afterwards be attainted yet the King shall not have them untill he have satisfied that for which they were distreined And if in these Cases where the owners of the goods are such capitall offendours the King cannot have them much lesse shall he have them when the owner is innocent and no offendour Nay I may well say that almost every leaf and page of all the volumes of our Common Law prove this right of propriety this distinction of meum and tuum aswell between King and Subject as one Subject and another and therefore my Conclusion follows that if the Prerogative extend not neither to Lands nor to Goods then à fortiori not to the Person which is more worth then either lands or goods as I said And yet I agree that by the very law of Nature service of the Person of the Subject is due to his Soveraigne but this must be in such things which are not against the law of Nature but to have the body imprisoned without any cause declared and so to become in bondage I am sure is contrary unto and against the law of Nature and therefore not to be inforced by the Soveraigne upon his Subjects 3. My next reason is drawn ab inutili incommodo For the Statute de frangentibus prisonam made 1 E. 2. is quod nullus qui prisonam fregerit subeat judicium vitae vel membrorum pro fractione prisonae tantum nisi causa pro qua captus imprisonetur tale Iudicium requirat Whence this Conclusion is clearly gathered That if a man be committed to prison without declaring what cause and then if either Malefactour do break the prison or the Gaoler suffer him to escape albeit the prisoner so escaping had committed Crimen laesae majestatis yet neither the Gaoler nor any other that procured his escape by the Law suffer any corporall punishment for setting him at large which if admitted might prove in consequence a matter of great danger to the Common-wealth 4. My next reason is drawn ab Regis honore from that great honour the Law doth attribute unto soveraigne Majesty and therefore the Rule of Law is that Solum Rex hoc non potest facere quod non potest juste agere And therefore if a Subject hath the donation and the King the presentation to a Church whereunto the King presents without the Subjects nomination here the quare impedit lies against the Incumbent and the King is in Law no disturber And Hussey chief Justice in 1 H. 7. fol. 4. saith that Sir Iohn Markham told King Edw. 4. he could not arrest a man either for treason or fellony as a Subject might because that if the King did wrong the party could not have his Action against him What is the reason that an Action of false imprisonment lies against the Sheriff if he doth not return the Kings Writ by which he hath taken the body of the Subject but this because the Writ doth breviter enarrare causam captionis which if it doth not it shall abate and is void in Law and being returned the party when he appears may know what to answer and the Court upon what to judge And if the Kings Writ under his great Seal cannot imprison the Subject unlesse it contains the cause shall then the Kings warrant otherwise doe it without containing the cause that his Judges upon return thereof may likewise judge of the same either to remain or judge the partie imprisoned I should argue this point more closely upon the statute of Magnae Charta 29. quod nullus liber homo imprisonetur the statute of West 1. cap. 15. for letting persons to bail and the Judgements lately given in the Kings Bench but the later of these statutes referring having been by that honourable Gent. to whom the Professours of the Law both in this and all succeding ages are and will be much bound already expounded unto us and that also fortified by those many contemporary Expositions and Judgements by him learnedly cited and there being many learned Lawyers here whose time I will not waste who were present and some of them perhaps of councell in the late Cause adjudged in the Kings Bench where you to whose person I now speak do well know I was absent being then of councel in a cause in another Court and my practice being in the Country farre remote from the treasure of Antiquity and Records conducing to the clearing of this point Therefore the narrowness of my understanding commends unto me sober ignorance rather then presumptuous knowledge and also commands me no further to trouble your Patience But I will conclude with that which I find reported of Sir Iohn Davis who was the Kings Serjeant and so by the duty of his place would no doubt maintain to his uttermost the Prerogatives of the King his royall Master and yet it was by him thus said in those Reports of his upon the case of Tavistry Customs That the Kings of England alwayes have had a Monarchy Royall and not a Monarchy Seignorall where under the first saith he the Subjects are Free-men and have propriety in their goods and free-hold and inheritance in their Lands but under the later they are as Villains and Slaves and have proprietie in nothing And therefore saith he when a Royall Monarch makes a new Conquest yet if he receives any of his Nations ancient Inhabitants into his protection they and their heirs after them shall enjoy their Lands and Liberties according to the Law And there he voucheth this President and Judgement following given before William the Conquerour himself viz. That one Sherborn at the time of the Conquest being owner of a Castle and lands in Norfolk the Conquerour gave the same to one Warren a Norman and Sherborn dying the Heir clayming the same by descent according to the Law it was before the Conquerour himself adjudged for the Heir and that the gift thereof by the Conquerour was void If then it were thus in the Conquerour's time by his own sentence and judgement and hath so continued in all the successions of our Kings ever since what doubt need we have but that his most excellent Majestie upon our humble petition prostrated at his feet which as was well said is the best passage to his heart will vouchsafe unto us our ancient Liberties and Birthrights with a through reformation of this and other just grievances And so I humbly crave pardon of this honourable House that I have made a short Lesson long Sir Benjamin Ruddier's Speech March 22. 1627. Mr. Speaker OF the mischiefs that have lately fallen upon us by the late distractions here is every man sensible and that may ensue the like which God forbid we may easily see and too late repent The eyes of Christendome are upon us and as we speed here so go the Fortunes of our selves our Friends and of our Religion That the Dangers were not reall but pretended we all heartily wish but feel the contrary
the Commons were in force and that Magna Charta did extend most properly to the King But he said First that some of them are in generall words and therefore conclude nothing but are to be expounded by the Presidents and others that be more particular are applyed to the suggestions of Subjects and not to the Kings Command simplie of it self Hereunto was answered That the Statutes were as direct as could be which appeareth by the reading of them and that though some of them speak of suggestions of the Subject yet others do not and those that do are as effectuall for that they are in equall reason a commitment by Command of the King being of as great force when it moveth by a suggestion from a Subject as when the King takes notice of the cause himself the rather for that Kings seldome intermeddle with matters of this nature but by information from some of their Subjects Secondly M r Attorney objected that per legem terrae in Magna Charta which is the foundation of this Question cannot be understood for processe of the Law and originall Writs for that in all Criminall proceedings no originall Writ is used at all but every Constable may arrest either for fellony or for breach of the peace or to prevent a breach of the peace without processe or originall Writ and it were hard the King should not have the power of a Constable the Statutes cited by the Commons make processe of the Law and Writ originall to be all one The answer of the Commons to this Objection was That they do not intend originall Writs only by the Law of the Land but all other legall processe which comprehends the whole proceedings of Law upon Cause other then the triall by Jurie Iudicium parium unto which it is opposed Thus much is imported ex vitermini out of the word processe and by the true acceptation thereof in the Statutes which have been urged by the Commons to maintain their Declaration and most especially in the Statute 25. E. 3. cap. 4. where it appeareth that a man ought to be brought into answer by the course of the Law having former mention made of processe made by originall Writ And in 28. E. 3. cap. 3. by the course of the Law is rendered by due processe of the Law and 36. E. 3. Rot. Parl. num 20. the Petition of the Commons saith That no man ought to be imprisoned by speciall Command without Indictment or other due processe to be made by the Law 37. E. 3. cap. 18. calleth the same thing Processe of the Law 42. E. 3. cap. 3. stileth it by due processe and Writ originall where the conjunctive must be taken for the disjunctive which change is ordinary in the exposition of the Statutes and Deeds to avoid inconvenience to make it stand with the rest and with reason And it may be collected that by the Law of the Land in Magna Charta by the Course of the Law in 25. E. 3. by due processe of the Law in 28. E. 3. other due processe to be made by the Law in 36. E. 3. processe of the Law 37. E. 3. and by due processe and originall Writ in 42. E. 3. are meant one and the same thing the latter of these Statutes referring alwayes to the former and that all of them import any due and regular proceeding of Law upon a Cause other then the triall by Jury And this doth appeare in Coke 10.74 in the case of the Marshalsey and Coke 11.99 Iames Bagg's case where it is understood of giving Jurisdiction by Charter or prescription which is the ground of a proceeding by course of Law and in Selden's Notes on Fortescue fol. 29. where it is expounded for Law wager which is likewise a triall at Law by the oath of the partie differing from that by Jurie And it doth truly comprehend these and all other regular proceedings in Law upon Cause which gives authoritie to the Constable to arrest upon Cause And if this should not be the true exposition of these words per begem terrae the Kings Councell were desired to declare their meaning which they never offered to do and yet certainly these words were not put into the Statute without some intention of consequence Whereupon M r Serjeant Ashley offered an interpretation of them thus Namely that there were divers Lawes of this Realme as the Common Law the Law of the Chauncerie the Ecclesiasticall Law the Law of the Admiraltie or Marine Law the Law of Merchants the Martiall Law and the Law of State and that these words per legem terrae do extend to all those Lawes The answer To this it was answered that we read of no Law of State and that none of these Lawes can be meant there save the Common Law which is the principall and generall Law and is alwayes understood by way of excellency when mention is made of the Law of the Land generally and that though each of the other Lawes which are admitted into this Kingdome by Custome or Act of Parliament may justly be called a Law of the Land yet none of them can have the preeminence to be stiled the Law of the Land And no Statute Law-book or other Authoritie printed or unprinted could be shewen to prove that the Law of the Land being generally mentioned was ever intended of any other Law then the Common Law and yet even by these other Lawes a man may not be committed without a cause expressed But it standeth with the rule of other legall expositions that per legem terrae must be meant the Common Law which is the generall and universall Law by which men hold their inheritances And therefore if a man speak of Escuage generally it is understood as Littleton observeth of the incertain Escuage which is a Knights-Service Tenure for the defence of the Realm by the body of the Tenant in time of warre and not of the certain Escuage which giveth only a contribution in money and no personall service And if a Statute speakes of the Kings Courts of Record it is meant only of the 4 at Westm. by way of excellency Coke 6.20 Gregorie's Case So the Canonists by the excommunication simplie spoken do intend the greater excommunication and the Emperour in his Institutions saith that the Civil Law being spoken generally is meant of the Civil Law of Rome though the Law of every City is a Civil Law as when a man names the Poet the Grecians understood Homer the Latinists Virgil. Secondly admit that per legem terrae extends to all the Lawes of the Realm yet a man must not be committed by any of them but by the due proceedings that are exercised by those Lawes and upon a Cause delivered Again it was urged that the King was not bound to expresse the cause of imprisonment because there may be in it matter of State not fit to be revealed for a time lest the Confederates thereupon make meanes to escape the hands
