband of Mary Rice, one of the Defendants, which William was dead 18 years before; and Smith was to have 500 l. for his pains, to have a place procured him in the King's Guard in Ordinary, a Prote●tion also from the King against his Creditors, and a General Pardon. Of all which, Smith would have assurance, before he would make any Accusation of the said Sir Anthony: Whereupon Articles in Writing were drawn, engrossed and sealed between Sir James Creyton of the one part, and John Cantrel, Servant to Hunnings, by Smith's Consent, and to his use, on the other part: By which Sir Ja●es Covenanted, that the said Cantrel, and his Heirs, after the Conviction and Attainder of Sir Anthony, shall have a sixth part of his Manors, etc. In consideration whereof, Cantrel Covenanted, that he should procure Witnesses, to Convict the Plaintiff of Murder, or other Capital Crimes, etc. Which Articles were sealed 16 of Feb. 7 Jac. And for the performance of the said Articles, Sir James gave Bond of 8000 l. to Cantrel. Within two days after, Smith counterfeits himself sick, and then pretending to disburden his Conscience, reveals the said Murder, and accused himself for poisoning the said William Rice, by the said Sir Anthony's Command; so that he himself was Principal. Upon this Sir James procures Mary Rice, the Widow of the said William Rice, to prefer a Petition to the King, importing the Accusation aforesaid: Which Petition, the King referred to the Chief Justice of the Kings-Bench, who, after full Examination, certified the King, that he found a false Conspiracy, to indict Sir Anthony, without any just ground, and certified also the effect of the Articles: Upon which the King, by Advice of the Privy-Councel, thought the matter fit to be sentenced in the Star-Chamber; Which in the same Term, upon ordinary proceeding, was heard by six days: And it was objected by the Defendants Council, That the Bill, upon the said Conspiracy, did not lie; and that it would be dangerous to maintain it; for it will deter men to prosecute against great Offenders, whereby they will pass unpunished: And by the Law, Conspiracy lies where a man is indicted, and legitimo modo acquietus; but here he was never indicted, etc.  
But to this, it was Answered, and Resolved, by the Lord Chancellor, the two Chief Justices, and all the Court, That in this Case, the Bill was maintainable, though the Party accused was not indicted and acquitted before, as it was Resolved in this Court, Hill. 8. Jac. in Poulter's Case. Besides, be Sir Anthony guilty or no, the Defendants are punishable, for promising Bribes and Rewards to Smith, to accuse the Plaintiff, and the Articles to share Sir A●thonies Estate after Attainder: And there is a great Indignity offered to the King, in assuming to Covenant, that the King shall protect or pardon, or that any man's Estate may be shared before Attainder.  
And it appeared by many Witnesses, that William Rice died not of any poisoning, but of a horrible Disease got by his dissolute life, which with Reverence cannot be spoken.  
And in this Case, it was Resolved, That if Felony be done, and one hath suspicion upon probable matter, that another is guilty of it, he may arrest the party so suspected, to bring him to Justice. But in this Case, three things are to be observed:  
1. That a Felony be done.  
2. That he that doth arrest, hath suspicion upon probable cause.  
3. That he himself, who hath the suspicion, arrest the party.  
Resolved also, That if Felony be done, and common fame and noise is, that one hath committed it, this is good cause for him that knows of it to arrest the party: and with this agrees the Book, 2 H. 5. 15, 16. 15 H. 7. 5. 20 H. 7. 12. 21 H. 7. 28. 7 Ed. 4. 20. 8 Ed. 4. 27. 11 Ed. 4. 4. 6. 17 Ed. 4. 5. 6. 20 Ed. 4 6. B. 7 H. 4. 25. 27 H. 8. 23. 26 H. 8 9 7 Eliz. Dy. 226.   

Hill. 9 Jac. Regis.  
In this Term, the Attorney and Solicitor consulted▪ with me, if at this day, upon Conviction of an Heretic before the Ordinary, the Writ de Haeretico combunendo lieth; and it seems to be clear that it doth not: for the Reasons and Authorities that I have reported, Trin. 9 Jacob. before: But after, they consulting with Fleming Chief Justice, Tanfield Chief Baron, and Williams and Crook: And they, upon the Report of Dr. Cousins, mentioned in my said Report, and some Precedents in Queen Elizabeth's time, they certified the King, that the said Writ lieth; but that the most sure way was to convict the Heretic before the High Commissioners.   

Pasch. 10 Jac. Regis.  
The Lord Vaux his Case.  
In this Term, the Lord Vaux was indicted of a Praemunire in the Kings-Bench, upon the New Statute, for refusing the Oath of Allegiance: upon his Arraignment, he prayed he might be tried per Pares. But i● was Resolved, That he shall not; for that Magna Charta, cap. 29. Nec super cum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, is only to be understood of Treasons, Misprision of Treason, Petit Treason, and Felony, and their Accessaries, etc. But Praemunire is but a contempt, and Pardon of all Contempts pardons it. Whereupon the Lord Vaux confessed the Indictment, Vide Lamb, Justice d●l Peace, 520, Dallisons Report accordingly. Vide Stamford, etc.   

Trin. 10 Jacob. Regis.  
Countess of Shrewsbury's Case.  
In this Term, before a select Council at York-house, the Countess of Shrewsbury (Wife of Gilbert Earl of Shrewsbury) than Prisoner in the Tower, was brought, and by the King's Attorney and Solicitor was charged with a high Contempt of dangerous consequence; declaring, That the Lady Arbella, being of the Blood-Royal, had married 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 herself 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 environed 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 Council 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 Privilege of Nobility, viz. to answer, when Judicially called before her Peers: such Privilege 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 Council, as a high contempt, etc. 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. Wh●ther the Refusals aforesaid were Offences in Law, against the King, his Crown, and Dignity.  
2. What Proceeding this is; and if justifiable by Precedent 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 enterprise dangerous Attempts.  
The Master of the Rolls said, the Nobility in this Case, had no more privilege 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 Privileges, which the Law of England attributes to Nobility.  
1. If a Baron Viscount, Earl, etc. be Plaintiff in any Action, and the Defendant will plead, that the Plaintiff is not a Baron, etc. this shall be tried only by the Record in Chancery, which imports by its self solid truth.  
2. Their Persons have many Privileges in Law.  
1. At a Subject's Suit they shall not be arrested.  
2. Their Bodies are not subject to Torture, in causa criminis ●aesae Majestatis.  
3. They are not to be sworn in Assizes, Juries, or Inquests.  
4. It is Felony in any Servant of the King, named in the Checquer Roll, to compass or intent to kill any Lord of Parliament, or of the King's Council.  
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 Tried in case of Treason, Felony, or Misprision of them, but by those that are Nobles and Peers.  
8. In Trial of a Peer, the Lords of Parliament shall not swear, but give their Judgement, 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 Privileges 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 Ancient Oath of Allegiance: And the Law hath greater account to a Nobleman's Allegiance, than one of the Commons, because the breach of their Allegiance is more dangerous; for Corruptio optimorum est pessima.  
2. As to the second Point, viz. concerning the manner of Proceed.  
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 Council, 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 Proceed 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 Precedent of the Earl of Essex, against whom such Proceed 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 King's 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 Clerk, who read the Panel, he was sworn of the Grand Inquest; and being amongst them of the Grand Inquest (though not returned) as one of them, of his malice, and upon his own knowledge, as he pretended, indicted 17 honest men upon divers penal Laws: Some of the Justices looking over the Bills, and seeing so many honest men indicted, as they supposed, maliciously, demanded what Evidence they had to find the said Bills; and they answered, By the Testimony and Cognizance of one of themselves, viz. Robert Scarlet: And upon Examination it appeared, that the said Robert Scarlet was not returned, but had procured himself to be sworn by Confederacy, as aforesaid: For which Offence, he was indicted at the Summer Assizes following, 10 I c. held at Bu●y, upon the Statute 11 H. 4. c. 9 And he pleaded not guilty: All the especial Matter aforesaid being proved, he was found guilty by a substantial Jury. And in this Case, divers Points were considered;  
1. Whether Justices of Assize have power to punish this offence or no? And it was held affirmatively, scil. by force of their Commission of Oyer and Terminer. And if the Act be indefinite, or general, and doth not give Jurisdiction to any Courts in special, the general words of Commission of Oyer and Terminer extends to it.  
Vide 7 Eliz. Dyer. Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer, may inquire of Offences against Penal Statutes, unless the Statute appoint them to be determined in any Court of Record. And the Opinion there, that in any Courts of Record, are restrained to the four ordinary Courts at Westminster, is not held for Law; as the Statute 5 Ed. 6. 14. against Forestallers, etc. gives the Penalty to be recovered in any Court of Record: And Justices of Assize, in regard of their Commission of Oyer and Terminer, have always enquired thereof: So the 33 H. 8. 9 of unlawful Games: And of Woods, 35 H. 8. c. 17. and many others.  
2. The second consideration was upon the Statute, 11 H. 4. cap. 9 and it was held, that Robert Scarlet was an Offender within that Statute; because knowing he was not returned of the Grand Inquest, procured himself, by false Conspiracy, to be sworn as aforesaid.  
3. The third Consideration was had of 3 H. 8. 10. which altars the Act of the 11 H. 4. in part, as to denomination: But in regard, that still by that Act none can be of any Grand Inquest, but by Return of the Sheriff: And for this the Act 3 H. 8. 10. hath not altered the Law, as to the Offence of Robert Scarlet.  
4. The said Act 11 H. 4. hath made a new Law, viz. That any Indictment found against the said Act shall be void: So that this may draw in Question, all the Indictments found at the same Session's. And for this Judgement was given, that he should be fined and imprisoned.   

Trin. 10 Jac. Regis.  
Baker and Hall's Case.  
Note, Upon Consideration of the Statute, 3 H. 7. c. 14. It was Resolved by Coke, Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas; Yeluerton, Williams, Snig, and others, That whereas it is provided, that what person soever takes a Woman so against her Will, etc. in respect of this Word (So) which hath relation to the Preamble: It was agreed by all, that if the Wife hath nothing, nor is Heir apparent, it is out of the Statute: for i● would not have been so curious in describing the Person, and all in vain. And Clergy is taken away by the 38 Eliz. cap. 9 for Principals or Procurers before. Vide Stamf. so. 37. b. and so was the Law taken, 3 & 4 P. & M. Vide Lamb 252. Note, Receivers of the Woman are Principals; but not the Receivers of them who took the Woman. Vide Lamb. bid.  
Note, I saw a Report in Queen Mary's time, upon the 50 Ed. 3. cap. 5. and 1 R. 2. cap. 15. concerning arresting Priests in Holy Church, that the said Statutes are but in affirmance of the Common-Law; and 'tis there held, that eundo, redeundo, morando, for to celebrate Divine Service, the Priest ought not to be arrested, nor any who aid him in it; and that the Party grieved, may have an Action upon the Statute, 50 Ed. 3. For though an Act doth not give an Action, yet Action lieth upon it, 7 H. 6. 30. etc. 2 H. 5. and 4 Ed. 4. 37. Vide Register in breve super Stat.  
Note, If a man be convicted, or hath Judgement of Death for Felony, he shall never answer by the Common Law, to any Felony done before the Attainder, so long as the Attainder remains in force: Vide 8 Eliz. c. 4. 18 Eliz. 7. And at this day, if a man be adjudged to be hanged, and hath his Pardon he shall never answer to any Felony before; for he cannot have two Judgements to be hanged. Aliter, If the first Attainder by Error be reversed. Vide 10 H. 4. Coro●. 227. Case, del Appeal, etc.  
A man seized of a Manor, to which he hath stray appendent by Prescription, etc. by his Bayley he seizeth an Ox as a Stray in the Manor, and makes Proclamation according to Law, and within the Year and Day, let's the Manor with all Royalties, etc. And Dy●r Sergeant moved the Court, who should have the Stray: And Brown Justice, was of Opinion, that the L●ssor should have it. But all the Justices were against him, that the Lessee shall have it, because the property of the Stray is not altered before the Year and Day; and till then, the Lord or the Manor hath but the custody of it. In Dr. Hutchinson's Case, Parson of Kenn in Devonshire, It was Resolved, per totam Curiam, That if any shall receive or take Money, Fee, Reward, or other Profit, for any Presentation to a Benefice with Cure; although in truth, he which is presented be not knowing of it: yet the Presentation, Admission, and Induction, are void, per expressa verba Statuti, 31 H. 8. cap. 6. and the King shall have the Presentation hac vice: But if the Presence be not cognizant of the Corruption, than he shall not be within the Clause of Disability in the same Statute: and so it was Resolved by all the Justices in Fleetstreet, Mich. 8. Jac. so. 7. vide verba statuti.   

Hugh Manneyes Case.  
In an Information in the Exchequer against Hugh Manney Esque the Father, and Hugh Manney the Son, for Intrusion and cutting a great number of Trees in Merion●th shire, the Defendants plead not guilty; and one Rowland ap Eliza produced as a Witness for the King, deposed upon his Oath, that Hugh the Father and Son joined in sale of the said Trees, and commanded the Vendees to cut them down: The Jury found upon this great Damages for the King: and Judgement was given, and Execution had of a great part.  
Hugh Manney the Father exhibited a Bill in the Star-Chamber at Common-Law, against Rowland ap Eliza, and assigns the Perjury in this; That the said Hugh the Father, did never join in Sale, nor command the Vendees to cut the Trees; and Rowland ap Eliza was convict 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 virtue of a diem clausit extremum, after the death of Humphrey Willward, it was found, that the said Humphrey died seized of a Message, 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 Knight's Service. John Willward died within age, and by Inquisition in Middlesex, 8 Jun. Anno Jac. by virtue of a Writ of Deveneront, after the said John's death, it was found, that John died seized in Ward to the King; and that the said Message and Lands, at the time of the said John's death; were holden of the Dean of Paul's, as of his Manor 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 fi●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 died, the Office found by force of the Diem clausit extremum, after Humphries death, whereby the King was entitled to the Guardianship of John, hath taken its effect, and is executed, and does remain as Evidence for the King after John's death, but yet is not traversable; for it is traversable during the time it remains in force only, 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 only the Lands and Tenements, quod deveneront, etc. And thus it was Resolved nono Jacobi, in the Court of Wards, in the Case of Dune Lewis   

Award of Capias U●lagatum, by Justices of the Peace.  
In this same Term, the Opinion of all the Court of Common-Pleus was, That if one be outlawed 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 P●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 Councillor 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 Council, 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 mere 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 Precedents, 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 noc●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 Philip's sued Tomlinson in the Admiralty, supposing the Goods to have been received in Foreign 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 thr●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 Proceed 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 S●ats in the Church.  
Corven did Libel against Pym for a Seat in a Church in D●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 Manor, 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, i● 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 Souls, 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 Armour, and Pennons, with her Husband Sir Hugh Wick his Arms, and a Sword, in a Chapel where he was buried; and the Parson claimed them as Oblations: And it is there 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, etc. 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. Cassan●us, sol. 13. Co●cl. 29. Action dat si aliquis arma in aliquo loco posita deleat aut abrasit, etc. 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 Huss●y, and Katherine 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 Shrews buries Case.  
Sir Humphrey Winch, Sir James Ley, Sir Anthony St. Leger, and Sir James Hulles●on, certified the Lords of the Council, by Command from them, by Letters dated 28. Martii, 1612. of the Claim of Gilbert Earl of Shrewesbury to the Earldom 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 Cousin, John Earl of Shrewsbury, in consideration of his Loyal Services in the City and County of Waterford, pro se, etc. 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, etc. of Dungarvan to the said Earl and the Heirs-males of his Body, To hold, etc. of the King and his Heirs by Homage and Fealty, and by the Service of being his Majesty's 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, etc. shall enjoy in right of his Crown of England, all Honours, Manors, Castles, etc. and all and singular possessions, etc. as well Spiritual as Temporal, which the said George Earl of Shrewesbury and Waterford, or any other Persons had to his Use, etc. King Henry the 8th. by his Letters Patents dated 29th. of his Reign, reciting the said Statute, Nos praemissa Considerantes, etc. did Grant to the said Earl and his Heirs the Abbey of Rufford with the Lands thereunto, etc. in the County of Nottingham, and the Lordship of Rotheram in the County of York, the Abbeys of Chestersteld, Shirbrook, and Glossa●dale in Derbyshire, with divers other Lands, etc. 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 Honour be lost and forfeited, he being a Peer of both Realms, and refiding here in England.  
2. Whether by the Act Des absent●es, 28 H. 8. the Title of Dignity of Earl of Waterford be taken from the said Earl as well as the Land, etc.  
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 certify their Opinions; which Case being argued by Council 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 fi●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 Absente●s, does not only take away the Possessions given him at his Creation, but also the Dignity itself: for though one may have a Dignity without Possession, yet is it very inconvenient, that Dignity should be clothed with Poverty: and so it was resolved in the Lord Ogles Case, in Edw. 6. Reign; as the Baron of Burleigh 35 El●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 livelihood to support the said Name, Estate, and Dignity, etc. Therefore the King, by Advice of his Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, etc. Enacteth, etc. 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, Virtue, 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 Digni●y, therefore the Act doth not extend to it. 'Tis 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 Nevil's 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 King's 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 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: (Yeluerton and Williams Justices, being dead since last Term) did deliver their Opinions to the Lord Chancellor; That the Precedents of each Court are sufficient Warrant for their Proceed 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 tried, Verdicts and Judgements 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 Council 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 certify 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 Solicitor General, were assembled two days at Sergeant's Inn: And they considered not only 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. Entitled, 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 King's Lieutenant and Council there first certify the King, under the Great Seal of that Land, the causes, etc. and such causes, etc. affirmed by the King and his Council, to be good and expedient for the Land, and his Licence thereupon, etc. A Parliament to be holden after the former before, etc. And any Parliament holden contrary etc. 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 only 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 Queen's Majesty, her Heirs and Successors. Secondly, where Pounings' Act says the King's Lieutenant and Council, 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 Council, to be good and expedient for the Land, etc. Whether the King may make any change or alteration of the Causes, etc. which shall be transmitted hither from the Lieutenant and Council 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 d●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, etc.  
5. A fifth Doubt arose from the same words; Whether the Lieutenant and Council of Ireland, after the Parliament begun, and pendente Parliamento, may upon debate there transmit any other Considerations, etc. 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, aught to be kept in the Chancery in England, and not be remanded.  
2. I● they be affirmed, they must be transcribed under the Great Se●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 gins, 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 ●os, quia non mittunt milites ad Parliamentum: sed personae co●um sunt subjecti Regis, sicut inhabitants 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. Blow. Comment. 368. 13 Eliz. Dyer 35. 2 Eliz. Dyer 366. Calvin's Case, 7th of my Reports 226. 14 Ed. 3. 184. A Prebend in England, made Bishop of Dublin in Ireland, his Prebendary is vo●d. See the Statute of Ireland, etc. 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 dies, having Issue divers Daughters, the King confer the Dignity to him who marries any of them, as hath been done in divers Cases, viz. In the case of the Lord Cromwell, who had Issue divers Daughters: And the King did confer the Dignity upon Burchier, who married the youngest Daughter, and he was called Cromwell; and so in other Cases.  
Note, (by Linwood) it appears by the Canon's Ecclesiastic, none may exercise Ecclesiastic 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 Layman, may execute Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.  
No Ecclesiastical may cite a Churchwarden 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 dies; though this is not given as a Childs full Portion, yet it shall be sufficient for him: But if the Father by Writing declare, that it is but part of a Child's portion, than he shall have a full Child's 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 dies, all his Debts being paid; If the Widow enters generally, and converts the profits 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.   

H●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 buried them again: And it was Resolved by the Justices at Sergeant's Inn 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 King's 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 allege 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, than 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 show the Causes of Calling the Parliament; and in Conclusion of the Oration, the Commons are commanded to choose a Speaker; which after 2 or 3 days they present, where He makes an Oration, disabling himself, etc.  
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 engrossed in a Bill.  
And if a Bill pass the Commons House, and the Lords amend it, they do as before show the Line, etc. and after the Amendments are engrossed, with particular References, and the Bill sent down to the Commons, the Amendments are road three times; and so e●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 public Bills.  
In the Commons House, those that are for the New Bill (if there be a Question of Voices) 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 Voices.  
In both Houses, he that stands up first to speak, shall speak first without difference of Persons.  
When a Bill is engrossed at the third Reading, it may be amended in the same House in matter of substance, ● fortiori, the Error of the Clerk in the engrossing may be amended, etc.   

