SHeweth unto Your most Sacred Majesty, That Your Petitioner having been employed by one Edward Melish of London Merchant, to be Ma­ster of a small Ship called the Valentine, of about 60 Tun, in the years 1672. and 1673. from London to Fare in Portugal, and from thence to Newfound-land, to buy Fish, and to carry the same to Oporto, and to come from Oporto to London: In which Voyage Your Petitioner proceeded, but in his Return to London, was taken by a Dutch Privateer, not far from the Downs; Afterwards Your Petitioner was forc'd to pay the Sea-men their wages for the prosperous Voyages; Melish from time to time promising to pay Your Petitioner; but not doing it in the space of near 3 years time, Your Petitioner su'd him in the Admiralty for his own and Sea-mens wages, amounting to near 200 l. Whereupon Melish exhibited his Bill in Chancery against Your Petitioner, pretending breach of Orders; and that Your Pe­titioner refused to give an Account of the Goods and Moneys wherewith he was intrusted in the foresaid Voyages; and thereby, and by other false suggestions, he obtained an Injunction to stop Your Petitioners Proceedings in the Admiralty for the wages, till a hearing in Chancery; and after a tedi­ous (and to Your Petitioner a Chargeable) Proceeding there, the Cause came to hearing in Easter-Term 1679. and the Lord Chancellor then decreed that Sir Samuel Clerk K^nt. one of the Masters of that Court, should inspect Your Petitioners Account; which Account had been given in to Melish six years before, and no objection made against it, till Your Petitioner su'd for his wages; And his Lordship also decreed, that Your Petitioner should have his and his Sea-mens wages, but no consideration for the long detaining it; yet that the said Master should make all other just & fitting allowances on both sides, and what the Master should report due to either party, should accor­dingly be paid; But as to Mellish's pretended breach of Orders, his Lord­ship left Mellish to his remedy at Law, if he should be so advised; and fur­ther declared, that if Mellish did not try it that Terus, his Lordship would take it for granted, there was no breach of Orders; whereupon Mellish brought his Action against Your Petitioner, for refusing to go back from Oporto to Newfound-land, in Septemb. 1673. and for neglecting to put into some Port in the West of England, in his way from Oporto to London, whereby the said Ship was taken; and laid his Damages to 2000 l. though Your Petitioner gained for Mellish in the said Voyages above 1000 l. more then his Losses; And Mellish having laid his Action in London, and brought the same to Try­al, and after appearing at Guild-hall several times, as if he would try his Cause, he prevailed to have it put off divers times, to Your Petitioners extra­ordinary Charge, till such time as Your Petitioners Occasions forc'd him be­yond-Sea, and until Mellish had obtain'd a Jury of most Merchants, some of them being Brothers to those to whom a considerable part of the Goods in the Ship (when lost) were consign'd, as afterwards appear'd; and some of them were afterwards of that remaquable Grand-Jury that refus'd to find the Bill against the Earl of Shaftsbury; yet very freely gave a Verdict against Your Petitioner for 200 l. for refusing to go from Oporto to Newfound-land, and for not putting into some Port of the West of England, though it was fully proved the Ship was so rotten and decay'd, that she was not capable to perform the Voyage to Newfound-land, and that the Ships Rudder broke off, before Your Petitioner got near the English Coast; & that when he came into the Channel, the Wind blew so hard N. and N. W. that he could not possibly put into any Port in the West of England, and no proof was made to the contrary.

I. Cause of Com­plaint. And Your Petitioner further sheweth unto Your Sacred Majesty, that after many motions made in the Common-Pleas, where the Action was brought for a new Tryal, which is usual in such Cases; And though the Lord Chief-Justice North (before whom the Cause was try'd) acknowledg'd that Your Petitioners Agents were Out-solicited; and that if he had been of the Jury he would not have given such a Verdict; yet he gave Judgment against Your Petitioner for 230 l. the 30 l. being for Cost of Suit; and soon after Mellish obtain'd an Order from the Lord Chancellor that the said 230 l. should be deducted out of Your Petitioners demands before Sir Samuel Clerk; whereupon Your Petitioner exhibited a Bill before his Lordship, to be relie­ved against the said Verdict, by having a new Tryal by an Indifferent Jury; And such Proceedings were thereupon had, that the Cause was by his Lordships own Order set down to be heard on the 11th. of January 1681. and ought to have been heard in course a long time since; but by Mellish's Art and Skill it is hi­therto kept off from hearing.

