As further proof that the legislation of the king, whether enacted with or without the assent and advice of his parliaments, was of no authority unless it were consistent with the _common law_, and unless juries and judges saw fit to enforce it, it may be mentioned that it is probable that no judge in England was ever sworn to observe the laws enacted either by the king alone, or by the king with the advice and assent of parliament. The judges were sworn to "_do equal law, and execution of right, to all the king's subjects, rich and poor, without having regard to any person_;" and that they will "_deny no man common right_;"[59] but they were _not_ sworn to obey or execute any statutes of the king, or of the king and parliament. Indeed, they are virtually sworn _not_ to obey any statutes that are against "_common right_," or contrary to "_the common law_," or "_law of the land_;" but to "certify the king thereof"--that is, notify him that his statutes are against the common law;--and then proceed to execute the _common law_, notwithstanding such legislation to the contrary. The words of the oath on this point are these: "_That ye deny no man common right by (virtue of) the king's letters, nor none other man's, nor for none other cause; and in case any letters come to you contrary to the law_, (that is, the common law, as will be seen on reference to the entire oath given in the note,) _that ye do nothing by such letters, but certify the king thereof and proceed to execute the law_, (that is, the common law,) _notwithstanding the same letters_." When it is considered that the king was the sole legislative power, and that he exercised this power, to a great extent, by orders in council, and by writs and "letters" addressed often-times to some sheriff, or other person, and that his commands, when communicated to his justices, or any other person, "by letters," or writs, _under seal_, had as much legal authority as laws promulgated in any other form whatever, it will be seen that this oath of the justices _absolutely required_ that they disregard any legislation that was contrary to "_common right_," or "_the common law_," and notify the king that it was contrary to common right, or the common law, and then proceed to execute the common law, notwithstanding such legislation.[60] If there could be any doubt that such was the meaning of this oath, that doubt would be removed by a statute passed by the king two years afterwards, which fully explains this oath, as follows: