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	law_n	writ_n	2,710	5	9.4811	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80408	Redintegratio amoris, or A union of hearts, between the Kings most excellent Majesty, the Right Honorable the Lords and Commons in Parliament, His Excellency Sir Thomas Fairfax, and the Army under his command; the Assembly, and every honest man that desires a sound and durable peace, accompanied with speedy justice and piety. By way of respective apologies, so far as Scripture and reason may be judges. / By John Cook of Grayes-Inne, Barrester.	Cook, John, d. 1660.	1647 (1647)	Wing C6026; Thomason E404_29; ESTC R201862	78,816	92

for quick and cheap justice would do it abundantly that the poor may have justice for Gods sake and the rich for reasonable Considerations The favorites of state have always magnified the happiness of English men above all other nations in regard of the Assizes that twice a year Queen justice rides her Progress and Justice is sent them home to thier doors but I profess the Kingdom is a great looser by it 't is a meer spunge to suck away their moneys for little or no Consideration matters of the Crown only excepted and why more hast to hang a man for stealing a sheep then to help a poor man to his just Debt for what a charge is it to try a Nisi prius and when the matter of fact is tryed the party is never the neerer judgment is far of the Defendent may dye or elss writs of Error brought that a man is not beholding so much to the Law as to a good purse to obtain his right therefore this I would humbly beg of the Parliament for the present because to settle a Court of Judicature in every County wil require time and much wisdom to foresee and prevent subsequent inconveniences that the Reverent Judges may every Circuit if possibly to begin this Summer circuit be enabled by Commission to hear and determine besides the Nisi prises all private differences between party and party throughout the whole Kingdom the matter to be brought before them by Petition the Defendent to have timely notice in person or at his dwelling house by Affidavit of two witnesses in case he appear not both parties to bring their witnesses and evidences and the matter being heard to be speedily ended and execution by the Sherif accordingly unless it be very weighty and then to be adjourned to Westminster whereby a difference may be ended in a moneths time for 5. l. charge at the most which now costs 50 or 100. l. and is 3 years at the least in deciding and ends most commonly with the ruin of one party and the other gets such a blow that is long in recovering I know this wil be counted a dangerous design tending to overthrow the Law but it is only by such as fear rather the overthrow of their own profit more then they value the Law and the Prophets for I am sure they cry out for quick and cheap justice and I wil burn my books nay venture my life upon it that no man can render a reason nor frame an objection against this but that I can easily refute it if this be granted as a maxime of state that the Publique good and quiet of many is to be preserved before the private profit of a few say not that I shal hereby wrong my own profession 't is all one if I did in reference to the Publique good but this is a great mistake Lawyers would get more by speedy Justice for who had not rather give his Councel 40. s. to end his business in a day then attend many moneths and give him 10. s. a time for motion upon motion references and references besides no wise man wil go to Law for as matters are carryed the worst end by Arbitriments is better then the best can be expected by the Law all things computed unless in special cases and so what is lost in the hundred is found in the Shire pray do not say this wil prejudice the City and keep away Termers suppose it were so why should all the blood in the body be drawn into one veine When one member swels too much the body pines but that 's another mistake for men would bestow that in Cloaths and Commodities which they now spend in Law-suits but I hope time wil make us wise but then comes the old objection wil you have all things arbitrary and uncertain Nothing less but every Controversie to be ended according to reason and every former President and Judgment to be authentical and binding so far as there is reason for it and not otherwise the contrary practise is as dangerous to the state as implicite faith in matters of salvation for I would but ask this question If a Judg beleives in his Conscience that former Presidents were against reason whether if he observe them he doth not therein condemn himself but if he see reason for the Judgment then it is his own Judgment that leads him and not the bare Authority of his Predecessors but it wil be alledged that reason is malleable and one reason may be brought against another truly in matters of moral Justice t is hard to imagine any great difficulty that cause which at first is a bul-rush comes to be a Gyant differences for the most part are plain and very easie at the first beginning of the suit but when by motion upon motion the cause is put out of its course the matter grows so intricate that a poor Clyent can scarce get out of the Labyrinth but my meaning is not that every rational man should be able to understand the reason of a Law-case but that that cannot be given Law when there is a good reason to be given against it as put the case there is a verdict for a Just debt now whatsoever can be alleadged that such a process did not issue regularly yet reason says that the Debt ought to be presently paid and this can be no more called confusion then Mithridate deserves the name of Poyson And now if I should proceed Methodically I should argue whether the Parliament have sufficient grounds to raise Armies as they did but that is but to argue whether the Protestants or the Papists be of the true Religion and next I should lay down what those just grounds and Arguments were but that would savor of Presumption having been so fully and ungainsayingly declared by both Houses and might be unsafe if I should omit any and at the best prove tedious to the reader my desire being not to build upon any mans foundation nor to bring Arguments which have been exposed to Publique view already though I judg them better then my own yet 't is but a kind of cosenage to the reader to invite him to make several purchases of the same matter a trick more Common then Commendable in this Printing age yet something I must say concerning those matters which is this that the Arguments and motives which swayed me to adhere so cordially and constantly to the Parliament against the late Oxford party were rather Scripture grounds and reasons of state and self preservation then Law-cases and Printed authorities for I always conceived that the King was obliged to call Parliaments as often as the generallity of the people besought him and to disolve them til the Parliament said omnia bene was against his oath and that he was to consent to all such Laws as should humbly be presented to his Majesty by both Houses and when I find in our Law books that the King is a God upon earth as

