Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	judge_n	law_n	matter_n	2,527	5	5.5457	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A38203	Articles of accusation, exhibited by the Commons House of Parliament now assembled, against Sr. John Bramston Knight, Sr. Robert Berkley Knight, justices of His Majesties Bench, Sr. Francis Crawley Knight, one of the justices of the Common-Pleas, Sr. Humphrey Davenport Knight, Sr. Richard Weston Knight, and Sr. Thomas Trevor Knight, barons of His Majesties Exchequer	England and Wales. Parliament. House of Commons.; Bramston, John, Sir, 1577-1654.; Berkeley, Robert, Sir, 1584-1656.; Crawley, Francis, Sir, 1573 or 4-1649.; Davenport, Humphrey, Sir, 1566-1645.; Weston, Richard, Sir, 1579?-1652.; Trevor, Thomas, Sir, 1586-1656.	1641 (1641)	Wing E2521; ESTC R6725	30,776	51

information and thereby knowing it to be one Henry Browne one of the said grand Jurie he asked the said Browne how he durst meddle with Church matters who affirming that in the said charge from Master Sergeant Atkins the said Jurie were charged so to do he the said Sir Robert Berkley told the said Browne hee should therefore finde 〈◊〉 for the good behaviour and that hee the said Sir Robert Berkley would set a great fine on his head to make him an example to others and thereupon the said Browne offered sufficient baile but hee the said Sir Robert Berkley being incensed against him refused the said baile and committed the said Browne to prison where hee lay in Irons till the next morning and used to the said Browne and the rest of the Jurors many other reviling and terrifying speeches and said he knew no Law for the said presentment and told the said Browne that he had sinned in the said presentment And hee compelled the said grand Jurors to say they were sorrie for what they had done in that presentment and did bid them to trample the said presentment under their feet and caused Browne to teare the said presentment in his sight And hee the said Sir Robert Berkley when as John Houland and Ralph Pemberton late Maior of St. Albans came to desire his opinion on severall Indictments against John Browne Parson of Saint Albans and Anthonie Smith Vicar of St. Peters in Saint Albans at the quarter Sessions held for the said towne of St. Albans on the foure and twentieth of June 1639. for the removall of the Communion Table out of the usuall place and not administring the Sacrament according to the Law in that Case provided Hee the said Sir Robert Barkley then told them that such an Indictment was before him at Hertford and that he quashed the same and imprisoned the Promoters by which threatning and reviling speeches unjust actions and declarations he so terrified the Jurors in those parts that they durst not present any Innovations in Church matters to their great griefe and trouble of their consciences And whereas severall indictments were preferred against John Brooke Parson of Yarmouth by John Ingrane and John Carter for refusing severall times to administer the Sacrament of the Lords supper to them without any lawfull cause at the Assizes held at Norwich in 〈◊〉 1633. he the said Sir Robert Berkley then being one of the Judges of the Assize proceeded then to the triall on the said Indictments where the matter in issue being that the said Brooke refused to administer the said Sacrament because the said Ingram and Carter would not receive tickets with their Sir-names before their Christen-names which was a course never used amongst them but by the said Brooke He the said Sir Robert Berkley did then much discourage the said Ingrams Councell and over-ruled the cause for matter of Law so as the Jurie never went from the Bar but there found for the said Brooke And the said Sir Robert Berkley bound the said Ingram to the good behaviour for prosecuting the said Indictments and ordered him to pay costs to the said Brooke for wrongfully inditing him And whereas the said Carter not expecting the triall at the same Assizes he preferred his Indictment was then absent whereupon the said Sir Robert Berkley did cause to be entred on the said Indictment a vacat quia non sufficiens in lege and ordered an attachment against the said Carter which said proceedings against the said Ingram and Carter by the said Sir Robert Berkley were contrary to Law and Justice and to his own knowledge 10. That the said Sir Rob. Berkley being one of the Justices of the Court of Kings Bench and duely sworn as aforesaid in Trinitie Terme an. 1637. deferred to discharge or baile Alexander Jennings prisoner in the Fleet brought by Habeas Corpus to the Bar of the said Court the returne of his Commitment being that he was committed by two severall warrants from the Lords of the Councell dated the fift of November 1636. the first being onely read in Court expressing no