Deceptio intelectus & Visus. OR THE Lawyers wiles unmasked.  
Being the Plain Innocent man's pathway, for a speedy end at a cheap Rate, in any perplexed or troublesome Cause, without Multitudes, or any bawling or wrangling Lawyers to obscure the Truth, by their Jeering, and endeavouring to daunt all that shall speak either as party, Friend, Witness or otherwise; which hath been too common.  By Edm. Leach, of London, Merchant. 

To all impartial Readers, and especially those who have been, are, or are in danger to be in such, or the like Cases hereafter Related.  
HAving been several times a Traveller in that part of America called New-England, and there finding most Causes of all sorts brought to a speedy and just End, at small charges and trouble (in some Courts for 2s 6d others for 3s 4d and the highest for 10s without having any Lawyers by their Art to make the Cause seem difficult. The Court consisting of several magistrates, would examine all Witnesses, thereby to find out the truth; and if any should speak for his friend, and aver any thing which he did not know to be true, or could not prove, he would be looked upon as one that would discredit any business that ever he should appear in for time to come, and the very worst of men there would shun his company:) And now of late coming into my Native Country, and finding one nearly related unto me to be much troubled, turmoiled, wasted, and disabled in his Estate, by perplexed and tedious suits, which I find have been of 23 years' continuance at least, I thought good (after I had looked into the Causes and finding them just and conscionable by Records and several Depositions of many honest credible Witnesses, and several other material proofs) to undertake the prosecution of those suits to a period; hoping here (where hath been accounted the best Laws in the world to be made and exercised before corruption crept in) and especially in those times of expectation of the most speedy and best Reformation of Religion and Law in the world, I doubt not (although the Petitioners Petition by reason of some defects and mistakes is laid aside) But that after the Petitioner shall have a Petition new drawn (with amendments and Additions of Matter, in a new Petition to be done by Council Learned and honest) to see, or hear of the matter to be again resumed and full and speedy justice done as anciently hath been without any rubs by reason of any forged falsehoods or cavilations of any long wound Lawyers whatsoever. But after I had undertaken the same and found such windings and turnings among them far beyond any Foxes or jugglers, that no honest man is able to deal with them in the way of their Trade. Therefore I have thought it convenient and necessary (not only for the satisfaction of my friends present and absent when I encountered with some such Lawyers, but of all o-others who be, shall, or may be so perplexed, and for a precedent of prevention for them) to publish this particular Case to the world, that all may judge whether I have cause to repent of what I have done, in standing against some of the great ones of the world in a just cause, or go on still in my prosecution, the which by the help of the Lord I am resolved to do, except I see better reason to the contrary then yet I do; hoping that some of the honest people of this Nation will join with me in petition to the supreme Authority (the Fathers of the Commonwealth) for making a Law for Redress of such like Grievances in the future, which to be effected is the desire of him, who is a Hater of Unrighteousness and Injustice, and a Lover of plain downright dealing, Truth, and honesty.  
E. L.   
The state of this particular Case in these Suits stands thus:  
THe Petitioner before mentioned is Henry More at the Common Law— Plaintiff against Thomas Wright.  
And the said Henry More in Chuancery Defendant at the Suit of T. Wright.  
Henry More at Common Law Plaintiff against Sir John Lenthal.  
The same Henry More in Chancery Defendant at the Suit of Sir Jo. Lenthal.  
Also the said H. More in the then King's Bench and London in several Suits,— Defendant at the Suit of the said Sir Jo: Lenthal.  
The said H. More in Chancery, Plaintiff against Mary Wright Administratrix of T. W.  
Also the said H. More in Chancery Defendant at her Suit.  
And now H. More in Parliament, Petitioner against Sir Jo: Bramston and Sir Thomas Malet Kts.  
First, I shall set forth the Petition to the Parliament, which followeth in these words, (viz.)  

To the supreme Authority, the Parliament for the commonwealth of ENGLAND. The humble Petition of Henry More Merchant;  
showeth,  
THat your Petitioner having judgement against one Thomas Wright for 7007 li. and 1 s. and having him in execution for the same in the Custody of Sir John Lenthall Kt; and the said Sir John suffering the said Wright to escape: Your Petitioner brought his action of debt against Sir John Lenthall for the same, and filed his Declaration in Hillary Term the 2 of February, 1641. at which time the said Wright was escaped, and at liberty: And by the Rules of the than King's Bench, where the judgement was had, and the Action brought, judgement was to be entered according to the Rules of the said Court. But to prevent the same, Sir John Bramston and Sir Thomas Malet Kts, ordered your Petitioners Declaration to be filed, as of Easter Term, 1642. by which time the Prisoner was dead: And by those Orders your Petitioner barred from his judgement due, and all proceedings upon that Declaration filed, as aforesaid; and defrauded of his Debt, and made remedles, except only against the said Judges, who made the said Orders contrary to Law and Equity, and to your Petitioners utter undoing.  
