Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	edward_n	king_n	sir_n	4,849	5	6.2582	4	true

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A69923	A conference desired by the Lords and had by a committee of both houses, concerning the rights and privileges of the subjects discoursed by Sir Dudley Digges, Sir Edward Littleton Knight, now Lord Keeper, Master Selden, Sir Edward Cooke ; with the objections by Sir Robert Heath, Knight, then Attorney Generall, and the answers, 3 ̊Apr. 4. Car. 1628.	England and Wales. Parliament.	1642 (1642)	Wing E1284C; ESTC R8061	70,161	93

being proposed to Master Keeling it was confirmed by him that by the Entrie it appeared by their course that the remaunding of him was the selfe-same day he was brought which as it was said by the Gent. of the house of Commons might be upon the rising of the Court or upon advisement or the like and this answer was given to this President of the Brewers 12. Iac. Saltonstalls case cite devant fo 49. 65 Obiections hors de ceo To the last of these eight which Master Attorney objected is Saltonstalls Case 12. Jac. he was committed per mandatum Ã Dom. de privato Consilio and being returned by the Warden of the Fleet to be so Remittitur prisonae pred and in 13. Iac. in the same Case there is remittitur generally in the Roll and these two make but one Case and are one President Rns al dits obiections To this the Gent. of the house of Commons answered that it is true the Rolles have such entries of remittitur in them generally But that proves nothing upon the reason before used by them in Caesars Case But also Saltonstall was committed for another cause besides per mandatum Dom. Regis for a contempt against an Order in the Chancery and that was in the returne also And besides the Court as it appeares in the Record gave severall dayes to the Warden of the Fleet to amend his returne which they would not have done if they had conceived it sufficient for that which is sufficient needs not amendment To this Master Attorney replied that they gave him day to amend his returne in respect of that part of it which concerns the Order in Chancery and not in respect of that which was per mandatum Dom. Regis But the Gent. of the House of Commons answered that that appeared not any where nor indeed is it likely at all nor can be reasonably so understood because if the other returne per mandatum Dom. Regis had beene sufficient by it selfe then doubtlesse they would have remanded him upon that alone for then they needed not at all to have stood upon the other part of the returne in this Case So that out of the Record it selfe it appeares fully that the Court conceived the returne to be insufficient So the Gent. of the house of Commons concluded that they had a great number of Presidents besides divers Acts of Parliament and reasons of Common law agreeable to their resolution and that there was not one President at all that made against them but indeed that almost all that were brought as well against them as for them if rightly understood made fully for the maintenance of their conclusion and that there was not one Example or President of a Remittitur in any kind upon the point before that of Caesars Case which is before cleered with the rest and is but of late time and of no moment against the resolution of the House of Commons And thus for so much as concerned the presidents of Record the first day of the Conference desired by the Lords ended The next day they desired another Conference with the House of Commons at which it pleased the Committee of both Houses to heare Master Attorney againe make what Objections he could against other parts of the Argument formerly delivered from the House of Commons he objected against the Acts of Parliament and against the reasons of the Law and his objections to those parts were answered as it appeares by the Answers by order given into the House of Commons by the Gent. that made them He objected also upon the second day against the second kind of Presidents which are resolutions of Judges in former times and not of Record and brought also some other testimonies of the opinions of Judges in former times touching this point Resolution de touts les Iudges 34. El. Objections hors de ceo per l' Attorney First for that Resolution of all the Judges of England in 34. El. mentioned and read in the Arguments read at the first Conference he said That it was directly against the resolution of the House of Commons and observed the words of it in one place to be that persons so committed by the King or by the Counsell may not be delivered by any of the Courts c. And in another that if the cause were expressed either in generall or in specialtie it was sufficient and he said that the expressing of a Cause in generaltie was to shew the King and the Counsels coÌ„mand and to this purpose he read the whole words of that resolution of the Judges Then he objected also that in a report of one Roswels Case in the Kings Bench in 13 Jac. he found that the opinion of the Judges of that Court Sir Edward Cooke being then chiefe Justice and one of them was that a prisoner being committed per mandatum Dom. Regis or privati Consilii without cause shewed and so returned could not be bayled because it might be matter of State or Arc anum nuperii for which he stood committed And this also he added an opinion he found in a Journall in the House of Commons of 18. Iac. wherein Sir Edward Cooke speaking to a bill preferred for the explanation of Magna Charta touching imprisonment said in the same House that one so committed could not be inlarged by the Law because it might be matter of State for which he was committed and amongst these objections as his objections of the other nature also he spake of the confidence that was shewed in the behalfe of the House of Commons and he said it was not confidence on either part could adde any thing to the determination of the question but if he would that he had as much reason of Confidence for the other side against the resolution of the House of Commons grounding himselfe upon the force of his objections which as he conceived had so weakned the Arguments of the House of Commons Rns al dits objections To this a reply was made and first it was said to the Lords on the behalfe of the House of Commons that notwithstanding any thing yet objected they were upon cleare reason still confident of the truth of their first resolution grounded upon so just examination and deliberation taken by them And it was observed to the Lords also that their confidence herein was of another nature and of greater waight then any confidence that could be expressed by M. Attorney or whomsoever else being of his Majesties Counsell learned To which purpose the Lords were desired to take into their present memories the difference between the present qualities of the Gent. that spake in the behalf of the House of Commons of the Kings learned Counsel in their speaking there howsoever accidently they were both men of the same profession For the Kings Counsell spake as Counsell perpetually retained by Fee and if they made glosses or advantagious interpretations whatsoever for their own part they did but what

