Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	error_n	execution_n	writ_n	4,671	5	10.4060	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67908	The history of the troubles and tryal of the Most Reverend Father in God and blessed martyr, William Laud, Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury. vol. 1 wrote by himself during his imprisonment in the Tower ; to which is prefixed the diary of his own life, faithfully and entirely published from the original copy ; and subjoined, a supplement to the preceding history, the Arch-Bishop's last will, his large answer to the Lord Say's speech concerning liturgies, his annual accounts of his province delivered to the king, and some other things relating to the history.	Laud, William, 1573-1645.; Wharton, Henry, 1664-1695.; Prynne, William, 1600-1669. Rome's masterpiece.	1695 (1695)	Wing L586; Wing H2188; ESTC R354	691,871	692

appears by a Sermon of mine appointed to be Preached at the opening of the Parliament in the Year 1625. My Words are these If you would have indeed a flourishing both State and Church The King must trust and indear his People and the People must Honour Obey and Support their King c. This I hope is far enough from derogating from any Law And if I should privately have spoken any thing to him contrary to this which I had both Preached and Printed how could his Majesty have trusted me in any thing CAP. XXIV THis brought this tedious Day to an End And I had an Order the same Day to appear again on Saturday March 16. 1643. with a Note also from the Committee which were to Charge me that they meant then to proceed upon part of the Second Additional Article and upon the Third Original and the Third and Fifth Additional Articles The Second Additional Article is written down before And here follow the rest now mentioned to be next proceeded upon 3. The third Original is He hath by Letters Messages Threats Promises and divers other ways to Judges and other Ministers of Justice Interrupted and Perverted and at other Times by the means aforesaid hath endeavoured to Interrput and Pervert the Course of Justice in his Majesty's Courts at Westminster and other Courts to the Subversion of the Laws of this Kingdom whereby sundry of his Majesty's Subjects have been stopped in their just Suits and deprived of their Lawful Rights and subjected to his Tyrannical Will to their utter Ruine and Destruction The Third and Fifth Additionals follow 3. That the said Arch-Bishop to advance the Canons of the Church and Power Ecclesiastical above the Law of the Land and to Pervert and hinder the Course of Justice hath at divers Times within the said Time by his Letters and other undue Means and Solicitations used to Judges opposed and 〈◊〉 the granting of his Majesty's Writs of Prohibition where the same ought to have been Granted for Stay of Proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court whereby Justice hath been delayed and hindered and the Judges diverted from doing their Duties 5. That the said Arch-Bishop about Eight Years last past being then also a Privy-Counsellor to his Majesty for the End and Purpose aforesaid caused Sir John Corbet of Stoak in the County of Salop Baronet then a Justice of Peace of the said County to be Committed to the Prison of the Fleet where he continued Prisoner for the space of half a Year or more for no other Cause but for calling for the Petition of Right and causing it to be Read at the Sessions of the Peace for that County upon a just and necessary Occasion And during the Time of his said Imprisonment the said Arch-Bishop without any Colour of Right by a Writing under the Seal of his Arch-Bishoprick granted away Parcel of the Glebe-Land of the Church of Adderly in the said County whereof the said Sir Jo. Corbet was then Patron unto Robert Viscount Kilmurry without the consent of the said Sir John or the then Incumbent of the said Church which said Viscount Kilmurry Built a Chappel upon the said Parcel of Glebe-Land to the great prejudice of the said Sir John Corbet which hath caused great Suits and Dissentions between them And whereas the said Sir John Corbet had a Judgment against Sir James Stonehouse Knight in an Action of Waste in his Majesty's Court of Common Pleas at Westminster which was afterward affirmed in a Writ of Error in the King's Bench and Execution thereupon Awarded yet the said Sir John by means of the said Arch-Bishop could not have the Effect thereof but was committed to Prison by the said Arch-Bishop and others at the Council Table until he had submitted himself unto the Order of the said Table whereby he lost the benefit of the said Judgment and Execution The Third Day of my Hearing In the Interim between the 13th and this 16th of March upon some strict Charge to look to the Tower my Solicitor was not suffer'd to come in to me Whereupon so soon as I was setled at the Bar before the Evidence began to be open'd I spake to the Lords as follows My Lords I stand not here to complain of any thing or any Man but only am inforced to acquaint your Lordships with my sad Condition Your Lordships have appointed my Secretary to be my Solicitor and given him leave to assist me in the turning of my Papers and to warn in such Witnesses and to fetch me the Copies of such Records as I shall have occasion to use And I humbly desire your Lordships to consider that my self being Imprisoned and so utterly disinabled to do these things my self it will be absolutely impossible for me to make any Defence if my Solicitor be denyed to come to me as now he is This was granted and the Hearing adjourned till Munday following and I humbly thanked their Lordships for it CAP. XXV The Fourth Day of my Hearing THE fourth Day of my Hearing was Munday March 18. and was only my Answer to the third Day 's Charge and the only time in which I was not put to answer the same Day The first Charge of this Day was about St. Pauls And first out of my Diary where I confess it one of my Projects to repair that Ancient Fabrick And three strict Orders of the Lords of the Council for the demolishing of the Houses Built about that Church One was Novemb. 