Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	great_a	lord_n	word_n	2,981	5	3.8029	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B08249	An account of the original of judging according to equity and how erroneous judgments in equity have been rectified, humbly represented to the King, Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled, in order to a due establishment.	England and Wales. Parliament.	1690 (1690)	Wing A335CA; ESTC R214056	5,468	2

1. May. 1690. An Account of the Original of Judging according to Equity and how Erroneous Judgments in Equity have been Rectified Ag t the jurisdiction of the Lords Humbly Represented to the King Lords and Commons in Parliament Assembled In Order to a due Establishment Bract. L. 3. f. 107. Fleta cap. 17. l. 16. NOne but the King and such as are delegated by him can or ought to Judge in any Temporal matter Such as sought relief in former times in Cases of Equity were Suitors to the King himself who being assisted with his Chancellor and Councel Archeon 59. did mittigate the severity of the Law in his own Person Afterwards the King being willing to ease himself of that trouble Archeon 62 63. by delivery of his Great Seal to his Chancellor he delegated to him or the Keeper of the Great Seal his own Regal and Extraordinary Preheminence of Jurisdiction in Civil Causes for mitigating the Rigour and supplying the defects of the Common Law when extraordinary Circumstances required it but this was very sparingly made use of by the Chancellor and Keeper in former times and men were oftentimes releived in Cases of Equity as Brooke says Brooke Parliament 33. by Act of Parliament whereof you may find Presidents in the Parliament Rolls hereafter mentioned viz. 5 R. 2 n. 62. 3 H. 5. n. 17. 3 H. 5. n. 44. 9 H. 5. n. 11. 37 H. 8. n. 26. If the Chancellor Erro'd formerly his Decrees were reviewed not before himself alone but some of the Judges sate with him most times in the Exchequer Chamber as appear● by the Year Books and Reports following viz. 37 H. 6. f. 13. ibidem 35 36. 7 E. 4. f. 15. 22 E. 4. 67. 27 H. f. 15. But whether the Chancellor in the Cases last mentioned did take the Judges to his Assistance of his own accord or by the Kings Order it appears not by the Books but it appears that of later times the Decrees of the Chancellor were Reviewed by Judges and others by Order and Commission from the King as appears by the Authorities following viz. 4 Instit f. 85. where you may find Vi. 2. Anderson fo 163. that Sir Moyle Finch Petitioned Queen Elizabeth against a Decree in Chancery in the 42. and 43. years of her Reign and she refer'd the matter to all the Judges of England and upon their Opinions being Certified into the Chancery the Decree was Revers'd and there the Lord Cheif Justice Cooke Cites 4 Cases more that about that time were referred out of the Chancery to some of the Judges There be also several Orders entred in the Register's Books of Orders in Chancery that appeare to be made by vertue of the Kings refference from Chancery Decrees to the Judges as follows viz. 21. Junii 2 Jac. 1. Inter Chamberlain Bubb 24. No. 3 Car. 1 Inter Barker Unwin 12. No. 7 Car. 1. Inter Penington Holms 15 Car 1. Rot. patent 23 n. 5. indors a Commission to Review a Decree in Chancery between Harvey and Langham in there Inrol'd Of late Years we find that Erronious Decrees in Chancery and other Courts of Equity were review'd by Appeals to the Lords in Parliament and it is worth while to see how and when that Course first began In the Year 1621. Sir John Boucher prefer'd a Petition to the Lords Intitled thus Lords Journal 3. of Decemb. 1621. 19 Jac. 1 To the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled In that Petition he complains against the Lord Keeper for an over hasty determining of his Cause and refusing to hear his Evidence whereby as he alledg'd he had not Justice done him and the Petition concludes in these words The Petitioner doth therefore in all Humility Appeal to your Lordships c. Humbly desiring that your Lordships would be pleased to hear and Judge the same Upon Reading of which Petition it was referr'd to the Committee of Priviledges to consider whether it were a formal Appeal or not Afterwards the Lord Arch Bishop of Canterbury Lords Journal 10. December 1621. the first of the Committe of Priviledges Reported to the House that divers Lords of their Subcommittee appointed to search for Presidents had made Report to them that they could not find that the word Appeal was usual in any Petition and that the Ancient and Accustomed form of Petitions brought to that House were To the King and his Great Councel However they thought sit the matter of the complaint should be heard which was accordingly done as to the charge against the Lord Keeper for his over hasty hearing the Cause and refusing to hear the Evidence but as to the merits of the Cause it was not heard although Sir John Boucher earnestly begg'd it In 1624. I find several Petitions of Appeals from Chancery to the Lords in Parliament May 28. 1624. 22 Jac. 1. one whereof was a Petition of one William Mathews against a Decree obtain'd by George Mathews and upon hearing their Lordships revers'd the Decree whereupon George Mathews Petitioned their Lordships in nature of a Plea to their Jurisdiction setting forth that he was inform'd by his Councel that it had been the course of that Honourable House to Reverse Decrees but by Bill Legally Exhibited and upon consideration had of that Petition their Lordships waved their own reversal May 29 1624. and directed that the Lord Keeper should become an humble Suitor to the King for a Commission to review that Decree And all the other Appeals in that Parliament that I could find were Refer'd back to the Chancery or to Arbitrators to endeavour to end and none determin'd by the Lords sa I could find From that time to the beginning of the Wars about 1640 and 1641 I find nothing of Appeals to the Lords in Parliament but in those troublesome times they were again receiv'd but how Legally is not for me to determine but this I will say that before their Lordships can Examine Errors in Judgments at Law there must be the Kings leave for a Writ of Error for that purpose and the Writs of Error are their Lordships Commissions but I know none they have to determine Appeals from the Chancery no more then from the Prerogative Court which they pretend not to but have disclaim'd it I find that the Lords were formerly Judges in Parliament in particular Cases by the Kings assent as appears 4 E. 3. n. 1. and in the same Year n. 6. it was assented and Agreed by the King and all the great Men in full Parliament that the Peers of the Realm should not be driven for the future to give Judgment on any other but their Peers nor have power so to do for the future and n. 16 and 17 of that Parliament Thomas of Berkley Rnt. was tryed before the King in Parliament by a Jury of 12 Knights and acquirted and 25 E. 3. n. 10. the Record of the Judgment against Sir William