deliberari non debeat Rex Iusticiar suis de Banco salut Cum nos nuper ad significationem S. de Isle c. usque ibi excommunicat extitisse nec se velle c. esset satisfactum ex parte ipsius N. virtute mandati nostri praed capt in Prisona nostra de Newgate tunc detenti c. nolentes eo praetextu praefato N. per breve nostrum praed via praecludat quo minus appellac suae negotium c. processerat appellant statut c. per breve nostrum praeceperimus praefat vic quod scire facerent c. signific consult circumspect in Placitis per breve praedict coram vobis pendentibus procedere valeatis secundum legem consuetudinem Regni nostri Stamf. 72. 5. E. 3. c. 8. 1 E. c. 3. 9. saith that every Capias in a personall action is a Commandment of the King for it is Praecipimus tibi quod capias c. and yet the defendant as there it is said is replevisable by the Common Law 7 R. 20. a. Calvins case saith that there are two kind of writs viz. brevia mandatoria remedialia brevia mandatoria non remdeialia breuia mandatoria remedialia are writs of Right Formedon c. debts trespasses and shortly all writs reall and personall whereby the party wronged is to recover somewhat and to be remedied for that wrong which is done unto him Sixthly I do finde by our books of Law and by the Register that this speciall mandatum domini Regis is expounded to be his writ and that the Law taketh no notice of any other speciale mandatum then by this writ the which being so when the return is made that he is imprisoned and detained in prison by the speciall commandment of the King how can the Court adjudge upon this return that Sir Iohn Corbet ought to be kept in prison and not to be bailed when the nature of the speciall commandment is not set forth in the return whereby it may appear unto the Court that he is not bailable In Bracton c. 12. 112. you shall see a writ reciting Praecipimus tibi quod non implacites nec implacitari permittas talem de libero tenemento suo in tali villa sine speciali praecepto nostro vel Capitalis Iusticiar ' nostri And the reason of it there is given quia nemo de libero tenemento sine brevi sive libello conventionali nist gratis voluerit respondebit So as the exception of speciall commandment by the very book appeareth to be breve sive libellus conventionalis Regist. 271. the writ of Manucaption goeth in this manner Rex vic Salut Cum nuper assignaverimus dilectos fideles nostros A. B. C. D. ad inquisitiones de forstallariis transgressionibus contra formam statuti dudum apud Winton editi in com tuo faciend ad illos quos inde culpabiles invenirent capiend in Prisona nostra salvo custod faciend donec aliud inde praecepissemus quod C. D. E. pro hujusmodi forstallamentis transgressionibus unde coram praefat A. B. C. indict fuerint capt in Prisona de L. detent exist à qua delibera ri non possunt sine mandato nostro speciali Nos volentes eisdem C. D. E. graciam in hac parte facere specialem tibi praecipimus quod si praedict C. D. E. occasione praedict non a lia in Prisona praedict detineantur pro transgressionibus illis secundum legem consuetudinem Regni nostri Angliae replegiabiles existunt c. tunc impos C. D. E. à Prisona praedict si ea occasione non alia detineantur in eadem interim deliberari facias per manucapt supradict habeas ibi tunc coram praefat Iusticiar nomina manncapt illorum hoc breve And the exposition of this speciale mandatum domini Regis mentioned in the writ is expounded to be breue domini Regis and thereupon is this writ directed unto the Sheriffe for the delivery of them And so for the branch of the first part I conclude that the speciall command of the King without shewing the nature of the commandment of the Kings is too generall and therefore insufficient for he ought to have returned the nature of the commandment of the King whereby the Court might have adjudged upon it whether it were such a commandment that the imprisonment of Sir Iohn Corbet be lawfull or not and whether it were such a commandment of the King that although the imprisonment were lawfull at the first yet he might be bailed by Law And as for the generall return of speciale mandatum domini Regis without shewing the cause of the imprisonment either speciall or generall I hold that for that cause also the return is insufficient First in regard of the Habeas corpus which is the commandment of the King onely made the 15 of November According to the Teste of the writ commanding the keeper of the Gatehouse to have the body of Sir Iohn Corbet una cum causa detensionis ad subjiciendum recipiendum ea quae curia nostra de eo ad tunc ibid. ordinar contingat So as the commandment of the writ being to shew the cause of his detaining in prison the keeper of the gatehouse doth not give a full answer unto the writ unlesse the cause of the detainment in prison be returned and the Court doth not know how to giue their judgement upon him either for his imprisonment or for his discharge according to the purport of the writ when there is not a cause returned and forasmuch as upon an excommengement certified it hath been adjudged oftentimes that Certificates were insufficient where the cause of the commitment hath not been certified that the Court might adjudge whether the Ecclesiasticall Judges who pronounced the excommunication had power over the original cause according to the book of 14 Hen. 4. 