P●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, etc. 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 departed the Realm in a certain time, unless they take a Billet under the said Registers Hand. Which Petition, the Lords of the Council referred to Me, by their Letters of the 13 Novemb. 1613. to consider what the Law is in that behalf, etc. And upon Conference with the Justices of the Common-Pleas, and other Justices and Barons at Sergeant's Inn 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 died Testate or Intestate, It was Resolved by my Lord Chancellor, and myself, 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 Registering of Birthday's, and the time of death, etc. So Mich. 19 Jac. To make a New Office in the Kings-Bench only for making Lattitats, was resolved void. So Littleton's Suit, to name an Officer to be a Gen. Reg. etc. 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 numbering of Strangers by a private man, would in●er a Terror, 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 Council, 37 Eliz. To write Letters to the Mayors, Bailiffs, etc. of every City, Borough, etc. where any strangers are resident, to certify how many, and of what quality, etc. which they are to know, in respect of their Inhabitants, etc. and this may be done without any Writing; which being shown 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 certify the number of Strangers, Artificers, etc. within London and Suburbs, according to the Statutes. See Candish Case, 29 Eliz.  
13 Eliz. A Grant of an Office to Thomas Kniv●t, to examine his Majesty's Auditors, and Clerks of the Pipe, etc. 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, etc. of the Queen's Officers for 8 years; Resolved to be void.  
Sub-poena's in Chancery, belonged anciently 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 Inns did belong to the Justice of Peace; the same King granted it to a particular man: So likewise the taking of Depositions, etc.  
The Office of Alneger, granted by the King to Simon Darlington, and the Fees limited. The Drawing, Engrossing, 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 Registering all manner of Assurances and Policies, etc. granted to Richard Gandler, Gent. with such Fees, as the Lord Mayor and others should rate, and a Restraint to others, etc. The Office of writing Tallies, and Counter-Tallies, granted to Sir Vincent Skinner. The Office of engrossing Patents to the Great Seal, with increase 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 Scandal 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, acqui●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 King's Learned Council.  
And first they Resolved, That this Question must be determined by the Precedents 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 Judgement 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 Precedents only were produced, viz. One in Hillary Term, 39 Eliz. Gibson Plaintiff, and Griffith and others Defendants, for a Riot; where at Hearing, 8 being present, 4 gave Judgement, that the Defendants were guilty, and 4 ● contra, and no Sentence of Condemnation was ever entered, 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, etc. where 4 finding the Defendants guilty of Forgery, and 4 only of Misdemeanour, whereof the Lord Chancellor was one, Sentence was entered according to the Chancellor's Voice; and no other Precedent 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 married Edw. the 4th Sister, solicited the King to join in War with him against the French King: whereto he easily consented, to be revenged of him for aiding the Earl of Warwick, etc. 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 courtesy to them, they very freely yielded to. Amongst the rest, there was a Rich Widow, of whom the King merrily 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 published, That he would by their open Hands, measure their Benevolent Hearts. By this means he collected great S●ms of Money, but with some grudge, 11 H. 7. ca 20. An Act was made for levying that Benevolence. 20 H. 7. A Commission to levy what was granted, 11 H. 7.  
15 H 8. A Commission under the Great Seal, called A Commission of Anticipation. 16 H. 8. For War with Fra●ce, a Benevolence levied, with great Curses against the Council; for it was for a sixth part of the value in Money or Plate, against the Subject's goodwill. 26 H. 8. Another Benevolence levied by Commission against the Subjects Will▪ But if the Subjects will of their free Will give the King any Moneys, this is not prohibited by any Stature: This is proved by the 11 H. 7. c. 18.  
Feb. Anno 40 Eliz. Resolved by all the Justices and Barons, That a free Grant to the Queen, without coercion, is lawful, and accordingly they granted the Queen. Quod not a hene; Quia, etc.   

Pasch. 12 Jac. Regis.  
The Case of Dungannon in Ireland, being a New Corporation, was thus: The King Constituted the Town of Dungannon to be a Free Borough; Et ulterius volumus, etc. quod Inhabitant●s Villae praedictae sint unum corpus corporatum per nomen Praepositio, 12 Burgensium & Communi●atis Dungannon, etc. Et quod ipsi praedicti Praepositi & Burgenses & successores sui habeant potestaten eligendi duos Burgenses, etc. ad Parl. etc. And the Doubt was, If this Grant of Election of Burgesses of Parliament were good, because it was granted but to parcel of the body, viz. the Provost and Burgesses, and not to the Commonalty. And the Chief Baron thought this being but a Nomination, it was sufficient to make the Provost and Burgesses only to have it; but this was denied by all Justices and Barons: For the power to Elect Burgesses, is an Inheritance which the Provost and Burgesses are not capable of, and aught to be vested in the entire Corporation. And so it was Resolved by all, That such a Grant made by the King should be void; for the Inhabitants have not Capacity to take an Inheritance; as in 15 Ed. 4. to have Common. And Littleton saith in his Chapter of Burgages, That the Burroughs which send Burgesses to Parliament, were the most ancient and chief Cities, etc. So that it shall be intended, that at first they were incorporate. Also, Plus valet saepenumero vulgaris consuetudo, quam regalis concessio.  
But it was Resolved, by H●bbard, Tanfield, Altham, Wi●th, Nicols, and Haughton, that Quod Volumus was a good word of Grant, as Pigot was of Opinion, 21. Edw. 4. and this shall be employed a Grant to all the Corporation, that the Provost and Burgesses shall Elect, etc. And regularly, when the Grant is indefinite, viz. First, Concedimus, an incertain thing, & ulterius volumus quod Praepositus & Burgenses & Successores sui eligerint. This shall be within the first Concedimus to all the Body. But the Chief Justice of England and Dodderidge thought the contrary.  
Note, All the New Corporations were of the same Form, and in none of them is any Clause to Elect New Burgesses; so that when the modern Burgesses die, the power to Elect Burgesses is gone.   

Mich. 12 Jacobi Regis.  
A Question was moved to the Chief Baron and Justices of Sergeant's Inn in Chancery-Lane; That if a Felon be convict, either by Verdict or Confession, if immediately by his Conviction his Goods and Chattels be forfoited: And it was said, That if the Felon, after Conviction, pray his Clergy, he then shall clearly forfeit his Goods and Chattels; for Quodam modo, this is a Flight; because refusing the Common-Law, he flies to Privilege of Holy Church. But it was Resolved by the chief Baron and Justices, That immediately by his Conviction, his Goods and Chattels are forfeited, and the praying of his Clergy is not any Forfeiture: and with this agrees Stamf. sol. 192. a. and also 1 R. 3. And of the same Opinion was the Chief Justice and Justices of Sergeant's Inn in Fleetstreet. Vid. Trin. 41 Eliz. 332.   

Mich. 12 Jacobi Regis.  
Anne Hungate's Case, in Cam. Stell.  
In this Term a great Case was heard and determined in the Star-Chamber, between Sir Henry Day, (who died pendent the Bill) and Anne his Wife, and Nicholas Bedingfield Esque and Elizabeth his Wife Plaintiffs: And Anne Hungate Widow, Sir Robert Wind, Henry Branthwait Esque Thomas Townesend Esq Thomas Blomfield Gent. and George Min Gent, Defendants. The Case was thus: Henry Hoogan Esq; being seized of the Manor of hamond's, and of divers Lands of East-Bradenham, etc. in Norfolk in Fee; by Deed enfeoffed them in the use of the said Anne, who took Hungate to Husband, and had Issue by him a Son and a Daughter, and he died. Anne obtained the Wardship of the Son; and after, when the Son was of the Age of 21 years, wanting only 6 Weeks, by Dedimus potestatem, directed to Sir Robert Win●e, Henry Branthwayt then Feodary, and Thomas Townesend, they took Cognizance of a Fine of the said Son, being of the Age aforesaid, and sick: And the Bill charged them all with Practice, in procuring the said Son to acknowledge the said Fine, they knowing him under Age, and in Wardship as aforesaid; but there was no practice used by any of the Defendants, but the Son of his own goodwill levied it: And by Indenture, the use was limited to his Mother the said Anne and her Heirs, with power of Revocation by the Son, upon tender of 10 s. And this was in consideration, that the Mother had paid the Debts of his Father, which were very great, and had obtained the Wardship of him, and to confirm her Jointure: And that his Mother, if she pleased, might give it to his Brother, by Hungate, who was but of half-bloud. And it appeared, the Mother knew the Son to be within Age, but the commissioners were ignorant of it; nor did they send for the Church-Book, in which his Age did appear, being in the same Parish. And the Plaintiffs Council prayed, that the Defendants should be punished for their Misdemeanour; And that the Women Plaintiffs, who were Cousins, etc. Heirs to the said Son of the entire blood, should be disinherited by the said Fine.  
To which it was Resolved, by the two Chief Justices, and chief Baron, That there was not any Crime punishable by the Law in this Case; for the Judges of the Law, and of this Court, may punish Offences, etc. but they cannot create Offences: nor do as Hannibal did, to make his Way over the Alps, when he could find none: for Judicandum enim legibus, & ubi non est lex ibi nec est transgressio: And therefore if a Fine levied by an Infant, be not Reversed during his Minority, 'tis unavoidable in Law, because the Infant's Age is to be tried, Non testium testimonio, non juratorum veredicto, sed Judicis inspectione solummodo. F. N. B. sol. 21. And for this it was Resolved by the said Justices, That forasmuch as no Corruption and Circumvention was proved in any of the Parties, of which they may be Indicted at the Suit of the King, or punished in this Court, that the Fine shall stand: And it was not apparent to the Commissioners he was within Age, seeing he wanted but six Weeks; but if they had known it, it had been a Misdemeanour in them.  
And for this, in this Court, Mich. 24. & 25 Elliz. 15. Between William Cavendish, and Anne his Wife, one of the Coheirs of Henry Knightly, against Robert Worsley, and Katherine, another Co-Heir, and Trafford, and others, Defendants; The Case was, That Robert Worsely, and Katherine his Wife, being within Age, acknowledged a Note of a Fine, before Trafford and another of the Defendants, by Dedimus Potestatem; And by the Decree, the Commissioners knew Katherine was within Age; and therefore every one of them was Fined, but the Fine stands.  
Mich. 38 and 39 Eliz. In this Court one Alexander Gilderbrand seized of Lands in Windham, in the County of Norfolk, in Fee: one Hubbard procured one Roger to take upon him the Name of Alexander Gilderbrand, who was then beyond Sea, to acknowledge a Fine to the said Hubbard, of the said Lands; and they were Fined in this Court, and the Lands ordered to be reassured to Alexander, on pain of a greater Fine: But the Fine was not drawn off the File, nor Damages awarded to the party grieved.   

Mich. 12 Jac. Regis.  
Mansfield's Case.  
23 Eliz. In the Court of Wards the Case was this: Henry Bushly seized in Fee of Lands in Northmims, in the County of Hartford, by his Will in writing, demised the said Lands to Henry Bushly his Son in Tail, the remainder to William Bushly. And because his Son was within Age, he demised the Education of him to Thomas Harrison, whom he made his Executor. Afterward it happened, that Henry the Son became a deformed Cripple, and proved an Idiot, a Nativitate: which Idiot, by the practice of Nichols, and others, was ravished from his Guardian, and carried upon men's shoulders to an unknown place, and there kept in secret, till he had acknowledged a Fine of his Lands to one Bothome, before Justice Southcot, 9 Eliz. and by Indenture, the use of the Fine was declared to be to the use of the Cognizee and his Heirs: which Bothome 12 Eliz. conveyed the said Land to one Henry Mansfield. And 22 Eliz. the said Henry Bushy the Son, was by Inquisition found an Idiot, a Nativitate: And upon this, 33 Eliz. the Court of Wards took order for possession of the Lands. And it was moved, That though the Fine binds the Idiot; yet the Indentures are not sufficient to direct the Uses. But it war Resolved, That forasmuch as he was enabled by the Fine as to the Principle, he shall not be disabled to limit the Uses, which are but as accessary: The same is the Law of an Infant, and a Feme-Court. And the said Mansfield brought an Action of Trespass in the Common-Pleas against one Trott, Farmer of the said Lands, and the Issue was tried at the Bar; and the Deformed Idiot brought out of the Court of Wards, to be shown to the Judges of the Common-Pleas, and to the Jurors: And the Judges hearing that mansfield's Title was under the Fine levied by that Idiot, the Lord Dy●r and Court caused a Juror, by consent, to be withdrawn; and the Lord Dyer said, That the Judge who took the Fine was never worthy to take another: yet notwithstanding: all the Fine stood good.   

Mich. 12 Jac. Regis.  
Warcombe and Carrel's Case.  
20 Octob. 6 Eliz. In the Star Chamber the Case was, Edward Carrel an Apprentice of the Laws, for a great sum of money bought the Wardship of Joan, the Daughter and Heir of Warcomb, in the County of Hereford, and married her to Edw. Car●el his youngest Son: And after Hill. 5 Eliz. the said Joan fell sick; and being of the Age of 19 years, and having no Issue, Edward her Husband persuaded her, to acknowledge a Fine of her Inheritance, by which should be conveyed an Estate to the Husband and Wife in Tail, the remainder to the right Heirs of the Wife; and Cognizance was taken by Ded. Potest. directed to Sir Thomas Sanders, and one Ch●snel of Grays-Inne before Easter, divers Judges being here who might have examined her, and on Friday in Easter Week she died; but the Fine, & l'argent du Reign, was entered, as of the last Term, viz. H●llary Term 4 days before the Wife's death. The Original Writ of Covenant bore Test 15 Jan. ret. Crastin. Pur. and the Ded. Potest. 18 Jan. And James Warcombe, Cousin and Heir of Joan, complained by Bill against Edw. Carrel, for getting the said Fine by indirect Practices; and thereupon the Sentence of the Court was as followeth:  
This day a right honourable Assembly being in this Court, the matter depending in the same, between James Warcombe Esque Plaintiff, and Edw. Carrel of London Gent. Defendant, as well concerning the validity of a Fine, levied by the said Edward, and Joan his wife: which ●oan, as the Plaintiff alleadges, was under age at the time of the F●●● levied; and also for certain undue means committed by the said Edw. Carrel, in the suing out and getting the said Fine; and upon hearing all that could be alleged on both parts, the said Fine was by the Opinion of the whole Conrt, adjudged good and effectual in Law. And also no fault judged to be in the said Edward Carrel, in suing out the said Fine; but that the s●me was sued out in du● form and order of the Laws of this Realm● and this is within the Rule, Facta tenent multa quae fieri prohibentur.  
And as Carrel was not punished, though he knew his Wife within Age; so nor Hungate shall be punished, though she knew her Son so; and the rather, by reason of that ancient Verse,  

I●ges Communes sinescit Faemina, isles, M  
Clericus ●t Cultor, Judix sibi parcet et ultor.   
And by Sentence all were dismissed, etc.  
Among the Records in ●he Treasury, Inter placita etc. de Term. Sanct. Mich. 42 Ed. 3. Rot. 27. ● Cornubi●: Helena filia Hugonis Allo●, brought an Appeal of Robbery against I aw●ence Boskosleak, Rich. C●horta, Jo. Gilmin, and Joan his Wife, and others; and the Defendants plead not guilty, and were found not guilty, Nec unquamse subtraxerunte Iden praedictus Laurentius, & omnes alii, etc. cant inde quieti. El praedicta Elena pro falso appello suo committitur, etc. et super hoc praed. Laurentius & alii petunt juxta foreman Stat. quod Ju●atores inquirant quae damna, etc. Et super hoc quaesitum est à praefatis Juratoribus, etc. Quidicunt quod praed. Laurentius sustinuit ad valentiam 10 l. etc. et sic singulatim de caeteris etc. dicunt etiam quod Helena praed. non est sufficient, etc. et quod Johannes Riddel sen. & Jo. Riddel jun. etc. abettaverunt praed. Helenam, ideo ipsi etc. 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, etc. puniant appellatorem per prisonam unius Anni, etc. so that they were not Bailable: yet quia eadem Helena praegnans fuit & in periculo mortis, she was let to Bail, to have her Body 15 Mich. ad satisfaciendum praedicto Laurentio et aliis, etc. 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, Red●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, etc. 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 shall 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 Craft. Sancti Trin. 7 Ed. 3. 44. Divisione. Indictments are very well worth observing.   

Duresse per Jailer.  
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, etc.   

False Affidavits.  
In an Action su●le case, it was Resolved, per totam Curiam, That i● 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 accrue, 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 ●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. attaint. 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 Action 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 merely Ecclesiastical; yet if the Party grieved hath Damages, either by wrongful Proceed of the Judge, or M●sfeasans, or Nonfeasans, or falsity of any Minister, etc. the Party grieved may have an Action sur le c●se, and recover Damages.  
Doctor and Stud. 118, 119. Action sur le Case, lies against the Ordinary, for a wrongful Excommunication, touching any thing out of his Jurisdiction, etc. So in Fitz. 47 H. 6. 8. If an Archdeacon refuse to induct the Clerk, etc. 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 Har●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 Precedents.   

Pasch. 14 Jac. Regis.  
An Habeas Corpus to the Marshal of the Admiralty, granted in Hillary Term last passed for Haukridge, Prisoner in the custody of the said Marshal, who did return, Quaed●m causa spoliis, etc. contra Haukridge pendet indecisa pro judicio & sententia paratus, etc. 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, etc. Which the Court took to be very insufficient, and gave divers days to amend the Return, and to show 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 Weeks, always the Return was est parata, etc. And after in another Writ returnable, Craft. Ascentionis was another Return of Parata, etc. without showing cause of Delay. The Return also was insufficient, because Quaedam causa spolii civilis & maritima quae coram, etc. which is too general, for two Causes;  
1. Because (spoliis) is uncertain, and aught to be specified in some more certainty: besides, it shows 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 Lacy's 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 shown no time of the spoil: 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 Judgement is given, that one shall be hanged till he be dead; the King cannot alter the Judgement, and command that he shall be beheaded: for the Execution ought to be conform to the Judgement: 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 the Law behead his Wives for Treason: for judicandum est legibus, non exemplis.   

T●i●. 9 Jacob. Regis.  
In this Term, I moved the Justices in Sergeant's Inn in Fleetstreet, upon the Stat. 27 Jac. cap. 6. If the Justices of Peace may make a special Warrant to Constables, etc. to have the bodies of parties, who are to take the Oath according to the Statute before them: And it was Resolved by all, unâ voce, that they may; and that for two Reasons.  
1. When the Statute gave power to Justices of the Peace, to require any persons &c. to take the Oath; the Law implicit gave power to make a Warrant to have the body: for Quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceditur, et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest.  
2. It is against the Offices of the Justices, and the Authority given them by that Statute, that they shall go and seek the parties: Then I moved, if in such case the Constables may break the Houses of the Parties named in their Warrants; and it seemed to Us all that they cannot, because they are not Offenders, till they refuse to take the Oath before them, or commit some Contempt to the King.  
Note, If the person be fugitive in another County, he evades the Statute for the present; but he may be indicted for Recusancy, and the Indictment be removed into the Kings-Bench, and they may make Process against them into any County of England. Also, if they are in their Houses, the Door being shut, etc. they may be indicted before the Justices of Assize, or Quarter-S●ssions; and then after a Venire Facias, etc. by force of a Capias, their Houses may be broken by the Sheriff, 10 Eliz. cap. 2. to which the 23 Eliz. refers.  
Memorandum, Hill. 9 Jac. All the Justices of England, by the King's Command, were assembled, to consider of these two Statutes: And in the beginning of this Term they were recited and debated; and after good consideration and Conference together, It was Resolved by all, That if one be indicted for Recusancy, the Court may proceed by Process, upon the Stat. 23 Eliz. or by Proclamation, according to 28 Eliz. And that the Process upon the Indictment, and Venire Facias, and Capias, etc. and upon the Capias, the Sheriff, upon Request made to open the Door, (as in Seymans' Case) and when by the Sheriff brought into Court, he may, upon refusal of taking his Oath, be generally indicted, etc. But the Justices, upon the second day of Conference, did not speak to the other Point. And this Resolution being reported to the Lords of the Council a● Whitehall, (all the Judges being present, 7 Feb. Hill. 9 Jacob. Regis. We were desired to put our Resolution into Writing: I answered, The Judges never used so to do: But if the Attorney or Solicitor came to us, we will deliver our Opinions to them o'er tenus, but not in Writing.  
At th● third day, upon the Conference in this Term, it seemed upon the Statute 3 Jac. If Justices of Peace, upon Refusal before them, commit any person to Gaol with Bay●, and mention in their Warrant, the Tender and Refusal, than the Oath ought to be tendered again. But if the Mittimus do not comprehend the Tender and Refusal, than they may be generally indicted, as upon Refusal in ●pon Court. And it was Resolved, That the major number of Justices of Peace, who commit the Parties, have Election to commit to the next Assizes, or the next Session's: And observe, that two Justices (whereof one of the Quorum) by the Stat. 7 Jac. may commit any person above the Age of 18. and under the Degree of Nobility, although he be not indicted or convict. And it was Resolved by all, That if the Indictment be commenced upon the Stat. 3 Jac. upon Refusal in open Court, than the Indictment may be short and general, etc. Not so, if the Indictment be upon the Commitment made by two Justices of the Peace. This is good of any person whatsoever.   

Mich. 10 Jac. Regis.  
The Earl of Northampton's Case.  
1. The Attorney-General informed against Thomas Goodrick Gent. Sir Richard Cox Kt. Henry Vernon Gent. Henry Minors, Thomas Lake Gent. and James Ingrum Merchant, ore t●nus, in the Star-Chamber; and charged Goodrick, that he had spoken and published of the E. of Northampton, a Peer of the Realm, etc. divers false and horrible Scandals, scil. That more Jesuits, Papists, etc. have come into England, since the Earl of Northampton was Guardian of the Cinque-Ports, than before.  
2. That the said Earl had writ a Book openly against Garnet, etc. but secretly had writ a Letter to Bellarmine, intimating, that he writ the said Book, ad placandum regem sive ad faciendum populum; and requested, that his Book ●ight not be answered: and that the Archbishop of Canterbury had told it the King: and that the said Goodrick told it to one Deusbery, who acquainted the Earl with it. Goodrick being examined, vouches Sir Richard Cox for Author; Sir Richard Cox vouched the said Vernon; Vernon cited Lake; Lake, that he heard it from Sergeant Nichols; Nichols said one Speaket related it to him, and that he heard it from James Ingrum; and James Ingrum said, that in October he heard the said words of two English Fugitives at Ligorn; but never published them till the Earl of Salisbury's death, in May last: And all the Defendants confessed at Bar, all that they were charged with; and at the Hearing of this Case were 11 Judges, Fleming being absent propter aegritudinem.  
And so it was Resolved, That the publishing of false Rumours, concerning the King or the Peers, was in some Cases punishable by the Common-Law: But of this were divers Opinions;  
1. And first, as to Rumours themselves.  
1. They ought to be fase and horrible. 2. Such of which Discord may arise betwixt the King and his People, etc. West. 2. c. 24. 2 R. 2. cap. 53. 3. The Subversion and Destruction of the Realm, ibidem.  
2. As to Persons, they declared to be Prelates, Dukes, Earls, Barons, etc. Justice of the one Bench or other, or any great Officers, etc. 2 R. 2. c. 5. And the King is contained within West. 1. c. 34. as appears in Dyer, 5 Mary 155.  
3. As to the third Point, it was Resolved, That if one hear such false and horrible Rumours, it is not lawful to relate them to others: And this appears by the Stat. viz. That the Party shall be imprisoned, until he find out the party who spoke them. Which proves, it was an Offence, else he should not be punished by Fine and Imprisonment.  
It was also Resolved, That the Offenders at the Bar, if against them the Proceed had been by Indictment, upon these Statutes, no Judgement could be had against them, that they should be imprisoned, till they found their Author: for Goodrick did not relate to Deusbery, that he heard from Sir Richard Cox; but he related the same as of himself: and for this he ought to be indicted for the words which he himself spoke: and then De non apparentibus & non existentibus eadem ratio.  
And it was Resolved, That if A. say to B. Did you not hear that C. is guilty of Treason, etc. This is tantamount to a Scandalous Publication. If J. S. publish, that he hath heard generally, without a certain Author, that J. G. was a Traitor or Thief; there an Action, Sur le case, lieth against J. S. And a Record was vouched, Mich. 33 and 34 Ed. 3. and in the 30 Ass. pl. 10. and in the Exchequer, Mi●h. 18. Ed. 1. Rot. 4.  
The Defendants, in the Case at Bar, for publication of the said words, all the Defendants were punished by all the presence, una voce, nullo contradicente, by Fines and Imprisonment; Goodrick and Ingrum were Fined the most, because one could find no Author for the Words, concerning the Cinque-Ports; nor the other, any other than unknown persons of Ligorn; and therefore 'twas taken as a Fiction of his own.   

