hath already been said as from Sir Edw. Coke Ch. Jus. who was a faithful Friend to our Nation and Laws Mr. Lambert who was a Master of the Chancery Mr. Dugdale in his Origines Juridiciales from the Ch. Jus. Popham in Chudleigh's Ca. in the first Rep. of Sir Edw. Coke fol. 139. b. and from the rest of the Judges and Arguers of that Case whose Judgment as to this point viz. both of the Original of this Jurisdiction of the Chancery and the mischievous effects of those Conveyances to Uses and upon Trust and Confidence for they are all one and so mentioned in the Act of the 27 H. VIII whose design was to extirpate both will more fully appear 1 Rep. 121. b. There were says that Case Two Inventers of Uses Fear and Fraud Fear in times of Troubles and Civil Wars to save Inheritances from being forfeited which in Truth and in plain words was the same thing with fraud to evade the Law that inflicted those Forfeitures and Fraud to defeat due Debts and lawful Actions and Duties Before the time of Richard II. says the Ch. I. Popham in that Case no Act of Parliament or other Record nor any Book nor Writing made any mention of Uses of Land Hear the Opinion of the King Lords and Commons the whole Nation concerning Uses in the Preamble of the Statute of 1 Rich. III. Cap. 1. The makers of that Statute set forth the mischiefs arising from such Conveyances to Uses and Trusts viz. great Unsurety Trouble Costs and grievous Vexations to the Buyers of Land or to such as took Leases In the Preamble of the Stat. of 27 H. VIII Cap. 10. viz. That by divers subtle Inventions and Practises by Fraudulent Feofments Fines Recoveries and other Assurances craftily made to secret Uses Intents and Purposes c. Manifold Mischiefs did ensue Out of which Statute both from the Preamble and Body of it may be observ'd 10. That Uses and Trusts are the same things Styles Rep. fol. 21. 40. 20. That the intent of the Law-makers was to extirpate both as being but the same But we know where Trusts are supported as if they were distinct things from Uses and a plentiful Harvest hath arisen from them tho it hath been resolv'd that an Use cannot arise out of an Use but this is evaded by giving it the Name of a Trust and making them distinct things So that we may learn from what hath been said when and whence these pernicious things called Uses and Trusts had their Original and who was the first Inventer of the Writs called Writs of Sub-Paena all about the time of that Exorbitant and Tumultuous Reign of King Richard II. and that such Conveyances ought at first to have been adjudg'd void being fraudulent as other fraudulent Conveyances have been by the several Statutes of 52 H. 3. Cap. 6. 50 E. 3. Cap. 6. 2 R. 2. c. 3. 3 H. 7. C. 4. 19 H. 7. Cap. 15. Trin. 7 H. 6. fol. 43. If a Man make a Feofment in fee Proviso tamen that the Feoffor shall always have the Profits of the Land that Proviso is void and contrarious by Hankford a Judge of the Common Pleas in the time of King Richard II. Now What an absurdity and contradiction is it in Reason and a mockery and abuse of the Common Law That a Man shall use the just and necessary Liberty the Law allows him to convey away his Land but it shall be so agreed that he to whom it is conveyed shall not be one jot the better for it but it shall still remain his in point of Profit that convey'd it away And so it is all but a Delusion and Deceit and the honest intention of the Law is baffled by it But a world of work is made by this for a new Court The Judges who are the Conservators of the Common Law and of the rights of the People early decryed these Inventions of Uses and so have several Acts of Parliament But the Potency of some great Church-men and others did still own and support them for they bring great Profit with them to the Jurisdiction Under this pretence and upon these occasions began the Invention of Uses and Trusts which have wonderfully perplex'd and turmoil'd almost all the Estates in England so that Men's Estates and Titles are not now so much guided and governed by the old and most wise and certain Rules of the ancient Common Law as by new invented Rules in a new Court to the subverting of the Common Law and Ruine of many Families How much work have they cut out for our Parliaments by making many Acts of Parliament to redress the Abuses but the Mischiefs are insuperable and the many good Remedies provided by several Parliaments have been rendred fruitless and I cannot for my life tell how it hath so come to pass unless by the excessive Power and mighty Favour that hath been indulged to the Persons in that High Office such as Cardinal Wolsey and others of the Hierarchy who were formerly in that great Office and were wont to have a mighty stroak in the Government By reason of these Conveyances to secret Uses and Trusts the Lord was Defrauded of his Ward heriot and Escheat To remedy this was the Stat. of 52 H. 3. Cap. 6. called the Stat. of Marlebridge made which made such Conveyances void as against the Lord and several other Statutes to the same purpose The Creditor who supposed the same Feoffor he still being in Possession and taking the Profits to be still the Owner in Law he lost his debt till the Stat. of 50. E. 3. c. 6. made the Lands however liable to satisfie the Debts and many Statutes more were made in the like Case A Man that had cause to Sue for his Land knew not against whom to take his Remedy and to bring his Action For one Man had the naked Name or Title like the titular Bishops of the Church of Rome and another had the Use and Profit till the Stat. of 1 R. 2. c. 9. made an Assize maintainable against the Pernor or him that took the Profits The Wife was Defrauded of her Thirds The Husband of his Tenancy by the Courtesie The poor Farmer of his Lease The Crown of the Forfeiture for Treason whereby Men were more imboldened to commit Treason The Stat. of 1 R. 3. c. 1. Tho it meant well yet gave too much countenance to these mischievous Uses by making good the Estates granted by the cestuyque Use Whereas it should rather have set a brand upon those Conveyances to Uses and have declar'd them all void as being generally meer Frauds and Cheats for so the Judges were in those times wont still to pronounce them And that Stat. of 1 R. 3. deals plainly in the matter by setting forth in the Preamble the great Unsurety Trouble Costs and grievous Vexations that daily grew from them but at last that Statute deals too gently by them And several other like
