be Justices of Gaol-delivery in every County And he granted to the said Justices that they should have the keeping of the Records of the Pleas pleaded before them But they were not to rase or amend their Rolls or to make Record contrary to their Enrollments Also that the power of the Justices should be limited in such manner that they exceed not the points contained in the Writs or Presentments of Jurors nor complaints to them made saving such incident matter as without which the original causes could not be determined And he utterly forbids and prohibits that any shall have power to amend any unjust or erroneous Judgment of his Justices but only those Justices which followed Him and his Courts who thereunto were by him entitled or Himself or his Councel for that matter he specially reserv'd to his own Jurisdiction He forbids also all his Coroners and Justices except his Seneschal his Steward and his Justices of Ireland and Chester to make any Deputies to do any thing whereof they ought to make record without the King's leave He will'd also That in Counties Hundreds and in the Courts of every frank Tenement there should be Courts held by the Suitors and also in Cities Towns Boroughs and Franchises c. Besides this Book written by King Ed. 1.'s command and in his own name a while after there was another Book written by whom it is not known called Fleta and it was in the Reign of Ed. 2. or 3. And that Author says That Judgment is a threefold act Fleta lib. 1. cap. 17. fol. 16. of three persons at the least the Judge the Plaintiff and the Defendant without which there can be no Judgment Nor says he can any one Judge in temporal matters but only the King or his Substiutes and Delegates And the same Author in his Tract of the diversity of Courts Fleta lib. 2. fol. 16. says as followeth The King hath a Court in his Councel in his Parliaments when present the Prelates Earls Barons Nobles and other skilful men who are to determine the doubts of Judges and where upon appearance of any new sort of injuries new remedies are provided and where Justice is to be rendred to every one according to what belongs to him He hath also his Court before his Steward in Aula sua in his Hall who now says he supplies the place of the Capitalis Justiar ' whereof mention is made in the common Writ of homine replegiando who was wont to hear the Kings own Causes to rectifie false Judgments and to do Justice to Complainants without Writ whose Power in part the said Steward of the Kings Houshold hath Also the King hath his Court of Chancery in several places in his House He hath also a Court before his Auditors specially appointed to be near the King whose Office extends but to the Justices and others of the Kings Ministers ☞ to whom there was no power granted to determine what they heard but to relate the matter to the King that he might direct punishments according to the quality of the Offence He hath also his Court and Justices as well Knights as Clergy-men locum suum tenentes in Anglia before whom and not elsewhere unless before Himself and his Council and special Auditors false Judgments and Errors of Justices are reversed and there are determined Writs of Appeals and other Writs upon criminal Actions and injuries contra pacem He hath also his Courts and his Justices residing in the Exchequer and also in Banco now called the Common-Pleas at Westminster and some are assign'd for Gaol-deliveries in every County and some are affigned to take Assizes generally in every County and some are itenerant and constituted to hear and determine all criminal and civil Pleas. Also the King hath his Justices itenerant to hear and determine the Pleas of the Forest and he hath his Court in every County and in the Sheriffs Turn and in Hundreds and in the King's Manors Cities and Boroughs as in the Hustings of London Lincoln Winchester York and other places And the same Author having afterwards treated more particularly of what Jurisdiction the King had delegated to every Court Fleta l 2. f. 75. cap. 33. he writes thus of the Chancery There is amongst the rest a certain Office called the Chancery which ought to be committed to the care of some prudent man as a Bishop or Clergy man of great dignity together with the care of the great Seal of England under whom are all the Chancellors in England Ireland Wales and Scotland and all Keepers of the Kings Seals except the Keeper of the Privy Seal to whom are associated Clerici honesti honest and circumspect Clerks sworn to our Lord the King and who in the Laws and Customs of England have ample knowledge whose Office it is to hear and examine the Complaints of Complainants and to grant due remedy by the King 's Writ according to the nature and quality of the wrong And there he treats at large of the Officers Clerks and Business of the Chancery which was to make out Remedial or Original Writs and Judicial Writs also upon Recognizances and Contracts made in the Chancery and enroll'd there but not one tittle or mention is there made by