Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	bring_v	error_n	trespass_n	1,801	5	11.6758	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44187	A letter of a gentleman to his friend, shewing that the bishops are not to be judges in Parliament in cases capital	Holles, Denzil Holles, Baron, 1599-1680.	1679 (1679)	Wing H2461; ESTC R204379	41,325	145

it was lawful for him sometimes to reprove the other and to reduce him bring him into order if he went astray He leaves out what the Bishops work was he omits that clause Episcopus ut jus Divinum diceret for this was not to try Capital Crimes But Sir Henry Spelman tells us further that that Court had cognisance but of petty matters De causis Magnatum Potentiorum non cognovit Comes nam he ad Aulam Regiam deferende Pauperum tantum minus potentum judicabat Hinc Legibus nostris hodie prohibetur debili aut injuriarum actiones in Comitatu intendere si rei litigate valor non sit minor 40 solidis The Earl hath not cognisance of great mens business for such matters are to be brought into the Kings Courts he only judges poor mens Causes Hence it is that by our Law Actions for Debt and Trespasses are not to be commenced in the County Court if it be for above the value of 40 Shillings Judge now I pray you what all this makes to prove that Bishops have right to judge of Treason Felony and those transcendent Crimes which deserve death He then quotes Mr. Selden and makes him say in his Introduction to his Treatise of the Priviledges of the Barons of England that Omnes Praelati Magnates had this Priviledge till the Prelates lost it by the Parliament of 17 Car. 1. I find no such thing there he saith That the Prelacy had heretofore the first place in the Summons but that they had then lost it And this I observe further that Mr. Selden makes the whole upper House to be but one Estate whether the Bishops be there or No It was one Estate formerly when the Bishops had the Priviledge of sitting there and when they had the first place in the Summons and it was one Estate then in Mr. Seldens time when they had lost that Priviledge but our Assertor in the Printed Paper would take no notice of this Now I come to his Precedents he first begins with their Proxies and cites many Parliaments where Bishops gave Proxies which no man denies and they do it still only they give their Proxies now only to Bishops like themselves who are Members of the House not to such as are no Members as it seems they did then But giving Proxies to represent the whole Bench of Bishops or any one Bishop in any Judgment of death except in that one Parliament of 21 R. 2. I utterly deny Indeed he tells us of the 2. H. 4. and 2 H. 5. that they did it it there in those Parliaments but I dare say he cannot find it there I am sure I cannot and I do verily believe he never looked there but that he takes it upon trust out of the Margin of pag. 125. of Mr. Seldens Book of the Priviledges of the Baronage where indeed there is such a quotation but misplaced by the Printer having reference to what is said at the end of the Paragraph of Thomas Earl of Salisbury 2 H. 5. endeavouring to reverse the Attainder of his Father Iohn Earl of Salisbury who was attainted 2 H. 4. and not at all concerning what is said of Proxies in the first part of the Paragraph as our Assertor would here apply it Then he cites a Precedent or two to make out that Bishops were personally present at the giving of some Judgments of Death which if they be truly related he saith something but I believe they will be found to be of as little weight as all he said before His first is among the Pleas of the Crown 21 R. 2. of the Impeachment as he calls it of the Earl of Arundel and others by the Lords Appellants the Earls of Rutland Kent Huntington and others He saith the Earl of Arundel being brought to the Bar by the Lord Nevil Constable of the Tower that the Articles exhibited against him by the Lords Appellants were read to which he only pleaded two Pardons which Pardons not allowed the Lords Appellants demanded Judgment against him Whereupon the Lord Steward by the Assent of the King Bishops and Lords adjudged the said Earl guilty and Convict of all the Articles and thereby a Traitor to the King and Realm and that he should be therefore Hanged Drawn and Quartered This our Assertor saith who quotes Sir Robert Cottons Collections for it and there indeed it is so but methinks one should not venture to quote a Record upon any mans Allegation without consulting the Record it self and that I am sure he hath not done for it saith expresly that it was only the Lords Temporal and Sir Thomas Percy Proctor for the Prelats that gave that Judgment The words of the Record are Sur quoy le dit Duc de Lancaster per commandement du Roy toutz les Srs. Temporels Mr. Thomas Percy aiant poair sufficiant des Prelatz Clergie du Roialme d'Engleterre come piert de Record en le dit Parlement per assent du Roy agarderent le dit Counte d' Arundel coupable convict de toutz les pointz dount il est appellez per taunt luy ajuggerent Traitour au Roy au Roialme quil soit treinez penduz decollez quarterez Whereupon the said Duke of Lancaster by the Kings Command and all the Lords Temporal and Sir Thomas Percy being sufficiently empowered by the Bishops and Clergy of the Kingdom of England as appears