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
Bacon's Case herein also before re-cited in the fifth Section for it is not Impossible but that some of his Successors may do the like which if but any one should it would be very hard for many a poor Creature to wait the Convention of a Parliament especially if it should happen that another usurping part of a Parliament like that about 41. should attempt to play the old Game again so that in such case the King must perhaps either leave many of his Subjects utterly undefended against the corrupt and vicious proceedings of another Bacon or endanger his own safety by letting them sit in which case by the Rule of Self-preservation the King ought to save himself But setting aside this matter of corruption as if no such would ever hereafter be in the World if we consider humane frailty and the real mistakes every single man may be subject to especially when beset with the mercenary Arguments of three or four Hireling Advocates of a side who think themselves oblig'd when opportunity serves to mistake for their Clients according to the measure of the Fees they receive as I have known some of them knowingly do and sometimes they prevaricate and omit what they ought to say if either Feed on both sides or not high enough Feed of the side they are of by means whereof a circumspect Lord Chancellor or Keeper may innocently be seduc'd to make an ill Decree and by force thereof a poor man must either go to Prison or part with the best part of his Substance so that by both ways himself and Family are brought unjustly to want and misery and if he be a Trades-man it is ods but he breaks one or two more for Trades-men are like Nine-pins one seldom falls alone and if a Parliament when it meets should find leasure from publick business to examine the matter and should see cause to alter the Decree and Award Restitution the man that got the Money by means of the ill Decree may have spent it all gone beyond Sea or dead without Assets or twenty such Chances may happen that the Money may never be got again by any Art or Industry whatsoever which would be prevented if there were a place to Appeal before performance of the ill Decree and moreover it remains a doubtful case as to the many Decrees of the late Lord Chancellor Notingham Re vers'd by the now Lord Keeper North which of the two Lords are in the right he that made the Decrees or he that Revers'd them it being not fairly to be decided but by the Advice and Opinion of a greater number of as Wise and Judicious men as themselves and that is a fair and reasonable way of determining it for vis unita fortior but the greatest inconvenience of all is that which concerns the Government for while this opinion stands That the King cannot hear the matter in Person nor refer it to others though to some of the self same Lords that sit in Parliament but that the matter must wait their meeting in a Parliamentary way it may make the people believe that the Supremacy of Jurisdiction is in the House of Lords and not in the King and consequently lessen him in their opinion for People Love and Honour them most from whom they find most Relief against Injury and how consistent that is with Monarchy and how agreeable it is with our Oaths willingly to suffer let any man Judge that hath Sense and Loyalty Since all the Courts of Westminster have four Judges in each Court men Learned in the Laws of known and visible Integrity and all Sworn To do equal right to all 18 E. 3.7 Oath of Just and to take no Fee or Roabes of any man great or small but of the King himself during their being Judges And who in their proceedings are ty'd to Rules and since Appeals by Writ of Error by special Provision by Act of Parliament may be at all times had against their Judgments and since there are frequent Appeals from all Ecclesiastical Courts and from the Court of Admirality out of Parliament It is a mighty mistery to me and the policy of it is not Intelligible that any man should labour to prop up this Opinion that there should be no Appeal but to Parliament from this Court of Equity in Chancery where there is now but one Judge and his Orders and Decrees controuling all the Judgments of other Courts and he therein ty'd to no other Rule but his own Conscience be it good or bad I think a Chancellor or Keeper for his own Justification should not be against the Kings Examining his Decrees or Referring them to fit persons to be Examin'd and Corrected which without peradventure is not only the best and surest way for Administration of Justice in this Case and so far from setting up an Arbitrary way or an Extraordinary Course that it is but restoring the Court of Equity in Chancery to its Ancient and Primitive form of Judicature the definitive Judging there by the Chancellor alone being but an Innovation upon the Original Institution of that Court as appears by what is aforesaid and to the end there may be no obstruction in the way I have enquir'd how far the King ought by Law to provide for his Injur'd Subjects in case of Appeal to him from Erroneous or Unjust Decrees in Chancery by a Lord Chancellor or Keeper SECT VIII Whether the King ought exdebito Justiciae to hear in Person or to grant References upon Complaint to him made against Erroneous and Vnjust Decrees in Chancery I Have as great Veneration for Kingly Government and am as Firm and Faithful to it as any man can be however I think it no presumption to affirm that the King ought to do his Subjects right by using the best means he may for administration of Justice amongst them pertinet ad Regem ad quamlibit injuriam compescendam competens remedium adhibere It is no dishnour to him that he