Earl of Oxfords Case
-
Upload
latanya-bridgemohan -
Category
Documents
-
view
232 -
download
0
Transcript of Earl of Oxfords Case
-
8/10/2019 Earl of Oxfords Case
1/5
~ a g d ~ l e nollege;e,9 H. 8, seised in Fee of the o Chr~st's Church, and
th e Covent Garden, withou t AIdgate, London, eont seven Acres, demised them
for seven t~-tw o ears, ren dr ~n g
40
per Ann. for the ~ c t o r ~ ,nd
9
for
th e Garden.
And 17 Elk. (fifty Yeam of the said Lease being expired) th e Queen at th e Sui t of th e
said Gollege licensed them to alien, w hich the y did, and the n received for th e ~ c t o r y
525 per Ann. and
15
or the Garden. It b e i n g h e r ~ a j e s t y ~ sntent, That the
College should
be
advan~ ed ~ a t ~ yn Profit, by having th e Rectory to them and their
S u c ~ s s o ~23discharged
of
th e Lease for Years, w 5 ch
in
Present was worth to them
but 50
per
Ann. the utmost Rent ; he same N ~ S cco rd~ng~yrform ed by a a n -
veyance to her ~ a j e s t ~ ,n d f r o m h e r ~ a j e s t yo Spinola, a n t he Rectory, from
Spinola to th e Goliege, after v h ic h Spinola and the Earl of Oxford his Assignee, and
his ~ n d e r - ~ ~ a n t s ,ave built upon the ~ a r d ~ n30 Houses, and themin ~ t o ~ ~ e
5 1 0 ,~ 0 0 , hich A s s i ~ e end his ~ n d e r - t e ~ a n ~ave Bonds and ~ e u ~ t ~iven
or
the
~ a j o y m e n thereof, to the Sum of ~20,000 .
Note ; The Co~eges hereby advanced 1700 more th an they sh o d d have been,
if th e fo rmer Lease had conti
This Conveyance having
F u r c ~ a s e ~rom a Thing of li
a g e ~ e r a ~ase wherein Peps
resting secure on its P a ~ s in ghro'
The resent ~ a s t e ~f the Col1
Title both in Law an d ~ q ~ i t y ,
31
seded a Leaease thereof for three Years to one ~ a r x e n ,
who thereupon brought an ~ j e c ~ m e n tgainst one John Sm ith, for Trial of the Title
in
R. R.
whexein
a
Special Yer&ct w~bs had
;
nd while tha t d e ~ ~ d e dn A r g ~ i ~ e
the Lease ended, and so no Possession could be a ~ a r d e dor the ~ l a i n ~ ~ ,or Fru it
had of h is Su it.
Yet hc p r o ~ e d ~o have the ~ p i n ~ o nf th e Judges to
know
the Law (which
N&S
a ~ o ~ u n t a r yct of his),
0
the Intent,
if
the Law were with
him,
he ~ i g ~ tegin a
new Suit a t Law, and spare to
; nd if the Law were against him,
that then he might proceed in
the Judges of th at Gourt having de-
Iivered their ~ p i ~ o n sg a ~ ~ t fore any J ~ d g ~ e n tntred upon the
lf,
the Earl and Mr. ~ ~ o d ,or nd their Lessees, p re fe rr ~d heir Bill ia
~ h ~ n ~ r ynd then ~ ~ d g m e n t
m
entred,
Q ~ d
~ ~ ~ w
i l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
er
~~~~~~
the ~ o n ~ e ~ a n c eo be
void
by the ~ t a t ~ t ef
13 Eliz.
and that they evi
Parcel of the re misses by J u d g ~ e n tt Law ; which Plea and ~ ~ ~ ~ r r eere ~ e e ~ ~
by
Order
to Sir John T i d a l and bfr, ~ o o l ~ d g e ,ho r e ~ ~ d ,41 T hat they t h o ~ g h t
it fit the Cause should proceed to Wearing, ~ o t ~ t h s t a n d ~ n ghe
Plea
and Demurrer
and ~ t e r w a r d s n ~ e f a ~ l tf an A ~ w e x , n A t t a c h ~ e n t as awarded a ~ n s the
defend an^, w he re ~ po n hey were attsch'd, and a
Cq
C m p return'd, and by
Order of the 22d of
Ootob.