Law I desire that both these Authorities last cited may be compared together viz. Sir Cotton's Abr. and Sir Coke's 2 Instit. 553. the one gives light to the other Juncta juvant This Instructs us in the method of Proceedings in Equity used in the time of King R. II. and most likely in the times preceding Not to the Chancellor alone but to the King himself to be referr'd to the Councel And the Case of Sir Richard le Scrope was in a matter where there was remedy at Law so that they were out of their way in Petitioning to the King in it and therefore the Decree was revers'd by the Lords in Parliament before whom the Appeal did properly lye nor would the Lords themselves determine it upon the Merits of the Cause viz. who had the right but referred the Parties to the Common Law to the right course and yet it was a Decree made by the Submission of all Parties to the Arbitration So ready were the Lords at that time to do right to the Common Law Sir Edward Coke says this was the first Decree made by the Chancellor in the Chancery who did as it seems in limine titubare stumble at the very Threshold which some say is ominous The Proceedings in this Case of Sir Richard le Scrope was as I find when Thomas Arundel Bishop of Ely and afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury was Chancellor who no doubt did much influence the King and Council in making the Decree They have been Churchmen and divers of them of the highest rank Cardinals who are upon good ground supposed to be the first Setters up and promoters of this absolute Power in Chancery the Chancellors generally in those elder times being of the Order of the Clergy And they began as is usual in beginnings with great modesty and to exercise their Power in some few Cases which failed of ordinary help and when Parliaments were not so frequent as formerly to whom recourse should have been and who would have censured such assuming of new Jurisdictions as they afterwards very frequently did And the Setters up of this new Jurisdiction would not at first adventure to do it by One single Person alone tho never so high but with the Concurrence of the Judges and they too not sent for into the Chancery to attend and assist the Chancellor but those new Cases of Equity were sent into the Exchequer Chamber where the Chancellor himself resorted to the Judges with their Causes in Equity and these are many of them reported in our Year-Books of those times And those Causes were constantly determin'd by the opinion of the Judges and this method took off the Judges whose Superiour the Chancellor was in Dignity and Grandeur from opposing that new Jurisdiction by granting Prohibitions to stop the Proceedings of the Chancery in such Cases as it was their Duty to have done See Mr. Selden's Notes upon Fleta How the Clergy who anciently had their Sole dependence upon the Bishop of Rome and held themselves not Subject to the Temporal Power still promoted and endeavoured to introduce the Civil Law into this Realm but yet were still withstood by the Lords and Commons who were always hearty Friends to the Common Law Sir Coke's 2 Instit. fol. 626. at the end of that folio it is said in the Indictment against Cardinal Wolsey and charged upon him that he intended Antiquissimas Angliae Leges penitùs subvertere enervare Universumque hoc Regnum Angliae ejusdem regni populum Legibus Imperialibus vulgò dictis Legibus Civilibus earundem Legum canonibus imperpetuum Subjugare subducere c. Cardinal Wolsey's being in the height of Favour and Authority with King Henry VIII hated both Parliaments and the Common Laws and he was the means that but one Parliament was holden in Fourteen Years The Common Law was the true Natural and Original Law of England used ever since the departure of the Romans and brought in by the English Saxons again Qui suis tantummodò quas secum è Germanià whether they had transplanted them attulerant Moribus usi sunt only their ancient Customs and no other Caesarei Juris says learned Selden usus plane reperitur Nullus per Annos amplius Septingentos more than 700 years There was no chancery-Chancery-Law to determine matters of fact much less titles of Freehold by Depositions of Witnesses only or by an Absolute or Arbitrary Power in all that time of 700 years No Man was suffer'd to have a Civil Law Book in his keeping King Stephen by his Edict did forbid it The Saxons Danes and Normans owned no other Law than that Law which Anglorum Commune vocitamus says the famous Selden in his Dissertatio ad Fletam pag. 502 503 505 506 508. And Johannes Balaeus tells us that Theobaldus Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus quasdam Leges in Angliam attulerat sed eas ut Reipublicae nocivas Rex Stephanus perpetuo Parliamenti Decreto damnavit delevit incendi fecit The Common Law was in King Stephen's time and before says Selden the Study of Men that were otherwise Learned too Sed Moribus Majorum tantum patrioque utebantur illi Jure qùod ante ad nostra usque tempora Angliae Commune vocitatur and their Studies were furnished with the Presidents of Judgments and Copies of Reports of Law-Proceedings like those of our year-Year-Books and no other were cited in their Courts And the Students and Residents at the Inns of Courts who afterwards were the Countors or Pleaders were not Clerks or Sollicitors as many now adays are to the declining of that Noble Profession But the Sons of Noble Men and of the best of the Gentry as we read in Sir John Fortesâ—…ue in his Treatise De Laudibus Legum Angliae Juris Anglicani says Excellent Selden ut Supra 537. quod Commune vocitamus quae Gentis hujus Genio ab intimâ Antiquitate adaptatum fuit Singularis aestimatio atque inde non immeritò in eodem adhaesio constans sane pertinax In that great question says Selden in his Dissertation ib. 539. concerning the right of Succession to the Crown of Scotland referred by all Parties and Pretenders to the Decision of our King Edward I. Anno Regni 19. Anno Dom. 1292. about which they met at Norham in the Bishoprick of Durham It was Debated as a Praeliminary whether it should be judged and decided by the Law of England or of Scotland or the Caesarean or Civil Law as being the Jus Gentium see Riley's Placita Parliamentaria 143. in the middle of that Page our King Edward I being the Soveraign or Superiour Lord of Scotland It was concluded before Roger de Brabazon a Judge of the King's-Bench Sir Edw. Coke says Ch. Justice 2 Instit. 554. the King 's Delegate or Substitute for that Great and Noble Occasion That the Caesarean or Civil Law should by no means be allowed of Nè inde Majestatis Anglicanae Juri