The premises considered, and for that your Petitioner hath no remedy herein in any Court of this Nation, or otherwise, but by this supreme Authority (as he is advised by many learned Counsel,) May it please your honours to take this matter into your serious Consideration, and order the same to be examined, and your Petitioner relieved, as your Wisdoms shall think fit.  
And your Petitioner shall pray, &c.   
To the Petition the Judges made their appearance upon the 29 of Sept. 1653. and made a long and tedious relation impertinent to the matters in question: Thereupon the said committee made an Order in these words following.  

Thursday, Sept. 29. 1653. At the Committee for Petitions.  
UPon hearing of Sir John Bramston and Sir Tho. Malets Answers this day to the Petition of Henry More Merchant, it is ordered, That the sixth of October next be appointed for a further hearing and examining the matter of Fact upon the said Petition; the Petitioner is then to prove, That his Declaration mentioned in his Petition was filed in Hillary Term, 1641. That the said Sir John Bramston and Sir Tho: Malet ordered the said Declaration to be filed in Easter Term after, and that the said Order and Alteration was contrary to Law.  
Anth. Rous.   
Then were the Petitioners proofs made good (that is to say) That the Declaration was filed in Hillary Term, 1641. the Order made by the late judge's Sir John Bramston and Sir Tho. Malet, and that that Order for altering the filing of the Declaration from one Term to another to be contrary to Law, by these Statutes following:  

1. Viz. Anno 9 Hen. Tertii Cap. 29. in these words, We shall sell to no man, we shall deny nor defer to no man, either Justice or Right, &c.  
2. Anno 2 Edw. Tertii Cap. 8. It shall not be commanded by the great Seal nor the little Seal to disturb or destroy common Right; and although such Commandment do come, the Justices shall not cease to do Justice in any point, &c.  
3. Anno 15 Edw. Tertii Cap. 1. They shall do even and execution of Right to all rich and poor, without having regard to any person.   
And a Gentleman council for the Petitioner related truly the course of the Court of the King's Bench as it was.  
Whereupon a Gentleman replied, and at first began with smooth language, but in the end injuriously fell foul on the Petitioners Counsel, calling him a Gentleman of the Long Robe (although he himself of the same Profession,) taxing him with not knowing the Law, nor the course of that Court of King's Bench, where the Declaration was so filed; alleging untruly, that a Copy of it according to the course of that Court should have first been delivered to Sir Jo. Lenthall; whereas in truth there was no such course nor custom in that Court when the Declaration was so filed, nor many years before, nor since, as ever I could hear of, nor is the Law so, nor can or will he in writing aver the same so to be; but I have heard the contrary affirmed by Practizers in that Court, since the matter was in some debate in the Painted Chamber at Westminster, before that honourable Committee of Parliament for Petitions; and for any such Order to be made since, there is none to be found; neither if any, were they of any force as concerning that Declaration being filed before.  
But the Judges brought one Witness who only said (as far as I remember) that he conceived it to be the practice of the Court, to deliver Declarations or Copies thereof to privileged persons the same Term that they were filed. And another Gentleman, being a Practizer in the same Court also, being called in and sworn on the judge's behalf, was demanded the same, or some of the questions as the first Gentleman was, who did not say so much as the first, but contrary (as I have been since informed,) I having so many to oppose me, and none who did or would at all help me or any to testify or reveal any thing to me in this Cause (because against such powerful persons) but what they were strictly examined unto, and brought to answer by command; and the Judges having many coming willingly at the first call, or without any sending for at all, some of which being present at that Debate were called to testify; But (as I have been informed by some standing near them since) after some whispering of some of the judge's party, the taking of their oaths was spared: And I have been informed by many since the matter in agitation before the said honourable Committee, that many, if they should be called in upon their oaths, can and must testify, that the course of that Court of King's Bench when the said Declaration was so filed, was, and yet is, that any man who hath cause of Action against any privileged person in that Court, may in his own proper person (being the most ancient usage) or by his Attorney, file, or cause to be filed a Declaration against such privileged person within any Term (and as some of them say any time before the continuance day, being about three or four days' next after such Term,) and that the giving to him, or to his usual Attorney or Agent in that Court, a Copy or notice of the filing of such Declaration any time before the essoyn day, being about three or four days before the next subsequent Term, is sufficient to compel such person privileged, as aforesaid, to answer to the same, that subsequent Term, or else to enter judgement against him: And most Practizers, with whom I have conferred about these businesses, have informed me, that the like may be done to enforce an Answer, or obtain judgement to be entered, if such Declaration should be filed, and no Copy thereof delivered, or any notice given until another Term, although a year or divers years after, or the essoyn day of the then subsequent Term, in which the Plaintiff shall call for and obtain Rules to answer to be entered: And the major part of ancient Practizers say, that it is but in courtesy (so that a Declaration be filed) to give any copy, or so much as notice thereof, to any that have appeared in that Court, but that in Law they (being intended to be under custody of the Marshal) or some for them, aught to take notice of, and answer to what Declarations be or shall be in the same Court filed against them, or otherwise judgement to be entered at the prayer of the Plaintiff or his Attorney hath been accustomed, and by Law and of right aught to be entered against such Defendant for such Plaintiff, and in Justice not denied or delayed: And the same custom hath been and is, and the Law is so against such Marshal upon and for the same reason, and much more stronger, being always (while the Court is open) there present in person, or so intended, and some of his Agents or Officers are never missing, who are to, and do attend upon all his occasions there.  