13 Jac. 1116151, they were com mitted to the Reet
for
their
~ o n t e ~ ~ ~n reusing to ans-lver; and do now stand bound over to answer their
~ ~ n t e m p ~ ,hey still refusing to answer:
of one o he 130Housm, whereof
To
which Bill in ~ ~ i a ~ ~ r ~he Defenda~t u t in a Plea and Denm
ulfi
-
8/10/2019 Earl of Oxfords Case
2/5
486 THE EARL OF OXFORDS CASE I
CHAN.
REP.
5.
And now this Term it was argued, That the Defendants thu s
stand in^
in Contempt,
1.
The Law of God speaks
for
th e Plaintiff. Deu t. 28.
2.
And Equ ity and good Consci~nce
peak
wholly for him.
3. Nor does th e Law of the Land speak against him. B ut that and E q ~ i t yught
to join H and in Band, in m oderating and restraining
all
Extrem ities and Hardships.
By the
Law
of God, He that, builds
a House
ought
to
dwell in it ; and he th at
plants a Vineyard ough t to gather the G r q e s thereof nd it w s a Cmse upon the
Wicked, th at they should build Houses and not dwell in them, and plant Vineyards
and not gather th e Grapes thereof. Deut.
28.
v.
30.
[fj] And yet here in this Gase, such is the Conscience of th e Doctor, th e Defendant,
Th at he would have th e Houses, Gardens and Orchards, which he neither built nor
planted : But the C h a n c e ~ o ~ave always corrected such corrupt Consciences, and
caused them to render quid
pro guo
or the Common Law
it
self will admit no Con-
tra& to
be
good without
paid
pro quo, or Land topass without a valuable Consideration,
and therefore Equity m ust
see
that
a
p r o ~ r t ~ o n a b l ea ~ ~ ~ a c t i o n
fx
As in th e Case of Peterson vers. Bickm anj the Husband made a Lease of the Wifes
Land, an d th e Lessee being ignoran t
of
the de fe ~ ib le itle built upon the Land, and
was a t great Charge therein he ~ ~ ~ n died, and the M7ife avoided the Lease at
Law, but was compelled in Equity to yield
a
Recornpence for th e Building and Better-
ing of t he Land.
For
it was so much the more worth unto her
:
And wheresoe~er
one hath
a
Benefit, the Law will compel h im
to
give a Recompence,
as
if Cestui
que
use sell th e Land
t o
one that hath no Notice
of
the Use, and dieth
;
by Reason th a t
he had the Benefit of th e Sale, his Execu tors were ordered to answer th e Value of th e
Land out of
his
&&ate, as a p ~ e a ~ t ~y a J u d g m ~ ~ t - ~ o l ~
f 34 H.
6 .
161
And (his Lordship) the Plaintiff in this Case only desires to be satisfied
of
t h e
t rue Value of the new 3 u ~ ~ d i n gnd P ~ a n t i ~ gince the C on ve ~~ nc e ,nd ~ n v e n i e n t
A ~ ~ o ~ a n ~
or
th e Purchase.
And Equity speaks
as
th e Law of God speaks. B ut you would silence Equity.
1st. 3 e ~ ~ eou have
a
Judgment
at
Law.
2dly. Because that Judgment is upon
;t
Statute-Law.
To which I answer,
Arst, As a Right in Law cannot die, no more can Equity in Chancery die, and
therefore
nullus
receda-at
a C ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ a - r ~ ~w r ~ ~ ~ ~ oE.
4,
11. a.
Therefore the
~ ~ ~ a n c e r ys aIway~ pen, and a ~ ~ h o u g hh e Tsrrn be ~ j o u r ~ e dhe Chancery is
DO ;
fo r Conscience and Equity
i s
always ready to render to every one their Due, and 9 E.
4,11, a. The Chancery is only removable at the Will of the King and Ch ancellor;
and by
27
E.
3
15.
The Chancellor must give Account to none but only to th e King
and ~ ~ r l i a ~ e n t .
The Cause why there is
a
Chancery is, for th a t & ens Actions
are so
divers and
j n ~ n ~ t e ,hat it is impossibl~
to
make any general
Law
which may aptly meet with
every particular Act, and not fail in some C i r c ~ s ~ n ~ ~ .
The
0 % ~f
the Chancellor
is
to correct
E73
Mens Consciences for Frauds , Breach
of T rusts, ~ r o n g snd Oppre~ions ,
f
what Nature soever they
b
nd to soften and
mollify th e Extrem ity of th e Law, which
is
called
~ ~ ~ r ~w.