any of the said Authors of any Superiority the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper or the Court of Chancery had over the Proceedings of any of the other Judges either to examine correct or rectifie their Judgments or stop execution thereof upon any account colour or pretence whatsoever which is a most convincing proof the Chancellor then had no such power SECT III. What is meant by Judging according to Equity and by Whom it was anciently performed HAving laid the foundation of my present purpose upon what I find in the fore-mention'd Authors I think it not amiss to say somewhat touching their credit and first of all that which gives them a reputation with me is that they set down what they themselves of their own knowledge knew to be true they relate what the Law was at the time of the writing of those Books they took nothing upon trust from other hands but set down what they themselves knew to be practice Next they were men of great Eminency Bracton was a learned Judge and it was his zeal to Justice induc'd him to write Britton was a Book writ by the King 's own command and publish'd by his approbation and the others Mirror and Fleta have always had a great reputation amongst the English Lawyers not only ancient but modern and Sir Edward Cooke who once was honour'd with the title of the Oracle of the Law in his first Institutes in every page almost quotes those Authors for proof of his assertions and so doth Stanford in his Pleas of the Crown from whence I conclude that what they wrote for Law was Law then and if so it is Law now saving wherein-it it is alter'd by the Kings Parliamentary Act nothing less than
all substituted and delegated Jurisdiction was derived from Him only and under such limitations as he directed so as the Judges did act justly the main charge of administring Justice being on Him and he frequently sate himself in Judgment assisted by his Capitales Justiciarios à latere suo residentes who assisted him in the exercise of his Jurisdiction and eas'd him of trouble but they never pretended to deprive him of his power of hearing and determining himself or changing his Judges or assigning them Jurisdiction as should be needful according to the modern Doctrine of some for he had both complete Jurisdiction and designationem Justiciariorum in himself and it was upon good reason this power was originally placed by God in Kings and consented unto and approved of by good men for by the assistance of and reasoning with their Judges they could never fail of discerning right Judgment and their affection to their Subjects like a good Father to his Children being equal to all it is not likely they should be partial in their Judgments and their Royal Estate is such as not to value Bribes or Rewards So that there is not so much reason to fear Injustice from a King as from a profess'd Lawyer like my self whose aim and design perhaps from his Horn-book was gain and profit and to raise himself a Name and Family in the world I can but wonder then whence started that humour in men rather to trust any body in deciding their Controversies than the King sure it could be from no just Principle Besides the fore-mentioned Author Bracton there are others of the same standing that maintain the same Doctrine The next I shall name is one Horn who about the time of Edw. 1. compiled a Book Of the Laws and Vsages of England a great part whereof as Sir Edward Cooke in his Preface to the 9th part of his Reports affirms were such Laws as the Kingdom was govern'd by for about 1100 years then past to which Book he gives a mighty credit and in matters of difficulty is very frequently his ipse dixit and that Author says Mirror 232. That Jurisdiction is the chiefest Dignity that appertains to the King and thereof he says there are two sorts and he calls them ordinary and assign'd which are the same with Original and Delegated as the other Author terms them Ibid. 23.2 Jurisdiction Tays he can be assign'd by none but by the King and he may do it because be cannot without assistance perform such a charge and therefore it was of old ordained that there should be a Seat and a Chancellor to keep it and grant Writs remedial to all Complainants without delay This was the Chancellors Province then And again he says Ibid. 234. Jurisdiction est un porat a dire Druit a power of commanding right to be done and this power God gave unto Moses and such as hold the like place as he and this power belongs unto the King within his Dominions and He by his Authority-Royal makes his Justices in several degrees Ibid. 235. and doth limit to every one his power after several manners And there he enumerates divers sorts of Commissions and Courts and speaking of the chiefest Justices of all he says They determin'd matters more or less according to the nature of their Commission From whence also it follows there were no Judges that had or pretended to have any Jurisdiction originally or fundamentally in themselves but what all of them had was by deputation and