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