1828.] The Court of Chancery. 563 



quarian controversy. " During the whole of this period," says Mr. 

 Parkes (p. 56) [[down to the reign of Edward IV.] " it is scarcely 

 possible to define the relative powers and duties of the council and the 

 chancery. The creation of the Consilium Regis to, or its conjunction 

 with, the Court of Chancery, is one of the most doubtful points of Eng- 

 lish history ; and involves the still more doubtful origin of the judicial 

 power and appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords." From the re- 

 servation of deciding on the more important causes, it may, however, be 

 presumed, that the judicial functions of the monarch gradually fell into 

 a mere general power of reviewing the judgments of his officers, usually 

 exercised with the assistance and concurrence of his privy council j and 

 this, at a later period, may have given way to, and introduced the juris- 

 diction of the Lords. 



The growing importance of the office made it a matter of interest to 

 the haughty barons that the election of the party to fill it should be 

 somewhat under their control. Among the subjects of their petition 

 for redress of grievances which they presented to Henry III., was the 

 demand that " the chancellor was to be chosen by twenty-four com- 

 missioners, twelve to be appointed by the king, and twelve by the barons" 

 Whether successful in this particular application, does not appear ; but, 

 irt another part of the work, it is stated, upon the authority of several 

 ancient writers, " that both the chancellor, and other great officers, were 

 originally appointed by Parliament." " Although," says Selden, " the 

 king might make election of his own secretary, yet the Parliament would 

 first know and allow him that must be trusted with the power over the 

 estates of so many of the people ; and therefore, in these times, both 

 place and displace him as they saw expedient/' An attempt was at a 

 later period made to regain the salutary control over the appointment 

 which had intermediately been lost ; and " in the celebrated petition and 

 advice of both houses of Parliament, to the king, 2d June, 1642," was 

 the proposal, that " the lord high steward of England, lord chancellor, or 

 keeper of the great seale, the two chief justices and chief baron, &c., may 

 always be chosen with the approbation of both houses of Parliament." 

 " The king," says an early writer, as might well have been presumed, 

 " received this ( with just indignation/ and the propositions he treated 

 with ' mockery and scorn/" (p. 116). By whomsoever appointed, 

 however, the characters of the chancellors did little credit to their 

 election. Mr. Parkes mentions (p. 22) that for the first twelve centuries 

 " the greater number may be fairly judged by the character of one of 

 these ecclesiastical chancellors Robert Bluot, Bishop of Lincoln, a whole- 

 sale dealer in church preferment (very unlike our present chancellors !), 

 and who died in prison for his misdeeds (where many more ought to 

 have expired), of whom Coke dryly observes, ' that he lived without 

 love, and died without pity, save of those who thought it pity he lived 

 so long." The external circumstances of later periods forbad power to 

 display itself in the same scenes of lawless violence and open rapine, 

 which marked the career of the earlier chancellors ; but to the same prin- 

 ciple of irresponsible power it is owing that it was not until CQmpara- 

 tively recent times that the justice of the Court of Chancery ceased to 

 be aware of ill-disguised traffic in the hands of its profligate adminis- 

 trators ; whilst its high functions were constantly perverted to aid the 

 cause of tyranny, persecution, and all unrighteousness. The lord keeper 

 Finch did not scruple to declare from the bench, that a resolution of the 



4 C 2 



