A Declaration of the especial untruths contained in Morgan's Bill exhibited in Parliament against Bowd●●● Meggs; jones, and others, with Answers thereunto as hereunder followeth. Viz. Objection. THe title of his Bill and Brief, declareth Morgan to be first Plaintiff against Bowdler and the rest, and Bowdler to be Plaintiff against him afterwards, upon a Cross Bill. Answer. BOwdler was first Plaintiff against Morgan; and it was five Months after, before Morgan preferred a Cross Bill against Bowdler, Meggs, jones, and the rest. Object. 1609. 6. May. Essington and Barlow were Partners with Bowdler, Turner, jones, and Sir john Bourchier, in the Farm of the Alloms. Ans. Neither Essington, nor Barlow, were Partners with them, as by answer upon Oath made in Chancery appears. Object. Meggs lent his name and credit to Bowdler without limitation, to take up moneys to supply the Allom business, whereby Meggs, Bowdler, and the rest became as one joint body, and were known both in England and in foreign parts, by the name of the Allom Company, or Bowdler and Company. Ans. Meggs being Father in Law to Bowdler, did out of love to him lend him his name, to support his credit, yet was not Meggs a Partner with Bowdler, or any of Allom Farmers in the Allom business, and therefore they were not as one joint body. Object. 1609. October. Bowdler and Company made choice of Morgan to be their Factor at Middleborough, and when Morgan's credit would not serve to procure moneys enough to pa● their Bills of Exchange; he wrote to them of it, directing his Letters to Bowdler and Company, and what ever he required by the said Letters to be performed by Meggs, Turner o● any of them, the same was performed by them. Ans. Morgan was Servant to Bowdler, long before he had any dealings in the Allom business; and was by him employed at Middleborough, in other affairs, and it is true that afterwards he was also employed to pay Bills of Exchange for the Allom business; but it was o●ly by his Master Bowdler, and not by appointment of the Allom Company. Besides when Morgan did direct some few Bills of Exchange from Middleborough to be paid here in London by Meggs and Turner; they severally wrote to him that he should do so no more, for if he did they would not accept the Bills nor pay them, so that whatsoever Morgan required of them was not performed. Object. To enable Morgan's credit at Middleborough, they sent him several unlimited Letters of credit, some in one kind some in another; thereby declaring to all men that whosoever trusted their Factor Morgan, they all thereby obliged themselves for repayment thereof. Ans. Albeit several Letters of Credit, were sent to Morgan, yet they were not all unlimited. Neither all of them as general warrant to all men that would tr● Morgan. For Meggs did only subscribe to one Letter which was sent to one particular man; and that was to remain in force but till it should be recalled, which was recalled within three Months after, whereby neither any man else could challenge Meggs for his Debtor, nor that particular man for longer time then till repayment of 〈◊〉 sum only which was lent within the time aforesaid, so also, some other of the Partners never gave any Letter of Credit to Morgan, and that which was given by oath them was also recalled, and Morgan promised to make no further use of it. Object. 1611. 5. February. Morgan came into England, and accounted for all things which he had not formerly accounted for. And was made free of London by Bowdler, and received up his Ind and the Bonds of his Friends, and Bowdler publicly acknowledged Morgan's faithful service, which according to custom of London is a release for all time past. Ans. About that time Morgan came into England, and did deliver unto Bowdler a Copy of an Account, which he pretended to be just and perfect; but Morgan neither required Bowdler to account with him thereupon, neither could Bowdler then have done it. For he had not received Accounts from other his Factours in ot● parts beyond Seas; with whom Morgan's Accounts must have correspondence in many particulars; so that Morgan did only give the Copy of an Account, but did account thereupon with his Master. Neither is any of the other pretences, a release for the time past. Object. 1612. 23. May. Morgan delivered to Bowdler and Company, his last general Account, and therein did set down the particulars of 37794. l. 4. s. 7. d. Flemish Money, which is 22600. l. sterling then owing by them by exchange and at interest; whereof 6251. l. 10. s. 2. d. Flemish, which is sterling 3460. l. was due to Morgan, and forth residue, Morgan was then engaged as their Factor. Ans. Morgan did not deliver this last general Account before March, the 23. An. 1612. which was 10. months after the time pretended; Neither doth this Account contain the particulars of 37794. l. 4. s. 7. d. Flemish, of debt then owing, whererin Morgan pretends he was engaged. Forth collection of debts therein made to be owing amounts to but 10180. l. 14. s. 3. d. to Strangers: and 6251. l. 10. s. 2. d. to himself, against which last some he maketh received with his own hand in the said Account, 5266. l. 10. s. 8. d. in part thereof; neither was he engaged for all the rest; but all Accounts being audited he is ford indebted to Bowdler. Object. 1612. 