And
for
th e Judgm ent, &c,, Law a nd Equ ity are distinct, both in the ir Courts,
their Judges, and the Rules of Justice
;
and yet they both aim a t one and th e same
End, which
is,
to do R ight
;
as Ju stice and XeJrcy differ in their EEects and Opera-
tions, yet both join i n t h e ~ a n ~ e s t a t ~ o n
f
Gods Glory.
But
in
this Case, upon the Matter there is no Judgment, but only a ~ ~ e o n t i ~ u a n c e
of th e Suit, which gives no Possession; and altho to prosecute Law and Eq uity to-
gether be a Veration; yet voluntarily to attempt the Law in a doubtful Case, and
after
to
resort to Equity, is neither strange nor u n r ~ ~ o n a b l e .
But take it
M
a Judgment to all Intents hen answer,
Th at in this Case there is no O p p ~ ~ t i o no the J u d g ~ e n t e ~ t ~ e r
ill
the
Truth
ox
Justice
of
the Judgment be examined in this Court , nor any ~ ~ c u m s t a n c eepend-
ing thereupon; but the
same
is justified and approvd; and therefore
a
Judgment
JS
a o
Let to exam ~ne t in Equity,
so a8
all the Truth
of
the J ~ d ~ ~ ~
c., be not^
examind.
[a] No Possession
is
e s t a ~ ~ i s ~ ~y t he Kings W rit after th at any
J ~is
sought to be i ~ ~ p e ~ h ~ ;
o r
when th e P ~ ~ ~ n t ~ f fy his Lessee seek~ngRelief at the
&c., may be s e q u ~ tr e d ntil Answer.
-
8/10/2019 Earl of Oxfords Case
3/5
1
CtAX.
l q.
TRE
EARL OF
OXPORDEJ CASE 4817
Common Law is barred, then is his Time to seek Relief i n Chancery, when th e
inst him, Doctor and Stu~ent ,ol. 16. A Serjeant is sworn to
to L&w. tb at is, according to the Law of God, the Law of
the
Land; and upon both the Laws of God and Reason, IS
ground^
t t
Rule,
via
To
do
as
one woutd be done unto.
And therefore where one is bound in an Ob l~gat~ono pay ~ o n e y ,ayeth it and
takes no Acquittance, by the C o m ~ o n aw he shall be c o ~ p e l ~ e do pay th e Noney
again. But when it appeareth, th & th e Plaintiff will recover a t Law, th e Scrjeant
may advise the Defendant t o take a Subpcltna in Chancery, notwithstanding his Oath.
So 1
H. 7 , 14. If
be
deliver an
Ac
uittanee without Seal,
or
the &hey is paid
within a short Time after the D ay,
or if 9 ose
the A ~ u i t t ~ n c e ,f ~ ~ ~ d ~ e n te had
in any of these Cases th e Pa rty may resort t o Equity.
22 E.
4,and 7
H.
1,
11.
Also, after J u d ~ e n tn those Cases, if he Party have
a
Release he may have
[ I
an
A u d i ~ ~
~ r e ~ a
hich i s a Latin Bill in Equity, if th e other Partys Conse~ence
be
so
large as t o demand a double Satisfaction. So if th e Statu te be eptred in to by
Duress
or
~ e n ~ e ,h o ~ ~ hhe P arty be in ~ x ~ u t ~ o n ,et he may avoid
it
by Duress
of
I ~ p r i s o n ~ ~ n t ,
8
E. 4; Fit%.Hat. Bre.
104,
L.
5,
Ed. 4
;
Audita Querela, 21. AQd
yet it i s a ~ ~ d g ~ e n tpor) Recosd, and
so
of a Judgnient by C o ~ e ~ i o n .nd S~t is fae-
tion a c k n o w le ~ e d y a Letter of Attorney which i s lost, or cannot be psodqced.
And in the Cm of Earning vers. Cas to~ ,Midi. 3 Jac. in B.
R.
on an A ~ d ~ t a
~ ~ r e ~ arought p r ~~~~~ ~~
Gurim, If
a Judgment be given upon an usurious
contract^ and
it
is Part
of
t h e A g r e e ~ e n t o have a Judg me nt, th e Defendant may
avoid such Jud gm ent by an
Audita
Querela,
or
by a Scire Facias,brought upon the
same,
So
if a
J u d g ~ e n t e had against an Infa nt by Covin, a s
if
an Infant be
inveigled
to
be
Bail
for one
in
any C ourt
at
~estm inster , e may have an
~ ~ ~ a
u r ~ ~ a
o
avoid th e same, TTia. 7 Jac., ~ a r k ~ ~ m .em. Turner, and
8
H.