Trin. 10 Jac. Regis.  
Eastwick's Case i● Curia Wardorum.  
King Philip and Queen Marry, by their Letters-Patents de gratia speciali, etc. granted to Aringal Wade in Fee, th● Farm called Milton Grange, in the County of Bedford; parcel of the Possessions of the late dissolved Monastery of Wooburn. Tenendum praed. firmam de nobis & successoribus nostris ut de Manerio nostro de East-Greenwich in Com. Kent, in capite, per servitium vicessimae partis unius Feodi Militis pro omnibus redditibus, etc. quibusc●nque: Which Grange, by mean Conveyance, came to Christopher Eastwick; after whose death, the Tenure was found verbatim, according to the words of the Patents: And the Question was, If the Tenure was by a mean, as of the said Honour, or in Capite. And their principal Reason was, That the Letters-Patents shall be construed to the King's Intention expressed; and in this Case, some Words ought to be rejected, scil. these words (in Capite) or these words, (De mancrio nostro de East-Greenwich) for both together cannot stand; and then the better shall be taken for the King: as 5 Mary, Dyer 162. 15 H. 7. 7. 14 Ed. 4. 5. 3 H. 7. 12. 9 H. 7. 9 6. per Huffey. 13 H. 7. 4. per Fineaux, 19 H. 8. Title Office. Brooks 58. Action.  
But it was Answered, and Resolved, That the said Grange was held of the King, as of the Honour, and not in Capite: And the Reason was, because that Tenure of the King in Capite, is as much as to say, Tenure in gross, or of the Person of the King. And it appears by ancient Records, that in Old Time, all Tenors in Gross, or of the Person of a Subject, were called Tenors in Capite; as in Claus. 9 H. 3. membr. 28. and many other Records; but of late time, Dicitur de rege solummodo terras teneri in Capite: And therefore when it is said, Tenendum de nobis in Capite ut de manerio nostro de East-Greenwich, etc. Inasmuch, as it is limited to hold of the King who is Chief, it may be vulgarly said, That the Tenure is in Chief; inasmuch as it is of the King, as of a Manor.  
Secondly, It was Resolved, That the abundant Words shall be extended in Construction of the Law; and not the Words subsequent, which limit the Term in certainty: And with this Resolution agrees Mich. 17 and 18 Eliz. 345. Nota, That a Tenure of any ancient Honours; as of Rawl●igh, Hagenet, and Peverel, are, by way of Usage and Allowance in all Ages, taken to have the effect of a Tenure in Cap●te, viz. To have all the Lands in Guard, etc. Et non valet ratio contra experimentum. See Mag. Chart. cap. 31. and 11 H. 7. in Rot. Parliam. not Printed: and 1 H. 6. c. 4. Bracton, lib. 2. fol. 87. 30 H. 8. Dyer 8. 58. 29 H. 8. Brook, Title Livery, 28. 57 5 Ed. 3. 5.   
Finis Libri Duodecimi.   

LIB. 13. & ult.  

Mich. Anno 6. Jacobi Regis; In the Common-Pleas.  
Willow's Case.  
IN Trespass brought by Richard Stallon, against Thomas Bradye (which began in Easter Term, 6 Jac. rot▪ 1845.) for breaking his House and Close at Fenditton in Com. Cambridge: And the New Assignment was in an Acre of Pasture. The Defendant pleads, that the Place where, etc. was the Land and Freehold of Thomas Willows, and Richard Willows; and that he, as Servant, etc. The Plaintiff for Replication saith, That the Place where was parcel of the Manor of Fenditton, and demisable, etc. by Copy of Court-Roll in Fee-simple; and that the Lords of the Manor, granted the Tenements, in which &c. to John Stallon and his Heirs, who surrendered them to the said Willows, and Willows, Lords of the said Manor, to the use of the Plaintiff and his Heirs, who was admitted, etc. The Defendant rejoins, and saith; True it is, that the Tenements in which &c. were parcel of the Manor, and demisable etc. and the surrender and admittance such prout, etc. But the said Bradye further saith, That the Tenements in which, etc. at Richard Stallons Admission, were, and yet are of the clear yearly value of 53 s. 4 d. and that within the Manor there is such a Custom, Quod rat●onabilis denariorum sumna legalis monetae Angliae, super quamlibet admissionem cujus●ibet perso●ae tea●at. per Domi●um vel Dominos Manerii praed. sive per se●●sch. etc. ad aliquas terras, etc. secundum cons. Manner. illius debetur, & a tempore quo etc. debitum fuit Dom. etc. tempore ejusdem admission. pro fine etc. quod idem Dominus vel Domini vel seneschallus suus Cur. ejusdem M●nerii pro tempore existen. usus fuerit, vel usi fuer. per tot. tempus praed. in plena Cur. Man●r. illius pro admissione ejusdem personae, seu earund. personar. sic facta assidere & appunctuare. Anglicè, Assess and Appoint eand. rationabil. summam denarior. etc. Et summam sic assessam personae admissae, etc. solverent etc. eidem Don. etc. And further saith, That the Steward of the said Manor, at a Court holden the first of October, Anno quarto Regis nunc, admitted the Plaintiffs to the Tenements, in which &c. and assessed and set a reasonable sum of money, viz. 5 l. 6 s. 8 d. viz. Valorem eo●undem tenementor. per duos annos & non ultra pro fine pro praed. admissione etc. And the said Steward, at the same Court, gave notice to the Plaintiff, the said sum was to be paid, etc. And further saith, That the Willows and Willows afterwards, viz. 2 Novem. in the 4th year aforesaid, at Fenditto● aforesaid, requested the said Richard Stallon to pay them the said 5 l. 6 s. 8 d. which the said Richard utterly refused, etc. By which, the said Richard forfeited to the said Thomas and Richard Willows all his Right, Estate, etc. The Plaintiff surjoyneth, and saith, that the said sum of 5 l. 6 s. 8 d. etc. was not rationabilis finis, as the said Thomas Bradley above hath alleged, etc. Upon which, the Defendant doth demur in Law, etc. 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 ●●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, etc. 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 always with him, etc. And though that the rejoinder 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 Copyhold 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 only for a grievous Distress taken for the King's Debt. See F. N. B. 147. a. and 27 Ass. 51. 28 Ass. 50. 11 H. 4. 2. and 8 H. 4. 16. etc. And so if an excessive Amerciament be imposed in any Court-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 waist, F. N. B. 61. b. 16 H. 3. Wast. 135. and 16 H. 7. Vide also the Register Judicial. fol. 25. B. Waste lieth in Exulando Henricum & Hermanum, etc. Villeynes, Quorum quilibet tenet unum messuagium & unam Virgat. terrae in Villenagio in Villa praed. etc. By all which it appears, the Common-Law forbids excessive oppressing of Villains, etc. So in the Case at Bar, though the Fine is uncertain, yet it ought to be reasonable; and so it appears by the Custom alleged 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. etc.  
3. It was Resolved, That the Fine in the Case at the Bar was unreasonable, being for the admittance of a Copyholder in Fee-simple, upon a Surrender made; for this is not like a voluntary Grant, etc. for there Arbitrio Domini res estimari debet. But when the Lord is compellable, to admit him to whose use the Surrender is; And when C●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, Judgement 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 Bailiff or Guardian, Quod reddat ●i rationabilem comp●tum, etc. 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 dwelled in Essex, in the Diocese of London, were sued for subtraction of Tithes 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 ●ath a peculiar Jurisdiction of 14 Parishes, called a Deanery, exempt from the Authority of the Bishop of London, whereof the Parish of St. Marry 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 Tithes growing in Essex; or if he be prohibited by the Statute 23 H. 8. cap. 9 which after Debate at Bar by Council; 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 ●●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 civilians & Cannonist, although the Acts concern Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. And in 10 H. 7. the Bishop of London caused on● to be imprisoned, because the Plaintiff said, he ought not to pay his Tithes to his Curate: And the imprisoned Party brought his Action of false Imprisonment, against those that arrested him by the Bishop's 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 King's Bench; which see in my Book of Precedents: And so the Statutes of Articuli Cleri de Prohibitione regiâ: De Circu● sp●cte agitis, of 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. etc. have always 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. Dy●r 233. 15 Eliz. Dyer 251. 14 Eliz. Dyer 312. 15 Eliz. Dy●r 327. 18 Eliz. Dyer 352, & 347. 22 Eliz. Dyer 377.  
2. Resolved by Coke Chief Justice, Warb●●ton, Daniel, and Fostér, Justices, That the Archbishop of Canterbury is restrained by the 23 H. 8. cap. 9 to c●●e any one out of his own Diocese: for Dioc●ses dicitur distinctio, etc. quae divisa vel diversa est ab Ecclesia alterius Episcopatus & commissa gubernatio in unius, and is derived a Devil, that signifies duo, two; et Electio, quia separat duas Jurisdictiones: And because the Archbishop of Canterbury hath a peculiar Jurisdiction in London, for this cause it is fitly said in the Title, Preamble, and Body of the Act, that when the Archbishop sitting in his exempt Peculiar in London, citys one dwelling in Essex, he citys him out of the Bishop of London's Diocese; ergo, out of the Diocese. And in the Clause, of the Penalty of 10 l. it is said, Out of the Diocese. etc. where the Party dwelleth; which agrees with the signification of Diocese befóre: And the words (far off) were put in the Preamble, to show the great mischief that was before the Act; as the 32 H. 8 cap. 33. in the Preamble, it is disseizins with strength. And the Body of the Act saith, such Disseizor, the same extending to all Disseizors: but Disseizin with force, is the greatest mischief, 4 and 5 Eliz. Dyer 219. So West. 2. cap. 5. adjudged 44 Ed 3. 18. So 21 H. 8. cap. 15. In all which, the Case is stronger, than the Case at Bar; there the word (such) in the Body of the Act, referring to the Preamble, which is not in our Case.  
2. The Body of the Act is, No Person shall be henceforth cited before any Ordinary, etc. out of the Diocese, or peculiar Jurisdiction, where the Person shall be dwelling; and if so, than a fortiori, the Court of Arches which sits in a Peculiar, shall not cite o●hers out of another Diocese. And the words (out of the Diocese) are meant of the Diocese or Jurisdiction of the Ordinary where he dwelleth.  
3. Observe, the Preamble of the Act recites expressly, That the Subjects were called by compulsory Process to appear in the Arches, Audience, and other Courts of the Archbishopric of this Realm: So that the Intention of the Act was to reduce the Archbishop to his proper Diocese, unless in five Cases.  
1. For any Spiritual Offence or Cause committed, or omitted, contrary to Right and Duty by the Bishop, etc. which word (omitted) proves, there ought to be a Default in the Ordinary.  
2. Except it be in Case of Appeal, and other lawful Cause, where the Party shall find himself grieved by the Ordinary, after the matter there first begun, ergo, it ought to be first begun before the Ordinary.  
3. In case the Bishop or Ordinary, etc. dare not, or will not convent the Party to be sued before him.  
4. In case the Bishop or Judge of the place, within whose Jurisdiction, or before whom the Suit by this Act should be begun and prosecuted, be party, directly, or indirectly, to the Matter or Cause of the same Suit.  
5. In case any Bishop, or other inferior Judge under him, etc. make Request to the Archbishop, Bishop, or other inferior Ordinary or Judge; and that to be done in Cases only, where the Law Civil or Common doth affirm, etc.  
1. Also there are two Prouisoes which explain it also, viz. That it shall be lawful for every Archbishop, to cite any person inhabiting in any Bishop, Diocese in his Province for matter of Heresy: by which it appears, that for all Causes not excepted, he is prohibited by the Act.  
2. There is a saving for the Archbishop, calling any Person out of the Diocese where he shall be dwelling, to the Probate of any Testament: which Proviso should be vain, if notwithstanding that Act should have concurrent Authority with every Ordinary throughout his whole Province: Wherefore it was concluded, That the Archbishop out of his Diocese, unless in the Cases excepted, is prohibited by the 23 H. 8. to cite any man out of any other Diocese: which Act is but a Law declaratory of the ancient Canons, and a true Exposition of them. And that appears by the Canon, Cap. Romana in sexto de Appellationibus, & Cap. de competenti in sexto. And the said Act is so expounded, by all the Clergy of England, at a Convocation at London, Anno 1 Jac. Regis, 1603. Canon 94.  
And whereas it is said in the Preamble of the Act, in the Arches, Audience, and other High-Courts of this Realm: It is to be known, that the Archbishop of this Realm, before that Act, had power Legantine from the Pope; By which they had Authority not only over all, but concurrent Authority with every Ordinary, etc. not as Archbishop of Canterbury, etc. but by his Power and Authority Legantine. Et tria sunt genera Legatorum; 1. Quidam de latere Dom. Papae mittuntur, etc. 2. Dativi qui simpliciter in Legatione mittuntur, etc. 3. Nati seu nativi, qui suarum Ecclesiarum praetextu legatione fingantur, et sunt 4. Archiepiscopus Cant. Eboracensis, Remanensis, et Pisanis: Which Authority Legantine is now taken away and abolished utterly.  
3. It was Resolved, That when any Judges are by Act of Parliament, if they proceed against the Act, there a Prohibition lies. As against the Steward and Marshal of the Household; Quod non teneant placita de libero tenemento, de debito, de Conventione, etc. So Articuli super Chartas, cap. 3. Register fol. 185. So against the Constable of Dover. So to Justices of Assize; Quod inquisitiones quae sunt magni exactionis non capiantur in Patria. So to the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequers upon Art. super Chart. c. 4. Stat, Rutland. cap. ult. See F. N. B. 45. 46, etc. 17 H. 6. 54. vide 13 Ed. 3. Title Prohibition. So against all Ecclesiastical Judges, upon 2 H. 5. 3. and therewith agrees 4 Ed. 4. 37. and F. N. B. 43. etc. So the Case upon the Stat. 2 H. 5. c. 15. as appears by the Precedent, 5 Ed. 4. Keysons Case, 10 H. 7. 17. See Paston's Opinion, 9 H. 6. 3. See the 35 H. 6. 6. when any things is prohibited by a Statute, if the Party be convicted, he shall be fined for the Contempt to the Law. And if every person should be put to his Action upon the Statute, it would increase Suits, and a Prohibition is the shorter and easier way. And the Rule of the Court was, Fiat prohibitio Curiae Cantuar. de Arcubus. Inter parts praedict. per Curiam. And Shirley, and Harris, jun. Sergeants at Law, were at Council of the Case.   

Mich. 6 Jac. Reges.  
Edward's Case.  
The High-Commissioners, in Causes Ecclesiastical, objected divers English Articles, against Thomas Edward's of Exeter: As,  
1. That Mr. John Walton, being trained up in Oxferd University, was there worthily admitted to several Degrees of Schools, and deservedly took upon him the Degree of Dr. of Physic.  
2. That he was a Reverend and well-practised man in the Art of Physic.  
3. That you the said Thomas Edward's, are no Graduate.  
4. That you knowing the Premises, notwithstanding you the said Edward's, etc. of purpose to disgrace the said Dr. Walton, etc. did, against the Rules of Charity, writ and send to the said Dr. Walton, a lewd and uncharitable Letter, taxing him therein of want of Skill and Judgement in his Profession, etc. And so far you exceeded in your said uncivil Letter; that you told him therein, in plain terms, He may be crowned for an Ass, etc.  
5. And further to disgrace the said Mr. Dr. Walton, in the said University, did publish a Copy of the said Letter to Sir William Courtney, and others; and in your Letter was contained Sips●lam lichenen mentegram; Take that for your Inheritance, and thank God you have a good Father. And did you not covertly imply thereby, that the said Dr. Waltons' Father (late Bishop of Exeter) was subject to the French Pox and Leprosy, etc.  
6. That in another Letter you sent to Dr. Maders, Dr. in Physic also, you named Dr. Walton, and made a Ho●n in your Letter: Whether you meant not thereby, that they were both Cuckolds; or what other meaning you had.  
7. You knowing Dr. Walton to be one of the High-Commission in the Diocese of Exeter; and having obtained a Sentence against him in the Star-Chamber, for contriving and publishing a Libel, did triumphingly say, You had gotten on the Hip a Commissioner for Causes Ecclesiastical, etc. which you did to disgrace him, and in him the whole Commission in those Parts.  
8. That after the Letter Missive sent to you, you said arrogantly, That you cared not for any thing this Court can do, for that you can remove this Matter at your pleasure.  
And this Term it was moved to have a Prohibition in this Case; and the matter was well argued: And at last it was Resolved by Coke Chief Justice, Warberton, Daniel, and Foster, Justices; That the first six Articles were merely Temporal; and, in truth, is, in the nature of an Action upon the Case, for Scandal of Dr. Walton in his Profession of Physic: and therefore, for them a Prohibition doth lie, for divers Causes.  
1. Because the Persons and Matters are Temporal.  
2. Because it is for Defamation; which if any such shall be for the same, it ought to begin before the Ordinary, because it is not such an enormous Offence, which is to be determined by the High-Commissioners; nor doth Suit lie before them, for calling the Doctor Cuckold, as in the seventh Article: And 'twas said, the Commissioners ought to incur the danger of Praemunire.  
2. It was Resolved, That the Ecclesiastical Judge cannot examine any man upon his Oath, upon the Intention and Thought of his Heart; for cogitationis poenam nemo ●moret: for the Proverb saith, Thought is free. And therefore for the 6th and 7th, were Resolved, as well for the Matter, as for the Form, to be such, to which the Defendant was not compelled to answer: And that to the 7th, he might justify the same; because it appears upon his own showing, that the Doctor was sentenced in the Star Chamber: Also, the Libel is mere Temporal; and if it were Spiritual, such a Defamation is not examinable before the High-Commissioners.  
As to the last Article, it appeareth now by the Judgement of this Court, that he might well justify the said Words: Also, the Commissioners shall not have any Conuzance of Scandal to themselves, they being Parties; and such Scandal punishable by the Common-Law, as was resolved in Hales Case in Dyer, and in my Book of Precedents, Hales Indictment, etc.  
The Bishop of Winchester, being Visitor of Winchester-School, and other his Colleagues, Anno 5 Car. cited the Usher of the said School, by force of the said Commission, to appear before them, etc. for which they incurred the danger of Praemunire: So did the Bishop of Canterbury, and his Colleagues, for citing one Humphrey Frank, Master of Arts, and Schoolmaster of Sevennock School, etc. and proceeding, etc.   

Mich. 6 Jac. Regis.  
Taylor and Shoyl's Case.  
Taylor informed upon the Statute, 5 Eliz. cap. 4. Tam pro Dom. R●ge qua● prose, in the Exchequer: That the Defendant had used the Art and Mystery of a Brewer, etc. and averred, That Shoyl the Defendant did not exercise the Art or Mystery of a Brewer, at the time of making the Act, nor had been Apprentice 7 years, etc. The Defendant demurred in Law, upon the Information, and Judgement was given against him by the Barons. And now in this Term, upon a Writ of Error, the Matter was argued at Sergeant's Inn before the two Chief Justices: And two matters were moved.  
1. One, That a Brewer is not within the said Branch of the said Act; for the words are, That it shall not be lawful to any Persons, other than such as now use lawfully any Art, Mystery, or Manual Occupation, to set up or use any Art, Mystery, or Manual Occupation, except he shall have been brought up therein 7 years at least as an Apprentice. And 'twas said, That the Trade of a Brewer is not any Air, Mystery, or Manual Occupation within the said Branch, because it is easily and presently learned, and needs not 7 years' Apprenticeship to learn the sam●, it being every Country Housewifes' Work: And the Act of H. 8. is, That a Brewer is not a Handicraft Artificer.  
2. It was moved, That the said Averment was not sufficient; for it ought to be as general, as the Exception in the Statute is.  
1. To the first, it was Resolved, That the Trade of a Brewer, viz. To hold a Common Brewhouse, to sell Beer or Ale to another, is an Art and Mystery within the said Act: for in the beginning of it, it is Enacted, That no Person shall be retained for less time than a whole year in any the Services, Grafts, Mysteries, or Arts of Clothing, etc. Bakers, Brewers, etc. Cooks etc. Upon which words in the said Branch, the Information is grounded: Also, because every Housewife brews for her private use; so also she bakes and dresseth meat; yet none can hold a Common Bakehouse, or Cook's Shop, to sell to others, unless he hath been an Apprentice, etc. And the Act 22 H. 8. c. 13. is explained, That a Brewer, Baker, Surgeon, and Scrivener, are not Handicrafts mentioned in certain penal Laws; but the same doth not prove, but they are Arts or Mysteries.  
2. As to the second, it was Resolved, That the Intention of the Act was, that none should take upon him any Art, but he who hath Skill or knowledge in the same: for, Quod quisque norit in hoc se exerceat. And so the first Judgement was affirmed.   