29. M●y. The said last general Account was examined and allowed of, and Bowdler sealed unto Morgan a general Release. Ans. The said Account could not be examined upon the 29. of May 1612. which was not given until ten months after May, neither was it examined in some time after, nor ever allowed. But it is true, that Bowldler sealed a general release to Morgan upon the 29. of May, aforesaid: which was only upon trust and conficience of Morgan's promise to justify his former Accounts when they should be examined, and to give up his last general Account within short time after. For Morgan pretended that this release would be a means to procure him credit from his brother Francis Morgan and other friends, whereby to follow his trade and dealing, for which he had served the term of his Apprenticehood, upon proof of which trust in the Court of Chancery, he was ordered to account notwithstanding the s●id Release. Object. 1612. 31. May. Morgan demanding payment of Meggs, he forswore his hand to all Bills of exchange produced for above 40000. l. although since he hath confessed, that he ga● Bowdler leave to subscribe the same. Ans. Morgan did not demand any payment of Meggs before April 1617. which was five years after the date aforesaid: at which tine, Neither in May 1612. were any more of Meggs his Bills unpaid, which Bowdler had subscribed but for 940. l. sterling: and they were all under-written by M●ggs his authoity and with his privity. Neither did Meggs deny his authority given to Bowdler in the subscription; albeit he charged Bowdler with his promise, of saving him harmless. Object. 1618. 7. October. One Commission being expired, and no end made, the Commissioners persuaded Morgan to enter Bond to stand to their Award, which he consented; provided, that all th● Defendants would do the like, whereupon, Meggs, Bowdler, and Turner, only sealed Bonds, but the rest refused, which Morgan disliking, procued a new Cmmission with direction a● in the first Commission, but they refused thereupon to proceed as Coommissioners, because Morgan was bound, and but three of the Defendants. Ans. The Commissioners did not persuade Morgan, but Morgan persuaded and entreated the Commissioners to go on in an arbitrary course: when the first Commission was expired and he voluntarily did offer to seal new Bonds to stand to their award; and he did accept of Meggs, Turner and Bowdler their Bonds without the rest saying, that those were the men he aimed at, and desired the Commissioners to proceed without the other Bonds, as by Morgan's hand in the Book of the Commissioners appeareth. And touching the refusal of the Commissioners to proceed upon the Commission, which Morgan brought down; it was because the Lord Chancellor did the next day superseade the same with an other Commission of other content. Object. 1618. 5. january. They made an Award, and ordered Morgan to cease all Suits against Megs, jones, Essington, Barlow, and Sir john Bourchier, with diurs other things not referred to them. Ans. They did not in their award order any such matter; neither did meddle with any thing which was not referred. Object. 21. january. The Award was ordered by the Lord Chancellor, to be spared for 11. Causes. Ans. The order for suspending the said Award contains but five Causes, and they are particularly and fully answered by the Cerificate of the Commissioners, of the ninth of February, 1618. yet to give a particular answer to them all; it followeth. Obiect. 1. THey never took the Answer of Meggs and Bowdler, to Morgan's Bill, whereunto they had demurred, which was the first thing directed in their Commission. Ans. 1. THe Commissioners did often call to Morgan, to declare his exceptions to the said answers, but he said it should not be needful; if ●ey made an Award as he hoped th● would do. And so indeed, at last when they had examined all Accounts, and found Morgan to be indebted to Bowdler, they did t●inke it unnecessary. Obiect. 2. They did not examine any Witnesses or Parties during all their proceed, but only john Greennowes, who is deeply engage for Bowdler, and being chargeabl● 〈◊〉 these moneys himself, swears to free himself by charging Morgan therewith. Ans. 2. They did examine or cause to be examined at Hambrough in Germany, one john Qua●les, Factor to Alderman Gore, whose Depositions are aswell returned i● the Court, as those of john Greenowes, and are upon Record. Besides, when Morgan refused to take his Oath, or to confess the truth ●efore the Commissioners; touching moneys pretended by him to have been paid to Bowater, Host, Cleave, and others, than the Commissioners did examine the said partis who did confront Morgan face t● face, and forced him to confess the truth, as by their Certificate upon Record in Court appears. Also it is to be considered that in exarining of Merchant's Accounts, the 〈◊〉 cannot be so full and sufficient testimony produced upon Oath, as by the comparing of Factor's Accounts and Letters, who had weekly Correspondence one with the other Lastly, john Greenowes was not chargeable to Bowdler, for such money as he received by Morgan's appointment, but he rather by his Oa● made himself liable to the ●ai● Morgan; so that he did not swear to free himself. Obiect. 3. The Commissioners charged Morgan for all seven of the Defendants. Ans. 3. It is untrue, that he is charged with one penny for any of the Defendants, for the Accounts do concern Bowdler only; although Morgan had maliciously made the rest Defendants. Obiect. 