delegation from the King Furthermore Edm. 1. out of his Princely care that his people should be govern'd by certain and known Rules caused the Laws and Rules of Government Britt so 1. and disposition of Property which then to fore had been used in the Kingdom to be put in writing and publish'd in his own Name and at the same time commanded the use and practice of those Laws in all points throughout his whole Dominion saving and always reserved to himself the power of repealing altering and amending of them as should seem good to him with the assent of his Earls Barons and others of his Councel and saving such Usages and Customs as had been time out of mind used so that they be not discourdants a droft And there he proceeds in this manner viz. En primes en droft de nous mesmes nostre Courte avouns issint ordeyne c. which is to this effect That first of all in the right of Himself and of his Court because he could not in his own Person hear and determine all the complaints of his people and to the end that his charge should be divided as is thereby appointed he did ordain and his will and pleasure was That his own Jurisdiction should be superiour to all the Jurisdictions in his Realm So that in all manner of Felonies Trespasses Contracts and in all manner of Actions real and personal he had power to give and cause to be given such Judgments as thereto belonged without any other Process where he knew the direct truth as Judge And there also he appoints That the Steward of his Houshold should represent Him within the Verge and he assigned him his Jurisdiction which was to hear and determine the presentments of Articles which concern the Crown whensoever it should seem good to the King And moreover he will'd that Justices in Eyr should be assign'd to hear and determine those Articles in every County and in every Franchise from seven years to seven And there he gives the like power to his Justices of Ireland and Chester and wills further That the Count or Earl of Norfolk by himself or some other Knight should always attend upon the King and his Steward within the Verge of the King's House so long as he should hold the Office of Marshal And there he appoints the Jurisdiction of the Justices assign'd Britt fo 2. to follow the King and be where He was if in England and that they should have conusance to amend false Judgments to determine Appeals and other trespasses done against the Kings Peace and Jurisdiction He also appointed a Coroner to be in the Kings House and in every County un Viscount a Sheriff and that under those Sheriffs there should be Hundreders Serjeants and Bailiffs who should attend upon the Sheriffs He also appointed Coroners in every County and allotted them their Jurisdiction And moreover his will and pleasure was That there should be Justices always residing at Westminster or elsewhere where he should appoint to determine such common Pleas as the King should command them by his Writs so as the Pleadings arising thereupon should be recorded He settled the Jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court and ordained That there should be Justices assign'd for every County to have conusance in such causes as the King should command by his Letters-Patents touching Pety-Assizes and of other things whereof the Kings will should be they should make record and that there should
c. The Kings Laws the Laws of the Twelve Tables the Civil Law Laws made by the consent of the People or Decrees of the Senate and therein he was not absolute as in the other But out Chancellor or Keeper and their Praetor do do differ very much for the Praetor would at his Entry into that Office propound and publish certain Edicts which were Principles and Fountains out of which he would derive his Decrees but what Rules or General Notions the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper in England doth assign unto himself for Limitation of Equity and direction of his Conscience those lie hid and concealed in his own Breast so that neither the Man of Law nor Equity is able to inform his Client what is like to become of the Cause and consequently no man is able to know what is his own so that it may be said of this great Officer arm'd with this great Power as was said of Jeremiah's Figs Jer. 24.4 Those that were good were very good but those that were evil were exceeding evil For that Power if it be used according to the true intent and design of it is of Excellent use Optima corrupta sunt pessima but if abus'd it is the greatest oppression imaginable and that that Power hath been abused will appear by the next Section SECT V. Of the Corruptions and Mistakes of some Great Chancellors I Find in the Journal Book of the Lords House in the year 1620. and in the 19th year of King James that on the 19th of March in that year a Message was sent from the Lower House to the Lords importing That they had found Abuses in certain Eminent Persons about which they desired a Conference with their Lordships that such course might be taken as might