is oblig'd to it for it is for that end he is ordain'd by God and obey'd by men it is therein consists the height of his Clory and the lustre of his Majesty and says Fleta Fleta fo 17. par 15. Whereas it is so ordain'd that every man in prosecution of his right Potius judicio quam viribus utatur Should make use of the Law rather than force The injur'd are to come to the King and having shew'd him the wrong they have suffer'd he ought to do speedy Justice to his Petitioners yet the King is not to be troubled but when his Ordinary judges fall of their Duty For Nemo in lite Regem appellato nisi quando domi jus consequi non poterit Orig. Jul. fo 20. A Complaint to the King by Petition against the Error and Injustice of a Chancery Decree is an Appeal to the King from his Chancellor from the Inferior Judge to the Superior which is very natural and a Petition to him for allowance of a Writ of Error to the House of Lords to inspect and certifie a Judgment of the Court of Kings-Bench or Exchequer Chamber and an Appeal to the King from his Ecclesiastical Courts and from the Court of Admirality are all grounded upon the same natural Justice and by reason of the Kings Supremacy of Jurisdiction and that as well by force of the Common as Statute Law Of Appeals in general Sir Edw. Cooke cites the Opinion of a Learned Judge of the Admirality and some others to this effect For as much as an Appeal is a natural defence it cannot be taken away by any Prince or Power Cook 's 4 Iust fo 340. but if the Appeal be just and lawful the Superior Judge ought of right and Equity to receive and admit the same as he ought to do Justice to the Subject and so if the Cause of the Appeal be just and Lawful he ought to Reverse and Revoke all mean Acts done after the Appeal brought in prejudice of the Appeallaent But I need not much labour that point for I can Experimentally say that His Majesty is very desirous that His Subjects should have the full and free benefit of the course of Justice and if any ever fail of it it ought not to be imputed to the King but to his Council whose advice is the Kings guide and if they mis-advise the King and he follows their advice he is excusable yet he is not bound always to follow their advice if he be really satisfied in himself after hearing their reasons that it ought to be otherwise than they advise for as he is plac'd by God above them it is to be presum'd God may supply him with a more discerning Spirit than they and enable him to distinguish between the best and worst advice having heard the reasons of both Yet they that knowingly advise the King ill or neglect to advise him well when occasion requires are to blame therefore I hope His Majesties Privy Council will confider of this matter and advise and desire His Majesty to take the Advice and Opinion of His Judges who are His proper Councel therein For in my poor judgment and as I have heard from most Judicious men the restoring this kind of proceeding aforemention'd for Relief against unjust Decrees in Chancery and other Courts of Equity will be as much for the Kings Honour and His Subjects Good as any other part of his Jurisdiction For I say again there is no Robbery Piracy Burglary or other Villany whatsoever so mischievous and insupportable as the unjust taking away of a mans Estate by colour of doing Justice and therefore most worthy of His Majesties care to prevent Cum Index indulgeat indigno nonne ad prolaptionis contagium provocat universos Bract 107. I expect to be Censur'd by some for what is here set down though I challenge all mankind to charge me with any misrecital or false quotation but that which most troubles me is my consciousness of my own unability to perform the matter least a good Cause should suffer by ill management However having done my best I hope it will be taken in good part by all Honest men more I cannot do less I durst not for my Oaths sake and if any be offended with me this shall be my Sanctuary Fiat Justicia si ruat Coelum FINIS
Jus Appellandi AD REGEM Ipsum A CANCELLARIA OR A Manifestation of the King's Part and Power to Relieve His Subjects against Erroneous and Unjust Decrees in CHANCERY Collected out of the Authorities of Law By WALTER WILLIAMS of the Middle-Temple Esq Rex Sapiens Judicabit Populum suum Bract. l. 3.107 LONDON Printed in the Year MDCLXXXIII TO THE High and Mighty MONARCH CHARLES II. By the Grace of GOD KING of Great-Britain c. Most Gracious Sovereign HAving spent many years in the study of your Majesty's Laws and conceaving that several for whom I was concern'd as Councel had been much wrong'd a while since by Decrees in Chancery and finding that they were past hopes of being Righted There I advis'd Petitions to be preferred to Your Majesty the Fountain of Justice thereby beseeching Your Majesty to relieve Your Petitioners either by re-hearing the matter in Your Royal Person or by referring it to such fit persons as Your Majesty should nominate whereupon it was declared by some near Your Majesty That Your Majesty could not legally grant your Petitioners Request and that no Relief could be had against Chancery-Decrees but by the House of Lords assembled in Parliament which thing I apprehended to be a great mistake and tended as I conceiv'd to the Outing of Your Majesty of that Just and Necessary Jurisdiction Preheminence and Authority which is united and annexed to your Imperial Crown and which to assist and defend to my Power I am bound by Oath In discharge whereof I have made diligent search for what evidence could be found in the Authorities of Law to make out Your Majesties just Title to the premisses and what I have found I have made a methodical Collection of being