14. 8. Rep. 68. Trollops case 20 Ed. 3. Excommengement 9. So upon an Habeas corpus in this Court where a man hath been committed by the Chancellour of England by the Councell of England Marches of Wales Warden of the Stanneries High Commission Admiralty Dutchy Court of request Commission of Sewers or Bankrupts it hath severall times been adjudged that the return was insufficient where the particular cause of imprisonment hath not been shewen to the intent that it might appear that those that committed him had jurisdiction over the cause otherwise he ought to be discharged by the Law and I spare to recite particular causes in every kind of these because there are so many presidents of them in severall ages of every King of this Realm and it is an infallible maxime of the Law That as the Court of the Kings Bench and Judges ought not to deny an Habeas corpus unto any prisoner that shall demand the same by whomsoever he be committed so ought the
Lord as this writ de odio acia was before this statute so it was afterwards taken away by the statute of 28 Ed. 3. cap. 9. But before that sttatute this writ did lie in the speciall Case as is shâ—wn in Brooks 9 th Reports Powlters Case and the end of this writ was that the Subject might not be too long detained in prison as till the Justices of Eyre discharged them so that the Law intended not that a man should suffer perpetuall imprisonment for they were very carefull that men should not be kept too long in prison which is also a Liberty of the Subject and my Lord that this Court hath bailed upon a suspicion of high treason I will offer it to your Lordship when I shall shew you presidents in these cases of a commitment by the Privy Councell or by the King himself But before I offer these presidents unto your Lordship of which there be many I shall by your Lordships favour speak a little to the next exception and that is the matter of the return which I find to be per speciale mandatum domini Regis 8. and what is that it is by this writ there may be sundry commands by the King we find a speciall command often in our Books as in the statute of Marlborough cap. 8. they were imprisoned Rediss shall not be delivered without the speciall command of our Lord the King and so in Bracton De Actionibus the last chapter where it appears that the Kings commandment for imprisonments is by speciall writ so by writ again men are to be delivered for in the case of Rediss ' or Post Rediss ' if it shall be removed by a Certiorare is by a speciall writ to deliver parties so that by this appears that by the Kings commandment to imprison and to deliver in those cases is understood this writ and so it may be in this case which we have heard And this return here is a speciall Mandatum it may be understood to be under some of the Kings Seals 42 Ass. and ought to be delivered and will you make a difference between the Kings command under his seal and his command by word of mouth what difference there is I leave it to your Lordships judgement but if there be any it is the more materiall that it should be expressed what manner of command it was which doth not here appear and therefore it may be the Kings command by writ or his command under his Seal or his command by word of mouth alone And if of an higher nature there is none of these commands then the other doubtlesse it is that by writ or under seal for they are of record and in these the person may be bailed and why not in this As to the legall forme admitting there were substances in the return yet there wants legall form for the writ of Habeas Corpus is the commandment of the King to the Keeper of the prisons and thereupon they are to make return both of the body and of the cause of the commitment and that cause is to appear of them who are the immediate Officers And if he doth it by signification from another that return is defective in Law and therefore this return cannot be good for it must be from the Officer himself and if the cause returned by him be good it bindes the prisoners The warrant of the Lords was but a direction for him he might have made his return to have been expresly by the Kings commandment there was a warrant for it I shall not need to put you cases of it for it is not enough that he returns that he was certified that the commitment was by the Kings command but he must of himself return this fact as it was done And now my Lord I shall offer to your Lordship presidents of divers kindes upon commitments by the Lords of the Privy Councel upon commitments by the speciall command of the King and upon commitments both by the King the Lords together And howsoever I conceive which I submit to your Lordship that our case will not stand upon presidents but upon the fundamentall Laws and Statutes of this Realm and though the presidents look the one way or the other they are to be brought back unto the Laws by which the Kingdome is governed In the first of Henry the eighth Rot. Parl. one