Rigour of the Law by Equity in their own Persons alone and afterwards did delegate the same Power of Equity to a single Person the Chancellor who as they phrase it hath the dispensing of the King's Conscience as well as the Custody of it And that to the King alone in such Cases an Appeal doth lie which by what hath been already said is manifestly untrue as shall yet be further made out Sir John Fortescue who was a Lord Chancellor in his Book De laudibus Legum Angliae pag. 64. says to Prince Edward Son to King Henry VI proprio ore Nullus Regum Angliae Judicium proferre visus est tamen sua sunt omnia Judicia regni licet per Alios ipsa reddantur Just as all our Laws are said to be the King's Laws not that he hath the sole Legislature as Sir Robert Filmer doth weakly or rather wilfully tho groundlesly infer but Denominatio sumitur à Majore as is most frequent in common Use it is but an Embrio till he quicken it by passing the Bill In the next place Let us enquire at what time and by what occasion this Jurisdiction of the Chancery in Equity began by which it may appear whether it be Entitled to it either by Prescription or by Act of Parliament for Non datur Tertium The same Proofs and Authorities will serve to manifest these â—…7 H. 7. Keilway 42. b. by Vavasor The Sub-Paenâ began in the time of Edw. III. and that says he was against the Feoffee upon Confidence that is to Uses Mr. Lambert who was a Master of the Chancery Sir Edward Coke 2 Instit. 552 in his Archeion pag. 72 74 75. says that the Kings used to refer matters in Equity to the Chancellor from whence the Chancellor was anciently Styled Referendarius as was noted before or to him and some other of the Council And tho' this doth not as he observes plainly erect any Court of Equity yet as he supposeth it is the laying the first Stone of the Chancery Court and pag. 73. That in the time of Edward III. it was a Newly Erected Court which may be understood of its Latin Pleas. The Book called The Diversity of Courts written in the Reign of King Edward III. Treats of the Jurisdiction of the Chancery according to its ordinary Power which are the Latin Proceedings or by the Rules of the Common Law but says nothing of that which the Chancellor holdeth in Equity Et quod non invenis usquam esse putes nusquam It was enabled to deal in some special and particular Cases by Parliament which were but Temporary neither which proves that in such or in the like Cases the Chancellor could not meddle without the help of Acts of Parliament Nor were those Cases referred to his Equitable or Arbitrary Power neither as some misapprehend For Sir Edw. Coke 4 Instit. fol. 82. says That Acts of Parliament giving Power to the Chancellor to hear and determine Causes in Chancery are ever intended of the Court of Record there proceeding in Latin Secundum Legem consuetudinem Angliae which Power is not contested And Mr. Lambert pag. 74. ut supra says he does not remember that in our Reports of the Common Law in which Reports under the Titles of Conscience or Sub-Paena in Fazh or Brook's Abridgment many Cases of Equity in the Chancery may be found there is any mention of Causes before the Chancellor for help in Equity but only from the time of King Henry IV. in whose days by reason of those intestine Troubles between the Two Houses of York and Lancaster Feoffments to Use did either first begin or first grew common for Remedy in which Cases chiefly the Chancery Court was then fled unto No Book-case says that great Champion for the Common Law Sir Edward Coke 2 Instit. 552. nor Reports of the Law make any mention of any Court of Equity in the Chancery used before or in the Reign of King Henry V. but they speak of the Chancellor's ordinary Jurisdiction which is at the Common Law and by Latine Proceedings which proves they were very rare at that time The few Causes heard by the Chancellor in the Reigns of King Henry VIth and Edward IVth in Equity by English Bill are most of them concerning Uses of Land And how great an Invasion that new Invention of Uses was upon the Laws of England both the Common Law and the Statute Law and how pernicious they have been to Men's Estates and what occasion they have been of Contention and multiplying Suits shall appear by what follows See Doctor and Student pag. 71. to that purpose Sir Coke's 2 Instit. 553. affirms That no Act of Parliament printed or unprinted gave the Chancellor any power to hold any Court of Equity The Stat. of 36 Edw. III. Cap. 9. without question says that Grave and Reverend Judge and true lover of his Nation refers to the ordinary power of the Chancellor but gives him no shadow of any Absolute Power meaning a Power of Equity See the 2 Instit. fol. 553. See that remarkable Case of Sir Richard le Scrope in Sir Cotton's Abridgment of the Records of the Tower pag. 351. Numb 10. exceeding pertinent and useful in many respects to our present Enquiry and gives great light to us in many things It is mentioned also in Coke 2 Instit. 553. it happened Anno 17 of King Richard II. John de Windsor complain'd by Petition to the King against Sir Richard le Scrope and Sir John Lisley for detaining divers Mannors in Cambridgshire from him to which as he alledged he had a Right and Title Both Parties submitted the matter to the King's Arbitration The King committed it to the Council not to the Chancellor alone the Council decreed it for Windsor then Plaintiff under the Privy Seal they sent to the Chancellor to confirm that Decree or Award under the Great Seal which was done and a Special Injunction to Sir John Lisley and a Writ to the Sheriff to Execute it A strong Case in all its Circumstances Sir John Lisley one of the Defendants not satisfied with the Decree or Award Petitions the King in Parliament that is Appeals from it and prays the Matter may be determined at the Common Law notwithstanding the Decree or Award so confirm'd The King by Privy Seal Orders the Chancellor to Supersede the Injunction and the Writ and Decree The Decree was revers'd and both Parties order'd to stand to the Common Law and Windsor's Petition was dismissed Sir Edward Coke says that this Decree so made by the Council was the first Decree in Chancery that he could find and that upon a deliberate hearing of the whole matter by the Lords in Parliament it was adjudg'd that Sir John de Windsor should take nothing by his Suit but stand to the Common Law that is according to our now usual Language His Petition or Bill in Equity was dismiss'd and the Parties sent to the Common