21. 1634. The demolishing of the Houses commanded by this before Jan. 6. for one and for the rest by Midsummer Another was Mar. 26. 1631. a Committee appointed with Power to compound with the Tenants and with Order to pull down if they would not Compound The third was Mar. 2. 1631. which gives Power to the Sheriffs to pull down if Obedience be not yielded To this I confess I did when I came first to be Bishop of London Project the Repair of that Ancient and famous Cathedral of St. Paul ready to sink into its own Ruins And to this I held my self bound in general as Bishop of the Place and in particular for the Body of the Church the Repair of which is by the Local Statutes laid upon the Bishop And the Bishop was well able to do it while he enjoyed those Lands which he had when that Burthen was laid upon him But what Sacrilegious Hands despoiled that Bishoprick of them 't is to no purpose to tell And truly my Lords since I am in this present Condition I humbly and heartily thank God that St. Pauls comes into my Sufferings and that God is pleased to think me worthy to suffer either for it or with it any way Though I confess I little thought to meet that here or as a Charge any where else And so God be pleased as I hope in Christ he will to Pardon my other Sins I hope I shall be able Humane Frailties always set aside

to be there at Seven in the Morning as if need be I can prove by sufficient Witness and at that Hour I came By this accident I came late and found a Resolution taken to Vote the dissolution of that Parliament and the Votes entred upon my Lord Cottington being in his Speech when I came into the Council-Chamber All Votes concurred to the ending of that Parliament save two The Persons dissenting were the Earls of Northumberland and Holland I co-operated nothing to this breach but my single Vote Yet the very next day Libels were set up in divers parts of the City animating and calling together Apprentices and others to come and meet in St. George's Fields for the Hunting of William the Fox for the Breach of the Parliament This setting up of Libels and animation of the baser People continued I acquainted his Majesty and the Council with it But upon Munday night following being May 11. Five Hundred of them came about my House at Lambeth to offer it and me violence By God's Merciful Providence I had some Jealousie of their intent and before their coming left the best Order I could to secure my House and by the Advice of some Friends went over the water and lay at my Chamber in White-Hall that Night and some other following So I praise God no great hurt was done One young Fellow only had a little hurt with a Dag who was after taken and Executed Thus you see how the malignity of the Time fastned and continued upon me For this Libelling in a very base and most unworthy manner continued against me But not one of them charged me with any one Particular save the breaking of the Parliament of which I was not guilty During this Parliament the Clergy had agreed in Convocation to give his Majesty six Subsidies payable in six Years which came to Twenty Thousand Pound a Year for six Years but the Act of it was not made up His Majesty seeing what lay upon him and what fears there were of the Scots was not willing to lose these Subsidies and therefore thought upon the continuing of the Convocation though the Parliament were ended but had not opened those Thoughts of his to me Now I had sent to dissolve the Convocation at their next sitting haste and trouble of these businesses making me forget that I was to have the King 's Writ for the Dismissing as well as the Convening of it Word was brought me of this from the Convocation-House while I was sitting in Council and his Majesty present Hereupon when the Council rose I moved his Majesty for a Writ His Majesty gave me an unlooked for reply Namely that he was willing to have the Subsidies which we had granted him and that we should go on with the finishing of those Canons which he had given us power under the Broad Seal of England to make And when I replyed it would be excepted against in all likelyhood by divers and desired his Majesty to Advise well upon it The King Answered me presently That he had spoken with the Lord Keeper the Lord Finch about it and that he assured him it was Legal I confess I was a little troubled both at the difficulties of the Time and at the Answer it self that after so many Years faithful Service in a business concerning the Church so nearly his Majesty would speak with the Lord Keeper both without me and before he would move it to me And somewhat I said