Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
judgement_n assign_v error_n reverse_v 4,707 5 13.2318 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A44185 The case stated of the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in the point of impositions Holles, Denzil Holles, Baron, 1599-1680. 1676 (1676) Wing H2453; ESTC R20018 41,330 118

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

For in that Parliament wee find nothing of this nature The Complaint of the Commons to the House of Lords for their Speaker being imprisoned and their desire to have him released which would not be granted was indeed that Parliament But to Hugh Brice's Case 8 E. 4. a clear answer may be given That what was therein done was by Act of Parliament in a Legislative way The Commons Petitioning in these words Please it therefore your Highness by the Advice and Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in this Parliament assembled and by authority of the same to assign name and appoint the full reverend Fader in God Thomas Cardinal Arch-Bishop of Canterbury c. Then names several Lords both Spiritual and Temporal the three Chief Judges of the three Courts and some of the House of Commons to be the persons to examine that business and heare those complaints against Brice the Master of the Mint The King's Answer is Le Roy le voet with a saving to his Prerogative Royal conceiving it it seems to be some derogation to it that the Commons should be admitted to any part of Judicature though by a special Law for it For this was a perfect Act of Parliament in which the three Estates concurred in their Legislative capacity which had no affinity with the Judicial Power exercised by the Lords in their House as the highest Court of Judicature As for his President of 2 H. 5. where he saith It was assigned for error in the House of Peers that the Lords gave Judgement without the assent or a Petition of the Commons It was the Earle of Salisbury's Case to reverse the Judgement given upon his Father and it is true indeed it was assigned for an Error but it is as true it was not allowed to be one for his Writ of Error was rejected and that Judgement was affirmed And strange it is that he should produce this for a President to prove a Partnership of Judicature in the Commons being a strong one against it And as well might at any time a Plaintiffs Bill in Chancery be produced for Evidence against a Defendant in some other suite even when the Bill hath beene dismissed And his next President is just such an other to shew that the King and Commons alone without the Lords have made Acts of Parliament for which he quotes 1 E. 6. c. 5. It is a Statute against conveying Horses out of England and it is true that in Pulton's Collections it is so Printed as enacted by the King and Commons without mention of the Lords But if the Journal of the Lords House had been consulted it would have shewed that the Bill began in their House was read the first time the 1st of December upon a Thursday The second time upon a Wednesday the 7th The third time upon Saturday the 10th and sent down to the House of Commons by the Kings Attorney and Sollicitor the 22 d. of December upon a Thursday the House of Commons sent it up againe with a Proviso to be added which Proviso was allowed of by the Lords and the Bill dispatched the Saturday after It was therefore a foul mistake to say this Bill passed without the Lords And it may be modestly said of all his Presidents both concerning the Legislative and the Judicature that upon better consideration he will not finde cause of great encouragement from them to argue the foundations of either Power in order to that Super-structure which he would reare whither in diminution of that Power which is challenged by the House of Peeres in the Legislative for Impositions or maintenance of that which he pretends to for the House of Commons in point of Judicature And now wee come to his particular Answers to the Reasons given by the Lords And to so much and so many of those Answers as seeme to containe any thing of weight and material to be replied unto we shall give that Reply that is necessary but as for that which is jocular and hath something of reflection in it as too much of it hath onely this shall be said Auferat oblivio si potest si non silentium teget To the 1st Reason then given by the Lords which was That the happiness of the Constitution is to have one House to be a Cheek to the other his Answer being That the Lords having a Negative voice to the whole is a sufficient Check to the House of Commons It is replyed That to have a Negative voice is not to be a Check A Negative voice is one thing a Check is an other The King hath a Negative voice to what both Houses doe yet he cannot be said to be a Check to the Houses The two Houses have each of them a Negative voice to the Convocation granting Subsidies yet they cannot be said to be Checks to the Convocation But each to other in their Legislative capacity have both a Check and a Negative voice which are different operations of that Legislative Power For properly to be a Check is to have a trust reposed in one to examine the Act of an other And both are trusted by and accountable to a third person by whose authority and for whose Service both are employed And he that is the Check cannot wholy reject what the other hath done be it an account or any thing else he can onely examine it if it be right And if any error be he can correct it and reforme it and make it such as that he who employes them both may receive no dammage nor prejudice by it And this is the proper worke of the House of Peeres as they are a Check to the House of Commons for they have a Negative voice besides which is not now the Question but onely as they are a Check and so they are trusted both by the King and People as well as is the House of Commons not onely in Money-matters but in all things else cognisable by the Parliament If the House of Commons give Money so to the King as the Subject cannot beare it if out of Trade so as Trade cannot beare it which is the proper question now 〈◊〉 out of the Estates of the People so as they are not able to pay it the King himself suffers in all this as well as the People it will be his dammage his loss at the last nay the greatest damage and loss will be his at the long run perhaps immediately for as the saying is He that graspes too much holds nothing so if more be given than can be paide nothing may be received A thing which King James of blessed memory did well understand and therefore in the Session of Parliament 7 mo the 21. of March he called both Houses to him to Whitehall upon occasion of an Aide then demanded and there among other things said this to them If you give more than is fit you abuse the King and hurt the People and such a Gift I will never accept for in such