Mich. 6 Jac. Regis. In the Common-Pleas;  
The Case of Modus Decimandi.  
Shirley Sergeant moved to have a Prohibition, because a Parson sued to have Tithes of Sylva Coedua, under 20 years' growth in the Wield of Kent, where by the Custom no Tithes were ever paid of any Wood: And if such a Custom, in non Decimando, for all Lay-people within the said Wield, 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 Country might well be; as in 43 Ed. 3. 32. And the 45 Ed. 3. Custom 15. where an Abbot purchased Tenements after the Statute etc. and saith, That being Lord of the Town, etc. there was a Custom in the said Town, that when Tenant cesseth for 2 years, the Lord may enter, etc. And that his Tenant cessed for 2 years, and he entered: 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 Country, etc. 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 Tithes for Corn, etc. 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 Tithes have not been paid to Underwoods, under 20 years' growth, that no Tithes shall be paid for the same: And fol. 174. that such a Custom of a whole Country, that no Tithes 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 ancient times, the Parishioners have given or procured to the Parson, a Wood, or other Lands, etc. To hold to him and his Successors, in satisfaction of all Tithes of Wood in the same Parish, the Parson so seized of the same, that without question is a good discharge of his Tithes; and if he sue for the same, a Prohibition lies.  
I will cite an ancient Judgement 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 Lay●ee of the said Samson in Draycot, contrary to the King's Prohibition, etc. and the Parson was condemned in 20 Marks, etc. which agrees with the Rule and Reason of the Law, continued unto this day: For Precedents in Ed. 2. Ed. 1. H. 3. and King John, and more ancient, 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 Tithes: And if the Successor of the Parson enjoy the thing given in satisfaction of the Tithes, and yet sueth for Tithes in kind, he shall have a Prohibition, because that he chargeth his Layfee with Tithes, which is discharged of them: By which it doth appear, that Tithes cannot be discharged, and altogether taken away and extine. And herewith agrees the Register, which is the most ancient Law-Book, fol. 38. By which also it appears, That Tithes 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 Circumspect agatis, made 13 Ed. 1. It is said, S. Rector petat versus Paro●hianos oblationes & decimas debita● & consuetas &c. Which proves, there are Tithes in kind; and other Tithes due by Custom, as a Modus Decimandi etc. And yet it is Resolved, 19 Ed. 3. Jurisdiction 28. the Ordinance of Circumspect agatis is not a Statute, and that the Prelates made the same; and yet then the Prelates acknowledged, That there were Tithes due by Custom, which ●is a Modus Decimandi. By which it appears also, that Tithes, 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 Manor hath always holden his Manor discharged of Tithes, 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 Predecessors, ever had received any Tithes of the said Manor: If the Parson now sue for Tithes of the said Manor, the Owner of the Manor may show that special Matter, etc. And the Proof, that the Lord of the Manor gave the Lands, that Tithes 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 King's 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 Tithes, against which the Act was made, 31 H. 8. cap. 13. Possessions of Religious Persons given to the King were discharged of payment of Tithes in certain Cases, 32 H. 8. cap. 7. provides all Tithes to be set as formerly, except such as are discharged. So 2 Ed. 6. c. 13. by which appears, one may be discharged of Tithes five ways.  
1. By the Law of the Realm, viz. the Common-Law, as Tithes shall not be paid of Coals, Quarries, Bricks, Tiles, etc. F. N. B. 53. and Reg. 54. nor of the after-Pasture of a Meadow, etc. nor of Raking, nor of Wood to make Pales, or Mounds, or Hedges, etc.  
2. By the Statutes of the Realm, as 31 H. 8. 13. 45 Ed. 3. etc.  
3. By Privilege; as those of St. John's of Jerusalem in England, the Cistertians, Temptors, etc. as appears 10 H. 7. 277 Dyer.  
4. By Prescription; as by Modus Decimandi, annual recompense in satisfaction as aforesaid.  
5. By real Composition; as appears by the Writ cited out of the Register: By all which appears, That a man may be discharged of payment of Tithes as aforesaid. So as now it is apparent by the Law of England, both Ancient and Modern, that a Layman ought to prescribe in Modo Decimandi, & not in non Decimando; and that, in effe●●, 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 citys John Gerson, a Doctor of Divinity, in a Treatise which he calleth, Regulae morales, viz. Solutio Decimarum Sacerdotibus est de Jure Divino, quatenus inde sustente●tur, sed quoad tam hanc vei illam assignare aut in alios reditus commutar● positivi Juris est. And he holds, that a Portion is due by the Law of Nature, which is the Law of God: but it pertains to the Law of Man to assign Hane v●l illam portionem. And saith further, That Tithes may be exchanged into Lands, Annuity, or Rent, etc. And also, that in Italy, and other the East-Countries, they pay not Tithes, but a certain Portion, according to the Custom: And forasmuch as the Tenth Part is now due, Ex Institutione Eccl●●●ae, that is, by their Canons; and it appears by 25 H. 8. cap. 19 That all Canons, etc. made against the King's Prerogative, etc. are void, and that Law was but Declaratory; for no Statute or Custom of the Realm can be abrogated by any Cannon, etc. and that well appeareth by 10 H. 7. fol. 17. cap. 18.  
The second Point, which agrees with the Law at this day, which was adjudged in the said Record, 25 H. 3. is, That the Limits and Bounds of Towns and Parishes, shall betrayed by the Common-Law, and not by the Spiritual Court. And in this the Law hath great Reason, for thereupon depends the Title of Inheritance of the Layfee, whereof the Tithes were demanded; for Fines and Recoveries are the common Assurances of Lay-Inheritances; and if the Spiritual Court should try the Bounds of Towns, if they determine that my Land lieth in another Town, than is contained in my Fine, Recovery, or other Assurance, I am in danger to lose my Inheritance; and therewith agrees 39 Ed. 3. 29. 5 H. 5. 10. 32 Ed. 4. Consultation, 3 Ed. 4. 14. 19 H. 6. 20. 50 Ed. 3. 20. and many other Precedents to this day. And Note, There is a Rule in Law, that when the Right of Tithes shall be tried in the Spiritual Court, and the Spiritual Court hath Jurisdiction of the same, that our Courts shall be ousted of the Jurisdiction, 35 H. 6. 47. 38 H. 6. 21. 2 Ed. 4. 15. 22 Ed. 4. 13. 38 Ed. 3. 36. 14 H. 7. 17. 13 H. 2. Juris●. 19▪ and when not ousted, 12 H. 2. Jurisdiction 17. 13 ●. 2. ibid. 19 7 H. 4. 34. 14 H. 4. 17. 38 Ed. 3. 56. 42 Ed▪ 3. 12. And the Causes why the Judges of the Common-Law would not permit the Ecclesiastical Judges to try Modum Decimandi, being pleaded in their Court, is, because that if the Recompense which is to be given to the Parson, in satisfaction of his Tithes, doth not amount to the value of his Tithes in kind, they would overthrow the same: And that appears by Linwood, among the Constitutions, Simonis Mepham tit. de Decimis cap. Quoniam propter, fol. 139. b. verbo Consuetudines. And that is the true Reason, and therefore a Prohibition lies: and therewith agrees 8 Ed. 4. 14. and the other Books aforesaid, and infinite Precedents. See 7 Ed. 6. Dyer 79. and 18 Eliz. Dyer 349. the Opinion of all the Justices.   

Mich. 6 Jacobi Regis. In the Exchequer;  
Baron and Boyse Case.  
In the Case between Baron and Boys, in Information upon the Stat. 5 Ed. 6. cap. 14. of Engrossers, after Verdict, it was found for the Informer, that the Defendant had engrossed Apples, against the said Act. The Barons held clearly, that Apples were not within the Act, and gave Judgement against the Informer, upon the matter apparent to them, and caused the same to be entered in the Margin of the Record, where the Judgement was given. The Informer brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber; and the only Question was, Whether Apples were within the said Act. The Letter of which is, viz. That whatsoever person, etc. shall engross, or get into his or her hands, by buying, etc. any Corn growing, or other Corn, or Grain, Butter, Cheese, Fish, or other dead Victual, etc. to sell the same again, shall be accepted, etc. an unlawsul Engrosser. And though the S●at. 2 Ed. 6. 6. 15. numbereth Butchers, Brewers, Bakers, Cooks, Coster Mongers, and Fruiterers, as Victuallers; yet Apples are not dead Victuals within the 5 Ed. 6. there being no Proviso for Costermongers and Fruiterers in the said Act, as there are for Buyers and Sellers of Corn, and other Victuals. Also, ever since the Act, they have bought Apples by Engross and sold them again; and yet no Information was ever before this for the same; being for Delicacy, more than necessary Food. But the Stat. 5 Ed. 6. is intended of things necessary for sustenance of man, where the Statute of 2 Edward the 6. 15. made against Conspiracies, to enhance the Prices, was done by express words, to extend it to things, which are more of pleasure, than profit. But this was not resolved by the Justices, because the Information was conceived upon that Branch of the Statute concerning Engrossers.   

Hill. 27 Eliz. in Chancery.  
Hill. 27 Eliz. In Chancery the Case was thus: Ninian Menvil seized of certain Lands in Fee, took a Wife, and levied a Fine of the said Lands with Proclamations, and afterwards was indicted and outlawed of High-Treason, and died: The Conusees convey the Land to the Queen, who is now seized: The five years pass after the Husband's death, the Daughters and Heirs of the said Ninian, in a Writ of Error in the Kings-Bench, reverse the said Attainder M. 26 and 27 Eliz. and thereupon the Wife sues to the Queen by Petition, containing all the special matter: Which Petition being endorsed by the Queen, Fait droit aux Parties &c. the same was sent into Chancery, as the manner is.  
And in this Case, divers Objections were made against the Demandant.  
1. That the Fine with Proclamations, should bar the Wife of Dower, and the Attainder of her Husband should not help her; for as long as that remained in force, the same was a Bar also of her Dower: But admit the Attainder of the Husband shall avail the Wife, the same being reversed by a Writ of Error, and so in Judgement of Law, as if it had never been, and against which a man might plead there is no such Record, agreeing with the Book 4 H. 7. 11. and the Case in 4 H. 7. 10. b. is, A. seized of Land in Fee, was Attaint of High-treason: The King grants the Land to B. and afterwards A. committed Trespass upon the Land: and after by Pa●l, A. was restored, and the Attainder void: This shall be as auciplable and ample to A. as if no Attainder had been. Afterwards B. brin●s Trespass for the Trespass Mesne; and it was adjudged 10 H. 7. f. 22. b. that the Action of Trespass was not maintainable, because the Attainder was annulled, ab initio.  
2. It was objected, That the Wife could not have a Petition, because there was not any Offic●, by which her Title of Dower was sound, viz. her Marriage, her Husbands Seizing and Death: for it was said, that though he was married, yet if her Husband was not seized after the Age that she is Dowable, she shall not have Dower: And the Title of him that sueth by Petition, aught to be found by Office, as appears by the Books, 11 H. 4. 52. Ass. 31. 30. Ass. 28. 46 Ed. 3. bre. 618. 9 H. 7. 24. etc.  
1, As to the first, it was Resolved, That the Wife should be endowed, and that the Fine with Proclamations was not a Bar to her: and yet it was Resolved, That the Act 4 H. 7. c. 24. shall bar a Woman of her Dower by such a Fine, if the Woman bring not her Writ of Dower within five years after the Husband's death, as was adjudged Hill 4 H. 8. Rot. 344. in the Common-Pleas, and 5 Eliz Dyer 224. For by the Act, the Title of Feme-covert i● saved by taking Action in 5 years, after she is uncovert, etc. But it was Resolved, That the Wife was not to be a●d●d by that saving; for in respect of her Husband's Attainder, she had not any Right of Dower at his death, nor could sue for the same after his death: But it was Resolved, That the Wife was to be aided by another former saving in the same Act, viz. And saving to all other persons, viz. who were not Parties to the Fine, such Action, Right, etc. as shall first grow or come, etc. to them, after the Fine engrossed, and Proclamations made, by force of any Gift in Tail, or other Cause or Matter before the Fine levied; so that they take their Action, and pursue their Title, within 5 years after such Right come to them, etc. And, in this Case, the Action and Right of Dower accrued to the Wife, after the Reversal of the Attainder, by reason of a Title of Record before the Fine, by reason of the Seizing in Fee (had) and Marriage (made) before the Fine levied, according to the meaning of the said Act.  
And as to the Point of Relation, it was Resolved, That sometimes by construction of Law, a thing shall relate, ab initio, to some intent, and to some not: for relatio est fictio Juris, to do a thing which was and had essence, to be anulled, ab initio, betwixt the same Parties, to advance a Right, but not to advance a Wrong, which the Law hates; or to defeat Collateral Acts, which are lawful, and chief, if they concern Strangers: for true it is, as hath been said, that as to the mean profits, the same shall have relation by construction of Law, till the time of the first Judgement given; and that is to favour Justice, and advance his Right that hath Wrong by the Erroneous Judgement. But if a Stranger hath done a Trespass upon the Land in the mean time, he who recovereth, after the Reversal, shall have an Action of Trespass against the Trespassors: and if the Defendant pleads, there is to such Record, the Plaintiff shall show the Special Matter, and maintain his Action. And for the better apprehending the Law on this Point, it is to know, That when any man recovers any Possession or Seizing of Land, in any Action, by Erroneous Judgement, and afterwards the Judgement is reversed, as is said before; and thereupon the Plaintiff, in the Writ of Error, shall have a Writ of Restitution, and that Writ recipes the first recovery; and the Reversal of it in the Writ of Error, is, That the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error, shall be restored to his Possession and Seizing, Una cum exitibus thereof, from the time of the Judgement, etc. Tibi praecipimus quod cadem A. ad plenariam seizinam tenementor. praed. etc. restitui facias, & per Sacramentum proborum, etc. dilig●nter inquiras ad quantum exitus & proficua tenementor illor. etc. a tempore falsi Judicii etc. usque ad Oct. Sanct. Mich. anno etc. quo die Judicium illu etc. revocat. fuit etc. et qu●liter hoc precept. etc. in Oct●b. etc. By which it appears, that the Plaintiff, in the Writ of Error, shall have Restitution against him who recovereth, of all the mean Profits, without any regard by them taken: for the Plaintiff, in the Writ of Error, cannot have Remedy against a Stranger: and therefore the words of the said Writ command the Sheriff to inquire of the Issues and Profits generally etc. And therefore the Plaintiff, in the Writ of Error, after the Reversal, shall have any Action of Trespass for a Trespass mean; and therewith agreeth Brian Chief Justice, 4 H 7. 12. a. See Butler and Baker's Case, in the third Part of my Reports, good matter concerning Relations: So as it was Resolved in the Case at Bar, though to some intent the Reversal hath relation; yet to bar the Wife of her Dower by fiction of Law, by the F●ne with Proclamations, and five years passed after the Husband's death; when, in truth, she had not cause of Action, nor any Title, so long as the Attainder stood in force, should be to do a Wrong by a fiction in Law, and to bar the Wife, who was a mere stranger, and could have no Relief, till the Attainder was reversed.  
As to the other Objection, That the Demandant on the Petition, aught to have an Office found for h●r, It was Resolved, That it needed not in this Case, because the Title of Dower, stood with the Queen's Title, and affirmed it. Also, in this Case, the Queen was not entitled by any Office, that the Wife should be driven to traverse it, for than she ought to have had an Office: But in case of Dower, though that Office had been found for the Queen, which doth not disaffirm the Title of Dower, in such Case the Wife shall have her Petition without Office. See Saddlers Case, in the Fourth Part of my Reports.  
And the Case put on the other side, was utterly denied by the Court; for it was Resolved, That if a man seized of Lands in F●e, take a Wife of eight years of Age, and alien his Lands; and after the Wife attains to the Age of nine years, and afterwards the Husband dyeth, that she shall be endowed; because the Title of Dower being not consummate till the death of the Husband, and there being Marriage, Seizing in Fee, age of 9 years, and the Husband's death, for that cause she shall be endowed; it being sufficient, that the Marriage, Seizing, and Age happen during the Coverture. So if a man seized of Lands in Fee take a Wife, and after she elopes from her Husband, now she is barrable of her Dower, if during the elopement, the Husband alien; and after the Wife is reconciled, she is Dowable: So if a man hath Issue by his Wife, and the Issue dyeth, and afterwards Land descends to the Wife, or she purchase Lands in Fee, and dies without other Issue, the Husband (for the Issue which he had before the Descent or Purchase) shall be Tenant by the Courtesy. But if a man taketh an Alien to Wife, and afterwards he aliens his Lands, and after that she is made a Denizen, she shall not be endowed; for she was not by her Birth capable of Dower, but by her Denization it began. But in the other Case, there was only a Temporary Bar, until such Age or Reconcilement; which being accomplished, the Temporary Bar ceaseth.   

Trin. 44 Eliz. In the Kings-Bench;  
Sprat and Heale's Case.  
John Sprat Libelled in the Spiritual Court against Walter Heal, for Substraction of Tithes; the Defendant in the Spiritual Court, that he had divided the Tithes from the Nine Parts. And then the Plaintiff made Addition to the Libel (in nature of a Replication) viz. That the Defendant divided the Tithes from the Nine Parts, quoth praed. the Plaintiff non fatetur sed prorsus diffitetur: yet presently after this pretended division, in fraudem legis, he took and carried away the same Tithes, and converted them to his own use: and thereupon the Plaintiff obtained Sentence in the Spiritual Court, and to recover thetreble value, according to the Statute 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. And thereupon Heale made a Surmise, that he had divided his Tithes, and that the Plaintiff ought to sue in the Spiritual Court for the double value, and at the Common-Law for the triple value.  
But it was Resolved by the whole Court, That the said Division mentioned in the Libel, was nnt any Division within the said Stat. 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. for that Act provides, That all the King's Subjects henceforth, shall truly and justly without Fraud, divide, set out, yield and pay all manner of other Predial Tithes in their proper Land: So as when he divides them to carry them away, he divides them not justly without Fraud; and therefore the same is out of the Statute: And where the words of the Statute are, divide, set out, etc. their Predial Tithes, etc. And if any person carry away his Corn and Hay, and other Predial Tithes, etc. And to make an evasion out of these words, this Invention was devised; The Owner of the Corn, by Covin sold his Corn, before severance, to another, who as Servant to the Vendee reaped it, and carried it away without any Severance, pretending that neither the Vendo, because he did not carry them away; nor the Vendee, because he had no property in them, should be within that Statute: But it was Resolved, That the Vendor should be charged in that Case with the Penalty of the Statute, for he carrieth them away, and hi● Fraud and Covin shall not help him. See 8 Ed. 3. 290. 9 H. 6. 41. 33 H. 6. 5. But it was Resolved, That the Plaintiff could not sue in the Spiritual Court for the triple value, but for the double value he might.   

Hill. 6 Jac. Regis. In the Common-Pleas,  
Neal and Rouses Case.  
At a Nisi Prius in London, before myself this Term, the Case was this: Edward Neal informed upon the Stat. 21 H 8. c 5. Which Plea began Mich. 6 Jac. Rot. 1031. against James Rowse, Commissary and Official within the Archdeaconry of Huntingdon, in the Diocese of Lincoln; and having Probate of Wills, etc. in the same Archdeaconry: And that Nicholas N●al, in the 3d year of the Reign of the said King James, made his Testament in Writing, and made the Plaintiff his Executo, and died possessed of Goods and Chattels, to the value of 150 l. The Defendant, than Commissary and Official, etc. the 23 Feb. 1605. at the Parish of St. Marry Bow, Testament. praed. proba it etc. ac per manuscujusdam Thomae N●cke, tunc Minist●i ipsius Jacobi Rowse etc. 14 s. 10 d. pro prob●tione etc. Testament. p●aed. de eodem Edwardo, etc. qui tam etc. Colore Officii sui praed. ad tunc ●t ibid. extortive recepit et habuit contra formam Statuti: With this, that the said Edward qui tam, etc. will add, That the Writing of the said Testament, according to the Rate of a penny for every ten Lines, every Line containing in length ten Inches, non attingebat, to the Sum of 12 s. 4 d. according to the form of the Statute aforesaid, etc. The Defendant pleaded nihil debet; and at the Nisi Prius, the Evidence of two Witnesses was, That the Plaintiff caused the said Testament, which was in Paper, to be engrossed in Parchment; and the Plaintiff offered both to the said Rouse to be proved; who answered it should, if his Fees shall be paid him: And the Plaintiff ask him, What were his Fees? and be wrote them in a Paper, which amounted to 14 s. and 10 d. Whereupon the Plaintiff laid upon the Table 20 s. and desired him to take what was due to him, (all this being in the Officials house) but he would take nothing there, but appointed the Plaintiff to come into Court, where he would receive his Fees: And accordingly the Plaintiff coming into Court, and praying to have the said Will proved; the Defendant required the said Nick to take of him for the Probation, Insinuation, Registering, and Sealing, 14 s. 10 d. and thereupon put the Seal of the Office to the same Parchment, that the Plaintiff brought him, etc.  
And it was objected, That this Case was out of the Statute; for thereby, as to this purpose, it is provided, viz. And where the Goods of the Testator, etc. amount above the value of 40 l. that then the Bishop, nor Ordinary, nor any of his or their Registers, Scribes, Praysors, etc. or any other their Ministers, for the Probation, Insinuation, and Approbation of any Testament, etc. for the Registering, Sealing, Writing, etc. any Inventories, Acquittances, Fines, or any thing concerning the same Probate of Testaments, etc. shall take, etc. but only four shillings, and not above. Whereof, etc.  
And the Defendants Council objected, That the Defendant did not take the 14 s. 10 d. etc. For no Probate was written upon the Testament itself, nor any Seal put to it, but the Testament was ingress●d in Parchmeat, and the Probate and Seal put to the Transcript, and not the Testament, and so out of the Statute: The Statute extends only when the Probate and Seal is put to the Testament itself, etc. But I conceived, that the said taking the 14 s. 10 d. in the Case at Bar, was clearly against the Statute; for the Act is in the Negative: And if the Executor requires the Testament to be engrossed in Parchment, he ought to agree with him, that he requires to do it, as he may. But the Ordinary, Official, etc. ought not to exact any Fee for the same, as due to him, for divers causes.  
1. Because the words of the Act are expressed for the Probation, etc. and for the Registering, Scaling, Writing, etc. Which word (Writing) extends expressly to this Case.  
2. The words are, (or any thing concerning the same Probate) and when the Seal and Probate is put to the Transcript, the same (without question) concerns the Probate.  
3. Such a Construction would make the Act idle and vain; for if the Ordinary, Official, etc. might take as much as he pleaseth, for the Engrossing done by his Ministers, as a due to him, all the purview of the Statute, which is penned so precisely concerning persons, should be all in vain, by that evasion of Transcribing it, as well against the express Letter of the Act, as the intention of it. And the Act ought to be expounded, to suppress Extortion, which is a great affliction and impoverishing of the Subjects.  
4. As this Case is, he annexes the Probate and Seal to the Transcript engrossed, which the Plaintiff brought him; so as the Case at Bar was with question: And afterwards the Jury found for the Plaintiff. And of such Opinion was Walmesly, Warberton, Daniel, and Foster, Justices, the next Term in all things: But upon Exception, in Arrest of Judgement, for not pursuing of the Act, in the Information, Judgement is not yet given, etc.   