taken in the largest sence but rather contra-distinct and indeed opposite to it and destructive of it Sir Henry Spelman at last takes leave of this great Officer and of his Court by shewing what a mighty encrease came flowing in from that ill Weed the Invention of Uses or Trusts which are still the same But to this point there are plenty of far greater Authorities and Authors for whose Testimony herein I shall reserve it Another thing to be premised is that as the King had no such Power himself singly and in his own Person only to decide Causes of Equity and therefore could not Delegate it to any one Man as 't is pretended he might so and upon the same ground and reason the King by our Law could not by his Commission Erect any Court of Equity It can be grouned and warranted only upon a Prescription or an Act of Parliament neither of which can be pretended to in the matter in hand it was so adjudged 26 Eliz. in the King's-Bench Sir Edw. Coke 4 Instit. fol. 87 97. That a Court of Equity cannot be Erected but only by Act of Parliament or Prescription And the like in the Lord Hob. Rep. 63. Resolv'd also in Langdale's Ca. 12. Rep. 52. That the King cannot raise a Court of Equity the reason is because a Court of Equity proceeds by the Rules of the Civil Law and not by the Common Law 6 Rep. 11. b. and 2 Instit 71. The King may appoint a new Court and new Judges but cannot change the Law Hill 8. H. 4. fol. 79. by Gascoign That the King by his Charter cannot out the People of their Inheritance which they have in the Common Law So note the Common Law is the People's Inheritance In the next place Let us proceed to examine about what time and upon what occasion this Court of Equity exerted its Power which hath in part fallen in among our former Enquiries For the time and occasion too Mr. Lambert in his Archeion pag. 75. refers it to the time of King Henry IV. and the occasion was taken from Feoffments to Uses For remedy in which Cases the Chancery was fled unto With this agrees Sir Henry Spelman in his Glossary pag. 107. at the lower end Doctor and Student fol. 98. Sir John Davy's Rep. in his Preface Mr. Hunt's Argument for the Bishop's Right c. pag. 144. And to prevent mistakes herein it must be observ'd That the word Equity hath been very anciently used long before this Jurisdiction began in Chancery but not in a Contradiction or in Opposition to the Common Law of the Land as now it is but either in a mild and merciful Expounding of the Law by the known and sworn Judges of the Law or as synonimous and signifying the same thing as Law Justice and Right For the Laws of England were not looked upon then as being like the Laws of Draco Sanguinary and Cruel and Rigorous but merciful and equitable in themselves and so expounded and administred by the Judges of the Common Law Mulcaster the Translator of the Chancellour Fortescue being a Student of the Common Laws of England in the Reign of King H. VIII could readily observe to his Reader from his Study of those Laws and from the Arguments used by his Author the Excellent Sir John Fortescue Easdem nostras Leges non solum Romanorum Caesarum sed omnium aliarum Nationum Constitutiones multis parasangis prudentiâ Justitia equitate praecellere facilè perspicias See his Preface Non quod principi placet Legis vigorem habet non quicquid de voluntate Regis tho his Will be not Arbitrary neither but guided by Discretion and tho he define secundum aequum bonum sed quod Magnatum suorum Concilio Regiâ authoritate praestante habita super hoc deliberatione tractatu rectè fuerit definitum So writes Bracton Lib. 3. Cap. 9. fol. 107. and so Britton Sir Gilbert Thorneton Ch. Justice in the time of King E. I. and Sir John Fortescue Chief Justice and afterwards Chancellor These invincibly prove the Nature of our Laws The Kings of England were from the first Foundation of the Government Sworn to observe the old known Laws of the Realm which were called Usus Consuetudines Regni and that they would not suffer any Innovasion which was often attempted by the Pope and his Clergy who endeavoured to introduce into this Realm the Civil and Canon Laws King Henry I. writing to the Pope upon such an occasion tells the Pope stoutly Notum habe at Sanctitas vestra quod me vivente Usus Regni Angliae non imminuentur Et si ego in tanta medejectione ponerem Optimates mei totus Angliae populus id nullo modo paterentur And all the Nobles of England by Consent of the Commons wrote to Pope Boniface upon the same occasion Non permittemus tam insolita tam indebita Dominum nostrum Regem etiamsi vellet facere seu quo-modo-libet attemptare The Lord Chancellor and Lord Keeper is also Sworn to do Right to all after the Laws and Usages of this Realm not secundum aequum bonum nor other Rules of Equity 2 E. 3. fol. 20. It is said in that Book by the Chancellor sitting in the Chancery and speaking of that Court This says he is a place of Equity where we grant a Writ to every one that Sues for his Inheritance So that to issue out Writs as Officina Brevium is by the Chancellor's own acknowledgment a proper work of Equity It seems to be the only use of the word Equity at that time 2 Instit. 53. The Civilian Vinius in his Comment upon Justinian's Institutes pag. 20. Nomen Aequitatis says he duplicitèr accipitur vel in genere pro aequo quod cum omni jure conjunctum est vel in specie pro eo quod est à Jure Civili diversum Omnibus Legibus aequitas inesse creditur Nomenque juris non meretur quod ab omni Aequitate destitutum est He mentions no Equity contrary to Law or to Controul the Law nor any other than what was to be exercised by the very Judges of the Law themselves in all Cases that came before them Plowd Comment 466 467. In the Case of Eyston and Studde it is said No Makers of Law can forsee all things that may happen and therefore it is convenient that the fault be reform'd by Equity This the Chancery-men will catch at as making much for their practise of relieving in such unforeseen Cases where the Law looks severe and rigorous But the Case cited proceeds further and makes not at all for the Chancery if it be heard out And the Sages of our Law have deserved great Commendation says that Case in using Equity in Cases of Rigour in the words of a Law for by that they have mollified severe Texts and have made the Law tolerable Who are meant generally in our law-Law-Books and Arguments by the