to be set at liberty upon Baile and are in the nature of Objections out of Record I shall deliver them summarily to your Lordships with all faith as also the true Copies of them Out of which it shall appear cleerly to your Lordships that of those of the first kind there are no lesse then twelve most full and directly in the point to prove that persons so committed are to be delivered upon baile and among those of the other kind there is not so much as one that proves at all any thing to the contrary I shall first my Lords go through them of the first kind and so observe them to your Lordships that such scruples as have been made upon them by some that have excepted against them shall be cleered also according as I shall open them severally The first of this first kind is of Edw. 3. time It is in Pasche 18. E. 3. Rot. 33. Rex The case was thus King E. 3. had committed by Writ that under his Great Seal as most of the Kings Commands in that time were one Iohn de Bidleston a Clergie-man to the prison of the Tower without any cause shewed of the commitment The Lieutenant of the Tower is commanded to bring him into the Kings Bench where he is committed to the Marshall But the Court asked of the Lieutenant if there were any cause to keep this Bidleston in prison besides that commitment of the King He answered No. Whereupon as the Roll saith Quia videtur Curiae breve predictum that is the Kings Command sufficientem non esse causam predictum Johannem de Bidleston in prisona Marr. Regis hic detinend idem Johannes dimittitur per manucaptionem Will. de Wakefield and some others Where the Judgement of the Court is fully declared in the very point The second of this first kind of Presidents of Record is in the time of H. the 8. One Iohn Parker was committed to the Sheriffs of London pro securitate pacis at the Suit of one Brinton ac pro suspicione fellonie committed by him at Cowall in Glocestershire ac per mandatum Dni Regis he is committed to the Marshall of the Kings Bench postea isto eodem Termino traditur in Ballium There were other causes of the commitment but plainly one was a Command of the King signified to the Sheriff of London of which they took notice But some have interpreted this as if the commitment here had been for suspicion of fellony by command of the King in which case it is agreed of all hands that the Prisoner is bailable But no man can think so of this President that observes the Contents and understands the Grammar of it wherein most plainly ac per mandatum Regis hath no reference to any other cause whatsoever but is a single cause enumerated in the Return by it self as the Record cleerly shewes It is in the 22. H. 8. Rot. 37. The third is of the same time It is 35. H. 8. Rot. 33. Iohn Bincks case He was committed by the Lords of the Councell pro suspicione fellonie ac pro aliis causis illos moventibus Qui committitur Marescallo c. et immediate ex gratia curiae special traditur in ballium They commit him for suspicion of fellony and other causes them thereunto moving wherein there might be matter of State or whatsoever else can be supposed and plainly the cause of the commitment is not expressed yet the Court bailed him without having regard to those other unknown causes that moved the Lords of the Councell But it is indeed somewhat different from either of those other two that precede and from the other nine that follow For it is agreed That if a cause be expressed in the return insomuch as the Court can know why he is committed that then he may be bailed but not if they know not the cause Now when a man is committed for a cause expressed pro aliis causis Dominos de Concilio moventibus certainly the Court can no more know in such a case what the cause is then in any other The fourth of these is in the time of Queen Mary It is Pasche 2. and 3. Phil. and Mar. Rot. 58. Overtons case Richard Overton was returned upon a habeas Corpus directed to the Sheriffs of London to have been committed to them and detained per mandatum prenobilium virorum honorabilis Concilii Dominorum Regis Reginae Qui committitur Marescallo c. immediate traditur in ballium In answer to this President or by way of objection against the force of it hath been said that this Overton stood at that time indicted of Treason It is true he was so indeed but that appeares in another Roll that hath no reference to the Return as the Return hath no reference to that Roll. Yet they that object this against the force of this President say That because he was indicted of Treason therefore though he was committed by the command of the Lords of the Councell without cause shewed yet he was bailable for the Treason and upon that was here bailed Then which Objection nothing can be or is more contrarie to Law or common Reason It is most contrarie to Law for that cleerly every Return is to be adjudged by the Court out of the body of the Writ it self not by any other collaterall or forrain Record whatsoever Therefore the matter of Indictment here cannot in Law be cause of the bailing of the Prisoner And it is so adverse to all common Reason that if the objection be admitted it must of necessity follow that whosoever shall be committed by the King or the Privie Councell without cause shewed and be not indicted of Treason or some other offence may not be inlarged by reason of the supposition of matter of State But that whosoever is so committed and withall stands so indicted though in another Record may be inlarged whatsoever the matter of State be for which he was committed The absurdity of which assertion needs not a word for further confutation as if any of the Gent. in the last Judgement ought to have been the sooner delivered if he had been also indicted of Treason Certainly if so Traitours and Fellons had the highest priviledges of personall Liberty and that above all other Subjects of the Kingdome The first of this first kind is of Queen Marie's time also It is Pasche 4. 5. P. M. Rot. 45. the Case of Edward Newport He was brought into the Kings Bench by habeas Corpus out of the Tower of London cum causa viz. Quod commissus fuit per mandatum Conciliorum Dominae Reginae Qui committitur Marr. c. et immediate traditur in ballium To this the like kind of answer hath been made as in that other Case of Overton next before cited They say that in another Roll of another Terme of the same year it appears he was in question for suspicion of Coyning And it
touching the resolution of the house of Commons To the second of these 12. which is Parkers Case in the 22. H. 8. Rot. 37. his Objections were two First that it is true that he was returned to be committed Per mandatum domini Regis but it appeared that this command was certified to the Shreiffs of London by one Robert Peck gentleman and that in regard that the command came no otherwise the return was held insufficient and that therefore he was bailed Secondly that it appears also in the Record that he was committed pro suspicione felloniae ac per mandatum domini Regis so that in regard that the command that in the expression of the causes of his commitment suspicion of fellony preceeds the command of the King therefore it must be intended that the Court tooke the Cause why the King committed him to be of less moment then fellony and therefore bailed him For he Objected that even the house of Commons themselves in some Arguments used by them touching the interpretation of the statute of Westminster the first cap. 15. about this point had affirmed that in enumeration of particulars those of greatest nature were first mentioned and that it was supposed that such as followed were usually of less nature or moment But the reply was to the first Objection that the addition of the certefying of the Kings command by Robert Peck altered not the Case First because the Sheriffs in their Return took notice of the command as what they were assured of and then howsoever it came to them it was of equal force as if it had been mentioned without reference to Peck Secondly as divers Patents pass the great Seal by writ of privy Seal and are subscribed Per breve de privato sigillo so diverse per ipsum Regem are so subscribed and oftentimes in the Roll of former times to the words per ipsum Regem are added nunciante A. B. So that the Kings command generally and the Kings command related or certified by such a man is to this purpose of like nature Thirdly in the late great Case of Habeas Corpus where the Return of the commitment was Per speciale mandatum Domini Regis mihi significatum per Dominos de privato Confilio the Court of Kings-Bench did agree that it was the same and of like force as if mihi significatum c. had not followed and that those words were void According whereunto here also Per mandatum Dom. Regis nunciatum per Robert Peck had been wholly omitted and void likewise And in truth in that late Case this Case of Parker was cited both at the Barr and Bench and at the Bench it was interpreted by the Judges no otherwise then if it had been onely per mandatum Domini Regis in place of it but the Objection there was made of another kinde as was delivered in the first Argument made out of presidents in the behalf of the house of Commons Therefore to the second Objection touching the course of Enumeration of the Causes in the Return it was said that howsoever in some Acts of Parliament and else where in the solemn expressions used in the Law things of greater nature preceded and the less follow yet in this Case the contrary was most plain for in the Return it appears that there were three Causes for detaining the Prisoners Surety of the peace Suspicion of Pellony and the Kings command and Surety of the peace is first mentioned which is plainly less then Fellony And therefore it is plain if any force of Argument be taken from this enumeration that the contrary to that which M r. Attorney inferred is to be concluded that is that as Fellony is a greater Cause then Surety of the peace so the matter whereupon the Kings command was grounded was greater then Fellony But in truth this kinde of Argument holds neither way here and whatsoever the Cause were why the King committed him it was impossible for the Court to know it and it also might be of very high moment in matter of state and yet of farr less nature then Fellony All which shews that this president hath his full force also according as it was first used in Argument by the house of Commons To the third of these which is Binckes Case in the 35. H. 8. Rot. 33. the Objection was that there was a Cause expressed pro suspicione felloniae and though pro aliis causis illos moventibus were added in the Return yet because in the course of enumeration the general name of aliis comming after particulars includes things of less nature then the particuler doth therefore in this Case suspition of fellony being the first the other Causes afterwards generally mentioned must be intended of less nature for which the Prisoner was bailable because he was bailable for the greater which was suspition of fellony Hereunto it was replyed that the Argument of enumeration in these Cases is of no moment as is next before shewed and that although it were of any moment yet any Case though less then fellony might be of very great consequence in matter of state which is pretended usually upon general Returns of command without cause shewed and it is most plain that the Court could not possible know the reasons why the Prisoner here was committed and yet they bailed him without looking further after any unknown thing under that title of Matter of state which might as well have been in this Case as in any other whatsoever To the 4. of these which is Overton's Case in 2. 3. Phet M. Rot. 58. and to the 5. which is Newports Case P. M. 4. 5. Rot. 45. onely these Objections were said over again by Mr. Attorney which are mentioned in the Argument made out of presidents in behalf of the house of Commons at the first conference and in the same Argument are fully and clearly satisfied as they were in like manner now again To the 6. of these which was Lawrence his Case M. 9. Eliz. Rot. 35. and the 7. which is Constables P. 9. Eliz. Rot. 68. the same Objections onely were likewise said over again by Mr. Attorney that are mentioned and clearly and fully answered in the Argument made at the first conference out of presidents in behalf of the house of Commons the force of the Objection being onely that it appeared in the Margent of the Roll that the word Pardon was written but it is plain that the word there hath no reference at all to the reason why they were bailed nor could it have reference to the Cause why they were committed in regard the Cause why they were committed is utterly unknown and was not shewed To the 8. of these Presidents which was Brownings Case P. 20. Eliz. Rot. 72. It was said M r. Attorney that he was bailed by a letter from the Lords of the Councel directed to the Judges of the Court but being asked for that letter or any Testimony of it
of explanation we shall provide onely that the cause ought to be expressed upon the return of the Habeas Corpus then out of the words of the Statute it will necessarily be inferred that before the return of the Habeas Corpus the cause need not to be expressed because the Statute hath appointed the time of the expression of the cause And it will be construed that if the makers of the Statutes had intended that the cause should have been soener shewen they would have provided for it by the Act and then the Act which we term an Act of explanation will be an Act of the abridging of Magna Charta and the rest of the Statutes Or if this Act do not make the commitment without expressing the cause to be Lawfull yet it will clearly amount to a tolleration of the commitment without expressing the cause untill the Habeas Corpus or to a general or perpetual dispensation beginning with and continuing as long as the Law it self And in my understanding the words in this intended Law that no Freeman can be committed without cause can no wayes advantage us or satisfie this Objection for till the return of the Habeas Corpus he that commits is Judge of the cause or at least hath a license by this Law till that time to conceal the cause and the Goaler is not subject to any action for the detaining of the Prisoner upon such command for if the Prisoner demanded the cause of his inprisonment of the Goaler It will be a safe answer for him to say that he detains the Prisoner by Warrant and that it belongs not unto him to desire those which commit the Prisoner to shew the cause untill he returns the Habeas Corpus and if the Prisoner be a Suitor to know the cause from those that committed him it will be a sufficient answer for them to say they will express the cause at the Return of the Habeas Corpus In this cause there will be a wrong because the commitment is without cause expressed and one that suffers that wrong viz. the party imprisoned and yet no such wrong doer but may excuse if not justifie himself by this Law In making of Laws we must consider the inconveniences which may ensue and provide for the prevention of them lex caveat de futuris I have taken into my thoughts some inconveniences which I shall expose to your considerations not imagining that they can happen in the time of our gracious Soveraign but in an Act of Parliament we must provide for the prevention of all inconveniences in future times 1. If a man be in danger to be imprisoned in the beginning of a long vacation for refusing to pay some small summe of money and knows that by this Act he can have no inlargement till the Return of the Habeas Corpus in the Term and that the charge of his being in Prison and of his inlargement by Habeas Corpus will amount to more then the summe he will depart with money to prevent his imprisonment or to redeem himself thence because he cannot say any man doth him wrong untill the Return of the Habeas Corpus the Law resolves a man will pay a Fine rather then be imprisoned for the Judgement which is given when one is fined is Ideo Capiatur and the highest execution for dept is a Capias ad satisfaciendum the Law presuming any man will depart with his money to gain his Liberty and if the Prisoner procure an Habeas Corpus and be brought into the Kings-bench by virtue of it yet the cause need not to be then expressed The provision of this Law being that if no cause be then expressed he shall be bayled and no cause being shewen upon the Return of the Habeas Corpus yet may be pretended that at the time of his Commitment there were strong presumptions of some great offence But upon examination they are cleared or it may be said that the offence was of that nature that the time of his imprisonment before the Return was a sufficient punishment and we may be frequently imprisoned in this manner and never understand the cause and have often such punishment and have no means to justifie our selves and for all these proceedings this Law will be the justification