stand with the Honour and Dignity of a Parliament which was agreed to by the Lords and the Conference was appointed to be that afternoon and the next day it was Reported to the Lords by the Lord Treasurer That at the Conference was deliver'd the desire of the Commons to inform their Lordships what they had found in their Inquiry after the Abuses of the Courts of Justice where after having highly commended the incomparable good parts of the then Lord Chancellor and magnified his place from whence Bounty Justice and Mercy were to be distributed to the Subject with which he was wholly Intrusted They declared that the Lord Chancellor was Accused of great Bribery and Corruption committed by him And instanced two Cases one concerning one Christopher Awbrey and the other concerning one Edward Egerton As to Awbrey the matter was That He having a Cause in Chancery between Him and Sir William Brunker Awbrey feeling some hard measure was advis'd to give the Lord Chancellor 100 l. which he deliver'd to his Council Sir John Hastings and He to the Chancellor but notwithstanding the business proceeding slowly Awbrey writ several Letters and deliver'd them to the Lord Chancellor but could never have any Answer from his Lordship but at last delivering another Letter his Lordship told him if he importun'd him he would lay him by the Heels As to Egerton's matter it was set out at large at the Conference and will appear by the substance of Egerton's Petition to the Lords the effect whereof amongst other things is as followeth That the said Edward Egerton being Vnmarried and Sickly he settled his Estate to the use of himself and the Heirs Males of his Body and for default of such Issue the Remainder to Sir John Egerton and his Heirs which Settlement was voluntarily made without any consideration paid for the same and with Power of Revocation and that Sir Rowland Egerton Son and Heir of the said Sir John Egerton had got the said Settlement into his hands and all the Petitioners Writings and that the late Lord Chancellor Elsemere had Decreed that Sir Rowland Egerton should have the manner of Wrinehal and Haywood Barnes being a great part of the Petitioners Inheritance worth 600 l. per Annum without any cause of Equity contain'd in the said Decree and that the Petitioner had made humble Suit to the Lord Viscount St. Albans then Lord Chancellor of England to have the benefit of a Subject to recover his Ancient Inheritance by Ordinary course of Law and that his Lordship took from the Petitioner 400 l. in Gold and 52 l. 10 s. in Silver Plate which Money was accepted of by the said Lord Chancellor saying withall That the Petitioner had not only Enrich'd him but laid a tye upon him to do the Petitioner Justice in his Rightful Causes and by great Oaths and Protestations drew the Petitioner to Seal an Obligation to his Lordship of ten thousand Marks to stand to his Lordships Award and that afterwards the Petitioner was divers times sent for by one Robert Sharpeigh then Steward of his Lordships Houshold and that the Petitioner was several times offer'd that if he would then presently pay 1100 l. in ready Money that is to say 1000 l. to his Lordship and 100 l. to Sharpeigh the Petitioner should have all his Lands Decreed to him which Money he could not readily pay and that afterwards the said Lord Chancellor did not only confirm unto the said Sir Rowland Egerton the Land which he then held of the said Petitioner's Inheritance being worth 600 l. per Annum but took away more Lands worth 15000 l. and Decreed the same to Sir Rowland Egerton who did not claim any Title thereto before the said Bond taken and Vnlawful Decree made and that he also Decreed the Bond should be Assigned to Sir Rowland Egerton And the Petitioner having spent 600 l. in Suits and being depriv'd of all his Evidences by the said Lord Chancellor and by the indirect practice of the said Sir Rowland He was likely to be utterly defrauded of all his Ancient Inheritance contrary to the common Justice of the Land unless reliev'd by their Lordships The Contents of which Petition the Petitioner made Oath to be true and he and Sharpeigh were further Examin'd touching the matter By the Journal of the Lords House for the 21st of March in the year 1600. It appears that there had been Information given to the House that there had been a Cause depending in Chancery between one Smithwicke and Wiche which was matter of Account and had been Referred to Merchants and the Merchants had Certified on Smithwick's behalf yet to obtain a Decree in the Cause he was told by one Burrough that was near to the Lord Chancellor that it must cost him 200 l. which he paid to the use of the Lord Chancellor yet his Lordship Decreed but one part of the Certificate Whereupon he treats again with Burrough who demands another 100 l. which Smithwick also paid to the use of the Lord Chancellor then his Lordship Referr'd the Accounts again to the Merchants who Certified again for Smithwick yet his Lordship Decreed the second part of the Certificate against Smithwick and the