Hill. 6 Jac. Regis. In the Common-Pleas.  
In this Term, a Question was moved to the Court, which was this: If Tenant in Burgages should pay aid to the King, to make his eldest Son Knight. And the Point rests upon this: If Tenure in Burgages, be a Tenure in Socage; for by the ancient Common-Law every Tenant in Knight's Service, and in Socage, was to give to his Lord a reasonable Aid, to make his eldest Son a Knight, and to marry his eldest Daughter; and that was uncertain at Common-Law, and also incertain when the same should be paid. And this appears by Glanvil, lib. 9 cap. 8. fol. 70. who wrote in the time of Henry the second, Nihil autem certum statutum & de hujus modi auxil●is dandis vel exigendis, etc. And in the beginning of the Chapter it is called rationabile auxilium, because than it was not certain, but to be moderated by Reason, in respect of Circumstances: The like appears by the Preamble of the Statute, West. 1. 3 Ed. 1. cap. 35. The said Act put those incertainties to a certainty.  
1. That for a whole Knights Fee there be taken but 20 s. and of 20 l. Lands holden in Socage 20 s. and of more, more; and of less, less; whereby the Aid itself became certain.  
2. That none might levy such Aid, to make his Son a Knight, until his Age of 15 years; nor to marry his Daughter, till her Age of 7 years: And Fleta, who wrote after that Act, calls them rationabilia auxilia, etc. And by the Stat. 25 Ed. 1. where it is provided, That Taxes shall be taken, but by common consent of the Realm, there is an Exception of the Ancient Aids; which is to be intended of these Aids: But notwithstanding the said Act of West. 1. it was doubted, if the King were bound by it, being not expressly named: And therefore Ed. 3. in the 20 year of his Reign, took ●n Aid of 40 s. of every Knight's Fee, to make the Black Prince Knight, and then nothing of Lands holden in Socage: and to take away all question concerning the same, it was confirmed by Parliament, and after 25 Ed. 3 cap. 11. It is Enacted, That reasonable Aid, to make the King's eldest Son Knight, and to marry his eldest Daughter, shall be levied after the form of the Stat. made thereof; and not in other manner. Now Littleton, lib. 2. cap. 10. fol. 36. b. Burgages Tenure is, where an ancient Borough is, whereof the King is Lord; and those who have Tenements within the Borough, hold of the King, That every Tenant, for his Tenement, aught to pay to the King a certain Rent. And such Tenure, is but Tenure in Socage; and all Socage Land is contributory to Aid; and therefore a Tenant in Burgages shall be contributory to Aid.  
It appeareth in the Register, fol. 1, 2. in a Writ of Right, Lands held in Knight's Service, are said, Quas clamat tenere perservitium unius Fe●di militis. And Socage Lands, Quas clamat per liberum servitium unius cumini, etc. So F. N. B. 82. Rationabile auxilium de militibus et liberis tenentibus; where Militibus distinguisheth Knights Service from Socage, which is called libtris tenentibus. But it appears by the Books of Avowry 26. and 10 H. 6. So Ancient Demesne 11. It was Resolved by all the Justices in the Exchequer Chamber, That no Tenure shall pay for a reasonable Aid, but Tenure by Knight's Service, and by Socage; but not by Grand Sergeanty, nor no other. And 13 H. 4. 34. agrees to the Case oh Grand Sergeanty. And I conceive, that Petit Sergeanty shall also pay Aid: for Littleton, lib. 2. cap. 8. fol. 36. says, That such a Tenure is but Socage in effect; though Fitzh. N. B. 83. a. avouch the contrary, 13 H. 4. 34. And I conceive, That he who holds a Rent of the King by Knight's Service, or in Socage, shall pay Aid, according to the words in West. 1. cap. 35. And though it was said, that a Tenure in Socage, in servitium Socae, as Littleton saith; and the same cannot be applied to Houses: To that it was answered, That the Land upon which the Houses are bu●l, or if the House fall down, may be made arable and ploughed. See Huntingdon, Polydore Virgil; and Hollinsheads Chron. fol. 35. 15 H. 4. Aid was levied by H. 1. 7. to marry Maud his eldest Daughter to the Emperor, viz. 3 l. of every Hide of Land etc. See also, The Grand Customary of Normandy, cap. 35. there is a Chapter of Aider. See also the Stat. made 19 H. 7. which beginneth thus: Item Praefati Communes in Parliamento praed. existent. ex assensu etc. concesserunt praefat. Regi quand. pecu●iae summam, in loco duorum rationabilium auxilior suae Majestat. de jure debit. etc. See Rot. 30 H. 3. Ex parte Reman. Dom. Th●saur. in scemino, in auxilio nobis concess. ad primogenitam filiam no●●ram maritand. And H. 3. had an Aid granted by Parliament, Ad Is abellam sororem suam Imperatori. But that was of Benevolence.  
Rot. 42 H. 3. ibid. 6. Monstrat. R. Johanne, le Francois Baro de Scaccario quod cum Dom. Rex non caperet nisi 20 s. de integro Feodo Mil. de auxilio etc. Ibid. in Regno 2 Ed. 1, Rot. 3. de auxilio ad Militiam; Which is meant of Knight: of the Kings Son. Note, If one with●n Age, be in Ward of the King, he shall not be contributory to Aid; but his Tenants that hold of him shall, as appears by that Record.  
Ibid. 30 Ed. 1. Ibid. T. R. 34 E. 1. Ibid. Hill 4 H. 4. Rot. 19 de rationabili auxilio de Will. Dom. Roos. The like M. Rot. 5 H. 4. Rot. 33. Lincoln▪ & Ro●. 34. Lincoln, & Rot. 35 Lincoln, & Tr. R. 5 H. 4. Rot. 2. Kanc. & Rot. 3. Kanc. & Rot. 5. Kanc. See ibid. R. 21 Ed. 3. Rot. Cantab. ●e auxilio adfilium Regis primogenit●m faciend. per Episcopum EEliens. See also, ibid. 20 Ed. 3. Rot. 13 & 14. de auxiliendo ad primogenitum filium R●gis Militem faciend. By all which before cited, it appeareth, that Tenure in Burgages is subject to the payment of Aid.   

Hill. 6 Jacob. Regis.  
Prohibitions.  
Upon Ash-wednesday in Feb. 1606. A great Complaint was made by the Precedent of York, to the King, That the Judges of the Common-Law, had, in Contempt of the King's Command last Term, granted 50 or 60 Prohibitions out of the Common-pleas, to the Precedent and Council of York, after the 6th of February, and named 3 in particular. 1. Between Bell and Thawptes. 2. Another between Snell and Hu●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 Council, who had Arrested the said Watson, by force of a Commission of Rebellion, by the said Precedent and Council awarded: Which Prohibition, upon the Information, was (as was said) denied, 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 only, 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 chief 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 Precedent and Council of York, between Lock Plaintiff, and Bell and others Defendants; and that was a Replevin in English was granted by the said Precedent and Council, 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. authorise 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 Precedent and Council 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 join with him, he had no remedy at Common-Law; but was forced to pray remedy there in Equity. And I say, the Precedent and Council 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, etc. 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 uncontrollable, either by Error, or any other Remedy; which is not so in the King's Courts, where there are five Judges: for they can deny Justice to none who hath Right; nor give any Judgement, but what is controulable by Errou●, etc. And if we shall not grant Prohibitions, in Cases where they hold Plea without Authority, than the Subjects shall be wrongfully oppressed without Law, and we denied 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 join in Suit with him; whereas every one Learned in the Law knows, that Summons and Severance lieth 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 Council, 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 merely 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 Council 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 D●b●, 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, etc. as for the Count, is to be pursued, and cannot be altered: and therefore, without question, the Council, 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 Parrots Case; and lately in the Case of the Precedent and Council 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 Sergeant's Inn, who, by the Common-Law, aught to repair the Bridges, common Rivers and Sewers, and the Highways, 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 charged: and therewith agrees, 10 Ed. 3. 28. b. and the Star. 22 H. 8. cap. 5. was but an affirmance of the Common-Law in that Point. He that hath Toll of Men or cattle passing over a Bridge, aught to repair the same, when no other is bound by Law to do it, for he hath Toll to that purpose: Et quisentit commodam, sentire debet & onus: and with this agrees 14 Ed. 3. Bar. 276. Also, a man may be bound to repair a Bridge, ratione tenurae, of certain Land, but a particular person cannot be bound by Prescription: for if he have not profit by the same, his Ancestors Act shall not bind him: But an Abbot or Corporation may be charged by Prescription, and may bind their Successors. Vide 21 E. 4. 28. 27 Ed. 3. 8. 22 Ass. 8. 5 H. 7. 3. Yea● they shall be compelled, if time out of mind they have repaired it, though of Alms; and therewith agrees 10 E. 3. 28. So of a Highway, all the Country ought to repair it; but some may be bound particularly, as in the Case of Bridges. As he who hath Land adjoining, aught to scour and cleanse the Ditches, next to the way to his Land; and therewith agrees the Book, 8 H. 7. 5. So of a common River, all who have Passage by it, aught to scour and cleanse it, for it is as a common Street; as it is said, 17 Assi. and 37 Ass. 10.   

Pasch. 7 Jacobi Regis.  
Sir William Reads and Booth's Case.  
In the great Case of Forgery in the Star-Chamber, between Sir William Read Plaintiff, and Roger Booth, and Cuthbert Booth, and others, Defendants; the Case was thus: Roger Booth 38 Eliz. was Convict in that Court of publishing a Writing under Seal, forged in Sir Thomas Gresham's Name, of a Rend charge of 100 l. out of all his Lands, etc. to one Markham for 99 years, dated 21 year of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, knowing it to be forged: And afterwards the said Sir William Read exhibited the said Bill against the said Booths, and others, for forging another Writing under Seal, dated the 20th of Elizabeth, in the said Sir Thomas Gresham's Name, purporting a Deed of Feoffment of all his Lands (except certain) to Sir Rowland Heyward, and Edward Hoogen and their Heirs, in effect, to the use of Markham the younger, and his Heirs, and for publishing the same, knowing it to be forged, was the Bill exhibited. And upon hearing this Cause this Term, these Doubts were moved upon the Star. 1 Eliz.  
1. If one who is Convict of publication of a Deed of eoffment or Rent-charge, knowing the same to be forged, again at another day forge another Deed of Feoffment or Rent-charge, if he be within the Case of Felony within the A●t: which Doubt ariseth upon these words (est-soons) committed again any of the said Offences.  
2. The second Doubt was, If a man commit two Forgeries, one in 37 Eliz. the other, in 38 Eliz. and he is first convicted of the last, if he may now be impeached for the first.  
3. When Roger Booth was Convict in 38 Eliz. and after is charged with a new Forgery, in 37 Eliz. If the Witnesses moving in truth, that it was forged after the 〈◊〉 Conviction, if the Star-Chamber hath Jurisdiction of 〈◊〉.  
4. When Cuthbert Booth, who was never Convict of Forgery before, if in truth the Forgery was done, and so proved in 38 Eliz. If he might be convicted upon this Bill, because the Forgery is alleged before it was done.  
1, 2. To the first and second Doubts, It was resolved by the two Chief Justices, and Chief Baron; That if one be Convict of Forgery, or publishing any Writing concerning freehold, etc. within the first Branch, or concerning Interest or Term of Years, etc. in the second Branch, and be convicted, if afterwards he offend, either against the first Branch or second, that the same is Felony. As if he forge a Writing concerning an Interest for Years within the second Branch, and be convicted; and after he forgeth a Charter of Feoffment within the first Branch, et e converso, that is Felony, by express words of the Act. But if one forge a Writing in 37 Eliz and after he forge another in 38 Eliz. yet it is not Felony, though he forge many Writings one after another; for the Forgery, etc. which is Felony by the Act, aught to be after Conviction, or Condemnation, of a former Writing.  
3. As to the third Doubt, It was Resolved, That the Allegation of the time, by the Plaintiff in the Bill, shall not alter the Offence, but shall give to the Court Jurisdiction: But if it appear, that the Forgery or Publication was after the Sentence, than the Court shall surcease.  
4. As to the last Point, It was Resolved, That the time of the Forgery is not material, if it be committed before the exhibiting the Bill. But if the date of such Writing, supposed to be Forged, had been mistaken, there the Defendant could not be condemned of a Deed of another Date.   

Pasch. 7 Jac. Regis.  
The Case of Sewers.  
The Case was, There was a Causeway or Milstank of Stone in the River of Dee, and in the City of Chester; which Causeway, before the Reign of King Edward the first, was Erected for the necessary maintenance of certain Mills at the end of the said Causeway. And now a certain Decree was made by certain Commissioners of Sewers, for a Breach to be made by ten Poles in length, in the said Causeway: and if by any Decree of the Commissioners, by force of any Statute, any breach may be made in that Causeway, was the Question: And it was referred, by Letters of the Lords of the Privy-Councel, to the Chief Justices, and Chief Baron; who, upon hearing of Council Learned, at divers days, and good Consideration had of all Statutes of Sewers, and Conferences among themselves, It was Resolved as followeth;  
1. That the Stat. of Magna Chart. cap. 23. Quod omn●s Kidelli deponantur, etc. extended only to Kidels, viz. Open Wears for taking Fish: But the first Stat. that extended to pulling down or abating any Mills, Mill-Stanks, or Cawseyes, was 25 Ed. 3. cap. 4. which appointed only such to be pulled down, as were Erected in the Reign of King Edward the first, or after. But by 1 H. 4. cap. 12. upon complaint in Parliament, of great damages, by enhancing Mills, Mill-stanks, etc. made before Edward the first's Reign, that Act appoints them to be surveyed; and such as were found to be much inhansed, to be corrected. None of which Acts, extend to the Case in question: for that Causeway was erected before Edw. 1. and never enhanced since the Erection. And the 12 H. 4. c. 7. confirms all the said Acts. And by the 23 H. 8. c. 5. none of the said Statutes are repealed, as to the Case in question: for thereby the Form and Effect of the Commission of Sewers is appointed, and power given to the Commissioners to survey Walls, etc. Fences, Cawseys, etc. Mills, etc. and to correct, repair, or pull down, etc. as cause requireth, according to their discretions, etc. after the effect of the Statute, made before the 1. of March, 23 H. 8. By which appears, that the Commissioners discretion was limited, viz. to proceed according to the Statutes and Ordinances before made, etc. And the said Act provides, That all and every Statute, Act, and Ordinance heretofore made, concerning the Premises, not contrary to this Act, nor repealed, shall stand good, and be effectual for ever. But the said Acts 25 Ed. 3. and 1 H. 4. are not contrary to the said Act, nor repealed: and always such construction ought to be made, that one part of the Act may agree with another. And, according to this Resolution, We certified the Lords of the Council, that the said Star. 25 E. 3. & 1 H. 4. remained yet in force; and that the Authority given by the Commission of Sewers, did not extend to Mills, Mill-stanks, Cawseys, etc. erected before Ed. 1. unless they have been enhanced; and then they are not to be subverted, but reform, by abating the Inhancement only.   

Trin. 7 Jacobi Regis.  
The Case de modo Deci● andi, and of Prohibitions.  
Richard Archbishop of Canterbury, with the Bishops of London, Bath and Wells, and Rochester, divers Doctors of the Civil and Canon-Law; as Dr. Dun, Judge of the Arches, Dr. Rennet Judge of the Prerogative, Dr. James, Dr. Martin, and others, came and attended the King at White-Hall, the Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, after Easter Term, in the Councel-Chamber; where the Chief Justice, and I myself, Daniel Judge of the Common-Pleas, and William's Judge of the Kings-Bench, by the King's Command attended also; where the King, assisted with his Privy-Councel, all sitting at the Councel-Table, spoke as a most Gracious Sovereign, to this effect: As He would not suffer any Novelties or Innovations in his Courts of Justice, Ecclesiastical and Temporal; so he would not have any the Laws, which had Judicial Allowances, in the Times of his Predecessors Kings of England to be forgotten. And forasmuch as Contentions between the Temporal and Ecclesiastical Courts, cannot but breed great Inconvenience to the Subjects, especially when the Controversy ariseth upon the Jurisdiction of his Ordinary Courts of Justice; And because he was the Head of Justice, immediately under God, and knowing what hurt may grow to his Subjects, when the Jurisdiction of his Courts are drawn in question; He thought it concerned him, as a King, to hear the Controversies between the Bishops and Clergy, and the Judges of his Laws of England, and to take Order, that the one do not encroach upon the other. And He said, The only Question then to be disputed was, If a Parson or Vicar of a Parish, sues one of his Parish in the Spiritual Court for Tithes, in Kind, or Layfee; and the Defendant allegeth a Custom or Prescription, de modo Decimandi; if that Custom or Prescription shall be tried and determined before the the Judge Ecclesiastical, where the Suit is begun, or a Prohibition lieth to try the same by the Common-Law. And the King directed, that We who were Judges, should declare the Reasons of our Proceed, and what Authorities in the Law we had to warrant our Proceed, in granting Prohibitions in Cases de modo Decimandi. But the Archbishop of Canterbury kneeled before the King, and desired he would hear him, and others, provided to speak in the Case, for the good of the Church of England. And the Archbishop inveighed chief against two things.  
1. That a Modus Decimandi should be tried by a Jury, because they themselves claim more or less modum Decimandi; so as, in effect, they were Tryers in their own Cause, or in the like Cases.  
2. He inveighed much the precipitate and hasty Trials by Juries; and after him Dr. Bennet made a large Invection against Prohibitions, in causis Ecclesiasticis; and he made five Reasons, why they should try modum Decimandi.  
1. The first and principal was out of the Register, fol. 58. quia non est consonans rationi, quod cognitio accessarii in Curiae Christianitatis imp●diatur ubi cognitio causae principalis ad forem Ecclesiasticum noscitur pe●tinere. And the principal cause is Right of Tithes, and the Plea of Modus Decimandi sounds in satisfaction of Tithes; and therefore the Conuzance of the Original Cause, viz. the Right of Tithes belonging to them, the Conuzance of the Bar of Tithes belonged to them. And whereas it is said in the second Part of my Reports, in the Bishop of Winchester's Case; and 8 Ed. 4. 14. that they would not accept of any Plea, in discharge of Tithes, in the Spiritual Court; he said, they would allow such Pleas, and had allowed them, being duly proved before them.  
2. There was great inconveniency, that Laymen should be Tryers of their own Customs, for they shall be Jurors in their own Cause.  
3. That the Custom of Modo Decimandi is of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, for it is a manner of Tything, and all manner of Tything belongs to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; and therefore he said, if the Right of Tithes be of Ecclesiastical Conuzance, and the Satisfaction also for them of the same Jurisdiction, the same shall be tried in the Ecclesiastical Court.  
4. In the Prohibitions of Modus Decimandi, Averment is taken, that though the Plaintiff in the Prohibition offer to prove Modum Decimandi, the Ecclesiastical Court doth refuse to allow it: but he said they would allow such Plea; and therefore, Cessante causa cessabit et effectus, and no Prohibition shall lie.  
5. He said, he can show many Consultations granted in the Cause, de modo Decimandi, and a Consultation is of greater force than a Prohibition. And Bacon Solicitor General, being (as is said) assigned with the Clergy by the King, said less than Dr. Benn●t; but he vouched, 1 R. 3. 4. the Opinion of Hussey, when the Original aught to begin in the Spiritual Court, and afterwards a thing cometh in Issue, and is Tryable by our Law, yet it shall be tried by their Law. See the Register 57, 58. 38 Ed. 3▪ 5. and 38 Ed. 3. 6.  
And the Judges made humble Suit to the King, That in regard they perceived his Majesty, in his Princely Wisdom, derested Novelties and Innovations, that He vouchsafe to suffer them to inform him of one Innovation, which they did conceive would tend to hinder the Administration of Justice within his Realm.  
Your Majesty, for the due Administration of Justice, hath made 14 Judges, to whom you have committed not only the Administration of ordinary Justice, but crimina Laesae Majestatis: Also, in Parliament, we are called by Writ, to give our Advice and Council to your Majesty and the Lords, when we are required. We two Chief Justices sit in the Star-Chamber, Chancery, Court of Wards, and other High-Courts of Justice; We, in our Circuits, do visit twice in the Year your Realm, and execute Justice according to your Laws: and if We receive any diminution of such Reverence and Respect in our Places, which our Predecessors had, We shall not be able to do You such acceptable Service as they did. The state of the Question is not in statu deliberativo, but in statu judiciali; it is not disputed the bono, but de vero, non de lege fienda sed de lege lata: Not to devise or frame new Laws, but to inform You what Your Law of England is: And it was never seen before, that when the Question is of the Law, that your Judges of the Law have been made Disputants with their Inferiors, that daily plead before them in the several Courts at Westminster. And though we are not afraid to dispute with Mr. Bennet, and Mr. Bacon; yet this Example being primae impressionis, and your Majesty detesting Novelties, We leave it to your Princely Consideration, whether you will permit our answering in hoc statu judiciali. But in obedience to your Majesty's Command, We will inform your Majesty touching the said Question, which We and our Predecessors before Us have oftentimes adjudged, upon Judicial Proceed in your Courts of Justice at Westminster; which Judgements cannot be reversed or examined for any Error in Law, if not by a Writ of Error in a more High and Supreme Court. And that this is the ancient Law of England, appears by the Stat. of 4 H. 4. c. 22.  
And We being commanded to proceed, all that was said by Us the Judges, was to this effect: That the Trial de modo Decimandi, aught to be by the Common-Law, by a Jury of Twelve Men, it appears in three Manners: 

