Yelverton JKB: and Sir, we will do now in this case as the ‘savonists’ (canonists? ‘sorbonist’ theologians?) and civilians (civilliones) do when a new case arises (anient) for which they have no law beforehand, then they (canonists and civilians) resort to the law of nature which is the ground of all laws, and according to what is advised to them to be most beneficial to the common weal (policy, utility, commonwealth, common good), etc. they do, and so now we will do; if we will make a positive law on this point, we ought to see what is most necessary to the common weal and to make our law according to this, and I believe that no one would deny that the best (course) will be in this case to make such a positive law that no one will be charged to perform the arbitration without having had notice (of the arbitration), etc. because arbitration is used for the common weal, that is to say, to resolve (appeser) disputes (debates), and wrongs (tortes) among the people, and thus making ends (of disputes and wrongs), and if the arbitrator could charge the party without making notice, then the people will fear and doubt to put themselves in arbitration, etc. so the most beneficial way for the common weal is, that they will not be charged, unless they have notice, etc. (8 Hen. 4 fol. 12, emphasis added.)