first part which was formerly Decreed for him his Lordship made doubtful whereupon Smithwick Petition'd to the Lord Chancellor to have his Money again and he had it It appears further by the said Journal Books that several days were in a great part Employed in taking Examination of Witnesses in proving and detecting the Briberies and Corruptions of that Lord Chancellor which being ended and collected were order'd to be Transcrib'd with the Proofs and on the 24th of April following were order'd to be sent to his Lordship with a Message that the Lords requir'd his Answer with all convenient speed The Corruptions as they are mentioned to be prov'd in the Journal of the Lords House of the said 24th of April are as followeth That in the Cause between Sir Rowland Egerton and Edward Egerton his Lordship received on the part of Sir Rowland Egerton before he decreed for him 500 l. Item of Edward Egerton in the said Cause 400 l. Item in the Cause between Hodie and Hodie a dozen of Buttons after the Cause end ed of the value of 50 l. Item of the Lady Wharton 310 l. Item of Sir Tho. Munke 100 l. Item of Sir John Trevor 100 l. Item of one Young 100 l. Item of one Fisher 106 l. Item in the Cause of Kenday and Valore of Kenday a Cabinet worth 800 l. Of Valore borrow'd at two times 2000 l. Item in the Cause between Scot and Lenthall of Scot 200 l. Item of Lenthall 100 l. Item of one Wroth who had a Cause between him and one Mannering 100 l. Item of Sir Ralph Hansby 500 l. Item in the Lord Mountaine 's Cause of the Lord Mountaine and more promis'd at the end of the Cause 600 or 700 l. Item of one Mr. Dunch 200 l. Item in a Cause between Raynold and Peacock 200 l. in money and a Diamond Ring worth 5 or 600 l. 700 or 800 l. Item of Peacock 100 l. Item in a Cause of Barker 700 l. Item there being a reference from his Majesty to his Lordship of a business between the Grocers and Apothecaries he had of the Grocers 200 l. Of the Apothecaries besides a rich present of Ambergreece 150 l. Item of the French Merchants to constrain the Vintners of London to take 1500 Tuns of Wine to accomplish which he used very indirect means by colour of his Office and Authority without Bill or other Suit depending as threatning and imprisoning the Vintners for which he receiv'd of the Merchants 1000 l. Lastly That he had given way to great exactions by his Servants in respect of private Seals and sealing Injunctions By the journal-Journal-book of the 25th of the said month it appears that Baron Denham and Mr. Attorney-General reported their delivery of the Charge of the Lord Chancellors corruptions to his Lordship and that he said he would return the Lords an Answer whereupon the Lords soon after sent a message by Baron Denham and Mr. Attorney to know if he would make his Confession or stand to his Defence to which they brought answer That his Lordship would make no defence to the charge but meant to acknowledge corruption and to make a particular confession to every point and after that an humble submission but he humbly crav'd liberty that wherein the charge was more full than he finds the truth of the Fact he may make declaration of the truth in such particulars the charge being brief and not containing all circumstances Whereupon the Lords sent the same Messengers back to him to let him know they had granted him time till Monday next being the 30th of April at 10 in the morning to send such Confession as his Lordship intended to make On the 30th of April the Lord Chief-Justice Leigh who then executed the place of Lord Chancellor in the Lords House signified to their Lordships that he had received a Letter and paper Roll sealed up which being delivered to the Clark of the Lords House and being opened found directed to their Lord ships it was read and began thus To the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the High-Court of Parliament assembled The Confession and humble Submission of Me the Lord Chancellor UPon advised consideration of the charge descending into my own conscience and calling my memory to an account so far as I am able I do plainly and ingeniously confess that I am guilty of Corruption and do renounce all defence and put my self upon the Grace and Mercy of your Lordships The particulars I do confess and declare to be as followeth To the first Article of the charge viz. in the Cause between Sir Rowland Egerton and Edward Egerton the Lord Chancellor received 500 l. on the part of Sir Rowland Egerton before he decreed the Cause I do confess and declare Upon a reference from his Majesty of all Suits and Controversies between Sir Rowland Egerton and Mr. Edward Egerton both parties submitted to my award by Recognizance reciprocally in 10000 Marks apiece and thereupon after divers hearings I made my award with advice and consent of my Lord Hobbart and the award was perfected and publish'd to the parties which was in February Then some days after the 500 l. mentioned in the charge was delivered to me Afterwards