Page:Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Volume 1.djvu/485

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
14. ROBINSON: ANTICIPATIONS
471

marked for destruction. Bishops had presided over it, kings had favoured it, its jurisdiction had been extended (substantially, as time shewed, in compliance with the wants and spirit of the age), but illicitly, irregularly, and tyrannically. An injured public declared that it swarmed with "a numberless armado of caterpillars" and "Egyptian grasshoppers;" and in 1653 an act, which never operated, passed for its abolition.[1] Meanwhile, it had been reforming itself. In 1649 the Commissioners of the Seals, Whitelock, Keble, and l'Isle, assisted by Lenthal, M. R., in provisional orders, forbade prolix, scandalous, and ambiguous pleadings and set bounds to multiplicity of suits, to suits in formá pauperis and to the granting of injunctions: these were granted often for the sake of the fees, and dissolved by connivance with the Common Law judges, that they, when they went circuit, might not have nothing to do.[2] Many other attempts were made by the Commissioners and by the Commons to improve the court. But the "cases" of the latter were "far more precious than their carcases," and little was done till the Committee of 1653 suggested the best part of Cromwell's famous ordinance.[3] That passed on the 22nd of August, 1654. It was bitterly attacked by the bar,[4] and not unjustly; for it aimed with more earnestness than skill at rapidity, simplicity, and cheapness. Its prevailing tendency and that of the orders of 1649 and of public opinion was to deprive Equity of what she had taken from Law, and to protect obligors and mortgagees. Plaintiffs were to give security for costs; as many admissions as possible were to be made by each party; each was to suffer for causing unnecessary expense; witnesses were to be properly examined, but not, it seems, in court. On the other hand, no case was to be heard for more than one day. The schedule again, besides

  1. Jones, "The new returna brevium," etc. Hudson, 25 "Archaeol" 349, foll.: J. Coke, "A vindication," etc. "An exact relation of the proceedings and transactions of the Parliament which began July 4, 1653, by a member thereof."
  2. Orders in Beames: Jones, "Judges judged," etc., p. 92.
  3. Whitelock, 519, 548: Jones, "The new ret. brev." etc. A 6: 6 Somers's Tract, 202, foll.
  4. Stt. 1654, c. 44; 1656, c. 10: Whitelock, 621-7. Cp. 4 Comm. Journ. 701.