4. They charged Morgan also for three others, viz. Pasfijld, Greenowes, and Aniscombe Bowdler's Factors, who were mere strangers to the Suit, and to their Arbitrement. Ans. 4. These three Factors had continual weekly dealings, and intercourse with Morgan touching receipts and payments of money each for other, and Accounts passed between them and Bowdler, and Morgan; so that necessarily Morgan must be charged with such sums of money, as the said Factors or any of them did pay to him or by his appointment, as on the other side, the Commissioners discharged M●●gan of such moneys as he paid for Bowdler to the said Factors. Obiect. 5. The Commissioners allowed Bowdler diverse great sums which they pretend Morgan received for Bowdler, in Anno 1607. and 1608. which is before the time that Bowdler demands relief by his own Bill, for he pretends Errors of 1609. 1610. 1611. & 1612. only. Ans. 5. There is but only one parcel allowed to Bowdler before Anno 1609. which is only for 112. l. 13. s. 4. Flemish money, and it was apparently proved to the Commissioners against Morgan by his own Letters that he was to be charged with it. Besides, before the Commissioners did enter into examination of the Accounts and differences of the parties, they caused each party to set down in writing his demands against the other, at which time Morgan made no such exception. Obiect. 6. The Commissioners Awarded Morgan to allow to Bowdler great sums which he never demanded by Bill or otherwise; which Morgan never heard off till after their Award, whereby he could not answer them. Ans. 6. This accusation is most false, For the Commissioners have not allowed to Bowdler any one sum, which at the first meeting before the Commissioners, was not demanded in writing but they have given Bowdler much short of his demands, and caused him to particularise his demands of interest, whereby the sums are varied from the first demand, and made less, but not more than at the first, and likewise a Copy of the said demands was given to Morgan, and he did answer thereunto before the Commissioners. Obiect. 7. They allowed to Bowdler 8000. l. more than he did demand by Bill, for he demands but 3000. l. and they have given him 11000 l. Ans. 7. The Commissioners according to the manner of Merchants; at first meeting required both parties to express their demands in writings, and accordingly they proceeded in the examining of their Accounts; for the order of reference to the Commissioners, was to examine the Accounts and not the Bill. Also Bowdler demands by Bill: relief for 3000. l. which Morgan should owe him; accounting it over and above all that Morgan had paid for him; of which kind of payments, the Commissioners allowed to Morgan, 8000. l. Flemish at the least. Besides, by way of account exhibited in writing before the Commissioners, Bowdler did demand much more than 11000. l. Obiect. 8. They Awarded, Turner, and his Company to free Morgan from Peter Courten, and 40. other Creditors of theirs in all for above 18000. l. sterling, yet they never mention who that Company was for those that truly were of that Company, viz. Meggs, jones, Essington, Barlow, and Sir john Bourchier, they Award Morgan to cease all Suits against them by name, but order not them to cease Suit against Morgan. Ans. 8. First, of the pretended some of 18000. l. there was paid to Courten 12000. l. and diverse other sums to other men; but Morgan was never engaged for any part thereof, except to Courten, although to satisfy his clamorous disposition, the Commissioners did Award him to be saved harmless. Secondly, Morgan had the same security under the name of Bowdler and his company which his Letter of Attorney did mention; and he did know the company better than the Commissioners. Thirdly, Meggs, Essington and Barlow were none of the Company. Neither did the Commissioners order that Morgan should release to them or to Sir john Bourchier, as truly is alleged. Obiect. 9 They Awarded Morgan to seal a Release unto Bowdler, whereby Bowdler's Counterbond of a 1000 l. sealed to Morgan to save him harmless of the Bond of 50 which he sealed to Meggs, for Bowdler should be discharged without giving Morgan any allowance for it, or Awarding Meggs to deliver up the said Bond, or seal Morgan a Rel● Ans. 9 By order of Court at the Rolls upon the 22. of April 1618. it was ordered that the Accounts between Bowdler and Morgan being then under exam●tion, before Master Barkehouse and other Commissioners; if upon perfecting of the said Examination it should appear that Morgan was indebted to Bowdler 500 l. order; then he should pay to Meggs so much as he should be to Bowdler indebted and no more; but if Bowdler were found indebted to Morgan, than the Bond of Morgan Meggs of 500 l. should be canceled; Now considering this order and that M●rgan had only sealed Bond before these Commissioners to pay to Meggs. Wha● should be found indebted to Bowdler, and not to p●y Bowdler any thing; he is not wronged by this Award in this point. For by Morgan's paying of the Awarded sum● Meggs, his Bond is discharged, and he being found in Bowdler's debt; Bowdler's counterbond ought to be discharged. Obiect. 