Harison was committed to the Marshalsey by the command of the King and being removed by Habeas Corpus into the Court the cause returned was that he was committed per mandatum Domini Regis and he was bailed In the fortieth of Elizabeth Thomas Wendon was committed to the Gatehouse by the commandment of the Queen and Lords of the Councell and being removed by an Habeas Corpus upon the generall return and he was bailed In 8 Iacobi one Caesar was committed by the Kings commandment and this being returned upon his Habeas Corpus upon the examination of this case it doth appear that it was over-ruled that the return should be amended or else the prisoner should be delivered The presidents concerning the commitment by the Lords of the Councell are in effect the same with these where the commitment is by the reason why the cause of the commitment should not be shewn holds in both cases and that is the necessity of suit and therefore Master Stamford makes the command of the King and that of the Lords of the Privy Councell to be both as one and to this purpose if they speak he speaks and if he speaks they speak The presidents that we can shew you how the Subject hath been delivered upon commitment by the Lords of the Councell as in the time of Henry the eight as in the times of Queen Elizabeth Queen Mary are infinite as in the ninth of Elizabeth Thomas Lawrence was committed to the Towre by the Lords of the Councell and bailed upon an Habeas Corpus In the 43 of Elizabeth Calvins case In the third of Elizabeth Vernons case These were committed for high treason and yet bailed for in all these cases there must be a conviction in due time or a deliverance by Law There be divers other presidents that might be shewn to your Lordship In 12 Iacobi Miles Renards In 12 Iacobi Rot. 155. Richard Beckwiths case In 4 Iacobi Sir Thomas Monson was committed for treason to the Towre of London and afterwards was brought hither and bailed and since our case stands upon this return and yet there is no sufficient cause in Law expressed in the return of the detaining this Gentleman and since these presidents do warrant our proceedings my humble suit unto this Court is that the Gentleman Sir Iohn Henningham who hath petitioned his Majesty that he may have the benefit of the Law and his Majesty hath signified it it is his pleasure that justice according to the Law should be administred at all times in generall to all his Subjects and particularly to
Parker detentus est sub custodia mea per mandatum Domini Regis mihi nunciatum per Robertum Pecke now our case is by the Nunciation of many but in Law majus minus non variant in spetione the certification of one and of many is of the same effect although in morall understanding there may be a difference Trin. 2. Ed. 3. Rot. 46. in this Court in 21 Ed. 3. in the printed Book there is a piece of it The Abbot of Burey brings a prohibition out of this Court the Bishop of Norwich pleadeth in Barre of that Quod mihi testificatū quod continetur in Archivis that he is excommunicated there were two exceptions taken to this case in this president and they are both in one case the first was that no case appeareth why he was excommunicated there may be causes why he should be excommunicated and then he should be barred and there may be causes why the excommunication should not barre him for it may be the excomunication was for bringing the action which was the Kings writ and therefore because there was no cause of the excommunication returned it was ruled that it was not good The other reason is that upon the Roll which is mihi testificatum Now every man when he will make a certificate to the Court Proprium factum suum non alterius significare debet he must inform the Court of the immediate act done and not that such things are told him or that such things are signified unto him but that was not done in this case and therefore it was held insufficient and so in this case of ours I conceive the return is insufficient in the form there is another cause my Lord for which I conceive this return is not good But first I will be bold to inform your Lordship touching the Statute of Magna Charta 29. Nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonetur c. ne◠super eum mittimus nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terrae That in this Statute these words in Carcerem are omitted out of the printed Books for it should be nec eum in Carcerem mittimus For these words per legem terrae what Lex terrae should be I will not take upon me to expound otherwise then I finde them to be expounded by Acts of Parliament and this is that they are understood to be the processe of the Law sometimes by writ sometimes by attachment of the person but whether speciale mandatum Domini Regis be intended by that or no I leave it to your Lordships exposition upon two petitions of the Commons and answer of the King in 36 Ed. 3. n o 9. and n o 20. In the first of them the Commons complain that the great Charter the Charter of the Forrest and other Statutes were broken and they desire that for the good of himself and of his people they might be kept and put