Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	writ_n	wrong_n	wrong_v	12	3	10.0908	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A75552	The arguments upon the writ of habeas corpus, in the Court of Kings Bench. Wherein, are learnedly discussed, not onely the severall branches of the said writ, but also many authorities as well of the common as statute law: and divers ancient and obscure records most amply and elaborately debated and cleared. Together, with the opinion of the court thereupon. Whereunto is annexed, the petition of Sir Iohn Elliot Knight, in behalf of the liberty of the subject.	Eliot, John, Sir, 1592-1632.; England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.	1649 (1649)	Wing A3649; Thomason E543_1; ESTC R204808	64,168	98

à Prisona praedict deliberari non debeat Rex justiciar 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 manditi nostri praed capt in Prisona nostra de Newgate tuncdetenti c. et 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. vobis 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. 3. c. 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 remedi●lia brevia mandatoria non remedialia brevia 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 doe 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 impl●citari permittas talem de libero tenemento suo in tali villa sine speciali praecepto nostro vel Capitalis Justiciar ' nostri And the reason of it there is given quia nemo de libero tenemento sine brevi sive libello conventionali nisi 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 et fideles nestros A. B C. D. ad inquisitiones de forstallariis et transgressionibus contra formam statuti dudum apud Winton editi in com tuo faciend et ad illos quos inde culpabiles invenirent capiend in Prisona nostra salvo custod faciend donec aliud inde praecepissemus quod C. D. et E. pro hujusmodi forstallamentis transgressionibus unde coram praefat A. B. C. indict fuerint capt in Prisona de L. detent exist à qua deliberari non possunt sine mandato nostro speciali Nos volentes eisdem C. D. E. gratiaem in hac parte facere specialem tibi praecipimus quod si praedict C. D. et E. occasione praedict et non alia in Prisona p●…dict detineantur et pro transgressionibus illis secundum legem consuetudinem Regni nostri Angliae replegiabiles existunt c. tunc impos C. D. et E. à Prisona praedict si ea occasione et non alia detineantur in eadem interim deliberari facias per manucapt supradict et habeas ibi tunc coram praefat Justiciar nomina manucapt illorum et hoc breve And the exposition of this speciale mandatum domini Regis mentioned in the writ is expounded to be breve domini Regis thereupon is this writ directed unto the Sheriffe for the delivery of them And so for the first 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 commandement 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 detentionis et ad subjiciendum et recipiendum ea quae curia nostra de eo ad tunc ibid. ordinar conting●… ' 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 give 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 originall 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 Chancelour 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 shewn 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 I spare to recite particular causes in every kinde 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 statute of 28 Ed. 3. cap. 9. But before that statute this writ did lie in the speciall Case as is shewn in Brooks 9th 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 bee kept too long in prison which is also a Liberty of the Subject and my Lord that this Court hath bailed upon a suspition 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 to the matter of the return which I finde 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 finde 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 King 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 wee have heard And this return here is a speciall Mandatum it may bee understood to be under some of the Kings Seals 42 Ass and ought to be delivered and will you make a difference betweene 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 returne 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 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 shal offer to your Lordship presidents of divers kindes upon commitments by the Lords of the Privy Councell upon commitments by the speciall command of the King and upon commitments both by the King and 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 Lawes by which the Kingdome is governed In the first of Henry the eighth Rot. Parl. 9. 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 Jacobi 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 Councel 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 Councel 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 Jacobi 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 doe 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 these Gentlemen which is their birth-right My humble suit to your Lordship is that these Gentlemen may have the

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 bee a difference Trin. 2 Ed. 3. Rot. 46. in this Court in 21 Ed. 3. in the printed Book there is a peece of it The Abbot of Burey brings a prohibition out of this Court the Bishop of Norwich pleadeth in Bar of that Quod mihi testificatum 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 excommunication 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. nec 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 Forest and other Statutes were broken and they desire that for the good of himselfe 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 petition 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 Wee finde more printed Bookes as in Henry the sixth Mius 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 Statute to wit the death of a man the command of the King or his Justices or Forest 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 apppears 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. Winckfield was bailed here this Court bailed him for he was brought hither ad subjiciendum recipiendum and not to he in prison God knows how long and if the Statute should be expounded otherwise there were no bailing men outlawed or breakers of prisons for they are not within this Statute and yet this