or colour 2. If by this Act there be a Tolleration of imprisonment without shewing cause untill the Return of the Habeas Corpus yet it is possible to accompany that imprisonment with such circumstances of close restraint and others which I forbear to express as may make imprisonment for that short time as great a punishment as a perpetual imprisonment in our ordinary manner 3. The party may be imprisoned a long time before he shall come to be delivered by this Law The place of his imprisonment may be in the furthest parts of this Kingdom The Judges always makes the Return of the Habeas Corpus answerable to the distance of the Prison from Westminster The Goaler may neglect the Return of the first Process and then the party must procure an alias and the Goaler may be then in some other imployment for the King and excuse the not returning of the body upon that Process and this may make the imprisonment for a year and in the end no cause being returned the party may be discharged but in the mean time he shall have imprisonment he shall never know the cause he shall have no remedy for it nor be able to question any for injustice which have not a justification or excuse by this Law 4. The party may be imprisoned during his life and yet there shall be no cause ever shewn I will instance in the manner a man may be committed to the furthest part of the Kingdom Westward he obtains an Habeas Corpus Before the Goaler receives the Habeas Corpus or before the returns it the Prisoner by Warrant is removed from that Prison to another it may be the furthest Northern part of the Realm the first Goaler returns the special Matter which will be sufficient to free himself and in like manner the Prisoner may be translated from one Prison to another and his whole life shall be a preregrination or wayfairing from one Goal to another and he shall never know the cause nor be able to complain of any who cannot defend their actions by this Bill 5. If the Prisoner be brought into the Court by Habeas Corpus and no cause expressed and thereupon he be enlarged he may be partly committed again and then his enlargement shall onely make way for his commitment and this may continue during his life and he shall never know the cause and this not remedied but rather permitted by this Act. And there are also considerable in this Matter the expence of the party in Prison His Fees to the Goaler his costs in obtaining and prosecuting an Habeas Corpus and his charges in removing himself attended with such as have the charge of his conduct and
Petition of Right but our rights themselves for the addition being referred to each part of the Petition will necessarily receive this construction That none ought to be compelled to make any guift loan or such like charge without common consent or Act of Parliament unless it be by the Soveraign power with which the King is trusted for the protection safety and happiness of his people That none ought to be compelled to sojourn or billet Souldiers unless by the same Soveraign power and so of the rest of the Rights contained in the Petition And then the most favourable construction will be that the King hath an ordinary Prerogative and by that he cannot impose Taxes or Imprison That is he cannot impose Taxes at his will to imploy them as he pleaseth that he hath an extraordinary and transcendent Soveraign power for the protection and happiness of his people and for such purpose he may impose Taxes or billet Souldiers as he pleaseth and we may assure our selves that hereafter all Loans Taxes and billeting of Souldiers will be said to be for the protection safety and happiness of the people Certainly hereafter it will be conceived that an House of Parliament would not have made an unnecessary addition to this Petition of Right and therefore it will be resolved that the addition hath relation to the Petition which will have such operation as I have formerly declared and I the rather fear it because the late Loan and Billeting have been declared to have been by Soveraign power for the good of our selves and if it be doubtfull whether this proposition hath reverence to the Petition or not I know not who shall Judge whether Loans or Imprisonments hereafter be by that Soveraign power or not A Parliament which is made a body of several wits and may be dissolved by one Commission cannot be certain to decide this question We cannot resolve that that the Judges shall determine the words of the Kings Letter read in this House expressing the cause of Commitment may be such that the Judges have not capacity of Judicature no rules of Law to direct guide their Judgements in cases of that transcendent nature the Judges then and the Judgements are easily conjectured It hath been confessed by the Kings Councel that the Statute of Magna Charta bindes the King and his Soveraign power cannot be divided from himself If then the Statute of Magna Charta bindes the King it bindes his Soveraign power if to the Petition these words be added the exposition then must be that the Statute of Magna Charta binds the Kings Soveraign power Saving the Kings Soveraign power I shall endevour to give some answer to the reasons given by the Lords The first is that it is the intention of both Houses to maintain the just Liberty of the Subject and not to diminish the just power of the King and therefore the expression of that intention in this Petition cannot prejudice us which I answer First that our intention was and is as we then professed and no man can assign any particuler in which we have done to the contrary Neither have we any way transgressed in that kinde in this Petition and if we make this addition to the Petition it would give some intimution that we have given cause or colour of offence therein which we deny and which if any man conceive so that he would assign the particuler that we may give an answer thereunto By our Petition we onely desire our particuler Rights and Liberties to be confirmed to us and therefore it is not proper for us in it to mention Soveraign power in general being altogether impertinent to the matter in the Petition There is a great difference between the words of the addition and the words proposed therein for reason viz. between just power which may be conceived to be limmitted by Laws and Soveraign power which is supposed to be transcendent and boundless The second reason delivered by their Lordships was that the King is Soveraign That as he is Soveraign he hath power and that that Soveraign power is to left for my part I would leave it so as not to mention it but if it should be expressed to be left in this Petition as it is proposed it must admit something to be left in the King of what we pray or at least admit some Soveraign power in his Majestie in these Priviledges which we claim to be our Right which would frustrate our Petition and destroy our Right as I have formerly shewed The third reason given from this addition was that in the statute Articuli super Chartas there is a saving of the right and seigniory of the Crown To which I give these answers That Magna Charta was confirmed above 30 times and a general saving was in none of these Acts of confirmation but in this onely and I see no cause we should follow one ill and not 30 good Presidents and the rather because that saving produced ill effects that are well known That saving was by Acts of Parliament The conclusion of which Act is that in all those Cases the King did will and all those that were at the making of that Ordinance did intend that the Right and Seigniory of the Crown should be saved By which it appears that the saving was not in the Petition of the Commons but added by the King for in the Petition the Kings will is no expressed In that Act the King did grant and depart with to his people divers Rights belonging to his prerogative as in the first Chapter he granted that the people might choose three Men which might have power to hear and determine complaints made against those that offended in any point of Magna Charta though they were the Kings officers and to fine and ransome them and in the 8.12 and 19. Chapter of that Statute the King departed with other prerogatives and therefore there might be some reason of the adding of that Soveraign by the Kings Councel But in this Petition we desire nothing of the Kings Prerogative but pray the enjoying of our propper and undoubted Rights and Priviledges and therefore there is no cause to add any words which may imply a saving of that which concerns not the matter in the Petition The 4. reason given by their Lordships was that by the mouth of our Speaker we have this Parliament declared that it was far from our intention to incroach upon his Majesties Prerogative and that therefore it could not prejudice us to mention the same resolution in an addition to this Petition To which I answer that that declaration was a general answer to a Message from his Majestie to us by which his Majestie expressed that he would not have his Prerogative streitned by any new explanation of Magna Charta or the rest of the Statutes and therefore that expression of our Speakers was then propper to make it have reference to this Petition there being nothing therein
But yet our Eden in this garden of the Common-wealth as there are the flowers of the Sun which are so glorious that they are to be handled onely by royall Majestie so are there also some Daisies and wholsome herbs which every common hand that lives and labours in this garden may pick and gather up and take comfort and repose in them Amongst all which this oculus diei this bona libertas is one and the cheif one Thus much in all humblenesse I presume to speak for the occasion I will now descend to the Question wherein I hold with all dutifull submission to better Iudgments that these Acts of power in imprisoning and confining of his Majesties Subjects in such manner without any declaration of the cause are against the fundamentall Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome And for these reasons thus briefly drawn I conclude 1. The first from the great favour which the Law doth give unto and the great care which it hath ever taken of the liberty and safety of this Kingdome I should not need to take the question in pieces nor handle it in parts dividedly but as one intire because I hold no other difference between imprisonment and confinement then only this that one hath a lesse and streighter the other a greater and larger Prison And this word Confinement not being to be found in any one case of our law if therefore it is become the language of State it is too difficult for me to define To proceed therefore in maintenace of my first reason I find our Law doth so much favour the Subjects liberty of his Person that the body of a man was not liable to be arrested or imprisoned for any other cause at the Common Law but for force and things done against the peace For the Common Law being the preserver of the land so abhorreth force that those that commit it she accompts her capitall enemies therefore did subject their bodies to imprisonment But by the statute of Marlebridge Cap. 24. which was made 35. Hen. 3. who was the eighth King from the Conquest because Bailiffs would not render accounts to their Lords it was enacted that their bodies should be attached And afterwards by the statute 23. Edw. 3.17 who was the 11 King after the Conquest because men made no Conscience to pay their debts it was enacted that their bodies should likewise be attached But before those statutes no many body was subject to be taken or imprisoned otherwise then as aforesaid Whereby it is evident how much the Common Law favoured the Liberty of the Subject and protected his body form imprisonment I will inforce the reason futher by a Rule in law and some cases in Law upon that Rule The Rule is this That Corporalis injuria non recipit aestimationem fuluro So as if the question be not for a wrong done to the person the Law will not compell him to sustain it and afterwards except a remedy for the Law holds no damage a sufficient recompence for a wrong which is corporall The cases in Law to prove this rule shall be these If one menace me in my goods or that he will burn the evidence of my land which he hath in his custody unlesse I make unto him a Bond there I cannot avoyd the Bond by pleading of this menace But if he restrains my person or threatens me with battery or with burning my house which is a protection for my person or with burning an instrument of manumission which is an evidence of my enfranchisement upon these menaces these or dares I shall avoid the bond by plea. So if a Trespassour drives my beast over another Mans ground and I pursue to rescue it there I am a Trespassour to him on whose ground I am But if a man assault my person and I for my safety fly over into another man's ground there I am no Trespassour to him for Quod quis in tuitione sui corporis fecerit jure id fecisse existimatur Nay which is more the Common Law did favour the Liberty not only of Freemen but even of the persons of Bondmen and Villains who haue no right of propriety either in lands or goods as Freemen have And therefore by the Law the Lord could not maim his Villain nay if the Lord commanded another to beat his Villain and he did it the Villain should have his action of Battery against him for it If the Lord made a Lease for yeares to his Villain if he did plead with his Villain if he tendred his Villain to be Champion for him in a Writt of Right any of those acts and many other which I omit were in Law infranchisements and made these Villains Freemen Nay in a suite brought against one if he by Attorney will pleade that he is a Villain the Law is so carefull of Freedome that it dissallowes this plea by Attorny but he must doe it propria persona because it binds his Posterity and bloud to the Villains also And thus much in the generall for my first reason 2. My next reason is drawn by an Argument à majori ad minus I frame it thus If the King have no absolute power over our Lands or Goods then à fortiori not over our Persons to imprison them without declaring the cause for our Persons are much more worth then either Lands or Goods which is proved by what I have said already and Christ himself makes it clear where he saith An non est corpus supra vestimentum Is not the Body more worth then Raiment where the Canonists say that Vestimentum comprehendeth all outward things which are not in the same degree with that which is corporall And our Law maketh it also plain for if a Villain purchase Frank-land this maketh it Villain-land according to the nature of his person but it holds not è converso Frank-land shall not free the person Now that the King hath no absolute power either over our Lands or Goods I will onely at this time but put a case or two for without proof of the Premisses my Conclusion would not follow First for Land The King cannot by his Letters pattents make the son of an Alien heir to his father nor to any other for he cannot disinherit the right heir saith the book nor do no prejudice to the Lord of his Escheat The King by his Prerogative shall pay no toll for things bought in Fairs and Markets but a custome for paying toll to go over the soil and free-holds of another shall bind the King for this toucheth the inheritance of the Subject and therefore the King shall not have so much as a way over his lands without paying and if not a way then certainly not the land it self Next for Goods If a man hath a Jewell in gage for ten pound c. and is attainted for Treason the King shall not have this Jewell if he payes not the ten pound So if Cattel be distreined and the owner of them