Majesty we shal use all dutiful means to procure Your Royal Assent but if You still refuse we mst not sit still and see our selves ruined we must save the Kingdom without Your Consent though we hope not against it But then saith the Obiector where is the Kings power I answer nothing at all diminished his Maiesty hath more power then he can imagine for the preservation and happiness of the Kingdom which is the end of all Superiority but nothing for the destruction and desolation of the people we say God is omnipotent and yet he cannot sin nor do any iniustice shal we say that the Kings power is diminished because he may not hurt the people or that a man is less in health becaus he hath many Physitians to attend him nothing less for 't is impotence and weakness to do hurt and iniury but the King is impowred for the good of the people true but he may not say that is for the Kingdoms good which they say is for their hurt what I do for my own good I may undo Methinks this should satisfie every noble Prince let my Subjects in Parliament propound what Laws they please for their own security 't is a great ease to me if the Laws be not good they may thank themselves if they be good the honor is mine my consent being as the Master-builder that gives the form and life to the Architecture and if the Subiect suffers I cannot be blamed but if the contrary should be Law what miserable things were Subiects who wil trust his own father with his life And who can be merry if a King or Governor may divide his head from his body or him from his dearest relations by imprisonment or otherwise when he pleaseth but here lies the root of all our misery we take all for gold that glisters every thing to be reason that looks like it and every case to be Law which we find written in our Law books whereas Law is reason adiudged in a Court of Record where reason is the Genus the Court makes the difference from extraiuditial discours which may be rationally yet is not legally iust if it be not reason the pronunciation of 10000. Judges cannot make it Law no more then the Venetian Madonnas can by their huge high heels in reality add one Cubit to their stature as for example 't is a Max me in Law that the King can do no wrong therefore if he kill or ravish 't is neither Murder nor Felony I say 't is against reason therefore against Law for if the King may kill one man he may kill one hundred and what Courtier dare give any faithful advice when the King may without controul kill him or strangle him and so not be guilty of blood as the grand Turk that having promised to spare a mans blood caused him to be strangled and so shed no blood or something like the case of the Duke of Glocester by King H. 7. this was acknowledged by the Tyrant who having a mind to kill his brother his Chancellor told him he might not by Law commit Fratricide but saith he is there not a Law that I may do what I please and let but Mr Jenkins answer whether those Judges whose Authorities he vouches were not of opinion that whatsoever the King did it is in Law no offence and then all that he hath written or can write against the Parl●ament wil not bear the weight of a feather and I humbly intreat all indifferent men that read books more for satisfaction then a desire to contend for any party but to answer me this question Why should there be any more credit given to the opinion and authorities of the Judges specially such as payd dear for their places in matters of difference between the King and his Subjects in point of property then there was to the Bishops for matter of Divinity were they not both the Kings creatures alike Was it the way of preferment by standing for the liberty of the Subject to get great estates Have not the Iudges in many Countries been the raisers and first founders of great and noble Families And were those estates got by pleading for the liberty of the subject against the Prerogative We know who it was not long since that got a vast estate and thinking to ingratiate himself with his Prince said he was seldom or never of counsel in passing any Pattent but he reserved some starting hole to make it voyd in Law if need were which was as good as an act of Resumption This is the grand Error that subordinate officers are accountable only to the King and the King to God whereas all Judges and Magistrates are intrusted by the people if the people give power to the King to chose them 't is out of a confidence that his Majesty wil nominate such as shal most faithfully serve the peoples good and when Arbitrators are impowred to choose an Vmpire he may be truly said to be chosen by the parties litigant this ruines Justice when men in places of Authority more esteem him that gives them their Commission then the business that they are imployed about when their eyes are more intentively fix't upon the stars of their inclinations who preferred them then upon the publick good of the Kingdom for whose sake they were preferred for when a Magistrate is made great the principal intent and meaning of the Law is not his greatness and honor but to advance publick justice I but says one he is such a mans creature raised by him E vilissimo pulvere must not he requite his love and pleasure his Father No justice is blind and knows neither father nor mother the Judg looks not at the manner of the conveyance of his power how he comes by his Authority but at the matter of his Commission and the true end of Judicature the right understanding of one Scripture 1 Pet. 2.13 14. makes a good Judg the words are plain and being learned for learning is a special gift sanctified for matters of policy and government observes that Kings are a humane Ordinance as wel as Corporations and Societies and concludes that all those Scholastical discourses of Kings being Jure Divino are but tryals of Wit and by Supream he intends that the King is supream to administer the Law not to make Laws much less break them and Governors sent by him are for the punishment of evil doers and for the praise of them that do wel the want of this consideration ruined the Judges in point of ship-money the greatest part whereof were very very learned men Haec est crede mihi cunctorum causa malorum Scripturas Domini non didicisse sacras I know this Error in judgment undid the Lord Keepers Finch and Littleton men of brave spirits had they been for publick liberties Lord Chief Iustice Banks a man profoundly studied And Mr Jenkins being made a Iudg thinks himself bound in honor Junare in verba English men