commandement by Letters from the King That whereas the Earl of Warwick had commanded divers persons to the custody of the said Sheriffe the King sent a Letter to the said Sheriffe commanding that those who were committed to his custody by the Earl of Warwick he should shew no grace to them that is they should not be bailed The Sheriffe notwithstanding this command lets some of those prisoners to bail whereupon he was complained of in Parliament that he had done against the Kings commandement and he was condemned for it This was a Parliament I wonder this should be done in Parliament and that it was not said there That this commitment being done by the Kings commandment was not good no he was condemned in Parliament for it was one that did break the Statute of Westm primo My Lord the use that I make of this Record is this It recites that the Earl of Warwick committed divers it might be that he did commit them by direction from the King but the Record mentioneth not so much but it shews that the King by Letters commanded the Sheriffe that he should shew those persons no grace and yet he did he was examined upon this and by Parliament committed The next matter I will offer to your Lordships judgement for the true exposition of the Law in this case is the Book we call the Register an authority respected it is the foundation of all our Writs at the Common Law I bring not the Book Register fol. 77 c. In this Book there is one Writ saith thus Rex c. Quod replegiar ' fac ' A. nisi fuerit per speciale mandatum domini Regis Iustice Doderidge In what Writ is that De homine replegiando Atturney Generall Yea in the Writ De homine replegiando and there is another Writ directed to the Constable of Dover in the very same words by which it appears that they that are imprisoned by the Kings command non sunt replegiabiles F.N.B. 66. f. Master Fitzherbert a grave Judge and is in authority with us perusing these Writs expressed it in these words plainly There are some cases wherein a man cannot have this Writ although he be taken and detained in Prison as if he be taken by the death of a man or if he be taken by the commandement of the Kings Justices and mentions not chief Justice which I beleeve is to be intended not of the chief of the Court of Judicature but of the chief Justice of England for there was such a one in those days Thus my Lord you see the opinion of Master Fitzherbert in this case The next thing that I will shew your Lordship is the opinion of Master Stamford in his Pleas of the Crown Fol. 72. where he sets down the Statute of Westminster primo and then he addes That by this appears in four cases at the Common Law a man is not replevisable In those that were taken for the death of a man or by the commandment of the King or of his Justices or of the Forest And there he saith That the commandment of the King is to be intended either the commandment of his mouth or of his Councell which is incorporated to him and speak with the mouth of the King My Lord I shall desire no better Commentaries upon a Law then these reverent grave Judges who have put books of Law in Print and such Books as none I beleeve will say their judgements are weak The next thing I shall offer unto your Lordship is this that I cannot shew with so great authority as I have done the rest because I have not the thing it self by me but I will put it to your Lordships memory I presume you may well remember it It is the resolution of all the Judges which was given in the four and thirtieth of Queen Elizabeth it fell out upon an unhappy occasion which was thus The Judges they complain that Sheriffes and other Officers could not execute the processe of the Law as they ought for that the parties on whom such processe shall be executed were sent away by some of the Queens Councell that they could not be found the Judges hereupon petitioned the Lord Chancellor that he would be a suitor to her Majesty that nothing be done hereafter And thereupon the Judges were desired to shew in what cases men that were committed were not bailable whether upon the commitment of the Queen or any other The Judges make answer That if a man shall be committed by the Queen by her command or by the Privy Councell he is not bailable If your Lordship ask me what authority I have for this I can onely say I have it out of the Book of the Lord Anderson written with his own hand My Lord I pray you give me leave to observe the time when this was done It was in a time and we may truly call it a good time in the time of good Queen Elizabeth and yet we see there was then cause of complaint and therefore I would not have men think that we are now grown so bad as the opinion is we are for we see that then in those times there was cause of complaint and it may be more then is now This my Lord was the resolution of all the Judges and Barons of the Exchequer and not by some great one Now I will apply my self to that which hath been enforced by the Councell on the other side which was the reason that the Subject hath interest in this case My Lord I do acknowledge it but I must say that the Soveraign hath great interest in it too And sure I am that the first stone of Soveraignty was no sooner laid but this power was given to the Soveraign If you ask me whether it be unlimited my Lord I say it is not the question now in hand But the Common Law which hath long flourished under the Government of our King and his Progenitors Kings of this Realm have ever had that reverent respect of their Soveraign as that it hath concluded the King can doe no wrong And as it is in the Lord Berklies Case in Plowdens Com. 246. b. it is part of the Kings Prerogative that he can doe no wrong Title Travers 5. In the fourth of Edward the fourth fol. 25. the King cannot be a disseisor and so it is also in the Lord Berklies Case in 32 H. 8. Dier fol. 8. The King cannot usurp upon a Patron for the Common Law hath that reverent respect to him as that it cannot conceive he will doe any injury But the King commits a Subject and expresseth no cause of the commitment what then shall it be thought that there is no cause why he should be committed Nay my Lord the course of all times hath been to say there is no cause expressed and therefore the matter is not ripe and thereupon upon the Courts of Judicature have ever rested satisfied therewith they would not search into it My