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	writ_n	15,418	5	10.2182	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64063	The commoners liberty, or, The English-mans birth-right ...	Twysden, Roger, Sir, 1597-1672.	1659 (1659)	Wing T3551; ESTC R20848	21,436	38

aime at an Arbitrary power to carry on their designes that the Lords without any presentment upon Oath or tryall by Iury may upon a bare information and examining of certaine Witnesses proceed against any Commoner whatsoever and that to deny this or not submit unto them is a breach of the Priviledge of the House of Peeres And a great Lawyer of late hath writ a Tract to justifie their Sentencing Fining and Imprisoning any Commoner and handling all who refuse to answer to them and by pen defend their so doing as contemners of their authority ignorant sottish Sectaries illiterate Ignoramus's altogether unacquainted with our Histories and Records c. To which I must needs say to answer once for all that this is not a sincere way of treating the matter in question to make the world beleeve there are none but such as contemne the authority of Parliament ignorant persons and the like which beleeve this when I dare boldly say of such as have studied and understand the question foure parts of five are of that opinion And himselfe pag. 45. holds their indubitable right of Judicature of Commoners to be but in extraordinary cases of Treason Felony Trespasse and Misdemeanors tryable onely in Parliament which if he shall be pleased to enumerate what they are that cannot elsewhere be tryed I shall not much differ with him but that the tryall of such offences might be proper for Parliament but such I confesse I know none And to make that a crime which no knowne Law calls a crime is against the Apostles definition of one Sinne is the Transgression of the Law and againe I had not knowne sinne but by the Law It is likewise against the Lawes of this Land 7. Before I passe farther it will not be amisse to agree upon the Question which is not Whether upon the Petition of the Commons and that passing the Lords House the King assenting to it a Commoner may not be condemned it being indeed then an Act of Parliament such were those of 50 E. 3. against Richard Lions William Ellis c. which were confirmed by the King at Eltham Neither if the King and Lords which I neither affirme nor deny can censure in some cases a man according to Law doth it therefore follow the Lords alone can cause a Commoner to be fined imprisoned or executed It being certaine the King for ratifying any such thing in Parliament must be present in his naturall capacity of which there needs no other instance then the last I mentioned of the 50 E. 3. when the King being sick sent for the Lords and Commons to Eltham which certain he had not done had there been any other practiced way for confirming what he intended to passe besides his owne presence before the Statute 33 H. 8. cap. 21. which yet enacts that every law confirmed in his absence shall be both under his Seale and signed with his hand of which the last is certainly personall Neither is it the Question Whether the Lords can judge such cases as come into their House according to the Statute 14 E. 3. c. 5. Stat. 1. or give Judgement upon a Writ of Error on a Cause legally brought thither out of the Kings Bench. Neither do I impugn but that their opinion is of great Authority in point of Law every circumstance rightly considered before their delivering of it of which an undoubted one I conceive to be the knowing what the Law is by the Judges or other who best understand the thing in question for if otherwise it is contrary to sense to imagine a few Lords of whom not many are usually skilled in the Lawes and being out of the House are but like other men should within those walls as it were by inspiration be the supreame Judicature of the Realme There must at the tryall of a Peere be at least 12. or above who have ever assisting them some of the Judges to advise the Lord Steward and them what the Law is who comming up to the House of Peeres may direct the Judges who have spent much time in studying it what the Law is This is so clear it needs no proof else I could shew where the opinion of the Judges not taken the Judgement of the Lords was soon made voide And in other where being given according to their sense it remaines Law to this day But the Question is whether the Lords alone upon a bare Information for a Triall by Jury they use not nor ever did to my knowledge without the King can Try and Censure any Commoner to his Detriment either in his Person or Estate 8. First And this I conceive they cannot being not certain to be de Vicineto Secondly Because in point of Life no Commoner can ever Try a Lord of Parliament Thirdly Because the party Accused cannot challenge any of the Lords his Tryers c. Fourthly Because it is expresly enacted 4 Edw. 3. that they should never have any power of so doing which because the Act it self is not Printed and is by some said to be onely a Protestation I will therefore for the clearing of it set down at large Concordia ne trahatur in consequentiam Et est affentu accorde par nostre Seignieur leRoy touz les grantz en plein Parlement que tout soit il que le ditz peres cōe juges du Parlemēt empristrent en la presence nostre Seign le Roy a faire a rendre les ditz jugemēts par assent du Roy sur aucuns de ceux que n'estoient pas lour peres ce par encheson de murdre de Seig. Liege destructiō de celui que fut si pres de sank Royall fitz du Roy que per tant les ditz peres q' ore sont ou les peres q' serront en temps avenir ne soient mes tenuz ne charges a rendre jugements sur autre que sur lur peres ne ace faire mes ayent les peres de la terre poer einz de ce pur touz jours soient dischargez quites que les avantditz jugementz ore rendez ne soient tret en ensample n'en consequence en temps avenir pur quoy les ditz Peres puissent estre charges desore a juger autres que lour peres contre la ley de la terre si au tiel eas aveine que Dieu defende An accord lest it should be drawne in consequence It is assented and agreed by our Lord the King and all the great men in full Parliament that however the said Peeres as Iudges of Parliament did undertake in the presence of our Lord the King to give and render the said Iudgements by assent of the King upon some of those who were not their Peeres and that by reason of the murder of our liege Lord and destruction of him who was so neere the Blood Royall and sonne of a King That notwithstanding the Peeres that now are

