Reason in the World it should be so that a Man who wilfully and contemptuously will refuse to appeare and will not stand to the Law should at least not receive benefit and advantage by his contempt and by his own default Otherwise it is but not appearing and one is sure never to have any thing judged against him but he shall keep what ever he is once possest of right or wrong Therefore the House of Commons need not fear being deprived of any of their Members for their being sued in the House of Peers their Persons are safe whether they appeare or no but that must not hinder the Lords doeing right to others who have to doe with those Members and have Cause to complaine of some Judgement given in their behalves in an Inferiour Court so that Objection falls to the ground Nor in truth have I heard any that is of weight to make me so much as hesitate in my Opinion of the truth of those Positions which I have ever believed to be most true and which I laid down at first to be the ground of which Discourse and this I have endeavoured to make out to the satisfaction of others As first That the Parlament is the Supreame Court of Judicature to Reforme and Redresse the failings of Inferiour Courts when either they delay Justice or give wrong Judgements Secondly That this Jurisdiction is solely and singly in the House of Peers Thirdly That the House of Peers exerciseth this Jurisdiction to the Reliefe of those who are Aggrieved and Complaine be it a Court of Law or a Court of Equity they complaine of Fourthly That Members of the House of Commons are not more Exempt then others from this Jurisdiction when they are concerned in any Case that is complained of Now whether or no I have performed what I undertooke and said that which will satisfie those who will be satisfied others must Judge This onely I will be bold to affirme that in all I have said I have delivered the Truth and nothing but the Truth but perhaps not all that is Truth upon this Subject For I doubt not but much more may be said by those that know more then I doe and who are better skilled in the Antient Records of Parlament then I am yet I have said so much and am so much more confirmed in my former Opinion and Belief of this truth by looking a little further into it and examining it more narrowly then otherwise I should have done if it had not of late been questioned and strongly opposed that I shall be glad to heare what can be said against it and what reason can be alledged in maintenance of that Opposition Till when I shall rest heartily wishing Truth may prevaile and that to stand and be submitted unto which is agreeable to Justice Equity and the antient Usage and Custome of this Kingdome FINIS ERRATA Page 20. Line 15. for defauce Read defaute and l. 17. for forsement 1. fortement Postscript IN the citing of the Record of the Agreement between the King and Lords 4. of E. 3. mentioned pag. 19. one passage in it may be thought to have been purposely omitted which truly was meer Inadvertency and it seeming to restrain the Judicial Power of the Lords that it should not extend to the Judging of Commoners I have thought fit to insert it here The words are these after saying That it was agreed between the King and Lords Qe les Pieres qores sont ou les Pieres que seront en temps auenir ne soient mes tenuz ne chargez a rendre jugements sur autres qe sur lur Pieres there is added Ne a ce faire mes eient les Pieres de la Terre poer eins de ce pur touz iours soient deschargez quitez That the Peeres of the Land may not have Power to doe this but that for ever they may be discharged and freed of it that was of Judging any but their Peeres And if this had been an Act of Parlament which had passed both Houses and becomed a Law by having the Kings Assent to it no question the Lords had been bound up and without another Act of Parlament to Repeale this they could not have exercised that Jurisdiction which they have exercised ever since in all Parlaments and which those Lords themselves who made that Agreement and Bargaine with the King did afterwards exercise in that very Parlament in the Case of Sir Thomas de Bercley whom they Tried for the Murther of King Edward the 2 d. The truth is as is before said in this Treatise it was but a sudden effect of Passion and of an Indignation which they had conceived against themselves for what they had been forced by the King to do most unjustly in condemning the Earle of March and Sir Simon de Beresford to death without calling them to answer Nor yet do they say they had not Power clean contrary it appears they had it for they desire that Power may be taken from them that neither they nor their Successors may have it for the future but then having it they could not by this act of theirs divest themselves of it For nothing but a Law could doe that and it is cleare that this was none but meerely an Order of that House of which themselves were Masters as the House is still of all it's Orders and may alter or revoke them as it pleaseth and themselves it seems did revoke this Order for they afterwards in that very Parlament did the contrary in the Case of Sir Thomas de Barcley But admit they had done so and that their Order had still continued in force as to them it could have no operation upon succeeding Parlaments to bind them So as this Record cannot be said to be of any signification to impeach the Power of Judicature which is in the House of Lords no not in the least degree But I was willing not to conceal any thing which hath but a semblance the other way And indeed indeed the Truth will the better appear and be made the more clear and perspicuous by shewing the weakness of all that can be said against it FINIS
