THE JURISDICTION OF THE MARCHES. 31 1 



jurisdiction, as Earl of Chester; to all which you reply 

 nothing. 



Therefore I will add this only, that Cheshire went out 

 secundo jlumine, with the good will of the state ; and this 

 is sought to be evicted adverso Jiumine, cross the state ; 

 and as they have opinion of four judges for the excluding 

 of Cheshire, so we have the opinion of two great learned 

 men, Gerrard and Bromley, for the including of Worcester; 

 whose opinions, considering it was but matter of opinion, 

 and came not judicially in question, are not inferior to any 

 two of the other ; but we say that there is no opposition or 

 repugnancy between them, but both may stand. 



For Cholmley s instructions, the words may well stand, 

 that those shires are annexed by commission ; for the king s 

 commission or instructions, for those words are commonly 

 confounded, must cooperate with the statute, or else they 

 cannot be annexed. But for that conceit that they should 

 come in but in 11, when Cheshire went out, no man that 

 is in his wits can be of that opinion, if he mark it : for we 

 see that the town of Glocester, &c. is named in the instruc 

 tions of 1 Mar. and no man, I am sure, will think that 

 Glocester town should be in, and Glocestershire out. 



For the conceit, that they had it but jurisdictionem pre- 

 cariam, the precedents show plainly the contrary ; for they 

 had coercion, and they did fine and imprison, which the 

 judges do not upon petitions; and besides, they must 

 remember that many of our precedents, which we did show 

 forth, were not of suits originally commenced there, but of 

 suits remanded from hence out of the king s courts as to 

 their proper jurisdiction. 



For Sir John Mullen s case, the rule is plain and sound, 

 that where the law appears contrary, usage cannot control 

 law ; which doth not at all infringe the rule of optima 

 legum interpres consuetudo ; for usage may expound law, 

 though it cannot overrule law. 



But of the other side I could show you many cases, 

 where statutes have been expounded directly against their 

 express letter to uphold precedents and usage, as 2 and 3 

 Phil, et Mar. upon the statute of Westminster, that or 

 dained that the judges coram q uib us format um erit appellum 

 shall inquire of the damages, and yet the law ruled that it 

 shall be inquired before the judges of Nisi Prius. And 

 the great reverence given to precedents appeareth in 39 

 II. VI. 3 E. IV. and a number of other books ; and the 

 difference is exceedingly well taken in Slade s case, Coke s 



