Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	according_a	law_n	matter_n	1,595	5	5.4763	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90012	A new poll-bill for raising the sum of seven hundred thousand pound. Humbly offered to consideration. / By a person of quality.		1689-1694 (1694)	Wing N715B; ESTC R180953	8,209	4

the contrary Who can be safe What can be expected but that in every Revolution the succeeding Parliament should pass a Bill of Attainder upon the Former notwithstanding any General pardon or Act of Oblivion to the contrary and then what Fatal Consequences will such a president produce Where will be the End of Ruin and Desolation This would be to put a new Weapon into Mens hands to destroy one another to all Eternity Consider the various Revolutions during the Wars between the Two Houses of York and Lancaster if the General pardons on both Sides had been set aside no Man in the whole Kingdom had been secure As the General Law of Nations ought to be observed by all Princes and Assemblies tho' in open War one with another so these General pardons for the common Safety of the people ought to be observ'd in all Revolutions of Government Object That these Arguments tend to the setting aside of the Bill of Forfeitures and of the Bill of pains and penalties and therefore are not to be allowed I. As to the Bill of Forfeitures the Answer is That so far as the same is really and truly a Bill of Forfeitures these Reasons do not tend to the setting aside thereof But so far as the said Bill may tend to the imposing of penalties upon persons who are not liable to the same by the Common Law they may for so far the said Bill is not properly a Bill of Forfeitures but a Bill of Attainder and may be retorted upon us hereafter for not receiving the Sacrament II. As to the Bill of pains and penalties these Reasons can no ways be made use of against inflicting pains and penalties upon great Ministers of State who have acted against their Oaths to the Government and against the Fundamental Constitution thereof upon the Confidence of a pardon which they could command whenever they pleas'd and who were punishable by no other way but by the power of a parliament But so far as the said Bill may extend to the punishment of Inferior persons who are under the common Fate of Mankind to stand and fall by the Laws of this Realm there such Reasons may be made use of very justly to raise a due Consideration how far such a president may be consistent with the Rules and Methods of parliament and the common Safety of the people of England Object That this Bill of Forfeitures will not be any Bill of Attainder for that the late King's pardon does not extend to the penalties which are due to an Informer for the King cannot give away another Man 's Right He may remit a Forfeiture due to Himself but not when it 's due to the Subject so that wherever the Subject hath a Right the King cannot by his pardon divest the same Resp In all penal Statutes the Right of the penalty is in Nubibus and not fix'd in any person till an Action be brought or an information fil'd and then that person who files the Information hath a Right in Law to the penalty and the King cannot by any pardon divest the same or remit that Forfeiture which is by Law appropriated to the use of that particular Informer But in Case the King grant a pardon before any Action brought or Information filed that is before the Right be attached in any Subject in such Case the King takes the first Cognizance of the Matter and is in judgment of Law instead of an Informer and by Consequence may remit the Forfeiture which is in such a Case due to himself alone And farther also for that after such pardon no person can inform tam pro Domino Rege quàm pro seipso according to the Statutes and for himself alone he cannot inform in any popular Action as is adjudg'd in 3 Instit 194 195. Coke 11. Report Dr. Foster's Case fol. 65 66. and many other Reports So that the late King's pardon is valid in Law to discharge all persons against whom no Action was brought nor Information filed before the said pardon II. Upon this particular Statute no Action can be brought till after Conviction by Information presentment or Indictment and the plaintiff in his Declaration must set forth the said Conviction as part of his Title But no Man can be Convicted since that pardon and therefore no penalty can be recover'd by any Informer as is said before III. All those who had particular Dispensations in their Patents may insist that they had acted according to Law that is according to the Judgment of the ●udges For tho' that Judgment might be ever so corrupt and erroneous yet the same was a Law that left the people to their liberty either to take the Oaths or to let them alone What is all the Law of England but the Judgment of the Judges reported to us from Age to Age in our Law Books and Reports In the 1 Ins●… fo 168 c. my Lord C●ke tells us That Judicium est quasi Juris d●ctum so called because so long as it stands in Force pro veritate accipitur and cannot be contradicted The Famous Plowden fo 82. in the Case of Partridge against C●oker hath this Expression Words says he which are no other than the Verb●ration of the ●…ir do not make a Statute but only the Image of a Statute and the Life of the Statute rests in the minds of the Expositors of the words who are the Members of Parliament who made that Statute But in Case there be no Parliament so that their minds cannot be known then the Judges are by Law the Interpreters of that Statute The Law itself is but a dead Letter but the Judges upon their solemn Oaths are the speaking Law and several Cases are there Cited where Constructions have been made contrary to the Letter of the Statute My Lord Hobart in the Case of Slade against Drake tells us That as Articles are made de Fide by the determination of the Church so matters are said to be de Lege by the determination of the King's Courts And fo 84. his Lordship declares That the Courts Ecclesiastical cannot in●erpret a Statute but only the Judges of the Common Law. 'T is expresly Enacted That the King shall not pardon Murder but by express words and not by the words Felonicam Interfectionem because the King was frequently misinformed and by misrepresentations used to pardon Murder whereas he intended only to pardon Manslaughter And yet the King pro Tempore hath always dispensed with that Statute and Murder has been pardon'd by the words Felonicam Interfectionem ever since contrary to the express words of the Statute and as we are credibly informed such a pardon was read and allowed in the King's Bench this last Term. Cases of this Nature are innumerable what words can be more plain and express than the words of those Statutes That no person shall go Judge of Assize in his own County Nor be Sheriff for more than one Year That no Welshman shall be Judge Chamberlain c. in Wales That there shall not be more than 8 Justices in each County of Wales and the like And yet the contrary is done and allow'd even at this day without any Notice thereof in Parliament and what Reason can be given for this but that all Mankind must confess That the Judges are the speaking Law and that they have declared That the King has a dispensing power in these Cases notwithstanding the Statutes say That the King shall not be able by any Nonobstante to dispense with the same And therefore let the Judges answer for the Integrity of the Law in this Case as well as in the Case of the Ship Money and all other Cases the Subject is no way accountable by Law for the same In the Speech of Mr. Pierpoint against Judge Berkley upon his Impeachment for High Treason before the Lords he urges by way of Aggravation That for a Judge to be unjust more hurteth the publick than any other For what a Judge doth is look'd upon as a thing ought to be done and his unjust Judgments more our Records that is our Laws Rushworth 's Collections The Excellency of our Laws above the Laws of all other Nations consists in the Certainty of it and the Certainty consists in this That every Judgment of the Judges is a Law till it be Reversed so that the people of England who act under such a Judgment are safe without any regard to the Integrity or Corruption of the Judges of which they are no Judges Paramount But when that Judgment is Reversed in the Exchequer they have all fair warning that the Law is altered in that particular and then the 2d Judgment will protect them and in Case that Judgment be also Reversed in Parliament then the first Judgment comes into Force again So that the people must walk after the Judgment of the Judges in all Cases and if they are punished for so doing in Parliament it must be by a Bill of Attainder contrary to all the former Rules and Methods of proceedings So that upon the whole matter to raise Money by such a Tax as is proposed seems to be just and equal and according to the ancient Rules and Methods of Parliament But to raise Money by the Name of Forfeitures tho' in reality by a Bill of Attainder is a new President of very great Consequence and whether it be consistent with the common Safety of the people in General or with our own Interest in particular is humbly submitted to our Superiors to whose Judgment we must all Appeal Let us beware lest we dig a pit for others and fall into it our selves