1. By the Common-Law.  
2. By Acts of Parliament.    
3. By infinite Judgements, and Judicial Proceed, long times passed without interruption.  
But first, it is to see what is a Modus Decimandi: Now Modus Decimandi is, when Lands, Tenements, or Hereditaments, have been given to the Parson and his Successors, or an Annual certain Sum, or other Profit, always time out of mind, in full Satisfaction and Discharge of all Tithes in kind in such a place: and such manner of Tything is now confessed by the other Party, to be a good Bar of Tithes in Kind.  
1. That Modus Decimandi shall be tried by the Common-Law; and therefore put that which is the most common Case: That the Lord of the Manor of Dale prescribes to give to the Parson 40 s. yearly, in full Satisfaction and Discharge of all Tithes, growing within the said Manor of Dale, at the Feast of Easter. The Parson sues the Lord of the Manor of Dale for his Tithes, of his Manor in kind, and he in Bar prescribes ut supra. The Question is, If the Lord of the Manor of Dale may upon that have a Prohibition; for if the Prohibition lie, than the Ecclesiastical Court ought not to try it.  
1. First, The Law of England is divided into Common-Law, Statute, and Customs; and therefore the Customs of England are to be tried by the Trial, which the Law of England appoints.  
2. Prescriptions by the Law of the Holy Church, and by the Common-Law, differ in the times of Limitation: and therefore Prescriptions and Customs of England, shall be tried by the Common-Law. See 20 H. 6. f. 17. 19 E. 3. Jurisdiction 28. The Bishop of Winchester brought a Writ of Annuity against the Archdeacon of Surrey, and declared, That he and his Successors were seized by the Hands of the Defendant, by Title of Prescription; and the Defendant demanded Judgement, is the Court would hold Jurisdiction between Spiritual Persons, etc. Stone Justice, Be assured, That upon Title of Prescription, we will there hold Jurisdiction.  
And upon that, Wilby Chief Justice, gave the Rule, Answer: Upon which it follows, That if a Modus Decimandi which is an Annual sum for Tithes by Prersciption, comes in Debate between Spiritual Persons, that the same shall be tried here. 32 E. 2. Jurisdiction 26. There was a Vicar who had only Tithes and Oblations, and an Abbot claimed an Annuity or Pension of him by Prescription; and it was adjudged, That the same Prescription, though between Spiritual Persons, shall be tried here. Vide 22 H. 6. 46. 47.  
3. See the Record, 25 H. 3. cited in the Case of Modus Decimandi before; and see Register fol. 38.  
4. See the Stat. of Circumspect agatis, Decimae debitae, seu consuctae; which proves that Tithes in kind, and a Modus by Custom, etc.  
5. 8 E. 4. 14. and F. N. B. 41. g. A Prohibition lies for Lands given in discharge of Tithes, 28 E. 3. 97. a. There was a Suit for Tithes, and a Prohibition lies.  
6. 7 E. 6. 79. If Tithes are sold for Money; by the Sale, the Things Spiritual are made Temporal: And so in the Case de modo Decimandi, 42 E. 3. 12. agrees.  
7. 22 E. 3. 2. Because any Appropriation is mixed with the Temporalty; otherwise, of that which is mere Temporal. So it is of real Composition, where the Patron ought to join. Vid. 11 H. 4. 85.  
2. Secondly, By Acts of Parliament.  
1. The said Act of Circumspect agatis, that gives power to the Ecclesiastical Judge, to sue for Tithes first due in Kind▪ or by Custom, viz. Modus Decimandi. So as by that Act, though the Yearly Sum soundeth in the Temporalty, which was paid by Custom, in discharge of Tithes; yet because the same comes in the place of Tithes, and by Constitution, the Tithes are changed into Money, and the Parson hath not any remedy for the same, which is the Modus Decimandi at the Common-Law. For that cause the Act is clear, that the same was a Doubt at the Common-Law. And the Stat. of Articuli Cleri, cap. 1. If that corporal punishment be changed into poenam pecuniariam; for that Pain, Suit lies in the Spiritual Court: For which, see Mich. 8 H. 3. Rot. 6. in Thesaur. And by the 27 H. 8. cap. 20. It is Enacted, That all Subjects of the Realm, according to the Ecclesiastical Law, and after the laudable Usages and Custom of the Parish, etc. shall yield and pay his Tithes, etc. and for substraction thereof, may, by due process, etc. compel him to yield the Duties: and with that, in effect, agrees 32 H. 8. c. 7. By the 2 Ed. 3. c. 13. it is Enacted, That all the King's Subjects shall henceforth truly and justly, without Fraud, etc. divide etc. and pay all their Predial Tithes in their proper kind as they rise, etc. And always, when an Act of Parl. commands or prohibits any Court, be it Spiritual or Temporal, to do any thing Spiritual or Temporal, if the Stat. be not obtained, a Prohibition lies; as upon the Stat. the artic. super chart. cap. 4. Quod communio Placita non tenentur in Scaccario. A Prohibition lies to the Court of Exchequer, if the Barons hold a common Plea there; as appears in the Register 187. b. So upon the Stat. West. 2. Quod inquisitio●●es quae magnae sunt examinationis non capiantur in Patria. A Prohibition lies to the Justices of Nisi Prius. So upon Articuli super chartas, cap. 7. to the Constable of Dover, Regist. 185. So upon the same Stat. cap. 3. to the Steward and Marshal of the Household, 185. and yet no Prohibition is given by express words, in any of these Statutes. So upon the Statutes 13 R. 2. c. 3. 15 R. 2. c. 2. 2 H. 4. c. 11. a Prohibition lies to the Admiralty Court. So upon West. 2. c. 43. against Hospitals and Templars, Regist. 39 a. So upon the Stat. the Prohibition regia, a Prohibition lies. So upon the Stat. 2. H. 5. c. 3. and upon that Stat. 4 E. 4. 37. the Case was; Peirce Peckham took Letters of Administration, of the Goods of Rose Brown, of the Bishop of London: afterwards T. T. sued to Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, to have Administration committed to him, because Rose Brown had Goods in his Diocese, and they were granted to him. Afterward T. T. Libelled in the Court of the Arches against Peirce Peckham, to repeal his Administration; and Peirce Peckham, according to the Stat. prayed a Copy to the Libel, and could not have it; and thereupon he sued a Prohibition, and upon that an Attachment. And there Catesby Sergeant moved, that a Prohibition did not lie for two Causes.  
1. The Statute says, that the Libel shall be delivered, but not that the Plea shall surcease.  
2. The Statute is not intended of Matter merely Spiritual: And there Danby Chief Justice; If you will not deliver the L●bel, according to the Statute, you do wrong, which wrong is a Temporal matter, and punishable at the Common-Law, and therefore the party shall have a special Prohibition. And always after the said Act, in every Term, throughout the Reigns of Ed. 6. Q. Marry, and Q. Eliz. to this day, Prohibitions have been granted in Modo Decimando, and Judgements given upon many of them, without any contradiction; and accordingly all the Judges Resolved, 7 Ed. 6. Dyer 79. Et contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege, et minime mutanda sunt quae certam habuerunt interpretationem.  
1. As to the first, Objectio, That the Plea of Modus Decimandi, is but accessary to the Right of Tithes; It was Resolved, That the same was of no force, for three Causes:  
1. In this Case, admitting there is a Modus Decima●di, then by the Custom; and by the Act 2. E. 6. and the other Acts, the Tithes in Kind are extinct and discharged; for one and the same Land cannot be subject to two manner of Tithes; but the Modus Decimandi is all the Tithe with which the Land is chargeable: and it shall be intended, that the Modus Decimandi began at first by real Composition: So as in this Case, there is neither Principal. nor Accessary, but an Identity of the same things.  
2. The Stat. 2 Ed. 6. being a Prohibition in itself, and that in the Negative; If the Ecclesiastical Judge doth against it, a Prohibition lies; as appeareth clearly before.  
3. Though the Rule be general, yet it appears by the Register itself, that a Modus Decimandi is out of it: for there is a Prohibition, in causa modi Decimandi, when Lands are given in satisfaction of the Tithes.  
2. As to the second Objection, It was Answered and Resolved, That that was from, or out of the Question; for status Quaestionis non est deliberativussed judicialis: for convenient, or inconvenient, is not the Question, but what the Law is.  
3. As to the third Objection, it was answered and resolved; First, That satisfactio pecuniaria of itself, is Temporal: But because the Parson hath not remedy, pro modo Decimandi, at Common; by force of the Acts cited before he might sue, pro modo Decimandi, in the Ecclesiastical Court: But that proves not, That if he sue for Tithes in Kind, which are utterly extinct, etc. that upon the Plea de modo Decimandi, that a Prohibition should not lie: for the contrary appears, without all question, by what hath been said before: See also 12 H. 7. 24. b. 39 Ed. 3. 22 E. 4. Consultation.  
As to the Objection, That Averment is taken of the Refusal of the Plea, of Modus Decimandi; It was answered and Resolved, That the same is of no force, for divers Causes.  
1. It is only to enforce the Contempt.  
2. If the Spiritual Court ought to have the Trial, de modo Decimandi, than the refusing to accept such a Plea, should give cause of Appeal not of Prohibition.  
3. From the beginning of the Law, no Issue was ever taken upon the Refusal of the Plea, in causa modi Decimandi, nor any Consultation granted to them; because they did not refuse, but allow the Plea.  
4. The Refusal is no part of the matter issuable or material in the Plea; and therefore the Modus Decimandi is proved by two Witnesses, according to the Stat. 2 E. 6. cap. 13. and not the Refusal; which proves, the Modus Decimandi is only the Matter of Suggestion, not the Refusal.  
5. All the said five Matters of discharge of Tithes, mentioned in the said Act of 2 Ed. 6. ought to be proved by two Witnesses, and so have been always, since the making of the said Act. And therefore it clearly intended, that Prohibitions should be granted in such Cases.  
6. Though they would allow, bona fide de modo Decimandi, without Refusal; yet if the Parson sue there for Tithes in Kind, when the Modus is proved, (the same being expressly forbidden by that Act 2 Ed. 6. 13.) a Prohibition lies, though the Modus be Spiritual; as appears by the Book, 4 E. 4. 37.  
Afterwards, the third day of the Debate of this Case before the King, Dr. Bennet, and Dr. Martin, had reserved divers Consultations granted in causa modi Decimandi, thinking they might work upon the King's Opinion: and thereupon they said, That Consultations were the Judgements of Courts had upon Deliberations; whereas Prohibitions were only granted upon Surmises. And they shown 4 Precedents.  
1. One, where three jointly sued a Prohibition, in the Case of modo Decimandi; and the Consultation saith, Pro co quod suggestio materiaque in eodem content a minus sufficiens in lege existit, etc.  
2. Another, in causa modi Decimandi, to be paid to the Parson or Vicar.  
3. Where the Parson sued for Tithes in Kind, and the Defendant alleged, modus Decimandi, to be paid to the Vicar.  
4. Where the Parson Libelled for Tythe-Wooll, and the Defendant alleged a Custom to reap Corn, and make it into Sheaves, and set forth the Tenth Sheave at his Charges: and so of Hay, to sever it from the Nine Cocks at his Charge, in full satisfaction of the Tithes of the Corn, Hay, and Wool.  
To which I answered, and humbly desir'd the King to observe, these were reserved for the last and center-point of their Proof. And herein these things may be observed,  
1. That the King's Courts do them Justice, when with their Consciences and Oaths they can.  
2. That all the said Cases are clear, in the Judgement of those who are Learned in the Laws, that Consultation ought by the Law to be granted.  
1. For as to the first Precedent, the Case upon their own showing, is, Three Persons joined in one Prohibition, for three several parcels of Land, each having a several sort of Tything; and their Interests being several, they could not join; and therefore a Consultation was granted.  
2. To the second, the manner of Tything was alleged to be paid to the Parson or Vicar, which is uncertain.  
3. To the third, The Modus never came in Debate, but whether the Tithes did belong to the Parson or Vicar: which being between two Spiritual Persons, the Ecclesiastical Court shall have Jurisdiction; and therewith agrees 38 E. 3. 6.  
4. To the last, The same was upon the matter of a Custom of a Modus Decimandi for Wool: for to pay the Tithe of Corn or Hay in Kind, in satisfaction of Corn, Hay, and Wool, cannot be a satisfaction for the Wool: for the other two were due of common right.  
The Bishop of London answered, That the words of the Consultation were, Quod suggestio praedicta mattriaque in eadem cohtenta minus sufficiens in lege existit, etc. So as materia cannot be referred to Form, and therefore it ought to extend to the Mo●us Decimandi.  
To which I answered, That when the Matter is insufficiently or uncertainly alleged, the Matter itself faileth; and though the Matter be in truth sufficient, yet if it were insufficiently alleged, the Plea wanteth matter. Then the Lord Treasurer sa●d, he wondered they would produce things that made more against them, than any thing had been said.  
And when the King relied, upon the Prohibition in the Register, when Land is given in discharge of Tithes, the Lord Chancellor said, That was not like this Case; For there by the Gift of the Land, the Tithes were discharged; but in the Case de modo Decimandi, an Annual Sum is paid; yet the Land remains charged, and is to be discharged by Plea, de modo Decim●ndi. All which I utterly denied: For the Land was as absolutely discharged of the Tithes, in casu de modo Decimandi, as where Lands are given. All which the King heard with patience, and the Chancellor answered no more.  
After the King, with all his Council, had for 3 days together, heard the Allegations on both sides, he said, He would maintain the Laws of England, and that his Judges should have as great respect from all his Subjects, as their Predecessors. And for the Matter, he said, for any thing had been said on the Clergies part, he was not satisfied; and advised Us the Judges to confer among ourselves, and that nothing be encroached in the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, and they to keep within their Jurisdiction. And this was the end of these three day's Consultation.  
Note, Dr. Bennet, in his Discourse, inveighed much against the Opinion, 8 E. 4. 14. and, in my Reports, in wright's Case, That the Ecclesiastical Judge would not allow a Modus Decimandi; and said, that was the Mystery of Iniquity, and they would allow it. The King asked for what cause it was so said in the said Books. To which I answered, That it appears in Linwood, who was Dean of the Arches, and a Profound Canonist, who wrote in Henry the Sixth's time, in his Title, De decimis cap: Quoniam propter etc. fol. 139. b. Quod decimae soluantur absque ulla diminutione. And in the Gloss it is said, Quod consuetudo de non Decimando aut de non bene decimando non valet. And that being written by so great a Canonist, was the cause of the said Saying in 8 E. 4. that they would not allow the said Plea de modo decimandi. And it seemed to the King, that that Book was a good cause for them in Edward the Fourth's time, to say as they had said. But I said, I did not rely thereon, but on the Grounds aforesaid.  
Lastly, The King said, that the High Commission ought not to meddle with any thing, but that which is enormous, and which the Law cannot punish; as Heresy, Schism, Incest, and the like great Offences: And the King thought that two High-Commissions, for either Province one, should be sufficient for all England, and no more.   

Mich. 39 & 40 Eliz. In the Kings-Bench;  
Bedel and Sherman's Case.  
Mich. 39 & 40 Eliz. Which is entered, Mich. 40 Eliz● in the Common-Pleas, Rot. 699. Cantabr. the Case was this: Robert Bedel Gent. and Sarah his Wife, Farmers of the Rectory of Litlington, in the County of Cambridge, brought an Action of Debt against John Sherman, in custodia mariscalli, etc. and demanded 550 l. and declared, that the Master and Fellows of Clare-Hall in Cambridge, were ieized of the said Rectory in Fee, in right of the said College; and the 10 Jun. 29 Eliz. by Indenture d●nised to Christopher Pheasant the said Rectory for 21 years, rendering 17 l. 15 s. 5 d. and reserving Rent-corn, according to the Statute, etc. which Rent was the ancient Rent; who entered, and was possessed, and assigned all his Interest to one Matthew Bats, who made his last W●ll, and made Sarah his Wife Executrix, and died. Sarah proved the Will and entered, and was thereof possessed as Executrix, and took to Husband the said Robert Be●el; by force whereof, hay in right of the said Sarah entered, and were possessed; and the Defendant was th●n Tenant, and seized for his life of 300 Acres of Arable Lands, in Litlington aforesaid, which ought to pay Tithes to the Rector of Litlington, and in 38 Eliz. the Defendant S●minavit grano, 200 Acres pa●c. ●. etc. the Tithes whereof amounted to 150 l. And the Defendant did not set forth the same from the Nine Parts, but carried them away, contrary to the Statute 2 E 6 etc. The Defendant pleaded, Nihil debet. And the Jury ●ound, that the Defendant did owe 55 l. and to th● rest they found Nihil debet: And in Arrest of Judgement, divers Matters were moved:  
1. That Grano Seminata is too general, and it ought to be expressed, with what kind of Grain the same was sowed.  
2. It was moved, If the Parson ought to have the triple value, the Forfeiture being ●xoresly limited to none by the Act. or that the same be●ong to the Queen.  
3. If the same belong to the Parson, if he ought to sue for it in the Ecclesiastical Court, or in the King's Temporal Court.  
4. If the Husband and Wife should join in the Action, or the Husband alone; and upon solemn Argument at the Bar and Bench, Judgement was affirmed.   

Trin. 7 Jac. Regis. In the Court of Wards;  
John Bayley's Case.  
It was found by Writ of Dien clausit extremum, that the said John Bayley was seized of a Message, and of and in the 4th part of one Acre of Land, late parcel of the Demesne Lands of the Manor of Newton in the County of Hereford, in his Den●esne as of Free, and found the other Points of the Writ; and it was holden by the two Chief Justices, and the Chief Baron.  
1. That M●ss●agium vel Tenementum is uncertain; for Tenementum is nomen collectivum, and may contain Land, or any thing that is holden.  
2. It was holden, That it was void for the whole, because no Town is mentioned in the Office, where the Message or Tenement, etc. lieth: and it was holden, that no melius inquirendum shall issue forth, because the whole Office is incertain and void.   

Trin. 7 Jac. Regis. In the Court of Wards.  
The Attorney of the Court of Wards moved the two Chief Justices, and the Chief Baron, in this Case: A man seized of Lands in Fee-simple, covenants for the advancement of his Son, and his Name, Blood, and Posterity, that he will stand seized of them to the use of himself for life, and after to the use of his eldest Son, and to such Woman as he shall marry, and the Heir-males of the body of the Son, and afterwards the Father dyeth, and after the Son takes a Wife and dyeth; if the Wife shall take an Estate for Life. And it was Resolved, by the said two Chief Justices, and Chief Baron, That the Wife should take well enough; being within the consideration, which was for the advancement of his Posterity; and without a Wife the Son cannot have Posterity. Secondly, It was Resolved, that the Estate of the Son shall support the use to the Defendant; and when the Contingent happeneth, the Estate of the Son shall be changed, according to the Limitation, viz. to the Son and the Woman, and the Heirs of the Body of the Son. And so it was Resolved in the Kings-Bench, by Popham Chief Justice, and the whole Court, in Sheffields' Case, in Q. Elizabeth's time.   

Trin. 7 Jac. Regis. In the Court of Wards:  
Spary's Case.  
John Spary seized in Fee, in the Right of his Wife, of Lands holden by Knight-service, had Issue by her, and 22 Dec. 9 Eliz. alienated to Edward Lord Stafford: The Wife died, the Issue of full age; the Alienee holds the Lands. And 10 years after the Father's death, and 12 years after the Mothers, Office is found, 7 Jac. finding all the special Matter after the Mother's death. The Question was; Whether the mean Profits are to be answered to the King: And it was Resolved, by the two Chief Justices, and Chief Baron, that the King should have the mean Profits, because the Alienee was in by Title: and until Entry, the Heir has no Remedy for the mean Profits, but that the King might seize and make Livery, because the Entry of the Heir is lawful by the Stat. 32 H. 8.   

Trin. 7 Jac. Regis. In the Court of Wards.  
It was found by force of a Mandamus at Kendal in Westmoreland, 21 Dec. 6 Jac. that George Earl of Cumberland, long before his death, was seized in Tail to him, and to the Heirs-male of his body, of the Castles and Manors of Browham, Appl●by, etc. the remainder to Sir Ingram Clifford, with divers Remainders in Tail; the remainder to the right Heirs of Henry Earl of Cumberland, Father of the said George: and that the said George Earl so seized, by Fine and Recovery, conveyed them to the use of himself, and Margaret his Wife, for their Lives, for the Jointure of Margaret; and after, to the Heir-males of the body of George Earl of Cumberland; and for want of such Issue, to the use of Francis, now Earl of Cumberland, and the Heir-males of his body; and for want of such Issue, to the use of the right Heirs of the said George: And after, by another Indenture, conveyed the Fee-simple to Francis, Earl. By force of which, and of the Statute of Uses, they were seized accordingly; and afterwards, the 30 of Octob. 3 Jac. George Earl of Cumberland dies, without Heirs male of his body, etc. And found further, that Margaret, Countess of Cumberland, that now is, was alive, and took the profits of the Premises, from the death of the said George, Earl, till the taking the Inquisition; and further found the other Points of the Writ.  
1. And first, it was objected, Here was no dying seized found by Office, and therefore the Office shall be insufficient: But to that, it was Resolved, That by this Office the King was not entitled by the Common-Law; for then a dying seized was necessary: But this Office is to be maintained upon the Stat. 32 and 34 H. 8. by force of which no dying seized is necessary; and so it was Resolved in Vincents Case, Anno 23 Eliz.  
2. The second Objection was, It doth not appear that the Wife's Estate continued in her till the Earl's death: for the Husband and Wife had aliened the same to another, and then no primer seizin shall be, as is agreed in Binghams' Case. And to that it was Resolved, That the Office was sufficient, prima fancy, for the King, because it is a thing collateral, and no point of the Writ: And if such Alienation be, the same shall come in of the other part of the Alienee, by a Monstrans de droit. And the Case at Bar is a stronger Case, because it is found, the Councess took the Profits from the death of George the Earl, till the finding the Office.   

