Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	erroneous_a	error_n	writ_n	2,062	5	9.6571	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A53494	The second part of the Display of tyranny; or Remarks upon the illegal and arbitrary proceedings in the Courts of Westminster, and Guild-Hall London From the year, 1678. to the abdication of the late King James, in the year 1688. In which time, the rule was, quod principi placuis, lex esto.	Oates, Titus, 1649-1705.	1690 (1690)	Wing O52; ESTC R219347	140,173	361

the Lords in Tryal and Judgment taken away by an Inferiour Court This being said in general I come to the particular Exceptions made by Mr Attorney to the form of the Plea He insists that this Plea doth not set forth any Record of an Impeachment nor the particular matter of it and compares it to the Case of a Plea of Auter foitz acquit If a Man has been Indicted and Acquitted he may plead it in another Court that hath Jurisdiction of the Cause if again Indicted for the same matter I say I take this to be a very good Plea and that according to the pleading of Auter foitz acquit In pleading a General Act of Parliament We need not set forth the whole Act but refer to the Record In the Case of auter foitz acquit there is an Indictment Proceeding of the Cour upon the Plea a Tryal and an Acquittal and a Record of all this matter and if the party be again Indicted he hath a Record to plead which will shew the whole matter and if he does not plead it 't is his own default But in this Case here is no such Record to plead and there is Mr Attorney's mistake you must in this Case be governed by the Rules and Methods of Parliament which is this the Commons Impeach a Man and bring up the Impeachment to the Lords in general and have Liberty to present Articles after due consideration It is said in this Plea that it is secundum legem consuetudinem Parliamenti you are to take notice of the Law of Parliaments and Customs of Parliaments The second Exception is That it is not said in the body of the Plea that Fitz-Harris is Impeached for this Treason but it comes in only in the Averment As to that we must pursue the Impeachment as it is in the Lords Journal 't is for Treason generally there and 't is said to be secundum Legem consuetudinem Parliamenti which goes to all and there is a Record of it among the Records of Parliament and Mr Attorney hath confessed it by the demurrer And this is the same Treason we do aver in fact which also is confessed by the demurrer Mr Attorney hath fancied an exception of Grammar an Adjective for a Substantive but I take it to be as well as any Man can plead in this case The Prisoner says the Commons Impeached him which Impeachment is still in force before the Lords It is as plain as can be if they did Impeach him then there was an Impeachment it can bear no other sence Another Exception and which was strongly urged is That the King may chuse his Court 'T is no doubt the King may chuse his Court for his own Action but the Impeachment is the Suit of the Commons and that is to be tryed in Parliament and no where else I have offered these Reasons as to the form of the Plea to maintain it As to the Precedents There was the Bishop of Winchester's Case 3 Edw. 3. In Coke's 2 Inst fol. 15 the Record is recited de verbo in verbum It was not an Indictment my Lord Coke says it was a Declaration the Record sets forth that the Bishop was attached to answer the King for that whereas it was ordained Per Ipsum Regem Ne Quis ad domum Parliament summonitus ab eodem recederet sine Licentia Regis And that the Bishop in contempt of the King recessit without his leave The Bishop comes and says Si Quis deliquerit erg● dominum Regem in Parliamento aliquo ie Parliamento debet corrigi emendari non alibi in minori Curia Quam in Parliamento c. We find no Judgment given upon this Plea nor would they venture to do it My Lord Coke says It looks as if there was a design to weaken the Parliaments by bringing their Proceedings into Westminster-Hall but they would not do it Then there is the Case of Mr Plowden and others 1st and 2d Phi. and Mar. the Information is this That they were summoned to Parliament and departed without leave of the King and Queen the' they had prohibited that any should depart Mr Plowden pleads a Plea a hundred times as faulty as ours if ours be faulty and yet this Case continued all the time of that Queen and it appearing upon the face of the Information that the Case concerned the Commons the Court would not give Judgment for or against the Commons There is also Elliot's Case 5 Car. There was an Information against my Lord Hollis Sr John Elliot and many more They plead to the Jurisdiction of the Court their Pleae is in a manner as faulty as Plowden's but the Court goes not upon the insufficiency of the Plea but gives Judgment generally that this Court had a Jurisdiction The assault happen'd in Parliament the Words were spoken there and upon the demurrer they gave Judgment upon the whose matter This Judgment was reversed 19 Car. 2. The Judgment was given against these Gentlemen of the House of Commons Their Plea was a Plea in Abatement They thought it a very hard Judgment and were obstinate and would not plead over and Judgment was given for want of a Plea they were fined severely and continued in Execution for the Fines were delivered by the Parliament 16 Car. 1. in the second Impression of Croke's Car. it is said That the House of Commons 19 Car. 2. voted That the Judgment was illegal and against the freedom and liberty of Speech and that the Lords concurred in that Vote And upon the Resolution of both Houses the Judgment was reversed by Writ of Error If in our Case you should give Judgment against the Prisoner's Plea and he should prove obstinate and not plead over and you give Judgment of Death upon him It may come to be a very hard Case if your Judgment should be reversed by Writ of Error in Parliament when the party is dead * Sr Francis Winnington in his Argument added to this that it was agreed by the Lords unanimously that the Judgment was erroneous and that the Parties should be restored to all that they had lost but if this Man should lose his Life by your Judgment what help would there be upon a Writ of Error 20 Rich. 2. Ro. Parl. 12. Rushworth 47.48 A Person presented a Petition to the Commons and something suggested therein amounted to Treason He was Indicted out of Parliaement and found guilty But though he was pardoned because the Commons would not lie under that Precedent of an Invasion of their Priviledge tho' he was a Person without Doors and no more hurt done to him but the prosecution the Judgment was voided Mr Williams then concluded his Argument thus My Lord I have done with my Reasons for the matter and for the form Here is the Life of a Man before you here is the right of the Commons to Impeach in Parliament before you Here is the Judicature of the Lords to