6,10.
S o if J u d ~ e n t
be had by Covin or C o ~ l u ~ ~ o ng ~ n s t n E xecutor t o defraud the C ~ ~ i t o r s ,f it be
pleaded in Bar, the Covin and ~ o ~ u s i o nay be averred at f1Q]Law by ~ e p l i ~ t i o n ,
and the J u d ~ e n tr u s t r a t ~ hereby,
3
E. 6, 36. And nQte; Every ~ u t ~ ~ w r ys a
Judgment, yet the Party may have Remedy in Conscience against
hlrn
that caused
him t o be outfawd ~v ith ou tust Cause, Dmt. I tud. fib.
2
c.
21 ;
2 1
N
7,
7 ;
9
N
6,
20.
S o
if one neglect to
inrol
his Deed of ~ a r g a ~ nnd Sale, being his onIy ~ s s ~ r a n ~ ,
asin
Jaques and Huntlegs Case in this Coart,
13Junii 2599,
and th e B argainor brings
an
Ejectiow
f i rmm
against him, and ha th J u ~ e n t ,he Bargainee may resort to
Chancery, and there be relievd, if not for th e Land, yet for the Money paid.
And in Morgan and Parrys Case, P s s h ,
2
Elk A Woman had an Eatate in
a
Rouse for her Life di~unishablef W aste; and yet she was enjoined not to commit
Waste in the House, ~ o n t r a r y o the Case
of
Lewis Boles, Lib.
11.
re
f
not
because of th e Prejudice to him
in
Ecmainder ?)
By all which Cases it a p p ~r e tl i , hat when a ~ ~ u d g ~ i e ~ t
s
obta j~ ied y O p p re ~ o n ,
Wrong and a hard Conmience, th e Chancellor will fru strate and
set it
aside, not
fos
any error
or
Defect n the J u d ~ e n t ,ut for the hard C o n ~ i e ~ ~f t he P a rty ;
and
tha t in such Cases the Judges Ell]also play th e ChaDcellors; and th a t these are not
thin the Statute 4 E. 4, ap. 23. hi eh is, That after
a
~ J u d ~ i ~ e ~ tiven in the
Court of
our
Sovereign Lord the King, the Parties
and their
R e m shall be
in
Peace,
until the ~ J u d ~ e n te ~ n d o n e y ~ t ~ i n tr Error.
But secondly,
It
iS objected, Th at this is a ~ J ~ d ~ ~ e ~ tpon a ~ t a t u t e - ~ a ~ r .
To which f an8wer,
It
has ever been the Endea~our f all P a r l i a ~ ~ n t so meet
with the corrupt Consciences
of
Men a8 much as mi ht be, and t o supply the Defects
of th e Law therein, and if this Cause were eshibitef to th e P a r ~ i ~ ~ c ~ t ,t would soon
be osdcrcd and determined
by
Equ ity; and th e Lord Chancellor is, by
his Place
ander
hrs ~ a j e s t y ,o supply th at Power u ntil it msy be h,ad, in all ~ f a t t e ~ sf M e t m and
~ ~ u ~ ,etween Party and Party nd the Lord Chancellor do& not except to the
Statute
or
the Law ~ ~ ~ u d ~ e n t ~ ,p o n t h e S ~ ~ t u t e ,ut taketh
h ~ ~ s e l ~
ound
to
obey
th at Statute according to 8
W.
and the Judgment thereupon may be just, and
th e College in
this
Case
may have
a
goo
Title in Law, and the ~ u d g ~ e n ~et standeth
in Force.
It
seemet~iby the Lord Cokes %?port, fol,
118,
in Dr. ~ ~ ~ i a ~ sase, That
S% tutes are not
80
sacred as tha t the ~ q u i t yZg]
of
them may not be ex ar ok d. For
-
8/10/2019 Earl of Oxfords Case
4/5
488
THE EARL
OF
OXFORDS
CAME 1 CE T. REP. 13.
be saith, That in many Gases th e Common Law hath such a Prerogative, as th at it
can
controd Acts
of
P ~ ~ a m e n t ,nd adjudge them void; as if they arc against
G o ~ m o n i ~ h t , r Reason, or R e ~ u g n a ~ t ,r ~ m ~ s s i b ~ eo be performed, and for
th at he vouches 8 E.