10. They Award Morgan to pay 579. l. 6. s. 0. unto Bowdler within three months; yet they limit Bowdler, Turner, and his Company no time to free Morgan of engagements for them, for above 18000. l. sterling. Ans. 10. The engagements are only imaginary and not real; yet the Commissioners did provide; that if any suit were commenced against Morgan; he shoul● thereof saved harmless; from time to time upon notice by him given to Bowdler or Turner, of the said suit, etc. If they failed herein; he might take remedy upon th● Bonds according to the Award. For the Commissioners did not order Morgan to seal any release to them or they to him before; all Articles of their Award were respectively performed. Obiect. 11. Lastly, the Commissioners did not pursue the directions of their Commission in any one particular, but did proceed most erroneously. Ans. 11. They did not vary from the directions of the Court in any thing, except by the entreaty and consen of all parties, as by their Certifcate of the ninth of February 1618. appeareth. Besides, being at last, become Arbitrators; and the said course undertaken by persuasion of all parties and Bonds mutually sealed to abide their Award; they were no longer bound to the formal proceed, and directions of the Court; but for their better satisfaction they might proceed as Merchants in t●● examination of Merchant's Accounts. Object. 1618. 6. February. The five Arbitrators petitioned the Lord Chancellor that they might not certify the particulars of their Award. Ans. This is most untrue, for at this time they were not ordered to certify any particulars, and did not require any other thing of the Lord Chancellor, but that they might keep their day Book and other Papers, whereby they might be able at all times to justify their Award, and to show the Reasons thereof. Object. 19 Februay. The Commissioners or Arbitrators would not obey any of the orders of Court for redelivery of Morgan's Papers. Ans. As Morgan upon one day procured an order which commanded the redelivery, so Bowdler the next day procured a countermand. But at ●●ct when the order wa● settled they did obey. Object. 1619. 15. Aprilis. 16. ●●ne. The Commissioners being ordered to certify to the Court, the Reasons of their Award, they still refused until Morgan forced them by an Attachment of the 20. of july, 1619. Ans. They were never served with Attachment; neither was their any cause why Morgan should press them to bring in their Reasons, for that order was begot upon the motion of Bowdler's Council and not of Morgan's; beside, the said order for certifying the particular Reasons of their Award was made but vpo● the 16. of june 1619. And they returned a Certificate upon the fift day of August following, which contained the particular labours of 160. days spent in that examination, and filled 150. sheets of Paper, so that less time could not be allowed for such a Certificate which was so exactly and fully declared. Object. 1619. 5. August. They certify the particulars of their Award, and certify that Master William Towerson, and Master Ralph Freeman, were privy to all the●r said Proceed. Ans. They did not certify them to be privy to all their proceed, but did particularly set down what parcels they were privy unto. Object. 18. Decemb. That six other Commissioners were appointed, who assisted with the Auditor of the Chancery, were to examine all Accounts, Letters and Writings, as also the Award of the Arbitrators. Ans. It is true that six other Commissioners were appointed, but two of them were Masters of the Court, and appointed to be continually presert, or no meeting without them, who out of their formality, overruled the Merchants. And the order of Reference made unto these Committees was so full of restriction, that thereby Morgan false Accounts could not be perfectly discovered, neither could the truth of Bowdler's case be made apparent, as by the order itself appeareth. And the said Committees, because the Certificate of the first Commissioners was damned by the Lord Chancellor, before he referred the consideration thereof unto them, therefore they could not allow of their testimony in the said Certificate; so that it was to no purpose that they were to examine it. And likewise other Accounts, Letters and Writings of Factors could not be admitted, because not proved in Court. Object. That the six last Committees with the Auditor had often conference with the first Arbitrators. Ans. 13. Marc. The Committees and the Arbitrators never had meeting together, for Master Towerson one of the last Committees, did often move the Masters of the Court that they might have called the Arbitrators unto them; but they would not consent thereunto. Object. The Cause being heard in open Court, in presence of all parties and their Council, neither party nor Council denied the truth of the last Certificate, as by order appears. Ans. 1620. 6. May. Many Objections were made against the said Certificate, by every one of the parties, and also their Council; albeit the order doth untruly otherwise declare, but the corruptions of those times was such that truth could take no place, either in orders or otherwise. Object. The Cause being heard i● open Court, it was finally decreed. Ans. 19 june. 24. Dict●. The Decree was made after the 26. of june, but not in open Court, neither at a Seal, but very privately in my Lord's Chamber, no one of the parties being present at the pronouncing thereof.