upon Record in the said Parliament did by the Kings assent declare the said Earl of Arundel guilty and convict of all the points of which he was accused and therefore did adjudge him a Traitor to the King and Realm and that he should be drawn hanged his head cut off and body quartered You see the Bishops were none of them present but theit Procurator was to which in my Letter I have largely spoken and need not repeat it here He urges also a Precedent in this same Parliament of the Commons by the mouth of their Speaker Sir Iohn Bussy praying the King That for that divers Iudgments were heretofore undone for that the Clergy were not present that the Clergy would appoint some to be their Common Proctor with sufficient authority thereunto I have already shewed that this whole Parliament was repealed for the extravagant things that were done in it of which this was one And therefore nothing that was then done can signifie any thing to be a leading Case any ways to be followed And this as little as any except it could be made appear which I am confident it cannot that some Judgment had been reversed upon that account because the Prelates were not present and had not given their Assent to it Indeed 2 H. 5. Thomas Montacute Earl of Salisbury attempted it brought his Writ of Error to reverse the Judgment given 2 H. 4 against his Father Iohn Earl of Salisbury and did assign that for an Error as the Record saith Item Error de ceo que le dit John susdit Count dust forfaire terres tenements sans assent des Prelates qui sont Piers en Parlement les queux ne furent mye faits parties as Declaration Iuggementz avandits Item An Error in this that the foresaid Earl John should forfeit Lands and Tenements the Prelates not assenting who are Peers of Parliament yet were not at all made parties to the abovesaid Declaration and Iudgments But this was adjudged to be no Error and the Condemnation of his Father to have been just and Legal And I am very confident that this is the only Precedent of such an Attempt and yet it makes a stronger argument against it that it was endeavoured and rejected for now it is a Judged Case And besides as I have already observed this desire of the Commons of their making a Proctor shews what the opinion of those times was that the Bishops could not be personally present at such Judgments which is all that is now in question between us His next Precedent is 3 H. 5. when Rich. Earl of Cambridge and others were tried for Treason for levying War against the King the Bishops then personally sitting in Parliament as he saith and he bids us see the Record in the Tower which I dare say he had not done himself for then he would have found it contrary to what he asserts that Richard Earl of Cambridge and Henry Lord Scroope with him were not Tried nor condemned in Parliament as he saith they were but by a special Commission directed to the Duke of Clarence and other their Peers Earls and Barons at Southampton and were there condemned and executed but the whole Proceedings against them were afterwards brought into Parliament at the desire of the Commons and were there at their desire likewise ratified and confirmed and the Bishops then were and might be present for I look upon it as an Act of Parliament yet not attainting them but confirming their Attainder for they were Convicted Condemned and Attainted before at Southampton His last Chapter of Precedents from H. 8. to the 29 Eliz. is only of Bills of Attainder and so acknowledged by him and therefore Nothing to the purpose As I have said before those Bills are Laws though Private Laws whereto every Freeman of England doth consent either in Person or Represented and Bishops are or should be all present at the passing of them for then they act as Members of the House of Lords in their Legislative capacity But for their being Judges in any Trial of Life and Death or part of a Trial when the House proceeds in a Judicial way I see no reason by all that hath been said on the other side to change my opinion That they ought not Sir you see what is said on both sides be you Judge who is in the right FINIS

of Northumberland had Petitioned the King for his Pardon for having contrary to his Allegiance gathered Forces and given Liveries The King gave this Petition to the Judges to have their opinion of it the Lords Protested against it and said that the Judgment belonged to them and retained the business Et puis leve entendue la Petition les Srs. come Piers du Parlement a queux tielz Iugement apperteinnent de droit adjuggerent que ceo que fust fait per le Conte nestoit pas trahison mes trespas tant seulement Sur quoy le dit Conte molt humblement remercia le Roy les ditz Srs. ses Piers de lour droiturel Iugement And then the Petition being read and understood the Lords as Peers of Parliament to whom such Iudgments do of right appertain did give their Iudgment that what the Earl had done was no Treason but only a Trespass whereupon the said Earl did most humbly thank the King and the said Lords his Peers for their righteous Iudgment Now the Bishops could not be said to be his Peers which shews they were not there 7 H. 4. A Judgment was given much like to that in the 2 H. 4. The King commanded the Lords Temporal to deliver their advice concerning the Earl of Northumberland and the Lord Bardolph