Mr. Edward Egerton fled from the award Then in Midsummer Term following a Suit was begun in Chancery by Sir Rowland to have the award confirm'd and upon that Suit was the Decree made which is mention'd in this Article To the second Article viz. That in the same Cause he received from Edw. Egerton 400 l. I confess and declare That soon after my first coming to the Seal being a time when I was presented by many the 400 l. mentioned in the charge was delivered unto me in a Purse and I now call to mind from Mr. Edward Egerton But as far as I can remember it was exprest by him that brought it to be for favours past and not in respect of favours to come To the third Article of the charge viz. in the Cause between Hodie and Hodie he receiv'd a dozen of Buttons of the value of 50 l. about a fortnight after the Cause was ended I confess and declare That as it is laid in the charge about a fortnight after the Cause was ended it being a Suit of great Inheritance there were Gold Buttons about the value of 50 l. as is mentioned in the charge presented unto me as I remember by Sir John Perient and the party himself Thus far it is verbatim as it is in the said Journal book and after the same form he proceeds and confesseth the receipt of all the money and other things in the charge and some particular sums more but with some little endeavours to extenuate the Crime as that the money was sent as a present after the Causes ended and confessed that he had imprisoned some of the Vintners because they refused to take off the French Wines and that it was a great fault in him that he
ipso Rege And I find by the Journal of the Lords House that the 10th of December 1621. a Report was made by a Committee appointed to search for Precedents touching Appeals to the Lords from Decrees in Chancery In the Stat. 37 E. 3.18 by Gr. Councel is meant the Privy-Council That anciently all Petitions of that nature were directed to the K. and his great Councel From whence I gather it is but a late practice both to leave the King quite out of such Petitions and to neglect praying his allowance that the Lords may examine Errors of Judgements and Decrees And perhaps it may prove of ill consequence hereafter if not timely considered and rectified the Supremacy of Jurisdiction being the Supreme part of Government Mir. 232. the King 's chiefest Dignity By the foresaid Statutes of E. 3. and El. and some others since made there is sufficient provisions against erroneous Judgments in all Courts at Law in the intervals of Parliament by Writs of Error which are in nature of Appeals which course I conceive the King might have taken if no such Act had been made But against the Judgments and Decrees of the Courts of Equity in Chancery Exchequer Chamber and Counties Palatine c. there is no provision at all by any Parliamentary Act that matter standing as it did by the Common-Law no Parliament having intermeddled with it which if they had they had the same reason or more to desire the King to constitute a Court of Appeal from these Courts of Equity as from other Courts And it is a great Argument with me if there were no other that it was conceived by the Parliament that there is a Power in the King alone out of Parliament-time to rectisie the Errors of the Decrees of all Courts of Equity else the Parliament I presume would have taken care to have provided against those as well as against the Errors of the Court of Kings-Bench which provision was made because they conceived those Errors not to be redressed but in Parliament and the same reason that induced the Parliament to constitute Courts to redress the Errors of the Kings-Bench and Exchequer viz. the unfrequency of Parliliaments and their being otherwise employ'd when they fit may induce the King to appoint Referrees to rectifie Chancery-Decrees For the further clearing of this matter it seems in Queen Elizabeths time there was the like doubt made as now Whether the Queen might relieve against the mistakes of the Chancellor or Keeper in making his Decrees And the Queen took the right way to be inform'd she referr'd it to the Judges to certifie to her their Opinion touching that matter For it appears Rolls Re. 1 p. 331. by the Authority in the Margin that it was certified by all the Judges of England in the Cause between the Countess of Southampton and the Earl of Worcester in Chancery that the Queen upon Petition might refer the matter to the Judges but not to others to examine and reverse the Decree if there should be cause and that the then Lord Chancellor agreed to that resolution And forasmuch as it is mentioned in that Report that the referrence ought to be to the Judges and not to others it is to be understood that it was a point in Law was then in dispute and in such Cases there must be some Judges amongst them for in arte sua cuique credendum est and therefore Judges whose profession the study of the Law is are presum'd to be best conusant of any what the Law is and the Law is not to be unregarded in judging according to Equity