Erroneous Judgements in the Kings Bench or in the Exchequer a Writ of Error lies to bring them before the Judges in the Exchequer Chamber but it is by Act of Parliament Several Acts have been made to give that Relief First The 31. E. 3 c. 12. which gives Power to the Chancellor and Treasurer to call the Judges to assist them to examine Errors in the Exchequer Then the 27. Eliz. c. 8. which makes Judgements in the Kings Bench examinable by all the Judges of the other Courts in the Exchequer Chamber And the 31. Eliz. c. 1. which gives some further Regulation in the proceedings upon Judgements given in each of those Courts as well the Exchequer as the Kings Bench And that of the 27 th of the Queen gives the Reason in the Preamble why those Laws were made because before that time Erroneous Judgements given in the Kings Bench could only be Reformed in the High Court of Parliament and the Parliament did not so often sit in those days as formerly But there is no Act of Parliament nor no Law which gives Power to the King to enable either the Judges or any Body else out of Parliament to examine a Decree made in Chancery though it be never so Unjust and Erroneous therefore it may well be doubted if such a Commission were according to Law notwithstanding the Resolution of the Judges at that time But admit such a Commission were Legal and that the King had Power to Appoint and Authorise Persons to receive and judge of Appeals from the Chancery as he doth Delegates for Appeals from Ecclesiastical Courts which Power is given him by Act of Parliament 25. H. 8. c. 19. yet that would not conclude the House of Peers but that they might receive an Appeal even from the Sentence of those Commissioners seeing it is the Kings Supream Court of Judicature and where Henry the 8 th said upon occasion of what happened in Parlament in the Case of Ferrars that he was Informed by his Judges that he stood Highest in his Royal Estate Therefore even those Acts of Parliament that Erect a Judicature of all the Judges in the Exchequer Chamber to examine and reverse Erroneous Judgements given in the Kings Bench and in the Exchequer do not exclude an Appeal even from thence to the Parliament The words of the Statute of 27. Eliz. are these And be it further Enacted that such Reversal or Affirmation of any such former Judgement shall not be so Final but that the Party who findeth him grieved therewith shall and may Sue in the High Court of Parliament for the further and due Examination of the said Judgement in such sort as is now used upon Erroneous Judgements in the Kings Bench. And it doth naturally and necessarily follow that it must be so if the House of Peers be the Supream Court of Judicature That the High Court of Parliament is so no Man will deny It rests only to make out that by the High Court of Parliament in matter of Judicature is intended the House of Peers where such Jurisdiction is solely Lodged And that it is so it will be proved by good Authorities and by right Reason The Authorities are taken out of the Parlament Rolls which declare it throughout from the beginning to the end both in the ancient Records and in the Modern Journal Books They all speak the House of Peers that is King and Lords to be the sole Judges both of Persons and Things Criminal and Civil and the House of Commons to have no part in it at all The first Parlament Roll extant is 4. E. 3. and it begins with a Judgement given by the Peers upon Roger de Mortimer E. of March Per qoi les ditz Countes Barouns Piers come Juges du Parlement per assent du Roi en mesme le Parlement agarderent aiugerent que le dit Roger come treitor enemy du Roi du Roialme feust treyne pendu The Earls Barons and Peers as Judges of Parlament c. they are Characterised Judges of Parlament as a thing known and notorious to all Men. They at the same time exercised their Judicature upon Sir Simon de Bereford John Mautrauers Bogo de Bayons John Deueroil Thomas de Gurney and William de Ode who were Commoners and no Peers those were all Condemned but only Sir Simon de Bereford Executed for the others were not taken and none of them all neither the Earl of March nor Bereford called to Answer but the Lords were forced to Condemne them by the earnest pressing of the King which so troubled their Consciences that they presently came to an Agreement with the King not to be hereafter compelled to give Judgment upon any but their Peers which is that of 4. E. 3. n. 6. which is hinted in a Paper said to be Reasons prepared by the House of Commons for a Conference with the Lords and to be Read to their Lordships as a Matter of huge Importance to disprove the Power of the House of Peers of judging Commoners when it was only an Agreement as it were a Bargain made with the King that he should not force them to Judge any but their Peers For that was a thing they were tied unto by Law and they could not avoid it Ne soient