« AnteriorContinuar »
exemption from payment of the rent of the fair which prevention caused by war in the realm would give. It is not, however, certain that had the word used in the charter been simply "war," the result would have been different. The words " in time of peace" were so familiar in statements of title that they would naturally suggest the definition of the correlate time of war. It would hardly have occurred to anyone to maintain that if a patron presented to a church when an English army was engaged abroad he did not present in time of peace. The King's Courts would be equally open and justice would be equally administered, whether English troops were employed in a foreign country or not. This, so far as domestic affairs are concerned, appears to be the true test of peace or war. This seems to be what is meant by the words of Parning, who said it was of record in the Court of Exchequer that the people had, throughout the period in question, been governed in accordance with the law of the land, and therefore the realm must have been in a state of peace and not of war.
There is another point of importance in this case, Error in which, however, appears in one only of the reports. 0f6E^urt The Abbot sued "in the same place before the King's chequer "Council to reverse the judgment," which, however, was affirmed. The "same place" was the Exchequer, but before it will be observed that the proceedings in Error, what- c- i2.' ever may have been their precise nature, were anterior to the statutory constitution of the Exchequer Chamber1 as a court for hearing errors alleged to have occurred in the Court of Exchequer.
This subject has been touched by Sir Edward Coke,2 Sir Edward who was acquainted with the abridgment of the case references.
given by Fitzherbert, and with another document relating to it. To that other document he gives no reference except vide Term. Pasch., 14 E. 3., a reference somewhat difficult to verify. He had probably seen a transeript from a record, and hastily noted down something that struck him, without stating precisely what the record was, or what was its precise date. He says, however, that it was a writ directed to the Treasurer and Barons, which is a clue for those who have studied Exchequer practice, and his date is corrected by the report which refers to the writ of Error. We thus arrive at the fact that the instrument to be sought is one of the Brevia dvrecta Baronibits of Easter Term, 15 Edward III., and among them it is easily enough to be found.1
When found, however, it does not prove to be quite strictly in accordance with the words of Sir Edward Coke. He says that the Treasurer and Barons were to call to them "such Justices as they should think fit, "to examine the record." The words of the writ are "Vobis mandamus quod, vocatis ad vos ad Scaccarium "pnedictum Justiciariis nostris et aliis quos fore "noveritis convocandos, recordum et processum praj"dicta coram vobis recitari et diligenter examinari "faciatis."
It will be seen upon comparison of the actual words of this writ, above quoted, with the words of the 31 Ed. III., c. 12. that while, according to the writ, the Treasurer and Barons are to call to them the Justices and others, according to the Act the Chancellor and Treasurer are to take to them the Justices and others, and call before them the Barons to hear the informations of the latter, &c.
1 See the Remembrance or Memoranda Roll of the King's Remembrancer of the Exchequer,
Brevia directa Baronibus, Easter 15 Edward III., R°. 1.
The whole of the writ, however, subsequent to the recital in it appears worthy of quotation :—
"Quia in recordo et processu super negotio praedicto Writ of "habitis et in redditione judicii praedicti errores, ut 15 Edward "apparet, intervenerint manifesti, volentes, ad sup-IIL "plicationem praefati Abbatis, penes Nos et Concilium "nostrum diutius prosequentis, ut super hoc con"gruum apponatur remedium et sibi fiat justitia in "hac parte, errores praedictos si qui fuerint modo de"bito corrigi, et partibus praedictis justitiam fieri, "prout decet, vobis mandamus quod, vocatis ad vos "ad Scaccarium praedictum Justiciariis nostris et aliis "quos fore noveritis convocandos, recordum et pro"cessum praedicta coram vobis recitari et diligenter "examinari faciatis, vocata etiam coram vobis praefata "Comitissa, et auditis tam praedicti Abbatis quam "ipsius Comitissae rationibus hinc et inde, necnon "erroribus quos idem Abbas in eisdem recordo et "processu ac redditione judicii pnedicti assignare "voluerit, habitaque super his diligenti considera"tione (ne communi legi regni nostri, quam illaesam "observare astringimur vinculo juramenti, in prae"missis in aliquo derogetur) errores illos si qui sint "modo debito corrigi, et partibus praedictis plenam "et celerem justitiam in praemissis fieri faciatis, prout "de jure et secundum legem et consuetudinem prae"dictas fuerit faciendum (alioquin recordum et pro"cessum praedicta cum omnibus ea tangentibus coram "nobis venire et errores praedictos si sic intervene"rint corrigi, prout justitia exigit, faciemus), et exe"cutionem mandatorum nostrorum per brevia nostra "de Scaccario pnedicto praetextu considerationis prae"dictae factfe sic erronice, ut apparet, de praedictis "arreragiis dictarum quinquaginta librarum de annis "praedictis et de dictis viginti et quinque libris de "dicto Termino Paschae proximo praeterito de prae"dicto Abbate levandis faciendam interim supersederi,
The writ obtained by prayer to the King and Council.