who had been killed at Bramham More in Yorkshire by the Sheriff of the County who therewith the Posse Comitatus encountred them in the field There were proceedings against them in the Court of Chivalry after their deaths upon certain Articles of Treason there exhibited against them These Articles were brought into Parliament upon reading of which those Lords Temporal adjudged their Crime to be Treason 5 H. 5. The Commons Baillerent une Petition delivered a Petition directed Al honorable Prince le Duc de Bedford Gardein d' Engleterre as tres sages Srs. de cest present Parlement To the honourable Prince the Duke of Bedford Gardian of England and to the most wise Lords of this present Parliament that Sir Iohn Oldcastle might be brought before them who was indicted and outlawed in the Kings Bench for Treason and excommunicated by the Archbishop of Canterbury for Heresie and that due execution might be done upon him according to their discretion by authority of Parliament Pur quoy agarde est per les Srs. avant ditz del assent de le dit Gardein a la priere susdit que le dit John come Traitor au Roy a son Royalme so it amesnez a la Tour de Londres dilloeques soit treinez parmi la cite de Londres as novelles Fourches en la paroche de St. Giles illoeques soit penduz ars pendant Wherefore it is adjudged by the Lords aforesaid with the assent of the said Gardian upon the foresaid Request that the said John as a Traitor to the King and his Realm be carried to the Tower of London and thence drawn through the City of London to the new Gallows in St. Giles Parish and there to be hanged and burnt hanging The question is now if it shall be understood that under the general expression of Les Srs. de cest present Parlement the Bishops were comprized and so to have been parties in this Judgment and I conceive not first because I observe that generally throughout all the Records and Journals of Parliament almost in all transactions but especially and constantly I find it so in matters of Judicature where they were present it is always mentioned and expressed so at That the Lords Spiritual and Temporal or That the Prelats and Earls and Barons did so and so as it was in the Cases before mention ed of Sir Iohn Lee Richard Lyons the Lord Latimer and the rest accused of misdemeanours And my other reason is that in this particular Case of Sir Iohn Oldcastle I find the Clergy had done their parts with him before declaring him an Heretick and turning him over to the Secular power as the words of the Excommunication run where after having expressed a great tenderness of the desperate condition of his Soul and much bewailed his obdurateness they do condemn him for a Heretick Relinquentes eum ex nunc tanquam Hereticum Iudicio Seculari Leaving him from thence forward as an Heretick to the Secular Iudgment So certainly those good men I mean those Popish Bishops would have no more to do with him as to his farther Execution that the world might see they were not Men of bloud 2. H. 6. Sir Iohn Mortimer had been committed to the Tower upon suspicion of Treason against Henry the Fifth and made an escape out of prison being taken again he was indicted of Treason at Guild-Hall The Indictment by the Kings command was returned into Chancery then brought into Parliament by the Bishop of Durham Lord Chancellour and by him Coram Humfrido Duce Gloucestriae who in the Kings absence was commissionated to call and hold that Parliament ac aliis Dominis Temporalibus in eodem Parliamento tune existentibus fuit liberatum Was delivered to Humfry Duke of Glocester and other the Lords Temporal being then in Parliament to be by them affirmed as it was and Sir Iohn Mortimer then brought before them and adjudged by them to be drawn hanged and quartered Et super hoc viso plenius intellecto Indictamento per dictum Ducem de avisamento dictorum Dominorum Temporalium ac ad requisitionem totius Communitatis in presenti Parliamento existentium auctoritate istius Parliamenti ordinatum est statutum c. quod ipse usque ad Turrim ducatur c. And hereupon the said Indictment being seen and well understood it was by the said Duke by the advice of the said Lords Temporal at the prayer of the whole Commonalty in this present Parliament and by the Authority thereof Ordered and Decreed c. that he should be led to the Tower and from thence drawn to Tyburn and there executed We see here the Bishops did not offer to advise so much as concerning the Indictment if it should be admitted of and received by the Parliament though a Bishop being Lord Chancellor was by vertue of his Office to bring it out of the Chancery and present it to the House as he did and there left it 28 H. 6. is the sole single President of Bishops being present and not only so but acting and bearing a principal part in a Judicial proceeding in Parliament in a Case that was in it self Capital though strangely shuffled off and Justice wholly eluded Ianuary 22. William de la Pole Duke of Suffolk preferred a Petition to the King complaining how he was defamed as if he were other than a true man to the King and the Realm and desiring that any man would say wherein that he might give his Answer thereunto Munday 26. the Commons sent some of their Fellows to the Chancellour who was Archbishop of York and a Cardinal praying him that whereas