mes tenuz ne chargez a rendre juggementz sur autres are the words of the Record I see not what great Matter can be built upon this President to dispossess them of their Judicature It was a voluntary Act of the Lords at that time even an effect of their Indignation against themselves for having yielded to doe an unjust thing at the pressing Importunity of the King to Condemne Men unheard and not called to Answer for themselves as the Lords themselves confessed 28. E. 3. when an Act of Parlament passed to reverse this Judgement But that they did afterwards commonly judge Commoners in Criminal Causes is very apparent That very Parlament notwithstanding that Agreement made Sir Thomas Berkley was tried before them by a Jury for the death of Edward the 2 d and acquitted The House of Commons themselves 1. R. 2. n. 30. come and desire the Lords to exercise this Judicature upon such as had betraied Forts and Towns into the hands of Enemies the words are Supplie est per les Coēs que touz ceux qont renduz perduz Chastelz on Villes per de la per verray desauce de Capitaine puissent estre a response a ceste Parlement solonc lour desert forsement puniz per agard des Srs. Baronage c. That they may by the Judgement of the Lords and the Baronage be severely Punished according to their deserts The Lords accordingly cause to be brought before them William de Weston for Surrendring the Castle of Outhrewick and John de Gomeniz for Surrendring the Town and Castle of Arde and Adjudged them to Death The same Parlament Alice Perrers who had been in high favour with Edward
their Servants were Beaten or Wounded or Arrested the House of Commons could not themselves punish them by their own Authority but must come to the King and Lords and pray in their Aid sometimes to punish them judicially sometimes to make an Act 〈◊〉 Parlament for it as was done 5. H. 〈◊〉 the Case of Rich. Chedder Servant 〈◊〉 Tho. Brooke Knight for Sommersetâ—â—â—â—e who was Assaulted and Beaten by one Iohn Savage The King by the Advice and Assent of the Lords at the Request of the Commons ordained that Savage should appeare and yield himself in the Kings Bench within a Quarter of a Year after Proclamation made for that purpose and appearing or not appearing if attainted of the Fact should pay double Damages to the Party and make Fine and Ransome at the Kings will and so to be done in time to come in like Cases And n. 74. of the same Parlament the Commons pray That all such Persons as shall Arrest any Knight or Burgess or their Servants As Parlementz venantz illeoques demurrantz a lour propres restournantz coming staying and returning not Forty dayes before the Sitting and Forty dayes after as now should pay Trebble damages to the Party grieved and make Fine and Ransome at the Kings will 31. H. 6. n. 25 26. Tho. Thorp their Speaker and Walter Raile a Member during a Prorogation had been taken in Execution and laid up in Prison when the Parlament came they wanted their Speaker and one of their Members and there-upon sent up some of their Number to the Lords to complain and desire them to set them at Liberty far from going about to do it themselves the Lords advise with the Judges and after Consultation think not fit to deliver them because they were imprisoned upon a Condemnation before Parlament when there was no Priviledge which they signifie to the Commons and charge them in the Kings Name to chuse another Speaker which they did one Sir Thomas Charlton Yet if any of the Members or their Servants were arrested within time of Priviledge then upon complaint the Lords did use to set them at Liberty as they did 8. H. 6. n. 57. William Lake Servant to William Mildred Burgess for London 39. H. 6. n. 9. Walter Clerk Burgess for Chippenham 14. E. 4. n. 55. Walter Hyde Burgess for the same place 17. E. 4. n. 55. Iohn Atwell Burgess for Exeter But the House of Commons never pretended either to Discharge any body out of Prison or to Commit any body to Prison or impose a Fine in any Case whatsoever till that 34 th of H. 8. when it was in one particular Case permitted and referred to them by the House of Peers Nor indeed can it stand with Reason and the Rules of Justice they should have such a Jurisdiction in regard they cannot give an Oath And is it rational or any wayes just that any Man should either be disseised of Property or deprived of Liberty without there be Testimony upon Oath that he hath done some thing to deserve it This seem to be against the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdome All this considered it is not probable were it true that the House of Commons did dislike that Acting of the Lords in the Case of Rich the Second to Unthrone and Imprison their Lawful King that yet out of that dislike and to avoid the present evil of being made joynt Actors in and Parties to that particular Judgement they would renounce being Parties to any and for ever debar themselves of a Power and Priviledge which did justly belong to them Nay more say they never had such a Power that it belonged onely to the King and Lords and that their part was but to sue and to petition This is hardly to be believed But who reades the Story will see that the Inference is not true and will find that at that time the Common People and even that House of Commons were full as