Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	court_n	record_n	writ_n	3,114	5	9.8826	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91212	The Long Parliament tvvice defunct: or, An answer to a seditious pamphlet, intituled, The Long Parliament revived. Wherein the authors undeniable arguments are denied, examined, confuted: and the authority of this present Parliament asserted, vindicated. By a zealous yet moderate oppugner of the enemies of his prince and country.	Prynne, William, 1600-1669, attributed name.	1660 (1660)	Wing P4003; Thomason E1053_2; ESTC R203196	25,482	48

opposite to the ends to which they were ordained in their first Institution Thirdly 't is common as in all other Laws so by the Laws of England to allow a special priviledge to all those cases which are ushered in by a Necessity not to be resisted as you may read at large in Plowden Fogassas case fo. 9. 13 18 19. Not to trouble my Reader with particular cases in a matter that will brook no Denyal Now who knows not that at the Time of the Calling of this Parliament there was an Armed power in this Kingdom inimical to the restauration of his Sacred Majesty and the ancient and legal Government of this Nation And that to have summoned the Peers at all or the Commons in the Kings name might then have been the occasion of a Civil Warr and have hindred all those excellent Defigns which by a more calm and prudent managery have been since effected and brought to passe And therefore it is plain that there was a necessity of calling the Parliament because nothing but a Parliament could repair the breaches of the Nation and the Parliament could be called in no other Manner then it was without the hazard of a new War and Victory being uncertain of the dissolution of Government But it may be Objected That the Necessity ended with the Kings coming into England and therefore another Parliament ought afterwards to have been legally called To which I answer That the Necessity which occasioned the Calling of this Parliament was not only to invite home his Majesty but to confirm and secure him in the Throne and to do such other things for the Safety and Peace of the Nation as could be only done by them with security to the King and Kingdom And therefore the Necessity of their sitting continued First till they had pass'd the Act of Oblivion because it being offered of the Kings free grace who was not otherwise bound but by his Royal word in his Declaration from Breda which referred to such Exceptions as this present Parliament should make It had been unsafe for the Nation and would have be got fears in a great number of guilty minds which might quickly have broken out into open Commotions if this Parliament had been dissolved before that Act had been pass'd for their Pardon and Indemnity Secondly The King and kingdom were not safe whilst an Army was on foot that was but a reconcil'd Enemy and had not the authority of this Parliament over-awed them till and in their disbanding No man is certain and it had been great Folly to have put a matter of that import into hazard whether they might not have broken their Faithes and Allegiance being spurred on by Despair to have attempted some great Rebellion which might have brought us into a Relapse of all our Miseries before an other Parliament could have been summoned and Convened They who know the History of that Army will not think such an accident impossible And therefore this Parliament was necessitated to sit till they had disbanded the Army and effected all the other businesses that were depending thereupon or in order to that End which are now well nigh but yet not fully perfected Thirdly I conceive that the Kings Majesty is the only and proper Judge when this necessity will be at an end wherein as in all other things there is no doubt but he will govern his Counsels with such care and prudence as will describe him not to be more desirous of the love and affection of his particular Subjects then he shall be tenderly cautious for the establishment of the peace and happinesse of the Nation in general As to the Authors third Exception That the Parliament was not begun with the Kings personal or representative presence what I have already said is a full Answer But I might say further that there is no necessity that I should yield to him that this exception is true For all the Acts of this Parliament which have the effect of Laws were made with the Royal Assent since his Majesty was personally present with them and though they met sometime before yet that doth not hinder but that it might begin to be a Parliament upon his Majesties first access to the two honourable Houses And in the general I affirm that the power and faculty of determining what is a Parliament according to the Laws of this Nation lies not in any Subject as such but in the Kings Majesty or the Parliament or both together or in the Judges of the Land But the King and Parliament have by their Act entituled An Act for removing and preventing all Questions and Disputes concerning the assembling and sitting of this present Parliament with particular mention of all the Authors three Exceptions determined the Question against the Authors rash and inconsiderate opinion And the Judges of the Land do every day impliedly adjudge the same thing by allowing the benefit of the Act of Oblivion to all those that are within the words or meaning of the said Act. So that the Author ought not to have interposed his little opinion seeing it is a certain truth That the judgment of the Judges of the general Courts of Record is the Law of the Land till it be altered by something else of as high or a higher nature and quality Again the principal defects which are alledged in the assembling of this Parliament are the want or defect in the Writs of Summons which is only a legal signification of the Kings command or authority for their Election and Convening And this is supply'd by the Kings confirmation afterwards in the aforesaid Act. It being a rule in Law That Omn-is rati habitio mandato aequiperatur a confirmation afterwards is looked upon in Law as the same thing with a command in the beginning There is no need to cite any Cases to prove this whereof there is no scarcity of Instances if I asserted a long discourse Not to insist upon his unmannerlinesse with the present honourable Houses I shall only wonder at his boldnesse and folly who might have been fore warned by that passage in the 3d Instit. chap. Parliament which he so much Inculcates viz. Arthur Hall a Member of the House of Commons for publishing and discovering the Conferences of the House and writing a Book to the dishonour of the House was adjudged by the House of Commons to be committed to the Tower for 6. months fined at five hundred Marks and expelled the House Yet I know the Authors case is somewhat differing he being t is said no Member of the House of Commons But to conclude 'T is a strange thing that there should be some who cannot be contented either with rain or sun-shine Neque morbos nostros nec Remedia nostra ferre possumus was an old complaint but much more applicable to the dregs of time wherein we are fallen We were before tormented with the anguish of our wounds and now we quarrel with our Plasters