I hope sufficient for the purpose whereunto I have also added some instances of the great mischief it is to your Subjects and may be to Your self your Crown and Dignity that Your Majesties Power in that matter is not put in practice All which I humbly lay at Your Majesties Feet begging Your Majesties acceptance and consideration thereof as it is the product of the unseigned Fidelity and Allegiance of Dread SIR Your Majesties most Faithful and Obedient Subject WA WILLIAMS To His Majesties most Honourable PRIVY-COUNCIL Great Sirs NExt to His Sa-cred Majesty to a C. 4. Inst 53. Crompt Juris 35. You all Honour and Reverence is due as being Incorporate to His Person and Whose b C. 4. Inst. 54 High Office it is according to the best of your Judgments truly and justly to advise and counsel the King in all things that may be to His Honour and Behoof and for the good of His Subjects And though His Majesty is arm'd with several other Councels for several purposes yet it is with You that he consults and advises amongst other the most weighty Affairs of State when and upon what occasion it is that He is to call to His other Councels for Advice and Assistance It appears by the Writs of Summons of the Lords to Parliament Cromp. Ju. fo 1. and by the Writs to the Sheriffs for Election of Knights and Burgesses that it is by Your advice the King doth call His Parliament for after the Salutem in those Writs are these words viz. Quia de Advisamento Assensu Concilii nostri pro quibusdam arduis urgentibus negotiis nos statum defensionem Regni nostri Angliae Ecclesiae Anglicanae concernentibus quodam Parliamentum nostrum apud c. teneri ordinavimus If then it appertains to You to advise His Majesty when it is proper to call His Parliament it follows of consequence that it appertains to You also to advise Him to call His other Councels upon occasion And hence I conceive it is that You have been Dignified in ancient Records by the name of Magnum Concilium Regis and thereby distingnished from Magnum Concilium Regni Co. 1 Inst. 110. cites Records to that purpose which is the Parliament Therefore and in as much as frequent supplications have of late been made by divers to His Majesty for Relief against mistaken Decrees in Chancery witheut effect by reason of some Opinions that there was no legal Remedy in such Cases but by Appeal to the Lords House assembled in Parliament I have for the advancement of Justice and maintenance of the King 's Right of Jurisdiction compil'd and adventured humbly to recommend this ensuing Treatise to His Majesty and Your consideration which if You vouchsafe to peruse I hope it will make it so clear that His Majesty may lawfully relieve His Subjects against such mistaken Decrees in the Intervals of Parliament as to confute all Opponents or at leastwise manisest so much probability thereof and that there is so much necessity for the use of it as may induce You to advise and desire His Majesty to be further satisfied therein by the Opinion of His whole Colledge of Judges who in case of doubt in matters of Law our Law-Books say are his particular and sworn Councel Co. 1 Inst. 110. vi Jurament Jnsticiarior 18 E. 3. In doing whereof I humbly conceive you will perform an act that will highly redound to the Honour of the King welfare of His injur'd Subjects my Zeal to Both which hath put me upon begging Your favourable Reception and Interpretation of this Labour of His who submits both Himself and It to Your Honours Command W. W. The CONTENTS OF the mutual Obligation upon King and People in reference to Government Sect. 1. What is Jurisdiction to Whom it appertains and How anciently exercised in this Kingdom Sect. 2. What is meant by judging according to Equity and by Whom it was anciently exercised Sect. 3. Of the modern and present Power and Jurisdiction of the Court of Equity in Chancery Sec. 4. Of the Corruption and Mistakes of some great Chancellors Sec. 5. 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 Sec. 6. The inconveniencies that accrew for want of a constant relief against erroneous Decrees in Chan. Sec. 7. Whether the King ought ex debito Justiciae to hear in person or to grant referrences upon complaint to him made against erroneous and unjust Decrees in Chancery Sec 8 ERRATA PAg. 2. l. 19. for Statute 1 El. c. 10. r. Statutes 1 5 El. c. 1. p. 19. in 2 marg note for 232 r. 233. p. 29. 2 marg note for 16 r. 66. p. 28. marg note for 33. read 13. pag. 33. in the 2 marg note fo r. cap. p. 42. l. 24. for have r. hath pag 48. marg note for 4 r. 3. p. 70. for Bracton r. Britton ib. l. 13. for sua r. suam p. 71. l 15 for 10 r 20 p 78 2 marg note for 14 r 24 p 9 l 12 for 22d r 12th p 106 marg note for 32 r 33 p 119 in marg note for 37
that Court was at height as may appear by the forecited Presidents so that it never was a part of the Jurisdiction or practice of that Court and therefore declared by the said Provisoe not intended to be prohibited by the said Act and as to the King the Provisoe says He is to be restrained but from restraining and imprisoning by his own personal command he may do every thing else that he could have done before He may hear and determine in person if he pleases as he could have done before and he may appoint all such Judges or Referrees to all purposes as he could have done before But as to the Warrants of Imprisoning if any cause for such there should be he is to leave that to his Ministers and the King if he thinks fit upon complaint to him made of Injustice or other Error done by his Chancellor or Keeper may order his Chancellor to order the parties concern'd to appear before the King in person and the King himself may require his Chancellor or