the case de modus kill and of prohibition debate before the king majesty  Richard archbishop of Canterbury accompany with the bishop of London the  bishop of bath and well the bishop of Rochester and diverse doctor of the  civil and canon law as dr Dunn judge of the arch dr Bennet judge of the  prerogative dr James dr Martin and diverse other doctor of the civil and canon  law come attend upon they to the king to Whitehall the Thursday Friday and  Saturday after easter term in the Council Chamber where the chief justice and  I my self Daniel judge of the common plea and William judge of the king bench  by the command of the king attend also where the king be assist with his  privycouncil all sit at the Council table speak as a most gracious good and  excellent sovereign to this effect as I will not suffer any novelty or  innovation in my court of justice ecclesiastical and temporal so I will not  have any of the law which have have judicial allowance in the time of the king  of England before he to be forget but to be put in execution and for as much  as upon the contention between the ecclesiastical and temporal court great  trouble inconvenience and loss may arise to the subject of both part namely  when the controversy arise upon the jurisdiction of my court of ordinary  justice and because I be the head of justice immediate under God and know what  hurt may grow to my subject of both side when no private case but when the  jurisdiction of my court be draw in question which in effect concern all my  subject I think that it stand with the office of a king which God have commit  to I to hear the controversy between the bishop and other of his clergy and  the judge of the law of England and to take order that for the good and quiet  of his subject that the one do not encroach upon the other but that every of  they hold themselves within their natural and local jurisdiction without  encroachment or usurpation the one upon the other and he say that the only  question then to be dispute be if a parson or a vicar of a parish sue one of  his parish in the spiritual court for tithe in kind or lay-fee and the  defendant allege a custom or prescription de modus kill if that custom or  prescription de modus kill shall be try and determine before the judge  ecclesiastical where the suit be begin or a prohibition lie to try the same by  the commonlaw and the king direct that we who be judge shall declare the  reason and cause of our proceed and that he will hear the authority in the law  which we have to warrant our proceed in grant of prohibition in case of modus  kill but the archbishop of Canterbury kneel before the king and desire he that  he will hear he and other who be provide to speak in the case for the good of  the church of England and the archbishop himself inveigh much against two  thing that a modus kill shall be try by a jury because that they themselves  claim more or less manner kill so as in effect they be Tryors in their own  cause or in the like case he inveigh much the precipitate and hasty trial by  jury and after he doctor Bennet judge of the prerogative court make a large  invection against prohibition in cause Church rites  and that both  jurisdiction as well ecclesiastical as temporal be derive from the king and  all that which he speak out of the book which dr Ridley have late publish I  omit as impertinent and he make five reason why they shall try manner kill and  the first and principal reason be out of the register foe because non be  agreeing account quoth getting to know  accessarii in senate Christian  to entangle where getting to know  cause first and forum Church rites   to get knowledge of to stretch out and the principal cause be right of tithe  and the plea of modus kill sound in satisfaction of tithe and therefore the  conusance of the original cause sure the right of tithe appertain to they the  conusance of the bar of tithe which he say be but the accessary and as it be  dependant upon it appertain also to they and whereas it be say in the bishop  of Winchesters case in the second part of my report and Edward that they will  not accept of any plea in discharge of tithe in the spiritual court he say  that they will allow such plea in the spiritual court and common have allow  they and therefore he say that that be the mystery of iniquity find upon a  false and feign foundation and humble desire the reformation of that error for  they will allow manner kill be due prove before they there be great  inconveniency that layman shall be tryer of their own custom if a modus kill  shall be try by juror for they shall be upon the matter juror in their own  cause that the custom of modus kill be of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and  conusance for it be a manner of tithing and all manner of tithing belong to  ecclesiastical jurisdiction and therefore he say that the judge in their  answer to certain objection make by the archbishop of Canterbury have confess  that suit may be have in spiritual court pro modus kill and therefore the same  be of ecclesiastical conusance and by consequence it shall be try before the  ecclesiastical judge for if the right of tithe be of ecclesiastical conusance  and the satisfaction also for they of the same jurisdiction the same shall be  try in the ecclesiastical court in the prohibition of modus kill averment be  take that although the plaintiff in the prohibition offer to prove manner kill  the ecclesiastical court do refuse to allow of it which be confess to be a  good cause of prohibition but he say they will allow the plea de modus kill in  the