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
A65227	Some observations upon the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the kings of England with an appendix in answer to part of a late book intitled, The King's visitatorial power asserted.	Washington, Robert.	1689 (1689)	Wing W1029; ESTC R10904	101,939	296

and goes no higher And since there were no such Commissions of Charitable Vses before that Statute therefore the Statute being introductive of a new Law must be pursued and where the Statute does not provide a Remedy there is none Now the Statute of 24 H. 8. cap. 12. and 25 Hen. 8. cap. 19. So far forth as they concern Appeals are for the most part introductive of New Laws too And the latter of them gives Appeals to the King in Chancery which never lay before And therefore as the Act gives them he ought to take them and no otherwise for the Act is his title and it has negative words But the Lord Coke's Error in ascribing that Power Jurisdiction and Authority to the King in person which was ab origine in King Lords and Commons runs through almost all that he has written upon that Subject And our Lawyers who look upon him as an Oracle for his Learning and Judgment in the Controversial profitable part of the Law in which he was unquestionably a very great Man follow him blind-fold in some mistakes They study Resolutions of Judges in cases of Property and till of late have gone by that lazy rule that the latest authorities are the best So they forget Antiquity and hardly cast their thoughts further backward than Dyer and Plowden Those of them that are more inquisitive go as high as to the Quadragesms and Book of Assizes But the Government is not so much beholden to them as were to be wisht They deserve worse of it than other Men for it being the only honour of their Profession to support it by understanding and asserting it and the natural bent of their Studies carrying them into it their narrow Spirits private Interests Et illud quod dicere nolo prevail with too many of them to betray it by neglecting it The Lord Coke's second Reason for a Commission of Review to examine a definitive Sentence given by the Delegates is because the Pope as Supreme Head by the Canon Law us'd to grant a Commission ad revidendum and such Authority as the Pope had claiming as Supreme Head doth of right belong to the Crown and is annexed thereunto by the Statutes of 26 Hen. 8. cap. 1. and 1 Eliz. cap. 1. And so it was resolved says he in the King's Bench Trin. 39 Eliz. You see the English on't is the King may do so because the Pope did so for the Pope was Supreme Head then or claimed to be so and the King is acknowledged to be so now This pretended Translation of the Pope's Power to the King is another fiction that has contributed exceedingly to raise the Supremacy in some Mens Imaginations But it will appear by running through the several Acts made in King Henry the Eighth's King Edward the Sixth's and Queen Elizabeth's Reigns concerning Religion and Church Government that no Power given to the King or acknowledged to be in him has any respect or relation whatsoever to the Pope's pretended Power heretofore exercised The Pope's Power was abolish'd and abrogated Stat. 28. Hen. 8. cap. 10. The Ancient Jurisdiction of the Crown which by the Common Law and Fundamental Constitution of our Government was inherent in it was restored only some branches of it put into another method of Administration And that by the Supreme Power of the Nation from whose Authority and Jurisdiction nothing within this Kingdom is exempted That such Authority as the Pope had does of right belong to the King he would prove by the Statutes of 26 Hen. 8. cap. 1. 1 Elizabeth cap. 1. The first of which to wit that of 26 Hen. 8. cap. 1. was repealed long before the Case in 39 Eliz. came in question and consequently is there alledged to no purpose As for the Second that of 1 Eliz. cap. 1. how far that goes we shall have occasion to enquire hereafter when we come to it in order of time He gives us a Corollary viz. that upon a Sentence given by the High Commissioners a Commission of Review may be granted by vertue of an express Clause in the Commission and if no such Clause had been says he yet a Commission of Review might have been granted Quia sicut fontes Communicant aquas fluminibus cumulativè non privative sic Rex subditis suis Jurisdictionem communicat in causis Ecclesiasticis vigore Statuti in ejusmodi casibus editi provisi cumulativè non privativè by construction upon that Act. But a Commission of Review upon a Sentence given by the High Commissioners is not now disputed The High Commission was erected long after the 25 Hen. 8. And consequently a Review of their Sentences which it seems some construction upon that Act gave colour for was not provided against by that Statute But by what Law a Review should be granted of a Sentence given by the Delegates which by the Act is to be Definitive I am yet to seek I would fain know whether a Cause determined by Virtue of this Act in the Vpper House of Convocation for there Ecclesiastical Causes in which the King himself is concerned are to be definitively determined may be drawn in question ever after before Commissioners ad revidendum or not And if not why is a Sentence of the Delegates liable to be examined any more than that Do these Men really believe that the Judicial Authority of the Nation is by the Law lodg'd in the King's Person What means then the Act of 16 Car. 1. cap. 10. That neither his Majesty nor his Privy Council have or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power or Authority by English Bill Petition Articles Libel or any other Arbitrary Way whatsoever to examine or draw in question determine or dispose of the Lands Tenements Hereditaments Goods or Chattels of any the Subjects of this Realm but that the same ought to be tryed and determined in the Ordinary Courts of Justice and by the Ordinary Course of Law. If it be said the King appoints the Judges and hath formerly sate in the King's Bench in Person For his appointing the Judges since the time is known when it was otherwise that cannot be urged as a Perogative originally inherent in the King That our Kings have sometimes sate in the King's Bench in Person I yield and will agree to all the Inferences that can be drawn from it do but allow me which cannot be deny'd that Writs of Error lye from the Court of King's Bench and Appeals out of Chancery whoever sits there before the Lords in Parliament who whether the King be present or absent agreeing with or disagreeing from the Sense of the House affirm or reverse the Judgments and Decrees as they see Cause And were it not more honourable to ascribe no Judicial Power at all to the King in Person than to make him Judge of an Inferior Court. But you 'l find that our Kings never sate in the King's Bench or the Starr Chamber Juridically The Courts gave the Judgments