The existing Red Book of the Exchequer is not the original Liber Rubens.
"et districtionem si qua eidem Abbati inde facta "fuerit interim sine dilatione relaxari faciatis eidem."
It thus appears that the writ of Error followed on a prayer made to the King and Council, and though it issued from the Chancery, did not issue as of course. There is introduced a clause expressing a desire that nothing should be done in derogation of the common law, which the King was bound by oath to keep unimpaired. There is also a very curious clause expressing an alternative intention to have the matter brought coram nobis. It is not, on the face of the matter, certain what is the meaning of the last two words. They are not sufficient to indicate the Court of King's Bench, as they are not followed by the phrase "ubicunque fuerimus "in Anglia." They might refer to the Chancery, but hardly without the words "in Cancellaria nostra." The only remaining possibility is that they mean the King in Council, and there is good warrant in the records for this interpretation.1
The complaint of error having been made to the King in Council, they in fact appointed a mode of trying the matter, failing which, they would try it themselves. But here arises the question:—was this in accordance with law and established precedent, or was it simply a new device to meet an unexpected event? On this point Sir Edward Coke, who has not further discussed the question, has given a correct reference, by folio,2 to the Liber Rubeus of the Exchequer, which is of some value because it leads to the records lying beyond. The entry in the Red Book which he mentions is a copy from an
1 Take, as an instance, the passage cited by Madox. (2 Hist. Kick., 120, note z.) from a record of Mich. 26 & 27 E. 1. "Recordum "et judicium .... coram nobis "venire fi-ciuuis; quo coram nobis "et concilio noMro rccitato, uu
"dito, et intellecto, concordatum "fuit," &c
- The reference given in 4 Inst. 106, is to fo. 322, and the entry does in fact appear on the back of that folio in the existing Liber Rubeus.
Exchequer record of the year 11 Edward III. made about a century later. It is in itself a proof that the Liber Rubeus of the Exchequer, as known to Sir Edward Coke, and as known at the present day, is not the Liber Rvbeus which was so called in the reign of Edward III., though it may possibly include portions of that book. The record printed below shows that a contemporaneous entry was made in the Liber Rubeus of the period. The existing Liber Rubeus contains only an entry in which Edward III. is deseribed as nuper Rex, and which appears to be in the handwriting of the reign of Henry VI. This copy is evidently but a later substitute for that record which was noted "modo specialiori" in the original Liber Rubeus. It has not even been quite correctly made, and is certainly not the highest authority for the matter which it contains.
Sir Edward Coke's remark, however, "Lege quia "optime," when applied to the original, appears to be fully justified. The record,1 as printed below, contains the most authoritative account of the relation of the Exchequer to the other Courts, and of the manner in which errors ought to have been corrected before the Act 31 Edward III. c. 12.
In the margin of the roll is this deseription: — "Certificatio facta domino Regi de causa quare re"corda et processus habita coram Baronibus de Scac
1 The record has been printed from the Remembrance or Memoranda Roll of the Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer: "Communia de "Termino Sancti Ilillarii anno "xj° Edwardi ten ii. Adhuc lie"corda" The entry on this roll differs slightly from and contains words omitted from the
similar entry on the King's Remembrancer's Remembrance or Memoranda Roll, as well as from the entry in the Liber Rubeus, which appears to have been copied, though not with perfect accuracy, form the King's Remembrancer's roll.