thereupon which pleased not but the Particulars I do not well remember Upon this I was Commanded to sit and go on with the Convocation At first some little Exception was taken there by two or three of the Lower House of Convocation whether we might sit or no. I acquainted his Majesty with this doubt and humbly besought him that his Learned Council and other Persons of Honour well acquainted with the Laws of the Realm might deliver their Judgment upon it This his Majesty Graciously approved and the Question was put to them They answer'd as followeth under their Hands The Convocation being called by the King 's Writ under the Great Seal doth continue until it be dissolved by Writ or Commission under the Great Seal notwithstanding the Parliament be Dissolved 14. Maij 1640. Jo. Finch C. S. H. Manchester John Bramston Edward Littleton Ralph Whitfield John Bankes Rob. Heath This Judgment of these great Lawyers setled both Houses of Convocation So we proceeded according to the Power given us under the Broad-Seal as is required by the Statute 25 H. 8. Cap. 19. In this Convocation thus continued we made up our Act perfect for the gift of six Subsidies according to Ancient Form in that behalf and delivered it under Seal to his Majesty This passed Nemine Refragante as may appear apud Acta And we followed a President in my Lord Arch-Bishop Whitgift's time An. 1586 who was known to be a Pious and a Prudent Prelate and a Man not given to do boisterous things against the Laws of the Realm or the Prerogative of the Crown but one that went just and fair ways to both Nor did this Grant lye dead and useless for divers Processes are yet to be seen for the fetching in of that which was so Granted to the Queen's use in case any Man refused payment Together with this Act for Subsidies we went on in deliberation for certain Canons thought necessary to be added for the better Government and more setled Peace of the Church which began to be much disquieted by the proceedings of some Factious Men which have since more openly and more violently shewed themselves In the Debates concerning these Canons I dare be bold to say never any Synod sate in Christendom that allowed more freedom either of Speech or Vote The Canons which we made were in number seventeen and at the time of the Subscription no Man refused or so much as checked at any one Canon or any one Branch in any one of them Saving a Canonist or two who excepted against two or three Clauses in some of the last of the Canons which concerned their Profit and their Carriage towards the Clergy in which they were publickly and by joint consent over-ruled in the House And excepting Godfrey Goodman Lord Bishop of Glocester who was startled at the first Canon about the Proceedings against the Papists This Canon is very express for the use of all good and Christian means to bring them out of their Superstitious Errors and to settle them in the Church of England This Canon would not down with my Lord of Glocester And the Morning before the Subscription was to be he came over to Lambeth to me and after great expressions of his dislike I gave him the best Counsel I could that he would keep himself out of that scandal which his refusing to Subscribe would bring both upon his Person his Calling and the Church of England in these broken times especially But I fell so short of

agrees as he said with my Judgment For that in a Paper of Bishop Harsnett's there is a Marginal Note in my Hand that Salvo Jure Coronae is understood in the Oaths of a King But first there 's a great deal of difference between Jus Regis Praerogativa between the Right and Inheritance of the King and his Prerogative though never so Legal And with Submission and until I shall be convinced herein I must believe that no King can Swear himself out of his Native Right Secondly If this were and still be an Error in my Judgment that 's no Argument at all to prove Malice in my Will That because that is my Judgment for Jus Regis therefore I must thrust Praerogativam Regis which is not my Judgment into a Publick Oath which I had no Power to alter These were all the Proofs which Mr. Maynard at first and Mr. Brown at last brought against me in this Particular And they are all but Conjectural and the Conjectures weak But that I did not alter this Oath by adding the Prerogative the Proofs I shall bring are Pregnant and some of them Necessary They are these 1. My Predecessor was one of the Grand Committee for these Ceremonies That was proved by his Servants to the Lords Now his known Love to the Publick was such as that he would never have suffered me or any other to make such an Alteration Nor would he have concealed such a Crime in me loving me so well as he did 2. Secondly 'T is Notoriously known that he Crowned the King and Administred the Oath which was avowed also before the Lords by his Ancient Servants And it cannot be rationally conceived he would ever have Administred such an alter'd Oath to his Majesty 3. Thirdly 'T is expressed in my Diary at Januar. 31. 1625. And that must be good Evidence for me having been so often produced against me that divers great Lords were in this Committee for the Ceremonies and did that Day sit in Council upon them And can it be thought they would not so much as compare the Books Or that comparing of them they would indure an Oath with such an Alteration to be Tender'd to the King Especially since 't is before confessed that One Copy of King James his Coronation had this Alteration in it and the other had it not 4. Fourthly 'T is expressed in my Diary and made use of against me at Januar. 