Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 4, Page 263  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] (a clerk or a layman) a claim being made, as you say, to the ninth1 sheaf from the land
[002] of the same B., once conferred in perpetual alms on the aforesaid A. the prior and convent,
[003] is committed to your consideration by the authority of letters of the lord pope,
[004] and though by authority of the said letters you have already begun to proceed in the
[005] same cause, the same B. has produced to you prohibitory letters of the lord king forbidding
[006] you to proceed with respect to his lay fee in court christian, as to which you
[007] ask (or ‘seek’) our counsel, whether you are to proceed or desist in that cause. To
[008] which we have thought fit to answer in this way to you (or ‘to your consultation’ or
[009] in another way: ‘Being anxious or wishing therefore to satisfy your desire we have
[010] thought fit to reply to your consultation in this matter thus’) that if the aforesaid A.
[011] the prior and the convent at some time took that ninth2 sheaf and were in peaceful
[012] possession thereof for some time and were wrongfully despoiled thereof, you may, if
[013] this seems to you to be the truth, proceed safely in the ecclesiastical forum with
[014] respect to the restitution of that ninth3 sheaf notwithstanding the royal prohibition.
[015] But if they have not been in possession nor recently wrongfully despoiled,4 then it is
[016] better that you desist than proceed, for if you were to proceed it would be to the
[017] prejudice of the royal dignity.’5 A reply to a consultation is sometimes made in the
[018] name of the king, sometimes in the name of a justice. A shorter and more concise reply
[019] may be made to consultations of the judges after examination in this form. ‘To such
[020] judges, greeting. Having inspected and fully understood the letters you have sent us,
[021] we have thought fit, without prejudice to a more considered judgment, to reply to
[022] your consultation [in this way], that if the matter is such as you have set out in your
[023] consultation, it seems to us that you may well proceed in that cause notwithstanding
[024] the royal prohibition.’ There is also another kind of consultation and reply (made by
[025] Martin of Pateshull) that a prohibition does not lie between ecclesiastical persons, as
[026] where men of religion are bound by charter and oath to a clerk for the payment of an
[027] annual rent, and the clerk wishes to sue in the ecclesiastical forum.

Another writ of a different kind in the same matter, if clerk sues clerk.

[029] ‘To such a one N. and his fellow judges, such persons, greeting. I have graciously
[030] received your letters of consultation and read them with due diligence, having examined
[031] and understood them I have thought fit to reply to your consultation in this
[032] way, that


1. ‘nona’

2. ‘nonam,’ LA, OC, MG, CM

3. ‘nonae,’ OA, LA, MC, OB, MG, CM

4. Supra 254, infra 269; cf. 264

5. This seems to be the consultation referred to in a case heard in Mich. 1232: B.N.B., no. 877

Contact: specialc@law.harvard.edu
Page last reviewed April 2003.
© 2003 The President and Fellows of Harvard College