DOCTORS COMMONS. Prohibitions. 156

DOCTORS COMMONS. Prohibitions.

that came into that Court. And so there must be Delays and prolix Suits; and that it was a great Discouragement to young Men in studying the Law; and contrary to the Canon and Civil Law, that permits any Man to be Proctor for another, a few excepted. Thus much for those Practitioners, the Proctors.

V. The Terms for the pleading and ending of Causes in these Civil Courts, are little different from the Term-times of the Common Law. The Order as to the Time of the sitting of these Courts is thus. The Sitting of the Court of Arches hath the Preeminence of sitting first, according to the Quality of that Court, and regulates the Sittings of the others. The Sitting of the Court of Audience was the Morning next after the Sitting of the Court of Arches. The Prerogative Court sits in the Afternoon, as the Audience sat in the Morning. The Court of the Admiralty is held on the same Day with the Arches, but in the Afternoon.

The Terms.

Times of Sitting.

This College was consumed by the general Devastation that happened by Fire to the City, Anno 1666. And then Exeter House in the Strand was employed for the same Use. Where the Civilians had their Chambers and Offices; and the Courts were kept in the Hall. But after some Years the Commons being rebuilt far more conveniently, and more sumptuously than before, the Civilians removed thither again.

These Courts once held at Exeter House.

For the Relief of the Subjects in case of any hard Dealings feared from Civil or Ecclesiastick Laws, the Lords Chief Justices may stop Proceedings in these Courts, and call the Matters in Controversy to be heard before them, by a Writ of Prohibition. Which lies of one that is impleaded in the Court Christian for a Cause that belongeth to the Temporal Jurisdication. Whereby as well the Party and his Council, as the Judge himself and the Register, are forbidden to proceed any further in that Cause. The Law Books shew the Causes for which this Prohibition lies. Bracton saith, it lies not after a Sentence given in any Cause.

Prohibitions, to call Causes into the Temporal Courts,

But these Prohibitions were so frequently granted, and in Causes that seemed properly Ecclesiastical, that the Civilians and Ecclesiasticks have sometimes made great Complaints of them, as exceeding injurious to their Practice, and vexatious to the Subject; and also seeming to derogate from the supreme Authority, in taking away Causes from the High Commission and Delegates, which acted by a special Commission from the Prince.

Complained of,

Thus in the Year 1573, under Archbishop Parker, the Judge of the Admiralty being Dr. David Lewis, the Lord Chief Justice had very often granted Prohibitions out of the Court of Kings Bench to this Court, almost to the Ruin of it: Whereupon in the Year beforesaid the Lord Admiral used sharp Speeches to him for it; and warned Dr. Lewis, that when such Prohibitions should be granted again, to spare to move the Lord Chief Justice, but to make the Lord Treasurer acquainted with it. Accordingly, when another Prohibition was granted the same Year, Dr. Lewis wrote of it to the Lord Treasurer, signifying what just Cause of Grief he had by reason of a Prohibition granted the Day before in a Cause which he had described in a Paper enclosed. And that this, and one more before, were two such Precedents, that if they took place, in short Time would utterly overthrow the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty. That he was therefore forced to crave his Lordship's Favour to be a Means to the Lord Chief Justice that Day, and especially to his Colleagues, (since as far as he could perceive, his Lordship had no liking of the Prohibition) to stay the same. He added, that if these Prohibitions were not prevented, he should not be able to shew his Face in that Court any more; these Prohibitions tending so much to his Discredit, and the utter Ruin and Subversion of the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty.

Under Archbishop Parker.

In the Year 1580, under Grindal the next Archbishop, Dr. Lewis complained again to the Lord Treasurer of the Decay of his Office, and drew up the present mean State of the Judge and Court of Admiralty. He shewed how the Causes which were treated of in this Court, proceeded only of Things done upon and beyond the Seas; and yet the Judge could not enjoy the same, by reason of Prohibitions out of Her Majesty's Bench; denied to none that would sue for them. By reason whereof, and that the Suitors to this Court were many times vexed with Actions upon the Case for suing there, Merchants and Mariners were so terrified, as they forsook the Court of Admiralty, and sued for Things done beyond and upon the Sea, at the Common Law, in her Majesty's Bench, and in the Guild Hall of London. And the same were maintained there by surmising the Matters to be contracted in some Place upon the Land. Where in truth the same was done beyond and upon the Sea; and there might no Traverse be admitted touching the Place.

Under Archbishop Grindal.

And these Prohibitions were grievous to the other Courts as well as this, and chiefly the Ecclesiastical.

Again, about the Year 1598, under Archbishop Whitgift, these Prohibitions lay heavy upon the Civil Courts. And then a notable Paper was drawn up for the Consideration of the Queen or the Parliament, entitled, Certain Collections and Inferences concerning Matter of Prohibitions and Consultations: Not unfit to be thought upon for the better Preservation of her Majesty's Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical; which were these, viz.

Under Archbishop Whitgift. Cott. Librar. Cleopatra. F. 1.

I. Since by the Laws and Institutes of this Realm, the Libel is appointed as a Rule for the granting of Prohibitions and Consultations, How can a Prohibition duly be granted, either before the Libel is exhibited in the Ecclesiastical Court, or without Sight and diligent Perusal thereof, or upon any other Matter or Suggestion that may be probably gathered out of the same?

Statute de Consul. Anno 24. Ed. I. Anno 2. Hen. V. Cap. 3. 4. Edw. IV. Fol. 37. 31 Hen. VI. Fol. 14.

II. Where the Cause originally is undoubtedly of Ecclesiastical Cognizance, Why should any Prohibition be granted (as almost all be) upon any Matter pleaded at Bar, or by way of Exception, tho' merely Temporal; the Law it self, and common Reason being plain and evident to the contrary? For such Matter incident comes not there to be finally sentenced and determined. But it is used as a Means and Furtherance for the Decision of his Principal. And supposing the Law were otherwise, then might either Party at their Pleasure, by pleading some Matter Temporal, make any Cause Ecclesiastical whatsoever, subject to a Prohibition?

Anno 1. R. III. Fol. 4.

38. Hen. VI. Fol. 22.

III. Since the Prohibition once granted, (though never so unduly) must needs bring with it Delay of Justice, intolerable Expences, and many great Inconveniencies to the Party prohibited, Why are Prohibitions so usually granted, without calling or hearing both Parties, and the Judge Ecclesiastical also (si sua putaverit interesse) contrary to the common Rules of Justice in all Causes, specially in Matters of so great Prejudice?

IV. Can it be thought expedient, or reasonable, that the Plaintiff making choice of the Court Christian for his Relief, should afterwards in the