number of iniquities against the defendant as mere matter of form; and to turn the whole things charged into questions afterwards; "whereas"it is pertinently remarked-" when a fact is once properly charged, there needs few, and often no questions to bring out the truth concerning it, other than the general one, to answer the things charged;" and the remedy they propose is, that solicitors in drawing their bills should keep to the truth of their case, and avoid inserting things purely as matters of form; and that counsel, under the same penalty as before, should set their hands to no bill, "with any questions therein, which can bring no further answer than the charge does require."1

In the Life of Lord Ellesmere Lord Chancellor in the reign of Queen Elizabeth we have a striking instance of the vigor with which he strove to correct the prolixity of Chancery pleadings in his time. In the case of Mylward v. Weldon, there being a complaint of the length of the Replication, and the Lord Chancellor being satisfied that "whereas it extended to six score sheets, all the matter thereof which was pertinent might have been well contained in sixteen," an order was made by him in these words::-"It appearing to his Lordship by the confession of Richard Mylward, the plaintiff's son, that he did devise, draw, and engross the said Replication, and because his Lordship is of opinion that such an

abuse is not in any sort to be tolerated-proceeding of a malicious purpose to increase the defendant's charge, and being fraught with much impertinent matter not fit for this Court; it is therefore ordered, that the Warden of the Fleet shall take the said Richard Mylward into his custody, and shall bring him into Westminster Hall on Saturday about ten of the clock in the forenoon, and then and there shall cut a hole in the midst of the same engrossed Replication, which is delivered to him for that purpose, and put the said Richard's head through the same hole, and so let the same Replication hang about his shoulders with the written side outward, and then, the same so hanging, shall lead the same Rich

There were various other abuses exposed, tending to delay the progress of causes, and enhance the expense of proceedings. One is reminded of that quaint old tract on "the abuses and remedies of Chancery," presented to the Lord Keeper, in the reign of James the First, by Mr. George Norburie, to be found in Mr. Hargrave's collection of tracts; in which poor suitors are represented as coming into the Court of Chancery, "like a flock of sheep to a bush for shelter, and are there more wet than they were in the open field; and yet the bush will not part without a fleece, and out of which they go, with the same note they came in, pitifully complaining." And he asks, "Will your Lordship know the reason, and who are the causers thereof; I answer in a word, Counsellors. For well near with every one of them, nothing is more familiar, than so soon as the bill is exhibited, presently to ruminate upon something that may be moved...; and if he chance to get a new order, then he thinks he has done a great exploit, and bound the poor

ard, bareheaded and barefaced, round about Westminster Hall whilst the Courts are sitting, and shall show him at the bar of every of the three Courts within the Hall, and then shall take him back again to the Fleet, and keep him prisoner until he shall have paid ten pounds to her Majesty for a

fine, and twenty nobles to the defendant for his costs in respect of the aforesaid abuse, which fine and costs are now adjudged and imposed upon him by this Court for the abuse aforesaid."-Lives of the Lord Chancellors. II. 172. Am. ed.

client to him for ever. The next day he is overthrown; yet will he not so give it over; but he will make more work for himself and his adverse pleader, till his client has scarce a round shilling in his pocket."

The Committee seem to have come to very much the same conclusion, and to have laid all the sins of the Court upon the heads of the lawyers. Their report, however, was approved of, and the suggestions which they made, were embodied in an Ordinance of the Governor and Council. How far these evil practices were corrected, we have no means of ascertaining; but if checked for the time, it is very certain they sprung up afterwards, and produced a luxuriant growth, which it has required the pruning hand of the Legislature, from time to time, to lop off.

By far the most important bill ever filed in the Provincial Court of Chancery, was the one known by the name of the Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, to which some reference has already been made. The complainants in this suit, were John Earl of Stair, and thirty-eight other Proprietors of the Eastern Division of New Jersey; and the defendants, were Benjamin Bond and others to the number of about four hundred and fifty-claiming under the Elizabethtown Associates, and distinguished by

the name of the Clinker-Lot-Right-Men. The bill was filed in 1745, and is drawn out into the extravagant length of about fifteen hundred sheets. It is signed by James Alexander, the father of Lord Stirling, and Joseph Murray, a distinguished lawyer of New York. It was printed by James Parker in 1747, and, with the accompanying documents, makes a folio volume of one hundred and sixty pages. It is entitled "A Bill in the Chancery of New Jersey, at the suit of John Earl of Stair, and others, Proprietors of the Eastern Division of New Jersey; against Benjamin Bond, and some other persons of Elizabethtown, distinguished by the name of the Clinker-Lot-Right-Men. With three large Maps done from copper-plates-To which is added the Publications of the Council of Proprietors of East New Jersey, and Mr. Nevill's speeches to the General Assembly, concerning the Riots committed in New Jersey, and the pretences of the Rioters and their Seducers. These papers will give a better light into the History and Constitution of New Jersey, than any thing hitherto published, the matters whereof have been chiefly collected from Records."

The answer was not put in almost as prolix as the bill itself.

until 1751. It is

The Defendants,

not to be behindhand with their adversaries, had

the answer also published in 1752, and with a title quite as long as that prefixed to the bill. It runs thus:"An Answer to a Bill in the Chancery of New Jersey, at the suit of John Earl of Stair, and others, commonly called Proprietors of the Eastern Division of New Jersey, against Benjamin Bond and others claiming under the original Proprietors and Associates of Elizabethtown. To which is added, nothing either of the Publications of the Council of Proprietors of East New Jersey, or of the Pretences of the Rioters and their Seducers; except so far as the Persons meant by Rioters, pretend title against the Parties to the above Answer; but a great deal of the Controversy, though much less of the History and Constitution of New Jersey, than the said Bill. Audi alteram partum."

The counsel who put their names to the answer, were William Livingston, afterwards Governor of New Jersey, and William Smith, jun., who became Chief Justice of New York, and after the Revolution, Chief Justice of Canada.

The parties to this suit seem to have been at issue upon all points. The Defendants in their answer, without formally excepting to the right of the Governor to act as Chancellor, nevertheless protest, that Brigadier Hunter was the first Governor of New Jersey, that ever assumed to himself