An argument drawn from an inconvenience, is forcible in Law, as has been observed before, and shall be often hereafter. ‘Nihil quod est inconveniens,est licitum.’ And the law that is the perfection of reason, cannot suffer anything that is inconvenient.
It is better, says the laws, to suffer a mischief (that is peculiar to one) than an inconvenience that may prejudice many…

And this is another strong argument in Law, ‘Nihil quod est contra rationemest licitum’.
For reason is the life of the Law, nay the common Law itself is nothing else but reason, which is to be understood of an artificial perfection of reason, gotten by long study, observation, and experience, and not of every mans natural reason, for, ‘Nemo nascitur artifex.’ This legal reason, ‘est summa ratio’. And therefore if all the reason that is dispersed into so many several heads were united into one, yet could he not make such a Law as the Law of England is, because by many successions of ages it hath been fined and refined by an infinite number of grave and learned men, and by long experience grown to such a perfection, for the government of this Realm, as the old rule may be justly verified of it…No man (out of his own private reason) ought to be wiser than the Law, which is the perfection of reason.

Language modernised.