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	court_n	defendant_n	1,397	5	10.0062	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A53494	The second part of the Display of tyranny; or Remarks upon the illegal and arbitrary proceedings in the Courts of Westminster, and Guild-Hall London From the year, 1678. to the abdication of the late King James, in the year 1688. In which time, the rule was, quod principi placuis, lex esto.	Oates, Titus, 1649-1705.	1690 (1690)	Wing O52; ESTC R219347	140,173	361

Fact is an Impeachment of Treason what would They have had us to do or wherein is our fault What would They have had us said We were Impeached of Treason so and so particularizing how can that be There is no such thing Then they would have us said Nul tiel Record and We must have been condemned for failing in our Record then indeed we had been where They would have had us but having done according to our Fact if that Fact will oust this Court of Jurisdiction I see not how we should plead otherwise or what answer they will give to it This must needs be agreed to me If this Impeachment be in the nature of an Appeal surely an Appeal does suspend the Proceedings upon an Indictment for that Fact and so 't is expresly in my Lord Dyer fol. 296. Stanley was indicted and convicted of Murder and before Judgment the Wife brought her Appeal and They moved for Judgment No said the Court here is an Appeal brought They could not go to Judgment till the Appeal was determined So the Stat. 3. H. 7. Cap. 1. and Vaux's Case 4 Rep. 39. If this then be of the nature of an Appeal this Suit ought to have its Course and Determination before you proceed on this Indictment Inferiour Courts have never taken upon them to meddle with the Actions of Superiour Courts but leave them to proceed according to their Laws and if that be done in any Case there will be as much regard had in this great Cause to the Court of Parliament as in others In the Earl of Northumberland's Case Cotton's Records 5 H. 4. fol. 426. He confesses himself guilty of an Offence against his Allegiance the King would have the Justices to consider of it No said the Parliament 't is matter of Parliament and the Judges have nothing to do with it The Lords make a Protestation to this purpose and went on themselves and adjudged it to be no Treason There is that Record more Rot. Parl. 11 R. 2. Pars 1. N. 6. I only offer these things with what my Lord Coke sayes Hath been formerly thought Prudence in the Judges to do So I hope That if the matter be good the form is as good as the matter can be put into and therefore we hope you will allow us the benefit of it The Attorney General argued thus for the King Notwithstanding what hath been said I take it this is a Naughty Plea and there is no matter disclosed therein that we can take Issue upon The great substance of the Arguments of the Prisoners Counsel is against him for 't is least he should escape but he pleads this Plea that he might escape For the Cautions given you what a difficult thing it is for two Jurisdictions to interfeir Fitz-Harris is much concerned in that matter who hath forfeited his Life to the Law yet he would fain live a little longer and is concerned that the Judicature of Parliament should be preserved I observe 't is an unusual Plea It concludes Si Curia procedere vult I wonder they did not put in aut debeat you have no Will but the Law and if you cannot give Judgment you ought not to be pressed in it but it being according to Law that Malefactors be brought to condign punishment We must press it whatsoever the Consequences are It is the Interest of all the Kingdom as well as of the King that so notorious a Malefactor should not escape or the Truth be stifled but brought into Examination in the face of the Sun but They say if it be not Law you will not proceed it ties up your Hands But they give not one Instance to make good what they say Put the Case it had been a good Impeachment he had been arraigned upon it and acquitted and had afterwards come to be Indicted in this Court and would not plead this in Bar but to the Jurisdiction it would not have been a good Plea Then certainly an Impeachment depending singly cannot be a good Plea to the Jurisdiction This Court hath a full Jurisdiction of this Case and of this Person and this you had at the time of the Fact committed What then is it that must oust this Court of Jurisdiction For all the Cases that have been put about matters not originally examinable in this Court make not to the matter in question where the Fact is done out of the Jurisdiction of the Court that may be pleaded to the Jurisdiction but where the Court may originally take Cognizance of it I would know what can oust that Jurisdiction less than an Act of Parliament I will be bold to say the King by his Great Seal cannot do it To say the Proceedings in Parliament ought to be a Bar that is another Case the Party may plead it in Abatement or Bar as the Case requires For the Cases they put the Reasons are that the Court had no Original Jurisdiction There is not one of the Cases cited but where it was out out of the Jurisdiction of the Court originally As for the Case of the five Lords in the Tower I observe the House of Lords removed the Indictments into their House fore-seeing that the King might have proceeded upon them if not removed thither But our Case is quite another thing for those Lords were not fully within your Jurisdiction The Case of 11. R. 2. will be nothing to our purpose at all that was in the Case of the Lords Appellants a proceeding contrary to Magna Charta contrary to the Statute of Edw. 3. and the known Priviledges of the Subject Those proceedings had a Countenance in Parliament and they would be controuled by none nor be advised by the Judges but proceed to the trying of Peers and Commoners according to their own Will and Pleasure And between the time of 11 R. 2. and 1 H. 4. see what Havock they made by those illegal proceedings and in 1 H. 4. these very Lords were sentenced and it was resolved by Act of Parliament That no more Appeals should be any more in Parliament The other great point is this There is nothing at all certainly disclosed to you by this Plea therefore there is nothing confessed by us only the Fact that is well pleaded They say They have pleaded it to be secundum Legem Consuetudinem Parliamenti but I say They must disclose to you what is the Law and Custom of Parliament in such Case or you must take it upon you upon your own knowledge or you cannot give Judgment There are three things to be considered of the Parliament the Legislative part the matters of Priviledge and the Judicial part For the two first both Houses proceed only Secundum Legem Consuetudinem Parliamenti But for the Judicial part they have in all times been guided by the Statutes and Laws of the Land and have been ousted of a Jurisdiction in several Cases as by the Statute of 4 Edw. 3. 1 H. 4. And the Lords