And some Ancient Clerks are of opinion, 
This the judge's Council allowed & confessed, which if I had had time to speak to at large, I should have made appear did contrary and confound a great part of that which he spoke on the bebalf of the judges.  that after a Declaration filled against a privileged person in that Court, the course and custom hath been and the Law is (as I am advised by Council) and doubt not but to make good, he ought to answer from day to day, or Judgement to be entered against him at the prayer of the Plaintiff, And some of those that were called on the behalf of the Judges and not sworn, and other practizers standing amongst them if they had been sworn and strictly examined on the behalf of the Petitioner, could, and must have testified some of them all, and the others of them the greatest part, as I have here set forth on the behalf of the Petitioner.  
And after the Gent. Council for the Judges thought he had given me a check (saying, He himself had sat in such places as did the honourable Committee, and in a frowning manner, that he did not use to hear such language from such a fellow as I was, (as I conceive) to dash me out of countenance, and cause the honourable Committee, and the company standing by, to have an ill opinion of me, spining out time in vain, by impertinent, and untrue repetitions, until the night drew on, purposely to weary out the Committee and those that stood about them, and to bring into, and leave the Cause in a sog raised from the mud and Jakes houses at S. Katherine's, that it might never be found again: all which matters used by him I could and would have answered and cleared on the Petitioners behalf, and left his first old Chancery clients in the Mists, Mazes, and Labyrinths into which he imagineth he hath driven the Petitioner, whom I doubt not but clearly to bring out. And as for the Language he said concerning me, I shall say but little, but that I say shall be truth only, and not any knowing untruth, and I will not willingly take or detain any thing of any man's against his will, which I shall not deserve, nor disclose any thing of any man's that will trust me, which shall prejudice him; but as I have, so I hope I shall in a conscionable way (by the Lord's help) maintain myself and family, without taking any such course as to take money of men, and so cause them to let the whole weight of their Causes lie upon me, and never come to perform that which I was hired to do (by which it may be, a whole family is ruined) nor keep the money and papers of a client eight or ten days, by which time I might pick out what I could, and then send all back again the day before trial and turn to be council on the other side, neither ever was it my trade to study how to daunt all that should speak either as party, Friend, or Witness, thereby to pervert Justice, and cause Righteousness to be carried out of the true channel.  
And after the Gent. had cavilled what he could against the Petitioners proofs and made what he could of the slender testimonies on his client's behalf then to stave me off before I could have time to reply to what untruths were alleged; for further to any impertinent or flourishing cavillations I neither then did intend to speak, to trouble the honourable Committee or company about them, nor now to spend writing and paper in vain; but because words presently go into the air, and vanish on a sudden, and so may not be remembered by many of the parties present when they were uttered, and so to be accounted of some validity against the Petitioner, whereby the Petition did not take effect (as some of the Petitioners adversaries have boasted,) though what they said or urged against the equity or lawfulness of the Petitioners Cause was of no more force against it then a feather in the wind.  
But I finding the Petition ready drawn, and conceiving the Petitioner had had it viewed by council, I obtained it to be read before I showed it to any council, (some of whom afterwards informed me that it was defective,) upon which as I believe the proceedings upon the same are stayed, yet I hope upon a new Petition to be well drawn by advice of council (if I can procure any) the matter of the first Petition supplied with other, will be resumed again, and the Petitioner have relief therein: But because my Acquaintance should not think the Cause quite lost until it can be set right again, I shall first repeat the effect of the worst that was said against the Equity of the same, 
* This is a mere fiction, and so proved by the several proceedings in Chancery.  which (as I take it) was, that the Bond of 7000 l. upon which the judgement was obtained, was gained by fraud and circumvention, by enticing Wright into a room or chamber in St. Katherine's, having a privy-house or trap-door hanging over the Thames, and there forcing him to seal the Bond without consideration.  