3, 30; 33
E. 3; Cessavit,
4 1 , 4 2 ;
Nat, Brev, 209; Plowd.
110;
2 7 H.
6 ;
Annu~ ty , 1 1
E l k
Rot.
303.
And yet our Books are, That the Acts
and S tatutes
of
Parliament ought
to
be reversd by Parliament (only~~nd nut other-
d e , Rro. Tit. Error, 65, &c., and 7 W. 6, 28; 21
E,
4, 46;
2 9
E.
3,
24, and upon
tha t Rwason t he
Lord
Chancellom, since the Device
of
the Action, to be brought by
Parsons upon t he S tatute of 3 Ed.
6,
have enjoyned the Stay thereof.
And the Judges th e m se lv ~ o play the Chancellors Parts (upon Statutes, making
Construction of them according t o ~ ~ u ~ t y ,arying from the Rules and Grounds of
Law and enlarging then1
pro
bono p,b ico,gainst the Letter and Intent
of
t he
Hakers, whexeof our
Books
have many ~ u n d r ~ s
f
Cases, 15 E.
7,
and
1 4
E. ? , I 4 ;
42
E. 3, 6, &c. Flrill you then have Equity
suppress^
in all Cases, wherein a Judg-
ment a t Law, or u p n S tatu te, is had 1
(133 The Use
of
the Chancery has been in all Ages t o examine E ~ u i t yn all Cases,
saving ~ a i n s the Kings Prerogative, as 35 E, 6,
27; 11
E. 4,16; and Doctor and
~ t u d e n t , ib.
2
cap.
5,
16. then
you
must have a Specia l S ta t~~teo exeept t.he
C ~ a n ~ l l o r .
or
general Statutes do extend to t h e pa rtic u~ arTJsa cs of all th e grea t
Equity.
In Chancery upon a Recognizance, a Capias may be awarded, and the Precedents
of that
Court,
shall close up th e M ouths of the Judges of the Common Law, notw ith-
s ~ a nd inghe Statute of Magna- Charta, mp. 29. Quod nullus liber homo capiatur au t
i ~ p r ~ s o n e t u risi per legale J ud ic ~u rn arium s u o r u ~el per Legem T er ra . And so
t
was ~ ~ u d g ~n Clement Parsons Case, 2 1
Elk.
in the Bxchequer, which you may
see in 8 Coke, 142, and 25 Eliz. in ~ a ~ i nnd Byes Cme, and in Sac. in Corn. Banco,
Eighams Case, and Kihvays Case vouched
to
be adjudged, 9 Co. 29. V i d e Doctor
and Student, 306
a,
and every Court a t ~ ~ t m i n s t e rught
to
take Notice
of
the
Usages and ust toms
of
th e Rest of the Courts a t ~ ~ t ~ ~ n s t e r ,vhich arc as a
Law
to
those
~ o u ~ s ~
nd of which th e Common Law takes Notice. 2
Co.
53, 65, 503,
4; 11
E. 4,2.
[IQ The ~ t a t u t e
f
5
EEz.
of Perjury ~ r e c t e t h ow Perjury shall be unished,
saving th e ~ u t h o r i t yf the Star-cham ber et for Per jury committed in &ancery,
either in an Affidavit, cr an Answer, e.
If
such Perjury appew to th e C hancellor,
the Party may be punished awarding to his Direction.
Also, WO xchequer Man hath Privilege against a Subpm na, for Matters between
Party and Party, where the Kings Interest cometh not in Questio~i, 0
Eliz.
Cutts
c ~ ~ t r ~eter Goodwin et
a2,
and yet their Privilege hat h several S t a t u t ~hat give
~ t r e n ~ t hh e ~ e u ~ t o ut the Use snd
~ r ~ ~ e ~ t s
f
th e Chancery axe not altered by
those Laws.
And if a Statute Staple be extended, which by he Statuteis a J u d g ~ e n tf i t seff.
a nd t he ~ xe c u t i onhereof is directed by the Statute; yet
it
hnth been ustiaI in
all
Ages to moderate the hasd C o n sc ~ e~ 1 c~
f
the C o n u z ~ ,nd
if
they have been sa tis ~e d
with the ir Costs and
Damages,
after th e of th e full Value of th e Land, th e Land
ha th been d i~c ha rged y a Decrec of Equ
~ ~ r d l y ,he Law of the Land speiiks not a ~ ~ n s this.