much if not more than the Lords displeased with King Richard and favourers of Henry the 4 th who did so much rely upon the affection of the People that he brought no Military force with him out of France where he had remained in Banishment and that he landed at Rauenspurre in Holderness only with fifteen Lances but soon encreased to an Army of threescore thousand Men for as Historians say his strength was in the Hearts of the People where King Richards should have been who had so little of their Good-wills that when he was sent from Chester to London certaine Citizens had conspired to way-laye him and kill him if the Lord Major having intelligence of it had not prevented it himself riding forth with convenient company to guard him to the Tower And when the Parlament came which Henry the fourth then Duke of Lancaster called by Wriâ—â—s of Summons in King Richards name the House of Commons was as forward as the Lords in every point for Decrying Condemning and Deposing of King Richard When his Resignation was declared unto them by the Arch-Bishop of Yorke and Bishop of Hereford whom King Richard had made his Atturneys for that purpose and they were demanded if they would assent and agree to it they with one general Voice did expresly accept and admit the same When the Articles of his Charge were read unto them they all agreed that his Crimes were notorious and he worthy for the same to be deposed of his Princely Dignity and joyned in appointing Commissioners two Knights Sir Thomas Erpinghan and Sir Tho. Grey for them to goe with two Prelates and two Temporal Lords for the Peers to the Tower to pronounce unto King Richard the Sentence of his Deposition And they promoted several things that Parlament in favour of Henry the 4 th and his Friends and to the Depression and Reproach of Richard the second and his Friends which they inserted among their Petitions which according to usage they presented at the end of the Parlament which being granted at their request were established for Acts of Parlament So as the Penner of that Paper of Reasons for a Conference was much mistaken in what he there said of the Commons being then unwilling to be made Parties to that Judgement because it was to Depose their Lawful King and sure he either never had read the Story of those times or had forgotten it otherwise he would have knowen that they were as busie Actors as the Lords in that Deposing I mean in the Prosecution of it though not in the Judgement given upon it to which as to all other Judgements they disclaimed to have any right or Interest And it is in my Opinion rather an unanswerable Argument that they had no Interest nor could have none in any Judgement their Disclaiming it at this time and upon this occasion when they knew that nothing would be done to displease them and they were sure to obtain almost any thing they would ask with reason and with any colour of a new King so
But let us take the House of Lords as it is though there be many young Men there are some more Elderly and it is they commonly that sit out hearing Causes and even amongst the young Lords there be some that apply themselves to Business In the general it may be said of that House that many among them are Persons of Honour and of Integrity that will not be Byassed and of experience to Understand and Judge aright of such Matters as are brought before them The great Officers of the Kingdome are part of that Body who in all reason should be knowing Men the Chancellor of England is alwayes their Speaker who is commonly a Person skilled in the Law and they have all the Judges of the Land to be their Assistants with whom they advice and by whose advice they are guided in difficult Points of Law as it is said in Flouredew's Case 1 H. 7. Ter. Pasc. f. 20. Senescallus cum Dominis Spiritualibus Temporalibus per Consilium Iusticiariorum procedent ad Errorem corrigendum by the Counsel and Advice of the Judges they shall correct the Errors viz. of the Judgement complained of So it is probable and there is Ground to hope and expect one may find Justice here as soon as â—n any other Judicatory Nay perhaps sooner here For when a Lord Chancellor or a Lord Keeper is concerned as he is in all Appeals from Decrees in Chancery which is the proper Question at this time before us a Commission to the Judges or to any other Sett of Men is not so likely to relieve a poor Man that is opprest by an unjust Decree whereby those Commissioners may incurre the displeasure of so great a Person by censuring and vacating his Act as the House of Peers who are not in that Awe of him and Subjection to him as all particular Persons are Which consideration alone hath heretofore been sufficient to justifie the Lords interposing even in the ordinary Judicature of the Kingdome in Causes between Party and Party And the Commons themselves did then so farr approve of this as they made it their desire to the King that it might be so So as it passed into a Law to be an Act of Parlament and a Statute according to the Formality of making Lawes in those times 1 R. 2. m. 11. They pray Que querele entre parties ne soit attemptez ne terminez deuaunt Srs. ne Officiers du Conseil mes que la commune ley courge sans estre tarie es lieux on ils soloient dancien temps estre terminez sil ne soit ticle querele