* The decretal Order then made was grounded upon the oaths of Wallis and Waleworth, the one indicted and proved a cheat, the other after the oath made fled; no decree ever signed or enrouled, nor colour of proof to ground any such decree upon.  And that thereupon the Lord Keeper, Coventry, decreed the Bond to be delivered up to be canceled, which never was, but the Bond violently taken from More in open Court.  
The truth of the matter hereafter-followeth, 
It appears by some Orders, that the Gentleman was of council in the Cause, and may be acquainted therewith, and where the infamy and foulness lies, I shall show immediately.  which Mr Maynard, speaking largely at the Debate before the Committee, seemed to take notice of, saying, That it was an Infamous Cause, and that he knew it, being acquainted therewith all along, and at the beginning, and that it was the foulest Cause that ever came under Westminster Roof; which indeed had been so, if all the lies which Wright put in his Bill, and all that the Lawyers have said, had been true. A Bill indeed was exhibited against Mr More (and his only Witnesses to the Bond, which were three) by Wright in Chancery in the sixth year of Carolus Rex, and therein was alleged, 
* Nothing at all of this proved in the Books, or otherwise.  That Mr More did draw and entice Wright into a Tavern in St Katherine into a Room (at the foot of the stairs of which was a Trap-door hanging over the Thames) and that money being paid to Wright by More, which Wright pretended More owed him, through fear Wright sealed and executed the Bond in question.  

* This positively all proved by those three Witnesses, being examined by order of Court.  Mr More and his three Witnesses, the other Defendants, answered, and denied all practice and circumvention; but said, that the Bond upon payment of money by More to Wright 
* And confessed after by Wright (before three other substantial and credible Witnesses also examined in Chancery) to be freely and willingly done.  was willingly and freely sealed and executed, and that Mr More parted from Mr Wright lovingly from the house, where he stayed behind above an hour after, and seemed very well pleased.  
Some Witnesses were examined on the behalf of Wright, but spoke nothing to the matters in question: Yet he obtained a hearing in the Cause about two or three Terms after his Bill exhibited; at which Mr Noy, being one of his council, said to the said Wright, he could not help him: and the Lord Ke●per Coventry said, that he found no cause of relief for Wright, but ordered, That briefs should be made of the Cause on both sides, the one to avoid the Bond, and the other to support it, and then he would hear the Cause again upon the briefs.  
Mr More thereupon caused briefs to be made, and feed divers council about the business against another hearing, which he expected; But afterwards out of all course the L. Keeper Coventry sent for More to attend the Court with his Bond, and he attending with it there, the Lord Keeper (having other Judges with him unacquainted with the former proceedings) heard two Viva Voce Witnesses, the one named Robert Wallis, the other Francis Waleworth, one of which afterwards confessed, that Wright gave him 50s. to swear for him, and had promised to give him 50s. more; the other stood convicted at Newgate for a Cheater, and otherwise a grievous Offender.  

* This for the most part in the decretal Order, of which the Gentleman made such a noise, which he would have been ashamed of, if he had repeated the whole truth, which I shall express by and by.  And thereupon in the presence of those Judges, so unacquainted as aforesaid, and sitting still and saying nothing, the Lord Keeper made a decretal Order, 
* Of this I can make good proof by Viva Voce Witnesses, if need be.  That the Bond should be delivered up to be canceled; and commanded More to deliver it up in Court, which he refused; then by command of the Lord Keeper Coventry violent hands were laid on Mr More, and his pockets rifled, and all things there taken out; and the Bond not being found there, his hands in Court also were violently unclasped, and his Bond being there found, was taken from him by force, or, as he hath often said, robbed of it: And an Issue (of per minus) being entered, and thereupon Wright being informed that he was in danger notwithstanding the Bond was taken from Mr More, he caused the Lord Keeper several times to have the decretal Order signed, that he might have a Decree made and enroled thereupon: But his Lordship being informed (as it is proved in another Suit in that Court concerning the same matter) 
I have heard say, that Wright did report also, that he gave 1500 l. of the 2000 l. to the L. K. and that he gave his Secretary a suit and cloak lined through with Plush, besides 100 l. in money.  that the subornation and perjury of the Viva Voce Witnesses was public, and that Wright had boasted much of the said Order, and told it about, that he had now accomplished his end, although it cost him dear, near about two thousand pounds, and that one of the Witnesses were run away, 
* And so since he hath been found several times convicted, as was made so to appear in the Lord's House of Parliament; and for such things were so taken notice of by the Lord's Commissioners for the Great Seal.  and that the other was sound a common Cheat and Swearer for money, and otherwise a heinous Offender, the Lord Keeper never did, but refused to sign the decretal Order so highly esteemed of: But let the Gentleman consider of these lines, and say what more he please, and he shall hear further from me. And after the death of the L. Keeper C. it was several times moved before the Lord Littleton to be done, besides other things inconvenient; But Wright and his council were denied, after they had put Mr More to great charges, long attendance, trouble, labour and travel.  
