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	reverse_v	writ_n	13,861	5	10.3556	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44187	A letter of a gentleman to his friend, shewing that the bishops are not to be judges in Parliament in cases capital	Holles, Denzil Holles, Baron, 1599-1680.	1679 (1679)	Wing H2461; ESTC R204379	41,325	145

it was lawful for him sometimes to reprove the other and to reduce him bring him into order if he went astray He leaves out what the Bishops work was he omits that clause Episcopus ut jus Divinum diceret for this was not to try Capital Crimes But Sir Henry Spelman tells us further that that Court had cognisance but of petty matters De causis Magnatum Potentiorum non cognovit Comes nam he ad Aulam Regiam deferende Pauperum tantum minus potentum judicabat Hinc Legibus nostris hodie prohibetur debili aut injuriarum actiones in Comitatu intendere si rei litigate valor non sit minor 40 solidis The Earl hath not cognisance of great mens business for such matters are to be brought into the Kings Courts he only judges poor mens Causes Hence it is that by our Law Actions for Debt and Trespasses are not to be commenced in the County Court if it be for above the value of 40 Shillings Judge now I pray you what all this makes to prove that Bishops have right to judge of Treason Felony and those transcendent Crimes which deserve death He then quotes Mr. Selden and makes him say in his Introduction to his Treatise of the Priviledges of the Barons of England that Omnes Praelati Magnates had this Priviledge till the Prelates lost it by the Parliament of 17 Car. 1. I find no such thing there he saith That the Prelacy had heretofore the first place in the Summons but that they had then lost it And this I observe further that Mr. Selden makes the whole upper House to be but one Estate whether the Bishops be there or No It was one Estate formerly when the Bishops had the Priviledge of sitting there and when they had the first place in the Summons and it was one Estate then in Mr. Seldens time when they had lost that Priviledge but our Assertor in the Printed Paper would take no notice of this Now I come to his Precedents he first begins with their Proxies and cites many Parliaments where Bishops gave Proxies which no man denies and they do it still only they give their Proxies now only to Bishops like themselves who are Members of the House not to such as are no Members as it seems they did then But giving Proxies to represent the whole Bench of Bishops or any one Bishop in any Judgment of death except in that one Parliament of 21 R. 2. I utterly deny Indeed he tells us of the 2. H. 4. and 2 H. 5. that they did it it there in those Parliaments but I dare say he cannot find it there I am sure I cannot and I do verily believe he never looked there but that he takes it upon trust out of the Margin of pag. 125. of Mr. Seldens Book of the Priviledges of the Baronage where indeed there is such a quotation but misplaced by the Printer having reference to what is said at the end of the Paragraph of Thomas Earl of Salisbury 2 H. 5. endeavouring to reverse the Attainder of his Father Iohn Earl of Salisbury who was attainted 2 H. 4. and not at all concerning what is said of Proxies in the first part of the Paragraph as our Assertor would here apply it Then he cites a Precedent or two to make out that Bishops were personally present at the giving of some Judgments of Death which if they be truly related he saith something but I believe they will be found to be of as little weight as all he said before His first is among the Pleas of the Crown 21 R. 2. of the Impeachment as he calls it of the Earl of Arundel and others by the Lords Appellants the Earls of Rutland Kent Huntington and others He saith the Earl of Arundel being brought to the Bar by the Lord Nevil Constable of the Tower that the Articles exhibited against him by the Lords Appellants were read to which he only pleaded two Pardons which Pardons not allowed the Lords Appellants demanded Judgment against him Whereupon the Lord Steward by the Assent of the King Bishops and Lords adjudged the said Earl guilty and Convict of all the Articles and thereby a Traitor to the King and Realm and that he should be therefore Hanged Drawn and Quartered This our Assertor saith who quotes Sir Robert Cottons Collections for it and there indeed it is so but methinks one should not venture to quote a Record upon any mans Allegation without consulting the Record it self and that I am sure he hath not done for it saith expresly that it was only the Lords Temporal and Sir Thomas Percy Proctor for the Prelats that gave that Judgment The words of the Record are Sur quoy le dit Duc de Lancaster per commandement du Roy toutz les Srs. Temporels Mr. Thomas Percy aiant poair sufficiant des Prelatz Clergie du Roialme d'Engleterre come piert de Record en le dit Parlement per assent du Roy agarderent le dit Counte d' Arundel coupable convict de toutz les pointz dount il est appellez per taunt luy ajuggerent Traitour au Roy au Roialme quil soit treinez penduz decollez quarterez Whereupon the said Duke of Lancaster by the Kings Command and all the Lords Temporal and Sir Thomas Percy being sufficiently empowered by the Bishops and