their proceedings and to give example to inferiour Courts I shall not mention the Books cited by Mr. Prynne which pertain hither but refer the Reader to his Book But to come nearer t is the Judgement of a whole Parliament in these words viz. It is declared by the Lords and Commons in full Parliament upon demand made of them on the behalf of the King That they could not assent to any thing in Parliament that tended to the disherison of the King and his Crown to which they were sworn And my Lord Cook saith That although it might be done i. e. de facto yet it is against the Law and Custom of Parliament Now the said Act of 17 Caroli according to the Authors Interpretation is expresly against the Prerogative of the Kings Successor to call his own Parliament and hath many other inconveniences which need not to be here again repeated and therefore in the words of the Parliament in Edward the 3d. his time They could not make an Act to bear such an Interpretation to the disherison of the King and his Crown c. Yet I will not deny but that the Kings Majesty might binde up his own hads and suspend his ordinary power from an actual dissolution of the Parliament morally by his promise or legally by an Act made for that purpose For a Parliament may bee dissolved either by an external principle which is accidental viz. the declaration of the Kings pleasure or by an internal principle which is natural viz. the want of entring their Continuances or the Kings death whereby the Kings writ which is the authority they have to convene together is determined Now the King as over his Subjects so he hath a soveraignty over his own Will and being obliged by his Royal assent to that Act he might and ought to stave off the accidental cause of their dissolution But for the aforesaid Reasons I doubt whether the Kings Majesty or his two Houses or altogether could legally change the substance of the Parliament and defend it against the natural Causes of its Dissolution This being understood under the limitations expressed in my first Thesis or Position But that which I will rely upon is this that admitting it be in the power of a Parliament with the Royal assent by their Act to make themselves a Legal Parliament after the Kings death by apt words Yet in the Act of 17. Caroli there are no such words as according to the rules of Law will bear any such construction For the words That this Parliament shall not be dissolved unless it be by Act of Parliament are a general negative which by a proper interpretation cannot extend to all the causes of dissolution but only to that which most often happened and which was the pretended grievance at that time viz. the dissolution by the Kings will and Pleasure For it belongs to the Judges to expound the general Statute Laws according to reason and the best convenience and to mould them to the truest and best use And in all times the Judges have excepted particular cases out of the general negative or affirmitive words of Statutes though such particular cases have come within the comprehension of the general words Where the letter of those Statutes in the largest extent of it doth intrench upon the Kings Prerogative or the nature of the thing or enforces to an inconvenience or an impossibility By the Satute of Magna Carta c. 11. 't is enacted That common pleas shall not follow or be sued in the Kings Court or Bench which is a general negative clause yet notwithstanding because 't is a maxime in Law that the King is present in every Court and cannot for that reason be non-suited It is clear Law and so holden that the King is not within these general words but may sue in his Bench or in any other Court at his pleasure In the Marquess of Winchesters Case though there was an Act of Parliament 28. H. 8. that the Lord Norris should forfeit all his rights c. Yet adjudged that a right of action being an inseparable incident to the person attainted could not by general words be made separable contrary to its nature and therefore were not given to the King by the generality of that Law So in Englefields Case though the Statute 33 H. 8. gives all conditions of persons attainted to the King which being a general word comprehends all sorts of conditions yet a condition of revocation of uses by any writing under the hand of the Duke of Bedford that was attainted being appropriated to his own personal act was not forfeited within that general Statute The Statute of Winchester is a general Statute that the Hundred c. shall make satisfaction for all Robberies and Felonies done within the Hundred Yet Resolved that the Hundreds shall make no satisfaction for the robberies of a house because the house was the Owners Castle and he might have defended himself and so t was inconvenient that the Hundred should be put to take care of him that had ability to preserve himself and his goods Nor for a robbery done in the night because it was the Travellers folly to travel by night and it was impossible that the Hundred who by intendment were in their beds should take notice of such a Robbery The Statutes of Marlebridge cap. 4. Westm. 2d cap. 49. and 25 E. 3. cap. 16. are in the general Negative Yet the Judges have so expounded those Statutes that they extend not to many particular special cases which are within the general Comprehension of those words It were infinite to enumerate all of them Therfore to apply this Seeing it is agreed by the Author and otherwise proved That it is the nature of a Parliament ordinarily to be determined by the Kings death and the contrary is as I have proved against the liberty of the Subjects election and in prejudice of the Kings Successors prerogative of calling his own Parliament and this general Clause may be very fully satisfied by suspension of the Kings prerogative to dissolve them at his will and pleasure 'T is against all reason and president that it should be extended any further to change the essential nature of a Parliament abridge the subjects Liberty and shackle the prerogative royal withou● any special and expresse words to manifest certainly that the intention of the Lawmakers was such without any manner of Question For if they had intended to preserve themselves against discontinuance and the Kings death they would have added such special words as these viz. That this Parliament shall not be dissolved by the Kings Majesty nor by neglect of the due entring of Adjournments nor by his Majesties death but onely by Act of Parliament Which would have made their Intention manifest and in such Case they would never have been contented with general words which are uncertain and ambiguous And lastly if