In Hillary Term, 16 Car. Rex (after a verdict before the Lord Chief Justice Bramston) Mr More obtained a judgement in the Court of King's Bench upon the Issue before mentioned, being for 7000 l. upon the Bond with damages and costs: And in Michaelmas, 17 Car. Rex, Wright was charged in execution for it, in the custody of Sir J. L. then Marshal, 
Proved in the Depositions in Chancery.  &c. And Wright being so in execution, offered to Mr More 2000 l. and security for the residue of the Debt; all the same appearing to be due by the proceedings in Chancery under the great Seal of England. But before any part thereof was satisfied, 
Witnesses to prove escape now dead.  Sir J. L. suffered Wright to escape out of execution. Mr More in Hillary Term, 17 Car. Rex, ten days before the end of the Term, caused an Action of Debt to be brought for the Debt and Damages, and then filed a Declaration against the said Sir J. L. for the same; and he, to deprive Mr More of his Debt, and remedy for the same, in Trinity Term, 18 Car. Rex (only by Affidavit, deposing that he had not a copy of the Declaration delivered until Easter Term, and that he had retaken Wright in the Vacation before Easter Term then next before, notwithstanding that Mr More had several Rules against Sir J. L. for judgement upon the said Declaration so filed,) he the said Sir I. L. in Trinity Term, 18. (although he had before promised to bring in his Plea, and failed, having taken warning for trial) procured an Order to be made by Sir Jo. Bramston and Sir Tho. Malet in open Court the first, and confirmed the second day, 
If Judges can or have power to alter the filing of Declarations (let it be upon what ground soever they can pretend) without the consent of both parties, no man can be safe to recover any debt whatsoever.  that the Declaration filled in Hill. Term, 17. Car. Rex should stand filed as of Easter Term, 18 Car. Rex; upon the motion of Mr More (by his council) against it, by which motion cause was showed to the contrary. And for that Mr More (being advised that that Order if it should stand would deprive him of his Debt) several times moved in Court and otherwise, and moved those judges to alter the same, but could not prevail; and that notwithstanding the earnest solicitation of Mr More for his judgement of the Court above four years to his great expenses, travel and trouble, after about 15 Orders made in the Cause, the said Order was confirmed.  
And the said Sir J. L. made a great bustle in the Chancery, exhihiting his Bill there, and setting forth all the lies and scandals (in the said Bill of old Wright mentioned) which were forged and feigned as aforesaid: And notwithstanding Mr More denied the same in his Answer, and made it appear in the proceedings and proofs in the Cause of the Widow Wright (Administratrix of the said Thomas Wright concerning the matter in question) which was dismissed; and by his proofs in the Suit, wherein he obtained a Decree in Chancery against her, Sir J. L. obtained an Injunction at the Rolls before his Brother (which after, before the Lords Commissioners was ordered to stand dissolved; unless Sir I. Lenthall would confess a judgement of 7007 l. 