mentioned and his Majesty will take it for good service if any will give knowledge of such as have connived or combined or shall connive or combine as is mentioned in this Article that Justice may be strictly done upon them To the third His Majesty will take order to restrain the recourse of Recusants to the Court and also for the other points of this Article his Majesty is well pleased that the Laws be duly executed and that all unlawfull Licenses be annulled and discharged To the fourth His Majesty is most willing to punish for the time past and prevent for the future any the deceits and abuses mentioned in this Article and will account it a good service in any that will inform himself his Privy Councell Officers of his Revenue Judges or Councell learned of any thing that may reveal this Mystery of Iniquity and his Majesty doth strictly charge and command every of them to whom such information is made that they suffer not the same to die but do their utmost endeavour to effect a clear discovery and bring the Offenders to punishment and to the intent that no concealed toleration may be effected his Majesty leaveth the Lawes to their course To the fifth His Majesty is pleased to prohibite and restrain the coming and resort to the house of Ambassadours and will command a vigilant watch to be set for their taking and punishing as is desired To the sixth He is perswaded that this Article is already observed with good care neverthelesse for the avoyding as much as may be errours and escapes in that kind his Majesty will give order to the Lord Keeper that the next Terme he call unto him all the Judges and take information from them of the state of their severall Circuits if any such as are mentioned in this Article be in the Commission for Peace that reformation may be made thereof and will likewise give order to the Lord Admirall and to such persons to whom it shall appertain to make diligent enquiry and certifie to his Majesty if any such be in place of authority and command in his ships or service To the seventh His Majesty doth fully grant it To the eighth His Majesty doth well approve it as a matter of necessary consideration and the Parliament now sitting he recommendeth to both Houses the preparation of a fitting Law to that effect and his Majesty doth further declare that the mildnesse that hath been used towards them of the Popish Religion hath been upon hope that forraign Princes thereby might be induced to use moderation towards their Subjects of the Reformed Religion but not finding that good effect which was expected his Majesty resolveth unlesse he shall very speedily see better fruit to adde a further degree of severity to that which is in this Petition desired Sir Edward Coke's Speech March 25. upon a Question of Law in point of the Iudgement given in the Kings Bench Mich. 3. Caroli Viz. That a Prisoner detained by Committment per special mandat Regis without expressing a Cause is not bailable wherein he held negatively and spake as followeth IT is true that the Kings Prerogative is a part of the Law of this Kingdome and a supream part for the Prerogative is highly tendred and respected of the Law yet it hath bounds set unto it by the Laws of England But some worthy Members of this House have spoken of forraign States which I conceive to be a forraign Speech and not able to weaken the Side I shall maintain That Master Attorney may have something to answer unto I will speak without taking another day to the body of the Cause yet keeping something in store for another time I have not my Vade mecum here yet I will endeavour to recite my Ancestours truly I shall begin with old Authority for Errorem ad sua principia referre est refellere The ground of this Errour was the Statute of Westm. 1 cap. 15. which saith that those are not repleviable who are committed for the death of a man or by the commandment of the King or his Justices for the Forrest for so it was cited and Stamford 72. expounding hereof the commandment of the King to be the commandment of the Kings mouth or of his Councell But it is clear that by praeceptum is understood the commandment of the Justices of the Kings Bench and Common Pleas and this is contemporanea expositio quae est fortissima in lege To this purpose vide Westm. 1. cap. 9. the book of 2. R. 2. item cap. 20. de malefactoribus in parc the book of 8 Hen. 4.5 item 25.26.29 cap. ejusdem statuti whereby it may appear that the commandment here spoken of to be the commandment of the King is his commandment by his Judges Praeceptum Domini Regis in Curia non in Camera So it is likewise taken 1. R. 2. cap. 12. in a Statute made in the next Kings reign and expresly in Dyer fol. 162. § 50. fol. 192. § 24. Shall I further prove it by matter of record Fac hoc vives it is 18. E. 3. Rot. 33. coram Rege Iohn Bilston's Case who being committed and detained in prison by commandment of the King was discharged by Habeas corpus eo quod Breve Domini Regis non fuit sufficiens causa All the Acts of Parliament in title of accusation are direct to the point and also the 16. Hen. 6. Brooke and Littleton 2.1 monstrans de fait 182 per Cur. The King cannot command a man to be arrested in his presence the King can arrest no man because there is no remedy against him 1. Hen. 7.4 likewise praedict stat cap. 18. the Kings pleasure is not binding without the assent of the Realm I never read any opinion against what I have said but that of Stamford mistaken as you see in the ground yet I say not that a man may not be committed without precise shewing the cause in particular for it is sufficient if the cause in generall be shewed as for Treason c. 1. E. 2. stat de frangend prison nullus habeat judicium c. there the cause of imprisonment must be known else the Statute will be of little force the words thereof doe plainly demonstrate the intent of the Statute to be accordingly I will conclude with the highest authority that is 25. chap. of the Acts of the Apostles the last verse where Saint Paul saith It is against reason to send a man to prison without shewing a Cause Thus Master Attorney according to the rules of Physick I have given you a Preparative which doth precede a Purge I have much more in store The substance of the King's Speech upon the relating of the proceedings of the Parliament to him by the Counsellers of the Commons House of Parliament 4. April 1628. HIs Majestie upon the Report made expressed great contentment that it gave him not valuing the money given comparable to the hearts shewed in the way
of Justice And thereupon the Statutes cannot be intended to restrain all commitments unlesse a cause be expressed for that it would be very inconvenient and dangerous to the State to publish the cause at the very first Answer Hereupon it was replied by the House of Commons that all danger and inconvenience may be avoided by declaring a generall Cause as for treason suspicion of treason misprision of treason or fellony without specifying the particular which can give no greater light to a Confederate then will be conjectured by his very apprehension upon the imprisonment if nothing at all were expressed It was further alledged that there was a kind of contradiction in the position of the Commons when they say the partie committed without a cause shewed ought to be delivered or bailed Bailing being a kind of imprisonment Delivery a totall freeing To this it was answered that it hath alwayes been the discretion of the Judges to give so much respect to a Commitment by the Command of the King or the Privie Councell which are ever intended to be done on just weightie Causes that they will not presently set him free but baile him to answer what shall be objected against him on his Majesties behalf But if any other inferiour Officer commit a man without a cause shewed they do instantly deliver him as having no cause to expect their pleasure So the Delivery is applyed to an imprisonment by the command of some mean minister of Justice Bailing when it is done by the Command of the King or his Councell It was said by M r Attorney That Bailing was a grace and favour of a Court of Justice and that they may refuse to do it This was agreed to be true in divers cases as where the case doth appeare to be for fellony or other crimes expressed for that there is another way to discharge them in some convenient time by their triall yet in some of these cases the constant practise hath been anciently modernly to baile them But where no cause of the imprisonment is returned but the Command of the King there is no way to deliver such persons by triall or otherwise but that of the habeas Corpus and if they should be then remanded they may be perpetually imprisoned without any remedy at all and consequently a man that had committed no offence be in worse case then a great Offender for the latter should have an ordinarie triall to discharge him the other should never be delivered It was further said that though the Statute of Westm. 1. cap. 15. as a Statute by way of provision did extend only to the Sheriff yet the recitall of that Statute touching the 4 cases wherein a man was not replevisable at the Common Law namely those that were committed for the death of a man by the command of the King or the Justices or for the Forrest did declare that the Justices could not baile such a one and that Replevisable and Bailable were Synonyma and all one and that Stamford a Judge of great authority doth expound it accordingly and that neither the Statute nor he sayes replevisable by the Sheriff but generally without restraint and that if the Chief Justice commits a man he is not to be enlarged by another Court as appeareth in the Register To this it was answered First that the recitall and body of the Statute relates only to the Sheriff as appeareth by the very words Secondly that replevisable is not restrained to the Sheriffs for that the words import no more that a man committed by the Chief Justice is bailable by the Court of Kings Bench. Thirdly that Stamford meaneth all of the Sheriff or at least he hath not sufficiently expressed that he intended the Justices Fourthly It was denyed that Replevisable and Bailable were the same for they differ in respect of the place where they are used Baile being in the Kings Court of Record Replevisable before the Sheriff and they are of severall natures Replevisable being a letting at large upon Sureties Bailing being when one Traditur in ballium and the Baile are his Gaolers and may imprison him and shall suffer bodie for bodie which is not true of replevying by sureties And Baile differeth from Mainprize in this that Mainprize is an undertaking in a summe certain Bailing is to answer the condemnation in Civil causes and in Criminall body for body The reasons and authorities used in the first Conference were then renewed and no exception taken to any save in 22. H. 6. it doth not appear that the Command of the King was by his mouth which must be intended or by his Councell which is all one as is observed by Stamford for the words are these That a man is not replevisable by the Sheriff who is committed by the Writ or Commandment of the King 21. E. 1. rot 2. dorso was cited by the Kings Counsell But it was answered that it concerned the Sheriff of Leicester only and not the power of the Judges 33. H. 6. the Kings Attorney confesseth was nothing to the purpose and yet that Book hath been usually cited by those that maintain the contrary to the Declaration of the House of Commons And therefore such sudden opinion as hath been given thereupon is not to be regarded the foundation failing And where it was said that the French of 36. E 3. Rot. Parliament 9. which can receive no answer did not warrant what was inferred thence but that these words Sans disturbance mettre ou arrest faire et le contre par special commandment ou en autre maniere must be understood that the Statutes should be put in execution without putting disturbance or making arrest to the contrarie by speciall command or in other manner The Commons did utterly deny the interpretation given by the Kings Counsell and to justifie their own did appeal to all men that understood French and upon the 7 Statutes did conclude That their Declaration remained in undoubted truth not controlled by any thing said to the contrary The true Copies of the Records not printed which were used on either side of that part of the debate INter Recorda domini Regis Caroli in Thesauro Recepto Scacarii sui sub custodia domini Thesaurarii et Camerarii ibidem remanentia viz. placita coram ipso Domino Rege Concilio suo ad Parliament suum post Pascham apud London in Mâ—nerio Archipiscopi Ebor Anno Regni Domini Regis Edw. vicessimo primo inter alia sie continetur ut sequitur Rot. secundo in Dorso Vic. Leic. sci Stephanus Rubaz Vic. Leic. War coram ipso Domino Rege ejus concilio arianatus ad Levem positus de hoc quod cum Io. Botetourte Edel Hatche W. Hemelin nuper in ballium ipsius vicecom per Dominum Regem fuissent assignati and Goalas Domini Regis celiberandum eidem vic quendam W. de Petling per quendam Appellatorem ante adventum eorundam Justic. ibidem
