XXXVII. than the Barons, and that if he complied he committed a СНАР. breach of the order of the House of Lords, their Lordships' rights and privileges. fined. On May 13, 1718, Annesley moved the Court of Exchequer on affidavits, stating, as I have mentioned; thereupon Chief Baron Gilbert, and Barons Pocklington and St. Leger ordered the Sheriff to be fined, and on June 30, The Sheriff 1718, an attachment was directed to the Pursuivant against the Sheriff. The unhappy Sheriff was obliged to abscond, and lie close to avoid arrest, unable to attend to his duties, and put to considerable loss. He petitioned He petithe Lords on June 10, 1719, which was referred to the Lords' Committee for Courts of Justice. tions the Irish Lords. of the On July 27, 1719, the Lords' Committee for Courts of Report Justice made their report. After detailing the circum- Lords. stances already mentioned, they report:-That by the minutes of the Chancery side of the Exchequer, it appears that the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, on February 19,1717, produced a letter, dated London, February 8, 1717, signed Cowper C.,' in which two papers were inclosed, dated February 6, 1717, signed William Cowper, Cler. Parliamentor., directed to the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer in Ireland, and the rest of the Barons of the said Court, alleged by the Chief Baron to be orders from the Lords in Great Britain, requiring them to restore Maurice Annesley, Esq., to the possession of the lands he was dispossessed of, pending his appeal in the House of Lords of Great Britain. That thereupon the Chief Baron and other Barons, without motion by counsel or attorney, issued the injunction for restoring Annesley to the Sheriff of Kildare, who refused to execute the said injunction.' The report then details various fines on the Sheriff, that the Chief Baron and other Barons had due notice of the order of the House, that by the minutes of June 13, 1718, it appears that the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that the order of the House of Lords of England, being only directed to the Barons of 1 Lord Cowper, Lord Chancellor of England, resigned April 15, 1718.-Vide Lord Campbell's Chancellors of England, vol. iv. p. 257. XXXVII. СНАР. that Court, and the order which was made thereon was made as if done by him, and the Treasurer as well as the Barons; and apprehended when the order was not directed to him, or he present when the order was made, he had nothing to do therewith, and did not consent thereto. It was believed this omission in the order was error. The attachment against the Sheriff was then stated with the various other proceedings. That on February 4, 1718, the Lord Chief Baron and Mr. Baron Pocklington, upon receipt of orders from the House of Lords, in a letter from the Lord Chancellor of England, dated London, January 27, 1718, signed Parker C.,' which came by post, directed to the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer in Ireland, and the rest of the Barons of said Court; whereby it was ordered that the Barons should cause Hester Sherlock to account before them upon oath for the rents and profits of the estate in question, which she had made or received since her gaining the possession thereof, by the order of the House of Lords in Ireland, and to pay the same to Maurice Annesley, Esq., but without prejudice in case of appeal. The Barons were further ordered to take effecInjunction tual steps to put Annesley into possession.' The steps issued by the Barons, taken were to issue an injunction against Hester Sherlock and the tenants, which it was stated was never served, but all the tenants attorned but one, which put her out, and that tenant was attached for contempt. The report also set forth the oath administered to the Barons of the Exchequer.2 The Irish Lords then resolved to examine the Barons viva voce. Thomas Parker, Earl of Macclesfield, was born July 23, 1666, called to the bar May 21, 1691, and returned to Parliament as member for Derby, 1705. He became Chief Justice of the King's Bench in 1714, and, in 1716, was raised to the peerage as Baron Parker of Macclesfield, On the resignation of Lord Chancellor, Lord Cowper, he received the custody of the Great Seal as Lord Chancellor, on May 12, 1718, which he held nearly seven years. Shortly after his resignation in 1725, he was impeached for corruption, found guilty, and fined 30,000. The King (George I.) helped him to pay this sum.-Foss's Judges of England, vol. viii. p. 59. 2 Ye shall swear, that well and truly ye shall serve the King in the office of Baron of his Exchequer, and that truly ye shall charge and discharge all manner of people as well the poor as the rich; and that for highness nor for put to the The Lord Chief Baron' and the other Barons were CHAP. XXXVII asked, 'Whether they did at any time acquaint the Chief Governor or any of His Majesty's Privy Council, with the Questions orders they had received from Great Britain in the cause Barons. of Sherlock v. Annesley.' Who answered, by the Lord Chief Baron, That if this question was put, he was to Decline to criminate himself, he desired to be excused from answering it.' answer. solutions. It was then resolved by the House, That the High Lords' reSheriff of the County Kildare, Alexander Burrowes, Esq., in not obeying the injunction issued forth of his Majesty's Court of Exchequer, dated February 22, 1717, had behaved himself with integrity and courage, and with due respect to the orders and resolutions of this House. That the riches, nor for hatred, nor for the estate of no manner of person or persons, nor for any good-deed, gift, nor promise of any person, the which is made to you, nor by craft, nor by engine, ye shall let the King's right, nor none other person's right, ye shall disturb, let nor respite against the laws of the land, nor the King's debts ye shall put in respite, when that they may goodly be levied. And that the King's needs ye shall speed, afore all