23. 1625. That this Book urged against me did agree per Omnia cum Libro Regali in all things with the King's Book brought out of the Exchequer And if the Book that I then had and is now insisted upon did agree with that Book which came out of the Exchequer and that in all things how is it possible I should make this Alteration 5. Fifthly with much Labour I got the Books to be compared in the Lords House That of King James his Coronation and this of King Charles And they were found to agree in all things to a Syllable Therefore 't is impossible this should be added by me And this I conceive cuts off all Conjectural Proofs to the contrary Lastly In the Printed Book of the Votes of this present Parliament it is acknowledged that the Oath given to King James and King Charles was the same The same Therefore unaltered And this Passage of that Book I then shewed the Lords in my Defence To this Mr. Maynard then replyed That the Votes there mentioned were upon the Word Elegerit and the doubt whether it should be hath chosen or shall chuse I might not then Answer to the Reply but the Answer is plain For be the occasion which led on the Votes what it will as long as the Oath is acknowledged the same 't is manifest it could not be altered by me And I doubt not but these Reasons will give this Honourable House Satisfaction that I added not this Particular of the Prerogative to the Oath Mr. Brown in his last Reply passed over the other Arguments I know not how But against this he took Exception He brought the Book with him and Read the Passage And said as far as I remember that the Votes had Relation to the Word Chuse and not to this Alteration Which is in Effect the same which Mr. Maynard urged before I might not Reply by the Course of the Court but I have again considered of that Passage and find it plain Thus First they say They have considered of all the Alterations in the Form of this Oath which they can find Therefore of this Alteration also if any such were Then they say Excepting that Oath which was taken by his Majesty and his Father King James There it is confessed that the Oath taken by them was one and the same called there That Oath which was taken by both Where falls the Exception then For 't is said Excepting that Oath c. why it follows Excepting that the Word Chuse is wholly left out as well hath Chosen as will Chuse Which is a most manifest and evident Confession that the Oath of King James and King Charles was the same in all things to the very leaving out of the Word Chuse Therefore it was the same Oath all along No difference at all For Exceptio firmat Regulam in non Exceptis and here 's no Exception at all of this Clause of the Prerogative Therefore the Oath of both the Kings was the same in that or else the Votes would have been sure to mention it Where it may be observed too that Serjeant Wilde though he knew these Votes and was present both at the Debate and the Voting and so must know that the Word Chuse was omitted in both the Oaths yet at the first he Charged it eagerly upon me that I had left this Clause of Chusing out of King Charles his Oath and added the other God forgive him But the World may see by this and some other Passages with what Art my Life was sought for And yet before I quite leave this Oath I may say 't is not altogether improbable that this Clause And agreeing to the Prerogative of the King 's thereof was added to the Oath in Edward 6. or Queen Elizabeth's time And hath no Relation at all to the Laws of this Kingdom absolutely mentioned before in the beginning of this Oath But only to the Words The Profession of the Gospel Established in this Kingdom And then immediately follows And agreeing to the Prerogative of the Kings thereof By which the King Swears to maintain his Prerogative according to God's Law and the Gospel Established against all foreign Claims and Jurisdictions whatsoever And if this be the meaning he that made the Alteration whoever it were for I did it not deserves Thanks for it and not the Reward of a Traytor Now to return to the Day The Fourth Charge went on with the Ceremonies still But Mr. Serjeant was very nimble For he leaped from the Coronation at Westminster

when they have a just Cause of Proceeding do neither fear nor spare any Man's Greatness And is it probable that they which spared not the Duke of Buckingham's Greatness would have feared mine being then a poor Bishop of Bath and Wells And a Parliament was held again in the very next Year 1627. So that he wanted not opportunity to complain Nor can I believe any Opinion of my supposed Greatness stopped him Let him look into himself Then Mr. Nicolas told the Lords with great vehemency what Venom there was in this Paper which he said was in every Particular A right Spider I see now he is Venom out of any thing Here is a void space left I suppose with design to have the Paper here mentioned to be inserted Which was not done The Seventh Proof was out of my Diary at March 1628. Where the words are that the Parliament which was dissolved March 10 1628. sought my Ruin This had been a better Argument to prove Parliaments an Enemy to me than me to them