For by 9 ed. 4,16. The Chancellor sits in Chancery according
to
a n absolute and
uncontrolable Power, and is to judge [15J according to that which is alledged and
proved ; but the Judges of the Common Law are to judge according to a strict and
ordinary
(or
limited) Power.
As 7 E.
7
fa. 10. A had Lands extended to him in ancient Demesne upon
a
Statute Mcrcl~ant,B p~irchased he Lands, and had a Recovery
by
S u ~ c r a n c ~
n
the
Cotirt of ancient Demesne with Voucher, and entred, and ousted A. A brought a
~ u b p ~ n a ,nd it WBS holden, That A could not falsify the Recovery at Law, and
therefore he should be restored to th e Possession, by t he Chancery, for he had n ot any
Remedy by the Common Law. Where note, That n o t w i t h s ~ n d i n ~t double Jud g-
ment, yet t he Judges directed them to th e Chancery.
And the S ~ t u t ef 4 E. 4,
mp.
2 was never m ade nor i n ~ e n d ~o r ~ t x ~ nhe
Power of the Chaneery in ~ a ~ e r s
f
quity , but t o restrain t he C h a n ~ ~ l o rnd the
Judges of the Common Law, only in m a t ~ r sneerly de ~ e r ~ in a b l ey Law, in legal
ourts a t ~ e s t m ~ n s t e r ,specia~Iy f th e Chancery, an d especial y for Matters of
-
8/10/2019 Earl of Oxfords Case
5/5
1 CHAN. REP.
16.
THE EARL OF OXFORDS CASE 489
P r ~ e ~ d i n g s ,nd not in e q ~ ta b le , nd that they should be
coastant
and certain
in
their
own
Judgments, and not play
Fa& and
Loose.
For
by
37
R. 6,13, nd divers
other Authorities;
no
Writ of E rro r
or
A t ~ i n tieth when the Suit
is
by Subpmna,
and th e Pa rty only seeks o E quity for the E quity
of
his Cause.
And therefore Judgm ents
by
Default, c;Jonfession, a, and not by Verdict, are not
w ~ t h i nhis Law,
so
as
to bind the Judges in their legal Proceedings;
rn
5
E. 4,
38.
In Debt upon an Ob~igation gainst A,
B,
C and D, Judgment by Default is had
against A and B.
C
demurs, and D pleads to Issue, and by th e
[IS]
Opinion of the
;Sud es
t
Supersedeas was awarded, &
hoc
causa Conscientim for that the Judgment
w a s ty Default.
In the next Place
it
is considerable, how far th e Statute of 27 E.
3
cap. 1,doth
extend, to check th e Power of the Chancery
in
thi s Case. Now the proper Exposition
of this Statute
is
from those Statutes tha t were the Fo un da tio ~hereof, and where-
upon this ~ ~ t u t e
as
built, it being not ~ n t r ~ u c t i v ~
f
New Law; but declarative
A ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~uris
The precedent S tatutes, which do explilin this Statute, are
32
E,
I, made
a t
Carlisle
4
Ed.
3
e.
6, in
C o n ~ r ~ a t i o nhereof, 25
E. 3,
cap. 22 and 25
E. 2,
cap.
1,
of Provi-
sions of Benefices, these being in Time before
27
E.
3
and
38
E.
3,
which comes after
and recites the Statute
of
25 E.
3,
and this Statute of
27 E. 3,
and confirms them with
Additions for furth er Remedies, they being all linkd together
in
one Chain, which is
further apparent
by
th e Recitals in t h e Law, and by t he
re amble
thereof, which doth
man ifest th e Minds
of
th e Law-makers, and do naturally explain the Laws, th at they
do all extend to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Conuzmnce, and not to Temporal; and
the same is more apparent by other subsequent Laws in several Kings Reigns
following,
But
for t h e Temporal Courts and the
Support
of th eir Judgments, there are only
two Statutes,
viz.
Westminster
2,
cap. 5, and
4 3.
4,
cap.
23,
which are already
answerd.
Vi
h e ~ g u m e n tor th e A u t ~ ~ o ~ t ynd J u ri s ~ e ti o n f th e Court of Chancery,
a t t h e End of this Volume, where these two S tatu tes
are
explained.
[See S.
C.
with full notes, Wh. & T. L.
C.
7th
ed
vol.
i,
p. 730.1