but both Law and Conscience are to be so intermix'd as to produce a just Judgment a skill of great curiousity and ought therefore not to be final but in the resolution of several men of great knowledge and integrity since the least byass of affection or disgust to one side or other may lead any single man a great way out of the way I presume this may be the meaning of that Report because I find in the year-Year-book of the 27th of H. 8. so 15 c. That the Kings Secretary and Mr. Fitz-Herbert were join'd with the Chancellor to review a Decree between the Prior of St. Johns and one Dockeray where the Secretary gave rules in the Cause as well as the Chancellor The House of Lords themselves always take the advice of the Judges and to leave matters of Equity wholly to the Chancellor alone in the intervals of Parliament is to give him a greater power than the Lords take to themselves in Parliament which I humbly conceive ought not to be Besides this resolution of all the Judges assented to by the then Lord Chancellor it was afterwards agreed to by the House of Lords themselves That it was proper for the King to give authority to examine and correct Decrees in Chancery as appears by their own Order which is as followeth viz. Die Veneris vicesimo octavo die Maii 1624. THe Petition of Will. Matthews of Landast was read and the Answer thereunto conceiv'd by the Lords Committees for Petitions after Councel heard on both sides many several days was reported to the House by the Lord Houghton and read in haec verba viz. The Lords Committees upon the examination of the whole Cause between William and George Matthews find William Matthews principal Debt to be Five thousand two hundred and sixty pounds which they hold fit to be paid by the said George Matthews thus Vpon St. Andrews day next One thousand six hundred twenty four 2000 l. Vpon St. Andrews day One thousand six hundred twenty five 2000 l. Vpon St. Andrews day One thousand six hundred twenty six 1260 l. The whole sum 5260 l. And that for security for the payment of this Debt according to every several day and payment here set down the whole Land to stand bound and that this be the better performed the Lords Committees think fit the execution hereof be recommended to the Court of Chancery Die Veneris vicesimo octavo die Maii 1624. post meridiem George Matthews exhibited his Petition in haec verba viz. To the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the higher House of Parliament assembled The humble Petition of George Matthews Esq Humbly sheweth your Lordships THat your Petitioners Decree now question'd hath been several times submitted unto by William Matthews never question'd during the life of the Petitioners Father and His Majesty upon information by Petition on both sides declared That he saw no Cause for questioning thereof and it was thereupon ordered That to hear a Cause after submission no Corruption appearing would be a dangerous Precedent In consideration whereof and for that the Decree stands question'd only by Petition nor was your now Petitioner ever party to any Suit nor is there any Bill depending in Court he being informed by Councel that it hath been the course of this Honourable House to reverse Decrees but by
person yet there is not a word that excludes him from nominating Judges to hear and determine Therefore if he could nominate Referrees to rectifie a Chancery-Decree before the Statute as most apparently he could he may do so yet there being not one word in the Statute that prohibits it And whereas it prohibits all arbitrary ways whatsoever of disposition of the Subjects Estates by the King or his Privy Councel this course is not to promote Arbitraryness but to prevent it for it is more arbitrary to leave Causes to the final determination of one single mans Judgment than to refer it to the Judgment of five or six it being not so easie to corrupt or deceive many as one and that is the reason why a Tryal by Jury of Twelve is so much approv'd of and applauded for they being many Fortescue fol. 75. cannot all be easily corrupted And as to that part of the Act that says The fore-mentioned Estates ought to be tryed and determined in the ordinary Courts of Justice and by the ordinary course of Law certainly none can say that have considered the premisses but that referring the examination of Chancery-Decrees to a convenient number of sage persons as is aforesaid may very well be accounted a proceeding in Chancery according to the ordinary course of that Court since the first practice of the Court was to determine not by the Chancellor alone but by the consent of divers others as is aforesaid Sect. 3. And I conceive the House of Lords terming it a reviewing of the Decree in Chancery when they directed application to be made to the King for a Commission as is afore-mentioned and all the Judges of England giving their Opinion for the legality of such proceeding and the same consented and agreed to by the then Lord Chancellor and the long continued practice of it