4 Institutes and certified by them to the Chancellor was comply'd with by him and what was decreed by the major part of the Commissioners joyn'd with the Lord Keeper in the Case of Matthews and Matthews before-remembred was confirmed and prosecuted by the Lord Keeper as Lord Keeper in and according to the course of Chancery and so in the case of Sherburne and Townley and had been so also in the case of Pennington and Holmes before-mentioned if there had been any alteration of the Decree for the confirmation of that Decree by virtue of the Kings referrence is entred as an Act of that Court so that I think that point is also pretty clear And I presume the enrolling or performing of a Decree before Petition to the King or before obtaining his Commission or Order of referrence which are both as sufficient one as the other there being a sufficient number of Precedents of both sorts is no hindrance but that restitution may be awarded if the Commissioners and Referrees make certificate to the Chancellor or Keeper that it ought to be so for the enrollment of a Decree doth not make it more irrevocable then it was before the enrollment but that notwithstanding it may be altered in the same Court for it is not a Record and in that respect not so high in the eye of the Law as a Judgment according to the course of the common-Common-Law which cannot be revers'd in the same Court and this was so held in H. 8.'s time 27 H. 8. fol. 15. in a Cause in Chancery before mentioned in the 6th Section between the Prior of St. Johns and one Dockeray where upon a review in Chancery before the Lord Chancellor the King 's Secretery and Mr. Fitz-Herbert it was held and allowed that a Decree there is but an Order made by the Court for the time which upon good consideration and cause shewn may well be altered notwithstanding all the arguments then made by the Councel for the first Decree to prevent inspecting into it as that such looking back tended to confusion and would make Causes endless and the like whereunto the Kings Secretary sitting then in equal authority with the Chancellor as appears by the Report made answer and commanded the formal man that was against inspecting the injustice of the Decree to forbear disputing the Power of that Court and such was the practice of the late Lord Chancellor Nottingham who would often rehear and re-hear again and again upon Councels certifying it under their hands that there was good Cause The Cause between Thacker Redman was several times heard by the Lord Nottingham and heard again by the Lord Keeper North on the 20th of April 35 Car. 2. after the Decree enroll'd and upon that hearing a Tryal at Law directed which must occasion another hearing as they apprehended for such rehearing his frequent saying being that the nimbleness of a Clark in enrolling his Decree should not hinder him from coming at Justice and that he would leap over Hedge and Ditch to do it and doubtless it is the true and proper power of that Court of Equity so to do And though it doth of descretion entertain some Forms yet it may and ought upon occasion to leave them rather then tie up its own hands from doing Justice for it hath Potestatem absolutam secundum probata Judicare 9 E. 4. f. 15. and if ever any Chancellor did amiss in that respect it was in that he would leap lustily for some but would not hop over a straw for others I wish none in that great place be ever more guilty of the like partiality It appears from what is before-mentioned that the Court of Equity in Chancery is the King 's high Court of conscience for moderating the rigor and supplying the defects of the Common-Law and he may order it and limit the Jurisdiction thereof as to him seems most agreeable to Equity and Justice a further instance whereof appears by an Enrollment of a Commission now to be seen in Chancery At the Rolls 6 pars 14 Jac. nu 25. beginning thus JAMES by the Grace of God c. wherein it is mentioned That the Attorney-General and the rest of the Kings Councel learned in the Law had been commanded to consider and certifie to the King if the Chancery might relieve according to Equity after a Judgment at Law and therein is mentioned the consultation had by the Kings Councel thereupon and their reasons on the point and the Roll ends thus We in Our Princely judgment having well weigh'd with mature deliberation considered of the said several Reports of Our learned Councel and all the parts of them c. Do will and command That Our Chancellor or Keeper of the Great Seal for the time being shall not hereafter desist to give to Our Subjects upon their several complaints now and hereafter to be made such relief in Equity notwithstanding any former proceeding at the Common-Law against them as shall stand with the true merits and Justice of their cases c. And for that it appertains to Our Princely care and Office only to be Judge over all Our Judges and to discern and determine such differences as at any time may or shall arise between Our several Courts touching their Jurisdiction and the same to set and to decide as We in Our Princely Wisdom shall find to stand most with Our Honour and the example of Our Royal Progenitors in the best of times and the general Weal and Good of Our People for which We are to answer to God who hath placed Vs over them Our will and pleasure is That Our whole Proceedings