_P._ Is there any mention of Chancery in this act? It cannot be examined before the King and his council, nor before the Parliament; but you see that before the statute it was examined somewhere, and that this statute will have it examined there again. And seeing the Chancery was altogether the highest office of judicature in the kingdom for matter of equity, and that the Chancery is not here forbidden to examine the judgments of all other courts, at least it is not taken from it by this statute. But what cases are there in this chapter of the Doctor and Student, by which it can be made probable, that when law and conscience, or law and equity, seem to oppugn one another, the written law should be preferred? _L._ If the defendant wage his law in an action of debt brought upon a true debt, the plaintiff hath no means to come to his debt by way of compulsion, neither by _subpœna_, nor otherwise; and yet the defendant is bound in conscience to pay him. _P._ Here is no preferring, that I see, of the law above conscience or equity. For the plaintiff in this case loseth not his debt for want either of law, or equity, but for want of proof; for neither law nor equity can give a man his right, unless he prove it. _L._ Also if the grand jury in attaint affirm a false verdict given by the petty jury, there is no further remedy, but the conscience of the party. _P._ Here again the want of proof is the want of remedy. For if he can prove that the verdict given was false, the King can give him remedy such way as himself shall think best, and ought to do it, in case the party shall find surety, if the same verdict be again affirmed, to satisfy his adversary for the damage and vexation he puts him to. _L._ But there is a statute made since, _viz._ 27 _Eliz._ c. 8, by which that statute of 4 _Hen. IV._ 23, is in part taken away. For by that statute, erroneous judgments given in the King’s Bench, are by a writ of error to be examined in the Exchequer-chamber, before the justices of the Common Bench and the Barons of the Exchequer; and by the preamble of this act it appears, that erroneous judgments are only to be reformed by the High Court of Parliament. _P._ But here is no mention, that the judgments given in the Court of Common Pleas should be brought in to be examined in the Exchequer-chamber. Why therefore may not the Court of Chancery examine a judgment given in the Court of Common Pleas? _L._ You deny not but, by the ancient law of England, the King’s Bench may examine the judgment given in the Court of Common Pleas. _P._ It is true. But why may not also the Court of Chancery do the same, especially if the fault of the judgment be against equity, and not against the letter of the law? _L._ There is no necessity of that; for the same court may examine both the letter and the equity of the statute.