have shewed it unto them as indeed it was not then usuall But I shall aske the Gentleman whether he will justifie all the proceedings in that Cause as standing with the Common Justice of the Realme Certainly it would be now by many thought very hard for a person in custody to be first examined privately upon his own Oath to accuse himself and then without being further proceeded with by Law to have the Judgement in effect of a Traitor for killing a Person apparently not within the Statute of 25 Edw. 3. doubtlesse so farre as it appeares to me this may be one of those Presidents whereof Sir Edward Cooke aufereat oblivio si potest si non utcunque silentium tegat Of which opinion the Commons it seemes were who however they let it then passe he not pleading the priviledge of a Commoner yet took care it should not be so any more And it is observable that they desire no such Accusation should be received in Parliament but in His Majesties other Courts Come ad este fait use anciennement en temps de vos tres nobles progenitors c. Which affirmation is indeed as much as is stood upon viz. That it was not the use to try a Commoner in Parliament 17. His second proof 1 Hen. 4. nu 79. Where the Commons affirme Iudgements in Parliament pertaine onely to the King and Lords c. You may see the record at large in his book pag. 37. and M. Lylburnes called the Lawes funerall pag. 16. and sets in the Margint nota and pag. 38. That it is so full and punctuall a Parliamentary decision as is uncapeble of any answer or evasion To this if I should answer that it was no Act of Parliament and therefore bindeth not in succession nor is now by consequence of any force I followed no lesse Lawyer then Sir Edward Cooke but I confesse that passage seemes to me a Declaration of what of right did in any Parliament belong to the Lords and Commons and therefore to be more then temporary I shall therefore say that this President must extend onely to such things which were of the cogniscance of the Parliament and proper for that Judicature not of things did no way at all appertain unto that Court Rot. Parl. 13 Rich. 2. nu 10. after hearing a very long case the Record notes Ysembla as Seignieurs du Parlement que la dite petition n' estoit pas petition du Parlement einz que la matiere enycelle compris dent este tryepar la come ley Certainly they seeme not to have been Judges in that case nor in another Petition Rot. Parl. 16 Rich. 2. nu 32. To which the Answer is Suent a Roy purce que ceste petition n' est pas petition del Parlement Rot Parl. 10. Hen. 6. nu 35. The Commons affirme matters touching a mans Inheritance are not examinable in Parliament and 32 Hen. 6. nu 27. a President himself remembers page 51. it is expresly said Actions at Common-law be not determined in the High Court of Parliament By all which it is manifest those words that Judgements perteine to the King and Lords must be understood of such things whose decision is proper and perteine legally onely to the Parliament such was that 27 Hen. 6. nu 18. touching placing the Lords in Parliament and that was given 1 Hen. 4. in Parliament against the King himself of which the Commons seeme to have had no knowledge 1 Hen. 4. nu 145. which when the like came again in question Rot. Parl. 39 Hen. 6. nu 12. in the case of the Title of the Duke of York The Lords in Parliament charge the Iudges sadly to advise touching it who the 20 of October Answer That they were the Kings Iustices to determine matters in Law between party and party That this was above the Law and passed their Learning that the decision of it perteined to the Lords of the Kings blood and the Peerage of the Land and therefore they desired to be excused of giving Councell in that matter Now indeed in such cases I shall not deny but the King and they may be Judges Yet whatever that priviledge is in judging when they make a Law to binde the Subject concerning any thing of that nature to that the Commons are parties as well as the Lords See 7 Hen. 4. cap. 2. 25 Hen. 8. cap. 22. 28 Hen. 8. cap. 7. 35 Hen. 8. cap. 1. 18. To his next president of 17 Rich. 2. nu 20 21. touching Tho Talbots conspiring the death's of the Dukes of Lancaster and Glocester I have Answered before nu 12. That it was by the Lords onely referred to the Common-law 19. His next president is that of the Earl of Northumberland 5 Hen. 4. nu 12. which being no Commoner is nothing to the purpose as himself consesseth page 29. and page 41. Onely touching the Protestation of the Lords it is apparent they then had an opinion the King would have tryed him a Lord by the Judges without them who were his Peeres And for the Kings giving Judgement against Henry and Thomas Percy he well knowes there was no person then Judged or brought into Judgement onely an opinion of the King and Lords delivered upon a desire of the Archbishop of Canterbury who conceived himself and the Duke of York in some suspition of having adhered to Hotspur and the Earl of Worcester whom the Earl of Northumberland then newly cleared by them did free from having had any complyance with them Yet so as the King and Lords did affirme the warre formerly raised by them should be held Treason So indeed judgeing no man but delivering an opinion that a War raised by two whereof one was slaine in Fight the other beheaded the next day at Shrewesbury should be held Treason of which there was little question His next President is that of Weston and Gomenis to which though I have answered before nu 15. in the case of Hall their offences having been committed beyond the Seas and therefore not Tryable by an ordinary way in England and now taken away by Statute Yet it is apparent that Judgement was an Act of Parliament passing at the request of the Commons by the assent of the Lords and stopt till the King could be informed 20. His next is that of Alice Perers against whom Iudgement of Banishment and forfeiture of Land was given by the Lords without the King or Commons This is the onely President that hath most colour of truth and to his purpose in all his Book And whether she a person that laboured then under the publique hate for her many leud carriages might not have somewhat acted against her not fit to be observed at other times I cannot tell it appearing by record the Law on which that Judgement was grounded of the 50 Ed. 3. did passe without ever calling her to answer But for my part I doe affirme this