spiritual court and therefore to be remiss cause to be remiss execution  and no prohibition shall lie in the case he say that he can show many  consultation grant in the cause de modus kill and a consultation be of great  force then a prohibition for consultation as the word import be make with the  court with consultation and deliberation and Bacon solicitor general be as it  be say assign with the clergy by the king argue before the king and in effect  say less then doctor Bennet say before but he vouch Richard the opinion of  Hussey when the original ought to begin in the spiritual court and afterward a  thing come in issue which be tryable in our law yet it shall be try by their  law as if a man sue for a horse devise to he and the defendant say that the  devisor give to he the say horse the same shall be try there and the register  and if a man be condemn in expense in the spiritual court for lie violent hand  upon a clark and afterward the defendant pay the cost and get a acquittance  and yet the plaintiff sue he against his acquittance for the cost and he  obtain a prohibition for that acquittance and deed be to be determine in our  law he shall have a consultation because that the principal belong to they  Edward right of tithe between two spiritual person shall be determine in the  ecclesiastical court and Edward where the right of tithe come in debate  between two spiritual person the one claim the tithe as of common right within  his parish and the other claim to be discharge by real composition the  ecclesiastical court shall have jurisdiction of it and the say judge make  humble suit to the king that for as much as they perceive that the king in his  princely wisdom do detest innovation and novelty that he will vouchsafe to  suffer they with his gracious favour to inform he of one innovation and  novelty which they conceive will tend to the hindrance of the good  administration and execution of justice within his realm your majesty for the  great zeal which you have to justice and for the due administration thereof  have constitute and make fourteen judge to who you have commit not only the  administration of ordinary justice of the realm but sin to hurt grandeur touch  your royal person for the legal proceed also in parliament we be call by Writ  to give to your majesty and to the lord of the parliament our advice and  counsel when we be require we two chief justice sit in the star Chamber and be  oftentimes call into the chancery court of ward and other high court of  justice we in our circuit do visit twice in the year your realm and execute  justice accord to your law and if we who be your public judge receive any  diminution of such reverence and respect in our place which our predecessor  have we shall not be able to do you such acceptable service as they do without  have such reverence and respect as judge ought to have the state of this  question be not in position deliberative but in position judiciali it be not  dispute de good but de yes non de lege fiend say de lege to bear not to frame  or devise new law but to inform your majesty what your law of England be and  therefore it be never see before that when the question be of the law that  your judge of the law have be make disputant with he who be inferior to they  who day by day plead before they at their several court at Westminster and  although we be not afraid to dispute with mr Bennet and mr Bacon yet this  example be chiefs  impression and your majesty detest novelty and innovation  we leave it to your grace and princely consideration whether your majesty will  permit our answer in hoc position judiciali upon your public judge of the  realm but in obedience to your majesty command we with your majesty gracious  favour in most humble manner will inform your majesty touch the say question  which we and our predecessor before we have oftentimes adjudge upon judicial  proceed in your court of justice at Westminster which judgement can be reverse  or examine for any error in law if not by a Writ of error in a more high and  supreme court of justice upon legal and judicialproceedings and that be the  ancient law of England as appear by the statute of Henry cap and we be command  to proceed all that which be say by we the judge be to this effect that the  trial de modus kill ought to be by the commonlaw by a jury of twelve man it  appear in three manner first by the commonlaw second by act of parliament and  last by infinite judgement and judicial proceed long time pass without any  impeachment or interruption but first it be to see what be a modus kill modus  kill be when land tenement or hereditament have be give to the parson and his  successor or a annual certain sum or other profit always time out of mind to  the parson and his successor in full satisfaction and discharge of all the  tithe in kind in such a place and such manner of tithing be now confess by the  other party to be a good bar of the tithe in kind that modus kill shall be try  by the commonlaw that be that all satisfaction give in discharge of tithe  shall be try by the commonlaw and therefore put that which be the most common  case that the lord of the manor of dale prescribe to give to the parson S  yearly in full satisfaction and discharge of all tithe grow and renew within  the manor of dale at the Feast of easter the parson sue the lord of the manor  of dale for his tithe of his manor in kind and he in bar prescribe in manner  ut above the question be if the lord of the manor of dale may upon that have a  prohibition for if the prohibition lie then the spiritual court ought