as it is called also The first two are Writs to be directed to the Sheriff of the Countie and lye only in some particular cases with which it would be untimely for me to trouble your Lordships because they concern not that which is committed to my charge But that Writ of habeas Corpus or Corpus cum causa is the highest remedy in Law for him that is imprisoned by the speciall command of the King or of the Lords of the Councell without shewing cause of the commitment Neither is there any such thing in the Lawes of this Land as a Petition of Right to be used in such cases for the Liberty of the person nor is there any other legall Course to be taken for enlargement in such cases howsoever the contrary hath upon no ground or colour of Law been pretended Now my Lords if any man be so imprisoned by any such command or otherwise in any prison whatsoever through England and desire either by himself or any other in his behalf this Writ of habeas Corpus for the purpose in the Court of King's Bench the Writ is to be granted to him and ought not to be denied him no otherwise then any ordinary originall Writ in the Chauncery or other common processe of Law may be denyed Which amongst other things the House of Commons hath resolved also upon mature deliberation and I was commanded to let your Lordships know so much This Writ is to be directed to the Keeper of the Prison in whose custody the Prisoner remaines commanding him that at a certain day he bring in the body of the Prisoner ad subjiciendum recipiendum juxta quod Curia consideraverit una cum causa captionis detentionis and oftentimes una cum causa detentionis only captionis being omitted The Keeper of the Prison thereupon returnes by what Warrant he detaines the Prisoner and with his Return filed to his Writ brings the Prisoner to the Barre at the time appointed When the Return is thus made the Court judgeth of the sufficiency or insufficiency of it only out of the body of it without having respect to any other thing whatsoever that is they are to suppose the Return to be true whatsoever it be For if it be false the party may have his remedy by action on the case against the Gaoler that brings him Now my Lords when this Prisoner comes thus to the Barre if he desires to be bailed and that the Court upon view of the Return think him in Law to be bailed then he is alwayes first taken from the Keeper of the Prison that brings him and committed to the Marshall of the Kings Bench and afterwards bailed and the Entrie perpetually is Committitur Marr. postea traditur in ballium For the Court never bailes any man untill he becomes their own Prisoner and be in custodia Marescalli of that Court. But if upon return of the habeas Corpus it appears to the Court that the Prisoner ought not to be bailed nor discharged from the Prison whence he is brought then he is remanded or sent back again there to remain untill by Course of Law he may be delivered And the Entrie in such case is Remittitur quousque secundum legem deliberatus fuerit or Remittitur quousque c. which is all one and is the highest award or Judgement that ever was or can be given upon a habeas Corpus But if the Judges doubt only whether in Law they ought to take him from the prison whence he came or give daie to the Sheriff to amend his Return as often they do then they remand him only during the time of their debate or untill the Sheriff hath amended his Return and the Entrie upon it is Remittitur only or Remittitur prisonae predict without any more And so remittitur generally is of farre lesse moment in the award upon the habeas Corpus then remittitur quousque howsoever vulgar opinions raised out of the fame of the late Judgement be to the contrary All these things are of most known and constant use in the Court of Kings Bench as it cannot be doubted but your Lordships will easily know also from the grave and learned my Lords the Judges These two causes the one of the Entrie of Committitur Marescallo postea traditur in ballium and the other Remittitur quousque and Remittitur generally or Remittitur prisonae predict together with the nature of the habeas Corpus being thus stated it will be easier for me to open and your Lordships to observe whatsoever shall occurre to this purpose in the Presidents of Record to which I shall come in particular But before I come to the Presidents I am to let your Lordships know the resolution of the House of Commons touching the enlargement of any man committed by the command of the King or of the Privie Councell or of any other without cause shewed of such commitment It is thus That if a Free-man be committed or detained in prison or otherwise restrained by the Command of the King the Privie Councell or any other and no cause of such commitment detainer or restraint be expressed for which by Law he ought to be committed detained or restrained and the same be returned upon a habeas Corpus granted for the partie that then he ought to be delivered or bailed This resolution as it is grounded upon those Acts of Parliament already shewed and the reason of the Law of the Land which is committed to the charge of another and an one to be opened unto you is strengthened also by many Presidents of Record But the Presidents of Record that concerne this point are of two kinds for the House of Commons hath informed it self of such as concern it either way The first such as shew expresly that persons committed by the Command of the King or of the Privie Councell without any cause shewed have been enlarged upon Baile when they prayed it Whence it appeares cleerly that by Law they were bailable and so by habeas Corpus to be set at liberty For although they ought not to have been committed without cause shewen of their commitment yet it is true that the reverend Judges of this Land in former Ages did give such a respect to such commitment by Command of the King or of the Lords of the Councell as also to the commitments sometimes of inferiour persons that upon the habeas Corpus they rarely used absolutely to discharge the prisoners instantly but to enlarge them only upon Baile which sufficiently secures and preserves the Liberty of the Subject according to the Lawes that your Lordships have already heard Nor in any of these cases is there any difference made between any such commitments by the King and commitments by the Lords of the Councell that are incorporated with him The second kind of Presidents of Record are such as have been pretended to prove the Law to be contrarie and that persons so committed ought not
have done Commune periculum commune requirit Auxilium and thereupon take such further course as may secure your Lordships and us and all your and our posterities in enjoying of our ancient undoubted and fundamentall Liberties The Argument of Sergeant Bramston upon the Habeas corpus MAy it please your Lordship to hear the return read or shall I open it Chief Iustice Hide Let it be read M r. Keeling read the return being the same as that of Sir Thomas Darnell May it please your Lordship I shall humbly move upon this return in the behalf of Sir Iohn Henningham with whom I am of Councell it is his petition that he may be bailed from his imprisonment it was but in vain for me to move that to a Court of Law which by Law cannot be granted and therefore in that regard that upon his return it will be questioned whether as this return is made the Gent. may be bailed or not I shall humbly offer up to your Lordship the case and some reasons out of mine understanding arising out of the return it self to satisfie your Lordship that these Prisoners may and as their case is ought to be bailed by your Lordship The exception that I take to this return is as well to the matter and substance of the return as to the manner and legall form thereof the exceptions that I take to the matter is in severall respects That the return is too generall there is no sufficient cause shewn in speciall or in generall of the commitment of this Gentleman and as it is insufficient for the cause so also in the time of the first imprisonment for howsoever here doth appear a time upon the second warrant from the Lords of the Councell to detain him still in prison yet by the return no time can appear when he was first imprisoned though it be necessary it should be shewen and if that time appear not there is no cause your Lordship should remand him and consequently he is to be delivered Touching the matter of the return which is the cause of his imprisonment It is expressed to be Per speciale mandatum domini Regis This is too generall and uncertain for that it is not manifest what kind of command this was Touching the Legall form of the return it is not as it ought to be fully and positively the return of the Keeper himself onely but it comes with a significavit or prout that he was committed Per speciale mandatum domini Regis as appeareth by warrant from the Lords of the Councell not of the King himself and that is not good in legall form For the matter and substance of the return it is not good because there ought to be a cause of that imprisonment This writ is the means and the onely means that the subject hath in this and such like case to obtain his liberty there are other writs by which men are delivered from restraint as that de homine replegiando but extends not to this cause for it is particularly excepted in the body of the writ de manucaptione de cantione admittenda but they lie in other cases but the writ of Habeas corpus is the onely means the subject hath to obtain his liberty and the end of this writ is to return the cause of the imprisonment that it may be examined in this Court whether the parties ought to be discharged or not but that cannot be done upon this return for the cause of the imprisonment of this Gentleman at first is so farre from appearing particularly by it that their is no cause at all expressed in it This writ requires that the cause of the imprisonment should be returned if the cause be not specially certified by it yet should it at the last be shewn in generall that it may appear to the Judges of the Court and it must be expressed so farre as that it may appear to be none of those causes for which by the Law of the Kingdome the subject ought not to be imprisoned and it ought to be expressed that it was by presentment or indictment and not upon petition or suggestion made to the King and Lords which is against the statute made in the 25 Ed. 3. c. 4. 42 E. 3. c. 3. By the Statute 25 Ed. 3. cap. 4. It is ordained and established that no man from henceforth shall be taken by petition or suggestion made to the King or his Councell but by indictment or course of Law and acordingly it was enacted 42 E. 3. c. 3. the title of which statute is None shall be put to answer an accusation made to the King without presentment Then my Lord it being so although the cause should not need to be expressed in such manner as that it may appear to be none of these causes mentioned in the statute or else the Subject by this return loseth the benefit and advantage of these Laws which be their birth-right and inheritance but in this return there is no cause at all appearing of the first commitment and therefore it is plain that there is no cause for your Lordship to remand him but there is no cause you should deliver him since the writ is to bring the body and the cause of the imprisonment before your Lordship But it may be objected that this writ of Habeas Corpus doth not demand the cause of the first commitment but of the detaining onely and so the writ is satisfied by the return for though it shew no cause of the first commitment but of detaining onely yet it declareth a cause why the Gentleman is detained in prison this is no answer nor can give any satisfaction for the reason why the cause is to be returned is for the Subjects liberty that if it shall appear a good and sufficient cause to your Lordship then to be remanded if your Lordship think and finde it insufficient he is to be enlarged This is the end of this writ and this cannot appear to your Lordship unlesse the time of the first commitment be expressed in the return I know that in some cases the time is not materiall as when the cause of the commitment is and that so especially returned as that the time is not materiall it is enough to shew the cause without the time as after a conviction or triall had by Law But when it is in this manner that the time is the matter it self for intend what cause you will of the commitment yea though for the highest cause of treason there is no doubt but that upon the return thereof the time of it must appear for it being before triall and conviction had by Law it is but an accusation and he that is onely accused and the accusation ought by Law to be let to bail But I beseech your Lordship to observe the consequence of this Cause If the Law be that upon this return this Gentleman should be remanded I will not dispute whether or no a man may
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 your 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 Mâ—les 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 these Gentlemen which is their birth-right My humble suit to your Lordship is that these Gentlemen may have the benefit of that Law and be delivered from their imprisonment The Argument of Master Noye upon the Habeas corpus May it please your Lordship I am of Councell with Sir Walter Earl one of the prisoners at the Barre the return of this writ is as those that have been before they are much of one tenour and as you have heard the tenour of that so this Gentleman coming hither by an Habeas Corpus I will by your Lordships favour read the writ Carolus Dei Gratia Iohanni Lylo Milit Guardian Prison nostrae de le Fleet Salut Praecipimus tibi quod corpus Walteri Earl Milit in prison nostra sub custodia tua detent ut dicit una cum causa detentionis suae quocunque nomine praedict Walter censeat in eadem Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum recipiendum ea quae curia nostra de eo ad tunc ibidem ordin conting in hac parte haec nallatenus omit periculo incumbent habeas tibi hoc breve Test Hyde apud Westminster quarto die Novembris Anno 8. Executio istius brevis patet in quadam schedula huic brevi annexat Respons Johan Liloe Guardian Prison de le Fleet. Ego Iohannes Lyloe Mil Guardian Prison domini Regis de le Fleet Serenissimo Domino Regi apud Westminster 8. Post receptionem hujus brevis quod in hac schedula est mentionat ' Certifico quod Walter Earl miles in eodem brevium nominat detentus est in prisona de le Fleet sub custodia mea praedict per speciale mandatum domini Regis mihi significatum per VVarrantum duorum aliorum de Privato Concilio per Honorabilissimi dicti Domini Regis cujus quidem tenor sequitur in haec verba Whereas Sir Walter Earl Knight was heretofore committed to your custody these are to will and require you still to detain him letting you know that both his first commitment and this direction for the continuance of him in prison were and are by his Majesties speciall commandment from White Hall 7 Novembris 1627. Thomas Coventree C. S. Henry Manchester Thomas Suffolk Bridgewater Kellie R. Duneln ' Thomas Edmunds Iohn Cook Marlborough Pembrook Salisbury Totnes Grandisson Guliel Bath and Wells Robert Nanton Richard Weston Humphrey Mayes To the Guardian of the Fleet or his Deputy Et haec est causa detentionis praedict Walteri Earl sub custodia mea in Prison praedict Attamen corpus ejusdem Walteri coram Domino Rege ad diem locum praedictum post receptionem brevis praedict pa rat habeo prout istud breve in se exiget requiret Respon Johan Liloe milit Guardian Prison de le Fleet. My Lord the first Habeas corpus bears date the
