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	sue_v	writ_n	1,545	5	9.8009	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49986	The arguments of the Right Honourable the Earl of Danby the second time, at the Court of King's Bench at Westminster, upon his lordship's motion for bail, the 29th day of June, term. Trin. 1682	Leeds, Thomas Osborne, Duke of, 1631-1712, defendant.	1682 (1682)	Wing L922; ESTC R11803	14,163	15

say that in this particular Case of my own I find only the word and name of Superior Court to be made use of against me but nothing in reality just as they were pleased in the House of Commons to use the word Traiterously in the Articles against me when there was not a tittle of Treason in them only that by calling it Treason it might serve to lay me where I am But my Lord I know no Court that is superior at this time to this Court where I am now and how any thing can be said to be depending in a Court that hath no Being I think will not very easily be defended from nonsence without having the Matter extreamly well explained and whenever that Superior Court shall have a Being my Cause will then be before it by my being Bailed to appear there And for saying it has laid its hand upon this Case of mine it ought to be shewn in what the Superior Court hath laid its hand upon me so as to keep me from Bail when neither that Superior Court it self though it were willing so to do is able to give me any Relief nor that I can get to be Tryed or Discharged elsewhere nor have any time prefixed when that Superior Court shall Sit as if there were no Justice left in England But if it be so that I shall neither be Bailed nor have it shewed what hand the Superior Court has laid upon me to hinder it then truly any man may be so concluded and the Argument may be decided by the will and pleasure of those who have men in their Power but the shadows of things when there is no substance in the Argument will not satisfie reasonable men for an Answer why so publick a Grievance shall not be remedied and I am confident that the Superior Court it self will never suffer its Name to be made use of nor themselves to be made Properties to support such a Grievance as may concern not only themselves but the whole Nation both in this Age and to all our Posterities and by which not only Magna Charta and the Petition of Right would be evaded but the late Act of Habeas Corpus may also be eluded by this device and the Parliament when it shall meet again will find that instead of securing their Liberties they have only been hedging in the Cuckow for that there is now a new way found out by which all Acts for our Liberties may be made of no effect And this cannot be contradicted unless as some would fancy the King could not Impeach as well as the Commons but there are so many Evidences to the contrary of that as there is no room left for the Dispute And amongst the Presidents of that kind there is one because it hath a double Consequence that I do desire to put your Lordship in mind of It is in the 5o. H. 4th in the Records of the Tower There you will find that the Commons came to Petition the King that his Majesty would be pleased not to Impeach the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury the Earl of Northumberland and some others that were at that time accused for being in the Confederacy of Sir Henry Piercy and the King grants their Request and does agree he would not Impeach them I have quoted this the rather because of the double President that is in this Case for again the same day the Commons came after his Majesty had granted their former request and did further Petition his Majesty that he would be pleased to affirm those Lords whom he had promised he would not Impeach to be his true Liege-men and the King did grant that also by which it was then taken for granted that he had set them Recti in Curia even though they were in that Conspiracy with Sir Henry Piercy and my Lord I give you this Instance that you may observe two things by it First That the Commons did Petition the King not to Impeach and when he had granted that it appears also that by the King 's declaring them to be his true Leige-men it was by the Commons conceived that the King did set them Recti in Curia by which it does appear what great regard the House of Commons had to the King 's bare Affirmation of men being his true Liege-men and I hope that neither this King's Power nor Credit shall be less with his own Court than that King 's was with his House of Commons and I am sure no King's Affirmation can be greater nor more publick both to his Parliament and Kingdom of any mans being a true Liege-man to use that old word than the King 's hath been concerning me My Lord there are some men very unable to distinguish though they would between sound and good sence and there are a great many that are as willing to let men remain under their mistakes but since it weighs a great deal with some who do not very rightly distinguish it will be of absolute necessity for me to explain-what it is that is meant by a Case depending in Parliament when there is no Parliament This will be best shewn by an Instance in a Writ of Error depending in Parliament in which Case when the Parliament is Sitting and so the Writ is really and truly depending in the Court that is in Being there can during such Sitting be no Execution sued upon the Judgment But my Lord no sooner is the Parliament dissolved but experience shews that Execution may be sued and Goods levyed and the properties of mens Estates changed and therefore it is by this sufficiently plain that depending is not then meant in the same sence or in the same manner as it was meant when the Parliament was actually Sitting for then there could have been no Execution sued Now my Lord When a Parliament shall meet again what does it meet with It meets it is true with the same Cause again as to the Merits but it meets it quite altered as to other Circumstances viz. as to the Execution that hath been granted by an inferior Court in the interval of Parliament And as to the change of property for a man's Estate and perhaps of great value may happen to be in another mans hands at the same time by the Execution so that when a Parliament doth meet again it doth meet it is true with the same Cause as to the Merits but indeed as to nothing else And therefore by this it is clear that a Parliament does only expect when it meets again to meet with the Cause in the same state as to the Merits of the Cause and doth not at all meddle or concern it self to find fault with those suppletory Acts that have been done by an inferior Court in the interval which was only to prevent failure of Justice but it commends them for not having delayed Justice and that men should not be kept too long out of their Rights even though there may have been prodigious Wrong done to the