This it seemeth the Judges had notice of, and had seen the papers of Wright and Sir J. L. otherwise why should they send to Mr Okeham to retain him in this Cause for them, and to offer him money, which he refused? and they and their council find out the mud and filth in St. Katherine's to throw upon Mr More, which they did or might see in Wright's Books was endeavoured before, but missed, and fell upon Wright.  and 1 s. at the Suit of Mr More, and to reserve what Equity would afford, which was principally ordered upon the pressing of Mr William Okeham solicitor for Mr More for the dissolution of the Injunction after council had given it almost over; but after the Injunction was so moved to be dissolved, and pronounced by the Lord's Commissioners, Mr Newdicate, one of the council for Mr More, moved further for a release of Errors, which was also assented to by the Court, and ordered, or otherwise the Injunction to stand dissolved. And before or after Sir I. L. had obtained the Injunction to be granted or continued by the Speaker, which was after damped by the Lord's Commissioners, unless, &c. Sir I. L. never to this day confessed any judgement to or at the Suit of the said Mr More, nor gave unto him any release of Errors, and therefore from that time to this the Injunction standeth and remaineth dissolved: 
If they had imagined they had had just defence, what need they to urge such untruths, and offer the Committee such vain things to interrupt their urgent occasions?  Yet notwithstanding the Judges laid that as a stumbling block in the Petitioners way; and before 
* He had provided a Habius Corpus to remove Mr More into his own custody, if he could not have procured bail, and yet he did swear that he set no Officer a-work, &c.  Sir J. L. to disable Mr More of prosecution for the escape, arrested him upon an Action of 1000 l. in London, and having no cause of Action against him, neither did nor durst declare nor proceed after he had forced him unto, and perceived that he could and did put in good bail. And Sir J. L. threatened the like also to Mr Okeham, Solicitor for Mr More, and had Officers employed for that purpose, 
Sir J. L. left never a stone unturned.  who told Mr Okeham, if he would not leave being Solicitor in that Cause, he would be undone: But after Sir J. L. being taxed for it in the Court of King's Bench, he denied it, although Mr Okeham proved it, and made Sir J. L. swore, that he had no action or cause of action against him the said Mr Okeham: And that also Sir I. L. (conceiving the Friends of Mr More, who would bail him, to be out of London) caused him to be arrested upon an attachment of privilege 
* I heard that Sir J. L. should say that he was about matching one of his daughters, and because Mr More did say he had a judgement, &c. the match was broke off, which was to his damage 2000 l. as he pretended.  at the Suit or him the said Sir I. L. (being difficult to put in or find bail to,) and required and demanded bail thereupon for 2000 l. which Mr More was constrained unto, and by chance did provide and put in bail, I myself being one, and provided the other.  
And after that Sir I. L. declared against Mr More for words (that is to say) that he had a judgement against him for above 7000 l. and after surceased proceedings thereupon, because it appeared that Mr More had such a judgement against him the said Sir I. L. and therefore Mr More is void of all remedy in the premises, but in the supreme Court of Parliament.  
The judges, to make themselves innocent, pretend that they thought they did Justice when they made those Orders, and that now they do not remember upon what grounds they made them.  
To this I say, That so might the forty four Justices have said, which appears in the 239 page of the Mirror of justice to be condemned by King Alfred for their misdemeanours; but it seems that neither could nor would serve the turn, for they did undergo the pains and penalties of the Law: and those Judges, Sir John Bramston and Sir Tho. Malet, had no more colour or ground for their judgement in their Orders, than the old Judges for theirs.  
But the long-winded daring and daunting Lawyer saith, That sometimes Orders in Court are made upon Affidavits in writing, which after be of late years filed in Court (although anciently not so,) and that the Judges might have cause shown, which now they do not remember, and that some things are believed and some not believed by some in Court.  
To this I answer, I wonder how any such aught to be believed, who feign things which they know to be untrue, and set a bold face upon them (as though they were as true as the Gospel) to run the other party upon a Lee shore. And the Gentleman cavilleth at the filing of the Declaration, although he did see it under the hand of Mr Hoddesdon, who he said was accounted as honest a man as ever was Secondary of the King's Bench Office, that it had been examined and reported to be filed in Hillary Term, and the Rules now in question, and divers other Rules made in the Cause, and the same was and can be made appear by Witnesses, against which there neither is or was any exception taken.  
And further, to make it appear and manifest that the Judges might have been informed upon what grounds they made the first of these two Orders in question, Mr Keeling who made, and Sir Io. Lenthall who caused that first momotion to be made, be yet living, and well known to the judges, and so is Mr Edward Harris, who made the second of those motions. By those and many Officers of the Court might the judges have been well informed of all circumstances in the business, especially being the judges, or at least one of them have been from year to year and from time to time called upon, and desired to afford or help the Petitioner to relief in the premises, both while they were in Office or judicature, and since; but always hitherto delayed and refused, 
They might have assisted the Petitioner to procure the Order to be altered, seeing that Sir Jo: Bramston many years since did so much take notice of it, as to say, that if he had not been put out of Office, he would have altered it, &c.  and never stirred or went about to have the said Orders altered since they have been out of Office, but suffered the Petitioner hitherto to groan under this sad oppression. There is a strong presumption, that there was some underhand dealing between the judges and Sir I. L. for never the like act was known to be done, or so much as heard of before, during all the time that they sat as judges in that Court, and therefore I think all that they have said cannot excuse them; but they are as faulty in this, as the old judges before mentioned of those things for which they were condemned.  
And further, they endeavour to excuse themselves, because nothing is proved that they took for making those Orders, and therefore they are not to be questioned.  