please your Lordship I shall humbly move you that this Gentleman may also be bailed for under favour my Lord there is no cause in the return why he should be any farther imprisoned and restrained of his liberty My Lord I shall say something to the form of the writ and of the return but very little to them both because there is a very little left for me to say My Lord to the form I say it expresseth nothing of the first caption and therefore it is insufficient I will adde one reason as hath been said the Habeas Corpus hath onely these words quod habeas corpus ejus una cum causa detensionis non captionis But my Lord because in all imprisonment there is a cause of caption and detention the caption is to be answered as well as the detention I have seen many writs of this nature and on them the caption is returned that they might see the time of the caption and thereby know whether the party should be delivered or no and that in regard of the length of his imprisonment The next exception I took to the form is that there is much incertainty in it so that no man can tell when the writ came to the keeper of the prison whether before the return or after for it appears not when the Kings command was for the commitment or the signification of the Councell came to him It is true that it appears that the warant was dated the seventh of November but when it came to the keeper of the prison that appears not at all and therefore as for want of mentioning the same time of the caption so for not expressing the same time when this warrant came I think the return is faulty in form and void And for apparent contradiction also the return is insufficient for that part of the return which is before the warrant it is said quod detentus est per speciale mandatum domini Regis the warrant of the Lords of the Councel the very syllables of that warrant are that the Lords of the Councell do will and require him still to detain him which is contrary to the first part of the return Besides my Lord the Lords themselves say in another place and passage of the warrant that the King commanded them to commit him and so it is their commitment so that upon the whole matter there appears to be a clear contradiction in the return and there being a contradiction in the return it is void Now my Lord I will speak a word or two to the matter of the return and that is touching the imprisonment per speciale mandatum domini Regis by the Lords of the Councell without any cause expressed and admitting of any or either of both of these to be the return I think that by the constant and settled Laws of this kingdome without which we have nothing no man can be justly imprisoned be either of them without a cause of the commitment expressed in the return My Lord in both the last Arguments the statutes have been mentioned and fully expressed yet I will adde a little to that which hath been said The statute of Magna Charta cap. 29. that statute if it were fully executed as it ought to be every man would enjoy his liberty better then he doth The Law saith expresly no Free-man shall be imprisoned without due processe of the Law out of the very body of this Act of Parliament besides the explanation of other statutes it appears Nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonetur nisi per legem terrae My Lord I know these words legem terrae do leave the question where it was if the interpretation of the Statute were not But I think under your Lordships favour there it must be intended by due course of Law to be either by presentment or by indictment My Lords if the meaning of these words Per legem terrae were but as we use to say according to the lawes which leaves the matter very uncertain and per speciale mandatum c. be within the meaning of these words according to the law then this Act had done nothing The Act is No Free-man shall be imprisoned but by the law of the land if you will understand these words per legem terrae in the first sense this statute will extend to Villains as well as to Free-men for if I imprison another man Villain the Villain may have an action of false imprisonment But the Lords and the King for then they both had Villains might imprison them and the Villain could have no remedy but these words in the statute per legem terrae were to the Free-man which ought not to be imprisoned but by due processe of law and unlesse the interpretation shall be this the Free-man shall have no priviledge above the Villain So that I conceive my Lord these words per legem terrae must be here so interpreted as in 42 Eliz. the Bill is worth the observing it reciteth that divers persons without any writ or presentment were cast into prison c that it might be enacted that it should not be so done hereafter the answere there is that this is an Article of the great Charter this should be granted so that it seemes the statute is not taken to be an explanation of that of Magna Charta but the very words of the statute of Magna Charta I will conclude with a little observation upon these words nec super eum mittimus which words of themselves signifie not so much a man cannot finde any fit sense for them But my Lord in the seventh year of King Iohn there was a great Charter by which this statute in the ninth of Henry the third whereby we are now regulated was framed and there the words are nec eum in Carcerem mittimus we will not commit him to prison that is the King himself will not and to justifie this there is a story of that time in Matthew Paris and in that Book this Charter of King Iohn is set down at large which Book is very authentique and there it is entred and in the ninth of Henry the third he saith that the statute was renewed in the same words with the Charter of King Iohn and my Lord he might know it better then others for he was the Kings Chronologer in those times and therefore my Lord since there be so many reasons and so many presidents and so many statutes which declare that no Free-man whatsoever ought to be imprisoned but according to the laws of the land and that the liberty of the subject is the highest inheritance that he hath my humble request is that according to the ancient laws and priviledges of this Realm this Gentleman my Client may be bailed The Argument of Master Calthrop upon the Habeas corpus Sir Iohn Corbet being brought to the Kings Bench Bar with Sir Edmond Hampden Sir Walter Earl and Sir Iohn Henningham who were also
and not by way of information out of another mans mouth may not be good as appeareth by the severall books of our law 23 Ed. 3. Rex vic 181. upon a Homine replegiando against the Abbot of C. the Sheriffe returneth that he had sent to the Bailiffe of the Abbot that answered him that he was the villain of the Abbot by which he might not make deliverance and a Sicut alias was awarded for this return was insufficient insomuch that he had returned the answer of the Bailiffe of the Abbot where he ought to have returned the answer of the Abbot himself out of his own mouth Trin. 22. Ed. 2. Rot. 46. parent vill Burg. Evesque de Norwich repl 68. Nat. Br. Case 34. Fitz. Nat. Br. 65. 34. Ed. 3. Excom 29. the case appeareth to be such in a trespasse the defendant pleadeth the plaintiffe is excommunicate and sheweth forth the letter of the Bishop of Lincoln witnessing that for divers contumacies c. and because he had certified no excommunic done by himself but by another the letter of excommunication was annulled for the Bishop ought to have certified his own act and not the act of another Hillarii 22 Hen. 8. Rot. 37. it appeareth by the return of an Habeas corpus that Iohn Parker was committed to prison for security of the peace and for suspicion of felony as per mandatum Domini Regis nunciatum per Robertum Peck de Cliffords Inne and upon his return Iohn Parker was bailed for the return Commiss fuit per speciale mandatum domini Regis nunciatum per Robertum Peck was not good insomuch that it was not a direct return that he was committed per mandatum Domini Regis And for the first point I conclude that this return is insufficient in form insomuch that it doth not make a precise and direct return that he was committed and detained by the speciall command of the King but onely as he was signified by the warrant of the Lords of the Councell which will not serve the turn and upon the book of 9 Hen. 6.44 the return of the cause of a mans imprisonment ought to be precise and direct upon the Habeas corpus insomuch as thereby to be able to judge of the cause whether it be sufficient or not for there may not any doubt be taken to the return be it true or false but the Court is to accept the same as true and if it be false the party must take his remedy by action upon the case And as concerning the matter of the return it will rest upon these parts First whether the return be that he is detained in prison by speciall commandment of our Lord the King be good or not without shewing the nature of the commandment or the cause whereupon the commitment is grounded in the return The second is whether the time of the first commitment by the commandment of the King not appearing to the Court is sufficient to detain him in prison Thirdly whether the imprisonment of the subjects without cause shewed but onely by the commandment of the King be warantable by the laws and statutes of this Realm As unto the first part I find by the books of our law that commandments of the King are of severall natures by some of which the imprisonment of a mans body is utterly unlawfull and by others of them although the imprisonment may be lawfull yet the continuance of him without bail or mainprise will be utterly unlawfull There is a verball command of the King which is by word of mouth of the Kings onely and such commandment by the King by the books of our law will not be sufficient either to imprison a man or to continue him in prison 16.6 Monstrans de faict si upon an action of trespasse brought for cutting of trees the defendant pleadeth that the place where he cut them is parcell of the Manor of D. whereof the King is seised in fee and the King commanded him to cut the trees and the opinion of the Court there is that the plea in barre was ill because he did not shew any speciall commandment of the King and there it is agreed by the whole Court that if the King commandeth one to arrest another and the party commanded did arrest the other an action of trespasse or false imprisonment is maintainable against the party that arrested him although it were done in the presence of the King 39 H. 6.17 where one justifieth the seisure of the goods of a person that is outlawed by the commandment of the King such a party being no Officer may not in an action brought against him have any aid of the King for such a commandment given to one that is not an Officer will not any wayes avail him that is to justifie himself by the return of that commandment 37 Hen. 6.10 If the king give me a thing and I take the same by his commandment by word of mouth it is not justified by law nothing may passe without matter of Record 10 Hen. 7.7 17.18 it is agreed that Justices may command one to arrest another that is in their view or presence but not one that is out of their view or presence And Keble 10 Hen. 7.13 said that where one is arrested by a parroll command in their view or presence it is fitting that a record may be made of it insomuch that without such a record there can hardly be a justification in another Term. Secondly there is a commandment of the King by his Commission which according unto Calvins case in the seventh Report it is called by him breve mandatum non remediabile and by virtue of such a commandment the King may neither seise the goods of his subject nor imprison his body as it is resolved in 42 Ass. pl. 5. where it is agreed by all the justices that a Commission to take a mans goods or imprison his body without indictment or suit of the party or other due processe is against the Law Thirdly there is a commandment of the King which is grounded upon a suggestion made to the King or to his Councell and if a man be committed to prison by such a suggestion by commandment of the King it is unlawfull and not warranted by the Law of the Realm The 25 of Edward the third cap. 4. de Provisoribus whereas it is contained in the great Charter of the Franchises of England that none shall be imprisoned or arrested of his Free-hold or of his Franchises nor of his free customes but by the Law of the land It is awarded consented and established that from henceforth none shall be taken by petition or suggestion made to our Soveraign Lord the King or to his Councell untill it be by indictment or presentment of his good and lawfull neighbours where such deeds are done in due manner or by processe made by writ originall at the common law nor of his free-hold unlesse he be duely brought
the Privy Councell is a limited jurisdiction for they have no power in all causes their power being restrained in certain causes by severall Acts of Parliament as it appeareth by the statute of 20 Edward the third c. 11. 25 Ed. the third c. 1. stat 4. the private petition in Parliament permitted in the 1 of R. 2. where the Commons petition that the Privie Councell might not make any Ordinance against the Common Law Customes or Statutes of the Realm the fourth of Henry the fourth ca. 3. 13 Hen. the fourth 7. 31 Henry the sixth and their jurisdictions being a limited jurisdiction the cause and grounds of their commmitment ought to appear whereby it may appear if the Lords of the Councell did commit him for such a cause as was within their jurisdiction for if they did command me to be committed to prison for a cause whereof they had not jurisdiction the Court ought to discharge me of this imprisonment and howsoever the King is Vicarius Dei in terra yet Bracton cap. 8. fol. 107. saith quod nihil aliud potest Rex in terris cum sit Minister Dei Vicarius quam solum quod de jure potest nec obstat quod dicitur quod Principi placet legis habet vigorem quia sequitur in fine legis cum lege Regia quae de ejus imperio lata est id est non quicquid de voluntate Regis temere praesumptum est sed animo condendi Iura sed quod consilio Magistratuum suorum Rege author praestant habita super hoc deliberatione tract rect fuer definit Potestat itaque sua juris est non injuriae The which being so then also it ought to appear upon what cause the King committeth one to prison whereby the Judges which are indifferent between the King and his Subjects may judge whether his commitment be against the Laws and Statutes of this Realm or not Thirdly it is to be observed that the Kings command by his Writ of Habeas corpus is since the commandment of the King for his commitment and this being the latter commandment ought to be obeyed wherefore that commanding a return of the body cum causa detentionis there must be a return of some other cause then Per mandatum domini Regis the same commandment being before the return of the Writ Pasch. 