Parties if the Judgment have been erroneous for that the Superior Court will at last see to the Error if any have been committed by the Judgment of the inferior Court and will enter upon all as entire again as to its Merits as if nothing had been done by the inferior Court so that in reality that which can only reconcile the sence of being depending in Parliament when the Parliament is dissolved is this last Order of the House of Lords which declares Impeachments c. to be continued notwithstanding Dissolution For by virtue of this last Order the Lords do proceed upon the Cause without beginning De novo or having any new Writ or new Impeachment brought up to them But this is new Doctrine and never practised till of late however since they have done so in this sence and in this only a Cause may be said to be depending and so it was adjudged in that single instance of the Tryal and Condemnation of my Lord Stafford but there they proceeded to the Merits of the Cause and they tryed condemned my Lord Stafford and there is no manner of doubt but by virtue of their late Order they may proceed upon me when they shall meet as they shall think fit notwithstanding my having been bailed for I desire not to have the Merits of my Cause removed from before the Lords if I might but that they may do with me as they please even to Condemnation if they shall have Cause which I hope in God they never shall Therefore I say my Lord in this sence only which I have explained a Cause may be said to be depending though a Parliament is not in being but I will challenge the ablest Lawyer with all the Sophistry he can use together with his Law to shew me how he can possibly distinguish the Case of Writs of Error from the Case of Impeachment or wherein they differ as to their depending in the Intervals of Parliament and I likewise challenge him to make appear how Bail is any other than such a suppletory Act to relieve a man from being kept too long from his Liberty as the granting of Execution in the Interval is to relieve a man from being too long kept out of his Money or Estate for that the Merits of the Cause both in the one Case and the other remains entire for the Parliament to recommit upon if they see cause as well as to reverse the Judgment and all the Proceedings upon the Writ of Error Where is then the difference my Lord if there be any difference I think it lies only in this that in one Case there may be an erroneous Judgment and a man may be almost undone and ruined by being wrongfully dispossess'd of his Estate be it never so great but in this Case the suppletory Act which is done to admit to bail can only be to ease a man from his too long or perhaps perpetual imprisonment and can hurt no body nor take no mans liberty from him to grant him his but yet this must be thought an hard Case and the other a very easie one and fit to be practised every day My Lord if the Law has taken care and made such provision that a man shall not be kept too long out of 10 l. in money or out of 40. l. a year in Land then it would be strange that the Law should not have made provision that a man should not be kept too long out of his Liberty and when there is no prospect of his having it Besides in a Writ of Errour the Judgment given is controverted and the power of awarding Execution is suspended upon that very accompt because the Judgment of the Court is in question and the Justice of it is brought in dispute whether they have judged right or wrong Now My Lord if the dissolution of a Parliament can restore the Judges power in the interval of Parliament so as to award an Execution upon a Man's Estate where the property shall be changed and altered and notwithstanding their Justice was brought in question and that they may have done great wrong to the Party by their judgment and yet we are to believe that the same Dissolution cannot restore the power of the Judges so as to give a Man a little Ease from a Confinement within four Walls where the Justice of no Court is questioned nor arraigned nor no wrong can have been done to any body But on the contrary does right to the King who by his consent shews his Will to have a Man bailed and great right to the Subject who ought to be delivered from the danger of an indefinite Imprisonment which is so contrary to Law Then indeed there must be some Infallibility supposed in that Chair which shall maintain such Doctrine and must be submitted to with the same Implicite Faith which they do who can believe Infallibility But for my part who can believe Insallibily in no kind upon Earth I confess I must have my Reason better satisfied before I can any more believe this Exposition of the Law than I can believe those infallible Mens Expositions of the Gospel My Lord I hope I have made plain to your Lordship what it is that is meant or can be understood by a Cause depending in Parliament when there is none and how and in what sense onely it can be understood to be so depending and it is as plain that the bailing of me is no intermedling with the merits of the Cause in Parliament but on the contrary an evident affirmation of the jurisdiction of that supreme Court and if I cannot be admitted to bail in some other Court than the House of Lords it is contrary to what my Warrant of Commitment implies by which I am committed onely till I am discharged by due course of Law for which I am properly in this place My Lord it cannot be meant that Bail can be any more than a Suppletory Act propter rei necessitatem and for the ease of the Subject and it is impossible for that old Rule of Salus populi Suprema Lex esto to be more aptly applied in any case in the World than in this that concerns every Man in England in his Liberty For should it be otherwise Pray see what the consequence of this Doctrine would be that because a superiour Court which is not now in being nor hath it in its own power to be so hath committed a Man therefore he cannot be admitted to Bail what should become of Men if after the dissolution of a Parliament there can be no possibility of having justice done them Nay farther if it should be granted that this Court cannot intermeddle because the Superiour Court has committed by that Doctrine it would not matter whether the Commitment were for Treason or for the smallest quarrel or misdemeanor for which a Man might happen to be in Prison at the time of a dissolution of a Parliament nor would it be any matter whether