Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	chief_a	law_n	sergeant_n	2,698	5	10.7632	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91359	Prynn against Prinn. Or, the answer of William Prynne, utter Barrester of Lincolnes Inne: to a pamphlet lately published by William Prynne Esquire, a member of the House of Commons. Intituled A Briefe Memento to the present un-parliamentary Juncto, touching their present intentions and proceedings to depose and execute Charles Steuart, their lawfull King. January 25. 1648. Imprimatur Theodore Jennings.	Purefoy, William, 1580?-1659.	1649 (1649)	Wing P4228A; Thomason E540_6; ESTC R205753	6,607	15

touching William Prin the Member his first Argument That their proceeding against the King is an offence within the Statute 25 Edw. 3. concerning Treason I William Prin the Barrester do remember That in the beginning of this late warre the Cavaliers used the same Argument against the Parliaments raising Arms and I then made this Answer to it page 107 of my said first Part That the Parliament and whole Kingdom being the highest power or any Member of the Parliament cannot by any publique Acts or Votes of theirs consented to in Parliament become Traytors or guilty of High Treason against the King either by the Common Law or the Statute of 25. Edw. 3. cap. 2. of Treasons which running in the fingular number If a man c. That is any private man or men by their own private Authority shall leavy War against the King it ought to be judged high Treason and extends not to the whole Kingdom or Court of Parliament representing it of which no Treason was ever yet presumed the rather because the Parliament by this very Act is made the judge of all Treasons that are doubtfull and was never yet included within the words or meaning of any Law concerning Treason and therefore cannot be guilty of it Hence the depositions of Archigallo and Emerian two ancient Brittish Kings by the unanimous assent of the Lords and Commons for their Rapines Oppression and Tyranny and of Edward the second Richard the second Henry the sixth Edward the fourth by Acts of Parliament the creating of Richard the third King with the frequent translocations of the Crowne from the right Heire at Common Law to others whohad no good Title by the whole Kingdome or Parliament no lesse then high Treason in private persons was never yet reputed much lesse questioned for or adjudged high Treason in the whole kingdome or Parliament or any cheife active Members in those Parliaments which by the law are unrepealable of Treason for any their judiciall actions and Resolutions in such cases being only tercious and erroneous reversible by other Acts in Parliament not trayterous and rebellious as appeares by all the fore quoted Statutes and by the statute 13 Eliz. cha 1. which makes it high Treason for any person to affirm that the authority of the Parliament of England is not able to make Lawes and Statutes of sufficient force to alter limit and bind the Crowne of this Realme and the descent limitations and inheritance and Government thereof or any mans Title or Right thereto And for direct Authorities in this very point Rob. Trisilian and Belknap then cheife Justices Holt Fulthorpe and Burgh Judges Lockton Kings Serjeant and Blake the Kings Councell in the Parliament of 11. Richard 2. were some condemned and executed others and banished the Realme as guilty of high Treason Onely for affirming under their hands and seales That the Duke of Glocester the Earles of Arundell and Warwicke were and that other Lords and Commons might be guilty of high Treason for procuring a Commission and other proceedings Voted in Parliament and might be punished for it as Traitors which opinion of theirs was also at another Parliament prima Henry 4. chap 2 3 4. held a traiterous opinion and the Judgement given against those Judges for this Traiterous opinion tending to the utter subvession of Parliaments was resolved and enacted to be just This Judge Belknap foresaw and therefore was unwilling to put his Seale to this opinion saying there wanted but a hurdle a horse and a halter to carry him where hee might suffer the death hee deserved for quoth he if I had not done this I should have died for it and because I have done it I deserve death for betraying the Lords Which makes me wonder at a passage in Speed who Records it now frequent in Malignants mouthes That the very shop where the Barrons originall Treasons were forged was the Parliament house wherein from time to time they forced on the King Edward the second presumptuous and treasonous ordinations not only to reforme the Kings house and councell and to place and displace all great Officers But even claimed a joynt interest in the Regiment of the kingdom together with the King which William Juge a Judge of the Common Law with other like sticklers Traiterously perswaded them was according to Law which grosse slander of the Parliament House would have been capitall at least in former ages and may now indanger the neckes of those who speak or maintaine the same of this present Parliament And I William Prinne the Barrester have added these words pag. 108. Never did any of our Kings charge any Parliament with high Treason hitherto much lesse indict or wage warre against their Parliaments as Traytors though they have questioned and deposed Kings for offences against and for being enemies or Traytors to the kingdome Let none then dare to affirme that the Houses of Parliament are or can be Traytors now for providing for their own and the Kingdomes safety Ad to this for a further answer to the said argument of Treason produced by William Prynne the Member in his present Pamphlet that in his Rehearsall of the sayd Statute hee hath foulely miscarried and falsified the words of it For whereas the Statute mentions nothing at all touching deposing the King he urges the Statute thus That it is no lesse then high Treason for any man by overt act to compasse or imagine the deposition or death of the King Adding the word deposition which is no where found in the whole Statute And as touching William Prinne the Member his argument that this proceeding against the King is contrary to the Oath of Allegiance I William Prinne the Barrester did heretofore meete with the like objection touching the Oath of Supremacy in relation to the late war Viz. That the King is the onely supreame Governour of this Realm and that Bracton Fleta and our Law Bookes resolve that the King hath no Peere in the kingdome for so he should lose his Empire since Peeres or Equalls have no command over one another much more then ought he not to have a superior or mightier for so he should be inferiour to those who are subject to him and Interiors cannot be equall to Superiours The King ought not to be under man but under God and the Law If then justice be demanded of him by way of Petition because no Writt runnes against him though antiently some Writts did if he doe not justice this punishment may be sufficient to him that he may expect God will revenge it Nemo quidem de factis suis presumat disputare multe for●●●● contra factum sum venire c. Therefore the King is above the Parliament and whole Kingdome not they above him And this objection I William Prinne the Barrester answered thus in my sayd first part pag. 104. That the meaning of all these Bookes is that the King is above every one of his Subjects and hath no Peere nor