herein by the Orders formerly set down be enroll'd in Our Court of Chancery there to remain of Record for the better extinguishment of the like Question that may arise in future times Decimo octavo Julii Anno Regni Regis Jacobi quarto decimo per ipsum Regem But after all I have said if there be any that have considered the premisses and will still deny the Kings Power I must also say That for determination of the matter the opinion of his Majesties learned Judges is to be the Touch-stone therefore for a further inducement to enquire further of them touching this matter which is my principal aim hereby I shall in the next place give a hint of the inconveniences that do happen for want of this course of Proceeding SECT VII The Inconveniencies that accrew for want of a constant Relief against Erreneous and Unjust Decrees in Chancery TO apprehend the mischiefs that may ensue for want of a constant and permanent practical Power to controll and rectify mistaken Decrees in Chancery it is a necessary to look back to the fourth Section for the Power of that Court and how far it extends which is there set down in some measure It is also considerable how ill some Chancellors have us'd this their so great unlimited Power which appears in the Lord
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
that Court was at height as may appear by the forecited Presidents so that it never was a part of the Jurisdiction or practice of that Court and therefore declared by the said Provisoe not intended to be prohibited by the said Act and as to the King the Provisoe says He is to be restrained but from restraining and imprisoning by his own personal command he may do every thing else that he could have done before He may hear and determine in person if he pleases as he could have done before and he may appoint all such Judges or Referrees to all purposes as he could have done before But as to the Warrants of Imprisoning if any cause for such there should be he is to leave that to his Ministers and the King if he thinks fit upon complaint to him made of Injustice or other Error done by his Chancellor or Keeper may order his Chancellor to order the parties concern'd to appear before the King in person and the King himself may require his Chancellor or Keeper to be present and his Majesty may call others to his assistance whom he may confide in for just and equitable advice and may determine what to him seems meet in the Cause upon conference with them this being for advancement not delay of Justice and if the Chancellor or Keeper doth not use the coercive part of Imprisonment and other Process of the Court of Chancery to compel Obedience to such determination I conceive he doth not do his duty I mention this not that I think it 's absolutely necessary the King should trouble himself to hear all matters in person but I humbly conceive it not amiss for his Majesty sometimes to use his Power in Chancery as well as at Councel-board lest for want of using his Power he may be in danger of losing it and consequently his esteem in the eyes of the people may be lessen'd whilst every of his acting Judges the Chancellor or Keeper especially command respect from their Friends and fear and trembling from their Enemies I am sure Solomon's giving Judgment in the case of the Harlots gain'd him more esteem not only amongst his own Subjects but all the World over than any one other act of Government he did in all his Reign and the Kings not being exactly skill'd in the Law or the formal Rules thereof as a profess'd Lawyer should be should not at all hinder his undertaking it sometimes for a man but of common sense having heard the Case put the proofs made and the Arguments of indifferent men not byass'd Advocates or Councel only may easily discern what Judgment is fit to be given in Equitable Causes and the King hath almost infallible helps He hath his Lords Spiritual and Temporal He hath always at his call twelve Judges men skill'd in the Laws and sworn lawfully to counsel the King in all matters These or some of them he may command to attend him at such Hearings and may command them to give their opinion of the matter according to the nature of the Cause and according to the best of their judgments and the King at such hearing may give or cause to be giv'n a Sentence or Judgment according to the Opinion of the majority of them and this course is the best and was the old way of judging of Equity and if us'd some times would make Chancellors and Keepers more regard what they do But if the King should not be minded to meddle in person with determining any Causes his referring of the examination of Chancery-Decrees to persons fit and able of judgment and knowledge to do it may suffice better then to leave it wholly to his Chancellors single judgment For securius expediuntur negotia comissa pluribus plus vident oculi quam oculus There is at this day a standing Commission enroll'd in Chancery to all the Judges of Westminster hall the Master of the Rolls and the other Masters in Chancery impowering any Three of them whereof the Master of the Rolls or one of the Judges to be one in the absence of the Lord Keeper to hear and determine Causes and that is not thought to be prohibited by any Statute And if the King hath Authority and Power to appoint Commissioners for the Chancellor or Keepers