9. E. 3. pl. 30. fol. 56. upon a Writ of Cessavit brought in the County of Northumberland the Defendants plead That by reason the Country being destroyed by Warres with the Scots King Edward the second gave command that no Writ of Cessavit should be brought during the Warres with Scotland and that the King had sent his Writ to surcease the Plea and he averreth that the Warres with Scotland did continue Hearle that giveth the Rule saith That we have command by the King that now is to hold this Plea wherefore we will not surcease for any writ of the King that is dead and so upon all these reasons and presidents formerly alledged I conclude that the return that Sir Iohn Corbet was committed and detained in prison Per speciale mandatum domini Regis without shewing the nature of the commandment by which the Court may judge whether the commandment be of such a nature as he ought to be detained in prison and that without shewing the cause upon which the commandment of the King is grounded is not good As unto the second part which is Whether the time of the commitment by the return of the Writ not appearing unto the Court the Court ought to detain him in prison or no I conceive that he ought not to be continued in prison admitting that the first commitment by the command of the King were lawfull yet when he hath continued in prison by such reasonable time as may be thought fit for that offence for which he is committed he ought to be brought to answer and not to continue still in prison without being brought to answer For it appears by the Books of our Laws that liberty is a thing so favoured by the Law that the Law will not suffer the continuance of a man in prison for any longer time then of necessity it must and therefore the Law will neither suffer the party Sheriffs or judges to continue a man in prison by their power and their pleasure but doth speed the delivery of a man out of prison with as reasonable expedition as may be And upon this reason it is resolved in 1 2 El. Dyer 175. 8 Ed. 4.13 That howsoever the Law alloweth that there may be no term between the rest of an originall Writ and the return of the same where there is onely a summons and no imprisonment of the body yet it will not allow that there shall be a term between the rest of a Writ of Capias and the return of the same where the body of a man is to be imprisoned insomuch that it will give no way that the party shall have no power to continue the body of a man imprisoned any longer time then needs must 39 E. 3.7 10 H. 7.11 6 E. 4.69 11 E. 4.9 48 E. 3.1 17 E. 3.1 2 Hen. 7. Kellawaies Reports do all agree that if a Capias shall be awarded against a man for the apprehending of his body and the Sheriffe will return the Capias that is awarded against the party a non est inventus or that languidus est in prisona yet the Law will allow the party against whom it is awarded for the avoiding of his corporall pennance and dures of imprisonment to appear gratis and for to answer For the Law will not allow the Sheriffe by his false return to keep one in prison longer then needs must 38 Ass. pl. 22. Brooks imprisonment 100. saith That it was determined in Parliament that a man is not to be detained in prison after he hath made tender of his fine for his imprisonment therefore I desire your Lordship that Sir Iohn Corbet may not be kept longer in durance but be discharged according to the Law The substance of the Objections made by Mr. Attorney General before a Committee of both Houses to the Argument that was made by the House of Commons at the first conference with the Lords out of Presidents of Record and Resolutions of Iudges in former times touching the Liberty of the person of every Freeman and the Answers and Replies then presently made by the House of Commons to these Objections AFter the first conference which was desired by the Lords and had by a Committee of both houses in the painted Chamber touching the Reasons Laws Acts of Parliament and Presidents concerning the Liberty of the person of every Freeman M r Attorney General being heard before the Committee of both houses as it was assented by the house of Commons that he might be before they went up to the conference after some preamble made wherein he declined the answering all Reasons of Law
and Acts of Parliament came onely to the Presidents used in the Argument before delivered and so endeavoured to weaken the strength of them that had been brought in behalf of the subjects to shew that some other were directly contrary to the Law comprehended in the Resolutions of the house of Commons touching the bailing of Prisoners returned upon the writ of Habeas Corpus to be committed by the special command of the King or the Councel without any cause shewed for which by Law they ought to be committed And the course which was taken it pleased the Committee of both houses to allow of was that M r. Attorney should make his Objections to every particuler President and that the Gentlemen appointed and trusted herein by the house of Commons by several Replies should satisfie the Lords touching the Objections made by him against or upon every particuler as the order of the Presidents should lead them he began with the first 12. Presidents that were used by the house of Commons at the conference delivered by them to prove that Prisoners returned to stand so Committed were delivered upon bail by the Court of Kings Bench The first was that of Bildstones case in the 18. Edw. 3. Rot. 33. Rex To this he Objected First that in the return of him into the Court it did not appear that this Bildstone was committed by the Kings command and Secondly that in the Record it did appear also that he had been committed for suspicion of counterfaiting the great Seal and so by consequence was bailable by the Law in regard there appeared a Cause why he was committed in which case it was granted by him as indeed it was plain and agreed of all hands that the Prisoner is bailable though committed by Command of the King and he said that this part of the Record by which it appeared he had been committed for suspicion of treason was not observed to the Lords in the Argument before used and he said also to the Lords that there were three several kinds of Records by which the full truth of every award or bailing upon a Habeas Corpus is known First the remembrance Roll wherein the award is given Secondly the file of the writt and the return and Thirdly the Scruect or Scruet finium wherein the baile is entered and that onely the remembrance Roll of this Case was to be found and that if the other two of it were extant he doubted not but that it would appear also that upon the return it self the Cause of the Commitment had been expressed and so he concluded that this proved not for the house of Commons touching the Matter of bail where a Prisoner was committed by the Kings special command without Cause shewed To this Objection the reply was First that it was plain that Bildstone was committed by the Kings express Command For so the very words of the Writt are to the Constable of the Tower quod eum tenendum Custodiae facias c. then which nothing can more fully express a Commitment by the Kings command Secondly how ever it be true that in the latter part of the Record it doth appear that Bildstone had been Committed for suspicion of Treason yet if the times of the proceeding expressed in the Record were observed it would be plain that the Objection was of no force for this one ground both in this Case and all the rest is infallible and never to be doubted of in the Law Nota. That Justices of every Court adjudge of the force and strength of a return out of the body of it self onely and as therein it appears Now in Easter term in the 18. Edward 3. he was returned and brought before them as Committed onely by the Writt wherein noe Cause is expressed and the Leivetenant the Constable of the Tower that brought him into the Court saies that he had no other warrant to detain him Nisi breve predictum wherein there was no mention of any Cause the Court thereupon adjudged that breve predictum for that speciall command was not sufficient causa to detain him in prison and thereupon he is by judgment of the Court in Easter term let to Mainprize But that part of the Record wherein it appears that he had indeed been committed for suspicion of Treason is of Trinity term following when the King after the letting of him to Mainprize sent to the Judges that they should discharge his Mainprize because no man prosecuted him And at that time it appears but not before that he had been in for suspicion of Treason so that he was returned to stand committed by the Kings special command onely without Cause shewed in Easter term And then by judgment of the Court let to Mainprize which to this purpose is but the same with bail though otherwise it differ And in the term following upon another occasion the Court knew that he had been committed for suspicion of Treason which hath no relation at all to the letting of him to Mainprize nor to the judgement of the Court then given when they did not nor could possible know any Cause for which the King had committed him And it was said in behalf of the house of Commons that they had not indeed in the Argument expresly used this latter part of Bildstones Case because it being onely of Trinity term following could not concern the reason of an Award given by the Court in Easter term next before yet notwithstanding that they had most faithfully at the time of their Argument delivered into the Lords as indeed they had a perfect coppy at large of the whole Record of this Case as they had done also of all other presidents whatsoever cited by them in so much as in truth there was not one president of Record of either side the coppy whereof they had not delivered in likewise nor did Mr. Attorney mention any one besides those that were so delivered in by them And as touching those 3. kinds of Records the remembrance Roll the return and file of the Writt and the Scruets it was answered by the gentlemen imployed by the house of Commons that it was true that the Scruect and return of this Case of Bildstone was not to be found but that did not lessen the weight of the president because always in the Award or Judgment drawn up in the remembrance Roll the Cause whatsoever it be when any is shewed upon the return is always expressed as it appears clearly by the constant Entries of the Kings-Bench Court so that if any Cause had appeared plainly in that part of the Roll which belongs to Easter term wherein the Judgment was given but the return of the commitment by the Kings command without Cause shewed and the Judgment of the Court that the Prisoner was to be let to Mainprize appears therein onely and so notwithstanding any Objection made by Mr. Attorney the Cause was maintained to be a clear proof among many others
have been imprisoned for suing ordinary Actions and Statutes at the Common-Law untill they have been constrained to leave the same against their wills and put the same to order albeit Judgement and Execution have been had therein to their great losses and griefs for the aid of which Persons her Majesties Writs have sundry times been directed to divers Persons having the custody of such Persons unlawfully imprisoned upon which Writs no good or Lawfull cause of imprisonment hath been returned or certified whereupon according to the Laws they have been again committed to Prison in secret places and not to any common ordinary Prison or Lawfull Officer as Shrieff or other lawfully authorized to have or keep a Goal so that upon Lawfull complaint made for their delivery the Queens Courts cannot learn to whom to direct her Majesties Writs and by this means Justice cannot be done and moreover divers Officers and Serjeants of London have been many times committed to Prison for Lawfull executing of her Majesties Writ sued forth of her Majesties Courts at West-minster and thereby her Majesties Subjects and Officers are so terrified that they dare not sue or execute her Majesties Laws her Writs and Commandments Divers others have been sent for by Pursevants and brought to London from their dwellings by unlawfull imprisonment have been constrained not onely to withdraw their Lawfull Suits but have also been compelled to pay the Pursevants for bringing such Persons great summes of money All which upon complaint the Judges are bound by Office and Oath to relieve and help by and according to her Majesties Laws And when it pleaseth your Lordships to will divers of us to set down in what cases a Prisoner sent to custody by her Majesty her Councel some one or other or two are to be detained in Prison and not to be delivered by her Majesties Court or Judges we thinck that if any Person be committed by her Majesties Command from her Person or by order from the Councel board or if any one or two of her Councel commit one for high Treason such Persons so in the cases before committed may not be delivered by any of her Courts without due Trial had Nevertheless the Judges may Award the Queens Writ to bring the bodies of such Persons before them and if upon return thereof the causes of their commitment be certified to the Judges as it ought to be then the Judges in the cases before ought not to deliver him but to remaund the Prisoner to the place from whence he came Which cannot conveniently be done unless notice of the cause in general or else special be known to the Keeper or Goaler that shall have the custody of such Prisoner All the Judges and Barons did subscribe their names to these Articles Termino Pascha 34. Eliz. and sent one to the Lord Chancellor and another to the Lord Treasurer after which time there did follow more quietness then before in the cause afore mentioned The KINGS Message the 2. May 1628. by Secretary COKE HIs Majesty hath commanded me to make known to this House that howsoever we proceed with the business we have in hand which he will not doubt but to be according to our constant professions and so as he may have cause to give us thanks yet his resolution is that both his royal care and his harty and true affection towards all his loving Subjects shall appear to the whole Kingdom and to all the World that he will govern us according to the Laws and Customes of the Realm that he will maintain us in the Liberties of our Persons and propriety of our goods so as we may enjoy as much happiness as our Forefathers in their best times and that he will rectifie what hath been or may be amiss amongst us so that there may be hereafter no just cause to complain wherein as his Majesty will ranck himself amongst the best of our Kings and shew he hath no intention to invade or impeach our Lawfull Liberties or Rights so he will have us to match our selves with the best Subjects by not incroaching upon that Soveraignty and Prerogative which God hath put into his hands for our good and by containing our selves within the bounds and Laws of our Forefathers without streining or inlarging them by new Explanations Interpretations Expositions or Additions in any sort which he clearly telleth us he will not give way unto That the weight of the affairs of Christendom do press him more and more and the time is now grown to that point of maturity that it cannot indure long debate or delay so as this Session of Parliament must continue no longer then Tuesday come sevenight at the furthest within which time his Majesty for his part will be ready to perform what he hath promised to us and if we be not as forward to do that is fit for us it shall be our own faults Lastly upon the assurance of our good dispatch and correspondency his Majesty declareth that his Royal intention is to have another Session at Michalmass next for the perfecting of such things as cannot now be done M r. MASONS speech 2. May 1628. I Am of opinion with the Gentleman that spake first that in our proceedings in the matter now in debate we should have use of the Title of the Statute called circumspecte agatis for it concerns the Liberty of our Persons without which we do not enjoy our lives The Question is WHether in this Bill for the explanation of Magna Charta and the rest of the Satutes we shall provide that the cause of the commitment must be expressed upon the commitment or upon the Return of the Habeas Corpus Before I speak to the question it self I shall propose some observations in my conceit necessarily conduceing to the debate of the Matter 1. That we ought to take care and to provide for posterity as our Predecessors have done for us and that this provident care cannot be expounded to be any distrust of the performance of his Majesties gracious Declaration this Act providing for perpetuity to which his Highness promise unless it were by Act of Parliament cannot extend 2. That we having long debated and solemnly resolved our Rights and Priviledges by virtue of these Statutes and if now we shall reduce those Declarations and those resolutions into an Act we must ever hereafter expect to be confined within the bounds of that Act being made at our Suit and to be the limmits of the Prerogative in in that respect and it being an Act of explanation which shall receive no further explanation then it self contains 3. That by this Act we must provide a remedy against the Persons which detain us in Prison for as to the Commander there can be no certain Concerning the Question it self IT hath been solemnly and clearly resolved by the House that the commitment of a Freeman without expressing the cause at the time of the commitment is against the Law If by this Act