Quod Commissus fuit per mandatum Concilii Dominae Reginae qui committitur Marr. immediate traditur in Ballium Vn objection Rnde To this the like answer hath beene made as to that other Case of Overtons next before cited they say that in another roll of another terme of the same yeare it appeares he was in question for suspition of Coyning and it is true he was so But the returne and his Commitment mentioned in it have no reference to any such offence nor hath the Baylement of him relation to any thing but to the absolute commitment by the privie Counsell So that the answer to the like objection made against Overtons Case satisfies this also 9 El. Lawrences Case The sixth of these is of Queene Elizabeths time Mich. 9. El. Rot. 35 the case of Tho. Lawrence this Lawrence came in by Habeas Corpus returned by the Sheriffs of London to be detained in prison per mandat Consilij Dominae Regina qui Committitue Marr. super hoc traditur in Ballium Objection Rend An objection hath beene invented against this also it hath beene said that this man was pardoned and indeed it appeares so in the Margin of the roll where the word pardonatur is entred but clearely his in largement by Bayle was upon the body of the returne onely unto which that note of pardon in the Margin of the roll hath no relation at all and can any man think that a man pardoned for what offence soever it be might not as well be committed for some Arcanum or matter of State as one that is not pardoned or out of his innocencie wants no pardon 9 El. Constables Case The seaventh of these is in the same yeare and of Easter Terme following it is P. 9. El. Rot. 68 Ro. Constables Case he was brought by Habeas Corpus out of the Tower and in the returne it appeared he was committed there per mandatum privati Consiliidictae Dominae Reginae qui Comittitur Marr. posteae isto eodem ter traditur in Ball. The like objection hath beene made to this as that before of Lawrence but the selfe same answer clearely satisfies for them both 20 El. Brownings Case The 8. is of the same Queenes time in Pas 20 El Rot. 72. Iohn Brownings Case This Browning came by Habeas Corpus out of the Tower whether he had beene committed and was returned to have been committed per privat Consil Dominae Reginae qui comittitur Marr. postea isto codem termino traditur in Ball. Objection Rnde To this it hath beene said that it was done at the chiefe Justice Wrayes Chamber and not in the Court and thus the authority of the President hath beene lesned or sleighted If it had beene done at his Chamber it would have proved at least this much that Sir Christopher Wray then chiefe Justice of the Kings Bench being a grave learned and upright Judge knowing the Law to be so did Bayle this Browning and enlarge him and even so farre the President were of value enough but it is plaine that though the habeas corpus were returnable as indeed it appeares in the Record it self at his Chamber in Serjeants Inn yet he only committed him to the Kings Bench presently and referred the consideration of inlarging him to the Court who afterward did it For the Record sayes Et postea isto eodem termino traditur in Ball. which cannot be of an inlargement at the chiefe Justice Chamber 40 El. Hare-Courts Case The ninth of this first kind is Hill 40. El. Rot. 62. Edward Hare Courts Case hee was imprisoned in the Gatehouse and that per Domines de private Consilio Dominae Reginae pro certis causis eos moventibus ei ignotis And upon his habeas corpus was returned to be therefore onely detained Qui Comittitur Marr. postea isto eodem termino traditur in Ball. To this never any colour of answer hath beene yet offered 43 El. Catesbies Case The tenth is Catesbies Case in the vacation after Hill Term 43. El. Rot. Robert Catesbie was coÌ„mitted to the Fleet per war rantum diversor pro nobilium viroy de privato Consilio Domine Regina He was brought before Iustice Fenner one of the then Iustices of the Kings Bench by Habeas Corpus at Winchester house Southwark Et homiss fuit Marr. per prefat Edwardum Fenner statim traditur in Ball. 12 Iac. Beckwiths Case The eleventh is Rich Beckwiths Case which was in Hill 12 of K. Iames Rot. 153. He was returned upon his Habeas corpus to have beene committed to the Gatehouse by divers Lords of the privie Counsel Qui committitur Marr. postea esto eodem termino traditur in Ball. Objection Rnde To this it hath bin said by some that Beckwith was bayled upon a letter written by the Lords of the Counsell to that purpose to the Iudges but it appeares not that there was ever any letter written to them to that purpose which though it had beene would have proved nothing against the authority of the Record for it was never heard of that Iudges were to be directed in point of law by letters from the Lords of the Counsell although it cannot bee doubted but that by such letters sometimes they have been moved to bayle men that would or did not ask their inlargement without such letters as in some examples I shall shew your Lordships among the presidents of the second kind 14 Iac. Sir Tho. Mounsons Case The 12 and last of these is that of Sir Tho. Mounsons Case it is Mich. 14. Jac. Rot. 147. Hee was committed to the Tower per warrantum a diversis Dominis de privato Consilio Domini Regis locum tenenti directum And he was returned by the Lievtenant to be therefore detained in prison qui committitur Marr. super hoc traditur in Ball. Objection Rnde To this it hath beene answered that every body knowes by common fame that this Gentleman was committed for suspition of the death of Sir Tho. Overbury and that hee was therefore bayleable a most strange interpretation as if the body of the return and the warrant of the privie Counsel should be understood and adjudged out of fame onely was there not as much a fame why the Gentlemen that were remanded in the last judgement were committed and might not the selfe same reason have served to enlarge them their offence if any were being I think much lesse then that for which this Gentleman was suspected And thus I have faithfully opened the number of 12 Presidents most expresse in the very point in question and cleared the objections that have beene made against them And of such presidents of Record as are of the first kinde which prove plainly the practise of former ages and judgement of the Court of Kings Bench in the very point on the behalfe the Subject my Lords hitherto I am come next to

Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Text snippets containing the quad