ease why cannot he also give power to Commissioners to rectifie his Decrees when he mistakes The Chancellor or Keeper of the Great Seal is but the King's Deputy during pleasure 9 Rep. 99. and a Grant of that Office for life is void Cooke 4 Inst fol. 87. Upon the whole matter I must conclude I can apprehend no warrantable objection can be made against this sort of proceeding or that any Statute doth or intended to take it away so that I shall take that point for granted That it is very lawful for the King to appoint Referrees or Commissioners to rectifie Chancery-Decrees or Decrees of any other Court of Equity The next thing to be considered is Whether any of the King's Privy-Councel may be Referrees or Commissioners for that purpose notwithstanding the said Statute For they are men of so great Honour Knowledge and Integrity and of such Fortune and Estates as to scorn Bribery and therefore very fit to assist in this matter and I hold They may for the prohibition of the Act extends to their not acting as being only and barely Privy-Councellors It doth not say Privy-Councellors shall not act by virtue of any other Authority And this thing proves it self plainly in the Case of the now Lord Keeper and Lord Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas who are both of the Privy-Councel yet examine draw into question determine and dispose of the Lands Tenements Goods and Chattels of the Subjects with a witness by virtue of another Authority derived from the King and if They may do it why may not any other of the Privy Councel act by a lawful Authority in those matters as well as They The next thing considerable is if the Lord Chancellor or Keeper ought to command performance according to the course of the Chancery of what such Referrees do order by virtue of such Reference when he himself is not one of them as well as when he is and I hold he ought First for whatever Order is made in the House of Lords upon determining an Appeal from Chancery-Decrees it is sent to the Chancery to compel Obedience thereto and in this respect I conceive the House of Lords are but the Kings Referrees and do legally and truly derive their Authority from the King as is prov'd by the due Proceedings upon Writs of Error and the ancient form of Petitions against Chancery-Decrees before-mentioned So that such Referrees do act by Authority derived from the King as well as the House of Lords in Parliament And further the practice hath been for the Lord Chancellor or Keeper to pursue what is done by such Referrees for what was resolved by the Judges upon the References mentioned in Sir Edw. Cooke
r 27 Jus Appellandi AD REGEM Ipsum à Cancellaria SECT I. Of the mutual Obligation upon King and People in reference to Government WHosoever will but consider it may easily discern that there is a mutual benefit accrues by Government as well to the People as to the King the end design of it being the protection of Both from wrong and violence And to the end this may be the better accomplish'd both are mutually bound in England to act their part therein The King is bound to govern by Law and the People most of the considerable part of them are bound and all of them are compellable to be bound to assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities granted or belonging to the King His Heirs and Successors or united or annex'd to the Imperial Crown of this Realm the King by the very Constitution of his Kingly Office and by his Coronation-Oath and the People both by their Natural Allegiance and by force of the Statute 1 Eliz. cap. 10. It is not a slight and mean tie that they are bound by it is by a sacred and solemn Oath the greatest obligation upon Earth and the firmest bond of Humane Society which whosoever voluntarily breaks either by a wilful acting against or by a careless neglecting to perform what he hath undertaken by it I 'll be bold to say He is sit Company for none on this side Hell unless for some perjur'd Aldermen or false Ignoramne-Jury-men Being thus engag'd I think it highly concerns us all to discharge our Duty therein and to that end it is necessary in the first place to understand what Jurisdictions Preheminencies Priviledges and Authorities do appertain to the King for without That the King cannot exercise His Jurisdiction nor the People assist Him in it And in as much as the King's Jurisdiction over His Court of Chancery is now doubted of by many dis-own'd by some and by others thought not necessary to be put in execution I therefore set my self upon enquiry after the King's Part and Power in that particular having had experience of the inconveniencies the want of the use of it produceth SECT II. What is Jurisdiction to Whom it appertains and How anciently exercised in this Kingdom JURISDICTION in the bare literal sence and signification of the word and ex vi termini imports no more than Dire Droit or Jus dicere a Power to pronounce interpret or relate what is Law and Right in any matter of Controversie But as necessary appendants thereunto there are many Priviledges and Authorities needful to make up a full and plenary Power to administer Justice which are generally comprehended within the meaning of Jurisdiction As first an Authority to Command the party or parties complain'd against before Him that hath Jurisdiction Secondly to Examine the truth of the