E. C. 4 Instit. 245. Chap. 49. upon the same Subject Rushworth in the Second part of his Historical Collections pag. 1336. mentions how that Mr. Hide afterwards Lord Chancellor then a Member of the House of Commons in the Parliament 1640. by Command from the House of Commons presented to the House of Lords a Complaint against this Court of the President of the North and tells the Lords that that Court by the Spirit and Ambition of the Ministers trusted there or by the natural Inclination of Courts to enlarge their own Power and Jurisdiction had so prodigiously broken down the Banks of the first Channel in which it ran as it had almost overwhelmed the Country under the Sea of Arbitrary Power and involved the People in a Labyrinth of Distemper Oppression and Poverty Another Member of the House of Commons complaining to the Lords of the Star-Chamber first he sets forth the Original of it by Act of Parliament by the Stat. of H. 7. which he calls the Infancy of that Court But he says further that Court by Cardinal Wolsey 8 H. 8. was raised to Man's Estate and from whence says he being now altogether unlimited it is grown a Monster and will hourly produce worse effects unless it be reduced by that hand which laid the Foundation which is by Parliament Let Loose but Power and you shall quickly see How wild a thing unbounded Man will be It deserves to be considered how it fares with the Profession of the Common Law of late years since the Chancery hath been so exalted Readings at the Four Inns of Court twice every year upon some publick useful Statutes which were very ancient and of great esteem and authority in our Courts of Justice are now wholly discontinu'd There being no consideration had who have been Readers in the call to the Degree of a Sergeant at the Law nor in the choice of Judges to the utter overthrow of that Exercise the Lord Chancellor having a great stroak in recommending Persons to that Degree and Employment and this hath happen'd but of late since the Court of Equity hath swell'd to that Height and Greatness Nor have the Nobility and Gentry so much applied themselves to the Study of the Common Law nor the Students to the performance of Exercises whereby they should prepare themselves for the practise of it when they observe the Profit and Preferment to run in another Channel and forsake the Old Hence it comes to pass that an inferiour sort of Men oftentimes procure themselves to be admitted of the Inns of Court and called to the Bar and suddenly leap into mighty Practise and extraordinary Gain in the Court of Chancery having taken no great pains in Study but arriv'd only at some experience in the Course of that Court which is soon attain'd to It may be worth the while to look into some of those Cases wherein these Courts of Equity do most frequently exercise their Jurisdiction and then consider whether there be any great necessity of resorting to those Courts for Relief in such Cases or whether they might not be reliev'd more easily with less expence and more speed and as clearly by the help of the Courts of the Common Law without going a tedious and chargeable Course at Common Law first as it sometimes falls out which after all must serve for nothing but be all set aside and a new but more tedious and more chargeable and uncertain Course of Equity be undergone at last which seems to Strangers not so much accustom'd to the like to be very absurd and impolitick in the Constitution of our Laws and Courts It is according to the Latine Adage Penelopes telam texere retexere Put the Case that a Man pays a Debt upon a single Obligation without taking an Acquittance and afterwards he is Sued by the Obligee upon that Obligation which is clearly against Conscience he cannot at Common Law plead payment without producing an Acquittance which he hath not to produce and is therefore Remediless at the Common Law for it is a Maxim that every charge must be discharged by that which is of as high a nature as that which charges A Record must be discharged by a Record and a specialty by a specialty and not by a bare Averment of the Party that is charged with it And the true reason upon which that Maxim is grounded is given by St. Germin in his Book Entituled A Dialogue between a Doctor of Divinity and a Student of the Common Law written in the Reign of King Henry VIII pag. 22. b. 23. where he puts the same Case That Maxim says St. Germin is grounded upon great reason and to avoid a great inconvenience that else might happen to come to many People that is to say That every Man by a bare Averment shall avoid a Bond and this is the true reason of the Law and tho says St. Germin it may follow thereupon that in some peculiar Case a Man by occasion of that general Maxim may be compelled to pay the Money again yet the Law took heed to that which may often fall out and do hurt among the People rather than do hurt to particular Cases And the Law setteth a general Rule which is good and necessary to all and which every Man may well keep without it be thro' his own default But after all Tho' the Obligor in such Case be Remediless at the Common Law yet says the Author St. Germin pag. 23. he may be holpen in Equity by a Sub-Paena And so says Sir Geo. Cary in his Reports of Causes in Chancery pag. 2. 1st Case and there are Precedents of it in Chancery says the Arch-Bishop of York who was Chancellor And the like is said by Moreton Arch-Bishop of Canterbury then Chancellor and afterwards Cardinal another Clergy-man Pasc. 7. H. 7. fo 12. I suppose these Authors rather speak the Usage and Practise of the Chancery in such Cases than what was their own Opinion and Judgment For if this Relief in Chancery in such Case may be allowed what becomes of that great reason upon which that Maxim was grounded as the Author himself observed before and how is that great Inconvenience avoided by this Maxime which the Author mentioned in the same breath If the Chancery may receive the same Averment and upon proof by Witnesses without trying the Fact by a Jury that Court may relieve the Party Does not the Inconvenience return again and are not the People as much hurt by it Or is it a Mischief and Inconvenience in the Common Law Courts and none in a Court of Equity It were better the Law were changed and that such Averment of the payment might be pleaded to the Action at the Common Law where if Issue be joined upon it it must not only be prov'd by Witnesses but found also by Twelve Men to be true rather than the Chancery shall receive that Averment and allow it to be prov'd by Witnesses only