not to  try it for the end of the prohibition be that they do not try that which  belong to the trial of the commonlaw the word of the prohibition be that they  will draw the same and other examen first the law of England be divide into  commonlaw statute-law and custom of England and therefore the custom of  England be to be try by the trial which the law of England do appoint second  prescription by the law of the holy church and by the commonlaw differ in the  time of limitation and therefore prescription and custom of England shall be  try by the commonlaw see Henry foe e jurisdiction the bishop of Winchester  bring a Writ of annuity against the archdeacon of Surry and declare how that  he and his successor be seize by the hand of the defendant by title of  prescription and the defendant demand judgement if the court will hold  jurisdiction be between spiritual person c stone justice be assure that upon  title of prescription we will here hold jurisdiction and upon that Wilby chief  justice give the rule answer upon which it follow that if a modus kill which  be a annual sum for tithe by prescription come in debate between spiritual  person that the same shall be try here for the rule of the book be general  sure upon title of prescription we will hold jurisdiction and that be fortify  with a asseveration know assure as if he shall say that it be so certain that  it be without question Edward jurisd there be a vicar who have only tithe and  oblation and a abbot claim a annuity or pension of he by prescription and it  be adjudge that the same prescription although it be betwixt spiritual person  shall be try by the commonlaw vide Henry and a prescription that a abbey time  out of mind have find a chaplain in his chapel to say divine service and to  minister sacrament try at the commonlaw see the record of Henry cite in the  case of modus kill before and see register foe when land be give in  satisfaction and discharge of tithe see the statute of circumspect  to put in motion no. debt is owed seu to become used which prove that tithe in  kind and a modus by custom c Edward and Fitzherbert n b g a prohibition lie  for land give in discharge of tithe Edward a there suit be for tithe and a  prohibition lie and so abridge by the book which of necessity ought to be upon  matter de modus kill or discharge Edward if tithe be sell for money by the  sale the thing spiritual be make temporal and so in the case de modus kill  Edward agree Edward because a appropriation be mix with the temporalty sure  the king letter patent the same ought to be show how c otherwise of that which  be mere temporal and so it be of real composition in which the patron ought to  join vide Henry composition by write that the one shall have the tithe and the  other shall have money the suit shall be at the commonlaw second by act of  parliament the say Act of circumspect to put in motion which give power to the  ecclesiastical judge to sue for tithe due first in kind or by custom I e modus  kill so as by authority of that Act although that the yearly sum sound in the  temporalty which be pay by custom in discharge of tithe yet because the same  come in the place of tithe and by constitution the tithe be change into money  and the parson have not any remedy for the same which be the modus kill at the  commonlaw for that cause the Act be clear that the same be a doubt at the  commonlaw and the statute of articuli allotment of land cap if corporal  penance be change in penalty of money for that pain suit lie in the spiritual  court for see mich Henry rot in thesaur a prohibition lie pro eastern quoth  rector de Chesterton to drive out de Hagone de logis de determined portion pro  Decimus  Molendinarum so as it appear it be a doubt before the say statute if  suit lie in the spiritual court de modus kill and by the statute of Henry cap  it be provide and enact that every of the subject of this realm accord to the  ecclesiastical law of the church and after the laudable usage and custom of  the parish c shall yield and pay his tithe offer and other duty and that for  subtraction of any of the say tithe offer or other duty the parson c may by  due wooer of the king ecclesiastical law convent the person offend before a  competent judge have authority to hear and determine the right of tithe and  also to compel he to yield the duty I e as well modus kill by laudable usage  or custom of the parish as tithe in kind and with that in effect agree the  statute of Henry cap by the statute of Edward cap it be enact that every of  the king subject shall from henceforth true and just without fraud or guile  divide c and pay all manner of their praedial tithe in their proper kind as  they rise and happen in such manner and from as they have be of right yield  and pay within forty year next before the make of this Act or of right and  custom ought to have be pay and after in the same Act there be this clause and  proviso provide always and be it enact that no person shall be sue or  otherwise compel to yield give or pay any manner of tithe for any manor land  tenement or hereditament which by the law and statute of this realm or by any  privilege or prescription be not Chargeable with the payment of any such tithe  or that be discharge by any composition real and afterward there be another  branch in the say Act and be it further enact that if any person do subtract  or withdraw any manner of tithe Obventions profit commodity or other duty  before mention which extend to custom of tithing I e modus kill mention before  in the Act c that then the party so substract c may be