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
Justices of both Benches and made his Decrees according to their Opinion As for instance In the Year-book of the 37th of H. 6. fo 13. the Case was That one A. had bought of J. R. several Debts due to J. R. from several persons and A. gave a Bond to J. R. for the sum And forasmuch as those Debts were but things in Action and no Property was chang'd nor no Action accru'd by the bargain to the said A. but the Debtors remained Debtors still to the said J. R. so that A. had nothing for the money secured by the obligation A. prays in Equity to be discharged of the said Bond against J.R. and prays a Subpaena against J.R. and it was granted and the Defendant answered and the Chancellor because the matter seemed doubtful to him adjourn'd it to the Exchequer-Chamber before himself and the Justices of both Benches and there it was debated and by the Opinion of all the Justices because the said A. had not quid pro quo by that bargain therefore the Bond ought to be released and it was decreed accordingly The like will appear to be done by the Book-cases following 37 H. 6. f. 35 36 39 H. 6. f. 26.7 E. 4. f. 14 c. And if he did not adjourn the Causes into the Exchequer-Chamber he always had the Judges or some of them with him at all hearings and decreed according to their Opinions for the entry of the Decrees in Chancery of H. 6.'s time are after this manner Els Off. of Chan. fo 51. says the Author cited in the Margin viz. Consideratum est per Curiam ex assensu Johannis Fortescue Milit ' Capital ' Justiciar ' Domini Regis ad placita tenenda diversorum aliorum Justiciariorum servient ' ad legem in Curia praesent ' existent ' quod c. and sometimes it was ex assensu omnium Justiciar ' utriusque Banci and sometimes of one or two Justices but before the end of that King's Reign the manner of entry of the Decrees was somewhat altered and was in this manner Considerat ' Adjudicatum Decret ' est per Cancellarium per Curiam Cancellar ' without particular mention of any Justices or others and so it continued till H. 8.'s time But towards the end of his Reign whereas before that time the Decrees were in Latine and in very few words and entred on the back-side of the Bills they then began to be drawn up in English apart by themselves and therein reciting the Bill and Answer and afterward were enroll'd in Rolls by themselves The ancientest of that nature that I can find are in the Rolls Chappel and are of the 27th and 28th of H. 8. when Sir Thomas Audley was Chancellor In Queen Maries days the entry of all the Decrees is That it is Ordained Adjudged and Decreed by the Lord Chancellor and by the whole Court of Chancery That so and so and after the same manner it is at this day saving that the conjunctive clause And by the High-Court of Chancery which in the beginning was not incerted in vain is now altogether superfluous and impertinent for the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper without the assent or consent of any other have made Decrees for some years past according to his own liberum arbitrium as I shall shew in the next Section SECT IV. Of the modern and present Power and Jurisdiction of the Court of Equity in Chancery IN the Chancery are two Courts C. 4. Inst fo 79. one Ordinary wherein the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper of the Great Seals proceeds according to the right line of the Law and if he gives an Erroneous Judgement Plowd 393. que B.R. est le Pluis hault Court Dyer 315. there a Writ of Error lies returnable in the Kings Bench the other is Extraordinary wherein the Chancellor ought to proceed according to the Rule of Equity which according to what it is now taken is what is according to the Chancellor's single Conscience quecunque Els Office of Ch. fo 41. sit it is say some an absolute Power without controul other then in Parliament and spreadeth it self most largely without any Limitation it stops the proceedings of all the other Courts at Westminster it renders all their Judgements vain and ineffectual durante bene placito of the Chancellor or Keeper and stops Execution untill his Conscience be satisfied whether the Plaintiffs at Law ought to go on or no by which means when a man hath a Judgement fairly obtain'd at Law or intends to Sue there for a Just and True Debt if the Defendant at Law becomes Plaintiff in Chancery and he or his Councel hath but Invention enough to suggest any sort of Equity there 's an Injunction had of course until the Plaintiff at Law can put an Answer to the Bill which if he lives any thing remote from London it will take up a Month or two's time or more to send an Answer and in the mean time the Debtor prepares his Bag and Baggage and by that time the Injunction can be Dissolv'd which cannot be without a considerabe Charge the Gentlemen is perhaps got to Ireland Jamaico or Japan What ever is now finally determin'd in Equity in Chancery it is done by the Chancellor or Lord Keeper alone and though the Clerks and Registers retain in drawing up their Decrees somewhat of the old form ziz That it is Decreed by the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper and by the High Court of Chancery which implyes there were some others ought to have a hand in making the Decree yet there is none that now have for though there are two at least of twelve that bear the name of Masters in Chancery and heretofore were accounted Socii and Collaterales to the Chancellor that daily sit in Court one on each side of the Lord Chancellor or Keeper yet they are now but as his Attendants and speak not a word in determining any Causes their only business being to wait and expect how many References the Lord Chancellor will make to them touching insufficient Answers Scandalous Bills or Answers Contempts stating of Accounts and the like they being to have a Fee for their Report therein yet that Report is subject to the controul of the Chancellor or Keeper if he pleases And if at any time which is but seldom any of the Judges are sent for it often proves to be meerly out of Formality for their Opinions are seldom regarded It is said of the Chancellor and Keeper of the Great-Seal of England Els Office of Cla fo 6. that he is like the Roman Praetor in whose Constitutions there were said to be two kinds of Powers one was when without the Advice of the Judges he would Manumittise Emancipate Award Possessions of Lands and Goods Commit Wardship of Pupills and grant Injunctions as he thought convenient The other sort of Power the Praetor had was when he proceeded to Judgment according to Leges Regis
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
