Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	john_n	lord_n	william_n	15,033	5	9.0528	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45213	An argument upon a generall demurrer joyned and entred in an action of false imprisonment in the Kings Bench Court termino Trinitatis 1631. rot. 1483. parte tertia, betweene George Huntley ... and William Kingsley ... and published by the said George Huntley ...	Huntley, George.; Kingsley, William, 1583 or 4-1648.; England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.	1642 (1642)	Wing H3779; ESTC R5170	112,279	128

of the Exchequer my Lord chiefe Baron sir Humphrey Daverport and the other Barons of the Exchequer refusing to grant me a certiorarj to the High Commition Court to command them to certfie the cause to permit mee to pleade to the foresaid fine did the 10. of May 1633. commit me to the Fleet in execution of the foresaid fine there detained me a full yeare untill I to procure my liberty paid the fourth part of the said fine to Mr. Motershed pecunijs numeratis and stal'd the other three parts to the Kings use And for which and also for a Petition delivered at the Counsell Table to crave justice therein according to his Majesties mandate under sir Edward Powels hand to my Lord chiefe Justice sir Iohn Bramston and the other Judges of the Kings Bench court dated the 29. of December 1635. and delivered with mine owne hand to the said Judges in open Court the first day of Hilary Tearme 1635. I was by my most reverend Diocesan and provinciall William Lord Archbishop of Cant. his Grace and other right Honorable Lords of his Majesties most honorable privie Councell on the third day of February 1636. committed to custodie of the Warden of the Fleet by a warrant wherein no cause of commitment was exprest and there detain'd a prisoner by him untill Trinity Tearme 1639. and then upon an habeas corpus issuing out of the Kings Bench Court I was brought to that court in Trinity Tearme 1639. and the foresaid warrant for my commitment returned and then I was presently bayled and thereby tyed to appeare in court divers daies both that Tearme and the Tearme thence next following and because none of the Kings Counsell in all that time came in against me I was on the last day of that Michaelmas Tearme 1639. delivered from the said baile and imprisonment by the joynt consent of all the Reverend Judges then of that court As I formerly had beene in the same court Termino paschae 1629. after the first two yeares imprisonment upon the foresaid originall matter returned to an habeas and fully debated by Counsell on both sides and Mr Justice Bertley then the Kings Sergeant in open court professing himselfe fully satisfied And for the former originall matter onely may for nothing at all in the judgement of the Law even for the foresaid sentence of deprivation and degradation charging mee with grievous and enormous crimes excesses delicts mentioned in the said Articles and those Articles not given in evidence nor found by the Jury in the speciall verdict betweene Allen and Nash entred upon record in the Kings Bench court termino Sancti michaelis 8. Car. rot 508. my Lord chiefe Justice of that court sir Iohn Bramston did for himselfe and his brethren Termino Trinitatis 1637. affirme the foresaid sentence and deliver his opinion against me for the intruder Robert Carter Whence it followeth that if the Commissioners aforesaid first finall sentence against me the 500 pounds fine thereby imposed upon me the two yeares imprisonment thereby sustained by me be just legall then all the other sentences censures and punishments following and depending thereupon may be just and legall But if the former the only ground of all the rest be unjust and illegall then all the other must of necessity be unjust and illegall And whether the former be just or unjust let the indifferent reader judge impatially upon the perusall of the following argument MY Honoured Lord cheife Iustice and my Honored Iudges the first thing in this Controversie concerning the points of the Canon law in question whereunto cheifly I am to speake is the very stating of the controversie it selfe between me my adversaries And for that purpose in the first place I humbly desire your Lordship the Court to observe that the defendants charge me with faults of severall degrees some principall and especiall others inferiour and accessory· The Principall and Especiall are two as appeares by their first finall sentence alleaged in their plea wherein they say that upon the opening of the cause they found the aforesaid George Huntley charged in the said Articles with these two perticulers principally (a) This word specialiter in this sence is 3. times used in the defendants plea. twice in the first part of their first finall sentence and once in the Commission of 14. Articles obiected against me 12. doe expresly mention my refusall to Preach the Visitation sermon as a fault or prepare the way theieunto and the fourth saith that I offered two or three peeces to the Arch-deacon to procure one to preach that sermon only the sixth and thirteenth Articles doe not mention it or especially first that he refused to preach a visitation sermon at the Arch-deacons of Cant. Doctor Kingsleys command contrary to his Canonicall obedience and secondly that he raised an opinion amongst the Clergy that the said Arch-deacon had no power to command him the said Huntley or any other incmbent to preach the said visitation Sermon The Inferiours or Accessories are foure first that the said Huntley came unsent for or uncal'd for to Master Arch-deacon aforesaid he being in his visitation amongst the Clergie and sitting there to heare causes Secondly that the said Huntley did then and there very malepertly and irreverently charge the said Arch-deacon of falsehood or injustice thirdly that the said Huntley did at the same time and place in a very arrogant irrespective manner lay downe an hundred pounds in Gold upon the table and offered to lay wagers with him the said arch-deacon that he had done him the said Huntley wrong or the like in effect and fourthly and lastly that the said Huntley refused to performe his submission conceptis verbis as was enioyned him by the Commissioners and therein gave a great affront and contempt both against his Maiesties supreame power and authority in matters and causes Ecclesiasticall and also against the high commission court to whom the same by letters patents under the great seale of England is delegated and committed And for these six particulers the defendants confesse that they imprison'd me two yeares namely from the nineteenth day of Aprill 1627. to Aprill 1629. In which moneth upon my appearance in this court the first day of that Easter Terme 1629. to save my baile you Master Iustice Heath then the Kings Attourney Generall were first call'd for by the Court in the Kings behalfe against me and you came and confest that you had nothing to say against me and then Master Iustice Bertley being then the Kings Sergeant whose (b) Master Iustice Bertley at this time was in the custody of the Sheriffe of London absence I much lament whose presence I much desire was called for by the court for the same purpose against mee and hee came and confest that he had formerly spoken twice against mee upon the matter return'd to the habeas corpus which was the very same for substance that is now pleaded