without any dislike when there was occasion as I have made appear for several Princes Reigns and until an unparallell'd Rebellion and Usurpation put that as well as all things else out of course may intitle it to an ordinary course of proceeding if any proceeding at all in Equity in Chancery can be so accounted and the determining Causes there by the Chancellor himself without any assistance or consent of others is more like an arbitrary and an extraordinary way and new sort of practice than that For further manifestation of this matter and that a reference from the King to examine the injustice of a Chancery-Decree is a proceeding in Chancery and no erecting of a new Court and that as well when the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper is not one of the Referrees or Commissioners as when he is it appears by the proceeding upon the fore-mentioned Reference by the King to the Master of the Rolls and a Judge of the Kings-Bench to examine the injustice of the Decree between Pennington and Holmes afore-mentioned That upon that reference the proceedings on the first Decree was staid and what was done thereupon is entred among the proceedings in Chancery as an Act of that Court And moreover Dúgd Orig. Ju. fol. 32. That Etheldred appointed the Office of Chancellor to be exercis'd by three Abbots by turns it cannot be deny'd but the King may commit the custody of his Great Seal to several Commissioners as King James did upon the outing of the corrupt Lord Bacon See the Parliament Roll of that time and Dugd. Chronological Table of Chancellors and Keepers and in such cases one of the Commissioners keeps the Seal and is President amongst the rest but they have all equal Authority in judging according to the purport of the Commission * 12 Maii 19 Jac. ordered in Chancery inter Butler and Eliot That the Decree made by the Lord Bacon should not be signed by the Commissioners of the Great Seal until notice to the other side as by the Registers Book of Orders in Chancery of that day appears and do sign Decrees and if the King may make many Judges in Equity to hear all Causes generally what is the reason he cannot appoint many Judges there in some few particular Causes upon complaint of mistake by his Chancellor or Keeper since he that may do more can do less and the King is not ty'd to have any certain or limited number of Judges in his Courts for there were in the Common-Pleas in E. 4.'s time and before sometimes 6 7 or 8 and King James had five Judges in the Kings-Bench whereof my Great-grand-father Sir David Williams was the fifth and as many in the Common-pleas about the beginning of his Reign as may appear by Dugdale's Chronological Table of Judges of that time So that I cannot apprehend any manner of prohibition neither express nor implied in this Statute nor any other against the Kings referring the examination and regulating unjust Decrees in Chancery to others besides the Chancellor or Keeper This Statute deserves not to be extended beyond it self it being a penal Statute which is never to be taken by Intendment further then the very express words of the Prohibition upon a strict and bare construction will bear however the Statute it self in the conclusion hath by express words somewhat mended the matter from what is contain'd in the premisses for in the end of the Act there is a Provisoe which doth in effect restore the King to almost all his Ancient Jurisdiction and puts all the seeming Cause of doubt about the matter of Referring the Examination of unjust Decrees in Courts of Equity quite out of doors by confining the meaning and construction of the Statute to the words of the Provisoe therein contained which Provisoe is in these words Provided always and be it Enacted that this Act and the several Clauses therein contain'd wall be taken and Expounded to extend only to the Court of Star-chamber and the said Court holden before the President and Councel in the Marches of Wales and before the President and Councel in the Northern parts and also to the Court commonly call'd the Court of the Dutchy of Lancaster holden before the Chancellor and Councel of that Court and also in the Exchequer of the County Palatine of Chester before the Chamberlain and Councel of that Court and to all Courts of like Jurisdiction to be hereafter Errected Drdain'd constituted or appointed as aforesaid and to the Warrants and Directions of the Council-board and to the Committments Restraints and Imprisonments of any person or persons made commanded and awarded by the Kings Majesty his Heirs and Successors in their own Persons or by the Lords and others of the Privy-Council and every one of them So that here 's an Explanation that no Court or Proceeding in any Court is to be taken away but the Court of Starchamber and the Jurisdiction thereof and such like Courts of like Jurisdiction and this of the Kings referring the Examination of unjust Decrees in Chancery to particular Commissioners and Referrees was practis'd out of the Star-chamber when