Clergy of the Kingdom of England as appears upon Record in the said Parliament did by the Kings assent declare the said Earl of Arundel guilty and convict of all the points of which he was accused and therefore did adjudge him a Traitor to the King and Realm and that he should be drawn hanged his head cut off and body quartered You see the Bishops were none of them present but theit Procurator was to which in my Letter I have largely spoken and need not repeat it here He urges also a Precedent in this same Parliament of the Commons by the mouth of their Speaker Sir Iohn Bussy praying the King That for that divers Iudgments were heretofore undone for that the Clergy were not present that the Clergy would appoint some to be their Common Proctor with sufficient authority thereunto I have already shewed that this whole Parliament was repealed for the extravagant things that were done in it of which this was one And therefore nothing that was then done can signifie any thing to be a leading Case any ways to be followed And this as little as any except it could be made appear which I am confident it cannot that some Judgment had been reversed upon that account because the Prelates were not present and had not given their Assent to it Indeed 2 H. 5. Thomas Montacute Earl of Salisbury attempted it brought his Writ of Error to reverse the Judgment given 2 H. 4 against his Father Iohn Earl of Salisbury and did assign that for an Error as the Record saith Item Error de ceo que le dit John susdit Count dust forfaire terres tenements sans assent des Prelates qui sont Piers en Parlement les queux ne furent mye faits parties as Declaration Iuggementz avandits Item An Error in this that the foresaid Earl John should forfeit Lands and Tenements the Prelates not assenting who are Peers of Parliament yet were not at all made parties to the abovesaid Declaration and Iudgments But this was adjudged to be no Error and the Condemnation of his Father to have been just and Legal And I am very confident that this is the only Precedent of such an Attempt and yet it makes a stronger argument against it that it was endeavoured and rejected for now it is a Judged Case And besides as I have already observed this desire of the Commons of their making a Proctor shews what the opinion of those times was that the Bishops could not be personally present at such Judgments which is all that is now in question between us His next Precedent is 3 H. 5. when Rich. Earl of Cambridge and others were tried for Treason for levying War against the King the Bishops then personally sitting in Parliament as he saith and he bids us see the Record in the Tower which I dare say he had not done himself for then he would have found it contrary to what he asserts that Richard Earl of Cambridge and Henry Lord Scroope with him were not Tried nor condemned in Parliament as he saith they were but by a special Commission directed to the Duke of Clarence and other their Peers Earls and Barons at Southampton and were there condemned and executed but the whole Proceedings against them were afterwards brought into Parliament at the desire of the Commons and were there at their desire likewise ratified and confirmed and the Bishops then were and might be present for I look upon it as an Act of Parliament yet not attainting them but confirming their Attainder for they were Convicted Condemned and Attainted before at Southampton His last Chapter of Precedents from H. 8. to the 29 Eliz. is only of Bills of Attainder and so acknowledged by him and therefore Nothing to the purpose As I have said before those Bills are Laws though Private Laws whereto every Freeman of England doth consent either in Person or Represented and Bishops are or should be all present at the passing of them for then they act as Members of the House of Lords in their Legislative capacity But for their being Judges in any Trial of Life and Death or part of a Trial when the House proceeds in a Judicial way I see no reason by all that hath been said on the other side to change my opinion That they ought not Sir you see what is said on both sides be you Judge who is in the right FINIS

authorised by them may be said to represent them and so he did but yet it shews that the Bishops as Bishops and Clergy men could not be there in their persons and that rather than they should be there present such an unusual thing should be admitted as that one Layman who else was no Peer nor had place in the House of Peers to vote there should be chosen by them to have all their Proxies put together and united in him to be disposed of by him as he should think good For it was never done but in this one Parliament there never was in no Parliament before or after such a Procuratorship or Proxy given And in this Parliament of 21. R. 2. it was thrice done first here to Sir Thomas Percy then the Parliament being adjourned to Shrewsbury it was there given it seems by vote only to William le Scrope Earl of Wilts for the words are Sur ce les ditz Prelatz Clergie nomerent ordenerent en Parlement per bouche William le Scrope Conte de Wilts commettant donant a luy pleine poair aussi avant en manere come feust comys a Mr. Thomas le Percy per devant Hereupon the said Prelates and Clergy named and