Keeper to be present and his Majesty may call others to his assistance whom he may confide in for just and equitable advice and may determine what to him seems meet in the Cause upon conference with them this being for advancement not delay of Justice and if the Chancellor or Keeper doth not use the coercive part of Imprisonment and other Process of the Court of Chancery to compel Obedience to such determination I conceive he doth not do his duty I mention this not that I think it 's absolutely necessary the King should trouble himself to hear all matters in person but I humbly conceive it not amiss for his Majesty sometimes to use his Power in Chancery as well as at Councel-board lest for want of using his Power he may be in danger of losing it and consequently his esteem in the eyes of the people may be lessen'd whilst every of his acting Judges the Chancellor or Keeper especially command respect from their Friends and fear and trembling from their Enemies I am sure Solomon's giving Judgment in the case of the Harlots gain'd him more esteem not only amongst his own Subjects but all the World over than any one other act of Government he did in all his Reign and the Kings not being exactly skill'd in the Law or the formal Rules thereof as a profess'd Lawyer should be should not at all hinder his undertaking it sometimes for a man but of common sense having heard the Case put the proofs made and the Arguments of indifferent men not byass'd Advocates or Councel only may easily discern what Judgment is fit to be given in Equitable Causes and the King hath almost infallible helps He hath his Lords Spiritual and Temporal He hath always at his call twelve Judges men skill'd in the Laws and sworn lawfully to counsel the King in all matters These or some of them he may command to attend him at such Hearings and may command them to give their opinion of the matter according to the nature of the Cause and according to the best of their judgments and the King at such hearing may give or cause to be giv'n a Sentence or Judgment according to the Opinion of the majority of them and this course is the best and was the old way of judging of Equity and if us'd some times would make Chancellors and Keepers more regard what they do But if the King should not be minded to meddle in person with determining any Causes his referring of the examination of Chancery-Decrees to persons fit and able of judgment and knowledge to do it may suffice better then to leave it wholly to his Chancellors single judgment For securius expediuntur negotia comissa pluribus plus vident oculi quam oculus There is at this day a standing Commission enroll'd in Chancery to all the Judges of Westminster hall the Master of the Rolls and the other Masters in Chancery impowering any Three of them whereof the Master of the Rolls or one of the Judges to be one in the absence of the Lord Keeper to hear and determine Causes and that is not thought to be prohibited by any Statute And if the King hath Authority and Power to appoint Commissioners for the Chancellor or Keepers ease why cannot he also give power to Commissioners to rectifie his Decrees when he mistakes The Chancellor or Keeper of the Great Seal is but the King's Deputy during pleasure 9 Rep. 99. and a Grant of that Office for life is void Cooke 4 Inst fol. 87. Upon the whole matter I must conclude I can apprehend no warrantable objection can be made against this sort of proceeding or that any Statute doth or intended to take it away so that I shall take that point for granted That it is very lawful for the King to appoint Referrees or Commissioners to rectifie Chancery-Decrees or Decrees of any other Court of Equity The next thing to be considered is Whether any of the King's Privy-Councel may be Referrees or Commissioners for that purpose notwithstanding the said Statute For they are men of so great Honour Knowledge and Integrity and of such Fortune and Estates as to scorn Bribery and therefore very fit to assist in this matter and I hold They may for the prohibition of the Act extends to their not acting as being only and barely Privy-Councellors It doth not say Privy-Councellors shall not act by virtue of any other Authority And this thing proves it self plainly in the Case of the now Lord Keeper and Lord Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas who are both of the Privy-Councel yet examine draw into question determine and dispose of the Lands Tenements Goods and Chattels of the Subjects with a witness by virtue of another Authority derived from the King and if They may do it why may not any other of the Privy Councel act by a lawful Authority in those matters as well as They The next thing considerable is if the Lord Chancellor or Keeper ought to command performance according to the course of the Chancery of what such Referrees do order by virtue of such Reference when he himself is not one of them as well as when he is and I hold he ought First for whatever Order is made in the House of Lords upon determining an Appeal from Chancery-Decrees it is sent to the Chancery to compel Obedience thereto and in this respect I conceive the House of Lords are but the Kings Referrees and do legally and truly derive their Authority from the King as is prov'd by the due Proceedings upon Writs of Error and the ancient form of Petitions against Chancery-Decrees before-mentioned So that such Referrees do act by Authority derived from the King as well as the House of Lords in Parliament And further the practice hath been for the Lord Chancellor or Keeper to pursue what is done by such Referrees for what was resolved by the Judges upon the References mentioned in Sir Edw. Cooke