Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	cause_n	error_n	writ_n	1,472	5	9.3274	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49986	The arguments of the Right Honourable the Earl of Danby the second time, at the Court of King's Bench at Westminster, upon his lordship's motion for bail, the 29th day of June, term. Trin. 1682	Leeds, Thomas Osborne, Duke of, 1631-1712, defendant.	1682 (1682)	Wing L922; ESTC R11803	14,163	15

Parties if the Judgment have been erroneous for that the Superior Court will at last see to the Error if any have been committed by the Judgment of the inferior Court and will enter upon all as entire again as to its Merits as if nothing had been done by the inferior Court so that in reality that which can only reconcile the sence of being depending in Parliament when the Parliament is dissolved is this last Order of the House of Lords which declares Impeachments c. to be continued notwithstanding Dissolution For by virtue of this last Order the Lords do proceed upon the Cause without beginning De novo or having any new Writ or new Impeachment brought up to them But this is new Doctrine and never practised till of late however since they have done so in this sence and in this only a Cause may be said to be depending and so it was adjudged in that single instance of the Tryal and Condemnation of my Lord Stafford but there they proceeded to the Merits of the Cause and they tryed condemned my Lord Stafford and there is no manner of doubt but by virtue of their late Order they may proceed upon me when they shall meet as they shall think fit notwithstanding my having been bailed for I desire not to have the Merits of my Cause removed from before the Lords if I might but that they may do with me as they please even to Condemnation if they shall have Cause which I hope in God they never shall Therefore I say my Lord in this sence only which I have explained a Cause may be said to be depending though a Parliament is not in being but I will challenge the ablest Lawyer with all the Sophistry he can use together with his Law to shew me how he can possibly distinguish the Case of Writs of Error from the Case of Impeachment or wherein they differ as to their depending in the Intervals of Parliament and I likewise challenge him to make appear how Bail is any other than such a suppletory Act to relieve a man from being kept too long from his Liberty as the granting of Execution in the Interval is to relieve a man from being too long kept out of his Money or Estate for that the Merits of the Cause both in the one Case and the other remains entire for the Parliament to recommit upon if they see cause as well as to reverse the Judgment and all the Proceedings upon the Writ of Error Where is then the difference my Lord if there be any difference I think it lies only in this that in one Case there may be an erroneous Judgment and a man may be almost undone and ruined by being wrongfully dispossess'd of his Estate be it never so great but in this Case the suppletory Act which is done to admit to bail can only be to ease a man from his too long or perhaps perpetual imprisonment and can hurt no body nor take no mans liberty from him to grant him his but yet this must be thought an hard Case and the other a very easie one and fit to be practised every day My Lord if the Law has taken care and made such provision that a man shall not be kept too long out of 10 l. in money or out of 40. l. a year in Land then it would be strange that the Law should not have made provision that a man should not be kept too long out of his Liberty and when there is no prospect of his having it Besides in a Writ of Errour the Judgment given is controverted and the power of awarding Execution is suspended upon that very accompt because the Judgment of the Court is in question and the Justice of it is brought in dispute whether they have judged right or wrong Now My Lord if the dissolution of a Parliament can restore the Judges power in the interval of Parliament so as to award an Execution upon a Man's Estate where the property shall be changed and altered and notwithstanding their Justice was brought in question and that they may have done great wrong to the Party by their judgment and yet we are to believe that the same Dissolution cannot restore the power of the Judges so as to give a Man a little Ease from a Confinement within four Walls where the Justice of no Court is questioned nor arraigned nor no wrong can have been done to any body But on the contrary does right to the King who by his consent shews his Will to have a Man bailed and great right to the Subject who ought to be delivered from the danger of an indefinite Imprisonment which is so contrary to Law Then indeed there must be some Infallibility supposed in that Chair which shall maintain such Doctrine and must be submitted to with the same Implicite Faith which they do who can believe Infallibility But for my part who can believe Insallibily in no kind upon Earth I confess I must have my Reason better satisfied before I can any more believe this Exposition of the Law than I can believe those infallible Mens Expositions of the Gospel My Lord I hope I have made plain to your Lordship what it is that is meant or can be understood by a Cause depending in Parliament when there is none and how and in what sense onely it can be understood to be so depending and it is as plain that the bailing of me is no intermedling with the merits of the Cause in Parliament but on the contrary an evident affirmation of the jurisdiction of that supreme Court and if I cannot be admitted to bail in some other Court than the House of Lords it is contrary to what my Warrant of Commitment implies by which I am committed onely till I am discharged by due course of Law for which I am properly in this place My Lord it cannot be meant that Bail can be any more than a Suppletory Act propter rei necessitatem and for the ease of the Subject and it is impossible for that old Rule of Salus populi Suprema Lex esto to be more aptly applied in any case in the World than in this that concerns every Man in England in his Liberty For should it be otherwise Pray see what the consequence of this Doctrine would be that because a superiour Court which is not now in being nor hath it in its own power to be so hath committed a Man therefore he cannot be admitted to Bail what should become of Men if after the dissolution of a Parliament there can be no possibility of having justice done them Nay farther if it should be granted that this Court cannot intermeddle because the Superiour Court has committed by that Doctrine it would not matter whether the Commitment were for Treason or for the smallest quarrel or misdemeanor for which a Man might happen to be in Prison at the time of a dissolution of a Parliament nor would it be any matter whether