the Parties to such Judgment be in Peace A Peace with a witness to be involv'd again with a new tedious expensive Chancery-Suit so uncertain in the Event and tied to no certain Rules When the Plaintiff at Law flatter'd himself and was glad that he had arriv'd at his desired Haven Post varios casus post tot discrimina He is wonderfully deceived he must set out to Sea again to another long East-India Voyage But what Authorities law-Law-Books or Resolutions of Judges or Courts of Justice have the Chancery had for the expounding of the Statute of 4 to Henry IV. in this sense which utterly makes that Statute of no Effect besides those of itheir own Chancellors and besides the Privy-Seal of King James I. upon consulting only with his own Council at Law A very strange way of Proceedng The Great Seal and the Privy Seal are on their side 't is true if these in such Case must be submitted to what then becomes of the Stat. of 2 E. 3. cap. 8. whereby it is accorded and established That it shall not be commanded by the Great nor the little Seal to disturb or delay common Right and tho such Commandments do come the Justices shall not therefore cease to do right in any point the Stat. of 14 E. 3. c. 14. is fully to the same effect The complaint against the late Court of Star-chamber which yet was established by Law was that by experience it was found to be an intolerable burthen to the Subject and the means to introduce an Arbitrary Power and therefore that Court was taken away by the Act of 16 Car. 1. Cap. 10. I shall now on the other side endeavour to make it clear to the Honourable the Lords that such Proceedings of the Chancery of Relieving after Judgment at Law upon any pretence of Equity whatsoever is not only against the express words and meaning of that Act of 4 H. 4 but against the Ancient and Fundamental Common Law of England and this I doubt not to make out by all sorts of Authorities and Resolutions Ancient and Modern and in the Reigns of several Kings and Queens of this Nation and that not one authentick Legal Authority can be produced to the contrary I shall begin with the most ancient Authority and that is in 6 E. 1. in the Case of the Earl of Cornwall cited in Sir Coke's 3 Instit. in the Chapter of Praemunire fol. 123. Judgment was there given before the Justices of Oier and Terminer against the Bishop of Exeter and his Tenants The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Excommunicated all Persons that dealt in those Proceedings against the Bishop of Exeter and his Tenants before those Justices The Record says That the Judgments given in the King's Court ought not to be Impeach'd in any other Court This appears by that Record to be the Antient Law The Stat. of 4 H. 4. now treated of is in effect a Declaration of the Common Law for it recites in the Preamble as was before observed that such Proceeding was in Subversion of the Common Law of the Land which proves it to be done against the Common Law In the Case of Cobb and Nore Pasc. 5. E. 4. Coram Rege cited by Sir Edw. Coke in the same third Instit. fol. 123. A Judgment was obtain'd by Covin and Practise against all Equity and Conscience in the King's-Bench For the Plaintiff in the Judgment retained by Collusion an Attorney for the Defendant without the knowledge of the Defendant then being beyond Sea the Defendant's Attorney confesseth the Action whereupon Judgment was given The Defendant sought his Remedy by Parliament and by Authority of Parliament Power was given to the Lord Chancellor by advice of Two of the Judges to hear and order the Case according to Equity If the Chancellor had any such Power before what need was there of resorting to the Parliament Non recurritur ad extra-ordinarium nisi cessat ordinarium And why was it not referred to the Chancellor alone without Associates if it did of Right belong to him before Such a Case in these days would be held in Chancery to be a most proper Case for the Relief of that Court. And Note further That one Person alone thô a Lord Chancellor was not to be entrusted with a Judicial Power but others were joined with him In the 22 E. 4. fol. 37. It is said by Hussey Ch. Justice If after Judgment the Chancellor grant an Injunction and commit the Plaintiff at Law to the Fleet the King's-Bench will by Habeas Corpus discharge him In the 21th year of K. H. VIII Articles were Signed by Sir Tho. Moor the Chancellor himself and by Fitz-James Ch Justice and Justice Fitzherbert against Cardinal Wolsey One was for Examining matters in Chancery after Judgment at the Common Law in Sir Edw. Cok. 3. Instit. fol. 124. in Subversion of the Laws See the 2 Instit. fol. 626. at the end of that folio before cited more of Cardinal Wolsey and the Indictment against him In Crompton's Jurisdiction of Courts fol. 67 69. and 57. about the time of 13 Eliz. a Man was Condemn'd in Debt in the Common Pleas that is had Judgment entred against him and he Exhibited a Bill in Whitehall and had an Injunction to stay Execution and the Plaintiff that had the Judgment at Law moved in the Common Pleas to have Execution and it was granted notwithstanding the Injunction afterwards the Chancery committed the Plaintiff at Law to the Fleet for Suing out Execution and the Lord Dier Chief Justice and the whole Court of Common Pleas deliver'd him out of the Fleet by Hab. Corpus In the Case of Sir Moile Finch and Throgmorton Mich. 39. 40. Eliz. Throgmorton Exhibited a Bill in Chancery against Sir Moile Finch and shewed clear matter in Equity to be Relieved against a Forfeiture of a Lease for years pretended by Sir Moile for Breach of a Condition where there was no default in the Plaintiff Throgmorton To which Bill the Defendant in Chancery Sir Moile Finch Pleaded That he had obtained Judgment in the Exchequer in an Ejectment in the Name of his Lessee against Throgmorton the Plaintiff in Chancery and that Judgment had been affirm'd in Error and demanded the Judgment of the Chancery if after Judgment given at the Common Law he should be drawn to answer in Equity Egerton would not allow the Plea but over-ruled it Note He did not Plead the Statute of 4 H. 4. but grounded his Plea at the Common Law Queen Elizabeth referr'd the Consideration of this Plea and Demurrer to all the Judges of England not to her own Council Learned in the Law for the Twelve Judges are the proper Judges of this Question tho it concern'd their own Jurisdiction After hearing Council and the intent of the Lord Chancellor being said to be not to Impeach the Judgment but to Relieve upon collateral Matter in Equity Upon great Deliberation it was Resolved by all the Judges of England That