To this I say, Did the late Lord Chief Justice Richardson, or late Justice Bartlet, excuse themselves for taking insufficient bail, though nothing were proved against them for so doing? were they not compelled to pay the Debts themselves? Or were the old judges before cited excused because that it was not proved, that they gained any thing by what they did? And were not some judges questioned, and turned out of Office, and fined, and ordered to pay damage, for adjudging the Ears of some persons to be cut off, and sentenced to other miseries? And the like for many other offences, though nothing proved for so doing, too long now to enumerate, but much more may be said when opportunity serve.  
And these judges, Sir John Bramston and Sir Tho: Malet, especially one of them, had continued long enough in that place of judicature to have had more judgement then to be ignorant that they might make such Orders upon such Assidavits, that he had not a copy of that Declaration in time; for that he only deposeth in his Affidavit, that he did not receive the Declaration until within Easter Term; and if he had not had notice of the filing of it in Hillary Term before, it is likely he would have deposed that as well as the other; and therefore it cannot but be presumed, but that he had notice of it in that Term in time; although it were sufficient for the Petitioner to have his Declaration stand of Hillary Term, without removing, being a Rule was then given, and entered that Term, of which Sir I. L. ought and could not but to take notice: and yet if he should have had no notice before the Declaration was given to him, the judges could at the most but have given him imparlance until the next Term after that he had notice, without any alteration of the Declaration.  
And the judges might as well as make the Orders aforesaid, order any Declaration, filed within the time in the Statute of Limitation, to be filed when the time is out and past, when the Plaintiff should not have the benefit of his Action: And they may as well, when a Declaration shall be filed for money due upon a Bond, order, that the Declaration shall be filed at a time before the date of the Bond▪ when there is no cause of Action: And so in all Cases by such means the Plaintiffs may lose their Actions, and totally their debts and demands therein, lawfully due and owing to them.  
1. This I thought good for several causes to publish: First, That I could not get anybody (who could) to sort my papers readily out as the judges had and did, and also to promp their council, and nobody to help me at all, nor appear without compulsion, nor speak any thing but what was drawn from them by questions.  
2. For that it may clearly appear to all unbiased persons who shall read the same, how much the Petitioner hath been and is damnified by those Orders; for if Sir John Lenthall had not suffered Wright to escape, the Petitioner had had 2000 l. down above eleven years since, and security for the rest, which he offered while he was a Prisoner; and after he had escaped flew off, and said he had compounded with Sir I. L. better cheap, and therefore Sir I. L. was the cause of the loss of the debt of Wright; and the judges for the obtaining the same of Sir I. L. by reason of the Orders.  
3. To the end that a good cause may not be thrown into the dirt by any decretal Order grounded upon untruths, and would not abide the light when it was questioned, but was dampened long since upon solemn debate by many learned council on both sides, before divers Lords and other Commissioners of the supreme Court of Parliament; and the justness of the Causes of Mr More against Wright made good, and the Bond questioned to be entered into and delivered upon good ground and really (and not as in the scandalous decretal Order,) all which is manifested by the enrolments of a Decree in the Court of Chancery in one Cause, concerning the said Bond for Mr More against the widow Wright, Administratrix of the said Thomas Wright, and of a dismission in another Cause, wherein she was Plaintiff against Mr More.  
4. Because the common report is in the City of London, that the matter in the decretal Order standeth as truth in many places, by reason Mr More hath had such multitudes of adversaries, which have divulged those falsehoods abroad, and few of his friends or others yet know the truth of the carriages in these Causes, or take notice of the clearing of the scandals, and manifestation of the lawfulness and justness of the Petitioner his Cause in all Courts, I thought good to publish this short Abstract thereof, hoping that after I have throughly taken advice about the business, I shall procure another Petition to be drawn (with enlargements and amendments) against the aforesaid Judges; So at present I shall cease to write further of these things until the said Petition shall be prepared, unless I shall hear of something from any of the adverse party (which if they please, and can write any thing to purpose against what I have here published) and then they shall soon hear from me again.  
5. That those who be, have been, or may be in danger to be perplexed in the like kind, may find out and seek the same remedy; not doubting but some will join with me in a Petition to be presented to the supreme Authority for a Law to be made, That (in every perplexed or troublesome Cause, before any Court be pussled with lying or wrangling Lawyers, which hath been too frequent of late years, they having been usually fined for such things in ancient times) after a Petition or Complaint exhibited & admitted into any Court, the Defendants may answer, and the Complainants or Petitioners reanswer or reply the one after the other, as long as any new matter be or shall be introduced (and that to be without wilful untruths or impertinency under a penalty) until the matters therein to be in issue shall be stated; and that such writings may be read in Court, and no person constrained to hire many Lawyers to con the matter without Book, as is now used, few or no single Lawyer being either able or willing to carry so much in memory, and many times by misrepeating or opening, and omissions of proceedings in writing by council, many people have been undone, and others received much damage.  