cause the other for not paying Messengers fees and untill he should bring a certificate that hee had paid his Assessement for Ship-money in the County of Bucks but remitted him And in Michaelmas Terme after the said Jennings being brought by another Habeas Corpus before him as aforesaid and the same returned yet he the said Sir Robert Berkley refused to discharge or baile him but remitted him And in Easter Terme after severall rules were given for his Majesties Councell to shew cause why the said Jenings should not be bailed a fourth rule was made for the said Jenings to let his Majesties Attorney Generall have notice thereof and notice was given accordingly and the said Jenings by another Habeas Corpus brought to the Barre in Trinity Terme after and the same returne with this addition of a new Commitment of the fourth of May suggesting he the said Jenings had used diverse scandalous words in derogation and disparagement of his Majesties government He the said Jenings after severall rules in the end of the said Trinity Terme was againe remitted to prison And he the said Sir Robert Berkley did on the fifth of June last deferre to grant his Majesties Writ of Habeas Corpus for William Pargiter and Samuel Danvers Esquires prisoners in the Gate-house and in the Fleet And afterwards having granted the said Writ of Habeas Corpus the said Pargiter and Danvers were on the eighth of June last brought to the Barre of the said Court where the returnes of their Commitments were severall warrants from the Lords of the Councell not expressing any cause yet he the said Sir Robert Berkley then sitting in the said Court deferred to baile the said Pargiter and Danvers and the eighteenth of June last made a rule for a new returne to be received which were returned the five and twentieth of June last in haec verba Whereas his Majestie finding that his subjects of Scotland have in rebellious and hostile manner assembled themselves together and intend not onely to shake off their obedience unto his Majestie but also as enemies to invade and infest this his Kingdome of England to the danger of his Royall Person c. For prevention whereof his Majestie hath by the advice of his Councell-board given speciall commandement to all the Lord Lievtenants of all the Counties of this Realme appointed for their Randenvouz in their severall and respective Counties there to be conducted and drawne together into a body for this service And whereas his Majestie according to the Lawes and Statutes of this Realme and the constant custome of his Predecessours Kings and Queenes of this Realme hath power for the defence of this kingdome and resisting the force of the Enemies thereof to grant forth Commissions under his great Seale to such fit persons as he shall make choice of to array and arme the Subjects of this kingdome and

charge hath been and may be lawfully imposed upon them according to presidents of former times so where the good and safety of the kingdome in generall is concerned and the whole kingdome in danger of which his Majestie is the onely Judge there the charge of the defence ought to be borne by all the Realme in generall this I hold agreeable both to Law and reason That in or about the moneth of Februarie Anno Dom. 1636. the said Sir Humphrey Davenport then being Lord chiefe Baron of the said Court of Exchequer subscribed an extrajudiciall opinion in answer to questions in a letter from his Majestie in haec verba Charles R. When the good and safetie of the kingdome in generall is concerned and the whole kingdome in danger whether may not the King by writ under the great Seale of England command all the Subjects of this kingdome at their charge to provide and furnish such number of Ships with Men Victuall and Munition and for such time as hee shall thinke fit for the defence and safeguard of the kingdome from such danger and perill and by Law compell the doing thereof in case of refusall or refractorinesse And whether in such case is not the King the sole Judge both of the danger and when and how the same is to bee prevented and avoided C. R. May it please your most excellent Majestie We have according to your Majesties command severally every man by himselfe and all of us together taken into serious consideration the Case and Question signed by your Majestie and inclosed in your Royall letter and we are of opinion that when the good and safetie of the kingdome in generall is concerned and the whole kingdome in danger your Majestie may by writ under the great Seale of England command all the Subjects of this your kingdome at their charge to provide and furnish such number of Ships with Men Victuall and Munition and for such time as your Majestie shall thinke fit for the defence and safeguard of the kingdome from such danger and perill and that by Law your