so glorious within the outward poverty will bring contempt upon them especially amongst those who measure men by the ounce and weigh them by the pound which indeed is the greatest part of men Mr. Pym I cannot but testifie how being in Germany I was exceedingly scandalized to see the poor stipendarie Ministers of the Reformed Churches there dispised and neglected by reason of their poverty being otherwayes very grave and learned men I am afraid this is a part of the burthen of Germany which ought to be a warning to us I have heard many Objections and difficulties even to impossibilities against this Bill to him that is unwilling to go there is even a Bear or Lion in the way First let us make our selves willing then will the way be easie and safe enough I have observed that we are alwayes very eager and fierce against Papistry against scandalous Ministers and against things which are not so much in our power I should be glad to see that we did delight as well in rewarding as in punishing and in undertaking matters within our own reach as this is absolutely within our power Our own duties are next us other mens further of I do not speak this that I do mislike the destroying or pulling down of that which is ill but then let us be as earnest to plant and build up that which is good in the room of it for why should we be desolate The best and the greatest way to dispell darkness and the deeds thereof is to let in light we say that day breaks but no man can ever hear the noise of it God comes in the still voice let us quickly mend our Candlesticks and we cannot want lights I am afraid this backwardness of ours will give the adversary occasion to say that we chuse our Religion because it is the cheaper of the two that we would willingly serve God with somewhat that cost us naught Believe it M r. Pym he that thinks to save any thing by his Religion but his Soul will be a terrible looser in the end we sow so sparingly and that is the reason we reap so sparingly and have no more fruit Me thinks whosoever hates Papistry should by the same rule hate covetousness for that 's Idolatry too I never liked hot professions and cold actions such a heat is rather the heat of a distemper and disease then of life and saving health For scandalous Ministers there is no man shall be more foreward to have them sincerely punnished then I will be when Salt hath lost its savour fit it is to be cast on the unsavory place the dunghill But Sr. let us deal with them as God hath dealt with us God before he made man he made the World a handsome place for him to dwell in so let us provide them convenient livings and then punish them on Gods name but till then scandalous livings cannot but have scandalous Ministers It shall ever be a rule to me that where the Church and Common-wealth are both of one Religion it is comely and decent that the outward splendor of the Church should hold a proportion and participate with the prosperity of the temporal State for why should we dwell in houses of Cedar and suffer God to dwell in Tin It was a Glorious and Religious work of King Iames and I speak it to his unspeakable Honour and to the praise of that Nation who though that Countrey be not so rich as ours yet are they Richer in their affections to Religion within the space of one year he caused to be planted Churches through all Scotland the Highlands and the Boarders worth 30. l. a year a piece with a house and some gleab belonging to them which 30. l. a year considering the cheapness of the Countrey and the modest fashion of Ministers living there is worth double as much as any where within a 100. miles of London the printed Act and Commission whereby it may be executed I have here in my hand delivered unto me by a Noble Gentleman of that Nation and a worthy Member of this House Sir Francis Stuart To conclude although Christianity and Religion be established generally throughout this Kingdom yet untill it be planted more particularly I shall scarce think this a Christian Common-wealth seeing it hath been moved and stirred in Parliament it will lye heavy upon Parliaments untill it be effected Let us do something for God here of our own and no doubt God will bless our proceedings in this place the better for ever hereafter And for my own part I will never give over solliciting this cause as long as Parliaments and I shall live together CHARLES REX To our trusty and well-beloved the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the Higher House of PARLIAMENT WE being desirous of nothing more then the advancement of the good peace and prosperity of our people have given leave to free debates of highest points of our Prerogative Royal which in times of our Predecessors Kings and Queens of this Realm were ever restrained as Matters they would not have disputed and in other things we have been willing fairly to condiscend to the desires of our loving Subjects as might fully satisfie all moderate mindes and free them from all just fears and jealousies with those Messages which heretofore we have sent to the Commons House will well demonstrate to the World and yet we finde it still insisted on that in no case whatsoever should it never so nearly concern Matters of State and government we nor our privy Councel have power to commit any man without the cause shewed whereas it often happens that should the cause be shewed the service thereby would be destroyed and defeated and the cause alleadged must be such as may be determined by our Judges of our Courts at Westminster in a Legal and Ordinary way of Justice whereas the cause may be such whereof the Judges have no capacity of Judicature or rules of Law to direct or guide their Judgements in cases of that transcendent nature which hapning so often the very intermitting of the constant rules of government for many ages within this Kingdom practised would soon dissolve the very frame and foundation of our Monarchy wherefore as to our Commons we have made propositions which might equally preserve the just Liberty of the Subject So my Lords we have thought good to let you know that without overthrow of our Soveraignty we cannot suffer this power to be impeached But notwithstanding to clear our conscience and just intentions this we publish that it is not in our hearts nor ever will we extend our royal power lent unto us from God beyond the just rule of moderation in any thing which shall be contrary to our Laws and Customes where the safety of our people shall be our onely aim And we do hereby declare our royal pleasure and resolution to be which God willing we shall ever constantly continue and maintain that neither we nor our privy Councel
shall or will at any time hereafter commit or command to Prison or otherwise restrain the Person of any for not lending money unto us or for any other cause which in our conscience doth not concern the State the publick good and safety of us and of our people we will not be drawn to pretend any cause which in our Judgements is not or is not expressed which base thought we hope no man will imagine can fall into our royal breast that in all cases of this nature which shall hereafter happen we shall upon the humble Petition of the party or access of our Judges to us readily and really express the cause of their commitment or restraint so soon as with conveniency and safety the same is fit to be disclosed and expressed That in all causes Criminal of ordinary Jurisdiction our Judges shall proceed to the deliverance and baylment of the Prisoner according to the known and ordinary rules of the Laws of this Land and according to the Statutes of Magna Charta and those other six Statutes insisted upon which we do take knowledge stand in force and which we intend not to abrogate against the true intention thereof Thus we have thought fit to signifie unto you the rather for shortning any long delayes of this question the season of the year so far advance and our great occasions of State not lending us many dayes for long continuance of this Session of Parliament Given under our Signet at our Pallace of Westminster the 12. of May in the fourth year of our Raign The KINGS Message by the Lord Keeper 21. May 1628. HIs Majestie commanded me to signifie to your Lordships that the business concerning your part presented by the Commons to the Lords concerning the Liberty of the Subject wholly depends upon your Lordships and because his affairs are pressing and that he is very suddenly to take a Journey to Portsmouth As also because his Majesty would have the business put in a good forwardness before his going thither his Majestie desires your Lordships this day to proceed to a resolution whether you will joyn with the House of Commons in the Petition or not M r. MASONS speech concerning the Addition propounded by the Lords to be added to the Petition of Right IN our Petition of Right to the Kings Majestie we mentioned the Laws and Statutes by which it appeared that no Tax Loan or the like ought to be levied by the King but by common assent in Parliament That no Freeman ought to be imprisoned but by the Law of the Land That no Freeman ought to be compelled to suffer Souldiers in his house In the Petition we have expressed the breach of these Laws and desire that we may not suffer the like all which we pray as our Rights and Liberties The Lords have proposed an addition to this Petition in these words We humbly present this Petition to your Majestie not onely with a care of our own Liberties but with a due regard to leave intyre that Soveraign power wherewith your Majesty is intrusted for the protection safety and happiness of your people and whether we shall consent unto this addition is the Subject of this dayes discourse And because my Lord Keeper at the last conference declared their Lordships had taken the words of the Petition apart The word leave in a Petition is of the same nature as saving in a grant or Act of Parliament when a Man grants but part of a thing he saves the rest when he Petitions to be restored but to part he leaveth the rest then in the end of our Petition the word leave will imply that something is to be left of that or at least with a Reverence to what we desire The word entyre is very considerable a Conquerour is bound by no Law but hath power dare leges his will is a Law and although William the Conquerour at first to make his way to the Crown of England the more easie and the possession of it the more sure claiming it by little but afterwards when there were no powerfull pretenders to the Crown The little of Conquest to introduce that absolute power of a Conquerour was claimed and that Statute of Magna Charta and other Statutes mentioned in our Petition do principally limmit that power I hope it is as Lawfull for me to cite a Jesuite as it is for Dr. Manwaring to falsifie him Suares in his first book de legibus cap. 17. delivered his opinion in these words amplitudo restrictio potestatis Regum circa ea quae per se mala vel injusta non sunt pendet ex arbitrio hominum ex ambigua convencione vel pacto inter Reges Regnum And the further expresseth his opinion that the King of Spain was so absolute a Monarch that he might Lawfully impose tribute without consent of his people untill about 200. years since when it was concluded between him and his people that without consent of his people by proxies he should not impose any Tribute And Suares opinion is that by that agreement the Kings of Spain are bound to impose no Tribute without consent And this agreement that Author calls a restraining of that Soveraign power the Statutes then mentioned in our Petition restraining that absolute power of a Conquerour if we recite those Statutes and say we have the Soveraign power intire we do not take away that restraint which is the virtue and strength of those Statutes and set at Liberty the claim of the Soveraign power of a Conquerour which is to be limitted and restrained by no Laws this may be the danger of the word entyre The next words delivered by the Lords as observable is the particle that because it was said that all Soveraign power is not mentioned to be left but onely that with which the King is trusted for our protection safety and happiness But I conceive this to be an exception of all Soveraign power for all Soveraign power in a King is for the protection safety and happiness of his people If all Soveraign power be excepted you may easily Judge the consequence all Loans and Taxes being imposed by colour of that Soveraign power The next word is trusted which is very ambiguous whether it be meant trusted by God onely as a Conquerour or by the people also as King which are to Govern also according to Laws ex pacto In this point I will not presume to adventure further onely I like it not by reason of the doubtfull exposition it admits I have likewise considered the proposition it self and therein I have fallen upon the dilemma that this addition shall be construed either to refer unto the Petition or not If it doth refer unto the Petition it is meerly useless and unnecessary and unbefitting the Judgement of this grave and great Assembly to add to a Petition of this weight If it hath reference unto it then it destroys not onely the virtue and strength of our