u see, An Innocent
Man, Judicially Acquitted, Notwithstanding His Innocency, (when no
written Law forbad him to fly) after his acquitall, Upon A Presumption
In Law, condemned to lose all the goods he hath. If the Law ground upon
his flight a Presumption of the fact, (which was Capitall,) the Sentence
ought to have been Capitall: if the presumption were not of the Fact,
for what then ought he to lose his goods? This therefore is no Law of
England; nor is the condemnation grounded upon a Presumption of Law, but
upon the Presumption of the Judges. It is also against Law, to say
that no Proofe shall be admitted against a Presumption of Law. For
all Judges, Soveraign and subordinate, if they refuse to heare Proofe,
refuse to do Justice: for though the Sentence be Just, yet the Judges
that condemn without hearing the Proofes offered, are Unjust Judges; and
their Presumption is but Prejudice; which no man ought to bring with him
to the Seat of Justice, whatsoever precedent judgements, or examples he
shall pretend to follow. There be other things of this nature, wherein
mens Judgements have been perverted, by trusting to Precedents: but this
is enough to shew, that though the Sentence of the Judge, be a Law to
the party pleading, yet it is no Law to any Judge, that shall succeed
him in that Office.

In like manner, when question is of the Meaning of written Lawes, he is
not the Interpreter of them, that writeth a Commentary upon them. For
Commentaries are commonly more subject to cavill, than the Text; and
therefore need other Commentaries; and so there will be no end of such
Interpretation. And therefore unlesse there be an Interpreter authorised
by the Soveraign, from which the subordinate Judges are not to recede,
the Interpreter can be no other than the ordinary Judges, in the some
manner, as they are in cases of the unwritten Law; and their Sentences
are to be taken by them that plead, for Lawes in that particular case;
but not to bind other Judges, in like cases to give like judgements.
For a Judge may erre in the Interpretation even of written Lawes; but no
errour of a subordinate Judge, can change the Law, which is the generall
Sentence of the Soveraigne.

The Difference Between The Letter And Sentence Of The Law

In written Lawes, men use to make a difference between the Letter, and
the Sentence of the Law: And when by the Letter, is meant whatsoever
can be gathered from the bare words, 'tis well distinguished.