convent and sue in the  king ecclesiastical court c and upon the say branch which be the negative that  no person shall be sue for any tithe of any land which be not Chargeable with  the payment of such tithe by any law statute privilege prescription or real  composition and always when a Act of parliament command or prohibit any court  be it temporal or spiritual to do any thing temporal or spiritual if the  statute be not obey a prohibition lie as upon the statute de point of time  super Cartas can quoth communia placita non to hold in Scaccario a prohibition  lie to the court of exchequer if the baron hold a common plea there as appear  in the register b so upon the statute of west quoth search who great are  examinationis non to take in hand in native land a prohibition lie to the  justice of nisi prius so upon the statute of articuli super Cartas cap quoth  constabularius Castr Dover non to hold placitum forinsecum quoth non to touch  custodiam castle register so upon the same statute cap quoth senescallus et  Mariscallus non to hold placita de book property de debt is owed convention c  a prohibition lie and yet by none of these statute no prohibition or  supersedeas be give by express word of the statute so upon the statute Richard  cap Richard cap Henry cap by which it be provide that admiral do not meddle  with any thing do within the realm but only with thing do upon the sea c a  prohibition lie to the court of admiralty so upon the statute of west cap  against hospitaler and templar if they do against the same statute king a so  upon the statute de prohibition regius ne layman and calling Episcopi  to come together and a reviewing faciend well sacrament to nisi in casub of  relating to wills a prohibition lie king b and so upon the statute of Henry  cap at what time the libel be grantable by the law that it be grant and  deliver to the party without difficulty if the ecclesiastical judge when the  cause which depend before he be mere ecclesiastical deny the libel a  prohibition lie because that he do be against the statute and yet no  prohibition by any express word be give by the statute and upon the same  statute the case be in Edward pierce peckam take letter of Administration of  the good of rise brown of the bishop of London and afterward t t sue to Thomas  archbishop of Canterbury that because the say rise brown have good within his  diocese he pray letter of Administration to be commit to he upon which the  bishop grant he letter of Administration and afterward t t libel in the  spiritual court of the archbishop in the arch against pierce peckam to who the  bishop of London have commit letter of Administration to repeal the same and  pierce peckam accord to the say statute pray a Copy of the libel exhibit  against he and can not have it and thereupon he sue a prohibition and upon  that a attachment and there Catesby sergeant move the court that a prohibition  do not lie for two cause that the statute give that the libel shall be deliver  but do not say that the plea in the spiritual court shall surcease by  prohibition the statute be not intend of matter mere spiritual as that case be  to try the prerogative and the liberty of the archbishop of Canterbury and the  bishop of London in commit of administration and there Danby chief justice if  you will not deliver the libel accord to the statute you do wrong which wrong  be a temporal matter and punishable at the commonlaw and therefore in this  case the party shall have a special prohibition out of this court recite the  matter and the statute aforesaid command they to surcease until he have the  Copy of the libel deliver unto he which case be a strong case then the case at  the bar for that statute be in the affirmative and the say Act of Edward cap  be in the negative sure that no suit shall be for any tithe of any land in  kind where there be modus kill for that be the effect of the say Act as to  that point and always after the say Act in every term in the whole reign of  king Edward the six queen marry and queen Elizabeth until this day prohibition  have be grant in cause Modi kill and judgement give upon many of they and all  the same without question make to the contrary and accord all the judge  resolve in Edward dyer et contemporary exhibition  be optima strong in lege a  common attention non be to go back minim mutanda are who determined to have  interpretation and as to the first objection that the plea of modus kill be  but accessary unto the right of tithe it be resolve that the same be of no  force for three cause in this case admit that there be a modus kill then by  the custom and by the Act of Edward and the other act the tithe in kind be  extinct and discharge for one and the same land can be subject to two manner  of tithe but the modus kill be all the tithe with which the land be Chargeable  as if a horse or other thing valuable be give in satisfaction of the duty the  duty be extinct and go and it shall be intend that the modus kill begin at the  first by real composition by which the land be discharge of the tithe and a  yearly sum in satisfaction of they assign to the parson c so as in this case  there be neither principal nor accessary but a identity of the same thing the  statute of Edward be a prohibition in it self and that in the negative if the  ecclesiastical judge do against it a prohibition lie as it appear clear before  although that the rule be general yet it appear by the register it self that a  modus kill be out of it for there be a prohibition in cause Modi kill when  land be give in satisfaction of the tithe as to the