other. And that for gift, wages, nor good deed, ye shall lean, disturb, nor let the profit and reasonable advantage of the King in the advantage of any other person, nor of yourself. And that nothing ye shall take of any person for to do wrong, or right, or delay, or for to deliver or to delay the people, which that have to do afore you, but as hastily as you may, them goodly to deliver without hurt of the King. And having no regard to any people that might thereof to you be therein, you shall make to be delivered. And whereas ye may know any wrong or prejudice to be done to the King, ye shall put and do all your power and diligence that to redress. And if he may not do it, ye shall tell it to the King, or to them of his Council, which may make relation to the King, if ye may not come to him, to the King's Majesties Lieutenant, or other Chief Governor or Governors of this realm for the time being. And the King's Counsel ye shall keep in all things. As God you keep and by the contents of this book.' 1 Jeffrey Gilbert, Chief Baron of the Exchequer, was born in Kent, October 10, 1674. He was called to the bar June 1698, and his equity reports begin in 1706. In November 1714 he was appointed one of the judges of the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, and in the following year became Chief Baron of the Irish Court of Exchequer. It is stated he was offered the Lord Chancellorship of Ireland, but declined the honour, and exchanged the chief place on the Irish Exchequer bench to become a puisne Baron of the English Exchequer in May 1722. He was knighted in 1724, and on the resignation by Lord Macclesfield of the Great Seal, he was appointed one of the Commissioners for holding it till the appointment of Lord King as Lord Chancellor in 1725. He then became Chief Baron of the English Exchequer, which he held until his death in 1726-Foss's Judges of England, vol. viii. p. 32. CHAP. XXXVII. Conduct of High Sheriff com mended. That of censured. Duty of fines imposed on him be taken off, that the Chief Baron and other Barons in the cause of Sherlock v. Annesley, as also against the High Sheriff of the County Kildare, had acted in direct violation of the orders and resolutions of this House, in manifest derogation to and diminution of the King's prerogative of finally judging in his High the Barons Court of Parliament in Ireland; as also the rights and privileges of this Kingdom, and the Parliament thereof.' The case being adjourned to July 29, it was resolved nem. con. 'that it is the duty of the Barons of the Exchequer when there is any wrong or prejudice done to the King, the King. in matters lying before them, to inform the King or the Chief Governor or Governors of this Kingdom, or the Council.' The next resolution was not passed so unanimously. It must have been hotly debated, and though Dissentient five out of seven of the dissentients were Spiritual and two Temporal Peers, the arguments of one of these two must have caused great weight with a discussion of this nature, no other than the then Lord Chancellor Viscount Midleton. the Barons when wrong is done to Peers. The Lord Chancellor dissents. On the question, That the case of Sherlock and Annesley, as it lately lay before the Barons of the Exchequer, being matter not only of law but of State, ought to have been laid before the King, the Chief Governor or Governors of this Kingdom, or the Council of the same, it so nearly concerning his Majesty's prerogative, and the interests of the whole Kingdom.' There were seven dissentients, and on the question, That the Barons in the same acted contrary to law, and to the established practice of the King's Courts,' the same dissentients are named. As the House consisted of forty-one Peers, of course there were thirtythe resolu- four in support of the resolution, and the majority proceeded to take strong measures in support of what they regarded as their privileges. They ordered the Serjeantat-Arms to arrest Annesley and his attorney, and keep them in safe custody until further order. They next ordered the Lord Chief Baron, and the other Barons in attendance in the House to withdraw, whereupon they Majority of 34 in support of tions. XXXVII. resolved that Jeffrey Gilbert, Esq., Lord Chief Baron, (and CHAP. the two other Barons seriatim), having taken upon them to put in execution a pretended order from another court, contrary to the final judgment of this High Court of Parliament, in the cause between Sherlock v. Annesley, is a betrayal of his Majesty's prerogative, and the undoubted ancient rights and privileges of this House, and of the rights and liberties of the subjects of this Kingdom.' To this the Chancellor and the other Peers named dissented; ' but as the majority prevailed, they were powerless. It The Barons was then ordered that the Chief and other Barons be taken into the custody of the Gentlemen Usher of the tody. Black Rod. This caused another Peer, Viscount Fitz William, to join the dissentients. The Peers then drew Represenup a very elaborate representation to the King. They the King. represented that, by ancient records and Acts of Parliament, it appeared that the King and principal men of Ireland, did, without compulsion, submit to Henry II. as their liege lord, who, at the desire of the Irish, ordained English that the laws of England should be enforced and observed in Ireland.2 ordered into cus tation to laws in Ireland. That by this agreement Ireland obtained the benefit of the English laws and many privileges, particularly that of a distinct Parliament, here as in England, and of having An Irish weighty and momentous matters relating to this Kingdom treated of, discussed, and determined in the said Parliament. This concession and compact, confirmed by successive Kings, encouraged many English to settle in Ireland, where they were to enjoy the laws and liberties, and live under the same constitution they had formerly done in the Kingdom of England. That by this constitution the Parlia ment. |