complaint and to hear the Defendants defence Thirdly to give Judgment according to what the Law is Fourthly to compel Obedience to and Performance of that Judgment which is done either by Imprisonment of the person until he perform or by seizing his Estate or part of it in satisfaction of the Judgment which is the Coercive Power of the Law without which the rest signifies but little The right of Jurisdiction is a prize for which great Contests have been for many Ages in this Kingdom the Pope for a long time strugl'd with our Kings for Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical matters some yielded to him and some would not The House of Commons have often strove with the House of Lords for Jurisdiction the King's Courts of Justice have often contended with one another for Jurisdiction and now some would have it that the King 's own more immediate Court his High-Court of Conscience would be so highly unconscionable as to out Him from having any thing to do there To find out the true Proprietors of Jurisdiction for which there hath been so many pitch'd Battles fought it is necessary to look a great way back Origo rei inspici debet the beginning must be consider'd Deut. 32. 7. Remember the days of old consider the years of many Generations ask thy Father and he will shew thee thy Elders and they will tell thee After this manner will I make my Enquiry for I know no Statute of Limitation in the case to bar the King by non-claim but there is a Maxim in Law which imports the contrary Quod nullum tempus occurrit Regi and therefore what I find in old Authors as well as new I will truly relate By the Opinion of all ancient wise Politicians and Historians Bod. l. 4. cap. 6. says Bodin Justiciae fruendae causa Reges esse creatos Kings were ordain'd for no other end than for administration of Justice which is a full Authority that Jurisdiction appertained to Kings even by their Constitution and the same Author says That anciently the Kings of most Nations and Countreys were called Judges and they thought no other Appellation or Title more honourable than That and they delighted in nothing more then a personal not only virtual but actual determining of their Subjects Controversies Moses for a great while spent the greatest part Ex. 18. or much of his time sometimes even from morning until evening in hearing and determining Controversies between the people But at length finding that as the people encreased in number so did Suits insomuch that it was too hard a task for him to dispatch all himself he therefore chose men of courage out of all Israel and those he made Heads over the people Rulers over Thousands and over Hundreds over Fifties and over Tens who judged the people at all seasons but the hard causes matters of difficulty they brought to Moses himself to determine none of them pretending that because Moses had given them full power to judge the people within their several Provinces that he had excluded himself from power of judging there and examining whether or no their Judgments were right and just In imitation of Moses Cook 1 Inst f. 168. or after the same manner did the ancient Kings of England divide this Kingdom first into Counties and Counties into Hundreds Hundreds into Manors and Manors into Townships and Villages and appointed Jurisdictions in every Division In or about the time of H. 3. one Henry de Bracton Cow Int. Title Bract. a learned Judge finding that the Laws and Customs of the Realm which at that time were not reduc'd into writing were oftentimes abus'd by unlearned men Qui Cathedram judicandi ascendunt antequam leges dedicerent who became Judges before they had been Students and consequently determined Causes rather after their own fancies than the Rules of Law he therefore resolv'd ad vetera Judicia Justorum perscrutenda diligenter to make diligent enquiry into the ancient Judgments and Resolutions of just Judges and to put the same in writing for the benefit of Posterity as himself says in the first page of his Book
That could change the Law Bracton Bract. f. 3. speaking of Equity says Equitas autem est rerum canveniontia quae in paribus causis paria desiderat Jura omnia bene coaequiparat It is a certain sort of accord and congruity in things which affects the like Judgments in like Cases and equally and indifferently considers all circumstances Equity is that Right which arises and appears upon a due consideration of the written Law the circumstances of the matter in question and that natural Justice which a good conscience dictates and to judge and determine the matter accordingly I take to be a judging according to Equity It should seem that all the Judges mentioned by the said Authors Eritt so 1. were ty'd to proceed and judge according to prescribed Rules for by Britton it appears that it was the King's will the Laws which are Rules should be set in writing and used and kept in every point saving to himself with consent of his Counts Barons c. power to repeal and amend them but it belong'd to himself alone principally and in chief to amend false Judgments of his Justices generally as appears by this Car ceo reserdouns nous especialment a nostre Jurisdiction The King's command to use the Laws and Rules in every point strictly was general to all his Judges but it was only He that had power in all his Judgments to regard