74 THE LIFE OF 



CHAP. Here it comes in place to relate the issue of a law-suit, 

 commenced between this Bishop, and Sandys, late Bishop 



Casts Arch- of London, now Archbishop of York, whereof mention was 



Sandys for made before. It was for dilapidations of St. Paul s church. 



diiapida- The suit was great, long, and chargeable. At length the Queen, 

 who had a great care of Paul s, granted a special Commission 

 for the examining and proceeding in the matter. And in 

 the year 1584 the Archbishop was cast, by sentence of the 

 judges delegates, to pay to the present Bishop 900 or 1000/. 

 for the repairs of the said church. And this was the sum 

 Sandys s predecessor in the see of London, viz. Archbishop 

 Grindal, had allowed him for his dilapidations. But after 

 sentence, the Secretary, who was one of the delegates, was 

 for a delay of the execution for a time, upon pretence the 

 same was not just ; and laboured that the Archbishop might 

 obtain another commission for a new examination of the 

 matter, before the former sentence were executed ; and that 



His reasons because the Archbishop did pay a quarta. To this the 

 Bishop urged many things : &quot; as that the authority of a 

 *&amp;lt; sentence being once given might not be called in question 

 &quot; by the same judges, neither by any other, but a superior 

 &quot; judge. For that when sentence is once given, the law 

 &quot; saith, Quod judex junctus est officio suo ; and hath no 

 &quot; other thing to do but to execute : otherwise there would 

 &quot; never be an end or certainty of any suit ; but that the 

 &quot; authority of judges would be eluded, and the travail and 

 &quot; cost of the parties utterly lost. That the judges in this 

 &quot; case might not stay execution upon pretence that the same 

 &quot; is unjust, or upon colour that the Archbishop might ob- 

 &quot; tain another commission for a new examination ; for that 

 &quot; it was not likely that the Queen would grant a new com- 

 &quot; mission in this case, because the same had not hitherto 

 &quot; been granted in any like case ; and that if there were any 

 &quot; hope to obtain such commission, yet the former judges 

 &quot; ought to proceed to execution of their sentence, until such 

 &quot; time they were inhibited. That learned writers did say, 

 &quot; that the denying of this execution was a contempt to the 

 &quot; superior that committed the cause, an injury to the party 



