ORIGIN AND HISTORY. The courts of equi ty may be said to have their origin as far back as the Aula or Curia Regis, the great court in which the king administered justice in person, assisted by his counsellors. Of the officers of this court, the chancellor was one of great trust and confidence, next to the king himself ; but his duties do not distinctly appear at the present day. On the dissolu tion of that court, he exercised separate du ties.
On the introduction of seals, he had the keeping of the king's seal, which he affixed to charters and deeds ; and he had some au thority in relation to the king's grants,— perhaps annulling those 'which were alleged to have been procured by misrepresentation or to have been issued unadvisedly.
As writs came into use, it was made his duty to frame and issue them from his court, which, as early as the reign of Henry II., was known as the chancery. And it is said that he exercised at this period a sort of equitable jurisdiction by which he mitigated the rigor of the common law,—to what ex tent it is impossible to determine. He is spoken of as one who "annuls unjust laws, and executes the rightful commands of the pious prince, and puts an end to what is in jurious to the people or to morals,"—which would form a very ample jurisdiction ; but it seems probable that this was according to the authority or direction of the king, given from time to time in relation to particular cases. He was a principal member of the king's council, after the conquest, in which, among other things, all applications for the special exercise of the prerogative in regard to matters of judicial cognizance were dis cussed and decided upon. In connection with the council, he exercised a separate author ity in cases in which the council directed the suitors to proceed in chancery. The court of chancery is said to have sprung from this council. But it may be said that it had its origin in the prerogative of the king, by which he undertook to administer justice, on petitions t6 himself, without regard to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, which he did through orders to his chancellor. The
great council, or parliament, also sent mat ters relating to the king's grants, etc., to the chancery ; and it seems that the chancellor, although an ecclesiastic, was 'the principal actor as regards the judicial business which the select or king's council, as well as the great council, had to advise upon or trans act. In the reign of Edward I. the power and authority of the chancellor were extend ed by the statute of Westminster 2d.
In the time of Edward III. proceedings in chancery were commenced by petition or bill, the adverse party was summoned, the par ties were examined, and chancery appears as a distinct court for giving relief in cases which required extraordinary remedies, the king having, "by 'a writ, referred all such matters as were of grace to be dispatched by the chancellor or by the keeper of the privy seal." It may be considered to have been fully established as a separate and permanent ju risdiction, from the 17th of Richard II.
In the time of Edward IV. the chancery had come to be regarded as one of the four principal courts of the kingdom. From this time its jurisdiction and the progress of its jurisdiction become of more importance to us.
It is the tendency of any system of legal principles, when reduced to a practical ap plication, to fail of effecting such justice be tween party and party as the special circum stances of a case may require, by reason of the minuteness and inflexibility of its rules and the inability of the judges to adapt its remedies to the necessities of the controver sy • under consideration. This was the case with the Roman law ; and, to remedy this, edicts were issued from time to time, which enabled the consuls and pr tors to correct "the scrupulosity and mischievous subtlety of the law ;" and from these edicts a code of equitable jurisprudence was compiled.