true difference of christian subiection and unchristian rebellion 2. part pag. 23● perjury and I am sure that perjury is transcendently unlawfull and propter unum illegitimum tota submissio fit illegitima especially seeing as it appeares upon Record in this Court that submission was framed by the Commissioners in conceptis verbis in a set forme of words and by their own order that set forme of words was to be uttered without addition or alteration and therefore any one part thereof being unlawfull the whole must needs be unlawfull And so my Lord it appears that in refusing to preach that Visitation Sermon I have not transgressed the order of the High-Commission Court because the Archdeacon sent no mandate as he should have done by that order neither if he had was I bound to performe either that mandate that order or the submission enjoyned because both that mandate that order and that submission enjoyned are contrary to the Canons to his Majesties Letters Patents and to his royall Prerogative and supreme Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of the Crowne which by the oath of supremacie I am bound to the utmost of my power to defend and maintaine and against which no man that hath taken that oath can speake plead argue or give sentence without perjury neither can any Judge according to that his oath to the utmost of his power defend and maintaine all jurisdictions of the Crowne unlesse in this case of mine he doth speedily without delay without procrastination give judgment for the Canons his Majesties Letters Patents his royall Prerogative and mine obedience unto them against that apocryphall uncanonicall anticanonicall antidiplomaticall antiprerogative antisuprematicall postscript of the Archdeacon of Cant. Master Doctor Kingsley And so my Lord I do conclude and I do most instantly and most importunately sue and supplicate to your Lordship and to these my just Judges in the presence of a most just God for a just judgement as a just man should do both for my selfe and for my adversaries First for my adversaries if their Cause be better then mine and they can confute what I have said and if they cannot then for myselfe and for both speedily without all further delay without all further procrastination for it hath been fall twelve years three quarters since this action first began in this Court full twelve years three quarters before I could get this first hearing this one Argument A long and a tedious time in which divers interessed in this controversie have ended their lives and as Iulian the Emperour though an Apostata saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epistola 35. It is a fearful a terrible thing that he that sues for justice shall sooner lay down his life at the judgement seat then procure judgement from the just Judges that sit upon the seat that he shall stand in need of two lives to determine one controversie and yet end them both before he can end that his one controversie What a blemish and disgrace is it that the justice of private men shall exceed and surpasse the justice of Judges and of Courts of justice and if private men do all that ever they can to have their Causes heard and determined and Judges do all that ever they can to delay procrastinate and stave off the hearing and determining of them doth not the justice of private men exceed and surmount the justice of judges and of Courts of justice And yet the justice of private men is but the private and particular justice of the Kingdome and if there be any question concerning that it must passe per libram per trutinam sub examine justitiae judicum Curiarum And therefore the justice of Iudges and of Courts of justice is the generall universall aecumenicall epidemicall justice of the Kingdom The light of the body saith our Saviour is the eye if that light be darknesse how great is that darknesse So the generall universall aecumenicall epidemicall justice of the Kingdome is the justice of Iudges and of Courts of justice If that justice be injustice how great is that injustice It is then the generall universall aecumenicall epidemicall plague pestilence consumption desolation and destruction of the whole Kingdome And though my Lord the difficulty to get justice and the danger to lose it is alwaies very great because there are so many things needfull even in an honest course to prevaile in a sute at Law as a good and a just cause a diligent faithfull and expert Solicitor an honest skilfull and incorrupt Attourney a learned faithfull and couragious Counsell and a just and an upright Iudge of which if any one faile to do his duty a good cause may have an ill successe Yet certainly amongst all the former next after a a good Cause a just and an upright Iudge is the principall and especiall And because even in a good Cause the three former cannot prevaile without this latter and this latter can and may correct and amend the faults and errors of the three former therefore Iulian the Emperour makes this latter the only necessary thing to prevaile in a good Cause His words are worthy to be ingraven in letters of gold on every Court of justice for a direction and caution to all Iudges Counsellours Atturnyes Solicitours and Clients 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epistola praeallegata This is the only thing saith he for them that suffer wrong to get their right namely to get such a judge as both can and will judge rightly can and will do justice If the Iudge either cannot or will not if either through weaknesse he cannot apprehend the truth or else through wickednesse will not heare or will betray the truth there is then a necessity that right and justice most be subverted Wherefore my Honoured Lord Chiefe Iustice and Honoured Iudges to the intent that your Lordship and the Court may shew your selves such Iudges as men oppressed according to Iulians advise should seeke for such Iudges as both can and will judge rightly can and will do Iustice such Iudges as both can and will rectifie and reforme the faults and errors of Solicitours Atturneys and Counsellors nay such Iudges as in a good cause will supply the want of all these which is my case for I can get none of them Consider I beseech you by how many bonds you are tyed to do justice you tied by your places titles offices oathes by the Lawes of the Land by the Word of God and in these two particular cases of mine in this action of false imprisonment and in the speciall Verdict betweene Allen and Nash by his Majesties speciall mandate deliver'd to your Lordship with mine own hand here in open Court on the first day of Hilary Tearme 1635. All these binde you to do justice but none of these prove you to be just The only rule to prove you just is this of St. Iohn 1 Epist 3. cap. 7. vers He that doth righteousnesse is righteous The works of justice