appointed in Parliament by word of mouth William le Scrope Earl of Wilts and gave him the same power as full and in the same manner as before had been granted unto Sir Thomas le Percy Now Percy had it by Commission enrolled which happily was to make it more authentick because he was but a Commoner The third time it was done was in the business between the two Dukes of Hereford and Norfolk when by this Parliament sitting then at Shrewsbury that whole matter was referred to the King to be by him determined by the advice of certain Lords and Commoners there named and to them were joyned the Earls of Worcester and Wilts Procurators for the Clergy This I must say argues a great unanimity in the voting of the Prelates which it seems hath ever been but I must say it was most Unparliamentary never practiced but in that one Parliament of the 21. R. 2. which whole Parliament is repealed and all it did Nulled and made Void by Act of Parliament 1. H. 4. so as it cannot be urged as a Precedent to infer any thing upon it nor can it make any thing to prove a right in the Bishops of being personally present in matters of that nature but rather in my opinion strongly the contrary And one thing more would be observed which is that it seems by the Record that the whole Clergy of England joyned in making this Proctor and not only the Prelates who were Members of the House of Peers which seems very strange But more than all this whatever was done this Parliament signifies nothing the whole Parliament stands repealed by 1. H. 4. and all done in it declared Null and Void 1. H. 4. The Commons had desired that Sir William Rikhill who had been a Judge in the Common Pleas and had been sent by R. 2. to Calais to take the Confession of the Duke of Glocester who soon after was there murthered might be put to answer upon what account he did it He was under arrest for it and was brought into Parliament before the King and the two Houses the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons then assembled together The whole matter was examined the conclusion was saith the Record Sur ceo chascun Sr Temporel esteant en plein Parlement examine severalment sur la response du dit William dit quil avoit fait loyalnent quil ny avoit en luy aucun coupe Hereupon every Lord Temporal being in full Parliament severally asked concerning the answer of the said William said he had carried himself Loyally and that he had committed no fault There was no charge no impeachment against him so the Bishops might be and were present at his examination as the Commons also were but they must have no hand in giving any Judgment upon it because it might have been a preparatory to an Accusation and an Impeachment if he had not given so good satisfaction as it seems he did in the account he gave of his employment That Parliament Iohn Hall a Servant of the Duke of Norfolk's who had helped to murther the Duke of Glocester at Calais was tried before the King and the Lords Temporal The Record saith Il sembla au Roy a toutz les Srs. Temporels quil avoit deservi davoir si dure mort come la Ley luy pourroit donner Et sur ceo toutz les Srs. Temporelz per assent du Roy adjuggerent quil seroit treinez del Tower-hill jusques a les fourkes de Tyburn c. It seemed to the King and to all the Temporal Lords that he deserved as cruel a death as the Law could inflict And hereupon all the Temporal Lords with the assent of the King gave Iudgment that he should be drawn from Tower-hill to the Gallows at Tyburn c. there to be hanged c. 2 H 4. The first Writ de Haeretico comburendo was agreed upon only by the Lords Temporal it was in the Case of William Santre our St. Stephen the Protomartyr of England the Record is Item cest Mesquerdy un Brief fust fait as Meir Uiscountz de Londres per advis des Srs. Temporelx en Parlement de faire execution de William Sautre Item this Wednesday a Writ was framed by the advice of the Lords Temporal in Parliament directed to the Mayor and Sheriffs of London for the execution of William Sautre I doubt not but the Bishops and Clergy of those times were the chief promoters of this though not appearing to be Actors in it Which yet would not have been a direct condemnation of him as his Judges nor any thing to be determined by them tending to his conviction but only an advice given to the King to make it his Act under the Broad Seal to order his execution yet they then were not to have a hand even in a matter of this nature The same Parliament the Earls of Kent Huntington and Salisbury the Lord le Despencer and Sir Ralph Lumley who for levying War against the King had been taken and executed were by the Lords Temporal declared and adjudged Traitors and their Estates to be forfeited the names of the Lords that made this Declaration and gave this Judgment are there set down the Prince of Wales the first and the Lord le Scroope the last five and twenty in all Not a Bishop amongst them so much as to declare and judge it a Treason though the persons who had committed it were dead before So as it seems they must not have a hand neither in the Antecedent what is Preliminary and Preparatory to the death of a Man nor in the Consequent what is to be done after so far from being the Judges to try or condemn him 5. H. 4. The Earl