Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 04.djvu/563

CHANCELLORSVILLE. 483 CHANCERY. tratoil at ChanecUorsvillo, on Lite's left Hank. Lee then turned to laee Hooker, and on May 1 llie hitter timidly drew in bis advanee, and placed himself on the ilefensive. Early on Jlay 2, Lee ordered Jaekson, who had been stationed on his extreme rij;ht, with 30,00t) men. to make a yide detour, and. swiufiinj; round to the extreme right of the I'ederal i)(wition. make an unexi)eeted as- sault upon the enemy's Hank. The direetion of this movement was not apparent to the Federals, who bejian to regard it in the nature of a retreat. .bout P.M., after a march of some 1.') miles, Jaekson fell suddenly »ipon the flank and rear of Howard's corps, which constitUed the right flank of the Federal army, and, taking it by surprise, stanii)eded it.- .laekson. while in ad- vance of his troops, was fired upon anil mortally wounded by his own men. who mistook his escort for a detachment of Federals. Dur- ing the progress of this movement Lee sought to divert the attention of Hooker by a lively dem- onstration on his front. On the morning of May 3 Lee made a vigorous attack on front and flank, in which .Jackson's force, now connnanded by t>tuart, played a leading Jiart. The brunt of the a.ssault lellupon General Sickles, on the Federal right, and lieneral Slocum, at the centre. Hooker, who was stunned by the impact of a ball on a pil- lar agiiinst which he was leaning, showed inde- cision: Silkies, who had stayed Stuart's fierce on- slaught, fell short of anmninition: some 3tt,000 fresh troops were not called into action: and at last the Federal line gave way, the army, however, falling back only a short distance to a strong de- fensive position. Lee was deterred from imme- diately following uj) his advantage by the news that his position was threatened im the right by the advance of the Federal force under Sedg- wick. -At night, on May 2, Hooker had sent word to Sedgwick to advance on Chancellorsville from Fredericksburg. On May 3 Sedgwick attempted to e.xecute the order and captured Fredericks- burg and the heights behind it. Lee sent re- inforcements which checked his advance, and on the night of May 4-.5 Sedgwick recrossed the Rap- pahannock. Lee then pre|iared to advance against Hooker on the .5th, but the latter hastily with- drew his army across the river during a heavy storm. In the four days. May 1-4, the Federals had lost about 17.300" in killed, wounded, and missing; the Confederates about 12.405. Lee had clearly outgeneraled Hooker at every point, and had won an important victory with greatly in- ferior forces: but his success was almost counter- balanced by his loss of .Tackson. Emboldened by this victory and the apparent demoralization of the Federal army, he jdanned his invasion of Pennsylvania, which ended in the battle of Get- tysburg (q.v.). Consult: Dodge, The Cmnpniyn of Chancellorsville (Boston. 1881): Doubleday, ChaiiccUorsi-illc and Oelli/sburfi (2d ed., Xew York, 1882): .Johnson and Bue'l (editors). Bat- tlefs and headers of the Civil ^'ar. Vol. III. (4 vols. Xew York, 1887): O/pcial Records, Vol. XXr. (Washington. 1889). CHANCE-MEDLEY (Engl, chance + med- ley), and Ciiaid-Meoley, or 5Iell1o (OF. chaude, liot + medUe, fray). French expressions bor- rowed by the Scotch law. Though sometimes used interchangeably, they are. in reality, dis- tinct in meaning, the one signifying a casual affray, the other an alTray in the heat of blood or passion. Both are. in the United States and in most countries, recognized as pleas in mitiga- tion of the oH'ense of homicide (q.v.). See, also, DkKE.NSF. : SWCTUARY. CHANCERY (Er. chancellerte, It., Med. Lat. cancellcria, from cancellarius, chancellor, from Lat. cancelli, lattice). Court of. In English law, the court presided over by the Lord High Chancellor, and until recently the highest court in England, inferior only to Parliament. Orig- inally a chancery was the ollice of a secretary or chancellor (cpv.), where ollicial documents were ])ut in form, sealed, and dispatched, or filed as records. The jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery was develo])ed suliscquently to the establishment of the English courts of law. and consisted of that ]iort.ion of the King's judicial prerogative in civil causes which he had not delegated to the courts of law. Whenever, in the early history of the common law. a suitor conceived that he had suil'ered an injury or wrong for which the courts of law afforded no remedy by means of a common-law writ (q.v.), his only recourse was to petition the Crown. These petitions came to be addressed to the Chancellor, who, as the chief officer and adviser of the Crown and Keeper of the Great Seal, was deemed to be a personal representative of the King, and thus endowed with his judicial prerogative. The practice of ol)taining relief in this manner gradually took on the character of a judicial proceeding, and the Chancellor's office, or chancery, came to be loiown as the court of the Chancellor or the Court of Chancery; or in modem times, as the Court of Equity (q.v.). To this peculiar origin of ehan- cerj' jurisdiction is due several peculiarities in the manner in which jurisdiction is exercised • which are fundamental in equity jurisprudence. Thus, as the Chancellor was the personal repre- sentative of the King, his authority was personal. It could be exercised at any time, whether in term time or vacation, and at any place in the kingdom. L'nlike the judges of the courts of law. he could command an act to be or not to be done, as, by virtue of his office, his com- mands were the commands of the sovereign, he who refused obedience was guilty of contempt to the King, and his disobedience w'as [lunishable by impris(mment : and, as an ecclesiastic, the Chancellor could invoke the power of the Church and punish the contempt by excommunication. By reason of these powers of the Chancellor, the Court of Chancery became a court acting in personam, as distinguished from courts of law, which acted in rem. The common-law ju-occdure was founded on the theory that the parties to an action owed no obedience to the court. Thus, if the plaintilT brought an action at law to recover property wrongfully withheld from him by the defendant, or to recover damages for tort or breach of con- tract, the court could give judgment for (he plaintiff, and then by its writ direct the sheriff to seize the property and deliver it to the plain- tiff or levy upon the defendant's property and then satisfy the judgment; but if the defendant concealed the i)roperty of the plaintiff or his own, or removed it from the jurisdiclioi, the court of law was powerless to act. On th<' other hand, the court of cipiity. in a ])roper case, could direct the defendant to perform his contract or to turn over property to the plaintiff, or to do any act required by justice or the necessities of