in execution and that they might not be infringed by making an arrest by speciall command or otherwise and the answer was that the assent of the Lords established and ordained that the said Charter and other Statutes should be put in execution according to the petitition and that is without any disturbance by arrest by speciall command or otherwise for it was granted as it was petitioned In the same year for they were very carefull of this matter and it was necessary it should be so for it was then an usuall thing to take men by writs quibusdam de causis and many of these words caused many Acts of Parliament and it may be some of these writs may be shewn and I say in the same year they complained that men were imprisoned by speciall command and without indictment or other legall course of Law and they desired that thing may not be done upon men by speciall command against the great Charter The King makes answer that he is well pleased therewith that was the first answer and for the future he hath added farther if any man be grieved let him complain and right shall be done unto him This my Lord is an explanation of the great Charter as also the Statute of 37 Ed. 3. ch 18. is a commentary upon it that men should not be committed upon suggestion made to the King without due proofs of Law against them and so it is enacted twice in one year We find more printed Books as in Henry the sixth Minus de fiacts Fitz. 182. which is a strong case under favour in an action of Trespasse for cutting down trees the defendant saith that the place where the trees are cut is parcell of the Manor of B whereof the King is seised in fee and that the King did command him to cut them and the opinion of the Court was that this was no good plea without shewing the specialty of the command and they said if the King command me to arrest a man and I arrest him he shall have an action of false imprisonment against me although it were done in the Kings presence In 1 Ioh. cap. 7. fol. 46. it is in print and there we leave it Hussey Chief Justice saith that Sir Iohn Markham told King Edward the fourth that he could not arrest a man upon suspition of felony or treason as any of his Subjects might because if he should wrong a man by such arrest the parties could have no remedy against him if any man shall stand upon it here is a signification of the Kings pleasure not to have the cause of the commitment examined he hath here another signification of his pleasure by writ whereby the party is brought hither ad subjiciendum recipiendum that he hath made your Lordship Judge of that that should be objected against this Gentleman and either to punish him or to deliver him and if here be no cause shewn it is to be intended that the party is to be delivered and that it is the Kings pleasure it should be so and the writ is a sufficient warrant for the doing of it there being no cause shewn of the imprisonment and now my Lord I will speak a word to the writ of de homine replegiando and no other writ for that was the common writ and the four causes expressed in that Statue to wit the death of a man the command of the King or his Justices or Forrest were excepted in that writ before that Statute made as appears Bracton 133. so that the writ was at the Common Law before that Statute And it appears by our Books that if a man be brought hither by an Habeas corpus though he were imprisoned De morte hominis as in the 21 of Edward the fourth 7. Winkfield was bailed here this Court bailed him for he was brought hither ad subjiciendum recipiendum and not to lie in prison God knows how long and if the Statute should be expounded otherwise there were no bailing men outlawed or breakers of prisons
especially are to be taken into consideration the defence of Rochell the Elve and the Forts He perswades to give bountifully and though the people do not presently pay it yet it gives the King credit abroad and much advanceth his affairs We have already by our carriage and temper taken the Kings heart which he adviseth we make good use of S r. DUDLY DIGGS FOr to try and examine faithfully the Propositions he refers it to the Judgement of the House whether it be fit to handle the business in order or to give in gross considering that the Bill of Tonnage and Poundage is now brought into the House which he thinks they conceive to be given for the safe-guarding of the Seas Mr. SPENCER IN no Case to enter into particulars That formerly hath been given 5. Subsedies for the repairing of the Forts and no penny bestowed on them but the money wasted in dishonour Mr. IOHN ELLIOT THat our late disasters at Calis Reez might discourage us from thinking of forreign attempts At Calis when we neglected the taking of the Spanish Fleet in the Harbour nothing attempted at our landing but drincking and disorder no good account given at the return Concerning service at S. Martins the whole account carried against the Judgement of the best Commanders which makes all the World despise and condemne us besides the inriching of the Enemy with kindenesses and parling with the Forts with presents which time will bring to light Sr. EDWARD