encontre si grande personne que home ne suppose aillours dauoir droit The Answer is Le Roy le voet They pray That Sutes between Party and Party may not be retained and determined before the Lords nor before the Councel but that the Law may have its Course and no Obstruction of it bâ— there where such Businesses did antiently use to be determined except it be in such a Sute and against so great a Person as one cannot otherwise hope to have Justice and the King grants it And 1. H. 4. n. 160. this Statute is again Confirmed Now I know not what Sâ—â—â—e nor what Business can be fitter to be within this Exception then where a Lord Chancellor or a Lord Keeper is concerned for the maintenance of a Decree which himself hath made Besides we know what Influence that great Officer hath in all Commissions that Issue under the Great Seal for naming and appointing the Persons that shall be Commissionated by them And certainly one that complaines of Injustice done by so great a Person would not willingly that he should have hand in appointing the Persons that must Examine and Redress it So as all things considered I do not see where such a Power as this could better be lodged then in the House of Peers if it were not already there and that we were now to chuse where it should be placed Yet all Men are fallible and Parlaments may erre and do erre many times and therefore as commonly second Notions and second Thoughts are better and consequently second Judgements so there lies even an Appeale from the first Judgement in Parlament but it must be still to the Parlament as the Law Books say Error in Parliament convient estre reverse per Parlament that is in another Parlament or another Session not in the same All this tends to shew that not onely the Right of Appeales is in the House of Lords but that neither can it be better any where else Yet there is still one Point behind not yet treated of which must be cleared before I make an end and that is Whether the Lords may proceed upon an Appeale if a Member of the House of Commons be concerned And the same question then may be moved concerning Writs of Error for if the Priviledge of that House extends to the one it must extend to the other the same reason being for both as likewise for the Lords not medling with any Business wherein any of their House is concerned In the first place let us consider what the Usage hath been heretofore and what the Judicature of the House of Peers hath been and how exercised in relation to the House of Commons That heretofore in the Antient times even till Henry the 8 th when the House of Commons did need any thing either for repelling any Injury done to them and punishing those who had done it or for supplying them with any thing they wanted and desired for their advantage and well being they did then come and pray in the Aide of the Lords who did examine the particular Businesses and apply the necessary Remedies they being altogether unable to help themselves hath I think been sufficiently proved already in the former part of this Discourse The Question is now as that was when they complained and when it was at their desire so if when others complained of them and sought remedy against them the Lords had then power to receive the Complaint and relieve the Party grieved Which questionless they had Nor was it ever knowen that ever the House of Commons did before pretend to such a Priviledge as that their Members should be exempt from being put to answer in the House of Lords when any Sute was there commenced against them 16. R. 2. n. 6. Sir Philip Courtney being Knight for Devonshire presents himself to the House of Peers Disant coment il auoit entendâ—z que certeins gentz lui avoient accusez esclandrez au Roi as Seig rs c. Saying he heard he had been accused and slandered to the King and Lords of doeing great wrongs and prayed he might be discharged from serving in Parlament untill he was purged and cleared of them and the Record saith A cause que sa priere sembla au Roi as Seig rs honeste le Roi luy ottroya sa requeste lui en dischargea because
ad Errorem corrigendum Here is a Negativa praegnans to the House of Commons Et non per Communitatem as if it was not enough to say by the Lords alone there is added That it must not be by the Commons Nothing can be clearer than this and the Practice hath been according to it in all times both preceding and following Some question hath been made of Appeals from Courts of Equity whether or no that House hath Cognisance of them And more is it questioned If a Member of the House of Commons hath been concerned in the Appeal which hath now this last Session of Parliament been absolutely and peremptorily denied and strongly opposed by the House of Commons But I no wayes doubt of making it appear as clear as the Noon-day that all Appeals whoever is concerned in them are regularly and properly within the Cognisance and the Jurisdiction of the House of Peers and so have ever been And to speak truly There was Antiently no difference in the way of complaining of Erroneous Judgements given in Courts of Law and that of unjust Decrees made in a Court of Equity Both were by way of Petition from the Party grieved setting forth the Cause of his Complaint and shewing wherein the Court had Erred in the Adjudging and