IN time of open hostility for upholding the nationall rights and liberties of the free-borne people of England, against all invasive attempts of prerogative or power; by fortune (or rather to my costly misfortune) I have met with a limbe of tyranny, and popery, as yet lur­king in high places of Iudicature, and at this day practised, under a notion of the jurisdiction and priviledges of the courts, to their respective Clarks, insomuch that a sub clarke in the court of Chancery (in right of such his relation) claims and enjoyes the following advantages.

If he be disposed to contention, he may, at his election, under some equitable pretence, trouble his proposed adver­sary, by calling him into the said court by writ of Sub poena, and there charging him by any tedious frivilous bill, which personally to appeare to, coppy out, answere, pleade, or de­murre to; together with the expences of his travill, atten­dance, [Page 4] and a day of hearing (besides motions, orders, and answers that commonly interpose) the poore defendante is soone run out of 20. or 30. pound to the clarks nothing, in respect of his priviledge; and if then the bill be dismist with 20. shillings costs against this clark, it may be thought a happy reparation, notwithstanding the drawing up, en­tring, and coppy of this order of dismission▪ with the Sup­poena, and other charges conducing to the recovery of these costs, may possibly come to nineteene shillings of the money.

Or if otherwise this clarke pretends to a legall right, which he enjoyes not, he may take his writ of priviledge out of the Pettibagg Office, and thereby compell the parsonall appea­rance of the deffendant, with foure sabsedy men for spetiall bayle to (his individuum vagum) his action then after to bee made appeare, albeit the defendant himselfe be responsable for tenfould the value of the clarke, if wholy exposed to sale, and the like for so many severall actions as he shall pretend to. All which being performed, there yet remains a rem­nant of further charge and servitude: for this clarke may constraine the defendant to attend his pleasure (a die in diem) to receive his declaration and plead to it ▪there being no imparlance against his priviledge) but the clark at li­berty not to declare before the third following terme, and thereby put the deffendants to a further charge and atten­dance.

So that suppose this deffendants abode be 100. or 200 miles distant from London, thither he and such his baile must goe with hazard of their healths, neglect of their families, losse in their severall occasions and certaine great expences in their travell and attendance as aforesaid, to the clarks no­thing; nor the businesse, when once understood, appearing [Page 5] any other then like the fabulous issue of the Mountains, which after a great and long expectation of some huge birth, it proves but a ridiculous mouse, some triviall 2 pence matter, or rather a designe of vexation.

Now again admitting this Clerk to be never so injuri­ous to others, in their bodies, goods, or good names (be their case proper for Law or Equity) the Clerk claims it for part of his priviledge, not to be impleaded but in one of the fore­named Courts, where the Plaintiffe will assuredly find the Salve worse then the sore (unlesse it be the greater) for he shall certainly spend his Estate to nothing, and have great fortune if he ever get halfe his costs allowed, nor any Bayle to be put in for security of what he shall recover.

So that this clerk (in right of such his place and privi­ledge) carries about him (Armatam Nequitiam) such desperate destructive advantages, that he may at pleasure exercise an insulting tyrannicall power over others (of what incompa­rable worth soever) and himselfe remaine as carelesse in do­ing right, as fearlesse of suffering wrong, ever making his priviledge Instrumentall to his malicious and mischeivous purposes in the one case, or the other.

Now how dangerous is it to intrust the pravety of mans nature, with a priviledge so inconsistent with the liberty of the Subject, and so unwarranted by the Law of God and the lawes of the Nation, both which; Impartialy look [...] on the Actions of man-kind without respect of persons, whe­ther in administration of reward or punishment; being the two feet on which the Empires of the world march, with honour and safety.

And what lesse could be expected from the late Lord Keeper, Finch, and others, the then Judges of the Land, then a compliancy by their utmost skill, and cunning to serve [Page 6] their Prince in the designes of Ship-mony, and all illegall Monopolies and miscariages, (to the begetting of intestine miserable Warres) when as yet they continue such high and Papall indulgencies to their Clarks; whereby they give them power to become Devills to honest men; by de­stroying them in their livelyhoods, and comforts of life as aforesaid.

And what hath beene here said of Chancery Clarks, being above 70. in number, doth in part extend to the Attorneys and Clarks in all the Courts of Record at Westminster, for I find it affirmed by divers of them that (Mutatis Mutandis) they all lay claime to priviledges by their places, to the che­rishing of much vermine in the land, when they incline to contention.

It remaines now to understand how these priviledges be gronnded, whether on Grant from the Crown, or the cu­stomary usage and practise of the Courts. If it be answered by Grant; it is replied (nihil Dat quod non habet) nor the Crown, nor the King (when in his Solstice of Majesty) was ever ad­mitted such a priviledge in his owne case. For if any Sub­ject had cause to capitulate his right with the King by con­test in law or equity, (were he Plaintiffe or Defendant) the King by his Counsell could only make a faire use of those prerogative advantages which divers Statutes of the Land and the practise of our municipall Lawes had intitu­led him to, (in speciall Cases) for upholding the rights of the Crown against the cunning and craft of common persons; and that without the least Arbitrary power, or undue and destructive prosecution.

Or if it be answered to be a priviledge, grounded on an ancient & continued practise of the courts; it is then replyed (Malus usus est abolendus) nay more, a custome so repugnant [Page 7] to law, reason, and common right, as this is (in most of the species;) is in it selfe void. For every Native (in common right) hath a like and equall portion of birthright in the Lawes of the Nation; and be all alike levell to law. And how preposterous is it to reason, and how horrid to nature, for a superiour to be exposed to mischeife and misery, at the discression of his inferiour fellow subject, by any he­thenish grant or custome, let any men judge.

But to draw to a conclusion (brevity being the thing in­tended) I beleive these priviledges to be of a mixt nature, patched up partly by graunt, and partly by the customary favours of the court, as a boone intended to the clarks, which write to the great Seale, in respect of such their reference and subordination thereto. I also find this graunt and these customary fovours to have been very auncient, and to have had their original in time of greatest superstition and blind­nesse, when the six clarks themselves were preists; but as now (after so many years light of reformation, and in the time of an intended thorough reformation) to be counte­nanced in the highest courts of Judgment and Justice, is a wonder to amasement.

Now out upon all relative worship; as being a relique of popery and worst of Jdolatry. Out upon such Jdolizing fee­ble mortal Majesty, in ascribing such honour & immunities to any scrub clarke that (in way of livelyhood) offers up a lit­tle Jnke and Paper to the effigies of its person, and impress of 'its power.

For according to the latitude of Religion, or reason, in this relative worship, the invocation of Saints (who are constant attendants about the omnipotent Majesty of the immortall God) may be fully justified. And what honour or rather addoration may any peice of wood claime (above the Ce­ [...]