or at any time should be where there might be the same mischiefs viz. by Impeaching Judgments given in the King's Courts which are so often declared to be in Subversion of the Law He affirms That the Proceedings by English Bill in Chancery are not Coram Domino Rege in Cancellaria as the Latine Proceedings are but by a Bill or Petition directed to the Lord Chancellor and not to the King This Case was adjourn'd and we heard of no further Proceeding I was then of Council for the Plaintiff at Law to maintain the Stat. of 4 H. 4. and the Demurrer Crompton's Jurisdiction of Courts in the chapter of the Chancery fol. 67. he allows of the Statute of 4 H. 4. and agrees it extends to the Chancery and mentions what is written by Doctor and Student upon that point So that here are all sorts of Resolutions in this very point and from all sorts of Authorities in Law and in several Reigns Ancient and Modern by the whole Parliament declared by several Statutes by the House of Lords by all the Twelve Judges at several times by all the Courts of Law in Westminster-hall and in particular by the Court of Exchequer most of whose business is to Relieve in Equity grounded upon a Power and Jurisdiction vested in them by Act of Parliament if not by Prescription the two onely ways whereby a Jurisdiction in Equity can be given as has been often resolved and was before observed And all these are Unanimous not one Judge dissenting or doubting not any one Resolution Book or Authority in the Law to the contrary And yet as I am informed the Court of Chancery constantly and without any hesitancy or scruple made of it proceeds to Relieve in Equity after Judgment at Law The Plea and Argument for it on the Chancery side which we may find in a late Author the Title of whose Book is Reports of Cases in the Court of Chancery Printed 1693. to which is added Arguments to prove the Antiquity Dignity Power and Jurisdiction of that Court And much to that purpose is recited in Sir Edw. Coke 3 Instit. fol. 125. in the beginning of that folio It is a Privy Seal 14 Jac. Anno 1616. whereby that King assuming to himself a Power to Arbitrate between the Courts of the Common Law and the Chancery in questions concerning their Jurisdiction and more especially in the great Dispute between the Judges and the Chancellor Whether the Chancery could Relieve in Equity after a Judgment obtained at Common Law which Dispute did arise upon the construction of the Stat of 4 H. 4. cap. 23. whichdid by Law belong to the Judges to determine and resolve as hath been proved and they had determined it King James taking it to belong to his Kingly Office to Arbitrate in such Cases Decides as they would believe the Controversie by adjudging it with the Chancery which he signifies under his Privy Seal and thereby does Will and Command the Chancellor shall from thence-forward proceed to give such Relief in Equity And this was done against the Unanimous Resolution of all the Judges of England and without calling the Judges to Debate it and without any Hearing of them looking upon them as Parties concerned and practical which is a Scurvey Reflection and Scandal upon the Justice of the Nation See the 2d Instit. of Sir Edw. Cok. fol. 617. The Answer of the Twelve Judges to the Twenty fourth Objection to this purpose so that the King upon hearing his own Council Learned in the Law only took upon him to Over-rule all the Twelve Judges in a point of Law and to Interpret and Expound an Act of Parliament which properly belongs to the Judges next under the Supream Court And no wonder is it if King James I. took this Arbitrage upon him as belonging to his Kingly Office and resolved it under his Privy Seal when his constant Opinion was that he was above the Law and that it was Treason to affirm the contrary which yet all the Twelve Judges stoutly did and cited Bracton for it Rex sub Deo Lege See a Collection of King James's Works in a large Folio Printed 1616. pag. 203. where he affirms that the King is above the Law and that he may Interpret it And pag. 534. That it is his Office to make every Court to contain it self within his own Limits See the Act for regulating of the Privy Council c. 16 Car. 1. cap. 10. before-mentioned in the 5th Paragraph it is Declared and Enacted That neither his Majesty nor his Council have or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Authority by Petition Articles or any other way to draw into question determine or dispose of the Lands or Goods of any of the Subjects of this Kingdom but the same ought to be Tried and Determined in the ordinary Courts of Justice and by the ordinary Course of Law See the several ancient Statutes that require and command the Judges to proceed to administer Justice without Regard had to the Great or Privy Seal that command the contrary Magna Charta cap. 29. 2 E. 3. c. 8. 14 E. 3. c. 14. 20 E. 3. c. 11. Some will argue for the Jurisdiction of the Chancery in Equity from the Statute of Westminster the 2d 13 E. 1. cap. 24. which directs That Nemo recedat à Curia Regis sine Remedio from hence they Collect that where there is matter of Equity wherein the Common Law cannot Relieve there the Chancery by this Statute is enabled to provide Remedy Whereas the Design and Scope of that Statute extends no further than to the framing of Writs in order to Relief by Actions at the Common Law where the Register of Writs that ancient Book of Law had for some new and special Cases provided no Writ which is the first step in every Action and is proper work for the Chancery which is therefore styled Officina Brevium It is very far from giving that Court any Jurisdiction in Equity but it shews what Remedy is to be given towards a Proceeding at the Common Law and not to Relieve against it But it may be noted from this ancient Statute that neither the Chancellor nor the Chancery could alter an Original or so much as frame a new Writ were there never so great Necessity for it till enabled by this Statute It could be done only by the Parliament and in such Cases the Parties were forced to wait till the meeting of a Parliament tho they had manifest Right and clear Equity on their side but no Remedy at Law If it were then a Court of Equity why did not the Chancery Relieve in Equity because the Party was without Remedy at Law Note in the next place That the Parliament by that Statute doth not entrust the Chancellor alone nor any one Person with the framing of new Writs fitted to such new Cases tho they were Cases that had a manifest Right but not a Legal Remedy and yet Writs
