Page:William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (3rd ed, 1768, vol II).djvu/370

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
354
The Rights
Book II.

antient common law, with reſpect to this point, is very forcibly declared by the ſtatute 18 Edw. I. in theſe words. "And the reaſon, why ſuch ſolemnity is required in the paſſing of a fine, is this; becauſe the fine is ſo high a bar, and of ſo great force, and of a nature ſo powerful in itſelf, that it precludes not only thoſe which are parties and privies to the fine, and their heirs, but all other perſons in the world, who are of full age, out of priſon, of found memory, and within the four ſeas the day of the fine levied; unleſs they put in their claim within a year and a day." But this doctrine, of barring the right by non-claim, was aboliſhed for a time by a ſtatute made in 34 Edw I. c. 16. which admitted perſons to claim, and falſify a fine, at any indefinite diſtance[1]: whereby, as ſir Edward Coke obſerves[2], great contention aroſe, and few men were ſure of their poſſeſſions, till the parliament held 4 Hen. VII. reformed that miſchief, and excellently moderated between the latitude given by the ſtatute and the rigour of the common law. For the ſtatute, then made[3], reſtored the doctrine of non-claim; but extended the time of claim. So that now, by that ſtatute, the right of all ſtrangers whatſoever is bound, unleſs they make claim, not within one year and a day, as by the common law, but within five years after proclamations made: except feme-coverts, infants, priſoners, perſons beyond the ſeas, and ſuch as are not of whole mind; who have five years allowed to them and their heirs, after the death of their huſbands, their attaining full age, recovering their liberty, returning into England, or being reſtored to their right mind.

It ſeems to have been the intention of that politic prince, king Henry VII, to have covertly by this ſtatute extended fines to have been a bar of eſtates-tail, in order to unfetter the more eaſily the eſtates of his powerful nobility, and lay them more open to alienations; being well aware that power will always accompany property. But doubts having ariſen whether they could, by mere implication, be adjudged a ſufficient bar, (which they

  1. Litt. §. 441.
  2. 2 Inſt. 518.
  3. 4 Hen. VII. c. 24.
were