And Your Petitioner further sheweth unto Your Sacred Majesty, that du­ring the Transactions aforesaid, Sir Samuel Clerk inspected Your Petitioners Account, and having made unjust abatements of what Your Petitioner paid for Fish for Mellish at Newfound-land, though Your Petitioners Account is no way disproved, and though Your Petitioner accounts for those Fish at far cheaper rates than others have paid from the year 1672. till this time, as is most manifestly proved; And the said Sir Samuel Clark did make Your Pe­titioner account to Mellish for Your Petitioners own Fish, that Your Petitio­ner brought from Newfound-land, as Fish caught by Your Petitioner at Sea, because Your Petitioner could not at that time of day (being 8 years after) prove he bought them for his own use, although Mellish's Factor proves Your Petitioner carried from Faro to Newfound-land as much Wines and other Commodities as would have purchased so much Fish, according to the Bargain made for Mellish; II. Cause of Com­plaint. and Sir Samuel Clerk abated considerably of the wages, thereby incroaching on the course of Tryals by the Common-Law, as to what the said Fish cost at Newfound-land, and how much Fish was caught, and how much wages Your Petitioner and Sea-men were to have by agree­ment; the same being all matters of Fact, and tryable by Jury, in regard the Original Contract touching the same was was made in England; And the said Sir Samuel Clark made Your Petitioner account twice for the same things, and made such other unjust allowances, whereby not only Your Pe­titioner and Sea-mens wages were wholly swallowed up, but Your Petitioner was thereby made Debter to Mellish in near 300 l. and about July 1681. Sir Samuel Clerk made his Report accordingly, and Mellish obtained an Order that the said Report should stand confirmed, unless cause were shown to the contrary; And it so happened, that before the time was expired for shewing cause against the said Report, Your Petitioners Agents had notice that one John Rice that had been Your Petitioners Mate in the said Voyages to New­found-land, was come into England, having been a Captive in Sally for di­vers years, so that Your Petitioner could not have his Testimony since the controversie did arise; III. Cause of Com­plaint. Therefore his Lordship was petitioned that the said Rice might be examined, as to what he knew touching the matters in variance, and in regard Sir Samuel Clerke was not then in London; it was also pray'd, that the Accompts might be Transmitted to some other Master, and the report Review'd and altered, if upon Rice's Evidence there should cause appear for so doing, But his Lordship refus'd to grant it; However, upon a Petition to the Master of the Rolls for that purpose, it was by him or­dered, that Rice should be examin'd, and that Sir Samuel Clerke should Re­view his Report, and thereupon Rice was Examin'd, and prov'd, that Your Petitioner pay'd for the Fish at New-found-land, according to the rates in Your Petitioners Accompts; but the time for shewing cause against the con­firmation of the said Report being neer claps'd, and Your Petitioner not having had the benefit of Rice's Testimony before the Master; Sir Samuel being then in the Countrey, and it being deny'd by the Lord Chancellor, that the Report should be review'd by another Master; Your Petitioners Agents fil'd Exceptions to the said Report, which were afterwards set down to be heard before the Lord Chancellor, and ought in course to have been heard on some day appointed for hearing Exceptions, but by Mellishes pro­curement, the said Exceptions came on to be heard upon a day appointed to Argue Demurrers which was not expected; whereby Sir Robert Sawyer Your Majesties Attorney General being Your Petitioners Principal Councel, hap­pened not to be present, IV. Cause of Com­plaint. and his Lordship was made accquainted therewith; and intreated not to hear the said Exceptions, in the absence of the said Sir Robert Sawyer; However, his Lordship would hear them, by reason where­of there was not so good a defence made for Your Petitioner, as otherwise might have been done: And his Lordship did then confirm the said Report in most of the particulars excepted thereunto, whereby Your Petitioner, and his Seamens Wages was still wholly swallowed up, and Your Petitioner made a Debtor to Mellish in 282 l. which his Lordship ordered should forthwith be pay'd to Mellish, together with Costs of Suit to be Tax'd by Sir Samuel Clerke, which perhaps may amount to 200 l. more. V. Cause of Com­plaint. And although 230 l. of the said 282 l. was the Money Recover'd by the said ill Verdict and Judgment thereupon, and the Cause to be Reliev'd against it, was then ready for his Lordships hearing; and his Lordship both then and since, was often defired to hear the same, or stop the Payment of the Money till it were heard, there being Security given by Your Petitioner to abide the final order of that Court, but his Lordship would do neither.

And Your Petitioner further sheweth unto Your Sacred Majesty, VI. Cause of Com­plaint. that the next day after hearing the said Exceptions, Sir Robert Sawyer moved his Lordship, that the said Exceptions might be Re-heard, but his Lordship re­fused it, and not long after Sir Robert Wright, one of Your Majesties Serjeants at Law, Paul Bowes and Walter Williams of the Midle-Temple Barristers at Law, and of long Practice, finding Your Petitioner was wronged by the confirmation of the said Report; They Signed a Petition to his Lordship, thereby praying the said Exceptions might be Re-heard, and certifying his Lordship, that they conceived there was good cause to Re-hear them, but his Lordship rejected the Petition, though it be his Common and almost daily practice in other Cases, to Re-hear upon such Petitions: And though divers of the best Councel in Your Majesties Dominions have divers times since gone about to shew his Lordship Reasons for Re-hearing the said Exce­ption, yet he hath silenc'd them without hearing their Reasons, and i [...] [...] [...]g, [...] bidding Your Petitioner Appeal to Parliament, by which proceedings Your Petitioner is Injured above a Thousand Pounds, which amounts to almost his whole Substance, and will be the utter ruin of himself and Family, unless aided by Your Sacred Majesty.

Forasmuch as Your Sacred Majesty is the Fountain of Justice, in whom the Supreme Judicative power of the Law resides, and to whom it apper­tains upon Appeal, to Examine, Correct or Reverse Decrees in Chancery, and otherwise to Relieve in Case of Delay or Denyal of Justice in the said Court, either in Your Sacred Person, or by Commissioners, to be Delegated by Your Most Excellent Majesty, or otherwise as Your Majesty shall please to Order at Your Royal Will and Pleasure.

Your Petitioner therefore doth in all Humility Appeal in the premises to Your Most Excellent Majesty, and doth most Humbly beseech Your Majesty to Order the hearing thereof in such ways and methods, as to Your Majesty in Your Royal Wisdom shall seem meet for Your Petitioners Relief according to Equity and Justice.