serve but as a mean to bring the Case to a Judgment but it refers the matter also to the Clerks now called the Masters of the Chancery to frame Writs for such new Cases And those Clerks now Masters were as Fleta describes them Men of profound Science What! in the Civil Law no but in the Laws and Customs of England Qui in Legibus Consuetudinibus Anglicanis notitiam habeant pleniorem And these Masters have Caution given them by that Statute that if any Doubt or Difficulty did arise about framing those Writs Atterminent querentes ad proximum Parliamentum Scribantur Casus in quibus concordare non possunt Et de consensu Juris peritorum fiat breve Why was it not referred in such Case to the Lord Chancellor at least where the Masters could not settle and agree the Form it being a Form No not to any one Man and it was a Work proper for a Parliament and in those days Parliaments met often for these very purposes and it was settled by an Act of Parliament in King Alfred's time and it is a Law still in force That for ever twice a year or oftner if need were in time of Peace a Parliament should be holden at London and as Bracton a Judge tells us this was so ordain'd to determine of Cases that were new and had no Remedy at Law or a doubtful Remedy but good Equity where was the Chancery-Equity then Si aliqua Nova inconsueta Emerserent quoe nunquà m prius evenerunt Ponantur in respectu usque ad Magnam Curiam ut ibi per Concilium Curioe terminentur And there are infinite Precedents says the Learned Coke in the Rolls of Parliament of such references to the Parliament and to that end were Parliaments so often to be held and it took up most of their time See Ryley's Placita Parliamentaria in the Appendix fol. 525. And the infrequency of Parliaments hath given occasion to other Courts to Transact in those matters that are indeed proper for the Parliament The Exorbitances of great and high Officers have been many times a means to hinder and prevent the frequent Meetings of Parliament as in the Case before mentioned of Cardinal Wolsey least their Exorbitancies should be questioned All these Mischiefs might be Remedied either by some good Act of Parliament to be Pass'd as has been often endeavour'd or by Referring the Determination and Judging of Bills of Review of their Decrees into good and indifferent hands or by the Supreme Court 's declaring that the Courts of the Common Law in Westminster-hall ought ex Debito Justitiae to grant Prohibitions to any Court whatsoever that either Usurp a Jurisdiction where they have none of Right or exceed their Jurisdiction where they have one This Legal Remedy having been long disused and laid asleep wants a Revival In order to obtain these peaceable and most necessary Helps this small Treatise is Humbly recommended to the grave Consideration of the HOUSE OF PEERS FINIS ERRATA Page â—…1 line 31. politically r. politiquely P. 32. l. 6. r. his Exercise P. 40. l. 43. it heir r. their The Names of Chancellor and Chancery The first Chancellor in England The Nature of the Chancery and Office of Chancellor So Minshew upon the word Cambden's Britannia p. 143. A Ministerial not Judicial Office at first The Chancery an Office When the Chancery from an Office set up for a Court. a 5. E. 3. c. 14. The Chancery as toits Equity no Court of Record The King with the Peers administred Justice not the K. alone The Administration of Justice not entrusted in oâ—… single hand by the Common Law Judges joined with the Chancellor * See Sir Coke's 2 Instit. iâ—… the Chas of Arti culi Cle ri fol. 601 602. No Reports of Causes in Equity in the Chancery before the time of K. H IV. The Time The Occasion Uses of Land No Act of Parliament gives the Chancellor the power of Equity Sir Richard le Scrope or John de Windâ—… for 's Case The first Decree in Chancery was reversed and the matter left by the House of Lords to the Common Law The Church-men were the first Setters up of a Jurisdiction in Chancery in matters of Equity The Judges were at first wont to be consulted with by the Chancello * Sâ—…e Fi 〈…〉 Abr. 〈◊〉 Sub-Paena and Brook's Abr. tit Conscience and Pasc. 22. E. 4. 6. Pla. 18. The Common Law the only Law in England anciently aa Dr. and Student pag. 15. by Jury and not otherwise The Books of the civil Law introduced into England by the Clergy are commanded to be 〈◊〉 The Nobility were anciently the Students of the Common Law The H. of Commons constant opposers of the Equitable Jurisdiction of the Chancery And of the Process by Sub-Paena There can be no Jurisdiction in Equity but either by Prescription or Act of Parliament not by any Charter or Commission from the King What Equity meant anciently What is meant by Equity in the true sence of it * By the Stat. of Articuli super chartas cap. 5. in anno 28. E. 1 The Judges are called the Sages of the Law The Judges of the Common Law are to review and reverse Decrees in Chancery John de Waltham Bishop of Salish the Inventer of the Writ of Sub-Paena in the wicked time of King Richard II. The Writ of Sub-Paena called a Novelty by a Petition of the House of Commons in the Reign of King Henry V. That a Prohibition lies to stop a Suit in chancery See Mich. 13. E. 3. Fuzh. A bridgment Tit. Prohibition plac 11. The Mischiefs from the Invention of Feofments to Uses and in Trust. Lamb. Archeion pag. 75. Dr. and Student 98. Sir Henry Spelman Gloss. 107. Fitzh Ab. Tit. Sub-Paena thro' that whole title still about Uses 2 H. 4. Cot. â—…br Nu. 69. * Uses and Trusts the same things Sed Mala perlong as invaluérâ—… morat Regula Juris 9 E. 4. fol. 14. There the Chancellor affirms that he has an Pbsolute Aower * See the Preface to Cok. 5th Rep. fol. 4. Hill 8 H. 4. fo 19. by Gascoign * 2 Just it fol. 611. See the Opinion of all the 12 Judges in their Answ. to the 16th Object How much the Trial of a Fact by 12 Men Sworn vivâ voce as to be preferr'd before the Conscience of One particular Man guided by Paper-Proofs * Hill 8. H. 4. fol. 19. by Gascoin that the Common Law is the Peoples Inheritance Sir Hen. Sp. Gloss. 108. Pag. 445. Aphor. 37. * See in Tacitus's Annaeis Lib. 11. cap. 2. What excessive Fees were taken by Advocates for Pleading Causes whereas by the Law Cincia it was provided of old that for Pleading of Causes no Man should take either Money or Gifts at length their Fees were moderated by a Decree of the Prince and Senate Cowley in his Davideis pag. 128. 22 E. 4. See that year Book fol. 6. and that it shall be tried by Witnesses and the Judges are utterly against the Sub-Paena and the then Chancellor agreed to it See Sir Coke's 13 Rep. fol. 44. in the upper part concerning the infinite Exceptions to Witnesses in the Civil Law Courts * 44 E. 3. fol. 25. Bro. Tit. Feofments to Uses plac 9. plac 20. Feeffees to Uses are called Feoffees in Trust. * Fol. 41. 67 57 fully ☜ * Fitz. Abr. tit Trial. plac 6. By the word Royal is meant Real See that Case in the Year-Book and Sir Rob. Cott. Abr. 424. Nu. 110. ☜ See also the Book entituled The Modern Reports fol. 61. in the case of King against Standish ☜ * Cok. 12 Rep. fol. 38. at the lower end Statutes that Prohibit Proceedings in Ecclesiastical Courts extend to Courts afterwards Erected See Sir E. C. 12 Rep. before cited fo 65. at the upper end the Opinion of K. James I. See 2 Inst. fo 601. the 1st Objection 2 Instit. fol. 408. Ryley ibidem fol. 411 386 374 373 371 361 362.