Equiabove Rules and he had not only power so to do Bract. lib. 3. fo 107. but he was oblig'd to it by the latter part of the Coronation-Oath before-recited Bract. lib. 2. fo 24. It was the King only had an extraordinary Preheminence over the prescribed Rules and Forms of Law to moderate the rigour and extremity and supply the defects thereof upon occasion when his Judges could not exceed the Rules prescribed them and this power is as necessary as any thing can be for the right distribution of Justice for it is impossible to make such Rules before-hand as may suit with all cases for an extraordinary circumstance may sometimes happen in some cases that to judge thereof according to general and prescribed Rules of Law might be to wrong the party and so make summum jus summa injuria But our ancient Kings did not entrust this Power at any time as I find with any single person Els Office ch fo 25. For during the Reign of both the Williams Henry 1. King Stephen and Henry 2 c. until Ed. 3's time at leastwise Dud. Orig. Jud. fo 25. if not after there still continu'd a particular Court belonging to che King which was the place of Sovereign Justice both for matters of Law and Equity called Curia Domini Regis and Aula Regia or magna Curia where He himself oftentimes sate in person but there he had his Justices à latere suo sedentes as namely his Chief-Justice his Chancellor his Constable and Marshal and such others of his Nobles as the King pleas'd to associate to himself for that purpose The Justice to inform the King of what was the strict Rules of Law Capital ' Justic ' praesider primus a Rege in Regno C. 4. in t ' fo◠to Cancellarii Angliae Dignitas est ut secundes a Rege in Regno habeatur ibidem fol. 78. and the Chancellor who was usually a spiritual man to give advice according to Equity and there matters of Equity were then determined And to this Court any man might appeal from the inferiour Courts to have the Errors of the Judges corrected and amended and if the King were absent the Justiciar was the King's chief Representative But when it was that first the Chancellor had that power of judging according to Equity so given him that he alone could do it of course is not certainly known Some suppose Orig. Ind. fol. 36. 〈◊〉 Lamb. 〈◊〉 that in Ed. 1. 's time when the Power of the Justiciarius Anglia declin'd the King together with the Great Seal entrusted the Chancellor with his own extraordinary preheminence of Jurisdiction over the Common Law viz. Power of judging according to Equity but that Authors reason is not sufficient to maintain that supposition for he gives no reason for it but that be finds no mention made of any such power in the Chancery by Britton which was wrote about the beginning of the Reign of E. 1. Yet Britton mentions the Jurisdiction of all the other Courts and he concludes from thence that if the Chancellors had then had any such power Britton would have mentioned it which indeed is a good argument that the Chancellor had no such power then but it doth not follow of consequence that because he had it not when Britton was writ that he must needs have it immediately thereupon therefore we must come a little yea a great way nearer before we can find this power fixed in the Chancellor alone No doubt but when the Justiciarius Angliae was laid aside the Chancellor who before that time was but secundus à Rege in Regno became then primus à Rege and was President over the rest when any matter of Law or Equity was determined in magna Curia in the absence of the King but I cannot find he exercised the Judicative power in matters of Equity alone until very lately tho' he did several other things alone I find G. 4. Inst fo 83. Mag. Cha. 553. that in R. 2.'s time a matter being compromited by both sides to the King the King referred it to the Councel and they make a Decree which Decree was sent to the Chancellor to confirm under the Great Seal which was done after which one of the parties petitioned the King that the matter might be left to the determination of the Common-Law whereupon the King by warrant under the Privy-Seal requires the Chancellor to make Supersedeas to the Decree which was done whereby it appears the Chancellor alone did nothing but award Process upon the Decree made by the Councel as the King and They directed And this Sir Edw. Cooke says was the first Decree in Chancery that ever he observed in all his reading He also cites some opinions Cooke's Magna Charta 553. that the Court of Equity in Chancery began under Henry Beaufort Son of Jo. of Gaunt who was Chancellor in the beginning of H. 6.'s time and his reason for it is because there is not in any Book-Case or Report of the Law any mention made of any Court of Equity held before the Chancellors before the Reign of H. 6. and yet all of them speak of the ordinary Power and Jurisdiction of the Chancery But in the Reign of H. 6. and E. 4. Cases have been reported to have been determined in Chancery according to Equity but it is observable that most of those Causes were heard before several others together with the Chancellor and that in matters of doubt he adjourn'd the patties into the Exchequer-Chamber before himself and the
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
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-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