Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	action_n	bring_v	judgement_n	1,402	5	6.1591	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A35603	The case of Anthony Earl of Shaftsbury as it was argued before His Majesties justices of the Kings Bench, Trin. Term., 29. Car. 2 : being upon his confinement in the Tower &c. : with a speech of this worthy Earl, pleading his own case, and the liberty of the subject.	Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of, 1621-1683.	1679 (1679)	Wing C883; ESTC R4010	14,439	19

included unless some cause of Commitment Restraint or Detainor be set forth for which by Law he ought to be Committed c. Now if the King who is the head of the Parliament nor the Privy Councel who is a Court of State to which secrecy is so necessary may not Imprison without shewing cause a fortiori The Lords in Parliament can't which are a Court of Law as well as a Court of State and therefore ought not to proceed in an Illegal manner t is true in 1. Rolls 192. Rushworths Case Cook is of Opinion that the Privy Councel may Commit without shewing cause but in his more Mature Age he was of another Opinion and accordingly the Law is declared in the Petition of Right Smith argued to the same purpose and said a Judge cannot make a Judgment unless the Fact appears to him and on an Habeas Corpus the Judge can only take notice of the Fact returned it is lawful for any Subjects that finds himself agrieved by any Sentence or Judgment to Petition the King in an humble manner for redress and where the Subject is restrained of his liberty the proper place for him to apply himself unto is this Court which hath the Supream Power as to this purpose over all Courts and on an Habeas Corpus Ishuing hence the King ought to have an Account of his Subject Rolls Hab. Corp. 64. Witherlies Case and though the Commitment be by the Lords yet if it be Illegal this Court is Obliged to discharge the Prisoner as well as if he had been Illegally Imprisoned by any other Court the House of Peers is a high Court but the Kings Bench hath ever been Instructed with the Liberty of the Subject and if it were otherwise in case of Imprisonment by the Peers the Power of the King was less absolute than the Power of the Lords It does not appear but that this Commitment was for Breach of the Priviledge but nevertheless if it were this Court might give relief as appears in Sr. George Bigmores Case before cited and M●ch 12. Ed. 4. Rut. 20. for the Court which has Power to judge what is Priviledge has also Power to judge what is Contempt of Priviledge if the Judges may judge of an Act of Parliament A fortiori they may judge of an order of the Lords 20. Ed. Butchers case where he in Revertion brought an Action of Wast and dyed before Judgment and his Heir brought an Action for the same Wast and the King and the Lords determined that it did lie and commanded the Judges to give Judgment accordingly for the time to come but by Ryley 39. it appears that it is only an Order of the King and the Lords and that was the cause the Judges conceived that they were not bound by it but 39. 3. 13. and ever since have Judged the contrary if it be admitted for that for Breach of Priviledge may Commit yet it ought to appear on the Commitment that that was the Cause for otherwise that may be called a Breach which is only a refusal to answer to a matter whereof the House of Lords is restrained to hold Plea by the Stat. of the 1st of Hen. 4. and for a Contempt Committed out of the House they cannot Commit for the Word Appeal in the Statute extends to all Misdemeanors as it was resolved by the Judges in the Earl of Clarendon's Case July 1663. If the Imprisonment be not lawful the Court cannot remand him to his wrongful Imprisonment for that would be an Act of Injustice to Imprison him De nono Vaughan 156. It does not appear whether the Contempt was a Voluntary Act or an Opinion or an Inadvertency and he has now suffered five Months Imprisonment already false Imprisonment is not only where the Commitment is unjust but where the Petition is too long 2 Inst. 53. In this Case if this Court cannot give Remedy peradventure the Imprisonment shall be perpetual for the King as the Law is now taken may Adjourn the Parliament for 10 or 20 Years But all this is said on Supposition that this Session has Continuance I conceive that the Kings giving his Royal Assent to several Laws which has been Enacted the Session is determined and then their order for the Imprisonment is also determined Brook Parliament 86. Every Session in which the King Signs Bills is a day of it self a Session of it self 1. Cor. 1. 7. A Special Act is made the giving the Royal Assent to several Bills shall not determine the Session 'T is true t is there said to be made for the avoiding all Doubts In the Stat. 16. Car. 1. There is a Promise to the same purpose and also 12. Car. 2. 1. and 22. and 23. Car. 2. 2. 1. 11. Ro. 2. No. 12. By the Opinion of Cook 4. Inst. 27. the Royal Assent does not determine but the Authorities on which he relies don't Warrant his Opinion for first in the Parliament Roll. 1. H. 7. It appears that the Royal Assent was given to the Act for the reversal of the Attainder of the Members of Parliament the same day it was given to the other Bills and the same Year the same Parliament Assembled again and then t is Probable that the Members which had been attained were present and not before 8 R. 2. No. 13. is only a Judgment in Case of Treason by Vertue of a Power reserved to them on the Statute 25. Ed. 3. Rot. Parliament 7. H. 4. No. 29. is not an Act of Parliament 14. Ed. 3. N. 789. The Act is first entred on the Roll but on Condition the King will grant their other Petitions the Inference my Lord Cook makes that the Act for the Attainder of Queen Katherine 33. H. 8. was passed before the determination of the Session yet it was on a Judgment given against by the Commissions of Oyer and Terminer and the Subsequent Act is only an Act of Confirmation but Cook ought to be Excused for all his Notes and Papers were taken from him so that this Book did not recieve his last hand but ●is observable he was one of the Members of the Parliament 1 Car. 1. When the special Act before mentioned and was made and no Instance can be given where an Act was passed and afterwards the Parliament did proceed in that Session only where there was a Precedent Agreement between the King and the Houses so I conclude that the order is Determined with the Session and the Earl of Shaftsbury ought to be Discharged Ayres to the same effect argued That the Warrant is not sufficient for it does not appear that it was made by the Jurisdiction is desired in the House of Peers for that is corain Rege in Parliamento so that the King and the Commons are present in supposition of Law and the Writ of Error in Parliament is Inspecto Recordo nos consilio advisamento Spiritualium Temporalium Communitatum in Parliamento praedict ' existent ' c. it would