COKE THat when England stood alone without friends and addition of Kingdoms as 42. E. 3. the King wholly guided by his Parliament-Councel brought alwayes home Victories both against France and Scotland his 4. reasons of it were 1. Good Councel 2. Valiant Leaders 3. Timely provision 4. Good imployment and fore-cast And likewise in Ric. 2. Hen. 4. Hen. 5. He desires to give plentifully and that in gross not to examine the particulers alleadging Solomon's rule qui repetit separat for said he if we rip them up we sever them for ever And in that Proposition for setting forth 30. ships shall we both pay Tonnage and Subsedies for them This will draw a dangerous President Likewise that other in setting forth God knows whether a 1000. Horse and 10000. Foot being not able to set them forth how shall we look to maintain them abroad That in an Iland the defensive War is best and most proper To conclude our guift in gross will serve best with these times for by that course we shall seem to allow all the Propositions and except against none S r. THOMAS WENTWORTH THat he will look after the Iland of England and no further except our Fortunes were better That as he is bound in duty to the King so in faithfull love to his Countrey That our freedom and Liberty being known and granted we then may proportion our guift His conclusion was that the â—inal debate of this question may be laid aside untill Friday and in the mean time go on with our grievances S r. HENRY MARTIN NOt to dash the Ship of the Common-wealth twice upon one Rock The disease that we are now sick of is the Kings Evil which none but himself can cure and Iacob's example is our best Predent who wrestling with the Angel would not give over till he got the blessing That our often repetition of grievances breeds hate and dislike And because we have not to give what is asked Yet to give freely what we intend to give and so by this freeness we shall win the Kings heart M r. KERTON HE desires to know the Rock to the end we may avoid it and not to go back but forward in our conclusion S r. ROBERT PHILIPS HIs good hopes are in his Majesties royal care and wisdom That the free and great Councel is the best but time and hope of change is coming towards us Rome and Spain trench deeply into our Councels That heretofore there hath been a fair progress on both parts according to the saying of the late King If the Parliament did or should give more then the Countrey could bear they gave him a purse with a knife in it Serjant HOSKINS THat knowing our own rights we shall be better enabled to give Two legs go best together our just grievances and our supply which he deâ—ires may not be seperated for by presenting them together they shall be both taken or both refused Serjant ASHLEYS Argument seconding M r. ATTORNEY in the behalf of his MAJESTIE I Hope it will be neither offensive nor tedious to your Lordships if I said somewhat to second M r. Attorney which I the rather desire because yesterday it was taken by the Gentlemen of and argued on the behalf of the Commons that the cause was as good as gained by them and yielded by us in that we acknowledged the Statute of Magna Charta and the other subsequent Statutes to be yet in force for on this they inforced this general conclusion That therefore no man could be committed or imprisoned but by due process presentment or indictment Which we say is a non sequitur upon such our acknowledgement for then it would follow by necessary consequence that no imprisonment could be justified but by process of Law which we utterly deny For in the cause of the Constable cited by M r. Attorney it is most clear that by the ancient Law of the Land a Constable might ex officio without any Warrant Arest and restrain a man to prevent an affray or to suppress it And so is the Authority 38. Hen. 8. Brooks abstract So may he after the affray apprehend and commit to Prison the Person that hath wounded a man that is in peril of death and that without Warrant or Process as it is in 38. E. 3. fol. 6. Also any man that is no Officer may apprehend a Fellon without Writ or Warrant or pursue him as a Wolf and as a common enemy to the Common-wealth as the Book is 14. H. 8. fol. 16. So might any one arrest a Night-walker because it is for the common profit as the reason is given 4. Hen. 7. fol. 7. In like manner the Judges in these several Courts may commit a man either for contempt or misdemeanour without either Process or Warrant other then take him Shrief or take him Marshall or Warden of the Fleet. And the Adversaries will not deny but if the King will alleadge cause he may commit a man per mandatum as the Judges do without Process or Warrant And various are the cases that may be instanced wherein there may be a Lawfull commitment without Process Wherefore I do possitively and with confidence affirm that if the imprisonment be Lawfull whether it be by Process or without Process it is not prohibited by the Law Which being granted then the question will aptly be made whether the King or Councel may commit to Prison per legâ—m terrâ— were onely that part of the Municipal Law of this Realm which we call the