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
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
Bill legally exhibited especially where no corruption is prov'd He therefore most humbly beseecheth That he may have the liberty of a Subject and that he may not be concluded and a Decree submitted unto overthrown and the small remainder of his ancient Inheritance taken from him by Order of this Honourable House only upon a Petition He most humbly submits himself herein to your Lordships and will ever pray for your Honourable preservation This Petition being read and considered of these Lords viz. the Earl of Montgomery the Lord Bishop of Durham the Lord Say and Seal and the Lord Denny were appointed by the House to set down an Order in this Cause between William and George Matthews Die Sabbati vicesimo nono die Maii 1624. THe Lords Committees appointed yesterday in the afternoon to set down an Order in the Cause between William and George Matthews reported the same to the House in haec verba viz. THe Lords of Parliament do order That the Cause depending between Will. Matthews and George Matthews shall be reviewed in Chancery by the Lord Keeper assisted by such of the Lords of Parliament as shall be nominated by the House and by any two of the Judges whom the Lord Keeper shall name for which end the Lord Keeper is to be an humble Suitor unto his Majesty from the House for a Commission unto himself and the Lords that shall be named by the House for the said Review and final Determination of the Cause as to them shall appear Just and Equal And this the Lords desire may be done with all convenient speed The which Order being read the House approved thereof and these Lords were named by the House to be joyn'd in the said Commission with the Lord Keeper viz. the Lord Chamberlain the Earl of Montgomery the Earl of Bridgwater the Lord Bishop of Durham the Lord Bishop of Rochester the Lord Denny and the Lord Houghton and the House ordered the same Cause to be heard and determined accordingly in the beginning of the next Michaelmas Term. This agrees verbatim with the Records of the Lords House and pursuant thereunto the matter was review'd by these Commissioners and a Decree by them made in reversal of the Chancery-Decree as appears by the Registers Book of Orders in Chancery of Michaelmus and Hillary Term in the 22d year of King James Sir Edward Cooke in his Jurisdiction of Courts Anderson 2 part 163. to the same effect Title Chancery with greatapprobation reports several Cases of Decrees in Chancery referred to the Judges by Queen Elizabeth to be examined and amended and it is to be noted that his authority in that Case was sevenfold for when he wrote that Book he was very much incens'd against the King for being put out of his Chief Justiceship and set himself as much as he could against the Prerogative as appears by the whole current of that Book so that had there been any colour of denying the Queen this Power he had never cited those Cases without Objections It was not only practiced by Qu. Elizabeth and King James but also by King Charles the first as appears by an Order which I find in the said Registers Office in the Book of Entry of Orders there of the 22d of November in the 7th year of King Charles the first between one Sherbourn the Executor of one Munford the Executor of one Challener Plaintiff and one Townley and Forrest Defendants which begins thus THe matter upon his Majesties reference to the Right Honourable the Lord Keeper upon the humble Petition of the said Townley coming this day to be heard in the presence of Councel learned on both sides before his Lordship being assisted by Mr. Justice Hutton Mr. Justice Jones Mr. Justice Whitlock and Mr. Justice Harvey the Question appear'd to be Whether or how far the said Townley ought to be bound by the Decree made on the behalf of the said Munford for the sum of 17000 l. against the Defendant Townley in Case the Defendant Thomas Forrest should not pay the same And upon the hearing a Bill of Review was ordered to be brought by Townley either upon matter not insisted on at the first hearing or new matter and according to the course of the Court the said Townley was ordered to give security and in the mean time the execution of the said Decree and all proceedings thereupon as against the said Townley was respited and suspended and whereas by the first Decree Townley was decreed to pay as well what his Co-Trustee Forrest had received of the Profits of the Estate of Challener as what he had received himself Vpon the hearing upon the said Bill of Review the first Decree was revers'd and Townley decreed to answer only so much as he himself had received which appear'd by the proofs to be but three half years Rent and it was referred to a Master in Chancery to audit the account touching the three half-years Rent and the Recognizance given by Townley to perform the Order of the Court was discharged In the same Registers Office I find another Entry of an Order of June 1. in the 12th year of King Charles the first between one Pennington and others Plaintiffs and one Holmes Defendant in these words WHereas upon Petition exhibited to the Kings most Excellent Majesty by the Defendant supposing some injustice and wrong to have been done unto him by a Decree made in this Court between the foresaid parties his Majesty was most graciously pleased to refer the matter to the Master of the Rolls to call to his assistance one of the Judges of the Bench and to hear what could be alledged against the said Decree And this day being appointed for the hearing of the matter the Master of the Rolls calling to him Mr. Justice Crooke and having heard the parties and their Councel on both sides and what could be alledged against the said Decree why the same should not be put in execution saw no cause to recede from or alter the same Now after the Opinion of all the Judges of England assented to by the then Lord Chancellor for the legality of this sort of proceeding and the approhation of the House of Lords and their direction for humble Suit to be made to the King for a Commission from Him to proceed accordingly and after so continu'd a series of practice for the Reign of Three of the best Princes that ever sway'd a Scepter without the least Objection then made against it by any that I ever read or heard of I say after all this sure one would think there could be no room for any colour of illegality in that sort of Proceeding But it is objected That the Power and Right of this sort of proceeding is since taken away by the Statute of 16 Car. 1. cap. 10. But I hold that Statute doth not do it in the least nor doth it carry in it the least colour or look that way though indeed it doth take away somewhat