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
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
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
look'd not after his Servants And then follows these words viz. This Declaration I have made to your Lordships with a sincere mind humbly craving that if there should be any mistake your Lordships would impute it to want of memory and not to any design of mine to obscure truth or to palliate any thing for I do again confess that in the points charg'd upon me although they should be taken as my self have declared there 's a great deal of corruption and neglect for which I am heartily and penitently sorry and submit my self to the Judgment Grace and Mercy of this Court. And in the close he prays That if they proceed to a Sentence their Sentence may not be too heavy The Confession being read the Lords sent twelve Lords to know if it was his own hand that subscrib'd the Confession and whether he would stand to it or no and being returned they report That they had shew'd it to him and that he own'd it and would abide by it Whereupon it was ordered That the Prince attended by some of the Lords should move His Majesty to sequester the Seal which being accordingly done the Prince reports to the House That he had mov'd the King therein and that his Majesty had promis'd it should be done and that he intended to have done it if they had not mov'd it The second of May following a Commission was granted to Sir James Leigh Chief Justice Vid. Rot. Parl. ejusdem temp to Officiate the place of the Lord Chancellor in the Lords House and the Great Seal was taken from the Chancellor There was not a single Lord keeper from that time until the 10 of July 1621. the Business of the Chancery being then performed by the Commissioners and by Commission committed to be kept by the Lord Treasurer the Lord Steward the Lord. Chamberlain and the Earl of Arundell The third of May the Commons sent a Message to the Lords to demand Judgment against the Lord Chancellor to which the Lords return'd answer they were ready if They with their Speaker would come to demand it and the Commons being come to the Bar of the Lords House the Chief Justice Leigh pronounc'd the Judgment which was 1st That the Lord Viscount St. Albans should undergo a Fine and Ransome of 40000 l. 2d That he should be Imprison'd in the Tower during the Kings pleasure 3d. That he should be for ever uncapable of any Office Place or Employment in the State or Common-wealth 4th That he should never sit in Parliament nor come within the Verge of the Court. I have been more particular in relating these proceedings of the late Lord Chancellor Bacon because of the great Learning and Eminency of the Man and the little need he had to be so Corrupt he had neither Wife nor Child to provide for and if such a man was guilty of Bribery and Corruption who may we be sure will not And therefore great care ought to be taken to have Relief against such contingencies for Corruption in a Judge of that high commanding Power is far beyond all Robbery Burglary Rapine or other Villany the World can invent To Err wilfully and out of a corrupt design is a greater fault and more unpardonable than to err through mistake but the hurt is the same to him that is injur'd by the wrong Decree Therefore if we were sure there would never be any such Corruption any more yet Provision ought to be made against mistakes since those have been very frequent whereof I shall give some instances and for which you shall need to look no further back then to the Journals of the Lords House in the last Session of Parliament at Westminster where you may find that the 17th of November 1680. a Decree in Chancery was Reversed upon the Appeal of Crabb against Fenton and the 22d of the same Month a Decree in Chancery was Revers'd by the Lords upon the Appeal of Turner against Turner and on the 26th of the same Month another Decree in Chancery was Revers'd upon the Appeal of one Chute against Dacres and many more Appeals were brought in that Parliament which yet remain undetermin'd and since the Lord-Keeper North's having the Seal he hath Revers'd several of the late Lord Chancellor Nottingham's Decrees without any new matter arising since the Decree made so that one of them must be mistaken but which of them will not appear but by the judgment of divers others of as great Learning and Judgment as themselves and so it is to be determin'd for many may see more than one and I conceave the King may give them Authority so to do without putting the Kingdom to the Charge and Trouble of convening a Parliament as by the ensuing part of this Treatise will appear SECT VI. That an Appeal to the King in the Intervals of Parliament is an Ancient Legal Remedy against mistaken Decrees in Chancery with the manner of Proceeding therein IT becomes not a single man to be too positive in his own Opinion therefore I shall only at present say that I am most extreamly mistaken in my Calculations if His Majesty hath not sufficient Power in the Intervals of Parliament as the Law is at this day being the 26th of June 1683. to provide for his Subjects and to Relieve them against unjust Decrees in Chancery if the matter be duely look'd into notwithstanding the Art and Labour that hath been used to conceal it Therefore for maintaining of that point I shall once more repeat a Sentence out of Bracton Et defendous generaiment a tout que nul ne eyt poer de amender nul faux Jugement de nous Justices sauve les Justices que suent nous et nostre Court que a ceo sont per nous entitles ou nous mesme on nostre Councel cat ceo reservouns nous especialment a nostre Jurisdiction Bracton fol. 3. and Fleta speaks to the same purpose Habet enim Rex curiam sua c. habet etiam curiam suam Justiciarios suos tam millites quam Clericos locum suum tenentes in Anglia coram quibus non alibi Fleta l. 2. fo 66. NISI CORAMSEMET IPSO ET CONCILIO SUO VEL AUDITORIBUS SPECIALIBUS Falsa Judicia Errores Justiciariorum Revertuntur corriguntur Whence it is manifest that when those Authors wrote the Power of Reversing Erroneous or Falsa unjust Judgments of all other Courts was in the Justices that followed the King and his Court being thereunto Authoriz'd by the King but if they had Err'd the Error was to be Rectified by his Councel or special Auditors such as the King should think fit or by the King himself the supreme Jurisdiction and Dernier resort being in the King himself or where he pleased to place it Car ceo reservonus nous especialment a nostre Jurisdiction And this is also declar'd to be so by Act of Parliament in the 52 of H. 3. cap. 10. which