Determining his Cause before them In the Rolls of Parliament from the beginning of Edward the Third to the end of Edward the Fourth which are all that are in the Tower there is no mention of any Complaint of an Erroneous Judgement brought into Parliament that is to the House of Peers by a Writ of Error as it is now the Practice from the Courts of Law but all were by Petition as the Appeals are now from Decrees in Equity And this Change is crept in of late Years we know not how nor exactly when but certainly in those times of which the Parlament Journals are either totally lost as those of the times of Richard the 3 d and Henry the 7 th and between the 7 th and the 25 th of Henry the 8 th or else made so Concise and Imperfect recording nothing but Bills and their several Readings and some Proceedings upon them and very little as good as nothing of any private Businesses that one cannot have a certain knowledge how the Judicature was then exercised in the House of Lords as appears by the Journals extant of H. the 8 th and all since even till the 18 th of King James when Henry Elsing came to be Clerk of the Parliament who first took care to enter duly in the Journal Book all that passed in the House But however this Alteration and the difference that seemingly is between complaining by a Petition of Appeal and bringing of a Writ of Error hath given occasion to the House of Commons to Dispute the Jurisdiction of the House of Peers in case of Appeals and pass some Vote against it and more Declaredly and Avowedly to oppose the Proceedings of the Peers upon Appeals when any Member of their House hath been concerned For Appeals in General They have declared that the House of Lords hath no Right to Receive and Judge of any from Courts of Equity a thing was never Questioned in any preceding Parliament though it hath been ever Practised And there is the same Reason for it if not more than for their reversing Erroneous Judgements at the Common Law For in the Courts of Common Law there are Four Judges and they will not easily be all mistaken and all concur in giving a false Judgement and a Suitor there is more like to receive Justice especially in regard they have a strict Rule to go by the Rule of the Law which is a known Rule than where there is but one Judge as in Chancery and who hath a greater Latitude to proceed by varying from the exact Rule of Law and guiding himself much by his own Discretion It is easie for such a Judge to err though perhaps not willingly and hard it were that there should then be no Remedy But it will be said The King may then grant a Commission to certain Persons to give Relief to such as shall find themselves aggrieved with any unjust Decree as was done by Queen Eliz. in the 43 d. year of her Reign in a Case of the Countess of Southampton and the Earl of Worcester mentioned by Serjeant Rolls in the Report of the Case of Vaudrey and Pannel p. 331. where he saith it was resolved by all the Judges which they set under their Hands that when a Decree is made in Chancery upon Petition to the Queen She may refer it to the Judges but not to any other but to them to Examine and Reverse the Decree if there be cause and accordingly by such a Reference that Decree was Reversed Sir Edward Cook also in his 4 th Institute c. 8. treating of the Court of Chancery gives two Presidents more of the like nature one of the same 43. Eliz. in Sir Moyle Finches Case he Defendant the Earl of Worcester and others Plaintiffs whereupon a Petition to the Queen a Decree in Chancery was referred to the Judges and their Resolutions against it being certified into the Chancery the Decree was Reversed The other President is three Years before 40. Eliz. in Throgmorton's Case the same Sir Moyle Finch there likewise Defendant where a Demurrer of his being Over-ruled by the Chancellor upon a Reference to the Judges it was by them otherwise resolved and their Resolution being by the Chief Justice Popham signified to the Chancellor there was no further proceeding in Chancery To these Presidents is answered First That it may be doubted if the Opinion and Proceedings of the Judges at that time be so authentick as to make it pass for Law to set up a new Court of Equity Sir Edward Cook in the same Treatise fol. 87. saith in Perrots Case Mich. 26 and 27. Eliz. That it was resolved by Sir Christopher Wray Chief Justice and the Court of Kings Bench That the Queen could not raise a Court of Equity by Her Letters-Patents and that there could be no Court of Equity but either by Act of Parliament or by Prescription time out of mind And in Hobberts Reports fol. 63. in the Case of Martin and Marshal it is said That this Court of Equity is a special Trust committed to the King and not by him to be Committed to any other but his Chancellor How then can King or Queen Commissionate any or her Persons to be Judges in Equity of any Cause For what is it but a Court of Equity when all the Judges are Commissionated to assemble themselves to rehear a Cause formerly Decreed in Chancery which they do Judge a-new and Determin it upon hearing Counsel of both sides for or against the Decree Secundum aequum bonum according to the Course of Equity and not by the strict Rule of Law This is certainly at least a Temporary Court of Equity It is true that for