NOTE GO &amp;lt;. . 



chancellor in a cause of corruption. Secondly, because the party accused is a 

 er of the kingdom, sitting in the higher house, whom we cannot meddle with, 

 &quot;hirdly, because we have no power to give an oath. That which I request is, 

 lat those people which have been fettered with much calamity by these courses 

 lay by petition to his majesty, or otherwise, have their causes revived and 

 vised. 



Sir Edward Sackvil. This noble lord stands but yet suspected ; and I hold 

 not those gentlemen that have testified against him competent witnesses. 1. 

 Because they speak to discharge themselves. 2. Because, if he be guilty, they 

 were those who tempted him. But yet, if notwithstanding you resolve to send 

 it up to the Lords, let it be presented without any prejudicial opinion, to be 

 weighed in the balance of their lordships judgments. And if they think fit to 

 examine these witnesses, let them. 



Sir George Hastings. This adds to my grief; but this is my resolution, I 

 had rather perish with a just sentence here than escape with a guilty conscience. 

 Some moved, that Sir George Hastings and Sir Richard Young should b 

 separated till the matter were ended, but nothing ordered therein. 



Mr. Nevil. After some reluctation within me, I am resolved to speak what 

 my conscience moves me unto ; I speak for the good of my country, the honour 

 of my king, and advancement of justice. Justice is the fountain, the king the 

 head thereof, clear as the waters of Siloah, pure as the river of Damascus ; but 

 there is a derivative justice brought unto us by channels ; those are often 

 muddy, and more bitter than the waters of Marah ; such waters flow abundantly 

 in Chancery. I will not touch upon the person of him that sits in court, for he 

 is the dispenser of the king s conscience ; but because some motions are made 

 against the testimony of those gentlemen, I will say this, I think them fit to 

 sit here, because they are neither delinquents nor accused. My lord means to 

 deny it upon his honour ; but I would not have that serve his turn, for he him 

 self hath made the nobility swear in Chancery : therefore I would have their 

 lordships informed what privileges they have lost. Next I would have them 

 note the luxuriant authority of that court, and how it is an inextricable laby 

 rinth, wherein resideth such a miuotaur, as gormandizeth the liberty of all 

 subjects whatsoever. 



Mr. Recorder Finch. If we shall make but a presentation of this, we do in 

 a sort accuse him, nay, judge him, if the gentlemen be admitted to give testi 

 mony ; before it shall condemn another, it must agree with itself. 



First, 1 heard him say, he gave it as a present from himself, yet afterwards 

 he saith, he told my Lord Chancellor he had it from Awbrey. Again, A^ybrey 

 speaks not of any delivery of money himself to my Lord Chancellor. Then 

 again it is urged, that a discontented suitor wrote letters to my lord, the letters 

 are rejected, not hearkened unto : what doth this but free him 1 



In the other case; if Egerton, out of a desire to congratulate him at his 

 coming to the seal for his kindnesses and pains in former business, what wrong 

 hath he done, if he hath received a present ? And if there were a suit depend 

 ing, who keeps a register in his heart of all causes, nay, who can amongst 

 such a multitude ? And for the 6,000/. there is no colour that ever he should 

 have had any part thereof. 



For taking away the privilege of the nobility in requiring an oath, he found 

 the court possessed of it before he came there ; so that we have no sufficient 

 grounds to accuse so great a lord ; but if we shall present articles to the lords, 

 what do we (as I said before) but accuse him ? 



Sir Edward Coke. It is objected, that we have but one single witness, 

 therefore no sufficient proof. I answer, that in the 37 Eliz. in a complaint against 

 soldier-sellers, i.e. such as having warrants to take up soldiers for the wars, 

 if they pressed a rich man s son, for money they would discharge him, there 

 was no more but singularis testis in one matter ; but though they were single 

 witnesses in several matters, yet agreeing in one and the same third person, it 

 was held sufficient to prove a work of darkness, for in such works it is a marvel 

 there are any. But some object that these men are culpable, and therefore no 

 competent witnesses. I answer, they came not to accuse, but were interro- 