ordains That noue from thenceforth except out Lord the King shall hold in his Court any plea of false Judgments given in the Court of his Cennants for such Plea especially belongeth to the Crown and Dignity of our Lord the King Though the Supream Jurisdiction were in the King to use as he saw best it is but rational that if the Parliament were sitting at such time as any Complaints were made to him of any Erroneous Judgment or Decree that he should refer the Examination and final Determination of the matter to the House of Lords who without any manner of doubt are and always were the fittest Referrees the King could refer any matter to be determin'd they being the chief Assembly of the Honour Integrity Wisdom and Justice of the Nation and therefore it is but reasonable the King should take the measures of his final Determination from their Advice or refer it to them to determine which is all one Better or Abler Advisors being not to be found but it is as true they had no power of Judging by their own innate Authority but by a delegated Authority from the Kings as plainly appears by what is said before and also by the Parliament Roll of the 4 of Ed. 3. which is recited in Cotton's Records In haec Verba viz. The Treasons Felonies and other misdemeanors of Roger Mortimer are particularly repeated a great part of which Roll cannot be read for that the Roll is mouldred but in the end it appears that the King charg'd the Lords and Peers who as Judges of the Realm by the Kings Assent adjudged that the said Roger should be Drawn and Hang'd Whereby it appears it is the Kings Charge to the Lords and the Kings Assent that gives them Jurisdiction and Authority And so it follows of necessary consequence that though they are the fittest for the King to Authorize to determine the mistakes and Errors of his Chancellors and other Judges yet if when they are not Assembled in a Parliamentary way there is no reason nor authority against it nor inconveniency by it for the King to Authorize a convenient number of the Lords of the Parliament and Judges that are near him to take course with Erroneous Decrees in the mean time until the Parliament sits And therefore it was that it was provided by Act of Parliament the 31st of Ed. 3. cap. 12. That the Lord Chancellor and Treasurer should have Power upon Complaint to take the Justices and such other sage persons as they thought fit to their Assistance and to Examine the Judgments of the Exchequer Court And if any Error be found they may corted the Rolls and after send them into the Exchequer to make I thereof Execution Which thing I conceive the King might have done of himself without Act of Parliament and I conceive the Act made it a standing Rule to prevent often troubling the King upon every particular occasion and though there be no provision by that Act for any further Examination of the Judgment of the Chancellor and Treasurer in that Case yet it is not so final but the King may upon Petition to him order a Writ of Error returnable in the House of Lords Assembled in Parliament for a further and more due Examination of the matter if either Party thinks himself agrieved thereby and from that time forward ziz the 31 of Ed. 3. there was no standing Order made by Act of Parliament as to the Errors of the Court of Kings-Bench for by that Name I shall now call the Successors of the Judges that followed the King mentioned in the aforesaid Authors but it stood at the Kings meer pleasure 27 El. 8. as formerly until the 27 of Queen Elizabeth Yet our latter Kings before that Statute for the most part used to refer the Examination and Correction of such Errors only to their House of Lords in Parliament insomuch that for want of oftener referring it to their Councel or to Specialibus Auditoribus Special Commissioners as Fleta affirms the King could do as is mention'd in the beginning of this Section it grew to be an Opinion that Errors of the Court of Kings Bench could be rectified no where but in Parliament as appears by the Preamble of that Statute of the 27 of Eliz. Therefore and as the Preamble of that Statute mentions Because the Court of Parlisament was not in those days so often held as in ancient time and because in respect of the great Affairs of the Realm such Erroneous Judgments meaning those of the Kings Bench could not be well consider'd and determin'd in time of Parliament whereby the Subjects of the Realm were greatly hindred and desayed of Justice It was therefore enacted That the Errors of Judgments in the said Court of Kings-Bench in certain Actions therein mention'd should be examined and rectified in the Exchequer-Chamber by such persons as in the said Act is mentioned and after the Judgment is affirmed or tedersed the Record and all things concerning the same shall be removed and brought back into the Court of Kings-Bench that such further proceedings may be thereupon as well for execution as other wise as shall appertain And thereby it is reserv'd That the parties shall not be finally concluded by such Reversal or Affirmation but that they may sue in the high Court of Parliament for a further and more due examination of the said Judgment in such sort as was thentofore used upon erroneous Judgments And the manner thentofore was that before any Writ of Error could be brought to examine and correct Errors in Parliament a Petition was to be preferred to the King for allowance thereof and it was to be allowed by the King before any such Writ of Error could be made as appears by the Authorities in the margin 1 H. 7. fo 19 20. Dy. fo 375. which makes it most plain where in whom the Supreme Judicative Power lay And Judge Jenkins says Jenk Lex terrae fo 55. The reason of the Law and the King's allowance of a Writ of Error returnable in the House of Lords is for that the Judges of the Land all of them being of the Kings Councel and the twelve Masters in Chancery assist in the Lords House by whose advice erroneous Judgments are redrest So that it appears plainly their Judicative Power in that particular is not originally and fundamentally in themselves but derived from the King by his allowance thereof who is fons origo Justitiae Bract. lib. 2. cap. 4. and says Bracton est enim Coronae Regis facere Justitiam Judicium tenere pacem sine quibus Corona consistere non potest nec tenere hujusmodi autem jura sive Jurisdictiones ad personas sive tenementa transferri non poterunt nec per privata persona possideri nec usus nec executio Juris nisi hoc datum fuerit ei de super sicut Jurisdictio delegata non delegari poterit quin Ordinaria remaneat cum
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