But nothing can be meant by this but that my Ruin was sought in that Parliament by some particular Men whose Edge was too keen against me And this appears in my Diary at June 14. preceeding at which time I was put into a Remonstrance which had I been found any way guilty must needs have ruin'd me But by God's Blessing the very same day I did clearly acquit my self in open Parliament of all the Aspersions cast upon me about Dr. Manwaring's Sermons This Particular Mr. Brown charged upon me and I Answer'd as before But Mr. Nicolas did not touch upon it this day The Eighth Proof that I was an Enemy to Parliaments was taken from some Marginal Notes which I had made upon a printed Speech of Sir Benjamin Rudyards which he spake in the Parliament held An. 1627. Mr. Nicolas named Four but Mr. Brown in Summing up my Charge insisted only upon Two The Word Reducing And the Aim of Gaining from the King Sir Benjamin Rudyard is my old Acquaintance and a very worthy Member of that House both now and then But be a Man never so Worthy may he not use some Phrase amiss Or if he do may not I or another observe yea check at it but by and by I must be an Enemy to Parliaments Is there any Argument in this I said a Gentleman in the House of Commons used an ill Phrase in a Speech of his in that House therefore I am an Enemy to the Parliament in which he spake it Say I am mistaken and not he and that the Phrase is without Exception yet this is but my Error in Judgment no Proof of Enmity either to the Parliament or him that spake it That which I said was this First that the word Reducing as there placed was a hard Phrase Let any Man view that Speech considerately and tell me whether it be not so Secondly that I disliked the word Gaining being between the King and his People in Parliament For as I humbly conceive there will always be work enough for both to joyn for the Publick Good and well it can never be if they which should so joyn do labour only to gain one from another For if the King shall labour to gain upon the Liberty or Property of the Subject or the Subjects in Parliament labour to gain from the just Power and Prerogative of the King can any Prudent Man think the Publick can thrive there-while Yea but they say that my Marginal Note upon this Phrase was that this Gaining was the Aim of the lower House If my Note be so yet that cannot be otherwise understood than that according to this Expression this must be their Aim And the Reason why I found fault with the Phrase was because I saw this must follow out of it So under Favour I was not so bold with this Gentleman as he was with the House in using this Speech The next Proof was that I found fault with Eight Bills that were then in the House This is a very poor Proof of my Enmity to Parliaments that I disliked some Bills proposed in them Though there be no Proof of this urged at all save only that I writ the time May 27. 1628. upon the Paper where the Bills were mentioned And I hope to mention the time when any Bills were proposed is not to dislike the Bills But say I did dislike them what then It is lawful for any Member of the House and such was I then to take Exceptions which he thinks are just against any Bill before it pass And shall not that which is Lawful for any Man to do be Lawful for me Beside almost all Bills are put in by private Persons The House is not interessed in them till they are Passed and Voted by them So that till then any Man may spend his Judgment upon the Bill without any wrong at all to the Parliament Mr. Brown saw this well enough and therefore vouchsafed not so much as to name it The Tenth Proof was that I made an Answer to the Remonstrance set out by Parliament An. 1628. This was pressed before and here 't is laid hold of on all Hands to make as full a Cry as it can against me Mr. Nicolas presses it here aloud as he doth all things and Mr. Brown lays it close in Summing up the Charge My Answer the same to both First they charge me that I made that Answer to the Remonstrance which came forth An. 1628. I did this by the King's Command and upon such Instructions as were given me And as I obeyed the Command so did I closely pursue my Instructions And I durst do no other for I was then upon my Oath as a Sworn Counsellor and so employed in that Service And I hope no Man will conceive that I would without such a Command have undertaken such a kind of Service Yea but they say it doth not appear that I had any such Command Yes that appears as plainly as that I made it For they bring no Proof that I made it but because the Indorsement upon that Paper is in my Hand and calls it my Answer And the same Indorsement says I made it by his Majesty's Command So either the Indorsement is no sufficient Proof for the one or if it be 't is sufficient for both And must needs witness the one for me with the same strength that it doth the other against me For a kind of Confession that Indorsement is and must therefore not be broken but be taken with all its Qualities Thirdly they say there are some sour and bitter Passages in the Answer 'T is more than I perceived if it be so Nor was any Sourness intended And I hope no such Passages found in it the Person considered in whose Name the Answer was made The Expressions indeed might have been too big for a Subject's Mouth Fourthly they say I was displeased that this Answer was not Printed but