And that according to the good and equitable Order which the honourable Committee for Petitions have made for Petitioners, for setting of the proofs in the margin of Petitions, that the like may be done by the Defendants, or other parties, of all which they shall contend for, or endeavour to prove, hoping that the Lord will give a blessing to the endeavours of our noble Legislators, speedily to do and perform the necessary work of this Nation.  

The principal matters concerning the Cause aforesaid, are;  
1. THat Thomas Wright became bound to Henry More in a Bond of 7000 l. in the year 1629. and the Bond being put in Suit, the said Tho. Wright pleaded per minus at Common Law, then immediately fled to the Chancery, where he put in a Bill stuffed full of lies and scandals, one whereof being, that he was forced to seal the Bond, but proved nothing at all which had any colour of any such practice.  
2. That Henry More did by three Witnesses prove the Bond sealed freely and willingly, all being present at the execution thereof; and also by three more, which several days afterwards did hear Tho. Wright acknowledge, that he had sealed and delivered such a Bond, and if it were to do again he would do it, and that he did it upon good consideration.  
3. That Tho. Wright did hire two Witnesses to swear [Viva Voce,] which were accepted of by the Lord Keeper Coventry, contrary to the course of the Court of Chancery, at which time he made an Order, That H. More should immediately deliver up his Bond to be canceled, which being refused, some of the standers by were commanded to take it away, who readily and violently performed the same.  
4. That Tho. Wright several times after moved the said Lord Keeper to have the said decretal Order signed, which was refused, because it suddenly came to his lordship's ear, that the two Witnesses were found out to be such as aforesaid; the one confessing and run away, and the other standing convicted at Newgate for a common Cheat and Swearer for money: and that T. Wright had made his brags of the said Order, but said, that it cost him near 2000 li.  
5. That when H. More had spent much money (at Common Law and in Chancery) in the prosecution of his Suit for the space of about eleven or twelve years, he obtained (after a Verdict before the Lord Chief Justice Bramston) a judgement for 7007 l. and 12 d.  
6. That Tho. Wright was charged in Execution (in the custody of Sir J. Lenthall) and then proffered H. More 2000 l. or more in money, and security for the rest; but before the money paid, or the security given, T. Wright met H. More in London, where he jeered him, and said, that he had made his composition with Sir J. L. upon better terms.  
7. That H. More then brought his Action against Sir J. L. for the escape, and filed his Declaration in Hillary Term, 1641. ten days before the end thereof, and Rules were given and out that Term, and no Plea put in, so that judgement was due; and that a Copy of the Declaration was given to his usual Attorney, and notice also to him the said Sir J. L. himself within the said Term, which was more than H. More need to have done, the filing of a Declaration against an Officer of the Court (chiefly a Marshal) being sufficient (without any notice) and warranted by the Law of this Nation.  
8. That Sir J. L. took the best course he could to disable H. More, (besides his prosecution of unjust feigned Indictments, which cost at least 100 l. to defend and clear) Sir J. L. attested him at one time in an Action of 1000 l. then upon an attachment of privilege for 2000 l. by which he thought to have laid him up safe.  
9 That Sir J. L. endeavoured to have H. More brought into his own custody, and at his own Suit.  
10. That Sir J. L. perceiving that (as he ought to have done) he was in danger of paying the said 7007 l. and 12 d. procured Sir Io. Bramston and Sir Tho. Malet to make an Order, That the Declaration filled in Hillary Term 1641. should stand filed as of Easter Term 1642. (when the said T. Wright by Sir I. L. was brought into prison again, and two or three days after dead, and the estate made away,) contrary to Law and the course of that Court.  
11. That by the practice of Sir I. L. H. More was deprived of having satisfaction of T. Wright, and then the Judges made him remediless, by taking the cause of Action off from Sir I. L. so that if the Gaoler may free the Prisoner, and the Judges the Gaoler, and not to be questioned, all Debts whatsoever may be destroyed.  
12. That the Judges chief end of making the said Order must be to free Sir I. L. because if they should not have done it, he must have paid the Debt; for I cannot hear of anybody that can remember, or have heard of any such Order ever made by any judges neither before nor since.  
13. That Judges (by the Law) ought to satisfy all parties wronged by reason of their doing Injustice, whether it can be proved they got any thing thereby or not.  
14. That Lawyers anciently (in England and other Countries) were fined for affirming any thing (in the face of a Court) untrue.  
THE END.