second objection it be  answer and resolve that that be from or out of the question for status  a questioning non be deliberative say judicialis what be fit and convenient  but what the law be and yet it be say it shall be more inconvenient to have a  ecclesiastical judge who be not swear to do justice to give sentence in a case  between a man of the clergy and a layman then for twelve man swear to give  their verdict upon hear of witness viva voice before a indifferent judge who  be swear to do right and justice to both party but convenient or inconvenient  be not the question also they have in the spiritual court such infinite  exception to witness that it be at the will of the judge with which party he  shall give his sentence as to the three objection it be answeredandresolved  first that penalty to pay a fine of it self be temporal but for as much as the  parson have not remedy pro modus kill at the commonlaw the parson by force of  the act cite before may sue pro modus kill in the ecclesiastical court but  that do not prove that if he sue for tithe in kind which be utter extinct and  the land discharge of they that upon the plea de modus kill that a prohibition  shall not lie for that without all question appear by all that which before  have be say that a prohibition do lie see also Henry b where the original  cause be spiritual and they proceed upon a temporal a prohibition lie see  Edward Edward consultation that right of tithe which be mere ecclesiastical  yet if the question arise of the limit of a parish a prohibition lie and this  case of the limit of a parish be grant by the lord chancellor and not deny by  the other side as to the objection that a averment be take of the refusal of  the plea de modus kill it be answer and resolve that the same be of no force  for diverse cause it be only to enforce the contempt if the spiritual court  ought to have the trial de modus kill then the refusal of acceptance of such a  plea shall give cause of appeal and not of prohibition as if a excommunication  divorce heresy simony c be plead there and the plea refuse the same give no  cause of prohibition as if they deny any plea mere spiritual appeal and no  prohibition lie from the beginning of the law no issue be ever take upon the  refusal of the plea in cause Modi kill nor any consultation ever grant to they  because they do not refuse but allow the plea the refusal be no part of the  matter issuable or material in the plea for the same be no part of the  suggestion which only be the substance of the plea and therefore the modus  kill be prove by two witness accord to the statute of Edward cap and not the  refusal which prove that the modus kill be only the matter of the suggestion  and not the refusal all the say five matter of discharge of tithe mention in  the say branch of the Act of Edward be contain within a suggestion ought to be  prove by two witness and so have be always from the time of the make of the  say Act and therefore the statute of Edward clear intend that prohibition  shall be grant in such cause although that they will allow good faith de modus  kill without refusal yet if the parson sue there for tithe in kind when the  modus be prove the same be express prohibit by the Act of Edward a prohibition  lie although the modus be spiritual as appear by the say book of Edward and  other the case aforesaid and afterward in the three day of debate of this case  before his gracious majesty dr Bennet and dr Martin have reserve diverse  consultation grant in cause Modi kill think that those will make a great  impression in the opinion of the king and thereupon they say that consultation  be the judgement of court have upon deliberation whereas prohibition be only  grant upon surmise and they show four precedent one where three joint sue a  prohibition in the case of modus kill and the consultation say pro eastern  quoth supplying an answer to one stuff in to the same place he who disregards  minus sufficient in lege step forth c another in cause Modi kill to be pay to  the parson or vicar where the parson sue for tithe in kind and the defendant  allege modus kill to be pay to the vicar the four where the parson libel for  tithe wool and the defendant allege a custom to reap corn and to make it into  sheaf and to set forth the ten sheaf at his charge and likewise of hay to  sever it from the nine cock at his charge in full satisfaction of the tithe of  the corn hay and wool to which I answer and humble desire the king majesty to  observe that these have be reserve for the last and centre point of their  proof and by they your majesty shall observe these thing that the king court  do they justice when with their conscience and oath they can that all the say  case be clear in the judgement of those who be learned in the law that  consultation ought by the law to be grant for as unto the first precedent the  case upon their own show appear to be three person join in one prohibition for  three several parcel of land each of which have a several manner of tithing  and for that cause they can not join when their interest be several and  therefore a consultation be grant as to the second precedent the manner of  tithing be allege to be pay to the parson or vicar which be altogether  uncertain as to the three precedent the modus never come in debate but whether  the tithe do belong to the parson or vicar which be betwixt two spiritual  person the ecclesiastical court shall have jurisdiction and therewith agree  Edward cite before by Bacon and also there the prior be of the order of the  cistercians for if the tithe original