towards them because they laboured under many Difficulties as the Tide then ran He therefore desired Sr Robert to call Mr B. by the Name of Johnson That they did hope to bring the Earl's Murder upon the Stage before they could any of those in the Tower to a Tryal That Sr H. Capel had told Mr B. that it was a thing too great for him That Mr B. had been at great trouble and charge about it and that as times went he knew few would have undertaken it besides himself Mr Lewis of Marlborough being called by Mr Braddon witnessed That upon the day of the Earl's Death riding within three or four Miles of Andover fifty two Miles from London between three and five in the Afternoon a man told him for news that he heard the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat and that at his going home to Marlborough the next day he told his Neighbours what he had heard the day before and that they thereupon said It was done but yesterday how could you hear it so soon Mr Feilder of Andover witnessed That upon the Wednesday and Thursday of the Week in which the Earl of Essex dyed it was the common talk of the Town of Andover † Note in like manner it was proved in the Tayal of the Lord Stafford that it was reported at a great distance that Sr Edmundbury Godfrey had murdered himself before it was known at London what was become of him that he had cut his Throat that the Women talked of it as they came in out of the Town and that on the Saturday night in that Week the certain news of it came Mrs Edwards the Boys Mother testified that the Boy came from the Tower and told her that he had seen the King c. and that the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat and then wept and further said That he saw a Razour thrown out at the Window and was going to take it up but a short fat Woman came and took it and went in again that he told her all this weeping and crying and never denyed it till after Mr Braddon had been there and then denyed it upon this occasion when Mr B. came his enquiry put them all into a great damp and after he was gone the Boy being then at School her Husband said to her Daughter Sarah Don't you say any thing to your Brother and when he comes in we will talk to him that her Daughter was grievously affrighted thereat and so amazed that so soon as the Boy came in She told him that there had been a Gentleman to enquire about what he had said and that he thereupon said to her Why Sister will any thing of harm come and upon her answering him That She did not know but it might be her Father and the Family might be ruined he then denyed what he had said but at the same time he came to his Mother and cryed he should be hanged this was also acknowledged by the Daughter Sarah Edwards the Boy 's Sister testified what the Boy had declared of seeing the Razour c. And that She told him upon Tuesday the 17th of July that a Gentleman had been there to enquire about it and that the Boy did thereupon ask her whether any harm would come of it and that upon her answering him that She could not tell he did deny what he had declared That Mr B. came again soon after upon the same day and found them all daunted upon their hearing the Boy deny it and Mr Brad. ask'd him about it bad him speak the Truth telling him * Indeed Jovian Hicks many others of our passively Obedient and Non-Resisting Gentlemen of the Cassock have handled many Texts of Scripture at a very unwarrantable rate to decoy Mankind to the foolish Exchange of their glorious title to Freedom for that of Slavery But we have here the first instance of a Man's preaching up the lawfulness of Perjury from the dreadful Judgment of Heaven upon Ananias Sapphira It was a dreadful thing to be a Lyar and bad him read the 5th of the Acts where he would find that two were struck dead for telling a Lye She further testified that Mr Braddon came the next day the Wednesday about noon and that then her Brother probably having read the 5th of Acts did again own that what he had declared ahout the Razour c. was true that Mr Braddon wrote down what he acknowledged and she further confessed that she told the Boy that his Father would be in danger of loseing his Place The matter pinching at this time the Chief Justice to perplex the Cause and divert from the Evidence fell to hectoring Mr Wallop Counsel for the Defendants a Person of great Integrity and Master of more Law than all the Judges then upon the Bench telling him in a most scurrilous manner that he was zealous for Faction and Sedition as every Man was deemed to be at that Conuncture who was so hardy as to stand up in any honest Cause in that Court and impetuous in the worst of Causes and that his Lordship could see nothing in all this Cause but villany and baseness which in truth to an high degree was most evident in the carriage of the Court and Prosecutors of this Cause and that Mr Wallop should not have liberty to broach his Seditious Tenets there Such the asserting the native Rights of English-men were in that day esteemed by the Bene placito Judges of that Court Mrs Burt then produced by Mr Braddon testified That She was present when Mr Braddon came to speak with the Boy and that he said to him if it be true that you have spoken own it for 't is a dreadful thing to be found in a Lye and that Mr Braddon advised him to read the 5th of Acts and that the Boy then said Sir it is true and what I said I will speak before any Justice of Peace in the World and he then told Mr Braddon the whole Story Jane Lodeman a Girl 13. years old called by Mr Braddon declared that she did not know young Edwards and testified that she saw an hand throw a bloody Razour out of the Earl of Essex's Window and presently after heard two Shriekes or two Groans and saw a Woman come out in a White-Hood but did not see her take up the Razour and she added that she presently told all this to her Aunt Here Mr Solicitor was pleased to sport himself with the Girl by way of Dialogue thus Solicitor Was the Razour bloody Girl Yes Solicitor Very bloody Girl Yes Solicitor Are you sure 't was a Razour or a Knife Girl I am sure 't was a Razour Solicitor Was it open or shut Girl It was open Solicitor What colour was the handle Girl Sir I cannot tell I see it but as it flew out Solitior Was it all over bloody Girl No. Solicitor All but a little speck Girl It was very bloody Then Jeffryes finding the