Trin. 7 Jac. Regis. In the Court of Wards;  
Wills Case.  
Henry will seized of the 4th Part of the Manor of Wryland, in the County of D●von, holden of Q. Eliz. i● Socage Tenure in capite, of the said 4●h part, enfeoffed Zathary Irish, and others, and their Heirs, to the use of the said Henry for his Life; and after his Decease to Thomas Wills his second Son in Tail, and after to the use of Richard Wills, his youngest Son in Tail; and after the said Henry so seized as aforesaid, died. All this Matter is found by Office. And the Question was, If the King ought to have primer seizing in this Case, that Livery and Ouster le main should be sued by the Statutes of the 32 and 34 H. 8. And it was Resolved by the two Chief Justices, and the Chief Baron, that not; if in this Case by the Common-Law no Livery or Ouster le main shall be sued, and that was agreed by them all, by the experience and cou●se of the course. See 21 Eliz. Dyer 362. and 4 Eliz. Dyer 213.  
And two Precedents were showed, which were Decreed in the same Court, by the Advice of the Justices, Assistants to the Court.  
One in Trin. 16 Eliz. Thomas Stavely enfeoffed, William Strelley and Thomas Law, of the Manor of Ryndly in Nottingh ●shire, on condition, that they reinfeoff the Feoffor and his Wife for their Lives; the remainder to Thomas Stavely, S●n and Heir apparent of the Feoffer in Fee: Which Manor was holden of Q. Elizabeth, in Socage Tenure in capite; And it was Resolved, That no Livery or Ouster le maine, shall be sued in such Case, because of the saving of the Stat. 32 H. 8. The words whereof are, Saving &c. to the King etc. all his Right etc. of primer seizing, and relief etc. for Tenure in Socage, or of the nature of Tenure in Socage in chief, as heretofore hath been used: But there was no Custom before the Act for the King to have primer seizin, etc.  
Another Precedent was in Pasch. 37 Eliz. in the Book of Orders, fol. 444. where the Case was, That William Allet was seized of certain Lands in Pitsey, called Lundsey, holden of the Queen in Socage Tenure in chief; and by Deed covenanted to stand seized to the use of his wife for life, and afterwards to the use of Richard his younger Son in Fee, and died, and all was found by Office; and it was Resolved ut supra. But the Doubt o● the Case at Bar was, because Henry the Feoffor had a Reversion in Fee, which descended to the said William his eldest Son.   

Trin. 7 Jacobi Regis.  
The Case of the Admiralty.  
A B●ll was preferred in the Star-Chamber against Sir Richard Hawkins, Vice-Admiral of the County of Devon, and was charged, that one William Hull, and others, were notorious Pirates upon the High Seas, and shown in certain what Piracy they had committed: That the said Sir Richard Hawkins knowing the same, did receive them, and abet, & comfort them, and for Bribes suffered them to be discharged: And what Offence that was, the Court referred to the consideration of the two Chief Justices, and Chief Baron, who heard Council of both sides divers days at Sergeant's Inn: And it was Resolved by them,  
1. That the Admirals, by the Common-Law, ought not to meddle with any thing done within the Realm, but only with things done upon the Sea: and that appeareth fully by the 13 R. 2. cap. 5. and therewith agrees 2 H. 4. c. 11. and 15 H. 2. c. 3. So also, 2 H. 5. c. 6. 5 Eliz. c. 5. and this agrees with Stamf. fol. 51. 8 Ed. 2. Coron. 399. See Plo. Com. 37 b. 2 R. 3. 12. 30 H. 6. 6. by Prisoit.  
2. It was Resolved, That the Statutes are to be intended of a Power to hold Plea, not of a Power to award Execution: for notwithstanding the said Statutes, the Judge of the Admiralty may do Execution within the Body of the County: And therefore 19 H. 6. 7. the Case was W. T. at Southwark, affirmed a Plaint of Trespass in the Admiralty against J. B. of a Trespass done upon the High-Sea: Whereupon J. B. was cited to appear at the common day next ensuing; at which day, the said J. B. made default: And according to the usage of the Court, the said J. B. was amerced to 20 Marks: Whereupon Command was made to P. as Minister of the said Court, to take the Goods of the said J. B. to make agreement with the aforesaid W. T. by force of which, he, for the said 20 Marks, took 5 Cows, and 100 Sheep, in Execution for the said Money, in the County of jeicester. And there it is holden by Newton, and the whole Court, That the Statutes restrain the power of the Court of Admiralty, to hold Plea of a thing done within the body of the County; but they do not restrain the Execution of the same Court to be served upon the Lands. In which Case, these Points were Resolved,  
1. Though the Court of Admiralty is not a Court of Record (see Brooks Error. 77. acc.) yet by Custom of the Court they may amerce the Defendant for his default, by their discretion.  
2. That they may make Execution for the same, of the Goods of the Defendant, in corpore Comitatus; and if he have not Goods, may arrest his Body.  
But the great question between them was, If a man commit Piracy upon the Sea, and one knowing thereof, receive and comfort the Defendant in the Body of the County, if the Admiral, and other the Commissioners by the Act 28 H. 8. cap. 16. may proceed by Indictment and Conviction against the Receiver and Abetter, the Offence of the Accessary having his beginning within the Body of the County. And it was Resolved by them, That such a Receiver and an Abetter, by the Common-Law, could not be indicted and convicted; because the Common-Law cannot take Cognizance of the Original Offence, being done out of the Jurisdiction of the Common-Law; and where it cannot punish the Principal, it cannot punish the Accessary: And therefore Coke Chief Justice reported to them a Case which was in Suffolk, 28 Eliz. where Butler and others, upon the Sea, next to the Town of jaystoff, rob divers of the Queen's Subjects of their Goods, which they brought into Norfolk, and there were apprehended and brought before Me, than a Justice of Peace in the same County, and upon Examination, they confessed a cruel and barbarous Piracy, and that the Goods then in their Custody, were part of the Goods which they had so rob: And I was of Opinion, that in that Case it could not be Felony punishable by the Common-Law, because the Original Act was not offence, whereof the Common-Law taketh knowledge; and then the bringing them into the County, could not make the same Felony punishable by our Law: Yet I committed them to the Gaol, until the coming of the Justices of the Assizes: And at the next Assizes, the Opinion of Wray Chief Justice, and Perian Justices of Assize, was, agreeing with Me ut supra: and thereupon they were committed to Sir Robert Southwel, than Vice-Admiral for those Counties: and this, in effect, agrees with Lacy's Case: which see in my Reports cited in Bingham's Case, 2 Rep. 93. and in Constable's Case, C. 5. Rep. 107.  
See, Piracy was Felony, 40 Ass. 25. by Schard, where a Captain of a Ship, with some Englishmen, robbed the King's Subjects upon the High Seas; and the saith, 'twas Felony in the Norman Captain, and Treason in the Englishmen, which is to be understood of Petit-Treason: and therefore in that Case, the Pirates being taken, the Norman Captain was hanged, and the English drawn etc. hanged; as appears by the same Book. See Stamford 10.   

Trin. 7 Jac. Regis; In the Common-Pleas,  
Pettus and Godsalve's Case.  
In a Fine levied, Trinity Term, Anno quinto of this King, between John Pettus Esq; Plaintiff, and Richard Godsalve, and others, Deforceants of the Manor of Castre, etc. in Norfolk, where in the ●hird Proclamation, upon the Foot of the Fine, the said Proclamation is said to be made in the sixth year of the King that now is, which ought to have been Anno quinto: And the fourth Proclamation is altogether left out; because upon view of the Proclamations upon Dorsis upon Record, not Finis ejusdem Termini per Justiciarios, remaining with the Chirographer, etc. it appeareth, the said Proclamations were duly made: therefore it was adjudged, that the Errors aforesaid should be amended and made to agree, as well with the Proclamation, upon Record of the Fine, and Entry of the Book, as with the other Proclamations in Dorsis, etc. And this was done, upon the Motion of Haughton Sergeant.   

Mich. 7 Jac. Regis. In the Court of Wards,  
Samme's Case.  
John Samme's being seized of Grany Mead, by Copy of Court-Roll, of the Manor of Tellesham the Great; of which Sir Thomas Beckingham, etc. and held the same of the King by Knight's Service in capite: Sir Thomas by Deed indented, dated 22 Decemb. 1 Jacobi, between him of the one part, and John Sammes and George Sammes. Son and Heir of John, on the other part, did bargain, sell, enfeoff, etc. to John Sammes, the said Mead, call●d Grany Mead, to hold to the said John Sammes, and George sam's, and their Heirs and Assigns, to the only use of the said John and George, and their Heirs and Assigns for ever: and Sir Thomas, by the same Indenture, covenants, to make further Assurance to the said John and George, etc. and Livery and Seizing was delivered accordingly.  
John Sammes the Father dyeth, George Sammes his Son and Heir within Age; the Question was, Whether Geo. Sammes should be in Ward to the King, or no: And in this Case three Points were Resolved,  
1. Forasmuch, as George was not named in the Premises, he cannot take by the Habendum; and the Livery, according to the Indenture, gives nothing to George, it being to him as void: but though the Feoffment be good only to John and his Heirs, yet the use limited to John and George, and their Heirs, is good.  
2. If the Estate had been conveyed to John and his Heirs, by the Release, etc. as it may well be to a Tenant by Copy of Court Roll, the use limited to them is good.  
3. But the third was of greater doubt, If in this Case the Father and Son were Joint-Tenants, or Tenants in common: And it was Resolved, That they were Joint-Tenants, and that the Son in the Case at Bar should have the said Grange by the Survivor: for if at the Common-Law A. had been enfeoffed, to the use of him & B. and their Heirs, though that he was only seized of the Land, the use was jointly to A. and B. for a use shall not be suspended or extinct by a sole Seizing, or joint Seizing of the Land: and therefore, if A. and B. be enfeoffed to the use of A. and his Heirs; And A. dyeth, the entire use shall descend to his Heirs; as appears 13 H. 7. 6. in Stoner's Case; and by the Statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 10. Of Uses.  
And when it was said, that the Estate of the Land which the Father hath in it, as to the moiety of the use, which he himself hath, shall not be devested out of him. To that it was Answered and Resolved, That, that shall well be: for if a man make a Feoffment in Fee to one, to the use of him and the Heirs of his body, in this Case, for the benefit of the Issue, the Statute of Uses devests the Estate vested in him by Common-Law, and executes the same in himself by force of the Statute: And it is to be known, that an Use of Land (which is but a pernency of Profits) is no new thing, but part of that which the Owner of the Land had: and therefore if Tenant in Borough-English, or a man seized on the part of his Mother, make a Feoffment to another without consideration, the younger Son in the one case, and the Heir, on the part of the Mother, on the other, shall have the use, as they should have the Land itself, if no Feoffment had been made; as it is holden 5 E. 4. 7. See 4 and 5 P. and M. Dyer 163. See Fenwick and Milford's Case, Trin. 31 Eliz. So in 28 H. 8. Dyer 11. the Lord Rosses Case, 13 H. 7. 6. by Butler.  
So in the Case at Bar, the Use limited to the Feoffee, and another, is not any new thing, but the pernancy of the old profits of the Land, which may well be limited to the Feoffee and another jointly. But if the use had been only limited to the Feoffee and his Heirs there, because there is not any Limitation to another's person, nec in praesenti nec in futuro, he shall be in by force of the Feoffment.  
And it was Resolved, That Joint-Tenants might be seized to an use, though they come to it at several times: as if a man make a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself, and to such a Woman which he shall after marry, for term of their lives, or in tail, or in fee; in this Case, if he marry a Wife after, she shall take jointly with him, though they take the use at several times. See 17 Eliz. Dyer 340. but otherwise it is of Estates, which pass by the Common-Law; as 24 Ed. 3. joinder in Action 10. If a Grant be made by Deed to one man for life, the remainder to the right Heirs of A. and B. in Fee, and A. hath Issue and dyeth, and afterwards B. hath Issue and dyeth, and then Tenant for Life dyeth; in that case, the Heirs of A. and B. are not joint-tenants; because by the death of A. the remainder, as to one moiety, vested in his Heir, and by the death of B. the other moiety vested in his Heir at several times.  
And upon the whole matter, it was Resolved, That because in the principal Use, the Father and Son were Joint-Tenants by the Original Purchase, that the Son having the Land by Survivor, should not be in Ward, and accordingly it was so Decreed.   

Pasch. 39 Eliz. Rot. 233. In the Kings-Bench,  
Collins and Harding's Case.  
The Case was; A man seized of Lands in Fee; and also of Lands, by Copy of Court-Roll in Fee, according to the Custom of the Manor, made one entire Demise of the Lands in Fee, and of the Lands holden by Copy, according to the Custom to Harding for years, rendering one entire Rent, and afterwards the Lessor surrendered the Copyhold Land to the use of Collins and his Heirs: and at another time granted by Deed the Reversion of the freehold Lands to Collins in Fee, and Harding attorned: and afterwards, for the Rent behind, Collins brought an Action of Debt for the whole Rent: And it was objected, That the reservation of the Rent was an entire Contract; and, by the Act of the Lessee, the same cannot be apportioned: and therefore if one demise 3 Acres, rendering 3 s. Rent, and afterwards bargains and sells the reversion 〈◊〉 one Acre, the whole Rent is gone, because the Contract is entire, etc. Also the Lessee by that shall be subject to two Feal●●es, where he was subject but to one before.  
To these Points, it was answered and Resolved, That the Contract was not entire, but that the same by Act of the Lessor, and Consent of the Lessee, might be divided and severed; for the Rent is incident to the Reversion, and the Reversion is severable, and by consequence the Rent also: for accessorium sequitur naturam su● princip●lis. And as to the two Fealties, to that the Lessee shall be subject, though the Rent shall be extinct; for Fealty is by necessity of Law incident to the Reversion; but the Rent shall be divided, pro rata portionis, and so it was adjudged.  
And it was also adjudged, That though Collins come to the Reversion by several Conveyances, and at several times, yet he might b●ing an Action of Debt for the whole Rent, Hill. 43 Eliz. Rot. 243. West and Lassels Case. So Hill. 42 Eliz. Rot. 108. in the Common Pleas, Ewer and Mules Case.  
Note, It was adjudged, 19 Eliz. in the Kings-Bench, that where one obtained a Prohibition upon Prescription, de modo Decimandi, by payment of a sum of money, at a certain day, upon which Issue was take●, and the Jury found the modus Decimandi by payment of the said sum; but at another day, the Case being well debated; at last, it was Resolved, That no Consultation should be granted, for though the day of payment may b● mistaken, yet a Consultation shall not be granted where the Soit●tual Court hath not Jurisdiction of the Cause. Taafi l Chief Baron hath the Report of this Cause.   

Mich. 7 Jac. Regis.  
In an Ejectione Firmae, he Writ and Declaration were of two parts, of certain Lands in Hetherset and Windham, in the County of Norfolk; and saith, not in two parts, in three parts to be divided: and yet it was good as well in the Declaration as the Writ: for without question the Writ is good, de duabus partibus, generally, and so is the Register. See the 4 E. 3. 162. 2 E. 3. 31. 2 Ass. 1. 10 Ass. 12. 10 E. 3. 511. 11 Ass. 21. 11 E. 3. Bre. 478 9 H. 6. 36. 17 E. 4. 46. 19 E. 3. Bre. 244. And upon all the said Books it appears, that by the Intendment and Construction of the Law, when any parts are demanded, without showing in how many parts the whole is divided, that there remains but one part undivided. But when any Demand is of other parts in other form, there he ought to show the same specially. And according to this difference, it was resolved in Jordan's Case in the Kings-Bench; and accordingly Judgement was given this Term in the Caseat Bar.   

Mich. 7 Jac. Regis; In the Common-Pleas,  
Muttoa's Case.  
An Action upon the Case was brought against Mutton, for calling the Plaintiff Source and Enchanter, who pleaded Not Guilty; and it was found against to the Damage of six pence. And it was holden by the whole Court in the Common-Pleas, that no Action lies for the laid words: for Sortilegus est qui per sortes futura praenunciat. Inchantry is vordis aut rebus adjunctis aliquid praeter naturam moliri. See 45 Ed. 3. 17. One was taken in Southwark, with the Head and Visage of a dead man, and with a Book of Sorcery in his mail; and he was brought into the Kings-Bench before Knevet Justice, but no Indictment was framed against him; for which the Clerks made him swear never after to commit Sorcery, and he was sent to Prison; and the Head and Book were burned at Tuthil at the Prisoners charges.  
The ancient Law was, as by Britton appears, that who were attainted of Sorcery were burned; but the Law at this day is, they shall only be fined and imprisoned. So if one call another Witch, an Action will not lie: But if one say, She is a Witch, and hath bewitched such a one to death, an Action upon the Case lies, if in truth the party be dead. Conjuration, in the Stat. 5 Eliz. cap. 16. is taken for Invocation of any evil and wicked Spirits, and the same by that Act is made Felony: But Witchcraft, Enchantment, Charms, or Sorcery, is not Felony, if not by them any person be killed or dyeth.  
The first Statute made against Conjuration, Witchcraft, etc. was the Act 33 H. 8. c. 8. and by it they were Felony in certain Cases special; but that was repealed by the 1 Ed. 6. c. 12.   

Mich. 7 Jae. Regis. In the Court of Wards,  
Sir Allen Percy's Case.  
Sir John Fitz, and Bridget his Wife, being Tenants for life, of a Tenement called Ramshams, the remainder to Sir John Fitz in Tail, the remainder to Bridget in Tail, the reversion to Sir John and his Heirs: Sir John, and Bridget his Wife, by Indenture demised the said Tenement to William Sprey for divers years yet to come (except all Trees of Timber, Oaks and Ashes, and liberty to carry them away) rendering Rent. And afterwards Sir John died, having Issue Mary his Daughter, now Wife of Sir Allen Percy Knight; and afterwards the said William Sprey demised the same Tenement to Sir Allen for 7 years. The Question was, Whether Sir Allen having the immediate Inheritance in right of his Wife, expectant upon the Estate for the life of Bridget; and also having the Possession of the said Demise, might cut down the Timber Trees, Oakes, and Ashes? And it was objected, he might well do it: for it was Resolved in Sanders Case, in the 5th Part of my Reports, That if Lessee for years or life, assigns over his term or Estate to another, excepting the Mines or the Trees, etc. that the Exception is void. But it was answered and Resolved, by the two Chief Justices, and the Chief Baron, that in the Case at Bar, the Exception was good without question; because he who hath the Inheritance, joins in the Lease with the Lessee for life. And it was further Resolved; That if Tenant for life Leaseth for years, excepting the Timber Trees, the same is lawfully and wisely done; for otherwise, if the Lessee or Assignee cut down the Trees, the Tenant for Life should be punished in Waste, and should not have any remedy against the Lessee for years. But when Tenant for life upon his Lease excepteth the Trees, if they be cut down by the Lessor, the Lessee or Assignee shall have an Action of Trespass; Quare vi & armis, and shall recover Damages according to his loss, And this Case is not like the Case of Sanders; for there the Lessee assigned over his whole Interest, and therefore could not except the Mines, Trees, etc. But when Tenant for life leases for years, except the Timber Trees, the same remaineth yet annexed to his freehold, and he may command the Lessee to take them for necessary Reparations of his Houses. And in the said Case of Sanders, a Judgement is cited between Foster and Miles Plaintiffs, and Spencer and Bourd Defendants; That where Lessee for years assigns over his Term, except the Trees, that Wast in such Case shall be brought against the Assignee: But in this Case, without question, Waste lieth against Tenant for life, and so there is a difference.   

Mich. 7 Jac. Regis. In the Court of Wards;  
Hulme's Case.  
The King (in Right of his Duchy of Lancaster) Lord; Richard Hulms (seized of the Manor of Male, in the County of Lancaster, holden of the King as of his Duchy by Knight's Service) Mesne, and Robert Male (seized of Lands in Male, holden of the Mesne, as of his said Manor by Knight's Service) Tenant: Richard Hulme died; after whose death 31 H. 8. it was found, that he died seized of the said Mesnalty; and that the same descended to Edward his Son and Heir within Age, and found the Tenure aforesaid, etc. And during nonage, Robert Male died 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 Duchy, by Knight's 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 died seized of the Tenancy, and held the same of the King, as of his Duchy, etc. his Heir within age: Whereupon Richard Hulme, Cousin 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 remains 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 falsely, that Land is holden of the King by Knight's Service in capite, or of the King himself in Socage, if the Heir fue●h a general Livery, it is holden 46 Ed. 3. 12. by Mowbray and Persey, that he shall not after add, 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 expressly, 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 falsely 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, etc. 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 dies, 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 Judgement in the Traverse is, Ideo consideratum est, quod manus Domini R●gis amoveantur, etc. See 4 H. 4. fol. 33. in the Earl of Kent's Case, etc.   

Mich. 7 Jacobi Regis.  
Note, The Privilege, 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 Precedents:  
1. The one at the Parliament holden in the 27 H. 6. There was a Controversy moved in the Upper-House, between the Earls of A●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 Counsels, 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, etc. and to report what they conceive herein. The Judges reported as followeth: That this matter (viz. of Honour and Pre-eminency between the two Earls, 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 shown 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 moved in the Upper-House, that their Speaker might be set at liberty, to exercise his Place, etc. The Lords refer it to the Judges, and Fort●scue and Prisoit, the two Chief Justices, in the Name of all the Judges, answered, That they ought not to consider this Question, etc. but it belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament, and not to the Justices. But as to their Proceed in the Lower-Courts, in such Cases, they delivered their Opinions. See 12 E. 4. 2.   