belong to the parson any recompense for  they shall not bar the parson as to the last precedent the same be upon the  matter of a custom of a modus kill for wool for to pay the tithe of corn or  hay in kind in satisfaction of corn hay and wool can be a satisfaction for the  wool for the other two be due of common right and all this appear in the  consultation themselves which they show but understand not to which the bishop  of London say that the word of the consultation be quoth  supplying an answer to one prediction materiaq in by the same route  he who disregards minus sufficient in lege to step out c so as means can be  refer to from and therefore it ought to extend to the modus kill to which I  answer that when the matter be insufficient or uncertain allege the matter it  self fail for matter ought to be allege in a good sentence and although the  matter be in truth sufficient yet if it be insufficient allege the plea want  matter and the lord treasurer say open to they that he admire that they will  allege such thing which make more against they than any thing which have be  say and when the king rely upon the say prohibition in the register when land  be give in discharge of tithe the lord chancellor say that that be not like to  this case for there by the gift of the land in discharge of tithe the tithe be  actual discharge but in the case de modus kill a annual sum be pay for the  tithe and the land remain charge with the tithe but ought to be discharge by  plea de modus kill all which be utter deny by I for the land be as absolute  discharge of the tithe in grammatical case de modus kill when a annual sum  ought to be pay as where land be give for all the record and precedent of  prohibition in such case be that such a sum have be always c pay in full  contentationem penalty exonerationem all one by one no. c and although that  the sum be not pay yet the parson can sue for tithe in kind but for the money  for as it have be say before the custom and the say act of parliament where  there be a lawful manner of tithing have discharge the land from tithe in kind  and prohibit that no suit shall be for they and although that now as it have  be say the parson c may sue in the spiritual court pro modus kill yet without  question at the first the annual payment of money be as temporal as annual  profit of land be all which the king hear with much patience and the lord  chancellor answer not to that which I have answer he in c and after that his  most excellent majesty with all his Council have for three day together hear  the allegation on both side he say that he will maintain the law of England  and that his judge shall have as great respect from all his subject as their  predecessor have have and for the matter he say that for any thing that have  be say on the part of the clergy that he be not satisfy and advice we his  judge to confer among our self and that nothing be encroach upon the  ecclesiastical jurisdiction and that they keep themselves within their lawful  jurisdiction without unjust vexation and molestation do to his subject and  without delay or hinder of justice and this be the end of these three day  consultation and note that dr Bennet in his discourse inveigh much against the  opinion in Edward and in my report in wrights case that the ecclesiastical  judge will not allow a modus kill and say that that be the mystery of iniquity  and that they will allow it and the king ask for what cause it be so say in  the say book to which I answer that it appear in Linwood who be dean of the  arch and of profound knowledge in the canon and civil law and who write in the  reign of king Henry the six a little before the say case in Edward in his  title de Decimus  cap quoniam near c foe b quoth no. to loosen c without any  diminution and in the gloss it be say quoth custom de non Decimando or de non  be Decimando non valet and that be write by a great canonist of England be the  cause of the say say in Edward that they will not allow the say plea de modus  kill for always the modus kill be less in valve then the tithe in specie and  then the same be against their canon quoth no. to loosen without diminution  quoth custom de non plene Decimando non valet and it seem to the king that  that book be a good Cause for they in the time of king Edward the four to say  as they have say but I say that I do not rely upon that but upon the ground  aforesaid sure the commonlaw statute law and the continual and infinite  judgement and judicial proceed and that if any canon or constitution be  against the same such canon and constitution c be void by the statute of Henry  cap which see and note for all canon constitution c against the prerogative of  the king the commonlaws statute or custom of the realm be void last the king  say that the high Commission ought not to meddle with any thing but that which  be enormous and exorbitant and can permit the ordinary wooer of the  ecclesiastical law and which the same law can punish and that be the cause of  the institution of the same Commission and therefore although every offence ex  way termini be enormous yet in the statute it be to be intend of such a  offence be extra all men  Norman as heresy schism incest and the like great  offence for the king say that it be not reason that the high Commission  shouldhave conusanceofcommon offence but to leave they to ordinary sure  because that the party can have any appeal in case the high Commission shall  determine of it and the king think that two high commission for either  province one shall be sufficient for all England and no more