Majestie may compell the doing thereof in case of refusall or refractorinesse And wee are also of opinion that in such case your Majestie is the sole Judge both of the danger and when and how the same is to bee prevented and avoyded John Brampston John Finch Humphrey Davenport John Denham Richard Hutton William Jones George Crooke Thomas Trevor George Vernon Robert Berkley Francis Crawley Richard Weston That whereas an Action of Batterie was brought by one Richard Legge against Robert Hoblins to which the said Hoblins pleaded a Justification de son assault demesne and the said cause came to triall at the Assizes held for the Countie of Gloucester in Summer 1636. before the said Sir Humphrey Davenport then one of the Justices of Assize and Nisi prius for that Countie At the said triall the said Robert Hoblins did begin to make proofe of his said justification and produced one Robert Tilly a witnesse in the cause who proved upon oath that the said Richard Legge did make the first assault upon the said Robert Hoblins and that the occasion thereof was that the said Richard Legge and others came upon the lands then in possession of the said Hoblins and did take and drive away eighteen Cowes of the said Hoblins pretending they had a warrant from the Sheriffe to distrein the same for forty shillings assessed upon the said Hoblins for Ship-money and when the said Hoblins being present endevoured to hinder the said Legge and others from taking away his said Cattell the said Legge stroke the said Hoblins with a staffe who afterward defended himselfe That upon the opening of the matter the said Sir Humphrey Davenport would not suffer the said Hoblins to produce any more witnesses on his behalfe though the said Hoblins desired that other of his said witnesses then present and sworne might be heard nor his Councell to speake for him but being informed that the said Hoblins when Ship-money was demanded of him answered that he would not pay the same because it was not granted by Parliament the said Sir Humphrey Davenport did then openly in the hearing of a great number of his Majesties liege people then assembled and attending the said Court in great passion reprove the said Hoblins and told him that the King was not to call a Parliament to give him satisfaction and did then and there also falsly and of purpose to prevent his Majesties loving Subjects from the due and ordinary course of Law and contrary to his oath and the Lawes of this Realme publish declare and affirme that it was adjudged by all the Judges of England that Ship-money was due to the King and directed the Jury sworne in that cause to finde a Verdict for the said Richard Legge and the said Jury did accordingly and gave him twenty pound dammages And the said Humphrey Davenport did then also without any cause imprison the said Robert Hoblins and bound him to the good behaviour That whereas in the moneth of Aprill Decimo sexto Caroli the officers of the Custome-house having seized a Ship of one Samuel Warner's laden with Tobacco being the goods of the said Warner's the Bulke of the said ship not being broken and no information exhibited for the King according to the course of the Exchequer for any duty the Barons were moved that the said ship might be restored to the Proprietors giving security to pay such duties as did belong to the King But upon the Allegation of the Kings Attorney that there needed no information because there was no penaltie the said Sir Humphrey Davenport being then Lord chiefe Baron of his Majesties Court of Exchequer together with the rest of the then Barons of the said Court did contrary to his oath and contrary to the Lawes of this Realme deny the restitution of the said ship unlesse all the duties demanded by the Farmours of the Custome-house were first paid Hereupon the said Warner brought an action of Trover in the office of Pleas in the Exchequer against the said Officers that seized his ship and goods whereupon the Kings Attorney generall exhibited an information by English Bill in the Exchequer chamber against the said Warner setting forth that Customes and Subsidies upon Merchandize were a great part of the Kings revennue and payable to him and that the said Ship was seized for non-payment of the aforesaid duties notwithstanding the said Warner then Proprietor prosecuted the officers upon a suit at Law and prayes that hee may answer the said Information before any further proceedings be had at Law Thereupon the said Sir Humphrey Davenport together with the rest of the then Barons of the said Court of Exchequer ordered that the Proprietor moving for the delivery of the said goods should first answer to the information after which the said Warner demurred to the said Information in regard no title for any certaine dutie was set forth by the Information which