Hill. 7 Jac. Regis. In Cam. St●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 only 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, etc. But if a man be convict in the Star-Chamber for Forgery, upon the Stat. 5 Eliz. In that Case, for the double Costs and Damages, an English Writ shall be made, directed to the Sheriff, etc. reciting the Conviction, and Statute for levying the said Costs and Damages, etc. and to bring the money into Star-Chamber, and the Writ shall be sealed with the Great Seal, and the Teste of the King. The like Resolution was in Langdale's Case in that Court.   

Hill. 7 Jac. Regis. In the Common-Pleas,  
Morse and Webb's Case.  
In a Replevin brought by John Morse, against Robert Webb, of the taking of two Oxen the last day of Novemb. 3 Jac. regis nunc, in a place called the Downfield in Luddington, in the County of Worcester; The Defendant, as Bailiff to William Sherington Gent. made Conuzance, because the place where, is an Acre of Land, which is the Freehold of the said William Sherrington, and for Damage feasants, etc. In Bar of which Avowry, the Plaintiff said, That the said Acre of Land is parcel of Downfield, and that he himself, at the time and before the taking etc. was, and is yet seized of two Yard-Land, with the Appurtenances, in Luddington; and that he, and all those whose Estate he hath in the said 2 Yard-Land, time out of mind, etc. have used to have Common of Pasture, per totam contentam, of the said Place called the Downfield; whereof &c. for 4 Beasts called Rother-Beasts, and two Beast's called Horse-Beasts, and for 60 Sheep, at certain times in the Year, etc. And that he put in the said two Oxen to use his Common, etc. And the Defendant maintained his Avowry, and traversed the Prescription, upon which the Parties were at Issue, and the Jury found a special Verdict: That before the taking one Richard Morse, Father of the said John Morse now Plaintiff, whose Heir he is, was seized of the said two Yard-Land, and had Common of Pasture, etc. as is before alleged, and so seized the said Richard Morse, 20 Eliz. demised to William Thomas, and John Fisher, divers parcels of the said two Yard-Land; to which etc. viz. the four Butts of Arable, with the Common and Inter-Common to the same belonging, for 400 years: By force whereof, the said William Thomas, and John Fisher, entered &c. so seized died: whereby the Possession and Reversion of the said two Yard-Land descended to John Morse now Plaintiff. And if upon the whole Matter John Morse now hath, and at the time of the taking, etc. had Common of Pasture, etc. for etc. as to the said two Acres of Land, with the Appurtenances, in Law or not, the Jury pray the Advice of the Court.  
Note, This Plea began Trin. 5 Jac. Rot. 1405. and upon Argument at the Bar and Bench,  
1. It was Resolved, by the whole Court, That it ought to be found against the Defendant, who had traversed the Prescription: For though all the two Yard-Lands had been demised for years, yet the Prescription made by the Plaintiff is true: But if he would take advantage of the matter in Law, he ought (confessing the Common) to have pleaded the said Lease; but when he traverseth the Prescription, he cannot give the same in Evidence.  
2. Resolved, That if the said Lease had been pleaded, that the Common, during the Lease for years, is not suspended or discharged; for each of them sh●ll have Common rateable, and in such manner, that the Land in which &c. shall not be surcharged.  
3. Resolved, That Common appendent to Land, is as much as to say for cattle levant and couchant upon the Land, in which etc.  
4. There is no difference, when the Prescription is for cattle levant and couchant, and for a certain number of cattle levant and couchant: But when the Prescription is for Common appurtenant to Land, there a certain number of the cattle ought to be expressed, which are intended by the Law to be levant and couchant.   

Hill. 7 Jac. Regis. In the Common-Pleas;  
Hughes and Crowther's Case.  
In a Replevin between Robert Hugh's Plaintiff, and Richard Crowther Defendant, which began Trin. 6. Jac. Rot, 2220. The Case was, Charles Fox was seized of 6 Acres of Meadow in Bedston, in the County of Salop, in F●●, and 10 Octob. 9 Eliz. leased the same to Charles Hibbens, and Arthur Hibbens, for 60 years, if the said Charles and Arthur should so long live, and afterwards Charles died; and if the Lease determine by his death, was the Question. And it was adjudged, That by his death, the Lease was determined: For the life of a man is mere collateral unto the Estate for years; otherwise, if a Lease be made to for the Lives of J. S. and J. N. See Brudnel's Case in the 5th Part of my Reports: which Case was affirmed for good Law by the whole Court.   

Pasch. 8 Jac. Regis. In Communi Banco;  
Heydon and Smith's Case.  
Richard Heydon brought an Action of Trespass against Michael Smith, and others, of breaking his Close called the Moor in Ugley, in the County of Essex, the 25 day of June, 5 Jac. Et quandam arborem suam ad valentiam 40 s. nuper crescen. succiderunt: The Defendants said, that the Close, and at the time of the Trespass, was the Freehold of Si● John Leventhrop Knight, etc. and that the said Oak was a Timber-Tree of 30 years' growth and more, and justifies the cutting down of the Tree by his Command: The Plaintiff replies, and saith, That the said Close, and a House, and 28 Acres of Land in ugley, are Copyhold, and parcel of the Manor of Ugley, etc. Of which Manor, Edward Leventhrop Esq; Father of Sir John Leventhrop, was seized in Fee, and granted the said House, Lands, and Close, to the said Richard▪ Heydon, and his Heirs, by the Rod, at the Will of the Lord, according to the Custom of the said Manor; and that within the Manor there is such a Custom, Quod quilibet teneres Customar, ejusdem Manerii sibi & haeredibus suis ad voluntat. Dom. etc. a toto tempore supradicto usus fuit ad ejus libitum amputare ramos ●mnimodum arborum, called Pollingers, or Husbords, super terris & tenement, suis Customar. crescen. pro ligno combustibili, etc. and also, to cut down and take all manner of Trees called Pollingers and Husbords, and all other Timber Trees, etc. for reparation of their Houses, and also for Plough-boot and Cart-boot; and that all the Trees, etc. hitherto growing upon, etc. were not sufficient for the necessary uses aforesaid; And that the said Richard Heydon, from the time of the said Grant, had preserved, etc. all Treas, etc. growing upon the said Lands to him granted: and that after the said Edward Leventhrops death, the Manor descended to the said Sir John; and that at the time of the Trespass, the aforesaid Message of the said Richard Heydon, was in decay, etc. upon which the Defendant demurred in Law.  
The Case was often argued at Bar; and now this Term it was argued at the Bench by the Justices, and therein these Points were resolved.  
1. That the first part of the Custom was absurd and repugnant, but it extends not to the Case; for the last part of the Custom, which concerns the cutting down of the Trees, concerns the Point in question; and so the first part of the Custom is not material. And when it was objected, that the pleading that the Message of the Plaintiff was in decay, was too general, as appears by the Book, 10 Ed. 4. 3. To that it was answered by Cook Chief ●ustice, That the said Book proved the pleading in the Case at Bar was certain enough; and therewith agrees 7 H. 6. 38. 34 H. 6. 17.  
2. It was Resolved, That in this Case, without question, there needs not to allege more certainty; for the Copyholder doth not here take it according to the Custom; but the Lord of the Manor cuts it down, and preventeth the Copyholder of his benefit; and therefore he needeth not to show any decay at all, but only for increasing of Damages: for the Lord does the wrong, when he cuts down the Tree which should serve for Reparations.  
3. It was Resolved, That of Common-Right, as a thing incident to the Grant, the Copyholder may take House-bote, Hedge-bote, and Plough-bote, upon his Copyhold, Quia concesso uno, conceduntur omnia sine quibus id consistere non potest: And with this agrees, 9 H. 4. Wast 59 But the same may be restrained by Custom.  
4. It was Resolved, That the Lord cannot take all the Timber-Trees, but he ought to have sufficient for Reparation of the Customary Houses, and for Plough-bote, etc. for otherwise great Depopulation will follow. And it is to be understood, that Bote being on old Saxon Word, hath two significations.  
First, compensatio criminis, as Frithbote signifies to be discharged, for giving amends for breach ●f the Peace; Manhote, to be discharged of amends for the death of a man.  
And secondly, for Reparation; as Bridgebote, Burghbote, Castlebote, Parkbote, etc. And it is to be known, that Boat and Estovers are all one. And Estover is derived of the French Word, Estover, i. e. fovere, i. e. to keep warm, cherish, etc. And there are four kinds of Estovers, viz.  
First, Arandi. Secondly, Ardendi. Thirdly, Construendi. And fourthly, Claudendi, viz. Ploughbote, Firebote, Housebote, and Hedgebote.  
5. It was Resolved, That the Copyholder shall have a general Action of Trespass against his Lord, Quare clausum fregit & arborem suam succidit: For Custom hath fixed it to his Estate against his Lord. And the Copyholder, in this Case, hath as great an Interest in the Timber Trees, as he hath in his Message which he holds by Copy. And if the Lord break or destroy the House, without question the Copyholder shall have an Action of Trespass against his Lord, Quare domum fregit; and by the same Reason for the Timber-Trees which are annexed to the Land, and which he may, for Reparation of his Message, or else it cannot stand. See Trin. 40 Eliz. Rot. 37. in B. R. between Stebbing and Grosenor. See tailor's Case, in the Fourth Part of my Reports; and see 5 H. 4. 2. 2 H. 4. 12. 2 E. 4. 15. 1 H. 6. 4. 7 H. 4. 15. 19 H. 6. 34. 11 H. 4. 28. 11 H. 4. 23. 21 H. 7. 14. b. acc. 35 H. 6. 24. 30 H. 6. Tresp. 10. etc. 21 H. 7. 15. 11 H. 4. 23. See Fitz. Trespass. ultimo in the Abridgement. And afterwards, the same Term, Judgement was given on the principal Case for the Plaintiff.   

Pasch. 8 Jacobi. In Communi Ranco.  
The Parishioners of St. Alphage in Canterbury, by Custom ought to choose the Parish-Clerk, whom they chose accordingly: The Parson, by colour of a new Canon, made at the Convocation in the Year of the King that now is (which is not of force to take away any Custom) drew the Clerk before Dr. Newman, Official of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to deprive him, upon the Point of right Election, and for other Causes: And upon that, it was moved at the Bar, to have a Prohibition: And upon hearing of Dr. Newman, and himself, and his Council, a Prohibition was granted by the whole Court; because the Party chosen is a mere Temporal Man, And the means of choosing him, viz. the Custom is also merely Temporal: So as the Official cannot deprive him; but, upon occasion, the Parishioners may displace him. And this Office is like that of a Churchwarden, who though they be chosen for two years; yet, for cause, they may displace them: as is held in 26 H. 8. 5. And though the Execution of the Office, concerneth Divine Service, yet the Office itself is mere Temporal. See 3 E. 3. Annuity 30. 18 E. 3. 27. And it is to be known, that the deprivation of a man of a Temporal Office or Place, is a Temporal Thing. Upon which no Appeal lies by the 25 H. 8. but an Assize, as in 4 Eliz. Dyer 209. And therewith agrees the Book, 8 Ass. Sirases Case. But if a Dean of a Cathedral Church, be deprived before the Commissioners of the King, he may appeal to the Delegates within the said Act, 25 H. 8. For a Deanery is a Spiritual Promotion, and not Temporal: And before that Act, in such Case, the Appeal was to Rome immediately.   

Mich. 5 Jacobi Regis. In Banco Regis.  
Prichard and Hawkin's Case.  
John Prichard brought an Action upon the Case, against Robert Hawkins, for Slanderous Words published the last Day of August, 3. Jacob. Viz. That Prichard, which serves Mistress Shelley, did murder John Adam's Child (Quandam Isabellam adam's modo defunct. filia cujusdam Johannis adam's de etc. innuendo:) Upon which a Writ of Error was brought in the Exchequer-Chamber, upon a Judgement given for Prichard in the Kings-Bench; and the Judgement was reversed in Easter Term, 7 Jac. because it doth not appear, that Isabel was dead at the time of speaking the words; for tunc defunct. aught to have been in stead of modo defunct.   

Pasch. 8 Jac. In Banco Regis;  
Dison and Bestney's Case.  
Humphrey Dyson said of Nicholas Bestney, a Councillor at Law of Grays-Inne; Thou a Barrister? Thou art no Barrister; Thou art a Barretor, Thou wert put from the Bar, and darest not show thyself there: Thou study the Law? thou hast as much Wit as a Daw. Upon Not Guilty pleaded, the Jury found for the Plaintiff, and gave 23 l. Damages; upon which Judgement was given: and upon Writ of Error, in the Exchequer-Chamber, the Judgement was affirmed.   

Pasch. 8 Jac. Regis. In Banco Regis;  
Smith and Hill's Case.  
Noah Smith brought an Action of Assault and Battery, against Walter Hill in the Kings-Bench, which began Pasch. 7 Jac. Rot. 175. Upon Not Guilty pleaded, a Verdict and Judgement for the Plaintiff, and 107 l. given for Damages and Costs. In a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber, the Error was assigned in the We: Fa: which was certified by Writ of Certiorari; and, upon this Writ, no Return was made upon the Back of the Writ, which is called Returnum Album. And for that Cause, this Easter Term, the Judgement was reversed.   

Trin. 7 Jac. Regis. In Cur. Wardorum.  
It was found by Writ of Diem clausit extremum, after Roger Westcots' death, that the said Roger, the day that he died, was seized of and in the moiety of the Manor of Trewalliard, in his Demesne as of Fee, and so died seized; and that the moiety of the said Manor 19 E. 3. was holden of the than Prince, as of his Castle of Trematon, parcel of his Duchy of Cornwall by Knight-Service; as appears by a certain Exemplification of Trematon for the said Prince, made 9 Martii, 19 E. 3. And the Words of the Extent were, Willielmus de Torr tenet duo feoda et dimid. Milit. apud Pick Stricklestombe & Trewalliard per servitium militare & reddit inde per annum 8 d.  
And it was Resolved by the two Chief Justices, and Chief Baron, That the Office, concerning the Tenure, was insufficient and void: for the Verdict of a Jury ought to be full and direct, and not with a prout patet: for now the force of the Verdict lies upon the Extent● which if it be false, he who is grieved shall have no remedy by any Traverse: for they have not found the Tenure indefinite, which may be Traversed but with a prout patet, which makes the Office in that Point insufficient. And upon that a melius inquirendum shall issue▪ And herewith agrees F. N. B. 255.  
FINIS.    

THE TABLE.  

A.  
AUrum Reginae, what, and what right the Queen hath to it 19  
Alienations by Bishops, when voidable by their Successors, and when the King or Queen may void them 75, 76  
Admiralty, Jurisdiction thereof, is no Court of Record 82, 83, 84, 85. 88, 89. 109. 199. 200, 201  
Absence takes not away a Title of Honour, and why 111, 112, 113  
Affidavits false; when, how, and from whom punishable 134, 135  
Arches Court, its Jurisdiction 147  
Archbishop of Canterbury his power to act, and in what cases 148, 149, 150, 151  
Apprentice; none may keep a shop, etc. or set up a Trade, etc. unless he have served seven years 154, 155  
Apples, whether within the Act for engrossing, and what within that Act 160   

B.  
Bishops, when lawful, and their Authority what, and whence derived 8, 9  
Buggery what, and how punishable 36, 37  
Baron, who shall be said to be a Baron of Parliament, and in what cases 73, 74  
Benevolence, the nature thereof, and how may be imposed 124, 125  
Burgages, Tenure what, and if tenant in Burgages shall pay aid to the King to make his Eldest Son Knight 169, 170, 171, 172  
Bridges, who ought to repair them 176, 177   

C.  
Custom, whence to be paid, and of what 16, 17. 33  
Commissioners, High Commissioners, their power 17, 18. 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52. 72, 73. 87, 88, 89, 90  
Conspiracy, where such action lies, for what, and against whom 22, 23, 24. 95, 96, 97  
Commissions, what of them are against Law, & e contra 29, 30, 31, 32. 93, 94  
Consultation, where grantable 43. 46. 67, 68, 69, 70, 71  
Court Christian, their Power 44  
Court of Common-Pleas their Power and Antiquity 60, 61. 113, 114  
Convocation, authority thereof 76  
Contempt, what shall be said a high contempt of the King, and how punishable 100, 101  
Chester, Chamberlain there, his power 118, 119  
Court, what judgement shall be given when the Court is divided in opinion 123, 124  
Contract, what shall be said an entire Contract 205, 206  
Common, when suspended or discharged, & e contra 214, 215  
Custom, where, and how available 216, 217, 218, 219   

D.  
Dignity, the King may erect any name of Dignity that was not before, or transfer it 85, 86. 116, 117  
Deed, obtained by Covin, shall not bind 95  
Duresse per Jailer 133  
Dower, what a bar thereto, & e contra 161, 162, 163, 164, 165   

F.  
Forests, what so properly, and what may be done therein 20, 21  
First-Fruits and Tenths given to the Crown 46, 47  
Ferryman, when he may throw goods over board 65  
Felony: while an Attainder in force, no Felony before to be answered for 105  
Forgery, where punishable, and how 108, 177, 178  
Felon, when his goods are forfeit 127  
Fine levied, how avoidable, and for what, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133. 202  
Fine to the Lord of a Manor in Copyhold, aught to be reasonable 143, 144, 145, 146   

G.  
Grants ancient, not to be drawn in question 6  
Grants of the Kings, when void, & e contra 91, 92  
What shall be a good Grant to elect Burgesses to Parliament 126   

H.  
Heresy, what, how, and by whom punishable 58, 59, 60  
Hand, when the right hand shall be cut off, and for what 74, 75  
Habeas Corpus 89, 90  
Haeretico comburendo, the Writ therein lieth 98   

I.  
Impropriations not examinable, and why 4, 5  
Confirmed by time, though defective 5, 6  
Impositions, when they may be laid by the King 32, 33, 34  
Justices of Peace, when they may award Process of Outlawry 107, 108  
Their Power, as to making Warrants 136, 137, 138   

L.  
Libels, what shall be judged a Libel, and how, and where to be punished 35, 35  
Law of England to be expounded by the Judges of it, and none other 147  
Lease for Lives, when determinable 216   

M.  
Marriages, Priests Marriages, not void 9  
Marches, Courts there when erected, and why, as also the power of Lords Precedent there 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58  
Manslaughter, what so adjudged 92, 93  
Modus Decimandi what, where suable 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160. 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, ad 193  
Mean profits, when to be answered to the King 196   

N.  
Nobility, Privilege thereof, what 100, 101, 102   

O.  
Oath, Ex Officio, in what cases the Ordinary may examine Ex Officio upon Oath 25, 26, 27, 28  
Office, where traversable 106, 107  
Offices, new where, and upon what cause they may be erected 121, 122, 123  
Office found where void, and why 195, 196, 197. 222  
Where an Estoppell 210, 211   

P.  
Procedendo in Loquela not allowable 4  
Pardons, what offences the King may pardon 28, 29  
Praemunire, where it lies, and where not, and against whom 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42. 98, 99  
Prohibitions in what cases grantable, and against whom, and by what Courts 43, 44, 45, 46. 52. 60, 61, 62, 63. 66, 67. 80, 81. 89. 90. 150, 151, 152, 153  
Piracy, who shall have Pirates goods 77  
Proclamations, what may be prohibited thereby, and the validity thereof 78, 79, 80  
Priests may not be arrested in Holy Church, etc. 104, 105  
Perjury, where punishable 106  
Poynings Law, how it shall be expounded 114, 115, 116, 117  
Portion, what shall be said a sufficient Child's Portion 117  
Palatine County, its Jurisdiction 119  
Parliament, Forms and Orders of Parliament 119, 120  
Prohibition, where it lies, and for what, and in what not 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176. 181 ad 193  
Primer seisin, where the King shall have it 198, 199  
Privilege of Parliament to be determined by the Court of Parliament 212, 213  
Process, not to be made out of the Star-Chamben, neither for damages nor costs 213  
Parish Clerk, who shall choose 219, 220   

R.  
Recognizances when forfeited, and for what 1, 2, 3  
Rent, when determinable by the Lessors death, & e contra 35, 36  
Robbery, where the Hundred may be sued 64, 65  
Return, when insufficient, & e contra 135, 136  
Returnum Album 222   

S.  
Stannaries, the King's Prerogative therein 9, 10, 11  
Salt-petre, the King's Prerogative therein in several points 12, 13, 14  
Simony, what it is, and the penalty thereof 78  
Statute, what Officers shall be within the Stat. 5 E. 6. 16. for avoiding corruption 82, 83  
What is an offence within 11 H. 4. 9 102, 103  
Slander fined in the Star-Chamber, and why 108  
Seat in the Church, right thereto 109, 110  
Scandalum Magnatum what, and how punishable 138, 139  
Sewers, the Commissiones therein, their power, and how ancient 179, 180   

T.  
Tail, Tenant in Tail may forfeit his Estate, and when, and for what 6, 7  
Treason, what shall so be accounted, & e contra 14, 15, 16  
Accessary in Treason, who 86  
Tenure, what shall be said a Tenure in Capite, etc. 140, 141, 142  
Tithes substracted, where to be sued for 165, 166, 167  
Tithes to be paid, and for what, and the neglect thereof how punishable 193, 194  
Timber-trees, Oaks and Ash, who may cut, & e contra 208, 209. 216, 217   

V.  
Vows, of what validity in Common Law 99   

W.  
Women, Maids, etc. to take and marry against their Wills, is Felony 18, 19 104  
Wales, Justices there not to be constituted by Commission 50, 51  
Witnesses, Testis singularis not allowable 68  
Parties to be no witnesses 72  
Widow, when, and how her election shall determine 117  
Winding-sheets, felony to steal them 118  
Wills and Testaments, fees for writing thereof, and extortion therein, how punishable 177, 202  
Ward, who shall be a ward to the King, 203, 204, 205  
Words, action for words, where it lies, 207, 208. 221   
The End.